Comments (65)

• I’m one of those SAG members who will be no longer able to vote due to this ruling, since I’ve kept my card but haven’t worked in years.

  From my experience as an active SAG background person (roughly 1992 to 1997), there has been more than enough intraunion resentment and friction among various factions.

  And (keeping my comments within bounds of decorum) I can remember those membership meetings when “real” actors would be verbally dismissive to background players–curious behavior when extras were wooed into SAG, causing the demise of the old Screen Extras Guild. Also, there’s always been the desire of some within the background community to do away with the three-SAG extra-voucher system for eligibility to join SAG–another variation on the “qualified” issue.

  With the AMPTP negotiations coming up, it is extremely unwise and self-defeating for SAG members to be opting for further infighting by implementation of a “qualified” vote.

  Comment by Terry McCarty — February 28, 2008 @ 1:25 am  Reply to this post

• Is there a list for those of us who will go fi-core?

  Just to let Amy and Ned know, it’s not the fact that you are doing this, it’s the timing. Completely and utterly amateurish.

  Comment by Working actor — February 28, 2008 @ 2:04 am  Reply to this post

• This is genius. If management’s trying to destroy your union–why, beat them to the punch and destroy it yourselves! That’ll show them!

  If you’re serious, Ms. Brenneman, why not exclude anyone who is currently receiving a producing credit but who would otherwise meet your criteria, since that’s such a clear conflict of interest? And how about some data on how much money would be lost since members who can’t vote also don’t pay dues?

  Comment by fi-core — February 28, 2008 @ 2:21 am  Reply to this post

• You realize this list of 900 amounts to only 0.75% of 120,000 SAG members. The media seems biased in reports that overlook this fact and simply tout the “900″ as if that’s some kind of impressive number.

  Comment by Jon Raymond — February 28, 2008 @ 2:40 am  Reply to this post

• Wow. 1000 names. That amounts to 0.83%. At this rate they’ll have a full one percent any month now.

  Comment by Jon Raymond — February 28, 2008 @ 2:44 am  Reply to this post

• I have strong feelings about this issue, which I will put aside for a moment to again pose a question in this comment section. Perhaps Ms. Brenneman or Mr. Vaughn will be kind enough to post a response here.

  What is the basis for the concern of the pro-affected-voting group about how “unaffected” members may vote on a strike authorization or a contract ratification? How do they know that a large group of “unaffected” actors will vote against the interests of the guild? Has a poll been taken, or a study done, to show that such a threat, or such a group, even exists? Has a group of “unaffected” actors organized themselves and made any public statement about their vision for the future of the Screen Actors’ Guild, or their intention to take any sort of action?

  I would like to invite Ms. Brenneman, Mr. Vaughn, or anyone else with solid documented evidence for that matter, to make this evidence public.

  If no such evidence of a threat within the guild exists, then the reasonable and prudent thing to do is to withdraw this petition and replace it with a public statement of unreserved and unwavering support for our elected guild representatives (full disclosure: while Mr. Rosenberg has earned my respect and appreciation over the past few months, I did not vote for him) for the duration of what promises to be a difficult and potentially contentious contract negotiation period.

  I ask this on behalf of my own future as an actor, but also because I believe such a course serves the best interests of the entire guild as well as the entertainment industry as a whole.

  Comment by mheister — February 28, 2008 @ 2:51 am  Reply to this post

• No one with a last name begininning with S – Z signed up? LOL.

  Comment by JDM — February 28, 2008 @ 6:21 am  Reply to this post

• To my fellow fans and viewers who supported the WGA:

  I would say ‘good morning’ to you all but you cannot imagine how heartsick I am at seeing this list. I have that ‘viewer in the audience of a melodramatic film’ feeling of knowing that the protagonists are about to walk into a trap set for them by the AMPTP (and the moguls who hide behind their ‘trade organization’) I want desperately to scream at the signers or cry out to them to keep them from taking this decidedly wrong turn while knowing that they likely can’t or won’t hear me.

  I am by turns shocked, saddened, disappointed, angered and yet resolved to keep fighting for everyone in the entertainment industry because until all of the entertainment unions have secured acceptable contracts, not one of our shows or films, not to mention *everyone* who works on making them for us, is safe.

  There really is nothing for the ‘name actors’ who signed this petition in support of qualified voting for SAG (or for similar efforts for AFTRA) to fear from the ‘non-name’ actors who are also union members. In fact the ‘name actors’ should not only admire their more obscure thespian brethren, they should be *thanking them* for the gains the WGA and the DGA were able to make.

  If you look online at the vast majority of photos, videos, blog posts and comments, press interviews — heck even the typical daily composition of any given WGA picket line whether it was in more temperate California on in the nasty weather of New York, or at the rallies and events staged all over the country, the turnout of relatively anonymous actors was second only to the writers themselves. If there are any actors who need schooling in the meaning of union it is the ‘names’ who attached themselves to this petition and it is the unknown majority of their two unions who have so much to teach the famous (especially about how not to become infamous).

  I feel genuine pain for the insult and injury which all those not well-known actors should rightly feel at the prospect of this petition were this measure to pass that would disenfranchise the less celebrated members of your two unions from voting on what I understand to be the *minimum* agreement (the floor through which the vast majority of the union’s membership should not be allowed to fall and which by virtue of not having a recognizable name is the *only* deal available to a ‘non-name’ actor or actress).

  And yet despite the great disappointment I woke up to this morning and I feel in so many people whose names I know well but whose individual characters and motivations apparently I do not, I plan to keep fighting on. I am still determinedly fighting for my shows and films and for any professional who ever has or ever will entertain me. The real wrong-doer here is still the AMPTP and their irrational unwillingness to pay all entertainment professionals fairly. The only way to put things right is to convince the members of the AMPTP that they have to share a little more equitably in the financial gains that so many other entertainment professionals have secured for their companies.

  If I allow my dismay at the recognizable names who have signed onto this questionable petition which I still believe is wrong-headed to overcome my objective to better level the playing field for anyone who wants to make films and TV shows as a professional, it will be an instant concession to the irrationally rapacious few at the top and at the expense of all of the rest of us — the professionals and their audiences. I am a bit discouraged about how much more difficult this petition makes the fight, but I am not at all deterred.

  I therfore resolve to work that much harder to better educate the actors and actresses who signed this as to whom it is they need to regard with more suspicion (the AMPTP and its signatories) and in whom they could place a little more trust (their fellow thespians).

  -S.E. Olson
  Resolved Rumpus Room Member (we’re a group of fans & viewers who normally participate in the chat interface of the United Hollywood NowLive.com multi casts and we have a Google group which anyone can join at
  http://groups.google.com/group/rumpus?hl=en)
  Moderator & Law & Order Criminal Intent Fan Liason
  Fans For The WGA
  http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters/

  Comment by VDOVault — February 28, 2008 @ 7:24 am  Reply to this post

• God bless the actors . . . but, please, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE aren’t economical times depressing enough in the real world without Hollywood heading for yet another strike? It’s literally too much to bear . . .

  Comment by can't take it anymore — February 28, 2008 @ 8:14 am  Reply to this post

• An email I sent to Alan Rosenberg yesterday:
  ————-
  Alan
  I pass this Huffington Post link along below. You may have already read the post, but I think the comments are worth looking at too. They seem, to me, to indicate the restlessness of the natives out there in the real world of being an actor: the frustration, the bitterness, the anger at the fact that no one seems to be discussing this at SAG in any substantial way. We are a union, yes? So, why exactly aren’t we addressing this? Why aren’t we openly discussing, as a union, that we call ourselves a union, but, in fact, over the last several decades, we have become a microcosm of American society as a whole: the 2-3% of “haves” and the 97%-ish of “barely making it or worse?”

  I think you need to take into consideration the alienation the rank and file feels at the vast inequity in the distribution of wealth amongst our so called union. There’s a swirling anger out there in the rank and file, who don’t want to hear that George Clooney, or Tom Hanks, or any other star, is coming in and telling you something along the lines of “look, Alan, the suits are telling me, to tell you, hush-hush, that they’re in no mood for more labor problems. Let’s get in there now and put this baby to bed. Whadd’ya say?” Or, that Amy Brennemann is telling you “hey, I got a bunch of signatures – let’s make sure only certain members get to vote, because ‘certain members’ know what’s best for everybody.” Last time I checked, that is not the way a union works. There will be a substantial backlash to any favoritism – you earned your way in? You get to vote. Period.

  What the WGA strike proved is that the creative rank and file is sick and tired of being part of any union that caters to the very few stars, at the expense of everyone else. Stars deserve to be well paid, no doubt about it. But the inequities have become so glaring that the AMPTP is trying to get profit that simply isn’t there from the 97% of us who the suits don’t have to bow down to – they can tell us “take it or leave it.” I want to be represented by a union that says “thanks, we’ll leave it,” and is willing to shut the industry down – again – if necessary, so that the rest of us can start to be treated with some respect, and our star members are made to understand they aren’t doing us any favors when they attempt to dictate who gets to vote, or that we should make a quick deal that maybe isn’t in the best interest of the vast majority of us, who are just trying to get by. I’m a long time member, with credits out the wazoo, and I can tell you, I have never felt as unrepresented or stressed, as I do now. The business has changed dramatically in the 25 odd years I’ve been a SAG actor, and not for the better. The rich are getting richer Alan – you know what I’m talking about, and the rest of us are getting screwed. How about sending a loud and clear message to the stars putting pressure on you that the other 97% of us want a deal that makes things demonstrably better for US – something tells me the stars are doing just fine.
  With respect
  A long-timer

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/the-sag-negotiations-why_b_88457.html

  Comment by Cookie Rojas — February 28, 2008 @ 9:46 am  Reply to this post

• For all of those who think Hollywood is so liberal this should be their wake up call. How does disenfranchising thousands of dues paying members equate to power in negotiations? This stance seems at best, myopic, and in the least, elitist.

  What a great way to destroy sentiment for SAG from the inside out. One question to Amy and Ned and Mr. Rosenberg: if there is a pay cut-off for voting on the next contract are the actors who do not meet that cut-off responsible for paying dues to a union that gives them no voice in the future terms of their working arrangements?

  Comment by KW — February 28, 2008 @ 10:12 am  Reply to this post

• Reap what you sow, extras and small-time actors. The whole idea of a union, or excuse me “guild,” to represent celebrities who make millions a year is preposterous. Hell, Vaughn and Brennerman make many time more more than all the “suits” y’all bitch about incessantly.

  Unions have a place: for blue-collar stiffs working a mile underground in a leeky mine shaft. Actors, and writers too, are continually screwed by their communist “guilds” which only serve to benefit the already rich, powerful and famous. Make LA right to work, and watch Hollywood take-off again.

  Otherwise, whitcha bitchin, lazy stooges.

  Comment by Ronald Dump — February 28, 2008 @ 10:31 am  Reply to this post

• What bothers me is that these signers are wanting to do essentially what the directors did… rush in to meetings when they don’t yet have to… and rush into whatever deal the studios want to hand out. ‘go meet and make the deal is’ — if it were that simple and easy, there never would have been a strike, let alone 100 days of it.

  I’m sad to see so many names on here that I’ve respected and watched as actors… that they should undercut their union at a time like this… not that they should be expressing their opinions to their union, but that they should be signing a public document to show their disloyalty and strengthen the studios side. There is no reason for this.

  Except…

  … perhaps this isn’t so much about what they believe as in saying, ‘please, studios, we’re on your side, keep hiring us… we’re good little boys and girls… we’ll do anything you ask… as long as you give us enough money not to associate with the rabble’

  I’m glad someone mentioned excluding people with producer cards, because I was thinking about that myself. If the concern is people with conflict of interests voting, then take away voting privileges from those who have a conflict of interests… who are both actors and management. If you want to exclude someone like Les Moonves, there’s a legitimacy there, but an actor who has worked enough to pay his/her dues and keep paying them, and maybe is just unlucky enough to not get through the audition process these days because he/she might not be young enough, thin enough, pretty enough, or made of enough silicon to please the casting directors/producers today, but maybe not tomorrow… shouldn’t be penalized.

  Do any of these people remember the cry ‘no taxation, without representation’ which this country was founded on? It feels like these people have forgotten what democracy is all about. No wonder this country is in such bad shape.

  It looks like the WGA disenfranchised half its members and yet when it took that crappy deal so its haves could continue having, it tied all of its writers for the foreseeable future and maybe forever, without representation… some democracy at work there. Is that what SAG wants to do?

  If these actors are so afraid of strike — and believe me, I don’t want another strike myself — then they should be raising their voices against that when the time comes, not trying to disenfranchise their due-paying brothers and sisters. Assuming you know how these people are going to vote and working to exclude them on the fear of how they might vote is as bad as redistricting a state so you can exclude those you feel might vote in a way you don’t want for your piece of the pie.

  If nothing else, all of you who have signed this public document at a time like this, have lost my respect.

  Comment by new to the acting life — February 28, 2008 @ 11:10 am  Reply to this post

• @Cookie Rojas

  Ahhh…the days of Wine and Rojas (and the Tonys: Gonzalaz and Taylor; and the two Johnnys: Callison and Briggs; and Chris Short and Bunning and Rick Wise and Clay behind the plate) at Connie Mack…

  Wasn’t playing 2B for the Phillies and Gene Mauch enough punishment (not mention your short stint as manager with the Angels)? You had to become an actor, too?

  You my friend, are a glutton for punishment–maybe you should join the WGA, too. You’ll really get abused with us.

  Comment by Jake Hollywood — February 28, 2008 @ 11:53 am  Reply to this post

• The Screen Actors Guild has long ago morphed into something akin to a magazine subscriber base rather than anything resembling The United Auto Workers. Millionaires Tom Cruise and George Clooney don’t actually pay dues out of their pocket, (which are capped at the same rate as a middle class actor) the studio pays it for them as part of their contract. Same goes for any of the “name” talent with large agencies and publicists and lawyers. Face it, the rest of us are powerless, and the childish struggle between SAG and AFTRA will only continue to highlight the utter dysfunction and obsolete nature of the “Guilds”. We all work for a global media conglomerate who calls the tune. You will do as they say, or they will just get another pretty 20 year old. Next!

  Comment by Wilbur Varela — February 28, 2008 @ 11:53 am  Reply to this post

• Personally, I think this list of names are silly. Isn’t the main purpose of a union is to guarantee reasonable working salaries? Quite frankly, the A-List, B-List and even C-List names make far, far more than that, so, in essence, voting doesn’t affect them personally in the least.

  It affects the struggling artist more. Why shouldn’t they have a vote?

  Comment by POV Me — February 28, 2008 @ 11:58 am  Reply to this post

• While this list only represents a small percentage of the total SAG membership, the recognizable names on it is disheartening and disppointing to us rank and file fans and viewers. Indeed, it appears as though “the haves” can shove their influence down the throats of
  “the have nots”.

  Surely the A-List stars and the petition creators remember when they were once the rank and file. Or has it been so long and their climb to the top so fabulous that they just don’t care anymore?

  Nonetheless, this is how we “outsiders” see this issue of qualified voting. Maybe it’s none of our business, but hey, we’ve supported you all along. But you let us down now.

  Comment by Becca — February 28, 2008 @ 12:13 pm  Reply to this post

• Although I “qualify” under the definition set here by members who deem themselves worthy to define what a SAG member is, I still maintain that this is NOT RIGHT. This is NOT what a union is.

  A union, by definition , is united, hence the word “union”. This is devisive and not fair to a lot of dues paying members in this guild.

  Let’s divide ourselves further shall we:

  Get rid of AFTRA
  Get rid of the background actors
  Get rid of all actors who also have producing titles ( conflict of interest )
  Get rid of the people willing to picket on a daily basis should this guild strike AND….
  Get rid of the dues payed by members denied a vote by the very union that they qualified to be a member of.

  And what does that leave us?

  1000 names.

  Only a 119,000 unrepresented dues paying members . Way to face down multi-national corporations who, for the record keep their inner arguements and differences to themselfes. What we are doing here is a sign of weakness. There is strength in numbers.

  Peggy Lane O’Rourke

  Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — February 28, 2008 @ 12:20 pm  Reply to this post

• A couple of things from the peanut gallery:

  1. As someone who followed the WGA Strike Stations of the Cross (Rupert Murdoch condemns the WGA to death; residuals for new media fall for the first time…) with the added bonus of Harlan’s Book of Revelations (And I say unto thee, Nick Counter is a pus-sucking diphthong), I have to say that it pains me to see SAG put themselves in such a weak position this close to the beginning of negotiations. I suppose, if you really tried, you could weaken yourselves even more than this but that probably involves Alan Rosenberg, Photoshop and a random farm animal. Why this petition now? Was a big show of disunity four months out really that great of an idea?

  2. Because these things tend to happen, could someone post here when the CafePress “SAG: I Am A Union Of One” store opens? I really want a t-shirt and coffee mug.

  Comment by andthentherewassag — February 28, 2008 @ 12:32 pm  Reply to this post

• I’m all for qualified voting as long as the qualification to get a vote is that you walked the picket line during the last SAG strike and also the recent WGA strike. And I don’t mean for one hour as a photo op. How many of the 1000 would be eligible? Hmmmmm?

  Jenny

  Comment by Jenny — February 28, 2008 @ 12:50 pm  Reply to this post

• SAG and AFTRA vote on the same contract. AFTRA has no qualified voting and no qualifications for admission to the union. If SAG disqualifies a member from voting and they feel strongly about voting they can just go upstairs at 5757 Wilshire, join AFTRA and vote.

  Comment by SAG but not AFTRA (yet) — February 28, 2008 @ 1:17 pm  Reply to this post

• Questions for the signers:

  1) As has been pointed out many, many times, the vast majority of roles are for white men younger than 60 and secondarily, white women younger than 40. Jobs for members in other demographics are much harder to come by. Any proposals to counteract the fact that this disefranchises many, many members who aren’t white men?

  2) “Affected member voting”–anyone who has the opportunity to negotiate his own contract isn’t really affected by the contract. He or she may be affected by a strike, but not the contract. Does he or she lose his or her vote, as well?

  3) Members who make their livings primarily from commercials?

  4) Can any of you offer one shred of evidence that “unaffected” voters vote in larger numbers than affected members? The vast majority of members can’t be motivated to vote, so what makes you think that members in Baltimore who don’t think they should be allowed to vote are more likely to do so than members who qualify under your definition? Would all of you care to share how often you’ve chosen to vote, ot if it’s all just a case of you can’t be bothered, and you’re upset than other members make more of an effort than you?

  Comment by Muronao — February 28, 2008 @ 1:27 pm  Reply to this post

• I’m not an actor nor do I have any affiliation with either SAG or AFTRA. But to me, this petition is just another example of how self-absorbed every faction of Hollywood has become.

  Let’s identify this for what it is: a deliberate attempt at keeping the 85% of SAG members regularly unemployed from voting because the working 15% are afraid the rest will vote to strike because they’re not working anyway.

  I’m sorry but this IS elitist.

  Publishing this list of petitioners has already shown the AMPTP that a select group of SAG members are willing to throw 100,000 of its members under a bus just so they can strike a deal at any cost.

  It’s like the Allies landing at Normandy in 1944 only to have 50 officers tell the troops ‘you guys stay here on the beach. We’re going up the cliffs to surrender.’

  Comment by tom r. — February 28, 2008 @ 2:04 pm  Reply to this post

• I’m in favor of this proposal even though I would be unable to vote if this were to pass. I now make a living as a casting associate. I keep my SAG membership because I am proud to be a member and worked hard to become one. But I don’t feel qualified or even entitled to vote on issues that affect working actors.

  A working (one who has no other source of income) actor has more to loose during a strike. They have a mortgage, car payments, children to feed, etc. Besides, per the proposal, a background actor making as little as $1500/year and a principal actor making as little as $2750/year would still be able to vote. The rank and file will have a voice. Why should someone who’s made no money as an actor for the last 6 years have a vote?

  A working actor knows more about what changes are needed. They have the experience of being in the trenches. If you were looking for a mentor, would you pick me or Ms. Brenneman?

  A working actor has more influence and can better fight for the little guy. When the writer’s were on strike, numerous SAG members marched with them and were appreciated for their efforts. But who did the media come to see: the stars and the group events with STAR TREK people or series regulars for a TV show marching together.

  Please don’t let ego and emotion rule. Since moving to Hollywood in 1999, that’s what I’ve seen as the major cause of strife not only within SAG but between SAG and AFTRA. We are in this together, but some should build and captain the ship while the rest of us appreciate and benefit from their efforts.

  Allen Hooper

  P.S. Does anyone know how to add your name to the petition?

  Comment by Allen Hooper — February 28, 2008 @ 2:20 pm  Reply to this post

• So that means you don’t expect those not allowed to vote to picket, right? And all you actors who signed this thing will be out there picketing when it comes down to it, right?

  Comment by Okay, — February 28, 2008 @ 3:02 pm  Reply to this post

• I’m glad the list of names was FINALLY posted.

  As I have been saying, the inequity when it comes to available jobs for each SAG member in an industry where someone can specify gender, age, ethnicity, height, weight, hair and eye color, and general attractiveness means that the qualifications for determining if you are elligible to vote are highly discriminatory. If this is put through, I will PERSONALLY organize a protest of minority actors in front of the SAG building to ask why SAG doesn’t want it’s members of color or women to have an equal say in contract voting.

  Is it a problem for our industry that casting is so looks driven and that sometimes less-talented people are cast based on that? Absolutely. Other countries have more varied looks in their film and TV and that opens the door for more talented actors with varying looks. Wonder if valuing talent has anything to do with the fact that foreign actors now serve as leads on many TV shows and swept the acting awards at the Oscars. But that is a philosophy change Hollywood will need to look at.

  In the meantime, take a look at this SAG report on the the percentage of roles by ethnicity and age:
  http://www.sag.org/files/documents/CastingDataReport.pdf

  It must be nice to be young and white in America….
  Hey, anyone know how many minority actors signed that list?

  For the rest of us, I guess we’ll have to make our peace by going fi-core to give ourselves any kind of a voice. (As disgusting as that idea is to me.)

  Comment by SAG Member — February 28, 2008 @ 3:24 pm  Reply to this post

• Allen Hooper – if you don’t feel voting applies to you – then…DON’T VOTE! There, that was simple. (I’m not saying that to be snarky, I’m pointing out a real solution.)

  When I vote for SAG Awards I only vote in categories in which I’ve seen a reasonable number of the performances (I leave teh miniseries categories alone). Just as the majority of SAG members don’t vote either because they don’t care to, or like you feel they are unqualified on an issue. You can simply leave the choice up to people who do care and do feel they have a reason to vote – like those who are actively pursuing work, even though they may not be getting those principal roles at the moment. Votes are counted from among those cast – not from among the total of possible voters – so you don’t need to reduce the number of voters by force. Voters will self select if its important to them. And you don’t need 80% out of all possible voters, or whatever, to pass something, you need 80% of all votes cast (that 80% is an example).

  Also, the test isn’t EVEN that you’ve worked “A” job under SAG as principal or background in the past 6 years, its that you’ve worked an average of a certain number of jobs for each year.

  And if someone says, well you could have Extra work as well as principal work, I would say – show me the line where I can go everyday to get that work. I’m serious, ’cause I would take that. Maybe actors who are willing to work can line the streets outside Central Casting every morning and night like at a Home Depot, and wait for grip trucks to drive by and 2nd ADs to lean out and shout “I need 5 downscale men, and 10 upscale women – any ethnicity for the day!” Its not that easy – extras are cast too – and again, that is based on physical description – not something the actor can control.

  Comment by SAG Member — February 28, 2008 @ 3:54 pm  Reply to this post

• As a fan of a top ten show I was already embarrased by the lack of support the actors for that show showed to the writers while they were on strike. Reading this list and seeing their names on it makes me think that maybe I will go back to reading books, as I did during the strike, and turn my television off again. I suddenly find myself much less interested in supporting their work.

  Thanks for posting the list Nikki!

  Comment by CMF — February 28, 2008 @ 5:38 pm  Reply to this post

• To Allen Hooper,

  You are now making your living as a casting associate. When you become a casting director, you will be able to join the Teamster #399 union. The Teamsters at the request of the casting directors went to battle with the studios to organize them. They felt the studios were “shitting all over them”. They pay their dues, and have the RIGHT AS MEMBERS TO VOTE. The only way you don’t have the right, is if you’re not current or you’re fi-core. My point is… if you don’t want to vote on a SAG contract… then don’t, but if a member is in good standing with their union…they have the right to vote. Also, you may not want to join the Teamsters, we feel every member has the right to heard and the right to vote, but then we usually laugh in the face of elitism.

  Comment by btl teamster — February 28, 2008 @ 6:10 pm  Reply to this post

• These are questions that I hope someone can provide an answer to. I understand the reasoning behind this drive, but it seems a tad unfair. Not every actor on screen gets a line. Why was the Screen Extras Guild absorbed into the Screen Actors Guild? If it was done to make the SAG more powerful, how can they then turn around and say the people they actively courted no longer have a say? Does this coalition believe that having extras voting somehow weakens its negotiating power with the AMPTP? Thank you.

  Comment by M_Adams — February 28, 2008 @ 6:43 pm  Reply to this post

• Allan Hooper, you’re correct when you say, “A working (one who has no other source of income) actor has more to loose during a strike. They have a mortgage, car payments, children to feed, etc.” However, most of the recognizable names on this list are NOT in that position, and many of them are producers as well. If anyone shouldn’t be allowed to vote, it’s someone who has a separate deal, nothing to lose from a horrible contract and who, as a producer, actually gains the less money the other actors make.

  If they’re looking for a title for their ‘movement’ I’d suggest the ‘we got ours, jack’ coalition.

  Comment by fi-core — February 28, 2008 @ 6:53 pm  Reply to this post

• Meryl Streep signed? That reminds me of a funny story from one of the many days Meryl and I were walking the WGA picket lines as SAG members in support of their union and indeed all unions– In support of the American idea that the minority of those who are rich do not necessarily get to make all the decisions.

  Of course I’m joking people! I walked many days on the WGA lines as a SAG member and I only saw ANY of the 900 people who allegedly signed this petition on ONE day—and then only a few. You remember the day where they talked to the news cameras outside Universal Studios? Great photo op. I did miss a few of the big WGA rally days at Fox, so most likely the other 900 of you petition signers were there showing your support for 1 day in a 100 day UNION strike. But where were you the other days? I know you didn’t have to work. Please tell me you did support the WGA, your support team, before you decided you as the top-earners in SAG you are the only ones worthy of a vote.

  Look, I love you Meryl, but you don’t get to take my vote. You can look down on me for only booking 2 commercials in 2 years. You can look down on me for only booking one day on prime time series last year. You can look down on me for in my 15 years as a SAG member I have only won health insurance for two. Wait, maybe three–So adjust your gaze up here a bit. Wait till you see my car if you really wanna laugh. Yours I’m sure is much nicer.

  I love celebrities. But, c’mon petition signers, most of you have someone who picks up your dry cleaning. And not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it does preclude you from knowing the strains, struggles, and needs of the rank and file actors. It just does, you’ll have to trust me.

  Also this arrogant idea that you could take the VOTE away from anyone—let alone the majority of the Union’s members—and we (the majority) would wait attentively like the fans in the bleachers at a movie premier to see what you would strip us of next is, well, it’s befitting a person who has succumbed to the narcissism of fame. If you’ve ever gotten a bag of swag–FREE stuff, really good free stuff—then you’re not the guy or gal I’m willing to relinquish my voting rights to. I’m not willing to give you the right to decide what I get paid and what I do and don’t need, because you are out of touch with what the union’s rank and file need. That is easily evidenced in your vigor to strip us of out voting rights. You see we need them, Meryl. A union is about ALL it’s members, not just the prettiest.

  Some years we work, some years we don’t. It’s the nature of the business. For some of us it’s lean. Some months I rely on a $75 check from a long callback session the Union has negotiated for me to make ends meet. And for those lucky enough to be on top, I salute you. I salute you while I’m auditioning for a role you are already in contract negotiations for. I salute you when I am a mere bargaining tool for the studio who says to your agent “Well, we’re actually auditioning other actors for the role right now.” “Other actors,” that’s us. making the rounds. I know I won’t book against you because you are on top (and something of a ball hogger. But I salute ball hogs—why not)?

  But by the power vested in US by the great Screen Actors Guild, we, the majority, will draw the line on your benefits as a celebrity at our RIGHTS as MEMBERS of UNION. We are not rabble Old Man Potter, we are human beings! And we are proud to be members of this great Union– a little embarrassed that some of our more prominent members are looking to sell us out–but proud just the same.

  This divisive petition is so clearly an attempt to keep those of us who have to rely on the UNION to negotiate our sporadic deals from voting FOR a strike if we feel it’s needed so that you—the richens who have a team of agents, managers, and lawyers, to negotiate YOUR deals—don’t have to miss even a day of your way over-scale work. We get it top earners. You don’t want to miss a paycheck. Neither do we. Trust me, neither do we. So let’s work TOGETHER to make sure that doesn’t have to happen.

  Comment by Zackery — February 28, 2008 @ 6:57 pm  Reply to this post

• I walked the lines quite a bit, I signed the petition, I am not a name. I am worried about making a living and I want the people who have a stake in the game as an actor to be the ones who vote and to have my vote count. I don’t want to take it away from anyone who is an actor. If I didn’t qualify for that amount then I would understand about losing my vote one year. We only vote on things every three years so even that is unlikely. We have lost votes when people who don’t follow the issues just read whatever the board wants them to vote and do so. This can end up hurting working actors, not STARS, working actors. We should have merged, we should have a deal with the ATA where we are protected by SAG contracts when we sign or change agents. We don’t have these things. If we had had affected voting we would have. The WORKING ACTOR would be better off.

  I appreciate the fan liason on here and their enormous support during the writers strike, but this is a very different issue. You are reacting but don’t really understand the policy’s that we have lost and how important it is that the votes of the working/struggling/or middle class actor, who’s work you may enjoy on those shows, has a say in their future and contracts and not people who have had sag cards for years but don’t work the contracts.

  Comment by Sagmember — February 28, 2008 @ 7:32 pm  Reply to this post

• Allen Hooper, you’re missing the point. They don’t want YOUR name on the petition. You’ll have to join the A-list, then get in the pocket of producers, and you’ll be ASKED to sign. (Although I have my doubts that all these 1000 people “signed” anything. I got an email from Ned asking me to email my name back in support of his petition. Will that kind of “signing” hold up to any scrutiny?)Oh, and Allen, Can I send you my reel?

  Comment by Zackery — February 28, 2008 @ 7:40 pm  Reply to this post

• Zachary, word. I’d really like to meet the person who decided the best way to dispel the idea that this is just a bunch of wealthy out of touch celebrities on a self-serving, elitist crusade against the rank-and-file would be to release this list of names.

  It’s weird, but among the scores of famous people in there I seem to see some people who clearly make their primary living in some other field, like, for example, music, and apparently do pretty darn well at it. Good to know they’re more deserving of a voice than members who pursue acting full time.

  Comment by Muronao — February 28, 2008 @ 8:24 pm  Reply to this post

• Unlike most unions where all members are of equal rank, these hollywood unions are quite different! The A-listers are the power in these unions. If the A-listers defect, don’t think for one minute that the studios will give two cents about the remaining 100,000 or so members! So, whether you think it is fair or not, what they want counts a helluva lot more than the rest of the members. The strike leverage that the union holds is witholding the A-listers services

  Comment by Intrigued — February 28, 2008 @ 8:42 pm  Reply to this post

• Zackery said:

  “They don’t want YOUR name on the petition. You’ll have to join the A-list …”

  What A-list are you talking about? I read through that list and out of ~1000 I can recognize by name 36 (Ned Vaughn not included since I’ve never heard of him or seen him on screen.) All 36 of them I consider very good actors, but 35 out of 36 I would qualify as only marginally known. Meryl Streep is the only one actor on that list I consider an A-lister, everybody else I know I call a working actor with solid respectable skills. I watch a lot of TV and movies and read entertainment news and I bother to learn names of the actors whose work I watch, but I haven’t heard about vast majority of them, so all this A-list talk sounds funny to me.

  Comment by Samantha — February 28, 2008 @ 8:56 pm  Reply to this post

• Thanks Intrigued, we weren’t aware that the studios fawn over the A-listers and don’t care about anyone else. You’ve cleared up a great mystery, cat’s outta the bag now.

  Comment by fi-core — February 28, 2008 @ 9:27 pm  Reply to this post

• Samantha, because I’m a nerd I counted and I’d estimate that, conservatively, at least 250 of the signers on the petition would be familiar to the average person by sight, because they’ve had prominent and/or lead roles in major films and series and/or work fairly steadily. They’re not all Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks A-list, but they’re not the average working actor, either, I’d consider them “famous” or “celebrities”. It’s a far cry from someone who’s working 5 days a year and really needs the contract. And I’m not going back to count again, but there are several who are houshold names besides Streep.

  Comment by Muronao — February 28, 2008 @ 10:25 pm  Reply to this post

• Some brutal facts in the form of a QUIZ:

  QUESTION – The AMPTP cares if…

  a) I belong to a special guild that has a special history.
  b) My guild is democratic because everyone votes on anything.
  c) I could get my big break soon.
  d) I’m a talented actor.
  e) The actors they want to hire are out on strike.

  ANSWER:
  If you chose e), then you understand Affected Member Voting as it relates to the upcoming negotiation.

  At the negotiating table, it is not only important who WE want to vote, it is also important who they THINK is voting. Nothing would please the studios more than to know that the working stiffs were put on the picket line by members who didn’t have a stake in the outcome. That’s when performers are most susceptible to division and defection.

  And conversely, nothing would please the studios more than to know the opportunity to shut this town down over some crappy offer was negated by the grips, hairstylists, writer/producers, exec’s, and car salesmen who still have their SAG cards and are anti-strike.

  The more we respond to the soaring rhetoric about including every last hopeful, the more the studios rub their hands and grin, “Perfect. Perfect”.

  We, as SAG members, care about the novices and the long-timers, and the rough-patchers, we want everyone to have solid protection under the best deal possible; but don’t think for a second that the studios care a jot if they want to strike or not. Would that affect them? No. But would knowing that a vast majority of working actors are willing to go out on strike right after the WGA strike? Now we’re talking solidarity.

  –Todd Waring

  Comment by Todd Waring — February 28, 2008 @ 11:29 pm  Reply to this post

• You people had better straighten up. There are 1000 names on that list now. Not 900. That’s 0.83% up from 0.75%.

  Mark my word, that list will hit the one percent mark by April! That’s the big 1.0% We’re talking single whole digits now boys and girls. 1000 out of 120,000 dues paying members.

  You other 119,000 nobodies better fall in line with the majority, ah… I mean the elite few who pull their weight while you guys are trudging around on your pitiful waitress jobs booking a student film for every hundred auditions you do.

  What did you think, this was a democracy?

  You probably think a democrat is going to be president, don’t you? ROTFLMAO!!

  Comment by Jon Raymond — February 29, 2008 @ 12:53 am  Reply to this post

• Todd, in a strike ALL members are out. That’s sort of a given. Now, if you were a studio exec, what you be rubbing your hands over

  a) a proposal by actors who are better off than most arguing that a large percentage of fellow SAG members, including an awful lot of people of color and women, should have their voting rights stripped right before negotiations begin

  or

  b) no such communication, suggesting instead that SAG is united?

  I’d be happy about a) because that would let me know that the actors I want to hire at least appear to be potentially to throw everyone else under the bus and couldn’t care less about what we have planned to gut the contract if it doesnt affect them directly. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference who’s voting, let’s say there’s a 90% strike vote under affected member voting, yet prominent members are making it clear that they’re not on board. Those prominent members still have the same amount of leverage to undercut the strike, and you’ve also shot yourself in the foot by dividing the rest of the membership.

  Ask the WGA, we had near unanimity on the authorization to strike, yet we constantly had to worry about the showrunners defecting, and it’s not as if the AMPTP took us seriously because we’re working members who had a stake in the outcome. As long as you have working stiffs and members who can write their own tickets, there’s just as much potential to play divide and conquer. It’s not so much willingness to GO on strike, it’s willingness to STAY on strike that they care about. And it really seems unlikely that they’re not looking at things like this and thinking, yeah, we can break this thing wide open pretty quick.

  Comment by Anon — February 29, 2008 @ 1:22 am  Reply to this post

• M_Adams wrote:
  Why was the Screen Extras Guild absorbed into the Screen Actors Guild? If it was done to make the SAG more powerful, how can they then turn around and say the people they actively courted no longer have a say? Does this coalition believe that having extras voting somehow weakens its negotiating power with the AMPTP? Thank you.

  Here’s a possible answer/educated guess to your first question: the absorption was around the time that SAG was getting ready to move from its then-small building on Hollywood Boulevard to its current high-rise on Wilshire Boulevard. Background dues likely helped to pay some expenses re the move;as for wages, the Screen Extras Guild top rate (I believe it was $86/8 hours) was cut to $65/8–(later increased) to, as someone then on the SAG board put it, “get the jurisdiction” over extras.

  Comment by Terry McCarty — February 29, 2008 @ 1:33 am  Reply to this post

• So disappointing to see David Duchovny in this list. Makes me so sad.

  Comment by Ron — February 29, 2008 @ 5:16 am  Reply to this post

• The point of a union isn’t to protect the interests of the big-name actors. Their audience appeal means producers will negotiate a deal with them that’s always going to be better than the union minimum wage. The point of a union is to protect the interests of people who might otherwise get nothing at all for showing up; they’re the people who are really affected by the terms of any contract, not the people who can ask for their own contract and get it because they’re marketing points.

  Restricting the vote to people who don’t need the protection of a union is backwards. If anything, the vote should exclude anyone who has been paid more than the union minimum.

  Comment by Steve S — February 29, 2008 @ 5:38 am  Reply to this post

• Sagmember @ February 28, 2008 @ 7:32 pm wrote

  “I appreciate the fan liason on here and their enormous support during the writers strike, but this is a very different issue. You are reacting but don’t really understand the policies that we have lost and how important it is that the votes of the working/struggling/or middle class actor, whose work you may enjoy on those shows, has a say in their future and contracts and not people who have had SAG cards for years but don’t work the contracts.”

  I can only assume that this comment is directed to me because I went to some length to identify myself (but thanks to the WGA strike and my habit of reading certain DHD posts I recognize that other fans and WGA supporters have also posted comments) so forgive me if you think I’m butting in here Sagmember (and no I won’t ask for your real name because it’s not necessary to my understanding this situation although it’s a bit confusing that more than one poster here is using a variant of the pseudonym ‘SAG member’).

  I put to you a simple five word request Sagmember: Please explain it to me.

  If you can explain to me why qualified voting is a good idea, then I can get past my possibly incomplete and incorrect understanding of the situation and moreover explain to a whole bunch of fans whom I have come to know and work with why some of their favorite actors and actresses look like they are moving to disenfranchise the majority of their union when that isn’t the case and why a lot of other actors haven’t signed onto this ‘good idea’.

  First I do not understand what looks to me to be an irrational fear of “people who have had SAG cards for years but don’t work the contracts”. Do you know how to identify these people? Please explain this to me because I couldn’t possibly know how to tell the difference(s) between these people and whatever it is the people signing the petition mean by ‘working actors’ (and I am pretty sure that if you polled all of the signers, you would not get a consistent workable definition of ‘working actor’ which further clouds this issue) I think it is safe to say that neither do the millions of us around the world in the audience understand your terminology when you make these distinctions.

  Do you know how many of these people whom you might call ‘non-working actors’ are actually members otherwise in good standing in SAG (or AFTRA for that matter) and not only whether their numbers comprise the majority of your union but what percentages of them vote relative to the percentage of ‘working actors’ who regularly (if not religiously) vote on SAG’s minimum basic agreements? Because if you don’t have a handle on these numbers, then how do you know that you really are being screwed over by people whom the rest of us who are not actors (much less guild members) see as actors?

  Let me point out more of your comment that I don’t understand:

  “We have lost votes when people who don’t follow the issues just read whatever the board wants them to vote and do so.”

  Which SAG board(s) and/or board member(s) is it whose judgment you don’t trust? The current board, or just certain specific members? Or is it one or more previous boards and/or their members? Or all of the above

  Correct me if I am wrong but when you say “We should have merged [and I presume by this you mean merged with AFTRA to form one big acting union when it was put to a vote back in 2003 and not the 1999 vote to merge with AFTRA although as I understand it there were also proposals to get SAG AFTRA and Equity into one *really* big actors union floating around in 2003] or “we should have a deal with the ATA where we are protected by SAG contracts when we sign or change agents” [and once again I am presuming that you are referring to the expiration in January 2002 of a franchise agreement between the Association of Talent Agents & SAG and no subsequent success in creating a replacement] you are referring to measures that were under the jurisdiction of previous boards and previous members. Is it possible that you are holding grudges against people who are no longer in charge of your union and that you might be mentally fighting the last union battles over again?

  Now let me get to this:
  “We don’t have these things. If we had had affected voting we would have. The WORKING ACTOR would be better off.”

  If you think that qualified or ‘affected’ voting would have been a good idea and prevented the absence of a merged SAG & AFTRA (or a merged SAG & AFTRA and Equity) and an ATA-SAG franchise agreement then why weren’t such petitions to adopt affected or qualified floating around in 1999? Or is my decidedly limited understanding and knowledge of SAG history incorrect and were there moves to adopt qualified voting prior to now but for some inexplicable reason they were defeated?

  And here’s another thing I don’t understand…why don’t those of you behind the petition support your *own* opinions on matters that to most of us appear to concern every member of your union (i.e. residual rates, health insurance elligibility and pension elligibility to name but three). Are the ‘name’ actors who will not ever have to live with a minimum basic agreement really the best judges of your situation, especially given how fickle your industry is and how rapidly your situation could change…i.e. how fast you could go from a ‘working actor’ to a ‘non-working actor’? I admire the acting ability of a lot of the actors who have signed onto this list but if I were an actor there is no way would I want them to determine for me such important matters without some clear understanding on my part that they truly are better informed than myself, well organized and have a clearly workable solution. From what I have read of this proposal and of the petition backers’s posts here, I don’t see that this is the case. In fact I believe that many of the board members really do have a better understanding of the situation that the petition supporters do. But I would like for you to prove me wrong.

  One more thing…the sooner you do this the better. Because the sooner I can share what I have learned here the sooner I can alleviate the disapointment that so many fans felt when they first saw this list and the sooner you all can get past another kind of intra-guild dispute and focus on what matters: the upcoming negotiations with the moguls and their time wasting ‘trade association’ front the AMPTP.

  Thanks in advance for your input

  -S.E. Olson
  Resolved Rumpus Room Member (we’re a group of fans & viewers who normally participate in the chat interface of the United Hollywood NowLive.com multi casts and we have a Google group which anyone can join at
  http://groups.google.com/group/rumpus?hl=en)
  Moderator & Law & Order Criminal Intent Fan Liason
  Fans For The WGA
  http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters/

  Comment by VDOVault — February 29, 2008 @ 6:23 am  Reply to this post

• fi-core,

  the point i’m trying to make is that if you recognize the A-listers are the only ones the studios care about, then you accept the fact that the A-listers CONTROL the union and their wants/desires outwiegh the rest of the union. The posts on here are complaining because the A-listers are flexing their muscle and disinfranchising lesser-members, but the reality is the lesser-members are just allong for the ride. Every gain the rank-file has achieved over the years is because of the influence of the A-listers, so how the hell can people crow now that the A-listers are selfish? The A-listers don’t need the protection of union, so the fact that they even participant is for the benefit of the rank and file!

  Comment by Intrigued — February 29, 2008 @ 7:09 am  Reply to this post

• “soaring last hopeful?” You mean “SAG member” right? Let’s apply this “litmus test” you “working actors” are demanding to, oh, say, the American public, in the upcoming election. “Hey Mr. West Virginia guy, living in a holler, I don’t think you should be allowed to vote – leave it to US, we promise to get you the best deal.” Hmm… doesn’t quite scan, does it? What exactly is different here? Yes, the American public “elected” George Bush twice, but you know what? THAT’S DEMOCRACY. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE when it comes to stating the obvious: lay off Rosenberg and Allen, let them do the job they were ELECTED to do, and, when SAG takes a vote on whether or not to strike or whether or not to approve the upcoming contract – EVERYBODY GETS TO VOTE. It is their RIGHT. How dare you try to take that away? Again, it amazes me how “liberal Hollywood” will go right to the most Darwinian, anti-democratic approach when the POWER BASE is threatened. Solidarity DOESN’T mean SOME, it means ALL. Period.
  (I am a “working actor,” who has been on a top 10 TV show with a bunch of mainstream movies and various other TV and film appearances, and I say LET ‘EM VOTE)

  Comment by Cookie Rojas — February 29, 2008 @ 8:45 am  Reply to this post

• Dear Octavio Victor Rojas Rivas,

  You wrote, “again, it amazes me how “liberal hollywood” will go right to
  the most Darwinian, anti-democratic approach when the POWER BASE is threatened.”

  Don’t you know that the elite, liberal hollywood types are the most closed minded people in this town. Their idea of a perfect dinner party, is to sit around and tell each other how brilliant they are….to hire people who kiss their asses, and tell them how brilliant they are, and sometimes they even allow the little people to bask in their glow of delusional self- importance.

  I’ve worked and I’m currently working with many of the actors who signed this petition. I really have to laugh, maybe they don’t remember their early days of being unknown or feeling blessed to have 3 sentences to speak…..now they are the Sages, they will speak for all.

  I must say, I’m happy, certain down-to-earth actors, who are a great joy to work with, HAVEN”T signed… they probably NEVER forgot their roots.

  Comment by btl teamster — February 29, 2008 @ 2:58 pm  Reply to this post

• Intrigued, you’re way off base. Judging from their apparent level of involvement, I’d guess that A-listers could, by and large, not care less, so I can’t see how it follows that “all of the gains” SAG has made has been due to them. Nonsense. A-listers don’t even pay their own dues, for god’s sake (and I don’t see the 900 volunteering to step up and pay all the dues for everyone they want to disenfranchise), they have separate deals, the SAG contract means nothing to them. Well, except if they’re producers, then rollbacks put additional money in their pockets. They mostly DON’T seem to participate, except when it starts to affect them, and then that input isn’t so helpful. Any gains to the rank and file are due to the majority of the membership, the negotiating committees, and the people who started all of these unions and fought to create a union town. The reason SAG exists is to protect the average working actor since the studios won’t and the A-listers, who I would agree have tremendous influence and could help tremendously if they chose, apparently can’t be bothered. If you’ve got examples of A-listers getting involved or doing anything significant to help the rank and file in recent years, share with the class, because suggesting that every selfish action that benefits them at others’ expense is a clear demonstration that they’re looking out for the rank and file is somewhat counterintuitive.

  Comment by fi-core — February 29, 2008 @ 3:19 pm  Reply to this post

• Nice to see a list of 1000 actors who, through ignorance or simple selfishness, have no idea how to behave well as members of a union. What the heck are they thinking? I don’t know if I can keep from being disappointed and disgusted every time I see one of The Great 1000’s faces in a tv or movie. As another comment suggested, good thing there are still books to read and music to listen to.

  And the “qualified earnings” threshold proposal is beyond stupid. Several comments here have pointed out the inherent bias in casting/employment/earnings based on sex, race, and age. I don’t know what exact kinds of rules SAG has in its constituting documents, but it would be very interesting to find out what kinds of legal relief “un-qualified” SAG members might avail themselves of if push comes to shove within their own freakin’ union (!).

  Sheesh.

  Comment by CFA Member — February 29, 2008 @ 6:44 pm  Reply to this post

• Maybe if you work less than 5 days a year, your problem isn’t with the guild or the A listers.

  Comment by just askin' — February 29, 2008 @ 6:57 pm  Reply to this post

• fi-core,

  you CLEARLY don’t get it. instead of arguing listen to what i’m saying. I am NOT off-base at all, what I am saying is fact! I am not saying that the A-listers are or have fought for gains for the rank and file. What I said is that the fact that they are part of the union, gives the union the leverage to achieve gains for the rank-and-file! You see without the A-listers, the union would HAVE ZERO leverage. ZERO!

  The reason why they are getting so much attention (when as people have pointed out are only 1000 of 100,000) is because if they defect, the union no longer has any leverage against the studios! The studios couldn’t care less if SAG goes on strike for 2 years as long as they have A-listers complete their projects, they will fill-in the remaining cast with anybody.

  It is the same dynamic the WGA had to deal with the showrunners. Although, the showrunners (for WGA) and the A-list actors (for SAG) are the least affected by any minium agreement reached with the AMPTP, it is the leverage of witholding their services that allows those unions to negotiate gains for the other members!

  Comment by Intrigued — February 29, 2008 @ 7:39 pm  Reply to this post

• {groans} Yeah, I knew you were going to say that. There’s no leverage there, if SAG tried to say “Don’t screw with us, the A-listers have our backs!” the AMPTP members would laugh heartily. It’s ridiculous. The A-listers are never going to completely trash their phony liberal creds by publicly leaving the union, but they can use their leverage over SAG to undercut the union’s position and try to hold it hostage to buckle under to their interests. Everybody on both sides knows that. What you’re talking about is some kind of fairy tale that’s never going to happen. No concessions have ever been gven because the suits believe in the militancy of the A-listers, nor is Rosenberg sincerely worried about some mass public campaign by A-listers going fi-core. It’s all a bit more subtle than that.

  Relax, Intrigued, everybody understands the points you’re trying to make, it’s just that that’s not exactly how it works in the real world. There are other dynamics involved.

  Comment by fi-core — February 29, 2008 @ 10:02 pm  Reply to this post

• It is amazing to read the nonsense that is being written in response to what has been proposed.

  Can you people not read? These 1000 people who signed this petition are not “A-listers” at all. Most are working stiffs trying to pay their bills. I haven’t signed it but I would love to. These guys have balls to give voice to the fact that vanity card holders should be finally run out of the Guild. What union member wouldn’t want this?

  And enough talk about “this is a movement to get the extras out of the Guild”!! They say right in their letter how they would include and how want to include extras — who work! You people need to take some reading comprehension courses.

  If you work – you vote, it’s that simple.

  Stop whining about “the little actor who wants to work” or “will work one day” this Guild isn’t an employment agency. You don’t work enough, get better or get a better agent. If you make your living as a waiter then YOU ARE A WAITER!

  I know some people who have signed this petition and they all want to strike, so stop assuming that the people who signed don’t want to strike. Where or when did they ever say that?

  I admire these guys for saying what every working actor feels.

  We are a Guild for the working actor, not waiters who pretend they act to their families back in Podunk!

  Comment by Henry Adams — February 29, 2008 @ 10:32 pm  Reply to this post

• I don’t want to be rude Intreigued, but do you think you’re the only person in the world who’s ever taken a junior high school level Econ class?

  Amazingly, we can all grasp really basic concepts, you’re not exactly presenting anything revolutionary here, but thanks for the enlightenment.

  And! Thanks! for! the exclaimation points!!!

  Honestly though, if you think if these 1000 people defect the union no longer has any leverage against the studios you might want to investigate the concept of the A-list.

  There probably are far less than 1000 people in SAG whose defection might be crippling…but, no offense, this ain’t them.

  Comment by Econ101 — February 29, 2008 @ 10:34 pm  Reply to this post

• Henry Adams said: “Stop whining about “the little actor who wants to work” or “will work one day” this Guild isn’t an employment agency. You don’t work enough, get better or get a better agent. If you make your living as a waiter then YOU ARE A WAITER!”

  Great, then stop giving those people SAG cards. You can change the entrance requirements, if you want to be really self defeating you can eject anyone who hasn’t worked in x amount of time, and that will be real popular among, for example, women with small children, BUT YOU CAN’T ADMIT MEMBERS AND THEN NOT LET THEM VOTE. Maybe you should be the PR person, since you’re helping to counteract the impression of elitism really well. BTW, if you make your living from commercials what are you, besides unable to vote under this proposal?

  Unfortunately, though, changing the entrance requirements might require majority agreement, so maybe you can instead try to change the rules for changing the entrance requirements in some undemocratic way.

  “I know some people who have signed this petition and they all want to strike, so stop assuming that the people who signed don’t want to strike. Where or when did they ever say that?”

  Is there any reason why this had to be brought up right now, when the leadership’s attention should be focused elsewhere and the publicity adversely affects the bargaining position? Even members who are for this are upset at the timing. This is not the time for this, so–why? Any reason at all?

  Comment by no elitism here — March 1, 2008 @ 1:51 am  Reply to this post

• Econ101,

  Its interesting how you say the points I make are basic Econ101, and yet there is somebody (fi-core) here arguing that what I am saying makes no sense!!! I know what I am saying is basic. I have said over and over again I know nothing about the entertain industry, just common business sense. And also note that at no point have judged the 1000 people who signed the letter (I didnt even bother to read who signed it). My response is to those complaining about ‘the few A-listers who think they are more important than the rest of the union’. Because as you say is basic Econ, they are!

  So thank you for proving my point (although I don;t think that was your intention) and sorry you dont like my exclamation marks, but i felt they were necessary since some people on here have not had any basic economics classes (as you pointed out).

  And to fi-core, not sure what world you are living in, but it works aexactly as I said. In fact, my comments were so obvious I just got chastised for saying something SO OBVIOUS, but yet you can’t get it???

  Comment by Intrigued — March 1, 2008 @ 5:58 am  Reply to this post

• Henry Adams,

  I agree with you, SAG is about working actors.
  I think that if someone cannot work five lousy days a years maybe he or she should find something else to do.

  Comment by GG — March 1, 2008 @ 9:04 am  Reply to this post

• Henry Adams
  “you work you vote”?

  Again, apply that litmus test to voting for President of the United States:
  “hey loser laid off auto worker! you don’t vote!”
  SAG made its bed by who it allowed into the union. Now it has to lie in it. Any proposal to disenfranchise ANY SAG members, will certainly have to be voted on – you can’t enforce it by some board fiat, and guess what – it will lose!
  I was against merging with AFTRA (I’m a member of both unions)because I strongly believe SAG should be a MUCH leaner, meaner union of SCREEN ACTORS: people who walk and talk in TV and film. Period.
  And yet… we seem to have decided, by the ballot, to have included extras, and, all kinds of folks who clearly don’t belong in the union. AFTRA is low-balling SAG to take contracts and give them to producers for half the price. What the fuck is up with that? There’s all KINDS of mistakes that have been made – in the membership requirements (or lack of them), in the conflicting behavior of AFTRA which puts less money in actor’s pockets, the list goes on and on and on. The good? Well, there’s lots and lots of good: health plan, wages and working conditions, pension, etc., but, my central point was, and continues to be: SAG must be democratic – in other words – you simply can’t disenfranchise anyone NOW. That is a power play, plain and simple, by the few, to impose their will on the many. Any substantial changes in any laws of the union need to be voted on by the entire membership. Period. Anything else gets us into “Castro wins 99% of the vote!” land. Once you open the Pandora’s box of easy, and perhaps unqualified inclusion in SAG? You have no choice – everybody votes. Anything else is undemocratic and dead wrong. I’d LOVE to hear how any “lefty” (I’M lefty!) Hollywood or NY members want to explain disenfranchising SAG members, who have a card, from voting. Did they break SAG rules? Not that I can see. Are they paying dues? I would think they’d have to. Did anybody put a gun to anybody’s head and get in illegally? Nope. They’re members. Deal with it. Let ‘em vote. You want to change the rules? Don’t do it by fiat – do it by the ballot. You don’t like the outcome? Tough. It’s called democracy.

  Comment by Cookie Rojas — March 1, 2008 @ 10:37 am  Reply to this post

• “I know nothing about the entertain industry”

  No! Really?

  “not sure what world you are living in, but it works aexactly as I said”

  Dude, I’m not going to make fun of you because I see you as a Jr. David Brent, trying to impress as the other first year B schoolers with your genius and not understanding why they don’t shower you with praise when you point out that rectangular shaped wood plank is called a DOOR! You are exactly right. Exactly. Things work exactly as you say. Every gain that has ever been made by SAG is due to the A-listers. The suits fear the resolve of the A-listers. They are terrified that SAG will strike early and often, and stay out forever. They know that the A-listers are far from the weak links, and all concessions must be made or they will feel the mighty wrath of the A-listers. They will hold fast forever and never do anything to undercut their own union or sgnal they’re not on board or weaken the strike. Forever, i say! Moreover, the politically active true A-listers laugh in the face of bad PR and looking like hypocritical phonies. They are as free to walk out as the showrunner whose name and face aren’t familiar to his show’s biggest fans. The threats they make to do so are far from empty. They will walk, and production will go on, and everyone else will be replaced. Ooh, scary. The real world works just as a freshman business model does, with no limiting or mitigating factors on any side. Still, as much as life resembles a business model, it’s scary out there, dave–stay in school! Have fun at tonight’s kegger! And be sure to point out to everyone that that’s a KEG, they’re sure to be impressed.

  Comment by fi-core — March 1, 2008 @ 3:16 pm  Reply to this post

• Intreigued, I really haven’t proved “your point.”

  Look, from the way you express yourself and the way you seem so earnest about giving these lectures about painfully obvious subjects as if everyone else is in a vegetative state, I suspect you might be 12 or 13, so I really don’t want to be mean to you.

  But trust me, you don’t need Econ101 to figure out that wealthy, powerful people in a union might try to exert more influence than poorer, less powerful members. Again, you just need to not be in a vegetative state.

  Everybody understands that. Many others have said that repeatedly.

  It’s amazing how well people understand what’s actually happening to them and don’t need their own experiences interpreted. No one in the WGA was stunned when the showrunners were making noises and (allegedly) a threat or two. Angry, yes, stunned, not much.

  But while everyone understands that, they don’t necessarily agree that it’s a positive good, as you do, or that there’s nothing whatsoever that can be done to counteract it, as you do. That’s the difference.

  Also, you did judge the 1000 as you stated that the reason they’re getting so much attention, being less than 1% of the total membership, is that if they defect, SAG would have leverage left. Wrong.

  Comment by Econ101 — March 1, 2008 @ 5:04 pm  Reply to this post

• Just a few points, Intrigued
  The idea of the “A-Listers” starting their own union. Who are they going to get to be the cop or waiter with 1-2 lines? Non-union people? Have you ever been on a set with a bad actor? The words “Take 78″ comes to mind. If the Producer dose not also have a signatory contract with SAG then no SAG member may work it.

  By Law no union can keep a non-member from working a union contract provided that person pays dues. So while you may take away their vote you can not keep them from working. Yet at the same time if you do go on strike the strike does not apply to them.

  Comment by Yosemite Stokesberry — March 2, 2008 @ 1:05 am  Reply to this post

• Econ101,

  You did prove my point. You clearly are missing fi-core’s posts whom I am responding to. So everybody doesn’t understand the dynamic or he/she is in teh vegatative state you are referring to. You have missed that I didn’t just decide to make the simple statement I did, but in fact was responding to someone who doesn’t believe the dynamic of the few at the top holding more power than the many at the bottom! And I never said that it was a good thing, I just said it was fact. I never gave an opinion, but if you want one I DO NOT THINK IT IS A GOOD THING! For this industry or any industry or even our country as whole, so don’t put words in mouth. And once again I never judged the 1000 names on that list (I couldn’t because I never bothered to read em). All I said was if the top 1% of the union defected, the union would have zero leverage! I also never said it would happened, but just that if it did it would strip the union of all its leverage and thus why why that is where the power of the union lies. You really are agreeing with me whether you believe it or not (except for where are atributing false statements to me), you should try to explain what you are saying to fi-core as my posts are in direct response to him/her eventhough you say everybody knows what I’m saying and therefore it isn’t necesssary to be said. This is silly that one person (fi-core) keeps telling me I have no idea what I’m talking about and another (Econ101) tells me everybody already knows what I’m saying so it isnt necessary to say it. SO I AM GONNA LEAVE THIS POST ALONE AND LET YOU TWO FIGURE IT OUT!

  Comment by Intrigued — March 2, 2008 @ 6:11 am  Reply to this post

• While we are on the subject of one union not supporting another, which is essentially what we have here I’d like to make a point. These 1000 or so people who claim to be more powerful than the rest of us are in fact more powerful. The question is if they will support the rest of us if empowered. It’s one union for them and another for us and the deal points that interest us may be of not interest whatsoever for them. Like many have said before most of them don’t even pay dues its in a contract someone else pays them for them. The fact that they don’t pay at a higher rate than they do reminds me a great deal of the political issues at hand this election year. They speak up for every cause they can but since it cost them just a few percentage points of their yearly money it means very little to them.

  Something else I would like to point out to all members that is food for thought. We all want to support our union brothers and sisters, yet I don’t know a one of my friends who will even buy an American made car. Instead they all buy something made by a company (even if its assembled in the USA) that doesn’t pay union wages. How can we expect those other unions to support us when we don’t make an effort to support them either. We talk about equal pay and work requirements but it means nothing. We are a private union that ignores the rest of the world around us including our union brothers and sisters of other professions.

  Mike

  Comment by Michael Tanner — July 7, 2008 @ 5:08 pm  Reply to this post