Different well-known actors in the past 48 hours have written in support for United For Strength or Membership First. Here’s Mike Farrell (supporting U4S) and Martin Sheen (supporting MF). I flipped a coin to determine which opinion I posted first:
From MARTIN SHEEN
To my fellow actors:If you’re one of the tens of thousands of S.A.G. members who don’t work enough or earn enough as an actor, you’re in danger of losing one of your fundamental rights as a union member. Unless you take the time, right now, to go get your S.A.G. ballot and re-elect MembershipFirst, you could lose your right to vote.
A slate of actors has emerged calling themselves “Unite For Strength”, with an overwhelming majority of their candidates determined to implement “Qualified” or “Affected” voting on all future S.A.G. contracts. Regardless of what they are claiming TODAY, if this group gains control of S.A.G.’s national board, they will start the “qualified/affected” voting policy in motion. Since February 2008, they have dedicated their energies in collecting signatures for their “Qualified Voting Petition.” They’ve proudly and publicly touted their list of supporters, including the names of very high profile actor/producers. They and their supporters have signed a petition that would end democracy in the Screen Actors Guild and create a ‘class system’ between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’.
The AMPTP, ( the group that represents our largest employers/producers) have publicly endorsed “Qualified Voting”. In their opinion, too many actors are voting on S.A.G. contracts. Clearly the AMPTP has something to gain if fewer members are allowed to vote: The potential of all contracts, no matter how weak, being ratified by a greatly diminished voting pool.
Many of the actors who signed the “qualified/affected” voting petition are themselves producers with very successful production companies. That’s clearly a conflict of interest.
It is safe to assume that strong and determined unionists like Crystal Lee Sutton, (the real ‘Norma Rae’) would never support “Qualified”/”Affected” voting. She would know that any proposed plan to disqualify a member’s right to vote would weaken the power of a union and its members. With regard to the Screen Actors Guild, the “qualified/affected” voting proposal, proudly advocated by “Unite For Strength” and their supporters, would deny 75% of S.A.G.’s membership the right to vote on our most important contracts. Those who will be most impacted by ‘affected’ voting are the same S.A.G. members who are having the hardest time getting hired- namely performers of color, seniors, performers with disabilities and woman over the age of 35. I firmly believe that the real ‘Norma Rae’ would never support any policy as divisive, as elitist and as discriminatory as “qualified/affected” voting. I’m confident that she, nor any other strong union activists like her, would ever support the inherent divisiveness of positions “Unite For Strength” advocates.
The proposed “qualified/affected” voting plan goes against not only the very essence of “unionism”, but it is also based on a false premise.
There is absolutely NO evidence that struggling actors vote any differently than those who are LUCKY enough to work consistently, particularly when it comes to contracts.
MembershipFirst is, and has always been, against “qualified” or “affected” voting. That’s one of the reasons why they have my complete support. They have consistently fought for all actors, regardless of earning levels. From A-Lister to up and comers, MembershipFirst has and will continue to keep their eyes on the prize and work diligently for all of the members of the greatest talent union in the world.
Please join me in voting for the entire MembershipFirst slate as listed below.
In solidarity,
Martin Sheen
—
From MIKE FARRELL
“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 – www.uniteforstrength.com – and vote, in addition, for two independent candidates, Morgan Fairchild and Susan Boyd Joyce.
Respectfully,
Mike Farrell
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


You know, in just about every version of these little tiffs (be it in politics, sports, etc.), I often find that one side lays out analysis and talks to one as if they have a brain, while the other side resorts to name-calling and jingoism, and talk at you like you’re a moron. Usually it’s because they want you to vote against your best interests and hope to provoke an emotional response rather than a considered one. I leave it to you to decide which is which in this case.
Wow. I’m glad I never got bit by the acting bug.
Well, I hope the Unite For Strength actors take over the Hollywood Board, and I really hope this strike gets underway. Then maybe we’ll start seeing some new, fresh talent in indie films, as the marginalized actors ditch their “union.” I’m tired of seeing the same familiar faces, over and over again.
Is there really a faction within a union that marginalizes its own members based on how much work they’re getting? While fighting against another faction within that union which invests hundreds of thousands of dollars to sway votes in other unions? Seriously, that sounds like such a bad movie plot.
Nick Counter is a friggin genius. And I’m sooo glad I never got bit by the acting bug…
I just don’t know about this Unite for Strength” crowd. I don’t know if they can get the job done.
Because if there really needs to be a slate opposing the Membership First crowd, it would be best to find candidates with dual membership in SAG and the DGA. Then if they got in, there’d be no possible doubt as to how fucked we are.
But for all their tough talk, I just don’t know if this “Unite for Strength” faction is as anti-actor as they need to be to hammer that final nail in the SAG coffin.
Martin Sheen-
I respect your contributions to the many social causes with which you give your time and energy to fight for, but I have to take issue with some of your statements here.
First, the theme of your letter seems to center around “qualified voting” as if thats the only issue here. It is much larger than that. It’s about the fact that there is no contract and the way in which the negotiations were handled and the current state of affairs.
You use the words that you ASSUME what :Crystal Lee Sutton, (the real ‘Norma Rae’)” would say as her position and further state, “I’m confident that she, nor any other strong union activists like her, would ever support the inherent divisiveness of positions “Unite For Strength” advocates”. Well, what would she say about actors unions fighting other actors unions? I don’t buy it.
Also you make several references to Norma Rae as an iconic figure for unionism. If you remember in the film, she organized WORKING labor. She organized people that made 100% of their livings at that factory. There were no VANITY garment workers there. I find it a stretch to borrow this and relegate it to archetypal cliche.
If 75% of SAG was out of work because of a labor dispute and someone wanted to enact qualified voting then I would agree it was gerrymandering. That is simply not the case here. Every other unions dues are high enough that if you don’t make your living from that work, then being in that union is not financially viable.
You state, “There is absolutely NO evidence that struggling actors vote any differently than those who are LUCKY enough to work consistently, particularly when it comes to contracts.” That may be right or wrong. What is correct is that if you don’t support yourself with union work, a vote to strike will not put you in immediate financial jeopardy, and that is undeniable. Further you seem concerned that the voting pool would be greatly diminished. How is this relevant when all you need is a majority within the union and the actual numbers of voters does not have bearing on ratification? Also it goes against your claim that everyone votes the same anyway.
I am sorry but your arguments and statement contradict each other. You have made this about a sound byte style politics, “qualified voting” and that just smacks of ROVE style strategies, i.e. gay marriage, terrorists, abortion…
I would hope that SAG members know that no issue is black and white and plays out in a single sound byte.
Oh, Mike. You didn’t really just try to compare Membership First to al-Qaeda, did you?
“It’s awful to watch this storied organization be highjacked and flown into a building.”
Wow, you did.
FAIL!
Well, we’ve seen what the narrow few, aka the Dirty 30 (and exclusion) did for the WGA: it forced them (by threat to undercut their negotiation strategy and go out on their own) to accept a less then stellar deal (in fact, the deal is pure crap). And we’ve seen what the DGA (aka the ugly Twin Sister to AFTRA) does: it accepts whatever crumbs the AMPTP tosses its way. And now this.
What’s needed is STRENGTH. But NOT United for Strength’s brand–it’s a cowardly stand. What’s needed is UNITY, the kind of unity that Membership First has proposed.
If any actor chooses United for Strength, you can bet it won’t be long before they’ll be wondering where their union went. And I’ll be here to tell them where to look: inside the hip pocket of the AMPTP.
I’m not a fan of how Membership First has handled things, but Unite For Strength doesn’t seem much better.
“It’s awful to watch this storied organization be highjacked and flown into a building.”
Nice 9/11 metaphor, Mike Farrell. Classy.
I guess it’s better than watching a storied organization “stripped naked, shaved and gassed” or “gang-raped and ethnically cleansed” or perhaps “blindfolded and beheaded on video tape.”
I’m not a member of SAG, but I say vote for whomever is this guy ISN’T supporting.
I find it contradictory that after Mr. Farrell either alluded to or outright referred to “MembershipFirst” proponents as terrorists, lunatics, liars, instigators, Rove clones, braggarts, playground bullies, narcissists, maladjusted megalomaniacs, and any other characterizations I missed; his choice of closing was “Respectfully.”
“…It’s awful to watch this storied organization be highjacked and flown into a building.”
I’m sorry — Did Farrell just insinuate that the opposing faction within his union is not unlike Al Quaeda, and compare the crumbling of SAG due to inept management to the most destructive terrorist attack and mass-murder on US soil??
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.
Here’s the link to the qualified voting petition:
http://www.workingactorsvoice.com/
It just gets better and better. And the only union with the potential power to actually blaze a victory over the AMPTP devils is simply obsessed with devouring itself.
The anger of “The Crazies”,a great Romero film by the way,is in direct proportion to the screwing that actors have been given by the producers over the past twenty five years.Enhanced residual payments for cable and then video tapes and DVDs were never forthcoming from those “new mediums” (relative to their growth and profitability) as suggested they would be by the producers and even more annoyingly by past negotiating committees of SAG.Has SAG been an effective union given it’s sorry track record in these critical areas? I don;t think so.For Mike to point to the obvious failures of the past to bolster an arguement for replacing “The Crazies” is,well…crazy.
Well, 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 who represent us.
What Mike is referring to are attempts 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 in 2002 there was another attempt that would have also allowed agents to be owned by studios and/or production entities. This next attempt 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 and AFTRA National Boards. (The vote was some 180 to 0)
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 (annually) in 2000 and is worth $800 million (annually) 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 commercials
And 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”.
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 Scripted 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. Also, 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 made-for New Media. (This means Universal, MGM, Sony, Disney, Warner Bros., 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 their own P&H contribution.
* No protection for forced endorsements. Actors have no rights to say NO to doing embedded commercials. (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 in New Media. 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 than 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.
- David Jolliffe
Did Mike Farrell seriously just use 9\11 as a metaphor in his bitter and misleading screed?
Seriously?
I like Mike farrell. I do. But comparing this turn of events to 9-11? Really? Seriously?
Despite the fact that the Unite for Strength Slate has disavowed it, here’s what I put to Mr. Sheen and all others not in favor of Affected Member Voting.
I pay State of Califorina taxes just like I pay union dues, but I don’t get to vote on San Diego politics, because I don’t live in San Diego, just like I don’t vote the Commercial Contract (which I’m sent anyway), because I never done a commercial (though not by choice). California is run as a democracy and SAG is run as a democracy, yet no one cries foul when we can’t vote in every election in the state, but listen to the hew and cry when someone suggests that only those affected by a particular contract should be allowed to vote on it.
Our democracy is rife with “affected member voting”. I’m a US citizen, but I can’t vote in Arizona politics. I can’t vote in Republican primaries because I’m a Democrat. I live in LA County, but I can’t vote on LA City politics because I don’t live there.
The “it’s the democratic way” argument doesn’t hold water. Why would you want someone who’s never worked a particular contract, who’s livelihood is not affected by the contract, who might even have a direct conflict with the contract to be able to vote on it? It makes no sense.
The rhetoric against AMV flies in the face of the fact that it’s written into the SAG constitution. Look for yourself. So how could it “go against the very essence of ‘unionism”. And remember, this only involves contracts. It’s not about elections, strike votes, general referenda, dues hike, the SAG awards, or anything else. It’s about defining a passage in the Constitution that was put there for a reason.
As regards “performers of color, seniors, performers with disabilities and woman over the age of 35″. What’s interesting here is that, though many of these group are under represented in production, in terms of average days worked in a given group (such as those with disabilities) that average is actually above that of the average SAG member. (This information can be found on the SAG website) So there is reason to believe that many of the groups would be ‘over-represented’ in an AMV environment. I can’t say it would be true for women over 35, for example, but the point is the blanket statement that minorities will be under-represented in patently false.
And to imply as you do in your penultimate paragraph that the only one slate would fight for every performers “regardless of earning levels. From A-Lister to up and comers”, seems a little disingenuous. The U4S slate is made up of members with the same integrity as yourself and have no less a commitment to the betterment of contracts for all than those in power now.
I have great respect for you Mr. Sheen, and the work you’ve done as well as the positions you’ve taken over the years. And it is with this respect that I would urge you to take a second look at your position on this. And at those who may have given you false information.
–Todd Waring
“It’s awful to watch this storied organization be highjacked and flown into a building.”
How can you possibly compare the death and destruction of 9/11 to a group of actors you disagree with?
Classy. Use a 9/11 metaphor to trash Membership First. Kinda bitter and crazy. And I guess by association, so is Unite For Strength. Nice PR work.
ugh. the aftra deal sucks AND Membership First is crazy.
this whole thing is a mess and will it ever get resolved?
there’s still no contract? how long can this go on?
while MF has great points about this contract i don’t think you can deny that they’ve screamed and shouted and alienated themselves into a place where nobody really, erm, likes them. and they’ve lost pretty much ALL of their credibility even within their own rank and file.
i can’t get away from the thought that if there were different personalities asking for the same things MF is asking for they’d have gotten further than this.
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.
Farrell has no credibility whatsoever – he has shown himself to be anti-actor in all Screen Actors Guild issues in which he participated, wrote insultingly angry attacks, name-calling and raging at people who thought differently than he when he had the house organs as First VP. You think I’m making this up? Read his First VP Reports! Farrell may act like an activist in public, but the face he reveals 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.
UPDATE! Just found out ufs put out a press release that they are taking the Qualified Voting plank out of their campaign. (Guess it finally dawned on them that no members would vote for them if they were threatening to take those member’s votes on contracts away.)
So, what do they have left, since they have gathered so many sexy names for their Big List of Working Actors? Hmmm, what to do with this Big List? Morph into Merging …..Merge with Broadcasters and Disk Jockeys and Weathermen! Yeah! That makes total sense – just like “Vote for U4S so we can take your vote away!” Now, all of a sudden, they support non actors voting on acting contracts. Wow. From excluding their fellow actors from voting, to opening the floodgates to people who don’t act for a living.
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 TV 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 Mike Farrell because he has a reputation for being a an activist, or because they liked him in Mash, without seeing the whole picture. Separate the fact from the illusion, folks.
Concerning affected member voting, we’ve been down this road before. Todd Waring offers the same arguments in favor that he offered months ago. Links to those discussions accompany my posts from the period at my blog.
We discussed potential exposure to class-action lawsuits and federal labor action because no AMV proposal could avoid disproportionately disenfranchising actors of color, women, and actors with disabilities. We discussed the potential damage to SAG’s coffers if thousands of alienated actors suddenly went Fi-Core. We discussed how different blocs of actors might vote – that went nowhere, because there’s never been a decent study done of actor voting patterns in SAG elections. AMV proponents even asked why Les Moonves should get to vote on a SAG contract. That situation, though, might be better-solved by a conflict-of-interest test. The monkey wrench to that solution is that any conflict-of-interest threshold for actor/producers would disenfranchise most A-listers and even AMV proponent and UFS candidate Amy Brenneman. Clearly, that idea was a non-starter.
Some of us opposed to disenfranchisement from contract voting argued that every current paid-up SAG member is an “affected” member, because they have demonstrated their professionalism by acquiring SAG work and their interest in continuing to work by paying their dues. IOW, every paid-up member has the potential to work the contract. Ron Livingston also argued persuasively that the contract binds not only the actor and the employer, but the six actors behind the actor who got the job because they’re agreeing to abide by the contract as well.
Todd, even Unite for Strength knows AMV is not a winning issue. Even though their group was formed out of the AMV campaign, they ran away from it faster than WC Fields from a glass of water. All Mr. Sheen is saying is that this zebra ain’t changed its stripes, its protests notwithstanding. Your rehashing pro-AMV arguments only reminds us how recently Ned Vaughn and Ms. Brenneman argued so passionately for actor disenfranchisement.
I bet Todd Waring’s facts will get in the way of everyone’s feelings. Facts can really suck when you don’t agree with them. Or (from the John Adams mini-series): “Facts can be stubborn things.”
“i can’t get away from the thought that if there were different personalities asking for the same things MF is asking for they’d have gotten further than this.”
Correct, troy, because “different personalities” would know HOW TO NEGOTIATE.
The art of negotiation is dependent half on intellect (what to go for) and half on personality (how to go for it).
MF “personalities” just can’t seem to own up to their own, erm, shortcomings.