Mark Carlton, an independent SAG National Board candidate, sent this under the title “SAG Election Smoke Screen”:
Raising the Bar Code on the SAG opinion poll as an issue, is a feeble attempt by Ned Vaughn and his fellow “Unite for Strength”slate members to create an election smoke screen. A cheap fear tactic to insinuate that “big brother” is watching you and somehow cares how you vote in an opinion poll.
Last spring I seem to recall Ned Vaughn and his elitist cohorts openly signing a petition for “Qualified Voting.” there was no fear of a “blacklist” or reprisal then. To date, over 6,000 SAG members have openly signed a statement of solidarity with their negotiating team. Again no fear of reprisal. So why the attempt at diversion?
The diversion is meant to keep you from asking U4S the real question at hand…. Now that U4S has seen the producer’s offer to SAG, how are they going to vote? Would they take the deal in front of them? or not? DEAL or NO DEAL?
Why am I so concerned? For six years I chaired the National New Technologies Committee for SAG. I convinced them of the importance of attending the annual International Consumer Electronics show (CES). For four years SAG staff and a few board members got a glimpse of the future of the entertainment business. We attended New Media trade shows and SAG did the research. We know the importance of the TV/ Theatrical contract before us.
With the help of a WGA member, I was even able to put together an inter-guild New Media Think Tank attended by senior staff and presidents of SAG, WGA, AFTRA and DGA. It became instantly clear that some understood the impact of New Media better than others, but that the various memberships had different needs in their contracts.
Every few years a group of actors seem to step up with simplistic solutions to complex problems. They usually have one underlying theme. Fear of a strike! They mostly have no prior board service or committee experience, have had little to do with their union except paying their dues. They have not done the research or have the knowledge or experience to lead our Union.
“Unite for strength” sounds vaguely familiar to “Partnership for Power” the last failed merger attempt. Both slogans are premised on the fallacy that there is strength in numbers. We have negotiated our contracts jointly for twenty years and there has been no increase in strength, only new slogans! Strength comes from the willingness of members to stand together and stand firm in the face of adversity and believe me there has never been a more important time or contract than NOW!
I would tell my fellow members who have not yet voted, “go get your ballot and VOTE for the leadership of your choice. Vote wisely, it is your future and your career. Then send in the postcard on the front of your opinion poll and let your union know what you think!”





The difference in the two examples cited by Mr. Carlton (qualified voting, SAG solidarity page) is that the people adding their names to those lists knew, in advance, that their information was being shared.
The postcard poll contains a false and misleading assurance of confidentiality. People sending in the postcards do not know that SAG is going to receive a computer listing of who voted and how they voted.
It’s a very bad precedent to set.
LA VO
the dude makes sense. listen up people. tough world out there. want to make a decent living? let’s press these producer fucks till their eyeballs bulge. otherwise? we aren’t getting shit.
(apologies if this posts twice – the first posting was greeted by the comments page with no response and, on checking, I don’t see the post…er… posted)
I find it interesting that anyone could be so paranoid as to believing their information/affiliation/preferences would be “not secret” when they are also posting their opinions so vehemently on the internet, in a fairly non-secret location that anyone who would be in charge of SAG would have every right to sign up and visit.
The comments that some posters leave on some forums are far more “damaging” (if you call supporting one side over another “damaging”) that simply checking yes or no.
SAG is asking “do you agree,do you want this contract?” And this bothers some of SAGs members? Meanwhile on the forums, said bothered people are accusing SAG (or MF) of all kinds of evil “motives” in sending out such a missive (and in many other things they do or do not do).
Checking yes or no is far less “damaging” to ones reputation in the community than the things I’ve seen written.
How many people – on either side (or no side at all) who are serving, or running to serve, are even getting paid for this union work? (seriously – is Rosenberg paid? I’m guessing that the NED is paid)
These people (most of them) do all this work for nothing (as far as i know) and some members (not you) can’t even show any respect for the work which was done *on their behalf* – whether they agree with the decisions or not. I’ve seem some of the venom, and let me tell you — the WGA may have had the support of the fans (cause they were mostly united) but the fans watching SAG verbally slug each other over this contract — well, all of you are rich anyway, so you don’t need our help, which is good, cause fans are not prone to supporting rich, spoiled childen.
Rise above, people.
Nicely said, Mr. Carlton.
“Raising the Bar Code…issue”
U4S is just mad about the validation bar code because it allows verification that one person has earned one vote. They hate that sort of thing. They like a stacked deck. Remember Affected Member Voting– we vote you won’t?
But we know, we know, we know, this isn’t about that. But you’ll have to stop stamping your feet or we’ll have to put you in another time out.
Carlton and many other SAG Independent candidates can be seen talking about SAG’s issues here
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/689529
Carlton’s got my vote
Keep after them Mark. I love saying, I knew you “when” you were “just an Actor”. I have always loved this side of you.
Reply to..”LA VO”
Do you have any solutions?
None thus far and fear is not a solutions.
Then stop the BS and offer something better.
You do want to make sure that only SAG members are voting and not the AMPTP..right?
HMmmm…..What is you real name?
And I did vote YES what about You?
It’s only a poll for Gods sake.
Gary Watts…. #43 on your SAG ballot
It’s easy to predict what will happen to you, if you DARE to check “Accept … the contract, without modification” on S.A.G.’s membership poll card.
Using the sinister bar code on that innocent-looking “survey” card, the ruthlessly efficient S.A.G. bureaucracy will identify and target you.
Then, the heavily-armed S.A.G. Secret Police will break down your door in the dead of night and methodically smash your “instrument.”
Thanks to the heroic underground network of “Unite for Strength,” I knew what I had to do: I shredded the postcard, burned it and flushed the ashes down the toilet.
reading all this crap is like listening to the “lipstick on a pig ” static… and it serves the same purpose of distraction. members of u4s are actually WORKING actors for the most part, who would stand to lose a great deal in a strike – what would mark carlton lose? “how would they vote?” and , “would they take the deal?” are questions usually answered in the voting process itself. p
Neither choice in the SAG member poll is worth choosing. If we were to accept the producers ‘”final offer” without modification’ it would be inferior to the AFTRA contract, and as for the first choice to continue negotiating with the AMPTP, the desire of MembershipFirst to continue negotiating is like banging our heads against the wall. It is blatantly obvious the producers are not going to move much if at all, especially since profit levels are unproven and they have also agreed to open up the books on new media earnings to us prior to the next contract in 2011. At this point it clearly behooves us to see exactly where new media may take us, based upon their reported earnings in the interim, before we insist on a reliable figure to represent our fair share of the revenue.
MIckfilm: your statement, “It is blatantly obvious the producers are not going to move much if at all…” is inherently false. Call it your opinion if you wish, but it is NOT blatantly obvious, nor logical. What is blatantly obvious is their intentions. They’re bluffing, mate. They know they have to offer a better deal, and they know they should, but they think they don’t have to because they think SAG has no teeth to “strike” with. Uhhh… oops.
Nor will they EVER “open up the books” on anything to anyone else in the industry. NEVER. Nobody who knows this organization would make that statement. And by the way, there’s already millions being made online – one just needs to open their lazy eyes to see the flow of cash. Are they opening up their books right now to show everyone “how little” they’re profiting?
MF didn’t stop negotiating – AMPTP did. And it’s a ploy, a negotiating tactic. This will all be worked out very soon. Because if it’s not SAG will absolutely stop working which will create havoc within the industry. And SAG won’t be to blame for it, which is what this recent mailer showed very clearly.