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 … 
MF’s Jo Beth Williams has asked me to post this reply to U4S leader Ned Vaughn per my, SAG Election: ‘Unite For Strength’ Slate Releases ‘Membership First’ Emails:
“When the issue of Qualified/Affected Voting was brought to my attention several months ago, I was interested in knowing more about it. I had always been concerned with what I perceive as a conflict of interest when S.A.G. members who make their living as producers, with active production companies, are allowed to vote on S.A.G. contracts. But after taking a considerable amount of time vetting the issue, I came to the conclusion that Qualified/Affected Voting would not be appropriate for S.A.G. members, given the ups and downs of the actor’s life. To disenfranchise so many, just to exclude so few, is not fair and would diminish the strength of our union. This is one of the reasons I fully support Martin Sheen’s August 21st letter to the membership.”
JoBeth Williams
Screen Actors Guild National Board Member
Loading ...
You know what this says to me? This says that qualified/affected voting is the only issue that MF has. That’s why they were so spooked by the initial email.
It’s called a “red herring.”
Keep talking about QV/AV and that way they don’t have to talk about the real issue of the election: whether or not a merger makes sense.
God, I hope MF is defeated soundly in this up coming election. They are so divisive and self-destructive and they’re trying to take us all down with them.
Smart people seek answers, ask informed questions. Sometimes, they lean one direction or another on a particular issue. But because they’re intelligent enough to think for themselves and want to make sure they make the right choices–they constantly evaluate what they believe they know. They do this to make informed decisions. It appears Jo Beth Williams is not only a smart woman, but is honest and forthright enough to make her decision process public.
I applaud her for being brave enough to make her decision process public. You don’t have to agree or disagree with Ms. Williams, just recognize her act of being intelligent.
And it doesn’t hurt that she’s also on the right side of QEV issue.
this is all such fucking adolescent bullshit. people are dying in iraq and afghanistan and we’re arguing about qualified fucking voting.
sag needs to fucking cowboy up, cut the anti-mf smack, unite behind our guy and get some shit done. enough with the ny mouth breathers and the branch girl scouts.
you want money when you work? you want a pension? you want residuals? you want to make a living?
if we need to strike to get our rights, then let’s get it the fuck over with.
is anybody out there telling me they’re actually afraid of peter-fucking-chernin?
law of the jungle time. sag strong? aftra weak, punk-ass cowards?
let’s go get ‘em.
Have to admit that I’m a bit disappointed with the myopic scope of MF and its supporters. Really, if you’re going to lie about U4S’s positions because you have NO plan yourself and you’ve been a dismal failure for years now, why limit yourself to the hackneyed lie that U4S is pursuing AMV? How about something like, “U4S plans to kill your babies!” or “U4S wants to surrender to the terrorists!” Surely, that would raise emotions even higher, get more people hysterical and indignant and be a wonderful reason for people to slit their own wri… um, I mean – re-elect MF.
Here’s what I don’t understand: I looked it up and affected membership voting on contracts is written into the SAG constitution. Here’s the relevant part, “…all collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.” Those last two words ‘affected thereby’ are key. If the constitution read, “… for ratification to the membership.” then we’d know that it was meant to be voted on by everyone. But that’s not what’s written. Those last two words indicate that affected members should vote on specific contracts that are relevant to them. Pretty straightforward. And here’s where it gets really interesting.
Know who the biggest practitioners of Affected Membership Voting are? Not U4S – those dastardly evil baby-killing commies. Nope. It’s actually Membership First. That’s right. If you’re a SAG member, ask yourself (and demand of Membership First) when was the last time you received a SAG Stunts contract ballot? Anyone? Okay, how about a SAG Animation contract ballot? I’d put good money down that it’s only a tiny minority of the SAG members out there because right now most SAG members don’t receive these ballots UNLESS THEY’VE WORKED THOSE SPECIFIC CONTRACTS. That’s AMV, folks, and that’s the way it’s been done for years on just about every single SAG contract! For MF to raise a hissy fit that U4s wants to pursue a practice that MF has been quietly practicing already for years is the height of hypocrisy! Does no one else see this? What I do see, however, is U4S taking the high road and not making crazy claims that Alan Rosenberg and MF are disenfranchising you of your right to vote on Stunts Contracts. They’re classier. They don’t insult our intelligence by repeatedly screaming the same lies.
I live in California. I don’t get to vote on local matters for Wyoming, Alaska or Nebraska. I do, however, get to vote on California and Federal ballots. That’s what AMV is. MF has been practicing it for years on just about every contract (except for TV/Theatrical and Commercials) and is trying to scare you about the evil, wicked, slimy, unpatriotic U4S group who want to destroy democracy and disenfranchise you of your right as a Californian to vote on Wyoming’s ballots.
Know who else uses AMV? Just about every labor union in America. But what do they know, right? I think the Alans know what’s best! SAG is for Actors only, right? Yeah! Um, never mind that SAG has various non-actor components as well. If SAG is for actors only, what about the background artists, the singers, the stunt workers, etc… Alan, are you going to kick them out of SAG because they’re not “true” actors? Or are you going to keep them in because you know that there’s strength in numbers? What’s fascinating is that MF would have you believe that actors really have more in common with stunt coordinators (whom I admire) than newscasters who every day get into makeup, wardrobe, read a script and perform to a camera for the same 6 powerful entities that employ actors as well. See the continuation of hypocrisy here? This is a fast-moving industry and change is at its core. We performers must ADAPT and keep up with the industry or we will surely be further divided into little bite-sized mini-unions to be devoured by the AMPTP. Keep on defending the typewriter, MF. Pay no attention to those computer type thingies on the horizon. Maybe you could put out a flyer saying that U4S is trying to end the 75 years of proud typewriters by destroying the industry with these new evil computers.
There’s strength in numbers. You don’t see Disney trying to split up from Warner and FOX to negotiate separately. Why? Maybe because their Business Affairs folks and attorneys understand that for all their differences, what they share in common (creating media content for profit) far outweighs those differences. Together, the AMPTP is much stronger than its individual components. When will performers understand that as long as they’re divided, their minor differences pale in comparison to what they share in common – performing content for those 6 mega-corporations. When will we actors finally wise up, fight the AMPTP’s fire with fire, and unite for strength? Oh wait, that’s now.
How long has this laungage been in the Constition? After all that time all the Boards over those years has felt that all members were “affected”. So what is different now?
hey SAG guy
you know what this WHOLE thing says to me?
it says that unite for strength was formed as a way to push forward their
AMV agenda and when they figured out that nobody likes the idea , they put it on the back burner. they haven’t come out and said,
“Okay it was a bad idea.” no, they still think it has merit, but they realize they have to get elected before they can do anything.
so now they’re all about merger. but they haven’t put forth any ideas about how to do that. because they don’t have any ideas about it. they’re just going to repeat MERGE over and over again until it becomes a catch phrase and loses it’s meaning.
in the 2003 attempt AFTRA refused to give up it’s culture in the proposed merger. things like, union presidents being selected at conventions, as AFTRA’s president is, rather than being elected by the membership. sorry that’s not going to work. i want to vote for whomever i think should lead my union.
is MF divisive because it says the contract that’s being offered is harmful to you and all actors?
are we divisive because we believe this contract is a blueprint for the elimination of residuals, residuals that you and 95% of the rest of us actors will need?
the real issue of this election is the contract and how we are the only union left standing trying to get a better deal
Membership First wants all actor’s in one union.
we just don’t want to destroy SAG in the process.
sg
nobody has to lie about U4S’s positions.
they paint themselves into corners with bold statements and then try
to back pedal out of it by saying, “Hey1 We’re all about merger now!”
but they don’t put forth one idea about how to do it.
the whole broadcster/stunt coordinator/ hypocrisy thing?
yeah if if worked as an actor on a NEWS program, i guess i would have more in common with a newscaster than a stuntperson. but i work on movies and television shows, so i work with stunt people, closely, on a regular basis. so that idea is sort of dumb.
all actors in one union is a great idea.
as soon as you start representing too many groups your power is diluted and you are NOT stronger at the negotiating table.
if the baseball players and football players and hockey players
were all represented by one union, it would not benefit any of them.
“But they’re all sports guys!” yeah with different needs.
just remember (this is for people other than SG) that U4S was formed as a way to push forward the AMV agenda, no matter what they say now.
you know who else approves of the AMV idea? the AMPTP.
now why would they want that? because a small group is easier to control.
then SG might say “Well that’s why we have to merge. there will be more of us.”
but every SAG member needs to think long and hard about merging
50/50 with a union that goes for the easy, weak deal EVERY TIME.
I say nice intelligent short response from Ms. Williams.
OH “SG” !!!!!
i did a little research and guess what i found out?
THERE IS NO “STUNT” CONTRACT. oops. guess that’s why no one, including you, has received a “STUNT” contract to vote on.
the stunt provisions are in the Basic Codified Agreement.
it’s an agreement that IN TOTAL affects a “substantial portion” of the membership. and that’s why everyone gets to vote on it.
you brought up the constitution? well let’s go to:
ARTICLE II Section 1
which says when a contract affects a “substantial portion” of the membership, everyone is entitled to vote on it.
ARTICLE II Section 2
which says when there is a contract that does NOT affect a substantial
portion of the membership, it is not sent out for a vote, but rather approved by the National Executive Committee or the board.
an example of THIS would be the ANIMATION contract.
so that’s why you haven’t been able to vote on THAT.
because no one does.
so i’m sorry if you’ve been waiting to vote on a “STUNT CONTRACT”.
but if you have voted on any other contract you have voted on the stunt provisions therein.
so you should feel good about that.
do better homework buddy.
SG,
You’re right on the money! Glad to see someone finally get to the core of this.
SP
Roughly six months ago, when the SAG/AFTRA stuff that UFS is now SO upset about was actually going down, where were the actors who are now UFS candidates? Most are likely dual cardholders. Did even one of these candidates raise their voice, even once, to ask AFTRA to do as they promised and stick with Phase One after they smoked the peace pipe with SAG over at the AFL-CIO?
The UFS candidates couldn’t be bothered. All but three or four – spearheaded by Ned Vaughn and Amy Brenneman – were too busy heavily pushing Affected Member Voting.
Their very public campaign on an entirely unrelated issue, while SAG leadership was admittedly busy, is the classic definition of a red herring.
Fast-forward to August, and the UFS slate, which was born out of the AMV campaign, is now asking actors to believe that they have no interest in pursuing AMV??? It strains credulity, especially as not one candidate on the UFS slate has repudiated AMV. Their own letter, in reference to AMV, says, “Regardless of its merits….”
UFS still believes in AMV; they made a tactical political decision to not pursue it at this time because they sense that AMV is rather unpopular.
Far from being a red herring, it’s fairer to ask if UFS is running a stealth campaign. Do they plan to pursue AMV if elected by claiming the political climate has changed again?
UFS intentionally skipped any mention of AMV in their little manifesto apparently because they were hoping nobody would notice. Next they claimed it was non-issue. When asked about it, UFS candidate Steve Tom reiterated his personal support for AMV. Only after further pressure did the UFS slate implicitly state their continued support for the idea while they denying they intended to pursue it. When pressed further, Mr. Vaughn released a pair of private emails – bad form, sir – and Ms. Brenneman has publicly mischaracterized JoBeth Williams’ position on AMV.
Not even a single UFS candidate has ever held SAG elective office, so the slate has no track record of service whatsoever to run on. All we SAG voters have to judge them by is how they’re running their campaign. As of right now, that pretty much speaks for itself.
All members are affected, because all members have to work a SAG contract to get into the union.
From another thread a little farther down the page:
>>To the comment that the current Board is ineffective in it’s actions: in the past three years MF leadership has opened Board meetings to rank and file membership for greater transparency, formed an Organizing Department for the first time in our 75 year history, formed an emerging technology department, negotiated the first Basic Cable improvements in 25 years, worked to pass tax incentives across the country to bring work back to America, promulgated over 600 internet contracts, helped to defeat a draconian indecency bill that would have saddled every American citizen with a potential $500,000 liability, forged a better than ever working relationship between staff and elected, gotten your residuals delivered to you in thirty days, improved our web site, started i-actor, negotiated pension and health improvements. We also hired perhaps the best NED this union has ever seen. We are also the only ones who have stayed in the negotiating room long enough to uncover just how devastating the AMPTP’s plans for new media will be to actors now and in the future. MF has accomplished all this and much , much more. Not only has MF leadership been highly effective, they have been heroic against extraordinary odds. Learn before you blog.
Comment by jerseykid — August 24, 2008 @ 1:33 pm<<
Harry98,
Thanks for proving my point.
The only people talking about QV/AV are the people of MF. No one has proposed it. No one else is talking about it. It’s being done to deflect attention away from the completely inept way MF has handled our guild.
It’s nothing more than a “red herring” and you know it. It’s just too bad you don’t have the courage to admit as much.
MF is desperate, that much is absolutely certain.
I appreciate Amy B’s input but:
The most important issue is not addressed from either side:
Runaway production.
Ten years ago I saw the work pouring out of California and contacted SAG’s then president about it — nothing was done. His response to me was “I have to get to an audition.” Totally true. Ten years from NOW production will be virtually gone from my home state California and I suspect from the better part of the United States.
I have recently contacted our governor about this problem and his response is “I’m for it, but my hands are tied because The Assembly in Sacramento is against it. This is the beginning of the end for California. It’s the beginning of our state as a welfare state.
SG (on mf’s “scare tactics”)
“U4S wants to surrender to the terrorists!”
Mike Farrell says Membership First are terrorists who want to “highjack the membership and fly them into a building.”
So, does that mean U4S wants to surrender to Membership First?
We accept.
(and, someone, please, get Mike back on his meds)
SAG guy
U4S was formed to promote AMV. it was their reason for being.
then they realized that it’s not a popular idea.
it’s important to remember that these folks were/are all for limiting the voting on contracts to the people who are lucky enough to have steady employment,
because it’s a selfish, arrogant, elitist idea that is wrong on every level.
they say that merger will solve all of our problems, but they don’t have a plan, not one idea as how to go about getting that done.
let’s hear their ideas. how about you SAG guy?
gotta plan?
they say that they want everything that allen and rosenberg are fighting for and more! and that MF has bungled these negotiations.
but they don’t say what they would have done differently or would do now if they were sitting across the table from the AMPTP.
because they don’t know what to do.
if we had merged in 2003, we would be stuck with this lame contract that AFTRA has so proudly accepted. a contract that U4S itself says is unacceptable. i
t wasn’t even as if AFTRA said, “Hey we did the best we could. We didn’t have any leverage.”
no they think it’s great. they call it “GROUNDBREAKING”
this contract that has huge non-union loopholes and could very well eliminate residuals ,,, they think it’s great.
MF is desperate?
here’s a desperate move: sending out two private e-mails that don’t even support the accusations and say,
“Look, there are two people on the other side who wanted to know more about our bad idea. ”
what is U4S saying? about anything?
it’s all,” MF is to blame for everything. we’re the good guys. merge.”
not specific. vague. lame.
To red eye:
“We also hired perhaps the best NED this union has ever seen. ”
This is truly laughaable, Doug Allen has presided over us having NO leverage whatsoever right now. If you think this person from the NFL with no background in entertainment and understanding of this industry is the best our union has ever seen you have obiviously just joined sag. I would say with most of the actors I encounter now, as we talk about our lack of a contract since June 30th and the when things will change, that most feel he is part of the problems we are having not the solution that he should be. A great negotiator just does not get into this position and not map out what to do if he/she does.
T-Rex,
You’ve got one line from one actor in one letter to complain about. We’ve got ten years of inept leadership.
Nice try. It’s just more deflections, more “red herrings.”
harry 98,
Wrong. U4S was formed to unite actors into one union (at the very least come together during negotiations with mutual respect), thus giving us a fighting chance in negotionations against the producers/studios, who wisely have come together to form a single negotiating entity.
How you think any union/labor organization can survive (much less thrive) in a divided way is baffling. Perhaps someone should teach you the concept of “solidarity” and how it works.
This is Labor Politics 101 here.
MF, which came together on the premise that past leaders weren’t tough enough, have failed at every level to deliver anything that they have promised. They routinely cut off their nose to spite their face and it affects the rest of us members of SAG who have to live with the consequences of their inept leadership. So instead of changing tactics, they’ve decided to go on this “scortched earth” strategy against anyone who might disagree with those tactics. Be it SAG in NYC, the branches, AFTRA, you name it.
AV is just a red herring to cover up for the fact that MF has been, and continues to be, a categorical failure on every level.
You know this, but refuse to admit the truth. That says a lot about you and the reason why your precisious MF must go: they refuse to listen to reason or to anyone else.
harry98,
One more thing…
If we had merged in 2003 SAG would now control AFTRA making any side agreement moot since it would never have taken place from the outset.
What a nonsensical argument that was.
Only a member of MF would think that the minority AFTRA would hold any upper hand against the mighty SAG. The majority rules Harry, in this case that means SAG.
Then again, as a member of MF you’re probably use to the idea where a small minority gets to rule over the majority.
SAG guy?
if U4S came together to unite both unions and have the unions
‘at least come together during negotiations with mutual respect’,
where were they when all that stuff was being hashed out in the late winter and early spring? why didn’t they weigh in and try
to smooth over the situation
OH THAT’S RIGHT! at that time they were busy pushing their
lame-assed AMV proposal. that was consuming all their time.
nobody buys the “AMV IS NOT THE REASON WE CAME TOGETHER”
bullshit, SAG guy.
and if we had merged under the 2003 proposal, we would have had one big AFTRA.
AFTRA was loathe to relinquish any of it’s culture and it would have been a 50/50 deal.
and in that situation it only takes one guy like you to push things
down the road of ‘let’s just go along to get along’.
i don’t want to strike.
but as SAG members today, we are standing on the backs of people who came before us and fought for things like health care,
pension plan, and residuals.
the studios never gave us any of that stuff out of the kindness of their hearts. and given a half a chance? they will take it all back.
and i don’t think that AFTRA holds an “UPPER HAND” against SAG.
i think everything that AFTRA has done is rather UNDERHANDED.
where is AFTRA’s solidarity in all this? they blew it.
“I don’t want to strike”
harry98,
Nothing is more pathetic than someone making threats they can’t back up. If MF were to threaten a strike the whole industry would laugh at you. Stop looking for monsters under your bed and accept responsibility for the fact that MF’s abrasive attitude turned many people away and now they are left without any leverage to carry out an effective negotiation. That is what happened.
MF had one strategy and one strategy only: to put off negotiations as long as possible and use the threat of a last minute strike to win concessions. They repeatedly disrespected AFTRA (as they have done so for YEARS now) and as a consequence AFTRA negotiated with the producers on their own, thus undermining SAG’s very strategy.
Negotiations by way of blackmail doesn’t make you strong or tough, it makes you stupid. It’s stupid because typically, as was the case here, you’ve backed yourself into a corner with no means of escape if things go awry. So don’t wimp out now and lay the blame on AFTRA or others for – gasp – having the temerity to refuse to jump off the same cliff you’re willing to jump off. You have no one to blame but yourself here.
As a consequence we, the members of SAG, have been working without a contract for two months and will almost certainly get a terrible deal thanks to the styles and methods of MF. All the complaints about AFTRA or the DGA or the WGA accepting “bad deals” will pale in comparison to the crap sandwich we at SAG are about to eat thanks to you and your friends.
Well done MF, you rock!
No one disagrees with some of the concessions MF seeks like internet and DVD residuals. I support that strongly. It’s the methods that you use which undermine the very goals you seek to accomplish. Everyone can see this except for self-serving members of MF who can’t see that they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
So keep playing your “red herring” game if you so desire. I understand that it’s all you have left.
Sag guy
what methods would you use to get the concessions MF wants.
that you want.
that we all want.
what would you do?
how would you go about closing this deal?
I would stop all the boogeyman nonsense and unite with AFTRA, and possibly with the WGA and DGA to form a single negotiating entity that would get us favorable outcomes on residuals and other issues where we share a common interest.
There is strength in unity. A concept MF is unwilling to acknowledge.
After all, that beats incessant whining about the deals they accept on their own, doesn’t it?