China’s Wanda Group Agrees To Pay $2.6B For AMC …
Weinstein Clarifies ‘Sapphires’ Remarks; Best …
How Agencies Did At This Year’s Upfronts: New …
BOMBS AWAY! ‘Battleship’ Sinks To $25.3M …
‘Lawless’ Premieres As The Weinstein Company …
David Guarascio And Moses Port To Run …
‘Beasts Of The Southern Wild’ Co-Writer Lucy …
Fox Searchlight Fetes ‘Beasts Of The Southern …
D.V. DeVincentis Sinks Teeth Into ‘The Night …
Universal Buys ‘The Disciple Program’ As Mark …
‘Madagascar 3′ And A ‘Big Brother’ …
UPDATE: Facebook’s Big IPO Trading Day Results In A …
UPFRONTS 2012: The Year Of Underdogs, Comebacks & …
YRF’s Uday Chopra To Finance Nicole Kidman-Starrer …
Cannes Swirls With Talk Of Convergence Between Distributors …
TNT & Lifetime Looking At Cancelled CBS Drama …
Women Dominate Early Competition Films As Marion Cotillard …
Doug Liman Reacts To ‘I Just Want My Pants …
Disney Sets Jesse Wigutow To Script ‘Peter And The …
Anthony Mackie In Step With ‘Runner Runner’
Should You Buy Facebook? A Few Things To Consider Before …
My photographer Jim Stevenson spotted this anti-Membership First poster visible near a film production in Los Feliz today. Is this savvy or slimey? You be the judge. UPDATE: Opposing slate leader Ned Vaughn emails me: “Unite for Strength had nothing to do with this anti-Membership First flyer and I don’t know who’s behind it.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ... Loading ...
Man-oh-Manischevitz!
Thank garsh someone wants to make us laugh rather than grind our teeth to rotten little stubs as we’ve been doing over this self-induced union war for 18 months. Either commenters here have lost their funny-bones, or humorless agit-proppers lurk in wait to pounce. Hardy-har-har!
I think the important thing and the thing to keep in the forefront of all of this (and I mean ALL of it) is how do you get power at the negotiating table. That’s where the discussion should begin, in my opinion. Right now I’m siding with merger, because despite the rocky road in getting there, I think there’s more power to be had with AFTRA than without. Needless to say, getting there is the problem.
SG: He assured me vehemently that UFS had NOTHING to do with this poster. He told me that UFS is staying on messsage and is being careful to avoid the personal attacks that are endemic to MF’s style.
By “MF,” you shirley must mean Mike Farrell, who compared Membership First to the 9/11 terrorists?
C’mon, SG, even your rampant disingenuousness has jumped the shark.
— Rob
Well, I just did it – voted. It was a little confusing having to go through the list of candidates and scratching a line through their respective name wherever I saw a U4S notation. Shame, too. So many of these actors I like and respect…
And I feel bad for those U4S people who are all for making SAG stronger, but are on the fence about what their “slate” stands for. They’re getting publicly corralled with the hardliners and their decision to publicly endorse U4S will be noted in the future. U4S as a movement is already crumbling miserably.
The biggest shame is that I agree that all actors should be represented by ONE union and I support efforts to that end (so does Alan Rosenberg, btw – heard him say it live, in person, in public). But you don’t move anything forward by assaulting (and insulting) the current administration. Nor by dividing your own union, baiting members into taking sides. If U4S had a good idea, they’d be putting it out there. They don’t.
By essentially deleting those 31 names from my ballot I thought how fortunate for other Membership First and non-partisan candidates that they’ll likely garner many more votes as others, like me, remove the chaff from the wheat.
We all (SAG) want what’s best for actors. How we go about accomplishing that goal speaks volumes about us as a group – as a union. And as a like-minded society.
This flyer has been online for a few days at http://www.prounionaction.com
It’s clearly sponsored by one or more people who are “ABMF” or “anybody but Membership First”. What they would actually like to affirmatively accomplish within SAG is anybody’s guess but I think they’re wasting their resources (i.e. time, money, energy, bandwidth, etc)
It’s something that our whole country needs to tackle: the tendency to instead of insisting on having candidates (for public or union office) who stand FOR something and bring good ideas and positive goals to their office to just go vote for the ‘least objectionable’ person running even if his or her only distinctive feature is hey I’m not [insert name of candidate, slate or party here]
Ace,
You said “The biggest shame is that I agree that all actors should be represented by ONE union and I support efforts to that end (so does Alan Rosenberg, btw – heard him say it live, in person, in public). ”
I’ve heard Alan say that, too. The HUGE difference is MF and Alan want to do it BY FORCE. They want to FORCE AFTRA to give up representing Actors. They want to FORCE AFTRA to give up around 75% of it’s membership to SAG.
Yet I’ve not heard a single plan from MF to make that happen. Evidently you believe it can actually be done that way because you voted for MF.
For those who haven’t voted, THINK about it for a minute. Does anyone here (and I mean ANYONE) really think that SAG can FORCE AFTRA to give up representing actors?
If you do, vote for MF.
If you think we can’t force them and we have to work TOGETHER towards a long term SOLUTION, then vote U4S.
I’m not in SAG, but as an observor of the drama this concept of having slates or parties seems juvenile and counter-productive. Seems like indepedent individuals should run and be elected instead of these opposing hockey teams… About the poster – seems like harmless fun and probably fairly accurate.
and another thing – I don’t know if Seymour Cassell is a good negotiator, but he is a great actor. He’s probably having a good laugh over the poster (I’m assuming that’s Seymour in the bottom right).
What a tempest in a teapot. Whoever created this handbill has to be giddy over all the attention, and frankly I’m a bit amazed at the number of school-marms commenting here. Our Guild leaders are certainly not immune to criticism during an election nor at any other time. And I suspect that all the hysteria comes from blog-bound keyboard propagandist habitués chartered with the task of shoring up current Guild Courtiers. Watching their videos lately, they can use all the help they can get. And it’s a cheap tactic to blame the Unite For Strength challengers for this. I’m guessing UFS is way too busy raising funds in order to pay for legit communiqués to the membership.
“Force” is a strong word and it’s not indicative of what’s been going on. What MF wants (what most of SAG wants) is for all actors to be under one roof. That takes negotiation, not force. In negotiations, one day you push, another day you back off and give some. We all have to remember, on the other side of that negotiating table is AFTRA who, shown by their recent lies and shady actions against SAG, is undermining any effort towards a truce and/or a merger. And when you get slapped in the face like that (or backstabbed, shall we say?) sometimes you want to push back a little harder than you did the day before.
But the current board members (MFs as well as indies) are working on it. From U4S’ judgment so far – their weak limited voting argument, their public slander of SAG board members, their lack of any kind of plan when asked direct questions, their total lack of board or negotiating experience – I cringe at what they would give up to make a merger happen. U4S seems like McCain’s choice in V.P. running mate – Gov. Palin. She seems like a nice lady, good at her job, good intentions…. NO EXPERIENCE in (foreign, et al) policy. NONE.
I also believe that for the time being, the SAG board is giving AFTRA a lot of rope – enough to hang themselves. If/when the AFL/CIO comes in to mediate somebody’s gonna get their hand slapped – HARD.
As I’ve stated in the past, I’m SAG/AFTRA. Proud of one. The other, not so much.
no, SAG cannot force AFTRA to stop representing actors.
but if actors get their pocketbooks squeezed by working
AFTRA contracts in cable with the residual giveaways, and if the deal AFTRA took in new media becomes “the deal” we have to live with at SAG, and residual payments get reduced to the New Media model? …
actors might decide they’ve had enough of AFTRA undercutting and selling them short.
actors might decide that having AFTRA representing them is not in their best financial interest.
these moves by AFTRA might come back to haunt her.
this is by and large a territorial dispute. perhaps there is a way to carve up the jurisdiction and let AFTRA take care of her business and let SAG take care of hers.
why would AFTRA want to merge now anyway?
if they are getting all of these contracts, all of this business because of their lower rates and if their pension and health programs are as healthy as AFTRA folks claim them to be, what would be their
motivation to merge?
some SAG folks want to because they feel it’s the only way to stop the undercutting.
but, as i said, i feel there could well be a backlash against AFTRA when actors find themselves in reduced circumstances.
The poster/flyer is almost funny. The concept is almost clever. I know very little about graphics, but the execution looks to be within shouting distance of professional, to me.
Did the designer go to some expense to assemble the images and super-impose them on each other? Is it costly to print these out in full color, glossy finish, and in different sizes?
Does the AMPTP have a budget to back an effort like this, by a free-lance graphic designer? I’m not voting for any U4s, but I know a lot of them, and I think they have too much class to waste money on a wet fire-cracker like this.
I’m thinking a crank, consumed with hatred for Doug and Alan. “I’ve got it!” — he exults — “I’ll portray them as the silly villains in ‘Goldmember’!”
A hate-filled crank.
Or Nick Counter.
*****************************************
If the U4s win more than 3 seats, there will be a lot of pressure to throw in the towel.
I’m hoping they don’t. My financial cushion is very thin, but I’m prepared to work under the old contract for three more years, rather than surrender and sign on to the demise of our Guild.
you know, I was reflecting on the current situation and I think it has many aspects, but:
“What I have said repeatedly is that this is not a watershed negotiation.” brian mccabe
is one that kind of sums this blog up.
it’s very, very, difficult for us, as americans, let alone us, as actors, to see the dividing line clearly.
this site is all over the map, but the map is basically called ” we hate membership first and capitulate immediately. the slate you support detests our elected leadership and favors merger with aftra.
you may deny that, but you all clearly want mf out, u4s in, and a quick deal. u4s says they won’t settle for anything less than mf, but you all seem to feel it will be a step in the right direction: “moderation, diplomacy, reason,” instead of “an inability to listen, aggression, power mad leadership, bad strategy,” etc.
as a rank amateur historian, one thing I’ve noticed is – there has rarely been a war in the history of this nation that was backed by much enthusiasm at first.
afghanistan? yes, dropping bombs from the air to get those bastards. then, boots on the ground to catch that guy (still waiting)
iraq? no
gulf war 1? yes, but I think we all guessed it would be over in 2 weeks, which it was.
vietnam? no
korea? no
world war II? no. not until we were attacked. before that, nobody wanted us in.
world war I? no. wilson ran on a platform of keeping us out.
civil war? no. people dreaded the thought. at least in the north, who had to go get the south. lincoln was vilified throughout. they tried to kill him and he had to sneak into d.c.
1812? no. too soon after the revolution.
revolution? no. I live in a town that made it’s living sending goods to nyc, which was british dominated – where the tory sympathizers had to flee to london, and when they returned after the war and died, the town wouldn’t put them in the town graveyard. they’re in an overgrown patch off behind the main graveyard.
and, like it or not. this is war.
I think mccabe is dead wrong. dangerously naive. the business is changing so fast, the distribution system is changing so fast, the old way of delivering content is changing so fast, and the guilds just missed the fastball. they left the bat on their shoulders. except sag.
as variety said yesterday “lehman brothers just released a doom and gloom report on the entertainment industry, causing a drop in entertainment stocks, which said, the old models of TV and film distribution are being threatened, and the surge in internet distribution may change them for good.”
and yet, here we sit, you all saying “don’t take a stand. it’s divisive, it’s antagonistic, we can achieve more through a change in leadership, and we should just accept the fact that this negotiation is over and take the best deal we can get.”
essentially: “we don’t want to go to war. it’s too scary. and we think it’s unnecessary. the conglomerates aren’t out to destroy the union – that’s absurd. take the deal.”
which is understandable. sometimes the opponent is insurmountable. yet people, countries, unions often fight nobly anyway.
sometimes war is avoidable, but men – always men – get their backs up, and next thing you know, people are coming home in bags.
well, we clearly have two points of view here:
1. get moderate. then give in. merge with aftra. see what happens.
2. fight off this contract until they drag you from the building. strike if you have to. it’s that important.
after careful consideration, I choose #2.
to say something as naive as “this is not a watershed contract” is astonishing to me. especially from someone in the business with experience.
to openly deride, challenge and scorn the leadership as they are faced with this grave situation, is… very strange. I’d prefer democracy in action, as in, they were elected fairly. so now, despite misgivings, it is our responsibility to support them and let them do their jobs, even if we disagree with the way they are going about it. to openly deride them, plays right into the amptp’s hope that “sag will be divided and vulnerable, collapsing under the weight of it own dissension, which will, as always, work to our benefit. let’s sit back and wait.”
u4s is an agenda-driven slate that, in the middle of this crucial negotiation, is being severely critical of the leadership. as are the regions. as is the n.y. board. as is aftra.
did they have the courage to officially express their objections? no. they reaffirmed the unions core principles 68 to 0, which makes the contract unacceptable on its face, without question. unless we wish to change the core principals of the union.
there is no real consequence for this… insurrection? betrayal? treason? it’s a union, not the U.S.A.
but, make no mistake, in unions past, the consequences of such insubordination to elected leadership would be quick and decisive, legally and yes, even physically. there is a long history of violent union confrontations.
and, I think it’s naive to scoff that this situation, if it spins out of control, which the current dissent is pushing it towards, could not possibly result in serious consequences.
we are talking about the ability of tens of thousands of middle class actors to make a decent living, versus their self-insured “star” union brethren, multi-millionaire studio heads and billionaire conglomerate c.e.o.’s who control them.
we’re talking about men and women who eek out a living as actors, 40 thousand dollars a year being the average wage, and we’re faced with a contract that, under any reasonable, unbiased appraisal, could cut that income in half, in a very short amount of time.
so, whatever “they” think: managers, agents, below the line folks, industry rag pundits, lawyers, casting directors, publicists, and other interested observers – others who don’t actually DO this for a living, although they make their living off the backs of those who do – need to understand – if this contract gets shoved down sag’s throat? you might want to limit the triumphalism. cause things could get ugly real quick.
I hope that doesn’t happen. but, people who already work in the most difficult industry to make a living in (or certainly one of them) in the country, and have families and bills to pay? won’t be ready to settle for a decrease in their standard of living simply because the producers think they have figured out a clever way to push those actors even further out of their profit stream.
and those actors who support moderation when faced with a contract like this, and merger with a union with a clear, longstanding, record of undercutting actors hard earned wages, may find themselves the object of real animosity if actors start to fail.
for thousands and thousands of other sag members, – if our demand for respect, and our hope of a fair wage starts to erode, while the corporations that employ us, continue to rake in billions?
all I’m saying is – the anti-leadership insurrectionists are playing with fire. that is in NO way a threat, only one person’s opinion, but it IS a recognition of the current reality, the looming potential of decline – because of a refusal to confront our adversaries, or even recognize them as such.
and it is something to be very carefully considered in all the anti-leadership grandstanding and vitriol being thrown around without consequence as of yet.
Here’s an idea…
What if SAG announced that any actor who was a member of AFTRA for at least 1 year could join SAG, and laid out why SAG is so much better than AFTRA.
Also, they would only have to pay a small fee of, say, $300 to join if they were willing to sign a contract stating that they would not work an AFTRA TV or Film acting job for something like 5 or 10 years. If they broke that contract they would be kicked out of and barred from re-joining SAG for a period of 5 or 10 years, and would be obligated to retro-actively pay the full fee for joining at the time they had joined. And of course would have to pay a new fee if they decided to join 5 or 10 years later.
SAG could offer this deal for 3 months, and every 3 month period after that the fee to join doubles until it meets the current joining fee.
Current dual card holders would get some other kind of benefit like maybe a price break in dues laid out long term if they also signed the contract to not work AFTRA (I don’t know what the penalty for breaking it would be) – again with a window that lessens the deal as time goes by.
Sure some of us had to pay more and meet more requirements to join SAG, but if enough AFTRA actors took this deal AFTRA would lose a large portion of its actors in a short period of time (some actors of course would have to finish out current contracts). AFTRA could always get more actors to join, but if all this happens fast enough, then producers would have to go to SAG contracts, and AFTRA would deflate. SAG could also announce that if an actor joined AFTRA after this deal was announced, they would have some kind of harder requirement or much greater fee to join SAG.
As everyone seems to agree that SAG is the better union for actors to be a member of but its harder to join, a lot of actors might be enticed by this deal.
Someone should see if this is at all do-able and poll actors of AFTRA to see how they feel. There are still some pension and health issues, but those will likely always stand in the way of a merger, so this could be a way to bring actors under one roof.
Also, maybe some of the richer actors who like to talk about one actors union could make grants to help make up for the less dues that would be paid by current dual card holders.
Maybe all this is crazy, I was just trying to think of a way to get actors where they belong – under one union – SAG. Anyone else want to throw out a crazy plan to get us all under one union – let’s brainstorm!
Force is too harsh? Have you READ this board? Did you not see the actions taken against AFTRA and vilification of AFTRA by MF leaders?
It seems clear that the MF’s opinion is AFTRA is evil and must be stopped (yes, I’m paraphrasing, but READ the posts here). We can’t MERGE because we would bring newscasters and thier ilk into the new union and that is unacceptable.
In essence, MF is telling AFTRA that they want all Actors under one roof…. SAG’s. Forget that 75% of AFTRA’s membership are ACTORS and that doing so would jeapordize the very existence of AFTRA.
How exactly do you NEGOTIATE that? Answer, you CAN’T. And MF thinks they hold all the cards, when in reality they don’t. That reasoning is why we are in the shape we are in right now.
no MF doesn’t hold all the cards.
but the actors do, ultimately, have the ability to decide who should represent them in motion pictures and television.
AFTRA’s low ball contracts and giveaways might come back to bite her in the ass if it boils down to a choice between AFTRA and SAG.
harry98,
My point was that MF THINKS they hold all the cards. You are correct that they don’t.
A civil war amoungst actors has only one single effect – it WEAKENS every single negotiation with the AMPTP. Look at the current contract, look at the commercial contract extension (note that the Commercial contact has not bee fully negotiated for FIVE YEARS).
I again ask ANYONE HERE – HOW will MF put all Actors under SAG jurisdiction????
Anyone… so far I just hear the crickets.
if U4S gets control of the board a merger attempt will still take a long time.
people will now demand full transparency on the part of AFTRA,
if AFTRA would even want to merge.
are you sure that they would even be willing?
and if so, why? why now when they’ve got the moguls interested in their cheap contracts?
mf may be completely out of the picture and actors may still decide that AFTRA doesn’t do a proper job of representing them.
the prospect of eliminating the undercutting by AFTRA appeals to a lot of actors.
the prospect of merging with the organization who has been doing the undercutting gives a lot of actors pause.
Just An Idea, you wrote: “Sure some of us had to pay more and meet more requirements to join SAG, but if enough AFTRA actors took this deal AFTRA would lose a large portion of its actors in a short period of time (some actors of course would have to finish out current contracts). AFTRA could always get more actors to join, but if all this happens fast enough, then producers would have to go to SAG contracts, and AFTRA would deflate.”
Great in theory. But anyone who wants to join AFTRA already has because it’s that easy to do. (And they’ll take anyone they can get.) So their ranks would be depleted if actors walked (or ran for their financial lives, rather) away.
But I also doubt that AFTRA would take kindly to SAG doing something like that – it may even be against some union law or agreement with AFTRA (not that AFTRA’s lived up to their end of agreements with SAG). But keep thinking – you’re on the right track. I’ll burn my membership card in a second if everyone starts walking away from AFTRA.
I believe that any kind of union merger is now out of the question. AFTRA has played their cards – to their detriment – and shown their underhanded intentions. As well as notifying the world that they’re a group of bargain-basement actors who don’t think they deserve any better. Note to producers: you get what you pay for.
And speaking of the cards that AFTRA played, I’d like a recount of the recent contract ratification. Who counted the votes, anyway – anybody know?
Another note: SAG doesn’t want the DJs, sportscasters, anchormen and women, radio show hosts, etc. – only the actors, as it should be – and I doubt SAG is trying to bring them aboard. This is what AFTRA should stick to – representing these people – as they were initially created to do. But without actors, AFTRA would surely die. So AFTRA began poaching in SAG territory as a last gasping breath to stay afloat (and for Roberta to keep her job) and they got a mouthful of air to survive, if only temporarily, by this AMPTP contract. Desperate moves from a desperate organization. Read other DHD posts about how AFTRA is about to sell out their voice-over people next.
Well, AFTRA-bashing is a bit off topic here so I will now step down and yield to the gentleman from…
That poster is funny, though. I hope Doug, Alan and Seymour (et al) are laughing about it.