SAG-AFTRA, AMPTP Spar Over Details of Rejected Contract Offer
SAG-AFTRA and Hollywood’s largest employers are sparring over the terms of the offer that SAG-AFTRA rejected before the union went on strike last week.
SAG-AFTRA issued a detailed statement outlining its objections to the deal presented last week after weeks of bargaining with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. The AMPTP countered late with a statement that accused the union of trying to “deliberately distort” the terms of the employers’ offer. SAG-AFTRA opened its statement to members by declaring that the union is fighting “against a system where those in charge of multibillion-dollar media conglomerates are rewarded for exploiting workers.”
SAG-AFTRA called a strike against AMPTP companies on July 12. The Writers Guild of America has been on strike since May 2.
The AMPTP asserted that the rejected offer was worth “more than $1 billion in wage increases, pension and health contributions and residual increases and includes first-of-their-kind protections over its three-year term, including expressly with respect to AI.”
SAG-AFTRA, on the contrary, asserted in its statement — headlined “We’re Fighting for the Survival of our Profession” — that AMPTP negotiators “wouldn’t meaningfully engage on the most critical issues.” That drew a sharp response from the management side.
“The AMPTP’s goal from day one has been to come to a mutually beneficial agreement with SAG-AFTRA. A strike is not the outcome we wanted. For SAG-AFTRA to assert that we have not been responsive to the needs of its membership is disingenuous at best,” the statement read.
AMPTP further criticized SAG-AFTRA for its “mischaracterizations” of the offer and terms that haven’t been shared with members. “Not only does [SAG-AFTRA’s] press release deliberately distort the offers made by AMPTP, it also fails to include the proposals offered verbally to SAG-AFTRA leadership on July 12,” AMPTP stated.
On the hot-button issue of AI protections, the union was blunt about its interpretation of one aspect of the complex proposal as it relates to background actors.
In SAG-AFTRA’s view, the AMPTP deal on the table would allow producers to “scan a background performer’s image, pay them for a half a day’s labor, and then use an individual’s likeness for any purpose forever without their consent.” This topic has been a flashpoint for management-side sources who maintain the proposal is not nearly as broad as it is being portrayed.
SAG-AFTRA further asserted that the AMPTP offer would mean a lack of protection for such things as “making changes to principal performers’ dialogue, and even create new scenes, without informed consent” as well as to “use someone’s images, likenesses, and performances to train new generative AI systems without consent or compensation.”
In all, the AMPTP emphasized that the deal included the highest increases in contract minimums for various wage categories in more than 35 years. SAG-AFTRA has sought an 11% hike in minimums across the board, citing the income-eroding effects of inflation. AMPTP in its statement noted that it had agreed to 11% pay increase for job categories on the lower end of the pay scale, namely background actors, stand-ins and photo doubles.
Here are the dueling rundowns of key contract points released late Monday by the AMPTP and SAG-AFTRA.
AMPTP:
● The highest percentage increase in minimums in 35 years
● 76% increase in High Budget SVOD foreign residuals
● Substantial increases in pension and health contribution caps
● Groundbreaking AI proposal which protects performers’ digital likenesses,
including a requirement for performer’s consent for the creation and use of digital
replicas or for digital alterations of a performance.
● 58% increase in salaries for major role (guest star) performers wages on High
Budget SVOD Programs.
● Limitation of self-tape requests, including page, time and tech requirements.
Options for virtual or in-person auditions.
● 11% pay increase in year 1 for background actors, stand-ins and photo doubles,
an additional 17% increase for background actors required to do extensive
self-styling, and an additional 62% increase for stand-ins required to deliver lines
during a run-through and photo doubles required to memorize and deliver lines
on camera.
● First-time-ever fixed residuals for Stunt Coordinators on television and High
Budget SVOD programs.
● Shortened option periods for series regulars earning less than $65,000 per
episode on a half-hour series or less than $70,000 per episode on a one-hour
series.
● Dancers will now receive the on-camera rate for rehearsal days.
● Additional payments of 25% for dancers required to sing on camera during
principal photography, as well as for singers required to dance on camera.
● First-of-its-kind provision establishing rates, terms and conditions for High Budget
Programs made for AVOD.
● Hair and make-up consultation for performers of all complexions and hair
textures.
● Limits on the amount of initial compensation that can be advanced or prepaid as
residuals.
SAG-AFTRA:
Performers need minimum earnings to simply keep up with inflation.
Us: We need an 11% general wage increase in year 1 so our members can recover from record inflation during the previous contract term.
Them: The most we will give you is 5%, even though that means your 2023 earnings will effectively be a significant pay cut due to inflation and it is likely you will still be working for less than your 2020 wages in 2026.
Performers need the protection of our images and performances to prevent replacement of human performances by artificial intelligence technology.
Us: Here’s a comprehensive set of provisions to grant informed consent and fair compensation when a “digital replica” is made or our performance is changed using AI.
Them: We want to be able to scan a background performer’s image, pay them for a half a day’s labor, and then use an individual’s likeness for any purpose forever without their consent. We also want to be able to make changes to principal performers’ dialogue, and even create new scenes, without informed consent. And we want to be able to use someone’s images, likenesses, and performances to train new generative AI systems without consent or compensation.
Performers need qualified hair and makeup professionals as well as equipment to safely and effectively style a variety of hair textures/styles and skin tones.
Us: How about consultations with qualified hair and makeup professionals for all performers on set to ensure equity for performers of color, and a requirement to have the proper tools and equipment?
Them: Begrudgingly, we will do this for principal performers, but background actors are on their own.
Performers need compensation to reflect the value we bring to the streamers who profit from our labor.
Us: Consider this comprehensive plan for actors to participate in streaming revenue, since the current business model has eroded our residuals income.
Them: No.
All performers need support from our employers to keep our health and retirement funds sustainable.
Us: Contribution caps haven’t been raised in 40 years, imperiling our pension and health plans. Would you consider raising the caps to adjust for inflation and ensure that all performers, regardless of age or location, receive equal contributions?
Them: Here are some nominal increases nowhere near the level of inflation that won’t adequately fund your health plan. Also, background child performers under 14 years of age living in the N.Y. zone don’t deserve pension contributions, which is why we haven’t paid them since 1992.
Principal performers need to be able to work during hiatus and not be held captive by employers.
Us: These timelines we’ve proposed help series regulars by limiting the increasingly long breaks between seasons and giving them some certainty as to when they’ll start work again or will be released.
Them: Take these select few improvements that will only help a select few.
Principal performers need to be reimbursed for relocation expenses when they’re employed away from home.
Us: Drop the ruse that series regulars are becoming residents of a new state or country when they go on location, and adequately pay them for all of their relocation costs.
Them: Here’s some stipends which don’t realistically reflect the cost of relocating to an out-of-state or out-of-country production.
Source: Variety
