Action Comedy TV: Showrunner Matt Nix 
SAG National Board Approves Joint Bargaining … 
BBC Drama Unfreezes Development Money; … 
Lionsgate Board Rejects Icahn's $6/Share 
Is Betting On Box Office Good For Films? 
Marvel Still Looking For Captain America 
'Sopranos' Creator To Film Rock Drama 
LIVE-SNARKING THE 82ND OSCARS... 
'ALICE' IS A MONSTER! $116.3M Blows Past … 
Oscar Not-So-Thriller: Diller Mogul Picnic 
'Precious' Sweeps 25th Indie Spirit Awards 
Howard Stern Won't Be Next 'Idol' Judge 
Justin Theroux Readying 'Zoolander 2' For … 
Mickey Rourke Wooed For Two Big Roles, … 
CBS Reups Les Moonves Through 2015 
SAG's National Executive Director David White has been telling everyone what rotten financial shape the Guild is in -- despite $27 million in reserves -- to the point that he's firing 36 employees and promising a hiring freeze. So you would think that the union would be on an austerity budget. But noooooooooooooo. Instead, I've just learned tonight that SAG has retained one of the priciest flackeries, The Saylor Company (begun by ex-LA Times senior business editor and ex-Sitrick & Company flack Mark Saylor) to develop a PR campaign that will persuade members to ratify the SAG-AMPTP tentative contract. His other clients paying through the nose have included the governments of Dubai and Ethiopia, and indicted Broadcom guy Henry Nicholas. The firm claims it's "known for handling high-stakes communications and top-level media relations. The firm's professionals have advised major corporations, governments and high-profile individuals when the circumstances are complex and decisions are critical. Our clients count on us to map out strategies quickly and execute plans that deliver results."
I've confirmed that Saylor has been working for SAG secretly for the past month. Don't get me wrong: Mark Saylor is very good at his job. "The staff at SAG have spent the last year arguing against this contract. Now they have to argue for this contract," an insider tells me tonight in defense of Saylor's hiring. "Wouldn't you want to bring in a fresh set of eyes in thinking through communications strategy?"
But this follows SAG's recent hiring a 6-figure second banana mouthpiece to assist Pam Greenwalt in communications (even though she very ably handled the office by herself for years). To be fair, SAG's previous leadership hired Sitrick & Company's ex-LA Times senior business editor Jim Bates at what was described to me at the time as a pro bono modest rate to help part-time with the PR war that the Guild was facing mano a mano against the AMPTP during last summer's negotiations stalemate. But that was run past the SAG National Board. I'm told that by contrast the hiring of The Saylor Company was not brought to the attention of the National Board like it should have been during the recent two full days of meetings. Then again, the current SAG leadership isn't known for its transparency.
Loading ...
Pathetic. I’ll bet the PR firm hires Tom and George to be spokespersons along with Amy and Kate.
This is one of many reasons to vote “NO” on this contract offer, and to vote OUT all of these so-called “moderates” come election time. “Rules? We don’ need no steenkin’ rules!” Running roughshod over people seems to be the way they operate. (Oh, except for the AMPTP – they don’t run roughshod over them at all, not that they know how to do that.)
These people are NOT on your side, fellow SAG members.
Yeah, the “money drain” bullshit – isn’t that just straight-up libel? George Coe reminded everyone at the National board meeting on the 18th that the figure was down to 6 million under that genius Bob Pisano, so, will someone explain why it isn’t blatant libel to be accusing SAG officers of neglect of their fiduciary responsibility to the membership, when in fact, while there IS a deficit – hey folks – it’s been a tough year, but SAG aint exactly Chrysler, ya know? – there is, in fact, a 27 MILLION DOLLAR RESERVE.
So please – will SOMEBODY sue Sagwatch for libel? They’ve been banging this turd of an accusation like a toy drum.
And BIG MONEY to “lobby” the membership to vote “yes” while out the other side of their mouths, they are KILLING MF and the former leadership for their financial malfeasance? Please.
I for one though, am not worried. I am confident that Tom Hanks, George Clooney and Meryl Streep, having finally figured out why it was such a stupid idea NOT to support the rank and file, while THEY make millions and their corporate masters make BILLIONS – those three “stars” right there alone – will pony up whatever this “vote yes” P.R. firm is gonna spend of SAG membership dues money – so Hanks, Streep and Clooney can let the entire membership know they have seen the error of their ways, and because this contract phases out residuals, puts an huge nonunion space in SAG’s contract for the FIRST TIME IN ITS HISTORY, abolishes clip consent, destroys product placement protections, and ends Force Majeure as we know it – in short – FUCKS the VAST majority of SAG, the “middle-class actor,” Hanks, Streep and Clooney all USED to be – they are gonna ride to our rescue folks, the “high profile” cavalry is coming! You watch!
Yours truly,
Snowball in hell
aka Matt Mulhern
We are really a pathetic union.
I’ll be voting no and I’ll be sending emails to my fellow actors to do the same. No fancy PR firm, just me and a few facts.
Yes, I still laugh at the notion that Clooney had the gall to say that he and 10 others would be like our linemen for us … or some stupid comment to compliment his football movie whilst throwing daggers at Doug Allen for having a football background.
Come vote time, everyone’s going to see what the vast majority of SAG really thinks. Thank heavens we don’t have an AFTRA-vested TV Newsreporters that are allowed to vote on it either.
4/24/09 Los Angeles –
An underground faction of SAG members 50,000 strong and counting is ready to vote NO on the new proposed contract (4/09). Despite Ned and the new board’s pandering to the producers, this underground faction is ready to cast a big NO on their ballots. Contrary to news the trades are reporting, SAG members will vote NO on the new contract.
Secret emails are being sent thousands of SAG members explaining in detail to the members just how damaging this new contract is on future earnings for actors.
This movement is gaining strength by contacting actors who supported SAG’s negotiating committee back in mid-2008, along with actors found on YouTube, Facebook and many other non-traditional communication sources. It is ironic how this underground movement is being waged, through new media, the same venue producers are stubbornly refusing to not pay actors residuals on.
Sources say SAG’s membership is quite willing to vote NO on this contract, despite what the rumour mill says, and honor what President Alan Rosenberg has been saying all along. Speculation about what will happen will soon be in the hands of actors, and actors views haven’t changed much since mid-2008 when an unofficial poll stated 80-plus% of actors would oppose the new contract. With nothing changed on the April 2009 contract a NO vote to ratify is very likely.
As well, sources say instruments are being put into place by the attorney general’s office to prevent any possible corruption with this important SAG vote so it can go through fairly, without bias.
Apparently, SAG’s new board’s is worried. Seems they’ve hired a new PR firm to push a YES vote onto SAG members. Unfortunately, many SAG actors haven’t changed their opinions since June 2008 and simply see the newly placed board which favors the producers, as the adversary.
Why should we expect anything else of SAG Interim Director David White who served as lead counsel at SAG under Bob Pisano. Then they spent well over a million on a big PR Firm to sell the membership on the failed SAG AFTRA merger. They call it “educating the membership.” If this abomination of a contract were any good why do they have to sell it? How about a little honesty for all the money SAG is overpaying Mr. White?
The membership rank and file better wake up quick and vote this turkey down or they may not have much of a union left. Reduced income as a result of some of the new media terms means less dues money payed into the guild and a growing deficit. Members that can no longer support their family, leave the industry for another profession reducing the size of the membership, again less dues.
Allowing non union production in a SAG contract would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves? If you are a SAG member reading this, VOTE NO! on this contract offer. Don’t let some PR firm scare you into accepting the worst contract in our history.
Then in a couple of months vote those “Unite for strength” and USAN “moderates” out of office. Ask Ned Vaughn and SAM Freed and their cohorts what the hell they were thinking about except their own cowardice and defeatism when they orquestrated the board coup, fired the constitutionally proportioned negotiating team and went in themselves and got AMPTP sand kicked in their face before capitulating.
Now they are hiring a PR firm to sell us on giving up our right to negotiate for clip reuse of our own performances? What blatant audacity! What unmitigated stupidity! I can’t wait until the TV series stars realize SAG will not back them in their claims for “force majeur” payment for salaries owed them due to the writer’s strike. They will have to negotiate for themselves! What about their agents’ commissions due on that money??
What a mess! The majority of the Hollywood board voted against approval and recommendation of this contract. You can thank NY USAN members, the few Hollywood “Unite for strength” members and the Branches for this debacle. Vote as if your careers depended on it! VOTE NO! and send this one back to the AMPTP!
So this says to me that the sureness of their position is maybe not so much. Get the shit deal passed anyway they can and it will look like they at least made a bad situation a little better. Well, so much for making it not look as bad or worse.
A couple weeks ago, someone almost had me believing for a second that more and more of the membership was ready to cave in and just say yes to the asssandwich, I mean like 90-95% acceptance. But I ran down the list of grievances to reassess the situation, and helped him to revise that figure a bit.
I haven’t received any secret emails yet, but then again, I’ve already made my opposition to this deal quite clear. I can only hope that This Just In is right.
So how many Town Hall meetings do you think there will be where they have to face the membership?
Many of us on the board were confused by the financial presentation. Yes there was a board-approved budget that projected a 6 million deficit in anticipation of the extraordinary negotiation year that is Fiscal Year 2009 (June 2008 through May 2009, I think). That budget included no layoffs. Zero. That budget included no Interim NED salary, no high profile PR firm, no marathon board meeting. It did anticipate, properly, contract approval/strike authorization referenda on any and ALL of our contracts that were to be negotiated. Not just TV/Theatrical but ALL of them – commercials, cable, Animation, Interactive Media, etc. – ALL of them with not a single lay-off. There was even room to HIRE!
The new Depression blind-sided the country; not just Doug Allen and SAG, but the entire friggin’ country; and suddenly the approved budget is called “irresponsible”. Bullshit.
Here’s the confusing part.
Despite the lousy investment performance (losses of LESS than 10%) and despite dues and fees revenue off by less than 2% of projections (attributable to the 100-day WGA work action and production slow-downs), despite a whole bunch of bad news; SAG, through January, was AHEAD of budget by 66%! That’s $4 million fellow members! $4 friggin’ million dollars AHEAD of where Doug and Alan and Connie and an MF/Hollywood board conservatively projected where we would be! That is not even slightly irresponsible! Recovering 2/3 of a projected deficit in 6 months is OUTSTANDING financial management!
In January, SAG was doing better than great financially with a horrible economy looming and some heavy lifting to do in the next 6 months. So the new National Board Majority decided it was time for a new NED. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
But here’s the real disappointment. Despite all of the savings and work to mitigate the revenue shortfall and investment losses; despite the effort to continue to afford a high-level of negotiation and comprehensive membership out-reach and participation; despite the effort to SAVE jobs; the new National Board Majority and new leadership at SAG STILL are gonna spend $6 million more than we took in. AND cut Jobs. AND project a comparable deficit for NEXT year.
Now to be honest, transparent, and fair. I voted “FOR” approving the FY2010 Budget. The economy is not getting better and there’s no telling how bad it may get. The TV/Theatrical contract, if ratified, could deteriorate revenues even worse, and if not ratified, a job-action could have the same effect although temporarily .Cutting jobs is the hardest thing a manager has to do; but, in a recession (or depression), it sometimes has to be done.
What gets my goat is that when I and others asked why and how the $4 million in savings could possibly be spent in the next 2 months and why and how another $6 million was going to be spent NEXT year when most of our negotiations would be resolved, there was no specific answer AND certainly no mention of The Saylor Company. All we heard was that there would be pro and con statements accompanying the contract referendum. Nothing about opening the union purse-strings to an outside firm to influence members.
Playing it straight while putting people on the street is the least SAG should do. Unloading employees and hiring high-priced “spinners” in secret is profligate, disrespectful, and just plain immoral (in my single simple-minded opinion). It may be entirely legal, but it ain’t right. Shameful. Shameful.
I wish very much that the current “majority” would stop spending our dues in such a manner.
All that is necessary to give the membership before this AMPTP proposal vote is The Truth. You can go to http://www.membershipfirstgroup.com to see the entire proposal. please judge for yourself. I am not advocating we vote this up or down. I know how I personally am voting (NO), but you have to make up your own mind. You are a smart, clever group of individuals and I trust you will read this proposal before you vote on it.
I will say this, if you are inclined to vote “YES”, then please ask yourself if you’re ok with the entire contract going forever in the toilet (nothing to which you’ve grown accustomed in the TV/Theatrical contract carries over to the Made-for-New-Media contract except P&H. Nothing) OR if you have the stomach to sacrifice everything and strike (because you will need to) to get protections back in a couple of years.)
If you are, I can get behind you, but you should really ask yourself this question very seriously. Because if you are NOT prepared to do that, to lay down any desire to be “thought well of” by the public and the Media Corporations, then you will have been responsible (by voting up this proposal) for throwing away all the provisions and protections for which older SAG members sacrificed so you could have the money and union security you’ve enjoyed so far.
Vote however you want. Read the proposal and vote your heart. But remember, if this is a fight you want to just put off, make sure you remember you mean to do it (and have to start planning for right now). Otherwise, be prepared to live with the fact you helped to destroy 75 years of blood, sweat, and tears and when it was your turn, you failed.
Why doesn’t White tell the moguls that in exchange for a yes vote from us they have to commit to their own comparable limits on the increases to their pay and bonuses? These guys who just flew to DC in private jets use public money (GE Capital applied to participate in TARP) and use the public airwaves. Why should their entertainment excutives be treated differently from bank and auto executives? Until they commit publicly to make sacrifices like the ones they are asking of us we should oppose this deal they are cramming down our throats.
Six figures of our money going to a company insider flack?! (From the company town insider LA TIMES no less) That’s about as sick as it gets! Please don’t waste any global-warming energy on sending me an email! I’m already voting “NO!”
Thanks Nikki.
And Thanks Clancy Brown.
I would hope facts like these and the others that have come to light will help the membership understand what the new leaders who orchestrated the hostile take-over of our Union are about. They are rich elitists willing to spend any and all membership money to secure their own selfish agenda.
They are spending hard earned membership money-hundreds of thousands to dismiss Doug Allan and install David White- for NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
These immoral hooligans subverting a democratic vote of the board of our elected officials, spent piles of the memberships’ money, and came back with the same contract offer.
And educated SAG member will vote NO on this contract.
Let me get this straight: Within the span of a couple of weeks, and in the wake of a new contract, SAG gets rid of Todd Amorde, who was heading up ORGANIZING, but hires another communications person AND a spin PR firm?
I think the priorities of the new administration are becoming clearer and clearer.
Really, all of this is just so much flack. The previous regime spent serious dollars attacking another unions proposed contract, and hired a pr firm as well.
Clancy, I know you to be a smart guy. So I have a question for you. How, pray tell, does this proposed contract result in a net loss to the union membership and the union coffers? Seriously. Are you basing your math on an ASSUMPTION regarding New Media, or facts? Our membership has collectively lost a shitload of money since last June. Money that the New Media proposals(even from our side) would in no way shape or form even provide for. So how does a contract that provides for bumps, as well as an increase in major role performer premiums(something you benefit from), increase in residual ceilings, increase in money breaks, and a greater contribution to P&H? Please enlighten me.
Yes indeed – “This Just In” is indeed right – I have received such emails, as have a dozen or so actors I know. For the record, this small group of actors, who range in membership years from 4 to 23, are all voting a resounding NO on this contract, and there is nothing any PR firm can do to change that. I would imagine that we as a small group, are a fairly average cross section of the majority of SAG. None of us are voting NO to cause problems, nor are we afraid of causing problems. The fact is – it is a contract we cannot support, it will be the demise of our ability to earn a living as actors. Voting yes will be the same as giving up our future as actors. Voting NO will simply send it back to the AMPTP for more negotiations and force them to work harder to come up with a fair contract. I care about my brothers and sisters in other unions, and the other working people in this town, but not to the point that I am willing to see my future go up in smoke just to prove how much I love everyone. I have kids and a wife to support, and have done VERY well supporting them until now, and I am not about to say “sure, take my future earnings and force me to take a job behind the counter at a bank” where my passions and talents do not lie. This isn’t about “we’re right, you’re wrong”, its purely about fact and logic, not emotion.
As a National Board member and the 1st Vice President of SAG, I choose not to post on sites due to the fact that I, more than others, have ample opportunity to communicate with members via the Hollywood Call-Sheet, Membership Meetings and the Screen Actor Magazine. But after reading Deadlines story regarding SAG’s irresponsibility in hiring a publicity firm without informing the President, Secretary Treasurer or the national board, I could not remain silent. I appreciate the posts of board members Justine Bateman and Clancy Brown. Their statements are both accurate.
The National Board met for two entire days last weekend and absolutely no mention of the hiring of the firm was ever discussed in session. I have no idea if Mr White chose to speak to certain individuals about the hiring but he certainly did not inform Pres. Rosenberg or Sec/Tres. Stevens. Mr. White assured the board that a hiring freeze would have to be implemented due to the guilds’ financial health.
It has been confirmed to me that this p.r. firm was indeed hired a month ago without consultation of the two highest ranking officers of the Guild. I find this absolutely unconscionable. I, too, reluctantly voted “Yes” to approve the FY2010 budget based on what I now believe was incomplete information presented to the board. Based on this new information and what I’ve found out in the interim, I only wish I could change my vote. Many board members requested a delay in any firings/hirings until earnings from the tentatively approved Commercial contract kicked in and also after other budgetary cuts were implemented. We were denied that delay. I cannot imagine how the recently laid off employees, many of whom chose to complete their week of work at the Guild and will be leaving today, must feel regarding this news.
It is no secret that I do not support and will be campaigning against the ratification of this contract. It goes without saying how damaging this tentative agreement will be to this union and its members. But what does it say when this union has to hire a p.r. firm, which specializes in crisis management and the resuscitation/rehabilitation of compromised individuals/companies, to assist in the “selling” of this contract to its members? Yes, during the 2008 negotiations, SAG hired a p.r. firm to help counter the attacks lobbed from the AMPTP, but that was done with consultation of the 5 officers and the original negotiating committee. The hiring of out-side p.r. assistance to combat the attacks from the AMPTP and A-list producer/actors was also discussed on several occasions during Hollywood Board meetings with former NED/Chief Negotiator Doug Allen in attendance.
The current actions of Mr. White must not go unchallenged or unanswered. The National Board or, at a minimum, the National Executive Committee must be told what actually took place, when this firm was hired, for what purpose and at what cost to the members. Anything short of that will be unacceptable to me and many other national board members.
Anne-Marie Johnson. SAG 1st V.P.
To those sag members out there who are reasonable with your approach to your totally dysfunctional union, you have my support.
But it seems to me there is a problem you have which I don’t hear you guys discuss that often. With 120,000 members, you have about 90,000 elephants in the room. Sure they give your leadership plenty of money to play with irresponsibly, but come on!. Let the demand for your talents dictate your success, not just the outcome of squabbles about your contract that affect everybody else who’s not sag. It just leads to resentments.
Wow, the bleachers are packed with the usual jackals – 50%??? — more like 1%. Hiring a PR firm is standard operating procedure for unions…or are we talking about the Latter Day Saints here?
Do you think WORKING actors are going to vote no on this contract and continue to let television become an all-AFTRA business AND continue to make less money under the ‘05 SAG agreement ($66,000,000 and counting.)
Accountants & Realtors with SAG cards can afford to vote “no.” But actors who actually make a living in this business are voting “yes.”
Please, please, let’s all get rid of the current leadership at the next vote! UFS are only looking out for their interests! They are worse than MF! The only power we have left is to show these false leaders that WE decide, not THEM. VOTE NO. VOTE NO!
TO BILL CHARLTON:
From a hardworking, non-actor, union member in our business, thank you for your voice of reason. I would hope your sentiments are more widespread than the average comment at this website would lead us to believe.
Justine, you are always so negative. Geez. If Membership First were so good, then why didn’t they strike at midnight at the end of our contract last June? They are right about contractual issues but were cowards when it came to striking and getting the contract resolved — I put you in that camp. Ugh. Additionally, Membership First is highly divisive in their approach, even if what they are advocating has the most merit. This doesn’t work.
UFS is more diplomatic but ultimately not good for the union’s members either. To follow UFS would be losing protections, rolling over to big media, and now apparently less transparent. Merge with AFTRA? That could be good if a) AFTRA just represented actors and b) AFTRA weren’t UFS. AFTRA is a lame, nearly useless union. Why would I want more of AFTRA????!!!! UFS doesn’t care what actors want and AFTRA doesn’t care what actors want, they just want to be able to pay administrators and save the organization from bankruptcy.
As an actor, this is frustrating to the max. No choice gives me diplomacy AND results. What gives? Why are there so many politics and egos here and so little good for the actual membership? Is it greed from the administration? Is it lack of guts to do what’s right?
Why can’t David White just write up what he thinks about the proposed contract and let the opposition write up their side and leave it to each member to decide? Do you think that we can’t decide? Or are you afraid of what we might decide? When you have to pay big guns to spin a story for your own membership it indicates you are going to get the wool pulled over your eyes. Heh, I make my living in PR besides spokesperson work and acting, so I REALLY KNOW this side of the business. Words are worked to persuade you in a certain direction. Only the best truths are presented, not the whole truths. Testimonials and credibility statements are paid for, summoned, and beautifully presented with emotion. Spin in P.T. Barnum-type Hollywood PR and you’ve got quite a dramatic show that only the big PR guns and Hollywood publicists know how to do really well.
The bad thing is we’re fucked no matter what at this point. Vote No and who knows how much longer we’ll be into this quagmire if no one has the guts to strike. Vote Yes and you will lose needed protections forever.
I for one would rather be fucked less, though, with a Vote No because then there is the chance that some reasoning will come together to save us and the studios might feel more heat with the threat of a strike again. Boy do I feel bad for my agent if this happens. But I can survive it.
Right?
50,000 are going to vote no? Please. Only 1000 sent back the stupid, redundant, postcards…by the way, how much did that cost us?
It will pass, no doubt about it. My guess, 68%
I can’t say I’m suprised about this new development but I am disgusted at the idea of how much money (SAG dues) are being thrown at this ‘pricey’ pr firm! I refuse to even consider voting yes on this, and the fact that people within our own union are trying to push such a crappy deal on it’s membership is just wrong
Good idea, Working actor #274- I too will be forwarding an email to all my fellow actors encouraging them to vote no! I may not be getting paid for it but I think a good grassroots effort is in order….
David
It was 10 THOUSAND – not 1 THOUSAND, and of those 10k who voted? – 87% voted to “keep working for a better contract.
Get it right.
SAG paying big bucks to some PR Hack is just part of the Hollywood-Welfare-Stimulus-Package-Pass-thru…
(3.) The National Board has the final exclusive authority with regard to the following matters, except that the National Board may delegate that final authority at its discretion:
(c) approving budget additions in excess of $50,000 except that the N.E.C. may authorize any necessary budget addition if the Board of Directors cannot do so in a timely fashion;
Again.
I’m selling two apples. One apple, from American Farm TRAders, sells for 50 cents. The other, from Swell Acres Growers, sells for 60 cents, because after fighting the good fight, they were able to secure a provision in their exchange agreement that requires the buyer to fork over another 10 cents six months down the line. 50 cents and 60 cents.
What buyer on Earth would pay 60 cents when he or she can get the same apple for 50 cents!!!!
You can’t fight the logic. It’s over.
And if there’s anybody who’s still confused about ‘favored nations’? It doesn’t exist in the AFTRA deal as regards to New Media. Do your homework.
I firmly believe there is still stuff we have to fight for, but not now. That ship sailed when AFTRA made it’s deal. But, once we’re merged, I will be the first person on the strike line, if need be. Until then–futile.
I was mortified by the PR blitz the shove the merger up our asses, rather than allow us to think for ourselves. Even if I had liked the “devil of the details” in the proposed merger, I was so *appalled* and felt so railroaded into voting “yes,” I might have voted no just to express my disgust.
I hope this horrendous expenditure of SAG funds backfires the same way the “barrage” for the AFTRA/SAG merger arguably did.
Really creepy.
Todd Waring: “I firmly believe there is still stuff we have to fight for, but not now.”
Wimpy: “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
I would like to ask Bill Charlton, just how many Major Role performers are there out of the 120,000 members of Screen Actors Guild, who would benifit by this contract being voted up? How may of the 120,000 members would be devastated by the loss of residuals if this contract passed?
we need a massive NO! rally!
hollywood division members should stand up by themselves and show their unity!
they won’t do it so therefore the crooks who have stolen the guild laugh all the way to the bank!
the weekday lunchtime rallies were cute, but there were never more than 100 and most not big names.
the media gave then a wink and a nod but nothing serious.
until the membership grows a backbone and stands together the crooks win!
@ Todd Waring
HAHAHAHA! YOu are so clever! Quick question:
Does your hypothetical buyer get to use, reuse and resell the apple over and over even re-packaging your apples with other apples, using your name, your tale…
Oh fuck it. YOu just can’t fix stupid.
It’s still OUR union. We have the power to vote this egregiously bad contract down. We are the members and we don’t have to cave to the bullying demands of the AMPTP. If you want to retain some semblance of your residual structure in the future…vote NO! This is NOT a hard choice, folks. In the twenty-five years I’ve been a SAG member, this is the easiest choice I’ve ever had to make. Honestly….
Good things rarely need a PR firm.
I keep trying to find the words that will convince everyone of the indisputable, irrefutable, irresistible fact that we have everything to gain by voting “No,” on this killer contract that employers themselves told us; they would use to eliminate Residuals. AFTRA has agreed to that, so if you want to work under a shitty contract with No Residuals; you have the AFTRA Contract. You don’t need SAG to concede that. Go work under that contract. We have everything to gain by not accepting this proposal. We have our superior SAG Contracts to protect as long as we can hold onto them. The Big Kahuna Contracts that give us a ton of leverage; is our Motion Picture Feature Film Contracts. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers; cannot produce their most lucrative, prosperous, desirable product; Motion Picture Feature Films; until they make a deal with us. They are afraid of being shut down in the midst of a gigantically budgeted, tent-pole blockbuster; and their insurance companies will not guarantee their completion, until they have a deal with us. That gives us a lot of strength for as long as it lasts; and I guarantee that our holding power will last longer than theirs, and that, that their Multi-National Conglomerate CEO’s, Stockholders, Investors and Public Opinion; will allow their pea-shooter, bean counter negotiators; to piss around, while the biggest, most successful part of their business is being shut down. And speaking of Opinion; how about the Opinion piece in the LA Times, one of the most pro management rags around anywhere, with this paragraph amongst others;
“SAG hard-liners argued that any sacrifices made today in new media would come to haunt them once the Internet becomes the dominant form of distribution. Their position is supported by SAG’s experience with the studios on cable TV, VHS and DVD — low initial residuals never gave way to larger shares.”
That was in the Tuesday April 21st edition.
Next time I’ll get into the insanity of why we would help the AMPTP, create Non-Union Production, to compete with the Low Budget Agreements, that we created successfully to compete with a Non-Union Production Labor Pool; and we do roughly 2000 such Low Budgets a year under the budget line; that this contract would allow them to go Non-Union with
$67 Million lost ain’t shit compared to what all the roll overs will cost us. It’s peanuts.
And yes Virginia, we do have a solution. We are not the party of “NO.” It’s just “NO,” to this deal. We have a great alternative to offer. Kill this deal and we’ll give you the Bible on the New Deal. In fact, I was a corporate officer in a company called New Deal Pictures, that employed the model until a partner tragically died. The Model’s been used in many other individual cases. We at SAG, had at one time started negotiations for such a Model with the IPA, the Independent Producers Association. The DGA and WGA, were in on some of the meetings. It’s time to revive it.
And please don’t give me that Sam Freed ‘Sunset Story.’ What are they telling us? The first three times the AMPTP lied and cheated us on Cable, on VHS, on DVD; they were just kidding? This time they’re really real, they’re really gonna’ be good guys this time. This time!!!!
Dear Hank Yablonski,
It doesn’t matter what the buyer does with the product. It matters which contract the producer uses.
If SAG has a ‘better’ contract, but nobody uses it because they can go next door and use AFTRA; then it doesn’t matter if we hold out for everything we want in our deal, because it will sit on the shelf and collect dust.
Just look at all the new TV contracts AFTRA scooped up.
It doesn’t get much plainer than that.
*****
Dear Zachery,
Nice argument. Think much?
Dear Bill Charlton,
I wish it were as simple as “contract good” or “contract bad.”
It isn’t.
My comment about the possible further deterioration of SAG revenues if the new contract is ratified was made in the context of why I voted to approve the FY2010 budget. A budget that included the staff reduction. A budget that projected an even further deterioration in revenues.
As I said, laying people off is the most difficult thing a manager has to do and we got confirmation of that at the board meeting. It sucks. The board members that bothered to show up had to think hard and seriously about endorsing that budget. And listen, I am sure, deep in David White’s heart, he was hoping someone would come up with a way to avoid having to lay anyone off. But it didn’t happen.
The revenue for FY2010 was budgeted to deteriorate by 7%. That is a pretty standard number to use in a recession. I was concerned that it was too optimistic. This is the worst economy any of us have ever experienced. And there is no predicting how much further it may deteriorate. My question to David in the meeting was simple, “Do you think you are done (cutting jobs and services)?”
I wasn’t baiting him. I am worried. I’ve been through a few recessions and my experience tells me that when you think you’ve cut costs as much as possible, circumstances will force you to cut more. Still you hope and pray it won’t happen.
But I had to vote. It wasn’t a blog post or a SAG website video. It was a vote that would have immediate consequences to some people who were working everyday for the benefit of members. I admit I wasn’t considering how I might benefit from any nominal increases in major role premiums. My main concern was that the 7% discount might devolve to 10% or 12% or 20%.
The “good” news was that the FY 2009 budget underestimated the revenue shortfall by 3% through 6 months as presented to the board. Some of that has been made up in the intervening months, but Doug Allen, before he was summarily dismissed, had already cut $5.6 million in expenses and frozen hiring. That doesn’t make him a hero. It’s what he had to do and he did it; but it doesn’t leave much room for error or under-estimation of revenue going forward. FY 2010, if worse than projected, will result in more layoffs. And, as I said, layoffs suck.
Ratification or rejection are the possibilities and BOTH results trigger scenarios that could deteriorate revenues beyond 7%. You might just as well ask me how I could presume voting down the contract results in a protracted strike. What might my math be for that? Or am I basing it on assumptions regarding a positive strike authorization, or facts? I do know that the Made for New Media terms are unlikely to ameliorate any revenue shortfall because 1) there will be no residuals and 2) “scale” in Made for New Media is minimum wage. Add to that the under $25k non-union space that will contribute nothing and we are left to hope the nominal increases you mention will save the day. No one is going down that road and I would be derelict to do so even if I was a UFSer given the possible real scenarios. The projection is 7%. I voted to approve and I’ll cross my fingers.
The point of my post was really the lack of transparency in the hiring of The Saylor Company and the ramifications of it on the remainder of the FY2009 Budget and the FY2010 Budget going forward. I understand how you might have defaulted to the conclusion that it was an argument against ratification. I’ve got more and better ones than just the New Media terms, though. The negotiation and the National Board Majority machinations color just about everything these days and it’s hard to disengage from the self-involved and misguided politics. Believe me, I know how hard it is, but I’m trying. Especially when it comes to issues of transparency and the integrity of my vote.
The spin over the budget and past budgets is inaccurate. SAG is not in financial trouble and there is no basis to any declaration of mismanagement or over-hiring or whatever. That shit is political and irrelevant. The budget going forward needs scrupulous oversight. Not because one might have some opinion or other about David White or UFS or the National Board Majority or MF or Alan Rosenberg or Doug Allen; but because there is a decided lack of certainty and confidence in the world economy and no guarantees the TV/Theatrical contract vote will have any positive impact however it resolves.
The fact is, and you should take some solace in this, the budget vote did not follow factional lines. At least not where MF was concerned. Several aligned with MF voted to approve based on the information presented. No one from the National Board Majority broke ranks of course, but it might happen someday over something…maybe.
We can and should, however, demand full disclosure and strict adherence to the rules of governance and internal procedures. The elected board and SAG employees, are answerable to membership no matter how inconvenient, unwieldy, or routine the matter might seem. And now more than ever. Mr. White has since made assurances that there is no financial impact to his decision to change PR firms. I hope that’s true and desperately want to take him at his word; but it shouldn’t have taken a fucking blog article to find out about it. There are mechanisms and procedures internally that could have avoided this whole issue had they been followed. Anyone of us could have helped to put this fire out if the transaction had been transparent from the start. Simple as that.
The ’sunset clause’ has never been in writing before.
The transparency has never been in writing before.
That’s the difference.
And unlike Cable, VHS, and DVD, they’ve had a couple years already to try out some models and nobody’s making any real money yet. And corporations have throw millions at trying to find a way. It’s going to take a couple more years before anything works big-time in the internet, if at all.
The next negotiations start in less then two years.
Hey Zachery,
Ever go to the movies? That’s what’s going to be ’sitting on the shelves gathering dust:’ all the movies they don’t have enough faith in to spend the money it costs to attract an audience; while the 200 they have scripts, money and cast for; sit waiting at the ’starting gate’ until they can get a deal with us. That’s what’s called power and this is for all the marbles.
You know, we’ve been here before; us little rag-tag dissidents. We beat their big bad machine with two ill conceived Mergers, that would have had us buried already; we defeated a Financial Interest scheme engineered by SAG powers to be at the time, the AMPTP, the ATA, AFTRA; and we succeeded to implement Global Rule One, with the entire Globe against us. C’mon Ye of so little faith. Save your Union. Worst case, we go down fighting and work as indentured slaves under an AFTRA Contract. That’s another thing; if we win, we can begin to bring all actors under one contract, the superior contract, the SAG contract, by referendum, by litigation, lobbying, by whatever means available to free men and women in the United Brotherhood and Sisterhood of Labor
I don’t understand the fear about a better contract. Let’s say Todd Waring is right: SAG gets a better deal than AFTRA.
Then, according to Waring, all the TV shows go AFTRA. Actors who work the AFTRA contract will be working the crappy contract that WAS offered to SAG. Dollar for dollar, no residual for no residual, the TV actors will get exactly what they would get if we had accepted this crappy deal being offered to SAG membership now.
So where’s the loss to the actor? It’s the same contract.
Then, three years from now when Waring believes there will be a merger. If that’s true the base contract we all negotiate from will be the better SAG contract. SAG/AFTRA as one have a better foundation to negotiate from if there is a merger.
In the meantime, SAG actors in film have benefited for three years from the residuals and gains which there is no question will not and cannot be produced under the AFTRA agreement. And the actors who worked in SAG TV shows filmed prior to this AFTRA primetime TV switcheroo will for these next three years benefit from the better SAG contract we win and the residuals for their previously filmed reruns.
I mean no insult to Mr. Waring, but gains for SAG actors in terms of residuals for all the pre 2009 TV shows in future re-runs is substantial. And in addition Film work will pay a living wage. How is it you discount that Mr. Waring?
If SAG membership accepts this offer there is no difference to the actor whether he works the SAG or AFTRA contract–except that the AFTRA pension and health fund is failing.
Those who work in Film or who have re-runs on the air of SAG shows filmed before say, May of June 2009, will lose a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money.
When you go through the details of the offer that AFTRA agreed, there is no good and valid reason to accept that deal.
There are plenty of threats, name-calling and finger-pointing, there is a lot of emotional tyranny and the sky is falling down simplistic “logic” about plumbers and flushing toilets aimed at actors mostly but there is not a good single reason to accept the deal on the table.
What does that remind you of? It reminds me of George Bush and all his toadies selling the Iraq Invasion and 3 page trillion dollar bail-out plans. All a lot of bullshit.
The merits of this deal do not stand up, not on their own. Period. I’m voting no and laughing at the inevitable PR spin campaign as if it were coming from Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.
Like one of my first acting teachers said, “It’s all on the page – the rest is bullshit.” In this recycled AFTRA deal, the bullshit is on the page.
Dave –
“50,000 are going to vote no?”
Wake up Dave, I have the list here it’s 50000 strong. No kidding, want it? Send me your email.
(Gilda Radner) Todd!
Two Words “Todd!”
FEATURE. FILMS.
SAG. NOT AFTRA – SAG.
TV?
yeah, 64 pilots – you know how many will get on the air? 20? MAYBE? You know how many of those will be actual honest-to-God hits?
2. MAYBE.
Let’s at least TRY to be honest about how much leverage SAG still has if 41 members of the National Board can get through puberty and start making some adult decisions.
First of all, Clancy, thank you very much for your very well laid out reasoned post and lucidity. I appreciated your forthrightness, and I would agree re oversight and it should transcend any and all political tacts. Though I tend to disagree with you politically, I admire your thought and debate.
Made for New Media is still an infant, and there is not all that much of it being done that is making any money. I think of it more like student films, where we have a contract that we give our work away for free. To hold out for a better deal strictly in the Made for New Media sideletter is useless, in my opinion.
Terence, what loss in residuals are you talking about In the contract? Usage is a different debate and a different story. But the contract provides for a net gain in residuals in traditional and an increase in Electronic sell through, like renting a movie through Netflix or from iTunes at twice the DVD rate.
The hate being spewed by several people on this site is truly sad. The commercial negs worked because actors of different thoughts were able to work toward compromise without calling each other names. This lack of respect just proves that many of you would rather destroy what we have than arrive through debate at a compromise.
And finally, Anne-Marie Johnson. It’s been reported in the blogs that SAG has spent over $100,000 defending itself against the lawsuit filed by you and Alan Rosenberg. The union with your assent spent, what $150,000 to try and defeat the AFTRA contract, and another $100,000 on what may of us feel was a push-poll, not a true referendum on what we thought. I also seem to remember that SAG hired a pr firm(Sitrick) to sell the membership with this poll. It’s okay when you do it, but not okay when someone else does?
I don’t see why there is such a fuss – or an attempt to make.
As 1VP Ms. Johnson noted SAG had hired a PR firm last year….and all that has happend was a change in vendor…nothing new, not an expense that wasn’t there before. We already had a PR firm hired by Doug Allen. and now Mr. White wishes to use a different company. For all we knoe, maybe the fees were cheaper.
After wading through the knee-jerk vitriol and the puerile name-calling, it seems to boil down to this: Since we all want the same thing (a contract that we can live under) would a strike be successful?
Some people think it will.
Despite the vertical integration that pits SAG against multinational conglomerations, whose bottom lines are barely effected by Hollywood doings,
Despite the fact that SAG has no strike fund and if recent financial revelations persist, it doesn’t look like there will be any time soon,
Despite the mounting foreclosures that show no sign of ending,
Despite the lost good will of the town we work in,
Despite the apparent lack of support from the WGA, DGA and the rest of the unions,
Despite all the signs pointing to the worst possible time for a strike,
Some people think that if we just hang together we’ll get a better deal that every producer will want to use, despite AFTRA’s cheaper deal.
I just disagree.
Bill C -
I think you missed the point here. David White – possibly with a wink from a handful of corporate appeasers – did an end-run around both top elected SAG officials Rosenberg and Johnson AND the national board. Obviously the corporate appeasers are in charge and they’re going to hire and fire and change PR firms and whatnot (and some of us may not be happy about some of that, but that’s another story), however, the union’s business should be conducted in the light of day and in the spirit of a democratic institution.
The manner in which this change occurred is anti-democratic. The firings are clearly politically-motivated, as SAG has significant reserves. In short, the corporate appeasers have shown their true colors in a variety of ways, and SAG members should keep this in mind as they consider their votes on the theatrical contract and in the upcoming elections.
President Rosenberg reported at one of the SAG public meetings last year that he was informed privately that the moguls have literally hundreds of low-budget non-union new media projects ready and waiting to go. The moguls want the non-union low-budget provision because they bloody well intend to use it.
This Just In – Can you forward me that email???
TY
Man, some of you guys are just thick in the head.
“We’ll take the contract now and then we’ll get together with AFTRA within the next two years, and then the AMPTP will give us the better of the two deals.”
We never had it in writing before, never been transparent before, the model was never as untested as the Internet before. So, it’s different this time then it was with Cable, VHS and DVD.
You don’t know about the 1998 contract where SAG gave up all of our priorities in an exchange for a binding contract promising all three Guilds; SAG, DGA, WGA; with the magnificent Residual Study Commission. We had tremendous preliminary meetings to plan the composition and structure of the Commission, with Kenneth Ziffren, heading it up. The same guy who teamed up with Robert Pisano to try and take us to the cleaners with the ATA.We defeated them while AFTRA took a $500,000.00 bribe to give the ATA Financial Interest. Anyway, know what happened to the signed in blood, binding, transparent, mother of all Residual Study Commissions that we gave up everything for? Nothing! Not even a report, not even an explanation for getting nothing. Boards change, executives change, the right hand doesn’t know what the left hands doing. Stop being so gullible and wanting everybody to be so nicety nice. It is a term of Art that Employers are the Economic Enemies of Workers, and that Labor Laws are supposed to protect Actors from the predatory practices of Agents. The law actually says that in writing. Why wouldn’t you believe the experience and proven history of what people before you endured and have learned to defend themselves from. We have hundreds of broken promises from AFTRA; and sad to say; we screwed them over too, but a long, long time ago, not lately. The only thing new in the world is the history you don’t already know.
It’s understandable that new management would want their own team and consultants, and equally understandable that you can’t ask a communications department and their advisers to do a 180 and start telling members that the crappy offer you’ve been hearing about for months is actually a wonderful one. But what boggles the mind is why any of this had to be secret. Why weren’t a range of firms weren’t interviewed, and why on earth did an entire month go by before the top officers found out by reading Nikki? We are supposed to be a democratic union, and one would think that the elected members would like to know who is working for them.
@ Bill C,
Like you, I appreciate any well thought-out conversation and debate that is presented with respect to others. This particular topic holds nothing like the vitriol in earlier posts from last year. Sure there will always be the “F-U” people, but the haters have mostly moved on to other forms of attention-getting. In contrast, this topic has been amazingly respectfully-discussed. And thanks to (most all) of the commenters for that. Sober, respectful, fair debate always helps, is interesting to read and informative.
That said…
You have supported the argument against (generally) needing residuals in new media for this contract offer, stating, “there is not all that much of it being done that is making any money” (which is the argument positioned by the AMPTP, and it’s a ruse). Whether that statement is accurate or not isn’t the issue because the amount of money producers are making in new media is a different argument than what’s on the current contract offer. It’s irrelevant. What’s important now is that a profit participation model, which is currently in use for all (?) other media, be put in play in these new delivery formats now, in their “infancy”, so that we ‘participators’ don’t get shut out in the future as we have with VHS, DVD, etc.
New Media is no different.
And for anyone (Todd) who still believes that ‘The Sunset Clause’ will be of use to SAG in future negotiations, the clause has already been outed as a legal loophole by our (real) leaders last year. It simply won’t hold. If it were re-worded without the loopholes, I’d be all over it.
Bill, my response/question to that new media residuals statement is simply, “If there’s no money being made, then why would the producers be so damned adamant about shutting us out of it right now – potentially at the risk/cost of a strike?” There are only two possible answers: they’re either making loads of (non residual-generating) money now/already, or they have ulterior motives for shutting us out of all of it in the future – to the latter of which they’ve shown intent time and time again. (Personally, I believe both answers are accurate.)
You sound like a guy who knows and understands this, but for those who still have AMPTP smoke (spin) in their eyes: residuals are about participation in their profits, not production cost or budget. If producers make money on a project, we make a standard (and relatively very small) percentage of that profit – as do writers and directors. When producers take that project elsewhere and make more (’residual’) profit (with our creative work) then, again, we get a standard, contract-negotiated percentage of that profit. If said producer then takes that project to new/different markets but makes no profit this time, said producer isn’t obligated to pay residuals to actors. We actors cost producers nothing in residuals if they don’t profit. How much more simple can that be?
Again, if the moguls really are making no real profit in New Media then why would they fight so hard and risk so much to stop that business model from being developed?
Actors, if you think that residuals aren’t really that big a deal, try this: you just did your taxes, so take the amount of money you made (acting) last year and give one-third (or up to one-half) of it to some filthy rich millionaire who needs to make his Bentley payment. Just give him that stack of cash – walk right up and hand it right over. Let’s call it a rebate. I mean, since you don’t need it or want it, why shouldn’t he have it? (Bentley’s are expensive…)
Not only can you probably not live on your remaining income, but the idea of helping line the pockets of some stupidly-rich person with my hard-earned money is nauseating. And even if that “rebated” amount is only fifty or one hundred bucks, consider the tens of thousands of actors handing over that fifty bucks (or five thousand bucks) to the rich guys. Yeah, they sure need that money more than you do. Their companies have to fund those silly ‘Golden Parachute’ and ‘Golden Coffin’ deals. They also gotta pay Tom, Tom, George, Brad, Meryl, Danny, Rhea, Matt…
NOW do you still want to give up that residual income in the future? It’s YOUR money. YOU helped create that product, and you should get paid fairly for it. I intend to fight for my residuals, and for your residuals as well. I hope you’ll do the same.
Product created specifically for New Media is a whole ‘nother ballgame. And because that issue is also part of this contract offer, it’s another reason to vote “NO”. No union should EVER allow a non-union space in their contract, no matter the production cost. But SAG’s ‘negotiation task force’ thinks that’s okay. (So does AFTRA, btw.) Tell me again – whose side are these people on?
As for the touted “gains” in New Media which the AMPTP has constantly spouted – there are about zero residuals in New Media at the moment because the issue has not been dealt with in the past. Ergo, any money paid for New Media residuals would be considered a gain.
But that’s like the moguls giving shoelaces to a country of children who have no shoes. “Hey, look at what you now have! It’s 100% more than what you had last month! We are so generous.” *patting each other on the back while lighting up their Cohibas*
Todd Waring -
You are entirely overstating the ability of the moguls to withstand a protracted strike (anything longer than a couple of months).
Those huge corporations you’re referring to have been hurting badly in this economy. Their media arms – with film grosses actually going up this year, and new media revenues worldwide now outstripping film – have been for most of them one of their few bright spots.
A SAG labor action would be a significant body blow to the moguls from the first day of the strike. Wall Street loves stability, predictability. A labor action is the stone-cold opposite of that. It’s everything Wall Street loathes. Stock prices would be affected – likely adversely – by a labor action. Publicly Wall Street would sing the anti-labor song of hanging tough. Privately they’d be calling the studio heads to task, and I can sum up their questions to them in three words: What The Fuck?
IOW, the studio and television heads would be under intense scrutiny for allowing a labor stoppage to happen in the first place, and under intense pressure to bring the strike to a quick and amicable close.
It’s not like the WGA, where they can stockpile scripts and do workarounds. No actors on the set means no production.
With solidarity, SAG has a hell of a lot of power.
Producers ARE making money on new media; they don’t to share a piece of the pie with SAG. Pity, because that will be causing a STRIKE.
Here directly from their mouths
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a37uqd5vTw
$1.5 billion in digitial – Disney
“doubles its revenue … in digital” – Viacom
“certainly one with golden opportunities” – News Corp.
“we are feeding those screens” (for a profit)- NBC
“we’re going to get paid for it regardless” – CBS
Todd Waring says:
And unlike Cable, VHS, and DVD, they’ve had a couple years already to try out some models and nobody’s making any real money yet.
For someone that has been in the biz for 28 years even you should know that residuals are based on licening fees companies like Hulu pays to the studios for the right to use their product. Therefore the studios are making real money.
working actor says:
“If Membership First were so good, then why didn’t they strike at midnight at the end of our contract last June?”
because the writers strike had just ended and the general sag membership, a-list sag members, and pretty much the entire town were coming out and saying they would not support a strike.
at that time, the general sag membership wasn’t paying attention and didn’t understand why the amptp deal is so lethal. it took a long time and a bullshit coup for quite a few people to actually read the deal and start paying attention to what really matters.
now that more members understand the stakes, some are wondering why doug allen/membership first didn’t send out a strike authorization immediately way back when. well, if you’d been paying attention, you’d know why.
Can’t wait to get all those new SAG-PR postcards, fliers, emails and junkmail-in-the-mail so I can write a big “NO!” on them and send’em back! What an absolute waste of our dues!
Having just read the tentative deal, I am clearly voting NO. It smells like betrayal, like treason against the noble acting profession to me.
And that is without the benefit of a legal education or in-depth analysis of the deal points and their repercussions in the real world of my and other journeymen actors’ careers by smart people who understand these labor contracts more than I do. I am looking forward to that kind of honest assessment by others who are not in the studios’ back pockets and know of what they speak, both in terms of the “deal” points and SAG/AMPTP history.
Absent that analysis and of course ignoring the boogeyman spin, in the words of the great Desi Arnez, “Lucy, you have some ’splainin’ to do!”
I’ll let you all decide who Lucy is.
SAG Member: 17 years (continually working for all of those)
FILM & TV
Lead & Supporting Roles
Make my living SOLELY as an actor, and always have.
Voting: NO
@ Tom Bower:
Loved seeing you in “Die-Hard 2″ today. Hope you got paid. That’s what this is all about.
This is what “This Just In” meant by emails being sent to SAG actors:
RALLY Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11am–2pm
at The Saylor Co
202 S Lake Ave.
Pasadena at SE corner of Lake and Cordova.
How good can the contract be if they need a “crisis” management PR firm to sell it?
IF WE ACCEPT THIS CONTRACT WE WILL BE THE ONES IN CRISIS:
CRISIS: Thousands of our members will lose health coverage and pension benefits
CRISIS: The fractional pension improvement, one-half of one percent, will be more than wiped out by losses in the move over of 14.8% in contributions to P&H
CRISIS: We lose up to $400 million in network residuals from move over to streaming
CRISIS: They get 17 to 24 days of free streaming then pay $23.58 for 6 months of constant streaming
CRISIS: Pre 1971 movies: no residuals in New Media
CRISIS: Pre 1974 tv series: no residuals in New Media
CRISIS: Non-union production in New Media
CRISIS: Product Integration: 2 jobs – 1 paycheck
CRISIS: Clip consent: As a condition of employment we lose control of name, voice and likeness
YES WE HAVE A CRISIS. WE WILL BE UNABLE TO EARN A LIVING IF THESE ROLLBACKS ARE ACCEPTED
VOTE NO ON THE CONTRACT
SHOW UNITY & COME TO THE RALLY
Something else just occurred to me, looking at dates and such. If Saylor has been secretly working with Interim NED David White for a month… why?
If White is claiming that Saylor was hired to sell the contract to membership, how did he know back then that he needed a PR firm to sell a contract that hadn’t been voted on yet, long before the National Board discussed (and narrowly approved) the AMPTP offer? Before even the backroom talks with the moguls?
This whole thing stinks of fiduciary malfeasance.
Since Mr. White is the “Interim” NED, when can we fire him?
It’s an interesting comparison.
The previous board majority and NED hired a PR firm to spread disunity and distrust among organized labor in the entertainment industry.
The current board majority and NED replaced them with a PR firm that they charged with the mission of rebuilding unity and sowing the seeds for solidarity with other guilds and unions in the future.
Which one is serving the needs and interests of SAG and its members, and which one was (wittingly or unwittingly) doing the AMPTP’s dirty work for it?
Once again, for all those either too misinformed or pro-AMPTP to care about the difference:
THIS CONTRACT IS NOT ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY CAN BE MADE OFF THE INTERNET. IT’S ABOUT HOW THE INTERNET WILL DELIVER CONTENT TO HOMES — CONTENT CURRENTLY DELIVERED VIA “OLD” MEDIA SUCH AS CABLE, SATELLITE, AND OVER THE AIR.
When the content is streamed to tv sets BEING BUILT FOR JUST THAT PURPOSE (basically all sets from now on), THAT CONTENT WILL BE DEEMED “NEW MEDIA” DESPITE NOT BEING VIEWED ON A COMPUTER!
And your residuals will be gone forever.
You know what I can’t understand? How can anybody be for this deal? Any actor who has ever earned any money professionally knows that buyouts are never as good as residual payments. Hmm, let me just give you a lump sum to show your image as much as I want for a period of time vs. getting paid every time it airs. And with the internet it’s sooo easy to track views. We could even have accountability with that. Imagine!
This SAG Board and it’s Officers have not – repeat – have not represented us responsibly in any way whatsoever! It is time to wipe the slate clean by
VOTING NO on this insane contract and then VOTING THEM OUT of office for good! Only then will the AMPTP and the other unions take SAG seriously!
Samsung Model # LED TV Series 7 — already being sold has internet capability.
WE ARE NOT FOOLS PRODUCERS … GET READY FOR A LOOOOOOOOOOOONG STRIKE UNLESS YOU COME AROUND.
CAGNEY, BOGEY, ETC. ARE ROLLING IN THEIR GRAVES.
VOTE NO ACTORS!!!
AT LEAST LET’S HONOR OUR SAG FOUNDERS AND ALL THE HARD WORK IT TOOK TO CREATE SAG.
Less “me” and more “we” people …. we need to dig our heels in on this one!
For all the actors who will be voting for this contract, here are two serious questions for you:
What advancement do actors get for giving up force majeur?
What advancement do actors get for giving up clip consent?
Forgetting new media and residuals for a moment these are two major, and in the case of clip consent a deadly concession in my opinion, being made by the union. What do you get for them? Is there some huge increase, some new work rule that makes life better for actors? What do you get for losing things you will never get back? (And for those who don’t get that clip control is deadly, think about what crude special effects managed with a commercial that had Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum cleaner over a decade ago. They wouldn’t even have to ask after this. And anyone without name value will face the decision of forgoing clip control or not being hired on a regular basis.)
The new media terms are essentially the same that were hammered out with other unions who didn’t give concessions like those, so that can’t be it. What do you get?
Only, and I do mean only, if the business is on the verge of going under completely should you make concessions without receiving some consideration of equal value to actors. That is Negotiation 101.
Personally I do not see that actors got anything for those concessions, but I’m not an actor. You have to answer that for yourselves.
As for the hiring of a PR company, if the contract cannot stand on its own merits of course you need a big campaign to sell it. It isn’t as if the members against ratification are the AMPTP and have a huge media budget and a rubber stamp media dependent on advertising to bad mouth those for ratification.
For all those of you who don’t understand what the NED’s rsponsibilities are vs what the National Board’s are…
The NED is hired by the National Board to conduct SAG’s day-to-day business. As long as the NED is working within a board approved budget, he has the absolute authority to hire any vendor he sees fit. It is laughable that anybody here and especially board members thmeselves would have issue with the fact that they weren’t consulted on a vendor hiring. Are you really thinking a board meeting should be called before the NED makes any decisions to get approval? Nothing would ever get done in a timely fashion. And let’s be honest Ms. Johnson, you know very well there was no consultation with the National Board before Doug Allen hired Sitrick. And there was no reason that he should have, because his position gave him the authority to do so just tlike White has now). The fact that you mention that Doug Allen discussed it with you and Mr. Rosenberg (and not the entire board) actually shows the political connections that you had with the former NED. If the decision was important enough to bring to board members it should have been brought before the entire board, not a select handful of political allys.
I know that you know White was well within his authority to replace Sitrick with Saylor and did not violate any union procedures, and I am sure if you didn’t you wouldn’t hesitate to file a lawsuit!
Dear Anonymous:
So your recipe for getting our guild more “respect” is to reject the deal that took nearly a year to get and then vote out yet another governing board of the guild.
I’m not saying anyone at SAG (either MF or U4S) has done a steller job here…or that this is a steller deal…but more political turmoil and dealmaking incompetance might just inspire the whole entertainment industry (and not just television) to find a way to do business without us entirely.
just sayin…
Dear “LLL”: Stellar. Incompetence.
I always knew you played for the other side, but I always gave you a limited amount of credence because you seemed to at least be… aware? Now that you’ve shown you can’t spell (some pretty common junior high school-level words), I guess your constant statements of “go along to get along”, and subtle pro U4S spin arguments are weakened considerably.
Just sayin’…
LLL:So your recipe for getting our guild more “respect” is to reject the deal that took nearly a year to get and then vote out yet another governing board of the guild.
########
A year to get? It’s virtually the same year-old deal. Nothing was achieved. It’s the same old turd. It took no time at all to get. It’s the first offer by the AMPTP.
And then you say “vote out yet another governing board.”
We never voted on anything– ever. Now you’re gonna blame that pig circus caused by UFS on the membership?
Find a fact. Otherwise all you create is a pointless, ill-conceived, uneducated rant.
This thought has crossed my mind — what assurances do we have that this ballot will be an honest one? What assurances? With the producers as powerful as the congloms are, who are used to getting their own way, do we need an outside agency (atty gen’l) to look in on this vote?
Is everyone out there secure in the belief this will be an honest ballot?
Just a thought.
@ACE
I always know when you have no real response when you criticize spelling. But thank you.
You want facts? SAG has essentially lost the television business which has been a massive employer of our colleagues over the years. Within the next two years there will be no more SAG shows. Anyone who tells you differently is spinning you. This is so devastating no one even wants to talk about it.
I have sat in on three different feature meetings where the discussion wandered to how feature films could possibly work with AFTRA. Can’t be done yet, but every company is looking for ways to get around SAG and if the union can’t figure out how to make the important deals…they will.
I am hardly a shill for U4S. I think their central concept of relying on guild merger is flawed in the extreme. But nor do I think that MF’s “unionist” policy of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming to be any less flawed as a negotiation strategy. It’s emotionally painful for you, I know, but if you look at the situation existentially what you have is a massively un- and underemployed union that can’t figure out how to make a deal. Whatever the reason is, this is the outcome.
Everyone wants the very best deal, but no deal is actually not better than a mediocre deal. It deepens the sense that SAG is making itself irrelevent.
Please Ace, feel free to correct all spelling errors. And I must say it’s time I thanked Nikki Finke for encouraging and hosting such discussions.
LLL, thank you for giving me permission to correct your spelling. (hint: I wasn’t asking permission – just stating some observations.) And I didn’t bust your balls on the validity of your comments because it’s the same ol’ rant from you, and we’ve been here before.
But since you brought it up…
I didn’t say or suggest that you were/are a “shill” for U4S. A shill would be making false statements for remuneration. What I did say is that you play for the other side – the anti-union side or, rather, you constantly take the position that SAG is weak, blathering on about what we’ve lost and how we should just accept it. All of which plays right into the hands of the AMPTP.
Which tends to make people question your motivation. Even your statement calling the offer/deal “mediocre” is suspect. The offer/deal is so much worse than mediocre, that it’s laughable that you would even dare to write it publicly. Using that word reeks of an attempt to falsely position the contract offer in peoples’ minds.
You have also regularly commented on the fact that so much of SAG is un- or underemployed, as if that’s something new or one of the current problems with SAG. It’s neither. SAG’s employment numbers have been relatively the same for decades and there’s no way to correct that, because of the nature of our work our guild cannot ‘find’ us jobs. But since you’re complaining about it, what do you offer as a suggestion to rectify the situation?
And as to all of your criticisms (now and in the past) of our previous group of negotiators: “MF’s “unionist” policy of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming … flawed as a negotiation strategy.” You’ve noticed, haven’t you, that the ‘new guys’ (U4S, NY, RBD…) went in and got nothing more than the last (MF) guys?
See, it’s not about the negotiating team, it’s about the solidarity of the membership behind them – it’s about us. People with attitudes like yours weaken the resolve of SAG members by complaining about how everything’s looking bleak and how it’s no use to fight for what we want – for what is fair. (I know, I know… I’m putting words in your mouth, but the principle is the same.)
One more thing: voting “no deal” for now is much, much better than living a [shit] deal forever.
I Vote “No”
quoting ACE:
“People with attitudes like yours weaken the resolve of SAG members by complaining about how everything’s looking bleak and how it’s no use to fight for what we want – for what is fair.”
“One more thing: voting “no deal” for now is much, much better than living a [shit] deal forever.”
Ace, my question to you is: and then what?
Where do you see this all ending up? Do you see a continuation of no contract, of working at the old rates, of a continuing work slowdown, of many if not most new shows going AFTRA? After a year of no contract, where do you see this ending? Do you want us to strike? And then what? Where does that end up? How many people lose their homes and blow through their savings and worse? And then what happens?
WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?? How far do you see this going? Where are you going with this? I will assume you have thought this through, so if we follow you all the way down this road of a fight to the finish, what’s your vision of what’s left when that’s done? You think that will get us a better deal, that we’ll be in a stronger position after more of “no”? How, exactly?
And it’s great to talk about fighting for what’s right, but it’s not great to imply that yours is the only way to fight for what’s right. We all want the best for all of us.
BlueMel57