Pro & Con Lobbying Shifts Into Overdrive On SAG TV/Theatrical Pact: Ballots Mailing May 19th, Due Back June 9th

COMMENTS (86)

• I fully endorse a YES vote on TV/Theatrical. Let’s get back to work!

  In solidarity,

  Rik Deskin
  SAG, AEA, AFTRA
  1st Alternate National Director
  Screen Actors Guild

  Comment by Rik Deskin — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 2:44pm PDT  Reply to this post

• 3 SHORT Youtube videos (please watch and pass on to those thinking of voting “yes”)

  VOTE NO:

  I know, I know, but this “OUTRAGE!!” over SAG folks (also AFTRA members, of course) having the TEMERITY to run for the AFTRA board, has me so twisted, and, since I’ve been thrown off everything except Sagactor (Sagwatch and Showfax don’t really share my, shall we say, point of view), I’m posting them here. I HOPE you’ll watch if you’re considering voting “yes” on TV/Theatrical and I HOPE you’ll forward them to other SAG members – especially those under 35, who, unlike us older codgers (48), will COME to see the vital importance of the things we will give up for GOOD if we sign this deal: residuals, good P&H, clip consent, product placement protections, force majeure, good minimums for BOTH traditional AND new media. Now? They, (younger actors) like me, until I was about 35, are too preoccupied with their insane lives trying to get work – ANY work as actors – and it wasn’t until I was about 35 that I started realizing how important it was that I was earning pension credits, and am now fully vested with a nice fat SAG pension I EARNED coming my way when I hang it up or am disabled, also, to qualify for health insurance, which signing this contract will cut WAY down on for SAG members – THOUSANDS will be taken off the health insurance rolls. When you’re 28, unmarried, no kids? It STILL sucks – but when you’re 35, two kids, a spouse, and someone gets seriously ill and you haven’t qualified for SAG health because of this shit deal we’re on the verge of signing? Wow, will you be fucking pissed. Think ahead – as hard as it is to do for younger actors with blinders on just trying to get a job – any job. You MUST have these protections as you age – for yourself and for your family – and your shot at getting them will be GONE – except for those working a LOT and making GOOD money consistently. Right now, young actors? here’s the stat: LESS THAN 5% of SAG makes over 75k a year. THINK ABOUT THAT. IF you’re lucky enough to make 75K year in and year out, if we sign THIS contract? You will be up shits creek – even at 75K a year. If you make LESS? THE VAST MAJORITY OF YOU WILL – you are totally boned under this new contract unless we vote it DOWN and strike if necessary to get a FAIR DEAL IN NEW MEDIA.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx3XhhBseO0

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Cnu7apRHQ&feature=related

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHPpha51Sjc&feature=related

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 3:44pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Folks please, vote No on this contract for your future and mine too.

  I am an 18 to play younger actor who got his SAG card on my first job back in March 2007. I’m not a full-time working actor but close, primarily in Film but some TV. Close enough that if this contract passes, my career will minimize to being just a hobby. Myself and my generation refuse to allow this to happen.

  For us (those born 1980s and sooner), watching tv and film online is the norm. Trust me, if this contract is ratified we’ll be begging you veterans to borrow money just to live.

  The video above is appalling, how could those actors vote Yes? The contract fuckin sucks in all areas. All need to understand that this contract goes beyond today. It will be the foundation for at least the next 6 to 9 years. When I’m 24, I’d like to say I still carry my SAG card.

  JUST VOTE NO! We can bring them back to the table and get a better contract because the AMPTP want to move forward as much as we do.

  Comment by SAG Young Actor — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 3:46pm PDT  Reply to this post

• In a few years when CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX are all calling themselves ‘dot com’ you’ll be watching tv via the internet and you will have virtually NO residuals. The Commercial agreement is just as bad if not worse. No one thought of the future when negotiating these contracts. PLEASE VOTE NO!!!

  Comment by Former SAG Board Member — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 4:50pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The best and classiest videos from SAG in years.

  VOTE YES. Mulhern, get a job at a carwash.

  Pauly

  Comment by Pauly — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 7:45pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Here’s the deal:
  There are many great things about the new contract (wage benefit increases for traditional media are very good) and there are some not great things (New media compensation, though spotty, does get our foot in the door), but the fact is, without AFTRA and the other unions by our side, this is the best we are going to get right now.
  And people are losing their homes. The foreclosure rate in America right now is one every 8 seconds. That’s a fact.

  The New Media portion of the deal has a ‘sunset clause’ that forces everyone to take a look at the situation and start from scratch in less than two years. That’s right, this agreement ends in June of 2011 and negotiations will begin in less than two years! No one’s going to get rich on it; no one’s going to go broke on it. That combined with the ‘transparency’ language that forces producers to open their books on New Media will give us a huge advantage next cycle.

  And we will exploit that advantage with AFTRA, the WGA and the DGA by our side as our interests converge in New Media.

  And as for going back to the table, I ask this: What improvement to this deal would not force employers to flock in greater droves to AFTRA for their TV needs? The logic is inescapable. Strike all you want, you’re only trying to make a more expensive widget in a market that got a cheaper one next door.

  Vote yes. Let’s get back work.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 8:06pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Here we go. The rhetoric is going to amp up now, and there will be people calling other people idiots or traitors or worse for daring to say we should vote yes.

  SAG Young Actor has expressed a sentiment that I feel certain will spread, unfortunately, because that is how flame-throwing works. SAG Young Actor said: “The video above is appalling, how could those actors vote Yes?”

  The actors in the Vote Yes video have many years of professional acting work behind them and ahead of them. They have been in the trenches and been impacted by every deal that has been made in their time as actors. They are putting themselves on the line to stand up for us right now.

  They are standing up for getting everyone back to work, ending this work slowdown, for getting our foot in the door in new media [if anyone tells you we got nothing in new media, that's just false, we will be paid, for the first time], for getting raises that are certainly more money than the expired deal we are currently languishing under, and more.

  There is a difference between the ideal contract where we get everything we ever wanted, and the contract that gets us absolutely everything that can be gotten at this moment in time. The “everything we ever wanted” contract doesn’t exist — it’s a FALSE CHOICE.

  And the contract on the table gets us absolutely everything that can be gotten at this moment in time.

  Yelling “strike” is like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. It’s irresponsible at this point. I’d love to know what comes after that notion of strike, how long those who want a strike intend for it to last — and given that we’ve worked with no contract for almost a year, I’d love to know what could possibly make the studios re-think their position now. Nothing could make them re-think — that’s the answer.

  I will be voting yes.

  Anyone who thinks I’m an idiot or a traitor for voting yes should look at their own hearts and figure out why they would so disrespect and malign a fellow actor who dares to have a different idea of what is best for our union. I will be voting yes. –BlueMel57

  Comment by BlueMel57 — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 8:27pm PDT  Reply to this post

• All working actors in this video, every single one, and not just a couple of big stars. I wonder why so many good working actors support this contract?

  Because it’s time to vote yes and move on.

  A no vote means more people won’t be working, and won’t be making a living, and won’t be compensated for their work in New Media and won’t be making a pension credit and won’t be qualifying for the health plan.

  Matt Mulhern, you may be able to act, but your ability to grasp basic mathematical equations is seriously flawed.

  Comment by macb1 — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 8:43pm PDT  Reply to this post

• to say that “we have jurisdiction in new media. don’t let anyone tell you different.” ….
  is like saying … “we have waded in the surf right near Gladstone’s,
  so now we’ve got our fair share of the Santa Monica Bay.”

  Comment by harry98 — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 9:05pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Look, I voted for Rosenberg, I thought he knew what he was doing during the Writer’s Strike but the simple fact is that in picking a fight with AFTRA SAG lost all leverage in this negotiation. The deal is as good as it can be with no bargaining power (especially since all the pilots went AFTRA).

  SAG is now contractually synched up with all it’s sister unions, and if there needs to be a strike when this contract sunset clauses out, well, as Nikki herself said, we will be poised for the mother-of-all-strikes with all the unions that represent those of us that make the product.

  It’s all about leverage, SAG has none. Membership First blew it. Time to face facts, end the work slowdown and get back to work. Box office is up, TV viewership is up but everyone I know has never been more broke because there has been so little production.

  Let’s get on with it and get the drama back on screen and out of the boardrooms of our unions.

  Comment by Former Membership Firster — Sunday May 17, 2009 @ 11:23pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Pauly

  Classy? Classy and a dime will get you… well, nothing actually. How about “accurate?” Why don’t we START there?

  These people blather on in this “Vote Yes!” video – “get back to work!”

  I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware we weren’t working. Have SOME
  studio projects backed up in the pipeline? Sure. Is that ENTIRELY due to the SAG labor impasse? NO.

  Let’s be honest: as concerned as studios have been about a strike cutting off production in the middle of a movie, I also seem to remember something about … what is it? Oh, right – the worst financial meltdown in 75 years (since SAG was formed. How ironic). So, please, let’s at least TRY to be honest and agree that a lack of financing was just a TEENSY bit in the mix.

  Also, if you scroll up, you’ll get to read all about ALL the networks and cable channels announcing their bright and shiny new seasons! Production is already on for some shows, and soon, they’ll ALL be shooting.

  Oh, and one last thing: the ONE industry doing well these last brutal months? The theatrical box office? HAS BEEN BREAKING RECORDS DURING THIS ENTIRE PERIOD.

  So, don’t insult the intelligence of the thousands upon thousands of SAG actors who are going to vote down this pig of a contract with THAT weak-ass bullshit.

  They speak LARGELY about the gains AFTRA made and SAG “will make” in TRADITIONAL media minimums. THIS IS NOT NEWS. Nor is it a valid reason to vote “yes.” This is standard operating procedure, and the money they estimate has been LOST because SAG hasn’t had those increased minimums AFTRA has been acting under since signing their surrender document, I mean, contract, are a FRACTION – a microscopic fraction – of the BILLIONS the SAG middle-class actor will lose if we codify these new media terms instead of fighting for FAIR new media terms via a strike if necessary.

  Sunset Clause? The moderates NUMBER ONE GO-TO LEGAL MIND THIS ENTIRE TIME? Entertainment lawyer, Jonathan Handel, called the sunset clause, and I quote “a joke!”

  ALL it means is the producers, in two years, will have to revisit the subject of new media. THAT’S IT. It DOESN’T mean they have to CHANGE A DAMN THING.

  As to new media? Here are the facts, folks: NO RESIDUALS FOR ORIGINAL CONTENT MADE FOR NEW MEDIA. MICROSCOPIC RESIDUALS FOR BASICALLY EVERYTHING ELSE.

  When Mike Hodge has the AUDACITY to say “we get real jurisdiction in new media, and don’t let ANYONE tell you otherwise” – look – here’s ME TELLING YOU OTHERWISE.

  Hodge’s description of “jurisdiction gained in new media” in THIS contract? Is like wading up to your knees in the ocean at Zuma beach and saying you have jurisdiction over the Pacific. That statement is a JOKE.

  The list of things we will be giving away and giving up in the new delivery system for content for the work of the SAG middle class actor going into the 21st century?

  Wow:

  NO clip consent. Period. They say we get it. We don’t. We get to “be asked” AS A CONDITION of employment, if we’ll agree to let our images and performances be used in any mash-up, or ANY way the producers want to, in perpetuity – NO COMPENSATION to the actor – ever. THAT’S what it says.

  CAN you – Mr. or Mrs. Middle-class SAG actor say “I’d rather NOT give up clip consent”

  Sure. Can THEY – producer of show, say “you’re fired?” Yup. And there will be 50 people behind you begging to sign their rights away and you’re out the door.

  Same for product placement. To off-set the loss of ad-revenue from traditional media, they want YOU, Mr. or Mrs. Middle-class actor, as a CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, to sign a contract that says you will endorse whatever they want you to endorse in that project, episode, movie – WHATEVER. “We’d like you to wear a really tight Abercrombie and Fitch T-shirt Linda, and we’d prefer no bra.”

  Think I’m kidding? Then you’re being ridiculously naive. And you say “hell no – it has nothing to do with the character I’m playing and it’s exploitive” and THEY say “Cool. You’re fired. Next.”

  They will work actors like sandwich boards in new media if we don’t have product placement protections, like the current ones that say “you HAVE to be asked, and if you say yes, you HAVE to be paid, and you have the right to say NO and CANNOT BE FIRED AS A RESULT.”

  This contract? You basically HAVE to say yes, and there’s NO COMPENSATION. AND, if you also make a living as a commercial actor, you CANNOT AUDITION FOR THAT PRODUCT for a traditional commercial.

  So, think abut it: you HAVE to agree, or you don’t get the job, you DON’T get paid even if you agree, AND, you CAN’T audition for that product as a commercial actor. THAT’S WHAT THIS CONTRACT SAYS.

  If you are a young actor, say, under 35, reading this, I understand – I was there – and ALL I WANTED WAS TO GET ANOTHER JOB.

  BUT – NOW I’m 48, I have a wife and two kids and I am vested for a full pension, and I’ve earned health insurance for 20 years.

  Do you understand, IF WE SIGN this contract, how many SAG actors will be shed from the health insurance rolls, because you won’t meet the minimum earnings requirements? THOUSANDS.

  Why? Because SAG is NOT TIED INTO THE PRODUCERS PROFITS IN NEW MEDIA IN A SUBSTANTIVE WAY.

  Like a percentage of the distributor’s gross, or the producer’s gross – or the producer/distributor’s gross – WHOEVER MAKES THE MONEY – whenever the money STARTS TO BE MADE in new media – the SAG middle-class actor – GETS HIS OR HER FAIR SHARE. PERIOD.

  THAT formula covers SAG AND cover the producers. They make no money, or they LOSE money? Unlike in traditional media, they have NO FIXED OBLIGATION TO SAG. They MAKE money? SAG GETS IT’S FAIR SHARE. PERIOD – only fair, right?

  Why won’t they agree to that? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PUSH THE SAG MIDDLE CLASS ACTOR OUT OF AS MUCH OF THEIR PROFIT IN NEW MEDIA AS POSSIBLE – THAT’S WHY.

  LIKE THEY ANNOUNCED IN THE NY TIMES IN JULY 2007: “we want to phase out residuals?” (look it up!)

  HELLO?

  Instead, the contract sets a “floor” (15k per minute) UNDER which content for new media can be made NONUNION. Writers, actors, directors and crew – ALL NONUNION.

  Do you think the producers are going to USE THAT NONUNION SPACE – EXPLOIT THAT NONUNION SPACE?

  OF COURSE THEY WILL!

  So – YOU, middle-class SAG actor? Will be fighting off an army of nonunion actors SAG has allowed into it’s OWN CONTRACT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ITS HISTORY – for shit jobs in new media with dead low salaries, NO P&H, NO RESIDUALS, and NOT be getting the kind of P&H contributions from the producers in traditional media (TV and movies) you get NOW, because the producers will be, and already are “MOVING OVER” content directly to the internet.

  In other words – instead of doing a top of show guest spot, or day player, top minimum gig on a TV show, then getting half that salary when it reruns the first two times on the network, and then half that amount again the third time it reruns on the network, then cable residuals when it reruns on cable, you will get ONE check – your original salary, THEN, the producers will rerun it on the internet – HULU, etc, and you get paid NOTHING. NO RESIDUALS, NO P&H contributions to build up your earnings for health insurance for that year, or earn another point towards being vested for your pension.

  People say “there’s no monetization of the internet yet, why fight now?”

  Well – we got the SAME argument from producers on VHS/DVD – “new technology, no business model, no profit stream – so, ‘work with us,’ take this MICROSCOPIC residual rate, and IF a REAL business develops, we’ll “revisit” and “renegotiate” the deal.

  THEY HAVE NEVER RENEGOTIATED IN OVER 20 YEARS. THIS negotiation? They even called it “A NON-STARTER” – in other words “don’t even bring it up – you’ll just piss US off.” (WTF!)

  What happened to “we’ll renegotiate if we develop a business model?” VHS, then DVD, has been the PRINCIPAL ECONOMIC DRIVER OF THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY FOR MANY YEARS. BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars.

  AND? The producers played SAG for suckers – and FUCKED us.

  SAME thing on cable. “We don’t know if we’ll be able to get any advertising revenue – no business model, no profit stream, take these MICROSCOPIC residuals, and we PROMISE we’ll ‘revisit’ and ‘renegotiate’ IF we find there’s a business in ‘this new-fangled cable.’”

  Today? Cable is responsible for over 25% of the advertising revenue. Did SAG get the promised raise? Recently we got a SLIGHT bump. Otherwise? SAME EXACT STORY. SAG GOT THE SHAFT DUE TO WEAK LEADERSHIP.

  The producers LIED and SAG bought it and got burned.

  New media makes VHS/DVD and cable look like 5th grade science experiments in terms of new technology. It is THE DELIVERY SYSTEM, both, increasingly, of NOW, and, exclusively, in the future.

  SAG has been burned badly TWICE by the AMPTP in the past. Will SAG do it to ITSELF AGAIN?

  Or, will the SAG membership vote this 2009 TV/Theatrical contract DOWN, and do what we must – strike if necessary – to obtain a FAIR deal in new media. THAT’S ALL WE’RE ASKING FOR – a FAIR deal.

  The middle-class SAG actor relies for 1/3rd to 1/2 his or her yearly income on RESIDUALS – UNLIKE director’s and writers, who get larger upfront fees. Also, SAG actors face MUCH stiffer competition that members of the DGA and the WGA (although there’s few easy gigs there either).

  If we don’t do what we have to do to get a fair contract in the ONE place it matters BY FAR the most – NEW MEDIA – the SAG middle-class actor is going to morph into a Walmart worker.

  There will be “the stars” – those, what 50? (tops?) – actors who exist ABOVE these concerns, and the rest of us schmucks, who GAVE AWAY OUR FUTURE – HOPING! – IF THINGS TURNED OUT EVEN HALF AS BAD AS PREDICTED, we’d “get it back.” (according to the “moderates,” and against ALL precedent!).

  SAG has NEVER “gotten back” good deals on new technologies, once the AMPTP has established a business model. NEVER.

  Do you want protections in NEW MEDIA – THE delivery system of both now and the future, – the protections YOUR predecessors fought, and struck for, for EVERY SINGLE benefit we enjoy today, since 1933 – solid minimums, workplace protections, clip consent, residuals, a P&H program, overtime, meal penalties, product placement protections, force majeure, and on and on – OR, do you want to GIVE IT AWAY?

  Think about it, STUDY THE FACTS.

  And VOTE “NO” – then let’s go get our rights.

  And – Pauly – I’d like the car detailed AND waxed – like your HEAD.

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 12:05am PDT  Reply to this post

• Well of course Rik would vote yes on it. He doesn’t really work on this contract, so what does he have to lose?

  Good thing for him SAG doesn’t have affected member voting.

  Comment by Yosemite — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 1:29am PDT  Reply to this post

• This pro-contract video is deceptive on the issue of new media. It claims SAG would win jurisdiction in new media for the first time. With respect, SAG has already full jurisdiction in new media, and the producers’ sections of the SAG website have the new media contracts to prove it.

  Further, this deal would allow SAG signatory production companies for the first time to produce non-union new media projects with non-union actors. This is an extremely dangerous precedent and betrays close to eight decades of hard-won victories by the guild. The other new media payments that contract proponents crow about in this video are peanuts compared to the old media (reruns and syndication) they’re replacing.

  Make no mistake. The moguls’ goal is to eliminate residuals by contractually suppressing them in new media now and moving all content away from old media as quickly as they can. Broadcast and cable television will be irrelevant within ten years, which means the small gains in old media contract proponents crow about now will pale in comparison to lost compensation opportunities in new media. It’s an awful, awful bargain, one that we will live to rue if we don’t consider our options carefully now.

  SAG negotiators can do better than this. Much better. If we turn down this contract and send them back to the table, they’ll understand SAG’s membership is serious about securing full and unequivocal jurisdiction over ALL new media produced by signatories, as well as parity in compensation.

  History and logic dictate a no vote on this rotten deal.

  Comment by mheister — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 3:53am PDT  Reply to this post

• Who do you TRUST?
  Alan Rosenberg,who has paid a hell of a price sticking up for the journeyman/woman actor?
  Or the corporate GREED amptp,that is presently destroying OUR nation,in banking,auto,real estate industries.
  Writers/actors ARE the product…without them them producers have 4 blank walls,and an empty stage.
  A FAIR contract is what is needed here.

  Comment by steve g. — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 7:32am PDT  Reply to this post

• I do not trust the people that led us into this mess, and I have lost money this year due to the lack of a contract — and when those shows run on cable, free tv, new media, whatever, I’ll continue to lose money. I do not trust people that prefer to attack me and lie to me for their own political advantage. I do not trust people that would rather sue their own union than get a greater number of the membership working. I don not trust people that want to destroy rather than build. Mr. Rosenberg stopped standing up for me and actors like me the minute he threw his hat into the attack everyone that disagrees with me ring.

  Mheister — we only “have jurisdiction” in New Media because we say we do — there is no contractual obligation by the producers to produce any show with our contract. Ten years is a long window — turning down a contract for a few pennies over the next two years is absurd. Every fight we’ve had to gain a share of residual money has come about after the income stream has grown substantially, not before. To turn a contract down based on an assumption as to where New Media is going is a disservice to the members.

  This is a decent contract, it keeps the New Media area loose, and doesn’t lock us into a formula that could turn out to be meaningless — like cable or DVD/video. It gives us great bumps for what is still the prime market — Network TV and movies.

  Vote yes, if you value your life as a working actor.

  Comment by billcharlton — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 8:00am PDT  Reply to this post

• I voted for Rosenberg – TWICE. The second time around, his opponent seemed to me to be ‘the evil of the two lessers’. I’m currently rethinking that …
  but the fact is, we have been damaged almost to extinction by the mentality that has brought us to this point. It’s time to tkae this contract and move forward.
  I will be voting YES, and urging others to do the same.

  V.

  Comment by vested — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 8:22am PDT  Reply to this post

• It doesn’t matter how many ways you say it’s a bad contract, when getting a ‘better’ one means that deal will just sit on a shelf watching AFTRA’s contract get all the work.

  Yes we can get a better contract. Two years from now, when we start negotiations in at the beginning of 2011.

  Not now, when AFTRA’s gone, the town’s good will is gone and the sister unions are gone. Hey Patrick Verrone, haven’t heard a word. Should we strike, Patrick? Can’t hear you. Speak up. Or did you take a one-way ticket out of crazy town?

  PS. The boom in ticket sales is from projects already in the pipeline. Last year’s budget. The money was already spent. Box office is always a lagging economic indicator.

  Comment by Todd Waring — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 8:27am PDT  Reply to this post

• The “VOTE YES” VIDEO?! What a bunch of gutless wonders! Lemmings all! (A Lemming is a small Arctic rodent with a short tail) At least we have their names on a list to refer to, if this piece-of-crap contract passes and we’re all thrown over the cliff!

  Comment by Anonymous — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 8:43am PDT  Reply to this post

• Anonymous — they all work. continually. can you say the same for yourself? Oh, oh, wait a minute, maybe to you anyone that works is suspect because they work and don’t have the unemployed, the unemployable, and the non-working losers in mind.

  Get a job. Vote yes.

  Comment by macb1 — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 9:35am PDT  Reply to this post

• Voting yes. Castmates are voting yes. Friends are voting yes. I’m sure Matt Mulhern will write an eight paragraph thesis on why I’m an idiot and I should read the contract. Guess what, I did read the contract and that’s why I’m voting YES!

  Comment by GG Alin — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 9:45am PDT  Reply to this post

• macb1

  THAT’S why you just might lose – “THEY all work!” you sound like a fifth grader saying “my daddy’s rich and yours is not!” – you think the “we work! – you suck!” route is the smart way to go? Keep it up buddy.

  LESS THAN 5% of SAG membership makes MORE than 75k a year – so, that means – a LOT OF VERY TALENTED PEOPLE, or people who WERE stars or regulars, or regular character actors in older series, or older movies, people who have been typed out of working by being too identified with a character, or people who have kind of aged out of the system, people with disabilities, racial discrimination in not getting jobs – ALL those “losers” as you call them – make up the OVERWHELMING majority of the Screen Actors Guild – and I would bet the farm MOST of them are more talented than you.

  So, keep going on down that reverse-populist “we small few ‘work’ and the rest of you suck, and are losers” road.

  It’s brilliant political thinking.

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 10:17am PDT  Reply to this post

• Ah, so revealing, macb1. The have’s versus the have-nots. How progressive and forward thinking of you.

  Comment by Helen Hill — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 10:31am PDT  Reply to this post

• Matt,

  Vote yes. Listen, I feel for you. I watched all your videos out of respect for you. You didn’t convince me though.

  Take the passion you have for your inestimable endeavor to try to get this SAG contract voted down and think about your kids and your wife and vote yes instead. I know life is hard and harder when you feel so passionately about something that is probably not going to work out. I know you speak for a lot of actors and actresses out there who have had a good run for a while. If a no vote goes forward, then SAG is done and more importantly, SAG in Los Angeles is doomed. You KNOW how much work has already been sucked out of this town, right? It’s still being sucked out of here because of the idiotic restrictions our state government has put on the studios. You know that. You’re my age and I am sure you’ve seen the changes over the past 15 years. I think the studios will be a lot more responsive to SAG members in LA if we can just get this contract past us with a yes vote and I do think they’ll hire more actors here in LA and production will start up again here.

  Just take a deep breath and re-think your perspective on voting NO. I know your wife and kids will have a happier home if you just let it go.

  Comment by Tracy — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 10:52am PDT  Reply to this post

• The millionaires on the “vote yes” video really don’t speak for the middle class actor. I find on most issues, political, social, and economic people in the tax bracket of these well-known actors don’t speak for me. I’m sure the world looks different from up there.

  The idea that Adam Arkin, Amy Brenneman, Kate Walsh, James LeGros, and many of the others are speaking to and for actors who work for scale is absurd at best. While we are in the same union, we live in different worlds. Let’s visit these folks on the ‘vote yes’ video at their homes–look at their homes from the street. They don’t speak for the journeymen actor–the bulk of out great union.

  They are certainly entitled to their opinions on the contract and to earn their money. I’m not sure Walsh and Carteris and their clan were morally entitled to hijack our union and dump the same lousy contract on the membership– but they certainly can have an opinion. Bolstering their opinion with membership money and high ticket PR firm– again not morally acceptable. Hiring their buddy with $400K of our money to rubber stamp the offer from the AMPTP– again morally corrupt.

  Whatever the Millionaires do, the middle-class actors and those who rely on residuals and work from the scale provisions of the contract will VOTE NO on this deal.

  Anyone who reads the newspaper and understands that TV’s now sold are either internet compatible or fully internet ready will VOTE NO.

  Anyone who actually reads what the “new media” clauses provide in the AMPTP’s offer and more importantly don’t provide in this contract will VOTE NO.

  Anyone who does not and never did get a Producer credit on a network TV show will VOTE NO on this contract.

  Anyone who has gone to imdb and clicked the video link to see current network TV shows in their entirety supported by advertisements will VOTE NO.

  An educated SAG member who understands that this contract achieves the elimination of residuals will VOTE NO.

  Comment by pb — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 11:16am PDT  Reply to this post

• “And It might be time to just say, Hand me the pen so I can just check YES on my ballot…”.

  WOW. I’m sure a lot of unwanted pregnancies and marriages-that-end-in-divorce come about the same way.

  Let’s be clear, when you all say we’ll be working in New Media “With union protections INCLUDING pension & health” don’t you REALLY mean “There are NO protections in Made for New Media and you’re ONLY getting pension & health.”

  One of my biggest arguments with how the NY, Regional, and Unite For Strength members are behaving is that you are DECEIVING THE MEMBERSHIP. You are misrepresenting what is in that AMPTP proposal.

  At least the WGA had the clarity and the balls to tell their membership that theirs was a awful deal, but that they didn’t feel AT THAT TIME that they could get any better because of the actions of the DGA.

  For Godsake, be fucking honest with the membership. Don’t lie to them and tell them there are protections in the Made for New Media section of this proposal. IT’S NOT TRUE.
  These actors that believe you are going discover exactly what’s in this proposal BY EXPERIENCE, and that’s not fair to them and that’s beyond irresponsible of you all, particularly those of you who are on the SAG Board of Directors.
  You don’t tell them that in this proposal we:
  Give our employers permission to produce non-union work,
  Have no protections for children or infants working on the set in New Media,
  Have no forced call consideration, overtime, scheduled meal breaks, stunt safety, residuals, minimum rates, etc, etc in made for New Media.
  The list is endless.

  You also don’t tell them that their residual life is about to be reduced by 90 %. Yeah, I’m going to start being paid for broadcast fare replaying on-line…. to the tune of about $50 for unlimited plays of an episode for A YEAR.
  OMG, where do I sign.

  Be fucking honest with the members.
  They’ll hate you less now than later when they discover what’s in this proposal experientially.

  Comment by Justine Bateman — Monday May 18, 2009 @ 11:21am PDT  Reply to this post