Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role …
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ …
Warner Bros Tells Space Story, From The Bra Designers Who …
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner As …
Hot Trailer: ‘Don Jon’
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry …
UPDATE: Toronto Lands World Premiere Of Godfrey …
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ …
CBS Reups Tony Awards Through 2018
HBO, FX Lead Critics’ Choice TV Awards — But …
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and …
Cannes: Lionsgate Acquires U.S. On Guillaume Canet’s …
Cannes: Radius-TWC Buys Keanu Reeves’ Helming Debut …
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath …
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By …
Fox Acquires ‘Narc’; Zac Efron Attached To Play …
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production …
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults …
Mike Lobell Adds Cast To ‘Eisner,’ Plots …
Sony Shares Rise On Report That It Will Consider …
The SAG-AFTRA anti-merger camp has set up its own website: http://www.sagaftraminorityreport.com/. This is because SAG leadership won’t let the anti-merger group post on the official Screen Actors Guild website or on the SAG-AFTRA pro-merger website http://www.sagaftra.org/. Naturally there are dueling videos: anti-merger SAG National Board member and movie actor Ed Harris vs pro-merger TV actors from Modern Family, for instance:
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ... Loading ...
So, on the anti-merger side we have an eloquent and thoughtful appeal for circumspection in regard to what could possibly be a momentous shift of power within the industry, delivered by an eminent movie star.
On the pro-merger side we have a clarinet solo under some wonderful TV actors telling us that they’re already part of SAG-AFTRA, parroting “One Union, One Voice”, and saying absolutely nothing of substance (besides plugging their show).
Actors make me sad. We probably don’t deserve a strong union, because most of us are idiots.
I am an actor. SAG member for 7 years. Last March I booked a pilot, I was told it was AFTRA, I HAD to join Aftra to do it. So I pay fee’s to both unions now. Even though I was getting residuals from my previous TV show (SAG) which ended, it didn’t cover my SAG P&H, as there is a limit on the amount per episode. So as of Dec 31st I have no insurance with SAG and as I had only done the pilot with Aftra, I wasn’t eligible for their insurance either, unless I paid $4,000 and should the pilot get picked up, then all would be good. So much TV is now AFTRA, and TV is where I work most. I believe in one strong ACTING union but the producers on my show negotiated with AFTRA, do they now have more TV shows than SAG? Which is he stronger union now? How do we fix this? Unfortunately, as much as I like what Ed Harris says, I see no other way than SAG-AFTRA union.
The answer, if you listen carefully, is; One Actors Union, for Actors only. It can be done, easily. Check out the website for AGMA. One Union, One Vote, One Contract; by people who do one and only one kind of performance. That’s what we do as Actors. Don’t make this more difficult than it needs to be. Go back and listen more carefully to what Ed says. He’s a good man and a Great Artist; and he’s working for you.
Tom Bower
Tom,
AGMA is actually made up of singers, dancers, and stage managers, working in opera, choral performance, dance, and ballet. So no, AGMA is not a union made up of people who do only one type of performance. But you help the pro-merger folks make a point. If AGMA can do that, why not SAG-AFTRA? SAG-AFTRA would just be actors, hosts, and broadcasters.
Right but doing the merger poorly solves no problems, it only creates more.
That’s what we’re looking at.
I agree with the first part of what you said, MP. There simply is no substance to anything the pro-merger group is saying. There is nothing to be gained by a merger, and far far too much to lose. I am scared to death that those who are uniformed will prevail over those who are truly informed and know the true damage a merger could/will cause to thousands of us actors.
However…I’m not too happy with your name calling. I think when that happens, then even those who may want to change their mind and vote “NO”, may just vote “yes” to spite those whom they’re offended by.
We need to sincerely appeal to those who want to vote “yes”…that it’s the worst thing they could do to all us actors.
I agree 100%. But as politics as shown us time and time again, the majority of the people will choose the worst option possible and slit their own throat.
Well said.
The pro-merger side shows a total lack of engagement on the most important points in this debate. They simply refuse to acknowledge the questions. They hope we will simply forget about them by the flashing of some cutesy stars in our eyes. As if to say, “See what’s waiting for you if you join us?” It brings to mind the dynamics of a fundamentalist religious group who will not allow any light to be shed on its inner workings in order to avoid collapse under the weight of scrutiny.
Stomach turning, really.
Amy Aquino, SAG-AFTRA fearless and tireless leader said: “the building is burning, the people are screaming for help – are we going to argue about what color the hose is or whether the firetruck is from engine house 3 or 4?” These folks filing the lawsuit want us to argue about the color of the hose . . . let’s fool them and put out the fire first – and pick out hoses together later. VOTE YES – twice if you’re in both unions.
I think we do deserve a strong union; most of us are smart. The stupid ones are just louder and have our money to squander on lawsuits (and make no mistake; these outrageous suits WILL cost us).
More Slogans, more Sound Bites; no Science, no Logic, no Facts, no Nothing.
C’mon. Hoses and Fires and Screaming? Is this what gives you confidence? Showboating, Comedy, all Fun and Games; but this is Real Life with peoples Livelihood at stake
Dear Smart Actor:
I consider myself a smart actor, too. I certainly don’t consider myself a stupid one, nor do find Ed Harris, Martin Sheen, or any number of others to be stupid.
I am not an expert on the merger issues. I have tried to educate myself, but – with two sides screaming contradictory messages, each claiming the other’s facts are lies – it can be difficult. What I do notice is a gaping chasm of detail in regard to very serious issues pertaining to the merger. Vast swaths of urgent matter “to be decided upon later,” after irreversible choices have already been made. I am not comforted at all by analogies about hoses, and colors – especially when they contradict themselves by suggesting fires should be extinguished before hoses are chosen. It occurs to me that that is exactly what this semi-planned, semi-studied merger is attempting to do: to accomplish a serious task, without having carefully chosen the best implements. The aspects of the proposed merger I have been able to familiarize myself with – because they have actually been negotiated – seem to put forth terrible terms for SAG actors in the post merger era. I do think having one union for film and video performers is a good idea. I do not think this deal, as negotiated, is good.
So, since I’m actually not in a burning building, I think the best thing to do is to do more work, and work toward a better deal. I do not think this makes me stupid. Quite the opposite. From my perspective, a more apt analogy then Ms. Aquino’s might be “jumping from a building you believe is burning, because someone told you it’s burning, because no one thoroughly investigated whether there are other escape routes, and no one could agree on which hoses to use put out potential fires, even though no one checked to see whether the jump was survivable, and no one actually demonstrated convincingly that the building was burning in the first place.” But – again, from my perspective – it seems that those who urge a merger right now, immediately, are the ones who are acting that particular analogy out.
You are so correct. If this doesn’t make you want to vote “NO” then we are doomed! Vote “NO”!
It seems to me that a merger in theory represents more clout. But it’s possible it will do just the same with conglomerates providing a much more efficient model to hit over the head with a shovel. Couldn’t TV reporters hold up film or TV production because they demand residuals for news pieces? As a hypothetical I mean. Plus it further blurs the line between news and entertainment in a way, shoring up that blurred line from the opposite side of any camera or microphone – not good.
You are absolute correct, and : More separation and Division amongst all the Job Groups and Job Categories that the Employers are chomping at the bit to Divide and Conquer us with; as they do now with Contracts that are not Co-Terminus, do not start and expire at the same time. So we never truly unite amongst the many Groups in AFTRA, any more than we can Unite with DGA or WGA. We can at least unify amongst ourselves as Actors only.
VOTE NO on the merger ! before voting please become as informed as possible and be open to the reasons & logic of the anti-merger opposition. for those in favor of the merger – as it stands now – ask yourself and others – why do you want broadcasters, radio disc jockeys and journalists to have any say in the contracts and union issues of ACTORS ? these are not the same professions !
that would like teaches union allowing the janitors to have a say in their decisions – they both make work in the same school but they do not have each others interests in mind – it’s apple and oranges. The issues of P & H, wages and everything else are all so important as well – and where is the reasoning to move forward without a full study being completed ?
As Ed Harris states in the video – the true solution is not a merger but a removal of actors from the AFTRA membership – doesn’t that sound more logical ??? the Pro-merger actors (love their acting & their shows) but they don’t seemed informed or really care enough to express their personal reasons for supporting a merger – and if they are full informed – did they not have enough time on their long breaks between takes on the set ??
ask questions – get informed & then ask follow up questions !
Listen to your friend Ed. He knows what he is talking about.
I am voting NO, and as much as I am thankful for this Ed Harris video, I feel he and the others behind it could have done a better job. His argument would have been more effective had he known his lines and not kept looking at the paper off camera. It seriously lessened it’s impact – making him seem unsure of what he was saying as opposed to DAMN SURE. I can’t believe they didn’t ask him to do it again and speak more forcefully and assuredly.
Small quibble I know…and in the end, we’e blessed that he did this. I truly hope others will hear what he has to say and that all of us vote “NO”.
You’re right about this, but this information is so critically precise, truly is; and no one has ever nailed the precision of the information so exactly. So, be thankful for getting what you need to know, maybe a little over the importance of performance aesthetics; just this one time. If you want to see a great performance with ‘all the lines memorized’; check out Ed and others in “The Jacksonian”; at the Geffen; between now and the 25th of March. Incredible.
And with all that squirming in his seat, he might want to take a piss (or blow a fart) BEFORE the camera starts rolling. If this were an audition, it would be, “Thank you, NEXT.”
one – a thoughtful, measured perspective challenging the efficacy of merging with another entity who has only weakened your negotiating leverage in the past 4 years.
the other – a frivolous, trite iphone video with not one ounce of substance (but with the saxophone from Midnight in Paris). At the very least, they could have used the new Action Movie App to spice it up a little.
The actors from Modern Family should be ashamed. When your residual checks in 10 years are much smaller than you thought, please remember this moment.
That does it. The anti-merger website not only provides a compelling argument, it shows me that the opponents to the merger are serious and buttoned-up. I’ve been waffling. Now not so much. I’ll vote to oppose the merger.
Over at the Pro-Merger website Ken Howard, Roberta Reardon and their cronies claim in their flash over substance video that a SAG-AFTRA merger will “increase our power” in that our “Bargaining Strength” hinges on all actors negotiating together.
Until AFTRA’s Reardon went to bed with producers in 2008, SAG and AFTRA had a 27-YEAR HISTORY OF JOINT BARGAINING– all actors DID negotiate together FOR 27 YEARS!
Reardon changed all that by denying actors the power to negotiate together in her refusal to bargain jointly with SAG, instead signing a sub-standard deal between AFTRA alone and the AMPTP. She made the back door deal and completely undermined SAG’s and actually every actor’s ability to leverage a decent deal with the AMPTP.
Now, SUDDENLY Reardon thinks bargaining together is the right thing to do? NOW, Howard thinks our best bet is to bargain together? We bargained together for 27 years until Howard’s “Unite for Strength” factions in AFTRA and SAG decided it was a bad idea and delivered to us the worst contract in SAG’s history.
Now, without a single fact as to how AFTRA’s nearly bankrupt pension and health plans will impact SAG actors’ hard-won and solvent pension and health plans, Howard expects us to vote yes because we trust him and Reardon?
They have done nothing trustworthy. The got us the worst contract in history. All of us middle class actors are making less money than we ever have as a RESULT of the shenanigans of Reardon and Howard.
Please, let’s don’t forget this folks. Reardon refused to bargain together and has almost killed our earning potential. And now she and Howard are masking their diabolical plan to bargain separately in 2008 only to come back in 2012 and say we need solidarity?
These people don’t understand what the word “solidarity” means because they only got as far as ‘selfish” in the dictionary and decided that works best for them. And that selfishness goes for their fellow merger supporters like Producer Clooney and Producer Hanks. Those millionaire producers built their homes in Malibu partially with with money they talked middle class actors out of when they endorsed that horrible 2008 contract. Clooney and Hanks don’t work for scale and they don’t rely on SAG’s health and pension plans. They get their up front money and their back end money as producers. Producers would prefer the rank and file actors make less.
If you’re making less money than you used to, blame Howard & Reardon. And remember it was Clooney and Hanks that talked you into the contract that is killing you. If you let them fool you a second time by convincing you to vote for this merger plan with no facts as to what the plan will look like, then remember “fool me twice, shame on me.”
These two videos show the difference between the two thoughts:
One voice of a thoughtful Ed Harris (great film actor) laying out the problems with the merger, and a group of (great lucky actors) on a hit TV series who don’t address the issues and are relying on their popularity to sway the vote of a membership whom I hope are not stupid enough to think that just because a group of hit series actors (and it’s a great show) say Merge, that this will sway them into not reading the documents and realizing that merger will not solve the problems actors have:
1. split contributions will remain split; Health and Pension remain the same. SPLIT
2. cable broadcasters will continue to work non-union (CNN,MSNBC,FOX, etc….);
3.Staff will continue to have a higher pension accrual rate (3.5% vs 2.0% for actors);
4. Board members can now be paid for their service (out of our dues)
5. Pension and Health Plans will continue, without merging, because no feasibility study and no impact study has been done, so nothing will change…Nothing…Isn’t that why actors want to merge?
Management has said that they won’t do a Report until the unions are merged; isn’t that enough reason to make you doubt merging? They want us to merger and then they will have us hog-tied.
The huge lie is that “We will be stronger” – How? SAG and Aftra have been negotiating under Phase 1 since 1981, (except when Aftra went it alone in 2008 and undercut SAG in the
Basic cable TV/Theatrical negotiations); but they came back in the last contract negotiations and bargained again under Phase 1 and continued the “go along to get along” philosophy that SAG bought into. That was the worst contract SAG ever accepted. Because they had Aftra threatening another rape of their domain.
If you buy into a bunch of silly sit-com actors goofing around as opposed to a down to earth film actor telling you the difference between philosophies, then, there you have it.
BTW – those sitcom actors are making tons of money; the guest stars and day players are getting scale. They don’t give a s^$t about them. They are looking out for themselves, and who can blame them? It’s every man for himself, right? God bless them that they got lucky to be chosen to to a hit show, but what about their brothers and sisters? To be so cavalier in saying that merger is the answer belies their ignorance of the problem.
Until the Trustees of the P&H&H Pans can do an Actuary, to let SAG members know what will happen to the Plans, it is insanity to vote for Merger.
Merger right now, if it passes, will be a headline in the papers, and that is all; nothing will change! It’s an ego trip.
Contubutions will still be split, which is why most actors working SAG and Aftra jobs want the merger. They have been led to believe that merging will bring it all together. It will NOT!
Merging is in name only, and BTW Staff will be kept without one job lost – we will have two NED’s (pay at $400K/year) on down.
And, by the way, if you’re curious what will become of your health and pension, or if SAG and AFTRA’s health and pension funds will be combined or how they will be distributed between Union actors and AFTRA’s non-union TV broadcasters (whose non-union employers are not contributing to the funds), go the pro-merger website’s FAQ page.
If you read slowly you’ll see what becomes of your health and pension fund will be the result of a decision made sometime in the future by “bargaining parties” or “each Plan’s Board of Trustees”. Neither of those entities are “the membership,” meaning you as an actor will not have any direct say in those decisions the way this current merger is planned.
You’re being set up to take a fall. Here’s what pro-merger supporters think is an answer to a question about “change in the way health and pension operate” copied from pro-merger website. It’s not really an answer at all:
“Any change in the way the pension and health plans operate, including a combination of the plans or creation of a new plan for all covered participants, would require further agreement by the bargaining parties or by each Plan’s Board of Trustees, or by both.”
If we don’t know what will happen to out benefits then why would we vote for this merger? Because Alec Baldwin endorses it?
After this merger, we will merge with Actor’s Equity and the musician’s union. All performers should be under one union. The no faction in SAG are living in the past — and the past tries to control the future.
Vote YES!
The specificity, cogency, and applicability of the two posts above yours (“in the know,” and “zackery,” in case others past later between), contrast quite favorably with your rather empty cheerleading. If I read yours and ask, “Why?”, I’m left to think, “because RHW says ‘the past tries to live in the future.’” If I read their posts and ask, “Why not?”, I have a dozen or more good reasons.
It’s amusing that all the comments above you have been about the complete lack of substance in the “yes” faction. And then here you are, doing exactly that.
You said absolutely nothing.
Evan H (Handler) wrote an entire post at the beginning of these comments as to why Amy Aquino’s analogy of a burning building was absurd, and listed quite a few reasons why he is going to vote no…pay attention before you criticize, “Actor”.
I really hope you were being sarcastic. First, do you really think that SAG or even SAG-AFTRA would merge with the AFM? Why? What purpose would that serve for anyone? Plus, AFM is a very well intentioned group, but notoriously weak union in Hollywood.
I’m not sure if I can even take your comment seriously.
And another thing: TV/theatrical contract doesn’t expire until 2014- so contracts will remain the same. NOthing changes with merger….NOthing.,
So how about taking the next year and doing an Independent Study/Actuary of the merging of SAG and Aftra P&H&R Plans to see if it is wise?
Otherwise, why merge? Because otherwise Aftra oould once again undercut SAG contracts? Is that the solutuion? Marry the rapist? (I am refereing to the Afghan family who made their daughter marry her rapist to absolve the shame the family felt when their daughter was raped.)
Strong analogy, I know, but fiting. SAG is willing to do business with/and merge with an entity who has proven itself willing to crush SAG at every turn in order to get what it needs to survive.
Perhaps not rape; Imperialism.
And we don’t have an alternative? Another way? A choice to keep a weak union from undercutting SAG, and throwing their own members of Aftra under the bus? (They gave away residuals, the lifeblood of actors between jobs)
The anwer:
DECERTIFICATION AND/OR A UNIT CLARIFICATION CLAIM TO THE NLRB.
….oh…and by the way….watch Modern Family.
As much as I love Modern Family, it is an AFTRA show.
Correct. It is an Aftra show. That is exactly why we need ONE union.
The cast of Modern Family will be fine. The show is a success, and re-negotiations have already taken place.
The Actors who were not well known before the show would have loved to have had a Sag agreement in place. Under the old guard, Aftra, After many years had to separate from Sag. Not because they preferred to. How many years of successful bargaining together did the two unions enjoy before Sag’s past governance made it impossible?
The membership elected intelligent people to the board. They ran on the platform of Merger. They have delivered.
Research the Actors who accomplished this. They are rank and file members like the rest of us. Sure they have celebrity support as well Ed Harris and folk not supporting the merger. See who these people are and tell me why they are rushing to form some half ass deal.
They have done great work.
Vote YES on merger.
There’s a better solution(s)…. Simply re-instate mutual bargaining of AFTRA Actors with SAG…. or have AFTRA actors vote to remove themselves from AFTRA and then have SAG take them on.
Then there’s one union, and it’s stronger and will negotiate better deals.
I’m a member of AFTRA and SAG and currently TV producer. Actors are getting ripped off at every turn by not merging. For example WB will only use AFTRA for new shows because it’s cheaper. Less TO the pension plan, less to health care and less residuals to pay.
By merging with SAG you will have more in the piggy bank for your future.
It’s a no brainer.
That was my sentiment exactly! Glad someone else noticed it too…
I would love to hear actors in their 20′s and 30′s voice their opinion on why the merger should not happen.
I totally agree. Actors are taken advantage of by studios because we are stupid. The idiots that voted in Howard will soon reap their “rewards”.
You forgot the dance stylings of Jesse Tyler Ferguson, MP. EPIC. Most actors aren’t idiots, I think. Just sellouts. They will do whatever they need to to stay in the good graces of the powerful. I understand, having run afoul of powerful people before and paying the price..but It makes me sad when I see how few people truly have any backbone, or any real understanding what’s at stake. I recently qualified for a pension. Ain’t much right now, but I hope to make it larger. I consider that an achievement in itself in an industru where most actors don’t work at all. Our leaders are fucking with our collective ability to work, through their outright treachery. Actors who support are protecting themselves short-term, killing themselves(and all of us) long-term. I don’t know about anyone else..but I’m not gonna forgive. I’ve spent 20 years of my life doing this, and there are quite a few people, it seems, that want to do everything in their power to destroy actors’ ability to make a living and have a pension at all.
I just don’t get it. I really don’t.
MP, the problem with you MembershipFirst crowd is that it’s always about “my side” vs. “your side.” You people act like children, constantly. You always want what you want and oppose any kind of compromise or olive branch to others. Why? I suspect it has more to do with wanting to maintain MF’s hold on the union than it does anything else. Dare I say, you guys are the the Tea Party of Hollywood labor politics.
You guys are the ones who weaken the union.
Here’s how unionism works: it’s all about solidarity. Solidarity gives the union strength. Therefore, it has to be democratic or it becomes a dictatorship. That means you have to RESPECT ALL SIDES, members and prospective members. Otherwise, it won’t work and you’ll weaken the actual union and any prospect of a better deal for its members.
It’s clear the majority of SAG wants to merge. Respect the majority. I don’t know why MF has a difficult time playing nice with anyone, but they do. If you want to single yourselves out on every single issue, then do so. But, at the end of the day, respect the majority.
Thank you.
In response to your comment, I think it’s important that those new to the union, or those who are not exposed to the ramifications of the merger be educated. You’ll probably agree that only a very very small percentage of actors are cognizant of what the merger means. Those opposed are doing a great job in getting the word out.
They do it in the spirit of solidarity. The majority of those who will vote want to merge, I’ll give you that. The challenge is reaching those who could care less, the majority, and letting them know what the potential damage this merger will have on their career, their pension, and their health and welfare.
How’d that solidarity work for you when aftra went out and screwed us in 2008 by going and negotiating on their own? Wouldn’t it have been nice if there was “solidarity” when MF tried to get us a good contract in 2008? But… Instead, aftra and the UFSers did all they could to undermine.
Wouldn’t having a single union prevent that ever happening again? Having two unions is what leads to the possibity that one may undercut the other, right? One union, no such possibility exists.
Look up the definition of UNION in the dictionary. Without solidarity, labor unions are worthless. You actually make the main point why: having a second competing union meant that it was easier to divide and conquer as what happened in 2008. I thought the point of this process was to make SAG stronger? I didn’t realize your position was based on personal animosity.
Maybe the accusation that you’re behaving like children wasn’t completely off the mark.
It’s too bad that the MFers are too preoccupied with their own anger/hatred to understand what the actual purpose of unionism is all about.
Janie,
You deign to lecture us about solidarity and yet you use AFTRA as an example? Is it selective memory you’re suffering from? Because you’ve shot yourself in the foot with your “gun”.
Further, you said, “Without solidarity, labor unions are worthless.” Partially true. The deeper truth is, without a “strike authorization” at the bargaining table, unions are worthless – to the membership. What’s really too bad is that you think (what was that you called them?), ‘MFers’ are ruining your Bat Mitzva. The argument isn’t about political parties within SAG, it’s about the potentially lost future of SAG, led by the Unite For Strength coalition. All of whom are AFTRA (hello!) people.
Non-UFS = no anger. No hatred. No Membership First. Just the facts. And you, ginning up the rhetoric, doesn’t cloud these issues one bit. SAG was standing for their membership back in ’08. AFTRA, led by an opportunistic Roberta Reardon, swooped in and cut off our balls when we weren’t looking. UFS backed her plan, and supports her today.
That’s what you think “solidarity” means? You are shameless. Or ignorant.
Be a dear and get some counseling, okay? And read a bit. Read about late 2007 and early 2008 with regards to SAG and AFTRA. Factual history will set you free!
Sadly, truer words were never spoken. It is regrettable for the Minority of bright and articulate professional actorrs who are being dragged down by a herd a lemmings – brainless and fearful, disastrous combination. Be brave and bold, vote NO!
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Here is a truly important decision, with numerous details that need to be examined and addressed. This deal will be a major defining change to how actors work and get paid in the industry.
One the one side you have Mr. Harris, presenting an intelligent (and brief) argument/position about the merger. And on the other video….. absolutely nothing but base pandering based on the “cute” charm and appeal of actors on a single television show. Where’s the argument for supporting this, even a basic appeal based on a specific reason or position? It’s not to be found.
It’s remarkable, really.
I agree with the “No” voters on this issue – or, on this particular merger deal, to be more precise. But I disagree on the quality of the video. Really, couldn’t Mr. Harris and his crew gotten hold of a teleprompter? Something to help him put the message across better? I don’t mean they should have made a bubbly cartoon, or anything. But people will be more or less affected by the way the message is put across.
SAG proponents of the merger don’t seem to get it. The example of the anti-merger’s website frames it perfectly. If you compare the two, it’s not hard to see what is the right thing to do. Almost all actors fall within the barely subsistence level. We need a union that protects and represents their core community, not a union that wants to branch out and dilute the services that are already escaping the working actor.
I have friends in AFTRA that are gobsmacked at the notion of why SAG wants to partner with them. It makes sense to a few. I’m not part of the few, I’m part of the many that fight to maintain a level of income that supports my health services and hopefully a pension one day. This is not the right way to go my friends.
As to Marc Baron’s “Fact number one” regarding we all “have” to work union? The producers out there, independent producers, who can’t make a movie because they don’t have the cash for a union movie, but can swing the cash for a non-union movie, cause it will cost… half? 2/3rds less – more? No minimums. No set hours. No overtime. No insurance. No craft service. No residuals. no… anything, required by union SAG work? Will dangle a pay-day in front of some name actor who is desperate for the money. That actor will be the first, and that actor will say “Hmm… 500k… solves my problems for the next 2 years.” Then, that actor will do the film.
Actors will then say “So and so is doing it.” “Really?” “Yup, it’s in the trades.” “No shit?” “No shit” “How did he justify it.” “He said ‘I am in a ‘union’ that allows an entire wing to work non-union, and I am in a union that contains a non-union culture, AFTRA, that turned a blind eye to non-union work by its ACTORS (that is a FACT) and I am supposed to pass this up, when I can keep my house if I do the job – out of deference to a MASSIVE amount of non-union allowing ‘unionism’ in this new … whatever I’m in? Well, sorry, but that bullshit hypocrisy doesn’t cut it. EVERYBODY works union, or this doesn’t work. And EVERYBODY in SAG-AFTRA does NOT work union, and actors, pre-merger in AFTRA, worked non-union ALL THE TIME WITHOUT PENALTY” Other actor pauses for a nano-second, then asks: “whose casting it?” End of our nice “non-union-allowing-union-AFTRA-that-tried-to-pretend-it-gave-a-shit-about-unionism-after-years-of-allowing-non-union-work-with-no-penalty.”
Please. Suddenly, in a business where actors will walk over dead bodies to get jobs, they go from a REAL union – SAG – to a “semi-sort-of-sometimes-if-it’s-convenient-union – SAG-AFTRA” and all the actors just let the broadcaster non-unionism and former AFTRA permissiveness slide, instead of making their nut if they are forced to? Give me a fucking break. And when SAG-AFTRA tries to, what, sue one of them, one of – let’s face it – us? Or throw one of us out of SAG-AFTRA? LAWSUIT.
What hypocrisy by the pro-merger nuts. It is a ridiculously stupid thing to do. Unionism is a bond, an often UNCOMFORTABLE bond, and honor code, as it were, where people go bankrupt because they can’t get work, but they DON’T WORK NON-UNION, because they know, once that gets them out of bankruptcy? THEY WILL NEVER WORK Union AGAIN and will be pariahs to fellow members. Stop this bullshit. Vote “no.” Decertify AFTRA to get RID of this whole problem once and for all.
IF WE VOTE “NO?” SAG. WINS. NO MATTER WHAT, SAG WINS. REMEMBER THAT. BECAUSE ACTORS GET TO CHOOSE THEIR UNION. NOT THE PRODUCERS – AND NOT THE UNIONS. IT IS FEDERAL LABOR LAW – AND IF WE VOTE NO, THEN VOTE, AS IS OUR FEDERAL RIGHT, TO CHOOSE ONE UNION TO REPRESENT US, SAG WINS, GOING AWAY. FACT. REMEMBER THAT.
Those predicting doom if we vote “NO?” ARE LYING and you can verify it for yourself. Call the Department of Labor, OR, simply read the NLRA. Calm down. If the members vote down this plan, SAG will win. One way or the other. SAG will win.
- Through an NLRB ruling, negotiation, an election –
SAG will win.
Why?
Read this paragraph of the NLRA:
“It is declared to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when they have occurred by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self- organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.”
Now go read the rest of it and rest easy.