More Opinion Favoring SAG Petition Drive

COMMENTS (56)

• A better idea would be a talent threshold. By that standard I don’t think most of these petitioners qualify. (Yes, I’m looking at you Stephen Collins and Ned Vaughn.)

  Comment by Stephen Vauhn — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 9:30am PDT  Reply to this post

• Stephen Collins for President!
  Common sense.

  Comment by Tom — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 9:37am PDT  Reply to this post

• It’s interesting how some of the actors who support this petition (like Ben Affleck) say they are all for supporting social equality in general, but when it comes to their own well-being are eager to create a caste system among their peers.

  Comment by Ally — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 10:14am PDT  Reply to this post

• It’s a nice idea, but it’s not going anywhere. The MFers depend on the uneducated and unemployed for their margins of victory. They won’t do anything to upset their applecart.

  Comment by Robvious — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 10:38am PDT  Reply to this post

• Mr. Collins wrote that he was, “stunned to find that the number of crew members with SAG cards out numbered the actual cast”, then he went on to question, “would a grip” or other crew card members ever vote no on a SAG contract.
  Lots of people in this industry belong to more than one union. When you imply that crew personal aren’t worthy of having one of your elite SAG cards and wouldn’t vote in SAGS best interest…it makes you sound like a pompous ass.

  Comment by btl teamster — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 11:44am PDT  Reply to this post

• I’d like to see some voting numbers, in fact ANY SINGLE number to show that these “affected members” even have a leg to stand on– Any number to show that this whole movement isn’t just fear-based propaganda.

  In the 2006 SAG dues increase vote a WHOPPING 27% of the SAG membership bothered to vote. Where were all these SAG lurkers and (brace yourselves)Crew members (gasp!) that Collins doesn’t think are worthy of a vote in that ballot? Three quarters of the membership didn’t vote. How about a fact on this issue: What are the number of “vanity card holders” (as the “affected members” are calling them) that actually vote?

  And finally at the risk of repeating myself this is a movement by scared, yet busy, actors who make quite good, far-over-scale money and don’t want to see their jobs interrupted by a strike that only benefits those of us working for scale– those who the contract ACTUALLY AFFECTS. So there, The only affected members are those of us who have not been as lucky as Breneman, Vaughn, and Collins. The problem for us is that there are so few jobs for actors and you all at the top of the food chain are hogging the ball. It’s really not that you on top are so gifted in our craft and certainly not better qualified to suss out the financial issues for us. Get over yourselves. You’ve been so lucky. I know a lot of equally talented actors who have not been.

  Look, it’s a Union. A union is about ALL it’s members, not just the rich. And Nikki, why don’t you publish long time SAG member and SAG VP Kent McCord’s informed and opposing take on the issue which he sent out to all SAG members? What’s Rosenberg have to say? With the exception of Ron Livingston this whole thread is pretty one-sided. Where is the voice of those who have not signed the petition. Many well-known actors with name value have not “signed”. Just pick a name not on the alleged signers list and ask? This petition in less than 1% of the membership and you’re giving them all the voice. WWPKD? (What Would Peter Kaplan do?)

  Comment by Zackery — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 3:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Uh, as far as I’m aware this is the first reference I’ve seen made to the equivalent in residulas. Since a main purpose of this appears to be to target anyone sympathetic to membership first, you better run that one by your cohort. MFers seem to have pretty good resumes and have got to make plenty in residuals even if they’re possibly a bit older on average, that’s apparently principally what’s meant by the constant refrain of “we’ve got to get rid of those vanity card holders.” Also known as “grrr I hate democracy.”

  Comment by Muronao — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 5:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• An Open Letter to SAG President Alan Rosenberg:

  Dear Alan:

  When they say it’s not about elitism. It’s about elitism.

  When they say it’s about “strengthening” the union it makes anyone with a critical mind ask of their vaguely Orwellian term: How? By disenfranchising the majority of the Screen Actors Guild with respect to contract ratification? How does that strengthen anything?

  This proposal of the so-called “Working Actors Voice” group simply cannot be supported by facts. So like any fact-challenged group they rely on supposition and false assumption.

  Namely: If you don’t make any or “enough” money (in a given year or years) you won’t vote responsibly on contract proposals. Or, in Stephen Collins’ words you won’t have “a concrete stake” in the outcome. Really? How does he know that? He doesn’t because he can’t. So Collins, like any disingenuous debater, relies on paper tigers that he can create and then knock down.

  Full disclosure: Under their proposed rules I would qualify to vote on all contracts. But that doesn’t make me incapable of seeing and smelling a bad idea when it crosses my path. Just because I made it on the bus doesn’t mean I’m cool with the idea of leaving the rest behind.

  Based on the language of the SAG Constitution one can argue (and I do) that even a person who hasn’t worked in five years (but who could get a job in the next month) has an enlightened self-interest in the contents of a contract they could one day be working under. Much as a middle-class tax payer may vote against an onerous inheritance tax measure because one day they intend to be rich and leave it all to the kids.

  I repeat this objection every time I hear proposals like this: If you charge people money to join a union and you accept their annual dues (and a cut of their earnings, no matter how meager) they’re a union member in good standing. Create a two-tiered system and you’re on a slippery slope to an ineffective union. What’s next? A sub-group of series regulars splitting off from the union because they don’t think actors with guest star credits have a stake in their contracts?

  If you establish the principal that it’s okay to deny a member in good standing their right to vote on contracts based on a mutable definition of what “affected” means, then you’ve created an arbitrary standard which can be constantly changed, not on the basis of actual facts, but the whims and beliefs of a minority view of who is “responsible” and who isn’t.

  Furthermore, the argument of Collins, Brenneman et al. is defeated by the very language in the SAG Constitution they cite to support their case. The constitution says, “All collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.” The supporters of the proposal to strip union members of their right to vote on contracts make a dishonest shift of word and meaning when they carelessly and intentionally conflate “membership affected” with their phrase of choice “affected member.” I’ll leave the details to the class-action lawyers but, in brief, the former term refers to the total membership of SAG and the latter to an individual. As I said above: One can argue based on the actual language of the union’s constitution that all SAG members are potentially affected by the terms of a new contract and therefore should get to vote on them. The Brenneman group’s phrase seems to be a self-justifying circular argument: Only “affected” members should vote and oh, by the way, we get to define what an “affected” member is. To paraphrase Orwell: Imprecision in language leads to bad ideas, bad action and weakened institutions.

  The argument of Collins and Co. is not only intellectually dishonest; it’s contradictory. They say, for example (and with elitism in full view) that the members disqualified from voting on contracts can still vote on other measures—the selection of SAG leadership, strike authorization, etc. But if the members they want to disqualify can’t be trusted to vote responsibly on contracts, how can they be trusted to vote on who gets to run the union or when union leadership wants the membership to authorize a strike? They can’t have it both ways.

  I never thought anyone would make me sympathetic to Peter Bart and his overbearing ways. But since Stephen Collins brings it up, why shouldn’t Bart get a vote? He’s a member of the union. Ditto Harvey Weinstein. If we deny people the right to vote on SAG contracts because we don’t like them…do I need to finish the thought?

  We live, to our detriment, in a new age of the oligarch–on Wall Street, on Main Street and on K Street. And, I might add, when dealing with a corporate studio system that tries (and succeeds) in getting actors to do a so-called One-Day Guest Star credit for half of what they made five years ago. In such an age, wouldn’t it be better if the Screen Actors Guild found a way to extend the franchise and power of our membership rather than balkanize and marginalize it?

  Sincerely,

  Christopher Grove

  Comment by Christopher Grove — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 9:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The question I posed to Ms. Brenneman in DHD’s comments section some weeks ago remains unanswered.

  Mr. Collins asks, “Would these grips, electricians, makeup artists, producers, or writers ever vote NO on a SAG contract?”

  First off, it is certainly not just the aforementioned who would be excluded by affected member voting.

  Second – and this is the question that Ms. Brenneman and Mr. Vaughn have not deigned to answer – what documented evidence exists which demonstrates a compelling need to disenfranchise a significant percentage of the SAG membership from voting on the contract???

  All Mr. Collins provides is an unsupported assumption concerning how multiple cardholders and producers may vote. On the other hand, alienating a huge percentage of the membership in the run-up to a potential strike is extremely likely to lead to far fewer boots available to hit the pavement.

  Logic dictates, Mr. Collins, that SAG is better served by solidarity, by strength in numbers.

  In making their case for a change from the current status quo, it is incumbent upon the advocates of this change to make their case in such a way that the evidence is clear and irrefutable, and their proposed course of action the more beneficial. Mere suppositions and assumptions based on a cardholder’s status as a BTL member, an actor/producer (as Ms. Brenneman is), or the head of a television network for that matter, carry no weight.

  There is one other thing I am loathe to bring up, as factionalism is divisive and I personally am all about peace, love, and unity.

  It was recently pointed out to me that many of the actors who signed this petition have also been active in the Restore Respect faction.

  I cannot help but wonder if, as the evidence of this perceived threat to the guild is entirely lacking, the leaders and signatories of this petition have other personal motivations for advocating this course.

  I await an appropriate reply showing documented evidence of a threat to SAG posed by multiple and/or “vanity” cardholders, and assurances that in fact any perceived personal motivations for advocating this course are a mere chimera. Please note that as a political science major in college, I will readily recognize that assurances of the latter without corresponding evidence of the former constitute nothing more than mere rhetoric.

  Comment by mheister — Tuesday March 18, 2008 @ 10:34pm PDT  Reply to this post

• If the two-tiered voting system is introduced, SAG will make the same deadly mistake that the WGA made by forcing its less successful members to obey the will of the elite after denying them the right to cast a ballot on those decisions. Who needs the AMPTP to divide and conquer us when we do it to ourselves? SAG was formed because stars like James Cagney and others threw their weight along with those who weren’t stars, and everybody did well. Successful actors who are paid above scale should remember that there wouldn’t even be a scale without the rank-and-file power of SAG behind them.

  Comment by Nat Segaloff — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 7:53am PDT  Reply to this post

• A few responses to those who’ve posted regarding my letter here:

  bti teamster wrote: “Lots of people in this industry belong to more than one union. When you imply that crew personal [note: I think you meant personnel] aren’t worthy of having one of your elite SAG cards and wouldn’t vote in SAGS best interest…it makes you sound like a pompous ass.”

  Well, OK. I and my group are not gonna join in what we’ve come to expect is more name-calling, but, yes, many people in our industry are members of more than one union. I’m in 4 myself, including Actors Equity. But I can’t vote on Equity contracts right now because I haven’t worked one for over six years. I don’t feel that Equity is denying me my democratic rights, or behaving in an elite way. Their policy makes sense to me. I have no problem not being able to vote on, say, the Broadway contract. When and if I work that contract again, I’ll be able to vote on it — that’s as it should be.

  In the United States, if an American lives abroad, he or she eventually loses his or her right to vote in American elections, unless he or she comes back to America and re-establishes his or her participation in American life. That’s a fact. That’s the way our larger democracy works. By the thinking of some who oppose our petition drive, anyone who has ever lived in the US, or who has a dream to visit or live here, should be able to vote in American elections.

  Zackery wrote: “Look, it’s a Union. A union is about ALL it’s members, not just the rich.”

  Zackery, this proposal has nothing to do with being rich. Have you really looked at the list of supporters? For every “star” on the list, there are at least 10 names you’ve never heard of. These are working performers simply doing their best to make ends meet by working SAG and AFTRA contracts. A union is about protecting its members in the work place, and assuring fair and timely payment. It’s normal, common labor practice in most unions in the U.S. for long time non-working members not to vote on contracts. Since you insist on facts, that’s a fact. That’s why SAG doesn’t send me animation VO or interactive gaming contracts, among others. When and if I work those contracts, I’ll gladly vote on them – but contracts should be voted up or down by members who have a concrete stake in the outcome. That’s fair, it’s common sense, and most unions do it (that pesky fact again). Are you suggesting that most unions aren’t democratic? Do you feel that WGA and Equity are elitist?

  Christopher Grove is passionate, and clever. He attacks, insists upon facts and proof, but provides nothing but his own opinions in the process. He goes so far as to paraphrase George Orwell’s words about imprecise language. Wow.

  Christopher, the imprecise language we’re concerned with is in the SAG constitution. In its language saying that contracts should only be voted on by “members affected thereby,” it does not define what an “affected” member is. We’re merely seeking to define the word “affected” in precisely the same way that most American labor unions, including WGA, Actors Equity, and DGA do. (That’s a fact.) But our arguments, like yours, are our opinions. The SAG constitution refers to the membership many times, but only when it mentions sending out ballots for contracts does it change the language to ‘members affected thereby.’ That signals a difference, and there’s for a reason for the change. It means what it says. The board has a responsibility to define the clause. We are simply suggesting a definition. It’s up to the board to refine our proposal and bring us into compliance with the constitution.

  And, for the record, and, since you brought up “full disclosure,” I don’t know Harvey Weinstein, but I’ve met Peter Bart a few times over the years, and, far from what you assume, I like him. I also agree with him that he shouldn’t vote on ratifying a SAG contract. (And, in the interest of full disclosure, he and I haven’t met or spoken for many years.)

  Christopher, Zackery, bti teamster: you and I have a lot of different opinions about what strengthens a union, and a democracy. But you support your argument with your own opinions and then insist on facts from me. Can you possibly accept the fact that we’re simply having a difference of opinion? Democracies are all about honoring dissent. (That’s another fact.)

  The ability to differ in opinion and to argue important issues, in a civil fashion, is a true test of a democracy. Our petitioners have worked hard not to be divisive.

  One of the things we’re repeatedly being called is “elitist”—for daring to suggest that SAG and AFTRA do what WGA, Equity, DGA, and most American labor unions do: implement some sort of definition of who’s “affected” by a contract. Are you suggesting that these unions, and hundreds of others, are all elitist? Because facts are facts, and most unions do what we’re asking our unions to do.

  Extending mheister’s reckoning, if SAG opened its doors to tens of thousands more who don’t make their livings as actors, those numbers alone would strengthen the union. And like Mr. Grove, he insists on facts and evidence. But where’s the evidence that mere numbers have strengthened SAG?

  To producer-writer Nat Segaloff: I need to remind you that James Cagney and other stars threw their weight behind the union because, at the time of SAG’s origin, the union was made up almost entirely of people who worked the contracts for a living. Fact. And it’s a situation that SAG has wandered from in recent years, to the detriment of our bargaining power.

  Mr. Segaloff also writes: “Successful actors who are paid above scale should remember that there wouldn’t even be a scale without the rank-and-file power of SAG behind them.” This is circular, but I think he means that there wouldn’t be a union without the rank-and-file members. I agree 100%. Mr. Segaloff, please look at the names of the people who have signed our petition. The vast majority of them are rank-and-file, by any definition.

  And here’s another fact that perhaps our detractors will consider: even if SAG adopts the most liberal possible definition of who is an affected member, working actors would still greatly be outvoted by those who don’t make their livings in SAG. We have no expectation of “taking over the union,” or any desire to do so. We’re just trying to restore a common sense definition of who votes on contract ratification. Precisely what the constitution requires. That’s another fact.

  Stephen Collins

  Comment by Stephen Collins — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 11:29am PDT  Reply to this post

• Mr. Collins -

  Thank you for reading my comment and responding. As Abdu’l-Baha said, “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”

  It is my hope that as we actors continue this discussion, we will find the common ground we need to stand as one, in solidarity, in our contract negotiations.

  You said:

  “Extending mheister’s reckoning, if SAG opened its doors to tens of thousands more who don’t make their livings as actors, those numbers alone would strengthen the union. And like Mr. Grove, he insists on facts and evidence. But where’s the evidence that mere numbers have strengthened SAG?”

  With all due respect Mr. Collins, you are the one “extending” my reckoning here. This discussion is not about requirements for admission into the Screen Actors’ Guild, it’s about the rights and responsibilities of those of us who have demonstrated our ability to be professional actors by acquiring SAG work, paying our way into the Guild, and paying the dues required to remain in good standing.

  Because you, sir, are advocating this change, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why your proposed change is a better course than the current one. Thus far, no such demonstration has been forthcoming. To the contrary, the letter now posted at workingactorsvoice.com calls the current situation “unsettling” and “dangerous” without providing a shred of evidence to support this claim.

  Further, the primary supporting argument the letter provides is that some other guilds have a similar policy, including the WGA, DGA, and Actors Equity. Leaving Actors Equity aside, affected member voting did not help the WGA one iota. The WGA won the gains it made in its most recent contract after years of hard work re-unifying a fractured membership and expending badly-needed resources in organizing and research. As for the DGA, a huge percentage of its members are not directors; they’re AD’s and other BTL professionals whose interests clearly diverge from those of directors. The last contract the DGA negotiated speaks for itself.

  The letter also argues that guild members who do not have a concrete stake in the outcome are “vulnerable to manipulation”. Experience has demonstrated that voters in any contested election anywhere are vulnerable to manipulation – lies, deceit, spin-doctoring, fear-mongering, appeals to our baser nature or our better angels. One may just as easily argue that you, sir, and the 1,000+ actors who signed this entreaty are the victims of manipulation, manipulation perpetrated by those who have, again without a shred of hard evidence, set up this straw-man argument that vanity or multiple-union or producer/executive card holders will vote against the best interests of the guild as a whole.

  This is why I asked for evidence of a cabal. Lacking such evidence, a proposal for “affected member voting” carries no weight, and must be rejected out of hand.

  Comment by mheister — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 12:53pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Stephen Collins said:

  >>By the thinking of some who oppose our petition drive, anyone who has ever lived in the US, or who has a dream to visit or live here, should be able to vote in American elections.<<

  That’s not the argument at all. Those who oppose the petition are saying that if you make someone a SAG member (or a citizen) and have them pay dues (or tax them) then they have the right to vote. And while some states tried to create literacy tests and poll taxes to keep those they didn’t want to vote from doing so, this was later outlawed. Why on earth would you want to follow this path?

  Comment by andthentherewassag — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 3:06pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Mr. Collins wrote: “It’s normal, common labor practice in most unions in the U.S. for long time non-working members not to vote on contracts. Since you insist on facts, that’s a fact.”

  With a statement like this I think we are getting closer to your understanding my problem with this “affected member” voting proposal you and your colleagues are championing.

  Your statement above is what we call an assertion. It has no supporting facts. You have offered absolutely nothing to back it up, save the idea that you know it to be true. And using a word like “most” doesn’t inform me either. Do you mean 50.0002% or do you mean 99.9%, or, as I suspect, you really don’t know the number. And so here, even in what might be called your rebuttal, you still really don’t have any facts. And that is my problem with your request to take my vote and the vote of many others–in fact 80% of the union or more– and put it in solely in the hands of you and your fellow champions of rhetoric.

  If you could show me that you have researched your position well or at all, and that you are able to understand the issues and use that understanding to make intelligent decisions I would be more inclined to let you and your comrades have my vote. I still would not let you have my vote because that would be absurd. But at least you would have given me pause.

  And let’s assume your statement is true that most unions do such and such. Your argument would still suffer as we say in Latin, argumentum ad populum. My Latin isn’t so great, but I recall it’s a fallacious argument based on the idea that most people think X is true, therefore X is true.

  And regardless of all that, most unions are not SAG. In fact now I’m using “most” which is vague. So I will say all unions are not SAG–except of course SAG.

  The SAG membership is in a unique field with unique working conditions. Some of the more positive working conditions that benefit you have been conceived, fought for, and approved by the whole of the SAG membership over the years and yet now for some reason you can’t seem to explain–don’t even attempt to explain–we, the majority of the Union, are not worthy of a vote anymore.

  But again, back to the part about my call for facts. As Judge Smailes said in Caddychack, “Well…we’re waiting.”

  And we’re waiting for you and Ms. Brenneman, and Mr. Vaughn and whoever else shows up as your ad hoc spokesperson.

  The questions are, but not limited to: Who exactly are these “vanity card holders” as you vainly call them, and how in fact do they vote? Or do they vote? Because in all SAG votes I can find with a cursory search only about 1/4 of the membership votes. In the 2006 commercial contract vote 21% of the membership voted with 95% of those in favor of the contract. In the 2006 dues increase ballot 27% of the membership voted. Where are the scary 90,000 voters you allege are so subversive in these votes?

  Show me where these alleged corrupt vanity card holders have a negative or positive affect on anything. (I will note the current buy-in of about $2200 plus yearly dues has a positive effect the Unions financial standing.) Show me how the crew, who I guess you think are corrupt in their thinking and would vote against a SAG strike in favor of their crew job, are so negative for negotiations. I don’t think the crew or the SAG membership as a whole are as self-serving as you might be–my mistake–”as you might think,” I meant to say.

  And with all this in mind I have to say this whole idea sounds a little fishy. Under what condition would you vote in favor of a strike? Would cutting the number of SAG extras per production day be a stumbling block? Would doing away with the pay bump for a Silent Bit affect you? Would creation of the One-day-Guest Star to subvert an existing pay rate for Guest Stars be the issue? New media? The Ultra Low Budget guidelines? What are the issues that so concern you and your friends about this potential strike?

  We have no idea what contract specifics are important to you and your comrades. You’re not saying. It’s fishy, Mr. Collins. It’s smells like fish.

  Comment by Zackery — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 4:19pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear Zackery,

  Our petition is for one thing and one thing only: to create a meaningful, common-sense definition of what an “affected member” is. Our petition does not address any other SAG issues or politics. Our purpose is to rise about the factional politics of the past years; you won’t hear my views on other SAG issues here. Our petitioners aren’t interested in telling SAG members how to vote. We are interested in who votes–on contracts. If you think that having grips, makeup artists, producers, and vanity card holders vote on our contracts is a good thing, you’re entitled to your opinion. My common sense tells me that this isn’t good for SAG. Yes, that’s an assertion. Finally, I can’t prove it any more than you can prove that it’s good (as you seem to be saying) for SAG to have, say, Les Moonves vote our contracts up or down.

  You criticize me for making an “assertion” with no “supporting facts.” Do you not see that everything you state is also an assertion, and is simply your opinion? You’re quite clever about this, to be sure (he who fires first often “wins” in politics). I’m not interested in “winning” or “losing” that way, or in engaging further here. Let’s agree to disagree.

  Comment by stephen Collins — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 5:48pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear mheister—

  So much of this comes down to a difference of opinion. Most American unions require a member to work a contract in order to vote on it. That isn’t a coincidence, or beside the point. It’s common labor practice. It’s a fact. It’s relevant to our argument.

  Our definition of “affected” member is quite liberal—and, I repeat for the umpeenth time, very much open to discussion and refinement.

  I think you need to check your dictionary about the word “cabal.” Your last post said, “This is why I asked for evidence of a cabal. Lacking such evidence, a proposal for ‘affected member voting’ carries no weight, and must be rejected out of hand.”

  A cabal is a secret political clique or faction, or, more loosely, a plot. I have no need or desire to prove to you or anyone the existence of a cabal here. Did you mean something else?

  As if to nullify the fact that the DGA uses a form of member affected voting, you mention that a huge portion of the DGA are ADs. That’s true. But a majority of DGA members (including ADs) work, regularly. And an overwhelming majority of DGA members voted to ratify the new contract. My guess is that working DGA members were pleased to have made historical inroads into payment for digital, online media. (Does SAG have to accept their terms in pattern? Not necessarily. That’s up to our negotiators and, eventually, our affected membership.)

  You wrote: “the letter now posted at workingactorsvoice.com calls the current situation ‘unsettling’ and ‘dangerous’ without providing a shred of evidence to support this claim.”

  Well, we cite evidence and facts, and you keep ignoring them. The main evidence we cite is that SAG contracts are voted up and down by a great majority of members who don’t make their livings as actors. Their lives aren’t significantly changed by the outcome of a contract vote. This, of course, is our opinion. It seems like common sense to us. That’s why over 1300 rank-and-file, middle class, and star actors signed on unhesitatingly. Most other democratically functioning Americans unions agree with our position.

  You are entitled to disagree. Even to call us elitist, as so many keep doing. But to prove your claim, you’d have to get others to agree that most unions in America are elitist, including Actors Equity and WGA.

  You seem to have made a New Rule: you wrote, “It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why your proposed change is a better course than the current one.” Well, we keep attempting to do just that, but our arguments and facts don’t seem to be enough for you. I believe that the facts, and labor precedent, speak for themselves and support our position. To me and other, it’s simple common sense.

  Those who disagree with our position love to point out that SAG is a union, there for all its members—but when I point out the fact that most unions, including most creative unions, use affected member voting, they insist that, well, SAG is different. Sure it’s different. But it’s a union. It’s a trade union, created to protect its workers in the workplace and to ensure their fair and timely payment. Let’s agree to disagree.

  There’s no cabal here. We’re right out in the open (taking below-the-belt, hurtful insults from some who oppose what we’re suggesting). Personally, I believe that James Cagney would side with us if he were around. I don’t believe he envisioned a union where non-working members outnumber working ones by enormous majorities. But that’s my opinion. I can’t prove what Cagney would do any more than you can.

  I doubt that anything I say will convince you, but I do appreciate your being civil in your last posting. That’s a start.

  Stephen Collins

  Comment by Stephen Collins — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 5:59pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Can someone who is connected with this petition – perhaps you Mr. Collins please address the issue that you all have been dodging? The fact that it will have a greater affect on restricting minorities, women, senior members, and even less attractive people than it will on say, white men.

  I previously linked to the charts SAG distributed about the breakdown of available parts – 70% or more parts were for caucasians.

  The acting business, unlike so many other unions that may or may not have voting restrictions is in large part based on who you are physically – it is a prerequisite to get in the door and be seen. Then talent comes in. If the fact that there are 50 blonde blue eyed hotties required and only two Asian dry cleaners on any given day means that Asians HAVE LESS JOB OPPORTUNITIES, then restrictions based on working a certain number of days hurts minorities. Until the opportunities are equal and Hollywood expands its minds – oh for that happy day – this petition is unfair to many people based on race, gender, age, looks, height, and weight…look at the breakdowns.

  Also, you are not arguing for having worked at all in TV and Film, you are putting a number of days in. If its just about vanity card holders that haven’t worked in a long time then why doesn’t one day of principle or extra work suffice (not that I would support that either).

  Comment by SAG MEMBER — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 6:02pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Stephen you said in support of your group’s proposal:

  “The main evidence we cite is that SAG contracts are voted up and down by a great majority of members who don’t make their livings as actors.”

  That, by the way, is only evidence that a lot of low-wage/no-wage dues-paying SAG members in good standing vote on contract issues. Not evidence that the status quo is in any way detrimental to the well-being of the membership at large. It could, in fact, be evidence that this no-wage/low wage group is engaged in the affairs of SAG, has done their due diligence on the matter and voted with a great deal of knowledge with respect to the issues and challenges that face working actors. Much as I as a voter in the outside world can vote on statewide ballot measures that, if passed, will have no direct effect on my life but may at some time in the future.

  A few follow-up questions for you (or anyone in your group): 1) Why is the status quo demonstrably harmful? 2) What damage has the status quo demonstrably done to the union and its membership? 3) What benefit would your group’s disenfranchisement of 90% of the dues paying membership deliver to the membership of SAG?

  Stephen, I too appreciate the civility (and exhaustiveness) of your replies but almost everything you say fails to address the central question raised by your group’s efforts: What exactly is the problem you’re trying to fix?

  If you’re going to make what may be the most radical change in the structure of voting in the Screen Actors Guild’s history it’s surely not too much to ask that the proposal be based on solid, verifiable, quantifiable facts.

  You have not demonstrated that having lower or no-wage actors vote on contract ratifications is by definition a bad thing.

  In your witty reply to my “Open Letter to Alan Rosenberg” you very deftly avoid the central and fatal flaw of the premise of your group’s whole enterprise: That people who don’t meet certain income targets aren’t qualified or capable of making rational and informed decisions with respect to SAG contracts. You seem to think that they can make rational and informed decisions with respect to authorizing a strike (the key economic weapon in the arsenal of a union). So why can’t the same group be trusted to make rational and informed decisions on contracts that may (or may not), at some point in the future, directly affect their earnings?

  Your whole argument is a tautology based on opinions and self-justifying reasoning: “We think people voting on a contract that don’t make any money is a bad thing because we say it’s a bad thing and it must be stopped.”

  Arguments need to be bolstered by facts and evidence. Your group’s opinion that so-called vanity cardholders voting on contract ratifications is ipso facto a bad thing is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Big difference. And the opinion of any minority, no matter how well intentioned, should not form the basis of a major policy shift.

  Finally, and parenthetically, can we please discard the term “vanity cardholder?” First of all it’s a smear. Second, in 22 years of being a SAG member I have yet to meet a person who flashed a SAG card at a party or in a coffee shop and said: “Check this out. How cool am I with my $200 a year SAG card! And I get to vote in elections every two years!”

  (As you seem to be carrying a lot of water in this debate for your group-—at least in this forum–one final question: Is there anyone else in this group that will engage in a principled and civil debate on this issue?)

  Comment by Christopher Grove — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 9:46pm PDT  Reply to this post

• To ‘Sag Member’,

  The point you raise is an interesting one. If I get you right, you’re asking: Will minorities, some of whom are undoubtedly under-represented in performing roles, find themselves further under-represented on the voting rolls.

  I can understand the challenges the minority members of all kinds face in the casting world, but I feel that to address those concerns at the time of voting is too late. The time and place for representation of minority concerns is at the Wages and Working conditions meetings, to which every member is welcome. I’ve found them to be highly responsive to the concerns of those who attend. If the issues are fully addressed there and presented in the offer to management, then they can be voted on by the members of all stripes who are affected by it.

  No system will please everyone but the constitution does say we have to draw a line. The line we’ve drawn is a proposal that will be considered by the board and it is up to them to create the definition.

  And a definition must be made. The Electrician’s union (non-theatrical) has affected member voting. In order to vote on their contract, you have to be working at the time, show up at the union hall and give a voice vote. Nobody screws with electricians. SAG and AFTRA members, of course, have VERY different issues than electricians, but one thing that we share is that, at the negotiating table, the employers don’t care if the non-working union members go out on strike. The only thing that matters to them is whether the people they want to hire are available at the time. It ain’t pretty, but it’s what matters during negotiations.

  Further, the one thing that any other union in this country would not tolerate is having it’s employers on the voting rolls. That is a matter of fiduciary responsibility that must be addressed by the board. They and the card-holding grips, hairstylists, execs, and caterers have a patent conflict of interest when it comes to striking. If I made my living as any one of these, would I ever even consider going out on strike for a new residual schedule? I think the answer is no.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Wednesday March 19, 2008 @ 10:01pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear Mr. Collins -

  Thank you for your frank response and your kind words.

  To clear up a couple of things briefly, when I used the term “cabal” I was not referring to your coalition but this hypothetical group of actors who would secretly vote against the interests of the guild. If that wasn’t clear in my prior post, I apologize.

  Also, it was another commenter who referred to James Cagney, not me.

  Now, on to the basic premise. You essentially hold that contracts should be only be voted on by members who make their living specifically from acting, hence the name of your group, Working Actors Voice. The reason you cite is the fear that guild members whose income accrues primarily from something other than acting jobs would vote against the best interests of the guild. You can cite no hard evidence that they would, only a supposition based on their other job (BTL crew, TV network head).

  Now if the concern is to eliminate from the voting pool SAG members who are more likely to vote against the best interests of the guild (I am assuming this is your motivation, otherwise, why propose a change?), what about actors whose votes may be tempered by their other financial concerns? Shouldn’t we also disenfranchise actor/producers, and actors who own shares of stock in the big entertainment conglomerates or important production companies? Doesn’t it stand to reason that the actor/producer who clearly has a vested interest in driving down the wages of their fellow actors, because it will put more money in their pocket, may very well vote for a lousy contract? Therefore, isn’t it time to exclude the likes of Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Drew Barrymore, Adam Sandler, Sean Penn, and Amy Brenneman from our democratic processes???

  Is that exclusionary proposal just plain silly? Absolutely. But I am making a point. We in SAG have long had a particular threshold for voting on contracts. It’s not based on what you have done, but what you may very well be doing next year. We understand the vagaries of the business, because we live them.

  Are there a few SAG members who got their cards as a result of their power in some other part of the industry? Absolutely. Did a few cheat? Yes, and I’ve heard at least one very talented and prominent actor testify to this publicly. Even if that handful somehow colluded and voted as a bloc, are there enough of them to sway a contract vote? I seriously doubt it.

  Now what about the SAG members who have slogged along, and for whatever reason just haven’t achieved that working threshold you’re proposing? Isn’t it quite possible that some of them were amongst the boots on the ground carrying picket signs with the writers earlier this year, and would also be carrying signs for their own guild should worse come to worst? Why oh why would you want to make them feel like they don’t matter, like they’re less than you, especially after they have played by the rules to earn and keep their SAG cards?

  Where you see people you fear could vote against the best interests of the guild, I see people who are making a serious investment in their own futures. They invest their time, their talents, their money in pursuit of their dreams. The last thing any of them would logically do is spoil the meat before they got a slice.

  With contract negotiations coming up, shouldn’t we all be speaking with one voice, acting of one accord, in order to secure the most beneficial contract for all of us?

  Comment by mheister — Thursday March 20, 2008 @ 12:20am PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear Mr. Waring -

  You said, “the employers don’t care if the non-working union members go out on strike. The only thing that matters to them is whether the people they want to hire are available at the time.”

  I beg to differ. If this proposal for “affected member voting” were to become the SAG rule, it is quite possible that a large number of actors would go Financial Core (Angelina Jolie’s dad did, and he’s working). It’s a reasonable and understandable response to disenfranchisement. Such actors will have no problems with crossing a SAG picket line (which won’t be that tough anyway, as there will be, relatively speaking, so few actors left to picket in the first place).

  In the event of a strike, are Brad Pitt or Will Smith replaceable? No. James Spader and William Shatner on Boston Legal? Probably not (but then again, David E. Kelley is rather famous for his wholesale on-camera personnel shifts). How about the casts of most low- to mid-budget films? The casts of TV series that aren’t in the Nielson Top 20? The moguls in such a situation may very well roll the dice with brand-spanking new Fi-Core talent, extending the strike, weakening SAG, and quite possibly leaving some striking working actors with no jobs to come back to.

  As Ron Livingston so sagely noted (and I’m paraphrasing), behind every working actor are five very talented actors ready and willing to take that job.

  A brief bird-walk. True story. An actor on a TV show became the flavor of the week with fans, and got a big head. This actor was called in to the showrunner’s office for a chat. Their conversation was light, seemingly insignificant. The actor’s prima donna behavior didn’t even come up. After this talk, the actor left his prima donna persona at home and showed up to work. What happened? The showrunner had headshots scattered on his desk, headshots of actors who were the exact same type as the prima donna.

  Most actors, working or not, don’t have the luxury of knowing they’re irreplaceable. Lamentably, we’re not. As a guild, we lose sight of this at our own risk.

  Comment by mheister — Thursday March 20, 2008 @ 12:50am PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear mheister,

  I agree with your premise. There are plenty of good actors not working regularly, but please take another look at the requirements in this proposal. They are broad and reasonable and by our estimates would include over 75% of the membership of SAG and a greater portion of AFTRA. Our website, http://www.workingactorsvoice.com, has more info.

  The proposal is designed to include performers at many levels of a career. Someone having a rough patch shouldn’t be denied a vote on a contract that affects them and I think our proposal takes that into account. But someone who only does commercials should not have the same vote on a TV/TH contract as someone else who does.

  I don’t work commercials and I’ve never understood why I’ve gotten ballots for that agreement. I don’t receive the ‘interactive’ ballot or the ‘puppetry’ ballot and that seems right to me, because I don’t know what they’re about. It only seems reasonable to me that you should only vote on things you know about. Yes, a member can educate themselves on the issues, but the constitution says ‘affected’ and to me that means someone who’s had experience with the contract. Maybe we can quibble on the extent of the requirements, but isn’t the principal a valid one?

  Comment by Todd Waring — Thursday March 20, 2008 @ 9:27am PDT  Reply to this post

• Todd -

  In short, the principle of “affected member voting” is not a valid one.

  You mention your non-involvement in commercials, but you must be aware that more and more, regulars on series and actors in movies have their likenesses and their public images linked to products placed in said programs. In effect, with product placement, ALL actors are commercial actors, whether they choose to appear in 30-second TV spots or not.

  Product placement does affect employment. As I pointed out in a prior comment, Will Arnett had to bow out of the role of KITT’s voice (a Ford Mustang) in the new Knight Rider television series because of his association with General Motors. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine Val Kilmer, now the voice of KITT, losing another series acting opportunity because the program is sponsored by Chrysler.

  More fundamentally, the commercials contract is not the equivalent of the dancers’ situation because, as Ron Livingston pointed out, only a small percentage of the members have that particular specialized skill, while by contrast, ANY actor may be cast in a commercial if they fit the call. The same very obviously applies to series television, movies, and content produced directly for the Internet, wireless, or other New Media.

  On top of all that, if you caught a break and suddenly came in demand to hawk deodorant, tell me with a straight face you would hesitate even one second before cashing in. Seriously.

  As I pointed out in my last reply to Stephen Collins (I LOVE all things Trek, so contradicting him is not the easiest thing to do), every actor who has a valid SAG card has met the threshold for voting on the contracts we’re talking about. We’ve proven we’re professionals by getting jobs, we’ve proven our interest in gaining more work as professionals by joining the guild and keeping our dues current. This is as true for Brad Pitt as it is for you and me.

  The purpose of the guild is to protect the rights of ALL its members through the collective action of the ENTIRE membership. Disenfranchisement invites acrimony from within the guild and competition from Financial Core and non-union actors from without (and don’t kid yourself. An enterprising producer could easily make a movie starring Jon Voight and an entirely non-union cast, and shoot it in a right-to-exploit state like New Mexico). In the changing landscape of this industry, SAG cannot afford to entertain exclusionary policies.

  Also, with formal contract negotiations about to commence – and this is the same question I posed to Mr. Collins – why oh why would you choose to purposely alienate literally thousands of members you rely on to help make real the threat of a strike and would ask to support you should worse come to worst? Why would you roll out Financial Core like a red carpet and invite producers to recast TV series and possibly movies with less expensive and easier-to-exploit talent??? Why would you take these actions that would only weaken the guild and make it far more likely SAG would be forced to accept a lousy contract???

  The affected member voting proposal, moreover, is a fear-based response to a threat that its proponents cannot even provide solid documentation to back up, and have admitted as much in their responses in this comment section. In other words, in real terms, the threat doesn’t even exist.

  In short, the affected member voting proposal does not pass the fairness test OR the what’s-better-for-the-guild test.

  Comment by mheister — Thursday March 20, 2008 @ 2:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear mheister,

  I must disagree with almost everything you’re saying.

  I believe this is the heart of your argument:

  “The purpose of the guild is to protect the rights of ALL its members through the collective action of the ENTIRE membership.”

  Here is where I think you are half right. I agree with the first part and disagree with the second.

  How can you justify Stephen Spieberg’s vote, having the same weight as your own.

  The state of California has a version of affected member voting– the residency requirement. I can’t vote on issues that only affect San Diego because I don’t live there. I may visit there sometimes but I’m not really affected by their politics. I’m Californian, so I get to vote on state offices and such, but I don’t get to influence the politics in San Diego, and vice versa. The requirements we’re proposing are far less strict, the the principal is the same. By you’re reasoning, because I’m Californian, I should be able to influence the outcome of elections in San Diego. That’s seems wrong.

  I think you’re running together the ideas of unionism and solidarity. Here’s why I think that. The WGA has some pretty onerous requirements for voting in general. There are four categories of membership, only one of which is awarded voting status. Did the ‘Associate’ members, who couldn’t vote, refuse to walk the picket line on the grounds that they were not accorded the same rights as ‘Current’ members? Frankly, I don’t know, but I doubt it. Certainly, there was no talk of revolt by the former. Most unions operated under some kind of work requirement. That isn’t by itself a reason to do so, but it is the norm.

  Unionism is about collective bargaining for the good of the members, solidarity is about showing support for the cause. They’re similar but not interchangeable. If there are members who would bolt, because they were denied a ballot on a contract they’ve only worked minimally or not at all, then I think that shows poor understanding of the distinction.

  You’re right, I would probably do a commercial in a second, but until I do, I know bubkis about contract, the working conditions, the wages, and the residuals. And therefore I shouldn’t vote on that collective bargaining agreement.

  I believe the Fi-Core threat is tantamount to fear-mongering. And I mean that from both sides– the members you are speaking of and those at the other end the spectrum, who feel their vote is outweighed by voters who have little or no stake in the outcome. I think those threats shouldn’t influence the reasoned decision-making of the national board.

  Thanks for you thoughtful comments. I doubt anyone’s reading us anymore, but it’s good to have an exchange with another Trekkor.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Thursday March 20, 2008 @ 6:53pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Todd –

  I don’t believe electricians are hired by the color of their skin, hair or eyes, or by their height or weight. Or how cute they are, for that matter. That’s what makes SAG vastly different from a number of other unions.

  It is one thing to ask employers to be more open minded about the physical descriptions they are willing to hire, and to try to get something written into contracts as you suggest they could do at Wages and Working conditions.

  It is another thing to restrict people’s ability to vote on THEIR wages in THEIR OWN union because their physical description means it is harder for them to meet some arbitrary requirement of days worked. I’m not just talking about penalizing people based on race but on any number of areas where the balance is off in the breakdowns. I find this ethically wrong. And why kick someone when they are already down (fighting tooth and nail for one of a handful of roles). There was a time when black people and women couldn’t vote in America – that’s what this smacks of. THE JOB OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT EQUAL – that’s a long term problem to be addressed – but to put a new law into affect that because of that means SAG marginalizes Black, Asian, Native American, Latino, Middle Eastern, fat, really short and really tall, and plain people, etc, etc. is just plain WRONG.

  And no one seems to have an answer for how everyone who doesn’t fit into the much needed categories aren’t going to being underrepresented and unfairly penalized when it comes to voting if this goes is passed.

  I’d like to hear from Stephen Collins.

  Comment by SAG Member — Thursday March 20, 2008 @ 6:56pm PDT  Reply to this post