This was sent to members by SAG’s National Executive Director & Chief Negotiator and uploaded to the guild’s website today:
Dear Member,
On October 19, your National Board voted by 97% – 3% to send out a strike authorization ballot to members if mediation in the TV/Theatrical contract failed. We made a determined effort to mediate the contract negotiations but could not reach agreement in the face of the AMPTP’s refusal to compromise. After mediation failed, a number of national board members publicly repudiated the board’s almost unanimous decision to ask the members to authorize the board to decide whether, and if so when, to call a strike. Although I believe giving the National Board the authorization to determine whether to call a strike is our best strategy, that strategy has been severely compromised by the division of a now deeply and publicly split National Board leadership. President Rosenberg and I called a special meeting of the National Board to attempt to resolve those differences. That board meeting ended with no action after two days and twenty four hours of continuous executive session. During the hours of that executive session, I proposed a compromise to move Screen Actors Guild forward. Because my subsequent letter to the board describing my proposal has been made public, I wanted you to hear from me what I proposed. If the National Board does not adopt this compromise, or otherwise change the decision the board made in October, the strike authorization referendum will be conducted, with ballots sent to every eligible member for a vote.
Please read my letter to the National Board. I encourage you to communicate with your elected leadership and me your views on this subject.
In unity,
Doug Allen National Executive Director & Chief Negotiator
—
Doug Allen’s Letter to the National Board of Directors January 14, 2009Dear SAG National Board Members and Alternates,
Because the executive session of our recent extraordinary National Board meeting occurred without my presence in the room, I want to directly communicate several points to all board members and alternates.
I began and ended my report to the National Board on January 12 by stating that I have followed and always will follow the directives of the National Board expressed by a unanimous or majority vote. Under my leadership all SAG staff has complied and will comply with those directives as well. I also said that I am by SAG constitution and by employment contract accountable to the board for my performance.
I welcome your review of that performance and respectfully request only that, in the interest of fairness, such review include the opportunity for me to discuss with the board any comments, questions or issues you wish to raise, not in lieu of executive session discussion, but prior to such discussion.
It is unfortunate that the important matters contained in the National Board meeting agenda were not accomplished at the meeting January 12 and 13. I know that opinions vary sharply on why that happened. From my perspective, to the extent AMPTP positions or actions are the problem, the solution cannot be determined by how intensely you fight among yourselves.
Regarding the TV/Theatrical negotiations, and the sharply divided opinions on the board about how to proceed, I offered the following suggestion to a cross section of Guild leaders during the period of the executive session. I asked that they discuss the suggestion with other board members in attendance. I proposed that the strike authorization referendum be suspended and that management’s offer be put to the membership in a ratification vote. I also proposed that, before that membership ratification vote, we meet immediately with the AMPTP to determine to what extent, if any, they are willing to improve their last offer, to maximize its chances for ratification. I further proposed that the offer then be sent to the members with Pro and Con statements from National Board members and that otherwise the Guild would remain neutral during any member debate regarding ratification. This process will give Screen Actors Guild members the opportunity to formally express themselves on the bargaining issues.
This suggestion was communicated to some, but not all board members in attendance, and apparently was rejected by some who heard it, at least in part, because they believe I could not be “trusted” to implement it. Since I am the one proposing it and since I have never acted contrary to the directives of the National Board, that is not a reasonable objection. In any case, if it is the decision of the National Board to proceed as I have proposed, I assure you that the staff and I will carry out your decision faithfully and diligently.
I will convene an Officers’ call this week to discuss this suggestion and how it might be considered and implemented. I encourage all board members to discuss these issues with the Guild officers or with me in advance of the call.
There are no more important issues before us than the conclusion of the TV/Theatrical Contract negotiations and the initiation of the Commercial Contract negotiations. Super-heated rhetoric through the press will not contribute to our success on behalf of the members. Working together to resolve your differences will.
Doug Allen






In this economy, it is incumbent on the union leadership to consider all avenues open. In reading the vast array of comments from various guild members, it is clear to me that the most viable and safe option for all concerned would be to sign a contract with the same terms accepted by the WGA, DGA and AFTRA. In 3 years, when these guilds negotiate a new contract, then all the unions can get together, strengthen their positions by deciding which issues should be non-negotiable and which issues have room for discussion.
AFTRA and SAG both represent actors, although the representation is more clearly defined. That being said, the fact that AFTRA, DGA and WGA put their memberships first in signing the contracts tells me their leadership put the practical dollars and cents issues first.
In a strike, NO ONE WINS. The WGA strike paralyzed the industry and nearly permanently damaged the availability of quality scripted television. People in the industry – non-writers – lost their homes, their benefits and their ability to take care of their families.
Think and plan instead of posturing and thumping your chests.
After the cancellation of the GCCs for the independents, I don’t believe Doug Allen either.
Paris, you are obviously not an actor. Don’t comment on the “terms” unless you know what they mean to you as an actor. The terms are currently unacceptable and are already different than the other unions. At its most simplistic, directors and writers don’t step in front of the camera, actors do. This is entirely different.
paris,
if the DGA, WGA and AFTRA’s acceptance of the deal results in creating
a huge non-union workspace that eliminates residuals, then they did
not put their memberships first, but rather sold them out in the
long-run for some short-term comfort.
i want everyone to prosper, but now some folks like you in the other guilds and in the businesses that depend on the industry,
are saying, “Take the shitty deal so we don’t have to worry.’
you are telling us to throw away our future so you can have yours.
i don’t want anyone to lose their home. i don’t want anyone to be without health insurance. perhaps, by the time President Obama
leaves office we’ll have a National health plan.
everyone is worried about paying the bills.
but as goes SAG, so goes the rest of the industry’s workforce.
if they weaken us, one by one they’ll pick off the rest of you.
SAG doesn’t deserve less.
we all deserve more.
You know, if all you liberals ruled the world during the formation of this great country, that is America, we would still be under the Queens rule…..It is a same that no one wants to get their hands dirty anymore, and everyone wants everything handed to them. You get what your worth, so maybe “Paris” you are worth- not receiving residuals and having your job eliminated by cheaper, non-union labor. I guess something is better than nothing, and I am sure your sitting home waiting for your welfare, Opps, I mean stimulus check, to arrive in the mail too.
Please, stop the madness… I am going bankrupt. Doug, AMPTP, PLEASE… just stop. Let’s all get back to work, and dig ourselves out of this hole for the next couple years!!! Every freaking month that goes by will take blood sweat and limitless elbow grease to make up for. I’m on the edge of bankruptcy, and will soon just have to move to another part of the country/world, and edit corporate videos, or some other nonsense for the rest of my life.
Go ahead, destroy the industry at a historic time of weakness.
Well ‘Paris’, your first paragraph is not only old news, but that AMPTP spin statement has been debunked many times over. Actors are paid residuals differently than DGA and WGA members. Plus, AFTRA “negotiators” didn’t negotiate at all – they simply cowered and took a shit deal to keep AFTRA alive – at the expense of their membership and SAG, both of which I’m a member.
And it sounds like you’re blaming the WGA for being forced to strike by a greedy AMPTP. Since you’re obviously not a SAG member (or any guild member?), maybe you should read a little more before posting your opinions publicly.
“In a strike, NO ONE WINS.” Brilliant! Great perception! Strikes are about who loses less, not who wins. One side may/will prevail, but it will be at a cost no matter how you slice it. And make no mistake, that cost rests solely on the shoulders of the greedy AMPTP, not SAG. All of this BS about “strategy” has little to do with management offering a fair contract. And whether or not anyone believes that SAG has had a good strategy, the AMPTP blames the stalemate on said strategy, not because of their greedy, shitty proposal. Which is to blur the truth of said greedy, shitty proposal. It’s called spin.
Sounds to me like everyone talking about bad strategy thinks SAG doesn’t deserve a fair contract because of perceived “bad strategy”. Yeah, any excuse to blame SAG for the current state of affairs…
More to the point of this topic, Doug Allen has been backed into a corner (again) by the weak U4S and NY board members – members who (as he states correctly) voted almost unanimously to have him do what he’s been doing, and then changed “plans” in the middle of the stream and stabbed him and Alan Rosenberg in their respective back(s). DA is saying honestly that he’s been making recommendations, but doing SAG’s bidding (as voted upon by the board). It’s a shame that he has to remind everyone (the membership, the board…) that this is the case. It’s a shame that the SAG membership isn’t behind him 100% now, after voting so strongly that we’d be there to back him up.
An interesting note about the last paragraph of his memo: he states, “Super-heated rhetoric through the press will not contribute to our success on behalf of the members. Working together to resolve your differences will.” A truer statement has not been written.
But notice he said “your differences”, not “our differences”.
Think he’s feeling a little played by now?
Fight the battle now, lick our wounds and fight. If we do not draw the line in the sand now, the line will be erased forever. It’s that simple and that scary, but we must secure our future earning NOW, not in 3 years.
Jesus Christ, just fucking DO something!!! You get the vote for a strike authorization ballot, but you don’t send it out. You suggest sending the contract out instead, but you don’t send it out. Now you don’t know if you want to send out the strike ballot or the contract or … what? JUST FUCKING DO SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!!
This has gone on for a year now. You clowns are KILLING the rest of us with your indecision. Accept the contract so we can get to work. Or go on strike so it will fail and can get to work. But do SOMETHING so we can get to work!!!
Ok, I fully admit I’m not a SAG, DGA, WGA, or any other guild member, just an average citizen trying to understand the issues…that being said, I just have a question.
If this proposal is agreed upon and the contract sent out for ratification, what happens if the membership votes it down? Does it force the AMPTP to come up with a new offer or a lock out of the actors or something else?
Can’t we stop arguing long enough to discuss THIS? I’ve posted several time and no one has ever disputed the fact that it’s a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG shot that a strike authorization will ever pass the membership at 75%. Were I bookie it would be greater odds that the Cubs would win the Superbowl (and yes, I know they are a baseball team!).
The membership has lost faith in it’s leadership. The newly elected U4S is under constant barrage by MF. The MF is under constant barrage by U4S. Neither has enough strength to get anything accomplished. The margins are just too thin. All we get is procedural issues that ensure NOTHING GETS DONE. This is a reflection of the membership as well. We are clearly divided.
SAG has wasted tons of money on Strike Authorization rhetoric. Let’s stop wasting money and just vote on the contract.
If it’s voted up, so be it.
If it’s voted down, THAT IS NOT A DICTATE TO CONTINUE WITH THE SAME OLD CRAP! Both Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg need to understand that and make it CLEAR when they send out the voting materials. If the contract is voted down, then let’s put a NEUTRAL or bi-partisan negotiating committee together that BOTH factions will trust. ONLY THEN will there be any hope of furthering negotiations.
As long as either MF is completely in charge of the negotiations, there will NEVER be a Strike Authorization (see above odds) and we will continue in limbo.
Let the egos end and let’s get a bi-partisan committee together and REALLY get something done. MF needs to read the writing on the wall and U4S needs to work WITH THEM to accomplish anything. Anything less is the death knell for our union!
Okay, as a person with an HR background, SAG’s executive board meeting seemed to turn into a review and attempt to fire Doug Allen, without Doug Allen present. This goes against current HR policies about review and termination.
During a review, even if the board’s mind is made up, the employee gets to hear the review and respond to the review, in person! This is so unprofessional. Who have you guys got running SAG?
This is a blatant attempt to derail the strike by overturning the negotiator, since those who wanted Mr. Allen fired are in the minority and holding the rest of the board hostage.
It’s akin to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid playing nice with the Republicans in the spirit of bipartisanship, while the Republicans know full well they’re only power as a minority is to stall, accuse, obfuscate, and use every tactic in the book to delay and hopefully abort any legislation they don’t like. The Republicans are not about bipartisanship and Harry Reid is a spineless wonder. End game: stalemate.
So here you have SAG, with a minority trying to stall, stall, stall. And if they can abort the whole process, they would probably gladly work without a contract until 2012. And then, they argue, we’ll all negotiate with the other guilds from a position of power.
Yeah, right. If you didn’t get together with the other guilds before, what makes you think you’ll do so then?
SAG has an unprofessional board and weak majority leadership. You need to send out the contract for a vote or the strike authorization for a vote.
Get some spine and trust your membership. Let them vote.
But the BIG problem is the minority DOES NOT trust the membership to vote. So they don’t want ANY vote.
SAG membership, do you like being insulted in this way? Treated like you cannot be trusted to make your own decisions?
SAG board, this needs to stop now. It’s unhealthy. It’s heavily narcissistic. And the lot of you board members, based upon your behavior, probably should be in therapy.
And if money’s an issue, I can recommend a number of free clinics.
Here come the “regulars” (where’s Matt Mulhern???) waiting to pounce on anyone who may disagree with their scortched-earth campaign to destroy Hollywood for everyone.
Paris (not Hilton) made the same point that SO MANY others have made already, but these “regulars” just won’t have it.
Why is it so difficult for these people in Membership First to listen to anyone except for those who already agree with them?
Personally, I just can’t wait until this is all over.
And who in hell tied his hands? What an ignorant asshole and what bullshit this man continues to pile upon this sham of a botched negotiation. How does SAG tolerate such a poor performance from a highly paid ‘negotiator?’ Give him his silly ass vote and jettison the son-of-a-bitch before he completely guts our union.
Helenofpeel:
It’s called “executive session” where union execs are asked to leave the room when officers of the union discuss their pay grade, salary increase proposals, or their status on the job. Mr. Allen has been getting “performance reviews” in his in-box on an hourly basis since the beginning of his tenure from thousands of SAG members.
Harry98, before you choke up more bile go on aftra.com and read their deal in its entirety. Actors get plenty of residuals under the AFTRA deal in new media plus concrete threshholds where management must go union. Don’t read the Classic Comic version; do your homework, then vent after you’ve done some reading.
It is a pity that the AMTPT botched this negotiation so badly.I think it is high time they made changes in their negotiating team.
I’m a TV costumer who got into SAG by being on set on a couple of occasions when producers needed a warm body to say some quick-and-dirty new dialogue without going through casting.
And it may be ungrateful of me, but I wish SAG would simply mail out the strike authorization vote as originally planned, because I’m voting against it.
Even though what SAG is asking for is reasonable, I simply cannot afford to be out of work at this time.
(How about waiting to strike until production wraps in a couple of months?)
It’s really clear that the only person keeping SAG alive these days is Doug Allen. I’m guessing that “Actors” understand that, and most of the rest of the people discussing this don’t believe in Unions. If you were such good “Actors” that you don’t need a Union to guarantee bottom-line and below-the-line wages, why do you belong to a Union?
Don’t you understand that huge corporations have bought your movie making companies and they don’t like Unions? They will do whatever it takes to eliminate the Union. It’s not MF or U4S that can’t negotiate with the Corporations, it’s “Actors”. The AMPTP doesn’t want a contract with a Union. They want to be able to negotiate with each Actor on an individual level AND without opening their books to scrutiny (required by a percentage deal.)
The Corporations don’t care who strikes, they just want the Unions to disappear. And, if you think that waiting for two more years is going to help, you are being silly. The Corporations wouldn’t care, in fact, if you gave them two years to prepare, your jobs will never come back. In two years it is possible that “Actor” will only apply to “Theater Productions”. Film and Television will be performed by Dancers in Motion Capture suits with Digital Representations of your face pasted on the images.
You might not believe that, but it might give you pause to learn that I recently received an advertisement for a new motherboard which had 256 64bit CPUs, and sold for under 10 thousand dollars. Pixar started with less.
Now is the time, and your back is against the wall, and there is a very deep hole in front of you. Be real careful of which bridges you burn. Remember, If Actors were such great negotiators, there would never be a negative Paparazzi image.
So let me get this straight. U4S and their allies have suddenly changed their minds about the strike authorization, which was already approved WITH ALMOST ALL OF THEIR VOTES. And they don’t want the membership to have the opportunity to take a straight up/down vote on the AMPTP’s “last best final” union-busting offer.
Instead, they want to fire Doug Allen and replace the negotiating team.
President Rosenberg trusts the members enough to support sending out a strike authorization, even though it requires an insanely high supermajority to pass. After assorted objections, Doug Allen put on the table a reasonable alternate suggestion – send the AMPTP’s offer to the members without an endorsement, and with pro and con statements. Let the members consider the arguments and vote on it – like Californians do with propositions every election. And Mr. Allen suggested giving the AMPTP yet another opportunity to improve on the offer – something neither side in a proposition battle typically has the opportunity to do. But apparently, U4S doesn’t think much of an endorsement-free contract vote either, as some have stated they don’t “trust” Mr. Allen.
So, two questions.
1. Can anyone cite specific instances in which Mr. Allen violated the wishes of the national board in a substantive fashion??? Such examples must be specific and substantive, i.e., the national board ordered Mr. Allen to take a particular action or accomplish a particular task, and he flagrantly ignored them or acted in a manner counter to their clearly-expressed wishes; and they must be substantive violations that would clearly adversely affect the lives and/or professional well-being of actors. If such malfeasance exists, obviously it would need to be addressed. If it doesn’t, then let the man do his job and give him the tools he needs – like a strike authorization, or an up/down vote on the contract.
2. Why is U4S so against members having the opportunity to cast a real vote on this issue – a strike authorization or an up/down on the moguls’ offer??? Is it because they are as aware of the results of the SAG postcard poll as anyone, and they know a strike authorization would pass? Or that the moguls’ offer would be overwhelmingly rejected??? The U4S board members were elected democratically, same as the rest. So why are they now so opposed to be a wee bit of direct democracy???
Given the recent behavior of U4S and their allies, these are quite reasonable questions, and deserve thorough and thoughtful answers from U4S board members.
I’m here “Linda Carter”
Rather than stating the obvious again, I’d love to just cut to the chase here. It’s time. These latest delays have been caused entirely by UFS, not MF. The SAV would be out now, being voted on, where it not for Adam Arkin and Ned Vaughn insisting on a NEW national board meeting to overturn the decision the national board had ALREADY MADE to send out the SAV Jan. 2nd.
The pattern between the “moderates” and the hard-liners” never changes: the AMPTP makes some outrageous proposal well in advance of negotiations, then over time, the outrageous becomes the accepted, and the “moderates” end up screaming to “take the deal!” with the “hard-liners” saying “yeah, but it’s outrageous – remember?”
When the NY Times in 2007, announced Hollywood executives wanted to “end residuals,” I remember the response from ALL the unions was “that’s not serious, and I remember, especially actors I spoke to or read, or bogged with, saying it’s “ridiculous – are you really going to argue about THAT – they’ll never do that – everybody would strike – they can’t pull THAT off.”
Well, here we are. As in the country, the “middle” is SO far to the right, that in SAG the “moderates” are FIGHTING to accept a contract that will gut the middle-class actor and end residuals over time – as if it’s the right thing to do! “Live to fight another day” they say, knowing full well, there won’t be “another day” and even if there were? The “moderates” wouldn’t be willing to fight then either.
The “hard-liners” are people arguing for things NOT TO BE TAKEN AWAY. WOW – now that’s “hard-line” – THAT is TOO aggressive:
DON’T phase out residuals
DON’T take away clip consent
DON’T weaken product placement rules to make actors do ridiculous endorsements in character, or be fired if they refuse
DON’T take away Force Majeure.
DON’T NOT pay us 60 to 100 million bucks you owe us.
DON’T insert a nonunion space in our own contract
Boy that is “hard-line” – that is radical, outrageous, divisive, unrealistic, arrogant, negotiating from those “hard-liners.
Imagine if we were asking FOR something?
Just vote already, and find out if actors are as gutless as UFS makes them seem, or if they have some balls as MF hopes. Jesus Christ already…
This is Awesome. Without a doubt, the most botched negotiation I have ever seen. Where is the leadership?
“There are no more important issues before us than the conclusion of the TV/Theatrical Contract negotiations and the initiation of the Commercial Contract negotiations.”
How can Doug Allen honestly write that statement with a straight face?
What have you truly done to move this forward? All I have seen are delay tactics and bitter infighting over the last several months. How about moving the contract forward?
Keep it up and SAG should be bankrupt in 10 months. Then maybe we can truly have a Working Actors Guild that actually cares about making movies and sustaining our industry. Don’t be afraid of change. Now is the time.
Well I am an ACTOR and I am a MEMBER and I have EDUCATED myself and I don’t believe, at this point that even if we win, we can win well. If we strike we will strike after a weakening and ridiculous ammount of drama. We will strike weakly which is as dangerous as it gets. It means the studios would not believe we could hold out long and that we are not unified in our strike. The only way we could convince them is to strike for a very long time. The gains, if there were any, would not be worth the pain it would inflict on the community.
We won’t have the gun to the studio’s head or even to our own head. We’ll have the gun to everyone else’s head. People who have zero to gain if we do win anything will suffer mightily.
I have yet to read any justification of this by anyone who is pro-strike.
Why is it ok to let others starve for OUR contract? You might say “this is the studios trying to scare us!” Nope. This is people who are looking at the world and the situation with their own independant minds, weighing the possible gains against the certain pains.
I am a SAG member. I make my living as an actor. I am dissatisfied with the contract, with the deal that is on the table. But I don’t think that is enough reason to hurt so many people so badly at such a terrible time. I don’t think we have that right.
I can’t imagine a less constructive step for the guy in charge of this negotiation to take, then to send out this letter covering his ass, airing out inside baseball for everyone to read because he’s concerned with how he’s percieved. As a member of the union he’s ruining, I feel unserved and misrepresented. too bad.
Let’s be clear: UFS/RBD/NY/USAN had the votes to fire Doug Allen and replace the neg com. If they had followed the agreed-upon (BY THEM) agenda, they could EASILY have accomplished that over a relatively drama-free 2 day period.
Day 1 (as AGREED TO BY THEM), let Doug Allen address items on the agenda. do guild business, discuss current contracts etc. Day 2, call “executive session” and, if, after Day 1, they still wanted to fire Doug, take a vote and do so.
INSTEAD, Day 1, after short while, UFS leaps up, asks for “executive session!” introduces motion to fire Doug. Motion is, debated. Yes, pro-SAG leadership members filibuster – if your position was you were fighting off a contract that will gut the middle-class actor and destroy SAG, you would, of course, fight as well.
INSTEAD of following procedure, which would have allowed the members to go home or to their hotels to get a good nights sleep, UFS forces a marathon debate due to the course of action THEY have taken. After 30 HOURS straight, at the VERY END, Gabrielle Carteris sends around a piece of paper gathering signatures. Some of the RBD don’t even know what they are signing (which they are livid about), she then attaches the signatures to the motion to fire Doug.
The documnet is immediately rejected since it requires the signatures of all 71 board members, and THIS includes many “alternates” names, which are inadmissable. Document is rejected.
ENTIRE debacle is due to UFS arrogance and stupidity. If they had displayed calm and smarts – UFS would have its wet dream. Instead they BLEW IT BY THEIR OWN INCOMPETENCE.
UFS voted against Doug’s recommendation to suspend the SAV and send
out the deal for a vote. Why?
The other night, the Hollywood board voted on Doug’s recommendation. It was
a vote of 24 yes, 14 no. All no’s came from UFS. They still think
that if SAG changes the faces on the team, then the AMPTP will
miraculously return to the table to fairly negotiate. If we are still
holding firm on force majeure and jurisdiction in new media, Jesus Christ could
be the lead negotiator and Nick Counter and his team would still tell
SAG to go scratch. The AMPTP will not give up on force majeure and jurisdiction.
Plain and simple. It’s not us, it’s them.
We’d be in the same situation even if John McGuire was the lead negotiator. And he
would hold firm on force majeure and jurisdiction too. Just like Doug and the
majority of the negotiation committee.
Again – people keep talking about 2011 being the “mother of all strikes.”
Well, why do you think the AMPTP is holding firm on getting force majeure out of
our contract? They too FEAR that the WGA could possibly go out. Or the
Teamsters. Or IASTE. Which would shut down the town, making our force majeure
clause kick in. There is no way these unions will strike together.
It’s virtually impossible. One of these unions will go out before we
do in 2011. Can you say “Force Majeure?”
All UFS wants to do is fire Doug and neutralize Membership First and Alan Rosenberg. They want to weaken SAG in order to merge with AFTRA. Gabrielle and Jamie Cromwell
have made it clear. They have stated their plans publicly.
That’s what UFS promised during their campaign. Merger with AFTRA. They never articulated their plan earlier because that would have been political suicide in Hollywood. But now that they are in office, they are trying to put their plan into
action. That is their merger plan. Weaken SAG externally and
internally, then merge.
As I’ve said THIS IS UFS’S plan. They plan to destroy SAG from inside and out.
so when does the first feature come out on digital format? Go AFTRA.
Sorry, R.I.P. S.A.G.