SATURDAY 11:20 AM: I’ve finally received the response from SAG. But it’s abundantly clear that the new leadership erred in not notifying members of the April 30th cutoff date as soon as the SAG-AMPTP Tentative Theatrical/TV Contract was okayed by the National Board back on April 19th:
Thanks for raising this concern and giving us another opportunity to reaffirm our eligibility rules on the TV/Theatrical Contracts referendum.
First, we want to restate unequivocally that any Screen Actors Guild member who paid their November 1, 2008 dues bill by April 30, 2009 is eligible to vote on the TV/Theatrical contract referendum. Those dues were payable November 1, 2008, and the Guild also provided for a 45-day grace period allowing our members to pay their November 1, 2008 dues as late as December 15 and still be considered current.
Most importantly, the Guild’s rules also allow for our members who pay these dues by April 30, 2009, (up to 6-months late) to be eligible to vote on the TV/Theatrical contract. SAG sends out a dues bill only two times per year and we routinely post payment reminders on the website during both dues periods. We also send special reminders to members who are facing termination for unpaid dues.
Voting is one of the most valuable rights and privileges of Screen Actors Guild membership and the eligibility requirements are very clearly outlined in the Guild constitution – a great document that many of our members are very familiar with.
Our National Board also knows how valuable this right is to our members and we hope that all eligible members will educate themselves about the TV/Theatrical tentative agreement and exercise their right to vote on the referendum.
FRIDAY 3:45 PM: I’ve been receiving angry emails from SAG actors detailing how they won’t be able to vote on whether to ratify the Theatrical/TV tentative contract because they didn’t know the cutoff date for paying up dues was April 30th. They claim that SAG did not send out an announcement of this cutoff date which will now disenfranchise them. Because only “SAG members in good standing” are allowed to vote on the contract.
I’m waiting for SAG’s response since Friday but none has been forthcoming except to confirm to me that dues had to be paid through April 30th. The WGA by contrast took the time and trouble to publicize exactly what constituted a member in good standing well before the ratification vote on its contract so writers could pay up past dues to vote. Instead, this appears to be yet another example of SAG’s new leadership failing to be transparent in its decisions and actions.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.







Reread LA VO’s comment.
There’s nothing ‘disgusting’ or ‘irresponsible’ or ‘bloated’ here.
If you’ve been a deadbeat for six months, you don’t get to vote. Simple. No story here.
Yeah, I thought the stipulation was that one had to be paid up “for the period ending April 30th.” That’s what the commercial contract vote announcement says.
But as a side note – specifically to “takesomeresponsibility” – careful with the smugness, my friend. Remember, there are a whole lot of people having trouble paying bills at all these days, and it’s easy for one of them to slip by and get paid a little late. Wipe the self-satisfied smirk off your face.
Weird, I actually didn’t get my bill until after April 30th. I noticed it because it was after the date.
Go figure.
The post office, in trying to spend less money, is now moving mail in large(r) batches. This means there can be times where it sits somewhere, waiting for more stuff to show up and fill up the container in which it’ll be sent.
To Martin — May 8, 2009 @ 6:11 pm – You must be a new SAG or AFTRA member. If you’re a member of both unions you always receive a joint ballot for contracts that were negotiated together.
Unite for Strength is corrupt, that’s obvious.
It’s not clear here what the cut off date is for the right to vote.
If as some say, it was the bill that came 6 months ago, that’s one thing. If it’s the bill that arrived in my mailbox last week and I paid the day it came, which was after April 30, and I and others in the situation are ineligible to vote, that is unconscionable.
Whatever the case the seemingly almost-daily emails I get from SAG and David White never including the information about the cut off date for voting is at best incompetent and at worst diabolical.
Seeing how Kate Walsh, Ned Vaughn, Gabrielle Carteris, and David White propel their self-serving agenda I suspect the latter.
Sag: “Voting is one of the most valuable rights and privileges of Screen Actors Guild membership…”
——-
Now please forget about how valuable that right is as the Unite For Strength moves forward their “affected member voting” agenda to eliminate that “most valuable right” from anyone who earns less than Kate Walsh.
Thanks!
>>On a side note it is EITHER a right or a privilege. It can’t be both.
I suppose this is part of the “confuse the issue” spin we are forced to pay UFS’s PR boys at Saylor. Great way to spend our money, writing up contradictions.
CUT TO:
Vinnie Barbarino
(grabbing his head)
I’M SO CONFUSED!
From the SAG “response” perhaps someone could explain what possible relevance this excerpt has to the issue at hand?
“We also send special reminders to members who are facing termination for unpaid dues.”
Meaningless filler that conveys a supposed policy, but which doesn’t have any relevance to the matter at hand. My fee is due April 30, I don’t pay by May 30, and they send me a note reminding me that termination is imminent – what in the world does that have to do with failing to notify members that payment of an invoice just received must be made within 4-7 days to allow for voting on the upcoming contract.
Sneering insults, wounded howling from righties still bitter because they had their asses handed to them in November, and even those with legitimate gripes against unions in general do not change the fact that it would not have cost SAG a dime to have added a message to the invoices sent at the end of April reading “This invoice must be paid by April 30 for members to qualify for voting on the contract being presented for member consideration next month.”
Oh, and as for the BS about dues being for the period just ended, the implication that we’re actually allowed to put off the dues – nice how SAG pretends it isn’t structured that way specifically so that the AMOUNT of the dues owed can first be determined. I can’t pay my dues premised on my guess as to whether I’ll get work in the current or upcoming dues period. Rather, I pay dues AFTER the period so that I know how much more than the minimum I owe.
Ask SAG what percentage of its members pay dues before invoices are sent, and what percentage pays dues AFTER the payment is sent, and the bull they imply throughout this limp and lame statement becomes nakedly clear.
Lastly, how effing bitter and twisted in the head does a poster here have to be to somehow take the dispute over playing with payment dates and qualifying to vote in a union election and connect it with Obama’s election? Next we gonna hear that Alan Rosenberg wasn’t born in the US, and contract opponents are secret Muslims controlled by AIPAC and use the term “Whitey” in their hateful churches? Some out there would probably be happier sticking to the Free Republic MB, and Stormfront.
Forget the billing. . . what about dues payments that have been set up for auto-pay through the bank for several years with no problem? SAG didn’t pull the dues by their self created deadline this month, and now they are refusing to let a 16 year member vote. Shady, shady, shady.
Your vote is the most important and, in fact, the most direct influence in a Union.
You don’t just take that away without abundant warning. If that means defining “member in good standing” every time. It means telling people whether they are or aren’t and how to become a member in good standing so they can vote.
It is egregiously irresponsible and elitist to deprive someone whose circumstances you do not know from a vote by omission of communication.
Absolutely disgusting. SAG Leadership should be ashamed.
Dates, schmates. Bottom line is that if they (The National Majority of U4S) wanted more people to be able to vote on the contract, they would have made a large effort to let everyone know about getting their dues paid by the cut-off date. The fewer people that vote, the better for David White, John McGuire and U4S.
Period.
They also know that trying to pass this contract offer will be like trying to pass a kidney stone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6LSLX_dNG4
The coming TV/Theatrical contract in your mail is not nearly good enough. WE MUST have reasonable protections in new media NOW. If we sign this, the AMPTP will NEVER improve the terms to anything REMOTELY approaching fair. They have NO precedent for doing so in ALL former huge tech leaps (VHS/DVD – Cable) – AND they make the EXACT same arguments now. SAG must vote this down, then force them back to the table and if absolutely necessary, strike, shutting down ALL SAG movies (all movies) and TV (still the vast majority – an AFTRA “pilot” has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting picked up, let alone becoming a legitimate hit. Some will: 1 or 2, – the VAST MAJORITY won’t). The middle-class SAG actor needs to understand that if we vote up this contract, we will lose things we will NEVER get back. Let’s use our common sense – understand that, MF OR moderates, this has been forced on us by the ONE TRUE VILLAIN in all this – the AMPTP, and if we have to shut their business down to get the things we need to maintain our livelihoods, then that’s what we have to do.
People say “what will a strike accomplish?” – it will accomplish stopping the industry in it’s tracks, it will accomplish showing the nation SAG is a union under siege, just like all the other unions, a union of mostly middle-class people being asked to give up so much by the ONE industry that has been BREAKING BOX OFFICE RECORDS, throughout the economic downturn (which this conflict started LONG before by the way) NOW? NOW, THE ECONOMY SHOWS SOME SIGNS OF IMPROVING, – WE’VE BEEN THROUGH ONE END AND OUT THE OTHER: GOOD ECONOMY, HORRIBLE ECONOMY, SEEMINGLY VERY SLOWLY RECOVERING ECONOMY – BUT THE ONE CONSTANT HAS BEEN “WE DON’T WANT TO EVEN CONSIDER A FAIR PAY, P&H AND RESIDUAL PAKAGE FOR SAG ACTORS GOING INTO NEW MEDIA. F-OFF.”
Can anyone seriously argue that HASN’T been the AMPTP’s stance through this ENTIRE thing? (sorry hit caps)
Unite, or die. That’s about the extent of it folks. Remember – your vote counts just as much as Tom Hanks, and all the other “stars” who have behaved reprehensibly in abandoning instead of supporting the middle-class actor they used to be. Vote NO and let’s do what we need to do if the Producers don’t give us the deal we MUST have, and, by the way, a deal they can EASILY afford – they just don’t want to pay us – because they believe they can get away with it. So far? They have. We vote this down? Whole new ball game.
Will it be easy if we have to strike? Of course not – but they are ALREADY TRYING TO BREAK THE UNION – and the truth is, we have NO IDEA what THEIR breaking point would be. Two weeks, two months, six months? Who knows? My question to you is – are you in a profession that treats you with repect and gives you ANY security NOW? NO – of course not. SO – why don’t we insist that when we DO work, we DO get that one or two or three PAYING gigs a year – we get PAID? Is that too much to ask?
What do they do with no movie product? How quickly can they make ALL TV, AFTRA TV? NOT THAT QUICK. They need movies and TV and WE ARE MOVIES AND TV. VOTE NO!
I originally thought they were saying the CURRENT dues had to be paid by April 30th or members couldn’t vote. Nope, in reality they’re talking about dues that were due November 1/08! If those haven’t been paid by now and they’re just NOW cutting people off from voting, it’s perfectly understandable.
“for Strength is corrupt, that’s obvious.”
This is so laughable Zachary it’s hard to know where to start. A non story about the Guild’s voting policy which has been in place forever and somehow the 19 members of UFS are responsible and ‘corrupt’ and to blame? Please. The majority of the Hollywood Board is controlled by MF, almost 98% percent of the committees that do outreach to members are populated entirely by MF members, so if they wanted to spend more dues money sending out a special reminder to not be a deadbeat for six months or you wouldn’t be able to vote they are the only ones with the control to do that.
I hope Nikki has the cajones to print this because this is a non story.
When actors are hurting they don’t pay dues, they hold onto their money. With a lack of a contract and pilots going to aftra, and work at a slowdown for many reasons there are many actors hurting. They chose to waive being caught up on dues and hang onto their money, that is their RIGHT. If they then miss their chance to vote, that is the sad result of the not paying their dues which has been in place for decades. UFS has nothing to do with that policy it’s in the CONSTITUTION. They also have almost NO representation on any committees. Get your facts straight “Zachary”.
I can’t believe they’re going to agree with these terms right as they are seein Hulu get ABSOLUTELY HUGE right in front of their eyes. It won’t be long until newer HDTVs are able to access sites such as Hulu directly and it becomes more watched than broadcast TV. Hell, I already watch Hulu on my HDTV via my Playstation 3.
So easy for non- or barely working actors like Mulhern to be so radical about this contract.
When you ain’t got nothing you’ve got nothing to lose.
@ Nonny Mouse:
Let’s see your credits. Mulhern speaks the truth.
Nonny Mouse–
Somewhat misguided, the way you use the Kris Kristofferson/Fred Foster quote to make your point that those who are not millionaires should not speak.
I’ve never met Mr. Mulhern, but I admire his courage in standing up for what is right and signing his name. In addition I admire him as a well-trained, talented, consistently working actor.
Not surprising that you misuse the word “radical” as well to describe an American who exercises freedom of speech and fights the good fight for his union, its members, their families, and their children.
Mr. Mulhern is obviously capable of speaking for himself, and I’m not taking the role of speaking for him. But for myself, as a union member for over 20 years, I appreciate his voice.
I wish I could say I felt bad for the actors, and I had a lot of sympathy for all of you. But how in hell did you let your union get this way? SAG is basically irrelevant. And, to be honest, you have no one to blame but yourselves.
My father used to joke “Never send an actor to do negotiate.” Now I know why.
Maybe one day you’ll learn that you get the union you deserve by the amount of effort each member puts into it.
Let me get this straight.. actors are not on top of things and fail to pay their dues.. and suddenly its the fault of the leadership? That doesn’t make sense at all..
“Never send an actor to do negotiate.”
Helen. Apparently your father was of eastern European lineage.
SAG tried to “do negotiate.”
What’s being missed in all this is SAG had a gun to it’s head the whole time, and Rosenberg and Allen were the only officials of ALL the unions to say, loudly and often, “You have a GUN against our head – we CAN’T negotiate with you until you put the gun away.”
The other unions? They all just pretended it wasn’t a hostage video, but some kind of “reasonable exchange of ideas,” that happened to be occurring while there was a gun to their head.
The objections from the hard-core, anti-SAG, pro-AFTRA people are so dumb, they are hard to respond to:
“Why would you want to LOCK in a compensation system BEFORE you know what the business model will be?!”
I’ve heard that. 100 times.
Well, isn’t that exactly what we are dangerously close to doing?
Someone explain to me, how, in two years, SAG will negotiate from this cluster-fuck of new media terms?
Nonunion spaces. 15k floors, 25k floors. No clip consent. No product placement protections. Force Majuere? No, not really. The list goes on and on.
The AMPTP announced the basic approach: “you’re fucking toast” in July of 2007 in the NY Times – and EVERYBODY said “RIDICULOUS! They won’t DARE try to to phase out residuals!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!”
Now? Everybody has basically agreed. Except SAG.
To say that SOME form of percentage of distributor’s gross – or producer’s gross, or producer/distributor’s gross – WHOEVER MAKES THE MONEY – on ALL use of ALL actor’s work on the internet was “stupid because we don’t know what the business model will be yet!!”
It’s like saying “I’m going to go scuba diving for the first time without oxygen because I don’t KNOW if I’ll react to the lack of oxygen by drowning yet! I have to find OUT first! THEN I’ll come back up and strap on the equipment IF IT’S NECESSARY!! Jesus, what’s the big deal?!!”"
But, they want to agree to THESE terms, which DO LOCK us in, in a way that may prove IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER GET OUT OF – as opposed to a deal that covers us NO MATTER WHAT THE BUSINESS MODEL RETURNS OUT TO BE? – that’s insanity personified.
Instead of “SAG gets it’s fair share – NO MATTER WHAT.”
We’re on the verge of signing…. what are we signing? Can someone please explain to me what we’re about to sign? Cause I know it’s describable in rather exact terms, EXCEPT for this:
NO MATTER WHAT THE BUSINESS MODEL FOR NEW MEDIA TURNS OUT TO BE – SAG GETS IT’S FAIR SHARE.
We are NOT about to sigh THAT.
And THAT is what we HAVE to have to survive as a union and as a profession of middle-class actors.
Wake the fuck up folks – before we literally sign our futures away.
Helen Hill: ‘My father used to joke “Never send an actor to do negotiate.” Now I know why.’
It looks like it takes you quite a while to figure things out. Life is a process, so no harm there.
Now that you’ve got your dad’s quip down, you might work on understanding the big picture.
As you hope for and support the failure of unions in America you really hope for the failure of the America we know. The at times unfortunate history of the worker in America was dramatically re-routed for the better twice: the first was the abolition of slavery and the second was the success of workers’ unions.
Enslaving a work force, the work force our country was founded on, is almost universally accepted as aborhant these days. But in terms of history it was the norm a a short time ago.
Then we moved into the period of sweat shops with adults and children working 10 and 12 hour days side by side in unsafe almost inhumane work conditions often 7 days a week and still living in poverty.
Both of these periods are not that long ago in our brief 230 some year history.
The fight for the unions created the 40 hour work week, created safe working conditions, and paved the way for workers’ rights and health care and the America we see. It created a place where the worker needn’t live in poverty.
If we, and in this case you, hope for the demise of a union, any union, you are hoping for the return of those days when only the extremely wealthy (when compared to the rest of the population) make the decisions. And as we have seen, and are seeing with the AMPTP and the extremely wealthy Kate Walsh, the wealthy tend to make decisions that benefit their own ability to amass wealth rather than create a world where the children of those who earn less have health care when their parents can’t earn enough to qualify for benefits.
If you look in the Los Angeles area you see the wealthy send their children to private schools while the public schools crumble. You see the wealthy hire private police and security to police their block while the public police force suffers. And so on. They tend to protect their own interests at the expense of others.
And while it’s all well and good for the wealthy, they tend not to make decisions that are best for the working community which is the bulk of our population.
Our unions keep the the rich check. Our unions give the working man and woman a voice that wouldn’t be afforded us otherwise.
As you hope to increase the gap between the rich and the middle class and hope that it forces the middle class back into poverty you really hope to undermine all we’ve learned since our arguably embarrassing consideration of workers rights when we started.
But with all your work in figuring out your father’s quip, you give me hope that you can understand the big picture one day as well.
I agree with you that each union member owes an effort to the union. But in the bigger picture, paraphrasing your wise final statement: As a society, we get the society we deserve by the effort each member puts into it. It might be better if your effort, our effort, was aimed at preserving the monumental strides we’ve made in workers’ rights rather than attack the unions that made them possible.
Nearly my entire career is being Hulu’d & Youtube’d as we speak! Where the hell is SAG?! Oh-right… the SAGers don’t have to worry. They can just hide behind their new six-figure Flack!
Oh you smarty pants are not gonna forgive me for my rushed typing… argh! Me bad!
Doesn’t change the fact you got the union you deserved… Because the rank-and-file did not give a damn…
My bad, it’s a Bob Dylan quote above not Kris Kristofferson.
My point still stands though.
VOTE NO.