'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 … 
The two opposing SAG slates face off again: here is Membership First's Keith Carradine letter to members, followed by Unite For Strength's Ken Howard response:
---
From MF's Keith Carradine:
Vote MembershipFirst!
This is a business and if we are to survive we must think like good businessmen and women.There is ONLY ONE MERGER that makes sense – all actors should be under one roof in the Screen Actors Guild.
'Unite for Strength' wants a merger which would promote AFTRA to a full 50/50 partnership even though AFTRA covers only 5% of primetime scripted television, 3% of TV commercials and 0% of theatrical motion pictures.
'Unite for Strength' wants a merger which would promote AFTRA to a full 50/50 partnership even though AFTRA believes that actors should earn LESS - and in some cases NOTHING - sacrificing our livelihood in order to "organize".
Our junior partner - AFTRA - has signed a deal that gives away 'new media' with no residuals and no guaranteed union jurisdiction for made-for-internet and new media projects.
Our junior partner - AFTRA - continues to undercut S.A.G. contracts, cutting deals for basic cable scripted programs that have lower minimums than S.A.G. and “residual-free” reruns.
There is NO BUSINESS in the world that would promote a junior partner who is responsible for making the company LOSE MONEY.
Yet that is exactly what 'Unite for Strength' is advocating.
There are no stockholders in the world that would put up with this.
You are receiving this because you are a member of the Hollywood Division of S.A.G.- and you are a prime stockholder.
S.A.G. is not some experimental 'start-up'. We've just celebrated our 75th anniversary.
S.A.G. has over $33 million dollars in cash reserves, up over 150% since 2005 (the first year MembershipFirst won a majority of seats on the National Board.)
S.A.G. covers over 95% of every primetime scripted TV show, 97% of every TV commercial and 100% of every film that employs professional actors.
S.A.G. is the last hope for residuals and guaranteed jurisdiction in 'new media', which will become the number one delivery system for scripted entertainment, replacing television and DVD's. (Please read the Contract Bulletin recently mailed to you from the Guild. See what AFTRA gave away and what S.A.G. is fighting to keep.)
And yet…”Unite for Strength’ wants to put an end to the Screen Actors Guild and start a brand new union. They say this will give us more "leverage". But how will we get "leverage" from our new partners at AFTRA who insist that unions must lower the standard of living for actors?
Make no mistake - "Unite for Strength" has no intention of taking a strong stand against AFTRA in the new "merged" union. In fact, they are unapologetically PRO-AFTRA. They’ve said nothing about AFTRA’s undercutting of S.A.G.’s contracts or AFTRA’s deleveraging of S.A.G.’s negotiations (by making a separate deal with the AMPTP.)
And yet they're highly critical of S.A.G. leaders who have dared to criticize AFTRA!
“Unite for Strength” candidates make anti-S.A.G statements even though they've never served on a single S.A.G. Board. Their ONLY union Board experience is on the National Board of AFTRA!
In S.A.G.’s long history there has always been a battle between those who want to secure a decent livelihood for actors and those who don't want to "make waves."
Thank heaven the "wave-makers" usually win. Without them, there would be no pension plan, or health plan (currently the greatest in the industry), no residuals, none of the current wages and working conditions (which are the envy of every other performer’s union.)
I'm a candidate with MembershipFirst and they have my full support – they've only had a majority on S.A.G.’s National Board for 3 short years but they’ve accomplished a great deal.
Most importantly, they're fighting to save 75 years of gains that benefit you and every other working actor.
Please vote for all 33 MembershipFirst candidates - it's the only way to insure that S.A.G. will be celebrating a 76th Anniversary next year.
---
From U4S member Ken Howard:
Fellow SAG members,
You've been getting a lot of campaign email, but this is one you really should read because it's about how your dues are being spent – or rather, misspent. And it’s about some pretty fuzzy math coming from Keith Carradine.First your dues: SAG leadership just spent well over $100,000 of our dues on a "special bulletin" describing how bad the AMPTP’s current contract offer is – and then asking us whether they should negotiate better terms. The answer is obvious. Of course they should. So why ask?
Is it because the leadership doubts they can negotiate any improvements?
Or is this just an excuse to use our dues money for a 12-page campaign advertisement praising the leadership for "fighting hard" and trying to persuade us to re-elect Membership First board members (who currently control SAG)? Maybe that's why the update was timed to arrive in your mailbox during the election and was proposed and approved by board members belonging to Membership First.
But unfortunately for them, the mailer also spotlights exactly why we need to elect new leadership. For over two months we’ve been forced to work under an expired contract, costing us millions of dollars. But despite claiming months ago that they were just "hours away" from a deal, SAG leaders still haven't negotiated a contract that's any better than the deal signed by AFTRA in June.
The mailer calls that "progress," but when AFTRA's deal was being voted on, SAG leaders spent another $100,000+ of our dues money trying to convince us how awful it was.
The last thing we need now is an expensive and meaningless poll asking whether we want to accept what's on the table "without modification" or hold out for a "fair" deal. As Back Stage says, that's "kind of like asking the kids if they'd rather go out for frosty chocolate milkshakes or stay home and count the ceiling tiles".
What we DO need from SAG leaders is for them to explain how they're going to strengthen SAG's hand in this and future contract negotiations. And one thing's for sure – more fighting with AFTRA won't help. I'm running for the SAG Board with the other Unite for Strength candidates because we know that getting the best contracts requires REAL leverage -- the kind we'll get from bringing ALL media performers into one powerful union.
Membership First attacked this obvious solution in a recent email from Keith Carradine, arguing that uniting with AFTRA would weaken SAG by "promoting AFTRA to a full 50/50 partnership." This flies in the face of simple math: SAG members would make up 82% of a merged union.
We can't afford to let emotion drive us to division and weakness any longer.
It's time for new leadership. Please vote to Unite for Strength.
Loading ...
Leo Bloom: Actors are not animals! They’re human beings!
Max Bialystock: They are? Have you ever eaten with one?
Good point, Ken. Instead, we should spend our money on another failed attempt to combine AFTRA and SAG. Old and constantly rejected ideas are not a great platform.
I find it odd that the response from U4S is not a direct rebuttal. Rather, an attempt to keep your attention from the large pile of evidence that they have no clue what they’re getting into.
While the nitty-gritty may be oomplex, the end-game is simple and clear:
1. New Contract
2. One Unified Actor’s Union
3. Everything Else
In that order.
Now get it done, or move out of the way and let someone who will.
please ken – your toupe’ is too tight.
it’s time to kick opie vaughn and his merry band of completely inexperienced lost souls to the curb.
let’s let the serious, experienced negotiators do their job even though they AREN’T negotiating much right now for one reason and one reason only – the amptp deal SUCKS, and anyone with half a brain and ANY understanding of new media and emerging technology knows it. just a guess – but that SURE as hell aint ken howard.
we need a strike authorization and then sag will go into the amptp and say:
give us a fair deal on new media, first dollar, first airing, say, a percentage deal that ties us to your profit and also ties us to your break-evens and losses in new media. covers you – covers us. you make money? we make money. you don’t make money or lose money? you have no fixed obligation to sag.
we need the threat of strike. that’s the ultimate leverage we’ve got and I wouldn’t be surprised if the amptp says “alright – fuck it – let’s make a percentage deal.” people need to understand – actors need to understand – unless and until you have the gun, the other guy aint agreeing to shit. and if they don’t? we strike. you’re never gonna get a dime out of these assholes unless you put your elbow under their throat and back them up against the wall.
ask tommy lee jones.
In response to what “feel it” said, putting a gun to AMPTP’s head worked great for the writers…oh wait that didn’t work either.
hey AJ
the writer’s strike didn’t pan out because wga leadership got their plug pulled by a powerful faction within that guild.
One thing is for sure, there will be no merger for this contract cycle. There isn’t time. How does UFS plan on getting more leverage without a merger? “Just Talk”?
Down the road there might be a sag aftra merger. It is by no means a sure thing. If a merger fails again, what does UFS have as an alternative?
They don’t know.
The platform of UFS is nonexistent beyond seeking a sag aftra merger for the *17th* time.
Ken Howard writes: “The last thing we need now is an expensive and meaningless poll asking whether we want to accept what’s on the table “without modification” or hold out for a “fair” deal. As Back Stage says, that’s “kind of like asking the kids if they’d rather go out for frosty chocolate milkshakes or stay home and count the ceiling tiles”.
Yes, let’s rely on the cutting edge journalism and insightful editorials of BackStage. If I’m not mistaken their readership is largely non-union actors searching casting calls for non-union work. Fitting that U4S would quote them since their goal is to undermine the UNION in favor of their person gain from over scale contracts. Their cry of “We’re working we know what we need,” is getting tiresome.
And how is the poll “meaningless,” exactly? And I mean that as a question. Why don’t you folks at U4S come up with something, ANYTHING, besides finger pointing and suggestions that the current SAG leadership are dummies? How is the Poll meaningless? HOW?
Is it meaningless because U4S thinks the majority should not have an opinion or even a vote? (No wait, “It’s not about Affected Memeber Voting!”) Or is it simply one more statement meant to be hard-hitting but not really thought out and completely ridiculous?
Oh, and Ken, let me know if you find that insulting SAG members by referring to us as “Kids” who would rather go out for milkshakes helps garner you votes.
Seems to me the AMPTP and the puppets at U4S who dine with them were the characters promoting a poll of the UNION membership in the first place. The AMPTP suggested it outright, and with U4S screaming that “everyone” wants to sign the current BAD deal, well, why not a poll? Let’s see.
I think you’ll see there is a lot of support for SAG right now. It may even outweigh your efforts to undermine the UNION. Let’s see.
I sent my postcard in today supporting SAG in working toward a decent contract.
As for AFTRA they are busting our UNION every time they steal a SAG project and force actors on the project to accept crappy wages and benefits. They call themselves a union, but they sure don’t act like one.
And again, we have Mr. Carradine, who goes item by item, noting the specific points of disagreement between SAG and AFTRA, completely undercutting Unite For Weakness’s argument . . .
Oh wait. Unite For Weakness doesn’t have an argument.
u4w has no valid argument for either their own slate or for AFTRA, all Mr. Howard is doing is complaining about the cost of a straw poll that was already approved by the entire membership of SAG.
Hell, I know that and I’m just a fangeek — I’m a fangeek that happens to be reading DHD, but I’m just a fangeek (with a theater education). Seems to me like u4w are less informed about the actual issues involved in the entire dispute than *I* am.
— Rob
AFTRA is acting just like a union is supposed to act. It’s seeking to cover as much territory as possible. That’s their fiduciary responsibility as an American union. That’s their mandate. It’s the PERVERTED REALITY of two unions covering the same performers.
One may not like it. It might not be just. It might be awful sounding. But it’s their job. And it will be their job until the two unions are one.
And it’s only going to get worse. Getting medical and pension will only be harder, etc.
The current leadership sees AFTRA as a thorn. But it’s putting power in the boardroom above clout at the negotiating table. They should have welcomed the broadcasters, newscasters, gameshow hosts and daytime actors. Because when they go on strike everybody knows it immediately. When scripted primetime and film goes on strike, we have to wait weeks for the backlog of stockpiled product to run out before anyone in America even notices.
But the SAG leadership didn’t welcome them. They sought to disempower them. They reviled them. They, in effect, told them they weren’t needed or wanted. So… they went away.
I don’t think they should have, but they didn’t ask me. Nevertheless, I consider the actions that SAG took to be part of their negotiating strategy, whether they’d like to own up to it or not. I think it was shortsighted.
Therefore, I think merger is the most powerful thing the two unions can do. That’s why I support U4S. Because everything else is a descendant of that move.
There’s no reason to believe that with a larger more powerful union that we’ll see an ‘averaging’ of the contracts between the two. That makes no sense. But there’s every reason to believe the new contracts will be better than either could do separately. That’s the whole idea! A merged union would consist of 82% SAG members. SAG would finally have the real majority, the legal majority that it’s after. And you can be sure a merger would include new elections. So, what’s everybody worried about!
What’s U4S’s negotiating strategy? How can they know? They haven’t been privy to the talks. But we’re getting to the point of diminishing returns. Can the thousands and thousands lost in work over the last few months ever be regained by the incremental increases that could be gotten this late in the game? It’s hard to say.
Steve Diamond over at Valleywood had an interesting plan to break the deadlock. Unfortunately, it culminates at the end of January ‘09, and I will probably be in foreclosure by then. Something needs to happen soon or many more like myself, who are trying to make a go at this work, will be living in a trailer down by the river.
The current leadership is clearly at a stalemate. A new approach is needed. That’s what U4S is.
Dear Mr Carradine,
You would not make a good businessman at all.
Any largre company would jump at the chance to swallow up the competition, especially if they undercut them in pricing. This would eliminate any compition during future negotiations and ensure higher wages for all.
Please don’t get me wrong. I think you believe in what you say. I just think you are dead wrong.
Let’s all remember that SAG is AFTRA as AFTRA is SAG you people speak as if they are Two seperate countrys when in fact they are all one family.
For the record ………. IATSE health plan is better right now. (Supplemented by residuals, as it should be)
There is something very important that UFS is not getting. Much of AFTRA’s elected leadership is not interested in a merger anymore. A lot has change since the last merger failed. AFTRA doesn’t NEED to merge anymore. Therefore, they don’t WANT to merge anymore.
In the past AFTRA only had jurisdiction on the big three network broadcast lots. AFTRA is a broadcasters union. AFTRA only was granted jurisdiction for live TV. Live broadcast TV includes: variety shows, game shows, new programs etc. The only reason AFTRA had any scripted dramas was because the big three networks made the soap on broadcast lots and because they were originally made live. Some were even originally radio programs on the big three radio networks.
Now AFTRA says that they have jurisdiction over all TV without limitation, as long as its made digitally. They are making AFTRA raided/poached shows on Movie Studio Lots.
This is new. Why would an organization thats in the midst of a successful takeover of TV want to merge? The broadcasters at AFTRA will not willingly give up power, which is what will happen if SAG and AFTRA merge and they become an even smaller minority at AFTRA. They have said so publicly and on the record.
AFTRA is controlled now by a faction called *AFTRAnow* out of New York. They are mostly announcers and voice actors. They hate Hollywood. They are trying to steal SAG’s jurisdiction and they don’t want to merge. They resent the fact that the center of the entertainment industry is in Hollywood. New York was the center once and they want the industry back. So if your a IATSE, DGA, WGA member or a Teamster. Its a fight for your survival too and there can be only one winner. UFS doesn’t get it.
to todd waring:
if aftra is acting like a union is supposed to act,
why have they never bothered to organize cable news programs?
how long has CNN been on the air? 28 years? 25 years? a long time.
why should we nerge with a group that lets it’s newscasters
and t.v. personalities openly work “off the card” ?
news is aftra’s traditional jurisdiction.
why has this been allowed to go on for so long?
wouldn’t turning all those cable news shows UNION generate a lot more $$$ that would go into pension and health?
to #44:
yes most of the actors in aftra are also sag members, but the two institutions are very different and have completely different cultures.
so in fact, sag and aftra are two different countries. some of us just maintain dual citizenship.
i think both of you guys are laboring under the delusion that aftra would still want to merge.
if their pension and health plans are as sound as aftra claims them to be,
and since the are winning more contracts now,
why would they want to merge?
if they do want to merge it’s because they must still need money.
it’s not because they have any feelings for an actor’s well-being.
but i don’t think they do want to merge.
i think aftra is emboldened by the amptp’s reception of their
recent actions. they’re going rogue. they’re gonna do it alone.
i think they figure they can become the darling union of the conglomerates and take over the whole shootin’ match.
all they have to do is keep selling actors cheap.
From Dave Clennon:
Ken Howard’s response to Keith Carradine is evasive and mendacious. Mr. Howard and I were in drama school together several years ago. I thought of him as a friend.
I used to think you could have “political differences” with friends and still remain friends. But what if your friend’s “political” actions injure you and injure your family? Is he or she still your friend?
#####################################
From: David Clennon
Date: Fri Sep 04, 2009 02:44:32 PM US/Pacific
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER TO SOME FRIENDS
HOW THE POLITICAL BECOMES PERSONAL.
When Your FRIENDS Threaten Your Livelihood.
An open letter to “Unite-for-Strength” candidates,
who are my friends — To Ken Howard. Richard Speight. Keith Szarabajka. Matt Letscher.
To William Charlton. Morgan Fairchild. Pamela Reed. And Tom Verica –
And to my friends among their “Unite for Strength” supporters: Tony Shalhoub. Meshach Taylor.
To Ed Begley. Peter Coyote. Eric Stoltz. Mike Farrell. Richard Masur. Kevin Kilner & Ron Perlman –
I’ve had the pleasure and the honor of working with every one of you, and I’m comfortable calling you friends, or, at least, “friendly co-workers.”
Ken, (I’m going to address you personally, because I’ve known you the longest, but my questions are directed to the rest of you, as well) — Ken, and my other friends — I don’t understand your behavior: If you have ANY comprehension of what you’re doing to the rest of us in S.A.G., Does your conscience trouble you?
If you don’t know how you’re hurting us, will you please do some research, assess the current balance of forces between us and the AMPTP, and then ask yourselves WHY you want to weaken our S.A.G. negotiating team as it strives to secure us, the members, a livable wage, at this turning point in our lives?
It’s not “just” Guild politics. Your political actions have real PERSONAL consequences, for real people.
Let me give you an example, Ken, of the kind of person you’re hurting:
You’re hurting me. And my family. I’ve had ups and downs. I’ve been luckier than most, and luckier than I ever deserved to be. But I have never squandered my earnings. Let me give you a snapshot of my family’s current situation:
We have twins in elementary school (the first children either of us has had). We bought our first house in 2001. It’s a modest, two-bedroom place, but we bought on the south side of Santa Monica so our kids could go to public school here. Of course, we paid a huge premium to gain that opportunity. Our mortgage is $3,400 per month. As I said, I’ve been lucky: We bought our house in a year when I could afford the down payment.
The exterior is long-overdue for painting. Can’t afford it, Ken. We drive a 2002 Prius and a 1993 Honda. My wife’s computer is a first-generation iMac, c. 1999, inherited when her mother died. I have a 2002 eMac, with the original operating system. Our one television is a 1989 Trinitron given to us by my wife’s nephews, when they moved this year. Our DVD player is the Cinea that was sent free to members of the Academy five years ago, or longer. We don’t have iPhones or anything comparable.
In recent years, we would have lost our S.A.G. health insurance, Ken. RESIDUALS, far more than my few scale-plus-ten salaries, put us over the threshold. I’d say we’re right in the MIDDLE of the middle class. And I’m NOT complaining about our standard of living. I’m protesting against what Unite-for-Strength is doing to DEGRADE our standard of living.
You are threatening me and my family. And you are threatening thousands of your fellow actors, Ken, who have been LESS FORTUNATE than you and I.
Your leader, Ned Vaughn, is a Republican, a member of the party of Dick Cheney. I know an individual’s outside party affiliation is not supposed to matter inside the Guild. (And the G.O.P. of Cheney was also the G.O.P. of Eisenhower, Leach and Chaffee.) But, I’m sorry, that HAS to tell you something. Again, the political becomes PERSONAL: The eight-year reign of Cheney/Bush has negatively impacted my family and all but a few Americans. Just one example, NED — American workers, those in unions and those without, are battered and de-moralized, thanks to your Secretary of Labor and your entire Administration.
I don’t believe that the driving force behind “Unite-for-Strength” is the wish for merger, as sincerely as most of you may wish for it. I believe the engine behind your campaign is driven, in large part, by HATRED of MembershipFirst. The fantasy of merger is a pretext; the goals are revenge and vindication. Look at the literature, look at the blogging comments. Read Mike Farrell’s letter to his email list. The rage and the hatred leap off the screen.
I’ve tried to figure out the motive behind their destructive behavior. What I come up with isn’t pretty. Could it be that the people who are steering your campaign DON’T CARE that you could be destroying the rank-and-file’s hopes for winning a livable future? Is it possible that they see a S.A.G. failure at the bargaining table as a DESIRABLE outcome? One that will discredit their enemies, AT THE EXPENSE of the majority of Guild members?
For thirteen years I was a loyal follower of your S.A.G. faction, which has re-branded itself as “Unite for Strength.” In one earlier guise, we called ourselves “Restore Respect” and, in general, we thought of ourselves as “THE WORKING ACTORS.” During the writers’ strike, as I walked their picket lines, and argued the writers’ case with friends and strangers, I came to realize that I no longer belonged in the company of “The Working Actors.”
Recently this faction made a concerted push to DISQUALIFY less successful actors from voting on ratification of Primetime/Theatrical contracts. Almost every one of you, Ken, endorsed the plan. I won’t argue the merits here. But the TIMING of your divisive campaign, as we were recovering from the writers’ strike, as we were preparing to face the AMPTP, ourselves — your timing was unconscionable.
I voted twice for merger. I have never voted for a MembershipFirst candidate or for any of their positions on referendums. But OUR MEMBERSHIP ELECTED THEM to fight for us, to fight for a contract we all can LIVE with.
I don’t care, now, that our negotiators MAY have made mistakes, in the past. I don’t care, now, that MembershipFirst played rough in Guild politics. I don’t care if they’re rude and obnoxious and confrontational. I doesn’t matter to me now whether they’re gentlemen and ladies. I don’t care that they have made a distinction between the mass of our members and the Fortunate Few — a distinction your faction trumpets as “divisive.” I don’t care if they, and our negotiators, are the spawn of Beelzebub. They are OUR NEGOTIATORS, Ken. They are not action-figures that you and your friends can smash if they don’t work the way you think they should. They are the MEMBERSHIP’s negotiators. And rank-and-file members need them to be strong.
I never thought I’d say something like this to another actor whom I regard as a friend: This isn’t “just” POLITICAL. This is PERSONAL. You are hurting a real PERSON, Ken. You are hurting MANY real persons, including a whole younger generation of actors.
If you sincerely believe that merger is desirable and possible, then DROP OUT NOW, and run again on that issue AFTER we’ve had a fighting chance to win a fair contract. Do you have the decency NOT to disregard the rest of us as less-than-pawns in your drive to destroy your adversaries?
In my first draft of this letter, I wrote, ” . . . You are hurting MANY real persons. And you should be ashamed of what you’re doing to us.”
But that doesn’t really capture what I feel. What I want to say is that I’m disappointed. And I have to say that I take no pride in once having thought of you all as friends.
Sincerely,
Dave Clennon
I have no addresses for Keith Szarabajka, Pamela Reed, Tom Verica, Peter Coyote, Eric Stoltz or Ron Perlman.
Mr. Clennon,
I disagree completely, the current leadership is hurting the average middle class actor. I had two jobs recently that I made less than i should have since we have no contract. I was happy if at some point they had sent me a strike vote, I would have given it to them, I wanted them to walk in the room with whatever they possibly needed. But now i see nothing but mistakes, lies and a producers who have no interest in dealing with this group and crews that look at actors with disgust at the length of the slowdown and threat of a strike hanging over their and our heads since june. You are dead wrong, this group is hurting me, and I can only hope UFS gets in. The merger is a ways away but new minds in that boardroom and fresh voices are just what is needed to break a stalemate we find ourselves in. I live off residuals too David, you are incorrect in your assessment and it is simply your opinion.
to sagmember:
you say that dave clennon is wrong in his assessment of the situation.
and i say you are wrong in yours.
our opinions and we’re entitled to them.
the facts remain: U4S wants to merge with AFTRA, the union that undercut SAG and gave away the store with the TV/Theatrical deal,
and SAG, led by MF, is still trying to get us a proper contract.
if you live off your residuals, as we all do, you’d better pray
rosenberg and allen prevail.
Todd Waring is hypocrisy personified. He blogged passionately, in an addlebrained way, in favor of qualified voting in Screen Actors Guild, yet supports the abomination of AFTRA sportscasters and weather reporters in Pittsburgh voting on a t.v.-theatrical contract they have never nor will ever work. AFTRA leadership cynically encouraged them to vote even though they never intend to work the contract, to benefit their pension and health. Proud SAG members have had to at least worked under our contracts in order to attain membership. It is no surprise that elitist self servers like Mr. Waring would enthusiastically support “Strength Through Weakness”.
sagmember writes, “I disagree completely, the current leadership is hurting the average middle class actor. I had two jobs recently that I made less than i should have since we have no contract.”
Thanks! These times have been tough all around and I needed a good laugh.
Dear truthinadvertizing,
Even though I work only periodically, I have more in common with news folk who go to work in front of a camera every day, wear makeup and wardrobe, read scripts, take direction and worry about making their medical, than I have with a grip who happens to have a SAG card.
That said, where has it been said that newscasters would vote on the TV/Theatrical contract? If they haven’t worked it, they don’t get to vote on it. That’s the point. AFTRA has agreed to explore AMV, so that those restriction would be implemented.
As regards ‘addlebrained’, I invite you to try to refute a single assertion I made related to AMV.