Petition Drive Leaders Have Met With SAG

COMMENTS (65)

• I’m one of those SAG members who will be no longer able to vote due to this ruling, since I’ve kept my card but haven’t worked in years.

  From my experience as an active SAG background person (roughly 1992 to 1997), there has been more than enough intraunion resentment and friction among various factions.

  And (keeping my comments within bounds of decorum) I can remember those membership meetings when “real” actors would be verbally dismissive to background players–curious behavior when extras were wooed into SAG, causing the demise of the old Screen Extras Guild. Also, there’s always been the desire of some within the background community to do away with the three-SAG extra-voucher system for eligibility to join SAG–another variation on the “qualified” issue.

  With the AMPTP negotiations coming up, it is extremely unwise and self-defeating for SAG members to be opting for further infighting by implementation of a “qualified” vote.

  Comment by Terry McCarty — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 1:25am PST  Reply to this post

• Is there a list for those of us who will go fi-core?

  Just to let Amy and Ned know, it’s not the fact that you are doing this, it’s the timing. Completely and utterly amateurish.

  Comment by Working actor — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 2:04am PST  Reply to this post

• This is genius. If management’s trying to destroy your union–why, beat them to the punch and destroy it yourselves! That’ll show them!

  If you’re serious, Ms. Brenneman, why not exclude anyone who is currently receiving a producing credit but who would otherwise meet your criteria, since that’s such a clear conflict of interest? And how about some data on how much money would be lost since members who can’t vote also don’t pay dues?

  Comment by fi-core — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 2:21am PST  Reply to this post

• You realize this list of 900 amounts to only 0.75% of 120,000 SAG members. The media seems biased in reports that overlook this fact and simply tout the “900″ as if that’s some kind of impressive number.

  Comment by Jon Raymond — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 2:40am PST  Reply to this post

• Wow. 1000 names. That amounts to 0.83%. At this rate they’ll have a full one percent any month now.

  Comment by Jon Raymond — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 2:44am PST  Reply to this post

• I have strong feelings about this issue, which I will put aside for a moment to again pose a question in this comment section. Perhaps Ms. Brenneman or Mr. Vaughn will be kind enough to post a response here.

  What is the basis for the concern of the pro-affected-voting group about how “unaffected” members may vote on a strike authorization or a contract ratification? How do they know that a large group of “unaffected” actors will vote against the interests of the guild? Has a poll been taken, or a study done, to show that such a threat, or such a group, even exists? Has a group of “unaffected” actors organized themselves and made any public statement about their vision for the future of the Screen Actors’ Guild, or their intention to take any sort of action?

  I would like to invite Ms. Brenneman, Mr. Vaughn, or anyone else with solid documented evidence for that matter, to make this evidence public.

  If no such evidence of a threat within the guild exists, then the reasonable and prudent thing to do is to withdraw this petition and replace it with a public statement of unreserved and unwavering support for our elected guild representatives (full disclosure: while Mr. Rosenberg has earned my respect and appreciation over the past few months, I did not vote for him) for the duration of what promises to be a difficult and potentially contentious contract negotiation period.

  I ask this on behalf of my own future as an actor, but also because I believe such a course serves the best interests of the entire guild as well as the entertainment industry as a whole.

  Comment by mheister — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 2:51am PST  Reply to this post

• No one with a last name begininning with S – Z signed up? LOL.

  Comment by JDM — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 6:21am PST  Reply to this post

• To my fellow fans and viewers who supported the WGA:

  I would say ‘good morning’ to you all but you cannot imagine how heartsick I am at seeing this list. I have that ‘viewer in the audience of a melodramatic film’ feeling of knowing that the protagonists are about to walk into a trap set for them by the AMPTP (and the moguls who hide behind their ‘trade organization’) I want desperately to scream at the signers or cry out to them to keep them from taking this decidedly wrong turn while knowing that they likely can’t or won’t hear me.

  I am by turns shocked, saddened, disappointed, angered and yet resolved to keep fighting for everyone in the entertainment industry because until all of the entertainment unions have secured acceptable contracts, not one of our shows or films, not to mention *everyone* who works on making them for us, is safe.

  There really is nothing for the ‘name actors’ who signed this petition in support of qualified voting for SAG (or for similar efforts for AFTRA) to fear from the ‘non-name’ actors who are also union members. In fact the ‘name actors’ should not only admire their more obscure thespian brethren, they should be *thanking them* for the gains the WGA and the DGA were able to make.

  If you look online at the vast majority of photos, videos, blog posts and comments, press interviews — heck even the typical daily composition of any given WGA picket line whether it was in more temperate California on in the nasty weather of New York, or at the rallies and events staged all over the country, the turnout of relatively anonymous actors was second only to the writers themselves. If there are any actors who need schooling in the meaning of union it is the ‘names’ who attached themselves to this petition and it is the unknown majority of their two unions who have so much to teach the famous (especially about how not to become infamous).

  I feel genuine pain for the insult and injury which all those not well-known actors should rightly feel at the prospect of this petition were this measure to pass that would disenfranchise the less celebrated members of your two unions from voting on what I understand to be the *minimum* agreement (the floor through which the vast majority of the union’s membership should not be allowed to fall and which by virtue of not having a recognizable name is the *only* deal available to a ‘non-name’ actor or actress).

  And yet despite the great disappointment I woke up to this morning and I feel in so many people whose names I know well but whose individual characters and motivations apparently I do not, I plan to keep fighting on. I am still determinedly fighting for my shows and films and for any professional who ever has or ever will entertain me. The real wrong-doer here is still the AMPTP and their irrational unwillingness to pay all entertainment professionals fairly. The only way to put things right is to convince the members of the AMPTP that they have to share a little more equitably in the financial gains that so many other entertainment professionals have secured for their companies.

  If I allow my dismay at the recognizable names who have signed onto this questionable petition which I still believe is wrong-headed to overcome my objective to better level the playing field for anyone who wants to make films and TV shows as a professional, it will be an instant concession to the irrationally rapacious few at the top and at the expense of all of the rest of us — the professionals and their audiences. I am a bit discouraged about how much more difficult this petition makes the fight, but I am not at all deterred.

  I therfore resolve to work that much harder to better educate the actors and actresses who signed this as to whom it is they need to regard with more suspicion (the AMPTP and its signatories) and in whom they could place a little more trust (their fellow thespians).

  -S.E. Olson
  Resolved Rumpus Room Member (we’re a group of fans & viewers who normally participate in the chat interface of the United Hollywood NowLive.com multi casts and we have a Google group which anyone can join at
  http://groups.google.com/group/rumpus?hl=en)
  Moderator & Law & Order Criminal Intent Fan Liason
  Fans For The WGA
  http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters/

  Comment by VDOVault — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 7:24am PST  Reply to this post

• God bless the actors . . . but, please, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE aren’t economical times depressing enough in the real world without Hollywood heading for yet another strike? It’s literally too much to bear . . .

  Comment by can't take it anymore — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 8:14am PST  Reply to this post

• An email I sent to Alan Rosenberg yesterday:
  ————-
  Alan
  I pass this Huffington Post link along below. You may have already read the post, but I think the comments are worth looking at too. They seem, to me, to indicate the restlessness of the natives out there in the real world of being an actor: the frustration, the bitterness, the anger at the fact that no one seems to be discussing this at SAG in any substantial way. We are a union, yes? So, why exactly aren’t we addressing this? Why aren’t we openly discussing, as a union, that we call ourselves a union, but, in fact, over the last several decades, we have become a microcosm of American society as a whole: the 2-3% of “haves” and the 97%-ish of “barely making it or worse?”

  I think you need to take into consideration the alienation the rank and file feels at the vast inequity in the distribution of wealth amongst our so called union. There’s a swirling anger out there in the rank and file, who don’t want to hear that George Clooney, or Tom Hanks, or any other star, is coming in and telling you something along the lines of “look, Alan, the suits are telling me, to tell you, hush-hush, that they’re in no mood for more labor problems. Let’s get in there now and put this baby to bed. Whadd’ya say?” Or, that Amy Brennemann is telling you “hey, I got a bunch of signatures – let’s make sure only certain members get to vote, because ‘certain members’ know what’s best for everybody.” Last time I checked, that is not the way a union works. There will be a substantial backlash to any favoritism – you earned your way in? You get to vote. Period.

  What the WGA strike proved is that the creative rank and file is sick and tired of being part of any union that caters to the very few stars, at the expense of everyone else. Stars deserve to be well paid, no doubt about it. But the inequities have become so glaring that the AMPTP is trying to get profit that simply isn’t there from the 97% of us who the suits don’t have to bow down to – they can tell us “take it or leave it.” I want to be represented by a union that says “thanks, we’ll leave it,” and is willing to shut the industry down – again – if necessary, so that the rest of us can start to be treated with some respect, and our star members are made to understand they aren’t doing us any favors when they attempt to dictate who gets to vote, or that we should make a quick deal that maybe isn’t in the best interest of the vast majority of us, who are just trying to get by. I’m a long time member, with credits out the wazoo, and I can tell you, I have never felt as unrepresented or stressed, as I do now. The business has changed dramatically in the 25 odd years I’ve been a SAG actor, and not for the better. The rich are getting richer Alan – you know what I’m talking about, and the rest of us are getting screwed. How about sending a loud and clear message to the stars putting pressure on you that the other 97% of us want a deal that makes things demonstrably better for US – something tells me the stars are doing just fine.
  With respect
  A long-timer

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/the-sag-negotiations-why_b_88457.html

  Comment by Cookie Rojas — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 9:46am PST  Reply to this post

• For all of those who think Hollywood is so liberal this should be their wake up call. How does disenfranchising thousands of dues paying members equate to power in negotiations? This stance seems at best, myopic, and in the least, elitist.

  What a great way to destroy sentiment for SAG from the inside out. One question to Amy and Ned and Mr. Rosenberg: if there is a pay cut-off for voting on the next contract are the actors who do not meet that cut-off responsible for paying dues to a union that gives them no voice in the future terms of their working arrangements?

  Comment by KW — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 10:12am PST  Reply to this post

• Reap what you sow, extras and small-time actors. The whole idea of a union, or excuse me “guild,” to represent celebrities who make millions a year is preposterous. Hell, Vaughn and Brennerman make many time more more than all the “suits” y’all bitch about incessantly.

  Unions have a place: for blue-collar stiffs working a mile underground in a leeky mine shaft. Actors, and writers too, are continually screwed by their communist “guilds” which only serve to benefit the already rich, powerful and famous. Make LA right to work, and watch Hollywood take-off again.

  Otherwise, whitcha bitchin, lazy stooges.

  Comment by Ronald Dump — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 10:31am PST  Reply to this post

• What bothers me is that these signers are wanting to do essentially what the directors did… rush in to meetings when they don’t yet have to… and rush into whatever deal the studios want to hand out. ‘go meet and make the deal is’ — if it were that simple and easy, there never would have been a strike, let alone 100 days of it.

  I’m sad to see so many names on here that I’ve respected and watched as actors… that they should undercut their union at a time like this… not that they should be expressing their opinions to their union, but that they should be signing a public document to show their disloyalty and strengthen the studios side. There is no reason for this.

  Except…

  … perhaps this isn’t so much about what they believe as in saying, ‘please, studios, we’re on your side, keep hiring us… we’re good little boys and girls… we’ll do anything you ask… as long as you give us enough money not to associate with the rabble’

  I’m glad someone mentioned excluding people with producer cards, because I was thinking about that myself. If the concern is people with conflict of interests voting, then take away voting privileges from those who have a conflict of interests… who are both actors and management. If you want to exclude someone like Les Moonves, there’s a legitimacy there, but an actor who has worked enough to pay his/her dues and keep paying them, and maybe is just unlucky enough to not get through the audition process these days because he/she might not be young enough, thin enough, pretty enough, or made of enough silicon to please the casting directors/producers today, but maybe not tomorrow… shouldn’t be penalized.

  Do any of these people remember the cry ‘no taxation, without representation’ which this country was founded on? It feels like these people have forgotten what democracy is all about. No wonder this country is in such bad shape.

  It looks like the WGA disenfranchised half its members and yet when it took that crappy deal so its haves could continue having, it tied all of its writers for the foreseeable future and maybe forever, without representation… some democracy at work there. Is that what SAG wants to do?

  If these actors are so afraid of strike — and believe me, I don’t want another strike myself — then they should be raising their voices against that when the time comes, not trying to disenfranchise their due-paying brothers and sisters. Assuming you know how these people are going to vote and working to exclude them on the fear of how they might vote is as bad as redistricting a state so you can exclude those you feel might vote in a way you don’t want for your piece of the pie.

  If nothing else, all of you who have signed this public document at a time like this, have lost my respect.

  Comment by new to the acting life — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 11:10am PST  Reply to this post

• @Cookie Rojas

  Ahhh…the days of Wine and Rojas (and the Tonys: Gonzalaz and Taylor; and the two Johnnys: Callison and Briggs; and Chris Short and Bunning and Rick Wise and Clay behind the plate) at Connie Mack…

  Wasn’t playing 2B for the Phillies and Gene Mauch enough punishment (not mention your short stint as manager with the Angels)? You had to become an actor, too?

  You my friend, are a glutton for punishment–maybe you should join the WGA, too. You’ll really get abused with us.

  Comment by Jake Hollywood — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 11:53am PST  Reply to this post

• The Screen Actors Guild has long ago morphed into something akin to a magazine subscriber base rather than anything resembling The United Auto Workers. Millionaires Tom Cruise and George Clooney don’t actually pay dues out of their pocket, (which are capped at the same rate as a middle class actor) the studio pays it for them as part of their contract. Same goes for any of the “name” talent with large agencies and publicists and lawyers. Face it, the rest of us are powerless, and the childish struggle between SAG and AFTRA will only continue to highlight the utter dysfunction and obsolete nature of the “Guilds”. We all work for a global media conglomerate who calls the tune. You will do as they say, or they will just get another pretty 20 year old. Next!

  Comment by Wilbur Varela — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 11:53am PST  Reply to this post

• Personally, I think this list of names are silly. Isn’t the main purpose of a union is to guarantee reasonable working salaries? Quite frankly, the A-List, B-List and even C-List names make far, far more than that, so, in essence, voting doesn’t affect them personally in the least.

  It affects the struggling artist more. Why shouldn’t they have a vote?

  Comment by POV Me — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 11:58am PST  Reply to this post

• While this list only represents a small percentage of the total SAG membership, the recognizable names on it is disheartening and disppointing to us rank and file fans and viewers. Indeed, it appears as though “the haves” can shove their influence down the throats of
  “the have nots”.

  Surely the A-List stars and the petition creators remember when they were once the rank and file. Or has it been so long and their climb to the top so fabulous that they just don’t care anymore?

  Nonetheless, this is how we “outsiders” see this issue of qualified voting. Maybe it’s none of our business, but hey, we’ve supported you all along. But you let us down now.

  Comment by Becca — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 12:13pm PST  Reply to this post

• Although I “qualify” under the definition set here by members who deem themselves worthy to define what a SAG member is, I still maintain that this is NOT RIGHT. This is NOT what a union is.

  A union, by definition , is united, hence the word “union”. This is devisive and not fair to a lot of dues paying members in this guild.

  Let’s divide ourselves further shall we:

  Get rid of AFTRA
  Get rid of the background actors
  Get rid of all actors who also have producing titles ( conflict of interest )
  Get rid of the people willing to picket on a daily basis should this guild strike AND….
  Get rid of the dues payed by members denied a vote by the very union that they qualified to be a member of.

  And what does that leave us?

  1000 names.

  Only a 119,000 unrepresented dues paying members . Way to face down multi-national corporations who, for the record keep their inner arguements and differences to themselfes. What we are doing here is a sign of weakness. There is strength in numbers.

  Peggy Lane O’Rourke

  Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 12:20pm PST  Reply to this post

• A couple of things from the peanut gallery:

  1. As someone who followed the WGA Strike Stations of the Cross (Rupert Murdoch condemns the WGA to death; residuals for new media fall for the first time…) with the added bonus of Harlan’s Book of Revelations (And I say unto thee, Nick Counter is a pus-sucking diphthong), I have to say that it pains me to see SAG put themselves in such a weak position this close to the beginning of negotiations. I suppose, if you really tried, you could weaken yourselves even more than this but that probably involves Alan Rosenberg, Photoshop and a random farm animal. Why this petition now? Was a big show of disunity four months out really that great of an idea?

  2. Because these things tend to happen, could someone post here when the CafePress “SAG: I Am A Union Of One” store opens? I really want a t-shirt and coffee mug.

  Comment by andthentherewassag — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 12:32pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’m all for qualified voting as long as the qualification to get a vote is that you walked the picket line during the last SAG strike and also the recent WGA strike. And I don’t mean for one hour as a photo op. How many of the 1000 would be eligible? Hmmmmm?

  Jenny

  Comment by Jenny — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 12:50pm PST  Reply to this post

• SAG and AFTRA vote on the same contract. AFTRA has no qualified voting and no qualifications for admission to the union. If SAG disqualifies a member from voting and they feel strongly about voting they can just go upstairs at 5757 Wilshire, join AFTRA and vote.

  Comment by SAG but not AFTRA (yet) — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 1:17pm PST  Reply to this post

• Questions for the signers:

  1) As has been pointed out many, many times, the vast majority of roles are for white men younger than 60 and secondarily, white women younger than 40. Jobs for members in other demographics are much harder to come by. Any proposals to counteract the fact that this disefranchises many, many members who aren’t white men?

  2) “Affected member voting”–anyone who has the opportunity to negotiate his own contract isn’t really affected by the contract. He or she may be affected by a strike, but not the contract. Does he or she lose his or her vote, as well?

  3) Members who make their livings primarily from commercials?

  4) Can any of you offer one shred of evidence that “unaffected” voters vote in larger numbers than affected members? The vast majority of members can’t be motivated to vote, so what makes you think that members in Baltimore who don’t think they should be allowed to vote are more likely to do so than members who qualify under your definition? Would all of you care to share how often you’ve chosen to vote, ot if it’s all just a case of you can’t be bothered, and you’re upset than other members make more of an effort than you?

  Comment by Muronao — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 1:27pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’m not an actor nor do I have any affiliation with either SAG or AFTRA. But to me, this petition is just another example of how self-absorbed every faction of Hollywood has become.

  Let’s identify this for what it is: a deliberate attempt at keeping the 85% of SAG members regularly unemployed from voting because the working 15% are afraid the rest will vote to strike because they’re not working anyway.

  I’m sorry but this IS elitist.

  Publishing this list of petitioners has already shown the AMPTP that a select group of SAG members are willing to throw 100,000 of its members under a bus just so they can strike a deal at any cost.

  It’s like the Allies landing at Normandy in 1944 only to have 50 officers tell the troops ‘you guys stay here on the beach. We’re going up the cliffs to surrender.’

  Comment by tom r. — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 2:04pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’m in favor of this proposal even though I would be unable to vote if this were to pass. I now make a living as a casting associate. I keep my SAG membership because I am proud to be a member and worked hard to become one. But I don’t feel qualified or even entitled to vote on issues that affect working actors.

  A working (one who has no other source of income) actor has more to loose during a strike. They have a mortgage, car payments, children to feed, etc. Besides, per the proposal, a background actor making as little as $1500/year and a principal actor making as little as $2750/year would still be able to vote. The rank and file will have a voice. Why should someone who’s made no money as an actor for the last 6 years have a vote?

  A working actor knows more about what changes are needed. They have the experience of being in the trenches. If you were looking for a mentor, would you pick me or Ms. Brenneman?

  A working actor has more influence and can better fight for the little guy. When the writer’s were on strike, numerous SAG members marched with them and were appreciated for their efforts. But who did the media come to see: the stars and the group events with STAR TREK people or series regulars for a TV show marching together.

  Please don’t let ego and emotion rule. Since moving to Hollywood in 1999, that’s what I’ve seen as the major cause of strife not only within SAG but between SAG and AFTRA. We are in this together, but some should build and captain the ship while the rest of us appreciate and benefit from their efforts.

  Allen Hooper

  P.S. Does anyone know how to add your name to the petition?

  Comment by Allen Hooper — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 2:20pm PST  Reply to this post

• So that means you don’t expect those not allowed to vote to picket, right? And all you actors who signed this thing will be out there picketing when it comes down to it, right?

  Comment by Okay, — Thursday February 28, 2008 @ 3:02pm PST  Reply to this post