I have here a mess o' e-mails asking me what the hell is going on with the two actors' guilds in Hollywood…and by the way, why are there two actors' guilds? Taking the second question first, the reasons are largely immaterial but they flow from how the various fields — radio, TV, film — evolved. One of the caprices of labor law is that it likes stability. If a particular employer/union structure is established, it's usually maintained forever, even though the industry may have evolved and a new structure might have become more appopriate. (This is why Animation Writers have had such trouble getting out of The Animation Guild and into the Writers Guild.)
So we now have SAG (The Screen Actors Guild) and AFTRA (The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) representing thespians in front of cameras and microphones. In theory, once upon a time, there was a bright line dividing their jurisdictions. SAG represented actors in movies, AFTRA represented performers on radio. Now, this next part is a drastic oversimplifaction but it'll do: As the television industry developed, some TV shows were done live, much like radio programs…so AFTRA claimed jurisdiction. And some TV shows were done in film, much like movies…so SAG stepped in there. After a while, the lines blurred, what with some shows done on tape, others done alternately live and on film (Jack Benny did his series both ways during some seasons), shows that combined live and film, etc. It pretty much came down to two unions carving up one industry, sometimes working together and at other times, butting heads.
Merging is discussed every few years and a lot of folks think it would be a good idea. Generally speaking though, it isn't the leadership or staff of a union that will talk about this but if it's going to be a true merger and not some sort of takeover with their union absorbing the other, they shy from it. The leadership in a union likes its power, the staff likes its salaries and security, and neither group is certain that they wouldn't lose what they like in a merger. This has often been the reason that the Writers Guild of America West and the Writers Guild of America East do not combine. I suspect that if it were truly up to the respective memberships, SAG and AFTRA would merge, as would the two WGAs. But it isn't up to them.
Perhaps what is happening now with SAG and AFTRA will make a marriage seem imperative…or perhaps one union will just go after the other with flame-throwers. Both actors' unions have contracts that expire on June 30. For 27 years, they've bargained in tandem but this time out, they're going their separate ways, with SAG negotiating first (commencing April 15) and AFTRA scheduled to follow on April 28. Just how this rift happened is one of those stories that varies depending on the source but it seems to have been the culmination of a great many fights over jurisdiction, and also over what business model for the future will best serve actors.
Many of the issues on the table for both unions will be ones already hammered out by the WGA and the DGA, and the ability of the actors to improve on the writers' and directors' terms will be limited. SAG is said to be much more militant than either WGA or DGA on upping the residuals from DVDs but no one seems to think they will be much more successful. They will have to work out some sort of rules as to when the actors' union(s) will cover "new media" (mainly, programming made for the Internet) but that shouldn't be a strike issue. SAG also has some proposals regarding implied endorsements for product placements, and also some possible reclassification of people in "reality" shows who are not paid/treated as actors. Those should not be strike issues, either.
What might be is if the studios try to lowball the actors on the same points that triggered the WGA walkout, primarily the fees for shows streamed over the Internet or downloaded from there. Also, SAG is looking to improve the lot of what they call the "middle level" actors — the ones who don't get the huge deals and who are being hurt a lot by productions moving to Canada or otherwise out of the L.A. area. So will there be a strike? If so, it'll be because the AMPTP member companies try the aforesaid lowball. A number of actors seem to be worried that the divorce is practically an invitation for a rotten offer; that the studios will figure they can now divide and conquer, playing one union against the other.
An informal poll of my friends who are both SAG and AFTRA yields a 100% preference for the SAG leadership in this matter and a wish that AFTRA would just fall in line and adopt a "me too" posture. I do not claim this is a representative sampling of actors and I'm sure AFTRA must have its partisans. But everyone has to be at least a little scared about venturing into these uncharted waters. What if one union strikes and the other doesn't? The networks could just suspend all the shows covered by the striking union and ramp up production on shows handled by the union not on strike. It might turn into a contest of the two unions trying to "out-tough" each other or they might wind up undercutting each other.
So what'll happen? No one has a clue. That's what's so scary.
My feeling is that but for this split, SAG was in a great position to negotiate a mature, meaningful contract without a labor stoppage. There's a strong consensus in this town that the folks at the AMPTP screwed up royally by allowing the WGA strike to happen; that someone got greedy, thought they could bluff the writers into taking a bad deal…and wound up costing the industry billions and billions of dollars, to say nothing of audience loyalty. The thinking was that they wouldn't make the same mistake with the actors…but somewhere in the ranks of the studios, there has to be someone thinking they can use the rift to get back from the actors the gains they didn't want to have to give the writers or directors.
If that's the case, we could have labor unrest in Hollywood that will make the WGA action seem like a potato race. I don't think that's going to happen. But the other day, I was talking with a producer who was going to shoot his new movie beginning in June. He's just postponed it, just in case. He doesn't think there will be an actors' strike (or even two actors' strikes) but he's not willing to take that risk.