This signed statement from “the majority of SAG’s Hollywood Division Board” just came out in support of SAG National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator Doug Allen. (I have more to post tonight):
We, the majority of the Screen Actors Guild Hollywood Division Board, representing over 70,000 SAG members, responsible for over 65% of the work covered by the TV/Theatrical contract, support our National Executive Director/Chief Negotiator Doug Allen in his tireless efforts. With direction from the TV/Theatrical Negotiating Committee and the National Board, Allen has tried to secure the best contract he can for the benefit of our over 120,000 SAG members nationally.
We, the majority of the Hollywood Board, in a vote taken at our January 15th, 2009 Board meeting, also support the Compromise presented by Doug Allen to the National Board to suspend the Strike Authorization and to send the AMPTP’s final offer out to the membership.
It is unfortunate and puzzling that some members of SAG’s National Board, many of whom had no involvement with the months long process of wages and working conditions meetings or the months of actual negotiations, have, for the past several months, fought against Doug Allen’s efforts. They’ve pursued a campaign to confuse and frighten the general membership with regard to the negotiations, the contract, our president and our NED/Negotiator, as well as a concerted effort to pre-empt the members’ right to vote. Some past and present Board members have stated that the ultimate goal is to weaken the Screen Actors Guild in order to hasten a merger with AFTRA. Any discussions of merger should be deferred to a later time. The immediate issue now facing the members of the Screen Actors Guild is securing a contract that will ultimately be the template for all SAG contracts that will follow in relation to New Media production, distribution and exhibition. We are committed to the core principle passed UNANIMOUSLY by the National Board in October 2008 that states:
“It is the core principle of the Screen Actors Guild-
That no non-union work shall be authorized to be done under any SAG agreement and;
That all work done under a Screen Actors Guild contract, regardless of budget level, shall receive fair compensation when reused.”Although many believe in sending out the Strike Authorization, we have come to the realization that through questionable tactics used by the AMPTP, AMPTP operatives, industry CEO’s, industry dependent media, high profile producer/actors and certain members of the board, reaching the obligatory 75% of the SAG membership would be hard to achieve. We believe the compromise suggested by Doug Allen, supported by President Alan Rosenberg, Secretary/Treasurer Connie Stevens, 1st Vice President Anne-Marie Johnson and the overwhelming majority of the Hollywood Board, is the right path to take considering the circumstances. Neither SAG’s National Board nor its’ negotiating committee has ever accepted the AMPTP’s final offer. It is time for the membership to decide the future of this union. We, the majority of the Hollywood Division Board, believe that the membership of this union will find the final offer, which does not contain, at a minimum: complete jurisdiction in new media, residuals for all original product made for new media, and the protection of Force Majeure– UNACCEPTABLE.
We, the majority of the Hollywood Board and Eric Bogosian of the New York board, support Doug Allen. He is a true unionist and the strongest and most dedicated National Executive Director/Chief Negotiator the Screen Actors Guild has seen in decades.
In Solidarity;
President Alan Rosenberg
Secretary/Treasurer Connie Stevens
1st Vice President Anne-Marie Johnson
Angeltompkins
Jane Austin
Scott Bakula
Bonnie Bartlett
Justine Bateman
Eugene Boggs
Eric Bogosian (New York Board)
Joe Bologna
Clancy Brown
Keith Carradine
George Coe
Joe d’Angerio
Anne DeSalvo
Anthony DeSantis
Frances Fisher
Joely Fisher
Elliott Gould
Valerie Harper
Sumi Haru
Robert Hays
Lainie Kazan
Diane Ladd
William Mapother
Kent McCord
Esai Morales
France Nuyen
Alan Ruck
Nancy Sinatra
Charles Shaughnessy
Renee Taylor
Jenny Worman
—
And this unsigned statement from “the majority of Unite For Strength, and Board Members from Hollywood, New York and the Regional Branches”, came out earlier in the week:
A MESSAGE TO SAG MEMBERS FROM THE NATIONAL BOARD MAJORITY
Unite for Strength and Board Members from Hollywood, New York and the Regional BranchesAs you’re undoubtedly aware, Screen Actors Guild is currently beset by a crippling leadership crisis. With the TV/Theatrical contract having expired nearly 7 months ago, negotiations at a standstill, and our negotiators’ strategy hinging on a strike authorization vote for which there is clearly insufficient support, we called for a special National Board meeting to consider a new approach.
At that meeting, held Jan. 12-13, we attempted to postpone the strike authorization vote, replace Executive Director and Chief Negotiator Doug Allen and the negotiating committee, and direct a newly appointed negotiator to restart talks immediately.
Despite strong support for these steps from a clear majority of the National Board, President Alan Rosenberg and Mr. Allen’s other board supporters stood squarely in the way of our implementing them. For 28 hours straight, they used filibusters and other parliamentary games to run out the clock on the meeting and prevent a vote from ever taking place.
The next day Mr. Allen proposed a new plan to shelve the strike authorization, go back to the table to see if “producers would improve their offer” and then send out that offer for ratification with no board recommendation to members, only pro and con statements. It is noteworthy that when faced with a call for his removal, Mr. Allen suddenly saw fit to suspend the strike authorization that has been the cornerstone of his strategy, and indeed the topic of a 12-page promotional newsletter delivered to Hollywood members just days ago.
But unlike the plan we were obstructed from putting into place at the meeting, his is not a serious effort to get a better deal. SAG has never sent members a contract that our National Board didn’t recommend ratifying. We shouldn’t start now.
We firmly believe that SAG needs a change of course and a new captain. Mr. Allen has held fast to a failed strategy for over half a year, even as members have lost nearly $50 million from working under an expired contract. In addition, under Mr. Allen’s tenure, numerous other expired agreements have languished without renegotiation, SAG’s strategic relations with its sister union AFTRA have been badly undermined, and partisan tensions within the Guild have grown steadily worse.With new direction, we can turn this around and put Screen Actors Guild back on the right track.
We will work to quickly send members a TV/Theatrical contract that carries a positive recommendation from the National Board. We will also focus on successfully negotiating the Commercial agreement and other remaining contracts. We will rebuild vital relationships throughout the entertainment industry, and bring much needed stability back to the Guild.
We are now planning concrete steps to achieve this and will keep you updated as events warrant.*
In the interest of compliance with the AFTRA-SAG non-disparagement agreement under the AFL-CIO, Members of SAG’s National Board majority who are also AFTRA officers or board members wish to officially record themselves as abstaining from this statement.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







There is a BIG difference in sending out the offer with no endorsement vs.negative endorsement. Will SAG actually be neutral or will they have talking head videos hammering away on sag.org and email blitzes going (all paid by member dues), without allowing both sides of the argument to to be stated? This is the thing I can’t trust Allen to do. The average SAG member might never get a chance to hear both sides of the LBFO or UFS plans for uniting with the rest of iunions in the industry next time if the only information they get comes from SAG”s MF Hollywood Board. So how about it Allen/Rosenberg, can we REALLY trust you to be fair?
The negotiations between SAG and AMPTP have been at a stalemate for awhile. Perhaps instead of replacing just the SAG negotiating team, there could be an agreement for both sides to bring in fresh negotiators with the intent to resolve this longstanding issue. The people at the table haven’t been able to do the job – change all of them.
Those who are looking to change the direction of SAG policy are responding to the disastrous condition that SAG is in right now. The current leadership has had a tight fist on the rudder for three years and can blame no one else for the calamity that we we find ourselves in, though they try and try and try.
It’s as simple as that.
They are responsible for the rift with AFTRA.
They are responsible for the increasing number of unsigned contracts.
They are responsible for the lack of confidence in a growing number of members.
They are responsible for the puerile behavior that permeates the boardrooms.
All the finger-pointing is misdirection and a desperate unwillingness to take a whit of authorship for their strategic stupidity.
Alan Rosenberg can not even render a condemnation of the offer to blacklist his political opponents without declaring it ‘understandable.’
That’s not leadership. That’s a nasty teenager in the principal’s office fulminating a phony apology.
For f**k sake, this isn’t the pep squad, it’s a federally sanctioned union.
Don’t worry; the adults are on the way.
One BIG problem with SAG is TOO MANY board members. 52 isn’t a board, it’s a small mob. That many people will never unify around anything, it’s just too easy to get a splinter group going. Cut that damn bord down to around 10 or a baker’s dozen and a minority would step in line.
And yeah, NOBODY, thinks SAG can pull of a strike. Dog Catcher’s grandmother’s in Topeka have heard about this and know SAG’s got no mojo.
AFTRA loves this crap, you guys need to pitch those dopes out of the union.
But what SAG must know is that the nation thinks they are pathetic. Whatever, you do you guys need to get out of the spotlight, and go about quietly getting your house in order.
“Seriously? Was it suggested that SAG members who oppose a strike authorization vote are really just part of a conspiracy to merge SAG with AFTRA?”
Suggested? Uh, Jared, they kinda admitted that themselves – at least a few of them in powerful positions did. Yes, seriously.
Haven’t you been listening?
I’m going to refer to the SAG factions as Dumb and Dumber from now on.
Jared -
The fundamental problem with merger discussions at this time is that it’s yet another distraction from the matter at hand – contract negotiations with the AMPTP.
U4S ran at least partially on merging with AFTRA. Ned Vaughn, in an interview while he was running for the board, talked up merger and even went so far as to not express particular concern over what the name of the new merged union would be, let alone the particulars of how such a union would be organized and run. James Cromwell – most recently seen in the anti-strike authorization vote youtube vid – has been advocating merger for some time.
Merger sounds great to a lot of people. The devil, of course, is in the details. SAG is a significantly more democratic institution than AFTRA. Do we want a merged actors’ union with the lack of responsiveness to members that characterizes so much of what AFTRA does? It’s a worthy subject of discussion – after SAG settles its contract issues with the AMPTP.
To Jared: “Was it suggested that SAG members who oppose to strike authorization vote are really just part of a conspiracy to merge SAG with AFTRA?”
Not random members at large who are against the SAV, but certainly Jamie Cromwell and Gabrielle Cartieres. Both have stating that the goal of UFS and others is to defeat the SAV in order to weaken SAG, making a merger with AFTRA easier. That’s well known. And let’s not forget Cromwell’s save the biz video.
Great coverage Nikki. Can’t wait for more. Hope you are holding up dealing with your father’s estate. My thoughts are with you.
<>
And if you’re non-SAG and against the strike, you’re a shill for the AMPTP or out of touch. Also, you should have no right to speak on the subject because (fill in the blank). That’s what they keep telling me, anyway.
A point of order – The majority of the Hollywood Board is a MINORITY of the National Board. The last item that was passed actually only garnered 27 (I think) votes out of 55 Hollywood board votes, but was regaled as a majority.
That being said, this is getting ridiculous.
Now that both sides have had their say, it’s time for BOTH SIDES TO COMPROMISE and come up with a !@#$ing solution! Is there any wonder WHY we can’t negotiate a deal with this entire “my way or the highway” attitude.
I’m ashamed to be a SAG member at this point. It’s time the board GOT TOGETHER AND CAME UP WITH SOMETHING MORE THAN RHETORIC AND IN-FIGHTING.
MF thinks that the contract will be voted down by the membership and that if that happens they will hold all the cards and be able to force a strike because they control the negotiating committee. I believe they think that a strike authorization now will force the AMPTP to the table.
U4S thinks that the contract being put to a vote without the Board approval makes no sense and puts us at risk of approving a contract that ISN’T in the best interst of the membership. That as long as we have “my way or the highway” in the negotiating room we are doomed to failure.
There IS a happy medium. Make a change to the negotiating committee that will represent the makeup of the National Board. Then let THEM try to negotiate with the AMPTP. If they fail to get the gains they feel we need, then at least the majority of SAG members would feel their needs were taken care of.
Frankly, I don’t care IF we vote on the contract. I DO care what happens IF THE CONTRACT IS VOTED DOWN. That should be laid out IN ADVANCE so we know how it will play out.
GET IT TOGETHER or we will still be fighting when the WGA contract comes up for renewal.
Sheesh.
This is dumb. Who cares about any of this shit? Why air your dirty laundry in public? Good god. Vote already. On something. Anything.
>”It is unfortunate and puzzling that some members of SAG’s National Board [have] pursued a campaign to confuse and frighten the general membership with regard to the negotiations, the contract, our president and our NED/Negotiator, as well as a concerted effort to pre-empt the members’ right to vote.”
More clumsy/petarded rhetoric (hypocrisy) from Rosenberg et al.
Don’t forget that Roseberg stated in the big meeting on 12/17/08:
“If we don’t get this strike authorization, we are doomed… we are all in great peril… except for the luckiest among us.”
>”It is unfortunate and puzzling that some members of SAG’s National Board [have] pursued a campaign to confuse and frighten the general membership with regard to the negotiations, the contract, our president and our NED/Negotiator, as well as a concerted effort to pre-empt the members’ right to vote.”
More clumsy/divisive/petarded rhetoric (hypocrisy) from Rosenberg et al.
Don’t forget that Rosenberg stated in the big meeting on 12/17/08:
“If we don’t get this strike authorization, we are doomed… we are all in great peril… except for the luckiest among us.”
The following was NOT voted up as a motion by the SAG National Board:
“It is the core principle of the Screen Actors Guild-
That no non-union work shall be authorized to be done under any SAG agreement and;
That all work done under a Screen Actors Guild contract, regardless of budget level, shall receive fair compensation when reused.”
What angers me the most through all this is the way that U4S has consistently angled and maneuvered to prevent any of these issues from coming to a membership vote.
Strike authorization or no strike authorization, contract ratification or no contract ratification, LET THE MEMBERSHIP BE HEARD.
The good thing about putting the contract out to memebrs for a vote now without a strike is that
1. We see how serious the amptp is to get a deal by how much they sweeten the offer before it goes to vote.
2. If it passes then great – memebrs got what they wanted.
3. If it fails we have shown the amptp that their first offer isn’t acceptable and if they want to make movies with sag actors they need to sweten the deal or they are shutting down the industry.
That all happens (gets us to the counter offer stages ) without shutting down the townand cutting off income with a strike and without confirming a bad deal with the amptp unless members don’t feel it is a bad deal and they accept it.
Frankly its the first good move doug allen has made.
Striking based on Alan Rosenberg’s feelings about a contract before it was put to the members was wrong and anti democratic.
If only sag would engage the internet to allow proosals from memebrs and do active polling on which improvemetns to the contract would gain enough overall support from memebrs to pass and THEN present an approved offer to the amptp to accpet or reject THEN we would make faster progress.
Right now SAG is like a car buyer who’s mother in law won’t let the buyer look at or accept or refuse an offer that’s been made by the dealer. Get the mother in laws (allen rosenberg and anne marie johnson) out of the way. You have to have direct dealings and some acceptance and rejections of inital offers to get to a deal everyone will accept. The members are inspecting the car and offers and will be making the payments not the mothers in law.
What good would it do if we changed the negotiating team now if the AMPTP has already crossed their arms and offered nothing during the last three attempts by our current team to make inroads on the latest offered contract?
Why doesn’t U4S now want to vote up or down on the offered contract when they suggested just that as talks on a strike authorization were first being held?
When the negotiating team started doing their thing early last summer, there were many items that they were asking for. They soon realized that the AMPTP was going to dig in and be petulant about doing anything constructive. The SAG team tried to work with them by giving up what they could while holding onto the most important items on our agenda.
Then the AMPTP pushed the SAG negotiations to the end of the line because they saw that they could gain leverage by making the other deals before ours and counted on the internal division they saw brewing, all of which got us to where we are today.
So what can we do? You’re all talking about three years (really two now) making a difference. Like that’s going to get a better deal? Remember the DVD promises? The only way this could be possible is if DGA, WGA, AFTRA, and IATSE all came along side and fought for the cause.
Bit I’ve heard recently that the recession could last until 2010-2011. Are we going have such solidarity to want to talk strike during the next contract cycle if we just came out of the down period and we’re finally getting back up to speed? I don’t know. What do you think?
I say we put aside the bickering to get on with whatever is going to happen. Put the contract up for a vote, see if there’s enough people who want to accept the generally agreed upon lousy deal, and if it is accepted, fine. There we go, on with the work and we try again later. If it isn’t accepted, then we go into strike mode. Or …. what? What else is there? More negotiations? Well, that’s where we are now.
This is getting ridiculous. I agree. But what we’re fighting for is not just for us now. It is for the future of what professional acting is going to be. And all those who are not actors, or those who have divided loyalties, butt out. It’s the Screen ACTORS Guild. It’s our negotiations.
Is there a policy somewhere in the SAG policies and procedures manual that states that anyone trying to divide, overthrow, sabotage or block the progress and success of our Guild’s leadership and membership, should be properly questioned by the Board and study if those members who bring negativity be suspended from membership for certain number of years, and in the event that the offense is too grave to tolerate, then those members will be expelled from the Guild, FOREVER? I’m just asking because I feel insulted when people blocks my successful future and the chances of me obtaining more money and more respect for my work. Our leaders want a better future for the members of SAG and the so-called “moderates” and other rebels are sabotaging my future. So, let’s study this and consider who should really be vanished from the Guild.
Unite for Strength should be renamed Divide for Weakness.
I fear the damage the self-serving blowhards like Ned Vaughn, Jonathan Handel, Steve Diamond and SAGWatch have caused our union is permanent.
I started reading these comments to try and get some clarity and am now even more baffled as to which faction of SAG is really pulling for the members.
From their respective announcements it feels like everyone needs to kiss and make up fast cause the window has passed for firing/hiring and starting all over again.
I like Limbo’s compromise of modifying the negotiating committee and giving one last crack but it seems the producers hardline could still force a strike, member vote or not… question is, does AMPTP really care enough? How much would a strike really hurt them? Is it worth it?
I’m leaving with more questions than I came with.
Mhiester
How can you say with a straight face that sag is a more democratic union
2.5 yearSAG member said “What good would it do if we changed the negotiating team now if the AMPTP has already crossed their arms and offered nothing during the last three attempts by our current team to make inroads on the latest offered contract?”
That’s easy. The negotiating team has not been effective. It’s now down to ego and politics and consists of nothing but head butting. MF is firmly entrenched in the “You have to give me everything I want” mentality, but without the strike card they are unable to move things forward.
A change in the negotiating committee would be critcal to sending a message to the AMPTP that we are serious about negotiating CORRECTLY, not just yelling and demanding. The time is right for us to TRULY NEGOTIATE because we now have an advantage. The problem is that half the guild has no faith in the negotiating committee and won’t support them.
I believe most SAG members (not just Hollywood people, but the ENTIRE GUILD) want MORE from the contract. I also believe that most SAG members don’t think that MF is negotiating correctly. Thus the standoff that occured early on, way before the contract ended and has continued for around 10 months. The MF and AMPTP have not had a productive meeting since AFTRA agreed to a contract and sent it out to it’s members. Then the MF tried to intervene and got their heads handed to them on a platter.
UNLESS AND UNTIL BOTH SIDES PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT THE MEMBERSHIP CAN SUPPORT WE WILL BE IN LIMBO.
Both have enough clout to screw the other side forever and continue to get nothing done. The union is split down the middle and we are about as divided as you can get. And now we are into other contract negotiations that will suffer.
We have to come together or there will be no SAG left to negotiate with.
I emplore MF and U4S to COME TOGETHER AND CREATE SOMETHING FOR ALL SAG MEMBERS TO GET BEHIND.
please folks, anyone waiting for the AMPTP to sweeten any deal in any way is likely gonna be waiting a long, long time. Take a moment, pretend you work for the AMPTP, and from that perspective, look at us. Would you give an inch?
And as for LOU LOSANGELES, it’s this kind of talk that will likely put the final nail in the coffin of SAG. Yeah, lets start persecuting and kicking out anyone we feel is “bringing negetivity” to the guild. I also think that people who bring “bad vibes” or a “sour look” or “cheap cologne” oughta be sanctioned.
Someone (not me, because it’s too infuriating) please educate this delicious young person on the history of unions, HUAC, the blacklist, etc…
The only vote that has been disallowed thus far is the vote on the resolution presented at the recent National Board plenary.
That vote would have then allowed the National Board to send out a TV/Th offer for the members to vote on,
and would have moved the guild forward, enabling SAG to deal with the half-dozen other agreements
that Doug Allen has been unable or unwilling to deal with.
Until the will of the majority of the National Board is asserted according to the SAG Constitution,
there can, of course, be no referendum sent to the members.
Limbo Again answered one of my questions with this:
That’s easy. The negotiating team has not been effective. It’s now down to ego and politics and consists of nothing but head butting. MF is firmly entrenched in the “You have to give me everything I want” mentality, but without the strike card they are unable to move things forward.
Sorry, but I and many others here will respectfully (or not) disagree with you. It appears to me that the current team has given many concessions on what they wanted, and we’ve given up a lot so that we’re down to the baisics of what we need. And I see little, if any, ego and politics going on except what you’d expect from a contentious round of negotiating. There’s more evidence of egos being bruised on the U4S side. You may be correct, however about the strike card needing to be played to get things moving.