SAG Election: ‘Unite For Strength’ Slate Releases ‘Membership First’ Emails

COMMENTS (21)

• The biggest problem is that the two actors’ unions are separate and often at odds. If the MFers would put aside their snobbery and merge with AFTRA then they’d already have a deal, likely a better deal obtained through their greater combined strength. As it is now, Rosenberg et al are toothless, they know they can’t call a strike, AMPTP execs know they can’t call a strike and so dragging things out is just a big waste of everyone’s time and, increasingly, money.

  Comment by Tom — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 2:10pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Does either side remember there is no contract? That their membership is working without a contract? That perhaps THAT might be a priority and that the back biting and pissing might just be seen as smoke and mirrors to deflect that SAG hasn’t a chance in getting what they want?

  That unions, union leadership and priorities need to change is a no-brainer. This internal strife, however, is benefiting no one AT THIS POINT.

  Comment by Who's Running the Asylum? — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 2:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• If Unite for Strength candidates who signed the petition for affected member voting, no longer support the initiative, why is the petition and all their names still up on home page of the petition web site?
  The statement that affected voting is not part of the Unite for Strength slate platform does not even appear on the home page.

  Comment by Unconvinced — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 2:48pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Ned Vaughn’s trotting out of the JoBeth Williams letter as evidence of a flip-flop is very weak at best. Ms. Williams’ letter said, “I support your ideas….” It does not say, “agree with”. I support Ned Vaughn’s right to free speech. I don’t always agree with him. Ms. Williams signed no petitions or engaged in any other activity that would bolster Mr. Vaughn’s argument that Ms. Williams supported AMV. In any event, I believe Ms. Williams has fully clarified her position.

  Mr. Vaughn tries to use Ms. Williams’ email to somehow imply Membership First candidates were for Affected Member Voting before they were against it, so Unite for Strength can do the same. There is no equivalency here.

  Even if you buy into Mr. Vaughn’s argument that Ms. Williams was an AMV proponent for a minute – which argument I believe I have already shot down – UFS has not repudiated or abandoned AMV; they have made a tactical political decision to state publicly they will not pursue it at this time. From their statement: “…we have repeatedly stated that affected member voting is not part of the Unite for Strength platform or a goal of the slate. Regardless of the merits, it is a non-issue in this election…”

  UFS specifically says, “regardless of its merits” to signal to AMV supporters they still believe in the merits of AMV. They haven’t given up on AMV. Mr. Sheen in his letter implicitly picks up on this and draws the logical conclusion. UFS flip-flopped once already just a span of a few short months; they can and likely will flip-flop again.

  UFS was formed to promote AMV earlier this year. By their own admission, they have had no change of heart on the issue. Actors opposed to AMV aren’t letting this go, because UFS hasn’t let it go.

  Comment by mheister — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 3:08pm PDT  Reply to this post

• SAG does have a contract. They are continuing to work under the old contract. Saying that there is no contract is less than truthful.

  Comment by TLA — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 3:10pm PDT  Reply to this post

• So, a couple of actors changed their minds and attitudes and viewpoints. People come to their senses all the time and change their ideas about political agendas, etc. BIG efffffing deal. In my world, unlike that of AFTRA, the DGA, of Unite for Strength. this is termed, “being an adult.” And it takes courage. Those considering voting against Membership First slate of candidates should keep that in mind–if AFTRA and Unite for Strength win this election, the only thing that’ll change will be which pocket of the AMPTP they’ll be in.

  Comment by Hmmmmm...? — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 3:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• MeFirst, busted again…

  Flip flop, flip flop

  Comment by Flip Flop — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 5:13pm PDT  Reply to this post

• That is so ‘mature’ and ‘adult’ of you “Hmmmmmmm?”
  if you run for office against MF you must be in the pocket of the amptp? If you think aftra has to be dealt with, other than hoping people will rip up their dual cards then you are in the pocket of the amptp?
  Wow, there’s some good critical thinking going on for the mf supporters on here. If you disagree with them… you are for the producers? It would be laughable if they didn’t truly think you are awful if you don’t agree with them.
  Sad for us

  Comment by sagmember — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 5:35pm PDT  Reply to this post

• If anything shows the desperation the U4s folks must be feeling – it’s this. Ned Vaughn releases 2 PRIVATE emails to show that 2 membership first candidates AT ONE TIME considered the qualified voting argument?

  this is the albatross around their neck. as much as mike farrell’s “membership first = al queda terrorists flying the membership of sag into a building” reference in his “letter” MAY have lost them gains in the election because it so clearly shows the vicious, hostile and utterly unhinged rabidness of these people, the qualified voting thing is the stone that will sink them.

  sag members need to know – and believe me, they will, that the entire REASON U4S exists, is because amy brenaman and ned vaughn proposed to the sag board a qualified voting motion that got turned down, and the two vowed in some kind of ridiculous omerta blood pact to make sure they get it done if it takes them generations. the whole PURPOSE of U4S IS qualified voting. that’s WHY they were created. and it AINT going away.

  Comment by Beat it — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 5:55pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The previous contract has expired, there is no valid contract unless somewhere there is an agreement (probably assumed) that the old one is valid until a new one is in place.

  Technically, there is no valid contract. Getting/negoiating one would be very helpful even financially beneficial.

  Less than truthful, is that lawyer-speak for a lie?

  Comment by Who's Running the Asylum — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 6:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• I just received Amy Brenneman’s paid advert in my inbox. She essentially says Membership First is lying about Unite for Strength’s position on Affected Member Voting. What she very tellingly did not do is repudiate AMV or change her position on it.
  However, Ms. Brenneman did write that UFS’s position on AMV is no different than Membership First’s. She said, “Membership First is lying; Unite for Strength has the SAME position on members’ voting rights as they do”. With respect, the difference is that the Membership First candidates are truly opposed to AMV, while the UFS slate is choosing to say they will not act on AMV, even though they still believe in it.
  Ms. Brenneman also writes, “Over 1500 members signed a petition of support, and even Membership First candidates Clancy Brown and JoBeth herself agreed with the idea”. Ms. Williams did not write that she “agreed”. She said she “supported your ideas”, and asked for more detailed information. An idea can look interesting at first blush. A smart person like Ms. Williams asks for more information, to make a fuller determination. Again, Ms. Williams apparently took no other action in favor of AMV. Citing Ms. Williams as an AMV supporter is a long stretch.
  Clearly, the UFS slate is a long ways away from putting this issue to rest.

  Comment by mheister — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 6:45pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Publishing private emails to garner support– I mean really?

  Dear Unite for Me members:
  The idea of whistle blowing in a campaign is to show that an opponent holds such aborhant views that it throws their character into question.

  If you blow the whistle to show that their campaign supported your own admittedly flawed idea, and then, as you did eventually, backed away from it, it shows what exactly? Is it to show you’re both unworthy. Because it doesn’t make you more worthy. You understand that, right?

  “Hey look, if we’re stupid then they’re stupid too.” See your supposition is based in the understanding that your idea was bad. So what we get is: Supporting your ideas is bad–they realized it, then you realized it. Now LOOK: We’ve all backed away!

  It’s not a flattering light to put yourself in.

  Although the act of publishing person emails is illuminating. It shows you to be childish, vindictive, and short-sighted. So there is that.

  And unfortunately for U4Me these emails don’t show a full blown commitment or even commitment to the idea in the first place. An email is almost the lowest form of correspondence–far less important than a phone chat– nowhere near a letter–underbid only by the text message.

  Ms. Williams email seems to show she is loyal and polite to her “old friend” and is curious to know more facts. It’s not lost on me that she says, “I told him I support your ideas,” but supporting an idea to examine the voting process is far different than spearheading a campaign to disenfranchise UNION members.

  It’s light years away from ever signing the petition. And are we to think that trying to broaden one’s understanding by sending an email asking for more information somehow a bad thing?

  “I support the idea of lower fuel costs Mr. Bush, What’s your plan?” Is far different from, “Let’s go full speed ahead with off-shore drilling.”

  Mr. Brown says he is no longer in support. “..the landscape has changed.”

  The issue is all of the U4Me candidates SPEARHEADED a campaign to disenfranchise those less fortunate than them in the UNION. And while it was watered down along the way the first plan basically only allowed series regulars to vote. They didn’t have a friendly conversation with an old friend and then send an email. They tried, and in my opinion are still trying, to break the UNION because they feel it slows down their personal earning potential.

  And it might actually do that, they may be right. Thing is, collective bargaining is about the greatest good for the entirety of the membership as a whole. That’s what seems to frustrate U4Me.

  Yes, when you’re at the front of the line it may seem like those behind you are unnecessary–especially if you refuse to look back. If you do look back you’ll see without the strength of our numbers you would be back in the days of no residuals, no overtime, no health care and on and on.

  We get that you folks are working a lot today. And we get that you have no interest in helping those less fortunate than yourselves–you feel they are in the way. And now, with your most recent attempt to garner support by publishing private correspondence for no apparent reason we know you deserve pity from your fellow UNION members. Because this act was sad and pathetic. I’m not sure how that makes you worthy of our vote, though.

  In short, it’s not just about you. It’s about us. It’s a UNION. Unite.

  Comment by zackery — Friday August 22, 2008 @ 8:46pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Stop… The Insanity Vote independent

  Gary Watts # 43 on your ballot

  Be Independent Vote Independent

  Even if you only vote for one or two candidates …vote

  We need a fresh prospective
  Fighting among our self’s during contact negotiation is insane. Slate vs. Slate, member against member, all of this and more while contract negotiations are going on are not in our best interest.Do you really think that two warring factions in the boardroom can function while protecting your interest? If no, then vote Independent

  ~ Gary Watts ~

  Comment by Gary Watts — Saturday August 23, 2008 @ 2:00am PDT  Reply to this post

• Gary Watts

  I’m not voting for you. Stop the madness.

  Comment by team no — Saturday August 23, 2008 @ 3:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Ms. Williams’s email was written nearly five months ago. Clearly, Ms. Williams got the information on AMV and either decided that she didn’t like the concept or she decided that even if she does like the concept of AMV, it nevertheless failed to convince her that u4w was the way to go. And that’s not even trying to read Ms. Williams’s mind; that’s just basic common sense.

  Vaughn makes matters worse for himself by publishing an email from Clancy Brown that proves the exact opposite of what he thinks it does. Mr. Brown’s email to Mr. Vaughn shows that Brown changed his mind from showing some interest in AMV to showing disinterest in not only AMV but also the entire u4w platform and slate. Consequently, Brown was very simply and very politely exercising his choice to cease his participation in the topic.

  Researching AMV does not make Williams or Brown anything but people who are making informed opinions about an issue. It’s not Williams’ or Brown’s responsibility to prove that they are MFers, whatever ideas they might be investigating on their own time, for whatever reason they had or have is entirely beside the point — it’s Vaughn’s responsibility to prove his own insinuation: that by even researching AMV they are something other than MFers or even hurtful to the MF position, which his a case he fails to make. Moreover, it’s Vaughn’s responsibility to prove that making this insinuation is even remotely helpful to his own case. Which he also fails to accomplish.

  All that he does is just take two emails out of context and fails to realize that even out-of-context, the emails contain far more of their original meaning than he thinks they do. Metaphorically speaking, he takes the pin out of the grenade and fails to realize that he’s dropped the explody little thing at his own feet.

  @ Beat It: To second you, I find it quite interesting that while one of u4w’s complaints against MF is that a member of MF called a certain AFTRA officer a “scumbag,” two different u4w sources have compared MF to terrorists:

  1) Mike Farrell in his histrionic analogy of MF to 9-11 hijackers stated, “It’s awful to watch this storied organization be highjacked and flown into a building.” This is so disgusting and appalling an analogy on so many levels that it beggars belief that someone who starred in MASH could have made it. Farrell essentially invoked Godwin’s Law (and thereby lost the argument), by making an appalling comparison to the worst act of terrorism in US History) rather than to Nazis.

  2) A certain basic cable mystery dramedy whose villains in last week’s episode belonged to a terrorist group said show named “Soldiers Against Government.” And mind you, the lead actor (okay, second lead actor) on said show is running for office on the u4w slate. That candidate should have had the foresight to realize that equating your union to terrorism, even in attempted jest, is so wrong that it should have occurred to said actor that his fitness for candidacy (much less for holding the office if elected) would or should have been called into question.

  So, let’s see what Unite For Weakness has done since a week ago Thursday: 1) publicized two private emails in a failed attempt to attack two MFers, 2) withdrawn official recognition of AMV as an issue in the party platform (the obvious implication being that u4w’s own membership objected to AMV) while still trying to use it within the smear tactic of publicizing private emails and 3) made two beyond-reckless comparisons of SAG to terrorists, once in public correspondence by a u4w leader and the other in multiple lines of the actual dialogue of a television show headlined by a u4w candidate.

  Whatever claims of bellicosity or belligerency u4w have made against MF, they go out the window when the u4w faction’s leaders, much less their constituents, resort to these tactics.

  — Rob

  Comment by Rob Jensen — Saturday August 23, 2008 @ 7:14pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Rob-

  Well written analysis. I am not on the MF side but I do agree with what you are saying. Further I can’t believe he hasn’t issued an apology by now. The longer he waits the weaker his cause will become because his constituents will abandon him.

  Comment by playmaker — Saturday August 23, 2008 @ 9:59pm PDT  Reply to this post

• You people can go on all day with this back and forth, he said she said nonsense, but there is only ONE THING that matters:

  The current board is ineffective and their actions, ideas and policies are detrimental to our UNION.

  So you can argue until the cows come home and you continue to try to outwit and outsmart each other, but the bottom line is we need to vote out the current crop of losers now!

  Let’s start using a little come sense. Please.

  Comment by LP — Sunday August 24, 2008 @ 8:22am PDT  Reply to this post

• LP

  go play some golf man. let the adults figure this out.

  Comment by tom-tom — Sunday August 24, 2008 @ 10:21am PDT  Reply to this post

• LP

  you never back up any of your claims against with … anything.
  certainly no facts.

  i believe the reason you’re behind U4S 100% is that you LOVE the idea of qualified voting.

  your previous posts speaking of how great the union will be when we get rid of the 100,000 loser extra wannbes , and your boasting of your success and your country club membership and so forth made that very clear.

  you said let’s start using some common sense.
  your typo actually said ‘using COME sense’ , which is amusing,
  but i knew what you meant.

  well, common sense would suggest supporting a group that is still fighting for a contract that won’t spell the end of residuals.
  common sense would suggest backing the group that will not accept
  non-union work to be done under our contracts.
  common sense would suggest backing the group that won’t accept elimination of force majeure protections and clip consent.
  common sense would indicate resisting a contract that requires
  actors to become tools for product placement without their consent
  or any compensation. this alone should outrage people who make a good deal of their living from commercials.

  common sense would suggest that if we accept the contract as it is now, as AFTRA has so cavalierly done, it could be the beginning of the end of SAG.

  Comment by harry98 — Sunday August 24, 2008 @ 10:34am PDT  Reply to this post

• 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 — Sunday August 24, 2008 @ 1:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The last post was the clincher for me. I read all through these as I considered my ballot, buffeted by e-mails from friends on both sides.

  Thank you for listing the accomplishments of the current team. I assume you are not lying. Fact-checking would take days longer than I have to devote, which I know causes passionate union members to despair but the reality of limited time and will for all members’ equal involvement in negotiation and even election must be faced. I have received many e-mails, discussed here in a back-and-forth that was educational, but not happy. The list of benefits was convincing despite the fact that I’ve been disappointed with union leadership because we failed to merge for strength at times like this. Does anyone care/have we looked into how SAG stance might affect ‘net neutrality? Dare we do that? We should; the hipbone’s connected to the thighbone. I think net neutrality is essential to democracy. I don’t want my union to end up on the side of two-tiered delivery systems on the net that will end up, as we can predict, like the greedy networks – and then break apart again. Let’s not do that – and to avoid it we must look ahead, protect our livlihoods, but not get boxed into a business model that does what the mainstream media has done to our times.

  Comment by educating myself — Wednesday September 17, 2008 @ 10:20am PDT  Reply to this post