On Thursday, the Screen Actors Guild, or SAG-AFTRA, announced that it would join its sister union, the Writers Guild of America—who have already been on the picket line for more than 10 weeks—in a full-out strike. This news, which is the result of weeks of attempted bargaining with streaming services for better residual payments and protections against prospects like outsourcing work to artificial intelligence, marks the first time both unions have struck simultaneously since 1960. The last time both unions went on strike, SAG in particular was led by an unlikely familiar figure: Ronald Reagan. Writer, actor, and comedian Wayne Federman wrote a piece for the Atlantic in 2011 titled “What Reagan Did for Hollywood,” in which he details the unprecedented advancements that Reagan helped secure for workers in Hollywood before going on the path to become one of the most emphatically conservative presidents in contemporary American history. I called Federman to discuss the significance of the 1960 strike and its relation to the state of Hollywood today. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Nadira Goffe: What were the circumstances that led to the 1960 SAG strike?
Wayne Federman: So the SAG strike was about one issue, and that issue was motion pictures made by the studios that were now being played on television. That started around 1948. [The union] kept wanting to talk about this issue, and [the studios] kept kicking the can down the road, year after year, negotiation after negotiation. So, eventually, the membership of SAG were like, We have to deal with this issue. It was very, very, very contentious. And they brought back Ronald Reagan, who had been president of SAG from 1947 to 1952, to lead the union. He had a TV show, he had been host of General Electric Theater, and his movie career had kind of waned a little bit, but he was very respected by the membership, and they brought him sort of out of retirement to lead this strike. So he got elected again.
Why did they invite him back? What was so special about him?
Because he was an extremely effective leader of SAG in the late ’40s. At that time, he was considered a liberal Democrat, but by the time he was brought back as SAG president to lead this strike, he had had a political conversion. … I don’t think he was a registered Republican at that time, but he was certainly starting to lean that way. The membership liked him. They remembered that he had been this good union leader before, and when he was head of SAG in the early ’50s, he helped get residuals for television actors [for reruns].
But here’s a little thing: Nancy, his wife, did not want him to take this job, because now you’re going up against the people that can hire you. You’re the face of the industry, of these actors, and now you have to go up against the heads of Warner Brothers and MGM and all of the major studios. But he eventually said yes, and as soon as the strike was resolved, he didn’t even finish out the term. I believe he resigned after the strike was successfully negotiated.
What were the main union ideas behind the 1960 strike?
Let’s say you get hired to act in a film. Basically, the person hiring you is taking the risk. They’re paying you your salary, and in return, they own that product. So, what SAG was saying was, You can play that film anywhere in the world, you can play it in Italy, you can have it dubbed—but when you put it on television, that’s a new revenue stream. Also, the argument was that that is taking work away from other actors. Because if you have this movie on, that time slot is no longer available for working actors.
On the other side, the head of 20th Century Fox [Spyros Skouras], his argument was very simple: Why should I pay you twice for the same job? I’ve already paid you for this job. I own this at this point. And that was basically the position of all of these studio owners. At the beginning of the strike, they were like, We’re not even going to talk about residuals. It’s a nonstarter. And Reagan said, We’re “trying to negotiate for the right to negotiate.” That’s how far apart they were. It was so foreign to these guys that they would have to share their revenues with actors after they’d already paid the actors. Ultimately, one studio, Universal Pictures—believe it or not, the head of Universal, a guy named Lew Wasserman, used to be Ronald Reagan’s agent—was the first domino that dropped. I think Lew Wasserman thought it was inevitable anyway: If it wasn’t going to happen in 1960, it might happen in ’65. And then one after another [gave in], until, I think, the 20th Century guy was the last guy, who was like, All right, I’ll give it, I’ll pay you again for something I’ve already paid you for, through clenched teeth.
As weird as it may sound now, in the old days, you could only see Paramount movies in Paramount theaters [due to vertical integration]. At that time, the studios were in a big fight with television. There was a big Supreme Court ruling called the Paramount Decree, where the studios had to give up distribution [control] of their movies. And that cost them. And then people started staying home and watching television, like I Love Lucy, and so the movie industry was hemorrhaging money. There were some studios that wouldn’t even show a television set in people’s homes. It was a real battle because they were losing so much money because television was exciting and new. So they were like, Oh my God, this is one place where we might be able to make some money. And now you’re asking us to give you a percentage of it.
What is the importance of residuals? As you said, actors had already gotten paid.
This was kind of a new idea—that, if we take these movies and put them in this new medium, there’s a new revenue stream outside of box office gross. There was no such thing as movies on television when the industry started. There was no television. The idea of residuals started on radio, believe it or not. They would do a broadcast on the East Coast and then do another one for the West Coast, and they would get paid for both of those broadcasts. And then at one point they were like, We’re just going to tape the East Coast broadcast and then play it again for the West Coast. And that was really the start of, Well, can you pay us because we’re actually doing this again? So the idea was: Let’s see if we can get part of this revenue stream for our actors, because in a way, we’re now competing against ourselves.
And, essentially, even though it’s prerecorded and just put on a different medium, it’s technically multiple performances.
Right. And you’re also taking work away from actors who could be using that time slot, who could be hired to do an episode of Gunsmoke or The Fugitive, or something like that. Again, the residuals were so small at the time, but this was a paradigm shift in Hollywood.
What about residuals for films made before the strike in 1960?
TV really starts kicking in 1948; by 1956, they’re playing [movies like] The Wizard of Oz on television. That’s a big MGM musical. … It’s not one of these B Westerns that Republic Pictures made, or something like that. So, there are more A pictures making their way onto television. And so [the studios are] thinking, In the age of television, what do we do for all of these movies that were made between 1948 and 1960? They decide, All right, instead of residuals for any of those movies made between 1948 and 1960, we’re going to give you a few million dollars to start. This is the first health fund for actors, which is where I get my health insurance and pension. It was seed money [for] benefits for your workers. And so that’s how the pension and welfare started for SAG. … Now it’s got to be well over $10 billion, probably. I don’t even know the amount of money that’s been sent to actors who work in movies that get played on television, based on that 1960 strike.
And so there are no residuals for any movie made before 1960. There were people who worked in the ’30s and ’40s, like Mickey Rooney and Bob Hope, who were upset at this. They were like, Why do we strike? I thought I’d get residuals for Road to Morocco or whatever. In a way, Reagan was selfless because most of the movies he made were in pre-residual times.
What you’re essentially telling me is that Ronald Reagan decides to take up this liberal cause and basically secures residuals and welfare for the future of Hollywood actors. And then, very shortly afterward, registers as a Republican. Where he then becomes, well, the Ronald Reagan.
That is correct.
What are the circumstances leading to this current SAG strike and how do they differ from or resemble the circumstances in 1960?
For this strike, before we even negotiated, we already had strike authorization from the membership. In 1960, they didn’t. The 1960 strike was really about one issue, and this strike is about multiple issues. This is about how residuals, specifically for streaming entertainment, are being calculated. Those numbers are … not really released. It’s not like a Nielsen rating. Sometimes you’ll hear something like, Oh, 1.2 million minutes of Squid Game—what does that mean? Does that mean that many people watched one minute of it, or does that mean people watched it a number of times, or … ? I don’t know why it’s all proprietary for these streamers, but that’s just where we’re at. We want a little more transparency in that, [to consider] that if we’re on a hit show, is that paid differently than a [nonhit] show? And then there’s this A.I. situation.
You said that the studios were sort of giving up these residuals through clenched teeth. Do you think that their position on that has changed?
That’s the amazing outcome of what Ronald Reagan—and other negotiators at the time—was able to do: In a way, they were changing the paradigm of how Hollywood money is divided up. They were striking for an idea: that we deserve this for A, B, C, and D reasons. You get residuals now. Not everyone; editors don’t get residuals, but directors do. I get residuals for streaming services, but they’re just not the same. They’re not as good as cable, and they’re not as good as network. When you look at the check, you’re like, OK, this doesn’t seem like a lot. But, again, you don’t know how many people are watching it.
And also, I think when we first started looking at streaming services, we were like, We want these services to thrive so that there’ll be more work for actors. So I think that’s why we were not militant about residuals for these new platforms. No one is saying, Oh, we paid you to be on this Netflix show, and we never have to pay you a residual. The problem is that it’s not as hearty as it used to be for these other mediums. But the idea of residuals … is not going away, unless [the companies] decide to try to break the unions and just use nonunion actors and not pay residuals.
This time around, do you think the WGA strike has influenced this SAG strike?
Well, I think it did. This is just one person’s opinion. But the Directors Guild of America settled with the producers, and I think that the Writers Guild felt like, Oh, that was really kind of a leverage point for us, that we would maybe be in this together. Even though legally you’re not allowed to be in it together, but wink, wink, we’re in this together. I think the actors were aware of it, and they were like, We have your back a little bit. Again, it’s a separate negotiation, and there should be a bright line. But in my opinion, being out here, I feel like the Writers Guild was hoping, OK, now we have more leverage, obviously. We have a little more power. And there’s going to be more pain inflicted. The Emmy Awards might be postponed—as an actor, you’re not allowed to promote your movie that you’ve already done.
How are you feeling? You’re in both unions.
Yes. How am I feeling? Well, mixed is how I’m feeling, to tell you the truth. Most of my friends are like, Eff those guys, look at how much so-and-so makes, these faceless internet oligarchs that own all the content, eff those guys, let them feel a little pain. That’s kind of what a lot of my peer group is like. But I’m a little more like, “We’re in this together. Does it have to get to this, where there’s a work stoppage?” I’m super sympathetic to people who aren’t in the union that rely on film production to make their living—caterers and all of those people. I feel terrible for them. I go on the line sometimes, and it’s a little bit of a party atmosphere—there’s music playing, and they do karaoke, and we get free food thanks to Drew Carey. So I’m mixed. No one’s asked me that. Thank you.
It’s complicated. If it were easy, people would be doing it all the time.
It’s a complicated issue. It’s like Reagan. It’s complicated.
