Fran Drescher on the SAG Strike and Hollywood’s "Fat Cats”
01:00:00 Share

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Join Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app today and earn your spot at the festival. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Join Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app today and earn your spot at the festival. Learn more at globalcitizen.org slash bots. It's on!

Hi, everyone from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is The Nanny with 100% more babysitting to do. Just kidding. This is On with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Naeem Araza and babysitting tech CEOs and more. That's what we do on this podcast, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. And in this case, we're just referring to Fran Drescher, who is the head of SAG, which is also striking along with the Writers Union in Hollywood. So we're talking to her today.

Yeah. She's our guest today, the actress and comedian who has made famous from The Nanny. Yeah. She's been in a lot of things, but The Nanny is what she really got famous for, which was a long running series in the old times, in the before times. Tell us, Kara, what was it like? Well, it was, you know, she made a lot of money in a series. It was a very popular series when the networks ran the show and ran everything. And that's where you, that's where you went to make a lot of money and a lot of fame, whether it was Friends or The Nanny or

Tons and tons of sitcoms like hers. Days of sitcom television. Yeah. And her most impassioned role of late has been, I guess, more of a documentary one as president of SAG-AFTRA, the union of actors who've joined my union, the Writers Guild of America, in a strike last week. Yeah. That speech that she gave last week. Yeah, it was something. That was something. That was the nanny very pissed off at the kids. Yeah.

She was interesting. I would say it's emotional, but at the very end, she gave a little smile. So I'm like, oh, she's an actor. Like, I forgot. But it was very impassioned. But it seemed authentic, too. It did. Yeah. Yeah, I think so. She was speaking to the base. She was trying to get people fired up. She was sending a warning, a very large warning shot to the studios. You know, there's strategy and emotion here and the use of emotion in strategy. And I want to talk to her about that, obviously. Yeah.

The most memorable moment for me was that when she's saying, what are we doing here? I can't do Fran Drescher's voice, but imagine it's her voice. What are we doing here? Are we moving around furniture on the Titanic? I know she had a lot of colorful phrases, including a leck and a schmeck. I don't even know what that was. In an answer that was in the Q&A later. She's using all her skills as an actor to really get people going. And that's required here because it's going to be a long slog.

The Titanic being, she was referencing this very broken business model of Hollywood, which both sides are saying. The executives are saying the model is broken. Actors and writers are saying the model is broken. Different solutions in play, I would say, from each side. I don't think there's any solutions in play. I think they're all sort of doing their chest thumping kind of stuff. Well, it's really hard to get clear reporting on this. I think some of the best reporting is actually happening from the trades, right? Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, et cetera. But-

SAG-AFTRA and the AMPTP, which is the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which is the networks and the studios, they dispute kind of every single detail of how the talks are going down. Yeah. Well, I was reading the two press releases. There's a lot of little stuff, but really what's important is just...

Really, I think one thing, which is the economics, the residuals and the, at least for the actors, residuals and raises. That's really to me. Yes, I think AI is also a big issue. I know you've said, you kind of waved your hand, said, well, this is going to happen. What's coming, whether you like it or not. But I don't think we could know now. And I think them yelling about it is a lot of hand waving on both sides.

I think one of the real deal points here is that in what the AMPTP had sent to SAG-AFTRA in its first proposal was that actors would show up, like day rate actors, extras, whomever, and then you'd be able to use their name and likeness in perpetuity without additional compensation or consent. And that is problematic. That's background actors, yeah. Yeah, it's already happened. It's already happened on Ted Lasso with the crowds. Of course, and that's a problem because how you get paid in these guilds, how you get...

paid affects your ability to hit your minimums, how you hit your minimums affects your ability to have health insurance. And so the idea that just because you showed up for one day of work and maybe they give you 110%. That's one of the things. It might be an opening bid. I don't know. I think we're super early stages. I've been talking to people all week on all sides of this and people think January. Yeah. I think that might even be early. The latest breakdown, the

SAG-AFTRA representatives have been saying that the producers weren't showing up at the table for negotiations or that they referenced something around, you know, you got to show up in a civilized manner and not strike, which has incensed the guilt. Yeah, I think, you know.

Look, when there's union negotiations, this is sort of part of the playbook. It's just more dramatic here because it's writers and actors. But, you know, this is how these things work. These negotiations work. I don't suspect they'll go to the table at all. I think the producers aren't united, by the way. Netflix has very different interests than...

then the tech companies, they don't have any particular incentive to settle. And the studios are bleeding money and having a real economic trouble as you can just look at the numbers very simply. The studios, the TV, the television guys will

at some point break with the technology people. Right, they have to. They're not, nobody has the same interests among the producers and a lot of way the actors. And we'll be talking about that because it's a different world. And obviously stars always have leverage and the middle people don't and the background people have even less so and eventually...

will be, you know, they do want to make them gig workers. Those people they do. They don't want to make everyone gig workers. No, no, they don't want to make Brad Pitt a gig worker, but they certainly, the background people are expensive. You know, if you're looking to cut costs, that's what happens, unfortunately. Yeah.

Well, we've been discussing this on our podcast and the context of several episodes, you and I disagreeing on this, but you've also chatted about it on your other podcast, Pivot, where you're not saddled with a union member, a guild member. Yeah, you are. You have an interest. I do not. You and your co-host there, Scott Galloway, have been quite skeptical. And Scott in particular has been skeptical of the complaints I think you have too about executive pay in particular. Yeah.

I'm not skeptical. It's just stock-based. So maybe they should take some stock. I don't know. It's just some of these people get ridiculous amounts of money. Look, David Zaslow's salary is insane. But, you know, looking, like Bob Iger is the one they're attacking right now. It's mostly stock. Like maybe you shouldn't give them that much stock. That's a whole other discussion.

I just think it's kind of up to shareholders. And that's correct. But it's stock based. It's performance based. So I don't know what to say. The stock is down under Bob, right? Yeah, it's not that bad, but not great. But I think some of the solution actually isn't my experience having worked with, you know, networks and studios and distributors before is actually, you know,

your top executives are, there's a lot that's happening with them. They're doing a lot to get stuff made and green light and I understand the job and that is the competitive salary for a studio executive. I do think there are a lot of kind of middle management and you'll get on a call as a writer, producer or whatever and you'll get on a call with lawyers and they'll be like,

30 lawyers, you know. I get it. I get it. I've been in those meetings and I'm often looking at people and going, why am I talking to you? And then I leave. Like, I don't, I don't want to talk to you. This is not a fresh new problem, but yes. Yeah, sure. There's always been executives and, you know, we'll see. Everybody has their side. I do think writers and actors deserve more of it. I've always maintained that.

And I've talked to a lot of people from the very top to the very bottom. I was like, you need to be like startups. You need to own a piece of the pie. You do. You absolutely do. They don't like risk as much, just the way journalists don't like risk as much. Well, actually, we like risk, but there is a problem, which is that there is no more pie when you're buying outright with some of these Netflix deals, right? The waterfalls are such that it's hard to make money on the percentages. Right, but I'm saying, I thought it should have changed a long time ago. Yes. You know, they were very, at one point it called a very big,

I said, you're an overpaid employee is what it looks like to me. And, you know, he was asking why the Instagram creator got billions of dollars. I said, because he owned it. I don't know what to say. That's the way it is up there versus here. And there's downsides to that, too. There's risk taking. There's all kinds of stuff. So it's a complex topic. And I hope she'll really address it instead of saying, you know, Titanic at me.

Maybe she'll address it. The jig is up. The jig is up. That's a lie. That's going to be her campaign slogan. I think she's running for office after I say it. What? Do you think so? The jig is up. We got to ask her about that. Yes, I do. Let's take a quick break and we'll be back with Fran Drescher.

Welcome, Fran. You've had a busy week, I suspect. Just FYI, you can say the line, the jig is up three times. So be careful of when you want to use it, but please feel free to use it. I really actually enjoy that tagline that you're using. And I also enjoyed your Titanic reference. But speaking of Titanic, why did you want to be president of the Guild in the first place at such a turbulent time when the economics are changing so drastically from when you had a hit show?

Well, it wasn't something that I was chasing.

But I do live by life unfolding, which I think is a healthier way to live than always trying to pursue something that's just out of your grasp. And so this was presented to me and I gave it some long and hard consideration. I shouldn't say long because they rarely say we have to know in like three days, you

And I said, well, let me just think about it because I knew it was going to be a major commitment. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that it was an opportunity for me because all of my individual accomplishments throughout my career can be focused on

on this job and allow me to, you know, help this union and bring everything that I've worked so hard at into fruition in this one defining moment.

Did I know where there was going to be a strike? No. Did I know how dysfunctional the union was and how much it was like a microcosm of everything that's wrong with our uber-partisan Congress? No. No.

But I did say that I think I might be more radical than the party that was recruiting me. Right. So they recruited you. Why? Why you? Had you been an activist or-

Well, in other fields, yes. I've, you know, I mean, I got a bill passed in Washington by unanimous consent. I was appointed public diplomacy envoy for the U.S. State Department. I created and executive produced the nanny. I founded

I founded a nonprofit. I've written two New York Times bestsellers. I'm a public speaker. I mean, for a myriad of reasons, I qualified for the job. Oh, I don't think you're not qualified. I'm just curious why they came to you. Well, you know, that's part of it. They actually went to Rosie O'Donnell at first or maybe, I don't know, maybe 10th. I have no idea how many people till I ended up with the opportunity, but yeah.

When they asked Rosie if this would be something that she would be interested in, and clearly they were going after somebody that would elevate the union through by leveraging their celebrity, high profile, I should say. She said, it's not for me, but I know who would be great at it. She's the smartest woman I know.

And go talk to Fran Drescher. And that was when I got the call that, you know, changed everything. All right. Let's get to the lead up to the strike, the first in 63 years of both the unions and the very important issues you're discussing. You said in your press conference that you went in earnest to negotiations and you did sound positive at the start. Why was that?

Well, because we started with peripheral issues. And I think that in hindsight, that was by design on their part. They kind of lumped together different things and they said, can we deal with this chunk first? To us, it feels like they're all a little related to each other. And let's just start here. And it's like, okay, we're going to have to get through everything. And Duncan made a point about,

of saying, you know, please. Explain who Duncan is. Duncan Crabtree Ireland is our national executive director and also our chief negotiator. And he and I work together running the union. So what he said, what about that? He said, please don't underestimate our resolve.

It's what we, you know, there are core issues here that are not going to go away and that we're not going to walk away from. Okay. So we started with some of these peripheral things and felt like we were making headway. Animal safety. I saw some of a couple of little big things.

But that was when I felt, OK, well, we're at least moving. It's a give and take and it's working. And I felt somewhat optimistic. But then as we whittled away and got closer and closer to the core issues, the deal breakers

We were really stonewalled or we got back so little that it was insulting. What specifically happened when you say stonewalled? They just didn't return your calls or they walked out?

That was during the extension. You know, they gave us a very, you know, an unusually small window, the smallest window we've ever had to negotiate a very large contract that represents a lot of different career paths. And so, you know, by the time the contract ran out on June 30th,

We felt, you know, let's see if we can avert a strike. Nobody wants a strike. It's just we're at that breaking point where if we don't get a contract that respects and honors us, we're going to have to strike. Okay, but in earnest, let's extend. The longest extension that we've ever given in any negotiation, that was when they kept canceling our negotiating appointments. Okay.

And locked themselves behind closed doors. And I kind of thought, well, maybe they're duking it out. Maybe there are people in there fighting for us. Let's make a deal. Other people, you know, not wanting to. And then when they finally surfaced, they really had nothing.

I mean, it was like shocking. What were you canceling over? What was going on there? And I think in a way we might have been duped so that they could buy. Because they deny that they did that. They deny that they. Meanwhile, they got another week out of us to promote their summer movies. Okay. And they had the nerve when the extension expired.

that they wanted us to extend again. And I said, after that lousy performance you gave us, are you crazy? So no, we had to talk our members into extending then, but we really wanted to be able to feel like we had left no stone unturned. And so that was what we did. Were you speaking with the WGA during the breakdown and negotiations? Did that impact your decision?

I think Duncan was in conversations with them. I do not think that impacted our decision whatsoever. Um, I'm happy for them that they have this kind of renewed energy because they've been walking the picket lines for over two months. But, um, you know, we're, we compliment each other. We are not the same. Uh,

We have different needs. You do. And, you know, we try and individually go for the best contract that we can. And neither one of us were willing to sell out this time at all. Okay. So I want to play a clip to get into this because the one thing that struck me in this stemwinder of a press conference that you gave was

is the tone that you had of indignation. Now, I think they aren't well-meaning people, so that corporations should have been well-meaning. Let's play this clip first. And so it came with great sadness that we came to this crossroads, but we had no choice. We are the victims here.

We are being victimized by a very greedy entity. I am shocked by the way the people that we have been in business with are treating us. Not believe it, quite frankly. How far apart we are on so many things.

they plead poverty, that they're losing money left and right when giving hundreds of millions of dollars to their CEOs.

This is quite a speech, this whole speech. That was just one part of it. But loaded words, victim. At the end of that, you said it's disgusting. You brought in Wall Street and greedy entity. You know, you're not unsophisticated people when dealing with these. You have lawyers and agents. What's the strategy here to focus in on that? Is this directed at your own troops or the general public? How did you think going into this very passionate speech? I did not know I was going to make a speech.

They had teleprompters and something typed. I glanced down at it and I said, I have to speak from the heart. And our chief of communication said, you do whatever is good for you. And that just came out of my mouth. All of that just came out of my mouth. So, you know, I live my life differently. I've been in leadership. I'm a boss. I employ people.

but always with respect and honor. This is the way I just am. I come from a very humble and provincial background. When I was a small child, my dad worked two jobs. So, you know, to me, you honor the people that work for you. You make them feel respected. You give them a piece of the pie.

So it's not this mentality of, you know, marginalizing you and squeezing you out of every last dime. I looked at those people across the table and I thought, what is this business you are in?

It's how do you sleep nights? Your whole job is to screw us when we are the foundation of your business. You talked about that you were supposed to be the center of the wheel. Let me, were you surprised though, in terms of that, having been the boss, having been in Hollywood, you're not an ingenue who doesn't understand this. So this, where does, you were surprised by this, this kind of attitude that you didn't think they thought that of you, presumably, correct?

Not that they didn't think they thought it of me, but that they thought that this wasn't going to be a seminal negotiation when the industry has changed so dramatically. Right, right. You know, all of these AI and streaming things.

And digital, all of it. So I was surprised that they gave us so much pushback when to me, it makes perfect sense that if you're going to change the business model, where's the big surprise that the contract has to change too? We're dealing with a contract that structure was created in 19.

In 1960. Yeah, it's a different industry. So one of the things that you did zone in on is inequity. It's a different world. It is indeed. We were talking about inequity. Let me read a quote from Lainey Gossett, which is one side of this. They're not here to negotiate in good faith and work towards a solution where everyone gets their piece of the pie. They want the whole pie. They want the pie shop. They want to turn screenwriting into Uber.

and acting into DoorDash. The end goal is for Hollywood to become a strict gig economy where labor is reduced to on-demand services for pennies, yet corporations and the men who run them get even richer as everyone else starves around them. React to that quote first. What do you think, what they're saying? Do you think they want to turn screenwriting into Uber and acting into DoorDash and make you all gig workers or a lot of you gig workers? I think that the...

The bottom line in what is a collaborative art form is getting more shareholder money by getting more subscribers. That's at the core what the issue is. And then you've got the CEO that gets massive bonuses with the shareholder money.

you know, success. So it's very tied in with Wall Street and it has turned its back on the creative people that are foundational to the business. So I, you know, I can't really speak to if we're all going to be, you know, that's not my vernacular. All I can say is that we stand up

at a time when big business feels like it's okay

to marginalize people and systematically squeeze them out of their livelihood while those at the top are fat cats and the people that are the shareholders and major and minor investors are also getting rich off of the backs of the people that actually are rich.

The product. Doing the work.

This is unsustainable. They are so key to who we are and what this business is. It behooves us to be inclusive and make them happy. And I have proved that as an executive producer, you know, and as an employee.

over and over again. So you've made this about a bigger labor struggle and cast it as this worker plutocrat fight. Let's play this clip when I thought it was very important what you said. The eyes of the world and particularly the eyes of labor...

are upon us. What happens here is important because what's happening to us is happening across all fields of labor by means of when employers make

Wall Street and greed their priority and they forget about the essential contributors that make the machine run. So talk about that because it's an emotional appeal. It's a class. It's a class appeal. It's a financial appeal. Sometimes these things can backfire. How do you think about using that? Well, I...

it is what it is. It's not sometimes these things can backfire. I'm not manipulating anything. It's really obvious what's happening and it's happening everywhere. I was in Santa Monica and there was a little box on wheels delivering stuff. And I thought to myself, that used to be a person on a bicycle. What happened to that person? When I make a, uh,

an airline reservation. You know, I have to, I'm going through this robot all the time. And I keep saying, I want to speak to a person. I want to speak to a person until it, you know, I finally get to a human being and nine out of 10 times, they're not even American. When I get an American, I'm

They're real. You know, I find them to be excellent at what they do and the company should hire more of them. But I think that this is something that's happening everywhere. And, you know, it's like the frog in the water. You're not even realizing that in before we know it, we're cooked.

So when you talk about the pay of the executives, talk to me about why that I get why you're doing it in the case of you use, for example, Bob Iger of Disney as an example. Most of his his compensation of that twenty seven million is in his stock grants based on performance. And you're saying he is a conflict of interest. You tell me why that is.

Tell me, and should actors own stocks so that they're all in the same boat that way, the way startups in Silicon Valley do? They are all in the same boat in that regard. First of all, nobody that makes $78,000 a day should talk to us about what's realistic. That's the first order of business. The second thing is when it's his fortune is tied so heavily to that, you know, stock performance, then...

How does it should be tied to how he runs the company, what the general psyche of the company and the feeling of everybody in it is?

But that's not it. So he is being also like he's a certain type of personality that is going to put his own personal wealth and ambitions over doing the right thing. Do the right thing. How much money do you need? You're going to be the richest one. Isn't that enough without taking the food off the table? Yeah.

of the journeyman performer. It's like, I don't even know who these people are or how they think. The reason I'm asking this is, do you think actors and writers should own parts of these companies the way startups in Silicon Valley do? Everyone owns the company there. It's a risk.

I think that our new structure with this new business model should be tied to subscriptions. For me, the stock market should have a big casino sign above it with flashing lights. That's not my jam.

But if the business model that has so significantly changed our industry is tied so heavily to subscribers, then we need in on that pocket. Right. In that particular day. And we'll figure out who gets what. Right. But we're building this platform. Right.

All they want to do is keep looking at the pocket that they keep reducing, reducing, reducing. The residuals, which they were getting before. Residuals based off of much shorter episodics, much shorter series seasons, and no tail, no syndication, no nothing. It's not the place to really have a meaningful bargain. We'll be back in a minute.

So let's talk about this. I'd like you to stack rank the specifics of this three-year deal and the point you made, which is you cannot change the business model and not expect the contract to change too. Let me do it first. I think the economics, residuals and wage increases. The second is various working conditions. And the third for me is AI, which because it's still unknown and we are not going to know the impact well beyond three years. How do you look at it? I would assume the economics, the top of your list. Yeah.

You know, AI is a very serious concern. I don't think that there is, you know, a top. I think that everything has to be dealt with and nothing can be neglected. It's going to be...

a seminal negotiation and they're not going to want to do it because they want to give away ice in winter. That's all you get. And not even that much. Okay. So let's start with the residuals, how to replace residuals. Cause that's really what's happening. And this would carry people. Well, we're not entirely wanting to replace residuals. It's okay what it is. And we'd like the caps to be raised, but, um,

There isn't enough product and enough airings of it and enough tail to it to compare to what it was based off. Right, right. People, Netflix, for example, pays residuals, but they're much smaller and they diminish over time much quicker. And we don't have any transparency about-

How they're coming up with these numbers. We have to what? Believe them? Yeah, exactly. Years ago, I talked to the guy who ran Modern Family. He didn't get numbers and that was a big hit show. But I'm curious what you made for the nanny can compare and contrast for today. How would you look at that? The nanny was the old business model, which actually very successfully shared the wealth with all the above the liners. And, um,

Each season, we might do 28 episodes in a season. Now you're lucky if you get 10. So that's two thirds less. We would go six, seven, nine, 10 seasons if a show was considered successful. Now it's limited to three or four seasons. And then that's it. They came up with the term limited series.

So the old model was predicated off of eyeballs and ad dollars. And as long as those two things were there, it stayed on the air. Longevity was the name of the game. And after it ran on broadcast television, network TV,

Then it went into syndication. It went on cable. It went around the world and it kept making money. So whether you were a regular or a guest, that didn't matter. You would always get a little residual.

in your mailbox. And that was the thing that kept people going. But why did you get that residual? Because the studio kept making money. Are you still making money from the nanny right now? Yes, I am. You are. Yeah. Through residuals. Well, I created it also. So that's a different kind of ownership. Is it on a streamer right now? It is. It's on Max. And do you get the old residuals, the same ones, even though it's on a streamer?

I don't, you know, I have a different deal structure. I don't really get residuals. I get a piece of the sale. Right, a piece of the sale when they sold it. So every couple of years...

You know, whoever they negotiate with, our parent company is Sony. And whoever they get, you get a piece of that. Now, so SAG is now demanding 2% of the revenue generated by streamers. Is that correct? With an outside audit to guarantee transparency, which you just were talking about. Actually, that was a proposal. Right, a proposal. With always the caveat that the amount wasn't the issue.

nor was the technique of how we did it wasn't the issue. Just come back to the table and let's talk about it because that's the pocket that is where we can have a meaningful negotiation. Right.

I even said when we called, we initiated calls with some of the CEOs in the 11th hour because we weren't getting anywhere with the negotiating team of the AMPTP. And they kept saying, you know, we don't...

we can't do that. We're producers and we don't have, you know, a piece of that. So we can't give away what we don't have. And you know what it was like talking to Sam Drucker on Petticoat Junction. He took off this hat. He was the man. He put on that hat. He was the postman. It was like, what?

That's a reference. Okay. Okay. So, but their argument is that streaming, which they have to be in, they have to be in, is a money losing business for most of them. Disney's losing billions. Max is losing billions. Most Paramount, certainly. They're all, the only one that's making money is Netflix at this point. They're saying there's no profits, at least for a while, and not in the form of real money. And again, the only value is created through stock increases because they're doing this. Right.

What would be acceptable for you to get in that subscription pocket? How are you looking at that? You know, I think that we would be happy with just getting a piece of each subscriber, even if it's a half a point. And then we'll divide it up as we see fit. And that would create a whole different, instead of us saying,

you know, trickling down into a career that no longer is sustainable, our union would be able to flourish. And I mean, I had a meeting with the CEO of the NFLPA. Explain what that is. Oh, that's for the, that's like us. It's the Labor Association for the NFL players. Mm-hmm.

And Dee said to me, you know, we figured out a way to make more revenue and getting into the appropriate pocket for this business model. So should it be part of revenues or profits? I'm just curious because revenues seems if they're not making money, they're going to lose even more money giving you money. Well, it's always revenues. Revenue sharing. That's it.

You know, there's money there. People are making money. They just don't want to give us our piece of that, even though they're building their entire platform on our backs. Right. So you don't think you need to share in the risk of losing money in that regard? That's their argument. I'm just parroting their argument. I think that we need to get...

If there's a subscriber, look, it's like any other business. You have a Bottega on the corner. You have rent to pay.

You have merchandise to pay for. And then you go out and you try and sell to the neighborhood. That's what the average business model is. You pay for everything. We have to be factored into however they chop up that pie. So whatever. Netflix said, well, 80% goes to production. It's like, well...

have one less flying dragon and give it to the performers. One less flying dragon. So the other one is the increases in wages. You've asked for 11 and directors, I know you've discussed this, went for 5%, going to 3%. Why that much? And they've offered, I guess, background players that increase, but not everybody. I know there's no pattern bargaining. I get it. But what is the reason for that?

Well, we need to catch up to inflation. So with the 5% in real money, we won't be making what we made in 2020. And this is supposed to sustain us till 2026. I can't go to these working people with that deal. I mean, I'm even trying to understand why the directors agree to that.

And then I'm watching all these directors selling their movies on TV. And I'm thinking, well, maybe they wanted to close for fear that we were going to go on strike and at least they could still go out and sell their movies. I don't know. But to me, it's a sellout. And I got an email from a director friend of mine who's part of, I guess they divide their union into pods. And there's a pod leader. The pod leader sent out to his pod,

my speech and said, this is the way real leadership puts it. So I think that they're beginning, subsequent to us going on strike and seeing how much energy is happening now because it has awakened a global labor movement. They're kind of...

Left behind with 5%. Okay. So you're going to stick with that. You're going to stick with that 11%. Otherwise we're losing money. Otherwise you're losing money. Okay. We need to catch up to inflation. Okay. So AI... And this is for the base salaries. These are for the people...

that make what's considered in the outside world minimum wage. Okay. All right. So AI, you said is very important to you. Actors, unlike writers, don't want to ban AI. They want consent and also profit.

Studios are offering a version of that that you had talked about previously. I still wonder if you think there can be agreement when so much is uncertain and nothing can be quite guaranteed at this moment. Because I don't think they know and I don't think you know where it's going. But you want this in place now. Well, they definitely don't know. They don't even know where streaming's going. And yet they dived in headfirst without any concern about any kind of recourse.

And that gives us all the more reason. They keep saying, we don't know. We haven't made that. So it's like, so what? You want me to trust you with AI now, technology? Mm-hmm.

So that you can dig yourself a deeper hole and pull us down with you. Forget about it. It must have barricades put around it. And what would those be? What is your top barricade that you want? Is that if they use your likeness, they pay you. Consent and payment. Payment when it's every, every time it's used, every time it's used. Consent and payment. Yes. Because otherwise we're going to be

You know, we don't even know. And it's not just me. It's you. It's everybody can be replaced. What happens here is significant because the eyes of the world are watching. Right. I don't know what it is about this species that feels like it's OK to get rid of human beings.

And willy-nilly and not with any long vision of how it's going to impact people. It's just like accepted. Yeah. Right. Well, it did happen. It did happen in farming. When it met and recognized, it happened in manufacturing. Farming is in the crapper. I get it. I get what I'm saying. I happen to know a thing or two about farming. You brought it up.

and that's my pet peeve. Because industrial farming, yeah, it didn't stop with the tractor. Sorry. It went all the way to...

unbelievable animal abuse and complete unsustainable patterns of farming that have lowered the nutrient value of everything we eat. Okay. And so you're saying this has an analog in that, I mean, a comparative that this may not be the right way to go at all, period, in any way, even though that's the way it's going. Well, I think that when you put greed above

you know, what is in the best interest of the collective, you're ultimately, because we're all in the same boat, we're all going to sink. Right. At some point, you have to be able to factor in how actions are going to impact people, environments, other life,

Everything, you know, and I don't see any real evidence of that. I see a lot of greed and a lot of power and a lot of, you know, testosterone. I don't see a lot of mindfulness there.

about how actions- How it all lists together. So here, let's get back to this strike. At some point you have to settle. And I know you said the jig was up, but you eventually have to settle. What are the next steps from your perspective? They don't want to talk to us. So there's no next steps. We would have started talking the minute we said we're on strike. They're punishing us, you know, the land barons. Okay.

Okay. Can they wait out the strike? A lot of people feel that they can. Who's they? The studios. Can they wait out a strike? I can't speak for them. No. I do not know. I know, but you've got to look at their position if you're trying to leverage your position. Their position is to stonewall us. If their position was, you know what, they have a point, let's sit down and break bread, it could all be resolved. But to say no...

You can't be in that pocket, even though the other pocket has dwindled down by 66%. So how do you get them back? You have to at some point. One studio had told me they don't expect to settle until January, which is a long time from now. Listen, they said we want to break the WGA. So that's their mentality. They're not...

They're not looking to work with us. They're looking to destroy us. So where's the resolution? Another person said, you know, if people lose their homes, that is a necessary evil. We put that on a whiteboard.

I saw that. A little bit of a blind quote, but I'm not sure. Do you think someone in real power said that? I've never heard a student. No, no, no. This is when we were in the negotiating room. Right, right. Oh, I see. Okay. That's correct. And we were in a, you know, like a cone of silence while we were in the negotiating room. Once the strike was declared, you know, we're allowed to speak. So where is this resolution? Do you see any at this point?

Somebody is going to have to have character and courage. Somebody is going to have to say, we need to work with these people and not try and marginalize them or make them feel disrespected. We're doing something wrong if this is how they feel. When I entered this union and I saw the level of partisan dysfunction,

I said, you know, this should never be. This has to be blamed on leadership because people are always going to fall into the obvious pit, you know, if they're let loose. So you need very strong leadership. From the studios. From the studios. Within the union to get out of the uber partisanship. The only reason why I bring this up.

is because you need a breath of fresh air. You need somebody to say, we have to do it a different way. This isn't right. It's not working. There's enough wealth for everyone. Yes, the model, you know, is still...

you know, developing and growing, but we have to take the foundation upon which we are building this business along with us. And we have to make sure they're happy. All right. So how do you hold your group together? And I'm just curious, I'm going to ask you two, two part questions. Why can't SAG, WGA and DGA find a way to combine into one guild? They are different needs, but the current system isn't working.

And some people think one artist union should be explored. Have you heard for more power? Do you think about that? Well, why do you say the current system isn't working? It doesn't necessarily. It's at some point your members or their members at WGA are going to start to feel the pressure.

You realize, you know, at some point, if it drags on and drags on, how do you combat that? I'm just saying, if all three of you were going on strike right now, I think it would be even more powerful. It's more powerful with the two of you on strike, for example. The last thing I said to them was, now you couldn't make a deal with two unions. Congratulations. And we got up and marched out.

I think that it was very difficult for SAG and AFTR to merge. It's difficult because they're different cultures. They're run differently and they have different needs. We have an ongoing dialogue and we're mutually supportive of each other. Sure, sure. I think for the moment that's, you know,

All we can think about at this point. All right. What can fans do to support A Strike? For example, should people not watch content now? I went to the Barbie premiere last night in D.C. It's a fantastic movie. By the way, Greta Gerwig was there as a director. And people were asking me, what do SAG and W.A.J. want? And I said, I think they want you to still go to movies. But...

How do you look at that? Should people start to boycott content? Many people were asking me that. Well, I say, think about where you're spending your money and what companies you're supporting. Become mindful because otherwise it's very tough to win on behalf of the little guy. But eventually, you know, that well is going to run dry. They're going to run out of product.

They've got a lot of product, Fran. Okay. I'm just, they have a lot of nannies. They have a lot of seasons of the nanny, for example. So when you, when you think about that, should people stop watching? I'm not really, I don't feel like I can talk about a strategic move to unilaterally get people to shut off their apps, but

You know, people can do what they want. You didn't say it first. Let's put it that way. Yeah. Okay. Last question. I'm curious, do you want to run for office? Several people suggested that to me after that speech. It sounded...

I have been asked that so many times over the years. And when I'm in Washington, D.C. and I I have legislative success there. You know, it's not really been the forum that I felt that I could leverage what I'm about and my celebrity and my reach because it's so bureaucratic and so partisan.

So, you know, yeah, when people hear an authentic voice that makes sense to them, they want them to represent them. And I find that extremely compelling and flattering, you know. But I've always kind of vacillated about that because I felt like sometimes I have greater ability to speak freely outside of

of that than inside. So this is the end game right now? I'm not going to say this is the end game, but I'm a Buddhist and I try and stay present. So this is the game now. This is the game now. Are you hopeful or not hopeful at this moment? I'm very hopeful. I'm very hopeful because our resolve is very strong.

Very last question. I'm sorry. What is a lek and a schmeck? Is that correct? Nothing with nothing is the most easy translation. Nothing for nothing. Nothing for nothing. Yeah, I mean, we got nothing with nothing. Nothing with nothing. All right. I really appreciate it. And again, your speech was quite something. I watched it about 10 times and it was really, it was very, my kids watched it. It was interesting. Yeah.

And they thought it was great. Anyway, good luck with your negotiations. I think it's a hard road for every single member on for you. It is. And I appreciate the time. Thank you. I appreciate it. And I appreciate your support and you have a great show and I'm proud to be on it. Thank you.

The fat cats. It's a revolution. Dystopia. It's a crossroads. Yes, she was. She didn't. She didn't disappoint. She did not disappoint. She said at the end, I mean, one of the things is before going into this conversation, we said the speeches to date have been performative, very strong language. We wanted to move past that in this conversation to the substance of the issues. Do you think we were able to do that?

Yeah, I do. I think she talked exactly what they want. They want a piece of the subscription pie in a very significant way. I think, you know, ultimately you have to do that performative stuff when you're in these negotiations. I do feel a lot of, as I talk to writers and actors, and I oddly enough met a very well-known actor on the train the other day, Michael Kelly, who played Doug Stamper in House of Cards.

And, you know, I think he was explaining sort of how his career went. And I think everyone is very worried about the changing economics and the contracts have not been changed. Now, the thing is, there is going to be less people just as it's happened all through many industries. And she's right. Maybe we should rethink that. I don't think they will because capitalism always wins in some fashion. A couple of things. I mean, one, I think some people would see it as performative. I also think it's genuinely authentic. 100%. And-

I think the business solution is, yeah, get a percentage of the pie. The reason being, how can this industry, which is under the gun in some ways from social media, right? How can this industry have aligned incentives? How can it not be that we're at the negotiating table across from one another, but that we have...

we share in an incentive to grow the pie, which is, you know, genuinely, we've seen this in tech, we've seen this in elsewhere, you know, giving equity to people is a good idea. But this is not the history of this industry. Of course not. This industry has been Hollywood moguls and the people beneath them. That's, and some stars. And so I think in this new scheme, it's, you do have to cut and they're trying to get more efficient. And I agree with her that maybe we should think of a different way, but I don't,

I don't agree with her. And I think that's what's going to happen. I think you might want to look at the middle, the bloating middle of the executive side, not the, not the top. At some point you can't cut anymore, but you certainly can cut a lot as, as you move digitally. And that's the problem. And I think that's, that's the real collision here is with tech companies and it's still the fight that they, I think they're all threatened, both the company's actors and writers by the tech industry.

tsunami. And that's, that's really what I don't think they get. And history isn't that instructive here because I think there's very big difference now than say 20 years ago, both in terms of the connectivity of stars, writers, creators to audiences. And audiences. Yeah. It's just the disintermediation of the gatekeeper, which we talk about a lot. And then two, right now there's a sentiment. And I mean, she was articulating it very clearly, like big businesses, fat, you know, fat cats, big business. There's a

sentiment that a few industrialists are keeping everyone else down. And I think these strikes are tapping into the heart of that. I agree. I have said that to very wealthy people about inequity. As you know, I say you either, it figures this out in some humane way or you armor plate your Tesla. The problem is they kind of want to armor plate their Teslas and they don't mind. And I do think, you know, my heart is with Fran Drescher. My head is like, hmm,

Maybe not. You may not win here. Anyway, we'll see. It's a really, it's a very complex situation and there's no easy answers here. But I thought she's been an interesting leader for them. I want to see what happens three months down the line when the yelling doesn't work. The part she said about the partisanship of the guild was really interesting. Was she throwing Andrea from 90210 under the bus? No.

No one touches Andrea. No, I think she's talking about unions can be that way. Well, she was talking about her union in particular. The leadership of that union has led to a- Yeah, well, she's run her own company. She doesn't make sense to her. Yeah. You know, and she's been caught in vaccine controversy. She's been caught in a lot. I mean, everybody has something they're fighting over these days. And so I think that's what she was talking about. And she doesn't think it-

It makes sense. I think it must be hard to play the middle ground in this day and age as she talked about. I don't think it makes sense for everyone to get under one guild, by the way. I don't know. I think almost like the executives look a little weaker that they can't negotiate. I thought her line was great. Yeah, that was great. Now you can't reach a deal with two. Now you can't reach a deal with two. I'm going to go with a leck and a shmexia. They must be like, what?

Like, oh, bring Andrea back. She seems so smart and brainy. Like, because she's not going to give them one inch that they aren't going to pay for. And I kind of like that about her. I like her. She's very honest. Very honest. She told us a lot about farming. She is.

Told her a death about call centers. They were a little bit controversial. You know, she did the whole wacky thing on the nanny and oh, I can't believe I just got locked in this closet. You know, that was like a plot for an entire episode, whatever. She is as smart as they come in terms of creators, in terms of she ran the place, she created it, she executive produced it. She's a wise one, that Fran Drescher. She reminds me a little bit of Lucille Ball.

Like, right? So Ball ran the fucking show and she was the show. And so that's where I'd put her in the lexicon. Just they seem kooky, but, you know, they're not as kooky as they look. I don't even know if she seems that kooky. Maybe. I mean, she's like, she seems kooky. Well, you didn't watch The Nanny. Right.

Hey, we're going to go watch The Nanny. Read us out, Kara. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Today's show was produced by Naeem Araza, Blakeney Schick, Kristen Castor-Russell, Megan Cunane, and Megan Burney. Special thanks to Mary Mattis. Aaliyah Jackson engineered this episode, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you're a fat cat, but the good kind. If not, the jig is up.

Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more.