One point I may not have made clear in yesterday's post about the Screen Actors Guild is that SAG will be asking its members for a Strike Authorization Vote, not a Strike Vote. The difference may turn out to be moot but maybe not. Essentially, the authorization is a show of solidarity, a way of saying, "If you keep refusing to negotiate, we will strike." In theory, if the Strike Authorization Vote is high enough, it will intimidate the AMPTP into improving the offer that's been on the table, largely unchanged, since July.
So before the ballots are due, SAG will make the following argument to its members: If enough of you vote to authorize a strike, that will scare the studios into bettering the deal…and a strike will not be necessary. Friends of mine in SAG seem unsure as to how effective that argument will be. Certainly, the AMPTP will presume that not everyone who votes for the Strike Authorization is willing to carry a picket sign for months or even weeks in lieu of working. But the AMPTP is also aware that any sort of labor stoppage by actors is going to cost the industry an awful lot of money.
The Strike Authorization Vote empowers the negotiators. It gives the SAG Board the ability to call a strike if the bargaining committee recommends it as necessary. Usually, alas, it is.
The AMPTP will, of course, say "This is a bad time to strike." During the '88 Writers Guild strike, I was present when the producers' chief negotiator, the aptly-named Nick Counter, said that. I couldn't help asking aloud, "Say, when would be a good time to strike?" Because to the bosses, any time is a terrible time for a strike. They're like Republicans saying, "This is a bad time to raise taxes." When I said what I said, Mr. Counter chuckled. A lot of what these guys say and do is to them, merely a matter of how the game is played and everyone knows it.
The studios will make the point that actors will lose X million dollars a week every week that they strike…and that's usually true to some extent. Strikes are generally only cost-effective when you factor in the loss you suffer if you lose the ability to say no to a really rotten deal. In this case though, SAG is being offered a really rotten deal. There's no way to really crunch the numbers because there's no way of knowing how many weeks of striking will equal what kind of better deal. The stakes are such that even leaving aside future rollbacks if the union collapses, this particular strike may well be cost-effective and to many, necessary.
I hope it doesn't come to a strike because we've had enough economic chaos in this town — blame for which I lay wholly at the feet of Mr. Counter and his minions — but it might. And if it does, I hope SAG has the fellowship and unity of purpose to not inflict a half-assed, half-hearted effort on itself and the industry. That union turned out in droves for the writers when we were out there with the cardboard signs, and I expect we'll all be out there for them. But I still don't have a good feeling about how all this is going to end.