EXCLUSIVE: I now have the official ‘Opposition Statement” (see below, or click here for the .pdf) that will be included in the official referendum package sent to members in good standing voting on the SAG-AFTRA merger. It turns
out that the draft which I posted previously is almost exactly the final 1,000-word-limit version just approved. Which means that SAG fact-checked that draft and approved it. (So don’t believe the nonsense spewed by at least one pro-merger propaganda website betting that it would “never make it through the fact check process”.) The official Opposition Statement is signed by Scott Bakula, Ed Harris, Joe d’Angerio, Anne-Marie Johnson, Elliott Gould, David Jolliffe, Valerie Harper, and Martin Sheen. The Opposition Statement explains why 12.9% of the SAG’s National Board Of Directors voted against the proposed SAG-AFTRA merger. The referendum package is being sent out on or about February 27th and ballots must be returned and results tabulated on March 30th. It will take a 60% affirmative vote within each union to pass a merger referendum. Though the ‘no’ votes weren’t enough to mandate a minority report, both SAG and AFTRA decided to let the anti-merger camp put its case directly to the memberships:
SAG ACTORS…HAVE YOU STUDIED THE IMPACT OF THIS MERGER?
IF NOT, HERE ARE CRITICAL FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW:
(Limited to the words allotted to us)SAG relies upon a “Feasibility Review.” While it concluded that a merger would be legal, no one ever doubted Mergers are legal. What about our benefits?
SAG did not request any actuarial study regarding whether a merger would be financially safe.
Why? They know, like the AFTRA Trustees, that “the merger of pension and health funds as large and divergent as the AFTRA and SAG plans raises complex and unique financial, legal and benefit issues which can only be addressed through a comprehensive analysis performed by the funds.”
Despite the express statements in Appendix I to the SAG Constitution, and Board Resolutions, no study was conducted to assess the financial impact of a merger of Pension or Health Plans.
Are your benefits safe? The SAG and AFTRA P&H&R Plans are extremely different. Consider merging these factors:
• SAG pension accrual rate: 2% of earnings: AFTRA: less than 1% of earnings.
• SAG early retirement penalty: 3% per year. AFTRA: DOUBLE: 6% per year.
• SAG Plan 2 annual premium (family of four): $1,620: AFTRA Individual Plan annual premium (family of 4): $17,260
The merger plan does not even attempt to reconcile these and other differences. Experts addressing the financial impact issues are convinced SAG members will likely suffer diminished future benefits.
Highly respected pension and health experts Brucker & Morra have concluded:
“Until a full and formal ERISA Impact Report of how to address and quantify these problems is completed, no one, not even pension experts, can intelligently evaluate or quantify the probable negative impact on the members’ pension and health benefits. The union merger is so inextricably interconnected with the plan merger that members cannot be asked to evaluate and vote on the Union Merger until issues relating to the Plan Merger have been resolved and concrete proposals formulated so the members can make informed choices.”
The issue has always been the impact on SAG member benefits, when merged with lower AFTRA benefits. If the merger of unions is approved, SAG members will never have any right to vote to protect their benefits by preventing merger of the Pension or Health Plans.
If you vote to merge the unions, you are removing a major hurdle to later merger of those plans.
Once the unions are merged, individual members will have no vote and no recourse regarding a merger of Pension and Health Plans.SPLIT EARNINGS
The merger Plan does not even address, much less solve our split earnings issues. Rather, it will codify the problem. If merger is approved, the stated plan is to CONTINUE to split your earnings, just like during the last 12 months. If the proposed merger is approved, without signatures from 15% of the approximately 158,000 members, you will have no further right to vote on this issue either.
NEW DUES STRUCTURE
If merger is approved, over 70,000 SAG-only members’ base dues will increase from $116 to $198.
BROADCASTERS – Preferential Treatment
Broadcasters in the merged union can still work NON-UNION on basic cable networks (ESPN, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, FOX NEWS, etc.), with drastically discounted dues compared to actors.
Broadcaster work dues from $0 to $100,000 will be the same as actors at 1.575%. Broadcaster work dues from $100,000 to $250,000 can be drastically discounted to .274% (and capped at $250,000) with maximum dues of $2,184.
Actors, however, will pay 1.575% on ALL earnings up to $500,000, with maximum dues almost 400% higher: $8,073.
BACKGROUND ACTORS – THREE VOUCHER SYSTEM
The much maligned and poorly regulated Three Voucher entry requirement for SAG will continue.
Merging unions does not guarantee more Background jobs. It can only result in more competition for the same covered jobs.
BLOATED BUREAUCRACY
There is no plan to streamline or eliminate duplicated services post merger. The new union will keep all 635 SAG and AFTRA employees. Nor is there a plan to equalize the existing SAG staff (3.5%) and SAG member (2%) pension accrual rates.
CONVENTION
Convention will be the highest governing body in the merged union – higher than the Board of Directors. Convention will have the authority to MERGE with more unions, set policy, control the Constitution, without giving the membership any direct vote on such matters.
8 out of 10 National officers will be CHOSEN at Convention; not by direct member vote.
The ELECTED President will be able to delegate authority to the Executive VP, also chosen by the Convention, not directly by members.
ELECTED LEADERS MAY RECEIVE PAY
The SAG Constitution prohibits paying elected officers and board members. The new union Constitution opens the door for payments, currently not permitted.
MAJORITY NO LONGER RULES
Hollywood represents the majority of SAG members, and the majority of revenue. If merged, when Hollywood has a majority, it must secure an additional 5% from other Locals, regardless of its majority vote.
Traditionally, seats on negotiating committees were based on Division/Local earnings. That would no longer be true. The President can simply choose members with National Board approval. Those earning the majority of revenue on specific contracts will no longer be
guaranteed majority say on those negotiating committees.EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
The unions have not exchanged actor contract details. We have no idea how-what-when-why AFTRA gives away residuals in made-for-basic cable shows or other concessions to management.
AGENTS
If merged, the Board, without a member vote, can alone decide whether agents can own or be owned by production entities. The SAG membership rejected the last agent agreement because of this potential conflict of interest.
NEGOTIATING STRENGTH
SAG and AFTRA have been negotiating jointly since 1981. How has that benefited SAG members? AFTRA has routinely undercut SAG interests. A merger of actors is all that is necessary. This merger merely handcuffs SAG.
CONCLUSION
The current merger plan solves almost nothing and adds too many inherent problems. Vote NO and demand that our union leaders conduct the necessary due diligence to create an agreement which will not harm actors.For more detailed information –
http://www.sagminorityreport.com/www.sagaftraminorityreport.comIn Solidarity:
Scott Bakula Ed Harris
Joe d’Angerio Anne-Marie Johnson
Elliott Gould David Jolliffe
Valerie Harper Martin Sheen
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


Scott Bakula, Ed Harris, Joe d’Angerio, Anne-Marie Johnson, Elliott Gould, David Jolliffe, Valerie Harper, and Martin Sheen from the bottom of my heart I thank you folks for your work, courage and clear thinking. We SAG actors are so indebted to all ya’ll. Thank you for not backing down. Tell the actors the deal. Enough of us will get it. We can’t let them steal our guild and futures.
I agree with Simon, thank you Scott Bakula, Ed Harris, Joe d’Angerio, Anne-Marie Johnson, Elliott Gould, David Jolliffe, Valerie Harper, and Martin Sheen, for caring about SAG members and never quitting. Thank you!
Couldn’t agree more! Thank you for standing up and not being afraid to speak the truth!
“Facts”? Really?? Fear is an easy thing to monger, and that’s what this does. And the Boards voted to include the con Statement BEFORE it was even written.
The bottom line is: We are stronger together than apart. The current model of competing unions is unsustainable, and we have to Organize the non-union work and the new employers on the horizon. Merger is the only path to a future in the business for middle class performers.
AFTRA H&R Family Coverage costs $2,928. There are intentional misrepresentations throughout, like the comparison of the current health plans. Comparing SAG’s Plans 1 + 2 to AFTRA’s Family + Individual coverage is like comparing apples to….. farm machinery, not even oranges.
SAG’s Earning requirements are 1/3 higher than AFTRA’s for the lower tier of coverage and benefits are ALWAYS subject to change and NONE of us has EVER voted on any of them!
Isn’t it amazing how lacking in nuance their ‘facts’ are???
anne, you are either misreading the opposition statement, or are confusing the different eligibility parameters in the aftra plan, or are willfully trying to obfuscate the issue. i don’t know which, so please, do not take umbrage if you are simply confused.
actually, it’s not wrong. true, the aftra health annual family premium is $2928.00, if you qualify by making $30,000 in a year .
however, the opposition statement was using the individual (with “buy-up” for family coverage) which you qualify for by making only $10,000 in a year as a base line for comparison (to the lower-tiered sag ii health plan, with appx. $15,000 earnings for qualification).
from the aftra p&h page for health premium payments:
“if you only qualify for individual coverage under the aftra health plan, you may choose to “buy up” to family coverage by paying a buy-up premium, in addition to the individual premium, each quarter.
• participant plus one dependent … $2,446 per quarter ($381 plus a buy-up premium of $2,065)
• participant plus two or more dependents … $4,315 per quarter ($381 plus a buy-up premium of $3,934)”
as you can see, a member qualifying for the individual health plan ($10,000 earnings in a year) who “buys up” family coverage for 2 or more dependents, does indeed wind up paying $17,260 per year in premiums.
it’s unfortunate that the opposition statement was not allowed enough word count to make that clear. however, the opposition statement is entirely correct in that point.
may i also point out that it’s perfectly reasonably to compare the individual earnings tier in the aftra plan ($10,000 earnings to qualify) to the sag health tier ii ($15,000 earnings to qualify), because $15,000 is a lot closer to $10,000 than it is to $30,000.
to say the two lower tiers of the two health plans are dissimilar (at least in terms of achievability) is like apples and oranges (or farm machinery) is, imo, disingenuous.
unless you’d like to point out how they are so radically different from each other (i will give you that the sag plan at $15,000 earnings is a far more comprehensive plan than aftra’s at $10,000 earnings. and i know it’s not exactly $15,000 to qualify, i believe it’s gone up to $15,100 or so.)
Gil, thank you for posting this! Even before reading this, I went to the web sites for both the SAG and AFTRA health plans. If you look under the premiums section, it says EXACTLY what was written by Harris et al. And for the record I’m not anti-merger; I’m anti-stupid decisions based on lack of info.
i feel strongly that arguing over this merger is like arguing over which phone card to use on your land line in 2002.
*FACT: I am almost 30.
*FACT: I HAVE NEVER OWNED A LAND LINE. (though it worries my grandma that the police can’t track my call for a 911 emergency) instead i have a google line (free) that connects to an old cell phone. and i have my cell phone. NONE OF MY FRIENDS HAVE EVER OWNED A LAND LINE!
*FACT: my 19 year old brother does not and will never own a cable package. he does not have a tv. he owns a computer and his intention is to buy a tv screen that he will hook up his computer to and stream his shows and movies. if it’s not available online he won’t watch it. if he can’t watch it and he really really wants to, he’ll rip it off the internet and watch it.
*FACT: my 13 year old sister will never purchase a “tv screen”. she will purchase flat computer screens that will be wirelessly connected to all her computers. they will be cheap.
*FACT: Amazon sells more ebooks than print books.
PENCILS ARE ANTIQUES.
LIBRARIES ARE OVER!
USPS IS DONE!
AND WORRYING ABOUT FILM AND TELEVISION RESIDUALS IS A JOKE! unfortunately.
By the time my brother is looking at 30 EVERYTHING will be online. merger. no merger.
It is extremely sad that so many actors have worked for so many many years in this business and now are in fear of losing their benefits. They are looking back at the rest of their careers and hoping not to get fucked as they enter the age where they sadly can’t remember or are worried they won’t remember their lines. they need health care and retirement benefits for their many years, work, and struggle in this business.
That said, I urge all actors to look progressively forward. How will we make money off the internet?!!! that is what is needed! Will this merger strengthen or weaken our united resolve to earn a living off our work as my generation and every year younger cancels their cable packages and remembers a day when you had channel #2, #4, #7, #11, and had to pay for #160, #184, #232. instead we click, fox.com, cw.com, abc.com, nbc.com, bravo.com, espn.com….
I have not heard any!!! discussion about the merger and how it effects our strength to bargain for residuals per click. The click is very very trackable. I look forward to hearing your responses.
I’m with you guys. A bad deal is a bad deal. I’m voting no.
These are ALL powerful points and worth serious consideration. Thank you to all who helped get this information out there. For me, there’s more to lose with this merger than there is to gain. I have to vote NO.
This is a supremely terrible deal that does nothing to solve the problem of split earnings or in any way makes us a stronger union. Phase One, established 30 years, was supposed to guarantee that one union never undercut another union. SAG has upheld that agreement, while AFTRA has time and time again ignored Phase One and made sweetheart deals with individual production companies.
This is not so much a merger, but rather AFTRA swallowing SAG and implanting its rules and governance on this new union where most power will rest in hands of 10 National Officers, 8 of whom will not be elected by membership, but appointed at a Convention.
For those of you in favor of the merger plan as it’s currently conceived by SAG and AFTRA Leadership, please read the opposition statement. Every word is true.
Who in their right mind could find this to be a good, or even fair, arrangement? Strength in numbers? There is only strength in numbers when all those included are willing to band together and strike, if necessary. Otherwise, where is the strength, no matter how large the numbers? Does anyone really think there’s strength in more people all saying “Please”?
this will go through….
I agree that the merger has it’s problems, but the current structure is a total travesty. We actors actually pay two separate unions to LOWER our wages (which is exactly what happened when SAG went on strike…AFTRA came in and told TV producers we actors would work for less…and now we do.) We then work all year and divide our eligibility for health care across two separate health care plans and pensions plans. We need one powerful producers union to compete with a media industry that is rapidly consolidating. If us actors are now adding newscasters and radio talent to our ranks, that is only more leverage when we go on strike next time. Next time when we strike, not only will TV shows shut down, so will CNN, MSNBC and FOX NEWS. Now that’s hitting the media conglomerates where it hurts. Let’s merge now and work out the inevitable sticky details later, before we lose a few more years to this currently embarrassing “two unions for lower wages” model.
Here’s the thing: CNN is NON UNION, so they won’t be striking with you. I don’t know about the other shops, but a quick search should give the answer. This merger does not require CNN, or any other news outlet, to become unionized. That’s why many are saying it’s a bad deal.
d.,
When commercial actors are on strike, the TV/Theatrical contract is NOT on strike. They are different contracts with a different group of employers. In this scenario, actors will NOT do commercials and actors WILL work in TV & movies at that same time. Why would you think a broadcast contract would work any differently?
Again, if we are on strike in animation, actors can go to work on the Interactive Contract (video games). That’s how it works.
“Why would you think a broadcast contract would work any differently? ”
Answer: because broadcasters (as we’ve named them) will be allowed to vote on the actors’ contract, as per this “Plan”. They’ll have an active participation in quashing any union action (“strike” or strike authorization), because actors not getting residuals in New Media won’t matter to them at all. And that’s just the way Roberta Reardon and Kim Hedgepeth want it.
The TV/Theatrical and Commercial contracts are voted on separately, respectively, which is why they would not strike together.
Get it? Please take more time looking at this “Plan” before you start sharing your misunderstanding with others.
S.A.G. rules! Voting no.
Actors if you’re tired of this leadership treating Actors like worthless imbeciles VOTE NO!! They think we are morons. Just look at the deal AFTRA/UFS accepted resulting in these horrendous tv contracts we have to work on. And don’t forget to read AFTRAs current updated health plan. You basically need to land a series regular role or have a budding commercial career to become eligible. Insanity.
If you’re on the film society then youve probably got the BIG slap in the face when you walk in the DGA theatre and see SAG AFTRA ONE UNION on the screen. This should be illegal! Right? They changed the name prior to the Q & A and before a vote. This seems to be a common behavior with this leadership. Just make decisions without allowing membership to vote. In otherwords, this leadership wants to silence actors for good and give producers the upperhand!!!!! VOTE NO!!!
Thanks for your courage and service. Another no vote here.
It’s important always to keep in mind that SAG’s pro-Merger attorneys and staff reviewed this Opposition Statement and fact-checked it.
We wouldn’t be seeing this statement in our ballot packets if the official, dues-financed Merger campaign had been able find any fault with it.
Also voting NO. Such a disgrace to ram merger down our throats without offering details on how it affects our future. A YES vote says you stand with corporations and want to marginalize the acting profession.
By voting yes, AFTRA will no longer be an open union.
If it’s voted down, watch how fast AFTRA becomes the union of choice, while SAG risks becoming a union of bitter extras.
Look who’s bitter, RHW. Whassamatter, did some vile extra grab the last raisin bagel from crafty that you had your eye on? Maybe s/he did a camera wipe, blocking your stellar performance of Henry V. Wait – I’ll bet your first union was AFTRA, wasn’t it?
And when, on God’s green earth, would AFTRA be voted as the union of choice for actors? You are delusional.
Did anyone catch those prestigious “AFTRA Awards” in January…oh wait, that was SAG.
AFTRA isn’t doing anything to help SAG…just going to increase health premiums, decrease pension accrual, make dues go up, and now they will APPOINT 8/10 National Officers (READ: “Power Leaders”). It’s not a merger, it’s an AFTRA pity fuck.
Sorry, AFTRA, but the merger proposition is not a gain for SAG. I’m voting no.
Finally! This is the MOST valuable information members need to know! I only hope there are enough independent thinkign members out there, ready to call a bad merger a bad merger and vote no.
I have a pension waiting for me…in 15 years. Call me selfish for wanting to protect the hell out of it, but there you are.
There are thousands of SAG members who, like me, are now older and aren’t working as much, who are relying on their well deserved pension to survive our elder years. THis merger is a very bad idea for those of us, and frankly I’m disgusted that Sag and Aftra would want to merge knowing full well they could potentially screw the thousands of us, who have earned every bot of our pension.
To those who want a merger…can you honestly point out how it will help you? You probably can’t…or if so its just a guess. But for me and others…it could most certainly be a tragedy.
It’s very simple. We need this merger but we also need to reconcile the p&h issue.
Do you really believe broadcasters would vote to strike for a contract that doesn’t affect them? Broadcasters contracts are separate from our contracts. It’s like you stating that you will go on strike from acting and give up your income if auto workers go on strike. Please do more research into this merger. Thanks
89% of our own SAG Board members – elected officers whom we know and work with (look ‘em up on sag(dot)org – voted “YES” on this merger. If only 76% had voted “YES” they wouldn’t have been required to send out the opposition stmt. But in their wisdom and sense of fair play to the “opposition” they are sending out.
As a working SAG member what this tell me is they’ve done their homework and are sure of the practicality and necessity of this merger. I am voting “YES” on merger.
I and my family depend on my SAG & AFTRA medical & pension plans. I don’t fear that Chicken Little will steal my pension credits in the night.
Because you live in a world with Chicken Little. I live in reality and it scares the hell out of me! Voting NO.
They are not “sending out” the opposition statement because they want to be “FAIR”, they are “including” the opposition statement because IF the merger wins approval they don’t want the anti-merger people to have any ammunition to use in the press after the vote has taken place. They want to win and they want to make it appear as if they are being “FAIR” and sincere, however this is purely a political move. They know that if they achieve the merger by only a slim margin(say 64%), then they would be called out for not including the opposition statement in the first place which would open the doors to invite in even more controversy than they are already currently embroiled in. You are certainly entitled to your opinion which I am sure you will voice with your vote, just please do not be fooled into thinking that the people and corporations behind this planned merger are trying to do the “FAIR” and or “RIGHT” thing for YOU.
I don’t really mean to support one side or another, but I think your “…this tells me they’ve done their homework and are sure…” method isn’t so sound. I think those that do their own homework might find out more about which side is distorting the truth, and which side’s motives are purer.
AGENTS
If merged, the Board, without a member vote, can alone decide whether agents can own or be owned by production entities. The SAG membership rejected the last agent agreement because of this potential conflict of interest.
As it stands now, agents have the right to own or be owned by production companies since SAG foolishly allowed the franchise agreement to expire. There is no reason for agents to ever sign that agreement again so this point was already lost and has nothing to do with the merger.
The unite for strength folks have opened a pandoras box so that they could keep working on that cushy shows with their 1% salaries. Nothing about this merger makes a bit of sense except that AFTRA with the collusion of the corporations have made themselves the go to union with the stupid created on tape rule. To merge will not give actors more strength; it will give them less, less security less jobs less health less pensions. When I hear my fellow actors saying “it’s time to merge” I ask them if they have studied the deets, and lost to a one they have been seemingly bamboozled into not securing the facts needed to educate themselves in the disastrous aspects of this merger from pension and health to dues and power. No no no no oh no u di’nt!
“O Captain! My Captain!”
Scott and I worked together on STAR TREK: Enterprise.
I have tremendous respect for him as an actor and I truly
appreciate the fact that he is standing up and fighting
against the proposed merger of SCREEN ACTORS GUILD
with A.F.T.R.A. …Mr. Bakula is a gentleman of integrity and
good character and I am thankful for his passion and leadership,
as we attempt to convince ALL ACTORS that this current proposal
is simply a bad deal for professional SCREEN ACTORS GUILD actors.
I appreciate the careful consideration the undecided folks
are giving to this important question. It is difficult to reconcile
the deep sense we all share that ‘actors should be together…’
with this completely misguided repackaging question before us now.
The unity of a group of actors brings an exciting and vibrant sensation.
Merging SCREEN ACTORS GUILD with the business called A.F.T.R.A. is a mistake.
Simply put, until such time as I am paid residuals
for the work I did as an actor on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,
I will have absolutely nothing to do with AFTRA.
I am a professional SAG actor and I will VOTE NO on merger.
As with a bad meal at a restaurant,
if I do not care for the food and the experience…
I do not return to that establishment.
AFTRA was an entirely bad experience for me
and I see no reason involve myself with them ever again.
Working with Will Smith was a real treat
and meeting MC Hammer was an experience to be sure.
Working with the actors and the director and the crew was fantastic.
Heck, between takes we played basketball on set and I made a few nice shots.
I remember when MC Hammer’s entourage broke into a rap
based loosely upon “Ice, Ice, Baby…. Vanilla Ice, Ice Baby!”
It was along the lines of “White Lies, Baby” and as the rap progressed,
Will Smith stepped in and chided the rappers saying “Nah, that’s racist, man…
that’s no good. We’re not racist. We gotta be better than that!”
Listening to the producers talk about how they probably only had
another year before their star would be too old to play the character,
and “anyway America is frightened of black males after a certain age”
and this would “probably be the last job Will will ever do.” Yeah, that was a hoot!
The ONLY bad part of my “Fresh Prince of Bel Air” experience
was dealing with AFTRA! I have two years of e-mails showing
just how poorly AFTRA represents the rights of actors.
Merging with AFTRA is a bad idea and I will VOTE NO!
NO… there is no good reason to vote yes and merge.
AFTRA continues to fail to do the job of protecting and fighting
for the rights of actors even now. Why would I support a merger
with such an organization. My personal experience dealing with AFTRA
is reason enough to VOTE NO! SAG does not need to merge with AFTRA.
This strength in numbers argument is simply preposterous!
Do the Marines need MORE to be stronger?
Did Seal Team 6 need a single additional member?
Would either be stronger and more efficient embedded with reporters?
Is that elitist? Damn straight!
Dell Yount
Professional Character Actor
Screen Actors Guild
PLEASE VOTE NO ON MERGER!!!
We stand upon the shoulders of all the actors who came before us…
actors who have REJECTED merger with A.F.T.R.A. over and over again.
Many thanks to Scott Bakula et al, but facts are always overruled by fear. Divide and conquer, Machiavelli knew it and so do the producers. I fully (and sadly) expect my “NO F*****G WAY” vote to be rendered meaningless.
No is clearly the way to go, but WE NEED TO SPREAD THE WORD. I’ve been talking to the lawyers who are dealing with the 10 million dollar fraud accusation and they say to me that this is all tied together and that we must vote NO!
I hear that the word is spreading BUT I’ve also heard that NY Actors are under-informed and want to vote YES.
Please spread the word that this is not a great deal for actors on either side. These people who are trying to get this done are Anti-Union. There is a provision in there stating that decisions (if the yes goes through) will be up to the board and not the members. Not good at all.
I’ve been trying to talk to people about this since November. I’m glad that word if finally getting out there, but we must continue to spread the word. If you have any NY actor friends please have them read this article.
What is the 10 million dollar fraud issue ?? I don’t know about it…
a YES vote makes sense on so many levels. Pension and Health concerns are Valid! You’re NOT going to lose your Pension. I am vested as well and have looked into the details. GO GO GO To SAG, GO to Aftra, do your homework people! This merger is a good thing! Vote YES.
I am absolutely voting YES. The fact that as an actor I have to pay into two separate unions is ridiculous. It makes it so much harder to reach health benefits when certain projects pay into one union and other projects pay into the other. I don’t know of any other professions that have to split amongst different unions to work in the same field. It just doesn’t make any sense. I vote YES YES YES to the merger. They have been at this merger for a long time and smart folks from both unions have not taken the task lightly. Don’t play into the fear. There should be one strong union for actors and I’m thrilled that there has been resounding support for the merger across the board.
Voting NO.
One of the underlying principles of the Union movement is the right for workers to CHOOSE THEIR UNION.
Did the cast of “Joan Of Arcadia” (the first or one of the first “AFTRA poached” shows) have a chance to vote for SAG vs AFTRA?
Hell no — they showed up to work, and found it was under an AFTRA contract.
IF the Feds ever mandated a vote for television jurisdiction — if the choice was as simple as…”Which Union’s jurisdiction do you want to work under (You must choose one)….SAG______AFTRA______?”
Does ANYONE think the result would not be 90% in favor of SAG?
This stupid merger prevents that question from being answered.
Which means our Employers get a compliant “Company Union”.
Many members, though they do not think this merger is a very good option, think that merger is the ONLY way to fix the two-union issue. Not true. But you won’t hear that from the AFTRA members who are currently running SAG. This is a HUGE conflict of interest.
Let’s just get rid of the AFTRA-affiliated SAG Board members so we can see the best way out of this – the best way for SAG members, that is.