BAFTA Awards: What ‘Artist’, Dujardin, Streep … 
64th BAFTA Awards Winners: ‘The Artist’, Meryl … 
BAFTA 2012 Preview: Very British Affair Takes On … 
RECORD-BREAKING WEEKEND! 4 Films Open $20+M: ‘The … 
Remembered: Jennifer Hudson To Perform Whitney Houston … 
Live From NY, It’s Jean Dujardin On 
R.I.P. Whitney Houston 
TOLDJA! Indomina-BET Buy Sundance ‘LUV’ 
Midnight Madness For ‘Breaking Dawn’ DVD 
Saoirse Ronan Bigger Teen Action Queen 
WME Signs Writer-Director Jon Kasdan 
‘Glee’s Jane Lynch Joins Indie Film Comedy 
Universal Revives ‘Dracula Year Zero’ With … 
Jodie Foster Sending Mel Gibson Film ‘The … 
‘Roseanne’ Reunion: John Goodman To Co-Star In … 
UPDATE: Closing Arguments Conclude In Golden Globes Trial; … 
Series Adaptation Of ‘Legion’ With … 
Lionsgate Calms Investors With Talk About Charlie Sheen, … 
Ridley Scott Commits To Next Direct McCarthy’s … 
Marvel Studio’s Tim Connors Defects To Legendary As … 
UPDATE: Warner Bros Lawyers Dig In Garbage Over ‘The … 
MembershipFirst officially unveiled its slate and website today for the upcoming SAG Board elections:
MembershipFirst represents the majority of SAG’s National Board and the overwhelming majority of working actors in Hollywood. With twenty-two incumbents, (who have a collective total of 170 years of union leadership) and eleven highly respected working actors who are running for the Board for the first time, the slate is said to represent a balanced mix of seasoned veterans along with a strong injection of ‘new blood unionists’.
MembershipFirst plans to continue its four year record of creating ‘firsts’ for the Guild. “We’re the first group to help create a $20 million dollar surplus,” said MembershipFirst Board member Anne-Marie Johnson. “We’re also the first group to oversee SAG’s Commercials Contract topping the $800 million dollar mark.”
Other firsts cited by Johnson include the first online actors’ directory (iActor), the first New Technology/New Media and Organizing Departments in Guild history, the first re-negotiation of basic cable residuals, the first permanent interactive committee, and Hollywood Board Meetings which have, for the first time ever, been opened to the membership.
In the midst of negotiations with the AMPTP to secure a new TV/Theatrical contract, Johnson also pointed out that MembershipFirst is working to create “the first union contract to completely cover new media and the first to secure new media residuals. We’ve already signed three hundred new media deals and 620 feature film completion deals with independent producers with budgets ranging from $10 million up to $45 million.”
MembershipFirst Incumbents: Ralph Morgan recipients Yale Summers and Scott Wilson, along with Lainie Kazan, Joe Bologna, JoBeth Williams, France Nuyen, William Russ, David Jolliffe, Jane Austin, Jeff Austin, Warren Berlinger, Steven Barr, Michael Bell, Ron Harper, Renee Aubry, Peggy Miley, Paul Napier, Russell McConnell, FJ O’Neil, Anthony DeSantis, Eugene Boggs and Joe d’Angerio,
First-time candidates with MembershipFirst: Keith Carradine, Joely Fisher, Scott Bakula, Clancy Brown, Tom Bower, Alan Ruck, Peter Van Norden, Vic Polizos, Charles Malik Whitfield, Charles Shaunhessy, and Christopher R. Wiehl.
Continuing Board Members (serving multi-year terms): Elliott Gould, Valerie Harper, Seymour Cassel, Frances Fisher, Esai Morales, Justine Bateman, Nancy Sinatra, Joanna Cassidy, Renee Taylor, Angela Watson, George Coe, Robert Hays, Bonnie Bartlett, Brett Cullen, Jenny Worman, Anne DeSalvo, Sumi Haru, William Katt, Diane Ladd, Piper Laurie, William Mapother, Kent McCord, Esai Morales, Harrison Page, AngelTompkins and Anne-Marie Johnson.
Loading ...
Good looking slate. You go kids – keep on fighting the good fight.
http://www.sag.org
Sorry gonna have to point out the obvious here……….
“You were the First”….???? A lot of your “firsts” are “givens”. Don’t take Too much credit for doing your elected jobs. You still have not finished the thing you came to do……. (That would be a new contract). All the New/Now media issues were invented on your watch so how could you not be the firt to deal with them.
Hows that solidarity list doing? …………….. Sorry but you make it so easy!
yeah and the first to drop the ball and have the whole guild working without a contract….I don’t care who you want to point the finger at…. YOUR IN OFFICE NOW! You want to accept accolades for things that you had no direct hand in? Then accept the fact you couldn’t cut a deal. Step aside amateur hour is over….
playmaker and #44:
eventually, you’ll get your wish: a vote. a vote to strike, a vote up/down on a contract. rather then continuing to argue with the deaf, dumb and blind, we’ll keep our powder dry, make our case (mf) via the membershipfirst site, mf media will pick up now that the slates are official, and, eventually the membership will vote. so, be patient – you’ll either be a king or a fool within, oh, a month.
we’ll see.
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 IN 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 MEMBERSHIP-FIRST OFF THE SAG BOARD!
Ridiculous.
iActor would have completed under Melissa Gilbert’s administration if MF had not pulled another political gotcha by denying a dues increase.
MF’s only internet “first” is running up a Million Dollar over-run in the SAG IT operation budget.
hey playmaker and #44,
it’s easy to make a deal when you settle for less that you’re worth.
amateur hour? really?
is giving away the store the mark of crack negotiating in your book?
say you get your way and unite for strength takes control.
they say they want all the things MF is asking for …”AND MORE.”
how do they plan to go about getting that stuff?
do you think the conglomerates are going to say, “Oh, thank God!
The UNITEFORSTRENGTH people are here! Let’s give them everything
they want and more!” ???
if the contract is not resolved by the election, U4S will be where
MF is right now. what will they do when confronted with the same lousy deal that’s on the table? this deal isn’t good enough for you
or me or any SAG actor. will U4S hang tough and try however they can
to improve the next three years? or will they cheerfully accept the AFTRA deal and hope for better days?
it’s important to note that anne-marie johnson stated that under membership first, the guild has reached a 20 million dollar surplus for the first time.
this information is available for any guild member who wants to seek it out.
in the fiscal year 2006-2007, the guild posted a 3.8 million dollar surplus and in 2007-2008, it was 4 million.
every year the guild is audited by Price-Waterhouse and every year the report comes back, as they say, “CLEAN”.
but the unite for strength contends that membership first has been
financially irresponsible and says,
“No wonder we’ve got a 6.5 million dollar deficit!” WOW. 6.5 million? that sounds bad.
well, it’s a DEFICIT not a debt. we’re not in the hole.
the 6.5 million dollar deficit is the projected worst-case scenario for what it will cost to pay for all of SAG’s business for the fiscal year we’re in now, 2008-2009. it’s somewhat higher than normal due in part to the fact that several contracts are being renegotiated this year .
i will find out what a normal year’s ‘deficit’ is and post that tomorrow.
so, the deficit is the money we have to pay out. but we haven’t yet figured in REVENUES. and indicators suggest that even after we pay
out that 6.5 million, we will have some kind of surplus this year as well.
this information can be obtained by any member.
so,
20 million in the bank,
a clean bill of health from the auditors,
running at a 7.8 million dollar SURPLUS for the past two years and
sufficient revenues this year to pay our bills and create another surplus.
this doesn’t exactly sound like financial irresponsibility, does it?
find out for yourself. go get proof if you don’t believe me.
Mrs Wakely-
Your powder is as dry as your relevance. Sag has embarrassingly shown itself to be losing more and more power each day it works without a contract. Your fantasy of a Me First counter attack is like a flee attacking an elephant.
Nobody cares about what Sag thinks anymore. Nobody outside the biz cares if a show is Sag or Aftra. Nobody from any other industry guild cares if a show goes Sag or Aftra. Not one other guild supports the WAY in which the MeFirsters have handled their contract negotiations.
“so, be patient – you’ll either be a king or a fool within, oh, a month.” Are you sure? Just a month? Everyone has already gone home. The show is over. You had your chance and you missed it. It’s like telling a joke and flubbing your lines. No way to make it work now.
You will work without a contract for the next 3 years. Aftra will sign more shows. Sag will lose power. The merger will happen just before the next contract because Sag will desperately need Aftra and it’s shows.
Mrs. Wakely
We don’t need a King and we are surrounded by fools!
Sadly, Playmaker is dead on the money. It is in everybody’s best interest that there be well organized and well run professional guilds in Hollywood. SAG has proven to be neither.
The longer SAG works without a contract the more that television will turn to AFTRA for their shows.
The only reason SAG does not have a contract right now is because of their internal political situation. Any other professional negotiator would have read the writing on the wall months ago, forged a reasonable contract, and moved on.
But as many have pointed out, SAG has nowhere to move onto. The vast, vast majority of members do not work anyway. This labor imbroglio is the only drama they have going.
It is a toxically dysfunctional situation in which there is no impetus to actually be a professional guild.
playmaker and #44:
you can read, yes? did you read the post by harry98? so, there goes the “fiscal irresponsibility” argument.
“without a contract for 3 years?” that’s kind of a logic leap, yes?
you don’t seem to acknowledge the sequence of events:
1. aftra makes commitment to bargain together in march, in front of john sweeney president of afl-cio, as in last 28 years.
2. aftra breaks word, makes substandard deal with amptp. now, did someone put a gun to roberta reardon’s head and say “break your word”? no. of course not. she did it because she wants what’s best for aftra, not what’s best for the actor. her actions speak for themselves. SHE chose to do what she did. SHE chose to make a deal to compete with sag.
3. sag holds out for fair deal with producers.
are you arguing those facts? and, please don’t tell me “merge.” merger is not going to happen. it was not a workable proposition the last 16 times sag voted “no” and it’s not a workable proposition now.
are you actually saying “nobody cares if it’s an aftra or a sag contract?
obviously, then, you’re not actors, because actors REALLY care if it’s an aftra or sag contract.
what I AM saying, is, it’s a democratic process and, the eventual vote will determine which way sag goes. they will either vote to stand behind mf and fight for a fair deal, or, they will stand behind u4s, and, according to u4s’s own website, “fight for the same deal mf wants – and more!”
if mf wins or loses, according to sag law, the SAME negotiating team remains in place until a deal is signed.
so, what, specifically is your point?
Actually, “T-rex”, as you know, if the Membership First majority is undone by the elections, Doug Allen’s situation with SAG would come under grave doubt. And as you know, if Doug Allen leaves the table under that cloud, we’ll be looking at a potentially different scenario. Finally, as you know, SAG isn’t simply holding out for a fair deal at this point. Membership First is holding out to make sure they don’t get the blame for “caving” when the contract is eventually put forth to the members. You’re absolutely right that actors care what contract they work on. The middle class SAG actors don’t have one right now, and are working under last year’s rates. Once the new contract is struck, they’ll finally get the raise and cost of living adjustments they deserve. The current SAG leadership is apparently fine with losing the retroactive increase, which means that the middle class members will have lost upwards of four months of pay raises by the time this is all done.
T-rex
You are a broken record …….. Oh wait we don’t use records anymore!
” The same negotiating team remains in place” ……… Thank goodness!…….. I thought for a moment there would be progress. We have soooooo much leverage right now, I don’t think I can stand it. AMPTP will probably double there deal out of fear alone.
Step back and look at the big picture. If you remove the emotion it is clear what needs to be done.
Kevin,
Spot on!
hey suit,
yeah, i’m sure that a union YOU would deem ‘professional’ is the one that says, “Sure boss! Whatever you say! Aw, that’s a swell deal.”,
and the ‘unprofessional’ union to you is one that stands up for it’s members and tries to get a deal that doesn’t screw them for the next three years and beyond. no big mystery on that.
hey #44 and playmaker,
aftra will sign more shows whether we have a contract or not. that’s their plan, and has been their plan since they declined an invitation from sallie weaver, who was the negotiator at the time, to negotiate together on the last basic cable deal. and since that time they have been undercutting sag because they don’t care about representing the needs of the actor … they care about expanding their jurisdiction.
in 2003 the MERCER REPORT clearly stated that they did NOTrecommend merger as pension benefits would be reduced and SAG would clearly be subsidizing AFTRA .
at first melissa glibert and john connolly said.
“The Mercer Report shows no legal reason why we shouldn’t merge.”
but when opposition showed that the mercer report stated that there were BIG FINANCIAL REASONS NOT TO MERGE, connolly flip-flopped and said “Well. you can’t trust what those trustees say. They’re management.”
yeah, never mind that they are bound by federal law to tell the truth when it comes to finances.
that was the downside to that merger.
what would have been the upside?
well, that a so-called sister union wouldn’t be on the loose, undercutting sag contracts and taking money out of YOUR POCKETS.
so. it’s a kind of extortion. like an old fashioned, strong-armed protection racket:
“Merge with me and shore up my dying pension plan,
or i’ll stab you in the back.”
well, we didn’t and they have.
being in a union with broadcasters and recording artists will not give us anymore clout at the bargaining table.
there is a federal law against sympathy strikes. so if we, in this new merged union, were ever to strike, the broadcasters would not be allowed to honor the picket BECAUSE THEY WORK ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONTRACTS.
you guys are all merge merge merge. okay, figure out a way, where a merger can take place where the financially strong group (SAG) doesn’t get screwed by paying the lions share of costs with diminished benefits.
figure out a plan where the actor’s needs don’t get lost in a
mega- union representing too many different groups with sometimes conflicting interests and i will bow down to you and say,”you were right along. i couldn’t have been more wrong.”
kevin and #44:
kevin – can you follow your own logic one step further? let’s say, u4s wins HUGE, and quickly replaces doug allen. if, true to their word, they want “everything sag is asking for now – and more!” what exactly is going to change about the current situation? they bring in another labor negotiator, to ask for “the same thing sag is asking for now – and more!” there needs to be SOME logic to your posts.
and, as I frequently ask other aftra/u4s huggers: do you agree with the contract on the table? do you even know what it says? do you understand the downside of signing it? do you have any idea how unimportant 250million dollars in gains (whatever that actually means) is compared to getting a fair deal on new media?
T-rex, harry98:
You seem to think that everyone you disagree with thinks this is a good deal. It clearly is not.
The point is that all leverage was lost, due to SAG underestimating the amount of shit AFTRA was willing to take and overestimating the amount of Support SAG would have going into a strike vote.
A smart Team knows when it is time to pack it in and live to fight another day. every week that passes we loose power and respect.
Now this is the place where you attack my knowledge of the contracts and try to dismiss me. ………………. Bring it on……….(Try and be really emotional….. That’s when people really listen to you).
#44:
see, it’s the “live to fight another day” part that doesn’t really hold up. if we give them this, we’re done. it’s that bad.
and – what shit has aftra taken? seriously. more to the point, what shit has aftra taken that would cause them to cause this? their feelings were hurt? their widdle-piggy-wiggly got stubbed?
did you know, that, contrary to the story aftra tells, they turned down sag’s offer to negotiate cable together, not the other way around? it’s just complete, provable, bullshit. I can show you the memo. and then they negotiated a fucked donkey of a contract that will take years to get out from under.
this notion that rosenberg and allen caused this is laughable. reardon caused this. it’s really that simple. she wants more money and jurisdiction for aftra and she knows she can get it by underselling sag. and she’s doing it, right now, as I write this. it’s her 15 minutes. and somehow, the answer is to merge with these people?
aftra is a poor union. sag is a rich union. aftra has limited power. sag has lots of power. aftra needs sag, to shore it up financially, to make it a player, to keep it afloat.
so, reardon decided “fuck it. I lied. sue me. I’m going to stab them in the back.” and she did.
now, will she get away with it? sure, for now. but these things have a way of turning around. this may even turn around before the first ballot is received. or, actors may decide to chase rosenberg and allen out of town with pitchforks, and it’ll take u4s, oh, 3, 4 months to find and hire a new labor negotiator, the “talks” will be suspended till then, with sag working under the old contract, then, if we go with the theory, u4s will sit across from the suits, all fresh and under-informed and completely inexperienced, and supposedly get “everything sag wants – and more!” (I love the exclamation point. it’s theirs) and, of course, they won’t get it. the suits will sit there, licking their chops at the fresh meat, u4s just begging to be talked into some disaster so “we can all get back to work” (even though we’re working anyway).
eat some bananas. the potassium is supposedly good for the brain.
#44
If Ihave ever seemed to disagree with you, I apologize. You are so right.
You actually get it, this leadership has screwed us and they are livid that someone thinks so. We have to do the best we can now, and merge and get a better deal as ONE union in three years. NOT because that is what anyone would have wanted, but because that is the situation their negotiations skills have put us into.
Everything they predicted would happen if we merged has not happened. Everything the pro merger side said would happen has happened. We are at civil war with a smaller sister union and it’s driving our wages to the bottom.
This leadership want us to WHAT??? Tear up our dual cards.
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
We swallow them up and everything is SAG. Why is that so scary to people. It’s called
LOGIC.
In my biased opinion . . .
. . . Merger would be a good idea, but not the kind of merger “Unite for Strength” has in mind.
The only way actors will ever achieve the clout they deserve and need is for the actors of AFTRA to extricate themselves from that sinking ship and to make S.A.G. their sole collective bargaining unit.
AFTRA actors are hamstrung by the fact that their “Federation” represents news anchors, sportscasters, recording artists, weather report readers, station announcers, and on and on. Over the years, AFTRA has done a poor job of representing on-camera actors because AFTRA is too weak and understaffed to do a good job of negotiating for all these differing constituencies and their widely varying contractual needs.
Let AFTRA continue to represent the other categories.
I wish them well.
Once upon a time, before the age of television, AFRA (“T” added for “Television”) may have done a good job representing radio actors, as well as the other categories of voice performers in the medium of radio. But, since I joined AFTRA around 1975, my deals under their contracts have been consistently inferior to my SAG deals.
I plan not to vote for any of the “Unite for Strength” candidates. I reject them and their platform for two reasons, both compelling, in my prejudiced view:
(1) If “Unite for Strength” wins more than 4 or 5 seats in this election, it could be seen as a validation of the opportunistic, sell-out behavior of AFTRA’s leadership in the current round of negotiations. After all, these AFTRA leaders are the very people, or the very “kind of people”, SAG’s “Unite for Strength” wants to bond with. “Unite for Strength” sees Reardon, Hedgpeth-Roberts, Kimbrough and the rest of that faithless faction as their allies. If you vote for “Unite for Strength,” you will be voting for the same AFTRA/SAG faction that gave us the defective, disastrous AFTRA/AMPTP sweetheart contract “model,” which SAG is now trying diligently to repair.
(And, by the bye, if you don’t work as often as “Unite for Strength” actors do, they may take away your vote. These are the same people who tried to splinter SAG, at the worst possible time, by aggressively and publicly pushing their “Affected Member Voting”
scheme.)
#2 Compelling reason: If “Unite for Strength” achieves its ultimate goal, actors will not be represented by one strong union with greatly increased “leverage.” They will continue to be represented by two unions — WEAK and WEAKER — under one leaky umbrella, the AFTRA/SAG merged “ENTITY.”
I have never voted for a Membership First candidate, but the writers’ strike changed my view. I sincerely believe we would be choosing a better future — for ourselves and for the next generation — by voting Membership First.
harry98….let me give you a quick education on how business actually gets done here. This is a town of dealmaking. Work gets done and movies get made when the deal gets done.
A deal is best seen as something that only sorta works for both parties. And while no one gets entirely what they want; the deal, in general, allows everyone to feel protected and compensated enough to get on with what we really want to do…make movies and TV.
A professional guild is not about marching and posturing and campaigning and complaining. That may be what makes YOU feel good…but what really gets the work done in a guild is dealmaking. And if the deal doesn’t get made then you can blame DGA, WGA, IATSE, AFTRA, whoever else you want to blame…but these guys got deals and are back to work and you don’t. It’s that simple.
hey suit,
yeah, i gotcha.
deals are give and take until there’s a workable situation.
the problem is the amptp’s GIVES in new media are WEAK
and amptp’s TAKES in new media and elsewhere (force majeure, clips)
are HUGE.
every benefit that guild members enjoy today; pension plan, health care, residuals,
were achieved because the SAG people who came before us fought for them over the bitter resistance of the people on your side of the table. you didn’t give us any of that out of the kindness of your hearts.
the deals that were made by the other guilds, some for legit and some for dubious reasons are their deals.
the deal that the amptp is offering us does NOT make us feel
“protected and compensated enough”, as you phrased it.
so you can say that SAG is posturing and marching and belittle us in any way you like.
while the deal that is being offered definitely works for management,
SAG is trying to get one that “sorta” works for us.
harry98 -
Well, you’re absolutely right. You do have to get a deal that’s right for you. Look at how the DGA handled it…they researched the new contract and the relevance of new media for years, working closely with reps from the AMPTP and other folks from the studio side in a continuous conversation about what would be equitable and meaningful for everyone. By the time it was time to negotiate everyone was already on board. No posturing, no BS…
Now look at SAG. I could go through the hilarious story of how SAG has handled this but…
You know it already.
That’s my point.
suit
the dga did indeed do “research” and, in their typically compliant, collusive way, (and I’m a member) went in and made the deal that became the “template,” which forced the wga’s hand and allowed those stout, trustworthy hearts at aftra to run for the jurisdiction and cash like a bunch of fat ladies at a candy sale. problem is – it doesn’t work for sag. what about that concept do you not understand?
it’s like you hear “eeny, meeny, miney…” in your suit head, and the fact that there’s no “moe” has you twisted into knots.
well, sag says “no moe.” get used to it you morally bereft black hole. and stop giving your arrogant advice to people who actually have a sense of decency and the courage of their convictions.
“make the deal, make the deal – come on baby, just MAKE THE DEAL!”!” jesus, you sound like a crack head instead of an executive.
the dga relies, as you know, or should know, far, far, less on residuals. sag relies heavily on residuals. they are anywhere from 30 to 50% of the middle class actors income.
so, to be faced with a plan that offers the probability that those residuals could be fazed out as production moved inexorably towards the web, is a serious problem. one of several in the contract that doesn’t work for sag.
now, they work for aftra, for one reason: roberta reardon lied about negotiating together, and sold sag out. aftra members are now saddled with a contract that will enable aftra to undercut sag, for now, but ultimately will undo them: no residuals on the web being the most egregious concession, among others.
MF at sag controlling the board? even if U4S were in place (and it’s possible, but extremely improbable, they will be after the election) they would be fighting for “the same deal as MF wants now – and more!” in their own words.
it is exactly because sag did it’s own research, that this contract has been deemed inadequate.
my question to you, suit, is simple: why won’t the amptp agree to a percentage of revenue for all original programming? this protects the amptp, and sag: the amptp makes money? sag makes money. the amptp loses money? they have no fixed obligation to sag.
simple. but the fact that the amptp won’t consider the solution most obviously appropriate to the problem, speaks volumes.
they want to set up a non-union space to “experiment,” with production rates below very high “floors” that give them wide latitude to go non-union.
and if production falls into the “union” category they want to protect themselves from a precedent that ties sag to their revenue via a percentage.
translation: they want to fuck sag. now, if you’re a suit, you’re well versed in fucking people over, but, you’ll have to forgive sag if they’d prefer you go fuck yourself.
you want labor peace? you want all the little “workers” to make your product without complaint? give sag a percentage of revenue for the web. otherwise? shut the fuck up you piece of shit suit.
all the best.