Here is my analysis of the SAG election results, plus I’ve been given the official Unite For Strength and Membership First statements below:
The results of the SAG vote elected an equal number of Membership First candidates and Unite For Strength candidates — 5 to 5 — onto the 33-strong National Board from the Hollywood division. For MF, JoBeth Williams, Scott Bakula, Lainie Kazan, Keith Carradine and Joely Fisher won three-year terms. For U4S, Amy Brenneman, Adam Arkin, Ken Howard, Pamela Reed and Kate Walsh also won three-year terms. The 11th elected National Board member was Morgan Fairchild who ran as an Independent and also won a three-year term. It’s expected that she will vote with U4S which endorsed her candidacy.
Before the election, the makeup of the SAG National Board from the Hollywood division used to be 32 MF members, plus Morgan Fairchild as an Independent. After the election, it’s 27 MF members, 5 U4S members, and 1 Independent.
Inside the New York Division, little has changed because of the election: it’s always been overwhelmingly anti-MF. But that also doesn’t mean that the 5 newly elected full SAG National Board members with three-year terms will vote 100% with U4S. Because many of the NYD candidates campaigned on a different slate, such as USAN, or Restore Respect. But, like U4S, most oppose MF’s Hollywood-centric politics as well as blame MF for all the SAG-AFTRA bashing.
Finally, seven SAG National Board members were elected from the Regional Branch Divisions and, again, it’s unclear how many will vote 100% of the time with U4S. Tonight I heard that MF is counting on three to vote at least part of the time with them.
So, if you count the new U4S full National Board members from the Hollywood Division, and if you assume all the other full National Board members from the NY Division and the Regional Branch Divisions will vote 100% of the time with U4S, then this gives U4S a razor-thin majority now on the guild’s 71-member governing body. But those are big ifs (which of course Dave McNary’s simpleton Variety story fails to point out…)
Would this affect SAG’s current contract negotiations with the AMPTP? I don’t see how, especially considering July’s unanimous board endorsement of SAG’s position on New Media jurisdiction. Nor does it affect the makeup of SAG’s negotiating committee. “The election changes nothing,” one MF’er told me tonight. “The employers are still going to deal with the same people across the table.”
However, during the campaign, U4S supporters claimed they could influence the SAG National Board to change the makeup of the negotiating committee. But to do so would require changing the guild’s constitution, and that can’t be done without a 2/3′s vote, which neither MF nor U4S have. Of course, the national board could disband SAG’s bargaining group and take over themselves. But that would mean 73 people (including president Alan Rosenberg and secretary/treasurer Connie Stevens) in the talks – which seems unwieldly and therefore impractical. So if each division gets to choose new members on the board, then the Hollywood division would still have the numbers majority because it’s based on earnings and demographics.
U4S from the Hollywood division picked up strength in the category of SAG National Board alternates — 5 more alternates than MF. But I’m told the alternates don’t conduct national board business unless they’re invited to fill in for a full member.
The breakdown of the alternates for MF is Joe Bologna, Clancy Brown, Alan Ruck, Jane Austin, France Nuyen, Anthony DeSantis, Eugene Boggs, Charles Shaughnessy and Yale Summers. The U4S alternates are Marcia Wallace, Dule Hill, Doug Savant, Gabrielle Carteris, Clyde Kusatsu, L Scott Caldwell, Ashley Crow, Ned Vaughn, Richard Speight Jr, Stacey Travis, Tim DeKay, Bill Smitrovich, and Assaf Cohen.
Ned Vaughn, who acted as U4S’s de facto leader during the campaign, was elected only a National Board alternate, so it’s expected that a U4S full member of the National Board will take his place as the slate’s leader now — probably Amy Brenneman (the biggest vote-getter) or Adamm Arkin (the 2nd biggest vote-getter), or Ken Howard (who took a leadership role right behind Vaughn), or Pamela Reed. Conventional wisdom has it that Kate Walsh may not want to be the U4S spokesperson because her husband is a major studio executive: Alex Young, production co-president at Twentieth Century Fox. (I know this sounds sexist…)
Those elected as SAG National Board alternates from the New York Division include newcomer Eric Bogosian, an Independent. It’s thought that he may vote more with MF than against it unlike the NYD’s 8 other alternates.
I feel the wins by U4S and like-minded slates have more to do with AFTRA than anything. I opined here that MF was making a tactical mistake fighting publicly with AFTRA, especially when SAG leaders campaigned to sink AFTRA’s new contract with the AMPTP. I felt each guild should be sovereign not interfere in the other’s affairs. On the other hand, I felt it wrong for AFTRA to break off joint negotiations with SAG because it only benefitted the AMPTP’s divide and conquer strategy against both unions. AFTRA got a lousy contract because of it. Not only have SAG members made clear in the postcard poll they want a better one, but also SAG’s National Board members.
I just hope MF and U4S can now unite about trying to get a richer deal. Because SAG has to start speaking with one voice again. Solidarity against the AMPTP is now or never.
Here is Unite for Strength’s Ned Vaughn on the election results: “We offered members a clear choice in this election – end the fighting with AFTRA and instead partner with them to create a stronger union for performers. The results in this unusually high turnout election leave no doubt that is what the members want. We look forward to working with all of our colleagues on the board to move SAG in this new direction.”
Here is Membership First’s Anne Marie Johnson on the election results: “We appreciate and thank everyone who voted. Analyzing the results shows there was no mandate for either slate. Membership First still retains control of the Hollywood Division board and still controls the vote on the negotiating committee.
“Membership First still holds firm on what we believe are issues that are imperative for our members of the Screen Actors Guild. Those issues are: holding firm on force majeure, holding firm on jurisidoction from dollar one in New Media, holding firm on residuals for product made for New Media, and holding firm on product integration. And we look forward to the new national board members realizing (once they’ve actually spent time in a boardroom) that what we are fighting for is the right thing for the Screen Actors Guild.
“AFTRA on their own starting in 2006 began a campaign of undercutting contracts in order to place more money in their coffers and secure jurisdictions at the expense of the well-being of the actors. As the postcard poll has indicated, Membership First will continue to fight to maintain fair wages and working conditions for our members no matter what.”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.





The shoe on the other foot now. And the new board members will have to work hard and for free to get the Guild back on track and I am sure it will be an eye opener for most of them.
And for the board members who got unseated…well I sure you can figure out why, in due time.
Best of luck to all
Gary Watts
When does the Coup d’etat begin?
The Coup d’etat begins in due time.
The voters chose the most popular, the most recognizable. Amy Brenneman may have been a “casting” choice…I really don’t think that the SAG voters gave this side or that side a care–I think they voted for the most popular star. The most well-known.
U4S will see to it SAG gets screwed.
SAG’s gonna get the crap aftra contract, and they’ll be too pussy to reject it.
look – it’s not a mandate either way. I would have preferred that. u4s ran on “we want everything sag wants – and more!”
so, now, they have to deliver on that. if they don’t, they will be intensely criticized as hypocrites, and rightfully so. they will not be able to simply dismiss the fact that the poll overwhelmingly said “get a fair deal.” that means, with u4s’s repeated and official pledge: new media, first dollar, first airing, fair residuals for all reuse, it means retaining force majeure, it means every single deal point mf wants? u4s said – repeatedly – it wants too.
now, someone explain to me how that will happen absent a strike authorization? the amptp has zero intention, unless they completely change their tune, of giving sag what sag wants, and that is something mf AND u4s agree on: “we demand sag’s current deal points.”
so, absent a strike authorization, how will sag push the amptp somewhere it otherwise won’t go? answer? unless someone in this equation COMPLETELY changes their tune? nowhere.
and merger? forget it. u4s has WAY too much on its plate with the contract, and even if sag somehow gets the deal it’s asking for in the next month or two, u4s simply does not have the votes to revive that dead horse. the amount of time, money, discussion, leading to yet another vote on merger? will take years – and that’s IF u4s builds on it’s razor thin majority. and if they don’t come through on getting what sag has asked for in the contract – which IS their campaign pledge? how are they going to resurrect merger? answer – they can’t.
so, it’s off to the land of deadlock. unless one of the parties in this triumvirate completely turns on its stated goal regarding the contract – the amptp, u4s, and mf.
hmmmm…..
MF is still holding the ball for the contract negotiations. That DOESN’T CHANGE with this election. Any statements to the contrary are FALSE. The negotiating commitee stays EXACTLY THE SAME and must recommend the contract to the board.
The U4S site says NOTHING about this contract so don’t try to put that on them T-rex. GO there and look.
What they ran on was to UNITE actors with actors and STOP the fighting. And Actors are NOT JUST SAG.
You’re right, it’s not a mandate. But it’s a BIG message that MF better hear. They took a 10% return for the poll and turn it into a mandate. Almost 25% voted in this election. What do you think the other 15% felt about the poll?
The theatrical contract is an MF problem. They created it, they are negotiating it, they are RESPONSIBLE for whatever we get.
All I know is, I want better conditions for the actors, including myself, I don’t care who gets them for me….
“Some highlights from the interviews: Unite for Strength appears to have many of the same positions on contract issues, generally speaking as Membership First”
Duh:
I have to run, but you can’t be serious. Vaughn went on record saying “we want everything sag wants – and more!”
I’ll find that direct quote, but the one above is from jonathan handel’s take on his interview of vaughn.
u4s goes NOWHERE until they make good on that pledge. you can’t wish it away. it may not be on their site, but qualified voting isn’t on their site either – except their distancing themselves from it. it IS however the single issue that brought this group together in the first place, and IF they increased their razor thin majority, there’s little doubt they would re-raise qualified voting.
this quote from handel above shows you what you may not want to read, but to say u4s and ned vaughn – specifically, the leader of u4s – DIDN’T say this? that’s going nowhere. it’s on record.
the whole “unite actors” thing – they went to that AFTER sag and aftra split as their “top priority.”
now, merger is not going to happen – not with these numbers. forget it. that is a dead horse.
what IS going to happen, is this contract, and u4s will be bound by their own leaders words to make good on his pledge and join with mf which will still be negotiating in demanding the deal points sag has already asked for.
please, let’s not start rewriting history, especially recent and verifiable history. THAT’S getting off on the wrong foot.
No, Duh, it’s not a “BIG message.”
It’s celebrities winning. That’s it.
It’s an example of why SAG is a horrible union. It’s high school and it’s pathetic. Can’t wait to see if the U4S crowd can waste more money on a merger that has been rejected over and over and over and over.
My prediction. Nothing changes. As of December 31, 2008, there will be no strike but no new contract. AMPTP isn’t going to change their position, SAG doesn’t have support to call a strike (especially with these election results). AMPTP sees need to bring things to a head. Sometime in early 2009, there will be an agreement which gives a few crumbs to SAG but is really the AFTRA contract with a few provisions renamed.
dear “DUH”
of the 10% of the membership that participated in the poll,
87% of THEM said don’t take the deal
of the 25% that voted in this election about 51% voted U4S
and 49% for membership first. they won by a nose.
so your math is a little fuzzy.
what t-rex meant about U4S being in the driver’s seat is,
are they going to SUPPORT the negotiating committee’s efforts
or are they going to try and fire doug allen.
they say that they want everything MF wants and more. okay.
let’s see what they do.
oh and the contract is not a MF problem created by themselves,
but a SAG problem created by the AMPTP.
and now some U4S will bear some of the responsibility of struggling against this.
they themselves said that the AFTRA deal isn’t good enough,
exceptt for ned vaughn, who publicly admitted that he voted for it’s ratification.
T-rex,
Can we just stop the fighting?
We ALL want the best contract we can get, but the MF is in FULL and COMPLETE control over these negotiations. They controlled everything to this point and will control the process until ratifiction. That’s just the plain and simple truth.
U4S has absolutely NO INFLUENCE in the negotiating committee or with what they accept or reject. Even those MF board members who didn’t get reelected STAY ON THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE until there is a final resolution.
Merger isn’t dead, it’s just beginning. And hopefully this time it will pass so we can finally make a united front against the AMPTP and get some REAL gains.
After all, we all want REAL GAINS in our contracts. It’s the path to getting those gains that is the difference.
Duh
sorry, I know it’s convenient for you to say “stop fighting,” but you need to understand – from my point of view, u4s’s “fight” came at the EXACT wrong time for sag.
there is NO WAY, with these numbers, that u4s can immediately launch into merger discussion. it’s not going to happen.
and, in FACT – if u4s wants to put its money where its mouth is?
they can call doug allen in, fire him with their one vote majority on the national board, pay him off 900k, then hire a new NED to do their bidding in the negotiating room. that’ll be a 4 to 5 week process. and it will get intense criticism.
they ALSO can dissolve the negotiating committee, and replace them with the national board, all 70 of them, in one room with the amptp, to carry out their agenda, which, again, oddly, is “get everything sag wants and more!” from the amptp.
anyone who examines that scenario will be left scratching their heads, be cause IF mf had retained or increased it’s majority, and the membership didn’t just vote for the bright shiny objects on the ballot? – there would have been, along with the overwhelming results of the poll, a REAL shot at getting a strike authorization vote and actually DOING something to move this process forward in a way that would have been positive for actors.
instead? stuck. no mandate for either side, and, unless u4s goes totally radical, in the way I describe above, nothing changes.
you may not want to read that, but that’s the reality of what these numbers mean regarding the contract in front of us.
Harry98,
Do you really think they would try to fire Doug Allen in the middle of active negotiations?! That sounds completely foolhardy to me and I can’t imagine it.
As to the math, you are only counting Hollywood. Not a good idea to be so isolationalistic.
The math is actually:
13,793 Hollywood votes cast, of which I’ll use your 51% but think it’s more than that for U4S, almost half were cast for MF. That equates to about 6758 votes cast for MF.
However, at least 8111 votes (that’s all I could get from the SAG web site) were cast OUTSIDE of LA (traditionally against the MF) and the other 7034 Hollywood votes for total of 15,145 votes to the 6,758 for MF. So total votes cast of 21,903 with MF getting about 31% total U4S getting 32% and the remaining 37% were most likely not going to support MF.
Do you begin to see that it’s not all about HOLLYWOOD? That the other branches have a significant say in it. That is what MF forgets about when it come to UNITY. We have to bring in ALL our members, not just 6,758 in Hollywood.
The “Solidarity Statement” only has a bit over 6,000 names on it. Don’t you see how the AMPTP doesn’t care when only 6% of SAG is making any noise??
We have to UNITE so we can ALL make some noise. Get a statement that 20 to 25,000 actors will support and take that to the AMPTP and scare the heck out of them.
However, the MF created this “non-negotiation” stalemate that we are in. The MF needs to fix it. There is nothing a new board can do to change the situation.
i tell you what “DUH”,
merger is dead at least until this time next year.
if the pro merger folks like yourself win a lot more seats on the board, well. then maybe you’ve got a chance.
if the balance of power stays like it is now, no way.
the advantage that U4S has now on the board is almost exactly what MF had up until yesterday.
our union, not unlike the nation, seems to be split right down the middle.
duh
you’re right. the balance of power on the national board is about
54% to 46% in U4S’s favor which is virtually identical to the slim advantage that MF enjoyed up until yesterday. not exactly a mandate and in no way enough to push a merger through in the very near future.
as for the new regime firing doug allen?
well, i think it would be a stupid move, but apparently some folks are talking about it.
paul christie from new york is quoted on SAGWATCH as saying he can’t imagine a scenario in which they would be able to keep doug allen on.
is he someone you know? does his thinking represent the majority of USAN? i don’t know. you tell me.
Nikki,
Kudos for your excellent analysis! You are easily one of the hardest working journalists in this business!
harry98,
I know Paul Christie from my work with the National Board quite some time ago. IMO he can be headstrong some times. I also know David Jolliffe who can be REALLY headstrong most of the time. I know Mike Farrell as well. He is a very well spoken person who usually gives a reasoned opinion. But his email was way over the top. Everyone has been under a great deal of pressure and temps have been flaring across the board.
Point is that you can’t gauge everything on one person thoughts. It’s the actions of the whole that will determine policy.
I actually think you and I are closer than we thought we would be. I’m hoping more SAG members are as well.
I’m with you on attempting to fire Doug Allen during the negotiations. Heck, after firing three NED’s we’ll never find anyone to take the job. I personally don’t care for Doug Allen’s positions or frankly his personality on the few times I’ve met him. But that doesn’t mean fire him.
Regarding merger, I think it may surprise you. Have you ever heard the old addage “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”? If we ever want to make gains in the contracts, we have to shut down the loopholes. And the plan by MF to take over AFTRA just won’t work. You can’t force it.
The reality is AFTRA doesn’t want to compete with SAG anymore than SAG wants to compete with AFTRA. The result is the Actors LOSE.
I think this new mix on the board will bring AFTRA back to the table for the Commercials Contract, which would be outstanding. Also, AFTRA making that committment may just be enough to send a signal to the AMPTP that the in fighting can be put aside and they will have to deal with a united bunch of Actors.
Time will tell, but if we can just stop fighting each other and work together to bring about a postive change for all actors, we will be able to force the AMPTP to provide better terms as our contracts renew.
AFTRA must be celebrating.
Maybe the scab gets dumped, maybe not. But either way, the Allens are finished.
This means that SAG will get back to the process of real and effective bargaining, sans the bullshit of trying to bust it’s fellow performers in AFTRA, and do what members elect them to do. For those of us who actually do make a living in this profession, it means the time is long past to join the ranks of our brothers and sisters in the WGA, DGA, and AFTRA and get back to work. Have a good look at the state of the USA economy and figure it out. This is not brain surgery. This contract will be settled and ratified within the next six weeks. Our leadership has failed us. Allen and Rosenberg had their chance. Move on and unite for strength…put membership first…not petty attacks on one another.
But I guess what we want to know is will there be a strike and if so, when?
mr. pinter,
if by ‘real and effective bargaining’,
you mean belly-flopping on top of a substandard deal the way AFTRA did, a deal that U4S itself says is not good enough,
then i’m really glad you are neither the president of SAG nor it’s NED.
current leadership never ‘busted’ fellow performers in AFTRA,
who for the most part are US,
but rather AFTRA leadership for their determined and aggressive resolve to garner new jurisdiction no matter what the consequences are …
actor’s welfare be damned.
- harry98
you still don’t get it…directing your frustration at AFTRA doesn’t get you a contract…if, indeed you want one. It continues to put you behind the eight-ball in a negotiation that is stale-mated. Direct your anger at the leaders you elected to get you a deal, and who failed…but succeeded in deflecting their failure and you went for the bait…I repeat…we will have a deal very soon. I, and many others, are sick to death of the petty and divisive behavior. I want my dues put to better use. I want my representatives to behave like professionals…not out-of-control amateurs. We’ve looked like fucking idiots long enough.
Do the deal and move forward.