'Where The Wild Things Are' Runs $32.4M 
Oscar Can't Always Get What He Wants 
NBC Bright Spot Of Lousy GE 3Q Earnings; 4Q … 
Oops! Vivendi May Delay 20% NBCU Sale? 
65 Nations Vie For Foreign Language Oscar 
Elle's Women In Hollywood Power List 
HOW BIG IS BIG? AEG Predicts Michael Jackson … 
Sane Debt-Reduction Move By Redstone; But … 
EXCLUSIVE: Comcast Wants NBCU Deal Done … 
Eric Bogosian, an independent candidate for SAG's New York Division, sent out this statement:
Dear New York SAG members,
It saddens me to see our union divided while we are trying to negotiate a new contract. I honestly don't understand it. I see names of good friends listed on the anti-leadership slate and I don't get it. You voted our leadership in to do a job, let them do it. Contract negotiations are never easy. But if we want a new contract, we have to let the two sides work it out. And don't believe the producers' argument.It comes down to this. Either you like residuals or you don't. Either you like have a union protect you or you don't. I've been in SAG for about 25 years now. I joined not to get work, but because I had been employed on a non-union movie in 1983 and was frightened by the dangerous work conditions, lack of adequate breaks and merciless turnarounds.
Since joining SAG, I have worked hard in a healthy environment. I've had the benefit of health care for myself and my wife. Two kids born and raised on SAG health care. I have a pension and I get residuals.
So why do I think those things being threatened? Because whether you like it or not, the internet is the future. And all film and TV will be on the Internet within the decade. And the producers don't want to pay residuals for that distribution.
That's all. You want to believe the producers and AFTRA leadership that this is a good deal? It's your option. But exhibit A is what happened to DVDs. We are still waiting for a reasonable deal on that front.
Of course we all want the two unions to unite. And we want to get along. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why AFTRA began negotiations during the SAG negotiations. Doesn't make sense. I also don't understand why prominent members of the union criticize our national negotiators publicly. What good can that do?
I am not part of a slate. I am keeping an open mind and I am ready to listen to both sides of every argument. But I don't want to mislead you, either. I feel every single one of our hard-earned union benefits will be eroded if we cave to the producers' offer right now. Patience is a virtue here. By the way, we don't need a strike. We just need to hang tough. Right now, the big studios need this contract more than we do.
Someone fought for those rights, those residuals, that health care. Someone did this for me. That's why I'm running. The union has been very, very good to me. I want to make sure it's there for future middle-class actors.
Again, I am not part of a slate. I am offering my hard work and attention to bring honesty and stubborness to these negotiations. Like I said, some of my best friends sit on the other side of the fence on all of this. I look forward to working with them toward a new, strong, healthy contract for all our members.
Loading ...
There it is SAG. That’s the ball game right there. You want a fair contract? You want iron-clad protected residuals? You want a strong P&H plan? You want to stop the AMPTP in its attempt to break our union? It’s been hard work, it’s going to be hard work, and it may take the threat of a strike, or an actual strike. But, it’s worth it. If you want to continue to have the chance to make a living as an actor, that is. Because, make no mistake, the AMPTP is doing this for a reason. They know the contract the other three unions have already signed, gives the AMPTP a very large non-union space to “experiment” and have “flexibility” to make non-union original content for the web. They’ve included a “sunset clause” that the other three unions trust will FORCE the AMPTP in three years to “revisit” and “renegotiate” the contract, once the web turns into the cash cow THEY predict it will be, and in some cases, already is (watch “voices of uncertainty” on Youtube) But, the language of the other three contracts (DGA, WGA and AFTRA) “forces” the AMPTP to actually do – NOTHING. They can say, in three years, if we give them this precedent “o.k. – we’ve “revisited” the issue. And we’ve concluded it needs no change.” If they were interested in a fair deal? We would have a contract already, one that adopted the simple percentage model: NO NON-UNION WORK ALLOWED – the AMPTP makes money on any new media project? SAG gets a percentage, and SAG makes money. The AMPTP doesn’t make money or loses money? The AMPTP has NO FIXED OBLIGATION TO SAG. Sounds entirely reasonable and fair, right? Of course it does. BECAUSE IT IS. But, the “template” the AMPTP is trying to ram down SAG member’s throats, puts us at the mercy of three other unions who DON’T have the specific needs of the middle class actor, or have CHOSEN to give in: like RESIDUALS. Actors rely for up to 50% of their income on the RESIDUALS our predecessors fought for. The DGA doesn’t rely NEARLY as much on residuals, and when they do come? It’s 1 director gets the WHOLE residual. Writers? 1,2,3 -4 tops split ONE residial. ACTORS? 30,40,50 actors split ONE residual. No comparison. AFTRA, to their discredit, has accepted this deal for one reason and one reason only: to undercut SAG and compete directly for jurisdiction – in VIOLATION of Phase 1 bargaining. AFTRA is doing what it always does – trying to build up its poor financial state and become more of a player – at SAG members expense. We need to get a fair contract first – then DEAL with AFTRA once and for all. There are 44 thousand dual card holders. Once they see SAG getting a fair contract, and they recognize that the TERRIBLE AFTRA contracts, compared to SAG, they’ve been working under for years – CAN be done away with? They can start to rally around a NEW idea, instead of “merge with AFTRA – a union that has been acting in a hostile and predatory way towards SAG and it’s members for YEARS. SAG dual card holders can start to faze out working AFTRA sub-standard contracts, and slowly, by attrition, AFTRA will become a small union representing the people it represents, and SAG will be THE ACTOR’S UNION, as it has been for 75 YEARS. Don’t give SAG away to the AMPTP OR AFTRA. SAG belongs to a proud, storied, hard fought and hard won series of predecessors who sacrificed and suffered so WE could enjoy the fruits of OUR union. Let’s PROTECT it.
Producers HATE paying residuals . It is the BANE of their existence. BUT, under the proposed SAG contract, they have worded it in such a way, that for all practical intents and purposes, residuals will decrease dramatically, and very possibly, disappear altogether as EVERYTHING originates on the web – all content (you’ll press channel 7 for ABC.com, instead of pressing channel 7 for ABC in the not too distant future. Much sooner than you think).
Don’t be fooled by either Unite For Strength or the AMPTP. Vote for Eric Bogosian and Eric Nils-Larsen ONLY (who IS Membership First) on the NY slate, and, in L.A. ,even though Eric’s going on record as saying he’s not part of a slate, vote Membership First. They ask the same questions Eric asks, and they want the same things Eric wants.
We have to be UNITED and STRONG. The tactics, behavior and actions of both AFTRA and Unite For Strength send a message of “go along get along” or outright capitulation to the AMPTP. We can’t afford that, SAG members. Literally.
Great letter from EB. I wish there was a whole slate that took that point of view.
FYI, the current negotiating committee stays in charge of the current contract negotiation, regardless of the election. That will not change.
Now, as I said before, If you think AFTRA can be beaten into submission and forced to STOP representing Actors then vote Membership First.
If you think that we need to repair the damage with AFTRA and create a UNITED FRONT against the AMPTP then vote United For Strength. THIS DOES NOT MEAN ACCEPTING THIER CONTRACT, just trying to put the united front back in place.
It’s just that simple. You decide.
Do you think we have more clout or less while we are fighting with AFTRA?
Who wins when Actors fight with Actors?
How much power does SAG have during THIS negotiation without AFTRA vs. the past negotiations?
Would SAG be in a better position if they were negotiating with AFTRA right now?
THINK! Don’t vote on FEAR. Vote what you THINK about the questions above because that’s exactly what it comes down to.
It is a good letter, but the specific thing that stands out to me is “within ten years.” This is a 3 year contract. The only reason to force the issue now is because the loss of residuals will happen in those 3 years.
Regardless of your take on the “sunset clause” (which isn’t just a promise to revisit, but also a guarantee that the next 3 years CANNOT be precedent setting), does SAG care if there is a precedent if they are going to strike? A strike is a tool to break precedent.
So, again, unless the end of all residuals is coming in the next 3 years, does it make sense to draw this line in the sand after a 100 day WGA strike?
Actors…they’re worse than democrats…they have no idea how to pull together…maybe that’s why…back in the day…they used to kill them if they didn’t like their work…hey…there’s an idea. Why don’t we all just kill one another. That should get us a good deal. Grow up, fools!
This is in response to Brian McCabe’s comment that “unless the end of all residuals is coming in the next 3 years, does it make sense to draw this line in the sand after a 100 day WGA strike?”
Logical, yes? Correct, no. In the 1980’s the WGA went on settled our strike with MASSIVE CUTS to our residuals with the “promise” to revisit in the future once the home video market took hold. That promise was never fulfilled.
Your rationale is tantamount to saying “We’ll only be mildly taken advantage of over the next three years, as distribution grows — so why strike now?”
Well, learn from the WGA mistakes — and why we just had a strike this year. If you let the AMPTP take advantage of you in a little way, it just sends the message that we’ll bend over no matter what. And in three years it becomes the argument “You’re fighting for something you never had!”
There is no such think as a “Gentleman’s Agreement” with the AMPTP — and the WGA lost hundreds of millions of dollars learning that lesson. Now with the internet at stake, do you really want to make it a multi-billion dollar lesson?
That’s why we very unhappily we on strike last fall. Not because we wanted to, but having once shared your naive view, we now know better.
Good luck to you, SAG. The WGA has your back — even as you seemingly try to stab yourself in it.
With all due respect Mr. Bogosian (and you have earned a great deal of it in my estimation) I urge you to call up your friends on the Unite4Strength slate and ask them exactly why they are running and why they are disappointed in the current SAG leadership. I think you will hear calm, rational & carefully considered positions on just the issues you raise. If you ask the same of the current SAG leadership would you hear the same? You will hear certainly get yelling and name calling, as has been demonstrated in many a Rally, “Town Hall” meeting and radio debate. One “side” in this completely unnecessary and counter-productive process has consistently resorted to misrepresentation of the other’s positions and a lot of pounding on the table. And oh how I wish there weren’t “sides” within SAG at all… but rather a unified front at the bargaining table. But here we are. Now the current SAG leadership’s stated strategy to move towards a single actors union is to try to get 44,000 dual cardholders to somehow undo legally binding AFTRA contracts? Do they understand anything about contract law? It cannot work and is just a little shocking in it’s naivete. The ONLY way out of this mess is to send those who have failed to the sidelines to calm down, and let a new team of players bring in a fresh, calm, intelligent, reasonable approach. We need to build bridges instead of blowing them up.
the negotiating committee sits at the pleasure of the Board of dirctors of SAG. If that changes, they can change the negotiating committee. Ditto for doug Alan
Bravo, Eric. Great stuff. Thank you.
He is exactly right. Dead on.
Great letter.
I wish you all well in this, but it seems that it will be very difficult to get the AMPTP to agree to give your union more than they did the others, and I would think that the other unions would be really ticked of if it did. I understand that you are all different professional people with differing needs. You certainly deserve to get paid for your work whenever it is used, but it still doesn’t seem to be very realistic to think that the studios will agree to anything more, percentage wise, than they’ve given to others. Just some thoughts. Good luck to you all in your fight.
Bogosian = Awesome
This is exactly the kind of clear-minded, level-headed perspective SAG needs at the top.
Bravo, indeed.
On the contrary, LC, the membership of the other unions will be delighted if SAG manages to improve on our contracts. The leadership of some of the other guilds may have reason to squirm, though.
A negotiating committee that is already IN negotiations does not change, regardless of the elections or whether or not the people on the negotiating committee are re-elected.
He’s got my vote.
I think the only way out of this mess is NOT to vote for either slate. Vote for individual slates and split up the factions, make people work together for actors instead of for power of political parties.
Repl..Eric Bogosian, an independent candidate
Eric this wasn’t a good post…It WAS A GREAT POST on the issue at hand and honest one at that.
Thank You and good luck we need people like you in the room.
~ Gary Watts ~
yeah – it’s a fight to the death. the death of 2 philosophies. one is going to prevail, or at least maintain a majority for a while, and then both sides will see if they were overeacting or not.
when I try to step back and reconsider u4s arguments, I see a faction that describes itself as moderate, and mf as extreme.
but I don’t see the extreme in refusing to sign a contract that allows non-union work.
I don’t see the extreme in NOT trusting the amptp. that’s just common sense.
I don’t see the extreme in calling aftra on their obvious bullshit.
I don’t see the extreme in questioning a faction that publically rejects its signture issue because they get such terrible feedback, they realize it’s a nonstarter, and then get mad when people point out that they tossed aside what formed them for political expediency.
I don’t see the extreme in the notion that it’s time to try something different in regards to aftra, and to be adult enough to understand that other way requires aggressive action to breach the existing relationship, because all empirical evidence indicates aftra drags sag down – down in wages, down in benefits, down in every way.
but, it will clarify soon. if mf wins, it’s still going to require a strike threat or a strike to get a fair deal on new media. if u4s wins, same – but in a supposedly more “moderate way.”
I truly appreciate our current leadership fighting for us now…because over the past twenty years cable has been an unknown quantity!!?? Look at our residuals there now. Now is the time to stand together. Fight now. Respect us now.
Thanks Eric.
Why is he running as an independent?
WGA Writer:
You missed my point. It’s not about a Gentleman’s Agreement. VHS deal was about precedent. This one is not because the cureall is strike. It’s strike now or strike 3 years from now. Precedent no longer applies.
Unless you are implying that the way to a better deal NOW is not thru a strike.
A strike WILL be necessary, but my question is when will it do the most good. Now, to protect a nebulous next 3 years that no one has demonstrated concretely (and at this point, I’d settle for wet concrete) will have an impact on residuals negatively?
The mistake in ‘85 is exactly the mistake being made now. Everyone got strike happy before the medium matured and when it did, no one had the stomach to do what was necessary (i.e. strike) to get the union’s piece.
we dont mean to interrupt…
…but doesnt everyone get a percentage ?
…if they’re talent rather than technicians ?
unless theyre technicians with talent ? : )
[you could insert a why in the second line…
isnt the word of the moment… share ?
the negotiating committee sits at the pleasure of the Board of dirctors of SAG. If that changes, they can change the negotiating committee. Ditto for doug Alan
Comment by kathy joosten — August 25, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
-
This comment is flat out wrong. The present Neg. Team must stay in place as per SAG rules… They can not be replaced after the election… They are there until this contract is settled…