Midnight Madness For ‘Breaking Dawn’ DVD 
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’ 
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 … 
Anti-Membership First Flyer Sighted…
It was inevitable in this bitter SAG election between Membership First and Unite For Strength that both slates would find red meat in the just-as-bitter relationship between 
SAG Hollywood and the NY Division. At issue now are remarks made by SAG national president Alan Rosenberg at two Membership First campaign events — August 23rd (a fundraiser at Nancy Sinatra’s house) and 24th (an informal meet and greet) as reported by Back Stage. (I’ve noted Back Stage has a very obvious anti-SAG leadership bias, not surprising since it’s a sister Nielsen Business Media publication of the equally biased Hollywood Reporter. Nevertheless, I’ll assume Rosenberg was quoted accurately.)
BACK STAGE: “In his address to the approximately 95 guests at the fundraiser, Rosenberg called the current board elections “the most important elections in the history of the Screen Actors Guild.” He said of UFS’s slate of candidates, “To elect people who have never been near this union, never served on a committee, know nothing about negotiations, and to replace valuable people…it would be absolutely a tragedy.” … “Unite for Strength is a hypocrisy; we all know that,” said Rosenberg, who later referred to the party as “Divide for Weakness.” “These are people who say they want to unite something, then come in and take away people’s right to vote on contracts… They say they want strength, yet they want to merge with a union, AFTRA, which just ratified a contract that’s going to kill actors… They don’t want to unite this place, and they don’t want us to be strong.” He continued, “MembershipFirst takes that title very seriously. They really stand up for the members, each and every time on each on every issue…. The other people want to turn this into an organization that only represents the top 2% of the wage earners in this business. [They] are forced to lie, they’re forced to misrepresent, they’re forced to launch character assassinations…. They really talk about qualified voting. They really talk about giving away residuals…. In order to get elected, if that’s your agenda, you have to lie.”
“… The national president also criticized national board members from the New York and regional branch divisions, who abstained from voting on a referendum to reject the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers’ ‘final’ contract offer during a meeting Aug. 21. The motion to reject the AMPTP’s offer passed, as did a resolution to send a post card in a bulletin about the negotiations, polling members about their thoughts on the AMPTP deal. The board voted to reject the New York and regional board members’ request to bring a mediator into the negotiations between the guild and the studios. … On Saturday, Rosenberg said of the New York and branch members, who are more sympathetic toward UFS and AFTRA, “If you stop telling lies about us, we’ll stop telling the truth about you. And that’s what people want to say to these people in New York, people in the regional branches, and people in this Unite for Strength party.”
In response, the NY Division issued this press statement today:
“SAG President Alan Rosenberg’s statements in a recent Backstage article were grossly irresponsible and make two things abundantly clear: he has no respect for any SAG member who disagrees with the increasingly destructive agenda of Membership First; and his perspective on the nationwide dissent against Membership First is as delusional as his perspective on our ‘phenomenal’ TV/Theatrical negotiations which continue to go nowhere. Those of us who were elected in New York to serve SAG’s membership were alarmed by the tone and content of Mr. Rosenberg’s statements and we question his ability to represent our entire, National union in our currently stalled TV/Theatrical negotiations.”
Loading ...
the truth is, there’s a lot of detail to this whole hatfield/mccoy feud, and the passions run deep. there are personal attacks on both sides. I happen to support mf. I have come to learn a great deal in the last few months, even though I’ve been a member of sag for 23 years (and aftra/dga/aea).
there are two philosophies. one is, as they were elected to do, with increasing majorities within the last 5 years, mf has pledged to “take a tougher stance in negotiations.” specifically, to win an increase in the 24 year old dvd residual rate,
which, because the producers simply lied 24 years ago – “let’s not strangle the baby in the crib – this is a new technology – if an acceptable business model emerges, we will ‘revisit’ and ‘renegotiate’ the dvd residual rate.” is a rather important precedent to sag.
24 years later, and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost actor’s residuals, while the business model for dvd exploded and producers made literally billions upon billions of dollars (variety headline – july 20th 2008 “10.1 billion dollars in dvd sales” that’s in ONE year) – the amptp never revisited, never renegotiated. they simply said, ”you signed the deal, we’re under no legal obligation to change anything. tough.” in private – hell, in public – the suits themselves will tell you so. they’ll admit actors got screwed.
so, it’s vital to understand – THAT’s the environment mf was elected to change. their election came AFTER the 2003 merger attempt with aftra. sag had the presidency, the top leadership of the union, the bully pulpit, the coffers of sag, and a massive p.r. campaign, to persuade sag members to merge with aftra. and they lost. by two percent. you cannot possibly underestimate the venom that created in these people, these pro-merger people: melissa gilbert, james cromwell, mike farrell (did you catch his letter last week comparing mf to al queda and “highjacking the membership and flying it into a building?” that’s the level of jaw-dropping hostility).
they blame mf for that defeat, as though, what was, at the time, a rather smallish group of severely underfunded actors who were adamantly against merger – and said so – somehow “tricked” the sag membership into voting down merger. Instead of the reality, that despite a nearly 4 million dollar campaign, (you red right – 2.1 from aftra)using sag members dues money, and the full force of the guild – they could not get merger passed. and for very good reason.
at the time, aftra president john connelly went on record telling sag – “aftra is going to go after sag now. aftra will work to undercut sag wages and residuals, to poach sag jurisdiction. you watch.” that’s nearly an exact quote.
well, they have. aftra needs desperately to merge because their finances are in such disarray, and without the infusion of money and power merging with sag could bring, aftra is always fighting the wolf from the door, on the verge of financial collapse.
they say sag is broke, and that specifically mf is responsible for that. it is a provable falsehood. aftra continues to say it. sag is in very good shape financially. you can check for yourself. it’s transparent if you want to see.
aftra says sag tried to organize “the bold and the beautiful” a soap. that is a provable falsehood. the actress herself, susan flannery, of that show, wrote a letter confirming sag did not try to organize the show. what happened was the actors from that show can’t stand their aftra contracts and aftra’s coverage, which they consider shoddy, cheap and inept. susan flannery, also a sag member, made an appointment to talk to sag about the issue. alan rosenberg and doug allen met with her – she is a sag member – listened, then told her it needed to be brought up with aftra because it was an aftra show.
sag membership pressed sag leadership to address proportional representation. when they found out that, with sag covering 100% of movies and 95% of prime-time tv, that aftra had, and continued to insist on, a 50/50 proportion of seats at the bargaining table for sag’s tv/theatrical contract. they asked the leadership to change that. sag tried. aftra flipped out. sag backed off, 50/50. is it right that aftra have a 50/50 arrangement? no, of course not. but, coming into the negotiations, sag backed off.
roberta reardon made an agreement in front of john sweeney, president of the afl-cio, AFTER the above, supposed “provocation’s” to negotiate jointly with sag, as they’d done for 27 years. reardon then broke that agreement, because she saw political cover in the dga’s and wga’s acceptance of the so called “template deal” and ran to the amptp and made the same deal for new media within 2 weeks. why? simple – to expand aftra’s jurisdiction by undercutting sag actor’s wages, residuals, p&h contributions, working conditions, etc. – why else would she do something she had agreed IN WRITING (an agreement with sag. I believe it’s called cvr-17) NOT, under any circumstances, to do?
so, the “template” gets to sag. the amptp is feeling like they just might sneak this new media thing past all the creative unions, but sag balks. they study the deal, and it becomes clear, that it is a disaster for actors. read eric bogosian’s letter on dhd. essentially NO residuals in new media, where ALL content is headed, and some of it already is. as doug allen wrote weeks ago “it’s not new media – it’s NOW media.” literally dozens of new media deals have been made by the amptp AFTER the dga set the “template” on new media, followed by the wga and aftra.
unite for strength? they FORMED over the issue of qualified voting. they couldn’t get it passed by sag, and ned vaughn and others vowed “we will challenge this.” they formed a slate of “working actors” obviously implying that the vast majority of sag is NOT working at any given time, and therefore, shouldn’t be allowed to vote on contracts they may happen, in a down year, not to be working. why is sag’s unemployment rate so high? well, many reasons. first – it’s probably easier to be a brain surgeon than make a living as an actor. I’m not kidding. add you’re a middle class female actor who’s committed the sin of turning 40. you’re a minority. you’re disabled. a person of color. on and on. are most of these people talented? yes, or they wouldn’t have gotten into sag in the first place. unlike aftra, where you can walk out from behind a deli counter, walk into aftra offices and write a check and join the union, sag members earn their way in. so, alan rosenberg, quite rightly in my opinion, feels these people, who earned their way in, paid the initiation fee, pay dues, deserve to vote. duh. of course they do. should we, on a national level, only let white landowners vote? only men? only “working” americans? of course not. it’s an absurd argument.
but ned vaughn, as was seen in last night’s “interview” with jonathan handel, would NOT disavow qualified voting, he simply said “when sag split from aftra, we saw that as the overwhelming priority, so we’ve made a public pledge not to pursue qualified voting.” but does he still believe in it, along with ALL the other u4s members who signed a petition supporting it, which is STILL available on line? of course he does. he did not say he disavowed it. obviously he and the rest of u4s realized “vote for us – so we can take your vote away” was a really bad pitch, so they dropped qualified voting for political expediency.
now? everyone is mad at the sag leadership, specifically mf. “they’re the reason we’re without a contract!” “they alienated aftra and caused the rift.” “they delayed instead of negotiating early.” first of all – doesn’t the result of all these negotiations prove beyond a doubt one thing? the amptp was not giving sag a different deal on new media than the dga, wga or aftra if jesus christ was their lead negotiator. and, who put a gun to roberta reardon’s head and said “break your agreement, and go make a deal with the amptp.” was she upset? I have no idea. did ANYTHING that I describe above form the basis for the seriousness of her betrayal of sag? that’s a stretch.
all content is going to the web. the dvd deal is a HUGE precedent sag is aware of as to “trusting” the producers to “revisit” or “renegotiate” anything. the new media deal could cut actors incomes in half – they rely for up to 50% of their income from residuals, because there are essentially NO residuals of any size or import in this deal. there is a REASON the amptp has carved out these series of “floors” that are ridiculously high, to “experiment” and have “flexibility” in new media. otherwise, they would have offered a percentage deal. “amptp makes money on a new media show? sag makes X%. amptp doesn’t make money on a new media show,or loses money? amptp has NO FIXED OBLIGATION TO SAG.” that’s “flexible,” yes? that’s fair, yes? why won’t the amptp agree to that, which is what sag has been asking for? THEY WANT TO MUSCLE ACTORS OUT OF THEIR FAIR SHARE OF NEW MEDIA. they want to set a precedent NOW, and then, when the internet turns into the cash cow they themselves predict (watch “voices of uncertainty” of youtube) they have plenty of wiggle room to exploit this HUGE non-union space.
think about it: why would sag agree to allow non-union competition IN ITS OWN CONTRACT and in violation of its core principals, which, despite the kvetching of the regionals and the weak -kneed new york board, was reaffirmed by a UNANIMOUS vote of 68 to 0? “we will not allow any non-union work in our contracts. sag members will be paid fairly for re-use of their work.”
so, when the ny board and the regions are, in fact, telling lies about the leadership of the union DURING a tough contract negotiation, where unity is vital, why shouldn’t rosenberg call a spade a spade in the meeting at nancy sinatra’s house? why is the truth so upsetting to these people?
if membership first goes down, the screen actors union goes down. it’s that simple. u4s has made clear their intention to merge. and ned vaughn said last night he doesn’t care if the resulting entity is called “uncle joe’s actor’s union.”
now, you wonder why the mf people are a little riled up?
thanks for reading the screed.
“If you don’t have any fresh ideas then you use stale tactics to scare voters.
If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.
In this election, The greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result.”
Barack Obabma
Denver Colorado, August 28, 2008
Since they are actors can we just have them dance fight like WEST SIDE STORY?
Once you’re a Jet,
you’re a Jet all the way,
so dye your hair blond
and move to LA.
Winner gets your union back to work.
toomuch-
““mf has pledged to “take a tougher stance in negotiations..”
There is a difference in being tough and being obstinate.
Wow… Toomuch is rewriting history. I know, I was a member of Performers Alliance in 1998 and watched all of this happen FIRST HAND. The exact dates may be off slightly, but the history is accurate.
MF came into power in SAG as the Performers Alliance in 1999 (David Jolliffe was elected then) and ALWAYS held enough seats on the Hollywoood board to significantly influnce the choices made. For a short time they lost the presidency with Melissa Gilbert, but ALWAYS held a majority of Hollywood board seats.
Until they came into power, the in-fighting was NOT a problem. Board members voted on issues as they felt they needed and NOT by a single faction doing “block voting”.
MF road the dissatisfaction of the Cable Commercials into power. I believed that there was a problem. I tried to help make a change. I found out the PA or MF or whatever they want to call themselves did NOT have the best interests of the members, but only in maintaining POWER. They ALWAYS felt that SAG was superior in every way and that AFTRA was the bastard step-child. I recall them saying they could take out AFTRA because there was so many dual card holders. This was in 1999 in the BOARD ROOM!
Does anyone remember the Commercials Strike of 2000? A RECORD length strike. I saw the pre-strike offer and the post strike contract and I KNOW we didn’t make any significant gains.
MF felt that Hollywood should have a vast majority of the power. They added to that by restructuring the board to maximize power. Doing so alienated all the Regional Branches.
They ran a kill campaign against SAG President Richard Mauser, who INVITED THEM INTO COMMITTEES after they got elected. Until that time, I had NEVER SEEN A SLATE in a SAG election. Now we have nothing but.
Bill Daniels presidency in 2001? The first MF SLATE candidate for President.
The Agency agreement being terminated in 2001? That was ALSO MF. And after they orchestrated the defeat, they BACKED DOWN from their stance and didn’t force actors to choose between SAG and their agents by suspending 16(g) (I think that’s it). That remains suspended still today and the reason we must sign GSA’s and are not protected by SAG.
The 2003 Consolidation attempt? MF didn’t have the presidency, but they had SIGNFICANT numbers on the Hollywood Board (same people that are there now). After many MF members voted FOR the merger in the board room, they came outside and started SHOOTING IT DOWN. Ultimately it was defeated by a NARROW margin.
To EVER call MF or PA or whatever they call as a small unorganized group with little or no funding is ABSURD. That was only the case in 1998 when they started.
As I said before, this is simple:
If you think SAG can force AFTRA to stop representing Actors (look at Alan’s statement) the vote for MF.
If you think SAG needs to UNITE ACTORS and stop the infighting, vote U4S.
MF has alientate half of SAG, the ATA (Agents) and AFTRA. Now we are in a stalled Theatrical contract with NO viable options, PLUS we have a 5+ year old Commercials contract that has been extended AGAIN.
If you think we are better off now than 5 years ago, vote MF. If you thinks “slates are great!” vote MF.
If you want to change the direction we are going, vote U4S. If you are tired of “slates”, the first step is to get those who created the slate election OUT OF OFFICE FIRST. Vote U4S.
Toomuch — are you suggesting that the folks who are currently in charge at SAG (whether they were an organized MF slate at the time or not) had NOTHING to do with “tricking” SAG members into believing that a merger with AFTRA would be bad for SAG? Really?
Allen and Rosenberg are the Bush and Cheney of the entertainment business. This is our guild…not their playground. There is no place for personal vendetta and ego in this fiasco they call their negotiations. Merger and one union and contract is what we need for the working actor… not blowhards who never work and fantasize on sites like this that they actually have something at stake. Fuck all…settle this goddamn thing and get us a contract!
When asked specific questions by Jonathan Handel in an online video interview the other day, Ned Vaughn purposely gave vague answers. He made no clear commitment on any issue, and could not even back away from Affected Member Voting.
Mr. Vaughn is quite adept at sounding reasonable while saying nothing whatsoever to repudiate entirely unreasonable positions or tip his cards in relation to his true intentions.
President Rosenberg is right to be distrustful of Mr. Vaughn’s group, and Toomuch – who responded above to Nikki’s post – is also correct in their assertions about UFS’ true intentions vis a vis a potential merger.
Lest anyone be fooled about who UFS’ fellow travelers are and what their joint agenda is, please refer to James Cromwell’s response on June 24, 2008 to my post about AMV on my blog (http://mheister.com/thepodosphere/?p=100). To wit:
“If you are ignorant of the history of animosity and duplicity of SAG’s leadership towards AFTRA, I suggest you email Mike Farrell and get a good dose of the truth. As for the (AFTRA Schedule A) contract, believe me, it’s taken more that a minute, it may be the final take if we kill it, and by god, son, we did get it right. Now it’s up to you. One Union, Now!”
In short, the same people who supported the piss-poor AFTRA deal are also behind UFS. And just over two months ago, while SAG was trying to protect the actors in its sister union from ceding union protection for low-budget New Media work done by signatories, the opposition was ALREADY ginning up a fresh and thinly-connected issue to use to go after Membership First.
The real agenda of UFS is quite clear – implement AMV, cede New Media in a producer-friendly SAG theatrical deal, and slap together another anti-democratic & anti-actor SAG/AFTRA merger scheme. They’re just unhappy that they’re being called out on it.
PS – Mr. Cromwell, by God dad you’re an amazing actor and I swear that whatever I write about union-related matters, it’s about the issues and it ain’t personal.
mheister,
No surprise you feel this way. However, please tell me if you think SAG and MF can FORCE AFTRA to give up representing Actors, which make up over 75% of it’s members. If so, exactly how is this going to take place.
The fear mongering over the AMV and the AFTRA contract are red-herrings.
The choice is very simple. Either you believe that MF can FORCE AFTRA to give up representing actors and take all actors into SAG. (then vote for MF)
Or
You think that all actors need to UNITE and stop this jurisdictional battle that will hurt ALL actors and only help the AMPTP. (then vote for U4S).
If we stay on the MF path, it means war with AFTRA and a continued attempt to destroy AFTRA by removing 75% of it’s members.
The only one who wins in that is the AMPTP.
SAG cannot force AFTRA to stop representing actors,
but when actors find themselves in reduced circumstances due to
AFTRA’s residual giveaways in cable,
and their acceptance of the new media deal which could eliminate residuals altogether,
actors may decide that they no longer want to be represented by AFTRA.
AFTRA’s aggression may come back to haunt her.
another way to end the war is to carve up the jurisdiction
and let both unions work in their designated areas
with no molestation or poaching by the other.
Been There -
How does SAG’s July overture to AFTRA to go in together under Phase 1 to negotiate the commercials contract, and AFTRA’s acceptance of the offer, figure into your reasoning that somehow Membership First can’t figure out how to work with AFTRA???
As for a merger plan, I’m in a bit of a minority amongst actors in that I see no problem with SAG representing the entire spectrum of talent that currently falls under AFTRA jurisdiction. IMHO, broadcasters would be better-represented by SAG anyway.
A brief anecdotal example. I studied improvisation at Second City Los Angeles with a woman who’s just landed a sports reporting gig. She has acting and improv skills. I’ve seen them. But she’s stepping outside the narrower definition of acting to be an on-air sports reporter.
She’s not alone. Actors and comedians frequently pursue on-air opportunities in television news, talk shows, so on. And those are owned by and large by the same companies who produce movies and scripted television. So why shouldn’t SAG represent them???
AFTRA has a lamentably poor record representing its members at crunch time – in contract negotiations, and when they have serious problems on-set. These professionals deserve better, and SAG can offer it to them.
If AFTRA leadership truly truly had the best interests of their members at heart, they would simply offer to hand the reigns over to SAG and stick around just long enough to assist a smooth transition. Any merger plan that accommodates current AFTRA leadership is going to wind up harming actors.
@ mheister
AFTRA leadership truly truly had the best interests of their members at heart, they would simply offer to hand the reigns over to SAG and stick around just long enough to assist a smooth transition. Any merger plan that accommodates current AFTRA leadership is going to wind up harming actors.
First time you have made any sense
Your election must be devolving. Trek is not posting Harry 98 is more reasonable. Now you. Smells like napalm to me.
mheister,
AFTRA said the board WOULD CONSIDER IT at their meeting in October, well after the elections are over. They are keeping their options open but have made no commitment.
The fact is the jurisdictional battle is underway and it will take BOTH sides to work TOGETHER to make it better.
Does anyone think MF can be reasonable when it comes to AFTRA? I personally don’t think so and I’m pretty sure history backs me up on that one.
As to being in the minority about all actors being under one union, you aren’t. You are in the majority according to the 2003 vote. It takes a super majority to pass it, but a MAJORITY of SAG members voted FOR it.
i don’t understand why it is always that AFTRA must merge with SAG? Why doesn’t SAG merge with the Union that is working and has a good contract? Why does SAG feel that they are the dominant union? SAG has primetime (?) but AFTRA has the other 21 hours? I can’t see it being a win win situation if AFTRA joins SAG? I think SAG is over, just like the UAW!!!
to I’m just saying
in the past three years AFTRA actors have generated 43 million in wages.
in the same time period SAG actors made 4 BILLION dollars.
that’s why SAG cannot be absorbed by AFTRA.
Been There -
I’ve heard folks on both sides of this divide talk about broadcasters and some other groups as if what they do is somehow deeply separate and distinct from what actors do.
Strictly from the standpoint of the skillsets used for the work, I would agree. But then, I’d also agree that singers, dancers, and musicians have distinctive skillsets as well.
The reason I can see Larry King in the same union as Jack Nicholson is they’re both doing on-camera work helping the same companies generate content that brings eyeballs to screens.
I’m not so sure a yes vote on the ’03 contract proposal automatically means each and every voter agrees with me on this issue.
I’m not so sure that actors on the whole, let alone broadcasters and others who work AFTRA contracts, are yet aware just how quickly the moguls plan to redirect essentially ALL of their distribution from old media means like broadcast and cable to the Internet.
Some may be confused because they get their Internet from their cable company. It’s two separate services, two different technologies, two separate and distinct items on the bill. All they’re sharing is a wire.
All of our contracts treat these two as very separate and very distinct, with their own rate and residual structures. However, because it’s the same wire, switching distribution from cable television channels to Internet “channels” is quite easy, once the right IPTV boxes find their way into consumers’ homes.
Now my bringing this up may seem like a birdwalk, but really, awareness of and an urgency to respond in our contracts to these changes before we get DVD’d again – but a helluva lot harder – is one of the core differences between current SAG leadership under Membership First, and where UFS & AFTRA & apparently SAG’s NY Board are at.
Membership First gets it. They don’t. Not yet. And we can’t afford to fold on this now, because by the time it finally dawns on them, it’s going to be too late.
Mheister,
You seem to make the same point I’m making, but you somehow think that MF has the answers. MF is out to destroy AFTRA by ripping 75% of their membership out of thier union. AFTRA will not just sit by and let that happen, as we have seen.
If you think U4S is ready to hand over the reigns to AFTRA then I believe you are sorely mistaken and are buying into the MF propoganda.
The fact is that ALL Actors need to be UNITED under one union. But attempting to do so by FORCE will not work. What MF is doing is tantamount to civil war. Wars take time, resources and leave everyone involved VULNERABLE.
Is it possible that over the next 5 years SAG may be able to beat AFTRA into submission? Yes, it’s possible but it could take 10… or 20… or never happen. But during that war every actor will suffer incalcuable losses that will be impossible to regain.
MF says it’s Actors only, no Broadcasters or thier ilk, and it MUST be SAG’s way or the highway. AFTRA should have no say and should simply lie down and die.
U4S says let’s stop the war and UNITE against the common enemy.
Which stance is better for actors? I know how I feel.
Been There -
By your reasoning, Lincoln should have simply surrendered on January 21, 1861….
A badly-structured merger is far worse than no merger than at all.
But okay, you say, “U4S says let’s stop the war and UNITE against the common enemy.” But that’s not on their website. They have not taken the AMPTP to task for being entirely unreasonable about New Media jurisdiction. They’ve purposely tossed out these huge red herrings – AMV earlier this year, merger talk more recently – while SAG is in the middle of preparing for and negotiating its single most important contract under extremely difficult circumstances that were not of the guild’s choosing.
Actions speak louder than words. By their actions, UFS has shown a lot of interest in tearing SAG apart and zero interest in taking the AMPTP down a notch.
And while I can’t speak for Membership First, if AFTRA leaderhship were to simply hand SAG the keys on the condition that SAG take on all of AFTRA’s contracts and such, I’m sure Doug Allen could handle the next broadcasters’ contract just fine.
Mheister,
If Lincoln could have united the US WITHOUT a civil war, I’m am absolutely certain he would have.
The problem is, MF is looking to destroy AFTRA by ripping 75% of it’s membership out of it’s union. AFTRA will not let that happen and I can’t blame them.
U4S is saying we need to work TOGETHER and UNITE Actors.
So, if you believe that a civil war is the best course for SAG, that we will be stronger while we fight with each other, then the MF is the choice for you.
If you think we need to STOP the infighting and work together on a UNITED front, the U4S is your choice.
U4S is not saying anything about the AMPTP because they WON’T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE NEGOTIATIONS. The current negatiating committee WILL NOT CHANGE, no matter how the elections come out.
Frankly, due to the war on AFTRA, SAG is pretty much screwed on this contract anyway. I don’t see ANY progress or solution on this by MF in months. What is their plan to get a better Theatrical contract?
The fact is that we are doomed as long as we continue to FIGHT EACH OTHER. The AMPTP laughs every day about this and will continue to until we UNITE and have enough clout to force them into better contracts.
So back to my earlier point, as long as we wage war with each other, we are vulnerable. It’s time we STOPPED fighting each other and make a united stand. Only then will we have any power to effect the changes to the contracts that we need.
U4S is the only group willing to UNITE us.
MF will continue to divide us and wage war on AFRTA.
If that war continues, generations of Actors will lose.
to been there:
SAG actors might be interested in a merger ONLY to stop the undercutting by AFTRA.. that’s all they have to offer us.
why would AFTRA want to merge now?
the studios want the cheap AFTRA rates.
AFTRA claims that their P&H is healthy, so why?
it’s suspect.
if AFTRA wants to merge now it’s because they need money like they always have, and SAG actors are a big ATM.
if they don’t want to merge, actors will become increasingly disgusted with the contracts that AFTRA accepts and sooner or later these actors will decertify the union that sells them out and stick with the union that fights for them.
harry98,
AFTRA is still interested because they STILL THINK IT’S BEST FOR THEIR MEMBERS. They aren’t thinking only of AFTRA and their power base, but of their MEMBERS.
It’s the whole “united we stand, divided we fall” idiom. We cannot fight each other and prosper. The members LOSE.
Roberta Reardon reaffirmed an interst in merger, even after SAG tried to sink thier contract ratification.
There is nothing suspect to wanting what is best for your members. The problem is MF thinks the WAR is the way to go and U4S thinks that UNITING is the way to go. That is the clear cut difference.
Vote MF – we continue the war.
Vote U4S and we stop the civil war and start working TOGETHER again against the common foe – the AMPTP.
As long as there is war, the only people who win are the MF and the AMPTP. Actors LOSE… period.
You read this stuff and you wonder, how could this happen? Why is SAG such an adolescent, ridiculous guild? Then you realize, almost the whole Guild is unemployed. Think about that.
And, of course…enjoy the show!
been there
yes. it’s about the members for roberta reardon.
and the moon is made of cheese.
grow the fuck up
Condor,
Nice. A very well thought out and constructive retort.
I personally prefer to stick to salient points that affect my fellow union members, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Still waiting for that response on how SAG is going to win a civil war with AFTRA and force them to give up 75% of their membership. After all, AFTRA has only represented actors for 71 years. Does anyone actually think they will give them up without a fight?
If you do, vote MF for continued civil war.
If you think a civil war is more damaging than it’s worth, vote U4S.
hey guys,
Just FYI. I did quote Alan accuratley in this article. Got the tape and my notes right here.
That’s all, thanks,
Lauren of Back Stage