Woke up this morning to this e-mail from "edmalexa," who I think is an actor named Ed Alexander…
I just read your thoughts on the new tentative SAG agreement and I think I need to point out that it's actually just as hard for SAG folks to strike as it is for any of the other unions. While no actors showing up would certainly stop a production, they're also the easiest folks to replace when compared with writers and directors. The desperation among those folks willing and wanting to be actors is such that there are always numerous folks willing to risk any future employment in union productions by appearing in nonunion or union boycotted productions. It's not that I, as a member of SAG, don't share a disgust in the appeasement policies of the current Union leadership. I do, and I try to work hard to remove these particular folks from the leadership whenever there's an election, but I have no illusions about the unity of actors working towards their own good. For what it's worth I'll probably be voting against this agreement (which will probably pass despite my reservations) because of it's refusal to properly deal with the DVD residual issues.
In order to actually accomplish change in this area the WGA, the DGA and SAG will have to enter into a strike support pact that binds all three unions to support a strike from any of the other two if there's to be any headway made. The chances of that are slim indeed, but the chances of any one of the three unions stepping up otherwise is probably slimmer.
I would say that the chance of those three unions entering into a joint agreement like you describe is slimmer than slim. I've been on WGA committees where someone has fantasized about that happening, and I think it's a waste of time and logic. If you can't even get actors to link arms for the good of actors, how does anyone imagine that the directors could be prepared to sacrifice for the people they direct? Especially when (a) the DGA historically makes most of its gains by undermining the negotiating position of other unions, and (b) it's so easy for Management to offer something that's way better for one union than another, thereby dividing their common purpose. Writers, directors and actors have certain mutual needs but, for example, writers are generally unconcerned with issues of overtime and safety on the set, while actors are generally unconcerned with development costs. It's real easy to drive a wedge between two crafts by proposing to transfer money from one area to another.
I disagree that it is easy to replace actors. Yeah, there are tons of folks out there who want those jobs, but those jobs are already filled by known quantities and established faces. If SAG strikes today, the TV networks can't recast all the soap operas overnight…and won't gamble that America will accept all new people playing the characters they know and love. The studios have billions of dollars wrapped up in ongoing programs that star certain people. The reason an actor on a hit TV series can negotiate a huge salary bump is because they need that particular actor. The reason even less-than-stellar stars command millions per movie is because the studios don't want one of those folks who's desperate to be an actor. They want Harrison Ford…and if he's on strike, they can't make that new Indiana Jones movie which might account for a third of the studio's income next year.
The problem SAG has — and the WGA has this to a great extent, as well — is the wide disparity of salaries and careers within its ranks. When SAG strikes, it means the actors who never work are expected to go out in support of the ones who make half a million dollars per episode or ten million dollars per movie. And vice-versa. When the WGA strikes, as we used to do every twenty minutes, we've had an almost tangible sense of the breach. The writers who work all the time are thinking, "We're the ones actually sacrificing here. We're the ones walking out on actual projects, losing definite paychecks, most of which were already way above scale. The guys who weren't working aren't losing anything. Most of them have other sources of income."
And of course, at the same time, the guys who don't work much are thinking, "We're the ones actually sacrificing here. The guys who work all the time have tons of money in the bank and ongoing residual income. We're the ones who really needed that job next week. They'll fly off to Europe while we picket or they'll write scripts they know they can sell after the strike." There's some truth to both sentiments…perhaps equal amounts. But in a time of combat, very few see it that way. Instead, you get a lot of Class Warfare from within. I suspect what has happened lately with all the unions is that with things so unstable in the U.S. economy, and examples like the recent, disastrous-for-all grocery store strike in Los Angeles, fear is running high and it inflames things betwixt the Haves and Have Nots. Until that changes, we're probably all going to be content with annual 3% bumps, minor rollbacks here and there, and not another nickel on DVDs.