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.







mr pinter,
no, i do get it.
if we “Do the deal” as you say, there may be no “forward’,
the pettiness and divisiveness is alive and well on AFTRA’s side of the fence, too. it’s a two way street.
U4S says they ‘want everything MF wants and MORE!’. their exact words.
okay, i wish them luck. for all of our sakes.
let’s see what happens.
oh, and mr. pinter?
NO contract is better than a CRAP contract.
Respectfully, Harry, the last time I checked we still live in a country that allows us the freedom (hopefully)to replace elected officials who do not abide by the wishes of those who bestowed on them the responsibility of office. This also applies to Allen and Rosenberg…they are now unable to go unbridled into what remains of the mess they have made of these negotiations and fuck them up any further by deflecting their failure at the table upon AFTRA. I completely disagree with your assessment that no contract is better than any contract. Those days of wild talk are over, my friend. There is no stomach for your strike talk. A contract that is ratified by the WGA and the DGA is one that I can live with…in 2008…with the financial world falling down around us. Use your head, man, and God save us all.
Okay, and this is especially for harry98 and T-Rex…could one of you explain to me what SAG actually could do right now to get the world shaking deal that you want? The chance of a successful strike authorization vote is extremely low, and even if such a vote passed I’m not sure there would be a lot of support from the community for a strike. But SAG already seems to know this, hence why they haven’t called for such a vote. Nor do I think they will. They know that one big strike a year is probably more than enough.
As for the current stalled talks…the time to be negotiating this contract in a functional way was arguably two years ago. I think we can all agree that SAG has completely botched this round.
So again, to get back to my question, what could SAG reasonably do at this point? What kind of leverage do they have?
Mr. Pinter, I would suggest that you instead direct your anger into its’ proper place — the AMPTP, not SAG’s negotiating committee. Which side are you on anyway? A united front is imperative. You people need to stop whining when the going gets tough. It’s tough to get a good contract — especially in this political and economic climate.
These are frightening times, but we have to stand firm in our resolve and know who our enemy really is if we want to win. Look at how the U.S. government allows big banks to recoup their losses on our backs or claim bankruptcy while individual people can’t file for bankruptcy when they can’t afford their medical bills.
The big banks and the big corporations, including the media conglomerates aren’t going to give us a thing unless we fight for it. You seem to understand the situation but not the answer to it. In the face, of the onslaught on working people, we need to fight not settle.
Drastic times call for drastic measures.
First, we must purge the union of the the extras and the non-working wannabes.
Then, we must raise the dues substantially in order to make up for the lost income .
And finally, we have to hire the best and the brightest to lead us, to work for our interests and to negotiate for us. Not some ex-NFL scab, some bloated looper or some non-working, Internet poker playing, pot smoking house-husband.
Sorry, UNITE, but this isn’t an invasion into the Middle East. It’s a contract negotiation. And I do fault my leadership for blowing this one. And I have been a union man for over 30 years so don’t tell me about standing firm and seeking resolve. I walked the picket lines in LA in 1981, with resolve for 16 weeks, while the series I had been cast in rotted on the vine. Back in the day, leadership was sound and there was an endgame. Good leaders don’t take their membership to the abyss and then blame everyone but themselves when they haven’t succeeded. I don’t know about purging SAG…it sounds to me like ethnic cleansing…purging SAG of bad leadership…I’m all for it. You are experiencing the result of negotiations that failed, my friend. Damn right, I’m angry. SAG membership deserves better.
to “Unite”
while your words are inspiring to some degree they are also the exact reason why SAG doesn’t have a contract right now. You say the AMPTP is your enemy. But they aren’t. They aren’t your friend either. They’re the people you’re negotiating with. This nuance seems to be lost on a lot of people in the union.
It’s not a fight, it’s not a battle, you aren’t against each other, at the end of the day you’re in the same business and you both need each other to operate. The only difference is that the AMPTP is not a democracy. They are a group of hardened professional negotiators who are representing an oligarchy. They will take advantage of SAG’s every weakness to get the best deal they can for their clients. It’s their job. And both by circumstance and incompetance SAG has exhibited a breathtaking amount of weakness.
But you don’t want to settle. I agree. Fine. My question for you is the same as for T-Rex and Harry98…setting aside empty rhetoric about “uniting” and “fighting” for just a moment, how exactly do you propose to do this?