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.”
More to come
