Midnight Madness For ‘Breaking Dawn’ DVD 
BAFTA Awards: What ‘Artist’, Dujardin, Streep … 
64th BAFTA Awards Winners: ‘The Artist’, Meryl … 
BAFTA 2012 Preview: Very British Affair Takes On … 
RECORD-BREAKING WEEKEND! 4 Films Open $20+M: ‘The … 
Remembered: Jennifer Hudson To Perform Whitney Houston … 
Live From NY, It’s Jean Dujardin On 
R.I.P. Whitney Houston 
TOLDJA! Indomina-BET Buy Sundance ‘LUV’ 
Saoirse Ronan Bigger Teen Action Queen 
WME Signs Writer-Director Jon Kasdan 
‘Glee’s Jane Lynch Joins Indie Film Comedy 
Universal Revives ‘Dracula Year Zero’ With … 
Jodie Foster Sending Mel Gibson Film ‘The … 
‘Roseanne’ Reunion: John Goodman To Co-Star In … 
UPDATE: Closing Arguments Conclude In Golden Globes Trial; … 
Series Adaptation Of ‘Legion’ With … 
Lionsgate Calms Investors With Talk About Charlie Sheen, … 
Ridley Scott Commits To Next Direct McCarthy’s … 
Marvel Studio’s Tim Connors Defects To Legendary As … 
UPDATE: Warner Bros Lawyers Dig In Garbage Over ‘The … 
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