Powered by i.TV
April 23, 2014

Rosenberg loses to SAG, which is weird because he's the SAG president

by Danny Gallagher, posted Feb 16th 2009 10:02AM
Once again I'm forced to ask the question, what the hell is going on here? Have we entered the bizarro world? Is up now down? Has black become white? Did years of lending money for home loans and unpaid credit card debt give the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman the magical power to turn the waning U.S. dollar into sweet, delicious candy?

The never-ending battle between SAG president Alan Rosenberg and his own organization has forced him to file an injunction against his own task force from starting their negotiations.

That means, in a weird, sordid, round-about way, Rosenberg is now fighting an uphill battle with himself. It's a wonder the actors didn't elect Britney Spears to run their union.

The California appeals court failed to grant Rosenberg his injunction, so he's taken his request to a higher court. He has less than two days to stop the meeting scheduled with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers at their secret underground lair located just beneath the Earth's crust. I believe they are renting it from Dick Cheney.

Rosenberg wants to stop the negotiations that he called for at the end of last year because he doesn't like some of the board members' more "moderate" negotiation stance. They are all on the same side, for Jiminy Crickets. Does he want them to bring flame throwers to the meeting or something?

It sounds like the more moderate bunch doesn't want to put a lot of people out in the cold during such tough economic times. The Writers' Guild's strike, while accomplishing very little, was held during a time when people could afford to go on strike and not worry about having to like the taste of cardboard when the checks stopped rolling in for awhile. This negotiation strike force (not a show coming soon to FOX) probably feels their chances of a stalemate may not have as much stamina.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

4 Comments

Filter by:
Fran

The economy is hurting everyone. Hollywood seems to be no exception. You really know it is a depression, when even rich people are hurting. (I am not referring to the person the second comment here.)
I saw Alan Rosenberg on the SAG awards, and he looked terrible. Is he healthy enough to make such an important decision for all those people? Perhaps he should be replaced by the next one in line.

February 17 2009 at 3:05 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Joey Geraci

Should there be a strike now? Probably not. Are the producers in the right now (or during/before the writer's strike) in any way, shape or form? Absolutely not.

I'm curious what you think the writers should have done? Taken the shitty terms the producers were handing out and thanked them for their disrespect?

February 16 2009 at 10:32 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Joey Geraci's comment
CDB

I'm one of the few people that were not affected by the writers strike. I was, however, forced to lay off my entire crew of about 160.

Hearing their reactions over the phone tore me apart each and every time.

The writers on my show were very supportive of the strike before it happened. When they returned, not one could look me in the eyes. Before they left I told them I hope it would be worth it.

It wasn't.

Every WGA writer I know thinks they were shafted in their deal. It was calculated that to make up for the lost wages they would have received during the strike, they would have to keep working under the current agreement for about 10 years.

So for the next 10 years, they're actually making less because they're making up for money they would have gotten had there been no strike.

I think this happens with most strikes. I know, they claim it is for the future generations of writers, the ones who are just joining the WGA now, bla bla bla.

The truth is, that isn't true. The writers didn't need to strike. They got nearly identical terms to the DGA, and they didn't strike, they didn't come close.

Now, the actors on my show are not SAG, we have an AFTRA agreement (thank god) so I can't really gauge what they are thinking about the strike. But I can tell you that the overall feeling among the actors/crew is that if SAG wants to go forward with a strike, it would be a major mistake.

I think this is what Rosenberg doesn't understand. He isn't out there working, he doesn't know what its like to be on a set with a close crew, all working to accomplish the same thing. He can't see the fear in peoples eyes when the word "strike" is uttered aloud. If they strike, it doesn't affect him.

He's going to lose this battle, and thank god. A strike right now would tear Hollywood apart.

February 16 2009 at 12:43 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Joey Geraci

I agree that a strike right now would not make sense.

But you seem to be against the very idea of strikes. Yes, some people suffer, and it is unfortunate. But what is the solution? To just beg and plead for whatever concessions the producers deign to offer the people that are actually responsible for their fortunes? The producers don't care about anybody but themselves, and they will take every last thing possible from the creative people unless they are threatened.

February 18 2009 at 10:57 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners