FIRST BOX OFFICE: ‘Fast & Furious 6′ Easy … 
NBC Sets Oklahoma Tornado Benefit Concert For May 29 
Cannes: Directors’ Fortnight Honors ‘Les … 
SHOCKER: Tom Cruise Exits ‘Man From … 
A+E Rebuild: BBC’s Jana Bennett To Run Bio And LMN … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Hannibal’ Hits Low, … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
I’m told that the actors behind that SAG petition drive for ”affected member” voting have made what they’re calling a “significant change” in their proposal to soften its impact. As you know, DHD has been active in this debate by letting actors post their positions pro and con this idea of an earnings threshold for “qualified voting” on the union’s contract issues. Stephen Collins, Amy Brenneman and Ned Vaughn have written in favor while Ron Livingston and Frances Fisher have written in opposition. I’ve been told that the leading actors behind the petition drive have met with SAG president Alan Rosenberg about it. The new change in the proposal was outlined to supporters today in advance of the SAG National Board considering the petition this weekend. I’ve obtained the email:
“Our affected member voting proposal goes before the SAG National Board this weekend, April 12 & 13. In just four days, SAG will determine if actors’ contracts will be decided by those who work under them, or continue to be decided by those who don’t. This directly affects your livelihood, so please read on.
We’ve revised our proposal.
We recently invited over 80 visiting SAG and AFTRA board members to a reception in Century City to solicit their ideas about this concept. These reps – most from markets with far less work than Hollywood – listened with open minds and offered valuable feedback. The next day, AFTRA promised to appoint a special committee to study our affected member voting proposal. In the absence of such committee review at SAG before its vote this weekend, we’ve used input from that event, along with feedback from many other members and our own research, to revise our proposal:
We’ve adjusted the standard from 5 days to just ONE DAY of principal work per year (and/or equivalent earnings through background work or residuals) on average for the preceding 6 years. (Vested members are still included – see the full proposal at www.workingactorsvoice.com.)
This standard will include the overwhelming majority of members who work the contract, but will ensure that SAG card holders with no contract involvement – not to mention those with a direct conflict of interest – can no longer control contract decisions.
President Rosenberg’s comments:
The Wall Street Journal reported on our effort last week, and quoted SAG’s President [Alan] Rosenberg attacking us and our proposal, saying “Our board and our members will never vote for this and I wish we weren’t discussing it in any major way…To make this such a public issue at this time is meant to do nothing but weaken us.”
Over 1400 loyal SAG members – from every level of our profession and including current and past officers and board members – support this effort. To suggest that we would deliberately try to weaken the Guild as it negotiates the contract we depend on is preposterous.
With great effort and careful consideration we’ve crafted a proposal that is unquestionably reasonable and fair. Isn’t it just common sense that contracts should be decided by those who work under them? Of course it is – and it is now up to the Board to maximize SAG’s strength and credibility by implementing this overdue reform.
The SAG-AFTRA split:
As you probably already know, our unions will now negotiate separately, and perhaps competitively. This is perhaps the most damaging problem facing actors who depend on union contracts.
Much has been said about the collapse of cooperative negotiations, with mutual accusations of bad behavior and mistrust. But this much is clear: it’s the predictable consequence of having two independent unions representing the same employees doing exactly the same work for exactly the same employers. The months of public squabbling that brought us here have been a boon to the studios, and have weakened both unions’ negotiating positions. This makes it all the more important that SAG and AFTRA each adopt our proposal. By ensuring that contracts are decided by those who work under them, our unions can best position themselves to secure the strongest contracts possible – even if they must do so in the risky environment of separate negotiations.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Let’s see – you want me to pay my dues every year whether I work or not.
If we strike, you want me to walk the line.
You want me to honor Rule One of SAG membership.
You just don’t want me to mess up your contracts by insisting I be involved in voting.
Thanks gang, thanks a bunch.
There needs to be just one union for actors. This whole problem has been brought about because AFTRA is fighting to exist. AFTRA is only looking out for itself, not who it represents. Actors lose here because of AFTRA’s behavior. SAG needs to be the only union for actors because it truly looks out for actors. There has to be some way that jurisdiction can be transferred exclusively to SAG — what can be done?
Ugh
From Dave Clennon:
I sent the following letter to leaders of the Working Actor faction several days ago. I suggested that they POSTPONE their push for Affected or Qualified voting until AFTER the conclusion of Theatrical/Primetime negotiations.
Ned Vaughn called me and told me that their Steering Committee was going to meet the next day. They would discuss my suggestion and he would call me back with their answer. It’s been about a month and Ned hasn’t called me.
I’m not talking about the MERITS of Qualified/Affected Voting; I’m just asking the Working Actor faction to HOLD OFF on this very divisive issue, so that S.A.G. can present a united front as we approach the most important negotiations since we got cheated out of a fair residual on videos.
The recent modification of the Working Actor’s proposal doesn’t change the fact that their TIMING is diabolically poor.
******************************************************
Dear Richard [Masur], Kevin [Kilner], Stephen [Collins], Amy Aquino, Ms Brenneman and Mr Vaughn:
I’ve thought about the Affected Voter idea and I think a reasonable case COULD be made for adopting the practice suggested.
For the record, I have been a loyal supporter of Richard Masur, Mike Farrell, Melissa Gilbert, Jamie Cromwell and other leaders of the Working Actor movement. But during the writers’ strike (although I’m not a writer), I was closely involved with a contingent of writer-pickets, marching with them and receiving nightly emails — news reports and pep talks — from their captain. My experience of the W.G.A.’s struggle with the AMPTP seriously altered my perception of the forces at play in the labor struggles within the entertainment industry.
This is not our grandparents’ AMPTP. Relentless consolidation and vertical integration have transformed the old AMPTP into a monolithic, ruthless and implacable adversary.
My concern right now is with the TIMING of your petition and of the anticipated battle over it at the next meeting of the S.A.G. Board.
I’ve been corresponding recently with Mike Farrell.
I asked Mike whether he thought the Affected Voter motion would have a chance of passing at the April meeting of the S.A.G. Board. I pointed out that Alan Rosenberg had promised a delegation of Affected Voter petitioners that it would indeed be considered. Mike wrote:
“My opinion is that Alan will bring it up if he can, because he doesn’t want to piss off the hi-pros [high-profile actors] that brought it to him. My opinion is that the board will trash it quickly.”
In light of Mike’s prediction of defeat, may I, respectfully, suggest that the petitioners POSTPONE this very divisive battle? — that you postpone it at least until the conclusion of negotiations with the AMPTP? — or until after the next Guild election, when you will likely have a better shot?
A postponement could accomplish three things –
(1) It would allow S.A.G. officers, the Board of directors, and the membership as a whole to FOCUS on drawing up the PACKAGE OF PROPOSALS which the negotiators must have, to bring to the table, in order to begin negotiating on a sure footing.
(2) Putting off this debilitating, rancorous debate would significantly increase our chances of AVOIDING a strike. A postponement would give all Guild members TIME TO PREPARE — psychologically, financially, politically, spiritually — for a POSSIBLE strike. The best way to avoid a strike is to convince the AMPTP that we’re STRONG ENOUGH to hurt them, if they don’t negotiate in good faith. If we don’t have the credible POTENTIAL of calling an EFFECTIVE strike, we may as well take the AMPTP’s first offer — and if they know we’re toothless, that first offer will NOT be generous.
(3) A postponement could earn a lot of good-will for the Working Actor contingent, among the huge majority of union members, who don’t belong to either faction.
I have never voted for a Membership First candidate. But they have EARNED their leadership position through the electoral process. I believe that Membership First deserves the chance to conduct these negotiations — from a POSITION OF STRENGTH — with our Guild unified behind them. The alternative is disarray and defeat.
I can’t believe that Working Actor wants us ALL to go down in flames, the virtuous and the ignoble together? I don’t believe that your strategy is to wave a white flag — and take a three-year screwing? But forcing the Affected Voter battle — now — will be a big step toward that sorry outcome.
The Working Actors caucus has already won a major victory — over twelve [now fourteen] hundred signatures on the petition. Working Actor can build on its successes AFTER negotiations are concluded.
To win what we deserve, we also need to win the sympathy of other workers in the entertainment community. That community is now plagued with fear of, and potential outrage at, an actors’ strike. Instead of quarreling among ourselves, we need to be convincing our fellow workers that what we are asking for is FAIR and REASONABLE. My hope is that they will see that, if — IF — we have to go out, it will be the AMPTP, and ONLY the AMPTP, that forced the stoppage.
We also need to convince other industry workers that, IF we have to strike, it will be SHORT and EFFECTIVE, because we are united, because we’ve all agreed beforehand on what we’re fighting for, and because we STAND TOGETHER behind our negotiators.
A public announcement that Working Actor is withdrawing the petition — for the present moment, and for the sake of Guild unity! — would help enormously to strengthen our bargaining position.
Sincerely,
Dave Clennon
Good luck getting this passed when a lot of the regional SAG National Board members wouldn’t even qualify to vote on contracts under the proposal. And if by some miracle it did pass… What a discouragement for young performers thinking about joining and participating in the union when they can’t even vote on contracts that will determine their future in the business.
How about starting with qualifications for Board service? That was proposed by Hollywood Board members two years ago… and was held back in committee to keep it from even reaching the National Board. I predict this motion (if anyone even raises it as a motion) will be tabled for ‘further study.’
Leo Ruby, working actor, did you actually READ the proposal at working actors voice? pretty small requirement to be an affected member… it was 5 days, now it’s 1 day of work…most members who are actively pursuing their careers can meet it easily. The ones who aren’t actively pursuing their careers, why WOULD they get to vote on something that doesn’t affect them?
Qualified voting seems great in theory but pretty much pointless. How many people who wouldn’t be “qualified” actually vote? And what difference does it make? Are they voting one way or the other, and somehow blocking progress?
SAG’s real problem is the MeFirst fools who have done everything they can to block progress with AFTRA, block merger of the unions and to preserve their little stronghold of power at the expense of all working actors.
For years, as part of their climb to control SAG, MembershipFirst took every opportunity to embarrass, block, and deny any actions of the previous SAG administrations. All elections were challenged and forced to be re-run (unsuccessfully). All negotiated contracts opposed. All referendums opposed and most defeated. MembershipFirst lawsuits locked up the legal department. Every trick in the book and some not in the book.
So.
Do you think there might be those (both inside and outside the Guild) who are inclined to feed MembershipFirst – now that they are in the catbird seat and as they approach their first major contract negotiations – a healthy dose of their own medicine, regardless of how “smart” it may or may not seem to many unfamiliar with SAG history?
You know – it is the union leadership that is causing the problems here, and yes, I realize we elected them, much to MY dismay. I would hazard a guess that the grand majority of both SAG and AFTRA members do NOT want seperate bargaining, and do NOT want TWO seperate unions representing them. The power lies in numbers, and since the Membership is a MUCH larger number than those squabbling idiots that are sitting at the head of each union supposedly “representing” us, with their playground arguments amongst each other, I think we ought to organize and circulate a petition or some kind of action as a group to sue both unions, or to dissasemble the two unions, and reorganize it all as ONE union. ***AFTER*** contract negotiations of course. But this is ridiculous, having TWO unions representing ONE group of employees, especially two unions who’s leadership is more concerned with winning the argument about “who is better” than they are about solidarity and what is best for actors.
Dear Mr. Ruby,
You are describing almost every union in this country. Why would you have those without knowledge of or experience in the contract receive ballots?
Dear Working Actor,
You’ll have to prove how AMV weakens the union or the negotiations. I hear that charge often, but I don’t see the connection. Describe the scenario in which members not getting to vote on a contract that doesn’t affect them, adversely changes the outcome of negotiations or a strike.
VOguy – You honestly believe that the change to 1 day will stay in effect over the next ten years?
You honestly believe that if this is passed, it will be changed to add more and more requirements?
The union demands a lot from me. I have to belong to work. I believe I have the right to demand one basic right. The right to vote on all agreements that will affect my work and my ability to work over the years.
Yes, lots of unions work under these kind of rules. Guess what? SAG ain’t like most unions. I respect the union leaders and members who fought for the right to bargain as a collective.
I see that right being taken away by our own membership!
The new press release from AMV proponents says, “With great effort and careful consideration we’ve crafted a proposal that is unquestionably reasonable and fair.”
It’s “unquestionably reasonable and fair”? Geez, you haven’t left us much wiggle room there Senator McCarthy. It’s unquestionable, after all. And why? Because you say so.
Forget that it completely undermines the philosophy of democracy; it is “unquestionable.” ‘nough said.
Now is it me, or is coming up with an idea and determining on your own it’s “unquestionable” the exact definition of elitism: A kind of, “I am right, anyone thinking differently is wrong position”?
And let’s not get started on the definition of “great effort”.
Here’s a paragraph from the press release from SAG dated February 8, 2005 when the last 3 year theatrical and television contract was ratified. It states that about 30% of the membership voted.
“Approximately 119,000 members of the unions received ballots, of which 30 percent returned them – a number that is historically consistent with previous referenda on union contracts.” The press release also notes: “Overall, the memberships of SAG and AFTRA voted 76.5 percent to 23.5 percent in favor of the new agreement.” This last refers to the the mere 30% of the membership who voted.
If anyone bothers to do ANY research they will see this is consistent with all SAG votes throughout history. I won’t post all the past vote results here, but they are easily referenced through SAG documents.
So while I’m a big fan of unsubstantiated suspicions about so-called “vanity card holders” and questionable rhetoric pointing fingers at 100,000 unscrupulous or maybe just uneducated union member who will surely screw up the contract vote, we all have to admit that past experience shows about 30% of the membership cares to vote. So logic would dictate in this upcoming vote, as in the past, it is likely 84,000 members won’t vote and a mere 36,000 will vote. Who are the voters? I dunno. Why don’t the majority vote. I dunno that either.
But I do know that almost no one has access to the information on the income bracket the 30% of the voters was in the last contract vote. So the foundation of the petitioners “reasoning” is non-existent. No one can say with any authority what people in what income bracket vote or don’t vote.
I also know that in the profession of acting you do not get paid for all the work you do, so an “affected member” is not necessarily dictated by income. Just as in any democracy those affected are not necessarily those making more money than others. C’mon, already.
Deferred pay on a low budget or ultra low budget is one example of professional union work where no money ever changes hands in many cases. Guess how I know? And the past contracts that have diminished the pay of then less-famous actors like cutting the “silent bit” and the like have negatively affected the income and thereby voting ability according to the new proposal. The lesser number of union extras required by newer SAG contracts again have reduced SAG employment potential. (I’m not saying these were necessarily BAD concessions by the Union, but they certainly could be if now the ability to vote is based on the UNION work available.)
And then, ready for this? Auditioning three days a week is working as an actor. I have heard some vehemently oppose my view on this. “Auditioning is not working, you’re not getting paid for it.” I feel sorry for people who think like that.
At the risk of getting more long-winded, meetings, pre-reads, finding a headshot photographer, getting the shots, getting the clothes, researching the trends, post-carding, classes, those corrupt “classes” $$ to meet a casting director which is often the only way Casting Directors choose to meet new people, dropping headshots, making the rounds, auditioning, the gym, waiting on line at Reproductions, paying for parking, reminding your agent who you are, and on and on are all part of an actors work. And it all pays nothing and in some cases costs money. But according the AMVers you’re not affected by the contract. I’ve gotta say that $75 for the third callback that the Union negotiated sure helps me believe it or not. Even softens the blow a bit when some offer-only actor gets the job while I sat for hours over days in auditions and callbacks.
It is work though people. If you’re offer-only, good for you. You’ve cut out a good part of your work load. But I guess I could make it akin to the Real Estate Biz. If you’re showing houses for six months without a sale would anyone say you’re not in the real estate biz? What if you showed houses for a year without closing a deal. You’ve got the yellow blazer, your in the real estate office, you’re showing houses–isn’t that the work of a real estate agent? Or would they be vanity agents doing it only for the yellow blazer.
Acting, like real estate any many other speculative businesses, is at best an income averaging type business as opposed as a per job or punch-in punch-out, get paid for your hours business. And it looks like simple arrogance of these spokespersons for this petition drive, Many working pretty steady on paying gigs trying to sell us the idea that everyone who is not working as much is some kind of a slacker-vanity-vote-rigging-not-to-be-trusted anti-Union member who needs to be stripped of their vote. Ppppppppplease. Wake up! It’s not your father’s Buick anymore.
(And that’s not to say I wouldn’t mind paid auditions? WHAT?! I mean c’mon these producers have no reason not to call in 20 or 30 actors after they’re already in contract with the offer-only who will book the role. Just covering there bases in case negotiations fall through. And they do it petition-signers who think your offer-only status is the definition of work.)
So ask yourself, do you feel lucky today Kid?
Oh wait, I mean ask yourself, why would these petitioners want to take the vote away from the masses– the masses they espouse to care so much about– and hold the vote for only themselves? I think they are saying it’s because they are best qualified to make decisions that will affect the masses, where as the masses are not qualified to decide what is best themselves.
Then they say they are not elitists. Then they create this air of suspicion about the unnamed, unseen, unidentified, vanity card holders who they speculate will do bad things for “real” actors with absolutely no evidence to lead to their conclusion. If you work less that 1 Guest star a year for 6 years then YOU are the vanity actor. I have seen the vanity actors and they are us. Are we trying to rig the vote? The only people we can actually prove are trying to rig the vote are those who signed the petition. That is the petitions purpose.
C’mon, it’s McCarthyism. There are no communists about to subvert the film business and America and there are no “vanity card holders” trying to subvert the power of the union. It’s suspicion, unwarranted fear, questionable evidence if evidence at all, inconclusive assessments, and hogwash about some conceived yet unsupported threat level that will undermine SAG. It’s McCarthyism.
The only threat is these petitioners scared their income will be interrupted and they will have trouble paying for their homes, cars, kids and the like, shoving unsupported ideas at the democratic process.
But wait, we share the fear of being out of work. We do have common ground. We all don’t want a strike. The difference is those of us who have NOT signed the petition are waiting to see the facts before we decide if we will vote for or against the contract and there-by for or against a strike. Those who have signed the petition have already decided above scale rocks and they don’t need to miss a car payment so a guy who works for scale and only—through no fault of his or her own—books only 1 guest spot every other year can negotiate his or her best deal.
It’s divisive. It’s elitist. It’s racist. It’s McCarthyism. And we won’t let it happen again.
Just speaking as a fan and a viewer here and while I think lowering the bar to qualified voting is a decent sized step in the right direction, still better for the unions would be for the ‘working actors’ to get together and hammer out a standard talent franchise agreement for the guilds. If there needs to be qualified voting on a talent franchise agreement the best way to handle that is to make the qualification to vote on such a contract either
1) an actor either already has representation at the time of voting
or
2)an actor has in hand a written offer for representation at the time of voting
I think this is what a lot of ‘working’ actors (especially ‘hi-pros’) are really worried about and I don’t think this would upset most of the SAG membership (unlike all actors being able to vote on the two broadest contracts TV/theatrical & commercials (which by the way comes up for negotiations in October of 2008)
If some of you actors want to take this idea and run with it be my guest
S.E. Olson
Moderator & Law & Order: Criminal Intent Fan Liason
Fans For The WGA
http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters
Philosophically unconvinced that qualified voting is warranted for the TV/Theatrical & Commercials contracts for SAG & AFTRA
Todd –
This proposal weakens negotiations because there will likely be mass fi-core and disenfranchised SAG actors, who will not be committed to holding the line.
“Affected Voting” BEFORE Qualifications for Board Service? The hypocrisy is astounding.
This weekend, some national board members who haven’t worked a principal contract in YEARS will be voting upon a motion to disallow other members from voting, based on the same qualification. At the very least, those individuals should be made to abstain from voting on this motion.
I made the following motion in the Hollywood Board room in December 2006 – which passed with one dissention. It has since been deliberately relegated to the quagmire of political quicksand. This motion should have been presented to a National plenary long ago. The corruption of this process within Screen Actors Guild is absolutely disgusting.
Elected board members don’t run the guild: Staff, a few committee members and elected officers do.
As a long-time member of the “Working Actor” faction of S.A.G., I feel entitled to propose a new name for our working-qualified-affected member set: WE FORTUNATE FEW.
Because, let’s face it — to be able to live on our earnings as performers requires five conditions:
(1) Luck
(2) SOME hard work
(3) Luck
(4) SOME talent, AND . . .
(5) a lot of LUCK.
Oh! And I left out –
(6) SOME training and experience, and, of course, a little more . . .
(7) Luck.
As an on-again-off-again member of We Fortunate Few, I sometimes have to face an unpleasant truth:
There are actors out there who are way more talented and hard-working than I am.
And they can’t even get an agent. They don’t make enough money even to be eligible to receive Unemployment between jobs.
The late acting teacher and performer Jack Colvin (“The Incredible Hulk”) had a technical term for people like me — “F*ckin’ Lucky.”
We Fortunate Few tell you that many other unions have gone the Affected Member Voting route. Well . . . Is that a praise-worthy example that we want to follow?
Yes, the United Auto Workers, and other once-proud unions have buckled under pressure from owners and bosses — they have adopted the two-tier system: those with seniority keep their jobs, their wages and their pensions. And “Good Luck!” to the newcomers and to anyone else who hasn’t achieved seniority over the years.
That would not be the precise result in S.A.G., if We Fortunate Few have our way with Affected Member Voting. But we will certainly be acting in the SPIRIT of Two-tiers and Two Americas. Reaganomics Rules!
Dave Clennon
Coming soon on the bloglet — StarsAdviseTheirUnion.blogspot.com
“Reverse Engineering Reveals: The Five-Point PLAN to CRIPPLE S.A.G.
(In Order to Save It [for Ourselves])
Brian Hamilton? Are you the same Brian Hamilton who recently wrote:
“… appears to be no chance that AFTRA will begin its talks by the time SAG starts its negotiations April 15. And we will still get the Soaps — starting with Bold and the Beautiful. Let the decimation of the lying poaching scumbag union known as AFTRA begin. Bring it on, mutha-fukkaz!”
Just want to make sure.
What you are proposing requires constitutional change. The affected member voting effort simply asks for SAG’s constitution to be honored.
And there’s no hypocrisy. Under the affected member voting proposal, no board member, officer, or any other member of the Guild would participate in a ratification vote for a contract that he or she didn’t work under. It would apply equally to all members.
To Zachery, SAG Member, Leo Ruby,
Your fight is the with the SAG constitution not with Working Actor’s Voice.
If you’d like to alter the constitution to have it say ‘all ballots should go to all members’, have a go at it. In the meantime, we are asking the National Board apply a definition of affected member in an evenhanded way.
All the rhetoric in the world does not change the fact that not every member of SAG is affected by the TV/TH agreement. Maybe they will be in the future, but the constitution doesn’t say ‘potentially affected’.
And the Fi-core threat is the last resort of those who can’t explain why they prefer having the unknowledgeable and inexperienced on the voting rolls.
And the issue is not about who’s a working actor, either. That is also a smoke screen for those unable to defend their equanimity over Steven Spielberg and Peter Bart, grips, caterers, and TV execs being able vote on our contract.
To Brian Hamilton,
I don’t know how others in our group feel, but I applaud your efforts to get some requirements for the board service. As you know, those changes could only be put in place by a majority vote of the general membership or a 2/3 majority of the Board of Directors.
Creating a definition for ‘affected member’ needs, at best, a simple majority of the board. That is a much easier proposition, though still difficult.
–Todd Waring
The lively debate over this proposal is heartening.
Most of my objections to the qualified voting proposal have already been well-stated by others here.
Two points, both of which I have stated previously in comments section here and in my blog:
1. The AMV proposal does nothing to directly address the potential conflict-of-interest for actors who are also producers. A number of actor/producers, including Amy Brenneman, are prominent AMV proponents. I find this ironic as AMV proponents have repeatedly trotted out Les Moonves as their classic example of a SAG card-holder who has a clear interest in voting against the best interests of the guild. I am not advocating barring actor/producers from voting; I think it’s a terrible idea, and entirely counterproductive to the idea of actors gaining and exercising a positive influence over their art.
2. The AMV proposal is based on a fundamental logic flaw. The proposal assumes that past work is a reliable indication of future work. For many actors, this is true. For many others, it is not. Also, hiring in this industry skews young. Actors of a certain age – like many of the very talented, seasoned actors who signed this petition – are less likely to continue to find productive employment than some of the beautiful hungry (currently) non-union 20-somethings studying assiduously under Ivana Chubbuck or at Improv Olympic. In some respects, actors are like brands, going in and out of style. This means there is no reliable way of statistically determining which particular actors will or will not work during a future contract. Also, past unemployment is a poor indicator of future intent. Therefore, basing the definition of “affected” on past work gives the vote to many actors who, possibly through no fault of their own, will never be affected by the most important parts of the future contract, and disenfranchises actors who will most definitely be affected.
The fairest test of “affected” membership for work any guild member is eligible for is:
1. demonstration of ability to gain professional acting employment by meeting the requirements for SAG membership through work performed under a guild contract, and
2. demonstration of intent to continue to work as an actor under guild contract by maintaining membership in good standing in the guild.
Yes – Brian “… appears to be no chance that AFTRA will begin its talks by the time SAG starts its negotiations April 15. And we will still get the Soaps — starting with Bold and the Beautiful. Let the decimation of the lying poaching scumbag union known as AFTRA begin. Bring it on, mutha-fukkaz!” Hamilton
- complains that SAG is not run by members but by staff (who are all under the thumb of his MembershipFirst cabal), committees (all of which are chaired and controlled by his MembershipFirst cabal), and officers (the majority of whom are members of his MembershipFirst cabal).
Boo-hoo.
If this passes, then the massive wave of SAG FI-CORE filings will begin. Let’s see, the main “drawback” of going Fi-Core is that you can’t vote….HMMMMM.
With all the crap that’s going on, I won’t be surprised if many actors will be both SAG Fi-Core and AFTRA Fi-Core very soon!
mheister,
You said:
“The fairest test of ‘affected’ membership for work any guild member is eligible for is:
1. demonstration of ability to gain professional acting employment by meeting the requirements for SAG membership through work performed under a guild contract, and
2. demonstration of intent to continue to work as an actor under guild contract by maintaining membership in good standing in the guild.”
There’s a basic flaw with your #2. Maintaining membership in good standing in the guild does not necessarily demonstrate intent to continue work as an actor under guild contracts.
I ran for the SAG Board a few years ago and was astonished to find that on the set of 7th Heaven, a makeup artist, hairdresser, several grips and electricians, and one of our producers were all SAG members. Not one of them had sought work as an actor for decades. There are thousands and thousands of such members. Would these people ever vote NO on a contract?
Affected member voting proponents feel that actors who put food on their tables through SAG work should not have their contract votes canceled out by people who are no longer actors. Should Variety editor Peter Bart and Les Moonves be voting YES or NO on a contract?
As to the issue of timing, my friend Dave C. asks an important question: Why now? Why not wait until there’s more time to discuss an issue that seems to be this hot?
The short answer is this: There are many precedent-setting issues in this contract that will not be visited for another three years, during which time technologies will undoubtedly change rapidly. It is our belief that an electorate made up those knowledgeabe and experienced in the TV/TH contract will be better suited to make an informed decision on issues that have never been more complex. And, that it is not a matter of whom it can be explained to, but rather who has a stake in it’s outcome.
If the agreement is voted down and we go on strike (something none of us is looking forward to) then I want to know that it was voted down by people who will experience pain by doing so.
And conversely, if an agreement is ratified that contains some rollbacks, I want to know that it wasn’t ratified by people who would do anything just to avoid a strike.
The more crucial the negotiations are, the more crucial is to know that the outcome is determined by those who have a stake therein.
Stephen -
Thank you for your considerate response to my post.
I too have met below-the-line union workers who also carry a SAG card. An example: one of the original Mouseketeers did my make-up one day. He keeps up his affiliations because periodically opportunities arise for him to do work related to his celebrity as an original Mouseketeer. His original acting work for Disney was in the days before residuals. Should he be denied his franchise by the guild???
You state there are “thousands and thousands” of inactive guild members. What you don’t provide – what you are cannot provide – is any documented evidence that these members have voted or would vote against the best interests of the guild’s membership as a whole. Nor have you, or can you, provide documented evidence as to how many and which members are of a similar status to the former Mouseketeer I referenced above. In other words, there is no way to write an AMV that excises only the cardholders you contend but cannot prove will vote against the best interests of the guild without also disenfranchising other actors.
You referenced Peter Bart and Les Moonves. If cardholders with a clear conflict of interest are a concern, then using AMV to disenfranchise them is like using a 5,000-pound bunker buster bomb to deal with your home’s ant problem. If, however, you wish to more specifically focus on individuals with a conflict of interest, why don’t you gather signatures on a proposal to bar such individuals from voting?
That’s a rhetorical question, as we both know the answer. It would be impossible to write such a change into the SAG rules without also disenfranchising hundreds of high-profile actor/producers, including but certainly not limited to George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Drew Barrymore, Jodie Foster, Larry David, Sarah Silverman, Denzel Washington, Zach Braff, Johnny Depp, Steve Carrel, Rainn Wilson, Amy Brenneman and Melissa Gilbert (I can go on all day here). Any such proposal is a non-starter, for obvious reasons.
It is also interesting that you don’t address my point about the fundamental logic flaw in the AMV proposal. Perhaps it’s because of the relationship between these two provisions of the SAG Constitution:
Section 1. Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Article, all collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.
Section 5. Every member of the Guild shall be bound by the provisions of all collective bargaining contracts in effect between the Guild and motion picture producers as the same are or may hereafter be amended.
By definition, if I am LEGALLY BOUND by the provisions of the agreement, I am, like every other SAG member, AFFECTED by the collective bargaining agreement.
Another tack the AMV proponents may pursue in their quest to disenfranchise the Peter Barts and Les Moonves’s, and all those carholding inactive BTL types, is redefining membership criteria. Such a change, which would likely involuntarily move actors who have not worked a contract within a certain time frame into inactive status, would also mean those reclassified non-voting actors would not be paying dues to the guild unless and until they resume active status by acquiring SAG work. However, before running this one up the flagpole, you may wish to consider the financial impact to the guild of doing without the dues those members would otherwise pay. AFTRA’s historical financial issues in this regard may be instructive.
Also important to consider is how AMV or a redefinition of membership criteria may affect the leadership and operation of SAG’s smaller regional boards.
And bear in mind, any change made by the SAG national board may be overturned by a vote of the membership if 10 percent sign a petition. At the end of the day, all of us should, IMHO, consider the divisive implications of going through a process which may well, at the end of the day, produce no change other than rancor and disunity in the ranks of the membership. As our strength lies in solidarity, I can only assume that disunity is something no rational union member would either desire or encourage.
Oh, and speaking of solidarity, Stephen, can we count on you to come out to the La Brea Tar Pits next Tuesday, April 15, at 9 a.m. to help us kick off Hollywood to the Docks??? (www.hollywoodtothedocks.org)
mheister,
You said: “By definition, if I am LEGALLY BOUND by the provisions of the agreement, I am, like every other SAG member, AFFECTED by the collective bargaining agreement.”
ONLY IF YOU WORK THE CONTRACT. Otherwise, you are POTENTIALLY affected.
You wrote: “What you don’t provide – what you are cannot provide – is any documented evidence that these members have voted or would vote against the best interests of the guild’s membership as a whole.”
CLEVER, BUT PREPOSTEROUS. By definition, there can’t be “documented evidence” that vanity card holders “have voted or would vote against the best interests of the guild’s membership as a whole.” That’s purely a judgment call–my opinion vs. yours. To me, it seems like common sense that the actors who work the contract should decide whether the contract is accepted. You are free to disagree. You can’t prove your point of view any more than I can. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. I stand by the common sense principal of affected member voting. WGA and Actors Equity do it. Most unions do it. SAG should, too.
I’ve worked with (original Mouseketeer) Tommy, too (I doubt there’s another who’s a makeup artist). He’s a great guy in every way. And if he works the SAG TV/Theatrical contract an average of six days in six years, he’d be able to vote under our proposal. If Tommy is vested, he could always vote under our proposal, even if he never worked the contract again. Our threshold for voting on contracts is incredibly low—WAY lower than WGA’s and Equity’s. And if Tommy can’t vote a certain contract up or down (because he hasn’t worked six days in six years), he can still vote in all other SAG referenda–including a strike authorization. You insist that this means “disenfranchisement.” We insist it is merely common sense.
One last thing you wrote:
“Another tack the AMV proponents may pursue in their quest to disenfranchise the Peter Barts and Les Moonves’s, and all those carholding inactive BTL types, is redefining membership criteria. Such a change, which would likely involuntarily move actors who have not worked a contract within a certain time frame into inactive status, would also mean those reclassified non-voting actors would not be paying dues to the guild unless and until they resume active status by acquiring SAG work. However, before running this one up the flagpole, you may wish to consider the financial impact to the guild of doing without the dues those members would otherwise pay.”
We’re not running anything like what you’re talking about up any flagpole. You’re spinning out of control here, assuming all sorts of things about what people may do—none of it based on anything but your seeming sense that you know what our intentions are. Stick to the facts (something you keep insisting on): we have suggested nothing having anything to do with SAG or AFTRA except asking that they define what an “affected member” is, FOR PURPOSE OF VOTING ON CONTRACTS ONLY.
And thanks for the invite, but I’m in New York through the 20th, working.