Scott Bakula, Melissa Leo, Sally Field Make Pro & Con SAG Contract Videos

COMMENTS (42)

• At least Scott Bakula didn’t resort to name calling anyone who disagreed with him (nod to Ed Asner). I think there is complete agreement on what we all want the difference is in how to go about getting it.
  We’re in a very weak position to be going back to the table. Anyone who thinks that the possibility of a strike doesn’t rise exponentially if we vote down this contract is not living in reality.

  Back to Mr. Asner’s video and a lot of the NO posters on this site: Excoriating fellow members for holding a different view than you doesn’t help anything. Those bullying rantings are reminiscent of Rush and Hannity and those guys. It’s laughable that Mr. Asner signed off his video “In solidarity” since he seems to have forgotten what those word means.

  Like JB above, I voted yes on the contract. My opinion is that it is better to revisit these issues in two years from a stronger position.

  I am prepared to live by the vote yea or nay. I hope the no voters are also prepared.

  I’m done — Let the excoriators have at me.

  Comment by kevin — Friday June 5, 2009 @ 12:20pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Kevin, Ed Asner wasn’t excoriating fellow members for ‘having a different view’, he was excoriating them for cannibalizing their OWN union in the middle of a negotiation. i’m no actor or member of any union for that matter, but even i can see how foolish undermining your own side is as a negotiating tactic. you may not agree with Ed that they betrayed alan rosenberg and the union (though it sure looks like it from here) but certainly an idiotic strategy.

  Comment by Anonymous — Friday June 5, 2009 @ 2:17pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Kevin -

  Ed Asner’s analogy from the floor of the Hollywood meeting the other day was extreme, to be sure. However, his vitriol was aimed at the AMPTP’s offer, and the politics of those who supported it. He did not disparage individuals by name or their acting abilities or anything else about them as human beings.

  Disparaging individuals by name is the stock-in-trade of a handful of so-called “moderates” (I still prefer “corporate appeasers”) who (mostly) anonymously post comments personally and viciously attacking President Alan Rosenberg, former NED Doug Allen, and more recently newly-minted AFTRA national board member Anne-Marie Johnson.

  Nor am I excusing any personal attacks on actors like James Cromwell, Ned Vaughn, or Sally Field. We can disagree on the issues – and raise legitimate questions about quotes from them related to union issues – and keep our respect for them as individuals and their work as actors.

  I have called repeatedly on partisans to keep the debate elevated, in these comments sections, other websites, and in person. I have also recently called on James Cromwell – now one of the most recent victims of the public vitriol of others – to denounce all personal attacks on any actor or union official, including past attacks on Rosenberg and Allen.

  So it’s good that you recognized that Scott Bakula took the high road. I met on the picket line at Paramount during the WGA strike. Rather than gathering near the press, he grabbed a sign and straightaway made for a gate he noticed was undermanned. This video only reinforced the very favorable impression I got of him then.

  Let me also explain my use of the term “corporate appeaser”. That appellation is limited to how these partisans within the acting unions behave vis a vis the moguls. It has nothing to do whatsoever with them as human beings or as actors. It’s my response to the pro-corporate trades labeling these people “moderates” a couple of years ago. There’s nothing “moderate” about supporting contractual rollbacks that would decimate seven-decades of hard-won rights. Believing these corporations will honestly revisit afresh new media in two years if we just give them what they want now is appeasement.

  I’m with Scott Bakula on this. I believe we can get a better deal – a much better deal – by not appeasing the moguls.

  Comment by mheister — Friday June 5, 2009 @ 2:27pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Hey Scott…what happens after you vote no? Just let AFTRA take over features like they took over television?

  If we don’t merge w/ AFTRA we might as well all join AFTRA, if we arent already members.

  RIP SAG

  Comment by Now What? — Friday June 5, 2009 @ 3:10pm PDT  Reply to this post

• to Anonymous whose post begins:
  “The vote no side has a reasoned argument for voting no. The problem is that there is not a reasoned plan for what to do once that happens.”

  I beg to differ and have done so in detail at:

  http://www.membershipfirst.blogspot.com/

  Right now there is a terrific article by Charles Shaughnessey in which he extrapolates the internet as the “Wild, Wild, West” description to our current situation. Good fun. Then Scott and Mellissa’s video, Then my rather dry but step by step “reasoned plan”. If you’ve got another idea, I’m ready to hear it. Nothing ends with this vote no matter how it goes. Unions, and especially the creative unions are in a constant state of negotiation with these corporations. I’m with Scott. We’ve got to behave like a union and do our part for this industry. A healthy active work-force is what makes business strong. Vote NO and tell the AMPTP and your leadership to get back to work. For your future.

  Comment by Clancy Brown — Friday June 5, 2009 @ 5:11pm PDT  Reply to this post

• On a side note, Charlie is one of the deepest, most comprehensive forward thinkers on the board. Click through to his post “The Future of Advertising Is Here” for more well written and thoughtful ideas about the future. No matter what you think of this contract it’s worth a read.

  And if you haven’t read Justine’s “letter to a Young Actor” that is also worthwhile. These two have eaten the spice and are actively looking beyond the horizon. What’s your plan? How do you see the dots connecting? Not just for Tom or Sally or Scott or Melissa but for the entire industry and our place in it. Any plan must go way beyond this contract and beyond 2011.

  In Solidarity – Clancy Brown

  http://www.membershipfirst.blogspot.com/

  Comment by Clancy Brown — Friday June 5, 2009 @ 5:25pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Mheister,

  I beg to differ with your Ed Asner take. Just relistened to some of his video. He disparaged half a dozen fellow actors like James Cromwell, Tom Hanks, Sally Field, George Clooney for expressing their opinions yet he feels perfectly free to express his. He even labeled Danny DeVito a “pixie” and anyone who agreed with him as “chicken Little’s”. But whatever. I chalk it up to ill advised rantings.
  What irritated me more as a union member was his take that NY members were “betrayers”; he called the branches “the minions” of jealous NY and a few “betrayers” in Hollywood. I’ve heard this argument from others. This is a bigtime problem. Do Hollywood NO voters regard any union member outside Hollywood as lesser-than? It seems so. Perhaps in their mind Hollywood members should receive two votes for every one vote of a NY or Chicago member? I don’t get it. It’s pompous for one and certainly divisive.

  If we are a whole we must accept the will of the whole, of the majority. Alan and Doug’s authority were taken away because the majority of those who cared enough to vote didn’t like the job they were doing. Mr. Asner claimed Doug and Alan were “cut off at the knees” which implies the work of a few hooligans, but the majority of voters voted for a new direction. That was the democratic outcome of the last vote. Votes have consequences hence the new board made a new deal.
  We shall now see if the deal is ratified.

  I hear your argument. It makes sense to me. But I disagree with it as I wrote in my earlier post. I don’t believe there is any reason for the AMPTP to go back to the table at all until 2011. They can continue this way without a contract…unless we strike. Which makes this vote a de facto strike vote. “NO” proponents say it isn’t a strike vote but it is because if you are going to threaten to do something you’ve gotta be willing to go through with it. And a strike now would be insane. Perhaps not for Mr Asner or Mr Bakula — they’ve made their cash. But certainly for me.

  I completely agree with your wants but think it wise to fight when the winds are more favorable.

  Comment by Kevin — Friday June 5, 2009 @ 9:41pm PDT  Reply to this post

• to SAG Actor

  Your anti-Reagan argument fails. Reagan didn’t bust PATCO; PATCO busted PATCO. Maybe ‘Don’t strike if you signed a no strike clause’ would have been good advice? How much simpler could it be?

  Comment by Phil Dirt — Friday June 5, 2009 @ 10:47pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Comment by Silent For Too Long — June 4, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

  Thanks for sharing. Your anecdote SPEAKS VOLUMES.

  It seems most are post happy and totally miss one that doesn’t sound like the rest. Then again, if it’s mostly actors posting, we know how well actors listen.

  Comment by Hello?? — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 12:32am PDT  Reply to this post

• Kevin (whoever you really are), your argument about “Alan and Doug’s authority were taken away because the majority of those who cared enough to vote didn’t like the job they were doing” is completely baseless. Their authority was “taken away” because of a very few bitter people in power who had ulterior motives, not because “those who cared to vote” made a difference. That was a National Board coup d’etat, not a vote of the membership. Further, This was a completely political move, and you’re a liar if you say otherwise.

  I’m not completely agreeing with Asner nor his rants, but Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg were ABSOLUTELY cut off at the knees. Not only with regards to the series of events which were taking place in January of this year (EVERYONE agreeing to send out the SAV), but publicly and politically by the back-stabbing NY board (Freed, Vaughn, et al) and then being summarily dismissed and gagged after being (supposedly) supported by 100% of the National Board.

  There’s your “divisive”.

  Not one of the “celebrities” who support voting ‘NO’ are in it for themselves – every one of them value their union, their fellow actors and the struggles previous SAG members endured to get us where we are today – and they say so. Conversely, every “celebrity” who publicly favors voting ‘YES’ has some selfish, ulterior motive (producer… star on a show… AFTRA board member…) Why the hell else would they go on record supporting something that is not only against the very core of SAG’s being, but so damn harmful/hurtful to other actors? WHY?

  I’m with Clancy Brown on this one – our negotiation “task force” (notice I felt the need to use quotation marks there) hasn’t made enough of an effort to do right by their own membership. If “allowing NO non-union space in our contract” is one of the core agreements in OUR OWN SAG DOCTRINE, then aren’t those people (negotiation “task force”) breaking SAG’s core doctrine by even deigning to “recommend” that offer of contradiction to SAG members? And, consequently, shouldn’t they be fired and this contract offer thrown out? WTF?

  We (SAG) haven’t “threatened” to do a damn thing because the SAV was intentionally baited, blocked and stalled by NY. As of this date (6/06/09) we have yet to “threaten” one goddamned thing to the AMPTP. That statistic needs to change. THEN we’ll back it up.

  You speak of accusations of NY being “jealous” of LA (where 70% of the work is done – in film AND tv). But when NY (Sam Freed) made PUBLIC statements intended to deride both Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen, which should have been made privately (whether or not they were baseless), their hand was tipped. It ain’t jealousy – it’s ego. And it’s shameful. And it’s anti-union. And it’s documented.

  Comment by Ace — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 2:39am PDT  Reply to this post

• Wow!

  Miss Norma Rae herself- spoke for one minute and said virtually nothing- and NO- I don’t really “like you” Sally, i.e. her Academy Award speech for Norma Rae…
  In Fact everyone should go and watch a great movie about standing up ( as the minority) and saying NO.
  a wonderful movie about the little person standing up against the big “guys” and saying we are worth more and we will stand up and fight for it.
  Scott Bakula & Melissa give a 6 minute speech and explain many many facts.

  This vote may be over, I voted NO and would do flip flops if I saw my Union shut down this horrific contract. Most the YES voters have not read the contract, they don’t understand the contract and one day they will. In fact, one day ( if and when the YES goes through) ALL YOU CREW MEMBERS AND ACTORS will really understand why we NO voters were so passionate about this and fought the good fight and tried to get a better contract. “what is the plan?” is the constant question of the day- I’ll tell you the plan,
  WE GET A BETTER DEAL- that simple.
  I am a member Miss Fields since 1972, so 8 years after you…I am a middle class Actor who has 32 years vested with my Union. I do not appreciate your one minute speech telling us to vote YES and having NOTHING to back it up. If there is one thing that we ALL agree on is that this contract is not good enough, that this contract is not what we should be getting,
  some think – why fight now? fight later.
  Did Norma Rae tell her workers – fight later, give it up now and deal with it later?
  NO. FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT NOW. VOTE NO.
  Years from now people will understand the meaning of FORCE MAJURE, the meaning of 3% of New Media- these things are way over most people’s grasp and it is those of us who have worked for decades and have made residuals for decades who truly understand the meaning of this contract- and thanks to Erik? the man who is enjoying watching this fight- for understanding what a VOTE NO means – too bad many in my union do not.
  We are divided as Actors, our Union is divided- practicing horrible policies and only giving One point of view on the SAG.org website. Without you NIKKI, none of us “minority” would have a place to tell our side. so Thanks Again ! Maybe everyone should consider writing a letter to SAG to make sure that both sides have a place to speak on the website – I am sure one day the YES people may be the Minority- so they might want to think about this now long and hard and change the policy of the SAG website and have not just one slanted point of view but two!

  Comment by anon v.o. actor — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 9:57am PDT  Reply to this post

• Can we all agree on one thing?

  If you are a Union Member you never, ever, ever attack your own Union’s negotiating committee for asking for ‘Too Much’ in the middle of a negotiation.

  As in NEVER.

  If you want to go to the Press and excoriate a Union Negotiating committee for asking for too little — o.k..

  But, mid negotiation, attacking them for trying to et a little more?

  Stupidity.

  Ed Asner was right.

  It’s like sitting next to friend at a high stakes poker game, and announcing to the other players — “I’ve seen his hand — he’s bluffing!”.

  While we can play at being nice boys and girls — Ned Vauhgn and his ilk DESERVE to be attacked for undercutting their own.

  They went back in and got how much more than the last Negotiating Committee got?

  How much?

  I can’t hear you!!!!???

  They didn’t get a freakin’ penny more.

  SAG could have had this deal last July.

  They are hypocrites and phonies.

  Comment by UnionFan — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 11:06am PDT  Reply to this post

• Nikki,

  can someone tell me why everyone keeps saying there is no New Media deal in place,
  isn’t this it? dated Oct. 08
  does this
  http://www.sag.org/files/documents/New%20Media%20Agreement%20081002MFKB%20Sample.pdf

  not read 6% ? page 3, item 2.
  I am confused! but already voted NO.

  Comment by confused — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 1:03pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Sally Field, George Clooney, Tom Hanks and other high-profile (and well paid) actors who are urging the membership to vote “Yes” for a crappy deal are idiots. If the main thrust of their argument is A) this is the best deal we can get and B) but don’t worry, once we get a toehold in, we can regroup to fight another day and C) eventually the producers will see that we are all in this together, we’ll all have a group hug and sing campfire songs together.

  Well, I have a one word answer to that: DVDs. Nearly 20 years ago, the guilds were told by the AMPTP since there was never going to be big profits in home video (yuck-yuck), there was no sense fighting about home video residuals. If home videos someday made money (which they did for the studios almost immediately), then they (the producers) would be happy to revisit the issue down the road. All the guilds collective let out a “Duh, okay.” But DVD compensation for artists never got revisited. So anyone who says that if SAG plays ball with AMPTP now, in two years we’ll all revisit “new media” is just plain smokin’ crack.

  But again, why would Sally Field and Clooney really care about actors whose working careers peaked in the ’70′s? After all, they’re old now. Why don’t they just shut up and eat their mush? For Clooney or Hanks (who make $20 million per picture) to say “this is the best deal we can get” is just irresponsible.

  Comment by Gerry Ringwald — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 2:28pm PDT  Reply to this post

• When vote NO asked for SAG members to sign a petition of support 5,000 SAG members signed that. Now the vote yes asked for signatures and they’ve gotten 1,200 signatures. Am I wrong if I conclude that SAG members will vote NO at about 5:1??? Josef Stalin said, “Those who cast the ballots decide nothing, those who count the ballots decide everything.” We shall see how far those who staged this vile coup on behalf of the AMPTP will go.

  Comment by Simon — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 6:33pm PDT  Reply to this post

• To: Comment by confused — June 6, 2009 @ 1:03 pm

  “First Run Window” is the small print.

  Comment by Vote Nope — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 6:52pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Kevin (or whoever you really are) -

  You cannot for one second draw moral equivalency between Ed Asner’s characterizations of the actors he listed in his video (“Mr. Darfur George Clooney”), and the vicious and baseless attacks on Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen. Asner was making a specific point about all of these how individuals’ liberal/progressive politics stands in such stark contrast to their positions vis a vis their own unions.

  When I showed my aging mother – the widow of a long-time union schoolteacher – a picture of Mike Farrell reading a copy of The Nation in her subscription to The Nation, and informed her that he was supporting the breaking of SAG’s closed shop, she said, “you’re fucking kidding me!” My point is, and so was Asner’s, in relation to these self-styled “liberals”, WTF??? Why aren’t they walking their talk when it comes to their own unions?

  I’ve made the point on DHD and my own blog that there’s a strange disconnect in James Cromwell’s mind between his political views and his union views. He hosts fundraisers in his home for arguably the most pro-labor member of Congress – former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich – and then turns around and supports the abdication of THE core principle of unionism – keeping work within the union – in at least two of his unions, AFTRA and now SAG.

  Asner was illustrating this strange disconnect in the actions of these otherwise politically progressive actors.

  As well, I have invited you, James Cromwell (because he’s been in the receiving end of some attributable – NOT anonymous – public vitriol recently), and all of the anonymous trolls cruising Nikki’s blog to publicly decry and denounce personal attacks on any actor or union official, and to wisely and maturely limit comments and criticisms to the issues. I have yet to see you, Mr. Cromwell, or a single troll here even begin to acknowledge my call (also issued at my blog), let alone make a pledge of any sort. IOW, I got crickets.

  So cry if you’d like for poor “regular joe millionaire producer Tom Hanks” and the others who were criticized not for their acting, but their union politics, by Ed Asner. Not one of them – even taking into consideration the comments about james Cromwell (and even at that, the criticisms of Cromwell centered on the disconnect between the struggling actor – Hot L Baltimore, anyone? – they knew for so many years before he rocked it in Babe and became James Cromwell the star actor who scored and delivered in great roles in LA Confidential, Star Trek: First Contact, the General’s Daughter, and Six Feet Under – and yeah, I did that list from memory cuz I’m a fan) in the thread about a possible SAG presidency matchup between Martin Sheen and James Cromwell- has taken 1/100 of the baseless bile spewed so viciously (and mostly anonymously) by so many trolls here and in other online forums against Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen.

  Ed Asner raises legitimate questions about whether there was a conspiracy within and outside of SAG to tear at the guild’s elected leadership in an effort to weaken the guild’s solidarity enough to force a truly shitty contract. Who benefits from such a shitty contract? Signatories, producers (paging Mr. Hanks), and those who want to soften up SAG to make the membership more likely to vote for a merger with AFTRA (“one union now” James Cromwell???).

  Perhaps on style Ed didn’t score a lot of points with you, but the substance of his argument is quite clear. And worth considering.

  Comment by mheister — Saturday June 6, 2009 @ 8:46pm PDT  Reply to this post