Actors Strike Vote Moves Forward

After A Nearly 30-Hour Meeting, Screen Actors Guild Will Press On With Strike Authorization Vote

(AP)  The Screen Actors Guild will press on with plans for a strike authorization vote but needs to reassess when to send out ballots after the end of a contentious meeting that lasted nearly 30 hours, its president said Tuesday.

A date for the ballots to be mailed out was undecided after a two-day meeting. During the meeting board members attempted but failed to fire the Guild's lead negotiator with Hollywood studios, Doug Allen, SAG's national executive director who supports a strike vote.

Stalling tactics at the meeting were severe, exposing a cavernous divide between a strike vote-supporting Hollywood faction known as Membership First and a coalition forming a majority on the board from New York, the regions and an upstart Hollywood group known as Unite for Strength.

In one example of the vote-delaying debate, Membership First led an eight-hour discussion on whether to extend the end of the first day of the meeting from 10 p.m. Monday to 1 a.m. Tuesday. The debate carried on until 6 a.m.

"We've got to regroup a bit," Guild president Alan Rosenberg said after the meeting ended Tuesday afternoon. "I'm thrilled that Doug is still our lead negotiator. If I were more rested I'd be even happier."

No vote was taken on a motion that would have removed Allen, a former NFL Players Association executive, because it lacked sufficient signatures and other technicalities, according to the guild. Allen has a year left in his three-year contract.

Anne-Marie Johnson, a board member and member of Membership First, said her group peppered opponents with questions about their motion to fire Allen.

"It was flawed enough where debate was so extended, we never got to an official vote," Johnson said.

Ned Vaughn, leader of the Unite For Strength group, which won six of 11 Hollywood board seats up for grabs in a September election, expressed disgust at the meeting's outcome.

"We worked for 28 straight hours but got nothing accomplished, despite our clear board majority," Vaughn said. "Membership First used endless stalling tactics to keep our motion from being voted on."

The motion would have fired Allen, found a replacement, and reconstituted the guild's negotiating committee in an effort to kick-start stalled talks with Hollywood studios.

Actors in the 120,000-member guild have been working without a contract on movies and prime-time TV shows since June 30.

Guild leaders had planned to send out strike authorization ballots by as early as Wednesday, but an exhausted-looking Rosenberg suggested it would not happen that quickly. Last year, a 100-day strike by writers reduced the Golden Globe Awards to a news conference, but a deal was reached quickly enough to save the Academy Awards.

This year, the Globes went off without a hitch and Rosenberg suggested that even the Oscars, set for Feb. 22, might make it by unscathed by a potential actors' boycott, despite the negotiating leverage such a threat might carry.

"The Golden Globes and the Oscars have never been our priority," Rosenberg said. "Getting (strike authorization) is the priority."

A strike vote requires 75 percent support from voting members to succeed. If it is approved, the SAG national board can call a strike. Voting would take about three weeks.

The actors guild has been pressing the major movie studios for a better deal on residual payments for productions made for Internet distribution. It also wanted to ensure continued benefits during work stoppages, including those that are caused by strikes by other unions.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represent the movie studios, declined to comment.

[LouisWarfel]

Hey well my whole oppinion about it is i'll work for the cheapest. I am an Actor out of New Mexico. Ive done 5 movies so far and am a very personable down to earth fellow. I work a full time job and acting is one of my ambitions. I am not in the union. They won't let me in for whatever reason. So i'll take some jobs if anyone likes. Im not picky i just wan't to principal rolls i would fit. Other than that my father always said you don't get anywhere in life from not working hard at what it is you want to acomplish. Well I work cheap. Id may even work just for credits on the screen.

[meinnv]

Consider this, if the studios do give the actors a raise; the studios can elect to raise the prices on the "distributable" media and pass that on to the consumers.

If the consumers can not afford to pay for the media (online, tv or DVD) then the actors would not see any more money than they do now.

The studios are not going to cut their profits to pay the actors more. If they do, you can be sure they will pass it on to the consumers.

[misssuzq]

Smart.

When people need work, go on strike and get no money rather than some money.

Moron$.

[redhoffer]

You can hate on the actors, a small percentage of whom make huge money, but then why would you support the corporate studio bigwigs getting a few more billions to retire on?
The conservative right rails on actors and celebs all the time, whatever. If actors don''t get this money then some schmuck bigwig from a major studio gets more money to buy another twelve BMW''s.
The money will be there, it''s just an issue of whether actors get a bigger chunk or studio exces/producers get the bigger chunk. It''s not like if the actors start getting paid less that extra cash gets sent to Ethiopia and they buy baby food with it.

[meinnv]

Mind you I am not asking for a hand out; but a hand up. Meaning, please do not tax my minimum wage paycheck to go to a foreign nation when there are actors that make 5-10x (even more than) what I do, who will so gladly do it.

If they choose to strike, it will not bother me, as I have enough DVDs to get me by. I could also cancel my cable and save more money.

As a "practicing" writer, I can understand the value anyone puts on their work; whether you act, write, direct or produce the art. But, sometimes you have to look at the most important thing.....

If no one buys it, you can''t make money.

If they want more for their DVDs; then sadly they might lose more money.

In case they forgot, we are in an economic crisis--people are losing their jobs, homes and can not afford even the "basics" of life. A $20 DVD might be nothing to them, for some it''s at least a little gas money or a lot of "top ramen" for the week or some sandwich fixings; you get the idea.

Consider that, Hollywood.

[meinnv]

While I like many of the TV & screen actors; it is hard to sympathize with people who can afford dental & medical care while many of us are unemployed and need our hard-earned money to pay for the roof over our heads, the car we rely on to find what work we can, and food staples to sustain our families. I know in my family our health & dental care is neglected to pay for our nescessities; our dental care is the worst of the neglected, only because a roof over the head is more important than our smiles.

I can not feel sorry for some of those actors who choose to take their US made dollars and help out people in foreign nations and neglect the people here in the states who go to their movies (when we can afford to); buy their DVDs & their TV shows on DVD and actually know who they are.

The people who deserve the raises are those in healthcare, civil service (fire, police, emts) or the military--people who truly do give back to the community and try to make a difference for nothing more than the measly paychecks they get.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Brilliant. Like the working people on the edge of unemployment, the unemployed, and the lucky just-recently-rehired really give a c.rap about over-paid, self-involved, and over-credited people who could live for decades on risiduals and still never have to actually mingle with the peons they look down on. Gotta love it." Posted by likeitis5050

Didn''t read the article did you? The strike is about those residuals, the content creators want them, they earned them, and the studios refuse to pay them.

Reading is fundamental.

to vranger

Your numbers are as bogus as was Reagan, the "unemployment rate" doesn''t count those whose benefits ran out, but were unable to find employment, they also counted non-paying work (such as charitable and community work) as employment. (and ketchup became a vegetable)

The earning power of those left employed has steadily declined, as wages remain stagnant, while prices rose.

I think you should remember to take your Alzheimer''s medicine, your memory is totally non-functional.

[rsoxfan1123]

vranger- if you research Reagonomics ("voodoo or trickle down economics") you will find that the tax cuts for the rich and the quick increase of the nat''l debt at first gave the appearance of recovery but the economy collapsed at the end of Reagan''s term as a result.

[oleander8]

Strike? Don''t expect the public to sympathize. We can''t afford to go to the movies as it is. Also, does NO ONE remember the 18% prime interest rates during Reagan''s term? Why is this man so revered?????

[sly_64]

And we should care, why ?

[vranger]

"Strike. It is time the unions began to recover from Reaganism."

Yet another completely ignorant comment from this bwb moron.

Since YET AGAIN, you have no clue, Ronald Reagan served as President of the very union discussed here, the Screen Actors Guild. When Reagan''s policies lowered unemployment from the almost 10% of the Carter years to less than 4%, who gained by that? Working people, many of them in unions.

But don''t let facts interfere with your twisted little view of things. ROFLMAO

[likeitis5050]

Brilliant. Like the working people on the edge of unemployment, the unemployed, and the lucky just-recently-rehired really give a c.rap about over-paid, self-involved, and over-credited people who could live for decades on risiduals and still never have to actually mingle with the peons they look down on. Gotta love it.

[marcosis78]

Didnt they just have a strike in the last 2 years? We''re in a recession and NOT giving the movie industry as much as we use to, and they are begging for more money or they''re walking? I say let them! The corporations can live longer than the actors. Normally, I am in the corner of the people and saying that the companies are the bullies, but I think this time its the actors guild who dont know when to stop.

[brianbwb-2009]

Strike. It is time the unions began to recover from Reaganism.