It’s not even August. And SAG is still in the middle of its contract negotiations with Big Media. But already actors are coming forward to run for office in the September 18th election. (Then again, there’s never a SAG vote without controversy.) But no, it’s not too early. Because the nominating period closes tomorrow! Then SAG releases the official list of candidates on August 5th once the Election Committees have confirmed candidate eligibility. So today I received a statement from 31 SAG members billing themselves as “Hollywood stars” (in the subject line of the email they sent out) who say they’re “alarmed by growing divisiveness” within their guild and declared themselves SAG Board candidates seeking leadership change on a “Unite For Strength” slate. (Many, if not all, were on board for the “Affected Member” attempt to limit SAG contract voting to just “working” actors which SAG’s current board sent back to committee.) Here’s the “Unite For Strength” statement:
Aiming to put the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) on a path toward greater unity with sister union the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), a group of 31 actors announced today that they will run in upcoming elections for seats on the SAG Board of Directors. Organized under the banner “Unite for Strength,” the group is seeking to win a majority of the national board seats allotted to Hollywood branch members. If successful, Unite for Strength would end control of the board by the “Membership First” faction, which has long maintained a hostile stance toward AFTRA.
“With the immense challenges actors face today, we need all the strength we can muster. And that means electing union leadership that is committed to uniting actors to fight for our common future,” said Ned Vaughn, a leader of the group. “We can no longer afford leaders who sow division.”
“As our current predicament makes clear, actors lose out when we face off as separate, warring camps against the media conglomerates in contract negotiations,” said Adam Arkin. “I’m concerned for future negotiations if we don’t change the leadership that has brought us to this point.”
In announcing their campaign, Unite for Strength faulted current and past board members associated with Membership First for stoking the debilitating hostility between SAG and AFTRA by:
· Threatening to terminate joint negation of the TV/Theatrical contract. (They later rescinded a planned referendum after a storm of internal criticism that doing so would weaken SAG at the bargaining table.)
· Waging a campaign of threats and insults against AFTRA. This included one Membership First-affiliated board member calling AFTRA “a scumbag union.”
· Waging a senseless, futile (and costly) campaign to defeat the contract AFTRA negotiated with the AMPTP.
· Scuttling two separate attempts (1998 & 2003) to strengthen actors’ long-term position at the bargaining table by merging SAG and AFTRA.“If we’re elected, we’ll end the senseless war against AFTRA and work to create a united front of actors to fight for more working opportunities and better jobs. We believe that will ultimately require merging the two unions, and that’s a goal we’re all pledged to pursue,” said Vaughn.
The candidates running on the Unite for Strength slate are:
Adam Arkin
Michelle Allsopp
Edoardo Ballerini
Bob Bergen
Amy Brenneman
L. Scott Caldwell
Gabrielle Carteris
William Charlton
Assaf Cohen
Ashley Crow
Tim DeKay
Fred Fein
Googy Gress
Dulé Hill
Ken Howard
Clyde Kusatsu
Matt Letscher
John Carroll Lynch
Anthony Molinari
Pamela Reed
Doug Savant
Bill Smitrovich
Richard Speight, Jr.
Mandy Steckelberg
Keith Szarabajka
Steve Tom
Stacey Travis
Ned Vaughn
Tom Verica
Marcia Wallace
Kate Walsh
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







#44
“The AMPTP did nothing to you on DVD.” That’s complete horseshit. The AMPTP, at the time of that deal, assured SAG that “it’s a new technology, we aren’t sure of the costs, how it will pan out, so, let’s not strangle the baby in the crib, o.k.? If it turns into a real money maker, we’ll renegotiate, don’t worry.” That’s practically VERBATIM. WE “took the deal” because we were promised we’d get a better one if we TRUSTED them. What about that don’t you understand, and what about how that relates to the current situation don’t you get? Jesus! I’m constantly amazed at how uninformed and naive you people are. Get it together!
Variety July 21st, 2008:
Homevideo industry holds its own
Consumers spend $10.1 billion on DVDs
Variety, July 23rd, 2008:
Summer box office looks hot
Big grosses defy negative claims
Go “Unite For Strength”! Capitulate while the AMPTP is hurting!
See you all at the MENSA meeting!
Smell that? You smell that? I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like…victory! Someday this war’s gonna end…
To those who seem to think these actors aren’t “name” enough — these are WORKING actors; some better known than others, but the ones who are directly affected by the actual agreement in place and not by what their agents can negotiate in excess of it. Perhaps not in terms of basic compensation, but surely in terms of residuals, product placement, DVD / home video, new media, and other fun and exciting things that mean nothing to people who are not working. They may have been in support of qualified voting, but is it really that outrageous to ask that a voting member eran the equivalent of ONE day’s work in a year? $20 million actors don’t need to worry about the basic agreement (though some do, and I salute them), and truthfully, neither do those who simply do not work. It’s the actors who fall somewhere in the middle, the ones Peter Coyote supported in his open letter, who are directly affected by the outcome of these stalled negotiations.
And as far as some of the other issues are concerned, blowing the talent agency agreement over an issue as small as potential conflict of interest in agency ownership (which, if it became a real issue would most likely be dealt with by the government as some sort of monopoly, just like before) has resulted in a much more damaging situation to the actor’s community in general. Many agents are no longer subject to some of the basic concepts that ruled the industry for so long — like limits on the amount of commission and the ability to collect commission on residuals, and have put into place a General Services Agreement which is hideously onerous and one-sided.
I say we listen to these 31 actors and let them try to at least re-visit the merger so we can eliminate the competition and hopefully, raise the basic minimums.
No, I’m not a shill. Just someone who has been on many sides of this situation and seen a lot of suffering.
T-rex
Apparently you are the one not informed. We took the deal year after year….. (Three times I believe). That is SAG’s fault. Sag never had the balls to re negotiate the DVD issue. Over reacting as you are is the reason SAG is not taken seriously. It is called a negotiation. If you settle for a shitty deal it’s on you. Not the one you are bargaining with. I have it together … (mostly). You need to look inward my friend.
Terrible way to handle a point of view. Subversively. Divisively. Detrimental to the integrity and strength of the union. These people may have good intentions but it certainly seems exploitative and ill advised to proceed in this way.
You Know, I come here to DHD to try and gain insight into what it is that has the industry and my livelyhood on it’s knees. I read the comments and try to glean some idea of what SAG members are thinking. Yikes! I can only hope that many of the vitrolic, anti anything big studio rhetoric will not be the cause of losing your battles in this and future conract negotiations. So here is a story about 31 SAG members with different approach – might be time to think about a new approach to getting what you need next contract. Meanwhile we all spin in the breeze and watch the current board and their failing strategies piss in the wind upwind from where we are.
Once again, fantastically stupid timing by this group. Thanks for the list of who never to vote for – or talk to if I work with them.
I am just SO, SO tired of people “lobbing brickbats.” Come on, stop it people – this is 2008, not the 16th century!
From taking a look at the following website: http://www.workingactorsvoice.com
and looking at the slate of Unite For Strength actors: Michelle Allsopp Adam Arkin Edoardo Ballerini Bob Bergen Amy Brenneman L. Scott Caldwell Gabrielle Carteris William Charlton Assaf Cohen Ashley Crow Tim DeKay Fred Fein Googy Gress Dulé Hill Ken Howard Clyde Kusatsu Matt Letscher John Carroll Lynch Anthony Molinari Pamela Reed Doug Savant Bill Smitrovich Richard Speight, Jr. Mandy Steckelberg Keith Szarabajka Steve Tom Stacey Travis Ned Vaughn Tom Verica Marcia Wallace Kate Walsh
Only the following actors and actresses have NOT expressed their support for a petition that would disenfranchise most SAG members: Michelle Allsopp, Fred Fein, Anthony Molinari, Pamela Reed
So much for strength in numbers or unity of all SAG members
Bye bye Doug Allen
Bye Bye Alan Rosenberg
Bye Bye 100,000 non-working wannabe loser extras
Hello to AFTTRA! The Association of Film, Television, Theatrical and Radio Artists.
A real union of working performers.
Happy Days are here again!
#44
so, if I follow your logic, SAG should NOT have truted the union on their “let us see where this goes first, THEN we’ll pay you” approach back in the day, and, by the same logic, I assume you then believe SAG should NOT take this deal? Well, then, at lest we agree tht this is a shit deal and SAg shouldn’t take it, even if it means striking. we appreciate your support.
hey wackiland
get your facts straight. our good friends, agents (who support the amptp in this, according to nikki’s reporting, by the way) wanted, among other things, rights such as ownership/producer roles, as managers have, that’s called a CONFLICT OF INTEREST knucklehead. look it up.
and, please, “may not be stars, but are working actors?” first of all let’s be honest they BILLED themselves in the subject bar of their missive to nikki – “Hollywood Stars” , that, in and of itself, sort of disqualifies them as… douchebags.
second. NONE OF THEM ARE STARS. NOT ONE. Amy Brenemann? Are you fucking kidding me? ADAM ARKIN?
Talk about blowing it in your announcement for office…
oh, and #44?
contracts are 3 years long? so, since the DVD deal was made nearly 30 years ago – “3 times” uh, you might want to check on that.
When I look at the achievements of the current administration I come up with a non-existent contract and “iactor”. That’s after three years. Membership First is solely responsible for the massive group wedgie we are all receiving right now and it’s time to empty the clown car and get some people who will enact some positive change. Unite for Strength is a fantastic slate and I am thrilled to support every one of them.
Can anyone…..ANYONE…..please tell me the rationale behind “NOT HAVING ALL PERFORMERS UNDER ONE UNION”? Can anyone defend the idea of having multiple unions negotiate contracts for the same group of labor?
ANYONE?
ANYONE?
Because I am all ears. In the big picture, I cannot imagine any rational explanation that could defend having TWO unions competing against each other for a contract with the employers. Is there any planet on whiich this is advantageous?
PLEASE – I AM ASKING FOR ANYONE TO STEP UP AND GIVE ME A SOLID EXPLANATION ON WHY IT IS BETTER TO HAVE TWO UNIONS, BOTH REPRESENTING THE SAME LABORER, COMPETING AND FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER FOR A CONTRACT WITH EMPLOYERS, AND IN ORDER TO WIN – ONE WILL HAVE TO SELL THE GOOD (ACTOR) CHEAPER THAN THE OTHER. IF YOU CAN, PLEASE, WITHOUT POLITICS, AND WITH REASON AND LOGIC ALONE – PLEASE GIVE ME A REASON TO SUPPORT “NOT” HAVING ALL PERFORMERS UNDER ONE UNION.
I AM WAITING….
“Unite for Strength”?? This is the SAME slate of people who consistently kow-tow to the AMPTP and consistently caved in negotiations during the Richard Masur and Melissa Gilbert reigns.
Doesn’t anyone remember WHY the Membership First slate was swept into office during the past decade? Because actors were tired of getting paid crap for cable, getting paid crap for DVD’s, quotes were irrelevant and disappearing, and AFTRA was starting its march towards undercutting SAG in order to steal shows.
Have any of you worked on a cable AFTRA show? On some of them you can make more on UNEMPLOYMENT than working as a guest performer on these shows.
This slate of “Hollywood stars” is basically saying this:
“Get out of our way, you middle-class, scale actors. Don’t pester us with your petty cable, DVD and new media issues while we’re making series regular money.”
Should there be ONE actor’s union?? YES! Of course there should be one actor’s union.
But how do you convince SAG members to MERGE with a bunch of people (AFTRA leaders) who have consistently, time and time again, negotiated TERRIBLE deals for actors? In some cases, the actors did even KNOW these deals were negotiated for them until they were already working on the show? And sometimes AFTRA wouldn’t even give copies of these contracts to the actors!!
If you know that someone is a complete slob and takes terrible care of their apartment, do you offer to have them move in with you and become roommates in the hope that they’ll become neat and clean after they’ve moved in???
Too many actors have had really bad experiences working under AFTRA contracts.
Is it any wonder that they are scared to merge their stronger union with a really weak one?
T-rex
See now I have to spell it out for you. Sag should have taken the first DVD deal. as they did. The mistake was folding on the consecutive contracts. Sag has made a 20+ year bed and now they have to lay in it. The focus should be the new media….. (so history is not repeated). Make the best deal you can and make it clear that all the unions will be aligned in the next round of negotiations that come up and actually follow through and re negotiate the contract. Have balls when it matters. Don’t bring up 20 year old shit that makes you look petty.
Don’t get me wrong SAG should be getting a better deal on DVD’s. but that boat has sailed my friend…… Lets’ make sure we don’t launch another one.
Now I am sure you going to yell at me but maybe some of this will get through.
T-rex
Just read your math post……….! That just means that SAG gave up more times than I thought. ………… (going with your math 10 times). Sad!
TEN YEARS OF MEMBERSHIP FIRST SAG “LEADERSHIP” HAS GIVEN YOU:
•ORGANIZED DEFEAT OF SAG/AFTRA MERGER–1998.
•PROLONGED COMMERCIALS STRIKE FOR NO GAIN–2000.
•DERAILED SAG AGENCY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT–2002.
•ORGANIZED DEFEAT OF SAG/AFTRA MERGER–2003.
•PAID THEIR OWN MEMBERS $85,000 LAWSUIT—2005??
•WASTED $1,000,000 IN FIRED EXECUTIVE PAYOUTS—2005.
•ORGANIZED DUES-FUNDED ANTI-AFTRA WAR–2007.
•FAILED CAMPAIGN TO DERAIL AFTRA PRIMETIME–2008.
•FAILED PRIMETIME/THEATRICAL NEGOTIATIONS–2008
SAG MEMBERS: VOTE FOR “UNITE FOR STRENGTH” CANDIDATES THIS AUGUST ON YOUR SAG BALLOT.
“can anyone tell me”
NY times, 2003:
The opponents, most of them Hollywood-based members of SAG, argue that consolidation will sap their union’s power, dilute its historic identity and put its fate and its finances in the hands of a new umbrella council made up of officers from both unions. Aftra’s contracts are not nearly as lucrative as SAG’s, opponents of consolidation contend, so there is a danger that Aftra’s lower rates will prevail under a merged union.
”Their main point is that consolidation makes us stronger,” said Mr. Daniels, the former SAG president and an ardent opponent of the merger. ”Our contention is that it makes us weaker. Aftra is a crummy little union, and they’re undercutting our contracts, so we should join with them? To us it’s a very, very bad deal.”
2008 (me)
why would we merge with this predatory group, that just LIED to us, and ran right into the willing arms of the AMPTP and made a shitty deal? I refer you to my post way above, laying out what SAG is asking for. It is all entirely fair, reasonable and, in some cases, long overdue. And yet, we constantly have to deal with AFTRA’s poaching, undermining, duplicitous ways. merger has been voted down twice, ’99 and ’03. NOW AFTRA has gone and further exposed themselves as untrustworthy and all too willing to sell actors on the cheap. Their cable deal BLOWS. THEY NEGOTIATED a deal that pays less than a third of the salary and residuals. Anyone actually WORKED an AFTRA negotiated cable deal lately? I have – It’s a JOKE!
My question is: WHY does Roberta Reardon STILL want to merge with SAG? We don’t care for her. She’s like the psychotic aunt who keeps trying to get in the house. Answer: Roberta Reardon wants to WIN. she wants to win at all costs. She wants power for AFTRA, more jurisdiction, more dues money from more members, more infrastructure for her union, better money for aftra staff, a bright, shiny home of AFTRA’s own, instead of sharing offices with sag, while sag foots the bill (why aren’t we throwing them out?) She is a person, who DOESN’T work the contract we are currently negotiating! She has no credits. ZERO! And yet, she presents herself as someone who understands the needs of the film and television actor! She does some commercials and voiceovers. THAT’S IT! And yet, here she is, taking the tv and film actors in aftra, right into the dumper – AGAIN – with her submissive approach to the AMPTP, giving them what they want in new media and elsewhere (as she did in cable) then trying to pass it off as a “GAIN!” SAG is perfectly capable of negotiating its OWN contracts and representing it’s members. The AMPTP has shown, repeatedly, that they will swipe every right, and every last nickel, from the actors pocket, unless faced with a strong, capable and relentless negotiating team. They did it on dvd/vhs, they did it on cable. now, they are trying to do it on the internet, and helping them along, after AGREEING with SAG to negotiate together last April, is AFTRA.
What about what AFTRA has agreed to, do you not understand as being bad for the actor?
Do you not understand that the AMPTP will exploit this non-union work space created by the AFTRA contract to the detriment of the union actor?
Do you not understand that AFTRA has agreed to, for all practical purposes, NO RESIDUALS for the internet, where ALL production is headed?
Do you not understand, given our experience with dvd, and cable, that the AMPTP will NOT “revisit” these points in future negotiations, as the technology expands and turns into a cash cow (dvd and cable)?
Why would we want to merge with a union that WILLINGLY just ratified a contract that does just that, and in a potentially MUCH more important tech area (the web) AGAIN.
I live north of NYC, but I lived in l.a. for years, and, being a dual card holder, I KNOW which union has looked out for me (SAG) and which hasn’t (AFTRA). I don’t need revisionist historians (#44) who don’t even know the simplest of facts about past negotiations, or selective idiocies (can you tell me, sag working actor) from people who seem to wish continued bad decision making (aftra) for the actor.
WE ARE THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD. STAY STRONG, STRIKE IF YOU HAVE TO. THEN, let’s, please, dual card members, tear up our aftra cards, and tell producers, with a united voice, that we won’t work aftra shows. let’s END aftra. THAT’S the answer.
To CAN ANYONE TELL ME:
Yes, all actors should be in one union and that union is SAG, but not a merger which a majority of actors have voted 3 times that they are against. All television actors should vote to decertify AFTRA and take the T right out of it and let all the broacasters who love to work non-union gigs have that lame take crumbs joke of a union to themselves.
To Working SAG Actor (not Working Actor who seems to have some common sense):
LOL. Even Baghdad Bob was more believable than most of the lies and misrepresentations you posted. Typing them in all caps doesn’t make them true. (If you think the commercial strike yielded no gains then you have never worked a commercial or know what was at stake) Only the few mentions of the defeated merger were true and even though you want people to believe that was a bad thing real working SAG actors view that as a positive. So thanks for the vote of confidence for the MF slate. Even though you don’t realize you did so.
When is the membership of SAG going to figure out that their problem isn’t with contracts, but the fact that their guild took on too many members? There are so many members that 90% of them make less that 5k a year.
On top of that, as a film industry employee, I resent the fact that people that don’t even make their primary living from the film industry can dictate whether I get to work or not.
It’s time that SAG did a favor to themselves and for the other workers in the industry, and cleaned house via some form of attrition. Then the membership that is left over, may actually have a fighting chance of making a decent living at their job, since there will be less competition for work.
http://www.uniteforstrength.com/index.html
contracts are 3 years long? so, since the DVD deal was made nearly 30 years ago – “3 times” uh, you might want to check on that.
Comment by T-rex
WOW… that’s pretty amazing considering that DVDs were only invented about 20 years ago. I didn’t realize that SAG had psychics on it’s contract negotiating team. It all makes perfect sense now.