Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynn Ramsay Team On … 
Brad Pitt Hits Cannes With ‘Killing Them … 
Longtime TV Exec Rod Perth Named NATPE President & CEO 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘House’ Ends Run On High-Ish … 
Does Cable News Clarify Or Confuse The Public’s … 
Mark Burnett’s Company Launches Scripted Unit, Taps … 
‘Mary Mother Of Christ’ In Lionsgate Deal 
Icon UK Group Joins ‘The Butler’; Forest … 
Best Buy Shares Up Pre-Market As Q1 Earnings Beat Estimates 
HBO Developing Comedy Series Starring Catherine Keener And … 
Will ‘Paperboy’ Heat Domestic Buying At Cannes? … 
Millennium Films Buys Spec Thriller ‘Playing … 
Will ‘American Idol’s’ Jessica Sanchez … 
Legendary’s Thomas Tull Among Just 3 Contenders … 
Harvey Weinstein Unveils ‘The Master’, … 
CBS’ ‘Rules Of Engagement’ Renewed For … 
Facebook Shares Fall Below Offering Price Even As Market … 
UTA Signs ‘Intouchables’ Star Omar Sy 
Weather Wreaks Havoc In Cannes; Wind Damage Forces … 
Cable Execs Warn That Dish Network’s Ad-Zapping DVR … 
Hulu Unveils Summer Slate Of Original And Exclusive Shows 
Screen Actors Guild president Alan Rosenberg spoke with KTLA’s Sam Rubin this AM:
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
-
Marketplace
-
-
-
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
- Whitney Houston Last Song: 'Celebrate' Duet With Jordin Sparks Released
- 'Moonrise Kingdom' Stars Kara Hayward And Jared Gilman On Bill Murray, Music And Kissing
- 'Chernobyl Diaries' Controversy: Charity Slams Found-Footage Film For Being Insensitive
- 'Killing Them Softly' Teaser Poster: First Look At Brad Pitt's Hitman Movie
- 'Anchorman 2' Trailer: Will Ferrell And The Chanel Four News Team Are Back
Hey Reality Check,
I think you need to do a history check. All workers in all industries have got the biggest gains in wages and working conditions during hard economic times, not good ones. That’s why we have the unions in the first place. Reality Check: They didn’t come into being in the 50′s. Here’s some advise: If you won’t get on with making progress, get out of the way of the people who will. We don’t need your Orwellian “reality check.”
SAG is broken. 120,000 members….but, how many of them actually are working or earning their primary living as Alan said as a “middle class actor” in the first place?
Little Johnny or Sally could have made a commercial under SAG in 1989 and he and his or her parents continued to pay low dues. Well, he or she is a member in good standing and has the right to vote even though he or she hasn’t been an “ACTOR” for 20 years and is now working in any number of fields that possibly don’t provide medical benefits (like the 45 million Americans out there). So health insurance is available as a member in good standing as well as a full vote BUT he or she isn’t an active member of the community as an artist.
Like the WGA, SAG must put together some reform so that the voice of working actors can be heard.
I personally feel a strike at this time would be HORRIBLE for many reasons.
Yet, we first need to really determine who should have a voice and a vote. I understand that residuals pay good money and it is earned by the artist. I also understand the .com situation. Yet, there are THOUSANDS of people who aren’t by profession an actor and it isn’t fair to their peers, the community, the Guild of AMPTP that they vote even though thay haven’t worked and may not plan to is heard with the same noise.
Now, I don’t believe it needs to be based on earninngs. It should be based on number of days worked over a period of time (4 years)? It just makes NO sense and doesn’t further the cause in my opinion that anyone should benefit from the union if they soley pay dues and are in good standing because they followed basic rules but don’t actively work in the business.
Make NO MISTAKE – there are SO many people out there who have ZERO impact on the daily operation of the entertainment business who as of now have a voice and the power to shut down or alter an industry for which they have barely any connection. I feel that those who vote must work a said number of hours per year for a said number of years unless they aren’t able to work because of a disability or become of age when they would retire.
A retired actor who earns pension, health and welfare shouldn’t have the same voice as an 22 year old actor leaving Yale Drama to pursue their craft and have to face these challenges of the next 40 years but should be protected for their contributions of the past 40 years.
The Guild is broken.
Face reality.
to “SAG IS BROKEN”
That was about as well put as I’ve ever heard it. Thank you.
“SAG IS BROKEN”
There are sssooo many Americans out there, unemployed, senior citizens, disabled, sufferers of age, or sex or ethnic discrimination who can’t get a job, why should THEY get to vote in an election?
Come on man. Your logic is shit
And, Rosenberg doesn’t make 6 million bucks a year – his wife does. Take away the wife, and what has Rosenberg made this past year? I saw him in the Jon Avnet, DeNiro/ Pacino movie (really bad movie) and I saw the name Rosenberg in the producer credits (a relative, I’m sure) – so, working as President of SAG? Zero. Getting the shit kicked out of him by all the assholes who have been hammering him for the past year? He doesn’t get paid to take that shit either.
I figure Rosenberg, with residuals, probably pulled in less than 30 grand last year.
Now, is he hurting? Because of his wife – no. but don’t tell me HE’S not a middle class actor.
When was the last time you saw Rosenberg in a principal role in a feature (where he would have probably been making scale anyway) or as a regular on a TV show – the ONLY was any actor in SAG is making REAL money?
Yeah, I thought so – I can’t think of when either.Good actor? Absolutely. Minus the wife, who was LUCKY, as she’s be the FIRST to admit, that she scored that gig – the FIRST CSI, and, at first, with NO guarantee of becoming a hit, let alone even getting picked up past the pilot?
Without Marge, he’s fucking toast, just like the rest of us. Middle class. Don’t whine that he doesn’t know where most of us are coming from. He spent years in the exact same place.
And please, cut the shit with the “IATSE members will get hurt.”
You know what? I feel for you. I do. But – this is about SAG – NOT IATSE, or ANY other related businesses, and we are being faced with a straight-up attack on our ability to make a living. So, shut the fuck up. Worry about your own union.
T-REX:
this is not a general election. it is a specific vote on specific negotiation strategies in a skilled guild. it makes a lot of sense, especially if you’ve read your guild history, that only those who are actually involved in the business of guild should vote.
SAG is nearly a historical anomaly, a skilled guild that is overwhelmingly unemployed and that does not require the showing of actual skill to be a member. He’s right, our guild is broken. And a way to start on the road to fixing it will be to restrict the voting since the horse of restricting the membership has already long left the stable.
And as for Rosenberg…who cares? He works, he doesn’t work, he married well or he didn’t. He’s neither the issue nor is he emblematic of the average member.
I dont know how much of the Anti MF commentary is AMPTP astro-turfing.
But a short strike may be a good thing.
I for one dont want say goodbye to residuals, and I buy Rosenburgs argument. Yeah the UFS guys are saying lets take the deal, but look at the people on it- they are actors who’ve ‘made’ it. And not one of them doesnt deserve it; they worked hard to get there- but for those of us trying to get to that point, gutting the pay structure is just going to push more and more people out. That said, I think it is fair to say that th purpose of SAG is to forward the agenda of the middle class actor- the guy who has to eke it out, not the guy who hasnt known what scale pay is for the last 10 years.
You know what? I feel for you. I do. But – this is about SAG – NOT IATSE, or ANY other related businesses, and we are being faced with a straight-up attack on our ability to make a living. So, shut the fuck up. Worry about your own union. – Comment by T-REX
Why do you expect anyone to support you with this attitude? How do think you will be treated after this is over? I can see the solidarity now as everyone but SAG crosses the picket lines. But on the bright side, you can hang out with all the other under-employed flakes with nothing better to do.
What I find ridiculous is the calls by others for SAG not to even AUTHORIZE a strike. This is taking the safety off the nuclear weapons, but we have to do this. – Comment by WideeyedRaven
You are indeed taking the safety of off a nuke, but what you don’t understand is that there is no fuel in the rocket and it will detonate in LA – taking out your union and causing much collateral damage to the industry and surrounding communities.
What the AMPTP has given us as their last, best and final offer is nothing less than the END OF ACTING as a profession. Single people cannot survive without residuals, let alone families. – Comment by WideeyedRaven
This is what pisses me off most about your (SAG) entire attitude of entitlement. You EXPECT to work only fraction of working days – not even classifying as part-time – and receive a full-time living.
I certainly understand that acting requires continuous training, but so does every other field in this industry. I spend several hours every day reading and researching to make myself a better Producer. I know that my hard work will translate to future increases in my earning potential.
As to the End of the Acting Profession, that is a joke. If you guys strike, this will be nothing more than the End Of SAG – not the profession.
Indie Producer
“SAG is broken. 120,000 members…” and so on
Some Americans suffer from a lack of big picture awareness.
I’m confused as to why some SAG actors grandstand and work toward dividing the UNION at times when we’re in a fight with producers. It’s so shortsighted and self-serving.
The Union voting system isn’t going to change in the next, say, 2 months or more if at all. You know that, right? So why, why, why would attack your UNION today when the only thing that will get us through this is solidarity?
I’m not saying voting should or shouldn’t be restructured here, because it’s not the time. IF you do present a decent argument who does it help raising it at this point? Answer:The AMPTP.
Why? Because you’re publicly doing your best to divide the ranks at SAG.
Right now we are all–all 120,000 of us– in this together. Well except for the likes of “Sag is Broken” who seem to believe he or she could do it infinitely better by him or herself.
Typically a whopping 35% of the membership vote in any given election. So somewhere around 80,000 of your treacherous one-commercial-in-the-80s child stars are nothing but paper tigers effecting absolutely nothing in this discussion with the possible exception of illuminating you lack of understanding of the issues.
Stay on message people. Always on message.
We’re fighting the AMPTP in the fight for our livelihood. As good as it might feel to poke your tiny stick at the SAG leadership it would be better for us and even you if you waited until a time when the AMPTP wasn’t pinning us against the wall.
Mr. “Rex”:
If you honestly thing that SAG’S negotiating strategy, what with all the in-fighting, served their primary purpose, to show strength and solidarity whilst fighting the single most evil cabal ever, then I will admit that Mr. Rosenberg is a middle class actor. This was about the most powerful union in Hollywood rendered powerless more by themselves than anything else. They need to learn to fight with the head as well as the heart. Heart against the heartless doesn’t win. So calm down and think about it.
Like the dinosaur that’s extinct, T-REX, so is your logic. And, unless they get their ducks in order with AFTRA and the infighting amongst themselves, so is SAG if they embark on what is likely to be a suicidal strike.
Anonymous wrote, “…and you’ll see how many people in our industry are against a strike in this current economy.”
What you’ll see is a bogus web page with a list of names with no way to verify who they are, what they do for a living, and if they even exist. Names like “Sara” and “Scott G.” pepper the list over and over.
Wait, “Sara,” I think I may have worked with her on…on..wait…”Sara”…I know that name…
Pppppppppppplease.
Indie Producer wrote, “This is what pisses me off most about your (SAG) entire attitude of entitlement. You EXPECT to work only fraction of working days – not even classifying as part-time – and receive a full-time living.”
IP–
Think of it like a commission if that will help curb your anger.
A real estate agents shows a lot of houses before they make a $10,000 commission on one Thursday afternoon. I’m not sure it’s fair to say real estate agents make $10,000 a day.
But don’t let the $10,000 figure scare you. A Car Salesman might pull $500 on Wednesday when he finally sells his first car for the month. Again, is he making $500 a day…really?
These days when an actor closes a deal after dozens (or more)of meetings, auditions, callbacks, and a host of classes, traveling, and dozens of other marketing and professional duties and expenses he or she likely works for a scale payday of about $600. plus residuals that diminish rapidly in value under the current contract.
Producers benefit from actors staying in the game working towards the eventual pay day because it gives them choices. And when they choose a fraction of the production budget goes to the actor’s salary. In our case we provide the choice of a skilled actor who at a minimum fulfilled requirements to join the Screen Actors Guild–and likely much more than that.
But you know this– I think.
If you think any working actor is simply showing up on Tuesday for a fat payday I doubt you have ever produced anything. With that in mind I think the “entitlement” you speak of better applies to your hijacking the term “producer” with such little experience and knowledge of how the business works.
anonymous:
Here’s the fundamental flaw with your petition…”We are hereby asking both sides to do whatever it takes to reach a new contract and sign it by December 31, 2008″
The problem is only one side, SAG, has been willing to bargain and do what it takes to reach a new contract. The AMPTP’s motto: “Take It or Leave It.”
Michael F. Workman
Here’s what you should do: you should get in touch with one of the “moderates” who was in that negotiating room the other night, and ask him or her, why, if he was such a “moderate,” representative of UFS and pro-merge-with AFTRA and anti-MF, and all the other crap, that, somehow – he walked out of that meeting having voted to send out a strike authorization in that both pro AND anti-MF, 15 to 2 vote.
15 to 2.
You might learn something loudmouth.
Again and again I wonder why my Guild does not address the big honking elephant in the room…that so insanely few of our members are employed. Nowhere in the negotiation is that addressed. Or EVER.
SAG is a joke because of this. It is the source of all of our issues, both internally and externally. You can rant and rave about solidarity as much as you like but solidarity is based upon common cause of which there is little or none. In fact, it may be this very lack of common cause that fuels our particular brand of hysterical blindness.
Many have pointed out, and quite rightly, that this situation is a product of a very idiosyncratic job. True. But it doesn’t change the bare facts…nor does it justify never truly addressing the problem.
Zackery,
I am in no way trying to put down actors and their craft. I know that it is difficult to keep evolving as an actor, and that it requires a lot of time and effort. I also know that a working actor must really hustle to manage all stages of casting for multiple productions.
That being said, your analogies of real estate and car salesman are only true if an actor is putting in 60-70 hours a week for 50 weeks a year. So many do not – many for good reason such as paying the bills – put in the time and effort, but if you really want to get ahead you must make sacrifices – sometimes great ones.
There are plenty of actors that maintain this pace – they are ones who excel at their craft and all seem to make more than the minimums. There are also people that must start out at the bottom and work their way up – just like everywhere else. They must keep this pace for often extended periods of time without results, but talent will persevere…
As to my qualifications, I will take the Pepsi challenge with anyone on any subject – Pre to Post. I have only produced in the great state of Texas – we are a right to work state.
I actually hope that SAG does strike and strike for a very long time. It can only benefit producers like me with 1 – 5 Million budgets – we are always on the lookout for new stars.
The only thing we need the studios for is distribution. But a strike will create a supply and demand vacuum, and you will see the independents take center stage.
So with that in mind… All of you militant SAG folks, get out there and strike. Viva La Resistance!!!!!
Indie Producer
Zackery…EVERYONE creative in this business goes through the same process you just described. From producers, to writers, to directors…all of whose guilds have already signed an agreement with the AMPTP.
but I’m sure you knew that already when you decided to rake Indie Producer over the coals.
lets see.
miss the deadline for contract deal- check
shit all over sister union for making deal-check
put feature world in de facto strike mode for seven months thus shutting down work for all line producers/UPM and BTL personnel- check
make public relations nightmare by irrevocably fracturing your own union- check
send your actors who actually work for a living scurrying over to join AFTRA for work in 09-check
paint yourself into a corner while the industry watches-check
Threaten the livelihood of others in the mist of the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression-check
I miss anything?
Indie Producer,
The entitlement you speak of is this: you, the producers (Indie or not) want the flexibility and maximum latitude to cast anyone in any part you see fit that is the ‘best fit’ for the part. You break them down by race, age, type etc. So from that pool of actors you want to hire a professional actor, one who can hit his mark (in tv and film) know his lines, convey feeling, place the drama or comedy, deliver that on time, efficiently. I’m not saying this skill is as rare or difficult as brain surgery but then again, the average actor does not make surgeon money.
For this small job (let’s say a TV guest star and let’s say it’s a week long job, which these days pays 6,700 and change) an actor must audition dozens of times over several weeks (trust me I know, I work and I know how long it takes to book a job) all of which is unpaid. The actor must do this while also supporting himself or herself and family on previous earnings or, in many cases, on external employment. All the while ready to be the BEST to get that job. And then we do book that job. It ends we try again and again.
If the producers don’t want to do this system, there’s another model: give us all salaries and we will defer our residuals to something much smaller. The “Entitlement” we seek is this: we are asked to risk ourselves and our family well being by auditioning for free so when we work, we want to be paid when our work is used. We are not salaried. We are contractors hired per job. We have to ameliorate that up and down employment and the measly salaries therein with the steadier flow of our residuals. Even with that, actors do not make excellent money. We are all in this for the art. I chose to be an actor and took a vow of poverty to do it for a decade on stage. Now things are different, but my work is a craft, hard earned and expertly delivered. I expect to be paid for bearing the risk the producers expect me to bear in this model of the business. That I exist and bear that risk till I am employed is the entire Faustian bargain we have all made: the studios have to pay for that risk when they choose to employ us. So that we can survive.
If you are a producer of 1-5 million dollar movies, you must understand that the ecology of our film culture has driven out the middle class way to make a living. Time was, small films still paid well, opened fine and made moderate profits. Now every film is either a blockbuster that mitigates its cost structure through star draws (a dubious theory but still the operative paradigm) or some tiny indie that must carry the world’s acclaim to open. We are losing the middle class of our business. And that’s a shame because actors are fine people who work hard and should have a profession that allows them to live middle class lives, save for kids college tuition, put food on the table and build a pension. We are not a profession of waiters with acting bonuses. That is not a profession, it is a subsidy and the corporations do not need a subsidy.
You want to make your films? Easy, sign an agreement with the guild.
Hey T-Rex.
If my written words were too loud for you, I’ve got a bone for you. Obama says this in the Walters interview to be aired on Wednesday, regarding CEOs and cutting their big bonuses in light of the “economic crisis”:
“I think they should. That’s an example of taking responsibility. I think that if you are already worth tens of millions of dollars, and you are having to lay off workers, the least you can do is say, I’m willing to make some sacrifice as well, because I recognize that there are people who are a lot less well off, who are going through some pretty tough times.”
Now, wouldn’t it be great, if in a negotiating session, if SAG said to the AMPTP: “Hey, if things are so dire in your companies, then we will give up so-and-so, if, in the spirit of these hard times, you give up your big salaries.” The sound of their bodies hitting the floor would be music to our ears.
And then you could stop calling me silly names.
I love how Indie Producer has so much to say and how most of the posts on here supporting the strike have names and the ones against don’t have a name listed. Does everyone know why?? Because the people who post without using their name are the ones who will deny they were against a strike when it happens and be there in line kissing the same ass they were so against here in this blog. It’s the same on every level….. the people with the money screw the people who work and produce something. Yes, Indie Producer, you have your 5 Million dollar budget but make no mistake about it, you are not one of us. You are a selfish prick who has some money to invest as most producers are. You don’t produce crap, you invest in actors and make money off of them. Why else would you look for the “next star” when there was a strike? Just an opportunist like most other producers. We actors create and have a craft and without us, you do not exist. However, without you, we can still act, write and be creative. You need us more than we need you. At the end of the day, this is all about talent and where it comes from. A Producer….. Wow, you should be proud. You take other people’s work, talent, sweat, and everything else and you get top billing because you have a checkbook or mommy and daddy decided to give you the nest egg to be somebody. Tom Hanks would still create and perform, if nowhere else but on stage if there were no films, no television shows. There is stage and improv all over the world so we will be just fine with you or without you. The sooner we see that as a union, the better off we will be and then you will know your place in the foodchain. Which came first?? The actor or the producer. Enough said.
And to everyone who keeps saying “in the worst economic crisis ever”… I would submit that it’s even more important to do the right thing now. The reason we are in such a bad position with our economy is we have taken responsibility and ethics out of the equations. We all know the right thing to do. It’s usually too hard to do the right thing. SAG members show some integrity and do the right thing this time. Don’t allow some greedy producers treat you like idiots. Don’t allow someone outside of the box to tell you how much it will hurt the economy. Do what’s right. United we stand, divided we fall.
Workman (anonymous)
A confusing post, yours. In the last negotiating session, SAG said they would sign new media “as is” IF the producers would give a slight bump in DVD residuals.
Why? Because, since the producers said the same thing about “revisiting” and “renegotiating” DVD 24 years ago, and never did, SAG felt it would show enough good faith that they could sell waiting three years on new media to the membership.
AMPTP’s response: “Pound Sand”
The turn in the path here towards strike authorization has NOTHING to do with SAG. It has EVERYTHING to do with AMPTP intransigence: they don’t, and never have, had ANY intention of doing anything but shoving this disasterous new media deal down all the guilds, including SAG’s throat.
The only difference is SAG, led by Rosenberg and Allen, understood that the deal would crush actors. Bad for directors and writers, yes. Actors? Game changer.
So, please, take your “make a gesture towards YOU to make a difference” speech to Nick Counter, and watch him laugh in your face, as he did the other night to SAG.
Maybe we can just post the crew and ancillary business worker mantra on top of the board, that way there won’t be 20 posts per thread saying it:
“If actors are unemployed, they’re pathetic losers and waiters, and it’s their fault. If we, on the other hand, are unemployed, that’s actors’ fault, and we’re simply blameless helpless victims worthy of the highest degree of understanding, sympathy and support. Actors who don’t want to accept a shit contract requiring them to do more work outside of their trade to make ends meet (so that we don’t have to work outside our chosen trade) are just selfish assholes. They need to work for crap or take crappy side jobs so we don’t have to. They’re just ‘waiters’, not the chosen ones who are entitled to make living in our chosen profession, like us. You actors are greedy bastards for not wanting to work more hours in a crappy side job so we can pay our mortgages in our nice houses. How dare you not go take another job we’ll ridicule you for in order to pay for your crappy one bedroom apartment in the Valley, so that we can pay the mortgages on the nice houses we own! How dare you! Thank about us! And by the way, you’ll get -no- support from us. None! So, actors, you better warn your creditors that in addition to your enclosed bill payment, they won’t get a hallmark card from us. Take *that*, selfish bastards! That’ll show you!”
Fuck that noise. *yawn*.
Let’s just put the crew mantra at the top of the thread so we’ll only have to hear it once per thread.
Next time there’s a BTL labor strike, and they try to shove a 50% paycut up your ass, I’ll be damned if actors are going to be so STOOPID that they’ll post ridicule you for being unemployed, and call you a bunch of losers for having to resort to outside work to make ends meet, then tell you it’s your -obligation- to accept whatever crappy deal is offered you so actors can get back to work on some bogus pretense we’re entitled to it. When’s the last time any SAG member blamed crew for being unemployed? You go look that up. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for you to find it. Show me some actor blaming crew for lack of work, and I’ll show you a dumb-ass. The street goes both ways. You want all the benefits of a union riddled with organized labor and labor strife, yet never want to see the downside? Good luck with that. But given your career requisites, I recommend leaving the entertainment business now and going to work in some industry without labor unions. This -is- the industry. Good and bad. It’s a package deal. We get zero vote if you strike, nor do you get any with we do.
I can only imagine how much teamsters would be shaking in their boots if a bunch of name-calling anonymous actors bashed them then said, “you’ll get no support from us! None!” Good Lord. What the fuck does that specifically mean, and who the fuck cares? ROFLMAO. Yeah, I’m teamsters would be crying if they felt they had to strike to get an acceptable deal — then we made up some online anonymous petition against them striking. Jeepers! How forceful! I except Teamsters would cry upon seeing it, then lower their heads, change course, bend over and drop the soap so they could be reemed by management. Oh … Wait … Not.
You want to accept a 50% rollback of your pay? You do that. That’s your business. SAG members get no say in that.
I refuse to accept any such rollback foist upon us, don’t give a *rat’s ass* who else wants to accept something along those lines, and hope other SAG members fight with tooth and nail as united, not to do give up as much as half (or more) of what we get paid by means of profit-SHARING (i.e., no profit, no sharing. Has -zero- to do with general “bad economic times”).
But let’s just embody the hypocracy at the top of each thread above the posts, so we can move on.
Dear “SAG IS BROKEN” and everybody else who supports qualified voting.
I’ve drafted a letter you can send out denying peops voting rights. We can draft more later.
—
“Dear series regulars of 70-90s sitcoms who performed in 100 or more episodes of your syndicated series:
It’s come to our attention that many of you pookies have not worked under the theatrical contract even a day for a few years.
So we, the superior “qualified,” like extras who’ve worked a couple days in the last two years have decided for you that you will have no say on how much, if anything, producers will have to pay you to stream your image in perpetuity, if they so choose. We’ve decided that it’s none of your damn business either, if producers want to digitally slap a Coca-cola label on that non-descript can you carried through your episode. How dare you think you should determine the use of your own image or the compensation therefore, just because you currently pay more dues than many of us “qualified” folks, like those who sit in holding for a few days every several years?”
Love, the high and mighty “qualified” per their own definition.
—-
Look. Personally? I don’t give a fuck for myself whether theatrical voting will be “qualified” or not, because whatever income or number of days standard is established, I’ll meet it.
But it seems like the new definition of “qualified voting” for those who wish it equals “those who we speculate, without any facts whatsoever, will vote against strike authorization.” And conversely, over and over again, people suggest that those like me who will gladly vote for strike authorization to combat people who won’t even negotiate are “unqualified.” What a load.
Anybody have a SINGLE demonstration of proof that those you believer would “qualify” are more likely to deny SAG strike authorization, other than the speculation you pull out of your ass? I guess by the current definition of “qualified,” you believe that the 15-2 vote FOR sending out strike authorization must have come from “unqualifieds.”
A huge segment over the current negotiation breakdown is on the issue of deferred compensation, i.e., residuals. The arrogance and elitism of those who think peops, for instance, background, who *get* no residuals are “affected” while those who worked in the past and might get substantial residuals are not “affected” by the current contract negotiations and should not get a vote is simply absurd.
You have ANY fact to support your “it’s true, because I said so” assertion that those who have entitled themselves to incoming residuals by working recently want to sell out on residuals and deny SAG a “yes” on strike authorization, whereas those who don’t work and won’t get residuals from the work they’re not doing will vote “yes.” Good. Bring it. Let’s hear it. Because right now all I here is incredibly generalized arguments that those who haven’t worked in a while are unaffected by the huge fight over residuals, and should have their vote taken away, while NOBODY’S supporting taking background’s vote away — a group that doesn’t even *get* residuals.
People can howl for qualified voting and SAG/AFTRA merger all they want. The devil is in the details.
If you’re so big on “qualified voting,” you should get hoppin’ and write your congressman and demand that Americans shouldn’t get to vote on ballot measures unless they have proof that the measure they are voting for will have direct effect on them, because if not, they’re not “qualified” to vote. Good luck with that.
People who pay SAG dues get to vote. And they ALSO get to vote on whether they want to have their vote taken away from them, if suck a thing is proposed. Those are the current facts. Rank speculation without a single shred of evidence, or thoughtful proposal how that could possibly change (without a single fact or specific to back up the proposals) isn’t anything but bitter, thoughtless, pie & the sky elitism.
I was reading all the comments here and my fiance came into the room. She doesn’t work in the industry. I’m an actor. I explained to her what the strike authorization vote was and as I did I realized that we’re probably going to have to strike on this thing. So I said to her, “I better book as much as I can now so I’ll have enough residuals coming in to live off of.” Then it occurred to me that that is exactly what we’d be striking over.