CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots … 
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
UPDATE: Apple CEO Challenged For Moving “Crown … 
CAA Signs ‘Robocop’ Joel Kinnaman 
Cannes: Fleming Q&A With Steven Soderbergh: … 
ESPN Layoffs Could Reach 400 As Part Of Latest Disney Cuts 
UPDATE: Broadcast Nets Expand Nightly News For Tornado … 
Cannes: Weinstein Co Acquires Keanu-Reese Sci-Fi Pic … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ Up … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Wolverine’ 
Ric Robertson Taking Paid Summer Hiatus From Movie Academy … 
‘The Big C’ Finale Airs On Showtime Tonight 
Obama Scandals Bring MSNBC 7-Year Low While Fox News Rises 
Season Finale Of CBS’ ‘Mike & Molly’ … 
Ang Lee Departs FX Pilot ‘Tyrant’ 
DreamWorks Eyes January For ‘Glimmer’ And Dylan … 
Warner Bros TV & ‘Smallville’ Co-Creators … 
How Many Times Does Seth MacFarlane Have To Say No To The … 
UPFRONTS 2013: TV Spinoffs’ Almost Perfect Year 
This statement from the Screen Actors Guild is on the big actors union’s website. UPDATE: I just found out this is not in response to anything in particular. SAG says it posts this every election cycle:
TO AGENTS, MANAGERS, CASTING AGENTS, AND PRODUCERS
REGARDING RESTRICTIONS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
This statement from the Screen Actors Guild Hollywood and New York Division Elections Committees is to inform you of various obligations imposed on you by federal law in connection with the upcoming SAG internal union elections.
Federal law prohibits any employer including employers who are agents, managers, casting agents or producers from contributing anything of value to candidates for any SAG elected office. In addition, federal law may require that candidates who receive such contributions report them to the Department of Labor.
This prohibition includes indirect, as well as direct, expenditures. The prohibition against the use of employer money includes any costs incurred by an employer, or anything of value contributed by an employer, in order to support the candidacy of the member. The use of an employer’s office equipment without charge has been construed to be an impermissible contribution by an employer.* (* This restriction does not extend to ordinary business practices that might result in a benefit such as a discount on the cost of printing campaign literature made available on the same terms to other customers of the employer. Such discounts must be made known and available to all persons. The discount cannot be a “donation” to an individual candidate or slate of candidates.)
The following are examples of the application of these legal obligations to situations which commonly are confronted by candidates for Guild office:
• No employer may provide any contributions or assistance of any kind to any candidate. Thus, for example, no candidate may solicit the support of any employer that is a talent agency for an individual’s candidacy nor may any talent agency lend such support –- through financial contributions, solicitations of support through emails or mailings, etc. –- even if the candidate did not request the support. Even forwarding emails may be a violation of this policy.
• Employees may make contributions only if those employees are not acting on behalf of their employer.
Engaging in any of the conduct described above may jeopardize the integrity of the SAG election process. Please do not violate SAG Election Guidelines or federal law.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Does this mean that those running for a board seat who are actor/producers, can’t run? It’s kind of a conflict of interest.
I love unenforceable laws.
Who wants to borrow my copier?
Somebody is being well funded and it ain’t me
But if they want to interfere with the voting process of another union that is OK right? Jest checking.
Nikki – Would you find out and report whose hand may have been in the cookie jar??? I can’t be the only one who really wants to know….
wow! Is MF running scared or what?? And since when is my agent an employer. Last time I looked, the agent worked for me.
Oh but It’s OKAY for SAG to tamper with and spend money to try to influence another unions vote? AFTRA should follow suit and file against SAG immediatley.
Casting agents??? Seriously? We at the CSA have come to expect this gross misuse of terminology from the media, but coming from those within our industry? It is beyond aggravating!
Casting DIRECTORS. We are called Casting DIRECTORS. There is no such thing as a casting agent. There are agents who rep the talent and there are casting DIRECTORS who cast their clients. Period. Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend?
Please people. I don’t need the aggravation. Please try and call us by our correct title, ok? Thanks.
mheister That would be the MR-ers
They have SAGs checkbook.
How stupid cann the Allens be.
Let’s get a few things straight, people…
1) MF had NOTHING to do with that letter. Talk to the Governance Department at SAG – they are the most conservative people you’ll ever meet because they don’t want the SAG election to end up like the last AFTRA election where the government stepped in to re-run it because of violation of Federal union election rules.
2) Incumbents do NOT use SAG funds or resources for their campaigns. Not even a paper clip. That’s another violation of Federal election rules.
3) And, sorry, Laura, with all due respect to your fine profession, there ARE Casting Agents… the companies that cast background extras and take a fee, for instance.
Oh, and yes, Sam, if you’re an actor actively producing, you have to step down from the Board (temporarily while you’re in production). Although a lot of us are actor / producers, it’s a conflict of interest to be both employer and employee while acting as an officer of the Guild.
@Laura: “Casting agents??? Seriously? We at the CSA have come to expect this gross misuse of terminology from the media, but coming from those within our industry? It is beyond aggravating!”
Well, at least they didn’t call you “casting managers.”
@kathy j: Is this an MF release? Since it refers to both the NY and Hollywood Divisions, it doesn’t seem like a factional knee-jerk missive. More of a bi-partisan knee-jerk missive. Sounds to me like a release made only because it had to be.
I’m fairly sure this whole “vote tampering” thing is a straw man. in politics, you’re free to spend money to say, essentially “don’t vote for that guy.” if there was a case to be made against sag, aftra would have made it by now. they haven’t because, as you might want to try and grasp, sag KNEW it wasn’t illegal or improper in any way to try as best they could, under the circumstances of aftra’s sudden betrayal, to convince the membership it was an awful deal. and the fact that sag was so successful, in such a short time, in bringing down the normal 90% and above approval rate of the aftra board certified contract to 60%, tells me they were making significant headway in educating the dual card holders that the aftra contract was a new media giveaway, and not in their best interest. another two weeks? it could very well have been voted down. the longer this goes on, the more the sag membership is being educated and understanding that aftra is weak and compliant, not a union sag should EVER pattern itself after, let alone merge with, and a union that has behaved shamelessly in accepting a terrible contract that penalizes actors. just what they need. it’s not hard enough already to make a living as a middle class actor, aftra has to jump in the way of sag, and make it harder. thanks aftra. has aftra EVER negotiated ANYTHING that wasn’t a disaster for actors?
I posted this elsewhere, I’ll say it again. The only way out of this mess is to vote for individual candidates instead of factions. Let’s not elect one slate or the other. Let’s elect individuals who will have to work with each other FOR ACTORS, instead for their political parties.
This election gets more interesting than the presidential election. I also wnat to know whom we are talking about. Unfortunately I did vote already, bummer…
laura, you need to get a grip. even the term “casting director” is a misnomer. In all fairness, the only thing “casting directors” direct is their assistants to get them another cup of coffee. It’s well known that casting “directors” don’t have the power to say “yes” to anything. Only the power to say “no.” It’s the director and producers who cast the film after the “casting director” has set up the appointments. You may be aggravated about “casting directors” being called “casting agents”, but most actors have been aggravated about “casting directors” being called “casting directors” for YEARS. but they set up appointments really, really well.
To “I’ve just really had it”,
I too long for the old days of no slates. I agree that there should NEVER be a slate of actors. Personally I think the board should disband all slates once and for all.
Unfortunately as long as there is ONE slate, very few independents will get elected because people who agree with the slate will “block vote” while the rest of the candidates have the vote split between them (think Gore/Nader) dilluting their chances of getting elected.
Even on this ballot there are only a few independent candidates.
Goes back to the SIMPLE concept:
Either we continue to fight with AFTRA and further divide power base or we start working together to increase our power base.
Fight AFTRA and everyone else – vote Membership First.
Consolidate our power base and unite against the AMPTP – vote for United For Strength.
Pretty simple stuff…. I know how I voted!
TITLE IV – ELECTIONS
Terms of Office; Election Procedures
(29 U.S.C. 481)
SEC. 401. (a) Every national or international labor organization, except a federation of national or international labor organizations, shall elect its officers not less often than once every five years either by secret ballot among the members in good standing or at a convention of delegates chosen by secret ballot.
(b) Every local labor organization shall elect its officers not less often than once every three years by secret ballot among the members in good standing.
(c) Every national or international labor organization, except a federation of national or international labor organizations, and every local labor organization, and its officers, shall be under a duty, enforceable at the suit of any bona fide candidate for office in such labor organization in the district court of the United States in which such labor organization maintains its principal office, to comply with all reasonable requests of any candidate to distribute by mail or otherwise at the candidate’s expense campaign literature in aid of such person’s candidacy to all members in good standing of such labor organization and to refrain from discrimination in favor of or against any candidate with respect to the use of lists of members, and whenever such labor organizations or its officers authorize the distribution by mail or otherwise to members of campaign literature on behalf of any candidate or of the labor organization itself with reference to such election, similar distribution at the request of any other bona fide candidate shall be made by such labor organization and its officers, with equal treatment as to the expense of such distribution. Every bona fide candidate shall have the right, once within 30 days prior to an election of a labor organization in which he is a candidate, to inspect a list containing the names and last known addresses of all members of the labor organization who are subject to a collective bargaining agreement requiring membership therein as a condition of employment, which list shall be maintained and kept at the principal office of such labor organization by a designated official thereof. Adequate safeguards to insure a fair election shall be provided, including the right of any candidate to have an observer at the polls and at the counting of the ballots.
(d) Officers of intermediate bodies, such as general committees, system boards, joint boards, or joint councils, shall be elected not less often than once every four years by secret ballot among the members in good standing or by labor organization officers representative of such members who have been elected by secret ballot.
(e) In any election required by this section which is to be held by secret ballot a reasonable opportunity shall be given for the nomination of candidates and every member in good standing shall be eligible to be a candidate and to hold office (subject to section 504 and to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed) and shall have the right to vote for or otherwise support the candidate or candidates of his choice, without being subject to penalty, discipline, or improper interference or reprisal of any kind by such organization or any member thereof. Not less than fifteen days prior to the election notice thereof shall be mailed to each member at his last known home address. Each member in good standing shall be entitled to one vote. No member whose dues have been withheld by his employer for payment to such organization pursuant to his voluntary authorization provided for in a collective bargaining agreement shall be declared ineligible to vote or be a candidate for office in such organization by reason of alleged delay or default in the payment of dues. The votes cast by members of each local labor organization shall be counted, and the results published, separately. The election officials designated in the constitution and bylaws or the secretary, if no other official is designated, shall preserve for one year the ballots and all other records pertaining to the election. The election shall be conducted in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of such organization insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.
(f) When officers are chosen by a convention of delegates elected by secret ballot, the convention shall be conducted in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the labor organization insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this title. The officials designated in the constitution and bylaws or the secretary, if no other is designated, shall preserve for one year the credentials of the delegates and all minutes and other records of the convention pertaining to the election of officers.
(g) No moneys received by any labor organization by way of dues, assessment, or similar levy, and no moneys of an employer shall be contributed or applied to promote the candidacy of any person in an election subject to the provisions of this title. Such moneys of a labor organization may be utilized for notices, factual statements of issues not involving candidates, and other expenses necessary for the holding of an election.
(h) If the Secretary, upon application of any member of a local labor organization, finds after hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act that the constitution and bylaws of such labor organization do not provide an adequate procedure for the removal of an elected officer guilty of serious misconduct, such officer may be removed, for cause shown and after notice and hearing, by the members in good standing voting in a secret ballot conducted by the officers of such labor organization in accordance with its constitution and bylaws insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this title.
(i) The Secretary shall promulgate rules and regulations prescribing minimum standards and procedures for determining the adequacy of the removal procedures to which reference is made in subsection (h).
I just don’t see how very many, if any, talent agents, managers, or casting professionals (that’s the term I would use) could possibly fall within the federal definition of “employer.” Talent agents and managers work for the talent. Casting professionals may use their judgment to narrow down the list of candidates submitted for consideration, but they have no power to hire or fire talent, and thus aren’t acting even indirectly as “employers.”
The SAG memo’s weasel-worded phrase “employer that is a talent agency” seems pretty meaningless to me. I would challenge SAG’s legal beagles to produce a single credible legal precedent that has held a talent agent, manager, or casting professional to be an “employer” for purposes of the Landrum-Griffin Act or any other federal labor law concerning the conduct of union elections.
VG
tick fucking tock.