Comments (35)

• I don’t get it — TRO rejected on technical grounds, but they are free to re-file? What technical grounds will be different on Thursday? More thorough info please.

  Comment by Confuzzled — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 1:11pm PST  Reply to this post

• WOW I am embarrassed just reading about all of this infighting. Not only have SAG members been without a contact for 7+ months, paying their dues for Alan to waist on a failed attempt at a strike, but now they will be footing the bill for 2 sets of attorney costs. Don’t plan on getting back to work anytime soon, but you can expect a drastic raise in your membership dues to pay for the Allen/Alan mistakes and court costs.

  This is democracy at work, any “brilliant” words Matt or Ace?

  Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 1:19pm PST  Reply to this post

• Among other things, all this proves is that it’s not just at the level of top studio execs that ego trumps common sense and sound management practices.

  I used to support Rosenberg. Voted for him for president. Agreed with him on the “Affected Member” debate. But this is spinning out of control.

  As I’ve said in previous posts: 53% of the board voted to remove Doug Allen. (Fifty-three percent of all voters in the last U.S. General Election voted for Barack Obama). That’s a mandate. A landslide. A vote for change. Or at least a change of negotiating tactics.

  Alan: You’ve had your chance. It’s not working. You’ve lost me. Even though I don’t have the data, I’m almost certain that you’d never get a strike authorization from the general membership now or ever. You’ve struck out. In the past I have *always* voted to give SAG’s negotiators the right to say: If this doesn’t work, we reserve the right to stop work. But not now. Not after this year of missed chances and blown opportunities.

  Just standing at home plate after being called out and saying: “I’m not leaving. This is not fair!” is not serving anyone’s interests. The other team has the ball. Let them make the plays. If they’re so wrong, you’ll live to fight another day. If they’re right (and I’m more or less convinced they are) then we’ll move forward.

  Comment by Christopher Grove — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 1:30pm PST  Reply to this post

• They are attempting to prove, in court, that what UFS/NY/RBD did was against the law. And today, a judge denied a TRO, based on procedural grounds, citing cause of action requirements and notification of all 41 defendants. They will do that, and, per the judges invitation, return on Thursday, having fulfilled his request.

  All the exhortations to the contrary, this will either be deemed illegal, and the previous leadership will be reinstated, or it won’t.

  What will happen once it’s settled is: either UFS/NY/RDB will get their political pay-off from the AMPTP for installing a “go-along-to-get-along” compliant, “AMPTP’s bitch” leadership in the form of, probably, Force Majeure and Taft-Hartley, then put the contract to an up or down vote of the membership. You will then all hold your breath, because if it’s voted down, having given away residuals, clip consent, product placement and a nonunion space in our contract against our core principals, that will be, in effect, a vote of no confidence in UFS.

  If the TRO is upheld, Doug Allen returns, as he should, and I would think the re-installed, duly elected leadership of SAG will open both barrels on the “moderates” and let the membership know, in no uncertain terms, that the gloves are officially now off, and they will use any and all options against this cancerous dissent, send out an SAV, and move to neuter the threat this “moderate” faction of the guild presents to SAG. It is, as you know, dedicated to the destruction of the union, the practical result of a merger with AFTRA. What would result from that would be a wholly separate entity, and SAG would become a thing of the past.

  I’m not sure, now that the membership is fully grasping that this has all been about a power play by UFS/NY/RBD to force a weakened SAG into merger with AFTRA, (as they have publicly stated) rather than an attempt to get a good contract that doesn’t sell middle-class actors out – for good, the membership may not look so fondly on those responsible for this entire debacle from day one.

  Those who have used this long drawn out sordid chapter in guild history to promote an overarching political agenda, while not giving a damn about the fact that this contract requires a unified push-back, and, if necessary, a strike, to save the middle-class actor, and the union itself from destruction, will be dealt with harshly, and rightfully so.

  That’s what this is all about.

  Stay tuned.

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 2:16pm PST  Reply to this post

• Just like an actor — Learn when to get off the stage Alan! Actors are always more entertaining off the screen than on.

  Comment by Hank Yablonski — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 2:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• This is grand.

  Now follow me here………………….. The people who were in charge of the “ENTIRE” negotiation could not file “ONE” TRO properly. Run for the hills, the lunatics are running the asylum!!!

  Comment by #44 — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 3:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• Those of you still interested in rational discussion might want to read the filed motion now that it is posted. Rosenburg, et al, make some very compelling legal arguments.

  Comment by Wait n' see — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 4:10pm PST  Reply to this post

• Good Lord Matt, this sky is falling rhetoric is comical or better yet tragic. Dealt with harshly?

  You are right, the previous leadership will either be reinstated or it won’t. What will you do if they aren’t? My guess is you will still be dealing harshly with anybody that does not agree with you. You have rightly earned your place as “the” Allen Rosenberg replacement candidate. Good luck with that.

  Comment by tom — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 4:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• Matt-

  You have written so much without saying anything at all. You just state the obvious. They either will or wont. How profound!

  What they(the sag board) did was the will of the majority. Majority is the key to this and all democracies. Even representative democracies like SAG’s board.

  Comment by armchair lawyers aside — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 4:43pm PST  Reply to this post

• After today, I simply don’t give a damn what happens to SAG. UFS and the Alans are complete idiots.

  Comment by Fed up — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 5:13pm PST  Reply to this post

• who pays for alan’a legal fees. sag members?

  Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 5:15pm PST  Reply to this post

• In answer to Confuzzled, all of the individuals named in the suit were named as John Doe defendants.

  The form of the suit goes like this:

  “Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based hereon allege, that defendant ______, is a resident of state unknown, and is a member of SAG and serving as a member of its Board of Directors.”

  There are 41 of these in the petition each varying only by the name of the defendant.

  Without more specifically identifying each defendant and where they reside, they couldn’t all be served and thus they couldn’t possibly appear in court to represent themselves (or have counsel represent them) at the hearing this morning. So the judge basically told the lawyer to go dig up the exact legal residences of 41 individuals and refile the petition for injunctive relief. This is not unusual in legal practice nor is it a sign of bad lawyering…it happens in injunction seeking practice wherein you have to file fast to protect someone’s rights which here are not only the rights of Rosenberg, Johnson, McCord & Ladd but of all SAG members.

  #44 there are all kinds of problems with the written assent (whose author I cannot assertain with certainty). It tries to accomplish a lot in one document (fire an NED, disband a duly constituted negotiating committee, temporarily suspend a SAG Committee Guideline regarding national taskforces until October of 2009 and yet simultaneously create a ‘negotiating taskforce’ in contravention of other unaltered SAG Committee Guidelines, SAG’s Constitution & Bylaws and the California Articles Of Incorporation, and more).

  So that is something of a ‘pot calling the kettle black’ accusation with respect to the legal abilities (or lack thereof) of both sides.

  And by the way, thanks Nikki for posting this…the wire reports on what happened as well as the mainstream media coverage of the proceedings are an unholy confusing mess.

  Comment by Competent Legal Counsel — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 5:48pm PST  Reply to this post

• Even if Alan wins this…the AMPTP is done with him and his ilk, so where does this leave SAG? Go on strike? SAG members won’t have unemployment to fall back on, and good luck finding a job. At least with the new “team”, talks were starting up again with the AMPTP. New chance… so by all means, please destroy this chance of maybe, just maybe a better contract offer. Doug Allan is the winner in this, he gets paid and is done with the insanity. SAG did the one thing a union should never do…aired it’s dirty laundry for all to see, you set yourselves up for failure, and you still continue down this no win road. After reading this complaint, how do you plan to ever put your union back together?

  Comment by btlteamster — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 6:27pm PST  Reply to this post

• Sweet Jesus, enough already.

  You know, most of you are pissed at SAG for “not having balls” and standing up to the studios.

  I’m getting pissed at the studios for not having the balls to end this.

  ATTN: STUDIO CEO’S.

  Just issue a statement that starting March 1st, 2009, any TV program or feature film funded by, (insert studio name here,) will be shot digitally. PERIOD.

  Any filmmaker that refuses to shoot on digital will not be hired by, (insert name of studio.)

  Then everything will be under AFTRA and we can all get back to work.

  Why in the world we still put up with this union bullshit in this day and age is beyond me.

  Comment by Joe Cool — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 6:28pm PST  Reply to this post

• Mulhern writes: “cancerous dissent”.

  Such childish (name-calling) hypocrisy is, yet again, intellectually self-defeating.

  Of course, the MF children have a different set of intellectual/ethical standards for their own self-important selves than they clumsily apply to those that ‘dare’ disagree with their clumsy dissent.

  Mulhern is an ignorant bully entitled to be ignored along with Rosenberg-buffoon.

  Comment by Don C. — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 8:15pm PST  Reply to this post

• I don’t have a crystal ball, so, despite the line “you’re stating the obvious” in “it could go either way” what else you got? If you read the next couple paragraphs from above, you’ll get some fleshed out scenarios.

  There are thousands upon thousands of SAG members who now understand this delay in getting a contract has MAINLY been about so-called “moderate” factions within SAG actively working AGAINST the duly elected leadership of the guild.

  Can’t get 75% for an SAV when people who should be rallying their constituencies to help are undermining you, can you?

  Can’t get 75% when NY and RBD are voting WITH you – unanimously, 97%, etc., but trying to force you out at the same time, can you?

  Hard to make a strike authorization work to get a fair contract when UFS/NY?RBD are looking to leapfrog the contract, which they don’t give a damn about , to bleed you, then jump you and throw you out, can you?

  You like those residuals? UFS/NY/RBD are gonna walk into the AMPTP and give them away, simple as that. They are going to bow down to their corporate masters and sell out the middle-class actor, then have the balls to come out and declare victory!

  They’re saying “get a contract and move the guild in a positive direction.” What positive direction? Backwards? Giving away long-held benefits that are the lifeblood of the middle-class actor is “a positive direction?”

  Hard not to delay while you have to spend weeks and months trying to get these fools to cut the shit and get behind the effort to get a good contract, isn’t it?

  I mean, let’s call a spade a spade here: UFS/NY/RBD are trying to move past this contract to merger, they’re on record saying just that, led by David White, and John McGuire, chief of collapse.

  Who are we kidding? How in the hell is moving into new media without residuals, clip consent, product placement, force majeure, Taft-Hartley, a nonunion space in our contract , anything else but a complete implosion of SAG leadership?

  Let’s hope justice prevails in court on Thursday, we can throw these bums out, and move as quickly as possible towards all screen and TV actors under one roof – SAG.

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 8:26pm PST  Reply to this post

• Fine legal briefs notwithstanding, what is Alan Rosenberg’s endgame? Does he even have one?

  Okay I asked, let me answer:

  1) Fantasy Endgame #1: Doug Allen is brought back by legal fiat and the AMPTP says: “Holy shit, the football guy’s back. Let’s sweeten our final offer.” Not going to happen. Why? Where’s the leverage?
  2) Fantasy Endgame #2: Allen’s back. AMPTP won’t budge and magically give the actors more than the writers and directors so Alan and Allen say: We’re going on strike. Again, not going to happen. Why? They can’t get a strike authorization because the membership is against it. And Alan and Allen know it. That’s why they “postponed” the January vote because they knew they were going to lose. What has changed since then? Nothing, except that even fewer members would probably vote for strike authorization now. The middle-class actors I hobnob with at commercial auditions or TV gigs want to work now and quite frankly, couldn’t give a shit about all the gamesmanship.
  3) Fantasy Endgame #3: “Something” magically will happen and we’ll win. Not going to happen. There will be no deus ex machina here.

  If you live too close to the center of power, for too long, whether it be in politics, show business or banking you’re going to lose your bearings at some point. I think for Rosenberg et. al this has become too personal. Hence if any one disagrees with them they’re labeled “anti-union” much as anyone who disagreed with George Bush’s Iraq policy was smeared as un-American by his supporters.

  As for those “compelling legal arguments?” Any half-assed plaintiff’s attorney can make compelling arguments on behalf of their client no matter how specious the claim. That’s what they’re paid to do. But there are clever legal arguments and then, in this case there is reality. And, for now at least, the leadership of SAG seems to be not fully in touch with it.

  Comment by Christopher Grove — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 8:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• While I’m sure Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Allen both entered into negotiations with the AMPTP with the best interests of SAG at heart, this odyssey has turned into an embarrassment of near cataclysmic proportions. I hate to say it, but I think Rosenberg and Allen will be seen at the Bush and Cheney of the 2008 SAG-AMPTP negotiations…it will take many, many years for SAG to recover from the damage that has been wrought by seeming ineptitude. In the meantime, the AMPTP is, I’m sure, gleefully contemplating how deeply and how often they are going to screw actors as New Media platforms become the norm and the old content distribution paradigm dies a quick, painful death. See you on Court TV guys…here’s hoping it’s AFTRA covered.

  Comment by John K — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 9:28pm PST  Reply to this post

• David White writes in his letter, “The Guild will present a vigorous defense.”

  “The Guild”? Who is the Guild in this case? Is the Guild the cowards who avoided public debate and democracy by sending in Ned Vaughn to make a back room deal with White? Or is the Guild the membership who backed Rosenberg and Allen by 87% in the contract talks?

  Does David White who has no contract with the Guild and no salary believe he speaks for the Guild?

  Earlier in his letter White writes a foreboding, “If successful, this legal action could impact or even reverse those board actions.” By “board actions” he is referring to the Written Assent which he certainly seems to think may not be totally legitimate in a legal sense.

  Whatever the case the manner in which the written assent was handled by cowards like Vaughn–eliminating the entire Board’s right to debate and vote– certainly was not the high road.

  Written Assent is a clause to be used in extreme situations. In this case it was used to prevent Rosenberg and Allen from sending out the contract for a membership vote. That’s not “extreme” it’s protocol.

  The contract was about to go out for a vote people. Ned Vaughn last year launched an unsuccessful bid to eliminate over 80% of the memberships’ voting rights. This Written Assent, also launched by Vaughn is designed to eliminate the membership vote through a different path.

  I don’t understand how Rosenberg and Allen became scapegoats for some posters here when they were about to send out the contract–for a vote. Isn’t that the goal?

  Let’s hope justice prevails and Rosenberg and Allen can get back to work securing us a decent contract as 87% of the membership recently let them know we thought was in OUR best interest.

  Thanks to Rosenberg, Johnson, McCord, & Ladd for their efforts in protecting the rights of the membership.

  If the goal is to end this contract dispute quickly encourage the pro AMPTP A-Listers who continue to speak against the SAG membership to check themselves and encourage their friends at the AMPTP to give us a livable deal.

  Clooney, Damon, Diaz, DeVito, Alexander all speaking in favor of the AMPTP eliminating health care for our children. Shameful.

  Comment by zackery — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 9:45pm PST  Reply to this post

• zackery,

  87% What fuckin’ fairy tale world are you living in.

  Comment by #44 — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 10:27pm PST  Reply to this post

• Damn, Chris Grove, you’re an actor, you seem to be well-spoken, and you use plenty of $2 words. But you’re just makin’ shit up! Your “fantasy” scenarios are in italics below:

  1) Fantasy Endgame #1: Doug Allen is brought back by legal fiat and the AMPTP says: “Holy shit, the football guy’s back. Let’s sweeten our final offer.” Not going to happen. Why? Where’s the leverage? Or, the AMPTP is faced with the ‘formidable’ John McGuire and David White, and says “let’s sweeten our offer – or else!” Why would they? Where’s the leverage there, either? (Unless, of course, some backroom deal has already been made… ?????) Leverage is a strike authorization – nothing else creates leverage for SAG. (Notice I wrote strike “authorization”…)

  2) Fantasy Endgame #2: Allen’s back. AMPTP won’t budge and magically give the actors more than the writers and directors [?] so Alan and Allen say: We’re going on strike. Again, not going to happen. Why? They can’t get a strike authorization because the membership is against it. We are? Says who, you? Public spin originated by the AMPTP? Sister guild members posting here who don’t want us to strike and yet can’t vote on the SAV or contract? Very perceptive of you. Very… imaginative. Plus, Doug and Alan have never said “we’re going on strike.” It’s always been about being authorized to strike. That’s a first step. An actual strike is a second (and hopefully unnecessary) step.

  And Alan and Allen know it. They do? Say, you really do have a fantasy crystal ball! You can even read other peoples’ minds! That’s why they “postponed” the January vote because they knew they were going to lose. They didn’t postpone the January vote – NY, UFS and RBD did. NY/UFS/RBD further blocked either the SAV or the contract from going out to the membership for a vote. Because….?

  What has changed since then? Nothing, except that even fewer members would probably vote for strike authorization now. (You’re amazingly clairvoyant. Truly.) The middle-class actors I hobnob with at commercial auditions or TV gigs want to work now and quite frankly, couldn’t give a shit about all the gamesmanship. Of course “commercial actors” don’t give a shit about these film/TV negotiations – they’re mostly commercial actors, and they have a different (note: “fought for”) contract. Plus, do you really think other actors you “hobnob” with are sharing their true feelings with you? They’re in competition with you. You’re simply talking to the wrong people.

  3) Fantasy Endgame #3: “Something” magically will happen and we’ll win. Not going to happen. There will be no deus ex machina here. And you can see the future too? *gasp!* Well at least you can spell, and you seem to have a grasp on stories with unlikely endings. What do you think we’d “win” in this particular fantasy? Guild membership voting isn’t magic, Chris. It’s a process. It’s our right and responsibility, not a machination from God.

  If all of this is your opinion, you’re welcome to it. But just because you say (write) something doesn’t mean it’s true.

  I’ve got a fantasy endgame scenario for you: the remaining 105,000 members of SAG finally figure out that UFS/NY/RBD are at the core of the dissent within our board and NegCom floundering; that UFS and NY have a not-so-hidden agenda, which doesn’t benefit the membership of SAG at all, not to mention which disenfranchises many members who are supposed to be able to vote; that said pissed-off membership finally does get to vote on something, votes down the POS AMPTP offer; then votes in favor of a strike authorization (creating – say it with me – LEVERAGE) and the AMPTP figures they’ve done all the damage to SAG they can to, and finally respond with a signable offer. And as an added bonus, the list of dissenters will be outed for what they attempted, and are subsequently banished from all SAG boards in the future. (Hey, I did say it was a fantasy…)

  The truth is, I don’t give a left-handed shit who sits across from the AMPTP and “negotiates”. I sign ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on the contract, not the board. Simply put, when the AMPTP offers me a fair contract that I can sign in good conscience, I will do so. Until that happens I will continue to pay attention to what’s really going on (within SAG and without) and make educated decisions based on fact and not fear mongering tactics precipitated by weak, scared SAG members and AMPTP shills and spinners. (I’m not aiming that at you, Chris, or anyone else in particular.) I am a proud member of a proud guild. SAG is a powerful labor union (even though we may not realize that right now) and we will have a say in how our guild operates, what contract we sign and how our leaders follow our voted-upon wishes.

  And while these days seem dark for the Screen Actor’s Guild, we have an amazing legacy of members standing up to management and fighting for what’s right – for ourselves, as well as leading that fight for the entire industry. We also have an unwritten debt to those who knew how to bring the guild together and unify for a single purpose against a single oppressor – our greedy bosses. SAG exists because of those actors who stood up and fought for fairness. When our membership is finally able to see the whole truth, backed up with fact, I’m confident we’ll find ourselves and do the right thing. These legal proceedings, these contract negotiations, these upstart radical board members – none of this “will be the death of SAG”.

  Matt, I owe you a beer or two when you’re in LA. Hell, I’ll even spring for Rabble and LLL. We should all talk…

  Comment by Ace — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 10:40pm PST  Reply to this post

• #44 wrote, “zackery, 87% What fuckin’ fairy tale world are you living in.”

  Hollywood.

  And it can be a frustrating place when you have facts.

  Comment by zackery — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 11:19pm PST  Reply to this post

• Ace,

  Wow. Do you REALLY think that 75% of the membership would vote for a SAV? REALLY???!!!!! If so, you are way out of touch with reality. Look at the last election. And please don’t bring up the lame poll where less than 10% of the membership bother to return the postcard. Over 24% voted and that number trumps the poll all to hell. SAG is pretty evenly split between pro MF and anti MF.

  I am a Hollywood member and can tell you that based on my conversations they couldn’t get 75% of HOLLYWOOD to vote for a strike autorization with Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg in charge of the decision of whether we strike or not. And make no mistake, after the debacle of a Plenary meeting everyone knows the margin is thin enough for MF to pull that off.

  Here’s the reality and why we are stuck here. MF supporters will never support anything that MF doesn’t bring to the table. The rest of the guild won’t support anything that MF brings to the table. Under NO scenario is there a chance in hell of getting 75% for ANY strike authorization. As was correctly stated, that means we have zero leverage.

  Thus we are in a catch 22. One half fighting the other with no chance of resolution.

  And unless a miracle occurs, we are stuck in this and will forever live in limbo while the AMPTP laughs and toasts SAG for our self-destructive ways.

  I’m getting tired of talking to myself. You guys are so entrenched there’s no discussion. And without discussion, the fat lady is singing and we’re screwed.

  Comment by Limbo Forever — Tuesday February 3, 2009 @ 11:34pm PST  Reply to this post

• But Limbo, how would you vote on a SAV (rhetorical question) – I mean…

  …from an educated point of view without outside (non-SAG) influences, and without considering whether or not you think we could accomplish 75% ‘yes’?

  …if you believed/understood/agreed that a strike authorization is the only leverage that we have towards a fair contract?

  …if you didn’t think SAG could achieve 75% ‘yes’, would you still vote yes (based on your previous answer)?

  …if you thought a strike authorization would help, would you vote ‘yes’ even if you thought it wouldn’t pass?

  …if you though we could get the 75%, would you vote ‘yes’?

  What I believe could/might happen is within my own counsel. But I will offer that if you (or anyone) would vote one way or the other (or not at all) simply because of how you feel the climate is – or, rather, the “popular vote” – then you’re not voting your conscience.

  If you believe you can, or you believe you can’t – you’re right. Based on that philosophical truism, 75% ‘yes’ is absolutely attainable. (If we’re ever allowed to vote, that is.) As far as I can tell, people are saying we can’t get a 75% ‘yes’ vote because… they’ve heard we can’t get a 75% ‘yes’ vote. And that’s it.

  And I will bring up the “lame” poll, since you mentioned it, because it’s pertinent. (It was also more than 10% response – closer to 13%, IIRC – and it was more votes than even the SAG board expected to garner for a poll like that.) The key is that people to whom the poll mattered, voted. And because of that, the poll is/was an excellent barometer of the overall membership’s feelings.

  Are you suggesting that members who really wanted the contract to pass (back then) didn’t care enough to vote ‘yes’ on it? That’s not saying much for those members’ convictions.

  And with the “24% voted” you mean in the board elections? Okay, I can’t argue that one. The election was pretty evenly split between UFS and MF. But it doesn’t really trump anything because even those newly-elected board members agreed almost unanimously with the poll. But SAG members voted in “TV stars” in a lot of those UFS cases – “stars” who claimed one thing, and who are now doing something different. The membership isn’t stupid – we can see what’s going on, and those UFS voters/supporters have been duped. And we’d vote again, if they’d let us. But I doubt UFS would fare as well today.

  Both MF and UFS supporters (non-board members) want basically the same thing. Even though I’ve been accused of being both a (blind) MF and Alan Rosenberg supporter, I am neither. What I am is an independent – in all senses of the word. I am – or at least try to be – as objective as I can be. And the way I see it, the “fighting” that’s going on is between the board members (caused by NY/UFS/RBD, I might add), not between the rank and file. Once we, the membership, are “allowed” to vote on something I think you’ll see that a resolution is not only possible, but likely. And soon.

  If we believe we can, then we can. Pretty simple. Why a member believes we can (or not) is the kicker, and takes some personal commitment to learn the truth and the facts.

  Like gossip or advice, all of our comments should be taken with a grain of salt. Just keep in mind who’s telling you the gossip or advice, and what their motives might be for doing so.

  Comment by Ace — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 1:14am PST  Reply to this post

• Ace @ 1:14: While thoughtful, I think your case for the “fear itself” argument against the success of an SAV (basically that the key think working against an SAV is people believing that an SAV won’t pass) ignores some important points. The first is both the simplest (from my anti-SAV perspective) and probably the most controversial.

  Now is a terrible time for a strike. I accept that there is no good time for a strike, but this is particularly awful. I don’t need to rehash all of the details – an evening, any evening in front of any news outlet from Fox to MSNBC will tell you what you need to know – but the economy is in terrible straits, and it is particularly bad in both Southern California and the NYC area. A strike could be crippling both to us and to the people we work with all the time.

  This raises a couple of counter-arguments: first, that an SAV is NOT a strike. This seems both simplistic and disingenuous to me. First (and here’s where I must dip my toe into the pro/anti-MF water), giving an strike authorization to an MF controlled board is like handing a loaded gun to an ex-con fresh from doing time on an armed robbery rap: they’re going to use it if they don’t get their way. It is very clear from recent history (the WGA strike, the acrimony of the negotiations, etc) that the AMPTP will not capitulate on every single one of MF’s demands in the face of a strike authorization. Thus, we go out on strike.

  Because this is my problem with MF (and in fairness, the reason a number of people support them): they are absolutely unwilling to compromise. If we’d pulled [streaming] new media off the table months ago, we could have gotten the other rollbacks, well, back. MF is unwilling to do so.

  Now this gets to that ultimate question: the cost/benefit analysis of a strike. There are plenty of folks who say that not having a hard and fast residual formula based on distributors gross in streaming new media (again, it bothers me that many on the MF side never acknowledge that anything someone buys on the internet – electronic sell-through – gives us residuals at a higher rate than home video) could spell the “death of the middle class actor,” and in relatively short order, too.

  I (and others much more articulate) have written extensively here and elsewhere about the technological, logistical and sociological reasons why the “great move over” that would “end residuals” is unlikely to happen – I’ll not repeat them all here. Streaming new media will continue to grow. We should get a better percentage of it than we do under the LBO. That we do not get a better percentage of it under the LBO does not mean that residuals are ending – there are multiple sources of residuals that we are and will continue to receive.

  In short, given the realities of this specific time and this specific economy, I do not think that streaming new media is worth striking over. I’ll vote against an SAV because I think under an MF administration, it will lead inexorably to a strike that we can ill afford, the benefits of which, even under the rosiest projections, will be outweighed by the costs. To me, there is no conceivable analysis in which the gain of a home video type formula in streaming new media will pay for the loss of episodic television to AFTRA, likely in the event of a strike or even continued delay (indeed, the whole anti-merger argument many on the pro-MF side made seems ironic to me – the thing strengthening AFTRA more than anything else is out delay in getting a contract; we are driving the whole TV business in their direction).

  Which leaves a number of other issues. It has become conventional wisdom that the AMPTP is likely to give on Force Majeure and Taft Hartley. This is derided as “sweeteners” and “gimmes.” As though these two HUGE provisions – that we get paid if someone else strikes and that we not give up non-union space in our own contract – are unimportant. I would not sign a contract without them, and the feeling I get is that the new task force could get them. Hell, Doug Allen may have been able to get them when he proposed going back to the AMPTP to see what he could get and then sending that offer to the membership a few weeks ago.

  It bothers me that MF supporters who supported that proposal are now fighting tooth and nail against essentially the same approach by the new task force. If we can’t get FM (including what is currently owed from the WGA strike), TH, some modification to clip consent and maybe notification on product placement tied to the showrunner clause, I’ll advocate for an SAV because I’ll be prepared to strike – it will be worth it. I think most of the membership will come with me. As of now, the benefits are simply not worth the potential costs.

  Ultimately we can get a better offer than the LBO without needing a strike authorization, so why not go and get it? A SAV will fail not because of a cycle of undermotivated fear, but because it’s a very bad idea that will lead to a strike we can not afford and whose gains will be dwarfed by its costs.

  Comment by Anonymous — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 5:05am PST  Reply to this post

• Someone up there called Matt an “ignorant bully”. I disagree. I do think he’s a bully. But he isn’t ignorant, he’s been following this very carefully.

  But here’s the problem, Matt. The people who don’t agree with you are not traitors. They’re not trying to undermine the union. THEY JUST DON’T AGREE WITH YOU. You’ve been so wrapped up in the “inside baseball” discussion of internal union wrangling that you’ve ceased to notice that everyone has moved on from SAG. We have no support from any other guild, we have no public support, we don’t have the support of our A-list members, and furthermore we don’t have anything near the necessary support within the rank and file.

  So all this wrangling…what will it lead to? What would Rosenberg possibly do if in fact he got himself and Allen back in power? Can you not see what a massive, massive FUBAR this is?

  ACE is right. There is a great legacy at SAG of standing firm. But standing firm requires great leaders. You can’t ask your members for sacrifice (not that many members would be sacrificing, SAG is so incredibly unemployed, most of the sacrifice we would be asking for would be from other guilds) unless the it is handled efficiently and with very clear and relevant goals. That ship has sailed, my friend.

  Comment by love's labors lost — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 10:10am PST  Reply to this post

• @ Anonymous: fair enough. Your train of thought is based upon the assumption that a SAV equals a strike, and since you believe it’s unconscionable for SAG to strike (right now) you’re against it. I disagree.

  But while the economy (as well as the overall health of our entire industry) is a pertinent consideration, SAG members must primarily consider ourselves and our own future. Some here believe that SAG will have a future if we sign this deal (or some similar iteration) now, because they say/believe that 2.5 years from now it can all be revisited and renegotiated. Many of us don’t believe that at all, based on the AMPTPs tactics throughout the years.

  Those are two core philosophical differences between us, and between many others like us.

  Further, you said, “Because this is my problem with MF (and in fairness, the reason a number of people support them): they are absolutely unwilling to compromise. If we’d pulled [streaming] new media off the table months ago, we could have gotten the other rollbacks, well, back. MF is unwilling to do so.”

  Remember that the NegCom has compromised the living hell out of SAG over the course of these negotiations. What did we get for all of those concessions? Zero. But there are a couple of things on which SAG is unwilling to compromise on because those concessions would not only go against the very core of SAG’s raison d’etre, but in all likelihood will never change once the die has been cast. You, too, have your limits as to what you’ll personally accept in the contract offer. We all do.

  Let’s not forget that this could all end today, tomorrow or next week if the AMPTP would only offer something fair that doesn’t harm the future of SAG.

  Peace.

  Comment by Ace — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 10:45am PST  Reply to this post

• To Anonymous….MF supporters are not “fighting tooth and nail against essentially the same approach by the new task force”.

  They are fighting a bunch of issues involving governance and the legality of the way the negotiating team was jettisoned.

  I’m glad you are so positive that the taft hartley issue will get taken care of by the new ‘task force’. If it is I predict UFS will do very well in upcoming elections, and my pals at MF will not do as well.

  However, I’m hearing that the taft hartley issue IS the thing that the AMPTP wants

  They want it on the IA side, and they want it with Actors.

  They want to encourage a new, younger non Union work force that does not grow up expecting things like pensions and health care.It’s the new Wal
  Mart model for show business.

  If a bunch of hand picked ‘SAG task force’ members, (picked not because they will stand strong — but precisely because they will try and make a deal and tell us all “we’ll fix it in three years”) — if these
  ‘cavers’ can get full Union coverage from dollar one — then the AMPTP will have finally found a way to silence the MF ‘movement’.

  That would put a stake in the heart of the loyal opposition — because then UFS could say…”See by being sweeter and nicer, by RESTORING RESPECT with our good old Uncle Nick Counter — he gave us a plum deal that those angry baddies on the MF side couldn’t get”.

  But this will require the AMPTP to shelve their master plan of busting, or at least marginalizing the Unions.

  I think the AMPTP is too greedy for this. They don’t seem content to make a fair deal — they seem to want to wring every drop of profit and blood out of the Unions.

  This will keep the ‘rebel forces’ alive.

  Finally, has anyone been watching the Disney and Warner Bros. stock reports?

  While no one wants a strike, anyone who thinks a strike in this economic climate, with losses mounting
  almost daily on the TV side — anyone who thinks a strike last more than a few weeks needs to have their heads examined.

  This ‘bad economy’situation cuts both ways.

  Comment by UnionFan — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 11:02am PST  Reply to this post

• zackery

  Yeah ………. The fact is you have 87% support and you can’t get a fuckin’ thing done. Yeah that makes sense. C’mon man, take your 87% and get a strike autho. vote. You need to stop drinking the Cool Aid.

  there was 87% positive response to a “POLL” , a pole many did not respond to because of the bar code.

  Yeah those pesky “FACTS” sometimes get in the way.

  Comment by #44 — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 12:55pm PST  Reply to this post

• Two responses.

  First, Unionfan @ 11:02: I’m sorry – and you’ll just have to trust that I don’t mean “I’m sorry” with any sarcasm or vindictiveness at all – but the argument that a strike would not last more than a “few weeks” simply doesn’t hold up to reality. The entire slate of major tentpoles for 2009 is done. They’re in the can. The studios smartly moved things around such that our negotiating power would NOT “cut both ways.” I think we both hope that I (or you) never have to be proved wrong, but the notion of a short-term strike seems imporssible to me. I think we would be looking at 100 days (the length of the WGA strike) at a minimum.

  As to your theory on Taft Hartley, it’s obvious that I simply disagree. The 90 day provision in the so-called LBO seems to me and many others to be a negotiating provision. Traded for the [as I read them] non-starter new media provisions that MF has consistently demanded without any room for negotiation, it seems as though returning the traditional 30-day window is an easy give. Here’s my thing: if I’m wrong, I’ll jump to your side and eat whatever crow you’d like me to. I can’t offer much more than that.

  At any rate, this all leads to Ace’s commentary at 10:45. I’ll start by accepting his definition of our core philosophical disagreement: I do believe that a SA in the hands of MF equals a strike, and that a strike is a bad decision up and down the line (Ace does not agree on either count). I do not concede, however, that I am one of those who thinks if we “roll over” (not Ace’s expression, but a general MF talking point for those who oppose an SAV) now, we can or will need to revisit the contract at some future date. My opinion is more nuanced.

  Streaming New Media (”streaming” highlighted because I think it is always worth noting that the larger debate here is about a subset of what Alan Rosenberg and his supporters are defining as “new media”) is not worth striking over by my lights. It may be that we need to revisit it pursuant to the sunset clause already present in the LBO (a clause that I will remind people never existed as pertains to home video); it may not be. Remembering that streaming new media only became a worrisome force in 2005, it is just as likely that it will be an artifact of the past in three or six or ten years.

  Ace is right in stating that I have my own lines in the sand regarding this contract. Force Majeure, Taft Hartley, product placement without notice… what I consider to be the actual rollbacks will not stand for me. That said, I cannot support either an SAV or a strike over other provisions that do not and (in my opinion) will not hurt us as actors over the long term.

  As to Ace’s assertion that the MF NegCom has “compromised the living hell out of SAG over the course of these negotiations” [and please, Ace, don't think I'm trying to hang you out to dry by quoting you - I actually have a great deal of respect for your opinions], I simply disagree. MF’s NegCom has capitulated on exactly one point: DVD. This may or may not have been a poor decision (I could argue either way: it’s a non-starter or because traditional home vid is dying, maybe we could get a better share), but that’s not much of a move either way. Many on the pro-MF side have said that this contract is all about new media residuals and nothing else – I disagree and think other items are much more important.

  We HAVE to retain the thirty-day Taft Hartley rule. Giving up union space in our own contract is, to me, untenable. We HAVE to retain Force Majeure. It protects us in the event of both strike and natural disaster and frankly guarantees that we can have the resources to get home if we get stuck working a show in the midst of a war zone. The other stuff – stuff I’d like to have – French Hours, clip consent, product placement – they’re all secondary to me personally. I think we can make headway on them, but honestly they are not the end of the world from my perspective.

  What is clear to me is that Alan Rosenberg and his allies are not helping matters. They did not help with their intransigence during the negotiations with the AMPTP, and they are not helping with their lawsuit against the majority of the board. To me, the argument that U4S is secretly plotting merger with AFTRA is nonsense (a merger that 58% of members voted for, btw) – who cares? We have bigger fish to fry right now, today.

  It seems to me that everyone here and on Sagactor and on Sagwatch is yelling about the lawsuit and how U4S and the regional boards are out to destroy the union (I’ll point out here that my first union gig was in Atlanta and call bullshit), or how MF is only out for its own political future (which frankly makes a lot of sense to me). In my more lucid moments (rare as they might be) it occurs to me that maybe – just maybe – U4S and MF are more like Ace and I.

  Maybe it’s not that anyone is “stupid” or “cowardly” or “weak” or “Rovian.” Maybe it’s just that people of good conscience have an honest difference of philosophical opinion – like liberals and conservatives in the most classical sense of the words. I don’t know. I have no silver bullet. No great pearl of wisdom to solve the internal problems we’re having.

  All I know is that the longer we fight with each other, the more shows are going to AFTRA. I know two – two NETWORK one-hours – whose pilots are going to HD already. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll go AFTRA, but there’s no reason they wouldn’t. It seems to me that the intra union conflict is costing us all money, and it seems to me that the MF group is more responsible for that than others.

  God (said the Jew-y athiest)… I wish some third group – some Ross Perot, only sane – could sweep in and save us from ourselves.

  Comment by Anonymous — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 3:41pm PST  Reply to this post

• I missed being called an “ignorant bully” and I’m flattered that “love’s labor’s lost” cut that down to just “bully,” but I must confess, even at this late date, my frustration and anger comes from the reality that I have no idea what the opposition to Rosenberg and Allen want.

  Usually, you can look across a divide and at least say “well, I don’t agree, but I at least, technically speaking, understand what they want.”

  Such is not the case here, for me anyway. Such passion, for… what?

  Giveaways, roll-backs, control of the guild from NY/RBD and UFS a small band of dissidents in L.A., merger with AFTRA as a solution to, rather than a complication of, our problems, instead of the obvious “all actors repped by SAG” solution, agreements to previously unthinkable things in our contract, so we can “keep working?” I wasn’t aware we were on strike. Is it just fear? Not that fear can’t be a debilitating force. It certainly can’t be greed, except on the part of the “stars” who want the gravy train rolling, and no part of a labor action that could slow down their own private Idaho’s.

  Is it as simple as “same shit, different day?” as in “whatever the particulars, the merger zombies want the opposite, just cause, you know, they’re livid.” They always seem to be livid. That they lost in ‘98? Really? They’re still carrying that albatross around their necks?

  Is it just hatred of Hollywood? “We don’t like you, we don’t like it, we want to be separate from you, we want you gone?”

  Again, I worked out of L.A. for six years, both my sons were born there, I bought a home there, I’ve been out to work and to look for work many times before and after – but, even living north of the city, (NY) I recognize the vital importance of the home base of the union, and the ability of that division to get the best deal for all, wherever we live.

  Is this passion and craziness all about merger? Is that IT?

  Why are the “moderates” and the “stars” fighting tooth and nail AGAINST doing what’s necessary to get a good contract?

  Don’t these people WANT a good contract? Don’t they think we deserve a good contract? And, if the producers won’t even give us a fair, let alone a good one, why are they supporting the producers instead of the middle-class actor?

  Does anyone but me find that mystifying?

  Do they not believe the precedents? Do they actually believe the producers will give this stuff back after establishing a business model and burgeoning profit stream that cuts actors out of residuals in new media?

  Were they beaten or abused as children? Is there a drug or alcohol problem? Are they simply not capable of grasping the obvious?

  I literally don’t understand. I have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, what they want, in many cases, who they are, or where they think they are going.

  I just know, instinctively, it’s not good. Is it possible to stop them? Will the law do it? Can we do it? Will the SAG constitution protect us from this madness, and will we EVER get rid of these people? Or at very least neuter them, so they don’t hump the union, literally, to death?

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 4:34pm PST  Reply to this post

• @ Joe Cool [sic]:

  Don’t like unions? Then stop taking weekends off. Stop taking overtime. Stop working an 8-hour day. And on and on. So many advantages you have today are because of unions.

  People like you, who are willing to fuck actors out of their well-deserved residuals, pensions and health care, are the kind of people who don’t deserve to work in this town — or anywhere else. So selfish you’re willing to hurt others for your bottom line.

  Come to think of it, you’re just like those scumfucks at the AMPTP.

  Comment by Luzid — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 6:31pm PST  Reply to this post

• @ Anonymous:

  “Remembering that streaming new media only became a worrisome force in 2005, it is just as likely that it will be an artifact of the past in three or six or ten years.”

  Really?

  You honestly think a distribution model that eliminates material costs by utilizing digital transmission of film and tv won’t be used for the foreseeable future?

  It saves the studios money — especially if they manage to get a loophole big enough to kill residuals by changing everything over to digital.

  Why on Earth would such a money-saving model go away? From a business standpoint, it makes no sense.

  Comment by Luzid — Wednesday February 4, 2009 @ 7:25pm PST  Reply to this post

• Luzid –

  First, from your question I’m wondering if you’re conflating all forms of digital distribution with streaming media. You are quite correct that a distribution model that eliminates [most] material costs is the future, but media streamed from the internet may not be part of that equation because streaming media has several inherent flaws.

  The largest of these is that streaming is a bandwidth hog. It eats far more then torrents or est. MF’s doomsday scenario – that all content will migrate to streaming media and the networks will simply become websites – can’t happen. Even in countries with far better high bandwidth infrastructure (Japan, Germany), there simply isn’t enough room in the pipes to move the amount of data that would be required should a large proportion of people – say 30%, but that’s just a guess – use streaming internet as their primary source of entertainment. I encourage you to read the article in this month’s Wired on Cablevision – it’s largely a bio piece but also contains an excellent and brief primer on the difficulties of broadband expansion for both cable and fiber optic companies.

  As to streaming disappearing, what I am saying is that we are in a time of rapidly shifting technology – the next “killer app” to come down the pipe could easily replace streaming as a technology. I do not disagree that the future will be founded on digital distribution, but what we are now arguing about and calling “new media” could easily be irrelevant and wholly replaced in a decade by “next media.”

  Comment by Anonymous — Thursday February 5, 2009 @ 3:00am PST  Reply to this post

• Very well put, Anonymous. I sat in on a media discussion over at CalTech a few months ago and the consensus was that the internet was “today’s technology”. That, in fact, internet growth and evolution was simply no longer the story, the internet we see will change, but not dramatically or qualitatively. As one scientist put it, “what the internet is good at is essentially what it’s already doing. What we is see is what we’ve got.”

  That doesn’t mean there aren’t huge content delivery changes afoot; but what it does mean is that our guild needs to be less doomsday-scenario-thinking and more forward thinking. How can we be supportive of and a part of what comes next? How can we position ourselves as the go-to PARTNER in media shifts and not just the hindrance?

  Comment by love's labors lost — Thursday February 5, 2009 @ 10:52am PST  Reply to this post