AMPTP Takes Its Turn Meeting Mediator

COMMENTS (38)

• AWTY, whom am I blaming? Nobody but the AMPTP.

  I’m “…so obvious(ly)…” what? Making sense?

  What form am I “true” to? Am I angry? Nope. Am I ranting or raging? Nope. Am I shouting ALL IN CAPS? I am not. Am I letting people like you get away with making false statements? Not a chance…

  And are you actually being critical of the fact that I offered an apology in kind? What planet are you from?

  You didn’t “strike a nerve” – you simply regurgitated the AMPTPs talking points. I’ll stand on my previous post to you, personally.

  God, if you really are a SAG member I hope you find another job. I hear John McCain and Sarah Palin are going to need some double-talk speeches written to place blame after the fall. Sounds like your type of gig.

  Comment by Ace — Saturday November 1, 2008 @ 6:23pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Tensions are high for those of us who actually make their living solely from the industry. I am Lucky enough to survive at WB driving on TV (the only game in town these days). Many of my friends are not so lucky and are having real hard times these days. As each day passes and we see no real light at the end of the tunnel, we grow fearful for another 100 day strike that could break us all. Combine that with the recession, and the election (go Obama!) and you can see why the anger is showing.

  Comment by Transpo — Saturday November 1, 2008 @ 10:08pm PDT  Reply to this post

• *rolling my eyes* Yes, Sterling, I absolutely know why crew eats first – and why transpo eats before crew. And I’m more than happy for both to occur. I don’t even know why “crew” in general is being brought up. I used the meal analogy because of “hungry transpo” (get it – hungry?) was being a dick to SAG. For which he apologized. And when someone’s being a dick to my union, I can be a dick to theirs. For which I apologized as well. He has also since noted that his hunger is for work, not food. Nevermind.

  And crew, in general, does support us (SAG) when they understand the reason we won’t accept the contract. But support for our position is different than support for a potential strike. Two separate, but related, issues. They simply don’t want a strike and they don’t know who else to blame because they’re not used to blaming management. It takes a little enlightenment and education, and I’m doing what I can to keep the record straight.

  See you on set.

  Comment by Ace — Sunday November 2, 2008 @ 2:14am PST  Reply to this post

• Well said, Transpo…and I hear you. So do many others. Just don’t count on Ace to have any empathy for that. He must have the last word on everything. He MUST be right. His union (which I also belong to) MUST be right in his way of thinking…no matter what damage it might cause. Guys like this never look inward. They always point the finger at someone else. In spite of how openly and honestly you have stated your opinion, you cannot expect that Ace can REALLY hear you. Just watch. Very shortly, you will see that I will get another blistering comment from him who, as I said, MUST have the last word. So be it. This message is intended for you and others like you who are deeply worried. I want you to know that there are many working and non-working actors (who are loyal union members as well)who do not feel that this negotiation has been handled well. They feel that we (SAG) need to regroup and rethink our actions as a body. Whether people like ACE choose to believe that we are indeed loyal union members or not at this point is irrelevant to many of us now. We support our union but the situation has reached a ridiculous stage. We will make our voices heard with our votes and level heads, not with this constant ranting. I wish your friends that are struggling a resolution to this situation sooner than later.

  Comment by Are We There Yet? — Sunday November 2, 2008 @ 10:54am PST  Reply to this post

• AWTY, does laughing at your character assination attempts constitute a “last word”?

  Because… *lauging*

  Comment by Ace — Sunday November 2, 2008 @ 2:44pm PST  Reply to this post

• Dear Hollywood,

  Joke of the month…

  Know the difference between SAG and Congress?

  Nothing, they both talk too much, take too long to vote and only take action when it’s too late.

  Here’s how a real union gets the job done.

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27478691/

  Note the last line about moving work out of town.

  Keep up with the infighting and you’ll continue to make the AMPTP happy.

  As I previously posted, my hopes were that SAG would lead the way for the other Guilds and Unions in this country. Looks like the Machinists got the job done.

  Please cut out the sniveling and bickering, get together!

  Otherwise, you’ll keep sending work out to the sticks. Where I’ll wind up in movies while you whine about it.

  I had a great time on the set of “Leatherheads”. Easiest work I’ve ever done in my life.

  Comment by Tom Segerson — Monday November 3, 2008 @ 9:28am PST  Reply to this post

• y’all are hilarious. I have never heard such a pack of blamers in my life. SAG has blamed everyone for their problems, AFTRA, DGA, WGA, U4S, MF, and now the Teamsters (huh?) And they even go so far as to bemoan their lack of support from the other unions and guilds in this industry….so…are we insane?

  The fact is that SAG, our union, has run one of the worst researched, most poorly managed, farcically strategized negotiations ever. What union or guild in their right mind would bother with them? Honestly. I once thought that the longhaul strategy for SAG would be to create better strategic partnerships with other guilds. But now I know why the other guilds avoid them. As badly managed as the WGA strike was…? It was like D-Day compared to this.

  Comment by still confused — Monday November 3, 2008 @ 9:55am PST  Reply to this post

• Dear “Still Confused”,

  You’re wrong. Period. (At least on the first part of your comment.)

  Yeah, you probably expected me to say that, but here’s why I am saying it: nobody that I know of is blaming Teamsters for anything. Nobody. We’ve had some words but there is no blame from SAG. Nor is blame being put on the DGA or the WGA. Where did you get your information? (note: I think I already know the answer to that.)

  Certainly (by me, in particular) blame is being placed on the AMPTP – where it mostly belongs. Yes, AFTRA screwed SAG by negotiating separately. That is absolutely one of the reasons we’re in the situation we’re in. Also, the infighting between M1 and U4S only delayed the union from taking the steps it’s currently taking. Those were definite hurdles. But…

  Blaming Teamsters? DGA? WGA? No, pal, sorry. Sounds like you’re just trying to stir shit up (even after it’s completely cooled off).

  ______

  The second part of your rant is opinion, not fact as you stated. And while you’re entitled to your opinion, calling it “fact” doesn’t make it so.

  But why post a negative opinion of SAG in the first place if you’re a SAG member? I challenge both you and “Are We There Yet” to state why you believe that posting negative comments about your own (supposedly) union in public is considered “loyal”. As far as I can recall, all of your comment posts are critical of SAG and y/our leaders. Yet you still claim to be a SAG member.

  If you, for whatever reason, believe that SAG has mis-managed these contract negotiations, you’re welcome to your opinions. I happen to believe otherwise and I don’t ever demand that anyone agree with me, least of all you or AWTY. That is my opinion, based on the facts, and I have facts to support it.

  But bashing SAG in public? You call that loyalty? Trashing your own union is going to help you get the outcome you want? I would think that anyone who considers themselves loyal to SAG would either be supportive or keep their negative thoughts to themselves.

  I’m not saying that either of you are disloyal, but I think you both have a misguided understanding of what that means. It is your right, even your responsibility, to question your leaders (in any faction of leadership). But if you want the best outcome for yourselves and for other SAG members as you claim, you don’t go public with your discontent (or worse) – even if your opinions and/or complaints are founded on facts. That’s simply counter-productive.

  Can you tell us why you would do that? Please.

  Comment by Ace — Monday November 3, 2008 @ 8:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• Ace, this issue of loyalty is just silly. I know from reading your posts that you’re a big flag waver and I know you enjoy your membership rallies and all and I’m sure SAG needs members like you. It takes all kinds as my mother says.

  But blind loyalty to the existing power structure, especially when it’s incompetent is something I think we’ve all learned recently may not be loyalty at all. It takes a clear eye to look at what your own organization is doing and criticize it. And yes, criticize it publically. Be bold, Ace. If you disagree don’t feel compelled to pretend like you don’t. You’ll feel better in the morning. Trust me.

  And go Vote!!!!

  Comment by still confused — Tuesday November 4, 2008 @ 11:54am PST  Reply to this post

• Well said, Still Confused. I remember a teacher of mine saying, “In a democracy, a true patriot is one who loves their country to the core. As a person who cares so deeply, they are not afraid to speak up and make their voice heard when they feel their country is on the wrong path”. I think the point is that such a person states an opinion in hopes of helping, Ace, not hurting. Blind loyalty is neither democratic nor smart in my opinion. You can hate the war in Iraq, for instance, but you don’t have to hate your country as a whole or the soldiers who fight it. Since you are such a loyal unionist (which I have no problem with), I’m going to assume you are also a member of AFTRA or have been in the past (at least until you got mad at them for the deal they made). If you are a proponent of blind loyalty, why are you attacking them then? Even if you completely disagree with what they have done, why are you so openly unsupportive of a sister union? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical, especially in light of what you’ve just said to Still Confused and I? I really don’t think you get it, brother. We’re not against you. We’re just not with you on these issues. A lot of people aren’t. If you go back and read many of your blogs, you’ll see that it’s not true that you respect dissenting opinion and that you vehemently disagree and attack when someone doesn’t agree with you. That’s what bugs me about you personally but I will always defend your right to have your opinion.

  Comment by Are We There Yet? — Tuesday November 4, 2008 @ 5:38pm PST  Reply to this post

• What, I’m not being bold? Really?

  And on top of that, you’re suggesting that I don’t believe the very words that I’ve written – because I disagree with you? I’ll just bite my tongue here and ask you to check yourself and your veiled accusations. Cheap, low politics.

  It’s not blind loyalty that I have – that I show – and it’s not 100% Kool-Aid drinking agreement with everything that’s taken place with the negotiations, and within the board elections. It’s called support – positive support for people who have a very difficult job ahead. Anything less not only makes their job more difficult, it’s counter-productive to the bigger picture.

  Still…

  Your sharing of an opinion publicly is one thing – even a dissenting opinion. (We don’t all agree with each other.) But smearing someone’s name(s), for things that have already happened – what’s the point? It sounds like you really want less agreement within SAG; less strength going into the final stages of negotiations; less cohesiveness, and you show less character because of those words and statements. You simply sound bitter about things that have already occurred and you’re getting even by blasting people whom you think responsible.

  An opinion is different than offensive statements and cheap shots. It’s about your choice of words and tone of your comments. And purposely posting offensive comments is, I’ll go ahead and say it, disloyal at the very least. It shows that your intent is not to better SAG, but to further divide it.

  Senator Barack Obama has just wont the Presidency of the United States – and he did it by running a very positive campaign and choosing to not take the low road. I would offer that the bar has been raised as to how we all fight for what we believe. Class and tact.

  /political statement

  Look up both loyal and disloyal in a dictionary. Maybe you’ll grasp what I’ve been saying.

  Comment by Ace — Tuesday November 4, 2008 @ 9:37pm PST  Reply to this post

• AWTY, I think we’re all in agreement that we have the right to have, and share, our opinion(s). And my previous comment to “still confused” (which should post shortly) confirms this and answers your charges of “blind loyalty”, so I won’t reiterate.

  My biggest problem with how you and “confused” (and others) share your opinions is what you say and where you say it, not that you say it.

  Taking the point of your teacher’s quote above (which I completely agree with), using country and patriot are excellent examples of what I’ve been trying to explain to you, but on a much larger scale.

  Hypothetically:
  Let’s say you’re a patriotic American living in France (temporarily) and you have huge disagreements with the U.S. President back home while he’s trying to, say, sign an arms treaty of some kind with France – a treaty which you want to happen. And you then blast your own country’s leader in a public square – in France – for how he’s handled the situation. Do you see how that would look disloyal and undermining to other Americans? Even to the French? What good would it serve to vent your frustrations to the wrong body of people except to make the leader look bad, as if you had an axe to grind? Your teachers quote pertains to being in your own country (or at the very least, using private channels) and having the right to say what you feel, not blabbing your discontent in front of the world.

  Now let’s say SAG is the U.S. and France is the public internet in that example. Make sense? Your right and responsibility to question your leadership is fine if kept in-house. If you want to be a SAG patriot I’m all for it, but the place to “speak up and make your voice heard” is at a SAG meeting, not in front of the entire entertainment industry. And I seriously doubt you would have the balls to stand up at a SAG meeting and call out anyone on the committee or board with the kind of rhetoric you’ve used here.

  It is very important that SAG shows solidarity right now, and that we’re mostly on the same page (publicly, at the very least), which is not untrue. Anything less weakens our position with the contract negotiations, which is what we don’t want, right?

  As for me, I will fight back in kind (“vehemently” and “attack” are a bit harsh) when someone disses my team (country, union, family…) with spiteful and demeaning slurs – especially when the comments are based on other false statements, ignorance and misinformation. That’s called loyalty, “brother”, and it’s not blind. If I have a problem with how my own leaders are running things then I know the correct place to address those concerns.

  You’ve got me on the AFTRA issue, though I can only say that by AFTRA taking those actions, they became an enemy of SAG – and they knew it going in. And the fact that AFTRA screwed SAG is no secret, which is all I’ve said about it. Duh. If they would give me my initiation money back, I’d gladly send them my membership card. (And I did, btw, take those concerns to AFTRA Hollywood at the time.) Certainly not blind loyalty there.

  So with this turning into a flame war, it’s time to let it go. Sounds like we’ll have to agree to disagree on how to best serve our union. It would be great if one of you would post a response so that I’m not accused again of having to have the last word.

  And to all of you other DHD readers, thanks for listening in. I feel I’ve exhausted more than my personal quota of DHD web space.

  __________________________

  This will probably not be the last

  Comment by Ace — Wednesday November 5, 2008 @ 1:30am PST  Reply to this post

• Ace…I have no idea what you’re talking about with your example of living in France and criticizing the American president. It makes no sense. If you have something to say it doesn’t matter whether you live in Toledo, Ohio or Toledo, Spain. You have a voice, use it.

  You’re all about team spirit Ace. I can see that. And as I said before, I think it’s useful to have some people like that in SAG. But sometimes solidarity is not about waving flags and enforcing loyalty to whoever is currently in charge. In fact, this kind of cheerleading can sometimes muddy the issues even further and be counterproductive to SAG.

  It’s not the least bit disloyal to point out that SAG leadership has failed miserably…to say that their policies and actions sometimes seem to come from an alternate universe…to say that they don’t seem to have a clear grasp of how to get the current membership a new contract…to say that they lack a sense of longterm strategy. I have not the slightest doubt that our leaders desire the best for the members. They are just executing this desire in an incompetent way.

  Maybe to you this sounds like a slur and it hurts your feelings. But to many, many other members of SAG it’s merely a fact.

  Comment by still confused — Friday November 7, 2008 @ 11:53am PST  Reply to this post