Fran Drescher says studios’ latest strike move shocked her: “So disrespectful”
SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher doesn't understand the AMPTP walking away from negotiations with the actors guild
Aux News Fran Drescher
On Wednesday, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers—which includes major Hollywood studios and streamers like Warner Bros. Discovery, Netflix, Disney, and more—decided to walk away from negotiations with SAG-AFTRA, further jeopardizing the 2024 film and television slate rather than cut a deal with the actors guild. The decision was a puzzling one for those of us on the outside, especially given the recent deal struck with the writers guild. And apparently, it was just as confusing for those on the inside, according to SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher.
“It really came as a shock to me because what does that exactly mean and why would you walk away from the table? It’s not like we’re asking for anything that’s so outrageous,” The Nanny star said in an interview with Today on Friday. “It’s so wrong. And it’s so unfair that they walked out of the meeting, and so disrespectful. You know when I was there, I mean they talk at you. They really don’t want to hear what you have to say or why you’re saying it.”
According to NBC’s Chloe Melas, Drescher claimed that she was “talked over” and “couldn’t get a word in edgewise.” SAG-AFTRA national executive director and chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, on the other hand, described the talks “as very candid, very direct, intense at times, but in a respectful sort of way” in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter. However, he similarly described the studios’ decision to walk away as “mystifying.” He said, “I think that’s a completely wrongheaded decision. There is no way to move this forward without talking. And it took them so long to get back to the table in the first place. It’s really disappointing that after this amount of time, they would just walk away again.”
On Thursday, Netflix’s Ted Sarandos spoke about the situation at the Bloomberg Screentime conference, saying, “We had very productive talks going, then what kind of happened last night. They introduced this levy on subscribers. It just felt like a bridge too far to add this deep into the negotiation.”
SAG-AFTRA has stated that the AMPTP has overstated the cost of this proposal, and Drescher pointed out that the studios’ bargaining team didn’t even give a counter for their proposal, choosing to walk away instead. “We made a huge, huge concession on streaming revenue share, changing that proposal away from a revenue percentage into just a viewership proposal—massive move in their direction,” Crabtree-Ireland said to THR. “I’m truly shocked that they have not responded favorably to that and that they instead decided to walk away from the table.”
Crabtree-Ireland has called for the studios to return to negotiations because “This walking away thing isn’t a way to make progress.” Having studio CEOs in the room has been clarifying, he said, because “hearing from the CEOs—finally, it took them a few days to get around to it—saying, ‘We just will not agree to a revenue share proposal under any circumstance, we will not share revenue, period,’ hearing that from the ultimate decision-maker does help you figure out how to structure your response to that. And as I mentioned, we accommodated that by changing our proposal to attach a totally different way.”
He added, “So having them in the room has the potential to make a huge difference, but they’ve got to be there. They’ve got to be in the room and they have to engage. Having them in the room and just refusing to respond to proposals doesn’t really get us in.”
31 Comments
The studio heads want to eliminate paying anyone but executives so hard. They’re just waiting until the day they can pivot everything to AI. Sure, it’ll be dogshit, but think of the savings!Remember when there was a narrative to paint the people who are constantly trying to axe as many employees as possible as “job creators”?
The whole “job creators” thing is so fucking sickening and boneheadedly stupid. You mean the people who have stolen all the money from the workers are the only ones with enough money to pay more workers?? The fuck you say!
What?Stolen money from workers? Are the workers buying the product and not receiving it?People with enough money to pay more workers? You mean the businesses who collect revenue from customers? You mean the business that provides equipment, resources, designs, and plans to the workers?Do you have any idea how any of this works? Or do you genuinely not understand how a business works?
Do you not know what profits are, business understander
Can you expand on your question? The word “profit” doesn’t appear anywhere in this conversation or in this article, except where you mentioned it and I quoted you above….
Thanks for the response, Bing AI.
Wait until he finds out about the estimated $50 billion a year employees lose to wage theft in the US.
We’ll have to wait until his shift at the bootlicking kiosk is over to see his reaction.
We’re coming for your family next f*ggot
It’s show “business” after all.
Christ, Ms. Fine is still one freaking hot yenta.
I was all in on the WGA strike, and I think they handled it perfectly and got exactly what they wanted. When the WGA won, the studios were very clearly ready to move on and take the hit – that’s why they formed their stupid lobbying group, since they realized they weren’t going to beat the unions on this one. SAG, instead of using the WGA deal as a template, continues to ask for insane non-starters, like revenue share with the streamers based on number of subscribers, something the writers did not ask for. I’m worried that SAG leadership wants to hold onto their time in the spotlight versus taking a huge Win for their membership, when they had the leverage after the WGA agreed to a deal. Public opinion, including of their own membership, will not be on their side for long here.
Huh? You must be a paid PR person. The public won’t side with actors for long? LOL. Yeah, they’re going to fall in love with Bob Iger and forsake the stars they love. What a laughable take. Revenue sharing is a non starter? UH, why?? These corporations shouldn’t have to pay more? Iger makes 27 million a year. The public HATES corporations and execs.
Ah yes I’m a paid shill posting on *checks notes* AV Club comments sections lol.Revenue share is something no other union has nor has asked for in any capacity. They’re asking for 2 %. It’s dumb. People in production are antsy and are getting annoyed at the actors for making that type of unreasonable ask — and I’m sorry, it is unreasonable based on history and what every other union has fought for — when everyone thought this would be resolved post WGA.I’m pro-union and think the CEOs are dumbasses. But unions aren’t by their nature perfect, and I fear SAG specifically is fumbling the bag here. When IATSE’s contract comes up along with The Animation Guild and others, I will root for them. But it doesn’t mean you can’t call out some negotiating tactics and silly asks.
Revenue share is not a new thing. Major stars negotiate(d) “points” in their contracts, which is how Tom Cruise got 30% of the profits on Vanilla Sky, for example. I think 2% of profits divided among all actors in a production is not only equitable, but also doable.
Silly asks can be important too, though. Collective bargaining is often a game of horse-trading, and an ask that you know the employer is never going to agree to is something you can give away for an actually-important gain
This is true! If they’re asking for that so they can “give it up” in return for, say, better AI regulations, then all good and I’m wrong for criticizing. Certainly I’m glad all the unions are steadfast in their support. From what I’ve heard the concern is that the studios were willing to give them what they wanted post WGA and this is an ask that could really make the studios dig their heels in and take away leverage they had. But as I said, if I’m wrong then good on SAG.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re wrong for criticising (unless you’re a SAG-AFTRA member, ofc). None of us are at the negotiating table or privy to the negotiating team’s strategy. Maybe they’re just trying to push their asks to the hilt in the wake of the WGA deal. We’re all just reading tea leaves out here.
Well, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and that was the salient point.
Revenue sharing is a well-established method of employee remuneration in many industries (from that well-known Marxist rag Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/010915/how-does-revenue-sharing-work-practice.asp), so I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that it ‘is something no other union has nor has asked for in any capacity.’If you’re not a shill, you should think about becoming one because right now you’re shilling for free.
eat shit, bootlicker
Zwing and a miss!
The only time my micropenis can get hard is when a union strike fails (I can never get hard).
If its a proposal based upon subscriber numbers then the studios should accept it and simply raise subscription rates by a dollar. Everyone gets paid and viewers continue to get a wonderful plethora of fantastic streaming content. Everyone wins!
Would that work though? Streaming isn’t like home heating or something where you have to have it. For every dollar they raise say Netflix there is a percentage of people who will say “that’s too expensive” and cancel. Then subscriber numbers go down and it doesn’t really benefit anyone.
I mean they’re all already raising their prices for no particular reason other than they’re not making enough money.
The least shocking thing in this story is the man who failed to notice the woman being talked over.