SAG Board Slates To Be Web-Interviewed

COMMENTS (4)

• Well the Ned Vaughn interview is done (and as I write this I am awaiting the start of the David Joliffe and Anne-Marie Johnson) The video technology at Ustream is embarassingly bad (watched it live…only 30 people showed up to watch Ned Vaughn live which says Handel didn’t get the word out too well)…the stuttering and audio synching are nothing like the NowLive technology United Hollywood used to great effect and it’s an embarassment to someone who calls himself a ‘technology lawyer’ to be using something so glitchy.

  Content-wise to me Vaughn seemed pretty underprepared and uninformed. But you all can have a look for yourselves at:
  http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/666600

  Comment by WhyWeWatch — Wednesday August 27, 2008 @ 3:53pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Can we get a real dialog going about this? Do union members not understand how shady AFTRA is, now that they’re promoting these idiot stars and little known actors who are fronting themselves as “Unite for Strength”? Where have people’s heads gone? Is everyone looking to sell out SAG and make the actors union collapse altogether? Please read the following article that’s being passed around. Current and former board members of SAG know the real truth. What’s listed below is what AFTRA DOESN’T want you to know. Shady little assholes!!! Warning, do not read unless you truly want to know just how badly AFTRA is in over their heads.
  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  Make up your own mind by reading all of this factual information. Everything below can be proven with papers from either SAG or AFTRA themselves. Admittedly this is long and full of information that most actors would prefer not to read, but it is the ignorance of the facts that cause errors in understanding.

  There’s a LOT of misrepresentation going on from one of the groups running for the SAG Board, especially about the “solution” being a merger with AFTRA. Ignorance of the facts is not something reserved just for the voters.

  Merger is not the answer for SAG members. It solves all the problems AFTRA has but will cost SAG members dearly.

  The first merger was defeated in 1999 by a majority vote of the membership even though SAG leadership was given a budget of $100,000 of your dues money to sell the plan. Still over fifty percent of the members chose not to go down this path. It came as a huge shock to the union leadership, including the executives.

  The second merger attempt was developed as a response to the undercutting of our digital contracts by AFTRA. Some of those contracts were paying as little as 25% of what (then) current SAG deals were paying. You might remember this as the (so-called) “Digital Divide.”

  While proponents try to claim that merger almost passed, you should remember that time around both unions (together) spent almost $5 Million dollars of your dues trying to sell you on this bad deal. Still it lost.

  Why? First, because the actors in Los Angeles, with over 60% of the union membership contributing 65% of all the work (in BOTH unions) would never have been allowed more than a 25% control of the new union. Numerically the actors in the entire country, with a constituency of close to 90% of ALL the membership, would always be denied the right to control their own futures. Democratically how can that be acceptable?

  But the plan was written way to keep AFTRA’s organization of Locals in operation. It’s a failing business system that supports as many as 35 individual locals throughout the country; each with their own constitution, Board of Directors and officers and each with the right to approve their own contracts.

  There can be no sound business argument that we need to pay the costs of supporting locals in 11 areas of the country that (at the time) had fewer than 100 dues current members. That’s right; almost a third of AFTRA’s locals had less than 100 dues paying members. Ask yourself if a Nationally based actor union really requires the costs involved of local representation in such cities as Stamford, Albany, Peoria, Buffalo, Sacramento/Stockton, Schenectady, Rochester, Fresno, Hawaii, New Orleans or Omaha?

  Additionally there were 13 more cities with fewer than 530 members (six of those with less than 300 members.) These included Denver , Houston , Phoenix , Portland , San Diego , Kansas City, Atlanta , Dallas/Ft.Worth, Detroit , St Louis , Cleveland , Pittsburgh , Miami , Tri State , Twin Cities , Seattle , and Nashville .

  That’s 24 out of 35 locals with nowhere near sufficient dues income to support the costs of local operation and still contribute support to the national body. If these locals aren’t paying their own way, then who do you think IS paying the freight if not the actors in Los Angeles ?

  As a result AFTRA’s net losses as a union continue. Last year, four years after that merger attempt and with plenty of time to change their operation, AFTRA (on federally mandated reports) indicated its Net Assets FELL from $13,028,254 dollars to $11,431,543 dollars for a LOSS of $1,596,711 Million dollars. That would be a loss of 12.25%.

  At the same time SAG’s report showed Net Assets for the Screen Actors Guild INCREASED from $18,504,061 dollars to $24,032,203 dollars (at an almost a 30% rate.) That’s a bottom line increase of more than $5.5 Million dollars (equivalent to almost half of AFTRA’s entire current net value.) You can understand why AFTRA leadership wants that money to do with as they please.

  While no intelligent business person considers merging with a failing business, especially one that is blackmailing you by undercutting our contracts, its small wonder that you are once again hearing the cries for another merger from the President of AFTRA herself.

  There are THREE fundamental differences in two unions:

  SAG is an actors union, while AFTRA has three constituencies; Actors, Broadcasters and Recording artists. For years the Broadcasters and the locals outside of LA has controlled that union.

  Second, as explained above, AFTRA is a Local based system with a National entity while SAG is a National based union with branches. But the problem isn’t just financial in supporting that structure. SAG believes that when an actor steps in front of a camera anywhere across the country on the same kind of productions they should be working for the same rates. That’s a key concern. You certainly shouldn’t be going from one show to another (produced and broadcast in the same way) wondering how much of a deal off of (hard won) SAG rates AFTRA allowed on the next show.

  And finally, AFTRA routinely allows their members to work on Non-Union productions. All you have to do is look at the latest deal they accepted for proof of this. Bear in mind, non union producers DON’T have to make payments in to the Health and Retirement funds.

  All this explains why they have negotiated the disastrous contracts they have been creating. They need the income from actors paying their dues, and new members joining, just to stay afloat. Yet when SAG leadership dares to demonstrate these differences in the contracts to their members, that leadership is called divisive and confrontational by members outside of Los Angeles . SAG has the right, albeit the obligation, to protect their working members.

  You also need to also understand that as long as AFTRA maintains these differences in their established rates, a merging of the two unions would allow the producers to pay AFTRA rates instead of SAG rates on all shows produced under a merged union. After all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to take their pick of either set of contracts? It’s a merger isn’t it?

  The best case scenario would require a new set of negotiations to establish new rates with a starting point being AFTRA’s reduced rates. Assuming the producers were kind, they would presumably only allow that settlement to be somewhere in the middle of AFTRA and SAG rates. They have no requirement to do more.

  Consider this latest deal that AFTRA negotiated included a whopping 3% increase. After splitting the difference in our contract rates (and some of those AFTRA deals are paying as little as 50% of SAG’s rates) how many years at 3% increases would it take for us to just climb back to where SAG rates are now.

  And why would the producers allow the union to bring back the residuals back AFTRA has given away? That’s over half your income which AFTRA has routinely eliminated from their contracts to steal productions.

  The only way to bypass this benefit for the producers is for AFTRA, PRIOR to a merger, to stop representing actors and allow those contracts to expire.

  Worse are the outright lies the leadership of the unions used to try to sell the last merger attempt. When serious questions about the health of AFTRA’s Pension developed in that campaign, the unions had no concern with outright misleading you about the truth.

  As a result the Producer Trustees of the SAG plan (both plans have equal representation shared between the Producers and the union reps) came forward and stated that they would never support a merging of the Pension plans. Immediately the union leaders condemned them for interfering with the union process. Yet most of these same trustees functioned as Trustees of the AFTRA plan as well. They completely understood the problems the AFTRA plan had.

  Trustees know full well that the Pension funds are entirely separate from union control. They and they alone control the decision making. A merging of the unions sold on the promise of a merging of the pension funds (which neither the Union Board of Directors nor the membership could force without their approval) was not one they could sit back and allow without comment. Fund trustees can be sued by the participants in those plans for failure to perform due diligence. It can be argued that if they allowed the union leadership to continue to mislead their members about a possible merging of the pension plans they could be held liable just for keeping their mouths shut.

  One of the primary goals of a single Actors Union is to have ALL of your earnings be credited to just one pension plan. But trustees of the plans told you that a merging of the plans would be a calamity for SAG pension participants.

  Remember–without a merging of the pension funds continued earnings from actor contracts will have to be paid into the AFTRA retirement fund to keep it afloat. That will always mean two sets of contracts supporting two separate pension plans. Do you believe a union Board of a merged union would sit back and allow one of the pension funds to go under? (Even though they have no control over the Pension funds themselves, they would have the right during negotiations to specify which retirement fund the contributions from any area of the contracts would be paid into.)

  That’s not what actors want or need.

  AFTRA’s PENSION TROUBLE

  The fundamental problem is that AFTRA’s retirement plan lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the stock market during 2000 through 2001. And despite their lies to the membership about the financial health of their plan, just 12 days after the merger was turned down the AFTRA plan announced they were petitioning the Federal government to be able to write off those losses for a longer period of time. That time frame is now 25 years.

  In simple terms, the AFTRA plan will still be writing off losses more than two decades after the money no longer exists. This allows them to continue to claim, at least on their books, hundreds of millions of dollars today that disappeared as much as eight years ago. If anyone tries to tell you that the AFTRA fund is fully funded ask them if this is with or without the losses they are still hiding on the books, and will be for fifteen (plus) more years.

  Again you can understand why AFTRA has gone out of its way to undercut SAG contracts. More acting work keeps actors paying their dues and joining their union which keeps all those locals open. But worse, to protect their own individual pensions, the AFTRA leadership continues to negotiate these destructive acting contracts because the reduced earnings from these ridiculous agreements mean that actors have even less chance to qualify for a pension of their own. When an actor can never qualify for the plan those pension contributions provide more money and security for themselves.

  Protecting the AFTRA retirement fund is ultimately what this merger talk is all about, even if those running for office have no idea.

  ACTORS CAN’T ACCEPT AFTRA’s DEAL

  As an actor you already understand the new AFTRA contract means the end to residuals under New Media (better referred to as NOW media.) How much money will you be making without more than fifty percent of your income in the future?

  That agreement loses your right to control your own image. Ask Disney or Warner Bros. how valuable the images of Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny are to their businesses. Yet AFTRA leaders accepted their demand that you give up the same rights.

  And even though it has been acceptable in AFTRA for their members to work both union and non-union, SAG members understand how important union maintenance over their Wages and Working conditions has been to protecting them when they work. Union contracts should mean union only jobs.

  The acceptance of this deplorable contract by AFTRA is exactly why SAG Hollywood has complained over the willingness of AFTRA representatives to give up better contracts during negotiations. AFTRA’s latest deal, and the recent support from New York to accept that deal, is the proof of the problems Hollywood based members in the negotiating rooms faced when they have been continually out voted for the last 25 years.

  While the TV/Theatrical contracts are worked primarily in Los Angeles , AFTRA reps and the rest of the country have continually sold out Hollywood . That’s exactly why SAG Hollywood wanted to negotiate without AFTRA reps in the room. And realistically, the end result has lost us nothing. With AFTRA voting in the room with SAG it would have been passed anyway. When AFTRA reps alone accepted their bad deal it only justified SAG leadership’s position and should have proved the case to any one who understands the process.

  A merger will NOT help that situation; it only makes the problems permanent. It allows AFTRA to rob the SAG treasury and SAG Pension fund to support their failed system and benefit their own pensions at your expense.

  By any measure that’s not a merger, that’s a take over.

  Regardless, merger is the primary platform one group is running on. Now knowing these facts, do you really think bringing AFTRA leadership into SAG’s is the answer? That leadership has allowed these ridiculous contracts that essentially sell out your future as an actor.

  2000 STRIKE

  Take a look at Susan Boyd Joyce’s statement in the voting guide where she indicates the 2000 commercial strike was a disaster. Despite her assertions, that strike was incredibly successful, although they don’t want you to know it. Here are the facts you can check out through the commercial department at SAG or by just reviewing the contracts on-line at SAG:

  From Variety:

  Thurs., Apr. 20, 2000
  Picket lines form
  Producers set SAG strike plans in motion

  “The industry’s final offer would pay principal actors a $2,575 flat rate for unlimited use of network commercials during a 13-week cycle in exchange for eliminating the current pay-per-use system. It would also hike the top cable fee 60% to $1,627 for ads in a 13-week cycle if actors agree to ditch network pay-per-use.”

  The result of the strike was NO CHANGE in the Class A payment structure which pays us AN AVERAGE of $3200 per cycle (this number is available on line at SAG) and a Cable payment that topped out at $2460.

  For a spot that achieves maximum usage over an entire year, the difference in income to each actor for each commercial would be $1458 per cycle or $5832 more income for the year. And of course that has been the case every year since 2002 when we received the maximum payment for cable.

  Assuming an average of 2.5 actors in each spot (from SAG records) times 5,000 possible commercials using actors at maximum usage times just 6 years (and that isn’t including the first two years of the deal when the cable payment was reduced), that contract has brought in (over what the producers demanded we accept) AN ADDITIONAL $437,400,000 dollars so far.

  Those increases will continue every year unless new leadership sells us out.

  In addition we received Internet jurisdiction (that additional income is not factored in above) and a Million dollar a year payment towards a monitoring program. NONE of those things were on the table at the beginning.

  Apparently Ms Boyd is suggesting that we should give this money back. Further, she neglects to point out that she voted three times (twice in the Negotiating Committee and once as an AFTRA Board member) to support that strike. Every single vote was consistently unanimous and made at the recommendation of the Chief Negotiators. She was also the President of the AFTRA Los Angeles local and a member of the National JOINT union strike committee during that time.

  Now she denies any responsibility?

  Here’s an additional quote from Variety:

  Mon., Apr. 24, 2000
  SAG, AFTRA advising members to strike
  May 1 is deadline for walkout

  “Leaders of SAG and AFTRA voted 150-0 last week to strike. Actors last struck in 1988, for 18 days after commercial talks broke down.”

  That quote demonstrates the UNANIMOUS vote by BOTH boards of BOTH unions to go on strike. The same thing happened TWICE in the negotiating room with Ms Boyd voting. And again, all of the recommendations for these votes came from the Chief negotiators (you know, the “big boys” that Mike Farrell claims solved the problem…Not!)

  Finally, two years ago the head of the SAG Pension trustees announced that the SAG plan had never been in better shape and this was a direct result of the gains in the commercial strike. The trustee head was also a SAG executive and not considered a supporter of the MF group.

  SOLVING THE PROBLEM WITHOUT A MERGER

  All it would take is for LA based AFTRA members to go on Honorable Withdrawal to quit paying their dues and for actors to refuse to accept any AFTRA work.

  It may take about a year to a year and a half and AFTRA goes under.

  Remember, every working actor is ALREADY a member of SAG. We ARE a merged union of actors. SAG then has only to reach out and assist AFTRA to create two separate unions (as the second merger plan essentially created) for the Broadcasters and the Recording artists and share resources with them. Those new unions can pay their own bills (not counting on the actors to keep a bloated and unnecessary business system alive), all members decide their own contracts and everyone is happy.

  While people may say actors wouldn’t want to give up AFTRA jobs, what do they really have to lose? Unless you are a series regular you can’t make a living under their contracts and you receive no residuals anyway. But by accepting them we are destroying our own futures.
  And by accepting a merger does us worse harm by bringing this mentality and business system into control of SAG and allows AFTRA leadership to raid our treasury.

  Admittedly this won’t solve AFTRA’s pension issues, but then why should you be expected to pay your own money (i.e. money from SAG’s Plan) to cover those losses for someone else?

  With this information you can decide for yourself who is telling you the truth and under which leadership you could possibly trust to allow you to have any future as an actor.

  Comment by AFTRA IS BANKRUPT! — Wednesday August 27, 2008 @ 5:24pm PDT  Reply to this post

• o.k.
  I watched it all.

  ned vague – I’m sorry, ned vaughn, looks and sounds very reasonable. he clearly is short on specifics however. “we’ll find out when we get there” is simply not an answer.

  merge with aftra “our overwhelming priority,” fine. have you ANY details? nope. he seemed to think it would be one big happy family, a union composed of 82% actors, 18% broadcasters, that would be united under one governing entity, dominated by the concerns of the actors. why in the world would he think aftra would agree to that?

  the last proposal, endlessly vetted and researched and publicized and lobbied for, and then voted down, had sag as part of a three “silo” organization, that gave up key decisions – strike, etc., to an overseeing board.

  mr. vague doesn’t address the slim and none chance that roberta reardon and kim hedgepath have ANY intention of giving up a major role in a merged organization, or of demanding an aftra type culture in the resulting entity.

  any merger plays out like this: the larger entity absorbs the smaller. what are the chances roberta reardon would fold up her tent for that? zero.

  ned’s vacillating on what the amptp is actually offering was disingenuous at best. he is clearly avoiding the critical issue of exactly HOW a totally inexperienced group of actors, who haven’t participated in any meetings or any negotiations, or really, any guild business to this point, would make ANY improvements in a “template” contract the amptp has made entirely clear they are done with.

  qualified voting, the issue that brought u4s together in the first place is totally dropped for a utopian vision of merger for which he provides not a single detail. he is all philosophy and zero specifics.

  as mf continues to educate and lobby for the support of the membership – the alternative – ned “we’ll find out when we get there” vaughn, and his merry band of union virgins will have to come up with SOMETHING specific, or they will get blown out.

  if barack obama said, about health care, “i believe in universal health care and if you elect me president, we’ll figure it out when we get there” he would immediately be out of the race.

  why is ANYONE putting ANY faith in a guy who has not one specific answer as to what they will do to improve this contract, and no plan – literally – NO PLAN for merger, just the general philosophy, it’s a “good idea?”

  the bottom line is proportional representation was brought up by THE MEMBERSHIP, and looked into by mf, at their request.

  the fact is, sag did NOT try to organize “the bold and the beautiful.”

  the fact is, despite a specific agreement NOT to do so, after sag made a progressive, accomplished deal for cable, aftra violated the signed agreement and undercut sag in cable.

  sag’s membership gets to COME to open meetings, gets to SEE their contracts, aftra? members do NOT get to see their OWN DEALS, do NOT have open access to their OWN contracts – including this one – handel himself said he couldn’t get a look at it when he asked at the aftra headquarters.

  and they elect people by committee, NOT by membership. they often make decisions by COMMITTEE – NOT by membership.

  AFTRA walked on phase 1 – NOT sag.

  there are NO residuals when network reruns run on cable. there are NO residuals of ANY substance in this deal for new media – where ALL content is going.

  look, it’s absolutely clear – if your take away from this “interview” was to vote for u4s, you are taking your professional and financial life and throwing it away. what was ned vaughn’s answer to “why won’t you debate?”

  handel – of all people – was excellent – fair, balanced – now, why wouldn’t ned vaugh allow handel to moderate a debate? because he thinks “the candidates should ALL get to speak for themselves.” WHAT? the u4s candidates are all part of a common slate with identical philosophies – that’s why they’re in u4s! and YOU have chosen to be their spokesman! and you won’t debate because you don’t think it’s fair to them? that doesn’t even BEGIN to make sense!

  Comment by Violet — Wednesday August 27, 2008 @ 6:28pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Violet wrote:
  “sag’s membership gets to COME to open meetings, gets to SEE their contracts”

  According to Anne-Marie Johnson, Ned Vaughn has never been seen at any of these open meetings. How can a guy who’s never even shown up to a meeting pretend to know ANYTHING about ANYTHING? And he’s clearly never read any of the contracts or the information that’s openly available on sag.org.

  U4S is a joke — an even bigger joke because they chose someone as uninformed as Ned to be their mouthpiece.

  Comment by Red Eye — Wednesday August 27, 2008 @ 10:31pm PDT  Reply to this post