Comments (31)

• I’d welcome the AFL-CIO. Sweeney can confirm that AFTRA broke their word, made to him, so we can hear it from the horse’s mouth.

  And then, Sweeney can weigh in on whether or not it was helpful for AFTRA to swoop in and take a deal that they knew SAG couldn’t take.

  It’ll be interesting to see what he says.

  Sweeney is an old school guy, and this is an old school problem, when you get right down to it: management trying to muscle the union into a bad deal, and one union undercutting another despite a pledge not to do so.

  They used to have ways of solving problems like that.

  Comment by Violet — Monday August 18, 2008 @ 6:59pm PST  Reply to this post

• right on violet.

  Comment by harry98 — Monday August 18, 2008 @ 10:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• I make most of my money off of commercials. Have done pretty well for a few years now. I have never done a commercial under an Aftra contract.

  How about if they just stay out of it? Shut up and take a backseat this time.

  Comment by actor guy — Tuesday August 19, 2008 @ 1:14am PST  Reply to this post

• nikki wrote, “But, today, AFTRA extends an offer to SAG to jointly negotiate the Commercials Contract. SAG replies wanting to know if AFTRA is accepting SAG’s offer to jointly negotiate the Commercials Contract or not. (Confused yet?)”

  the aftra letter states that the aftra strategy cabinet will recommend joint negotiation to the aftra national board, which has the final authority regarding joint negotiation, and this recommendation won’t be decided upon until the nat’l board’s next meeting in early october.

  so, doug allen is correct in saying that aftra’s letter doesn’t make it clear whether aftra is agreeing to jointly negotiate with sag.

  Comment by kristy kreem — Tuesday August 19, 2008 @ 8:27am PST  Reply to this post

• Shouldn’t SAG and AFTRA be fighting with the AMPTP and not each other?

  It’s a sad day in the labor movement with organized labor tries to organized the organized.

  ~ Gary Watts ~
  Vote for a Independent candidate #43 on your ballot, elect Gary Watts in 2008

  Comment by Gary Watts — Tuesday August 19, 2008 @ 10:16am PST  Reply to this post

• I’ve read some of the information regarding the SAG/AFTRA/AMPTP contract issues. However, since these issues clearly do not affect me – I do not work in the industry – I have not commented on the issue as others here have done; rightly so, since it is their livelihood that is at stake.

  But I see some of these posts and wonder how SAG and AFTRA can ever negotiate a fair contract for their respective members when they are spending so much time fighting amongst themselves. I think the AMPTP leaders are laughing their asses off at all the infighting.

  I think the leadership of both unions have done their members a huge disservice. Fighting each other only makes AMPTP stronger. That’s not from any great wisdom or insight I may have – it’s just common sense. Divide and conquer. Isn’t that how wars are won?

  As a fan how this does affect me? (Which I realize is nowhere as important as the livelihood of those who must live with the contracts – or lack thereof.) Well, I am stuck with reality television.

  I recently saw an advertisement for a new reality show. I think it’s called something like “Hurl.” Yes, it seems some producer has decided that the American public has a need to watch morons eat all they can in the space of a few minutes then participate in activities that are designed to make them as disoriented as possible with the goal of seeing how long it takes each contestant to “hurl.” The last one standing is the winner and gets a prize of $1,000!

  This is what we the fans are left with and yet, I suppose the producers are certain that there are people out there that are so idiotic that they will actually watch something like this. I guess they are so convinced that they are willing to put their money into getting this show on the air. It won’t be playing in MY living room – but hey, I guess that’s what you get when producers make decisions about what is good television. I guess at this point to them any show that’s new is “good.”

  Another thought though came from this. I have a friend who is related to one of the actors from The Love Boat. Not great television but quite popular in its day. Really just some silliness that gave a lot of great stars who had been forgotten a chance to come back out and participate in the craft they loved. Recently, I sent my friend info that a new season of the show was being released on DVD. I asked her, “Hey, is your brother getting anything off this?” And she replied, “Nope!”

  Now, even I, someone not in the industry thought, “Wow, that sucks!” The producer or the owner of the show is going to make a ton of NEW money off the work of those actors and writers, etc. but THEY don’t get a dime! Wow, how is that fair?

  So one has to ask – perhaps SAG is correct. Perhaps pushing for a cut of all new media, whatever form that might take, is the right thing to do. Because who knows what will be available in years to come. And is it fair that those who are on the forefront get nothing just because they didn’t conceive that their images and their work would be forever available for new generations to view and buy? I know it would piss me off if I were in those shoes.

  I don’t know what the solution to all of this will be. But to those of you who are most affected by the impasse, hopefully, your leadership will figure out a way to stop fighting amongst themselves and start fighting for your future.

  Comment by eb — Tuesday August 19, 2008 @ 2:51pm PST  Reply to this post

• August 19, 2008 by admin.

  “What we’re deciding here will affect actors for a generation,” said Doug Allen to Time Magazine. This is the man who, with no knowledge of the industry, was hired by the small faction now in control of our union to be SAG’s National Executive Director. What he said was right, but probably not in the way he meant it.

  Allen’s obedience to Membership First, the group now running things by dint of control of the Hollywood Board, may well “affect actors for a generation” by destroying the very union they are so misleading. It’s awful to watch this storied organization be highjacked and flown into a building.

  I was thrilled to join the Screen Actors Guild almost 50 years ago, and felt the same way when joining AFTRA not long after. I’ve been proud of my union membership while building a career over the decades. How frustrating, then, to watch this disaster unfold.

  There have been struggles within the union over the years, of course – labor disputes, political disagreements and some name-calling – all part of the dynamic. But I went happily along, working and assuming the good people in charge would sort out what problems arose. Oh, I lent assistance once in a while, but always managed to avoid serious involvement like serving on the board or running for office. I had a job.

  Then, about ten years ago, a scurrilous campaign against a very bright and effective president of the Guild made me pay closer attention.

  Too late.

  Richard Masur was ousted by a group of angry members, mostly commercial actors, who felt they weren’t getting their due. ‘What actor does?’ I wondered. Masur out, they put in a figurehead president who said he knew nothing and proved it, letting them run things while he did crossword puzzles. And run them they did, right into the ground.

  In short order this group became led by agent-haters and those out to destroy AFTRA. Angry, organized and militant, increasingly thought of as “the crazies,” they reneged on a deal to renew the Agents Franchise, alienated much of organized labor and bullied their way by 2000 into a horrendous commercial strike they didn’t know how to end. The resulting six-month disaster cost actors and others careers, homes, businesses and hundreds of millions of dollars while sending commercials abroad and permanently disfiguring the marketplace.

  When the instigators grudgingly got out of the way and let the adults resolve the strike, they quickly stepped back in, took credit, bragged about a “win” and proceeded to wreak havoc inside the union.

  In 2001, a group of actors concerned about the damage done to SAG ran for the Hollywood Board, the root of the problem. (New York and the Regional Branches are not “real actors,” according to one of these Hollywood-centric types.) Surprising nearly everyone, we won. I became First VP under the leadership of President Melissa Gilbert.

  Failing to win enough seats to control the Hollywood Board, however, we dealt with the majority’s hostility for a year before finally electing enough independent thinkers to reduce them to a snarling minority and begin to undo the damage. Working with New York and the Branches, we first negotiated a new agreement with the agents, which then had to be sent out for approval by the membership. Running a treacherous, fear-mongering campaign of lies and distortion that would make Karl Rove proud, the crazies, now known as Memberhip First, confused enough members to defeat the agreement, leaving SAG’s membership without the Agents Franchise protections they had enjoyed for 37 years – a situation that continues today.

  Next, we resumed an attempt to join actors in a single union by merging SAG and AFTRA, a goal both organizations had been working toward for decades. But, with their usual cancerous tactics, the MFs managed to undermine it. (Requiring a supermajority, the effort – supported by over 58% of SAG’s members – failed by only a few hundred votes.) The destruction of this effort, a calamity heralded as a triumph by the MFs, proved a foretaste of the future. Winning being everything to some people, the bit was in their teeth – and they ran with it.

  Retaking the Hollywood Board majority about three years ago, this faction now reigns over the entire Guild, wallowing in power while pretending to serve the members. Driving out or firing nearly everyone with enough institutional memory to threaten their 19th Century approach, they’ve paid off contracts at huge expense, spent the union into debt, elected another trophy president, brought in Mr. Allen and proceeded to metastasize.

  Beginning with threats to “promulgate” a new relationship with the agents – a ploy that brought a quick and embarrassing slap-down – they next tried to strong-arm AFTRA into taking a back seat in the 2008 contract negotiations, which they intended to begin only at the very last minute in order to “pressure” the AMPTP into complying early to avoid a strike – a tactic so juvenile as to be laughable given the industry’s consolidation and its ability to stockpile.

  Unwilling to forgo its historic position as equal partner in negotiations, AFTRA surprised the MFs by calling their bluff. After trying every other poisoned arrow in their quiver, Allen and company folded like an empty tent and embraced a suspicious AFTRA again, pretending it was all a misunderstanding.

  With the DGA and WGA (after a three-month strike) making their deals, and facing pressure in the form of a “just talk” memo from the very stars SAG counts on for implicit muscle at the bargaining table, the MFs were forced to rethink their position and pretend to start talks. But some just couldn’t resist, and one more schoolyard shove at AFTRA caused the sister union to break with SAG and deal with the AMPTP on its own. Reeling, SAG’s militants scrambled, quickly claiming a right to meet the producers first. AFTRA obliged.

  Unable to deliver what they’d long promised with tough talk, SAG hit an impasse with the AMPTP after weeks of head-banging. This opened the door for AFTRA to step in and negotiate like professionals. Adding insult to self-inflicted injury, AFTRA made its deal, securing some gains SAG had not been able to achieve, and sent the contract out for approval by its membership.

  Then, in an act of desperation, the MFs, over the heated objection of the despised minority from NY and the Branches, voted to further deplete the union’s coffers with a campaign (variously reported to cost $100,000 to $200,000) of lies, distortion, obfuscation and misrepresentation, telling dual-card holders to disapprove the contract. (This while obscuring pertinent facts: all members of AFTRA’s negotiating team were also members of SAG; the AFTRA deal was based on a template established by the DGA and WGA; AFTRA’s negotiators took advantage of research done by the DGA on the key issue of New Media that SAG had disdained.)

  In no surprise to anyone but their true-believers, this fundamentally anti-union tactic failed, digging the MFs – and with them our once-esteemed union – into the ever-deepening hole in which we find ourselves today.

  And so, the power-obsessed group currently in control of the Hollywood Board – which carries with it the majority vote in our national union – has so completely screwed things up with their behavior that they’ve destroyed the credibility of a once-powerful institution and put us all in a situation that may well “affect actors for a generation.”

  This can change in the incipient Screen Actors Guild election. A group of independent, thoughtful, concerned actors has mounted a campaign for seats on the Hollywood Board. If they succeed it will shift the balance of power in our union – not away from Hollywood – but away from mean-spirited, destructive, profligate behavior and back toward becoming the respected Guild I was proud to join.

  Ballots will be coming soon. If you vote in Hollywood I urge you to support the 31 candidates running as Unite for Strength – http://www.uniteforstrength.com – and vote, in addition, for two independent candidates, Morgan Fairchild and Susan Boyd Joyce.

  Respectfully,

  Mike Farrell

  PS – If you can afford to help, they can use financial support. They have a campaign to run against a well-organized and well-funded group that won’t let go easily.
  _______________________

  To Mike Farrell:

  Without giving in to the anger this letter provokes, I’d like to answer you, point, by point, as I’m sure others will do. First – to call this “letter” anything other than a bitter diatribe from a defeated, jealous and violently angry man, would be a disservice to the intelligence of any member of SAG who reads it. It is an insult to the truth, and insulting to the people you defame.
  ——————————————————
  “It’s awful to watch this storied organization be highjacked and flown into a building.”

  I suggest you never again use a reference to the tragedy of 9/11 to justify your “argument” against Membership First.” This is a labor impasse, not a national tragedy. I live in a town that lost 15 people, including friends. I and my children saw the towers burning. My brother-in-law worked in one of the towers, and for you to reference that tragedy in any way, speaks to your utter lack of character and judgment. You owe the readers of this letter an apology.

  If anything speaks to the bankruptcy of your ethical and moral outlook, it is this. Inexcusable.
  ——————————————————-

  “we resumed an attempt to join actors in a single union by merging SAG and AFTRA, a goal both organizations had been working toward for decades.”
  ___________________________________
  The members of the Screen Actors Guild have voted down merger 16 times since 1939. This statement is absurd on its face. Have there been good faith attempts? Yes. Have they been rejected by the membership – not any one faction, but by the membership? Yes. 16 times.
  ——————————————————-
  But, with their usual cancerous tactics, the MFs managed to undermine it. (Requiring a supermajority, the effort – supported by over 58% of SAG’s members – failed by only a few hundred votes.)
  __________________________________
  To ascribe the power of what was, at the time, a not particularly well-organized and seriously underfunded group of actors, opposed to the tactics behind those shoving merger down SAG’s throat, with member’s dues money and the full weight of our own SAG president behind that expensive campaign, is, in a word, ridiculous. You need to understand, Mr. Farrell – the MEMBERSHIP of SAG voted down that merger attempt. NOT Membership First. No one put a gun to any member’s head and forced them to vote “no.” The membership listened, learned, and voted. The bitterness you obviously still feel over your failed attempt has seriously clouded your recollection of what actually happened. The MEMBERSHIP voted “NO.”
  ___________________________________
  they’ve paid off contracts at huge expense, spent the union into debt, elected another trophy president, brought in Mr. Allen and proceeded to metastasize.
  ____________________________________
  “They” paid off the contracts of hired employees who had a completely different philosophy of how to govern and negotiate going forward. In short – hired allies of you and Ms. Gilbert. Their presence was an impediment to the work the MEMBERSHIP had voted in Membership First to do.

  The union, is NOT in debt. To state otherwise is, simply, a lie. I suggest you check the facts before you print that again. It is a lie.

  To call Alan Rosenberg, a dedicated servant of the union, giving his time and effort for no money, to lead SAG through the difficult times it faced – a “trophy” president – is both a personal insult, and, an insult to the membership that elected him. You owe both an apology. It is certainly within your rights to oppose Alan’s leadership, but, it would bolster your credibility if you did so in a professional manner.

  Mr. Allen was brought in, again, to aid in the work that Membership First was voted in by the membership to do – take a harder line than the compliant approach advocated by you and Ms. Gilbert.
  ________________________________________
  Unwilling to forgo its historic position as equal partner in negotiations, AFTRA surprised the MFs by calling their bluff.
  _________________________________________
  That SAG raised the issue of proportional representation with AFTRA, since SAG controls 100% of Movies and 95% of primetime television, was not, let’s just say, entirely unwarranted. The fact that SAG then agreed to a 50-50 allocation of seats, made it, in fact, a moot point.
  _________________________________________
  But some just couldn’t resist, and one more schoolyard shove at AFTRA caused the sister union to break with SAG and deal with the AMPTP on its own. Reeling, SAG’s militants scrambled, quickly claiming a right to meet the producers first. AFTRA obliged.
  __________________________________________
  To describe what transpired in this way, is laughable. AFTRA made a commitment to negotiate collectively with SAG, in front of John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, then, AFTRA broke that commitment, negotiating separately for the first time in 28 years, and promptly reached a substandard agreement with the AMPTP for one reason and one reason only: to undersell actors and compete directly with SAG.
  ______________________________________________
  This opened the door for AFTRA to step in and negotiate like professionals. Adding insult to self-inflicted injury, AFTRA made its deal, securing some gains SAG had not been able to achieve, and sent the contract out for approval by its membership.
  _____________________________________________
  AFTRA negotiated like professionals. Well, that’s open to interpretation. It seems AFTRA negotiated like a union that had broken its word to SAG, then quickly accepted a bad deal, while giving new media to the AMPTP, by far the most important issue facing all actors. The damage done by this action resonates now, and has made it much more difficult for SAG to get a fair deal.
  ________________________________________________
  This can change in the incipient Screen Actors Guild election. A group of independent, thoughtful, concerned actors has mounted a campaign for seats on the Hollywood Board.
  _________________________________________________
  Yes, they have, Mr. Farrell. And, if you care to check their website, or have kept abreast of the fluidity of their agenda, you would know: they have stated publicly “we want everything SAG wants – and more!” from the current contract.
  Since the contract is the overwhelming priority, how exactly will they do that? Given that, if they win enough seats to gain a majority, they will still be led into negotiations by Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Allen, and, according to their own campaign pledge, they will be fighting for the exact same demands the current board and its leaders are.

  They also strongly endorsed, but now have completely backed away from, qualified voting. Once they realized they were running on an antidemocratic pledge that said, essentially: “vote for Unite For Strength – so we can take away your vvote!” They ran from it as fast as they could. Do you believe, when SAG membership is reminded of their original, undemocratic stance, that only changed once they realized how patently absurd it was in the first place – that the membership will be willing to trust a group that harbors a desire to take away their vote – regardless of their politically expedient change of heart?
  _________________________________________________
  Respectfully,
  Mike Farrell
  __________________________________________________
  “Respectfully?” To whom exactly? Certainly not to the membership of the Screen Actors Guild, who voted contrary to your wishes, therefore earning your contempt and scorn as a bunch of mindless fools who were “tricked” into somehow voting down merger. Certainly not to any current member of SAG’s negotiating team. Not to Alan Rosenberg or Doug Allen, who are working tirelessly on behalf of a fair contract for SAG membership.

  Who, exactly, are you being “respectful” to?
  ———————————————————————————
  PS – If you can afford to help, they can use financial support. They have a campaign to run against a well-organized and well-funded group that won’t let go easily.
  __________________________________________________
  “If you can afford to help,” as I’m sure you can, Mr. Farrell, thanks to all those SAG negotiated residuals you have been cashing for all these years from “Mash.” Imagine if it had been an AFTRA show? You might actually have to work, instead of sending out reprehensible diatribes like this one, in your spare time.

  And, as today’s statement from Doug Allen explains: the law regarding contributions to support any candidate for office, are clear. Everyone would do well to familiarize themselves with them – including agents, specifically, as the letter addresses. It’s no secret agents have taken an anti-SAG and anti-MF stance, among other reasons, because SAG has held the line on not allowing agents to take ownership positions in their client’s projects, a clear violation and conflict of interest.

  Comment by little joe — Tuesday August 19, 2008 @ 3:07pm PST  Reply to this post

• Little joe
  How dare you. Mike Farrell has been an activist as long as I could remember. I believe his accounts of events much more than anything that any mf-ers has to say. If they had any good intentions to begin with it has been lost in the intoxication of power. All these bloggers who have extolled the virtues of the mf-ers are nothing but sag board shills. Your name is added to it.
  Any actor of accomplishment who disagrees will suffer the same bull that Cromwell, Fields and now Farrell. Go tell it to the Spartans and those people being the extras.

  Comment by just a thought — Tuesday August 19, 2008 @ 8:22pm PST  Reply to this post

• You know, I have to say that I think Mr. Farrell makes a good argument. Looking at all this from the sidelines, I’d have to say that SAG does look a little silly these days. Regardless of what kind of deal all the other unions got, good or bad, they at least look organized. SAG, not so much.

  Comment by Sam — Tuesday August 19, 2008 @ 11:36pm PST  Reply to this post

• hey just a thought, this is for you:

  little joe,
  there are some things you need to understand:

  any person that U4S or aftra deems a saint,
  someone they deem beyond reproach,
  must never be disagreed with, let alone chastised.

  any person that U4S disagrees with, (say for instance rosenberg,)
  deserves to be vilified. belittled and insulted.

  if a U4S or aftra person sticks to their beliefs they are passionate.

  if an MF person sticks to their beliefs, they are intoxicated with power.

  any U4S person who criticizes MF is doing so to unite us all and bring about a stronger union

  any MF person who criticizes any U4S person or any of their supporters is a shill.

  does that pretty much cover it, “just a thought” ?

  Comment by harry98 — Tuesday August 19, 2008 @ 11:37pm PST  Reply to this post

• Little Joe is correct in all he wrote, as hard as it is for “just a thought” to stomach. The truth hurts sometimes.

  Hmm. Farrell mentions Richard Massur, ex-President of S.A.G., who got caught in the S.A.G. boardroom rigging a National Executive Committee election in 1998. Yeah, his pal John Connolly didn’t get elected the second time the votes were counted. So eventually Connolly went to Aftra – (not elected by the membership by the way – the Aftra President is elected by Convention.) Yep – the Aftra membership did not elect Roberta(who?)Reardon either.

  Follow this bouncing ball:

  Richard Massur, now a NY board member and NegComm member, married to Eileen Henry, former NY board member, now a SAG Trustee;

  Wifey has dinner with Bob Pisano, former SAG NED during Prexy Mellissa Gilbert’s tenure;

  Mike Farrell was 1st VP during Pisano’s employment;

  Pisano talked Gilbert, Farrell & Co. into thinking it was a good idea to manipulate the membership into voting for a one year extension on the 2004 contract, in order to “research dvd’s”and “keep the town working”, and be ready the following year. What that contract extension really did was put SAG out of alignment with the expiration of the WGA contract of 2007, which is why the WGA was hung out to dry, alone, without Screen Actors Guild, in 2007. Had the SAG membership not been scared into voting for a contract extension, SAG’s TV/Theatrical contract would have been up June 30, 2007, just four months BEFORE WGA – Yep, SAG would have gone into negotiation before the WGA – The one-two punch was given up by Mike Farrell, Melissa Gilbert & Co. And New York.

  Pisano owned stock and was on the board of NetFlix while he pretended to negotiate the 2005 TV/Theatrical contract to get an increase in DVD’s; obviously he folded that tent quickly. As soon as he was fired from S.A.G., he got a job back with the other side, the MPAA, and they made him divest his NetFlix stock because it was a conflict of interest.

  Despite many who could see Pisano had a clear conflict of interest, Mike Farrell defended him to the end.

  So Farrell has no credibility whatsoever – he may act like an activist in public, but the face he shows behind closed doors, and in his untruthful and angry letter above, shows what he is made of. Not much.

  He supports Unite for Strength? Of course he does! The group who wants to take SAG member’s votes away if they don’t work or earn a certain amount of money every year! Can you say how a union can be “United for Strength” by disenfranchising 2/3 of it’s members? (But then U4S had no problem with Aftra soliciting broadcasters to vote on the Aftra Primetime contract, an ACTOR’s contract.) They are inconsistent in their message.

  Farrell supports U4S’s other platform of merging with Aftra, whose pension plan and health plan is not as actor-friendly: Pension accrual rate is half in Aftra than S.A.G, their health plan costs twice as much. Aftra has proven itself to sell out actors to gain jurisdiction, as exhibited in their Basic-Cable giveaway of residuals. Aftra just ratified the Primetime contract that allows NON-Union work in New Media – Now Media.

  Yeah, Mike Farrell supports NON-Union work, just as U4S does. And you want them in the S.A.G. boardroom?

  It’s really unfortunate that some people can support somebody like Mike Farrell because he has a reputation for being a good Johnny-on-the-Spot activist, or because they liked him in Mash. Separate the fact from the illusion, folks.

  Comment by Just the Facts — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 12:15am PST  Reply to this post

• First – to call this “letter” anything other than a bitter diatribe from a defeated, jealous and violently angry man, would be a disservice to the intelligence of any member of SAG who reads it. It is an insult to the truth, and insulting to the people you defame.

  Lil’ Joe-

  you know what an insult to the truth is? you having the gall to disparage someone anonymously. If your opinions are so strong, why don’t you own them?

  Little, indeed.

  Comment by W. Bush — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 8:06am PST  Reply to this post

• “DGA President Michael Apted says the non deritvative, low budget ,non professional new media exemption is the right thing to do to encourage the development of new product that will eventually result in the hiring of professional production staff, including actors.”

  for ANY guild to consciously allow non-union work by CONTRACT? is the dumbest godamm thing you can conceive of. the dga screwed the pooch, and apted’s letter gives a sense of how wounded he is by the correct criticism that the dga started this whole debacle.

  the dga typically is MUCH more collusive and buddy-buddy with the amptp, and this time, they really blew it.

  sag CANNOT sign a deal that, in violation of it’s core principals, UNANIMOUSLY re-affirmed by the whole of SAG , that no no-union work be allowed by sag contract and that actors get fairly paid for reuse

  – allows by-contract non-union work! it is a self-inflicted wound that can put sag and middle class actors out of business.

  as this has become clearer and clearer, that a percentage deal is what’s needed for ALL the guilds on new media, the finger pointing and blame has taken off.

  apted’s letter clearly demonstrates his awareness and sensitivity that HE set the “template” that pressured the wga into a bad deal, and emboldened perennially weak kneed aftra to jump right into the same trap so it could compete directly with sag.

  sag understands that the time to confront the amptp on a fair deal for new media in NOW – before they get precedent. if the dga hadn’t set the bar so low, by allowing non-union work by their OWN contract – NONE of the guilds would be in this mess.

  this is the picture that is developing in the consciousness of the creative unions, like an old polaroid photograph, and as everybody watches it develop, the blame of sag is beginning to shift to where it belongs – the dga, for setting this killer precedent in the first place.

  everyone would do well to put pressure on the amptp. it has been said on this blog: “everyone knows the guilds would never allow the taking away of residuals – there would be a unified strike!”

  well, news flash: it has already been agreed to – by the dga, the wga and aftra. sag is the only union standing tough – despite withering, vicious and personal criticism – against this terrible precedent.

  the amptp can and WILL exploit this non-union space to it’s financial advantage. the solution – a percentage deal fort ALL the guilds – is clear, transparent and fair – the amptp makes money? the guilds make x%, agreed on and negotiated by, each guild. the amptp doesn’t make money or loses money? the amptp has NO FIXED OBLIGATION TO ANY OF THE GUILDS.

  THAT’S the way to “build” new media while mutually protecting the producers and the creative guilds. the fact that the amptp refuses to consider it speaks volumes about their true intent: to muscle the creative guilds out of as much money in the emerging new media market as possible, which will make the vhs/dvd losses look like a tip, in the next three decades.

  so, let’s start putting pressure where it belongs – on the amptp, and start putting responsibility (rather than juvenile “blame”) also where it belongs – on the dga for being the first to accept, and therefore establish, this ‘template.”

  Comment by Mr. Fred — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 12:11pm PST  Reply to this post

• Just the Facts’s post should be sent to every member of SAG.

  Comment by Anonymous — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 12:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• Mike Farrell is such a weasel when it comes to SAG politics – no class all name calling. Look at how eloquent Dave Clennon and Alan Ruck are when they disagree with someone – they just state the facts without name calling. I have been in Mike Farrell’s presence a few times and it’s not pretty if you don’t agree with him on SAG issues. When it comes to SAG politics he reminds me of an elitist Republican, your either in his club or your not… And everyone else be damned.

  p.s. It’s funny how W. Bush is calling Lil’Joe out for not signing his name – W. Bush?

  p.s.s. Did I call Mr. Farrell a weasel, so much for name calling… lol.

  Comment by Scott Brown — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 1:05pm PST  Reply to this post

• Mr Fred, I agree, the contracts that have been signed are not the best, and that if SAG want’s a better contract they should put “pressure where it belongs – on the amptp” I’m just wondering what that pressure is going to consist of, and when they plan on doing it.

  Scott Brown,

  What’s so funny about me calling out Lil’ joe?

  Wayne

  Comment by W. Bush — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 1:27pm PST  Reply to this post

• I stand by what I said. The name calling started with Aftra is a scumbag union. How do explain that.

  Comment by just a thought — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 2:03pm PST  Reply to this post

• w bush:

  follow your own logic – bad deals, starting with dga, then, sag only guild left standing, right?

  so, why is it therefore expected sag will pull a rabbit out of the hat?

  they’re stuck with the hand they’ve been dealt, by the amptp, dga, wga and aftra, in that order.

  the only thing they can do is get a vote of confidencce from the membership, then threaten to strike.

  that’ll take until at least mid-october. vote announced sept. 18th, send out a strike authorzation ballot say, next day? at least mid-october, probably nov. 1.

  you want to put pressure on somebody?

  how about:

  1. the amptp

  2. dga, wga and aftra.

  the amptp offered the give away new media/shit deal, ergo, they suck.

  the dga, wga and aftra took the give away new media/shit deal, ergo they suck.

  why is anybody mad at sag for being the only union with the brains god gave them to understand you don’t agree to non-union work in YOUR OWN CONTRACT?

  Comment by Mr. Fred — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 4:04pm PST  Reply to this post

• amy brenneman’s exact words:

  “Without a reasonable definition of ‘affected members’, Guild demographics put contract voting overwhelmingly in the hands of those with little knowledge of the contract and no stake in the outcome—and perhaps even a direct conflict of interest. This includes thousands of SAG card holders who work on crews, in writers’ rooms, in studio offices, in entertainment law firms, as management, etc. These members don’t act in film or TV, and their livelihoods would only be hurt if the union held out for a better contract by walking out. How hard will they fight to get actors a better deal?

  “We are NOT asking for an earnings threshold. The number of days worked—not amount of money earned—is the common test for ‘affected’ members. For work like ours, it must be averaged over a time span long enough to accommodate the inevitable ‘ups-and-downs’ of our business. The Equity standard is one job (typically at least 6-8 weeks) within the previous 6 years. I believe SAG should consider something similar – perhaps an average of 5 days of principal work and/or 15 days of background work per year, over the previous 6 years. (Three background days has been used as an equivalent of one principal day for union entrance.) Of course, the 6 year period would be prorated for newer members.

  “A standard like this—for contract voting only—will broadly include members with working knowledge of the contract and some concrete stake in it. And because it eliminates the influence of those without such a stake, it will give the ‘affected’ members—those who depend on the contract and know it best—an effective voice. This gives maximum credibility to the vote and strengthens our hand in negotiations, which results in better contracts for all members, present and future.

  Comment by Red Eye — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 10:09pm PST  Reply to this post

• scum·bag (skmbg)
  n. Slang
  A person regarded as despicable.

  Comment by Just the Facts — Wednesday August 20, 2008 @ 10:43pm PST  Reply to this post

• Only when we take away the ability to vote from the NON WORKING WANNABE LOSER EXTRAS who are manipulated by NON WORKING HAS BEEN LOSER MF’ers will we be able to solve our unions problems.

  MF has been in power since 2000. Look where they have gotten us.

  Only an idiot would want more of the same.

  Comment by LP — Thursday August 21, 2008 @ 7:11am PST  Reply to this post

• This is something everyone should be aware of:

  http://www.workingactorsvoice.com/

  Despite the fact that U4S has stated they do not want to take your vote away, this is still up on the internet and is clearly a large part of the agenda of Amy Brenneman, Ned Vaughn and every actor who signed on as a supporter.

  Comment by Red Eye — Thursday August 21, 2008 @ 9:47am PST  Reply to this post

• if the standard to vote on anything is changed from
  “ONE ACTOR – ONE VOTE”
  the door will have been opened to change the qualifications again and
  again.
  if you you put it to the membership to vote on whether or not to institute qualified voting, it won’t fly.

  it would have to be adopted and instituted by the board.

  if future leaders who are not as well intentioned as amy brenneman,
  gain power,
  the qualifications could be changed to suit whatever
  agenda they might choose.

  it’s important to know that the AMPTP has demanded that SAG adopt
  qualified voting. so has the ATA.
  why would they want that?
  because they know that a smaller group of people is easier to control.

  however well-meaning ms. brenneman and others who promote AMV are, the fact is that qualified voting would immediately
  disenfranchise:

  people of color
  women over 40
  senior citizens
  people will disabilities

  ONE ACTOR – ONE VOTE

  Comment by harry98 — Thursday August 21, 2008 @ 10:04am PST  Reply to this post

• 16.

  michael apted’s letter, my responses, jonathan handel’s reaction, my responses:

  I’m in sag/aftra/dga aea
  26 years in
  I’ve written and directed 2 indies, both under a million bucks. one non-union, one-union.

  ——————————————
  However, we built into our agreement a very important protection – if a signatory company on a new media production employs a professional as director or in any other DGA category, regardless of the budget level – that production is covered by the Guild agreement.
  ———————————————–
  yes. true. but the whole point of these very high “floors”? is EXACTLY to give the amptp plenty of wiggle room NOT to use “covered performers.” see, LOGIC dictates this as the REASON the producers have structured it this way.
  ————————————————–
  And despite all the grandiose talk about the coming bonanza, new media hasn’t yet started raining money. The truth is that for new media production to realize its undeniably vast potential – and create all those jobs we want our members to have – it must be given the room to evolve and grow.
  —————————————————–
  the naivete from a seasoned professional is breathtaking. just insert “vhs/dvd” for new media in this paragraph. it’s actually sad.
  ——————————————————-
  What would happen if the unions were to demand and be given jurisdiction over all new media production without exception? The most likely scenario is that it would become structurally and economically unfeasible for AMPTP members to make low-budget experimental shows for the Internet.
  ——————————————————
  the amptp is GOING to be making new media product. BANK ON IT. THEY ALREADY ARE. is he arguing they would forgo new media if the creative had held the line on a percentage deal, which would give the producers the “flexibility” to “experiment” without FIXED OBLIGATIONS to the creative guilds if the projects tank? of course not. the amptp is ALREADY in the new media business. the question is simply, under what kind of a contract would the creative unions be involved? apted included a huge a non-union space, and he chose it first – thereby creating the “template”
  _________________________________
  Even if the studios were persuaded to make low-budget new media production under union jurisdiction, this could result in another problem. Many of those untested novices would be required to pay DGA initiation fees and dues, potentially forcing the DGA to accept a large number of new members who have been hired to do one experimental project and might never direct again. Frankly, it would not be fair to charge them initiation fees and dues (which they probably couldn’t afford in any case).
  __________________________________
  this is a straw man. the “novices” could easily be dealt with in terms of financially prohibitive entry fees to the dga. this is nonsense.
  —————————————————
  So we have a choice. We can insist on having jurisdiction on paper over everything, and thereby run the risk that the area develops in a largely non-union context. Or we can carve out an exception that will allow experimentation, innovation and growth at the lowest budget levels, while simultaneously securing jurisdiction over all professional-level productions.
  —————————————————
  mr. apted. the floors are exponentially higher than the current cost of content. this creates wiggle room the amptp can exploit in a myriad of ways to avoid unions, to avoid residuals. it is a recipe for disaster.
  _________________________________
  This approach has been successful before. With very low-budget feature films, we designed an innovative, flexible jurisdictional carve-out that allowed the new medium to develop in a way that ensured that once it was ready for professionals, those professionals would be our members.
  __________________________________
  doug allen makes the same argument for SAG, but without the non-union space. he says “we can and will work it out with the producers. we can be ‘flexible’ but – we cannot agree by contract – against our core principals – to a huge non-union space. ”

  it is counter-intuitive, to put it kindly, for a union to sign a contract that ALLOWS non-union workers to come in and compete against its OWN MEMBERS.
  ___________________________________________

  jonathan handel’s (anti-mf anti-sg) take on apted’s letter:
  ———————————————————————-

  Two points worth adding. First, the dollar thresholds are high — much higher than almost all new media production today ($2,000 – $5,000 per minute is typical, with occasional productions at $10,000 per minute). I’d prefer to see them lower, and this is (in my view) an unfortunate compromise that the DGA made.
  ———————————————————————-
  “unfortunate.” that’s one word to describe it. dumb. naive. dangerous. ill-advised. irresponsible. that’s a few others.

  from first dollar and first airing, with a percentage deal that covers both the guilds and the producers. THAT’S the answer.
  ——————————————————————–
  The proposed SAG deal is reportedly similar to the AFTRA deal, and thus presumably includes this language. Thus, if a show uses a SAG, AFTRA or Equity member with two TV or movie credits or any of the other listed credits, then it’s covered, even if the budget is below the thresholds.
  ———————————————————————–
  the incentive for producers to use “covered” performers in a “non-union” space they have meticulously carved out and put over as a fair “compromise” with 3 of the 4 unions, is zero. the WHOLE POINT is to use non-union people, or, they would have agreed to a percentage deal.

  Comment by Mr. Fred — Thursday August 21, 2008 @ 10:56am PST  Reply to this post

• LP

  keep posting buddy.
  every time you open your mouth, out pours elitist, arrogant ugliness.
  you talk down to extras like they’re less than human.
  who do you think you are?
  yeah, i know you’re successful and you belong to a country club and you spend your days making lots of $$$ or working on your handicap.
  when you are on the set, does your disdain for backround people extend to all of the other people who help make the movie?
  the grips, the crafties, the gaffer, props, the greens people,
  wardrobe and on and on …. are these just the “little people”
  who aid your highness in his royal quest to make cinematic history?
  whoever you are, whatever your level of ability, whatever your achievements may be, YOU GIVE ACTORS A BAD NAME.
  keep on posting, chief.
  if you are representative of folks who support U4S,
  they don’t have a chance.

  Comment by harry98 — Thursday August 21, 2008 @ 11:08am PST  Reply to this post

• Another thing everyone should be aware of:

  U4S was formed expressly around the single issue of qualified voting. President Rosenberg was visited by the people who became the founding members of U4S and told if he didn’t put qualified voting on the table, he “would be challenged.”

  Comment by Red Eye — Thursday August 21, 2008 @ 4:54pm PST  Reply to this post

• LOL

  I need a 4th for tomorrow afternoon. Harry98, call me if you want in.

  Comment by LP — Thursday August 21, 2008 @ 9:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• Mr. Fred

  why is it that Apted’s remarks sound like the confident reasoned words of a professional trying to balance protecting his guild members with encouraging innovation…

  …and yours sound like someone who is weak and defensive (or running for office)?

  if SAG is so strong then they should act like it. stop making threats and being frightened by the big bad AMPTP and make a real deal. think longer term than just what’s going to get you elected to the board. think as members of both the creative and the business community…empower yourselves….

  Comment by an observation — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 4:27pm PST  Reply to this post

• an observatory:

  mr. apted’s words are carefully constructed ass-covering from the guy who put us all in the crapper.

  I’m not running for office. why would I post anonymously if I were running for office. think about it.

  it’s not about sag is “so strong.”

  it’s about apted and the dga screwed the pooch. and what’s with the “threats?” who’s threatening anybody?

  it’s simply a common sense observation (!) that, the reason we’re all in this mess is because the dga, in their reliable as a swiss watch arrogance, undercut the wga and made a bad deal.

  the truth must hurt, because if apted had any real interest in solving this thing, he’d do some version of what I advocate above.

  you don’t allow soulless corporate conglomerates to “experiment” or “have flexibilty” on your dime. period.

  call me crazy.

  Comment by Mr. Fred — Saturday August 23, 2008 @ 10:21am PST  Reply to this post

• If merging S.A.G. with Aftra is such a good idea then why hasn’t anyone described what that would look like or a plan on how to accomplish it? Would the treasuries be combined? Would the Actors have the Broadcasters support them in a strike or vice versa? What happens to S.A.G.’s Pension & Health and Aftra’s Health & Retirement? Does your S.A.G. Pension accrual rate diminish because you’re now funding Aftra’s Retirement plan also? What about Phase One where Aftra has 50% of the say in the Negotiating Room? How do we have more “leverage” if that continues? So many questions and so far no answers.

  Phase One is the agreement between the two unions to bargain jointly since 1988. This year Aftra took advantage of an alleged “raiding” by S.A.G. of “The Bold &The Beautiful” to “suspend” Phase One and go it alone. Unfortunately for Aftra, Susan Flannery, the Matriarch of B&B, wrote a letter refuting Aftra’s allegation. Please go to:

  http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/bold-beautiful-actress-susan-flannery-wants-to-set-the-aftra-sag-record-straight/

  FYI: Aftra has not only never apologized to S.A.G. for the accusation but never referred to Flannery’s letter.

  Because of multiple failed Merger referendums Aftra decided that in order to survive they would kick into panic mode and secure as much jurisdiction as possible even if it was at the expense of the middle class actor. Because of Aftra’s shameless behavior actors are now enjoying a $509 minimum with free exhibition windows (No residuals) on Comedy Central as opposed to S.A.G.’s scale rate of $759 minimum for any cable show with residuals starting from the first re-run. Aftra is not only offering cut rate contracts to sign hour scripted dramas that have been traditionally S.A.G.’s jurisdiction (Damages. Rescue Me. etc) but has actually started an Indie outreach for feature films in New York. The current Aftra Exhibit A Theatrical Contract that was voted up by a majority of Broadcasters and DJ’s recently, per Aftra’s aggressive campaign for them to do so, has no residuals for product in Made For New Media (The Internet and beyond…). It’s been made crystal clear to the S.A.G. Negotiating Committee by Management that they intend to experiment with “non-union” talent for most if not all the Made For New Media product they intend to produce in the future. The grand punchline to all this is… It’s okay with Aftra. They’re calling it a “groundbreaking” deal.

  So, at this point you’re probably thinking, “What’s the problem? We’ll just merge with Aftra then S.A.G. can control the contracts and P&H.” In a perfect world, yes. But, Phase One is clear that each Union has 50% of the vote in Negotiations even though Aftra only has 5% of Prime Time and 0% of Feature Films. Obviously Aftra has gotten really used to that arrangement and has become religious about it even to the point of rebuffing S.A.G.’s suggestion to have proportional representation in Negotiations so that the Union with the most at stake theatrically can guide the bargaining.

  Aftra has never demonstrated a willingness to fight for any meaningful gains whatsoever. We believe, for instance, that the reason the DVD residual formula hasn’t changed in 27 years is that with Aftra’s 50% vote, along with a few go along get along NY S.A.G. Negotiating Committee Members making up the majority, the DVD proposal is taken off the table the second Aftra senses any resistance from Management. Aftra’s Leadership has proven over and over again that they are not Unionists. It’s all about the institution rather than the members. It’s a myopic Federation of bureaucrats who’s sole purpose is to maintain its offices and six figure executive salaries… The Aftra acting category be damned.

  Since it’s impossible to combine two opposite philosophies then combining S.A.G. with Aftra will never happen.

  Jeff Austin
  Screen Actors Guild Member

  Comment by Jeff Austin — Wednesday August 27, 2008 @ 3:02pm PST  Reply to this post

• Mr. Fred:

  oh please, blaming the DGA and the WGA is not common sense. It’s just juvenile silliness. SAG is in this mess because SAG currently is, let’s face it, not particularly adept at making deals. and they know it, they know in their gut that they haven’t a modicum of leverage nor can they figure out how to get any.

  but they can’t admit it because SAG is such an intensely political organization. and that is probably because the vast, vast, VAST majority of the guild does not make a living at being in the guild. it’s a really weird guild when you think about it.

  and the leadership of SAG knows as well as anyone that a strike would be as effective as taking poison in the hope that someone else dies.

  so they could get either make a deal and move on or just stand around and argue with each other like some high school debate team.

  what do you think they’re gonna do?

  Comment by an observation — Wednesday August 27, 2008 @ 3:08pm PST  Reply to this post