Thursday, January 08, 2009

And What About SAG?

... Which is the question I still get asked as I bounce from studio to studio.

Here's a visual that mirrors my basic thoughts on the subject:

The video above was produced by savethebiz.org. and brought to our attention by Craig Mazin of the Artful Writer.

The thing of it is, we're now slogging into the deepest recession in eighty years, California is underwater, unemployment grows steadily worse, and SAG's leadership remains focused on hitting the bricks.

And that is still an insane idea, and not just because there's a massive economic slowdown. What makes it truly delusional is that the deal has already been set in quick-dry concrete by every other guild and union that's bargained with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers over the past year. (That would be ... uhm ... all of them.)

See, it doesn't really matter if SAG is right, and the deals that the other labor organizations made are mediocre. The point is, the AMPTP now has its bargaining template, and the Alliance ain't going to chip away at the basic deal points because SAG desires something different.

Were SAG membership to elect to go out and a job action resulted, then management would sit back and let the blood flow. What management wouldn't do is give SAG something shiny and new that was in any way better than the packages already given to the DGA, IATSE, WGA and AFTRA.

Oh yeah, AFTRA. If SAG were to strike for a goodly length of time, I would wager serious money that AFTRA -- the other actors' union -- would come out the other end of the fustercluck as a much, much stronger organization.

And SAG would find itself well on its merry way to becoming an afterthought in the Hollywood pecking order.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Strike or no strike California is one of the worst of all states to do business in Taxation & Regulation.

There are no real incentives for production companies to film in Cali.

Its ironic that the state which contains the so-called entertainment capital of the world is terrible to do business in.

Anonymous said...

I thought that video kicked ass. Anyone have an idea how they did the ending?

Anonymous said...

Its ironic that the state which contains the so-called entertainment capital of the world is terrible to do business in.

Yeah, especially since California ranks among the top ten economies of the world. Taxation and regulation do not seem to hurt California businesses.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, especially since California ranks among the top ten economies of the world. Taxation and regulation do not seem to hurt California businesses.


According to the 2009 State business Tax Climate Index California is one of the least business friendly states.

California ranks #48 out of 50 states. New Jersey is the worst at #50. Wyoming is the best at #1.

You can download the report in pdf format at this link:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp58.pdf

For those that do not want ot download the pdf here is a quick recap of the best business and the worst.

The top 10 most "business friendly" states (in no particular order):

* Oregon
* Nevada
* Montana
* Wyoming
* Texas
* South Dakota
* Florida
* New Hampshire
* Delaware
* Alaska

And the 10 least "business friendly" states (in no particular order):

* California
* Iowa
* Nebraska
* Minnesota
* Ohio
* New York
* New Jersey
* Maryland
* Vermont
* Connecticut

Anonymous said...

Interesting that many of those "business friendly" states actually have almost no national or significant regional businesses located there.

Perhaps the definition of "business friendly" includes quite a bit more than just local business taxes.

By the way, that PDF is from the "Tax Foundation," a partisan group that Paul Krugman and other economists find are intentionally misleading.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that many of those "business friendly" states actually have almost no national or significant regional businesses located there.

Delaware is very friendly cause alot of companies are incorporated in that state.

As far as corporate headquarters the business friendly staes that are mentioned in the list above are home to the following companies. I wouldn't say there are no significant business located in those states:

Autonation
Office Depot
CSX - Huge Railroad Co.
Winn-Dixie
DuPont
Ryder - Truck Co.
Burger King
Exxon
Conoco Phillips
Dell
At&T
Kimberly-Clark
Marathon Oil
Sysco
American Airlines
J.C. Penny
Texas Instruments
Continental Airlines
Southwest Airlines
Blockbuster
Radio Shack
Whole Foods
Nike

and on and on...Alot of well known companies...

The reason why Cali has a "huge" economy is due to the revenues generated by the corporations headquartered here as opposed to other states but by no means can you say there there are no significant companies in the top states.

Revenues yes well known companies no.

Anonymous said...

Haha, too funny. No, I didn't say NONE of those "business friendly" states had major businesses. I was just noting that some of those states (like Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, etc.) have about one percent of the business activity of "business unfriendly" states like California, New York, New Jersey, etc.

And Delaware in particular is a special case, not primarily because of their business tax rate, but because of their especially favorable and flexible corporate laws.

The point is that looking at the nominal state business tax rates is a rube's game, meant to mislead,and isn't really a measure of what states are good or bad for businesses.

Anonymous said...

The point is that looking at the nominal state business tax rates is a rube's game, meant to mislead,and isn't really a measure of what states are good or bad for businesses.


Of course is not just about taxes but regulations and incentives etc. as well.

Site Meter