Paramount & Dreamworks Animation Open Cannes: Sacha … 
Cannes: Hot Film Titles For U.S. Buyers 
Bill Block’s QED Gets Cash Infusion From Media … 
Aaron Sorkin To Script ‘Steve Jobs,’ Based On … 
Warner Bros Tops $1B At Global Box Office 
Waterstone Enlists Chris Pine And Pals For Indie Comedy … 
Jimmy Kimmel Skewers ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox & The … 
Steve Jobs Biopic Starring Ashton Kutcher To Cannes: … 
Alexander Payne Wants Bruce Dern And Will Forte To … 
Amy Adams In Talks To Venture Into ‘Dark 
ABC’s ‘Mistresses’ Summer-Bound, … 
Alec Baldwin And James Toback Team On Cannes Docu … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: No Howard Stern Surge For ‘America’s … 
CBS Films Acquires ‘Ends Of The Earth’ At 
Student Academy Award Winners Announced 
Can Cannes Make A Major Mark On The Oscar Race Two Years In … 
Single-Camera Comedy Mayhem: ABC, NBC & Fox To Clash … 
2012-13 ABC Schedule: Comedy Block On Friday, … 
2012-13 New Series Leads: Strong Year For Black Actors, … 
Rebekah Brooks First Person To Be Charged In News Corp … 
David Yates Confirms His Exit From ‘Your Voice In My … 
This comes to me from actor Amy Brenneman, who is responding to actor Ron Livingston speaking out here against the SAG petition drive lobbying for an earnings threshold requirement for ”qualified voting” on SAG contract issues. Brenneman takes the “pro” opinion articulated earlier this week by Ned Vaughn here:
“I, too, have been working on the effort to improve SAG contract voting procedures, and I’d like to respond to Ron Livingston’s thoughtful comments.
“In some areas, Ron and I are in complete agreement. I’m pleased he thinks the general principle behind the effort is sound and worthy of discussion. His acknowledgement that he can’t think of a reason to be consulted on contracts that don’t affect him—that he wouldn’t feel qualified to vote on them—is a point of view we share. I don’t receive the Animation VO ballot. That’s not a measure of my ‘talent or worth’, but simply reflects the fact that I haven’t been working in that field.
“The SAG constitution requires that contracts be ratified by ‘the membership affected thereby.’ It doesn’t say ‘the entire membership’ or ‘all members in good standing’ as it does for voting on officers. Nor does it refer to ‘potentially affected members’.
“It seems that Ron’s real concern isn’t whether the constitution should be followed, but how to define ‘affected’. The fact is that virtually every union in the country—including the WGA and Actors’ Equity—has come up with an acceptable and accepted set of criteria. SAG (and AFTRA) can—and must—do it too.
“Ron is concerned about ‘people scraping by, the up-and-comers, and the kids working their first and second jobs’—I am too. It is precisely FOR those members that we need this. When I joined SAG (to shoot a Tampax commercial in Coney Island, no less!) I felt such gratitude that the members who proceeded me had used their experience and expertise to secure a contract that was now protecting me.
“Without a reasonable definition of ‘affected members’, Guild demographics put contract voting overwhelmingly in the hands of those with little knowledge of the contract and no stake in the outcome—and perhaps even a direct conflict of interest. This includes thousands of SAG card holders who work on crews, in writers’ rooms, in studio offices, in entertainment law firms, as management, etc. These members don’t act in film or TV, and their livelihoods would only be hurt if the union held out for a better contract by walking out. How hard will they fight to get actors a better deal?
“We are NOT asking for an earnings threshold. The number of days worked—not amount of money earned—is the common test for ‘affected’ members. For work like ours, it must be averaged over a time span long enough to accommodate the inevitable ‘ups-and-downs’ of our business. The Equity standard is one job (typically at least 6-8 weeks) within the previous 6 years. I believe SAG should consider something similar – perhaps an average of 5 days of principal work and/or 15 days of background work per year, over the previous 6 years. (Three background days has been used as an equivalent of one principal day for union entrance.) Of course, the 6 year period would be prorated for newer members.
“A standard like this—for contract voting only—will broadly include members with working knowledge of the contract and some concrete stake in it. And because it eliminates the influence of those without such a stake, it will give the ‘affected’ members—those who depend on the contract and know it best—an effective voice. This gives maximum credibility to the vote and strengthens our hand in negotiations, which results in better contracts for all members, present and future.
“Ron says there may be a way to change how SAG votes that makes us a more effective union—that it’s a great idea and worth talking about. Once again, we agree.
“This IS that idea, and we are talking about it. And if ever we could benefit from a more effective union, it is right now.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
I’d tell you my name, but you probably have not heard of me, because I am one of those actors who may be stripped of his voting rights by more powerful members. You also probably haven’t heard of me because I am wildly unsuccessful as a television and film actor. I do make a nice living in commercials, however. I think a low man on the totem pole should be allowed to have a say in this debate, because, you know, you’re debating my future without talking to me, as if you are my parents.
I would also like to work on the effort to improve SAG contract voting procedures, and I’d like to respond to Amy Brenneman’s response to Ron Livingston’s response to Ned Vaughn’s response.
Like the others, I also believe this is an area that should be discussed and I think the timing is extraordinarily thoughtful. If this “problem” had not been addressed mere months before negotiations, we wouldn’t be facing the prospect of undermining our union’s attempt to better the WGA contract by destroying the necessary unity needed to strike. It is this sort of carefully executed plan that makes me believe strongly in the cause and drives me to support the Afflecks, Fields and Brennemans of the acting world. Especially Sally, because who can forget her portrayal of Norma Rae, where she stood atop a table in a sweatshop and held up a sign that read: “Union, for some.”
But I have one further suggestion to firm up support and unity in the guild: Purge members who are incredibly successful. I understand this will be controversial, but as Amy recognizes in her letter,
“Ron is concerned about ‘people scraping by, the up-and-comers, and the kids working their first and second jobs’—I am too. It is precisely FOR those members that we need this.”
Indeed. Who is less capable of understanding and sacrificing for the working class actor, than those actors who also work under the title of ‘producer?’ Just as Amy points out that ‘thousands of SAG card holders work on crews, in writers’ rooms, in studio offices, in entertainment law firms, as management, etc.,” we must address the issue of actors who also work as producers. As Amy said, “How hard will they fight to get actors a better deal?” Amy was an executive producer of Judging Amy and a better deal for actors would take money directly out of her pocket.
I only point this out as a way of saying, “My God, what have you people done?” To take a public stance that undermines your own Guild on the eve of negotiations is unconscionable and reckless. You simply cannot tell people who have been paying dues that they to have no say in their union’s contract. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the term “class action lawsuit,” but you can guarantee I’d be looking for my money back if I can’t vote.
I wish you 900 could take the can of worms you opened and put the top back on, but the damage has been done. If successful, you will have forced thousands of union dues paying members to essentially be force fi-cored. That is what taking away the ability to vote means. An entire future generation of actors will be disenfranchised and the union will lose the power of a strong membership for years to come. If unsuccessful, you have split the Guild during this precarious time of negotiations. Many of these members could now vote to spite your movement, in which case you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Haven’t most of you read The Secret?
I had faith in those members who live in difficult times, whose dreams are unfulfilled and who were not blessed with that lucky moment. I believed they would do what is right; because I just walked the picket lines with thousands of WGA members, where I learned the fear, which generated this kind of petition, was unfounded. But I guess hoping the rich would have faith in the poor is asking too much.
Of course, I can’t sign my name to this post, because unlike the successful 900 actors who signed the petition, it could destroy my career. Because many of the 900 actors are also producers, you know, the people we will be negotiating against.
Commercials Jafoowa.
I made over $120k last year and didn’t do any TV or films. I would be excluded?
I say make it a pay level. At least 5-10k.
Frances,
To hell with your petty, ill-informed rant. The Japanese have criticized Americans for being incapable of holding two contradictory thoughts in our heads at the same time. Wait ’till they get a load ‘o you. The whole reason for the miserable & sudden failure of the foolish, oh-poor-me-I’m-a-beleagured-actor 6-month plot to undermine AFTRA as a union that also represents actors and has done so for 59 years in television, is when SAG leadership suddenly realized that AFTRA was damned well going to go to the negotiating table alone if current dope-dreamers on the SAG Board kept up the bully-girl boondogle of imposing bloc voting and proportionality upon Phase 1 – a well-working 27 year negotiating deal between SAG & AFTRA that explicitly forbids both and was written by actors far smarter and more capable of genuine union strategy than the snarling, self-pitying comrades in Membership First, which appears to be going the way of Franco’s Spain right now. SAG is composed of 120,000 actors – 7% of whom ever work. AFTRA is composed of 70,000 actors, broadcasters, singers, voice-overs, background players, show hosts, comedians, stunt coordinators & performers – 50% of whom are taking home union paychecks. AFTRA has jurisdiction over 50% of scripted cable television and 70% of broadcast television on the 24 hour clock.
So the next time you sit down with your aging comrades over whine and cheese, do us all a favor and cogitate upon the concepts of negotiation, compromise, and union solidarity. Complex and subtle, I know, but something that might just be refreshingly different and workable for us performers. If you have any genuine hope for solidarity in the face of the AMPTP machine on June 30, get off the battle wagon and aim your slings & arrows outward, not inward at fellow performers who share both SAG and AFTRA cards with you.
PJB
working actor 1, jafoowa 0
i can’t understand any positive reason why a guild would want lots of members but not let them vote. if nothing else, it sounds like the sag leadership needs to narrow their criteria to join. at least that would be fair.
Hey working actor,
$79K from commercials? Awesome!
I don’t do ‘em myself, but it sounds like you could cast an expert vote on the commercials contract and would work hard to get a good deal next time around—just like I would on the TV/Theatrical contract. That’s how we can protect each other.
Like I said earlier, I don’t support myself from acting alone, but I’ve always worked more than 5 days per year. Even if I didn’t meet that kind of standard, I’d be for it—it just makes sense. Why should someone who hasn’t worked AT ALL for 20 years be voting on a current contract? Because they might get a job? And what if—like Amy laid out above—that person has a direct conflict of interest with working actors? They should still vote? That’s nuts!
And whaddya do about the language of the SAG constitution? Skeptic that I am, I checked and it’s there. Why didn’t the writers of the constitution say “the entire membership” or “all members in good standing” if that’s who they wanted voting on the contracts? They use those words elsewhere in the document, but not when it comes to contract ratification; that is left to “affected” members. If that language has any meaning—and surely it must—“affected” has gotta mean something different than “all”.
Like Amy, I don’t receive the Animation VO ballot. To be honest, I didn’t know there was a separate contract for that until all this came up. And I don’t care even a little bit that I don’t vote on it. Why should I? I don’t do that work, so the contract doesn’t affect me.
But according to the logic of so many—including Frances Fisher above—I should have my panties all in a bunch that I’m not voting on the Animation VO contract because one day, I might get an animation VO gig! (Hey, I do a dead cold Donald Duck.) Sorry, but that seems like a pretty weak argument for being affected. Looking back at the last six years and having a modest work requirement sounds a lot more reasonable to me.
The thing that really got me, though, were some stats. When I read that SAG has 120,000 members, I was surprised—but the shocker is SAG’s growth rate. There are 120,000 members now, but there were only 70,000 in 1990. That’s 50,000 new members in just 17 years! Let’s say the next 17 years adds another 50,000—does anyone think the number of acting jobs will even fractionally keep up with that kind of growth? No way!
What you’d be left with—what you’ve already got, frankly—is a massive organization where only a tiny minority do the work the whole thing is based on. But a huge majority that doesn’t do the work (or very little of it) has all the voting power because of their numbers. That is a train wreck waiting to happen.
People get VERY emotional about this stuff, but look at it rationally and it makes all kinds of sense. I’ve read people saying that 80,000 members would go fi-core if they didn’t get to vote on a contract. Huh? Did that happen when the writers’ guild made their change? Is there some secret renegade writers’ union I don’t know about? Let me get this straight—you’d go fi-core because you didn’t get to vote on a contract, and by doing that, you’d be persona non grata at the union once you finally started working—so you still couldn’t vote. That makes a lotta sense… NOT.
Another reason the fi-core thing makes no sense is that SAG voter turnouts are already really low—I think about 25% or so. So suddenly, the 75% who never vote are gonna get all offended that they can’t vote and quit the union? I kinda doubt it.
And people sure do like to talk about picket lines! Many ask “Who’ll walk the picket lines if everyone isn’t allowed to vote on the contract?” Well, who do you think was walking the WGA picket lines? You think every WGA member in those lines was a voting member? Umm… no.
This one’s a no-brainer if you drop the emotion. I understand it doesn’t feel good to tell people they can’t vote on something. And apparently it feels a helluva of a lot worse for some of those people to hear it. But you know what? You put a standard like this in place and people WILL get used to it. And it will make SAG more effective. For Pete’s sake—SO many other unions do it this way. Of course they do; it makes perfect sense!
Ms. Brenneman,
Thanks for your even-tempered wisdom here. Your thinking represents what our performers unions need most in this intensifying debate — alas the opposite of what lurks in the Hollywood SAG Boardroom as exemplified by Membership First showcase celeb Seymour Cassel who showed his true colors to the WGA at their membership meeting by appearing in the 2/16 NY Post Page Six gossip column:
“February 16, 2008 — The Hollywood writers’ strike may be settled, but veteran actor Seymour Cassel isn’t happy about it. At a recent Writers Guild membership meeting in LA, Cassel said the union caved to management pressure to settle before the Oscars. “I would’ve stayed out. I don’t care what this town wants,” he told The Post’s David Finnigan. “They got it right up the [bleep].” Cassel added as he walked out of the Shrine Auditorium, “And now we’re gonna have to take [bleep] because of it.” Cassel’s rep did not return a call for comment.”…
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/gossip/pagesix/strikers_caved_97830.htm
Seymour, his mock boy-rage, and that of his fellow union-bashers may be vaguely interesting to watch on-screen, but in this important debate it is as constructive and helpful and as a two-headed cow in a county-fair freakshow.
Working Actor II
Timing is everything. It may be all well and good and proper to change the rules after a spirited debate. But given the looming deadlines, it isn’t a debate that should take place ahead of this particular contract, rather the next one. Elsewise, however reasonable and well intended, it just smells funny.
@ichaucheinwerkungactor:
you lose credibility when you resort to ad hominem attacks
perhaps not commenting in the middle of the night would preserve your presence of mind
Sure would like to see people have the courage to sign their names to their posts.
1. All members in good standing have a right to vote in WGA. They qualify membership to their Guild.
2. Aftra allows anyone to join, even if they have no job.
3. SAG requires an actor to have a job in order to join.
4. Leslie Moonves – CBS, Robert Iger – Disney, Jeff Zucker – NBC, all have credits on ImDb – according to Amy B’s criteria, people with conflicts of interest should not be allowed to vote. I agree!
That should go for SAG actors who have production companies as well, right?
******
From the SAG Constitution:
ARTICLE XI
Collective Bargaining, Agreements & Ratification
Section 1. Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Article, all collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.
Section 2. Membership ratification shall not be required for any collective bargaining agreement which the Board of Directors determines in good faith is not to be used in widespread or industry-wide application affecting a substantial portion of the membership, such as agreements covering low-budget films, student films, or the like, and interim contracts of short duration. Such agreements shall, however, be approved by a vote of a majority of the Board of Directors or National Executive Committee voting thereon.
********
5. I have never suggested that anyone get their “panties in a bunch” over not voting on the Animation Contract.
6. The only reason Aftra has “jurisdiction” over 50% of scripted basic cable is because Aftra has gone to individual companies and made deals that offer 10-15 free exhibition days, so that actors get NO residuals, thus no H&R contributions.
7. Want to talk about the 6-year free streaming deal Aftra made with Nickelodeon?
8. Want to talk about the fact that as SAG was working on a formula for residuals on the Interactive Contract, Aftra undermined the process by “negotiating” a deal that has locked actors into working for scale and NO residuals on a billions-of-dollars a year business?
At a time when all actors should be standing together, I find it very interesting that another union would agree to undercutting themselves, and that SAG members would want to disenfranchise any member in good standing in our Guild.
Again: I agree that Vanity Card holders who do not seek work and/or are not vested should not be allowed to vote on anything.
I also think that our own Board of Directors should be held to the same standard. People on our Board should work, and many do not work the TV/Theatrical contract, nor any other contract, yet they make policy. You can go to the SAG website, get a list of our board members across the country, and IMDB them. Do the same for the Aftra board.
And nobody answered my question about the wisdom of allowing weathermen, sportscasters, newscasters, diskjockeys, game show hosts, etc…to vote on our TV/Theatrical contract. Shouldn’t there be a push to disenfranchise non-actors from voting on a contract that does not “affect” them?
I can’t wait to get a response to this question – hopefully from a person who has the courage to sign their name.
One of the reasons the WGA strike was so solid (despite rumors to the contrary) was that the East and West coast guilds had made their peace in advance of the contract negotiations. This enabled them to stay united.
I suggest SAG put off this debate until after your contract negotiations are through. It seems suspicious that this is all coming to a head now…
Stand strong.
Anyone who will be expected to walk a picket line if the union goes out on strike should be allowed to vote on the contract. Period.
Comment by hyphenate — February 15, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
This is the beginning and end of this debate, as far as I’m concerned. I would only add one more thing: anyone who’s expected to pay dues on a timely basis should be allowed to vote on the contract. Period.
And to ichaucheinwerkungactor:
I am neither ranting, nor “ill-informed”. I serve the membership of Screen Actors Guild as a National Board member, and work the TV/Theatrical contract constantly.
The question I put to the petition signers is this:
Why are they not petitioning Aftra to disqualify it’s members (broadcasters, disk jockeys, etc…) who do not work the contract, yet vote on it?
With all due respect to Ms Brenneman, I would ask her if she voted in the last S.A.G. elections and/or any recent referendum? If she has, I would say thank you, but, she is the exception.
Most of the busiest actors in our Guild don’t take the interest or the time. After all, they don’t work for scale and they negotiate their own deals. What can S.A.G. do for them?
I believe the people that sign this “epiphany” about The Problem (they perceive) with our voting system, have been hoodwinked into believing they have something to fear by allowing all paid up members to have a voice in their Guild’s Governance. A democracy demands as much, so what are they afraid of?
Having a strong union comes from numbers and you don’t get those numbers from cutting people out of the process, you get them by bringing lazy, uncaring, uninterested and unmotivated members into the mix.
You want strength… then instead of spending your time spinning this web of illusion, get out there and find all the working actors, qualified by whatever terms you devise and get them to sign the ballot and put it in the mailbox.
Just think if Amy’s plan did pass, All those B-list actors would be rushing over to Central Casting to sign up as Background just so they would not lose their right to vote.
Just imagine a 2nd 2nd AD telling David Hasslehoff how to do a bananna cross.
As for keeping someone who as a conflict from voting, who has a bigger conflict then a actor who is also a producer.
by the way everyone should read section 5
Section 5. Every member of the Guild shall be bound by the provisions of all collective bargaining
contracts in effect between the Guild and motion picture producers as the same are or may hereafter be
amended.
Frances Fisher,
How do you read an eloquent rebuttal like Amy B’s and go on a rant about the SAG/AFTRA merger? Are you illiterate or just so blinded by your obsession that you turn and twist every discussion to your pathetic tirade.
I have a friend who sits with you on the Board of our Guild and he told me straight out last year that you would never allow any sort of affected member voting or qualified voting because you said that that would threaten that mass voting block who put in power. Well now suddenly your “passion” is understood — you want to stay in your queen bee position at SAG, you don’t want anything to threaten your current political power position.
That makes you a pathetic overweight has-been actress who looks in the mirror and sees her ass getting bigger, her talent receding, her looks going and knows that her frightened fragile ego needs her SAG status to maintain the illusion that you matter.
I have been a member of SAG for fifteen years and we can do just fine without your hatred and ranting that is nothing more than sound and fury and signifies nothing other than trying to ensure that the idiot SAG members who voted you in power stay sedated and voting for you.
Retire. Leave the Guild. Your day has past. You have lost touch with what membership wants or needs. Put on your slippers, stay at home, rant at the mirror (where your greatest audience lies) and eats your Twinkies that are making you into fat non-entity that have become.
Go away.
jahoowa,
I would go fi-core. Sorry if you don’t understand why, but that will be the result of this action. A lot of actors, like myself, will cross the picket lines and audition for work.
Count on it.
Jafoowa -
There is a huge difference between the overall contract and the specific contracts for specialties like animation VO. If you’re kicking in dues, you’re an active member and have shown by opening your wallet that you at least want to work and/or intend to work.
If only 25% of the members vote in the first place, why is anyone arguing in favor of disenfranchisement? Isn’t it better to leave well enough alone and not even risk the appearance of disunity?
Lastly, there is an underlying assumption in the affected voting threshold argument: the SAG members who hold “vanity cards”, or other SAG members not currently out there actively auditioning and working are motivated to vote against the interests of the general membership. Nowhere has anyone thus far produced a shred of evidence to back this up.
If clear and incontrovertible evidence could be produced to show that a significant bloc of non-working SAG actors are out to vote against their guild, that’s one thing. But without evidence, why should anyone believe for a moment that there is an organized bloc of mutineers within our ranks???
Barring evidence of a threat, why is any change to voting rules necessary?
i think people are missing the real issue. and i say this with love, but
SAG is full of crazy people.
At times it even seems to be run by crazy people. groups of these people band together to create little political factions that whip the membership up into a frenzy whenever a contract negotiation is about to happen.
case in point, the ATA negotiations. our agents use to be FRANCHISED by SAG. they had to be. it was in our contracts. but when certain production companies wanted to buy up a PERCENTAGE of some larger agencies, everybody started getting emails about how the STUDIO SYSTEM was going to start up again and nobody would ever get any work if they weren’t signed with WMA or CAA or ICM or WTF.
what happened as a result of this irrationality? SAG membership, most of whom do not even HAVE agents, voted against the agency contracts. and now? there are no contracts. ATA came up with their own. because what are we going to do, leave our agents? and the upshot? our agents are entitled to commission MORE of our money. pretty much all of it. what incentive do they have to negotiate with SAG again?
and what about the AFTRA merger vote? and what about the stupid commercial strike? (people actually went on a hunger strike for that!)
i’m afraid the crazy SAG factions will pop again, make everyone think civilization rests in the balance, and basically scare everyone into voting NO on a contract that might otherwise keep us off the picket lines and the rest of hollywood working.
i’d rather see the people who mostly work under this contract (whatever formula they come up with-and i hope its a liberal one!) vote on it. hopefully by the time it rolls around again even more people will be in a position to vote on it.
and i say this all with love.
Nikki,
Why are you allowing offensive and irrelevant personal attacks like Ton Catt’s 2/17 9:20 pm post to pass through?
The dues need to be increased. Every other union has high enough dues so that belonging is a commitment. There are no vanity members in other guilds or unions because it would be a waste of money. Only people that make a full time living from their union work should vote because allowing otherwise would be a conflict of interest. Put you mouth where your money is. If you money isn’t coming from acting and you aren’t reinvesting that in your career and union then you aren’t making a viable contribution to your contract.
The sag dues are so low that most gym memberships cost more. SAG is being run like a gym. Sell as many memberships as you can because in the long run no one will actually use them. Most like the “idea” of getting into shape, but when it comes down to the actual “work” part of it, they would rather not put in the effort. Remember its not what your going to do but rather what you have done.
Many of us remember the SAG commercial strike. A disaster. Almost all commercials during and after that strike went to Canada for a buyout. Everyone lost. Why? Because it was voted on by members who are not affected.
To Ton Catt/ichaucheinwerkungactor [you are the same person]:
During the writers strike, nobody attacked Les Moonves for being a has-been pretty boy, bloated and leathery.
Anytime a woman in power speaks her mind, others try to undermine her by attacking her physicality. Because that’s where women have been taught they are valuable.
Those days are coming to a close. Hillary Clinton throws stupid men into a tizzy because she can’t be knocked down.
Frances Fisher throws a pea-brain like you, whether you’re for real or a shill, into a tizzy because she’s strong.
Dispute the issues or go away because nobody’s listening to a lunatic.
You are an ugly pathetic person. Can only imagine what you see when you look in the mirror.
This is an important discussion and it’s likely not going to be solved in time for the upcoming negotiations. As mheister suggests, perhaps studies need to be done. Statistics need to be gathered. And obviously, we need to keep talking.
However, I suggest we take it inside.
Dear “Ton Catt”,
How about sticking to facts instead of personal insults?
1. I am not talking about merger; I am talking about the fact that Aftra members vote on the TV/Theatrical contract as well ~ people who are not actors ~ and why are they not being held to the same standard?
2. I never said anything about affected voting in the board room, as this discussion last year was not an issue; last time it came up was years ago when Melissa Gilbert was our President and it was floated during the ATA debate in 2002, and there was a push to use the “affected” language to disenfranchise actors who did not have agents at the time, from voting on the ATA referendum.
3. I have no idea who voted me, or anyone else into office; and I have certainly never referenced a “mass voting block” – what is that?
4. See my guest spot tonight on OCTOBER ROAD, rent IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, or THE KINGDOM, or better yet, come see me in SEXY LAUNDRY at The Hayworth Theatre in LA, running through March 16, and check out my ___.
Underneath Ms. Brenneman’s argument is discrimination. It’s undeniable. I’ve been “a working actor” making well into 6 figures a year, and I’ve been largely out of work for a year, relying on residuals. I’d probably qualify any given year, but I gotta go with Livingston. During the strike, I wrote often on Huffington Post and elsewhere of what nobody else talks about. I think it goes to the heart of Ms. Brenneman’s case, because somehow, she is currently under the delusion that she won’t face being shit out of luck, possibly in the very near future, in terms of her own work. Hollywood can go cold on you, very fast, and hardly anyone save a few huge stars are spared the cold splash of water that comes with discovering that no one cares to hire you just now, or possibly anytime soon, thank you very much.
What I’ve been saying is simple: what’s the elephant in the room? The fact that a handful of “stars” get paid obscene amounts of money, to the overall detriment of any TV or film budget, and their fellow “union” members. It’s unconscionable, and ONLY when SAG has the balls to take it on will the ridiculous inequity in the distribution of wealth in SAG be addressed. When Tom Hanks makes 20 million up front, plus a nice piece of first dollar gross, and the guy who has the “honor” of playing his brother-in-law has to fight for scale, where’s the “union” in that? Stars should be well compensated. If they are eligible for such paydays, it’s ONLY because they somehow have producers over a barrel, and their greed-head agents can go in for the kill. As any “working actor” knows, there is not one thin dime more given out, regardless of credits or recognition, to ANY actor who doesn’t happen to be in a position of power on any particular job. HOWEVER – name me another “union” that features multi-millionaires, like Ms. Brennaman (I found her show unwatchable, but she got stupid rich) lecturing her “union brothers and sisters” on why they should give away their voting rights, so “working actors” can make “sound” decisions for the rest of us? Wow. That’s hubris. How about SAG has a full membership vote on whether or not it’s right that stars suck down 30 to 60% of any given film or TV budget, (think it’s bullshit? Try looking at one sometime. I assure you, I speak the truth) leaving everyone else, regardless of credits, to fight over the scraps? I’d LOVE to see the results on that one.
As a longtime member of SAG (and one that would be entitled to vote if this passed), I have to disagree.
I believe that if one is paying their union dues, then they have a right to vote.
Just because someone isn’t currently working under a said contract, does not mean they are not actively auditioning for shows or projects that the contract covers.
This petition is nothing but elitism in my opinion and will lead to a huge number of Fi-Core filings if passed.
Take away a union members right to vote and you just gave them the reason to go Fi-Core. That’s the thing you can’t do if you are Fi-Core…vote. Oh wait, they also can’t win a SAG award. But then again, they are just an insignificant union member who hasn’t earned any money lately…so who would nominate them anyways…