Hot Trailer: ‘The Great Gatsby’ 
How Did Women Pilot Writers Fare For 2012? 
Disney Quits Snow White Film ‘Order Of The … 
Cannes Planning Surprise Screening Of Non-Fest Films; … 
ReelzChannel Acquires U.S. Rights To ‘Pillars’ … 
Investors Unfriend Facebook As SEC Investigates IPO … 
Cash Windfalls For WME Agents, Assistants 
A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ … 
Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynne Ramsay Team On … 
Brad Pitt Hits Cannes With ‘Killing Them … 
CNN Hits 20-Year Weekday Primetime Low 
Longtime TV Exec Rod Perth Named NATPE President & CEO 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘House’ Ends Run On High-Ish … 
Does Cable News Clarify Or Confuse The Public’s … 
Mark Burnett’s Company Launches Scripted Unit, Taps … 
‘Mary Mother Of Christ’ In Lionsgate Deal 
Icon UK Group Joins ‘The Butler’; Forest … 
HBO Developing Comedy Series Starring Catherine Keener And … 
Legendary’s Thomas Tull Among Just 3 Contenders … 
Harvey Weinstein Unveils ‘The Master’, … 
Cable Execs Warn That Dish Network’s Ad-Zapping DVR … 
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
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
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.