'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 … 
It's not even August. And SAG is still in the middle of its contract negotiations with Big Media. But already actors are coming forward to run for office in the September 18th election. (Then again, there's never a SAG vote without controversy.) But no, it's not too early. Because the nominating period closes tomorrow! Then SAG releases the official list of candidates on August 5th once the Election Committees have confirmed candidate eligibility. So today I received a statement from 31 SAG members billing themselves as "Hollywood stars" (in the subject line of the email they sent out) who say they're "alarmed by growing divisiveness" within their guild and declared themselves SAG Board candidates seeking leadership change on a "Unite For Strength" slate. (Many, if not all, were on board for the "Affected Member" attempt to limit SAG contract voting to just "working" actors which SAG's current board sent back to committee.) Here's the "Unite For Strength" statement:
Aiming to put the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) on a path toward greater unity with sister union the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), a group of 31 actors announced today that they will run in upcoming elections for seats on the SAG Board of Directors. Organized under the banner “Unite for Strength,” the group is seeking to win a majority of the national board seats allotted to Hollywood branch members. If successful, Unite for Strength would end control of the board by the “Membership First” faction, which has long maintained a hostile stance toward AFTRA.
“With the immense challenges actors face today, we need all the strength we can muster. And that means electing union leadership that is committed to uniting actors to fight for our common future,” said Ned Vaughn, a leader of the group. “We can no longer afford leaders who sow division.”
“As our current predicament makes clear, actors lose out when we face off as separate, warring camps against the media conglomerates in contract negotiations,” said Adam Arkin. “I’m concerned for future negotiations if we don’t change the leadership that has brought us to this point.”
In announcing their campaign, Unite for Strength faulted current and past board members associated with Membership First for stoking the debilitating hostility between SAG and AFTRA by:
· Threatening to terminate joint negation of the TV/Theatrical contract. (They later rescinded a planned referendum after a storm of internal criticism that doing so would weaken SAG at the bargaining table.)
· Waging a campaign of threats and insults against AFTRA. This included one Membership First-affiliated board member calling AFTRA “a scumbag union.”
· Waging a senseless, futile (and costly) campaign to defeat the contract AFTRA negotiated with the AMPTP.
· Scuttling two separate attempts (1998 & 2003) to strengthen actors’ long-term position at the bargaining table by merging SAG and AFTRA.“If we’re elected, we’ll end the senseless war against AFTRA and work to create a united front of actors to fight for more working opportunities and better jobs. We believe that will ultimately require merging the two unions, and that’s a goal we’re all pledged to pursue,” said Vaughn.
The candidates running on the Unite for Strength slate are:
Adam Arkin
Michelle Allsopp
Edoardo Ballerini
Bob Bergen
Amy Brenneman
L. Scott Caldwell
Gabrielle Carteris
William Charlton
Assaf Cohen
Ashley Crow
Tim DeKay
Fred Fein
Googy Gress
Dulé Hill
Ken Howard
Clyde Kusatsu
Matt Letscher
John Carroll Lynch
Anthony Molinari
Pamela Reed
Doug Savant
Bill Smitrovich
Richard Speight, Jr.
Mandy Steckelberg
Keith Szarabajka
Steve Tom
Stacey Travis
Ned Vaughn
Tom Verica
Marcia Wallace
Kate Walsh
Loading ...
Peter Coyote should be drafted to run for SAG President.
Well, I can see no one even wants to comment about this one.
Talk about divisive.
Right into the AMPTPs hands. The beginning of the end.
They’ve got my vote. The “Membership First – Members LAST” folks have screwed things up for long enough. I hope enough actors see through their lies and distortions to throw them out on their collective rear ends.
They’re for unity, merger, ending the war with AFTRA and returning sanity to SAG.
Thank goodness! An alternative to dumb and dumber.
WHat a bunch of Losers
Yeah!!!! Smart people just walked into the room!!!
This is brilliant! It’s time to stand up to the bullies and deal with the real issues an adult union should be dealing with like…oh yes a contract!
I recognize eight names on this so-called “Stars” list and I can find most of the others on IMDB.
When the actors who appear on the covers of national magazines speak up, then I think SAG members will listen.
I fully endorse them.
First:
“Membership First” did not “scuttle” the 2 attempts to merge with AFTRA. That is a lie. At the time, “Membership First” was a small group of actors who, with little money, came out against merger as not in SAG’s long term interest. Against a multi-million dollar campaign waged with SAG members dues money to force merger down SAG’s throat, the MEMBERSHIP, not “Membership First,” voted down merger. TWICE. I am sick of hearing “well, they only won by 2%, blah, blah, blah” – this was a HUGE push by the PRESIDENT of SAG, with unprecedented use of members dues money, and, not once, but TWICE, the MEMBERSHIP of SAG listened to the debate, and ACCORDING TO SAG RULES, voted the measure down. This portrayal of Membership First as somehow tampering with the vote or otherwise using nefarious means to win the day is an lie, plain and simple.
The current “concerns” of the group calling itself “United For Strength” are to:
1.Deprive the vote to ALL SAG members. We know best, we’re “Hollywood stars” (did I READ that right?!) according to their own words to Nikki, and they believe only actors who meet what they consider an acceptable criteria should be able to vote. This comes out of their belief that the merger votes were undone by SAG members whose opinions and votes shouldn’t matter. I can’t think of anything more undemocratic and wrong than that point of view. How about only “working Americans” get to vote for President? How about only “wealthy white landowners?” You see where this goes. It is both ignorant of the tenets of democracy and arrogant in the extreme.
2. They actually have the gall to portray the current leadership of SAG as the bad guy in the AFTRA feud, when Roberta Reardon, the President of AFTRA, LIED to Alan Rosenberg, the President of SAG, when she assured Alan in April that she would “bargain together with SAG” as AFTRA had done for the past 28 years. It’s one thing to suggest there was condescension from one group to another, it’s entirely different to LIE, one President, Roberta Reardon of AFTRA, to another, Alan Rosenberg of SAG, and then run into the willing arms of the AMPTP, who were salivating for just such an incredible lack of judgment, giving them a perfect opportunity to use a powerful tactic AFTRA NEVER should have allowed the AMPTP to have: “divide and conquer.” SAG’s current predicament was CAUSED by AFTRA – not the other way around. To portray it as somehow SAG’s fault is, again, a LIE.
3. I assume that the “Unite for Strength” group finds the current SAG leaderships contract proposals too “hard line.” They want to be more accommodating of the AMPTP.
What are SAG’s proposals that are so “hard line?” Let’s see:
a. keep force majeure a collective right as we’ve always had, not an individual one, as the AMPTP now demands.
b. Protect the SAG actor from a suit approaching them on set and saying “we’d like you to wear this Microsoft T-shirt through the whole movie for no apparent reason, so we get the 7 million dollars Microsoft is contributing to the budget of this film. No? Gee, that’s too bad. You’re fired.” Which is EXACTLY what the language the AMPTP’s current offer allows a producer to do. The actor needs to have explicit language protecting them from that scenario, as well as the situation many would find themselves in: “I can’t do a different computer commercial for a long, long time if I agree to that, and I make the majority of my living from commercials.”
c. Somehow it’s a “nonstarter” and, I assume “United For Strength is o.k. with it, that, a nearly 30 year (!?) old JOKE of a contract provision, giving all of 12 cents to be split up among, say, 50 actors on a film for the DVD sales, is not worth haggling over. “Just give it to them!” “It’s ‘the template.’ ” “DVD is dying out anyway!”
Besides the gutless quality of such concessions, did anyone see Monday’s headline in Variety? “10 Billion in DVD sales.” See for yourself. But, we don’t want to be too demanding, fellow sheep, we might make the billionaires upset. Take the 12 cents and shut up about it. Just like we have for 30 YEARS.
d. And, of course, the big kahuna: “new media.” I’m assuming “United For Strength,” these proud “Hollywood Stars” (I just threw up in my mouth) don’t mind a HUGE non-union space for the AMPTP to exploit for their financial gain, which will be created under the current offer being shoved down SAG’S throat. You don’t agree? Then YOU CAN’T READ. The current cost of a minute of new content for the internet, according to the latest research? – $2,000.
The AMPTP’s offer? Under $15,000 a minute, $450,000 a series, or $300,000, whichever is lowest, you can create non-union, original content for the internet, which will go to an emerging WAVE of non-union actors, perfectly happy to be paid practically nothing in salary to play a role, and then NOT receive ANY residuals, EVER. No P&H. No workplace protections. Nothing. “Free windows” of 12 to 24 days, during which the suits can extract a good deal (in some cases a great deal) of their profit. You make UNION content that ORIGINATES on, say NBC.com? You get NO RESIDUALS. EVER. So, a huge potential non-union space for the AMPTP to exploit, AND NO RESIDUALS, for all practical purposes, even if it’s a UNION show, as long as it originates on the internet. Too “radical” to not be thrilled with that, “United For Strength?”
e. Finally, the dangerously naive assumption that, if we establish these precedents, most importantly in new media, that the AMPTP will “revisit” them, after the “sunset clause” expires (AFTRA contract). This notion that the suits are our friends? Not our adversaries, who are looking for every advantage over the unions, especially SAG, as we find ourselves already in the new media world? Ask yourselves, “United For Strength” – why won’t the AMPTP agree NOW to a percentage deal on new media, from first airing, and from first dollar? It protects them, and it protects SAG. They make 10 billion dollars in the next 3 years? SAG gets X %. They make 10 Bucks in the next three years? SAG STILL makes X %. You wanna know why they won’t agree to that entirely fair and reasonable solution? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BREAK THE UNION YOU FUCKING MORONS. Do you REALLY think, are you REALLY stupid enough, after what they did to us on DVD, which cost us literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, to believe the AMPTP will come back and renegotiate, once they have all the creative unions sewed up in this new media precedent?
Please. Give SAG leadership the authorization to strike. Support the Membership First agenda. Only REAL “STRENGTH” works with the AMPTP. Be smart SAG. We may not have to strike, but we better have the option, or the AMPTP will not budge.
Mr. Vaughn – With all do respect, coming out while we’re in the middle of negotiations and denouncing that group that’s negotiating, so you can get elected – that HURTS Actors! If you really care about Actors and your Union, you would rally around the current President in this difficult time and lend your support – not show the AMPTP that we are divide.
Actors only lose when we take a BAD deal!
Stand united SAG Members!
Googy Gress and Assaf Cohen are on board? Count me in!
If this group of talented actors were truly interested in seeing SAG get the very best deal it can, their statement would have begun with full and unwavering support for the current elected leadership in our ongoing negotiations. As it is, their timing appears to be an effort to undermine current leadership, which doesn’t help us get the best deal.
Mr. Arkin, Ms. Brenneman, and the rest of this group should draw a lesson from how Senator Obama is handling the Iraq situation vis a vis the party in power. The senator is just as quick to support the troops as he is to criticize the current commander-in-chief’s policies. In fact, Obama has been in front of the current administration on a number of issues. A few months ago his opponents in both parties criticized him for stating that he would move on actionable intelligence about Al Queda activities in Pakistan if the Pakistanis could not. What’s happened since? President Bush has done just that.
Supporting the troops in the context of SAG means expressing solidarity with your fellow actors in getting the best deal while at the same time explaining how you’d do things better next time. It also can mean being in front of the current leadership.
Mr. Arkin, Ms. Brenneman, the other 29 on this list – if you have suggestions for President Rosenberg as to how he may more successfully conclude the current negotiations with the AMPTP and not take a lousy rotten deal like AFTRA signed, I’m sure he’s all ears. If you have ideas as to how to go about keeping AFTRA from poaching shows that should be SAG shows by offering the production companies sweetheart deals on wages, residuals, and working conditions at the expense of the actors, please share these ideas with all of us. We need your energy, your wisdom, your expertise.
But please, bring positive suggestions to move things forward to better protect actors. Simply lobbing brickbats at the current elected SAG leadership only helps the AMPTP.
shit. should i know who any of these people are?
Good lord. While I strongly support the current SAG leadership (despite missteps), today I also signed all of the above-referenced members’ petitions to be -on- the ballot — so at least their ballot presentations could be heard.
If this thread is any indication, and the “unite for strength” campaign leads do the opposite of “uniting” (i.e., a new infighting bashfest), for what absolutely little it’s worth, I’ll be feeling awfully naive in retrospect.
I can only hope that from here on out we (SAG) come across as reasonably intelligent peops at least capable of intelligent, reasoned debate of alternative views within our own ranks.
I sure hope that regardless of how many of the candidates win, that the methods of the “unite” peops support their chosen moniker.
Oddly, none of these people are the ones I’ve talked to about running for the SAG board. If people would unite behind Membership First, AFTRA that lowcut, poor excuse for an actors union, would be out of business in a NY minute. And rightfully so.
Unite for Strength is the divisive one here–they’re siding with AFTRA to under their own union. SAG members, every working and non-working actor should understand that the if Unite for Strength wins seats on the Board, that come next contract time they won’t have a voice for their own career.
The WGA made this mistake, too. It was short sighted for them and it’s not a good idea now. Strength comes in numbers, not in a few voices crying in the dark and settling for cheap wages. SAG has worked hard to make its voice heard throughout the years, negotiating to make itself the strongest guild in town. Every contract since the dawn of SAG has improved working conditions and increased benefits for its actors? Why step backward? Why lose what others have fought so hard to gain? Why give back control to the very forces that want to eliminate you as a union? Because if Unite for Strength wins control of the Board, sure as you’re reading this, everything that’s been good about SAG will be lost and gone forever.
When all else fails, management uses fear to convince weak union members to act against their own best interest. That’s what is happening here: management is feeding the fear. So, I ask you, in this management friendly climate can workers really afford to give up what little power they have left?
I say, no.
Support Members First if you agree.
Not that’s how you stop divisiveness: with a splinter group!
t-rex
That wasn’t vomit your frothing at the mouth. Your diatribe here sounds real familiar. SAG board maybe.
Keven with an “e” said “Shit. Should I know who any of these people are.”
Yeah – Marcia Wallace was on THE BOB NEWHART SHOW.”
Praise the lord and pass the ammo. Thank you for stepping up. You have my unconditional support.
All these people were also for the Affected Member voting petition. For that alone none will get my vote.
So this Baskin-Robbins dirty thirty-one want us to vote them in. Let’s take a look at what they offer…
1. Pushing the merger with AFTRA again which was voted down several times by the membership and cost SAG millions to entertain an idea that the majority was against
2. Qualified voting, which ironically would also hurt most of these no names
3. They stir the fires of internal turmoil in the middle of negotiations which further empowers the AMPTP.
4. They criticize the current administration who at least have the guts to not roll over like the DGA and AFTRA did. An administration that is holding the line on residuals so that new media doesn’t become scew-media in regards to actors.
Two words: No thanks
One more word: A**holes
Funny – this is the same group of people that wants qualified voting. For some reason they think that the non-working Actor votes differently than the working Actor. So that means half the Actors on their list won’t be able to VOTE. Crazy!!!
Go to SAG.org and support your union leaders during these negotiations and sign the Solidarity Statement.
Peace Brothers and Sisters!
Wait Pat Skipper – They don’t want “ammo” they want to unite as they’re dividing this union.
T Rex
The AMPTP did nothing to you on DVD’s. SAG did that to themselves by taking the deal year after year after year. That rests squarely with the membership. 20 years …………. let it go and fight the fight in front of you. This is not an attack on you this is a statement of fact.
#44
“The AMPTP did nothing to you on DVD.” That’s complete horseshit. The AMPTP, at the time of that deal, assured SAG that “it’s a new technology, we aren’t sure of the costs, how it will pan out, so, let’s not strangle the baby in the crib, o.k.? If it turns into a real money maker, we’ll renegotiate, don’t worry.” That’s practically VERBATIM. WE “took the deal” because we were promised we’d get a better one if we TRUSTED them. What about that don’t you understand, and what about how that relates to the current situation don’t you get? Jesus! I’m constantly amazed at how uninformed and naive you people are. Get it together!
Variety July 21st, 2008:
Homevideo industry holds its own
Consumers spend $10.1 billion on DVDs
Variety, July 23rd, 2008:
Summer box office looks hot
Big grosses defy negative claims
Go “Unite For Strength”! Capitulate while the AMPTP is hurting!
See you all at the MENSA meeting!
Smell that? You smell that? I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like…victory! Someday this war’s gonna end…
To those who seem to think these actors aren’t “name” enough — these are WORKING actors; some better known than others, but the ones who are directly affected by the actual agreement in place and not by what their agents can negotiate in excess of it. Perhaps not in terms of basic compensation, but surely in terms of residuals, product placement, DVD / home video, new media, and other fun and exciting things that mean nothing to people who are not working. They may have been in support of qualified voting, but is it really that outrageous to ask that a voting member eran the equivalent of ONE day’s work in a year? $20 million actors don’t need to worry about the basic agreement (though some do, and I salute them), and truthfully, neither do those who simply do not work. It’s the actors who fall somewhere in the middle, the ones Peter Coyote supported in his open letter, who are directly affected by the outcome of these stalled negotiations.
And as far as some of the other issues are concerned, blowing the talent agency agreement over an issue as small as potential conflict of interest in agency ownership (which, if it became a real issue would most likely be dealt with by the government as some sort of monopoly, just like before) has resulted in a much more damaging situation to the actor’s community in general. Many agents are no longer subject to some of the basic concepts that ruled the industry for so long — like limits on the amount of commission and the ability to collect commission on residuals, and have put into place a General Services Agreement which is hideously onerous and one-sided.
I say we listen to these 31 actors and let them try to at least re-visit the merger so we can eliminate the competition and hopefully, raise the basic minimums.
No, I’m not a shill. Just someone who has been on many sides of this situation and seen a lot of suffering.
T-rex
Apparently you are the one not informed. We took the deal year after year….. (Three times I believe). That is SAG’s fault. Sag never had the balls to re negotiate the DVD issue. Over reacting as you are is the reason SAG is not taken seriously. It is called a negotiation. If you settle for a shitty deal it’s on you. Not the one you are bargaining with. I have it together … (mostly). You need to look inward my friend.
Terrible way to handle a point of view. Subversively. Divisively. Detrimental to the integrity and strength of the union. These people may have good intentions but it certainly seems exploitative and ill advised to proceed in this way.
You Know, I come here to DHD to try and gain insight into what it is that has the industry and my livelyhood on it’s knees. I read the comments and try to glean some idea of what SAG members are thinking. Yikes! I can only hope that many of the vitrolic, anti anything big studio rhetoric will not be the cause of losing your battles in this and future conract negotiations. So here is a story about 31 SAG members with different approach – might be time to think about a new approach to getting what you need next contract. Meanwhile we all spin in the breeze and watch the current board and their failing strategies piss in the wind upwind from where we are.
Once again, fantastically stupid timing by this group. Thanks for the list of who never to vote for – or talk to if I work with them.
I am just SO, SO tired of people “lobbing brickbats.” Come on, stop it people – this is 2008, not the 16th century!
From taking a look at the following website: http://www.workingactorsvoice.com
and looking at the slate of Unite For Strength actors: Michelle Allsopp Adam Arkin Edoardo Ballerini Bob Bergen Amy Brenneman L. Scott Caldwell Gabrielle Carteris William Charlton Assaf Cohen Ashley Crow Tim DeKay Fred Fein Googy Gress Dulé Hill Ken Howard Clyde Kusatsu Matt Letscher John Carroll Lynch Anthony Molinari Pamela Reed Doug Savant Bill Smitrovich Richard Speight, Jr. Mandy Steckelberg Keith Szarabajka Steve Tom Stacey Travis Ned Vaughn Tom Verica Marcia Wallace Kate Walsh
Only the following actors and actresses have NOT expressed their support for a petition that would disenfranchise most SAG members: Michelle Allsopp, Fred Fein, Anthony Molinari, Pamela Reed
So much for strength in numbers or unity of all SAG members
Bye bye Doug Allen
Bye Bye Alan Rosenberg
Bye Bye 100,000 non-working wannabe loser extras
Hello to AFTTRA! The Association of Film, Television, Theatrical and Radio Artists.
A real union of working performers.
Happy Days are here again!
#44
so, if I follow your logic, SAG should NOT have truted the union on their “let us see where this goes first, THEN we’ll pay you” approach back in the day, and, by the same logic, I assume you then believe SAG should NOT take this deal? Well, then, at lest we agree tht this is a shit deal and SAg shouldn’t take it, even if it means striking. we appreciate your support.
hey wackiland
get your facts straight. our good friends, agents (who support the amptp in this, according to nikki’s reporting, by the way) wanted, among other things, rights such as ownership/producer roles, as managers have, that’s called a CONFLICT OF INTEREST knucklehead. look it up.
and, please, “may not be stars, but are working actors?” first of all let’s be honest they BILLED themselves in the subject bar of their missive to nikki – “Hollywood Stars” , that, in and of itself, sort of disqualifies them as… douchebags.
second. NONE OF THEM ARE STARS. NOT ONE. Amy Brenemann? Are you fucking kidding me? ADAM ARKIN?
Talk about blowing it in your announcement for office…
oh, and #44?
contracts are 3 years long? so, since the DVD deal was made nearly 30 years ago – “3 times” uh, you might want to check on that.
When I look at the achievements of the current administration I come up with a non-existent contract and “iactor”. That’s after three years. Membership First is solely responsible for the massive group wedgie we are all receiving right now and it’s time to empty the clown car and get some people who will enact some positive change. Unite for Strength is a fantastic slate and I am thrilled to support every one of them.
Can anyone…..ANYONE…..please tell me the rationale behind “NOT HAVING ALL PERFORMERS UNDER ONE UNION”? Can anyone defend the idea of having multiple unions negotiate contracts for the same group of labor?
ANYONE?
ANYONE?
Because I am all ears. In the big picture, I cannot imagine any rational explanation that could defend having TWO unions competing against each other for a contract with the employers. Is there any planet on whiich this is advantageous?
PLEASE – I AM ASKING FOR ANYONE TO STEP UP AND GIVE ME A SOLID EXPLANATION ON WHY IT IS BETTER TO HAVE TWO UNIONS, BOTH REPRESENTING THE SAME LABORER, COMPETING AND FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER FOR A CONTRACT WITH EMPLOYERS, AND IN ORDER TO WIN – ONE WILL HAVE TO SELL THE GOOD (ACTOR) CHEAPER THAN THE OTHER. IF YOU CAN, PLEASE, WITHOUT POLITICS, AND WITH REASON AND LOGIC ALONE – PLEASE GIVE ME A REASON TO SUPPORT “NOT” HAVING ALL PERFORMERS UNDER ONE UNION.
I AM WAITING….
“Unite for Strength”?? This is the SAME slate of people who consistently kow-tow to the AMPTP and consistently caved in negotiations during the Richard Masur and Melissa Gilbert reigns.
Doesn’t anyone remember WHY the Membership First slate was swept into office during the past decade? Because actors were tired of getting paid crap for cable, getting paid crap for DVD’s, quotes were irrelevant and disappearing, and AFTRA was starting its march towards undercutting SAG in order to steal shows.
Have any of you worked on a cable AFTRA show? On some of them you can make more on UNEMPLOYMENT than working as a guest performer on these shows.
This slate of “Hollywood stars” is basically saying this:
“Get out of our way, you middle-class, scale actors. Don’t pester us with your petty cable, DVD and new media issues while we’re making series regular money.”
Should there be ONE actor’s union?? YES! Of course there should be one actor’s union.
But how do you convince SAG members to MERGE with a bunch of people (AFTRA leaders) who have consistently, time and time again, negotiated TERRIBLE deals for actors? In some cases, the actors did even KNOW these deals were negotiated for them until they were already working on the show? And sometimes AFTRA wouldn’t even give copies of these contracts to the actors!!
If you know that someone is a complete slob and takes terrible care of their apartment, do you offer to have them move in with you and become roommates in the hope that they’ll become neat and clean after they’ve moved in???
Too many actors have had really bad experiences working under AFTRA contracts.
Is it any wonder that they are scared to merge their stronger union with a really weak one?
T-rex
See now I have to spell it out for you. Sag should have taken the first DVD deal. as they did. The mistake was folding on the consecutive contracts. Sag has made a 20+ year bed and now they have to lay in it. The focus should be the new media….. (so history is not repeated). Make the best deal you can and make it clear that all the unions will be aligned in the next round of negotiations that come up and actually follow through and re negotiate the contract. Have balls when it matters. Don’t bring up 20 year old shit that makes you look petty.
Don’t get me wrong SAG should be getting a better deal on DVD’s. but that boat has sailed my friend…… Lets’ make sure we don’t launch another one.
Now I am sure you going to yell at me but maybe some of this will get through.
T-rex
Just read your math post……….! That just means that SAG gave up more times than I thought. ………… (going with your math 10 times). Sad!
TEN YEARS OF MEMBERSHIP FIRST SAG “LEADERSHIP” HAS GIVEN YOU:
•ORGANIZED DEFEAT OF SAG/AFTRA MERGER–1998.
•PROLONGED COMMERCIALS STRIKE FOR NO GAIN–2000.
•DERAILED SAG AGENCY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT–2002.
•ORGANIZED DEFEAT OF SAG/AFTRA MERGER–2003.
•PAID THEIR OWN MEMBERS $85,000 LAWSUIT—2005??
•WASTED $1,000,000 IN FIRED EXECUTIVE PAYOUTS—2005.
•ORGANIZED DUES-FUNDED ANTI-AFTRA WAR–2007.
•FAILED CAMPAIGN TO DERAIL AFTRA PRIMETIME–2008.
•FAILED PRIMETIME/THEATRICAL NEGOTIATIONS–2008
SAG MEMBERS: VOTE FOR “UNITE FOR STRENGTH” CANDIDATES THIS AUGUST ON YOUR SAG BALLOT.
“can anyone tell me”
NY times, 2003:
The opponents, most of them Hollywood-based members of SAG, argue that consolidation will sap their union’s power, dilute its historic identity and put its fate and its finances in the hands of a new umbrella council made up of officers from both unions. Aftra’s contracts are not nearly as lucrative as SAG’s, opponents of consolidation contend, so there is a danger that Aftra’s lower rates will prevail under a merged union.
”Their main point is that consolidation makes us stronger,” said Mr. Daniels, the former SAG president and an ardent opponent of the merger. ”Our contention is that it makes us weaker. Aftra is a crummy little union, and they’re undercutting our contracts, so we should join with them? To us it’s a very, very bad deal.”
2008 (me)
why would we merge with this predatory group, that just LIED to us, and ran right into the willing arms of the AMPTP and made a shitty deal? I refer you to my post way above, laying out what SAG is asking for. It is all entirely fair, reasonable and, in some cases, long overdue. And yet, we constantly have to deal with AFTRA’s poaching, undermining, duplicitous ways. merger has been voted down twice, ‘99 and ‘03. NOW AFTRA has gone and further exposed themselves as untrustworthy and all too willing to sell actors on the cheap. Their cable deal BLOWS. THEY NEGOTIATED a deal that pays less than a third of the salary and residuals. Anyone actually WORKED an AFTRA negotiated cable deal lately? I have – It’s a JOKE!
My question is: WHY does Roberta Reardon STILL want to merge with SAG? We don’t care for her. She’s like the psychotic aunt who keeps trying to get in the house. Answer: Roberta Reardon wants to WIN. she wants to win at all costs. She wants power for AFTRA, more jurisdiction, more dues money from more members, more infrastructure for her union, better money for aftra staff, a bright, shiny home of AFTRA’s own, instead of sharing offices with sag, while sag foots the bill (why aren’t we throwing them out?) She is a person, who DOESN’T work the contract we are currently negotiating! She has no credits. ZERO! And yet, she presents herself as someone who understands the needs of the film and television actor! She does some commercials and voiceovers. THAT’S IT! And yet, here she is, taking the tv and film actors in aftra, right into the dumper – AGAIN – with her submissive approach to the AMPTP, giving them what they want in new media and elsewhere (as she did in cable) then trying to pass it off as a “GAIN!” SAG is perfectly capable of negotiating its OWN contracts and representing it’s members. The AMPTP has shown, repeatedly, that they will swipe every right, and every last nickel, from the actors pocket, unless faced with a strong, capable and relentless negotiating team. They did it on dvd/vhs, they did it on cable. now, they are trying to do it on the internet, and helping them along, after AGREEING with SAG to negotiate together last April, is AFTRA.
What about what AFTRA has agreed to, do you not understand as being bad for the actor?
Do you not understand that the AMPTP will exploit this non-union work space created by the AFTRA contract to the detriment of the union actor?
Do you not understand that AFTRA has agreed to, for all practical purposes, NO RESIDUALS for the internet, where ALL production is headed?
Do you not understand, given our experience with dvd, and cable, that the AMPTP will NOT “revisit” these points in future negotiations, as the technology expands and turns into a cash cow (dvd and cable)?
Why would we want to merge with a union that WILLINGLY just ratified a contract that does just that, and in a potentially MUCH more important tech area (the web) AGAIN.
I live north of NYC, but I lived in l.a. for years, and, being a dual card holder, I KNOW which union has looked out for me (SAG) and which hasn’t (AFTRA). I don’t need revisionist historians (#44) who don’t even know the simplest of facts about past negotiations, or selective idiocies (can you tell me, sag working actor) from people who seem to wish continued bad decision making (aftra) for the actor.
WE ARE THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD. STAY STRONG, STRIKE IF YOU HAVE TO. THEN, let’s, please, dual card members, tear up our aftra cards, and tell producers, with a united voice, that we won’t work aftra shows. let’s END aftra. THAT’S the answer.
To CAN ANYONE TELL ME:
Yes, all actors should be in one union and that union is SAG, but not a merger which a majority of actors have voted 3 times that they are against. All television actors should vote to decertify AFTRA and take the T right out of it and let all the broacasters who love to work non-union gigs have that lame take crumbs joke of a union to themselves.
To Working SAG Actor (not Working Actor who seems to have some common sense):
LOL. Even Baghdad Bob was more believable than most of the lies and misrepresentations you posted. Typing them in all caps doesn’t make them true. (If you think the commercial strike yielded no gains then you have never worked a commercial or know what was at stake) Only the few mentions of the defeated merger were true and even though you want people to believe that was a bad thing real working SAG actors view that as a positive. So thanks for the vote of confidence for the MF slate. Even though you don’t realize you did so.
When is the membership of SAG going to figure out that their problem isn’t with contracts, but the fact that their guild took on too many members? There are so many members that 90% of them make less that 5k a year.
On top of that, as a film industry employee, I resent the fact that people that don’t even make their primary living from the film industry can dictate whether I get to work or not.
It’s time that SAG did a favor to themselves and for the other workers in the industry, and cleaned house via some form of attrition. Then the membership that is left over, may actually have a fighting chance of making a decent living at their job, since there will be less competition for work.
http://www.uniteforstrength.com/index.html
contracts are 3 years long? so, since the DVD deal was made nearly 30 years ago – “3 times” uh, you might want to check on that.
Comment by T-rex
WOW… that’s pretty amazing considering that DVDs were only invented about 20 years ago. I didn’t realize that SAG had psychics on it’s contract negotiating team. It all makes perfect sense now.
hi everybody. my name is alan ruck. sag member for 26 years and aftra for about half that. where to begin? i noticed on the list of “31″ many names of people whose work i respect and admire and even a couple of guys that i know and love. a lot of smart people. but this qualified voting is a bad idea. the basic tenet of any union is that EVERYONE COUNTS.
everybody counts or nobody counts. i guess this voting idea is that everyone counts but some people count more than others. it boils down to who is currently marketable. union membership should mean more than just current financial viability. say a person is a working actor, chugging along for years and then has 12 months with no action. they don’t get to vote? our careers are cyclical. so someone is going to be penalized for having a bad year? unacceptable. i assume that
“unite for strength” is pro merger.? so you guys want to welcome in new members from a sister union while trying to institute a measure that will disenfranchise members we already have?
this is a slippery slope at best. you can say, “it’s only one day of work a year to qualify.”, but once voting qualification depends on more than being a paid-up member in good standing, the requirements can change according to political whim and fashion. i would never agree to that. we’re all in this together and everyone counts.
later.
What Alan Ruck said…we fans fought this back in March and if we need to we’ll fight qualified/affected member voting yet again
Would it be too tacky and fannish to say that the guy who played Cameron Frye is now even more my hero (way more so than Ferris
?
BTW UFS’s platform is here:
http://www.uniteforstrength.com/change.html
or more specifically
-End the fruitless war against AFTRA and create a united front of actors to fight for more working opportunities and better pay. The less unified we are in dealing with our employers, the weaker our position. That’s obvious to everyone but Membership First. Five years ago 58% of SAG members voted in favor of a plan to consolidate the two unions, just 2% short of the necessary 60%. Soon after the vote, a professional, independent poll of the members found that 79% wanted to find a way to merge. But Membership First board members controlling SAG since then have done the opposite: they’ve driven the unions farther apart, turning them into virtual enemies. No union has ever won a better deal for workers by sowing division within their own ranks. We will turn that around so that the next time we negotiate this contract, everyone who works in front of a camera or microphone for our employers is on the same team.
-Ensure that the upcoming commercials contract negotiations don’t go the way the TV/Theatrical negotiations have. The commercials contract expires in October and if this SAG leadership stays in place, it is all but certain that there will once again be stalling, infighting and eventually competing negotiations with AFTRA. And with issues such as new media residuals, the explosion of non-union work both out-of-country and right here at home, and product placement alternatives on theatrical programming, this negotiation is critical.
-Finally address the needs of Hollywood background performers, who are uniquely hurt by many new trends. Runaway production, lack of jurisdiction in other parts of the country, the corruption and lack of enforcement of the outmoded 3-voucher system, and the WGA strike and current de-facto lockout have all meant that many veteran performers won’t work enough days to qualify for health insurance.
-Reestablish a relationship between SAG and our agents to restore the protections we need. Membership First defeated the agreement renegotiated 5 years ago, leaving us vulnerable to unscrupulous agents and onerous General Service Agreements. Now our only recourse is to hire our own attorneys. Only new leadership will get this back on track.
-End mismanagement and bring fiscal responsibility back to SAG. SAG’s coffers were badly depleted by the 2000 Commercials strike, but Membership First successfully fought a needed dues raise, leading to cut-backs in vital services like residuals processing and the monitoring of sets. They proceeded to spend with abandon – on pay-outs to get rid of staff they didn’t like, on the fight to defeat AFTRA’s contract, on weeks and months of stalled negotiations, slick publications, new positions, etc. It’s no surprise that we’re looking at a $6.5 million deficit – and that’s before taking into account lost earnings from the WGA strike and the current slowdown. We’ll get SAG’s fiscal house back in order by streamlining and updating backward and expensive operations like the paper processing of residuals, and stopping the loss of millions from lack of contract enforcement thanks to antiquated reporting methods (both were promised by producers in past negotiations).
Thank you Alan – finally someone with some smarts. Bravo! It’s is people like you, who doesn’t forget the little guy or the guy who’s had a bad year. We’ve all been there…
Let’s Stand in Solidarity and make a good deal!
Peace.
Reply…. Unite For Strength Website…
Why do I feel more Divided than United?
I feel more Divided than United.
I feel more Divided than United than ever!!
Vote for a Independent candidate, elect Gary Watts in 2008
T-REX:
Many or most SAG actors, I would think, unequivocally do NOT support AFTRA’s moves, nor the contract they just ratified. I personally don’t care about AFTRA. I am not a member, and don’t care to work their contracts. I care about the ACTOR. What I think “CAN YOU TELL ME?” is saying – is if we merged, and the ALL NEW GUILD were to ELECT AN ENTIRELY NEW BOARD from among its membership of ACTORS, AFTRA would be GONE where the actor is concerned. There would be no more undercutting – becuase there wouldn’t be TWO guilds competing against one another. By not bringing all actors under ONE guild, we are allowing competition between the two guilds. Competition between like entities in any other business leads to price deflation – and that is exactly what it is doing here. Because two separate guilds, both representing the same laborer, are competing – in order for the one to win – it has had to sell its goods (the actor) cheaper, just like in any other competitive business. So staying separate will continue that trend – unless you can somehow get ALL AFTRA TV actors to tear up their AFTRA cards, etc – and that doesnt seem as likely to happen. NOT MERGING will keep the current environment as it is – and SAG and AFTRA will continue to fight like a couple of kindergarten brats, while the the opposing team (AMPTP) stands accross the divide laughing watching us implode and self destruct. WE CANNOT HAVE TWO GUILDS REPRESENTING ONE LABOR SECTOR – THEY WILL ULTIMATELY COMPETE FOR JURISDICTION AND CONTRACTS, and competition will lead to degradation in wages and working conditions.
Alan Ruck:
Go read he “Affected member Voting” petition, for god’s sake.
Many of these candidates were among those who joined an effort earlier this year
to discuss a reform in the manner in which SAG’s collective bargaining agreements are ratified.
Currently, SAG allows every one of its 120,000 members to vote on major collective bargaining contracts
– even if those members have never worked under the contract that is up for approval.
Such an approach is almost unheard of in the U.S. labor movement.
Scott
Ah, you young, naive fellow. You assume that the leadership of AFTRA has an intention to subsume their personal ambition in a merger with SAG, for the greater good of “the actor.” What ever would make you think that? We would have seen some sign of AFTRA taking the high road somewhere along the line by now, yes? But no – it’s been a constant, niggling, presence, a thorn in SAG’s side. Outrageous self-serving moves all along the way, that have been anything BUT about the needs of, and what’s best for, the actor. Do you really think, were aftra and sag to merge, that roberta reardon would defer to anyone, let alone the president of sag? come on. this is the main, more than any other, source of disapproval of merger that led to its defeat in ‘99 and’02. roberta reardon and aftra have insisted on proportional representation at the negotiating table for years, despite the FACT that they cover less than 5% of primetime tv, and NO film. do you really think ms. reardon wouldn’t insist, as part of merger, a leading role at the newly formed, and newly named, union? that’s silly and naive and dead wrong. the biggest reason sag has voted down merger twice is exactly BECAUSE of the dishonest, underhanded, behavior of aftra – more than the cluster-fuck of combining pension and health, more than sag’s national jurisdiction vs,. aftra’s regional series of offices, more than the HORRIBLE contracts for the actor aftra HAS negotiated when they have had the chance to do it alone, as in cable.again, please, do your homework. sag won’t merge with sag, not now, not ever. why is the discussion from you people constantly pressuring for merger? how about you suggest to roberta reardon and her cronies that they pare back their activities in theatrical contracts, which none of them know anything about, because the leadership doesn’t
WORK theatrical contracts, and concentrate on their core members: commercials, daytime tv, broadcasters, radio artists, weathermen, etc. how about FOR ONCE you people get the message that sag does just fine when they don’t have to look over their shoulder at their psychotic sister, who, at any moment, is likely to fuck things up, you know, just because they can, and then try to pass off the bullshit that sag won’t cooperate with THEM. go away aftra? problem solved.
p.s. “I’m not a member of aftra” well, I AM, and I’ve worked aftra contracts and I KNOW FIRST HAND what the differences are. stick to what you know, scott, stop theorizing when you have no experience dealing with one of the unions in question.
captain howdy
the dvd/vhs deal was signed 28 years ago. look it up you fucking moron.
in response to VDOVault
you have some good ideas but i don’t want to
misrepresent myself or lead you or anyone else to think i believe in something i don’t.
i support membershipfirst and i support alan rosenberg and doug allen and the board in the ongoing contract efforts. i feel they (we) were dealt some shitty cards this time around and they are playing that hand with everything they’ve got.
also i am not gung-ho for merger. there were serious problems and alot of unanswered questions in the last two attempts and i think it’s a damn good thing that they failed. i do think that all actors should be in one union, but after the end-run deal that aftra just pulled, how will we just be able to bury the hatchet and start fresh? if aftra really still wants to merge, and i’m not sure they do, why did they pull such a destructive and poisonous stunt? it seems more like they want to become THE actor’s union by selling us cheap.
the actors in aftra are like a beautiful girl we want to marry but her mother (the aftra board) and her extended family (sportscasters, dj’s
talk show hosts, etc) are all going to live with us if we get hitched.
i don’t have anything against all those people. i wish them well, but our business is acting in film and t.v. and the specific challenges
that accompany the organization of our ranks. does some sportscaster want me voting on his contracts? hell no. what do i know about what those guys need?
as far as these elections go, i encourage everyone to gather facts, listen to everyone and then VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE. i’m aligning myself with membershipfirst.
For whatever its worth, Anthony Molinari treats BTL’ers like real people. I like to think it’s because that’s what he is. Glad to see his hat in the ring.
To Alan Ruck:
I am still committed to what the current leadership in SAG is trying to achieve.
I posted the UFS platform here because frankly the hard won lesson learned by everyone during the WGA strike is that you have to come to sites like Nikki’s to find out where the whole story is…you simply can’t read the trades and trust their interpretation any more…they too have an agenda (it’s unabashedly pro AMPTP). Thanks to the Internet you can seek out the actual websites of the various political factions and piece together what is really going on for yourself (and Nikki is quite good at pointing people in the right direction).
I’m still against qualified/affected member voting. And I am still hugely disappointed that the uneasy compromise made at a meeting between SAG’s leaders and AFTRA’s at the AFL-CIO in Washington DC back in February of 2008 did not hold up. When I heard that AFTRA walked out on SAG (and on their pledge to the AFL-CIO) at the last possible minute and that joint negotiations with only the AMPTP on the opposite side were not going to take place after all, I really felt for SAG’s leadership.
I think that if only the people working on the workingactorsvoice.com website had put their energies into keeping that fragile peace accord made in DC together instead of freaking out over what actors who are supposedly ‘non-working’ (and no one has ever been able to make the distinction between working & non-working to my satisfaction, much less make it make sense) both unions would not be where they are today: they would be better off.
So when I see that 27 of the 31 people on the UFS slate are now all about ‘unity’ when back in March they were about supporting an incredibly divisive proposition and willing to pledge that support online for the whole world to see when instead they could have been encouraging the leadership of both sides to hang together and treat the AMPTP as the opposite side of the bargaining table (and not each other), I have to question the UFS platform, just like you do.
I am not opposed to merger of the actors unions either. But having read the terms of the 2003 merger in which actors would have a 1/3 vote, broadcasters a 1/3 vote and recording artists a 1/3 vote…well, logically who would agree to a merger where you go from 90% or more of people voting like you would (and yes I realize that SAG has singers and dancers etc in it) down to where you’re clearly a minority if everyone votes along ‘profession lines’?!?!
I think that if either SAG’s or AFTRA’s structure must be preserved, then keep SAG and fold AFTRA into it. I’m not completely convinced that a superior third actors union model could not be conceived, created and adopted but given the stridency of some of the personalities involved, that may not currently be achievable. And that is truly sad.
First things first though…SAG needs everyone’s support to get a good deal out of the AMPTP. Having been there for the WGA strike, well it’s not a huge deal for this fan to keep up the fight on SAG’s behalf.
The single actors’ union goal is for later…
“Unite for Strength” is a masterpiece of Newspeak. It’s a command as well as a title, and it implies the opposite of what it aims to achieve.
In an earlier incarnation, this faction called itself “Restore Respect,” another title which issued a command to its followers and potential converts among Guild voters.
If “Unite for Strength” achieves its goal, it can sum up its victorious strategy with these words:
“WE HAD TO DESTROY S.A.G. IN ORDER TO SAVE IT.”
(Meaning “To save it from the barbarian Radicals of Membership First.”)
Reply to Comment by Captain Howdy — July 24, 2008
I hear more union support from a SCAB than from Captain Howdy.
Did “Captain Howdy” honor the WGA picket line? I didn’t think so.
Perhaps if he did we(labor) would be in a much better position than we are today.
And if there is a strike then, you will be one of those making less that 5k a year and then you will be one of those people that don’t even make their primary living from the film industry.
When is your contract up Captain Howdy?
When that time comes, solidarity will dictate whether you get to work, or not.
Who says the truth doesn’t hurt?
Gary Watts
So if the not qualified to vote actors can’t vote on their own unions contracts, does this mean that only those qualified to vote are the only ones who pay sag dues and percentages. Since there are fewer of these so called star actors with the voice for all members, their “new sag”, should increase their dues and percentages paid yearly to cover this new so called unions expenses. IF I DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE I SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PAY DUES!!
I read the “Unite for Strength” planks on their website (linked earlier in this talkback). Their silence on the issues of New Media jurisdiction is deafening.
I don’t vote based on faction, I vote based on positions on issue that are vital to the long-term viability of the guild (which I see as linked to the viability of the industry). I would not vote for most of the “Unite for Strength” members because of their position on affected member voting within SAG. I would not vote for any candidate, from any faction, who cannot stand tall on the issue of New Media jurisdiction (which includes negotiating comparable w&w and residuals to traditional media, as there will be no more traditional media very shortly here).
If I am incorrect, and the “Unite for Strength” candidates intend to advocate as strongly for New Media jurisdiction as President Rosenberg has, please let us know that. If they’re as upset as so many actors are about AFTRA’s capitulation on New Media in Schedule A, let us know that, too. The very fact that these candidates couldn’t be bothered to make New Media jurisdiction one of the primary planks in the first version of their website, however, is quite troubling.
Alan,
Wow! They sucked you in…big time.
You poor thing. It truly saddens me.
Hey look, if you are in NY anytime soon, you and I should sit down and have a little chat. I will be more than happy to fill you in on the realities of our union, you’ll know the whole story and then you’ll be free to decide on what to think and to say. But until then, you should seriously keep your mouth shut. Seriously.
hey lp
I’m alan’s friend. I’m available in ny to chat with you and you can try to shut my mouth, and then I’ll send your best wishes to al in l.a., where he knows exactly what he’s doing and saying and doesn’t need to be told to keep his mouth shut by you or anybody else. how’s that?
to LP
no, sir (or ma’am), i won’t keep my mouth shut. this is an open forum.
people who support membership first or unite for strength or whatever can post what they believe and others can read all these different points of view and then make up their own minds. how would i be able to sit down with you and chat in NY if you don’t sign your real name?
i understand that many people need to vent their frustration and also need to maintain their anonymity. that’s fine, but to say that you have the true knowledge and only after i’m educated by you will i be able to speak my mind… …WHAT??? who are you?
Hey LP?
“Hey look, if you are in NY anytime soon, you and I should sit down and have a little chat. I will be more than happy to fill you in on the realities of our union, you’ll know the whole story and then you’ll be free to decide on what to think and to say. But until then, you should seriously keep your mouth shut. Seriously.”
No threats please. I’m a friend of Alan’s, and it makes me mad.
lp, you should be “unite for change”’s pr person. “You can’t vote, but you can shut your damn peon mouths!” would be a good slogan keeping with the spirit intended. Maybe a little too open and inclusive, considering, though.
Alan,
Your original post struck me as being naïve and uninformed and I responded foolishly not making point clearer. I was not formally educated and my mastery of the English language is mediocre at best. I am truly sorry if my words were misinterpreted. Please accept my humblest apologies if I offended you or anyone else here.
The point that I was trying to make is since you do not know all the facts about qualified voting and the initiative that was presented a few months ago, I thought that perhaps it would best for you to become more informed before you expressed your opinion. I was not threatening you. I was not trying to start a fight.
We are all brothers in unity and the anger and animosity towards each other in this forum is the perfect example of why we are losing the fight on a the much bigger front.
AFTRA is not the enemy here.
Qualified Voting is not the enemy here.
We are the enemy and we are killing ourselves because of our own stupidity and our own inflated egos.
I am an actor. An extremely fortunate, hard working actor, who just wants to continue working doing what I love to do.
Just like you and just like every other hard working actor here.
We are all in this together. Let’s start ACTING like it.
T-Rex, a few facts:
1) A “Majority” of actors did not vote down merger in 2003. A majority is defined as more than 50%. 58% of SAG actors supported merger – unfortunately a 60% approval was required for adoption by the SAG constitution. By definition, the anti-merger position is a minority one.
2) Most members of AFTRA that are actors are dual-card holders. Including the ENTIRE negotiating team that just got their contract – which BETTERED the two union contracts that came before it (DGA and WGA ) – a bona-fide success in labor negotiation terms. Since the entire negotiating team was dual cardholders, and therefore members of SAG, your entire “us vs. them” argument regarding SAG and AFTRA doesn’t hold water. There are large numbers of SAG actors that simply don’t agree with the direction Membership First has taken this once-great union. That is why the membership-first endorsed candidates that have run in the AFTRA elections have been defeated repeatedly. That is why MF lost the presidency during the Melissa Gilbert reign. That is why their majority on the national board is a bare minimum – less than the margin by which AFTRA members ratified their exhibit A contract.
So stop fighting other actors – SAG members who are dual cardholders. Asking all SAG actors to tear up their AFTRA cards is a pipe dream. We’re actors – we’re thankful for ANY work, WHEREVER we can get it, and under WHATEVER jurisdiction. Since I’m at the co-star level, I’d frankly rather work on an AFTRA basic cable show that is still shot in LA (for cheaper rates) than a SAG basic cable show which is shot in TORONTO or VANCOUVER, where all of the jobs at my level go to NON-SAG ACTORS. How does runaway production help me? It only helps the “Hollywood Stars” that are working at the series regular and guest star levels, including some of the “MeFirsters” – who, despite all their rhetoric, are NOT standing up for working class actors.
Instead of demonizing your FELLOW ARTISTS, try ORGANIZING non-union contracts yourself. Sit on a negotiating committee. Run for the board.
Or perhaps your talents are best suited to sniping away on a keyboard, rather than serving any of your fellow performers.
The leadership of both unions are US. The only way to change the ship is to get involved or SHUT UP. Dividing us only serves to distract us. You are playing the producers’ game, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you were a plant, since you write anonymously.
Reply …Comment by Captain Howdy — July 24, 2008
I hear more union support from a SCAB than from Captain Howdy.
Did “Captain Howdy” honor the WGA picket line? I didn’t think so.
Perhaps if he did we Meaning labor would be in a much better position than we are today.
Gary Watts
to LP
no worries man. everybody is frustrated. we all have the right to our
opinions. “Democracy can only flourish in the marketplace of ideas.”
Jefferson said that, i think.
if the “unite for strength people” are victorious at election time, i’ll accept that because they will have been voted in by a majority. i won’t like it but i’ll accept it.
I still think affected member voting is a bad idea.
i still think aftra was wrong not to negotiate with sag.
i still support rosenberg and allen.
Dear Michael (talk about anonymous):
One question: do you support the AFTRA contract? Yes, I assume?
Then, you support creating a huge non-union space which will be filled by a wave of next generation actors willing to work for a low wage and no residuals, EVER, and no pension and health, and no workplace protections.
The AFTRA contract SAYS: “Under 15k per minute, 450k for series, or 300k, whichever is lowest,” can be a non-union space for producers to make original content on the internet.
According to the latest research, the average cost of the current minute of original content? 2 thousand dollars.
So, you see? The AMPTP has set up a ridiculously high rate. Anything UNDER that rate can be made non-union.
WHY would SAG agree to that? WHY would SAG agree to create MORE competition for the union actor, when we already (as opposed to the DGA and the WGA) face substantial non-union competition in right-to-work states and outside our borders ALREADY?
You’re for that? You’re FOR agreeing, even in union shows, made originally for the internet, to essentially NO residuals? THAT’S what the AFTRA contract allows.
You want to allow a producer to walk up to you on a set and “ask” you if you’ll wear a Sam Adams Beer baseball hat through the whole movie so they can get the 5 million bucks Sam Adams is willing to contribute to the budget?
If you say “no, that feels exploitive and, I make most of my living from commercials, and I wouldn’t be able to audition for any other beer commercials for as long as this movie is appearing publicly (which, unlike commercials, which have a finite life span, can be running somewhere on tv or the internet forever?)
THAT’s what the AFTRA contract allows the AMPTP to do.
They DO have to “ask” you if its o.k. – BUT – if you say “no” there’s NO language in the AFTRA deal that stops them from saying “ooh, too bad – you’re fired. NEXT!”
You want to agree to THAT?
You want to agree to no raise in DVD residuals, going on the 29th year at the same rate, which was ridiculously low 28 years ago – when Variety just had a headline the 20th of July 2008 that said “10.1 BILLION dollars in DVD sales!”
You want to “trust” the AMPTP to “revisit” and “renegotiate” this new media deal in three years, with all it’s giveaways and dangerous precedents, when, in the last two biggest tech advances in the last 30 years (DVD and Cable) they said the EXACT SAME THING, then NEVER revisted or renegotiated?
They get this precedent? It’s OVER pal. If your attitude is actually “I just want to work, I don’t care if it’s for lower wages?” You are putting a gun in your mouth. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?
Please, ONE of you AFTRA or AMPTP supporters – make a substantive argument – not “we’re tired of the divisiveness” (like it was SAG that just stabbed AFTRA in the back, not the other way around!) or, “we’re tired of fighting with our sister union” (yeah, your sister who has bi-polar disorder and is off her meds).
Please make some sense on the merits of this AFTRA contract you all are so hot and bothered to agree to!
And, as far as your “enlightening” me on “a few facts.” I did NOT say ANYWHERE that SAG had a majority in the last merger vote. I said, and have said many times, that under SAG voting rules, the SAG membership voted down merger in ‘99 and ‘03. The 2 percent win in ‘03, was in the face of a multi-million dollar (with OUR DUES MONEY!)pro-merger campaign, waged by our own President!
Membership First had a group of actors at the time and virtually no money to get their message out, and the SAG MEMBERSHIP – NOT “Membership First,” but, the MEMBERSHIP of SAG voted down merger in ‘03.
To say that somehow Membership First interfered with or denied passage of the merger vote themselves? IS A LIE, plain and simple. A LIE.
That, by the way, is the 15th and 16th time SAG has voted down merger with AFTRA going back over 6 DECADES.
Do your homework, get you arguments based in something other than emotion and ego, and then please tell me why accepting this AFTRA contract is what’s “best” for the union actor. I’m all ears.
“Unite for Strength” Loses Election!!!
Election result just in,
In a major upset today the slate challenging the Membership
First Slate lost today. The slate known, as “Unite for Strength”
where not available today for comment.
Do you think it was because the members supporting the “Unite
for Strength” slate weren’t able to vote in this election due to the
new election rules of qualified voting implemented last year?
The new rules where supported by the same members running
on the “Unite for Strength” slate.
It cuts both ways.
Now you see why I don’t support slates, but vote for people with
good ideas and not bad ones.
Vote for a Independent candidate, elect Gary Watts in 2008
Gary,
You have every right as a paid-up SAG member to run for the board. Your candidacy will be considered along with all the others. But I would hope that your campaign will not included comments like the shot at “Captain Howdy”. Your comment about scabs and people crossing picket lines is truly unfortunate, and it’s the kind of thing that was going on at this site during the lowest points of the WGA strike. You need to understand that a “scab” is a specific term referring to people in a labor union or guild that continue to work in their category while their union or guild is on strike. It does not refer to people from other guilds or unions who work within their categories. I have no idea who “Captain Howdy” is, or which guild he or she is in, but unless that guild is the WGA, your comments make little sense. There were certainly many people who crossed WGA picket lines to work during the strike, but I’m not aware of people who did so to write scripts, past those who went fi-core and then were publicized by Patric Verrone. Some people, including myself, continued to work for a brief period of time to complete the script in hand, but did so without crossing any picket lines.
The anger being thrown at the competing candidates for the SAG board is surprising, considering that the election is a regularly scheduled one, and considering that it’s natural for non-Membership First candidates to take the position that they could do a better job. To tell the other candidates that they need to back the incumbents when they disagree with them is tantamount to saying that the election shouldn’t happen right now because everyone should rally around the leadership. That’s an inherently ridiculous position. And if the Membership First supporters are concerned that the election is happening before they have a contract, I would point out that the current SAG leadership blew repeated opportunities to have achieved a new contract before this time. Had they agreed to early negotiations and conducted their W&W’s early, as their own board members urged them to do, they would not now be working without a contract and without a plan to achieve one.
I’ve worked with nine of the candidates on this list, and have found them to be conscientious people who work regularly in the business. The candidates from this list to whom I have spoken voiced a concern for how the current situation has evolved and devolved. And they’re correct to do so, and they have every right to run for the board.
T-REX:
Finally – you did what you are asking Michael to do – you presented a simple, well spoken, explanation of why Membership First supporters feel the way they do. And I am not saying that sarcastically, I mean that genuinely. I am a “young(er)” actor – new SAG member (only a few years). There are a lot of us out here, and we don’t have the (presumably) years of backstory that you and those of your “tenure” do. Sorry if this sounds forward, but most of the time, the older generations of Actors all seem to just sit around debating this, hurling insults at each other, but not really explaining their positions, and the younger generations of actors most of the time don’t have any real meat to sink their teeth into from these conversations. It’s all a bunch of “you’re a jerk”, “you’re a bigger jerk”. Information is and always has been power. I for one, was beginning to wonder why the Membership First side was being so “cantankerous” and “disagreeable” regarding uniting all performers under one umbrella guild. But when you take the time to explain what is really AT STAKE, as you did very clearly in this post, I GET it now. Again…INFORMATION IS POWER. Not to be Cliche, but as actors, one of handful of MAIN tenants of the craft that we are taught all the way through conservatory and beyond, is to identify what is at stake in the scene – because THAT information is power, THAT knowledge motivates and informs our subsequent choices and actions (and in this case, VOTES). “What do I stand to gain” and “What do I stand to lose”. Having THAT clearly laid out, in easy to understand terms – (what is truly at stake) – will motivate voting choices, especially among the younger generation of guild members, who might be more apt to say, “Aw, lets all just come together as one big happy family, why all the arguing?” Thank you T-REX for doing that. I don’t know who you are, what your background is, whether your a likable person or not, but what everyone else needs to get is that NONE OF THAT MATTERS, it’s not about personalities – its about INFORMATION. Both sides need to present their side, CLEARLY, on ALL of the issues (that means you too United 4 Strength – who has been silent on many important issues), so that voters can make decisions on the facts, not on WHO is aligned with each side. I am tired of hearing NAMES, about who is on what side – WE NEED INFORMATION, NOT NAMES. Even as a young actor previously doing Co-Star and now having moved up to larger Guest Star appearances, and smaller but growing film roles, at least 30% of my earnings are in residuals so far. So that is an important thing for me.
I challenge someone from Unite 4 Strength to come on here and answer to each of the points posted by T-REX here. What say you to these points U4S? We want to be informed. And I mean that sincerely, I truly want to know where your “slate” stands on these points.
And again – thanks for clearly stating these points…T-REX….whoever you are.
Andrew
Reply to Comment by Kevin — July 26, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Perhaps you might want to read the post again from the point POV where labor supports labor. And for those who do not believe that supporting other unions or guild, only undermine ALL unions and not just the Screen Actors Guild from getting a fair and equitable deal now and in the future.
And in reference to “Captain Howdy” I see more support from the non-union workers who want to become union and are willing to fight for it, with all risks involved considered. Where as the “ SCAB” part refers to someone who does not care about unions or fellow workers and only care about their immediate self, and instant gratification. This frame of mind is the Black Plague of the labor movement. I yes my statement does seem harsh, But if I got him/her thinking about his or her contact and that they could be in the same situation someday then I am done my job. It could be “Captain Howdy” needs to finds that solidarity is worth finding and statement such as the one “Captain Howdy” posted only undermine the working class people unions and none alike from getting a fair deal.
“To tell the other candidates that they need to back the incumbents” And in reference to Membership First, I never made any reference to either.
I support the issue at hand from any faction and do not support slates.
I hope this clarifies things for you.
Gary Watts
Vote for a Independent candidate, elect Gary Watts in 2008
Gary,
I am fully aware of the need for labor unions to support each other. And we agree that all unions and guilds deserve a fair contract. That’s not the issue I was raising. You referred to the term “SCAB”, which is a very specific slur – and it isn’t a general one. It has to do with someone who crosses a picket line to do the work that the people on the picket line should be doing. It does not apply to people from other guilds who are not doing work in that category. Specifically, this is due to all guilds and unions in Hollywood having “no strike” clauses in their contracts, so that they don’t have a choice to not appear for work. Your statement that this somehow means that they are just out for themselves or for “instant gratification” indicates that you may not understand that part of all of our contracts. That is disturbing to me, since you’re running for an office where you would be in a position to influence policy in this area. Is it your contention that the “no strike” clause should be removed from the SAG contract?(And I should clarify that I work BTL so my reference to my crew working to complete the script in hand was about the crew finishing the episode we had started rather than simply walking away and collectively being fired.)
And my reference to the other candidates being told not to run was less toward your specific post than toward the multiple posters who talked about the timing of a rival slate of candidates trying to get themselves on the board while the Membership First group is still trying to figure out how to get a contract they can live with.
Reply…Comment by Kevin — July 27, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Ha Kevin,
I have a pretty good understanding of the Basic Craft Agreement and the post 60 agreements than is contained with in it. The post 60’s agreement is residual driven.
And as far as the “no strike” we meaning labor, should never should of allowed this in any of our contracts, as it reduces the amount of leverage a union has, in a single union or multi-union negotiations.
I feel all unions should strive to get ridge of the “no strike” clauses, but it will take many years to just educate the members of how important getting ridge of this clause is. And then getting them to strike for it is a different issue all together.
I willing to start educating our members on this issue, are you?
“You referred to the term “SCAB” I stand my ground…and the words are: “more support from” and you should understand the context in which it was used. I have never crossed a picket line in my life and never will, and I do understand that other union members do not have the same conviction. Remember in the old days nobody; nobody ever crossed a picket line and the unions where stronger for that reason.
Peace
~ Gary Watts ~
Gary,
Thank you for clarifying. So you’ll work to get the “no strike” clause out of the SAG contract. I agree with that position, and have asked for that to happen at the DGA. (And as a recently joined member of SAG as well, I support your possible work in this should you get on the board.)
Be aware that the only way to actually get that clause out would be to take everything else off the table and just go for that one. This would apply to every guild and local in Hollywood. Everyone would have to go for this and only this during their negotiations. It’s not something that can be tacked on to increases in residuals or jurisidiction over reality or anything else. It’s that big. Even the Teamsters have it and they haven’t had success getting rid of it – so it’s not just a little barnacle we can quicly scrape off the deck.
As for your use of the term “scab”, I stand by my statements about what that term means. WGA members I work with were shocked to hear that some extremists were throwing that word around during the strike when it didn’t apply. And the grips, propmakers and even Teamsters I have worked with were both surprised and angered that the term was being used so loosely. Let me be clear: I am a lifelong union supporter and I do not cross picket lines. But throwing slurs at people who honored their contracts without crossing picket lines is a cheap shot – and one that was taken many times during the WGA strike, and usually by people who weren’t working before the strike in the first place.
Correction: Comment by Gary Watts — July 27, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
OooPsss…get rid not get ridge.
I bad not once but twice,does that mean I am twice as bad?..Hehe
Thinking of some mountain top repeater stuff on another board.
peace
~ Gary Watts ~
t’s like this:
United for Strength is the wrong title for a group of uninformed actors who think that good press equals strength. Good press equals getting in bed with the people we are negotiating with and selling out the working actor. This faction of SAG are the same group of people who sold us out on DVD residuals and have been weakening our union for years with they’re so called “pragmatic” method of negotiating and trying to divide our membership. If they hadn’t given up DVD residuals we would not be facing any issues with New Media. Once that faction of SAG gave up DVD residuals it opened the door for the AMPTP to move forward with their plan to eliminate all residuals. They might want to change their name to “United to Bow”.
Our current leadership and majority of board members ran on a slate of Membership First, simply to defeat the weakest leadership SAG has ever seen. They realize that they are negotiating with Saavey Businessmen who want nothing more than to pay us less. Businessmen who are not in partnership with us. They are not looking out for our interests. And they really don’t even care if we have health insurance or a pension. They are our employers, running one of the most successful businesses in the world. It is a business that is recession proof and even, as history has shown, depression proof!
They tell us about the sour economy, yet they are showing record profits. They have the money to pay us and there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to anyone saying that we should settle for less than we deserve, i.e. AFTRA, United for Strength, etc. We are the faces of their product, the voices of their product and the promoters of their product. They can’t do it without us!
Membership First is fighting the same fight right now that our past leadership was fighting for when they originally got residuals. They are fighting for you and me. They are fighting to preserve our income, health, pension and future in acting. When residuals go, unless we all become stars we are finished. Membership First has only, ever had “SAG Membership” in mind. Getting the members the best in all areas. That’s why we pay dues! That’s why we belong to a union…Not just to get good press. Who cares about good press when they can’t afford to make a living? Can you afford HBO? Showtime? Cable? A Television? A Newpaper? Our union has never been stronger and bad press proves that.
The Congloms that we are negotiating with own the press and they know how strong we are. That’s why they are forcing their own media outlets to try and divide us. We are not divided! We are not weak! We are each, an individual product that they will try to buy for as little as possible and they will find anyway to do that. That’s why SAG was formed and that’s why SAG is now more united and stronger than ever before.
How often do you work? Every day? Every week? Every month? Every year? Can that day or week or even month’s pay sustain you through those times when you’re not working? Those residuals sure do help don’t they? If we accept the terms for New Media that “United for Strength” wants us to accept (the same terms under the AFTRA contract) than we better learn how to stretch a dollar, because there aren’t going to be anymore residuals in the future… That doesn’t sound like uniting for strength, it sounds more like uniting for a slow death.
A lot of the people who are fighting our current leadership are stars who are also producers and who have forgotten where they came from. They have forgotten the struggle of day player wages, background work, top of show pay… They only care about looking good! Well shame on you! This union got you to where you are and if you think otherwise than it is unfair of you to even vote for these contracts. That’s the way “Qualified Voting” should be dealt with, not by low income. If you aren’t auditioning for work that falls under the set wages in these contracts than you shouldn’t get a vote. That means, if you are making over $10,000 for a role that is not based on number of days worked for each role, than you don’t get a vote. The contract doesn’t affect you and you should not be voting on it. Divide and conquer much? That’s about how much sense qualified voting makes. Unless Sally Field is auditioning for a top of the show paid role, she no longer gets a vote. Any thoughts, Sally?
Merger? Yes, with a plan that strengthens unified actors and the business of the union as a whole. Our last merger attempt was pathetic and unfair. It would’ve drained SAG and with the majority of actors in SAG it would’ve deeply affected their future in a negative way. United for Strength likes to throw the word, “Merger” out their to get everyone on board (much in the Karl Rove way of doing things) which I think is very smart. The problem is that they have no plan, much in the same way old Karl got everyone on board for the Iraq war, but look what happens when there is no plan…
The bottom line is that each one of us has to look at what we need, what is in our best interest, and what we want for our future. Just because some name actor tells you it’s what they think is right, it isn’t necessarily right for you. We are moving forward and not back. Membership first has worked tirelessly for this union, not for them but for you and me. They are volunteers! Unpaid actors putting in endless hours to serve you and your best interests. If there is no fight during negotiations than we settled for less than we deserved. The other side will always try to make us look bad and put the blame on us. So what? As long as we get what we are entitled to…
United for Strength wants to take the same approach that Melissa Gilbert’s group took during the last Film/Television negotiations and avoid the fight and avoid bad press. The result was catastrophic! They got us nothing on DVD’s which may have alleviated our health insurance requirements and secured our future. That concession is also the basis that the AMPTP is now using to reject New Media residuals and still reject DVD residuals. So no, they will not Unite us for strength…
Can someone, ANYONE tell me if ANY of the 31 United For Stength slate members have EVER served on a Committee at SAG?
Maybe Gabrielle Carteris?
But who else?
I would like to see a rule that you can’t run for the Board of SAG UNLESS you served a Committee for a yerar prior.
THAT would give them SOME experience in “Robert’s Rules”, Union politics and decorum and speed up the ever slow process in the Board Room eliminating all the basic questions that are asked when, having served on a Committee, the questions would have been answered there and those who are NEW whould already know the process. As it stands now, the Board meetings almost NEVER get all the work done that was scheduled.
AGAIN I POST:
Seems most don’t get it! AFTRA is the “99 Cent Store Union” and the AMPTP have used its “the Producers are our friends” mentality to screw SAG in negotiations.
AFTRA is NOT an actor’s Union and has ALWAYS been an anchor in those negotiations having an equal say with only about 5% of the contracts.
Think about it. The Producers have ALWAYS known that they have 50% of the room if they give AFTRA what they want (which is NEVER much). They only need ONE more vote from a SAG negotiator and the AMPTP got what they want from SAG and with current whimpy NY Board members not willing to stand up and fight because THAT requires a backbone, its been a tough time for SAG these last few contracts.
Everything done by current SAG leadership has been done by the books in a democratic way. These spiteful treasonous Board Members who have riled up the Membership and given the press and AMPTP ammunition and has done nothing more than made it that much harder for the SAG Negotiators. That has been their goal. They have made it personal and want Alan Rosenberg & Doug Allen to fail just so their Egos are feed at the cost of the SAG Membership. Now THAT’s leadership. (Incidently, these NY & Regional Board Members supported Allen Rosenberg in the last Presidential election so that shows how they can jump back & forth across the line for their own personal agenda).
Personally, I feel that each Board Member who has spoke badly to the press and in public about our leadership during the Negotiations shoud be brought up on charges of “Conduct Unbecoming” making it impossible to get a fair deal and also making OUR Union look like a joke.
I personally didn’t support Alan Rosenberg in the last election. As a matter of fact, I helped run Seymour Cassel’s campaign. Having said that, I SUPPORT Alan in our Negotiations 1000%. How could I not? He is the face of MY Union. Anything less would make me a bad Union member.
PS: As far as all these stars popping up and making comments. I have a question for you? Where were you during the Commercial Strike of 2000. What Committees have you served on at SAG? What have you EVER done for SAG prior to your sudden “coming out”? I’ll answer for you. NOTHING! You are nothing more than a mouthpiece for a political group within SAG that has fed you lies & half truths. And that goes DOUBLE for this NEW slate mouthing off in the press and talking about subjects they know nothing about FIRST HAND!!!
Robert Amico
Former Hollywood Board Member
Member 2005 Negotiating Team