UPDATE: Judge Nixes TRO On Technicality But MF Will Refile For Thursday Hearing

COMMENTS (35)

• 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