More SAG election candidate statements: Unite For Strength’s Amy Brenneman responds to Martin Sheen (supporting MF), and Membership First’s David Jolliffe replies to Mike Farrell (supporting U4S):
From AMY BRENNEMAN
Before you vote, consider this:
Membership First is lying; Unite for Strength has the SAME position on members’ voting rights as they do.In an email from Martin Sheen introduced by JoBeth Williams, Membership First has tried to frighten voters away from Unite for Strength by claiming that we plan to take away members’ voting rights. This is absolutely false – and Membership First knows it.
Early this year, some of us asked the board to consider limiting voting on the TV/Theatrical contract to members who worked an average of one day per year under that contract. Over 1500 members signed a petition of support, and even Membership First candidates Clancy Brown and Jo Beth herself agreed with the idea.
But from the start of our campaign we’ve made it clear that this proposal was not part of Unite for Strength’s platform because we recognized that nothing matters more than bringing our unions together. And to eliminate any doubt, we even made a public pledge that if we’re elected we will take no action to limit the voting rights of any SAG member. We can’t state our position any more clearly than that.The real choice in this election is whether you want SAG and AFTRA to fight for us together, or continue fighting each other.
Membership First is obsessively focusing on the empty “voting rights” charge because they’re stuck; they just can’t explain how their battle with AFTRA will give actors more power at the bargaining table. Everyone understands that competition between our two unions makes it harder to get fair pay for our work. In the years Membership First has controlled SAG, they’ve done nothing but lash out at AFTRA and it hasn’t done us any good at all. More of their leadership will just bring more competition, making things even worse.
We know that one union representing all performers is the better strategy.
That’s why unions exist in the first place – to unite for strength.
—
From DAVID JOLLIFFE
Re: Latest From Mike FarrellWell, as usual Mike is out with another letter filled with untruths, obfuscation and name calling. With no real solution on how to get a good deal for actors NOW.
Mike gets it wrong, right off the bat by saying Doug Allen “was hired by a small faction now in control of our union”.
Mike… Doug’s hiring was approved by the entire SAG National Board, UNANIMOUSLY.
Then Mike defaults to name calling. Calling MembershipFirst “Agent Haters”. Well, I for one was married to one of the top agents in this town and still love her dearly. I have nothing but the utmost respect for those that represent us.
What Mike is referring to is the attempt back in 1999 and 2002 by SAG’s then leadership to allow our agents to be owned by studios. A complete and blatant conflict of interest. First by a waiver that would have allowed agents to be solely owned (100%) by any and all production entities. This attempt was narrowly defeated in the boardroom (52-48) by those same “crazies” Mike refers to throughout his diatribe. Then another attempt by Mike himself who championed a deal that would have also allowed agents to be owned by studios and/or production entities. An attempt that was defeated in referendum by the membership (not those “crazies) of SAG by a margin of 55% to 45%.
Then Mike goes off on the 2000 commercial strike, again placing blame on those same “crazies” in Hollywood. What Mike fails to recognize is that the strike, as well as the proposal package, was voted up UNANIMOUSLY by both the SAG’s and AFTRA’s National Boards. (Some 220 to 0 – For the first time in joint history)
The Joint Commercial Negotiating Committee, (made-up 50-50 SAG and AFTRA) was polled throughout the entire process. Those votes to go on strike and stay on strike were ALL UNANIMOUS.
I know – I was there. I was the SAG Chair of those negotiations.
Mike goes on to claim that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost. What Mike fails to admit is that the Commercials Contract was worth $550 million in 2000 and is worth $800 million today. And Mike readily admits that he wasn’t around much. If he was, he would have understood that commercial actors couldn’t make a living in 2000 because of the poor cable residuals formula. (A formula that was increased 140% in that one/single negotiation.) And that the advertisers were adamant in taking away Class-A network residuals.
The 2000 Commercial strike garnered:
– The largest single increase in our unions history – 140% increase in cable residuals.
– Internet jurisdiction
– Protection of Class-A residuals
– Increases in the P&H contribution
– An added $1 million per year for monitoring commercialsAnd I take personal offense when someone like Mike Farrell (who wasn’t there) makes a claim that “instigators grudgingly got out of the way” to “let the adults resolve the strike”. Who were these “adults”? No personnel nor committee member changed throughout the entire strike. We all did it together. I told you… The votes were always unanimous.
Then Mike blames MembershipFirst for the defeat of the AIMA Plan. Hey Mike… There was no MembershipFirst then!
There was a group called SAVESAG. Who made their case against the plan and enough of the membership agreed with them to defeat that plan. The MEMBERSHIP, Mike. Not some clandestine group of “crazies”.
As far as “paying off (staff) contracts at huge expense”… Weren’t YOU in charge when Pissano was “paid off”?
Mike claims that MembershipFirst has “spent the union into debt”. Again… NOT TRUE! SAG has on hand some $33 million in cash and cash equivalents. Up some $13 million from when Mike was a 1st VP. All three years MembershipFirst has had the majority, the union has operated with a surplus. ($3.8 million surplus for fiscal year 2006/2007. And a $4 million surplus for fiscal year 2007/2008.)
Now let’s fast-forward to these current negotiations.
Yep, Mike is absolutely right. SAG was fed-up with AFTRA having half the say in our contract negotiations. A contract where AFTRA does ZERO work in movies and 5% in Prime-Time Television. Especially in the light that they’d been on a scorched-earth campaign to decimate SAG’s cable contract by undercutting them to the extent of eliminating residuals down to 10-15 free exhibition days. We thought it only fair to have proportional representation given the facts of which union earns the overwhelming majority of the Contract. And that when AFTRA was delivered the costs for the 2000 commercials strike, they said they only did 10% of the work, therefor they were only going to pay 10% of the costs. Yep… You heard right. AFTRA insists on half the say – But when it comes to paying for that half say, they run for the hills.
Mike says that SAG was “unable to deliver what they’d long promised with tough talk”. And that it was up to “AFTRA to step in and negotiate like professionals”.
Well, let me tell you Mike, ANYBODY could have delivered the deal AFTRA took. It’s a bad deal!
Then you say that it was “an act of desperation” that SAG went out and told it’s members what a bad deal AFTRA took.
What were we supposed to do, Mike? Sit silently, knowing the deal’s bad? Sit silently thus sending a message to the AMPTP that we wouldn’t fight the deal? Sit silently, and not tell our dual members working for the exact same employers that deal was bad for actors? Because, Mike… The point you fail to address and accept is that the DEAL IS BAD!
Let’s go over the deal AFTRA calls “groundbreaking”, shall we:
– No guaranteed union jurisdiction in New Media. (This means Universal, MGM, Sony, Disney, Warner Brothers, etc. can do made for Internet productions without our members.)
– No residuals in made for New media (except in a very rare circumstance that doesn’t even exist at this time.) Both of these first two items go against SAG’s core principals established by a unanimous vote of 68 -0 by SAG’s National Board on 7-26-08. Principals that clearly state that all acting work done by our signatories must be union – And that all union acting work deserves a residual of some kind.
– No mileage increase. (We’ve had the same 30 cents a mile for nearly 30 years. Even the IRS allows for 58.5 cents.)
– No increase in home-video/DVD. With actors still paying there own P&H contribution.
– No protection for forced endorsements. Actors have no rights to say NO. (This not only harms us in TV/Theatrical, but the more commercial endorsements are embedded into TV product the more erosion we’ll see in actual commercial airings. Thus lowering the amount commercial actors will earn in reuse.)
– Elimination of the Force Majeure protections we’ve had for 60 years.
– French Hours – Meaning no actual lunch break. (Eat when you can.)
– No residuals for Stunt Coordinators
– An increase of only ONE background performer in TV.
– This deal now makes it a “condition of employment” that an actor gives up his/her right to negotiate for clip use. It is a false assumption that any journeyman actor will be able to NOT sign away these rights.
– All product produced before 1974 is sold out in New Media. If the residuals have paid-out then the actor will get NOTHING.
SAG has made many concessions in an attempt to make a deal.SAG has tentatively agreed to much of the AMPTP New Media template. A template that when applied to actors results in things like 17/24 days of free airings on the Internet. And a residual for the next 6 months at 3% of scale. (That’s $22.77 for the day player, Mike. And a maximum residual for the series regular of just under $100.00).
I do agree with Mike that what happens here will “affect actors for a generation”. A bad deal now WILL affect us all for generations to come. We must learn from the past. We’ve seen that when a bad deal is made, it never goes away.
I wish Mike Farrell would come join us in trying to get a fair deal for actors in this negotiation.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


I dunno, Amy. Aren’t you on record as being in support of qualified voting? Kinda tough to deny it, unless you actually say you’re against it–which makes your signature on the letter encouraging people to vote for the slate of candidates who want to set limits on SAG membership for voting purposes moot, doesn’t it? But, of course, you are in favor of QEV–you just want people to forget about it until after the SAG elections are over.
What nobody seems to be talking about… and I’m confused about…
How can you have as the defining issue one side running on merger with AFTRA when AFTRA has taken a deal that SAG is currently still fighting? How can you merge FOR and AGAINST. Isn’t this a sneaky way of getting the membership to vote on whether they want to accept the AFTRA deal because I can’t see how you can all merge together and play nice with some people having signed an agreement and some not.
Amy Brenneman writes: “Before you vote, consider this:
Membership First is lying; Unite for Strength has the SAME position on members’ voting rights as they do.”
All the finger pointing and name calling in the world isn’t gonna un-ring the bell, and that’s really the issue.
“..we even made a public pledge that if we’re elected we will take no action to limit the voting rights of any SAG member.”
Right. And you also made a very public pledge with endless press releases and signatures and celebrities to disenfranchise UNION members who earn less than you by taking away their voting rights–just several weeks ago. (And, I call foul, when you say your proposal was to strip the vote of those who work less than one day. Maybe as you lost ground you reduced the plan to that.)
So the question voters have are left with is which very public pledge are we to believe? This new one, or the one from a few months ago?
Your opponents in this election don’t have to convince us that anyone who moves to take away certain UNION voters rights because they don’t earn enough is not only anti-Union they’re anti-Democracy and Anti-American.
The reality on this one is harsh, I agree. But the facts don’t change simply because you really, really want them to.
So, how many times do we have to reject the merger before you get it?
No matter what, the damage to Actors is already done.
AFTRA sold every single actor out already with that shitty contract and even shittier tactics. The AFTRA members who ratified it were idiots or desperate… and that desperation has now flooded over to the factions of SAG.
And now SAG is fighting each other. This is just like the GoreBush election in 2000… everyone wants to change the rules once the game has begun.
The losers are every journeyman and middle-class actor for the next thirty years.
There is no union in either of these unions, and even less between them. The leadership is pathetic and the rank and file are scared, and “names” are just bullies.
Amy Brenneman willfully misrepresented JoBeth Williams’ prior position. There is a huge difference between “supported your ideas”, and “agreed”.
Ms. Williams has also since clarified her position in a separate letter just posted on this site.
Ms. Brenneman owes Ms. Williams an apology.
Well, someone is telling a big, fat, honking whopper here…MF is using scare tactics about vote denial when qualified voting is not only part of the SAG constitution, it’s already in use, and has been for some time; UFS says they pledged not to pursue the issue with their slate, because, essentially, it’s a divisive issue. What that means is, it’s not a winning issue politically, and could cause them to lose, so, they wait until they’re in and go for it then.As someone who supports, AMV I admit that I didn’t know it was part of the SAG constitution already, I thought it was a totally new idea for SAG. MF knew, though; So they’ve been lying through their teeth from jumpstreet. I don’t like being lied to, repeatedly; It pisses me the fuck off. I don’t like that UFS backed away from AMV to help their election chances, but, they haven’t been telling stories like the MF crowd. the choice is pretty clear.
I know this is a really wacky idea but here goes: All of the SAG factions need to gather at an undisclosed location, and, after a weekend of talking, whatever, swing open the doors, arms interlocked, big smiles. Proclaim to the world “We are united!.” I mean, PRETEND to be united, (much like AMPTP is pretending to be united). Okay, another word for PRETEND is, um ‘act.’ Isn’t that what members of SAG are professionals at? ACTING???
Actually, Ms. Brenneman, before I vote — I’d like you and Mr. Vaughn to address each point SPECIFICALLY as to how you would handle the negotiaton points differently from Membership First — and as a template, I refer you to Mr. Joliffe’s response to Mr. Farrell: Force majeure, clip use, product integration, new media residuals, new media union jurisdiction et al. If you were sitting opposite Mr. Counter at the table, what would you do or what would you offer or what would you accept that Mr. Allen is not?
As an example: if you were still both starring in and producing your show “Judging Amy” and the AMPTP refused to pay you your contractually-obligated force majeure salary because your show shut down as a result of the writer’s strike, how would you respond — as an actor, as a producer? What would you say to your fellow co-stars if you were sitting across the table from Mr. Counter and he simply said — “Tough. We’re not paying. Sue me.” What would you say to Mr. Counter?
Before I vote, I would like you and Mr. Vaughn to SPECIFICALLY address how you would merge SAG and AFTRA and their respective pension and health plans. The Gilbert-Farrell-Pisano plan (which I voted against because it was, in my opinion, a god-awful plan) simply said “Trust us. We’ll figure that out after we merge.” What do you say to those of us middle-income actors who can’t afford to trust anyone with their futures and their families and their hard-earned pensions until they have A PLAN — a thoroughly-vetted, well thought out, fiscally-sound plan? Not a campaign slogan. A plan.
Before I vote, I would like you and Mr. Vaughn to ask Roberta Reardon of AFTRA why she broke her word to Mr. Rosenberg, to the AFL-CIO and to the membership of two unions to sit across the table from the AMPTP and negotiate jointly, together, in solidarity. Ask her why she would use as a pretext, rather, an excuse, to walk away at the eleventh hour, the repudiated charge that SAG attempted to raid an AFTRA-represented soap opera — instead of taking a deep breath, being a leader, putting the members first, dealing with the charge (which later proved to be baseless) at a future date — and sitting at the table NOW, RIGHT NOW — and getting the best deal possible for ALL film and television actors. I would like you and Mr. Vaughn to explain how you would have handled the matter with the exact same set of circumstances. And then go on the record and explain how the AFTRA deal works and the still-to-be-resolved SAG plan doesn’t.
And just to be clear: I am not affilated nor aligned with any slate, any faction, any political wing of this storied union. I am a twenty-year veteran of the Screen Actors Guild and I’m tired of slogans and rhetoric and finger-pointing and name-calling — from all sides. It’s boorish. It’s childish. It’s counter-productive. And just to be clear — I am not being deliberately snide, I am not asking about AMV — and I am not particularly happy with how these negotiations have been handled — and no one can argue that mistakes have been made on ALL sides.
But if you want me to vote for you and Mr. Vaughn and the candidates that you represent, then you need to put your cards on the table — and not on a flier.
I can’t believe it- I always wondered “whatever happened to BERNIE from Room 222″–and he has emerged !
I have not seen or heard of David Jolliffe since Room 222 got cancelled in 1974. David was awesome as Bernie on the show. His part was limited but David as Bernie has always been so memorable. Welcome Back Bernie !!!!
VOguy
why don’t you enlighten us as to how SAG has been practicing AMV?
how about some examples?
the constitution does contain the language “… contracts to be ratified shall be sent to the membership affected thereby.”
HOWEVER,
in ARTICLE II Section 1,
the constitution says that when a contract affects a
‘substantial portion’ of the membership, everyone gets to vote on it.
in ARTICLE II Section 2,
the constitution says that when a contract
does NOT affect a substantial portion of the membership it will not be sent out for a vote, but rather approved or not by the board
or the National Executive Committee.
look it up.
on another thread on DHD, someone making the same accusations as you said,
“I’ve never received a STUNT contract or an animation contract
to vote on.”
i pointed out to him that there is no STUNT contract, so that’s why
he’s never received one.
the stunt provisions are contained in the Basic Codified Agreement
which in total affects everyone, so that’s why everyone votes on it.
the animation contract does not affect a substantial portion of the membership, so it’s taken care of by the board.
and that’s why neither he nor any of us has voted on that.
if you, VO guy, are going to make accusations, do everyone the courtesy of backing them up with facts.
I really don’t understand how Unite For Strength can present itself as an alternate slate to anyone. The entire reason they formed as a group – was qualified voting. They got shot down, threatened to keep pushing the issue, and now, as it has become clear to them that the membership rejects the philosophy of denying the vote no matter how you change the specifics of the proposal – they drop it entirely, and appear to be upset that they have not been exonerated politically from their attachment to it in the first place. This speaks to serious political inexperience and naivete – not what I prefer in my union representation.
Their signature issue now seems to be “merge with AFTRA.” Well, besides the exhaustion I personally feel with an issue that has been repeatedly vetted and rejected by the membership – most recently at a time when pro-merger forces had the presidency, the top leadership and therefore the bully pulpit at SAG, used the full force of the unions coffers and public relations tools to convince the membership to merge – and still failed – Unite For Strength, when pressed, admits they have no specific, thoroughly researched plan. They want the membership to trust them that it will sort itself out if we all just agree that merger is best.
Well, I’m sorry, that’s not nearly good enough. And when I read and hear that Unite For Strength will not debate the issues with their Membership First counterparts in an open, public forum, I am forced to wonder, “why not?”
If the goal is to educate the membership as to your positions, and show us why and how those positions are better than Membership First’s positions – how can you refuse to debate unless you privately acknowledge it is not in your best interest to do so?
If you can’t stand up publicly, in a fair debate setting, and convince the membership you should be elected – you don’t deserve our vote. And until and unless I hear you debate and convince me your way is better – my vote goes to Membership Fist, who seem to be fighting for a fair contract, while Unite For Strength dithers on about merger with no plan, and run from qualified voting – the issue that bound you as a group to begin with.
Michael is exactly right. You have to show unity, even if it’s pretend. The AMPTP is literally a collusion of competitors – yet they don’t show a single wrinkle of disunity. Because they’re smart (we’re dumb – we’re really dumb) and know that public dissent only weakens your bargaining position for all the obvious reasons. None of them make any statements personally – everything comes through their lawyers. Whereas every time some actor realizes they’re actually a labor contracts expert, they spout off some email.
By the way — here’s my idea of AMV: If you don’t participate, you can’t vote. It’s that simple.
Sixty-to-seventy per cent of the membership never seems to bother to vote — on any issue, no matter crucial or critical to the union — board officers, dues increases, merger, contracts. Sixty-to-seventy per cent of the membership just don’t think anything regarding this union’s business is worthy of a ballot-delivered-to-your-home-with-a-pre-paid-postage-return-envelope vote. So — eliminate them from participating. They don’t feel affected, so neither should we.
How? In order to vote, you have to sign your name on the mailing envelope of your ballot. The union has that record. If you haven’t voted on any issue, let’s say, over a two-year period, then you lose your right to vote. Then, after that action has been taken against you — and you suddenly change your mind because you realize it’s more important for your voice to heard than not — you have to petition the union to reinstate your voting rights.
Anyone believe in Affected Membership Voting — eliminate all those who just don’t give an affected shit and you’ll also save a ton of money on ballots that never see the light of a tabulated day.
FORGET about Qualified Voting…. it’s a non-issue. It’s just fear mongering. The only issue is:
If you think AFTRA can be beaten into submission by SAG and forced to give up representing Actors completely then go ahead and vote for MF. If you think that SAG is stronger today than it was 5 years ago, then vote MF.
If you think that SAG needs to work to repair our relationship with AFTRA and create a united front for all Actors, vote United For Strength. If you think the only way to keep Actors from being run over by the AMPTP is for them to UNITE, then vote U4S.
That is the ONLY key issue for us to decide with this election. Vote with your BRAIN, not your adrenaline.
marv
still a no go.
as much as you may despise the callousness, the ineptitude, the laziness, the stupidity of not voting – just as on a national level – there are hundreds of thousands of americans who have fought and died for – THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
to HAVE to vote? no. the RIGHT to vote?
that’s it.
I do believe that the actors in question have missed their calling, as writers.
Condor:
This is such a side issue at this point (and a distraction from the main issue here) — and I know we are fundamentally on the same side — but just to clarify one point regarding voting on the state and/or national level — if you commit and are convicted of a felony, you lose the right to vote — and only after you complete the terms of your sentence can you have your voting rights restored. So the right to vote — like the freedom of speech, like all rights — is not sacrosanct. There are limitations. And my suggestion is the suggestion of indifferent limitation.
Is this in any way a comparison between those that don’t and those that do — God, no. A slap in the face to those who have sacrificed their lives for the rest of us — never. Me thinking out loud as an afterthought while waiting for a response that will more than likely never appear — oh well, that’s just me being me.
I appreciate your comment.
It’s really too bad the actors are so stuck on themselves, to even see what the inner fighting is doing to them.
I hope they realize that the Studios are just sitting back laughing at all this bickering. What are we 12?
Open your eyes and see how this is destroying yourselves.
Ya know what Harry? You’re correct.. I didn’t do my due diligence. At this point, I have no idea who’s telling the truth, so, I’ll just sit back and watch their behavior..interesting, that missive about campaign contributions in the other thread…
Okay. For YEARS I’ve been confused over the opposing sides of the issues we’re facing and have read these statements and counterstatements about this and that. I’ve had friends try to explain to me what’s been going on, and they even get to a point where they stare blankly and say they don’t really get it either. I read the materials handed out by everyone, and it does nothing to help me understand what’s up.
I want the debate. I want to be able to show up in a hall, take a seat, and be clearly and calmly informed by both parties on their stances on the issues. I don’t want to be told what the other people believe, I want to hear what YOU believe. And I think, if you want my vote, you should be expected to give me that.
But among all the literature, all the info, I still have yet to receive an invitation to attend anything that will remotely give me that chance to see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears. Clearly someone here is bending the truth, my guess is that maybe everyone is a little. And though I want a stronger union, and walked picket lines to that end in the past, I really really feel that the level of discourse I’ve come across leading up to this election is the saddest, most juvenile “He said, she said” I have ever seen.
But you know, I’ve come to expect that from SAG.
The slate I’ll end up voting for is the one who seems to have a shred more integrity than they other guy. That’s how little I think of my own union. That’s the most I think I can expect to come out of all the mud slinging. No truths to help me, no explanations to guide me, just “who looks to be least pathetic?” Sad.