By
Shaun Clayton
Arizona Daily Wildcat
To be a struggling actor in this society is much like being a transient - little respect, frequent travel and nonexistent money.
So it's really no surprise the general public has barely given a second thought to the ongoing labor disputes occurring between the Screen Actor's Guild and advertisers.
The issues being fought over are complex, but a key sticking point are residuals - payments to actors for subsequent broadcasts of an initial production - for commercials on cable television.
Currently, SAG actors are paid a residual proportional to how many times their commercial airs on broadcast television. When that same commercial, however, airs on cable television, the actor receives a flat rate regardless of how many times the commercial was broadcast.
What actors actually want is to be paid according to the same payment system used for the broadcast networks. They claim, and rightfully so, that cable has expanded greatly in recent years - including nearly 160 cable outlets in this country alone - and now they simply want their share of the pot.
In response, advertisers have offered to make pay equal for commercials airing on both broadcast and cable - they have offered to make broadcast television's proportional pay system into a flat rate, like cable television. In essence, the advertisers have smiled broadly - and given actors nothing but a big middle finger.
Actors have thus been on strike for the past six months, aiding in the recent explosion of reality-based shows which are sure to last long enough to make the viewing public the real "survivors."
Still, the advertisers might just win. SAG faces a problem that labor has faced in recent years - corporate mergers giving larger entities more control over decision making and greater financial insulation against a strike.
Members of SAG are hurting. During the strike, members lost nearly $100 million in income, a troubling loss considering most barely get by on the money they make.
Yet, to the general public, the strike barely shows up on their radar screens. Perhaps because of a lack of relativity - most people who do not work in an art-related field do not find value in the work actors do. Perhaps it is also the perception that acting is not a difficult job and thus, not worthy of respect.
Or maybe the fact that the entertainment field is a strange one where one person is paid $50 a day while another $50,000. In no other field is the difference in pay for the same work so drastic from one person to another. There isn't one McDonald's employee at McDonald's making $5.15 an hour, while another makes $5,000 and has his own personal masseuse.
The thing is, the media focuses on the rich and the powerful, since of course they usually make for more interesting stories. Unfortunately, it also adds to the public's perception that all actors make millions of dollars a year, and thus are not worthy of a pay raise.
The truth is that acting is a job - an uncommon job - but a job all the same, full of middle-class workers struggling just to get by. They deserve the same recognition as secretaries and factory workers, and basically all jobs worked by average people every day. A little respect for actors is not so much to ask.
