More Opinion Favoring SAG Petition Drive

COMMENTS (56)

• Todd -

  Let’s take your California/San Diego analogy. Obviously only residents of San Diego vote in the city’s municipal elections, as they are ones who, living in the city limits, pay taxes.

  If membership in SAG is California, then the contracts that Working Actors Voice would like to change the rules for are like state laws, and SAG dues are like state taxes. Submitting a contract for approval is like a state initiative. Citizens would be analogous to actors who have proven their citizenship by having procured professional employment on SAG signatory productions, paid their membership fees and kept up their dues (taxes).

  Every citizen of the state of California may cast their vote on initiatives, whether it directly affects them or not.

  To follow your analogy, what you are proposing is taxation without representation, for which Americans fought a bloody revolution. Or perhaps you’d prefer to look at the work test as the equivalent of a poll tax, a device used successfully in the South to disenfranchise African-Americans.

  Either way, viewed in this light, your proposal smells rather anti-democratic and un-American, wouldn’t you say?

  As a fellow Trekker, you’ll understand me when I observe that the Yangs would not abide by this.

  PS – There may be a lurker or two still following this thread.

  Comment by mheister — Thursday March 20, 2008 @ 9:10pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear Sag Member,

  I have no doubt that you are right about the under-representation of a variety of minorities in the the number of roles that appear on screen. There are biases in Hollywood much as there are in the country as a whole.

  I think the more relevant stats for us would be the number of SAG and AFTRA members of a particular minority who work regularly verses, say, white males that work regularly. I believe your assumption is that minority SAG and AFTRA members, overall, get a lesser percentage of jobs than white males. I’m just not sure that’s true, or rather I think it depends on the minority in question. I suspect that black males as a percentage of their overall membership work more than white males as a percentage of theirs, whereas the reverse is probably true for older women. That is a complete guess on my part, but I know for a while there, producers couldn’t get enough Asians, then Middle Easterners were in demand. My point is that the use of minorities is very much in flux and affected member voting is in no way a throwback to racist days. The definition is purposely very broad and may wind up even broader in committee.

  If I read you right, by your reckoning everybody should be able to vote on any contract whether they’ve worked it or not, whether they know anything about it or not, whether they’ve worked at all in recent years, or whether they’re a grip now or an exec. As long as they have a card, they can vote. If that is your position, then I’m afraid we disagree at the most fundamental level.

  It’s not a new law. It’s already being done with regard to the interactive contract and the puppetry contract. The constitution asks that the contract ballots be sent to the members affected thereby. We can dicker with the definition, but it has to mean something. We can’t just ignore it because it’s hard to get a job.

  P.S. Sorry about not being Stephen Collins.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Thursday March 20, 2008 @ 10:45pm PDT  Reply to this post

• From Frances Fisher:

  This whole issue is a political move by RR/WA to regain a majority in the next election, and they are using actors (many of whom I communicated with, who did not know the ramifications of what they were signing) to use their names for the next election.

  My question still stands: How can members of SAG seeks to disenfranchise actual SAG members who are actors, yet Aftra has not yet stepped up to the plate to disenfranchise members who vote on the TV/Theatrical contract who do not even work the contract: Broadcasters, diskjockeys, weathermen, etc….they vote on the TV/Theatrical, pertaining to actors, yet this faction of SAG would seek to disenfrachise their own members,brothers and sisters, who earn status in SAG by actually working the contract?

  This ill-timed letter cannot come at a worse time: we are going into the most crucial negotiations in recent history, and they are requesting a split amongst our membership. That is insane. For shame. Opening up another weakness within our membership in front of the AMPTP.

  And let me ask this question, with a hopeful response:

  If you are asking for qualifed voting, then you must be saying that you did not like the last, say, two last votes in the TV/Theatrical contracts, otherwise, why would you be raising this issues?

  Did you not like the one-year extension that took us out of parity with WGA, and that hung WGA out to dry? Is that what you are saying?

  Are you saying that non-working members voted for this extension, and that you would have voted against it? Do you even know what I am talking about? I doubt it.

  I contend, because I have communicated with enough actors who signed this silly letter, that they were misinformed about the intent of this letter, and they are being used for political gain.

  Let me be clear: Vanity card holders, who do not seek work and hold it for their egos, have no place in our union. Les Moonves But doing this right before a negotiation, when all actors should be standing shoulder to shoulder, is folly of the highest order.

  I have to ask: what is your agenda? Why would actors go against actors? We should all be standing together. It is embarassing that this issue must be played out on DHD, instead of being brought to the Guild, as any member has a right to do.

  So I ask this question: Why are you airing your dirty laundry in front of the world, instead of picking up the phone?

  Comment by Frances Fisher — Friday March 21, 2008 @ 1:56am PDT  Reply to this post

• BTW Screen Actors Guild Members will never vote to disenfranchise themselves.

  Comment by Frances Fisher — Friday March 21, 2008 @ 2:21am PDT  Reply to this post

• Let me expand a bit on what some of the above commenters are saying (and bear in mind that I am not an actor but I am a fan and viewer and someone who by virtue of having worked to help the writers with their strike has taken more than a passive interest in the upcoming actor’s unions negotiations with the AMPTP)

  A few commenters such as SAG Member above have mentioned the fact that as it stands minorities and certain ‘types’ have fewer opprotunities to get cast and thus disproportionately bear the burden of qualifying to vote.

  I note with interest and commend to you all the following article:

  Art imitates life for ‘Breaking Bad’s’ RJ Mitte
  Both the young actor and his character on the AMC series have cerebral palsy.
  http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-ca-mitte2mar02,0,267428.story

  I noted with particular interest the following exerpt [***emphasis mine***]:

  “Though for special-needs actors in Hollywood, that place seems small. According to the SAG study, researched by Olivia Raynor and Katharine Hayward of UCLA, ***only a third of SAG members with disabilities reported working in a theatrical or TV production in 2003, and those who did worked an average of 4.1 days that year***. Chief among the complaints: only being considered for disability-related roles, and then seeing those roles given to able-bodied actors anyway.”

  Now take a look at the proposal (located at:
  http://www.workingactorsvoice.com/proposal.shtml)

  For TV/Theatrical contract voting, an “affected member” is any member in good standing who, over the previous 2 contract terms (6 years) or total years as member if less than 6 years,:

  1. Performed an average of 5 days principal work or 15 days background work per year (or an equivalent mix thereof); OR

  2. Had average TV/Theatrical residual earnings per year equivalent to 5 principal days at scale; OR

  3. Is fully vested in the SAG Producers Pension Plan or the AFTRA Retirement Plan and has previously worked under the TV/Theatrical contract.

  The way I am reading this says that most SAG actors with disabilities wouldn’t meet the qualified voting requirements if the 2003 study data haven’t improved…they simply haven’t worked enough days to qualify (and let’s not quibble whether those days are in background or principal roles because 4.1 is less than both 5 and 15).

  Keeping people with disabilities from participating in the self-governance of their union might also invite scrutiny of SAG (and AFTRA if they adopt something similar) not to mention the AMPTP signatories under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

  Folks this is *definitely* something that the people employed in SAG’s legal department need to look over and render an official opinion on. My gut tells me that this petition is going to be illegal under the ADA, but someone who knows that statute better needs to compare what the petition says with what the ADA says. Otherwise SAG by adopting this petition could be putting itself into a legal morass and further doing damage to the chances for employment to those card holders with disabilities. Employment discrimination claims lawsuits in Federal court are not something you want to mess with (and they can also be brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal agency).

  The article continues on [with ***emphasis mine***]:

  “It should be noted that language has long existed within the contract between the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) and SAG that affirms a “commitment to a policy of non-discrimination and fair employment” and “to continue the active promotion of diversity,” but hopeful words don’t necessarily mean implementation.

  ***A point of contention among disabled actors is that they aren’t included in the Casting Data Report that’s published by SAG each year, which details the hiring practices and employment trends in film and TV related to ethnicity, age and gender — but not disability. The data is made available because of a questionnaire producers are required to fill out regarding their productions, but in past negotiations, SAG hasn’t been able to convince the AMPTP to add a disabilities column to the page.***

  ***”They’re very hesitant to include that on the forms,”*** said Rebecca Yee, SAG’s national director of affirmative action and diversity.

  Of course, certain disabilities are more noticeable than others and actors often choose to hide them. ***The study found that about half of those surveyed chose not to disclose their disability on their résumé or in the casting office, for fear of impeding their chances of getting the part.***

  Perhaps this is an issue that the backers of this petition have not fully and rationally considered…I would strongly suggest that they look into how carefully they have tailored their language before they propose something that could well be illegal not to mention unworkable.

  S.E. Olson
  Moderator & Law & Order Criminal Intent Fan Liason
  Fans For The WGA
  http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters/
  United Hollywood Member
  http://www.unitedhollywood.com

  Comment by VDOVault — Friday March 21, 2008 @ 7:37am PDT  Reply to this post

• To Ms. Fisher,

  You have ascribed such nefarious motives to this letter and I really don’t see the connection. We are offering no candidates, no opinions on any other issues and we certainly aren’t telling anyone how to vote. We are asking the National boards to excercise their power to implement a constitutional provision that has been selectively ignored for some time. If you know something I don’t, bring it out into the open, because it seems to me that your argument is not with us but rather the SAG constitution, for it’s quite clear on the subject of affected member voting.

  I’m glad you’re speaking with other SAG members, but please don’t persist in the falsity that we’re not pursuing this with AFTRA. We are.

  On the one hand, you seem to be in favor of removing some people from the voting rolls and not others. Fair enough. On the other hand, you seem to offer no way to do anything about it. We are.

  Why now? Because a decision on whether to accept or reject an agreement is made more potent if the people who are making that decision are known to be making a sacrifice. For better or worse, the AMPTP could not be less concerned about the strugglers in our guild. That doesn’t mean you and I don’t care, but what matters at the negotiating table is whatever carries weight with the other side. If they see that it’s the people they want to hire, large and small, that are willing to go out on strike right after a long work stoppage, than they know we mean business. If on the other hand the vote is mixed with members who have little or no stake in the outcome, then there’s reason to believe that divisions might occur in the ranks that can be exploited to the guilds detriment.

  And as I’m sure you know, this policy does not require a membership vote, just a vote from the national board of SAG and likewise for AFTRA.

  To S.E. Olson,

  I mean no disrespect when I say this, but your reasoning seems so far fetched to me. This proposal has nothing to do with employment. The chief rules governing this situation are from National Labor Relations Board, which give wide latitude to union boards when it comes to setting policy.

  Since this isn’t a matter of employment, public services, physical access, or telecommunications, I don’t see where the ADA comes in. Your point is, I believe, that it is a matter of representation, but since the proposal is the same for everyone, I don’t see where people with disabilities are at any greater disadvantage than anyone else who suffers from the sometimes idiotic casting practices that float through our business.

  And let me say again, we’re not making policy. That’s the board’s job. This is a proposal that will be considered and worked over in committee. Our hope is that it will remain substantially the same, but we have no illusions about the political process.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Friday March 21, 2008 @ 10:52am PDT  Reply to this post

• To mheister,

  As you might suspect, I disagree. The proposal is more like an executive order, since it needn’t be voted on by the members at large. Also, it’s implementation is nothing new, since it’s already being applied to the puppetry agreement and the interactive. Submitting an agreement for approval is not like a state initiative, because state initiatives do affect all state residents. A general referendum in SAG more closely approximates an initiative.

  I could go on, but here’s the thing. Do you believe that someone who has only worked the interactive contract, say, should be allowed to vote on the TV/TH agreement simply by virtue of his or her having the SAG card, or do you think that person should have had some recent experience in that field? It seems to me perfectly reasonable to expect there to be some kind of work requirement in the area of concern. Everybody being able to vote on anything doesn’t make us a stronger union, a knowledgeable and experienced electorate does.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Friday March 21, 2008 @ 11:25am PDT  Reply to this post

• For anyone who doesn’t know, VDO Vault was a HUGE supporter of the WGA during the writers’ strike. He contributed regularly and often to the United Hollywood podcast, giving selflessly of his time not out of financial self-interest, but only because he’s a fan. And his contributions are typically well thought-out and well-documented, just like his comment here.

  VDO, thank you for pointing this out. While I have made my views on the issue abundantly clear, I would add that should SAG’s elected leadership consider this proposal, it must be thoroughly analyzed by our lawyers first to avoid any potential pitfalls, including but not limited to the ADA as well as other civil rights and equal opportunity legislation, and of course federal and state labor laws.

  Comment by mheister — Friday March 21, 2008 @ 1:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• To Todd Waring

  I take no disrespect from your comments but because of my legal training (and I must put in the disclaimer here that my areas of specialization are intellectual property law and entertainment law as they pertain to the music business) I can make a very simple and strong argument that what your petition proposes to do will have an *indirect* impact on the employment of actors with disabilities if not a direct one, and one that very likely disproportionately disadvantages disabled actors. Your own union study proves that the average number of days worked by actors with disabilities falls far short of qualification to vote. If the petition wording is adopted exactly as your group has written it by SAG and the impact is great enough to potentially be seen as discriminatory to those actors (and a halfway decent lawyer could make the argument on behalf of one or more disabled card holders), the negatively affected actors could sue the union under the ADA.

  The NLRB while expert in most labor matters may well permit the petition language to become union policy but that doesn’t mean it will not run afoul of the ADA (or as mheister has suggested of other civil rights laws), especially not if the disproportionately affected actors in question were to put the matter to a jury trial (which is something you can do with a colorable ADA claim). This is why I have recommended here as well as via email to SAG’s NED and President that SAG’s legal department look into the matter before allowing the petition as written to be put up for a vote before the general membership of SAG. There would be little sense in your union adopting a rule that could provoke costly litigation to the detriment of all actors (the union would have to foot the bill to test out whether the ADA would apply in this case and even if a court finds the ADA doesn’t apply, that’s a very expensive and painful way to draft union rules)

  I really don’t think that you meant to say that a labor union qualified voting rule has *no* effect on employment…perhaps the effect is indirect, but it is still there. Correct me if I am wrong but at some point if as an actor you want to keep taking union employment you have to join the union. I suppose a disabled actor could pay the requisite initiation fees and yearly dues and elect financial core status (which as I understand it is to elect total disenfranchisement for one’s self), but why should anyone have to do so due to a poorly written policy that can be challenged in court or in an administrative proceeding? The court or EEOC test would leave a negatively affected actor more likely to be able to have a voice in all union matters, especially if the qualified voting proposal does not pass judicial or administrative review.

  I hope you don’t feel badly because I am criticizing your group’s proposal drafting…it would be hard for me to do so too (and the more I think about this, the more I agree with Ron Livingston’s earlier assertions that it is very hard to come up with language well tailored enough to exclude the producer types like Les Moonves and still have enough union members voting such that only the tiniest of minorities can claim to feel disenfranchised…the best thing I could think to suggest is if someone was on the other side of the transaction, i.e. signing actor paychecks or buying or distributing a production or owns a percentage of the production or entitled to gross revenues from a production then that person should be disqualified from contract ratification voting but then that might disqualify actors who have a piece of production coming to them as compenastion for their acting, so here comes another unworkability problem with unintended negative consequences).

  Also time is running short to get this proposed provision bullet proof enough to get it in front of the membership in such a way that it would be palatable to the majority of actors and pass before negotiations with the AMPTP have to commence…unfortunately I suspect for the actors, a majority of members probably would be disenfranchised (in the case of the writers about 2000 of the 12,500 — a clear minority — are inelligible to vote and moreover scripts are not necessarily chosen with prior knowledge as to the gender, race, age, and or disability status of their authors so the case for discrimination is less likely to be made on behalf of a writer).

  I am stymied as to how to tailor the criteria so that no one is wrongly excluded or included and unless you have a very good, experienced and clever lawyer helping you draft your proposed provision, I fail to see how you can fix it especially when the AMPTP negotiations are supposed to begin in just a few days (even great lawyers need enough time to do a good job in drafting contract provisions and rules).

  Moreover, I would like to see actual numbers of who fits your qualified voting criteria and not a mere unsubstantiated assertion on your group’s part that a majority of union members would qualify to vote under your proposal. Do you all know precisely how many actors made at least the equivalent of 5 days of SAG principal scale every year for the past 6 years, not to mention what percentage of SAG actors are already fully vested in the pension plan…such data should be available from SAG. I don’t have those numbers myself, but your group definitely needs to know them so you can sell your idea to the majority of SAG members.

  I figure you are going to have a difficult task because while in recent history relatively few SAG members have voted in presidential and board elections or on other union initiatives, your proposal might still lose even if a paltry percentage of union members turns out to vote…the sentiment I am hearing from the actors I have met is that they are overwhelmingly unconvinced that your proposal is a good or workable idea and are likely to muster the necessary votes to defeat it unless your drafting and/or your arguments improve significantly and quickly.

  I also will 100% disagree with your assertion that you are not as you say ‘making union policy’…you are proposing something that the union membership has to adopt or the whole body or a committee and/or the board has to modify. Unless the union chooses to just reject the proposal as is and totally drops the matter, your group is indeed involved in making policy.

  Assuming the union as a whole doesn’t kill the proposal but suggests it be modified (and I think that is a long shot from the actors I have talked to but it could happen), the time spent on making it workable should not come at the expense of hammering out the best possible deal with the AMPTP…those negotiations have a definite due date which is fast approaching. I do have to question the wisdom not only of the substance of your proposal but also its timing…I believe it will have to be tabled so that the cleverest minds and drafters can devote maximum effort to the AMPTP negotiations. Speaking from my experience as a close observer of the WGA’s negotiations and the resultant agreement, they fought very hard for some precedent setting but remuneratively small gains. If the negotiating committee members and their lawyers want to better their returns in new media and on DVDs etc one iota, they cannot be simultaneously distracted by complex matters like tailoring a workable and palatable qualified voting (and let us not say anything of the interunion or intraunion disputes other than to say that those also need to be temporarily halted if SAG and AFTRA want to make any gains at all over what the directors and writers got).

  However I do have a suggestion for a contract area that those who identify themselves as working actors should be tackling now. How about putting your considerable energies and experiences into working on crafting a replacement general talent representation agreement for SAG members along with a proposal for qualified voting on it? I think that the vast majority of actors with no current representation or prospects of it would agree that they don’t absolutely have to have a vote on what a talent agreement might say until there’s a realistic chance that they will be represented and that those of you who are working probably can see better than anyone else where improvements on the ATA drafted agreements can and should be made. I hope you seriously consider this alternative proposal and that your group jumps on solving this problem while you await the outcome of the negotiations with the AMPTP.

  And finally to mheister I am actually female…because I choose not to use my first name online, I get the assumption that I am male a lot and take no offense at iit. Not that I want to turn this into a mutual admiration society but I could also say of mheister that I am well aware of all the many contributions he made to the WGA strike. While there was a potential financial payoff to him (thanks to pattern bargaining the actors should not have to take less than the minimum offered to writers or actors in areas like DVD residuals or new media) I know for a fact that he too spent a lot of time and energy online and on picket lines supporting the writers. I am saddened that the financial payoff was probably not as great as it could or in my opinion should have been, but nevertheless without support from rank and file actors like mheister, the WGA would not have even gotten a toehold in new media. So back at you my friend

  S.E. Olson
  Moderator & Law & Order Criminal Intent Fan Liason
  Fans For The WGA
  http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters/
  United Hollywood Member
  http://www.unitedhollywood.com

  Comment by VDOVault — Friday March 21, 2008 @ 8:16pm PDT  Reply to this post

• To VDOVault,

  First, if you haven’t read my earlier comments above, let me clear up some points. The SAG constitution declares that ballots for collective bargaining agreements are to be submitted to those members affected thereby. Since, the board already does this by mailing the puppetry and interactive ballots only to those affected, this seems to me to be a clear precedent. We are asking the board to stop selectively ignoring that passage in the constitution. If you disagree with the constitution, that’s different. We are trying to bring the board into compliance, because we believe there is a reason those words were written.

  As regards the proposal, since this is NOT a constitutional change but rather a policy clarification, it only requires the approval of the national board and not the membership at large.

  As for the ADA, I’m still confused by your reasoning. I don’t see how it affects employment or opportunities in the workplace, even indirectly. This not about who can join the union, it’s about who can vote on contracts. I don’t see how a lawsuit by any minority could get traction. Being able to vote on a particular contract does not affect one’s employment status. We’re saying it should be the other way around.

  As to who’s voting, this is a quote from a letter we sent out some months back. It quotes stats from SAG research.

  “The challenging reality is that two-thirds of SAG’s 120,000 members consistently earn less than $1000 per year as SAG actors…
  …As a result, we have seen situations such as the 2001 TV/Theatrical referendum, where 75% of voters had less than $1000 in TV or Film earnings the previous year, or the last Commercials referendum, when more than half the voters had earned NOTHING under that contract for the previous five years.”

  Given that, I’m not convince that even the average able-bodied member would make the requirements, because so many of them don’t work at all. Working 4.1 days a year might actually be above the membership average, I don’t know. So, I’m not sure the ‘average days worked’ is necessarily a good criterion for affected member voting. But something needs to be done to put the working performers, even those marginally working, back in the drivers seat.

  I must assert again, we are not making policy, we are not even involved in making policy. We are suggesting policy, only. We have no more power with the board than any other group of petitioners. Are we having an affect on policy? I hope so.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Saturday March 22, 2008 @ 2:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• VDO -

  Any suggestions for the best kind of soap to remove the egg from my face???

  Comment by mheister — Saturday March 22, 2008 @ 4:11pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Hi Todd -

  I want to thank you for continuing this conversation about affected member voting. As the conversation has continued and as more people have weighed in, the potential pitfalls, legal and otherwise, of this proposal have become much clearer.

  VDO’s points alone should give anyone considering this proposal pause. The potential legal ramifications alone are rather daunting. Expending the valuable and limited time of SAG lawyers while we’re in the middle of preparations for contract negotiations is clearly great folly. The legal exposure under ADA alone could leave SAG broke and unable to organize or properly pursue its other member obligations. Her points should be well-taken by all of us.

  Moving on.

  There are two fundamental problems with affect member voting, either of which should give pause.

  One is that the proposal is based on the faulty assumption that past work as an actor automatically means future work as an actor. It’s a logic flaw. While you may statistically show that producers hire more actors who are experienced than not, this does not mean that EVERY experienced actor is more likely to get hired. It would be just as logical to set an age cut-off for affected member voting – disenfranchising older actors – based on the argument that television and film casting skews towards younger actors, therefore they are more likely to be affected by the next contract.

  Secondly, the affected member voting proposal is fundamentally anti-democratic. As you brought up the comparison to American government, sir, let’s take a fresh look at that. The history of this republic is rife with struggles to extend the franchise against reactionary powers. We started with voting rights for white male landowners before extending the vote to other white males and then black males (after a Civil War and THREE constitutional amendments). Women earned the right to vote by constitutional amendment only after decades of protest. It took more protests, uprisings, and eventually a civil rights movement to clear other major voting obstacles such as poll taxes and literacy tests. The US also passed a constitutional amendment, setting the official voting age nationwide at age 18. In short, throughout the history of the republic we have struggled for more universal enfranchisement. It is a principle we hold dear.

  It is fascinating to me, and somewhat puzzling, that so many actors whose progressive bona fides are otherwise so strong would exhibit such an unjustified fear-based weak-kneed reactionary attitude towards voting within their own guild, and would, in supporting this proposal, hurt the very same oppressed groups whose rights they have so ardently championed in other venues.

  Every actor who carries a SAG card – regardless of gender, ethnicity, disability, or sexual preference – has proven themselves by acquiring professional work. You don’t get a card without doing that, unless you cheated, offered sexual favors to an AD, or hired yourself, and those issues need to be addressed through means other than the wide net of disenfranchisement. With very few exceptions, everyone with a SAG card played by the rules.

  Again, why a group of otherwise intelligent and talented actors would advocate such a proposal is entirely beyond me. I cannot fathom what they have to gain through divisiveness, diverting the guild’s attention from contract negotiations, or acting anti-democratically to disenfranchise fellow actors, including a disproportionate percentage of actors with disabilities and quite possibly other minorities.

  There really is only one group I can think of who has something to gain from actors distracting themselves with such an anti-democratic proposal – the largest AMPTP conglomerates, their water-carriers like Nick Counter, and their major shareholders.

  Comment by mheister — Saturday March 22, 2008 @ 5:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Dear mheister,

  We are seemingly at the mercy of the time at which our comments get posted. I believe many of the issues you raise are addressed in my lasting posting.

  But the problem remains, if a member has not worked a particular contract, even a little, why is it ‘democratic’ that they be allowed to vote on it? It simply makes no sense. All the history in the world doesn’t justify voting on some you know nothing about or that doesn’t affect you. None of us has a crystal ball. All we can go on is the past. If you think everyone voting on anything is correct, then your argument is with the SAG constitution, not with us.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Saturday March 22, 2008 @ 11:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Todd -

  My problem is not with the SAG constitution, it’s with how your group wishes it to be interpreted. Your group is pushing its own radical definition of an “affected” member. Through our conversation here a handful of us have shown that such a significant change is fraught with peril for the guild. No advocate of affected member voting in this thread, or on your website, has been able to demonstrate that a group of actors voting against the guild’s best interests even exists, let alone that any harm has ever actually accrued to “working actors” from the ill-advised collective decision-making of “nonworking” actors.

  If the affected member voting proposal is such a great idea, instead of trying to push it through the current executive board, you and Stephen and Amy and Ned and company can form and push a slate of candidates for the next SAG election, and make this the cornerstone of your platform. If you’re so sure that this is the best way for the guild to go, run on it. In the present, however, it’s a harmful distraction from the important work of getting a good contract.

  I urge all of the actors aligned with Working Actors Voice to put this proposal aside and join Alan and Doug in presenting a single unified voice to the AMPTP in the contract negotiations.

  Comment by mheister — Sunday March 23, 2008 @ 3:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• To hmiester,

  “Radical”? Some facts:
  –Equity requires it’s voting members to have worked one contract in the prior 6 yrs. That’s 30 to 50 days.
  –The DGA requires it’s members to have worked once in the past 7 yrs.
  –AFTRA requires nothing of it’s membership, so the broadcasters, say, can vote along with everyone else on anything. That’s got to change.
  –The WGA requires the equivalent of writing a screenplay to vote on anything- easily 60 days.
  This is hardly a radical proposal. We are well within the norm. Our requirements are tighter than some looser than others. Further, how can it be radical, if the board already does it for the puppetry and interactive contract? I don’t don’t see your viewpoint.

  I believe the ‘peril’ you allude to is bogus. Given the widespread lack of employment in the guild, there is every reason to believe that the 4.1 days/yr for the disabled group is probably higher than the average SAG member. (good god, there’s 120,000 of us)

  And as to which group of ‘actors’ might vote against the interests of the working actors, we can never know the extent of the harm done; it’s a secret ballot. But how about the one-day exclusion for MRM? I voted no on that agreement, because I knew what it was going to mean for me and my family. I was going to see less money coming in. Would someone who’s never worked the TV/TH contract have a sense of what the ramifications of that give-away were going to be, without someone having to explain it to them? And how about the DVD residual schedule? Should we strike to increase it? Or are DVD’s today’s buggy whips? How is someone, who’s world does not depend on these answers, be counted on to make the effort to understand the ramifications of a vote on an agreement that has so little affect on their lives?

  This business is how I make m living. It’s how I plan to send my kids to collage. When I see that producers, execs, BTL’s, casting directors, members who’ve worked only a few days in years, or haven’t worked at ALL in years, are voting in numbers on the agreement that affects my life, then I look to the board to excercise its fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the working members. And the way is simple. Create a fair and reasonable definition of AMV and apply it across the board.

  This is a professional union created to protect actors in the workplace. It’s about experience and knowledge, not nebulous definitions of fairness or solidarity. You can’t take that to the negotiating table. It don’t fly. And that’s the bottom line. That’s where all this has real affects on person’s lives and livelihoods.

  The effects of a division you speak of are hypothetical at best. I think you’re suggesting that some of the people, who do little or no work and are offended that they can’t vote on a contract they work minimally, would decide to go Fi-core. Is that the revolt you fear? The AMPTP couldn’t care less about them and their struggles. And are those Fi-core folks suddenly going to fill up all the casting slots so that the industry can continue production without the striking actors? Seems unlikely.

  I believe AMV is essential to getting to good agreement. It gives the negotiations muscle, because a yes on the agreement means a yes by people whom it affects and a no is by people who have to give up something by saying it. And that’s what creates meaningful solidarity.

  I believe it is incumbent upon those like yourself to show why you seem so content with having inexperienced and unknowledgeable members on the voting rolls? Why are you not upset that producers, execs and others with a patent conflict of interest still get sent a ballot simply because they have a card? And make no mistake, they will take every opportunity to vote down a strike whether it’s to our benefit or not. Lastly, why would you feel it’s appropriate to selectively ignore the AMV clause in the Constitution? I believe the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who wish to continue violating the intent of what’s plainly stated there in Article XI.

  Now, having said all that, I just reread your post and noticed that you’re first line seems to indicate that you agree with the notion of AMV, but that we are just going too far too soon. Is that the kernel of your objection? Is there a principal in there that you agree with or have I misread you? Since you made a point of not disagreeing with the constitution, I’m curious.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Monday March 24, 2008 @ 7:29pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Hi Todd -

  Interpreting a constitution is much like interpreting revelation in the Bible which is much like beauty – it really is in the eye of the beholder. Infamous xamples of wrong-headed interpretation are legion, from the Dred Scott case to the various millenialists who weren’t swept straightaway to Heaven. So, no, I would personally vote against your proposal for AMV, advise others to do the same.

  We see this situation in fundamentally different ways. You don’t trust that your fellow SAG members on the whole are voting correctly and would like to selectively exclude a percentage of them by an arbitrary work test that you have not shown and logically cannot show has any relationship to future employment. By contrast, in my opinion, anyone who has acquired the professional employment required to join the Screen Actors’ Guild has met the requirements of being affected by contracts that regulate their potential future employee rights, compensation, and benefits.

  Further, you simply write off VDO’s opinion about potential legal exposure as equal to yours. While VDO was not offering paid legal advice, she was coming from the perspective of a lawyer in the entertainment industry, while you, sir, come from the perspective of an actor. A reasonable and prudent person would weigh the opinion of a lawyer in such a matter more heavily than the opinion of an actor (now if we were arguing Meisner and Chubbuck, your opinion would be the weightier one).

  In short, in neither the petition letter nor all the arguments made here have proponents of this anti-democratic proposal shown anything remotely close to a fact-based justification for it, nor have you or anyone else allayed legitimate fears about the legal and solidarity-related ramifications of such a course.

  PS – As we are now 30-something comments in, have we exhausted this thread yet???

  Comment by mheister — Monday March 24, 2008 @ 8:21pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Todd Waring wrote: “(good god, there’s 120,000 of us)”.

  All be it parenthetically, it’s good to see you’re beginning to understand the issue.

  Comment by Zackery — Tuesday March 25, 2008 @ 3:22am PDT  Reply to this post

• To mhiester,

  As I have the potential to live in San Diego, why should I not be allowed to vote in their city council elections?

  Lawyers, per se, are not smarter than anyone else. You’ll notice she offered no response to my arguments. Nor has anyone else.

  What is your definition of ‘affected member’ as it reads in the constitution? Since it appears no where but in that one clause it must mean something other than all members or the clause would have said so.

  It is not for me to interpret it but it is the duty of the board to. We are offering a definition.

  I do believe we’ve said all that we can say. And you can have the last word if you wish.

  To Zachery,

  The more of us there are, the smaller the percentage of us work.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Tuesday March 25, 2008 @ 8:20am PDT  Reply to this post

• Todd waring wrote:
  “The more of us there are, the smaller the percentage of us work.”

  Another step forward. The understanding that there are so few jobs available, rather than your previous idea that there are some 119,000 “vanity card holders” v. the 1,000 petition signers. Perhaps, instead of bullying the votes away from your Union brothers and sisters who stand beside you yet suffer the reality of this situation, you and your so-called “affected members” could relinquish 5 days of guest star work a year to give opportunity to vote in your new system to the actors you insist are so uniformed in the art of fairness. Certainly, as you say, 5 days of work is a paltry amount, and how much better and stronger the Union and the world when more actors, and even people, are affected and thereby informed. Your goal is what’s best, right?

  And thereby there would be a more fair distribution of the few jobs providing more people could not only work, but vote, and I think this would fit in with your idea of more fair voting. I realize this idea of a fair distribution of labor is a little more Union oriented than the totalitarian, and I dare say from watching TV largely Caucasian, Union you envision, but perhaps you have been looking on the wrong side and what we need is a fairer division of labor.

  And maybe when you and your comrades are willing to give up this mere 5 days of work a year, the rest of your Union brothers and sisters, the majority, will lead from your example and behave in a more fair way. And while I realize fairness is not necessarily your goal, as I said earlier, I do believe we are heading toward common ground and I hope I get there with you.

  Next let’s discuss the idea that you may not be the only person hoping to put his children through college. As we discuss more of the ideas you think are exclusive to “affected members” I think you will see we have more in common than the difference in our bank accounts.

  Comment by Zackery — Tuesday March 25, 2008 @ 10:35am PDT  Reply to this post

• @Todd Waring

  I actually took some time this morning to have a look at the October 2007 version of SAG’s constitution on SAG’s website, gave it a careful read through and I have to say I agree with mheister all the more for having done so.

  Your groups definition of affected member is problematic because you omit much of the provision pertaining to the definition of an ‘affected member’

  Let’s go to Article XI titled ‘Collective Bargaining, Agreements & Ratification’ (page 27 of the printed version or page 29 of a 44 page PDF file online)

  Here is the exact language of the first sentence of that article only part of which you cite as support for you group’s idea of a qualified voting petition

  “Section 1. “Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Article, all collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.”

  Lesson #1 in contract/legal document interpretation is that you have to read the whole provision, piece by piece and in light of the other provisions which it references.

  Since you left off the prefatory language “Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Article” let’s jump ahead a bit and preview Section 2 of Article XI…

  “Section 2. Membership ratification shall not be required for any collective bargaining agreement which the Board of Directors determines in good faith is not to be used in widespread or industry-wide application affecting a substantial portion of the membership”

  I’m going to stop right here and do a bit of explaining.

  What this provision is explicitly getting at is a definition of what DOES NOT have to be put to a vote of a *substantial portion of the membership*. We are doing a bit of process of elimination work here and getting at what is meant by an “affected member” (or more importantly “*a substantial portion* of the membership”

  Section 2 continues…

  “such as agreements covering low-budget films, student films or the like, and interim contracts of short duration”

  Now we are getting at the sorts of things by which you can take ratification away from the entirety or the majority of the membership via *specific cited examples* Apparently low-budget film and student film agreements are clear winners…they affect an insubstantial portion of the membership and thus do not have to be submitted to the membership in its entirety. Following a rule of contract/drafting interpretation that says the inclusion of the specific excludes the inclusion of other unmentioned general or specific provisions, I could easily and successfully argue that since Section 2 of Article XI leaves out the primetime TV and theatrical film minimum basic agreement, this means that the drafters of SAG’s Constitution intented the primetime TV and theatrical film to apply to “*a substantial portion* of the membership” and thus a majority of not the entirety of the membership should vote on its ratification.

  Lets’s also deal with the second class of collective bargaining agreement that does not have to be submitted for ratification to the entire membership (or a majority), an “interim contract of short duration”. I think it is pretty clear that a minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical film that lasts 3 years and covers a multitude of producers doesn’t fit this definition…that’s not a short duration nor is it an interim contract if the usual duration of the primetime TV and theatrical film is 3 years.

  For completeness’s sake let’s finish analyzing Section 2 before going back to Section 1

  “Such agreements shall, however, be approved by a
  supermajority of 60% of the Board of Directors or National Executive Committee voting thereon.”

  By “such agreements” the last sentence of Section 2 of Article XI references “agreements covering low-budget films, student films or the like, and interim contracts of short duration”. So let’s rewrite the last sentence of Section 2 to make it clearer

  “Agreements covering low-budget films, student films or the like, and interim contracts of short duration shall, however, be approved by a
  supermajority of 60% of the Board of Directors or National Executive Committee voting thereon.”

  Note that agreements which affect an insubstantial portion of the membership of SAG require a *supermajority* of *60%* the Board of Directors or the National Executive Committee for ratification. I find it hard to believe that the intent of the drafters of SAG’s Constitution meant for the minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical film that lasts 3 years and covers a multitude of producers to be voted on anything less than 60% of the Board of Directors or the National Executive Committee for ratification. But I am not yet willing to concede that the membership itself should not be voting to ratify the minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical film that lasts 3 years and covers a multitude of producers.

  So let’s jump back to Section 1 now that we’ve dealt with the Section 2 exceptions to it:

  “Section 1. “Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Article, all collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.”

  Now let’s get into the nitty gritty of the rest of Section 1.

  We come to the next sentence:

  “Such ratification may be made either (a) by written vote of a majority of the members voting thereon, at a National Membership meeting or a special meeting called for such purpose, or (b) by written vote of a majority of the members voting thereon, in a mail ballot.”

  When the “affected membership” votes on the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement it has to be done *in writing* at a National Membership meeting, at a special meeting called for the purpose of ratification, or via a mail ballot. That’s pretty straight forward but it still doesn’t help nail down the definition of the ‘affected membership’ so let’s move on to the next sentence.

  “However, membership ratification shall not be required with respect to amendments made during the term of a collective bargaining contract which are of a minor nature, or which are required for purposes of clarification or to resolve problems arising in the administration of the contract.”

  Once again the drafters are defining their terms by the process of elimination so here are the exceptions

  Any amendment made *during* the term of a collective bargaining agreement…this means that when an agreement has expired as the minimum basic agreement for primetime TV and theatrical films will do on June 30th of 2008, this exception does not apply. You could apply it to a pre-existing agreement, but that would mean that once you reach June 30th whatever amendment you make is done

  Here is the second part of that sentence “amendments…which are of a minor nature, or which are required for purposes of clarification or to resolve problems arising in the administration of the contract”

  Minor amendments, clarifying amendments or administrative problem resolving amendments to a still in effect minimum basic agreement for primetime TV and theatrical films do not have to be submitted to the ‘affected membership’ for ratification. If you want to change a definition in a currently existing agreement, make a currently existing provision clearer for interpretation or easier to administer or deal with a minor issue in the current unexpired agreement you can do so by “a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors voting thereon”.

  Which brings me to the very self-explanatory last sentence of Section 1 of Article XI

  “Such amendments shall, however, be approved by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors voting
  thereon.”

  Using our substitution for clarity method of interpretation redrafting that sentence should read

  “Amendments which are of a minor nature, or which are required for purposes of clarification or to resolve problems arising in the administration of the contract shall, however, be approved by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors voting
  thereon.”

  Lesson #2 in contract/legal drafting language
  “Shall” is a mandatory word, “may” is a permissive word, will implies a committment to an action in the future. Anywhere you see the word “shall” the party is obliged to do something.

  So having hit a lot of side cases where “collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild” do not have to be “submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby” we are still left with the puzzler of who the “membership affected thereby is”

  In a minimum basic agreement with a multitude of producers for what is the most common type of SAG contract the primetime TV and theatrical film contract, an agreement which sets minimums, the floor rates of compensation which a rank and file member cannot take less than and from which a more experienced guild member can negotiate his or her compensation up from, an agreement that governs how health insurance elligibility is determined for all members, and an agreement that governs how pension elligibility is determined for all members, you cannot logically argue that any card holder who has his or dues paid up and has not elected Honorable Withdrawal or Suspended Payment is not a member affected and thus should not have the opportunity to vote on the ratification of the minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical films.

  In fact if anyone has overlooked answering a question or doing thorough analysis of an issue it is the qualified voting petition supporters…I respectfully renew my request that one of you provide me with *actual numbers* of the membership of SAG (and not AFTRA or Equity or any other guild) who will not qualify to vote under any of your three proposed criteria. If the numbers are as I believe a “substantial proportion of the membership” will not be able to qualify to vote on one of the most widely used minimum basic agreements by your membership, then I think that the chances of your definition of ‘affected member’ voting being adopted be either the entirety of the membership or the board (see Article VII Section 5 for what I believe is the easiest route for you to achieve adoption of your proposal) are two: slim or none.

  To put this in plain English…where are the facts and data to back up your group’s arguments? Show them to me and your fellow guild members if you want to convince me of the merits of your position. I can be swayed by a well-substantiated proposal, but so far I have yet to see anything other than supposition and conjecture from your side.

  You can do better…

  Comment by VDOVault — Tuesday March 25, 2008 @ 1:05pm PDT  Reply to this post

• To Zachery,

  The first part of your comment seems to stem from the belief that certain actors ‘take’ jobs away from other actors or would also have the power to ‘give’ them. You know that’s not the case and I think it’s disingenuous of you to pretend it is.

  I don’t know if you have more or less money than I, it doesn’t matter. What matters in a personal way on this issue is whether you depend on a particular SAG contract for the better part of your living. Why should those who don’t, at all, have the same suffrage as those who do? Simply having a card is not reason enough, according to the constitution.

  To VDOvault,

  It seems to me your first point rests on this portion of your comment I’ve quoted below:

  “…this means that the drafters of SAG’s Constitution inten[d]ed the primetime TV and theatrical film to apply to “*a substantial portion* of the membership” and thus a majority [i]f not the entirety of the membership should vote on its ratification.”

  Yes, it applies to a substantial portion, but when did a ‘substantial’ become equal to half if not the whole of something? That’s an Olympic leap of logic that no law professor in America would countenance. If the writers of the constitution meant that, they would have said it. My computer defines ‘substantial’ as meaning this: Of considerable importance, size, or worth. If you don’t like that, how about West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008, which describes ‘substantial’ as follows: Of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable. Belonging to substance; actually existing; real; not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. That could easily mean 1/3 or ¼ or less.

  Your assertion shocks me. Show me one legitimate definition of ‘substantial’ that means at least half or the whole of something and I’ll donate fifty dollars to the charity of your choice.

  Further, our definition is much looser than you characterize. It’s five days on average or its equivalent in background work and/or residuals and/or a combination of all three — or being vested in the pension program. This includes a substantial amount of members though it removes a substantial number of members who are for the most part unaffected. The facts behind my assertion are these from SAG research:

  Two-thirds of SAG’s 120,000 members consistently earn less than $1000 per year as SAG actors, and only 1 in 5 SAG members earns even $7,500 annually. On the 2001 TV/Theatrical referendum, where 75% of voters had less than $1000 in TV or Film earnings the previous year. On the last Commercials referendum, more than half the voters had earned nothing under that contract for the previous five years.

  Our proposal’s bar roughs out to about $3,800/per year averaged over six years, earned through principal work, and/or background work and/or residuals, or being vested in the pension program. As you can see, it’s easily a quarter and probably a third of the membership. And after it goes through committee we might be talking half, which, oddly enough, even meets your arcane definition of substantial.

  Your next point seems to be summed up here in this quote:

  ‘I find it hard to believe that the intent of the drafters of SAG’s Constitution meant for the minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical film that lasts 3 years and covers a multitude of producers to be voted on anything less than 60% of the Board of Directors or the National Executive Committee for ratification. But I am not yet willing to concede that the membership itself should not be voting to ratify the minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical film that lasts 3 years and covers a multitude of producers.’

  I’m fighting to understand this portion, because you seem to get section 2 of Article XI just fine, but then you also seem to imply that we assert that the membership should not vote on the agreement, which is certainly not the case and I don’t think that’s you mean. I think we are in agreement that the ballots for the TV/TH agreement are to be sent out to the members affected thereby, so I’m not sure what the point is there.

  In the next section, where you take pains to define shall vs may, you seem to be confusing amendments to the collective bargaining agreement with policy refinements to the constitution. I don’t really think that’s what you’ve done. You’re perfectly capable of grasping the difference, but why make that such a point of something that has nothing to do with who gets the ballots. We’ve only ever said that it’s the national board’s decision to define affected members and they will do that by a majority vote just as with other similar issues that come before them.

  And now we come to a definition of ‘affected member’. Let’s look at your paragraph describing the effects of the TV/TH agreement.

  First let me correct the section where you say this:

  “…an agreement that governs how health insurance elligibility is determined for all members, and an agreement that governs how pension elligibility is determined for all members,…”

  Since, strickly speaking eligibility is determined by the pension and health trustees, I will assume what you are referring to is how contributions to both are determined.

  Now, all the effects that you mention are real, but of course I can argue that someone who has made all his or her money in commercials, say, is not affected by the innards of the TV/TH agreement. That’s the whole point. They are not affected by the minimums, the contributions the working conditions or the wages. And vice versa. I’ve purposely made a hard distinction between those who work the contract and those who don’t at all to make the point that there is an obvious portion of the membership that is completely and utterly unaffected. Show me how one is affected by the other’s agreement, if they don’t work that contract? And if you want to talk about future employment, then you have to ask the writers of the constitution why they didn’t say ‘potentially’ affected thereby.

  The real question is what level of ‘affected’ qualifies for voting privileges. That, we can quibble about. One could point out that anyone that ever did a single day under the TV/TH contract can be construed as having been affected by it, but is that really the intent of the language—to include every last member that’s ever done the least amount of work under that contract? Or is the more likely rationale that it should include those who have experience in and knowledge of the current wages and working conditions? We believe the latter.

  Your next point – actual numbers. I contend that the actual numbers are immaterial—if they’re not affected, it doesn’t matter how many there are. They’re not affected. And since, as I’ve explained earlier, who gets the ballots is not an issue that’s decided by the membership at large, it won’t be sent out as a referendum. As to its passage by the national board, it will be up to them to show why they are selectively ignoring a crucial passage in the constitution and why they haven’t defined affected member across the board.

  As regards a resolution: since Pres. Rosenberg has already agreed that the board should hear the proposal, we will be asking at the joint board meeting of the national boards of SAG and AFTRA this Saturday, that they form a joint committee to explore the ramifications of the proposal and make a recommendation to the two boards.

  And I will repeat myself from an earlier post and ask,
  Why do those like yourself seem so untroubled by having inexperienced and unknowledgeable members on the voting rolls?
  Why are you not upset that producers, execs and others with a patent conflict of interest still get sent a ballot simply because they have a card? And believe me, they will take every opportunity to vote down a strike whether it’s to our benefit or not.
  Lastly, why would you feel it’s appropriate to selectively enforce the AMV clause in the constitution?

  I believe the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who wish to continue violating the intent of what’s plainly stated there in Article XI.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Tuesday March 25, 2008 @ 9:07pm PDT  Reply to this post

• @Todd Waring

  It’s the definition of a “substantial portion” that matters and not merely the definition of “substantial” that counts

  Using your own definition of substantial (“of considerable importance, size, or worth”) a substantial portion would be defined as a portion of considerable importance, size, or worth

  Wouldn’t you agree that a “substantial portion” of a group could very easily mean an entirety or a majority of a group or in other words, the closer one gets to 100%, the more ‘substantial’ the “substantial portion” is. So by that line of reasoning if an agreement affects the entirety much less the majority of the membership, then the Article XI Section 2 exception of bypassing a membership vote should not apply.

  I will wait to address your other points once we’ve clarified what you think about ‘substantial’ vs ‘substantial portion’.

  I am not wild about discussing things this way because you have to wait for let’s work with the points this way to make them more clearly and to promote better understanding of one another’s positions. Okay by you?

  Comment by VDOVault — Wednesday March 26, 2008 @ 1:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• VDOVault,

  Of course a substantial portion could mean a majority. (Though any portion could never mean an entirety by virtue of its being a portion) But you’re argument hinges on the idea that substantial must mean something near an entirety. And that definition is an extreme case. If I lose 25% of my lungs, that’s a substantial portion. You’re pushing the definition beyond its reasonable reading to squeeze out a point that make no sense in the first place. No one is saying the agreement is not to be voted on by the membership affected thereby. We’re saying the decision as to who gets the ballots is a national board decision. I can’t say it any plainer.

  The Article XI Section 2 exception does not apply to the TV/TH contract. That’s not the issue in question and never has been. That’s why I haven’t quoted it.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Wednesday March 26, 2008 @ 11:02pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Stephen Collins said:

  >>”This proposal applies only to voting on contract ratification. Every member would still receive ballots for all other referenda (including strike authorization), as well as for board elections and elections of officers.<>Why are you not upset that producers, execs and others with a patent conflict of interest still get sent a ballot simply because they have a card? And believe me, they will take every opportunity to vote down a strike whether it’s to our benefit or not.<<

  Which is it? Is this proposal just for voting on the contract or are we looking at phase one of a much larger plan to disenfranchise SAG members across the board because you think they won’t vote the “right” way?

  Comment by andthentherewassag — Thursday March 27, 2008 @ 9:40am PDT  Reply to this post

• A clarification. This part of the above quote is from Todd Waring:

  >>Why are you not upset that producers, execs and others with a patent conflict of interest still get sent a ballot simply because they have a card? And believe me, they will take every opportunity to vote down a strike whether it’s to our benefit or not.<<

  Comment by andthentherewassag — Thursday March 27, 2008 @ 10:01am PDT  Reply to this post