I wanted to wait until I’d received at least half a dozen reports to post about what happened at Thursday night’s SAG Informational meeting held at the Hollywood Reneaissance Hotel about the tentative Theatrical/TV Contract with the AMPTP now mailed to the members in good standing at the big actors union. (Hard to take seriously Variety‘s account, especially when the trade IDed SAG Interim Executive Director as “David Young”. Wrong union. Dave Young is executive director of the writers guild while David White is IED of the actors guild. In addition, the Variety story was time-stamped at 7:41PM but the meeting didn’t finish until 10:01Pm.)
It was not a friendly room towards white or Ned Vaughn of Unite For Strength, part of the so-called SAG National Majority now leading SAG. Both were booed. While SAG President Alan Rosenberg and Ed Asner received standing ovations. There were over 600 people based on staff’s count, described to me as a broad mix of “working, kind of working, rarely working, and never working” actors. Everyone I spoke with agreed that the members opposed to the contract outnumbered those who favored the contract by as much as 75% “Vote No” to 20% “Vote Yes” with 5% undecided.
Anne-Marie Johnson convened the Hollywood Division meeting and joining her on the dais where White, Vaughn, SAG Chief Negotiator John McGuire from NY, Stacy Travis, Connie Stevens, and Ray Rodriguez. A slide show covering the contract’s major points was shown. Then it was Q-and-A time with questions from the floor alternated with questions submitted on cards.
Several attendees told me Ned Vaughn made many misstatements, while Stacy Travis appeared overwhelmed by the task of answering queries. White is known for his calm manner but, when the crowd was not pleased with many of his answers, he began to get hot under the collar. Even more so when Rosenberg, Stevens and Johnson repeatedly voiced their opposition to the contract due to very fundamental issues such as the high budget threshold for made-for-New Media productions enabling rampant non-union productions, as well as the virtually non-existent residuals structure for network primetime content streamed on the Internet. “You can make a hell of a TV series for $300,000,” Stevens said.
Vocal “Vote No” advocate Scott Wilson said from the floor that “it is stunning” that SAG was creating a space for non-union work funded by studios.
One “Vote Yes” supporter claimed more pilots were going to AFTRA than SAG. So White was asked specificxally how passing the contract would bring TV producers back from AFTRA. He had no clear answer. A “Vote No” backer said what mattered was the pilots’ success ratio. Said another, “The union we do pilots under is relevant because of thresholds towards penions and health. We’re dishonoring prior generations who fought for residuals and P&H.”
Regarding the latter, Ned Vaughn was asked if he thought SAG was throwing under the bus those older members who’d worked prior to 1971 when it came to residuals. Vaughn stated that their work was so old that they’d gotten paid already years ago. “It’s such a small amount of money anyway…” he added. The crowd didn’t like that reply at all.
Vaughn later told Variety that the “Vote Yes” contingent asked Rosenberg repeatedly to explain how voting the deal down will lead to a better agreement when the AMPTP has said repeatedly it won’t sweeten the terms. “I think a lot of members don’t believe that voting no is going to get us a better deal,” Vaughn told the trade.
Some questions from the “Vote No” contingent caught White in inconsistencies. For instance, on the issue of force majeure, White has continually insisted in the past that an issue like that in this contract will never be negotiated again with the AMPTP, not even in 2011. And, because this is all the guild could get on the issue, this contract should be ratified. (“We will never be able to get anything back in force majeure, that’s for sure,” White has said.)
But when during last night’s questioning, White’s answer suddenly was not as definitive. “He sugar-coated his answer to make it appear as if SAG could go in and renegotiate things,” one “vote No” attendee told me. “He claimed the Sunset clauses allowed for that. Well, you could hear a collective moan from the crowd.”
White also tried to get out from under his quote “This deal sucks”, which I reported he said during a National Board meeting and which the “Vote No” contingent is now using in its campaign to reject the contract. White stated Thursday night that he should have used another word — not because he felt “suck” was an inappropriate word for an Interim NED to use during a board meeting, but because he was misunderstood and wanted to make it clear that there are good things about the contract. “Moans again,” a source told me.
Towards the end of the evening, Ed Asner spoke and received a standing ovation for expressing deep concerns about the contract. Frances Fisher expressed concern about clip use going forward because of the contract.
In all it was a 3-hour meeting with cheers and boos and a few calls of “bullshit” (but Johnson had that person removed from the room). No fights broke out although there were disagreements. Even though questions had been limited to 2 minutes each, there was still a long line of people waiting to speak by the time the meeting was ended.






Simple Question..Simple Answer
Q. How should I vote?
A. If you don’t know..Vote No !!
Gary Watts
Please SAG settle this year long fiasco.
I have been unable to obtain work for the last 6 months. I have offered to work at a much lower rate to get my benefit hours but even that has been a no go. I am on the verge of losing my health benefits which I need as a cancer survivor.
No one can afford to be supportive a full year after this should have been resolved. This is no longer about residuals and new media this is about survival for thousands of us.
Enough already.
I once was supportive but I honestly don’t care any more. I am angry and hurting. Thousands of people are out of work and on the verge of total disaster thanks to your mess, and the economy. We don’t get residuals or new media perks we just want to work and take care of our families. You got yourselves into this mess but are bound and determined to take thousands of innocent bystanders down with you.
You consider us collateral damage! Enough! Stop the stupidity.
It’s all just disgusting…just vote, count ‘em and let’s get on with whatever the outcome…
I’d like to yell at you, tell you how ignorant your statement is, but that is not right. What i will say to you, and anyone else with your sentiment, if you want to be mad at someone, beg someone to solve this – you need to be talking to the AMPTP. If you think for one moment that I am going to vote this contract up just to help YOU while eliminating my ability to make a living, you are living in a dream world. You’re hurting? Well guess what, so am I and everyone else – I am not going to add to that pain by putting myself out of work with a contract that will compromise my p&h, my income, my ability to raise my two kids and take care of my wife / kids. You are barking up the wrong tree. Go take your complaints to the AMPTP. Those are the mother-fuckers causing EVERYBODY pain, while they continue to live in their hilltop mansions and drive 15 cars.
Simple Question..Simple Answer
Q. How should I vote?
A. If you don’t know..Vote No !!
Gary Watts
Let me re-phase.
Answer – If you don’t know, don’t be ignorant and DO RESEARCH!
The whole night left me with a pit in my stomach – the deal on the table is a start, but by no means the holy grail, some of it is crap – but actors fighting actors – guys 100 years ago we wouldn’t have even been allowed in the hotel because we were actors. Change hurts – but we shouldn’t hurt one another – i know I come off sounding Polly Anna – but seriously the next meeting should issue kevlar vest at the door.
Cheers and jeers. The tenor of the room was less of support for the original MembershipFirst faction, than it was utter disdain for the newer U4S/Interim Majority. I’ve never seen Stacy Travis before, no idea who she is nor why she was placed at the dais. She couldn’t answer direct questions and had nothing to add. Maybe she’s Ned’s girlfriend. I’ve never seen Ned Vaughn before either and was surprised as how young he is (well, looks). McGuire, in his suit and tie, looked like the corporate suit he apparently is.
What was clear is that this contract has no hope of passing, if the attending membership is any barometer of that. SAG now has too many educated members who can see through the B.S. of what McGuire and White are calling “negotiation” and “gains”.
The truth of that negotiation is – they simply gave up. If the Interim Majority (including David White) would have put as much effort (including using The Saylor Co.) to push for a strike authorization as they are with shoving this shit sandwich down our throats, it would be a done deal by now, and we could get on with a real negotiation. Alan Rosenberg was very clear when he commented that the entire National Board was unanimous with its decision to send out the SAV back in January, before the coup occurred, and that U4S/NY/USAN/RBD reneged on that agreement. All true.
And look where we are now because of that change in tactics.
Something that annoyed the hell out of me was Gabrielle Carteris flitting around the entire meeting, having little “pow-wows” with people all over the room. As I recall from a different meeting from last year, she was running around the room then too, getting signatures from people without telling them what they were signing. Her intentions are notably underhanded.
I’m further pissed off at the language used in the informative contract offer guides presented to SAG members at the meeting (and available online), as well as the The Call Sheet (SAG’s bi-monthly magazine). It’s pure “used car salesman sales-job” propaganda. For instance, page 3 of The Call Sheet is titled: “HIGHLIGHTS OF THE AGREEMENT”. I call bullshit. This is not an agreement of any kind. It’s nothing more than a non-ratified contract offer. In the pamphlet, obviously printed by David White’s Interim Majority, the text reads like an ad for ShamWow ™. “Here’s what you get if you act now!” Blah, blah, blah. “REAL GAINS = REAL MONEY. They did everything short of using pictures of stacks of cash. And they consistently made it sound like the entire board had approved the thing. Not even close.
And of course we have “THE MAJORITY REPORT” and “THE MINORITY REPORT” – the pro and con statements – and each’s rebuttals. I guess a very slim 6% of the vote gets you into a “majority”. Or not. Silly. Childish finger-pointing.
Overall, what was the most apparent is that the ‘vote YES’ contingency all believe that the “Sunset Clause” will stick and that the AMPTP will wipe the slate clean in 2011 for a complete renegotiation of New Media. What these people fail to realize (or admit to themselves) is that the Producers don’t play ball that way – never have. Even though it’s in writing, in the contract, what’s going to stop them from blowing it off in ’11? Have they (the Producers) paid the WGA for what they agreed to after the strike from a year and a half ago? NOPE. (It’s “in a contract, but…”) Have they paid SAG actors the force majeure money from the same time period – from a previous SAG contract? NOPE. (But it’s “in a contract, too…”) Who or what is gonna make them renegotiate this in ’11?
Again, Rosenberg quoted an AMPTP negotiator about this very thing. He (Rosenberg) asked, “Are you really gonna allow this to be renegotiated?” The answer was, “Sure – if you give us something else for it.” (I paraphrase.)
*wink-wink*
*nudge-nudge*
Why, on God’s green earth, do these people think the AMPTP will suddenly change tactics and do/pay what they’ve agreed in a legal contract to pay? Are you people blind? How many times to you have to get hit with the stick before you realize it’s not a carrot – it’s a stick?
And beyond all of that, the issue of the one-third payment of the force majeure claims (from over a year ago) came up (as it rightfully should) and the crowd went ballistic. Somebody from U4S (I think it was John McGuire) spewed something about having been in talks with those actors all along, and that they’re on board with it. To which, somebody else (not a U4S person) clarified that wasn’t accurate – that those actors were NOT in the loop when the negotiation task force agreed to cut their pay by two-thirds. McGuire had nothing to say to that other than (I paraphrase), “In a negotiation, we don’t always get what we want.” What a douchebag. It ain’t his money.
People, this is really simple. There are so many reasons to vote ‘NO’ on this contract, even before you get to the New Media ripoff: you can’t let Producers steal tens of thousands of force majeure dollars from other people (it’s not your prerogative to do so, nor is it the Producer’s); you can’t cut off residual payments for the elderly (from work before the early ’70s); you can’t allow your (and everyone else’s) face/likeness to be attached to a promoted product without fair compensation/consent; you can’t make it okay for Producers to have free consent for any clips of any thing from any time in the past or future…
It’s not your face, it’s not your money. It’s not your right.
And you would let all of this happen just because you think you’ll “get back to work immediately”? Yeah, on what? – on the non-union jobs you’ve allowed on the internet? On AFTRA TV shows? Even if there are movies waiting to go into production, it would be months before there was any work on them for actors. So where’s the “immediate work”, David White? John McGuire? Ned Vaughn? Where is it?
Either Scott Wilson or Dave Clennon (I can’t remember which) said it best: “You don’t lose anything by voting ‘NO’ on this contract!”
Just send out the SAV and let’s get on with it.
Wow… wish I had White on my team… you really want your head negotiator going in believing he’ll NEVER get certain things back. What a fucking pro. Did he work on the bank bailouts?
I am worried. It sounds from this meeting that a lot of people will vote no. However, it could mean all the people who want to vote yes, didn’t need an informational meeting. So, they didn’t bother to go.
Remember how badly all the other contracts sucked. They got ratified anyway.
Non Sympathetic,
I understand your pain and economic difficulties as well as your decision to pull your support from the current actors’ plight, one shared by tens of thousands of actors and their families plus the countless actors before us who fought and negotiated for fair working conditions and compensation.
But to blame the actors for the employers’ hardball tactics designed to cheat and exploit the people in front of the camera that production people are hired to photograph, and therefore the working actors’ integrity, is completely off the mark. Check your aim. Personally I feel that not going after the AMPTP and calling them on their totalitarian negotiating stance is cowardly.
Certainly you have your family to protect so, if you just think about it for a few minutes, perhaps you will realize that you are not the only person with a family to provide for.
In any case, I wish you the best of luck and regardless of your support, I am voting Not Only No but F$#@ No on this insulting offer. In solidarity…
@Non Sympathetic.
First off, I’m truly sorry for your bout with cancer, and I do wish you a speedy recovery. That being said; do you really believe that the cause for your unemployment has anything to do with the SAG contract? The networks have all announced their upfronts, features are being produced and there is, as far as I know (I’m working WGA), no secret stash of features and television pilots waiting to go pending SAG ratification of this monolithic turd of a deal.
This nonsensical delusion that some have that once SAG votes the deal in, everybody is going back to Happyland with a paycheck is absolutely baffling to me.
Just look at what NBC did with Leno; 5 hours of scripted television – gone. Right off the bat, you have five less scripted shows to audition for this season. That’s not because of the SAG negotiations.
I hope you get work and I wish you the best but please, get some perspective on this issue.
Also, I’d just like to say, NBC is run by coke snorting monkeys.
Thank you, Nikki. This is the most accurate description of what I witnessed in the room at last night’s Town Hall.
I was in the room, and Nikki’s report is IMHO accurate overall. She did put a few things in different order than occurred. I posed the question very early in the Q&A that elicited David White’s desire to recant his use of the word “sucked”. Ed Asner spoke much later in the evening. I got some cheers for my question. Ed Asner got a standing ovation for his comments. Well, what can I say? I’m no Ed Asner.
BTW David White did not answer my specific question. I asked what changed between the offer he said “sucked” and the offer he’s asking us to accept. Instead of giving us insight into his thinking, or detailing the substantive differences (aside from the capitulation on force majeur and the shortening of the contract length, what is there??? Seriously, I don’t know, he didn’t tell us) between the offers, he burned through my whole two minutes with his linguistic regrets, so I couldn’t get a follow-up comment in.
Now the beauty of new media. Here’s my follow-up. Mr. White, if you can’t tell us straight up what changed between the deal you said “sucked” and the deal we have now, why oh why should we vote for it???
I don’t recall SAG President Alan Rosenberg being pressed on multiple occasions by contract supporters from the floor, but I did take a bathroom break and a decaf break, so maybe they did. At any rate, President Rosenberg – whose standing ovation when he was introduced was overwhelming – did not reiterate his opposition to the contract in his initial statement, but rather sought to frame the issue of this contract in terms of the AMPTP’s long-term goals in new media. It was later during the Q&A that he said he outright opposed ratification (which has been his position since the new majority capitulated, um, bent over, oh alright, struck a deal). It may be that he felt constrained in his initial comments because of the gag order the new national majority placed on his statements in his official capacity as the democratically-elected president of the Guild, but felt free to offer a direct response to a direct question.
IED (that acronym is absolutely brilliant, Nikki!) David White on at least two occasions from different questioners that I heard characterized portions of the deal as not what he would have wanted and as “crap”. Yes, David White is on the record now as asking SAG members to vote for crap.
BTW I kept my promise to live-Twitter the event. At least two other Twitterers retweeted me. I believe you can still find it on my Twitter page, @mheister
Great report Nikki! Thanks!
It’s comical what “bad actors” these bumbling fools on the board are. Absolute fools at the helm. Can’t act their way out of a board meeting. Geez, apply a little acting technique to humor us at least !
Well, I am definitely VOTING NO. Absolutely, VOTING NO! And I urge all other SAG members to VOTE NO too!
BTW — I heard over in NYC’s SAG lounge VOTE NO flyers are posted detailing to our east coast colleagues just how bad this deal really is – and it’s working; many actors planning to vote yes are now voting NO.
SO EVERYONE GET OUT THERE AND EDUCATE YOUR FELLOW SAG ACTORS WHO MAY NOT KNOW WHAT’S GOING ON. TELL THEM WHY WHY WE MUST VOTE NO!
Remember SAG affects theatrical films and the studios can’t get insurance to shoot with a potential strike looming. The studios really don’t want that.
So VOTING NO will make an impact producers will have to re-negotiate or just not deal with SAG ever again.
Corporate greed is everywhere folks, not just in Hollywood. Why can’t we all just get along.
Plus, what the producers get away with with one union, they will try to do to the next.
… and, in the end, and in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make ….
Let’s LOVE OURSELVES ACTORS and not take a shit deal!
Michael’s summary of his question to David White is correct. I was also there, and I thought both Michael and Clancy Brown were quite articulate in voicing their opposition to this contract. Not everyone else could say the same.
The characterization of David White’s comments about the contract is not complete, however. Yes, he said that parts of the deal are not what he would have wanted and that parts of the deal are “crap.” But he didn’t tell SAG members to vote for “crap.” In his next sentence, he said that in every negotiation you get some of the things that you want, but you don’t get everything. He made very clear that there is no ideal contract where you get everything you want. As with all things, you negotiate for what you can live with.
Also, the characterization of Ned Vaughn is a little off here. Vaughn very patiently explained his position on the contract, specifically from the point of view of a middle class actor. In a strange moment, one Membership First supporter accused Vaughn of not having enough credits or acting experience to be an authority – something that had most of us in the room scratching our heads about. Vaughn then responded respectfully that he had been in SAG for 23 years and that he makes his living and takes care of his kids via whatever parts come his way – everything from day player parts to guest star parts. In other words, the life of a middle class actor.
Those who are stating that, “We’ve been hanging long enough, let’s just deal with it in 2011 when we can gather together with AFTRA…” blah, blah, blah need to seriously re-think their thoughts.
As noted in the ballot info pack that went out with the ballots, how many times previously have the Studios (We call them “the Producers” but who are they funded by and make product for?) ever given an inch once they’ve established a foothold there?
Remember VHS residuals?
Remember dismal cable rates?
Most people aren’t aware that there’s a sneaky loophole laying in wait. With Tv becoming more and more internet based cable providers will soon potentially be delivering Tv signals into homes via router boxes outside. It’s entirely possible that once these signals go through a router they could then be classified as “Internet based” so that ALL televised programming could be considered “Internet Based.”
Will it happen tomorrow? Most likely not. But why would the Studios be sticking to these internet rates so strongly if there wasn’t profit to be made?
Televised re-runs will soon be a thing of the past. The current deal calls for 17-24 days of free internet streaming moved up wo a WHOPPING $24 for day players and $130 for Guest Stars which gets them 6 months of unlimited use and downloads.
How is anyone going to make their insurance minimums if the P&H contribution goes from whatever percentage it is of $800 (using the base level union minimums for a prime time re-run of dayplayer roles) down to the same percentage of $24?
The internet IS the future of Tv, folks. Do research and you’ll see it. It’s coming.
Remember when cell phones were like a brick and only “rich” people had them?
“Who could ever afford one of those? They’ll never be common to the masses!”
Skip ahead 20 years and 10 year-olds are carrying them around in their pockets.
You can’t argue it. It’s coming. Turning a blind eye to it is reprehensible.
As for merging with AFTRA and creating a “Bargaining Force”? Look how well that idea worked last time.
Oh, right…It didn’t.
Even if a merger DID happen, it’ll never happen within two years of the next contract’s ending because realistically it would need to be completed within 18 months at BEST in order for early negotiations. Plus there’s bound (naturally so) to be all kinds of kinks in the hose involving governing once a merge happens. Which leads to MORE years of living under the same rates.
The one question I can’t easily dismiss is the one asking if this could potentially break the union. (With a great number of shows now going AFTRA due to their criminally low pay rates agreed to.) I’m not sure about that one. But I do know if SAG members don’t take a stand and let them know they’re serious, then all these losses will lead to so many more.
Do we want THESE to be the days people look back on and say, “How the HELL did they let this happen back then?”- ESPECIALLY after they’d already been through it a few times with other “New Technologies” and got so burned?
As my grandfather used to say (so eloquently):
“Fool me once, shame on you…
Fool me twice? – I’m a gd idiot.”
It’s hard to argue logic when the issue is fully explored.
As I post in my Youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAAFyBymoUM&feature=channel_page
Move-over is NOW and it is cutting the SAG middle-class actor’s income by 1/3rd to 1/2 RIGHT NOW. Producers CAN do it and they ARE doing it, and this contract does NOT make up that ground in New Media, so the middle-class actor can have any reasonable hope of even getting back – via New Media – to where they were in traditional media (TV and movies) – before producers started pushing all that content to the internet and NOT paying traditional fixed residual rates anymore.
The question becomes: why? WHY ARE THE PRODUCERS DOING THIS? and the answer is simple: they do NOT WANT TO PAY RESIDUALS ANYMORE. They SAID it in the NY Times in July 2007, they meant it and they are doing it NOW.
Are they pushing content to the internet NOT to make money? Of course not. Will they experience a period where the income for producers on the internet does NOT match what they WERE making from advertising revenue from reruns of TV and movies in network and cable TV? Yes.
But then, why won’t they allow the SAG middle-class actor to come along with them as a maker of their product and a “partner” to share in BOTH the losses AND the gains via a percentage of producer or distributor or WHOEVER MAKES THE MONEY’S GROSS?
Producer makes 100 Million in new media project? SAG gets X% Producer makes one million? SAG gets exact same X% Producer breaks even or loses money – unlike in traditional media, where producers HAVE to pay fixed rate residuals – producers in break even or loss situations have NO FIXED OBLIGATION TO SAG.
That allows the middle-class SAG actor to know, when he or she goes to bed at night: “I am losing a LOT of money in move-over of traditional media residuals, BUT, WHEN the producers start to make REAL MONEY in new media (and they will. In many cases they already are) I KNOW SAG has me tied RIGHT INTO THEIR PROFIT STREAM, which should, eventually, bring the SAG middle-class actor at least back to parity with the former compensation system.
This contract codifies terms that will NEVER get us there. You yourself have called the sunset clause “a joke” and, of course, you’re right.
Without being tied DIRECTLY via a percentage into the producer’s profit stream in new media with contract and legal rules for transparency that cannot be violated due to severe penalties for the producers if they lie or otherwise don’t comply – SAG, as a union, and the SAG middle-class actor, as a species, if you will, will gradually become extinct. SAG will NOT have enough income to support it’s own overhead and infrastructure.
Now, of course, as some from UFS have said PUBLICLY (James Cromwell) that’s exactly what they want ” A SAG so weakened it HAS to merge with AFTRA.” For many UFS-ers, NY, RBD and USAN members, this is playing out just the way they want – leading to a SAG so weakened, it HAS to merge with AFTRA on AFTRA’s terms.
It’s no mistake that, when asked by YOU when you interviewed him, Ned Vaughn – a leader of UFS said “I don’t care if the merged entity is called ‘Uncle Joe’s Actor’s Union.’ ”
In other words – for MANY “moderates” – the extinction of SAG is not something they fear or deeply regret – it’s something they WANT.
The middle-class SAG actor STILL has a choice: if you believe in The Screen Actors Guild, if you understand that EVERY SINGLE ADVANCE IN BENEFITS we enjoy today: P&H, residuals – the list goes on and on and on – was achieved through either a strike authorization (threat of strike with the backing of the membership via a 75% supportive vote) OR strike itself – if you want a tough, smart, union that represents SCREEN ACTORS – not broadcasters and recording artists, with completely different needs and agendas, then, vote “NO” on this contract, then DEMAND and vote “YES” on a strike authorization, and be prepared to defend your CAREERS, your FAMILIES, your FUTURE, and the future of the coming generations of actors.
This contract will NEVER be renegotiated if we sign it – there is NO precedent for the AMPTP giving BACK a good or even (all we’re asking for) a FAIR deal in a new technology (VHS/DVD – cable) once they get the deal THEY want and screw the middle-class SAG actor. NONE. NEVER HAPPENED.
Vote “NO.” And then, let’s take the fight to the producers and tell them we want a fair deal that allows the SAG middle-class actor the CHANCE to make a decent living and HOPE to break through to REAL money. Otherwise, SAG, as a union, is doomed, and the SAG middle-class actor, will become the producers toy, the equivalent of a WalMart worker.
We CAN STOP THIS – VOTE “NO!”
Dear Non-Sympathetic “Cancer” Survivor ~
We’re fighting a cancer, too. Can’t you be a little more sympathetic?
What kind of a union draws up a proposal for it’s members that has WRITTEN PROVISIONS FOR NON-UNION PERSONS??????? That right there is a clear contradiction of terms. Why not make provisions in this contract for the people who manufacture post-it notes??? If you ask me, your “cancer” ought to be “teaching” you that some things are worth fighting for, bonehead!! If you want to whine and bitch about not having enough work, look around you, fool!!! The whole of the United States is going through tough times. Get another day job like the rest of us have had to do. You KNEW THIS getting into show business. It isn’t “stable” for ANY person working in the industry and never was. All these goddamn people pointing fingers at SAG don’t realize that there is an enormous DEPRESSION going on throughout the country!! With 50% of films funded by HEDGE FUNDS, do you really honestly believe that it is the actors who are holding things up? Wake up!!! Your treatment must have melted away part of your brain, too!! The only thing that the actors have done to bog you down is to demand that either important factions in their contract have necessary provisions or else let us work off the old one. And you’re the moron who is ADVOCATING – OPENLY ADVOCATING that we GIVE UP those factions entirely so that you can collect for another 6 months when the Pension & Health fund will start to collapse entirely. How brilliant of you. You are like every idiot who stands for UFS that is WILLINGLY ADVOCATING that we give up those standards in our contracts, too.
You know the meaning, of “dis-ease” and you don’t win it by throwing in the towel, if you know what I mean. If you do believe that you should throw in the towel, well then we’ll see YOU on the flip-side ….. if you know what I mean.
So, “Thinking Logically”, your premise about going into the future and looking back presumes that voting no for this contract leads to a fabulous outcome and that voting yes for this contract leads to a disgustingly terrible outcome.
This is, well, not logical to me because I get no hint of what you want SAG to do after voting no. Wait? Strike? Badmouth the studios until they cry uncle and not only give SAG a hugely better deal but ALSO choose to do shows under that contract and spend those pots and pots of money and benefits that your voting no would gain in the fabulous new “see what we got when we voted no?” deal — rather than just setting up AFTRA shows at the previously negotiated rates.
The two issues I have with your argument is that you think the contract on the table is the worst deal ever and you have absolutely no plan after voting no, except possibly for a strike.
I think the deal on the table is the absolute best deal we could get at this moment in time, in great measure due to the complete mismanagement of our SAG president and his negotiator. They got us into this mess and now they are complaining about the way the new guy has come in to salvage the situation.
I’m voting yes, not because I’m a coward or a traitor, but because I am clear that this is the best deal to be made at this moment, and because I’ve had enough with the limbo and backsliding of this past year of no contract.
BlueMel57
bluemel57
this contract requires that we give away pre-’71 movies and pre-’74 TV ..
that’s throwing senior citizens under the bus.
it requires that we give up clip consent thereby depriving members of potential income and control over their image.
what else does an actor have besides their image?
it requires that as a condition of employment we agree to product intergration creating potential coflicts of interest for actors who also
do commercial work and perhaps impacting the production of commercials as we know them.
it creates a “move-over” payment structure so paltry -
$24 for six months unlimited re-runs on the internet
as opposed to $3300 for ONE first time re-run on network …
i imagine you can do the math and see how the contributions
to the pension and health will be decimated.
it requires that we agree to a huge non-union work space
in new media.
all of these shows that are produced for up to $15,000 per minute
or $900,000 per hour WILL BE NON-UNION.
NO CONTRIBUTIONS TO PENSION AND HEALTH>
people say , “yeah, but if one actor qualifies as a covered performer,
the whole thing goes union.”
GUESS WHAT? THEY’RE GONNA MAKE GODDAMN SURE THEY DON’T
HIRE ANYONE WHO WOULD QUALIFY AS A COVERED PERFORMER.
and some kids who “just want to work” ARE GOING TO LIE about
any previous work that might qualify them just so they can score the gig.
it’s shameful that we should place any young actor in such a shitty position.
a lot of folks who feel the way you do say ,
“Let’s just get back to work.”
what work, exactly?
there are no guarantees in this business.
if you’re a star, then this contract doesn’t affect you.
most of us have to audition.
we all gamble on ourselves, but the truth is anything can happen.
i might get a gig as a series regular or i might suck pond water
for a year.
our careers go up and down.
if you really are an actor and not some AMPTP / Studio troll,
this contract WILL NOT HELP YOU.
at some point, sooner rather than later,
you are going to need your residuals.
don’t throw away your future for short term gains.
Comment by BlueMel57 — May 22, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
‘I think the deal on the table is the absolute best deal we could get at THIS MOMENT in time’
Who gives a fuck about the future, right??!!!!
Uh, BlueMel57, the ONLY plan, ever after voting ‘NO’ on a contract is a vote to strike (not a strike, per se, but voting for the authorization to do so). And if John McGuire, like his pal Pisano before him, has decided “there will never be a strike on my watch”, then Mr. McGuire needs to step down and hang his head in shame. Donald Rumsfeld, anyone?
(Not that U4S ever had a plan in the first place.)
Strike Authorization is, and always has been, our (and every union’s) only leverage. That SAV was supposed to be voted on this past January before the U4S people reneged on their support for it and staged their coup, fired our Lead Negotiator (and NED), hired a different, temporary NED, as well as a different negotiating team (which got nothing better than the previous negotiating team, mind you), leaving SAG where we are right now: without a strike authorization; without a fair contract offer; without an NED who knows the offer sucks, and who would never ask us to vote ‘YES’ on it. We are (temporarily) stuck with David White and John McGuire.
And by the way, your new NED and his chief negotiator got NOTHING better than the last. Shouldn’t we fire them as well?
For you, this isn’t about “the best deal we can get at this moment”, it’s about “the best deal we can get because I don’t want to stand up and fight for anything better.”
Yes. You are a coward.
If you would not vote for strike authorization, why the hell are you in a union (hello!) in the first place? Do you think management is just gonna hand you a lovely pay raise, profit participation in their newest money-grubbing schemes using your talent, and control of your own work – because they’re nice guys? This is business, fool. This is multi-billion dollar business tactics and if we let them, they will bleed us drier than the Mojave, because that’s the AMPTP’s job (and they’re very good at it).
But they will not – they cannot – bleed us dry if we stand together and say, “NO! – we will stop film and most TV production around the world if you refuse to be fair with us.” And we have the power to do exactly that within about thirty minutes of walking away from the bargaining table. They absolutely cannot afford that.
When this contract offer fails and management refuses to bargain fairly with us, Strike Authorization is the only next step. That is so very basic and obvious. If the Interim Majority refuses to take that next step, then I want them all out – every person who signed that damned paper to fire Doug Allen and silence Al Rosenberg. David White, as well (without pay). If they refuse to take that next step, then they are not union leaders at all and they should crawl back to NY with their tail(s) between their legs.
I might add in defense of David White: he’s only doing what he’s been hired and paid to do, which is U4S’ bidding; not to share his true opinion; not to “do the right thing”. He’s Ned Vaughn’s lackey – a hired gun (shooting blanks, but I digress…) He might even be a nice guy, if any of us were to chat with him over cocktails. But he’s being paid to do what he’s told and like any good lackey, he’s doing just that. I say this because at the meeting last night, the only true emotion I saw from him was when he was commenting that his wife is a WGA writer, and that while she was on strike (gasp!) they had to struggle on his salary, etc. There was some empathy in that statement – some real honesty and empathy. At that moment I could tell what he wanted to, but couldn’t, say.
Board elections are coming up so very soon…
I beg to disagree with this assessment of the town hall meeting: there were obviously many posts from the disgruntled.
First of all, the room was hot, and there were definitely more MF anti-contract supporters there; but for the first time there were a large number of people there who did support the contract. Most of the rabble, and they were a rabble, were interested in booing whoever was in support of the contract. To give Ed Asner a large ovation after he likened actors to jews in the holocaust, and then made nasty comments about Sally Field and Melissa Gilbert points to why so many working actors avoid these meetings. They are nasty, and many of those who do show up aren’t interested in listening, they are only interested in denigrating those they don’t agree with.
Both Ned Vaughn and Stacey Travis handled themselves very well, and gave articulate reasons as to their support. Alan was more frothy and blunt about his feelings, AMJ a biased chair — why else allow Mr. Asner to go past his alloted time and not shut him up when he got nasty — Connie Stevens sounded whatever — and David White was articulate and calm. His only slight rise was when he was personally attacked by a member, and his response was to point out that his wife was a WGA member, and that residuals were very important to him.
The mistake some posters here make, is that they believe that the people that show up at the meeting represent the greater majority of Hollywood. I’m sure you’ll find that with this vote that won’t be the case.
The vitriol is sad. In spite of some very cogent arguments and painstakingly laying out of the issues, most of the rabble didn’t want to hear it, or even take the time to break down the different New Media terms.
There are a lot of issues, but what most of the VoteNo people refuse to address is their lack of a plan, and the fact that we have little to no leverage. Thinking that we do is a lot like thinking the producers have our best interests in heart. Both of them are delusions.
What’s the endgame for the ‘no’ voters? What’s the plan? I don’t know anyone who’s voting ‘yes’ who thinks this is a great deal. It’s not a great deal. But we didn’t get a great deal because we weren’t in the room with AFTRA. So it’s time to suck it up and vote ‘Yes’.
What ever you think about AFTRA, you can’t say we’re stronger without them.
But let’s say all y’all get your strike. How long do you think that strike will have to last before we have the contract that suits you? 3 months? 6?
We would be fighting international conglomerations who have a TV/New Media contract on their desks already. It ain’t gonna be a short one, chums.
Now let’s say your miracle happens and after 3 months the AMPTP agrees to the demands that we all want. But a strike doesn’t start right away. The ballots are counted, SAV goes out, comes back, back to the table, LBFO, the standoff, rallying the troops, raising a strike fund, etc.
All of that before we even go on strike. Two months minimum and that’s optimistic.
So five months from now, best case scenario, it’s October and you’re looking at all the SAG-only actors having been out of work all that time- roughly 75,000, contributing $0 to it’s P&H and a fraction in the way of dues, while AFTRA, which has been building it’s coffers and P&H; and gaining a larger and larger foothold in TV and N.M., starts negotiating in 18 months. But since SAG is now out of sync with AFTRA and the WGA, it must wait nearly three years before it can start it’s negotiation.
Once more the ‘no’ voters will have squandered our clout and gotten nothing for it.
I can’t help bu think the M.F.-ers are secretly bent on exterminating SAG, because every step of the way, every negotiating strategy they have promulgated has weakened this union.
All the vitriol and bombast, all the high hopes and even higher rhetoric that I saw last night from the ‘no’ voters is meaningless gas in the face of the AMPTP, if you don’t have the clout. Without AFTRA at the very least by our side, we will get nothing.
M.F. has been expert at amassing power in the boardroom for themselves, and stubbornly shortsighted in building power at the negotiating table. Voting ‘No’ right now further diminishes our union’s power in the long run. Vote ‘Yes’ and we begin to get it back.
I’m not an Actor, but as a Writer and a Supporter of SAG as you Guys wholeheartedly supported us…
I do have an important Question to ask SAG Members…
What if the Contract is NOT ratified. Voted NO.
And a SAV is also doesn’t pass? Voted NO. Then what?