Carl Icahn Now Wants ALL Of Lionsgate 
FINAL MGM BIDS DUE FRIDAY: So Who's In And … 
Action Comedy TV: Showrunner Matt Nix 
SAG National Board Approves Joint Bargaining … 
BBC Drama Unfreezes Development Money; … 
Lionsgate Board Rejects Icahn's $6/Share 
Is Betting On Box Office Good For Films? 
Marvel Still Looking For Captain America 
'Sopranos' Creator To Film Rock Drama 
LIVE-SNARKING THE 82ND OSCARS... 
'ALICE' IS A MONSTER! $116.3M Blows Past … 
Oscar Not-So-Thriller: Diller Mogul Picnic 
'Precious' Sweeps 25th Indie Spirit Awards 
Howard Stern Won't Be Next 'Idol' Judge 
Justin Theroux Readying 'Zoolander 2' For … 
This comes to me from actor Ned Vaughn, one of the SAG petition drivers lobbying for an earnings threshold requirement for "qualified voting" on SAG contract issues:"As one of the leaders behind the drive to implement affected member voting at SAG, I’d like to clarify something. This push is decidedly NOT about 'elite' actors taking anything away from anyone—rather, it is a grass roots effort representing a broad spectrum of the Guild’s membership. Those supporting change certainly include top stars, but it is overwhelmingly a movement of rank and file actors who recognize that such a change is necessary to put SAG on its strongest footing heading into the upcoming contract negotiation.
The list of over 900 supporters includes many who have noted that they themselves may be excluded from voting on given contracts, should a work-related voting requirement be adopted—but they also recognize that strengthening SAG in this way ultimately benefits all members by securing better contracts.
"The WGA made such a change 15 years ago and it played no small part in the strength and solidarity so evident in their successfully concluded strike. By making sure that their bargaining position genuinely reflected the will of their working members, the WGA made it clear to the industry that they meant business. (In fact, the WGA reform far exceeded what we are proposing—that change involved an entire restructuring of membership classification, while our proposal focuses solely on the issue of contract voting).
"We are looking forward to working in partnership with SAG leaders to craft and adopt a reasonable, flexible and inclusive standard to define those members who are affected by contract voting outcomes. By making sure that our contracts are ratified—or rejected—by those who bear the consequences, the Guild can enter the upcoming negotiation with renewed strength and the clear message that SAG means business."
SAG Petitioners Clarify Their Position...
Comments (31)
|
Post a Comment
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, don't get your facts wrong, and don't bore me.
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
This fellow – and more like him – should be on the Board of the Screen Actors Guild.
“Okay, Jim. Copy that.”
Just bear in mind that President Alan is already being demonized on the interwebz. You might want to make sure he has the support he needs when he’s negotiating for your Apollo 13 residuals.
I’m putting some combined sections of comments I wrote on the other thread here so that you will be sure to see them.
Ned Vaughn –
Many actors are struggling actors, and just because they do not presently meet a minimum for earnings does not mean they are not sacrificing a lot in pursuit of jobs with the hope of being able to survive on acting earnings alone. They deserve to make their voices heard on wages that may be paid to them tomorrow or next week, month, or year, when they DO get a booking. DO NOT think it is ok to stratify actors by who is “making it” and who is not. Especially when AFTRA is only too happy to welcome people into its doors, undercut SAG, and consider everything it can to be under its jurisdiction. I (and I’m probably not alone)
would prefer for all actors to be under SAG and Broadcasters/Hosts under AFTRA – but if SAG is going to treat struggling actors like second class citizens – then many would be inclined to tell SAG to suck it. I am planning a long career, I am working hard to get the auditions and to get the jobs I can, I am trying to break through the barriers – I do not need MY UNION, which I worked DAMN hard to join telling me I’m not good enough!
One more thing – wouldn’t SAG members have to vote to make such a huge change to the rules as not being able to vote below a certain income – 900 people on a silly petition is not an indicator that thousands
will vote to give away their voting rights. That’s just stupid! Stop waisting the guild’s time and money
with this nonsense.
Also, you take away my voting rights on key issues like contract negotiations – I assume that it will be ok
for me not to pay my dues (but still be a member in good standing) – you take something from me, I take something from you. Or hey, what is the difference on going fi-core if I’m no longer able to vote. While
I personally strongly oppose fi-core – you are opening a dangerous door. Stop trying to change the rules
to suit yourselves. You let me worry about the money in my pocket from acting – I already do. If I am involved enough to cast a ballot, I am involved enough to count.
I was on the picket lines for writers, and I will be on the picket lines for SAG if that is necessary. So yes, even people who have other primary sources of income do have to make adjustments and sacrifices to fight for what they believe are fair wages for creatives.
Another thing…
Why don’t you just announce that you don’t want minorities to vote. It’s not enough that there are far fewer parts for blacks, asians, latinos, and native americans. Now you’re going to make the economics tied to the fact that its harder to find work exclude them from voting on contracts. How wonderful that the guild will now be able to institute Jim Crow laws.
I can only trust that the guild will have the good sense to ignore this “movement.” Or maybe this grassroots effort will come to their senses and stop pursuing this.
Things got a little too “hot” for those A-Lister that you trotted out Mr. Vaughn?
And nice misdirection-deflection….Who are these fellow 900 SAGers? What is your average income/take in ratio to the average SAG salary. Why now, right before negotiations and not resolve this issue earlier? What are the terms & conditions you seek with AMPTP/Studios after the current contract expires?
Again, why you and not an A-Lister? What have the studios promised to you to prematurely push for negotiations….Whose side are you REALLY on?
OK, I just went and looked at SAG’s constitution. In order to change Article XII (the strike vote provision) you have to have a 75% approval vote by the membership since article XII is one of those parts of the constitution that can not be amended by the board of directors. So since the membership would have to vote to put “qualified” in this part of the contract, this whole “grassroots” movement to qualified voting for strike authorization has no teeth since the people you want to strip voting rights from would have to agree to it.
At first, I thought this idea was an elitist move to protect the biggest earners. In most scenarios, this move would suck. But with SAG, a few differences are crucial: first, the big earners are already protected; their salaries are never minimums and well above any threshold. Their residuals and backend will always be protected by the market demand for their services. second, the ability for fringe members of SAG to approve a deal that NEVER be affected by its stipulations is disparate to their actual involvement. Many members of SAG, if they begin to earn their livings from acting, will take full advantage of the gains made by those earning now. If they do not, then it makes no difference. A clear way for protecting the entire membership is for us to pass, along with this qualified strike authorization rule, a guarantee that there will be no stratification of wages or residual structures or any other proceed from the negotiations. That these will be split equally between all members. Also, one of the chief elements of our contract negotiations should be an increase in the minimums actors are paid. This has fallen so far and will MOST AFFECT those who work at the fringes. I also think the qualification should not be onerous: 20 thousand dollars over three years should do it. I think what most people in this camp are against, and I have to say SAG suffers this more than any other union around, is the person who joined, had one job ten years ago, and votes equally to strike or not along with the veteran who works day and night to support a family. It is different and not a judgment of talent, passion, worth or anything else. It is simply a reality that a large swath of SAG’s membership is not as affected by these decisions and so have different priorities. To protect the union, we must advantage the profession without being undercut by those who will not be affected as much by the core issues of this upcoming negotiation.
I echo the SAG member above. I’m WGA and SAG, though I primarily make my living via WGA jobs. However, if I’m not allowed to vote in elections, I also assume it’s okay to no longer pay my annual dues.
I was really pleased with SAG’s support during the WGA strike. Now all those warm fuzzy feelings are about to go away. Sigh.
As a member of the WGA, and upon hearing much rhetoric about these negotiations always being for the future, it seems hypocritical to exclude members who don’t meet the minimum today when they certainly could meet the minimum tomorrow. Yes, it happens.
This is plain and simply discriminatory. (Like a bank that charges only the poor for not having enough money to keep in their vault.)
SAG MEMBER,
This guy Vaugh has it 100% right. You are a friggin , moron, Read what the guy wrote. He never mentioned “qualified voting” , onlt want “affected member voting” – learn the difference, idiot.
Also no one is saying you can’t vote. Vote all you want for Prez and VP of the Guild, just don’t vote on issues where you have nothing at stake! Stop whining about “having my voice heard”, you pussy. We are a trade union not an employment agency or a group jerk-off for guys who work once a year. We are fighting for the bread in the mouths of our babies and you want to be heard?
It is scared pussies like you that spout off and make others think that what this guy wants is elitist. How is it elitist if the people voting on the contract are those people who have something to loss and something to win but the outcome.
When your career takes off you can vote all you want, in the meantime trust that those of us who make a living doing this will the best contract for you – when you do work.
Read more and talk less.
I’m not entirely sure that’s true, BTL Mom. The constitution says the proposed contract must be submitted for ratification to the ‘affected’ membership. It’s up to the board to determine what members are ‘affected.’
And SAG already has qualified voting for Animation V/O and Interactive Gaming. This isn’t a new idea for the guild.
some sag member said:
“They deserve to make their voices heard on wages that may be paid to them tomorrow or next week, month, or year, when they DO get a booking. ”
No. No they don’t. They’ll deserve to vote once they are working actors.
No other union allows non working members to vote…
We’re not talking about a “strike vote” here.
Why not just give the lower SAG members a fraction of a vote. Say 3/5th?
As you can see by the above posts, Ned has stirred the rage of SAG Prez Alan Rosenberg’s Membership First pals. Rosenberg is dead-set against this, because his AFTRA-bashing supporters – the aging, non-working extremists who dominate the Hollywood SAG Board – would replace him with wild man Seymour Cassell in a heartbeat. Our venerable & once-great actors’ union – has become the laughing stock of the industry because vanity card-holders and sour, out-of-work actors dominate & manipulate the voting, luring the cash & caché of Ed Asner & Charlton Heston to affect elections in the same way Bush & Rove did. Why do you think we haven’t had an agency franchise agreement in six years? You dismiss Ned Vaughn and 900 working actors at your peril. Qualified voting is what smart unions, run by working people, institute in order to have genuine clout at the negotiating table rather than chairs filled with poseurs who once worked in Hollywood.
BTL Mom,
Yes, your right about the 75% strike vote requirement in Article XII, but there’s a reference to Article XI which contains the phrase “…submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.” It’s up to the board to interpret the constitution and therefor come up with a definition of ‘affected’. I DON’T think it should be a dollar amount, but I think it it should be minimum number of days that the performer has worked under that contract. That seems fair to me, especially if the bar is set low.
I haven’t done commercials. I don’t know what it’s like. I shouldn’t vote on that agreement. Same should go for any collective bargaining agreement that SAG negotiates.
We’ve all struggled. But just as struggling doesn’t guarantee work, it also doesn’t bestow knowledge of the wages and working conditions of the contract. And I would prefer that only knowledgeable people vote on it.
Affected member voting doesn’t deny any member the ability to vote on board members, leadership or general referenda (ie, dues, etc.). It restricts votes on collective bargaining agreements only. That’s a good thing.
Amen SAG member! I love how you put it, “If I am involved enough to cast a ballot, I am involved enough to count.” Granted, there are a lot of “flakes” in SAG, people who call themselves “actors” by bragging they had a line of dialogue in an episode of “Matlock”, or was the stand-in for Cuba Gooding Jr, in “Chill Factor”, and actors as a whole can be quite flaky (being an actor myself I can attest), but there are also quite a few Screen Actors Guild members who do there level best to uphold the professional aspects of the craft that the guild has entrusted them with, who may only work a few times a year (not for lack of effort) but give it their all, with the same passion and dedication to the work that a “working member” (whatever that means) brings to the set.
So, as “SAG Member” put it, “…even people who have other primary sources of income do have to make adjustments and sacrifices to fight for what they believe are fair wages for creatives.” And so, if we’re going to pick and choose whose vote counts and whose doesn’t, let’s just stop calling this a “union” and start calling it “club”, with “working members” as the doormen, keeping the A-listers safe inside while the rest of us wait at the back door for the scraps that are allowed us by “those members who are affected by contract voting outcomes.”
“Union” means, the state of being united…it doesn’t seem like Mr. Vaughn and the other 900 understand that fact.
And to, “Working SAG/AFTRA Actor”, if you’re so upset that “vanity card-holders” and the like exist, then change the rules as far as how a SAG member is determined! Make it harder, or create more stipulations for membership, but as it stands the rules are the rules, and if you’re a member you get to vote.
I agree that it may be a little too easy for a person to get their “SAG card”, I for one worked hard for 8 years in the trenches for mine, deciding early on that I didn’t want to be Taft-Hartly’d or any other such nonsense, I wanted to earn it…and I did. But once I accepted the guild membership I also accepted the responsibility to uphold the rights of my fellow members, regardless of “how” they got in. You don’t pick and choose which brother of sister you defend in your family, you defend your family as a whole.
Like I said, change the standards of membership if you wish (and I’m not against that) but, as it stands now, we stand together.
“A house divided cannot stand.”
I was recently forwarded a copy of Ned Vaughn’s petition to change the way that SAG votes to ratify its contracts. I don’t know Ned personally, but he has obviously thought about this a good deal, and seems genuinely passionate about a strong union. His argument is clearly articulated, and endorsed by a list of actors whose talents and intelligence I very much appreciate, several of whom I’ve had the pleasure of working with and would call friends.
Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with Ned on a number of points.
SAG, like any union, draws its strength from numbers and unity, not from division and cantonization. Collective bargaining is only effective when done collectively. For a negotiating position to have any strength or credibility, it has to be supported not only by the people currently working the jobs, but by the people who could and would otherwise gladly replace them if given the opportunity. How many of the WGA’s recent gains would have been achieved if the only people who respected and supported the picket lines were writers currently working when the strike was called? The strength of our union is not just the actor who says “I really want this job, but I’m not doing it anymore until you pay me what I’m worth.” It’s the ten actors next to him who say “I really want that job, too, but I’m not doing it, either, until you pay him what he’s worth.” And that’s a sacrifice, too.
The whole point of the Screen Actor’s Guild, or any labor union, for that matter, is that We’re All In This Together. That’s the most important thing to remember as we navigate these next coming months.
I’d like to make one thing clear: I think the general principle behind Ned’s petition is sound, and certainly worthy of a discussion. I, for one, have never worked under a Dancer contract, or a Stunt Performer contract, and I can’t think of any good reason why I should be consulted on either of them. Simply put, they don’t affect me, and I wouldn’t feel qualified to vote on them.
But when it comes to the major SAG contracts, it’s not so easy for me to know exactly who’s going to be affected.
Every one of us knows that in our line of work, you’re up some years, and some years you’re down. And if anything, the major SAG Contracts- establishing minimums and residuals – affect us the most in the years we’re down. When we’re not working a lot. Established stars don’t work for scale; they may get bought out of residuals, or already have back-end participation negotiated for them. It’s precisely the people scraping by, the up-and-comers and the kids working their first and second jobs that these contracts do and will affect the most.
As to an earnings test for qualified voting, I’m not sure why it matters what I made last week, or six months ago, or in 2003; what I got paid in the past is the one thing a new contract is definitely NOT going to affect. These contracts aren’t for past work. They’re for future work. And if someone out there knows who is going to get which jobs for the next three to five years, they should post it somewhere and we can all save a lot of gas money going to auditions.
None of us were born working for more than $1000 or $7500 a year. We all started with empty resumes. But when we worked that first SAG job and got that first paycheck, each one of us benefited from the courage, solidarity and leadership of the actors before us who had the personal courage not to pull the ladder up behind them; who went out on a limb to demand a fair deal and safe working conditions for everyone, whether they knew our names yet or not.
I don’t mean to give anyone offense. There may very well be a way to change how SAG votes that makes us a more effective union, and gives all members a greater voice in the contracts that affect them the most. That’s a great idea, and it’s worth talking about. But proposing to strip 65-80% of the membership of their voting rights against their will is not the way to do it. Certainly not now. At best it leaves us with a membership that is 65-80% fi-core before negotiations even begin. At worst it creates yet another separate group of actors, hungry for work, with no vested interest in supporting any position “SAG Elite” chooses to take, and four times its size. Take one look at the effect that lack of coordination with AFTRA has on our bargaining position and ask yourself if what we need is more division, categorization and animosity.
Now is not the time to question each other’s talent or worth. Now is not the time to point at fellow actors and say, “You’re the problem with the industry.” Now is the time for all members of SAG and AFTRA to take a lesson from the past, to pull together and create the framework that will provide a fair deal for actors working today, actors working tomorrow, and actors working five, ten and twenty years from now, whomever they may be.
Respectfully,
Ron Livingston
Ned said:
“This push is decidedly NOT about ‘elite’ actors taking anything away from anyone…”
(To paraphrase Amy Heckerling…)
Actually, Kato, that’s exactly what it is.
To wit:
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
e·litist adj. & n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusLegend:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com
P
There is no way qualified voting is going to pass muster and I’ll tell you why. With all the dissing of vanity members and those that don’t work regularly, there is one thing that people are forgetting. Those members pay dues and now it’s as easy as a click of a button to go inactive either on honorable withdrawal or suspended dues. There’s no way the board is going to alienate members and lose dues money from thousands of guild members that might just decide that if they have no vote on contracts SAG doesn’t need their dues.
Also, what most folk seem to be worrying about here is a strike authorization vote with the non-working members saying, “Heck let’s strike, I’ve got nothing to lose.” Even if the board amended the constitution to allow for qualified voting on contracts the strike article can not be amended without 75% approval of the entire membership.
The board and negotiators needs to focus on getting the deal done for the next contract and not the distracting, devisive moves made by “grassroots” movements.
Oh Ned, don’t sell yourself short. You’re on the the A-List. It’s just this A is followed by SS. Few people would have the guts to publicly admit they want to do away with minorities–make America a place where on ly the rich can vote. Thing is UNIONS were created to counteract narrow-minded self-serving people like you. Sorry, a UNION is a community about what’s best for all members not just the Richens. I’m sorry the work of the rank and file that crated UNIONS in the mid 20th Century that affords you your residuals, fair pay, fair working conditions and hours has given you the comfort and the lack of forethought to want cut them out of the mix. Enjoy your health care too– just make sure anyone who makes less than you doesn’t start clogging the system.
Wow, Me Joe – I’m not a moron, not an idiot, I can read, and you apparently don’t even know what I said. So come down off your “roid rage” and hear what I actually AM saying.
Ned says “work-related voting requirement”. Whether it is “affected” (meaning working) or based on earnings minimums (meaning working) – its the SAME thing. I have two major problems with these proposed changes.
1. I never said this was elitist. However, this change WOULD BE racist, sexist, age-ist, and looks-ist. Is that enough “ists” for you? We are all actors, acting is our profession, our industry. Yet we do not have equal job opportunities. In other industries, and in the WGA – which Ned thinks is a great example of how this works – your employment is based on things like skill and experience. In acting, before you get to those requirements there is a little thing called the breakdown. Since we PHYSICALLY ARE OUR PRODUCT, we do not all get to go up for the same roles. Ned (as I can see in his picture) being a white man in his, what, mid to late 40s – has more job opportunities than a black woman. Or an Asian man. A chubby white woman. Really, a great number of people. I mean, you gotta love America Ferrera, but how many other trained actresses with her physical description are working their asses off to fight for the handful of 1 line Mexican maids? It’s not exactly fair the number of breakdowns that begin with “beautiful and sexy”, but since “beautiful and sexy” people have more job opportunities – they DO have a better chance at meeting any working/earnings based minimums for voting on contracts. IS that fair? Look at the breakdowns, your TV set, or the statistics – any of them will prove to you that what I am saying is true. There are more parts available for certain people based on who they intrinsically and physically are. That is a reality in this town – and it is a reality that makes this proposed change to voting rights extremely biased.
2. As any actor knows this morning you could have nothing and this afternoon you could book a job. In such a changeable environment I DO get a say in the wages I will be paid. I paid my money to join this union, I will not work non-union, I support the union. I believe in a strong union because I made a commitment to a profession. I deserve a vote ON WAGES – because in the end, I care more about that than who is elected to whatever board.
I would also like to state that I have nothing for or against Rosenberg except that I do think he did a good job in having SAG stand next to the WGA during their strike. So I don’t have some hidden political agenda. I don’t know much about the inside politics of the SAG boards – and frankly it sounds like there is some infighting based on the comments above. I want no part in that. These are my feelings as a sometimes working, but fully committed SAG Member and actor. I eat, sleep, study, live and breathe my choice to be a professional actor. I struggle financially, but I stick with it. I do not deserve to be marginalized.
And whoever said $20,000 over 3 years should be a fair measure – what if someone joined last year and made $10,000? That person is a nobody? What about the person that joined ten years ago, took time off to start a family or even a break and now intends to return to the business. They earned their card, they paid their dues. They want to come back and work.
You can’t predict people’s career paths. We are not working the way up the ladder in a law firm – we are actors and every actor’s career has its own path. But if you join this union what you are saying is I am a professional actor, I will only work union jobs, and I am a member of this community. Its hard for many to join, to meet the requirements or pay the fee. If you do join, hats off to you for knowing how important it is to take that step and making it happen. I’m not going to judge my union brothers and sisters for the success or lack of success they are experiencing in their careers. Its hard enough to be an actor without your union putting you down.
The people behind this movement must have very little confidence in their fellow SAG members’ ability to think. I hope that the SAG board has more.
Ron Livingston,
You asked: How many of the WGA’s recent gains would have been achieved if the only people who respected and supported the picket lines were writers currently working when the strike was called?
As a SAG member and a member of WGA I can tell you that the WGA has in place exactly what we are asking for – affected member voting. Your point supports Ned Vaughn’s argument 100%. The reason that the WGA was so successful was because the only people who vote on their contracts are those people who work or have worked on a WGA contract in the last seven years.
DGA, WGA and Actor’s Equity all have affected member voting — why is SAG the only Guild that allows vanity card holders and someone who worked ten years ago to have a voice in deciding the fate of a contract that doesn’t affect them?
You have a pollyanna view about “unity” and that view poses a danger to those of us who rely on strong contracts to pay the rent and put food on the table for our children.
You’re wrong Peter Mackenziek – whatever voting structure the WGA has in place was NOT the reason the strike was successful – the fact that everyone (even those who weren’t employed when the strike began) held the line IS. Which, I believe is what Ron Livingston was saying.
Again I’d like to remind you that writers, at least in theory, are not hired based on their looks. So the WGA is very different from SAG, and unless you can give me an argument why this proposed change is not biased – the moral grounds are enough to stop this grassroots movement right now.
Ron Livingston – I wish I’d written that. Thank you.
So I sacrificed and saved and borrowed $2300 only to be told I shouldn’t have a vote on whether we have a strike? What’s the yardstick to measure how someone is affected? If I worked three days on SAG contracts in the past year, that’s not good enough? I wouldn’t be “affected”? I haven’t received this petition, so I don’t know.
What are people afraid of? I don’t get it.
Dear BTL Mom,
You said, “Even if the board amended the constitution to allow for qualified voting on contracts the strike article can not be amended without 75% approval of the entire membership.”
Affected member voting exists in the constitution already. It’s not a matter of amending the constitution; it’s a matter of fully implementing the first line of Article XI.
The board already applies a de facto form of affected member voting on the ‘interactive’ agreements by sending it out for ratification to only those who’ve worked the contract. Anyone can come in and request a ballot, but the reality is that the policy exists already.
I think that this petition comes from the idea that these 900 SAG members have no faith in Rosenberg and his NEG COMM. He’s hellbent to go on strike. Just look at his and Bateman’s statements during the WGA strike. Without the vanity cards he may not get an overwhelming strike vote. It will make the guild look weak and full of rhetoric.
The gains that the WGA made are good, I don’t think SAG can get a much better deal with or without a strike.
Peter,
First of all, I appreciate your taking the time to read my comment and respond. Second, congratulations on your new WGA contract. You guys really showed what can be achieved by solidarity and a strong belief in the value of your work.
But if the WGA version of affected member voting is ‘exactly what you’re asking for’, then you, or Ned, or somebody needs to clarify that. There’s a huge difference, in my mind, between requiring a member to have worked under a SAG contract once in the last seven years, and requiring them to have earned $7,500 in every one of those years, which is what, on the surface, Ned’s petition appears to call for.
I also think that someone needs to reconcile the argument that we should exclude young members just getting started because they don’t have enough experience to vote correctly with the accompanying argument that we should exclude veteran “vanity card” actors who have all the experience in the world. And to explain why now is the right time to undertake a political restructuring of SAG.
But I guess what it comes down to most for me, Peter, is that we just don’t know who a contract is going to affect. If you’d have asked me in 1996 whether I thought I would be affected by the cable and home video provisions of the SAG theatrical contract, I’d probably have said no. And under the terms of Ned’s petition, I’d have been barred from voting, having only made $4,986 on Swingers, and less than that on The Low Life, the year before. But if you’d asked me again in 1999 after Office Space hit cable and DVD, I’d have to say, you know what, I kinda was. I was affected a great deal.
Twenty-some years ago, when SAG accepted a catastrophically bad deal on what was then a New Media, I suspect part of the reason was that the majority of the “working” membership felt that those particular provisions didn’t affect them. That “real” actors made their money in box offices and on network television, and that this new stuff and the actors who needed the opportunities it provided weren’t worth protecting. That decision haunts us to this day.
Ultimately, Peter, you, Ned and I want the same thing. We want the AMPTP to give us a strong contract. We want to collectively make wise, informed and savvy decisions about how to get there from here. We’re just starting that process. But I do think we have to be in it together, and I don’t think there’s anything Pollyanna-ish about that, unless you’re referring to the picture Nikki posted, in which case I gotta give you that one.
All the best,
Ron
Ned, Chad etc.
Now is not the time to be putting divisive petitions out to the membership. There is no way the current board is going to enact qualified voting before the next contract and they would catch hell from the rank and file if they did. You still can’t use qualified voting to get around Article XII’s guidelines and you can’t change article XII without a vote of the entire membership.
My dearest hope is that the strike authorization is not needed at all to get a fair contract.
If you want to push for qualified voting in the future, use the established procedures for a guild referendum after we have a theatrical contract. Your proposal at this time does nothing polarize the membership one way or the other and draws focus away from the goal of securing a fair contract.
Since I joined the guild I’ve watched the agent franchise agreements fall apart, and the politics of guild elections become a two party system among other debacles. The AMPTP will pounce on every sign of weakness they see from the guild to dilute their offers in the next contract.
Wow.
What a bunch of tools. Not a good time to push this agenda. Last year would have been great, Mr. Vaughn.
I’m a working actor, have been for years. Quite comfortably above any minimum that would be established, but I agree. This goes through, I go fi-core.
Disgusting.