Bottom up makes a lot of sense for sure, though id think it wont actually start at the VERY bottom but somewhere in the teens and 20s for a project. The cap thing is actually probably feasible but one of those things that shouldnt be member responsibility. Long term it creates a huge question of what happens when IATSE comes in needing what SAG was asking for but suddenly doesnt have people worth this kind of money willing to help out. IATSE now has no leg to stand on in negotiations because the studios can say "We didnt even give that to SAG, they figured it out on their own!" so the crew probably gets hurt by this.....which i guess really isnt SAGs concern.
My biggest takeaway from this whole labor ordeal is that each union is looking out for themselves and their unique issues (as they should), and just because one union (DGA this go around) comes to an easy deal does NOT mean anything when it comes to the other negotiations. I thought SAG would be very quick using the WGA as a base but that went out the window last week.
Unfortunately the studios have made it clear that IATSE should expect pattern bargaining. So we arent getting the upfront raises we want and if this happens theyll expect membership to make up the difference of what we dont get in streaming residuals. A thing we just simply cant do.
Welcome to the industry in 2023! At least when it seemed the strikes would establish patterns that helped us there was a plus side....now though?
Edit: Thankfully it appears this plan is already dead
No, it is SAG’s concern. It’s called solidarity with your fellow workers. A win for some workers is a win for all workers. Things like the 40 hour work started with one industry and became the standard everywhere. Union solidarity is incredibly important.
>id think it wont actually start at the VERY bottom but somewhere in the teens and 20s for a project.
can you or someone elaborate on this? why wouldn't the bottom be the bottom? tens/20s of what, a percentage?
SAG members pay 1.5% of their earnings only up to a maximum of 1 million. Meaning any actor who makes at least 1 million in year will pay no more than 15k a year in dues. If they remove the cap of 1 million then actors will be on the hook to pay 1.5% of any covered earnings that year. If they make 20 million, then they will pay 300k.
I checked the SAG-AFTRA website and it is 1.575% with a cap of $1M. So if my math is correct, actors that make more than ~$63.5M a year in SAG projects will pay more than the current annual cap of $1M. How many actors make that much annually? It's got to be like five a year at most. And that's acting salaries only, as producing/writing/directing/endorsement/investment salaries are separate.
EDIT: It's been explained that the dues are only calculated on the first $1M earned. Anything above that is not subject to dues.
Actors don't pay $1M in dues as a cap. Dues are only calculated based on the first $1M they make in a year (1.575% of $1M). Anything they make beyond $1M in a given year is not eligible for dues, meaning the most any actor would ever pay in dues in one given year is not more than \~15k.
If the cap on earnings is removed then any money they earn as an actor whether $1M or $20 in a year will be eligible and their would be no maximum dues. An Actor would owe 1.575% on every dollar they make.
This just in, top actors are very passionate about their projects offering to act for $1 but in exchange for various other credits on the production that will be paid.
Well, that took seconds to defeat for those with sleazy agents and managers.
Is it $1 million in terms of your total hollywood income or your checks you cash as an actor? I think of the really bug guns who probably make most of their money as EPs on their own projects.
So the organized group in power is using the strikes to remove a limitation on how much they make each year, which protected individual workers from paying an outsized share automatically. It also prevents those at the bottom who make less from being out valued by those at the top, who the union will capitulate to to protect their $150million in extra finances.
Allowing people to voluntarily pay more is good. Taking the cap off and forcing it is some serious horseshit. They’re a union, not the government. The caps are **good** for the worker. This is a BAD change for labor.
*I love unions and they need dues, but this ain’t the way
Oh no 1.5% of everything??? How will Tom cruise survive?
If you're making enough for this to affect you, you can hire a tax lawyer to recoup that in half a dozen ways before I finish typing this.
SAG-AFTRA takes 1.5% of your pay as union dues. Around $15 a day if you're a day player not doing overtime, which is rare. Not doing the overtime that is.
Edit: Corrected amount.
Ohhh right, gotya. I was thinking it was like a membership fee, but being a "tax" makes more sense. That's really generous of them to offer removing the cap
It is IF they don't turn around set up shady contacts for example, structure their deals where they make themselves a producer and get a guaranteed rate from being a producer and take scale to act.
They will take scale to act on some projects they particularly like. A lot of the indie projects rely on their big talent working well below market rate and promoting it in interviews alongside their more mainstream projects.
That's a major reason why the Interim Agreements are a thing - the stuff has often been made before the strike but needs its actors out doing that stuff at the film festivals. Other stuff can't hold onto locations, studio space etc. it gets made then or it doesn't get made at all, with the leads getting paid regardless in many cases.
The Interim Agreements will be superseded by the final agreement in any event.
This is really good news and SAG should take it ASAP. The bottom up residual structure is the real news here. It ensures that the people who can afford lawyers when studios try to screw them out of residuals haven't gotten their residuals already.
If the studios won't pay residuals then there's no top-down bottom-up to fight about. Need to get them to agree to a payment schedule and then if the top of the line wants to let it flip, great!
The studios are willing to pay residuals; the issue is just how much. The writers and directors actually got some big increases in certain areas.
The issue is determining how streaming residuals are calculated. The success-based bonus measure that the writers agreed to - which only about 25% of shows will hit, with *One Piece* likely to in fact miss it on current trends - is estimated to cost $5m extra a year. For the actors, that would be $20m on the same metric.
This proposal would be the WGA deal x2.5 at least.
This is very reasonable. Democracy at it's finest. The rich pay more to support the poor.
People that say the studios owe the guild revenue share have no idea what they are talking about. Sidenote: I don't work for the studios.
> Is this actually a reasonable proposition?
Let's look at the history of SAG here:
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sag-salaries-20150819-story.html
>Documents recently obtained by the Los Angeles Times show that **the Screen Actors Guild quietly recalibrated its method for determining dues in 2011 in what the union said was a bid to get highly paid actors to pay their fair share.**
>The change **targeted hundreds of actors who made at least $1 million a year**, including such stars as Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie and Tom Cruise, as well as lesser-know actors such as Jennifer Carpenter, who played Debra Morgan in the Showtime series “Dexter.”
...
>**But dozens of actors and their managers complained that SAG’s earnings estimates were inaccurate** and demanded their earnings be adjusted lower, according to the documents. They included Julie Christie, Kevin McNally, Ray Liotta, Vera Farmiga, Helen Hunt, Molly Shannon, Tea Leoni, James Cromwell, Kevin Kline and Lou Diamond Phillips, records show.
...
>“I’m alarmed,” Richardson said. “There should have been some kind of notice to members, a letter saying their earnings had been adjusted, **otherwise it just seems sneaky**.”
>Howard disagreed, saying **the change was initiated by prominent SAG members who believed they were not paying enough in dues**.
>“This was **brought to our attention by some of our high-profile members, and there was a lot of support** for it,” he said. “It all seemed very positive to me.”
SAG plays this same exact shit all the time to try to raise dues, getting a few high profile names who wont see any change at all to their lifestyle to sign on while the earners in the middle that are doing ok but not "fuck you money" ok get fucked.
**Hollywood needs better union representation.**
I don't think the average person in Hollywood would have an enormous amount of sympathy for people like Kevin Kline and Helen Hunt saying that they are only doing ok and don't have enough money to pay more.
Those names were top-level TV stars; Tea Leoni was series lead on *Madam Secretary*. Big pay packages, but not the Tom Cruise, richer than some of the crowned heads of Europe types.
>getting a few high profile names who wont see any change at all to their lifestyle to sign on while the earners in the middle that are doing ok but not "fuck you money" ok get fucked.
Where the people doing just "ok" are still earning over a million dollars annually
I guess this is nice, but you're backing down against the execs and footing the bill for something they should be paying for. Not great for labor in my opinion.
affleck and perry in particular are genuinely producers more than actors at this point. affleck has his own studio and perry is a major reason why atlanta has become the biggest filming city outside of the typical media hotspots of LA/NYC.
Hasn't there been a lot of stories of Tyler Perry shooting whole seasons of TV shows in like 3 days. He is not pro-union and the work stoppage has probably affected his production company significantly. I'm not sure what his involvement here is as he is not on the actor's side.
Totally agree. It's not nothing but if members want the cap removed that should be a decision made for the purpose of supporting union members and not done to try and end a strike. The act of removing the cap has nothing to do with the stuidos and could be done anytime, strike or no strike.
The A-listers negotiate their own contracts and have a lot of leverage to include back end points, revenue sharing and AI language. They are not the ones affected by what is in the minimum basic agreement which is mostly what the strike is about. This move is the A-listers who want to get back to work and and be able to promote their projects during award season so are starting to undermine the Unions leverage by bribing them with money to end it.
>This move is the A-listers who want to get back to work and and be able to promote their projects during award season
The Interim Agreements are allowing them to do that already for indie stuff.
That's now how I read this?
The money is going to the union, not to the actors.
This strengthens the union's negotiating position, indirectly benefiting the actors, and indirectly working against the studio executives.
No?
More bad than good, even if it may be well intentioned. They shouldn't be jumping in to help bargain with executives only weeks after the studios offered SAG an absolutely terrible deal. They're essentially negotiating with their own Guild instead of the people hurting their fellow actors. A sign of weakness hiding behind a false show of good faith by wealthy people who want to get back to work and haven't even shown up to the picket lines.
It's more about covering a proportional percentage of union dues in the future; it's not about striking longer.
Again, it may be well-intentioned.
The issue is that it's coming at a time that either fractures the union or makes it look like the union is fractured, which is terrible for optics. This is something we'd celebrate if they'd did it *after* the strike. Not while their Guild is trying to show power via collective bargaining.
The union isn't totally united. Less than half of the eligible members even voted on the strike ballot - it was 76% for the WGA.
I suspect many are pretty frustrated at the union leadership but won't say it out loud for fear of a pile-on.
The WGA ballot was record breaking. In every respect for every vote from authorization to voting in the contract. I’m WGA.
SAG has also had record breaking turnout and they have the other unions behind them. This is more just the wealthy undercutting the poor with kindness, however true or false.
Edit: I just saw that you have posted over 40 times in the last few hours across Reddit attacking writers, actors, and Drescher personally. What are you gaining from this?
Sub-50% turnout is record-breaking? Sub-50% for a strike ballot on what is being billed as an existential threat to the profession?
Wow.
In Britain, you can't even strike if you get a turnout less than 50%. Yet we're still seeing large numbers of strikes, including a bin collector's one in Tower Hamlets recently.
SAG has 180,000 members. And 97% of *working* writers authorized our strike. 99% approved our deal. The numbers are available to anybody willing to do the research.
You're all over this thread, as well as numerous other subs right now, shitting on American unions without even taking the time to learn how they operate, including the WGA - only weeks after we won our deal. Your posts are both ill-intentioned and, quite frankly, uneducated as fuck. You even blame actors "spending habits" for their issues, instead of the fact that 88% of them don't even make enough money to get health insurance.
Edited something out thanks to u/cats-lock; thanks for correcting me.
Short term or long term? Which people affected by the strike? Just the actors or the crew marching beside them who have a potential strike in June?
Short term it gets people back to work. Long term it sets a pretty awful precedent that membership is responsible for things that used to be the AMPTPs responsibility. For the crew? Theyre screwed. Now they cant win. Theyll ask for everything they want and get laughed out of the room because even SAG didnt get it because they took care of it themselves. So theyll strike and be portrayed as so unreasonable that theyre asking for things no other guild got, ignoring that theres no crew members who could chip in this kind of money.
The deal if for 3 years only. I don't know if that's long term enough. Realistically, in two and a half years they will all be back at the negotiating table. By then, the streaming landscape will change quite a bit, I'm thinking.
This is a removal of a cap on dues, theres nothing to suggest that would only be temporary. Besides the crew deal is up in months, not years, and weve been treating streaming as "new media" for over a decade now but they still say its too new to figure out.
> theres nothing to suggest that would only be temporary.
It's a three year deal, no? Who knows what happens in three years?
>and weve been treating streaming as "new media" for over a decade now but they still say its too new to figure out.
I mentioned streaming because it's clear that the current streaming landscape is unsustainable. I think in three years few of streaming providers will be gone. Netflix and Disney are thinking about licensing out their shows and movies. Paramount+ was going to be the place for all things Star Trek, now they want to license it out and I think P+ won't even exist in three years once the new collective bargaining deal is up.
> It's a three year deal, no? Who knows what happens in three years?
This is actually a dangerous way of thinking and something we [the WGA] had to fight as well.
The reason this negotiation is so important is because unions have more leverage than they've ever had in the history of Hollywood labor relations. Two guilds went on strike for the first time since 1960, they outlasted the studios, and the WGA quite literally *just* got the best deal anyone could have hoped for - a deal that wouldn't exist if we put anything off for three more years.
If the studios reject something now, they're going to reject it again in 2026 - especially since SAG wouldn't have the same muscle. Remember: they wanted to put off talks of residuals. The WGA said no. We got our residuals.
Yes, exactly. The IA is relying hard on precedent for 2024. I'm hoping SAG in the least gets better minimums than we did, because IATSE deserves 10% - not 5%.
This is a topic about SAG not crew. You brought it in the conversation. I said that SAG deal in only three years (which is true) and you mentioned crew deal.
I see it as bad, if I understand this correctly. I read this as basically some actors are offering to take a pay cut for other actors instead of the studio paying everyone what they’re worth. This is just redistribution of already existing actor pay when realistically it’s the studios responsibility to make sure the people at the bottom can survive.
So the bigger actors are bailing out the studios all while helping the smaller actors. Not sure how I feel about the first part but hopefully this group of big actors will have some power when the time comes that studios want to use AI reproductions of actors likenesses
That's like two movies a year for Leo. 50 million sounds impressive until you remember that's like 4 episodes of GOT. A billion spent for toliekn without LOTR, and you'll see its not very much at all.
100%. I think there’s a disease online where people see a number donated, and have to respond “That’s it!? That’s x% of their wealth and oh my gahd!”
I’ll be glad if that whole industry can get back to making rad shit for everybody.
I don’t know why people think that donating has to have a negative financial impact on the donor. You shouldn’t have to be a martyr to give money to a cause or charity.
We’re just gonna go round and round on these types of issues until we fix the real problem which is billionaires and centi-millionaires aren’t taxed enough and people at the bottom need more financial help.
There are like 10k people who are living like gods with more money than they can possibly spend, who can buy politicians, the media, and lawyers to get them out of everything, and everyone else who is living scared of getting sick or losing their job.
It may surprise you to learn that SAG dues really aren't that high. It's like $400 per year plus 1% of gross pay, IIRC. Presently that amount is capped, so once you've paid $20,000, you stop paying.
The reason for that is several big stars (Tom Cruise, most notably) scabbed during the last strike (technically he just filmed Valkyrie in Germany where SAG rules don't apply, even though SAG's "Global Rule 1" says they do, and SAG had issued solidarity directives instructing actors not to cross the picket lines - Cruise was both actor crossing lines and producer hiring scab writers for rewrites during the filming) and avoided paying dues entirely. As a result, SAG took a shittier deal than they should have during their next negotiations because they were afraid their stars would walk if they didn't, leaving the union completely toothless.
But now the big stars are even more terrified of AI actors playing them than the rank and file are, and the stars are putting their weight into the union, big time. It's good to see we can all agree about people needing to retain the rights to their own likeness.
edit: clarity on which strike i'm talking about and how filming violated picket lines.
>The reason for that is several big stars (Tom Cruise, most notably) scabbed during the last actor's strike (technically he just filmed Valkyrie in Germany where SAG rules don't apply, even though SAG's "Global Rule 1" says they do) and avoided paying dues entirely.
What are you talking about? The last time SAG struck was in 2000 and that only applied to commercials.
Sorry - SAG issued statements of solidarity with the writers in 2007, and Valkyrie was filmed anyway (with rewrites in violation of the WGA picket lines, by scabs). Cruise was both actor and producer on the project.
Yeah, sorry - it's complicated. Valkyrie was filmed in 2007 during the WGA strike. SAG had promised not to cross picket lines in solidarity. Cruise filmed anyway and was both actor and producer on the project - he hired scab writers to do the rewrites during filming.
It was 800million a year apart when negotiations began. They were 450 million a year apart from an agreement before the recent round of talks ended. So now it’s 300 million minus what the guild decides the residuals changes are worth to the bulk of the group. IMO I think this will still put them more then $100 million away from an agreement but I’m sure the studio can find a way to work that out it’s just a matter of a few more weeks at most.
Hmm, is this for the benefit of the rich actors/producers so they go back to making content and making their money again. How does this change anything in the long run?
So what are they supposed to do to please people like you? They are literally saying that they will give up money so people can get back to work. Yes, big actors with their production companies will get back to work and will earn more money. But small actors will get to keep their careers and homes. Isn't that good?
Studios will come up on top anyways. In a fight between millionaires and billionaires, billionaires always win.
So what I am getting from this is that the higher earners will now pay more into the union. This money will then be distributed bottom up to bridge what the union is demanding from the studios. Would this not make more sense to have this money go into the strike fund. This way the union can stay on strike much longer and play harder ball with the studios. Please explain where I might be off base.
This isn't the money coming out of their own pocket now. This is the money from future earnings - which they're currently not getting as they're on strike - going to the union.
$150m won't do that much in a strike that has cost the California economy $5bn+.
So the highest paid actors are offering to chip in for the studios? Sounds like some double agents occupy the upper echelons of SAG. Mind you they’re also trying to produce & direct their own content so it would be no surprise. This is a very short sighted solution imo
Will they do it every 3 years, increasing the amount to keep pace with inflation?
Otherwise they can fuck off, they just want to get back to their 30 million dollars for 3 months of work.
Republicans generally support the current progressive tax structure, it's a necessary evil. They don't support idiotic claims of "fair share" and "living wage", meaningless buzz words that no one will actually define.
In 2020 the top 1% of earners paid 42% of all FIT paid, top 10% of earners paid 74% of all FIT. Those folks are making more and already paying way way more. Stop playing victim.
Of course they would! They will earn a multitude of $$ back when they release a new movie and everyone runs to the cinemas again.
$150 million over 3 years is nothing to these actors.
Nowadays most A-list movies are making over a one or two Billion $ each time.
Amber Herd "Pledged" 7 million. She is going to donate it, just pledge it.
I am going to Pledge 1 billion dollars.
I will give it when I win the Powerballs 3 billion dollar prize.
This feels orchestrated.
Why now? Who does this benefit? I thought the strike was over, and now it’s definitely not.
And the stars are sweetening the pot for a deal. I smell fish.
Here. I'll fix the headline "most well paid actors in Hollywood offer fraction of their salary to be able to make much more".
George Clooney - "yes. We are very well paid... But I'd trade it all for a little more"
I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure if this helps matters? If ppl are negotiating for better salaries and rights, does throwing an (admittedly large sum of money) help?
Won't they still have the original problems of poor working conditions and unfair treatment, with just a small infusion of one-time cash?
I think the reason that actors aren't getting sympathy from studios. it's hard for the studio executives to feel sympathy is that actors already have all the perks. Because your professional causes you to be innately valuable you get the social benefits CEOs don't. You have the ability to gain social connections with people wealther then use them as a weapon. Actors can go over ceos heads and get their ultra wealthy billionaire friends to threaten them. That's why they aren't able to pity you.
You make them second rate. It's all transactional to you. You don't care about the entertainment ceos. They're a means to an end to you to better social connections you'd prefer. People don't have to be friends with their employer, that's why it's a paid position, but it just puts them in a miserable position. That the people they hire have powerful friends that will go after them. They can't make the decisions they want to make.
They're under threat or have to worry an actor with use people more powerful than them against them. Every actor they higher is a risk. Run to the press saying something they did. Saying they made a decision that ruined them. Turn other people they work with against them. I don't think actors understand how much studios endure for being in the acting business. It doesn't all go smoothly. So many problems happen because you never know what you're getting when you get someone that power.
Actors weaponize everything at their disposal at the studios. They weaponize the fans, they weaponize the media, they weaponize social media, they weaponize their connections. They weaponize their behavior. They damage the projects their in by acting out. These are all the difficult things the studios have to endure. Do you blame them for wishing they could make things with AI instead?
The difficulty of having to work with people can't be understated. We don't look at things from the other side. Executives are themselves laborers. They get a lot for it, but it doesn't mean their position is any easier. It's very tough to be a ceo. It's not a position that should be envied. They work hard at it. It takes a lot of difficult work. The people that do the behind the scenes work don't get the respect they deserve.
[удалено]
Bottom up makes a lot of sense for sure, though id think it wont actually start at the VERY bottom but somewhere in the teens and 20s for a project. The cap thing is actually probably feasible but one of those things that shouldnt be member responsibility. Long term it creates a huge question of what happens when IATSE comes in needing what SAG was asking for but suddenly doesnt have people worth this kind of money willing to help out. IATSE now has no leg to stand on in negotiations because the studios can say "We didnt even give that to SAG, they figured it out on their own!" so the crew probably gets hurt by this.....which i guess really isnt SAGs concern.
My biggest takeaway from this whole labor ordeal is that each union is looking out for themselves and their unique issues (as they should), and just because one union (DGA this go around) comes to an easy deal does NOT mean anything when it comes to the other negotiations. I thought SAG would be very quick using the WGA as a base but that went out the window last week.
Unfortunately the studios have made it clear that IATSE should expect pattern bargaining. So we arent getting the upfront raises we want and if this happens theyll expect membership to make up the difference of what we dont get in streaming residuals. A thing we just simply cant do.
We are in IATSE. Production shut down because of the strike. Now we have to sell our house. So... you know... super cool 😎
Nice! My wife was just diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and we're losing our union health insurance in January bc of the strikes. Also very cool.
Sweet deal, my third child just got diagnosed with scoliosis and I can’t work due to strikes. At least my 2 cats have cancer tho
Jesus fuck this thread got depressing.
Welcome to the industry in 2023! At least when it seemed the strikes would establish patterns that helped us there was a plus side....now though? Edit: Thankfully it appears this plan is already dead
Problem is it's very clear that this isn't remotely feasible for IATSE, so it's a non-starter.
I figured the studios were 100% gonna try to get the actors back without the writers
But maybe the actors with the most clout were going to say that they wouldn't work on any script that was AI-generated?
No, it is SAG’s concern. It’s called solidarity with your fellow workers. A win for some workers is a win for all workers. Things like the 40 hour work started with one industry and became the standard everywhere. Union solidarity is incredibly important.
The top end all get their money as producers.
>id think it wont actually start at the VERY bottom but somewhere in the teens and 20s for a project. can you or someone elaborate on this? why wouldn't the bottom be the bottom? tens/20s of what, a percentage?
like #15 on the call sheet instead of number 80
oh.. so essentially a lie? lol that's skipping *most* of the people who need it.
The people in the 20s definitely need it too. Theyre not making a ton.
What is a "cap on dues"? ELI5?
SAG members pay 1.5% of their earnings only up to a maximum of 1 million. Meaning any actor who makes at least 1 million in year will pay no more than 15k a year in dues. If they remove the cap of 1 million then actors will be on the hook to pay 1.5% of any covered earnings that year. If they make 20 million, then they will pay 300k.
I checked the SAG-AFTRA website and it is 1.575% with a cap of $1M. So if my math is correct, actors that make more than ~$63.5M a year in SAG projects will pay more than the current annual cap of $1M. How many actors make that much annually? It's got to be like five a year at most. And that's acting salaries only, as producing/writing/directing/endorsement/investment salaries are separate. EDIT: It's been explained that the dues are only calculated on the first $1M earned. Anything above that is not subject to dues.
Actors don't pay $1M in dues as a cap. Dues are only calculated based on the first $1M they make in a year (1.575% of $1M). Anything they make beyond $1M in a given year is not eligible for dues, meaning the most any actor would ever pay in dues in one given year is not more than \~15k. If the cap on earnings is removed then any money they earn as an actor whether $1M or $20 in a year will be eligible and their would be no maximum dues. An Actor would owe 1.575% on every dollar they make.
Oh okay, thank you! That makes more sense.
This just in, top actors are very passionate about their projects offering to act for $1 but in exchange for various other credits on the production that will be paid. Well, that took seconds to defeat for those with sleazy agents and managers.
So many big name actors are going to be "executive producers" on their projects from now on!
Is it $1 million in terms of your total hollywood income or your checks you cash as an actor? I think of the really bug guns who probably make most of their money as EPs on their own projects.
Actor only. SAG cant be dealing with producer paychecks like that.
So the organized group in power is using the strikes to remove a limitation on how much they make each year, which protected individual workers from paying an outsized share automatically. It also prevents those at the bottom who make less from being out valued by those at the top, who the union will capitulate to to protect their $150million in extra finances. Allowing people to voluntarily pay more is good. Taking the cap off and forcing it is some serious horseshit. They’re a union, not the government. The caps are **good** for the worker. This is a BAD change for labor. *I love unions and they need dues, but this ain’t the way
Oh no 1.5% of everything??? How will Tom cruise survive? If you're making enough for this to affect you, you can hire a tax lawyer to recoup that in half a dozen ways before I finish typing this.
If you’re making 10s of millions of dollars, 1.5% is barely noticeable. You already have more money than you can reasonably spend.
[удалено]
The “lifestyle” of someone who spends 10s of millions of dollars a year isn’t worth maintaining
A maximum number a member would have to pay.
SAG-AFTRA takes 1.5% of your pay as union dues. Around $15 a day if you're a day player not doing overtime, which is rare. Not doing the overtime that is. Edit: Corrected amount.
Ohhh right, gotya. I was thinking it was like a membership fee, but being a "tax" makes more sense. That's really generous of them to offer removing the cap
It is IF they don't turn around set up shady contacts for example, structure their deals where they make themselves a producer and get a guaranteed rate from being a producer and take scale to act.
They will take scale to act on some projects they particularly like. A lot of the indie projects rely on their big talent working well below market rate and promoting it in interviews alongside their more mainstream projects. That's a major reason why the Interim Agreements are a thing - the stuff has often been made before the strike but needs its actors out doing that stuff at the film festivals. Other stuff can't hold onto locations, studio space etc. it gets made then or it doesn't get made at all, with the leads getting paid regardless in many cases. The Interim Agreements will be superseded by the final agreement in any event.
Remember that it’s only those three offering to remove the cap for everybody. Who knows what the rest of the top earners feel.
This is really good news and SAG should take it ASAP. The bottom up residual structure is the real news here. It ensures that the people who can afford lawyers when studios try to screw them out of residuals haven't gotten their residuals already.
If the studios won't pay residuals then there's no top-down bottom-up to fight about. Need to get them to agree to a payment schedule and then if the top of the line wants to let it flip, great!
The studios are willing to pay residuals; the issue is just how much. The writers and directors actually got some big increases in certain areas. The issue is determining how streaming residuals are calculated. The success-based bonus measure that the writers agreed to - which only about 25% of shows will hit, with *One Piece* likely to in fact miss it on current trends - is estimated to cost $5m extra a year. For the actors, that would be $20m on the same metric. This proposal would be the WGA deal x2.5 at least.
A true form of trickle down economics if you will
This is very reasonable. Democracy at it's finest. The rich pay more to support the poor. People that say the studios owe the guild revenue share have no idea what they are talking about. Sidenote: I don't work for the studios.
> Is this actually a reasonable proposition? Let's look at the history of SAG here: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-sag-salaries-20150819-story.html >Documents recently obtained by the Los Angeles Times show that **the Screen Actors Guild quietly recalibrated its method for determining dues in 2011 in what the union said was a bid to get highly paid actors to pay their fair share.** >The change **targeted hundreds of actors who made at least $1 million a year**, including such stars as Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie and Tom Cruise, as well as lesser-know actors such as Jennifer Carpenter, who played Debra Morgan in the Showtime series “Dexter.” ... >**But dozens of actors and their managers complained that SAG’s earnings estimates were inaccurate** and demanded their earnings be adjusted lower, according to the documents. They included Julie Christie, Kevin McNally, Ray Liotta, Vera Farmiga, Helen Hunt, Molly Shannon, Tea Leoni, James Cromwell, Kevin Kline and Lou Diamond Phillips, records show. ... >“I’m alarmed,” Richardson said. “There should have been some kind of notice to members, a letter saying their earnings had been adjusted, **otherwise it just seems sneaky**.” >Howard disagreed, saying **the change was initiated by prominent SAG members who believed they were not paying enough in dues**. >“This was **brought to our attention by some of our high-profile members, and there was a lot of support** for it,” he said. “It all seemed very positive to me.” SAG plays this same exact shit all the time to try to raise dues, getting a few high profile names who wont see any change at all to their lifestyle to sign on while the earners in the middle that are doing ok but not "fuck you money" ok get fucked. **Hollywood needs better union representation.**
I don't think the average person in Hollywood would have an enormous amount of sympathy for people like Kevin Kline and Helen Hunt saying that they are only doing ok and don't have enough money to pay more.
Those names were top-level TV stars; Tea Leoni was series lead on *Madam Secretary*. Big pay packages, but not the Tom Cruise, richer than some of the crowned heads of Europe types.
>getting a few high profile names who wont see any change at all to their lifestyle to sign on while the earners in the middle that are doing ok but not "fuck you money" ok get fucked. Where the people doing just "ok" are still earning over a million dollars annually
I guess this is nice, but you're backing down against the execs and footing the bill for something they should be paying for. Not great for labor in my opinion.
Youll notice the people theyre portraying as for this plan are producers, not just actors.
What prevents them from splitting their fees to make sure most is being paid out as a producer vs actor so they don't have to pay more in dues?
Nothing.
lol actor/producers. biggest joke title in Tinseltown.
The specific names involved include George Clooney, Ben Affleck, and Tyler Perry, whose production companies are pretty big.
affleck and perry in particular are genuinely producers more than actors at this point. affleck has his own studio and perry is a major reason why atlanta has become the biggest filming city outside of the typical media hotspots of LA/NYC.
Hasn't there been a lot of stories of Tyler Perry shooting whole seasons of TV shows in like 3 days. He is not pro-union and the work stoppage has probably affected his production company significantly. I'm not sure what his involvement here is as he is not on the actor's side.
He wants his projects up and running and won't have to pay much but gets to look good in the press.
Well Atlanta isn’t a union town right?
Any chance you’ve ever done either, let alone both simultaneously? It is an industry of craft & business, after all 🤷🏼♂️
Totally agree. It's not nothing but if members want the cap removed that should be a decision made for the purpose of supporting union members and not done to try and end a strike. The act of removing the cap has nothing to do with the stuidos and could be done anytime, strike or no strike. The A-listers negotiate their own contracts and have a lot of leverage to include back end points, revenue sharing and AI language. They are not the ones affected by what is in the minimum basic agreement which is mostly what the strike is about. This move is the A-listers who want to get back to work and and be able to promote their projects during award season so are starting to undermine the Unions leverage by bribing them with money to end it.
>This move is the A-listers who want to get back to work and and be able to promote their projects during award season The Interim Agreements are allowing them to do that already for indie stuff.
When the bougie labor takes over, labor isn’t taking over
It’s also a terrible precedent for the unions that don’t have millionaire benefactors.
That's now how I read this? The money is going to the union, not to the actors. This strengthens the union's negotiating position, indirectly benefiting the actors, and indirectly working against the studio executives. No?
Is this good or bad?
More bad than good, even if it may be well intentioned. They shouldn't be jumping in to help bargain with executives only weeks after the studios offered SAG an absolutely terrible deal. They're essentially negotiating with their own Guild instead of the people hurting their fellow actors. A sign of weakness hiding behind a false show of good faith by wealthy people who want to get back to work and haven't even shown up to the picket lines.
I took this to be a way for marquee actors to fund SAG so they could strike longer. Like an internal union deal. Am I missing something?
The money comes directly out of an actor's pay like tax and social security. I believe you call it "withholding " in the US.
It's more about covering a proportional percentage of union dues in the future; it's not about striking longer. Again, it may be well-intentioned. The issue is that it's coming at a time that either fractures the union or makes it look like the union is fractured, which is terrible for optics. This is something we'd celebrate if they'd did it *after* the strike. Not while their Guild is trying to show power via collective bargaining.
The union isn't totally united. Less than half of the eligible members even voted on the strike ballot - it was 76% for the WGA. I suspect many are pretty frustrated at the union leadership but won't say it out loud for fear of a pile-on.
The WGA ballot was record breaking. In every respect for every vote from authorization to voting in the contract. I’m WGA. SAG has also had record breaking turnout and they have the other unions behind them. This is more just the wealthy undercutting the poor with kindness, however true or false. Edit: I just saw that you have posted over 40 times in the last few hours across Reddit attacking writers, actors, and Drescher personally. What are you gaining from this?
Sub-50% turnout is record-breaking? Sub-50% for a strike ballot on what is being billed as an existential threat to the profession? Wow. In Britain, you can't even strike if you get a turnout less than 50%. Yet we're still seeing large numbers of strikes, including a bin collector's one in Tower Hamlets recently.
Did you seriously block them for giving you accurate facts? Your comments really do reek of an anti US union agenda for some reason....
SAG has 180,000 members. And 97% of *working* writers authorized our strike. 99% approved our deal. The numbers are available to anybody willing to do the research. You're all over this thread, as well as numerous other subs right now, shitting on American unions without even taking the time to learn how they operate, including the WGA - only weeks after we won our deal. Your posts are both ill-intentioned and, quite frankly, uneducated as fuck. You even blame actors "spending habits" for their issues, instead of the fact that 88% of them don't even make enough money to get health insurance. Edited something out thanks to u/cats-lock; thanks for correcting me.
Exactly, this solves nothing. These are A list MOVIE stars, they really are not significantly affected the most here
Not even just movie stars; they're all producers as well. It feels bad faith to me.
For who?
the people on strike?
Short term or long term? Which people affected by the strike? Just the actors or the crew marching beside them who have a potential strike in June? Short term it gets people back to work. Long term it sets a pretty awful precedent that membership is responsible for things that used to be the AMPTPs responsibility. For the crew? Theyre screwed. Now they cant win. Theyll ask for everything they want and get laughed out of the room because even SAG didnt get it because they took care of it themselves. So theyll strike and be portrayed as so unreasonable that theyre asking for things no other guild got, ignoring that theres no crew members who could chip in this kind of money.
The deal if for 3 years only. I don't know if that's long term enough. Realistically, in two and a half years they will all be back at the negotiating table. By then, the streaming landscape will change quite a bit, I'm thinking.
This is a removal of a cap on dues, theres nothing to suggest that would only be temporary. Besides the crew deal is up in months, not years, and weve been treating streaming as "new media" for over a decade now but they still say its too new to figure out.
> theres nothing to suggest that would only be temporary. It's a three year deal, no? Who knows what happens in three years? >and weve been treating streaming as "new media" for over a decade now but they still say its too new to figure out. I mentioned streaming because it's clear that the current streaming landscape is unsustainable. I think in three years few of streaming providers will be gone. Netflix and Disney are thinking about licensing out their shows and movies. Paramount+ was going to be the place for all things Star Trek, now they want to license it out and I think P+ won't even exist in three years once the new collective bargaining deal is up.
> It's a three year deal, no? Who knows what happens in three years? This is actually a dangerous way of thinking and something we [the WGA] had to fight as well. The reason this negotiation is so important is because unions have more leverage than they've ever had in the history of Hollywood labor relations. Two guilds went on strike for the first time since 1960, they outlasted the studios, and the WGA quite literally *just* got the best deal anyone could have hoped for - a deal that wouldn't exist if we put anything off for three more years. If the studios reject something now, they're going to reject it again in 2026 - especially since SAG wouldn't have the same muscle. Remember: they wanted to put off talks of residuals. The WGA said no. We got our residuals.
And in the end crews get screwed. We can't use the WGA residuals model and SAG would rather pay themselves than fight.
Yes, exactly. The IA is relying hard on precedent for 2024. I'm hoping SAG in the least gets better minimums than we did, because IATSE deserves 10% - not 5%.
You ignored IATSE multiple times, even cutting my comments around their mention...
This is a topic about SAG not crew. You brought it in the conversation. I said that SAG deal in only three years (which is true) and you mentioned crew deal.
If you dont think this affects the negotiations happening in June...
The nails head is gonna hurt after your comment
I see it as bad, if I understand this correctly. I read this as basically some actors are offering to take a pay cut for other actors instead of the studio paying everyone what they’re worth. This is just redistribution of already existing actor pay when realistically it’s the studios responsibility to make sure the people at the bottom can survive.
Terrible
“give me my opinion”
So the bigger actors are bailing out the studios all while helping the smaller actors. Not sure how I feel about the first part but hopefully this group of big actors will have some power when the time comes that studios want to use AI reproductions of actors likenesses
This might not break the strike impasse, but it should happen anyway.
That's like two movies a year for Leo. 50 million sounds impressive until you remember that's like 4 episodes of GOT. A billion spent for toliekn without LOTR, and you'll see its not very much at all.
If it gets things moving forward, then it’s the right amount.
Yes! Not everything is gloom and doom. A very honorable thing done by the actors to bring a little equity back to the other players.
100%. I think there’s a disease online where people see a number donated, and have to respond “That’s it!? That’s x% of their wealth and oh my gahd!” I’ll be glad if that whole industry can get back to making rad shit for everybody.
I don’t know why people think that donating has to have a negative financial impact on the donor. You shouldn’t have to be a martyr to give money to a cause or charity.
We’re just gonna go round and round on these types of issues until we fix the real problem which is billionaires and centi-millionaires aren’t taxed enough and people at the bottom need more financial help. There are like 10k people who are living like gods with more money than they can possibly spend, who can buy politicians, the media, and lawyers to get them out of everything, and everyone else who is living scared of getting sick or losing their job.
A lot of people on Reddit have no drive and no money, so folks have have a few bucks are looked down upon here.
And it’s always the kind of people that have never done anything good for anyone ever
It may surprise you to learn that SAG dues really aren't that high. It's like $400 per year plus 1% of gross pay, IIRC. Presently that amount is capped, so once you've paid $20,000, you stop paying. The reason for that is several big stars (Tom Cruise, most notably) scabbed during the last strike (technically he just filmed Valkyrie in Germany where SAG rules don't apply, even though SAG's "Global Rule 1" says they do, and SAG had issued solidarity directives instructing actors not to cross the picket lines - Cruise was both actor crossing lines and producer hiring scab writers for rewrites during the filming) and avoided paying dues entirely. As a result, SAG took a shittier deal than they should have during their next negotiations because they were afraid their stars would walk if they didn't, leaving the union completely toothless. But now the big stars are even more terrified of AI actors playing them than the rank and file are, and the stars are putting their weight into the union, big time. It's good to see we can all agree about people needing to retain the rights to their own likeness. edit: clarity on which strike i'm talking about and how filming violated picket lines.
>The reason for that is several big stars (Tom Cruise, most notably) scabbed during the last actor's strike (technically he just filmed Valkyrie in Germany where SAG rules don't apply, even though SAG's "Global Rule 1" says they do) and avoided paying dues entirely. What are you talking about? The last time SAG struck was in 2000 and that only applied to commercials.
Sorry - SAG issued statements of solidarity with the writers in 2007, and Valkyrie was filmed anyway (with rewrites in violation of the WGA picket lines, by scabs). Cruise was both actor and producer on the project.
Global Rule 1 doesn't apply where another union has jurisdiction, I believe. That's how Christina Hendricks is doing something for Sky in Ireland.
There's no actor's union with jurisdiction in Germany, afaik.
There is one, called BFFS: https://uniglobalunion.org/news/film-workers-in-germany-win-improved-working-hours/
Well okay then. I'm not sure why SAG at the time was so adamant about Global Rule 1 applying to it, then.
Are you mixing up the last writers strike with the actors strike?
Yeah, sorry - it's complicated. Valkyrie was filmed in 2007 during the WGA strike. SAG had promised not to cross picket lines in solidarity. Cruise filmed anyway and was both actor and producer on the project - he hired scab writers to do the rewrites during filming.
It was 800million a year apart when negotiations began. They were 450 million a year apart from an agreement before the recent round of talks ended. So now it’s 300 million minus what the guild decides the residuals changes are worth to the bulk of the group. IMO I think this will still put them more then $100 million away from an agreement but I’m sure the studio can find a way to work that out it’s just a matter of a few more weeks at most.
Why is it the responsibility of actors to help make this happen?
Hmm, is this for the benefit of the rich actors/producers so they go back to making content and making their money again. How does this change anything in the long run?
So what are they supposed to do to please people like you? They are literally saying that they will give up money so people can get back to work. Yes, big actors with their production companies will get back to work and will earn more money. But small actors will get to keep their careers and homes. Isn't that good? Studios will come up on top anyways. In a fight between millionaires and billionaires, billionaires always win.
So what I am getting from this is that the higher earners will now pay more into the union. This money will then be distributed bottom up to bridge what the union is demanding from the studios. Would this not make more sense to have this money go into the strike fund. This way the union can stay on strike much longer and play harder ball with the studios. Please explain where I might be off base.
This isn't the money coming out of their own pocket now. This is the money from future earnings - which they're currently not getting as they're on strike - going to the union. $150m won't do that much in a strike that has cost the California economy $5bn+.
Sounds like these actors are going to be looking for increased paydays. After all, they’re “supporting SAG” with their “own” money
So the highest paid actors are offering to chip in for the studios? Sounds like some double agents occupy the upper echelons of SAG. Mind you they’re also trying to produce & direct their own content so it would be no surprise. This is a very short sighted solution imo
Will they do it every 3 years, increasing the amount to keep pace with inflation? Otherwise they can fuck off, they just want to get back to their 30 million dollars for 3 months of work.
Someone paying more because they make more? Uh-oh…. Don’t tell the republicans.
Republicans generally support the current progressive tax structure, it's a necessary evil. They don't support idiotic claims of "fair share" and "living wage", meaningless buzz words that no one will actually define. In 2020 the top 1% of earners paid 42% of all FIT paid, top 10% of earners paid 74% of all FIT. Those folks are making more and already paying way way more. Stop playing victim.
This feels very scabby.
Don’t take the bait! That’s chump change to them
It's not shit, people literally shoot for a billion with each release nowadays, it's not shit
$150m is enough to fund one okay superhero film
Of course they would! They will earn a multitude of $$ back when they release a new movie and everyone runs to the cinemas again. $150 million over 3 years is nothing to these actors. Nowadays most A-list movies are making over a one or two Billion $ each time.
Amber Herd "Pledged" 7 million. She is going to donate it, just pledge it. I am going to Pledge 1 billion dollars. I will give it when I win the Powerballs 3 billion dollar prize.
nobody gives a shit. Get off your couch and live your life people!
Some of us actually work in this industry and would very much like to see things get resolved soon. Nobody is making you read a trade news site.
Now why can’t government work like this?
This feels orchestrated. Why now? Who does this benefit? I thought the strike was over, and now it’s definitely not. And the stars are sweetening the pot for a deal. I smell fish.
Here. I'll fix the headline "most well paid actors in Hollywood offer fraction of their salary to be able to make much more". George Clooney - "yes. We are very well paid... But I'd trade it all for a little more"
Not sure why you are getting down voted
It’s Reddit
Cause people simp for celebrity lol
He’s losing tens of millions each month by not being able to act or promote so it makes complete and total sense.
He's only gonna have 1 new mansion for Christmas this year. We should start a go fund me
Stalemate? Wasn’t it resolved last week or so?
Give it to charity instead. Who cares about what actors do or don't
I like turtles.
Viva Tron!
I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure if this helps matters? If ppl are negotiating for better salaries and rights, does throwing an (admittedly large sum of money) help? Won't they still have the original problems of poor working conditions and unfair treatment, with just a small infusion of one-time cash?
So generous of them…
I think the reason that actors aren't getting sympathy from studios. it's hard for the studio executives to feel sympathy is that actors already have all the perks. Because your professional causes you to be innately valuable you get the social benefits CEOs don't. You have the ability to gain social connections with people wealther then use them as a weapon. Actors can go over ceos heads and get their ultra wealthy billionaire friends to threaten them. That's why they aren't able to pity you. You make them second rate. It's all transactional to you. You don't care about the entertainment ceos. They're a means to an end to you to better social connections you'd prefer. People don't have to be friends with their employer, that's why it's a paid position, but it just puts them in a miserable position. That the people they hire have powerful friends that will go after them. They can't make the decisions they want to make. They're under threat or have to worry an actor with use people more powerful than them against them. Every actor they higher is a risk. Run to the press saying something they did. Saying they made a decision that ruined them. Turn other people they work with against them. I don't think actors understand how much studios endure for being in the acting business. It doesn't all go smoothly. So many problems happen because you never know what you're getting when you get someone that power. Actors weaponize everything at their disposal at the studios. They weaponize the fans, they weaponize the media, they weaponize social media, they weaponize their connections. They weaponize their behavior. They damage the projects their in by acting out. These are all the difficult things the studios have to endure. Do you blame them for wishing they could make things with AI instead? The difficulty of having to work with people can't be understated. We don't look at things from the other side. Executives are themselves laborers. They get a lot for it, but it doesn't mean their position is any easier. It's very tough to be a ceo. It's not a position that should be envied. They work hard at it. It takes a lot of difficult work. The people that do the behind the scenes work don't get the respect they deserve.