'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 … 
In a startling development, SAG's new leadership used the Guild's membership list to slam the "Vote No" contingent for "tricking" actors. 
This, after the SAG agreed that neither the guild nor its new high-priced PR firm would attack any members who campaigned against the contract. And this, after SAG staff and legal vetted the "Vote No" contingent's Con statement included in the ballot package. The smear email was sent by the SAG National Majority, which consists of the coalition between most of the NY Division, Regional Branches and Unite For Strength which recently took over leadership of the guild. Several board members tell me the email was written by NY Division head Sam Freed and Unite For Strength leader Ned Vaughn and approved by Interim National Executive Director David White and the PR firm they newly hired, Saylor & Company. (Mark Saylor denied any involvement to me today.) Not only is this email inappropriate, it is inflammatory. It should be retracted.
Below are the offensive parts of the smear email, following by a "Vote No" reaction, followed by SAG's response to my query:
"Don't Be Tricked Into Voting Against The TV/Theatrical Contract
"Some members are trying to take our union down and continue to circulate misinformation about our tentative agreement. Don’t be fooled... So, when you see negative attacks launched by the opponents of this deal, ask them: What’s the alternative? They won’t give an answer, because they don’t have one. SAG’s National Board majority knows what the alternative to a YES vote means."
Anne-Marie Johnson, SAG’s 1st vice president, chairman of the Hollywood Board, and a "Vote No" campaigner, sent SAG an email denouncing the SAG National Majority's smear campaign:
"Well, I hope you all feel really proud of yourselves on this Memorial Day weekend. 'Tricked', 'take our union down', 'would like you to believe that they have a plan'...
"When I first received this email I was angry and confused. I couldn't figure out how on earth the AMPTP got my personal email address. But then I realized that it was from MY union. Well, at least we can finally see what you are paying Saylor to do. But I thought staff assured the the elected that Saylor was not hired to deal with the contract campaign and that they would certainly not be used to attack our own membership. That they were hired to work on re-shaping the image of SAG. Good beginning at the re- shaping. How's that working for you?
"I pray to god Pamm Fair isn't responsible for this. Or Pamela Greenwalt. I had hoped these two would have more integrity than that. I can only assume that this is the work of Saylor.
"Why didn't any of you sign this message? Why didn't David White put his name to this piece of work? I think the answer is obvious. I'm certain the AMPTP will be sending the Guild their thanks and appreciation for saving them thousands and thousands of dollars. Now they won't have to take out any ads in the trades. You did all the heavy lifting for them. In more ways than one."
When I asked why SAG was smearing some of its members in this official email, Pam Greenwalt, SAG communications executive director, responded with this guild statement:
"Screen Actors Guild communicated with our members at the request of National Board leaders who felt strongly that certain critics of the tentative agreement continue to make misleading statements about the agreement. We have always believed that when there is an honest debate about the substance of the agreement and the realities of the current economy and state of the industry, our members will ratify the contract recommended by the SAG National Board. The Guild's staff has been directed to support the ratification effort, to ensure the accuracy of information distributed to our members about the tentative agreement, and to identify and correct misleading statements, which is what we will continue to do throughout the life of this contract campaign."
Loading ...
OH BOY! Here you go again.SAG has become chaotic,seems to be too many lunatics are running the asylum.This is why a director is always needed to arrange actors in projects.SAG already has a true leader in Alan Rosenberg.TRUST HIM to lead SAG collectively to a better deal.
Even more sickening is that they adopting the AMPTP scripted talking point that SAG members have lost $85 million by not having a contract. Except their number is actually HIGHER than the AMPTP’s own estimate (back on April 20 the AMPTP estimate was at $67 million, according to Variety, so there’s no way it’s at $85 million now.) Does SAG’s research group, which vehemently disputed the AMPTP’s exagerrated estimates of lost wages over the past year, now believe that not only is the AMPTP right, they are lowballing it?
This “where’s the alternative?” is nothing but a transparent scripted talkinng point. Here’s the alternative: If SAG members vote down the contract, the new negotiating committee and David White go back to the AMPTP and say “You know that inadequate contract we thought we could sneak by the membership because we thought they were too weary to fight anymore? Didn’t work.”
Everyone keeps saying there is no alternative to this: I have one. Let Aftra fail. Make a deal. All AFTRA card carrying members will be allowed SAG memberships. In exchange, AFTRA disbands, shuts down, their lousy contract null and void, and then there is only one union where an actor can get work. And the AMPTP will have to deal.
If you want to beat this, you have to have the courage to be daring and be strong.
You have start displaying the type of unity that the AMPTP is using against us. Band together and go after them as one. Have the strength to risk and beat this thing. Don’t settle for less! They aren’t!!!
I don’t see a problem here. Well that’s not entirely correct, the problem continues to be Membership First.
It’s time to wake up from the Matrix and come back to the real world where there is no way in Hell we will negotiate a better contract than the one we need to ratify by June 9.
I VOTED YES. Let’s get back to work with the gains and footholds that we will have with this contract.
The vote yes contingent are a sad lot. They obviously honestly feel the membership cannot think for themselves and that their own greed isn’t transparent.
First they tried to take contract votes from the membership with “Affected Member Voting.”
Then they hijacked our leadership and negotiators to avoid the SAV vote by the membership.
Now they insult the membership by implying we could be “tricked” as if we were skipping through this forest like naive Little Red Riding Hood.
We know the issues people. More importantly we can smell a rat.
We are voting NO on this contract. And your childish exploits only make the NO VOTE stronger.
I wish we had a contract we could live with. We don’t.
I wish you self-serving arrogant narcissists hadn’t hijacked the union, but you did.
Here we are with the same contract offer as the Final Offer of 10 months ago.
You’ve done nothing but waste money and time with your childish hijacking. Now you sent insulting e-mails to the membership to win us over to your way of thinking that we are dummies.
None of your antics have helped anyone, certainly not yourselves, certainly not our union.
We are voting no because this contract, in the words of your mouthpiece David White, “SUCKS.”
Vote no.
Way to go Vaughn, Carteris, Walsh, Speight, Arkin…
Way to go!!!
Not sure I’d label it a smear campaign, but instead a weak response to the recent “No” video. The “No” video outlines 3-5 important points that the No camp argues are fatal flaws in the proposed contract and reasons to vote no. The SAG email doesn’t respond to these points but instead labels “misinformation”. What “misinformation” is being referred to? Any response that fails to address those points is a nonevent.
However, their question “What’s the alternative?” is a fair one. If the “no” vote wins, what’s the strategy for moving forward? A fair question that can be addressed in “Actors Voting No – Partie Deux”.
Screen Actors Guild communicated with our members at the request of National Board leaders who felt strongly that certain critics of the tentative agreement continue to make misleading statements about the agreement.
Wow. I think my irony meter just broke, considering the wealth of lies from the United For Suckers contingent.
I didn’t think they’d sink any lower, but I guess they’re getting desperate in their attempt to shove this shit deal down SAG’s throat and weaken it in their bald attempt to force a merger with AFTRA.
Too many people are waking up to how this deal will utterly destroy residuals (and everything else SAG has earned over the decades) via the “tv will soon be delivered over the internet, which makes it ALL New Media, wink wink” loophole. Sorry, UFS — people are turning away from your pro-AMPTP dishonesty.
If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s a fucking liar. Especially an unrepentant one.
I was appaulled when I received the email. Seriously like why the fuck would they do that. Not that it influnced me amyways, my No vote had been the mail since Thurs.
Its time the AMPTP and their dog, the “National Majority” take us seriously. Let’s secure our own careers’ longevity because it’s official they won’t.
Paging, Bateman. Justine Bateman. Please report to Deadline Hollywood Daily.
It’s not just about the SAG theatrical contract. It is JUST as important to vote for the AFTRA board members.
If you feel that AFTRA has done right by us – then vote for the people who took the deal and have kept people working.
If you feel that AFTRA has betrayed dual-card holders, then vote them out of there. And vote for the many SAG active people who will fight like hell to keep AFTRA from selling out.
But VOTE !
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
The alternative is to actually try to get a better deal, through negotiation and asking members for a strike authorization, you know, the way unions have done for years and years and years.
When our “leaders” are asking for “alternative ideas,” they should step down as they have just admitted they are not up to the job.
Seriously, SAG is paying a PR company to convince its membership to vote yes on a contract proposal, and it chooses to attack those opposing the proposed contract. Is there so little substance in the proposal they couldn’t go the condescending and sympathetic route, you know the one where you understand the opposition’s disappointment but reduce their arguments to rubble using facts? Jeez, way to look desperate.
Whatever SAG is paying Saylor and White it is too much, and I would say that even if I didn’t think that the AMPTP rolled the rational adult National Majority and took their wallets, jewelry and underwear.
Why would expect anything less? Having taken power by an anti-democratic coup d’etat they now have to spend other people’s resources smearing and suppressing opposition.
The “what’s the alternative?” line is an irrelevant scare tactic, the membership are voting on what is in front of them, not what isn’t. By that logic, you could never vote ‘No’ on anything.
SAG Trick or Treat?
Why would SAG send out a “vote yes” campaign message on Sunday evening in the middle of a three day Memorial week end? Why would they urge members to “vote YES today and mail your ballot” …when the informational meetings around the country to answer contract questions HAVE NOT YET BEEN HELD!!!??? Could it be they would rather the membership obey and not ask any questions. There is no trickery here?
The contract package has the list of the informational meetings that will be held around the country. It also contains both a majority report (pro) and a minority report (against) All the material was vetted and rebutted and printed by SAG. Now all you have to do is read it!
You will no doubt have QUESTIONS. Hollywood had its meeting and it was overwhelmingly against this contract. Perhaps those on the board have gotten nervous that the membership at large can think for themselves when informed. Perhaps the members of SAG are not quite as ready to capitulate to a contract that will place their future in jeopardy.
Ned Vaughn and Sam Freed may ask if the “no vote” members have an alternative plan. Why tell them, SAM was the NY vice president that broke ranks with the negotiating committee an sent out a press release informing the world in the middle of negotiations that NY did not agree with our strategy, thus de-leveraging
the SAG negotiators.
Most of the Yes vote people I have talked with have personal and/ or financial reasons for wanting to accept this deal they admit is bad. They are not thinking of the membership as a whole! They think they can re negotiate money out of a producers pocket after it has gone there!
THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO AVOID A WORK STOPPAGE and fought incessantly in the board room to keep a strike authorization from going out to the membership. Now they are spending our dues money to sell us essentially the same deal that was on the table five months ago! That is unacceptable to me, and I hope the majority of SAG. We deserve better, and they can do better. All it causes is for SAG to lose credibility with its’ own membership!
I don’t need a Union to make a bad deal for me, and I don’t need a union to spend my dues money to condescend to me and try to sell that same “empower yourselves” and “Yes for your future” bullshit rhetoric!
Read your ballot material, ask questions at your town hall informational meetings, and demand that your union treat you with respect! I’m voting NO!
In solidarity,
Mark Carlton
The most disgusting line in the blast is “for the last year, their plan failed miserably. You lost jobs, wages and maybe even your health coverage.”
So now we find out that Ned Vaughn, Sam Freed. David White and all of their cronies hold the AMPTP entirely blameless for the lack of a contract. The rest of us know that the AMPTP intentionally stonewalled not only to divide and conquer, but to teach SAG members a lesson for electing and hiring people who refused to roll over like IATSE, AFTRA and the DGA does.
Instead of insulting your fellow union members by using staff time and consulting funds to blast this to them, publish it in the AMPTP’s German-based house organ SAGWatch.
Vote NO!
Doesn’t it mean that SAG’s National Board will have to actually “do something”? Perhaps they will have to say something that the AMPTP won’t like. Perhaps they will be in a position where the Union Members will be able to judge their capability of running the Union. No matter what the National Board believes it means it will be hard to overlook what the Membership believes it means. It means that the National Board was wrong. That’s what it really means.
read the minority report included with your ballot, pages 3 & 5, as well as the majority rebuttal on page 7.
the last two lines on page 3:
>>No union minimum wages established for New Media productions. SAG actors can be paid as little as federal minimum wage, now $6.55/hour<<
and on page 7, the first almost half of the page about pension and health say it all.
these psychos who staged the coup, ousted doug allen and gag-ordered alan rosenberg, YOUR ELECTED PRESIDENT, and installed david white, known amptp shill, are FUCKING YOU. they’re producers and/or working steadily on a series and want to keep their jobs at your expense.
so, let me get this straight: is david white saying the minority report included with your ballot is full of lies? the minority report THAT WAS APPROVED AND INCLUDED WITH YOUR BALLOT?
I watched both the No and the Yes videos. And this is what it seems to come down to: The proposed contract would screw elderly actors who depend on residuals from television shows from nearly four decades ago. Otherwise, it’s not that bad.
But would the elderly actors really be screwed? Only if the distribution of these old shows via the internet increases to an extent that residuals from them would be significant, and only if broadcast television implodes, and only if all this happens within their remaining lifespans.
Is this really such a likely event? How old are these people? How fast is the internet going to kill off television? How much demand will there be for old Gunsmoke episodes on the internet? To what extent could such stale content even be significantly monetized?
Why not just have the union create a fund for these 13 people who will still be alive when the harm occurs?
The funny thing about this “Don’t be tricked” statement was that it was the last straw for me for any residual doubt that I had in Voting No. THis statement feels like the obvious trash that Glen Beck and Sean Hannity puts out.
I read the contract proposal from beginning to end. It is so obviously in favor of the producers and therefore treasonous to the membership. The only group trying to do any tricking is the Vote Yes crew.
I voted no.
Alternative? Reinstate Allen Rosenberg, Doug Allen and the negotiating committee and back to the drawing board on negotiating with the AMPTP. They did a much better job of confronting the AMPTP and representing the union membership’s interests.
Personally I think someone from the Obama Administration should take interest in this situation.
This is an embarrassing new low for our guild and our board. I have never seen anything so blatantly and intentionally divisive under an official SAG letterhead. Whether one supports this contract or not, to use official Guild communications to discredit and defame other members for their righteous opposite opinion is beyond the pale.
If Nikki’s report is correct, that the 2nd Vice President of the Guild and an alternate board member devised this slander and David White, the Interim National Executive Director approved it, they should all be brought before the NLRB.
How does something like this “rebuild our union” or “restore union pride”. It is a shameful and unethical use of the “union” resources to widely, publicly, and anonymously attack fellow members for having an opposite opinion. It is cowardly and cynical in the highest degree to hide behind the great name, history, and reputation of the Screen Actors Guild. What kind of men are these so bereft of principal and ethic. Cowards…Cowards…Cowards.
The staff of the Screen Actors Guild should be above the pettiness and hold the dignity of the union that pays them and organized labor generally in higher regard than to stoop to denigrating fellow members. Ms. Greenwalt embarrasses herself defending this petty, scurrilous “Message.”
What has been misleading? Where is the point by point refutation in this “message”. Where is the record set straight? How has the debate been clarified for the members? Where are the cold merits of the contract discussed? Where are misleading statements corrected?
This “Message to the Members” is a blog post dressed up as official communication. Who wrote this?! Who?! Who is using our union so ignobly!? It is outrageous malfeasance and misappropriation of resources. Ned Vaughn? Sam Freed? David White? Cowards. Unworthy cowards. Ms Greenwalt? “Just following orders” is your defense? Awful.
The people spreading misinformation are the writers of this “message”. “After a year of negotiations and 11 months of working without a contract, we finally have a good deal”. Really? This deal? How is this deal better than the deals the national board and membership rejected over and over again. How does this deal protect and improve the lives of actors so much more than all the other previous versions proffered by the AMPTP? How about an honest debate rather than accusations of “bringing down the union”.
The real truth is that you cannot defend this contract sufficiently and you have shown how desperate you are. You have just declared that you know you cannot prevail based upon a sober discussion and debate on the merits of the terms. So you turn on your own. Anonymously savaging fellow members who have real concern and questions about the realities of this contract going forward. You are beneath contempt. You diminish us all and deserve no respect. Dishonorable and cowardly. Go to hell.
The smear campaign is absolutely disgusting: Not as disgusting as the absolute POS deal that the thin “yes” “leadership” is trying to cram down our throats to kiss producers’ asses, but disgusting nonetheless.
I hope membership on the fence smells a big stinky rat WHY the “yes” vote feels the need to play dirty pool to divert you from reading the contract that the NAS himself knows is chock full of unacceptable garbage per his own previous quote.
Good Lord.
“The Guild’s staff has been directed to support the ratification effort…” Directed by whom exactly, Pam? Ned Vaughn? David White? John McGuire? Sam Freed? Joe McCarthy? Adolph Hitler?
This is not a democratic board, vote nor campaign – it is a travesty of fascists attempting to overrun our guild for their own selfish purposes.
“Directed to support…” My GOD – you people are contemptuous! Who the hell are you? You’re not SAG members. True SAG board members would never try shit as low as this! Smear campaigns? Misleading “information”? Straight out lies? I expect these kind of shameless tactics from the AMPTP. To them it’s just business and we’re the enemy. But from my own union? How can you people kiss your own children goodnight without throwing up for your indiscretions?
When there is an actual LIVE debate with both pro and con support leaders, then we’ll see who’s making the “misleading statements”. The “Majority Report” and the “Minority Report” didn’t scratch the surface. I want a face-to-face debate – with facts, with support staff providing the truth – and I want it streamed live. The “Minority” has never shied away from that. Why? Because they know the truth, have the facts and have nothing to hide. The “Majority” ran like scared little children when asked for a debate last year. Why? Because they don’t have a plan. Because Ned Vaughn will pee in his knee-pants when confronted with facts. John McGuire will be begging to phone a friend: asking his AMPTP bosses “what the hell should I say/do now?” (David White will do whatever he’s told. “Good boy, David. Here’s a Milk Bone ™”)
Our own SAG National Board is currently staffed by a very slight majority of people who call themselves “Unite For Strength”. That’s less irony than oxymoron. Everybody in SAG knows we need to all get together to fight for a common goal, and moves like this show exactly why we’re so fractured. The same people who caused the rift in the first place are now deepening that divide. “Unite For Strength”, my ass.
And again: TWICE in Pam Greenwalt’s statement, she refers to the offer as “the agreement”. It is not any kind of agreement. It’s not in any way, shape or form an “agreement”. It is nothing more than an offer to SAG members. Pure spin and product positioning. You’re actors in the advertising business, right? You’ve all seen this before, right? You all know how this works, right?
Haven’t heard a peep out of U4S celebrities like Amy Brenneman, Ken Howard, Kate Walsh… Are you people on board for this kind of politics? Is this what you signed up for? Or are you just gonna hide in the shadows in the corner and slip in your ‘NO’ votes when no one’s looking?
Fellow SAG members, please see this desperate move for what it is. Though the Interim Majority may have the power to email everybody they want and to silence everyone they don’t want you to hear from, please be mature and intelligent enough to know manipulation when you see it. Further, understand why they are taking such drastic and shameful steps to deride those who are (and have always been) fighting FOR YOU; those people with NO REASON TO LIE TO YOU!
If this doesn’t make you lose complete trust in your U4S Interim National Board Majority, I don’t know what will.
So keep diggin’ your grave, U4S Interim National Board Majority. Pretty soon you’ll have pissed off 75% of the membership – enough to pass the SAV in spite of you.
I thought David White was doing the best he can in a tough situation, even after he said “this deal sucks” then hired an expensive PR firm to ram it down our throats. But this smear email makes his motives all too clear – he’s in the pocket of those who pulled off their disgraceful coup – what a despicable move! I am OUTRAGED by this and it removes any doubts I had about voting NO – I hope others feel the same and that this email backfires on the sneaky, anonymous senders, and creates more NO votes then it prevents.
Anne Marie said it best above – and thanks, Pam Greenwalt for your robo-reply. My god…..we’ve reached yet a new low.
SAG’s new national majority knows the alternative to a yes vote – it would mean they, as well as the AMPTP, had severely miscalculated the mood of the members.
Already in the comments sections of recent SAG-related posts we’ve seen the argument trotted out that there is no alternative to ratifying the contract. Other SAG members, including Harry98 and Matt Mulhern have refuted such nonsense.
Again, of course there’s an alternative if we are wise enough to vote down this giant crap sandwich of an offer. We go back to basics; we do what unions do. We organize, we build solidarity, we send David White back to the table to do FAR better, and we get the 75% SAV because we know we must mount a credible threat to the moguls’ bottom line in order to get a deal that will not decimate the guild and turn acting into a hobby for all but the A-listers and a scattered handful of other actors.
We’ve been carrying on a great debate on Nikki’s site and other places. Perhaps the folks pushing this offer felt that the tide wasn’t going their way. Perhaps this email is a desperation move on their part. Perhaps, the more SAG members look into the details of this offer – precedent-setting non-union new media for the moguls, ridiculously inadequate new media compensation, capitulation on force majeure, leaving individual actors on their own to negotiate clip consent, offering actors zero protection on forced endorsements – the more they realize they have to vote no.
And perhaps SAG members also realize we still carry quite a bit of weight – enough certainly to demand and receive 100% jurisdiction of new media period, parity in residuals old media to new, clip consent, protection from forced endorsements or reasonable compensation for doing commercials in character in the middle of scripted programming, that AMPTP signatories honor 100% of their contractual force majeure obligations….
My NO vote is in the mail. We can do better. Much better.
Never knew SAG was run by The Keystone Kops.
Why shouldn’t the Guild correct untrue statements being made about the contract? Doug Allen used a PR firm (”Now Media”)and now the present majority shouldn’t? Wa’s up with that?
Hey, when Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg wanted us to vote no on the AFTRA Contract or Vote Yes for an SAV I got tons of emails from the SAG email list promoting what they wanted. They were in charge and they had the right to use every communication at their disposal.
Why is this any different? Nikki how can you say “smear campaign?” Did SAG’s email call someone a name? Did they bring up an individual’s past army record? Did they bring up a lie on someone’s resume?
NO. That would be a “smear” campaign.
I saw that video that started out with Martin Sheen. It was full of misleading and outright untrue statements about the contract, resids, new media, clip consent etc.
Nikki, I hope for the sake of fairness you post this one.
VOTE YES VOTE YES NOW
Pauly
Anne-Marie is angry and confused? That’s not news. Everybody knows that.
Why is it that when people like AMJ start a war, they are surprised when the other side shoots back? Suck it up girl.
Wow. All I can say is wow. Ladies and gentlemen I give you the results of when leaders come to power not by the vote of the majority. Almost more important than voting no on this piece of crap deal they just shoved at us is getting these people OUT OF SAG! When do we get to vote on that? When this contract proposal gets voted down by the vast majority of this membership I predict that there will be alot of foot dragging in sending out the strike authorization. Anyone agree?
it’s reprehensible that whoever wrote this and ordered it to be sent out
should hide behind the staff.
these are the same kinds of dirty tricks and manipulations of staff
that were seen during both the Masur and Gilbert presidencies.
whoever wrote this and had the staff send it out
show grow some stones and own up to it.
Thank you Nikki.
You know, when all of the Dick Cheneys of the world are allowed to spin their own versions of reality, then we all die a little bit inside.
You and your site are like a rejuvenating tonic.
Another reason to vote NO. We need to get rid of this so called “leadership”.
SOunds like “shut up and sign it” to me. I saw the spot with Martin Sheen and it looked like he was reading from the contract.
what’s so sad and destructive about all of this is how many members do not understand why actors like amy brenneman would lie to them, so they don’t think they’re lying.
maybe it’s time to not allow actors who are also producers to hold any kind of sag office or sit on any committees. this would only address one of many problems, but it’s a start.
Membership First dropped the ball a year ago with how they handled negotiations, and United For Strength looks to be just as bad, if not worse. Both sides are drama queens only worried about their egos, not getting us a better deal. SAG has become a parody of itself. I don’t think either side is going to get us a better deal which is why I reluctantly voted yes. Even if this contract is voted down, there is so much bad blood and poor management there is no way we’re going to get what we deserve. The AMPTP just laughs at all the infighting, which is exactly what they want. We’re in no position to be negotiating a contract, or for that matter, even being able to order lunch during the meeting. SAG needs some new blood on the board and some real business minded folks who can think outside the box.
To All Screen Actors Guild members,
The aforementioned email included a response email address Contract2009@sag.org. Let your union know what you want.
Read the information in your voting packet, form your opinion and vote with your conscience.
I sent the following response to the Vote yes email:
To the Screen Actors Guild Board, IED, Staff, Members,
I am absolutely appalled at the misuse and abuse of our SAG resources to put forth an agenda that does not only NOT serve the membership’s best interests, but also misrepresents the board and membership’s positions on the proposed theatrical agreement.
These proposals are supposed to be presented in a fair and representative manner.
Not put forth in an official capacity to membership as being representative of the board’s position, for it most certainly is NOT so.
I believe the number to be 47% of the board that do not support this contract proposal which to begin with, violates a core principle of the Screen Actors Guild to not support, condone nor allow Non-Union work…let alone in covered areas.
The actual financial breakdowns and many other points in addition to the aforementioned issues all combine to show that this is a bad deal.
However, whether bad or good, anything from SAG should go out to membership with Pro AND Cons statements to truly represent and reflect our board’s beliefs and opinions.
Not solely the short sighted view of a disingenuous minor majority masquerading as a unanimous, united, official message of the Screen Actors Guild.
We elected all board members and they represent us all, combined…we deserve to hear from them all and be thus enabled to make our own informed decisions.
Please cease these abuses immediately and send out both positions if you are going to use our resources.
In Solidarity,
David Anthony Pizzuto
mindy,
it sounds like you’re really young. believe it or not,
someday you’ll be old too.
and if you’ve had any kind of a career and residuals haven’t been eliminated by SAG accepting inferior harmful contracts,
you will want and most likely NEED all the residual money
that’s owed you.
rik deskin,
stop with the “Let’s get back to work !” jingosim.
when is the last time YOU worked the TV theatrical contract?
pauly,
instead of just stating that the VOTE NO video was inaccurate,
why don’t you explain why that’s true, point by point.
BECAUSE YOU CAN’T.
This e-mail was the biggest piece of shit(among many pieces of shit) that this SAG member has ever received from SAG..this is..so fucked up. These people,, UFS, David White, etc..they work for AMPTP. They don’t work for us. The union is going down, and, yeah, it’s an inside job. I don’t have the SAG constitution handy, but, whoever at SAG is behind that e-mail should be removed from office by whatever means available to membership. I also publicly apologize for any second guessing I ever did on this board of doug allen and alan rosenberg. I had no fucking idea what they were dealing with. Jesus christ..
The problem with SAG is that it doesn’t represent the rank and file of it’s membership. If X% of the membership are background actors then X% of the board and the agenda should reflect that and so on. Ironically the membership has no one to blame but themselves for continually voting in “names.” I was shocked to see how many of these names no showed the vote that the Hollywood Board recommend this deal. (Page 5 of the recent SAG Call Sheet) Really? I guess this wasn’t important enough.
Get it over with already. Vote Yes on this crappy contract, watch productions go increasingly non union and out of California, and SAG dies a slow death.
vote No, authorize and carry out a strike, watch productions go increasingly non union and out of California, and SAG dies a slightly faster death.
New media won’t just kill residuals, it will kill the unions and the bloated AMPTP companies.
Actors will still act, writers will still write, but for less money, and not in So Cal. The stars and moneymen will still get the bulk of the pie, and everyone else scrambles for crumbs.
Mindy (11.58pm), you could not be more wrong… the shittiness of this contract is nothing to do with the past, it is the future.
This is the first of a number of calculated steps by the AMTP to drastically reduce actors’ compensation.
AMTP have not the slightest interest in paying actors a decent living wage, this is all about positioning themselves to drastically cut costs on the pretext that delivering their product in a different manner suddenly changes their cost structure.
They are being aided and abetted by an trifecta of UFS traitors; those that were happy to gain from sacrifices made in the past, but are not willing to make the same gestures to future generations and those for whom residuals make no difference.
Those voting YES should be ashamed of themselves.
The Truth is, that SAG Staff and Legal vets both the Pro and Con statements for accuracy. For the Slim Board Majority to say that the Con statement is misleading, etc….is in itself a lie. And an attack on the staff who are just blowing in the wind, following orders from whatever faction happens to be in power. Don’t blame staff. They don’t want to lose their jobs.
The responsibility lies with the BM who don’t have jobs to begin with, as well as highly paid TV stars who don’t want their gravy train to run out.
White and the current illigitmate leadership must be brought down. I’m voting NO on this contract. and against every member of their deceitful faction in the next election.
rank and file,
the hollywood board DID NOT recommend this deal.
they overwhelming voted it down.
I was appalled when I received the official SAG email in question. So much so that I relpied to MY OWN UNION demanding proof of the allegation, a retraction and an apology for the offensive, anti-union communication.
If this deal is so WONDERFUL then the membership should be UNITED 100%. It’s NOT, because people are beginning to see through the propaganda of a handful of career NY SAG Board members and their servants and followers.
In my opinion, it seems that the majority of the SAME people hawking for a ‘yes’ vote are the same ones who:
-Wanted QUALIFIED VOTING (many of the ‘vote yessers’ signed a petition endorsing Q.V.)
-Wanted TO DESTROY SAG as an entity and for it to merge with AFTRA where it would have become something called “AIMA”
-ENDORSED and/or carried out the ’silencing’ of our ELECTED President, Alan Rosenberg.
You people killed yourselves a long time ago…and all the emotional back and forth and vote yes, vote no, is arguing about the flowers at your own funeral.
To think you actually have any control in your own union is folly…and your egos made it that way.
A likely future problem that will arise is this…
Say the contract gets voted down. Our so-called “negotiation task force” goes back in to sit at the table with the AMPTP (if that’s allowed at that point) and our fearless negotiators tell the AMPTP, “Look, all we need to do is back off these three things a little bit and we the membership will fall in line.”
And they do.
And we do.
See, these people are obviously NOT negotiating for us, the membership. John McGuire is NOT negotiating with your best interests in mind. No matter what their agenda, they think that all they have to do is get us one step over the “acceptance line” and we, as a body, will concede.
They’re now finding out that what they came away with won’t pass muster, so they’ll adjust it just enough to get it passed. That outcome will still be a shit sandwich (only this time it’ll have lettuce, tomato and bacon on it). Yum. They’ve proven that they can’t (or won’t) negotiate with the AMPTP.
That’s what I have a problem with.
Which is why we need to have a different NegCom when we go back in. A negotiation committee that isn’t afraid of (or paid off by) the AMPTP.
Can you imagine the look on McGuire’s face when he has to go back to the AMPTP with a Strike Authorization in his hand? How apologetic he’ll be? How capitulating he’ll be?
We must demand a group of new, non-partisan negotiators who will tend to the job at hand – fighting for a fair contract for the SAG membership, and which is led by anybody who is NOT aligned with U4S. Whether they actually tried or not, they’ve failed at their job(s) and they’ve failed the SAG membership.
Wow! This is exactly what I want from my Guild…THREATS!
The McCarthy Era is alive and well!
“No!” A thousand times…”NO!”
I’m afraid that new world order sees things clearly.We vote NO out of self respect and to honor those who went before us.In the end, an empty gesture? Likely.However,to vote YES would be to piss on your own foot and the graves of the brass and the brave.That the end is upon us all is certain, yet the vote is a poignant esthetic.Who knows, perhaps angels are watching.
“THIS CONTRACT SUCKS!”
David White
My NO vote is in the mail… START COUNTING.
Is there a box to check to vote out this entire SAG regime-of-clowns?!
People need to get their heads out of their asses and refuse to hold AFTRA cards.
THAT is the reason we are in this fucking mess.
This whiny justification for voting “yes” on the SAG proposal that “AFTRA will just undercut us” or that “AFTRA has already agreed to this” is disingenuous.
If you’re a dual-card member, tell AFTRA to stop this SHIT.
Why were the actors not taking to the fucking streets when AFTRA leadership sent out that e-mail urging it’s NON-ACTING MEMBERS to “vote the TV/Theatrical contract up EVEN IF YOU DO NOT WORK THIS CONTRACT OR NEVER WILL WORK THIS CONTRACT”.
REALLY?
How incredibly insulting.
How horrifying that an organization to whom we dual-card members pay dues would stoop to such a level to create approval of an agreement by which we are now financially imprisoned.
THAT is what people should be pissed off about.
Let’s get it straight.
Thanks to all, fellow SAG members, who care enough about our Guild to, simply, read the PRO and CON statements which accompany the AMPTP’s proposed Contract. For any, self-respecting, member who takes the time to read the AMPTP’s ‘offer’ (which is a litany of demands and rollbacks, NOT an Ageement) there is only one way to vote, and that is, NO!
Either way, YES or NO, SAG rank and file members are in very deep s***.
BUT, most importantly, what every, self-respecting, member needs to know is: There is NOTHING TO LOSE if we vote NO!
“This deal (really) sucks!”
With deepest respect,
VOTE NO!
(This is my personal opinion.)
Let me try it one more time; twelve years and counting:
We reject the deal, get it?
We take Peter Chernin, Robert Iger and Barry Meyers, at their word when they say they intend to “eliminate Residuals forever.” When they say; “There are no more Ancillary Markets, there’s only one market.” “We need a new system.”
Do you want to ignore what they say and has been documented?
I don’t and I especially subscribe to “a new system.”
Now that we can reject the “deal,” we can negotiate for a new system, which has been recommended for a very long time;
A percentage of every dollar from dollar one, for the allocation of all markets, in all territories, in perpetuity, with;
Total transparency, monitoring, auditing, accounting and banking access.
We insinuate ourselves as owner/partners in what we do, because;
We are the content that money buys, and we hold the copyright that money needs before they have the right to use the ‘authorship of our performance; and those are elements that the Broadcasting categories of AFTRA do not possess, nor do they contribute to the revenue that those elements provide; so, stop trying to to reduce SAG to the lowest common denominator of AFTRA, by forcing us into a merger, intended to solve the jurisdictional wars; when all we really need to do is;
Preserve the contract we have, reject the proposal; work on “changing that “system,” the AMPTP, wants to change, to a system that includes our needs; and then petition the Guild to send a referendum giving members the choice of which union SAG or AFTRA, they wish to have representing them as their collective bargaining agent.
Lots of complexities to go with all those changes; none of them undoable. We’ve worked them out as well, just too many details to explain here.
What you really need to do first and foremost, is; Vote “No.”
To be continued
My name is Michael Gaston. I’ve been a member of SAG since 1993 and a member of AFTRA since 1992. I’m voting YES to approve the contract. This has not been an easy decision to make. I’ve read the deal. I’ve consulted friends from Membership First and others from Unite for Strength. I’ve listened, thought seriously and arrived at a difficult and imperfect conclusion. I have not been bought. I have not been brainwashed. I may have been lied to. I’ve certainly been embarrassed by the nasty rhetoric all around, including what I’ve read here from Nikki. Many of my friends and colleagues who have volunteered tremendous amounts of their time and energy to help lead our unions have been attacked quite viciously by members who disagree with them simply because they disagree with them. It’s not right. We’ve got to find a way to respect ourselves and each other enough to allow for disagreement. I’m not an idiot or a liar or an asshole because I look at the same information and draw a different conclusion. I may be those things for other reasons, but not for disagreeing with you about an issue I care about as much as anyone else.
If the contract is so good in the first place why did the Guild hire a PR firm, to push passage?
And why does the Guild have vote yes written all over the front page of the Guild’s website?
What, the Guild members really have to ask themselves is, Do We Really what to fight this in two years now.
If it SUCKS NOW and it will SUCK in two years from now.
And when was the last time you ever got back anything back once you have given it up?
The Majority Report say: “Get Back to Work” not less than five times in it, Plus what’s on the Screen Actors Guild website. This is clearly the message of the AMPTP !!
The AMPTP is running out of product now and No investors will invest in this industry until this the agreement is signed. That puts us in a pretty good position now, not later.
The Screen Actors Guild has failed to do out-reach to other unions and explain to the other unions why this is so important to their members.
A loss of residuals for the Guild members will lead to a loss in the “Post 60’s Agreement” for the others entertainment industry unions. And it is in their own best interest, to support us in our labor dispute, it will only benefit them in the long term.
And when the other unions say” it not a good time for a strike” I ask them when is a good time for them to give up their post 60’s agreement which is residual driven?
And as far as Anne-Marie Johnson statement:
“I pray to god Pamm Fair isn’t responsible for this.”
“I can only assume that this is the work of Saylor.”
It does raise questions.
I say assume nothing..all although, it was interesting watching “Pamm Fair” and Melissa Gilbert at Thursday informational meeting. Watching these two hugging and smiling buddy, buddy gave me a real un-easy feeling in my gut.
What does “Deputy National Executive Director at Screen Actors Guild” besides collecting a fat pay check ($268,830) according to the LM-2 Reports File Number: U-000-113 SCREEN ACTORS AAAA AFL-CIO 2007 Pam W. Fair $268,830
We could hire back 5 staffers and/or Rep’s and get more work done on her salary alone!!
A loss of residuals is actually raising the threshold for our members to qualify for medical and pension due to the loss of earnings for those members.
And let us not forget that residuals on DVD, VHS and Cable should have been increased a long time ago and then build “New Media” upon that building block and not an under valued market.
I say pay it forward now and “Vote No” so the next generation will have a future, just like the previous Guild members did for us.
The easiest thing to do is not always the best thing to do.
I’ve always been taught that something worth having is worth fighting for. Isn’t this one of those times?
Let me see if I got this right:
There’s a majority vote on the contract- whichever side gets 50% prevails. However, to authorize a strike you need 75%.
This has probably been discussed, but if a majority votes NO (with many hoping to use a strike as leverage in negotiations), yet a strike authorization is not achieved (< 75% vote yes to authorize), is there a stalemate or is SAG left in limbo?
IF the vote is Yes, I’d recommend start negotiating the next contract almost immediately.
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Now SAG is ROBO-CALLING people to railroad the “yes” vote.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004198.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
What next? Steal from the pension fund to send checks to anybody who will vote yes?!? This bullshit is completely out of control.
The problem is that if all these sleaze tactics, with promulgators who CLEARLY are demonstrating that even they believe that without engaging in slime, there’s no way the vote would be “yes” based on the (lack of) merits, is that if they swing enough votes they will pretty much have destroyed the rest of our careers and any retribution come September will be nearly useless in undoing the damage.
How sure are we that the vote count will be correct? If the SAG Board can hire an expensive professional P.R. Smear-Artist, can they also find a way to hijack the vote? Remember who they’re in lock-step with!
I must admit, up to this point, I had been thinking, “We should just vote ‘yes’ so we can just get back to work.” I have been trying to build up credits for the past few years, doing commercials and just doing whatever I can to break in and I guess I fell into the “once this crisis is averted, there will be more work” way of thinking. I thought that if we just voted “yes” things would get back to “normal” and I would have a fighting chance to get my career on target.
I honestly don’t think that things will ever be “normal” again. The odds of actors breaking in are seemingly lower than ever now that so many established movie actors are work in TV now and I see no reason why things will change. So, I have let go of the notion that voting “yes” will make a difference in terms of my getting work. I will just have to stay focused and continue to do my best at every audition and be thankful I am here doing what I love, what I am designed to do.
I admit, I am terribly worried that my “no” vote will put our agents and managers out of business. I worry that the pains and frustrations we all had during the Writers Strike will be exponentially worse. But, honestly–this is bigger than all of those worries, I really think this is that fundamental moment that we all want to act out on screen, only in real life.
Everyone else caved. We should not. We have to fight for our rights, the rights of predecessors who inspired us to be actors in the first place, to fight for those who dare to be actors in the future.
SAG sending out that email was amateurish and insulting and has backfired. The language in the email was petulant, like a spoiled child complaining about his friends that won’t play by the rules he’s made up.
They ask “What’s the alternative?” The alternative our collected, unified voice to strike down this insult of a contract and show the AMPTP that we are not going to be manipulated, that we demand to be treated as business partners.
I am voting “No”.
I’ve sat across the table from the full contingent of AMPTP lawyers and they are the most ruthless, calculating bunch of sharks that you’ll never want to meet.
I applaud our original negotiating team for getting as far as they did and I’m appalled at the actions taken against them by the “minor majority” and I hope that McGuire and White are run out of town on a rail.
If this contract passes, this union will have a life expectancy of 5 years, max.
My wife and I have already mailed our “NO” votes in.
(Who is this letter from? Why don’t they identify themselves? It is not Allan Rosenberg as he has stated he is against this contract 100% HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD!) THIS LETTER IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY DAVID WHITE AS HIS NAME IS NOT ON IT!
THE GUILD SAYS,
Some members are trying to take our union down and continue to circulate misinformation about our tentative agreement. Don’t be fooled into voting down a good deal, with real gains for actors.
(How is a staff member allowed to take a position on guild politics?) I believe this is against the policies of our Guild. Who gave the staff permission to use Guild money is circulate this email for staff members to take a position?
IT IS MY OPINION THAT YOU ARE LYING SCUMBAGS! I BELIEVE WE WILL LOSE OUR HEALTH PLAN WITH THIS CONTRACT AS IT WILL END RESIDUALS AND KILL MOST ACTORS HEALTH COVERAGE AND PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS CAUSE OF THE UP TO 400 MILLION IN LOST REVENUE JUST FROM THE MOVEOVER FROM NETWORK TO STREAMING. I WILL REFER THIS BLATENT MISREPRESENTATION OF THE FACTS TO MY ATTORNEYS. THE PLAN, IF THIS SELLOUT AGREEMENT FAILS IS TO STRIKE AND GET A FAIR DEAL! THIS IS A UNION BUSTING DEAL YOU VILLAGE IDIOTS! VOTE NO FOR OUR FUTURE!
THE GUILD SAYS,
You lost jobs, wages and maybe even your health coverage? THE MEMBERS OF THE NYC BOARD AND REGIONAL BOARD MEMBERS HAVE GONE AGAINST THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF THE GUILD THAT THEY VOTED IN WHICH STATES:
It is a core principle of Screen Actors Guild
That no non-union work shall be authorized to be done under any
SAG agreement and;
That all work done under a Screen Actors Guild contract, regardless
of budget level, shall receive fair compensation when reused.*
This motion was drafted and presented by New York. It was debated
and adopted by the National Board.
This proposed TV/Theatrical contract violates that *core principle
I SAY,
MAY I ADVISE YOU THAT BY GOING AGAINST THESE GUILD RATIFIED CORE PRINCIPLES THE GUILD AND THE BOARD MEMBERS RESPONSIBLE COULD POTENTIALLY BE OPEN TO LEGAL ACTION WHICH MAY INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, breach of contract,breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement of a contract and pandering.
FYI, THE GUILD SAYS… After losing wage increases of $85 million over the last year, actors and their families need this deal now.
· We need the pay raises, added residuals, better benefits, and protections for the future offered by this contract.
I SAY,
THE FACT IS WITH THE UP TO A 400 MILLION DOLLAR LOSS FROM THE MOVEOVER FROM NETWORK TO STREAMING IS 4 TIMES THE 85 million DOLLAR LOSS YOU SPEAK ABOUT. THE PAY RAISES AND RESIDUAL INCREASES ARE MOOT INSOFAR THE UP TO 400 MILLION DOLLAR LOSS WITH ALSO NEGATE ANY GAIN ON THIS SELLOUT CONTRACT YOU WISH TO APPROVE. WHY DIDN’T YOU PRINT THAT IN THIS LETTER TO THE MEMBERSHIP? WITH CORPORATE STOCKS LIKE GE DOWN 80% (they own nbc and universal) NOW IS THE TIME TO STRIKE AS THEIR SHAREHOLDERS WILL DEMAND THEY SETTLE ASAP AS THEY DON’T HAVE WALL STREET CAPITAL TO FALL BACK ON ANYMORE. CREDIT IS NONEXISTENT. (Just ask the the boys at GE capital) THEY ARE JUST ABOUT OUT OF THE MEDIA BUSINESS CAUSE THEY ARE OUT OF CAPITAL! FOLLOW THE MONEY YOU ECONOMIC SIMPLETONS. CHECK VIACOM’S STOCK PRICE LATELY? YOU ARE IN MY OPINION, LIARS, FOOLS AND I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OF WHAT WENT ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BETWEEN DAVID WHITE, MR. MCGUIRE AND THE AMPTP. I SMELL A RAT.
Pete Antico
ps IF YOU HAVE ANY BALLS WHY NOT A PUBLIC TELEVISED DEBATE BETWEEN ALLAN ROSENBERG AND TOM HANKS AND GEORGE CLOONY? GET CNBC OR NBC TO PICK IT UP….OH THAT’S RIGHT I FORGOT, GE OWNS THEM. CAN YOU SAY ANTITRUST LAWSUIT? SAY IT WITH ME ONE TIME…ANTITRUST LAWSUIT. THERE, THAT WASN’T SO BAD NOW WAS IT?
—–Original Message—–
From: Screen Actors Guild
To: SAG Members
Sent: Sun, 24 May 2009 4:18 pm
Subject: A Message from Screen Actors Guild
WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT MEAN “Don’t be tricked into voting against the tv/theatrical contract????
How are hard facts backed up in writing “tricks? WHO WROTE THIS? I BELIEVE THIS IS FRAUD UPON OUR MEMBERSHIP. CONTINUED DOWN BELOW.
cid:image001.jpg@01C9D5A3.DEC07470
Don’t be Tricked into Voting Against the
TV/Theatrical Contract
Some members are trying to take our union down and continue to circulate misinformation about our tentative agreement. Don’t be fooled into voting down a good deal, with real gains for actors. (THE FACTS ABOVE CLEARLY STATE OTHERWISE)
The opponents would like you to believe they have a “plan” if this agreement is voted down. They’ve never actually said what that plan is, and for the last year, their plan failed miserably. You lost jobs, wages and maybe even your health coverage.
· After a year of negotiations and 11 months of working without a contract, we finally have a good deal.
· After losing wage increases of $85 million over the last year, actors and their families need this deal now.
· We need the pay raises, added residuals, better benefits, and protections for the future offered by this contract.
WE have a plan – to approve this contract, get our raises, rebuild our union, and restore union pride. Just ask yourself if it’s smart to say no to a deal with real, solid financial gains for SAG actors. After a year working without a contract… is that really smart? A YES vote is the smart vote. (READ THE FACTS STATED ABOVE AS THESE GAINS ARE ALL GIVEN AWAY WITH MOVEOVER TO STREAMING!)
So, when you see negative attacks launched by the opponents of this deal, ask them: What’s the alternative? They won’t give an answer, because they don’t have one. Click http://www.sag.org/sag-tv to see what working SAG actors think on SAG TV: “What’s the Alternative?” THE ALTERNITIVE IS TO GO BACK AND GET A BETTER DEAL!
Vote YES today and mail your ballot. (ON THE CONTRARY, MYSELF, PRESIDENT ALLAN ROSENBERG, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT ANN MARIE JOHNSON, SECRATARY TRESURER, CONNIE STEVENS AND 47% OF THE NATIONAL BOARD, ALL IN HOLLYWOOD, OPPOSE THIS CONTRACT!)
Go to http://www.sag.org for the facts. SAG’s National Board majority knows what the alternative to a YES vote means. And they want you to know, too. I BELIEVE, 30 REGIONAL BOARD MEMBERS, INCUDING SEVERAL IN NYC DO NOT EVEN QUALIFY FOR A VESTED PENSION! AND THESE 30 MEMBERS HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY IN OUR FUTURE? SOMETHING HAS GOT TO CHANGE.
I voted like a good little soldier. Because I know how important union is, good leadership. What a fool was I. If you loose your future (new media) you have no real present to stand with (like a house built on sand). Vote “NO”!