Bryan Cranston Tells Bob Iger ‘Our Jobs Will Not Be Taken Away’ by AI in Rousing Speech: You Will Not ‘Take Away Our Dignity’
By Joe Otterson
Bryan Cranston delivered a fiery speech at a SAG-AFTRA strike rally in Times Square on Tuesday, which included a message directed at Disney head Bob Iger. “We’ve got a message for Mr. Iger,” Cranston said from the stage of the “Rock the City for a Fair Contract” rally. “I know, sir, that you look [at] things through a different lens. We don’t expect you to understand who we are. But we ask you to hear us, and beyond that to listen to us when we tell you we will not be having our jobs taken away and given to robots. We will not have you take away our right to work and earn a decent living. And lastly, and most importantly, we will not allow you to take away our dignity! We are union through and through, all the way to the end!”
Watch an excerpt from the speech below Cranston began his remarks by saying that there is one thing that all the guilds and the AMPTP fundamentally agree on: “Our industry has changed exponentially.” “We are not in the same business model we were even 10 years ago,” he said. “And yet, even though they admit that is the truth in today’s economy, they are fighting us tooth and nail to stick to the same economic system that is outmoded, outdated! They want us to step back in time. We cannot and we will not do that.” Cranston was one of a number of stars who took the stage to address a crowd of hundreds of SAG-AFTRA members and union supporters at the rally, with others including Steve Buscemi, Wendell Pierce, Christian Slater, Christine Baranski, Stephen Lang, and Titus Burgess. They were joined onstage by fellow actors Michael Shannon, BD Wong, Brendan Fraser, Jessica Chastain, Matt Bomer, Chloë Grace Moretz, and Corey Stoll, and more. Burgess decided to forego a speech, instead singing a section of the song “Take Me to the World” from “Sondheim On Sondheim.” Baranski told the crowd “We will not live under corporate feudalism” while also praising the background actors on shows like “The Good Wife” and “The Good Fight,” saying that she attended the rally to speak for them and demand they get fair treatment under any new contract. Slater then spoke about how his father, a fellow SAG member, received support from the union after mental illness and later cancer left him unable to work. Later on in the rally, “The Bear” star Liza Colón-Zayas told the audience that she has been a union member since 1994 and “struggled for 30 years to finally get here, only to find that my residuals have dwindled exponentially.” She then paraphrased Snoop Dogg by saying “We the artists, our gripe is that we deliver in high numbers, in major numbers. And yet, where the f— is my money?”
i love watching these fucking absolute monsters and ghouls try to fight against probably the most universally beloved group of people, ceos
Regarding the AI dilemma I have two questions. How is it different from any other time in history when a worker was replaced by a machine, and given the lessons learned, isn’t it futile to resist?
They want to pay for an actor’s likeness once then own it for a lifetime. Hollywood should take a lesson from their own anti-piracy ads of the 90s. ‘You wouldn’t download an actor.’
As for is resistance futile. Here’s just a few things that resistance has bought us just in Australia (a nightmare capitalist society):
Annual Leave
Paid Annual Leave was first won after a campaign by printing workers in 1936. The Arbitration Commission granted the workers paid leave, which was then gained by other workers through their unions in different industries. Annual leave loading of 17.5 per cent was first won by workers in the Metal Industry in 1973.
Awards
Awards are legally binding documents that set out the minimum entitlements for workers in every industry. The first industrial award, the Pastoral Workers Award was established by the Australian Workers Union in 1908, mainly covering shearers. The shearers had experienced a terrible deterioration of their wages and conditions during the 1897 Depression and decided to take action to protect working people. Since 1904, awards have underpinned the pay and terms and conditions of employment for millions of workers. Awards are unique to Australia and integral in ensuring workers get ‘fair pay for a fair day’s work’.
Maternity leave
Australian unions’ intensive campaigning for paid parental leave ended in victory with the introduction of the Paid Parental leave scheme by the Gillard Labor government. Under the scheme, working parents of children born or adopted after 1 January 2011 are entitled to a maximum of 18 weeks’ pay on the National Minimum Wage.
Superannuation
Prior to 1986, only a select group of workers were entitled to Superannuation. It became a universal entitlement after the ACTU’s National Wage Case. Employers had to pay 3% of workers’ earnings into Superannuation. This later increased to 9% and on November 2, 2011 the ACTU and its unions’ “Stand Up for Super” campaign celebrated another win for working Australians, when the Labor Government moved to increase the compulsory Superannuation Guarantee to 12% over 6 years from 1 July 2013 to 1 July 2019.
Equal Pay for Women
Although there were attempts to introduce equal pay going back as far as 1949, the principle of equal pay for women was finally adopted by Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1969.
Health and Safety and Workers’ Compensation Workers compensation laws first came into existence in West Australia in 1902. For many years unions agitated and campaigned for health and safety laws which compelled employers to provide a safe working environment. In Victoria, legislation was introduced in 1985 which saw the active role of workers in maintaining safety on the job. Building unions agitated for many years to ban the use of asbestos, finally succeeding in the 1980’s.
Long service leave
Coal workers went on strike in 1949 over a 35 hour week and Long service leave. Long service leave was finally introduced in New South Wales in 1951. Unions in other states followed.
Meal Breaks, rest breaks
Before unions agitated for meal breaks and rest breaks to be introduced, workers were required to work the whole day without a break. In 1973, workers at Ford in Melbourne engaged in industrial action over many issues, one of their demands being a proper break from the production line.
Unfair Dismissal Protection
Unfair Dismissal Protection came from the concept of a “fair go all round”, after the Australian Workers Union took a case to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on behalf of a worker who had been unfairly sacked in 1971. Since then, unions have campaigned for laws that reflect that ‘fair go’ principle, which is about having a valid reason to sack someone and that the dismissal cannot be harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Green Bans
‘Green bans’ and ‘builders labourers’ became household terms for Sydneysiders during the 1970s. A remarkable form of environmental activism was initiated by the builders labourers employed to construct the office-block skyscrapers, shopping precincts and luxury apartments that were rapidly encroaching upon green spaces or replacing older-style commercial and residential buildings in Sydney. The builders labourers refused to work on projects that were environmentally or socially undesirable. They developed a ‘new concept of unionism’ encompassing the principle of the social responsibility of labor: that workers had a right to insist their labour not be used in harmful ways.
Proper unionised workers fighting in solidarity CAN protect their interests through resistance.
They want to pay for an actor’s likeness once then own it for a lifetime.
But isn’t trying to forbid those kind of deals doomed to fail? What if the digital actor doesn’t look like anybody? What if they scan actors from other countries?
<a history of union achievements in Australia>
I’m not arguing about the benefits of unionization, my question was about what happens when a machine becomes more efficient than a human worker. Do you think a union could have saved the switchboard operators? How is it any different from this scenario?
I don’t think it’s inevitable that a technology that has an advantage to business is destined to succeed. We’ve been able to ban a number of technologies that are ultimately more harmful in the long run, CFCs, engineered stone, asbestos and even recently the EU banned facial recognition AI. We just need to help people recognise the harmfulness of a technology.
Do you have an example of a technology that is more efficient than human labor, doesn’t have those side effects and was successfully held back just to keep jobs?
I feel facial recognition is more efficient than human labour. But the dangers of its misuse were too high for the EU to stomach. Seems like a similar issue here, but it’s the unions stepping up to force regulation because the government is too weak and stupid to do it itself.
The misuse of unfettered AI actors does pose real danger of unintended side effects not just to jobs but to society as a whole.
The union negotiations could include in the contract that AI generated actors are not allowed when SAG is involved.
That doesn’t completely stop AI, since they could try to use non union actors or no actors at all.
The issue with AI is that it is software, and software can scale very quickly. So large amounts of jobs could very quickly get automated without allowing workers and the economy to slowly adjust over time. Switchboard operator was just a single job in a single industry.
It will also lead to more consolidation of wealth since existing bussinesses stand to make great savings getting rid of people, and the AI itself is privately owned. Funny enough, this could also blow up in their face since that creates inventive for people to vote.
The union negotiations could include in the contract that AI generated actors are not allowed when SAG is involved.
Ok, but if they want to ban all forms of AI then we are no longer just talking about the morally reprehensible example of a studio buying an actor’s likeness in perpetuity. They want AI gone even when it’s used in a more sensible way which is understandable from their point of view but less so for the rest of us.
It’s actually very different. An AI is not something that you just go build and then it’s immediately useful. One an AI is built it needs to be trained in a process where it is exposed to examples of real works (text, image, video, etc) and “learns” how to reproduce similar works. This learning process involves using the real works to fine tune parameters of a large mathematical model. These tuned parameters are what make the AI an AI and not just a useless pile of random numbers. So arguably, the owner of every work used to train the model is as much a contributor to the AI as the AI company itself.
These media companies not only want to use artists’ works to train a model that they will not be given any ownership of, they want to also own the rights to an artist’s image and likeness to be able to reproduce that image and likeness in a potentially infinite number of derived works without needing to compensate the artist.
You forget that we now have the tools to simply erase the biosphere and humanity now. I, for one, am not convinced that we won’t attempt to do so before the end of this century. If/when that happens, regardless of whether it’s successful in wiping out humanity, it will certainly wipe out AI, along with any technology more advanced than a hammer.
I don’t know if this is a hot take or not, but I want to throw out an opinion to feel out the room. While I do believe in unions, and I understand that some actors are making significantly less than a living wage… Part of me is really into replacing the lot of them with AI. I’m honestly kind of sick of celebrities with obscene amounts of wealth. And, in the next few years, when companies start switching out their CEOs for AI programs, I’ll be really ok with that also.
Celebrities with obscene amounts of money is like 1% of actors. Most of them are just Joe shmoes in the background. Actors should get their fair share, I think it’s pretty simple, even famous people have been sharing the low amounts they make from streaming.
At least celebrities really only get paid what the market dictates and actually provide joy/entertainment to the people that willingly give them money. 100% of CEO’s exploit to make their billions - and they’ll never get replaced, they “need” to be in charge, replace everyone else though, they like how cheap it is.
Those regular shmoes can do theatre then. Until they get replaced by hyper realistic androids of course.
That’s not how it works or ever will work.
I appreciate you honestly giving your opinion when it conflicts with the popular sentiment, and I don’t think you should be downvoted for that.
But this is such a shit take, wtf.
I think this is probably more getting at the issue of income inequality, which certainly exists in Hollywood as well as most walks of American life. UBI would go a long way towards mitigating the worst of it.
Also, I love the prospect of AI replacing CEOs. For one, their obscene salaries could be divested across the workforce to level the playing field even more. But you have to wonder if the “ruthless CEO” mentality, to generate ever increasing profits by any means necessary, is a feature not a bug…and whether it would be considered the same by the curators, or maintainers, of said AI
The first part is kind of what I’m hoping for. AI and machines in general seem like they’re somewhat poised to take over most human activity. Historically, this has been more of a blue collar problem with machines taking over factory positions and such, making a very dystopian future quite probable. However, recent advances have shown that we’re all likely on the chopping block, from street sweepers to high powered lawyers and corporate executives. An even playing field seems like it would be more likely to lead to things like universal basic income, as human toil on all levels is rendered obsolete.
Yeah I hear you, the future is bright if we can escape the grip of capitalist grindset - aka, WASP work ethic. Why should we have to toil the majority of our waking lives just to survive? Can the AI set us free, and if it does, will advancement grind to a halt beyond this point? These are some big questions that will need answered in our lifetimes.
I personally think the machines can be our emancipation to usher in a new era of enlightenment, but they could just as easily be our destruction. One thing that gives me hope is that it really seems the boomer generation are the ones most hell-bent on amassing wealth and power just for the sake of it. Most of the rest of us would be content just to have a decent life. Hopefully as the older generations give way to time, we can realize a more equitable future for all.
I don’t know if this is a hot take or not, but I wanna throw out an opinion to feel out the room. There are other people that work on movies and TV that don’t get paid handsomely like actors. But you, an actual sociopath, are of the opinion that they should be replaced by AI.
Don’t come crawling to us when you get your ignorant wish. You’ll be begging for quality movies and TV and we’ll have been relegated to a career change because you were so myopic and shitty. In a society without art and entertainment, life will be even shittier than the wage slavery we’re all in now.
If anti-union people like you were in charge, we’d still have child labor, 7 day workweeks, even lower wages, and actual fascism.
Bud, you don’t know me at all. Perhaps you could use a bit of AI to enhance your people prediction. Have an awesome day.
First, I want to say that AI is not the major issue, a complete change in business model is. AI is just a very salient way of communicating how much things have changed. It’s kind of cipher for the larger issues.
Within a certain context, AI could be fine. If someone generates AI models and a student film uses open source software and public domain libraries to make something with a shoestring budget, that’s great. The problem is when a studio takes the same budget, but pays what used to go to early career actors to their brother in law’s social media advertising business, and produces a show that looks shittier and dries up the pool of actors coming into the business, at which point the only main actors a generation later are celebrities kids.
I also agree that the financials should be far more evenly distributed. The base pay for lower billed actors should be higher, and the pay for higher billed actors lower. But the best way to do that is to force higher pay for lower billed actors.
I mean, yea. Happy to have AI as a player in the free market, the problem is that it requires a $0 salary so, kind of unbeatable as far as capitalism is concerned.
Why pay $1 to make $2, when you can pay $0 to make any number over zero? It scales infinitely, unlike the planets resources or human tolerance.
And, in the next few years, when companies start switching out their CEOs for AI programs, I’ll be really ok with that also.
Prediction markets have been superior to human CEOs for years now, and companies still haven’t switched over. Since you’re expecting AI will replace CEOs very soon, you should just support actors until after CEOs are replaced.
This is not a hot take. Lower paid actors not getting is absolutely appalling and should be fixed asap. It’s also ironic that these high earning, obscenely rich high profile actors going after CEO are calling for “equality”. Pot calling kettle black much?
It’s not like movies and TVs have budgets, a lot of which is spent on the high profile actors that rake in a ton of money, robbing lesser know other actors of their fair pay. /s
Why don’t they lead by example and attempt a movie or two gratis in an attempt to fix the problem?
I think there’s paranoia around AI, and it’s unfounded.
That’s an interesting take. I don’t see it as a pot calling kettle black situation, rather as the a-listers helping the less lucky majority. It seems to me as solidarity. I think a-list actors deserve the money they get - they’re the top of the top and they must sacrifice their anonymity, they can’t live a normal private life anymore. The important thing here is the less known actors (and every worker, really) should be paid a proper wage that’s enough for a comfortable life.
100% I agree. The core issue is that every worker should be paid their fair wage and of course there is going to be wage disparity because skills and experience are across a spectrum, but people should feel they are compensated justly for their time and efforts. No matter what, this needs to happen.
I don’t totally agree that a-list actors deserve what they get though. There’s been numerous cases where B list actors have outshone A listers or have done so well that they get become A-listers whereas A listers have thrown in the performance for a paycheck.
If that’s the case, you could make the same claim about CEOs. Being a ceo is not easy, it’s literally changing your life so that you slave day in and out for a company and their shareholders. Whoever disagrees with this has not as much as smelt leadership at a big company (Fortune 500 for example). I work with VPs constantly and have seen their schedules and grind first hand. It isn’t trivial. Would there be exceptions to either side? Absolutely. But, it’s also disingenuous to not look at the realities of a movie making project, with set budgets, which again a lot of these actors eat up.
I want workers and unions to voice their concerns and they shouldn’t have to rely somebody else like an A-list actor and their ill formed opinions about things to contribute to the discussions. We should stop celebrity worship and starting disregarding their opinions because they are just actors. Leave it to the people and parties involved. If they truly care about a cause, they should setup non-profits and advertise those, which they do, to their credit. Making wild claims about AI and simplifying the situation by patronize a cause isn’t the way to go about it.
Realistically, there isn’t a “correct” answer here and it’s all just a discussion. :-)
