Carl Icahn Now Wants ALL Of Lionsgate 
Action Comedy TV: Showrunner Matt Nix 
SAG National Board Approves Joint Bargaining … 
From: Justine Bateman
Date: July 1, 2009
To: Karen Borell
Subject: Board ResignationTo All,
I am resigning my position as SAG National Board member and withdrawing my bid for re-election effective immediately.
I initially ran for the Board 3 years ago to affect a change in three areas: the almost non-functioning web-site, the poor agent-relations, and the seeming absence of jurisdictional lines between SAG and AFTRA.
I am happy to have been able to effect the change in the web-site with the help of that committee, Doug Allan, and Pamela Greenwald, but the other goals have alluded me and have just become worse.
Agents are now not only owned in part by organizations that would create conflict of interest, but acting as the production company themselves and nobody saw fit to stop that. Now, though, we're very far on the other side of that and I suppose actors have not really given thought to to the concept of being represented by an advocate with no conflicting alliances.
AFTRA has just basically, after years of trying to get SAG's attention by lighting the newspapers on the porch on fire, have finally succeeded in partially burning the place down. And all we dual-card members be damned.We should have bought that scumbag organization years ago and shut that duplicitous leadership up instead of submitting to this "non-disparagement agreement" by which I am, happily, no longer bound.
And our own SAG leadership gagging Alan Rosenberg and Connie Stevens? What is this? Communist China or tumultuous Iran? I can't [be] a part of a union leadership that strips it's elected leadership of its voice. If we can't speak up about injustices in union matters, how are we being effective at all in office? No, better to not be a part of it and to be able to speak freely against what I see as irresponsibility, fear, greed, and ego-driven decision-making.
And then there is the membership itself. They rarely expressed the correct anger at AFTRA low-balling contracts over the years that affected their ability to provide for themselves. They then ignored, seemingly, ALL the news about the migration from Old Media to New Media and recently took from the AMPTP the worst deal I have ever seen. For nothing.
This is not the make up of membership that could have gotten us Health and Pension or Residuals like our older members struck and fought for years ago. We have all enjoyed those benefits, but when it was our turn to protect them, we blew it. AFTRA blew it. And then we blew it by not expressing absolute outrage over their tactic of GREATLY encouraging their newscasters and weathermen to vote up that AFTRA TV/Theatrical contract "even if you do not work this contract and never will". Yeah, that was in an e-mail that went around. Some of these weathermen even made YouTube videos celebrating their vote, thumbing their noses at us. CLASSY.
SAG's members themselves have now voted up a contract that will cause about 50% of the WORKING members to leave the business, but now that you're all "back to work" you're probably too busy to read this. Congratulations.
Thank you for allowing me to serve and to represent the membership. I hope I honored the sacrifices of past Board Members who created such wonderful benefits for me and my family like Pension & Health, Basic Minimums, and Residuals. To those members I am truly, truly grateful. Words cannot express my appreciation of your sacrifices for future generations of actors.
Thank You,
Justine Bateman
Justine Bateman Resigns From SAG Board "To Speak Freely" About Decision-Making
Comments (72)
|
Post a Comment
Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don't go off topic, don't impersonate anyone, don't get your facts wrong, and don't bore me.
News/Opinion Poll
Loading ...Box Office Poll
Loading ...
Another excellent example of good intentions backed up by a total lack of how the industry works and the current economic situations coupled with total ignorance of the “new media’s” true situation AT THIS TIME. There was nothing to gain NOW. Maybe later. Not now.
As long as you have some free time now, Ms. Bateman, get a business degree.
Good for Bateman. I couldn’t agree more about what’s gone down. AFTRA started screwing us years ago and they continue to do so. Sadly, the membership is too scared to do anything about it.
Much of this is spot on, and it highlights why both sides in the bitter dispute (UFS and MF) were wrong and to blame. But we played into the producers’ hands by dividing ourselves. I should also point out that elude and allude are entirely different verbs.
The new agreement that SAG has agreed to took back to zero the open new ‘frontier’ that is broadband digital distribution. Most programs will be rebroadcast with no residuals to actors in the near future. The idea that this will be renegotiated in pattern bargaining is absurd: the DGA has always gone first and cut a deal that benefits their members (as well they should) and when SAG’s turn comes , we are asked not to rock the boat for the ’sake of everybody’. It’s time this union looked out for one group and one group alone: the actors and their futures. Or the profession, as a means of support for families, will simply disappear. The wild west of digital distribution is upon us now.
Well said Justine!! Best of luck in the future, thanks for standing up for us!
Justine,
I’d like to know what Alan Rosenberg has NOT been allowed to say. He seems to have said everything he wanted to. He recently told everyone at the last town hall that those who was there rooting for him were the true union members. That would be about 1%. If that’s all he thinks are the true union than he hasn’t been listening.
When nearly 80% of your union is telling your something, it’s time to listen.
You just wrote:
“SAG’s members themselves have now voted up a contract that will cause about 50% of the WORKING members to leave the business.”
That is a typical of countless unsubstantiated rhetorical flares that sunk you and your friends this last go around.
Now that you no longer represent anyone but yourself, I can breath easier. I believe your passion, though admirable, was entirely misplaced and ultimately destructive.
While I am “back to work,” I’m not too busy to read this because now I can pay for my Internet service, the computer I’m reading it on, in the house whose payment I can finally make again, and on a weekend I don’t have to worry about waiting tables to survive while SAG shuts down a whole industry. I wish Justine Bateman and Alan Rosenberg in their new careers serving drinks in hell.
good for her.
My question is to all the uninformed SAG members who voted for the contract:
Now that the appalling SAG contract has been ratified; how’s that big flood of new work the studios were holding back treating you?
*crickets*
Everybody happy?
*crickets*
As a WGA member, I want to thank Justine for her steadfast support and encouragement when we walked out, and wish her the best in the future. There are a lot of writers and actors grateful for your courage and dedication and it’s a shame it came to this for you.
All the best.
Sorry to see Justine resign. Glad to see she hasn’t lost her fire. Looking forward to hearing more from her now that she’s free(r) to speak her mind.
I would like to add that Justine’s analysis of new media posted at the old United Hollywood website during the Writer’s Strike was both cogent and prescient. She helped a lot of folks get up to speed on new (now) media. Justine’s service in this area was invaluable to both writers and actors.
The union died when our current board took over, so no worries. Thanks for trying, but this union only represents producer/actors now.
Is it just me or does Justine not have an assistant or publicist to proofread her statements? This is just another obvious example of why the unions should be run by lawyers and accountants with the input of the creative individuals who populate these organizations. If I were a member of a union I would not want someone who is hypersensitive, melodramatic or high-strung in a leadership position involved in any part of the negotiating process. But it is exactly those types of individuals who get elected by the membership. I believe the unions need individuals who can remain objective, see the bigger picture and barter the best deal. The unions don’t need individuals like Justine Bateman leading them. Hopefully SAG can use her resignation for a good use.
No matter how good it feels to stick it to those you disagree with our union and future would be better served if everyone didn’t feel the need to be so right so publicly.
A simple resignation would have been classy.
Unfortunately this letter is in keeping with what Ms. Bateman has shown us in the past–finger pointing and name calling and now her ultimate underlying hope that the union will fail to show how right she was.
I’m not saying some of her ideas aren’t right. And I appreciate her want to serve the union and the membership and her heart is in the right place, but her lack of maturity was hurting us more than helping.
I did like the analogy about lighting the newspapers on the porch and succeeding in burning the house down. Was that her own, or is that an old analogy?
There are certainly problems within our union and finger-pointing and alliances to this party or that party within the union are what will cause the union to fail.
A union will survive only with unity. This two party system will be our undoing.
I admire those who have worked for what is best for the union and have done it without name-calling. And I’m not saying I believe anyone who belongs to this party or that is all wrong. Only that in belonging to a party within our union undermines our unity.
A house divided, which is what a two-party union is, is a house that falls.
All the “rightness” in the world can’t change that.
I agree with Justine that we have really done it this time. Why was it legal to silence our elected leadership? It was appalling. And now according to a recent court ruling, not only will viewers be able to Tivo upcoming shows, they will be able to Tivo shows that have ALREADY run – so much for first run network residuals. Why will anyone wait to buy the season of a show if they can just Tivo any episodes they missed?
It seems clear that the AFTRA terms for TV Shows are so much better (read cheaper) for production that SAG will eventually become irrelevant. More and more shows are shooting hi def and circumventing SAG altogether.
I recently spoke with a producer who has been asked to create content for the web – he had no idea about the recent contract – he told me that the production company is telling its content creators that they must make sure to budget no more than 15K per minute. He didn’t know why (or care) – but I sure do. They have no intention of paying actors for new media production or residuals any more.
I’ve had health insurance under SAG since I was 14 years old – I didn’t qualify this year. I just got back from the hospital and have a huge pile of bills I can’t pay to look forward to.
If we had any balls at all we would draw a line in the sand and make it either/or: you are either a SAG member or an AFTRA member – you can’t be both. Then, I think, SAG might have a fighting chance of survival – but it would have to happen soon, before its clout was completely eroded.
I believe Ms. Bateman’s rhetoric is symptomatic of a kind of outlook that people can fall into when they take up an overly polarized view of their surroundings.
She demonizes her opponents and lionizes her allies to a point at which the ‘rightness’ her position screens out any ideas that might run counter to her assumptions. So she winds up looking around for confirmation instead of information.
This is a dangerous state of affairs in anyone charged with representing the entirely of, say, a union. The fallout is a kind of siege mentality, where all is deemed suitable if it’s ‘for the cause’. So out goes civility, listening, the humanity of others not on your side and ultimately any sense of balance.
So like Sarah Palin, Justine Bateman finds herself so at odds with a system that is designed to promote alternative voices, that she must leave the public stage with the requisite stamping of her feet and snarky digs at her imaginary enemies.
Bateman conveniently forgets that her own Doug Allen refused to address jurisdictional matters between SAG and AFTRA and instead launched an all-out war against the sister union in which he figured he could beat it out of them. Oops.
Thank goodness for Justine Bateman. This shitty deal will only get shittier in the years to come and no amount of perfume will make it smell any better.
Quitter.
That’s what we’re calling people who resign before their term is up, right?
I think she resigned due to a rumor I have heard that there is a witch hunt going on right now. A number of board and committee members are being brought up on charges by the probable cause committee. The deck is stacked because the probable cause committee is all UFS.
I hope Nikkie can find out if this rumor is true.
Let’s get real. We need to stop with this “the current economic situation” While the Economy struggles, Hollywood… films.. are doing business better then ever. This year at the Box Office alone, we’re ahead of all previous years.. and this June netted slightly over $1.04 BILLION in theater revenue, the highest revenue stream ever for studios.
As of June 30, $5.2 BILLION in revenue has come into the studios through the movie screens alone, a year to year increase of 8.3% over last year.
That’s not a joke, that’s a fact. For film and entertainment work, the studios are doing quite well, and resale media continues to click away.
Studios and others have suffered in the past year based on bad secondary deals (attempts to get into publishing, cable distribution, etc.)
But the unification of some media formats have turned into incredible “woe is me” economics… studios selling product to themselves and then saying how “little” money they had to take.. it’s papershifting economy.
Bateman’s key assertion with regards to agents and the industry is only one example of the kind of virtual collusion that is happening within the industry.
Love her or hate her, every so often you need someone to yell the obvious: a spade is a spade.
this is never going to stop is it? For the millionth time (and I feel justified pointing this a millionth time because people keep forgetting it each successive time) THIS IS THE AGREEMENT WHICH THE WGA STRUCK TO GET. Why do SAG members keep forgetting that? And, more importantly, when will the members of the WGA (and DGA and IA and …) tire of being called morons by SAG members (which is, ironically, the union with the lowest entry requirements). Enough already.
Scott Barry,
You have taken great pains to reinforce the general perception that you’re an idiot. How “new” do you think new media is? Ms. Bateman raises several correct grievances and to those who fail to see why, I wish you the best of luck in your new endeavours. The game’s changing fast and most of us haven’t kept up (Scott). If you think I’m wrong, then watch for the hardware line that’s coming in 2010 and ask yourself why you’re not making a dime. Note to selves: read what you sign next time, like 2011.
Justine, be free, be outspoken and know you’ve been heard.
It ain’t over…
Iran? Really? What a truly offensive analogy. Talk about CLASSY…
To SCOTT BARRY (comment #1 above)…
Your jackass thinking is exactly what
brought us the recent disastrous Yes vote. I suppose
you were convinced by the likes of Tom Hanks,George
Clooney,Danny DeVito and their group-a vote for Yes
keeps your (actor’s) hand out of their production
pocket. “Unite for $trength of Producer$”. That’s
intelligent, Scott..”maybe later..not now”.Let’s see
if this Internet thing takes off. The best hope SAG
has right now is that Alan Rosenberg stays on as
President to fight the good fight for the 2011
contracts with the hope that, in the meantime,
uninformed (and scary) mindsets like yours can be
opened and educated to the realities and financial
impacts of the Internet Industry
Welcome to the 21st century, Scott.
ps. no need to get that business degree-try reading
the stats on current box office, internet
advertising dollars and network internet
production. And kiss your residuals goodbye
with your Yes vote. xox
You were on the board. This is how you decided to make a difference? By giving up? Weak and misguided. Stick to your guns at least.
What were we always taught about “burning bridges”?
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out…good riddance.
Uh, everyone keeps fervently exclaiming that the box office is bigger than ever, and that’s true, but production and marketing costs have escalated far faster than theatrical revenue, plus DVD sales are down, so profits are shrinking. On the TV side, the networks have sold almost no advertising upfront, and the country is in a massive recession, meaning companies have shrunk their marketing budgets. So what did you think was going to happen? Raises for everyone?
To IATSE Member:
If SAG can’t hold the line, you cowards definitely can’t. And if you think you’re not going to suffer from the shitty precedent established by this contract, just watch what happens to your wages and P&H too. Now that you’ve got your Internet connection, on your computer, in that house of cards you live in, maybe you shouldn’t speak so condescendingly of waiting tables. A lot of actors will have to work other gigs permanently to survive this business while you shower everyone with your whining, via Internet of course.
It didn’t turn out well for Norma Rae, Jimmy Hoffa, and Sarah Palin etc etc etc.
Whenever money conflicts with truth or power, money always wins. That’s the history of labor relations in this country. People just don’t appreciate work rules and emergency health insurance. That’s why people hate unions they like working eighty hour weeks, paying for taxed health care and of course being fired at the whim of a mad boss.
Justine is right. I loved this quote”
SAG’s members themselves have now voted up a contract that will cause about 50% of the WORKING members to leave the business, but now that you’re all “back to work” you’re probably too busy to read this. Congratulations.”
SAG, DGA, WGA, At this point if I was to produce a film I would go non-union just to pay the actor, writer, and director a better rate of pay with a better contract, insurance and health benefits on principal alone. Incentives may garner great movies. After all with all the crappy movies put out this summer the talent must be holding back a little more effort as they work under conditions that don’t guarantee too much except up front money.
Example.
Jennifer Aniston, How many minutes did she put into Marley?
So sorry that the membership Justine served wasn’t up to her high standards. Better luck in 2011!
Nice! About damn time! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass!
@nycpro
Actually, that’s EXACTLY why people should at least get a grounding in business and/or economics before trying to guide industry policy.
While it’s true that box office revenues are up (year-to-date), the cost side is much murkier. Do you know the relative numbers for budgets (both negative and marketing) and number of releases off the top of you head? Cos I sure don’t. Box office revenues up doesn’t mean squat if costs increase by a larger proportion.
Internet advertising (currently) is something of a canard – according to IAB reports, EVERY SINGLE ADVERTISER on the internet (even crappy indie tshirt and “You are the 1000th visitor!!!!” ads) would have to switch to Hulu et al. to come close to equaling the revenues currently enjoyed by advertising on traditional channels (as an FYI, youtube.com loses $1million dollars per day).
And when it comes to setting minimum rates/residuals, has anyone done any studies to compare the relative change in # of productions with costs? Because, as has become painfully apparent over the last year, even hard-won increases in remuneration can have drastic results on the quantity of work available. Sometimes it’s better to increase the overall size of the pie than to demand a larger slice.
Next time you have the chance, ask them those questions – have they looked at revenues AND costs? Have they looked at economic costs of switching models? Have they looked at the supply and demand dynamics within the supply chain? If you get a blank look in reply, you should vote for new leaders. Empty rhetoric demanding “better conditions” without assessing economic impacts is how businesses (and industries) collapse.
(I should hasten to add I don’t know the answers to these questions either – it may be that the conclusions would be the same after this analysis. But even then, it would only strengthen your bargaining position.)
I do agree that Justine’s intentions were right. But her strategy failed.
Let’s face it folks, for all who desired what MF fought for, and no one can deny what they were asking for wasn’t a better deal than what we got, their strategies overall failed. Their leadership failed. Justine knows this, and has no other idea how to acquire her goals for the better of the union.
So, she quits.
She didn’t step outside herself or try to be objective about how or why members voted as they did. She didn’t own up to the possibility of strategic mistakes.
She quit.
Bad leadership?? You bet!!
The strategies, leadership, and tactics of MF failed. The overwhelming vote on the theatrical contract reflects that. It matters not that their intentions for a better contract were just. It matters not that the contract approved wasn’t as good as what MF desired.
MF’s leadership failed.
It all boils down to the blame game. Both unions before, during, and after the theatrical negotiations were wrong at different times.
Members are so fed up with, “he said/she said/finger pointing” that they felt it’s better to just go back to work now with the hope that both unions will work together on the next negotiation.
Will this happen? Who knows.
I lost respect for Justine’s leadership with her very first “scumbag union” remark towards AFTRA years ago. I care not what instigated that kind of remark. It shows a lack of leadership and class.
And for those MFers who fear AFTRA? Remember the old saying, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies close.” I am not saying I personally believe AFTRA is the enemy. But if MF does, they stand a better chance of achieving their goals by following this very simple rule.
As for Justine’s comment regarding agents. Well, what was your backup plan?? OK-so you don’t like what the agents had on the table. Frankly, I didn’t either. So, SAG has no franchise agreement with agents, and agents are still thriving without it. Again, what was your backup plan????? Good leadership would have played devil’s advocate and been able to see that agents really don’t need a franchise agreement with SAG to conduct business. Just like good leadership should have played devil’s advocate and realized that without negotiating with AFTRA on the theatrical contract, there was the danger AFTRA would ratify a lesser contract which studios and producers could default to.
But ego and politics prevented devil’s advocate.
Again, a failed leadership strategy.
SO-for the good of the union, and by union I mean all actors from both SAG and AFTRA, next time work together! There is power in numbers! Infighting will only weaken both parties. Approach negotiations like smart business people, not like ego driven actors.
Scott, if I understand your point correctly, you’re essentially saying that since the New Media business model hasn’t fully matured yet, there was no point in striking over ‘hypothetical’ residuals that may or may not materialize in the future. Rather the argument should be made once the business model becomes profitable to the studios. Right?
History has shown that there are two major flaws with this line of thinking. Recall when home video was in its infancy (which was only about 20 years ago). Betamax and VHS were still dueling formats, only avid enthusiasts actually bought home videos (because they still retailed for about $80), with mom-and-pop video stores buying the rest of the product for the rental market (Blockbuster didn’t exist back then).
The producers made the same argument back then (”we don’t know if this will be profitable or not, we’ve invested alot of money in this technology, let’s pick up this discussion at a later stage”) and SAG capitulated. It was that capitulation which led to a horrific residuals formula whereby the producers take an automatic 80% off the top of any profits, leaving only a 20% “pie” to calculate residuals from. (For example, if your acting deal gets you 5% of the backend, you’re not getting 5% of 100%, you’re actually getting 5% of 20%).
Then the home video market came of age. VHS beat out Betamax, prices came down, dvd’s entered the market and home video became a $12 billion + / year revenue stream for the studios. And actors were stuck with the same crappy deal they had initially bargained for because the studios now had absolutely no incentive to renegotiate the deal. It was always deemed a “non-starter” issue. And actors lost hundreds of millions of dollars in residual payments (not to mention pension and health plan contributions, etc.) as a result.
Now, I have to admit, I don’t have a business degree. Silly me, I went to law school instead of getting an MBA (you know, the whole three years vs. two years and no exam afterwards thing…the MBA just didn’t seem legitimate). But, looking at the issues in context, I can understand why Justine Bateman and millions of other actors feel like capitulating on New Media now – even when the business model hasn’t fully matured yet – would be irresponsible and foolish.
P.S. Justine – I grew up watching you on Family Ties and had such a crush on you…I was even one of the 15 people who actually paid to watch your movie Satisfaction. I’ll listen to anything you have to say.
“The Sarah Palin Saga”, starring Justine Bateman.
What a pointless babble fest.
The studios had you strung up before you even started because there are enough whiners who can’t see the forest for the trees and are grateful for any crumbs, and there are grubby “A-list” actor/producers with an “I got mine” mentality who did in the union that helped put them on the map.
The money grubbing actor/producers don’t acknowledge the union because the actor’s mentality is that they are so very talented they would’ve “arrived” irrespective of any union. The next generation of actors can remember them not for their performances, but for rolling up the red carpet behind them.
The studios knew the psychological forces at play, and just had to sit back and let them play out.
Irrespective of Bateman being personally annoying, her points are accurate and so self-evident this whole discussion is just useless babble.
I work for a studio now, having given in to a need for life outside of production. I am still a union member and worked in production for 15 years. Sitting in meetings where the studio head tells us we must get 2-5 extra minutes from production on all of our shows for *other purposes* I cringe. I see our push for other money making platforms, keeping it *secret* from the creators, the producers, the talent.
I have had to pretend no knowledge of what that scene was shot for and have had long sad talks with hopeful and hungry writers excited about getting the side gig to write something clever for promotional purposes only,since they are staff already no pay.. only to realize later their hard free work has been monetized. It happens so frequently, that the working person is being screwed out of being paid for their work, it’s the norm now. The only ones not being screwed are the ones at the very top, you see they don’t really work so not possible to abuse them.
I told my wife yesterday that its all coming to an end. I have worked both sides of the street and that little dream of moving to a small town needs to happen sooner than later. I feel more dirty after 9 hours on the lot in my office than I ever did building sets in overtime.
The shame of the infighting of the unions is its what the bosses want, simple divide and conquer so you are too busy paying attention to the fight to notice you are being royally screwed.
I just have to figure out what I can do in that small town for money. Perhaps build again, physical labor is so much easier than killing dreams for a living.
Nuther Actor,
spot on!
God bless Justine Batemen. If my union, the WGA, had more people like her, we’d be a lot better off.
After the senior and mezz loans are paid off (including prints and advertising, and production costs) movies aren’t really that profitable.
While they may be “grossing” more than ever, one must really understand the math to comprehend how the dollars are divided.
Land Of The Lost, for example, hasn’t even made back it’s P and A money, which is first-lien money that recourses against any revenue of the picture (dvd, pay tv, free tv, etc etc) Uni took a bath on that one.
Unfortunately Hollywood is not immune to the current banking system failures – as every studio (and I do mean, EVERY studio) is currently looking for new and fresh capital. Citibank has shut down all film loan operations including Continental.
“Clearing stuff up” is muddying things up, with the inane (and false) statement that the actors contract is the “same as what the WGA struck for”. Its sadly amazing how many actors bought into the producers line on this. For starters, when a show changes from TV to new media, the writer gets a fee of $600. The actors residuals, however, are unlimited plays for 6 months for free, then $23.72 for the next 18 months (i.e. residuals are basically GONE).
Whatever you think of Justine, and wherever you stand on things, its difficult enough for all of us, without throwing false (and assinine) statements was into the mix. We need to work on ACTOR issues, and keep members informed, not compare our contract to other unions with their own unique needs.
So Bizzy, All the commenters are just useless babble…..but yours isn’t.
Goes to show what a joke sag is if someone like this can get on the board.
@ Justine:
You fought on the courageous side of this fight, and sadly your argument will be proven right only too soon — if it’s not already happening.
A lot of people will owe you an apology you will never receive, so let me just thank you for sticking up for your profession, even if the woefully misinformed electorate didn’t hear you.
@ Todd Waring:
Your logic is flawed when you make arguments like “When nearly 80% of your union is telling your something, it’s time to listen.”
At one point, even Bush had a 90% approval rating, yet look where trusting that lying chickenhawk asshole got us. Just because a lot of people believe something, it doesn’t make it true (for example, a majority of Americans once thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which just about everyone now realizes was untrue).
SAG will come to regret this contract.
@ zackery:
I appreciate your point, and it’s a valid one — but how do you unite two factions when one wants to save their union and the other wants to cause it to fold so it will be forced to merge with their lesser union?
Or, to extend Justine’s analogy, how do you “unite” firefighters and arsonists? Their goals are diametrically opposed.
@ Foamy:
Good points, but all irrelevant if people simply accept the reasonable fairness of “if an endlessly-resellable product makes money, those involved in creating it get a percentage every time, period”.
That way, if the studio makes money, the creatives make money. No money, then no cut. It’s hard to argue with the logic of that position.
BRAVO JUSTIN! I SUPPORT YOU 100%. THE SAG MEMBERS QUIT ON THEMSELVES! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! EVERYONE WHO VOTED YES ARE SO BENT OVER THEY CAN NOW KISS THEIR OWN ASSES AND THEIR FUTURES GOOD-BYE!
I have never understood the intense passion of sheep. I refer, of course, to the people Justine references, who see themselves as gutsy moderates, balancing the MF lunatic fringe. What utter nonsense. Take less, “keep working,” be more compliant, make nice, and, where are we? Lost. Is there anyone out there who believes SAG has NOT emerged from this past year, an industry joke? Weak, divided, unwilling to fight against the worst contract in the history of the union, hands down. The only message suits take away from that is, Christ, what gutless fools.
We needed to rally, we needed to show strength, solidarity and pride: in ourselves, in our value, our self-worth. Instead, we blew it, just as Justine said, and it will be hell getting out from under now. Every day brings a new revelation about new media, and the 78%-ers blindly stumble around, making passionate excuses as to why it wasn’t the right time, or we didn’t have enough information, or whatever. 2011? Good luck.
I never agreed with calling AFTRA a “scumbag union” as an elected officer of SAG, but SAG just lost a person with the balls to tell it like it is. The exodus of people like Justine, and the emergence of sheep like Vaughn, Arkin, Brenemann, Reed, along with the usuals suspects: Masur, Cromwell, Aquino, Freed, Hodge, Farrell?
As Lincoln said to McClellan “if you are not going to use your army, do you mind if I borrow it for a while?”
There is no working with these people. War. Wipe ‘em out, and take back the union, and go get our rights back. Otherwise, forget it sheeple. It’s over
Justine speaks the truth.
Those of you who didn’t see this coming, and don’t see what is going to come down in 2011 deserve exactly what you get… which will be nothing…
Take care, Justine!
Good job.
Why comparisons between Justine Bateman and Sarah Palin don’t work:
1. Palin was elected to a paid government position, while Bateman was elected to a volunteer union position
2. Palin’s reasons for resigning are subject to much justifiable scrutiny, given her previously-expressed political ambitions and the possibly of a federal indictment or two, while Bateman is more likely to focus more of her time on her new media fm78.com venture
3. Palin is – for the next few weeks – the chief executive of a state, while Bateman is one of how many national board members of a union???
Clearly, commenters here comparing Bateman to Palin did so to unfairly slime Bateman – and by extension, Membership First – to their own ends.
Hey..Comment by nuther actor — July 4, 2009 @ 10:25 am
You are naive if you think name calling and insults
aren’t spit out left and right in those meetings,
towards you, me and everybody, TRUST ME, they are. So, re-think that “classy” remark. Justine said it in a public forum that’s the only difference.
To Comment by ClearingStuffUp — July 3, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Who cares for the ‘millionth’ time what WGA and/or DGA
signed. That’s THEIR union and they can do what they
think is best for THEIR union. SAG is supposed to be
stronger in numbers and power and exposure, and was LAST to negotiate, it had more leverage than writers
or directors will ever have, and it blew it.
To all the IATSE and actors comments/blame for lack of work because of this…that’s the UNCERTAIN business you signed up for WITH OR WITHOUT negotiating tactics and/or ‘economy’ BS.
Ohhh Justine. You are living in the clouded parallel universe of someone who grew up working steadily and never having to worry about Union membership struggles. (And obviously that on-set tutor didn’t teach you the difference between “alluded” and “eluded.”) This public letter of misguided vitriol does nothing to improve relations, further the causes you claim to represent nor keep my respect for you. Good luck in your future endeavours and I strongly agree with the sentiment that you should get out of show business. All you know is “show,” but no “business.”
Gee how come Hollywood’s humanitarian mega rich-superstars like Clooney, Hanks, Howard, Streisand, Aniston, etc ad puke are not eagerly spreading their great wealth around to all the little people like their dear leader promises they will do?
What Hollywood’s ELITES are doing to the Hollywood WORKERS is the same as what our Government Elites are doing to the American People.
Try freedom, strike against the unions elites
The dispute regarding the contract has been beneficial for so many actors – a place to vent their rage about their own careers. Someone has done them wrong or has the career they should have is pouring out in every post made.
@ mheister:
Well, there’s also the fact that Palin is so stupid she actually believes HUMANS AND DINOSAURS CO-EXISTED.
Say what you will about Justine, but she’s about a million times smarter than someone who believes that.
What a loss for SAG! Good riddance!
Didn’t Justine write an open letter the night of the vote about how it didn’t matter– she didn’t care either way what happened because she’s cracked the code on internet self distribution? Maybe I have her confused with someone else, but I thought this was what she wrote so it’s a little annoying to hear her scold the membership now.
Only time will tell as far as what will result from this contract. I do agree with many here, though, that the A-listers like Clooney and Hanks are what really killed SAG’s fighting chance. Especially since they came out against union action before the negotiations even officially started– it’s really made me feel badly about those guys (and I loved Clooney) and I’ll be thinking twice before watching them in anything.
Grammar and political affiliation aside, you can absolutely taste the frustration Ms. Bateman felt (and feels) by working inside this vacuum. Good intentions aren’t getting the job done – antipathy, ego and ulterior motives is, and it’s palpable.
She may be one of those “militant” MF-ers, but she knew right from wrong and fought for it as long as she could. And she tired of running up against a brick wall of insouciance when it came to fighting for what SAG is (supposed to be) all about; dealing with a scared, lazy and apathetic membership, a National Board with ulterior motives and too much (ill-gotten) power, and the guild being overrun with mysteriously- and barely-legal moves (which nobody is making an effort to argue). Wouldn’t any of us get fed up with all of that eventually?
The fix is in. And you SAG members voted (or didn’t make the effort) for it.
Justine has experience, intelligence AND wit. Sarah Palin only has wit. The comparisons don’t hold up, so give ‘em a rest.
And Justine — speak up — whether we agree or not, it’s what we all hope our children will one day do.
@Luzid
There’s a problem with that logic in that the partners don’t share an equivalent risk/reward profile. Under a minimums + residual scheme, creatives essentially have no downside whereas producers do.
(Lost somewhere in this is that minimums ARE residuals in lump sum form – in theory, fees are the appropriate proportion of expected future revenues)
Studios haven’t exactly done themselves any favors with dodgy accounting and work practices, so it’s certainly understandable for unions to want aggressive policies to try and counteract this. But the fundamental fact is that if you want to transfer all the risk to the other party, you’re going to have to compensate them for it. There needs to be a decision between guaranteed income and participation in upside, if you try and grab both producers are just going to react by dumping risky projects from their portfolios – which not only reduces work available but stifles creative expression.
My personal instinct (although I don’t think it’s terribly politically viable) is to have a call option written into the contract so that creatives can buy into the upside if they so wish (the key word here is “buy”, you’d be forgoing part of your fees if you exercised the option). This would not only allow access to residuals, but also be useful for producers – if you have a project where the creatives all wish to exercise their options, you can be fairly certain you’re on to a winner even before test screenings, and use that information to push for stronger marketing.
But “We get paid before you get paid AND if you get paid”? I don’t like producers much, but I don’t think you’d accept that if you were a producer either.
syn,
It isn’t the union elites who are destroying the middle class actor, nickel and “dime”ing the crew, and forgetting to pay the writers. It is the colluding corporate owners. You might want to read again the post by formerIA.
Sure some of this is because the more powerful actors took so much money up front that the actual producers had to take production to anywhere with a decent exchange rate. But most is this idea that you shouldn’t have to pay the people who actually produce something. Only those who shuffle the money around deserve to be compensated generously and extravagantly.
Working life in America has become scraping for pennies because people like you bought the idea that a few corrupt union leaders was a reason to scrap the one thing that gave workers power in the fight to be paid fairly, work in safe conditions, and have protections – the right to negotiate as a group for a contract and actually hold up work if they weren’t being negotiated with fairly.
Wake up and look at the figures – Working America hasn’t gotten a raise in three decades while productivity was rising at a nice clip . Wake up and look at what the people who are doing well are doing. They are making deals to pay each other astronomical amounts whether they do good work, screw up, or die. Or they are busy finding new ways to sell gambling instruments, sometimes fraudulently, things like stocks and CDOs. In the meanwhile they cry poverty, say that workers don’t understand, hide profits, or just flat out thumb their nose and outsource.
It is not the union elite that are the real problem…it is the attitude that unions are the enemy. No corporation, or group of corporations, should walk into a negotiation with the idea of breaking a union. Unfortunately, because too many people don’t realize that they have weekends, holidays, overtime because of unions – that those improvements in life were started and fought for by unions – we have lost the legal backing that levels the playing field in negotiations. And people backed the corporate politicians that have systematically stripped away those laws because an actor and a lot of very good propagandists sold them snake oil.
While Producers like Hanks and Clooney used their union ties to misguide the union, they weren’t acting as union elites. They were acting as producers and corporate tools.
Get it straight.
Oh, and before it keeps being rewritten – Aftra walked away from joint negotiations using a patently absurd excuse in order to negotiate a separate agreement to undercut SAG and get that kind of easy money rather then organize and support the biggest part of their union – the broadcasters. And the problem isn’t union elite – it is corrupt union management that has no fear of answering to their membership because they have successfully avoided doing their job by playing one side of their union against another. I’m not SAG or AFTRA, and have no problem saying that any actor who doesn’t get that AFTRA is screwing them is the type of mark con men dream about. They are scumbags.
I agree with Syn on the “Hollywood elites” point, and one need look no further than your SAG dues statement to find plenty to fume about. My $26,000 in SAG earnings last year results in a dues assessment of 1.85%, yet had I made over $200,000 I would have been assessed at only 0.50%, and if I made $500,000 or more, the percentage drops to 0.25%! What is THAT? I’m no math major, but it seems to me that if we started asking the “stars” to simply fall in line with what the rest of us grunts are contributing, our health insurance (at least) wouldn’t have plummeted in quality in the way I’ve witnessed since first qualifying a decade ago. If the IRS suddenly flipped and instituted a regressive tax, there would be rioting in the streets, and rightfully so. So why do we, the actors in the trenches, stand for it?
@ Foamy:
Without creatives, there wouldn’t be a product at all. So saying they shouldn’t get a percentage of the profits their work help create is patently absurd — and extremely selfish.
So funny that people are saying the Sarah Palin comparisons ‘don’t add up’
Of course they do! No one is saying they are carbon copies. People are merely pointing out that these two people WITHOUT any leadership qualities are proving that point by QUITTING their LEADERSHIP posts before their term is up.
That’s the new “if ya can’t beat em, run away from em” attitude.
The membership spoke CLEARLY in the last election. We no longer want looney-tunes running our union. Justine, in her best Wiley Coyote character has been waiting for AFTRA to walk around the corner so she could drop an ANVIL on it’s head.
And again, I would love it if all looney-tunes resigned from SAG.
(P.S. Love how Justine is PRODUCING a webseries after SCREAMING about new-media and PRODUCERS!
th-th-th-THATS ALL FOLKS!
to FOAMY….
first person to point out the obvious analysis of the residuals formula. THANK YOU. If we want residuals we must make do with lower fees, if we don’t want them we should get higher fees to be “bought out” if you will. It immediately puts everyone on the same risk/reward playing field.
Boo fuckin’ hoo. Buh bye. NEXT!
Foamy,
You have two mistaken ideas, afaik.
You might have a point for an occasional independent or individual producer, but for corporate ‘Producers’ that hasn’t been the case for a long time.
Most of the producers aren’t putting up their own money. They have financial deals that leave them with no skin in the game. If the production does well, they make more money. If it doesn’t they haven’t lost anything.
The other is the assumption that the current minimums aren’t already artificially low because of the residual structure. That current minimums wouldn’t have to be doubled or tripled or even quadrupled for a buy out figure. Residuals are part of the compensation for the production being able to continue to sell the workers work product over and over. That is part of the structure. The minimum pays for the first use (showing or run). Everything after that should be compensated in some manner. Too many comparisons statements about business don’t get that this is different. If your business is windows, you make a window for every one you sell. If you make film or television you make it once. You sell the same movie or episode over and over, packaging being the only real production expense. In that scenario (just as with books or music), the creative work of the product IS the product. And just as the novelist is paid for the book sales, the musician is paid for the record sales, the people who make the film or the episode must be compensated for the continuing sales of their work.
One could say that in your share the risk scenario, the SAG proposal for new media was the most fair. The percentage would compensate actors more or less depending on the popularity and the sales of the product. Whereas the Production offer isn’t about sharing the risk it is about not paying for their work product. The thing that is ironic about it, is that they are trying to do to the workers of the industry the very thing they berate about piracy (you know the things that have ads produced about how it hurts the people who work in the industry). The only difference is they want to do it legally.
@ Luzid:
So with that logic, you should share the losses as well if your creative product sucks. How about you put half your upfront fee in escrow? I don’t think that you would like that…
It is all risk and reward.
Dear Risk and Reward,
Quit keeping two sets of books and I’ll gladly put my fee in escrow…
Risk and Reward only works when Everything’s On the Table!
Union and proud nailed it.
Bateman is 1000% coerrect!!!
I couldn’t agree more with her… AFTRA the scumbag union that it is screws SAG every chance they get!
unfortunatley SAG is to afraid to stand up to AFTRA scum..
I am sorry to see her go. I wish she would come back!
@Union and Proud
Excellent points (and, personally, this is the best articulated discussion I’ve seen or heard on the economic theory behind the contract negotiations since… ever).
I would put forward that union contracts can’t solely be based around “corporate” producers any more than they should be based around Tom Hanks or Danny DeVito on the acting side. Not everyone is a headliner, not everyone is a corporate shill with no skin in the game. (I’d also like to believe that even corporate shills are responsible to their financiers and so would be driven by market behavior, but the cynic in me says it’s extraordinarily easy to fail upwards in this industry)
I’ve never entirely been convinced by the “minimums are artificially low and average residuals bring it up to the market equilibrium” argument for two reasons.
The first is that there’s next to zero market pricing information going on. While unions have done great things in terms of balancing the playing field with the corporate giants they’ve done so at the cost of establishing an effective market monopoly, and so pricing information has to be inferred rather than taken directly. Given the anecdotal evidence of the slowdown in the industry and the (again anecdotal) high proportion of people who aren’t working, econ 101 says that pricing is too high and the two solutions are either to lower pricing or some of the out-of-work actors/writers etc. should move to other industries. Neither of which are terribly palatable for creatives.
The second reason is that residual formulas are focused on grosses rather than profits. As I’ve said before, given the history of dodgy accounting practices this is understandable from the creative side, but from the production side it makes it perversely more difficult to turn a profit. Throw in an extra couple of million on post-production? (dear lord I wish it was that easy…) Congratulations, now you not only have to make that back, but also the proportion of residuals you owe to creatives for the “extra” revenue used to pay off the post-production costs.
Yes, the movie making industry IS different which is why most comparisons fail (I see your “you make a window once” analogy and raise you a “coders write once too”… which is itself not that accurate either). However, a lot of the arguments have been put forward as ad hoc solutions to current conditions but don’t make sense from a first-principles perspective.
I’m not saying that AMPTP were “right” (dear god am I not saying that…), but (getting back to the original topic) working out a viable solution that not only benefits the union but the industry as a whole requires a lot more than just passion. I think much of the leadership could learn from Union and Proud in considering issues and developing reasoned arguments rather than just espousing talking points – anyone who gives blank looks when business or economic theory is brought up should be voted out at the next possible opportunity.