Writers Guild of America (WGA) strike news 2 2

[VintageComics]

On 10/27/2023 at 8:41 AM, fantastic_four said:

Is a lion corrupt for eating a gazelle?  Of course not; it has no other choice.  90% of companies fail, and if the 10% that succeed weren't the most competitive and prioritized morality and ethics over survival then it would be north of 99% of companies that failed.  Blame the game, not the players.  Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world except for every other economic system.  Try to take heart in the fact that capitalism can't last forever, and as Marx forecasted in the mid-19th century it will be technology that causes it to stop working.

I used to think the world was corrupt as well.  Luckily that started early for me; I felt that way from about age 16 until 23.  The way to get past that malaise is to look at what is likely to be next when capitalism fails.  Here's a decent introduction to that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-capitalism

I meant the people in the world and probably should have said that. 

Does that change your reply? 

I remember you discussing this in detail before. Part agree, part disagree but it depends on a lot of other factors as well. 

Capitalism will always be the final default, just like it is when communism, socialism and the rest of that stuff fails around the world. 

It will always be the final default system.

[Bosco685]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:58 AM, drotto said:

The reports are that the studios offered the actors essentially the same contract that WAG excepted with the 5% percent raise in the first year for a total of 11% over the 3 years of the contract.  As well as the same residual agreement and AI protections.  Apparently SAG wanted 11% in the first year with more increase over the remainder 2 years.  Then they tacked on the surcharge for each subscriber on top of the bonus residual structure that the writers had accepted. That is when the studios walked.    

 

Do the writers feel betrayed that the actors are now basically saying thanks for supporting us, but your deal sucks and we deserve a far better deal, when the WAG deal was historically good in the first place? Sorry, if the other deal was a big win, why is that not enough now?  Why do the actors deserve even more?  You even have big name stars starting to break ranks and offer to pay high dues and even subsidize the lower earners, because not working is costing them millions at this point,  which they will not get back.  Melissa Gilbert, former head of SAG, even came out and said some of the rule like the costume one, make them look incompetent and silly.  But Ryan Reynold of course had the best comment, " I look forward to screaming “scab” at my 8 year old all night. She’s not in the union but she needs to learn."

I'd be cautious which news sources are trusted in passing along studio messaging. Some are known to offer pay-to-play article services to best pass along studio talking points.

SAG-AFTRA Responds to Studio’s Latest Offer and Will Meet Again Friday

Quote

The key sticking point in talks is SAG-AFTRA’s streaming revenue-sharing proposal. As initially proposed back in July, the guild would get a small cut of all streaming revenue generated. Earlier this month, the guild modified its proposal so that actors would receive compensation based on subscribers and viewership. The union viewed that as a major concession, but the studios ultimately walked away from the table and suspended talks. Sarandos called it a “levy” on subscribers and a “bridge too far.”

 

In speaking with IndieWire though, lead negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland called those remarks “offensive” and felt the studios were misrepresenting the guild’s proposal. SAG-AFTRA believes the new formula would require roughly $.57 per subscriber per year in added pay, which works out to about $500 million a year. The studios say it will cost closer to $800 million. The current streaming residual formula pays actors roughly $126 million a year.

 

The bonus structure that the studios proposed to the guild, and which they’ve now improved upon, is modeled off what the writers agreed to last month, ending the strike and winning added residuals for the top 20% of streaming shows. But Crabtree-Ireland previously told IndieWire that doesn’t work for SAG-AFTRA members because writers are compensated differently than actors, and it doesn’t help the many background or smaller actors working on popular shows that provide value for streamers but don’t rise to that upper crust.

 

The two sides are also split over minimum salaries for actors. The guild is asking for 11 percent raises in the first year of the new contract (Variety reported that the guild in its latest response has come down to 9%), but the studios previously offered 5 percent, which is what the WGA and DGA agreed to. The new AMPTP offer upped that percentage, according to a studio-side source. While it’s unclear by how much or if the guild will find that sufficient, it breaks from the pattern bargaining offered to the other guilds.

The studio messaging is trying to blend the two sides when the pay structure differ even before all the strikes took place.

That's like a union negotiating on behalf of hourly workers and demanding bonuses like salary workers. Yet the former doesn't have the same extensive performance goal tracking structures leading to no guarantee any of the bonus will be paid if salary workers are not investing more hours as there is no limitation on the amount of hours they can work versus an 8-12-hour shift structure.

Then in that case you could imply the union was reaching outside the norm.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Bosco685

[fantastic_four]

On 10/27/2023 at 12:39 PM, VintageComics said:

Capitalism will always be the final default, just like it is when communism, socialism and the rest of that stuff fails around the world. 

It will always be the final default system.

Not if the value of human labor falls significantly--in other words if AI and robotics ends up replacing a very large number of humans in the work force.  To date humans have always been able to find new work that automation can't do, but if automation starts to become capable of everything then capitalism begins to break down.  Money is a made-up concept that is meant to represent the value of labor, but if labor begins to lose value then money itself begins to also lose value.  There are many different patches to deal with this--income redistribution is the simplest one, which most countries are already doing to varying extents--but all of them have their own cons.

The extreme example of this in fiction is the Jetsons, Star Trek, or Wall-E.  If humans aren't needed to perform labor then money means nothing.

[CAHokie]

One of the nice things is that you get paid your rate (daily, weekly, film, etc. ) even if you are done after an hour or two that day. If it turns into a really long day like 16 hours plus you get “Golden Time” which is a full days pay for every hour over. 

[media_junkie]

Studios Reportedly Willing To Push Actors Strike Negotiations To 2024 If No Deal Is Made Soon

Quote

Studios in the AMPTP are prepared to push strike negotiations with SAG-AFTRA until 2024 if no deal is reached this week, as actors fight for fair pay and other goals.

 

Quote

The possible decision is influenced by the fact that, if a deal is not made soon, new productions won't be able to start until 2024 anyway. Because of this, studios may push negotiations, since production will be stalled regardless.

I mean, if as the article says and even if a deal is made but they (the studios) can't do anything for the rest of the year anyway, then why bother making a deal now?

Edited October 27, 2023 by media_junkie

[Bosco685]

On 10/27/2023 at 4:12 PM, media_junkie said:

Studios Reportedly Willing To Push Actors Strike Negotiations To 2024 If No Deal Is Made Soon

 

I mean, if as the article says and even if a deal is made but they (the studios) can't do anything for the rest of the year anyway, then why bother making a deal now?

It was a negotiation tactic to make SAG-AFTRA members panic. Agree to their terms or they would make this more financially painful by delaying further discussions.

Studios are reportedly willing to delay strike negotiations with actors until 2024 if a deal is not reached soon

Quote

• AMPTP Studios is prepared to delay strike negotiations with SAG-AFTRA until 2024 if no deal is reached this week, as actors fight for fair wages and other causes.
• The ongoing strike lasted 104 days. Negotiations have resumed since October 24, although previous negotiations collapsed earlier this month.
• The studios could choose to extend negotiations with SAG-AFTRA until 2024, as new productions cannot begin until then without an agreement.

 

[Bosco685]

 

[media_junkie]

On 10/27/2023 at 5:05 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

So was the SAG symbol patterned off "Saturday Night Fever"?

 

[RobAnybody]

From what I've read, the actors had a deal commensurate with what the Writers got, & what the Directors (very quietly) got, on the table. Like, done deal. But then they tacked on this stupid 0.57 per subscriber (what currency is that even in?) thing, & sabotaged it all. So dumb.

[Bosco685]

On 10/27/2023 at 11:50 PM, RobAnybody said:

From what I've read, the actors had a deal commensurate with what the Writers got, & what the Directors (very quietly) got, on the table. Like, done deal. But then they tacked on this stupid 0.57 per subscriber (what currency is that even in?) thing, & sabotaged it all. So dumb.

Read above.

The writers (WGA), directors (DGA) and actors ((SAG-AFTRA) had different contract arrangement to begin with. So the studios (AMPTP) trying to "be fair and offer the same terms as the DGA/WGA agreement" actually isn't that. The $.57/per subscriber collected annually is to cover residuals to be paid out to actors and other performers (TBD who is included).

Goes to show how the media outlets are used to distribute alternate reality, leading to a story being twisted.

[Eclipse]

On 10/27/2023 at 2:41 PM, CAHokie said:

One of the nice things is that you get paid your rate (daily, weekly, film, etc. ) even if you are done after an hour or two that day. If it turns into a really long day like 16 hours plus you get “Golden Time” which is a full days pay for every hour over. 

Can't wait for us in IATSE to get absolutely nothing in our contract negotiations next year if we even get back to work by then. They need to hire whoever the teamsters get as an agent but they wont and we will cave as usual

[drotto]

On 10/28/2023 at 5:33 AM, Bosco685 said:

Read above.

The writers (WGA), directors (DGA) and actors ((SAG-AFTRA) had different contract arrangement to begin with. So the studios (AMPTP) trying to "be fair and offer the same terms as the DGA/WGA agreement" actually isn't that. The $.57/per subscriber collected annually is to cover residuals to be paid out to actors and other performers (TBD who is included).

Goes to show how the media outlets are used to distribute alternate reality, leading to a story being twisted.

That is not how I read the thing about the 0.57. Sorry, and apparently others a seeing and interpreting the information in a similar fashion.  They had a performance based residual offer similar to WAG in place where if 20% of the subscriber base watched a show, the actor would get additional bonuses.  This subscriber cut was in addition to that bonus structure.  It was related to residuals, but a way to raise them even more, that was not tied to performance in the same fashion.

 

It is clear we are seeing the same information and viewing it very differently.  I think the studio did offer a strong deal, and SAG got greedy.  Now, I am not saying they did not have a right to ask for more, they can ask for whatever they want, but you need to be willing to negotiate. If both the directors and writers got reportedly historically good deals, I do not see the studios suddenly trying to screw the actors with a similar deal. Finally, both sides use the media. You seem to think what SAG is saying is being reported accurately, while the studio are being allowed to lie, and being misrepresented. Usually, the media reports groups like SAG in a better light than corporations, what would make this situation different?

 

As for the studios saying if this is not resolved soon 2024 is lost.  Yes, it is a negotiation tool, but it is based in truth.  Even if they go to work tomorrow, it would take several weeks fo get everything rolling again on the production side.  Add to that, movies with heavy post production, and unless they were almost done, it is reasonable to think they would not be ready for the intended release window. So for a financial side it will save them money to write off the quarter.

[drotto]

Since it has also come up multiple times, yes the highest studio executives are overpaid in my oppinion, but that is not a valid argument when the top actors are also disproportionately compensated also. In fact people like Tom Cruise made more last year than most of the executives, and he is not alone.

 

Also what they do is not directly comparable.  Actors are paid to act.  Most executives are overseeing conglomerates where movies and stows are just one component. For instance Iger also oversees them parks, sports, and cruise ships.

 

Finally, as much as I do not always like it.  It is what the market will bare. I can not fault any actor, executive, or athlete for negotiating for the most money, and if the company or organization is willing to pay.  So be it.

[media_junkie]

On 10/28/2023 at 5:33 AM, Bosco685 said:

The $.57/per subscriber collected annually is to cover residuals to be paid out to actors and other performers (TBD who is included).

But why should the SAG get $.57 per subscriber from Disney (for example) when they (Disney) have not turned a single dollar in profit on their streaming services?  

[drotto]

On 10/28/2023 at 9:41 AM, media_junkie said:

But why should the SAG get $.57 per subscriber from Disney (for example) when they (Disney) have not turned a single dollar in profit on their streaming services?  

And that is the primary disconnect between the two sides.  The studios are under pressure at this point from investors, who see that streaming is losing money.  The actors look and the net revenue not the net profit, and say hey your brining in millions or even billions, we deserve a piece of that. The studio say, yes we bring in a lot, but we are not making anything (yes, studio math is notoriously sketchy), we can' pay you that much more. The actors just say, this looks like tons of money to us. The streamer may be losing money but the company as a whole is profitable, use that to make up for it.

 

Yes, Disney plus and this point has lost between $12 to $14 billion.

[Bosco685]

On 10/28/2023 at 8:50 AM, drotto said:

I think the studio did offer a strong deal, and SAG got greedy.  

I could use a lot of words in place of facts. But brevity is cool too.

The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The Wrap all reported how the studios tried to change up the deal, and synch the offer to what they offered writers.

But that may be too much to take in.

[Bosco685]

On 10/28/2023 at 9:41 AM, media_junkie said:

But why should the SAG get $.57 per subscriber from Disney (for example) when they (Disney) have not turned a single dollar in profit on their streaming services?  

Residuals was never based on profits. As the intent was FUTURE SYNDICATION DISTRIBUTION. How do you tie residuals on future profits, assuming that may be in demand in the future? That's difficult to predict if syndication will lead to profits.

[drotto]

On 10/28/2023 at 11:19 AM, Bosco685 said:

Residuals was never based on profits. As the intent was FUTURE SYNDICATION DISTRIBUTION. How do you tie residuals on future profits, assuming that may be in demand in the future? That's difficult to predict if syndication will lead to profits.

No, they were based on engagement.  The more something is watched. The more it plays.  The more the creatives will get. Which again gets back to the complete lack of transparency with streaming. So both sides have to be more transparent with views, but I think with streaming it will just exposure how few people are actually watching many of these shows. Therefor, the residuals will not be worth that much by any metric. 

[Bosco685]

On 10/28/2023 at 11:40 AM, drotto said:

No, they were based on engagement.  The more something is watched. The more it plays.  The more the creatives will get. Which again gets back to the complete lack of transparency with streaming. So both sides have to be more transparent with views, but I think with streaming it will just exposure how few people are actually watching many of these shows. Therefor, the residuals will not be worth that much by any metric. 

Where's profits in that??

Residual (entertainment industry)

Quote

Residuals are financial compensations that are paid to the actors, film or television directors, and others involved in making TV shows and movies in cases of the cable reruns, syndication, DVD release, or licensing to streaming media. Residuals are calculated and administered by industry trade unions like SAG-AFTRA, the Directors Guild of America, and the Writers Guild of America. The word is typically used in the plural form.

Quote

Residual calculation is complex and depends on several variables, including guild membership, initial payment, time spent, type of production (e.g., network TV, DVD, ad-supported streaming, online purchases), and whether it involves a domestic or foreign market. Additionally, residuals change a lot: guilds negotiate new contracts with the AMPTP every three years, and residuals for primetime TV tend to increase every year because they are "directly or indirectly keyed to salary minimums, which increase several percent per year".

 

[MatterEaterLad]

On 10/25/2023 at 9:03 AM, Bosco685 said:

Residuals for creators and actors have been around a long time. Streaming was just getting away with not matching common practices due to the excuse it was an emerging market.

Coming in late but since I'm an author who has two projects in pre-production, I can share how this affected my recent contract. 

The first offer stipulated that I'd be paid roughly 20% of a reasonable buy price and the rest would come from residuals if/when the show went into syndication.

My film agent immediately rejected it because streaming shows don't go into the old network syndication model, so they were offering me 80% of nothing. 

The contract I ended up signing had a fair price that would be paid on the first day of principle photography, then a set payment per episode produced. No residuals. 

It's been my understanding that SAG actors were offered similar pay structures, where most of their earnings would come from some vague, ill-defined source, if at all.

 

Edited October 28, 2023 by MatterEaterLad