'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 … 
So SAG leaders continue conducting their education campaign about the Strike Authorization Vote despite the ballot delay and upcoming January 12th-13th National Board meeting which could deep-six the idea. The following is the first in what is described to me as a series of responses to members’ questions at recent Town Hall meetings. Its major point is SAG executive Director Doug Allen saying a strike "will not shut down the Industry". Then what's the point of a strike?
Know the facts!
Will a SAG TV/Theatrical strike “shut down the Industry?” NO WAY!
If the SAG National Board is authorized to call a strike, we all hope a strike will not be necessary. But, if the National Board decides to call one, it will not “shut down the Industry.” Why not? Because the National Board’s decision would have no effect on work done under the Guild’s other contracts.
In the event of a TV/Theatrical strike, work done under other SAG contracts would continue to be governed by those contracts, not the TV/Theatrical contracts. That means jobs in commercials, basic cable, video games and industrials would continue during a TV/Theatrical strike. Also, jobs would continue on more than 800 independent movie projects by producers not associated with AMPTP companies, and on more than 800 independent new media projects under SAG’s new media agreement.
A strike of our TV/Theatrical contracts would be a serious step we hope to avoid, but even if the working actors on SAG’s National Board were authorized and ultimately voted to call a strike, that decision would affect only work on primetime network shows, pay TV shows (e.g., HBO), and movies made, financed or distributed by AMPTP companies (e.g., Sony, Warner Bros., Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount, NBC Universal, etc.). Not “the entire industry.”
Also, actors on any shows signed to AFTRA before the effective date of such a strike would be required by their personal contract and AFTRA’s CBA to report to work on any AFTRA-covered projects in its jurisdiction (primarily dramatic network primetime and pay TV shows, and movies made for television or DVD.)
Please visit the SAG website at www.sag.org for up to the minute information and email your questions or comments to www.Contract2008@sag.org (this is an email address and not a live web link.)
Sincerely,
Doug Allen
Loading ...
Yeah, a job loss for a non-actor due to a SAG strike wouldn’t affect every day of the week…just Monday through Friday.
Sorry, this email did nothing to help the cause. Please do not strike. Seriously.
If Doug Allen really thinks this was the salient concern of our membership then he’s precisely as out of touch as we suspected.
What a moron. So a strike would just be a harmless little inconvenience to the industry.
Then what’s the f*@%!ing point?
Is that a joke? That’s the message? That it’s ok to strike because you’ll still be able to feed your family from ‘industrials and video games’? Come on! You’re telling your members to go ahead and strike because it “won’t really hurt anything,” and at the same time you’re telling the AMPTP that your strike will be all encompassing enough to warrant a better contract proposal. Get out of here! I hope the membership sees right through you and throws you out on to the street. You don’t get into the business to make bloody industrials, Doug…
You’ve got to be kidding. Did they really have the audacity to feed that spin to their members?
Oh, well, that’s a relief. I was worried the whole industry would be shut down. Thanks, Doug, for informing us it will only be the vast majority of the industry. How reassuring to know there’s “NO WAY!” I will be prevented from getting work in industrials or video games should we go on strike.
If a strike won’t shut down the industry, then what’s the point? No strike/negotiations certainly have taken a toll on the amount of production in Los Angeles, a weak half hearted strike will only prolong the malaise, and push more work out of town.
WOW. Talk about ‘How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Strike.’
Doug Allen’s been fighting tooth-and-nail for a SAG Strike for the past 12 months, and I can only describe my mind as being completely blown by this new argument.
I am incredulous. I’m reading this correctly?: Vote yes, because a strike isn’t that bad. You won’t suffer. Truuuuust me. Only people with jobs on network & pay television shows or studio features will feel the hurt. Wow. What industry is he directing this argument to? Talk about grasping at straws.
What a ridiculous obfuscation of the situation. Aside from the fact that shutting down all studio projects and network/pay TV would be the vast majority of work, chances are the other areas cited would sympathy-strike anyway. SAG is just whistling through the graveyard of the entertainment industry. What a shameful display.
No matter how you dress a pig, Doug, it’s still a pig.
Ok, that’s that. Now I know Allen is either an idiot or a liar. Politics at SAG must officially be desperate to be making comments like this. Up until now, I was willing to buy his comments as feasible, but this is downright ludicrous.
As a matter of fact, promo and post houses rely heavily upon television and feature production to provide most (if not all) of their revenue. When those wells dry up, you can’t simply switch to smaller markets or “video games” to fill the budget gaps.
A lot of businesses would have to create company wide layoffs, if not cease operations entirely, because their business models DEPEND on those sources. It’s horrifying having to watch these houses nearly collapse due to the WGA strike. The market is still very dry and the defacto strike has seized up 95% of new feature productions until the SAG issues are resolved.
Make no mistake, if SAG strikes a lot of the businesses WILL shut down, people will lose their jobs and there won’t be anywhere near enough smaller ancillary market to sustain the system. This statement is a joke.
“Know the facts!
Will a SAG TV/Theatrical strike “shut down the Industry?” NO WAY!”
Hold it right there! If a strike doesn’t “shut the industry down” what good is it?
Aren’t strikes supposed to “shut ‘em down?”
Otherwise, what’s the point?
“If the SAG National Board is authorized to call a strike, we all hope a strike will not be necessary.”
But but but – we all know that a Strike Authorization equals a Strike, because a Strike is Membership First’s Wet Dream.
And who just exactly is “we all”?
Is that the opposite of “you all”?
Like you Actors over there – “you all” who don’t want a strike -
and then there’s us Hardcore Union Activists Who Haven’t Been Able To Negotiate Bupkis over here – “we all” who are jonesing for a strike.
“But, if the National Board decides to call one, it will not “shut down the Industry.” Why not? Because the National Board’s decision would have no effect on work done under the Guild’s other contracts.
In the event of a TV/Theatrical strike, work done under other SAG contracts would continue to be governed by those contracts, not the TV/Theatrical contracts. That means jobs in commercials, basic cable, video games and industrials would continue during a TV/Theatrical strike. Also, jobs would continue on more than 800 independent movie projects by producers not associated with AMPTP companies, and on more than 800 independent new media projects under SAG’s new media agreement.”
Whoa! 1600 projects can still shoot? “Jobs would continue?”
Are you talking about the 800 film projects that have received Completion Guarantees OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, of which there are maybe a hundred per year?
At budgets below a million dollars, with small casts, no union background performers? Those “film projects”? What do they pay?
And 800 NOW MEDIA projects that aren’t even in SAG’s jurisdiction because there is no contract in effect that covers them? What do they pay?
“A strike of our TV/Theatrical contracts would be a serious step we hope to avoid, but even if the working actors on SAG’s National Board were authorized and ultimately voted to call a strike, that decision would affect only work on primetime network shows, pay TV shows (e.g., HBO), and movies made, financed or distributed by AMPTP companies (e.g., Sony, Warner Bros., Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount, NBC Universal, etc.). Not “the entire industry.”
Also, actors on any shows signed to AFTRA before the effective date of such a strike would be required by their personal contract and AFTRA’s CBA to report to work on any AFTRA-covered projects in its jurisdiction (primarily dramatic network primetime and pay TV shows, and movies made for television or DVD.)”
Oh, you’re saying actors may work on AFTRA shows?
Oh, but but but you didn’t complete the sentence.
Membership First/Doug Allen’s plan is
AS SOON AS THEY GET ACTORS TO STRIKE SAG WORK
THEY INTEND TO PASS A SPECIAL “STRIKE RULE” THAT SAYS SAG ACTORS MAY NOT WORK ON NEW AFTRA PRODUCTIONS.
That’s right, Mr. Sincerity didn’t tell you that – but that is the plan.
Isn’t it, Doug?
“Sincerely,
Doug Allen”
“Sincerely,” Doug? What happened to “In Solidarity?” Not workin’ for ya?
After all, it’s “you all” over there,
and “we all” over here.
And you’ve got a job, right Doug?
_________________
Tom Ligon
If what this prick says was true, then I would be working right now. I don’t think studios would be pushing everything waiting on SAG to pull its head out of it’s ass if this was true.
Also, kinda funny how they want support for their UNION, yet they state there are over “800 independent movie projects”. So what, you want us to support your union but want us to work on independent shows? Isn’t that hipocracy?
JUST SIGN A CONTRACT!!!!!! IT’S BEEN 6 MONTHS!!! ANYONE PUTTING OUT THE EFFORT COULD OF NEGOCIATED A CONTRACT BY NOW!!
Why would the suits care if sag did strike? They have cancelled shows before. Cancel show and change union how hard is that. CBS is the only network that would not want to lose it line up. Most networks would kill for CBS ratings.
Then what’s the point
This “hair-splitting” is getting ridiculous. I’m not sure how a statement like this can help SAG’s strategic position. If you want to strong arm someone, you don’t tell them it’ll only hurt a teeny bit or “not entirely”.
>>a strike would affect only work on primetime network shows, pay TV shows (e.g., HBO), and movies made, financed or distributed by AMPTP companies (e.g., Sony, Warner Bros., Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount, NBC Universal, etc.). Not “the entire industry.<<
Um. And that’s not “shutting down the industry”? LMFAO! Every job that pays well for an actor is going to get shut down for God knows how long. Probably a third of the year if it’s mishandled like the WGA strike was. With morons like Doug Allen in charge, it’s no wonder SAG is fucked and headed the way of the dodo.
What a strange message SAG is trying to send right now:
‘Please vote to authorize a strike so we have the “bullet in the gun” we need to get a better deal, but don’t worry, it’ll be a kinder, gentler strike than the one we all suffered through a few months ago. This one won’t shut down the ENTIRE industry, just SAG…er, just the mainstream movie business and a handful of TV shows.’
Which is to say, SAG seems to be admitting that a) voting “Yes” on the strike authorization is the same as voting to strike, and b) SAG’s members are going to suffer far worse losses during a strike than AMPTP will (especially in TV, since all new shows will switch over to AFTRA anyway), far in excess of what SAG hopes to gain.
All this not over the difference between zero and something, like during the writers’ strike, but over the difference between something all the other guilds have agreed to and…some poorly articulately amount more than that.
I’m looking forward to the moment SAG starts trying “educate” the other guilds as to why they should honor SAG picket lines…
—Will a SAG TV/Theatrical strike “shut down the Industry?” NO WAY!—
If this is true (and I believe it is), what’s the frickin’ point having a strike! Further, if the leadership believes it to be true, why ANNOUNCE it? It only illustrates the futility of a strike. “We’re just going to have a little pointless job action. Don’t mind us.”
That in combination with the SAG statement that a strike authorization does NOT mean a strike, sucks all the clout out of the threat of a walkout that an SA might have had.
Doug Allen has made it his specialty to diminish all the real power SAG has ever had. All that’s left are those demonizing the opposition and shouting statements that start with the phrase, “If everyone would just…”. Very childish.
It no way to lead. DA must go.
Idiots.
“We’re having a strike that won’t hurt anyone?” Am I the only one not getting this??
Are you kidding, that is a big part of the industy that would be out of work. Its apparent that Mr.Doug Allen doesnt really work in the industry. You funny guy!
Yeah, because we all know MOST of this town works on commercials, basic cable, video games and industrials. Doug Allen is a tool and needs to be fired. Go back to the NFL, you hack.
Pretty funny how after Doug Allen did everything possible to screw up AFTRA’s deal with the AMPTP, he’s now using it as evidence that a SAG strike won’t be so bad.
Pathetic…
You know a linebacker always talks a good game. Then there’s playing the game. Doug your an idiot.
First you say you’ll strike
and then you won’t,
you’re undecided now
What are you going to do?
A full six months have passed since the SAG contract expired and they are still running an “education campaign”? This is unbelievable and unbelievably selfish of this organization which, while making some kind of effort to get a better deal for its membership, is surely alienating every other effected group.
Now that it is clear to all that 75% is just too high a hurdle to clear, perhaps it is time to pursue another, more effective tactic, so that we can get back to work in a timely fashion.
At this point I don’t think that more “education” is going to change many minds; the lines are pretty well drawn by now. Strike or no strike, since June 30 there have been no more than a handful of studio originated features that have rolled. Perhaps that is squeezing the AMPTP, but it is beginning to put a serious hurt on the rest of us. We feel your pain; do you feel ours?
WGA had 100 days of actual labor stoppage to achieve whatever they got. SAG has now had half a year – to do what? Break off negotiations, have some elections, trade press releases with the producers, call for more negotiations with a mediator, think about a strike vote, have some meetings and some yelling matches, call off the strike vote. Now what?
Happy New Year; may it bring us fresh hope and the change we really need!
I don’t know what Doug’s intentions are/were in sending this out now, before the big meeting next month, but I’m not arguing with it either.
Well it’s been a pretty vicious list of comments re this memo. And it seems most of the critical comments come from “vote NO” people. And you “vote NO” people asked some questions. So let’s look at some reality for your answers.
I noticed that many of the posts (including that from Tom Ligon – no surprise) noted, “So what’s the point of a strike if we can’t shut the whole town down” (I paraphrase). And to each of you I offer (and reinforce Doug’s point in the memo) that a strike would harm the AMPTP only – the same body of moguls against whom we are fighting this contract fight.
SAG doesn’t want to “shut down the town” (never did); we want to threaten only the AMPTP enough to force them to offer us a fair contract. (SAG is not in a fight with the entire entertainment industry – we never were.) Virtually every other non-AMPTP production will continue, regardless of a strike. (This is the part about going in with a scalpel instead of a broadsword.) Doug is simply clarifying the fact that a strike, if it gets to that, will not “shut down the industry”. Nor should it. Realizing (and admitting) this clear and simple fact should nullify most, if not all of the negative comments on this topic so far.
And Tom, you wrote: “Membership First/Doug Allen’s plan is
AS SOON AS THEY GET ACTORS TO STRIKE SAG WORK
THEY INTEND TO PASS A SPECIAL “STRIKE RULE” THAT SAYS SAG ACTORS MAY NOT WORK ON NEW AFTRA PRODUCTIONS.” Is this true, Tom, or did you just pull that out of your ass? Did you mean it? Are you positive about that? Can you back that accusation up with any facts? Any facts at all…? ‘Cuz, you were shouting it in all caps like it’s the truth, and I think we should all make sure that if we’re to believe any one little thing from you, that you should be able to back up your bullshit with facts. Noting that you labeled Doug Allen as “Membership First/Doug Allen” shows your true agenda here. Still crying over the non-U4S ‘blowout’, are you? All of which denies credibility to your further rantings. Crawl back into your hole and let the non-partisan people work this out. This is no time or place for in-house politics.
The phrasing of the remaining negative comments, the message spin, the talking points… all right out of the AMPTP’s play book. Most of you “mystery posters” obviously have an axe to grind, and few, if any, of you are SAG members in the first place. Which makes your negative comments… biased for your own benefit in some way? Hmmm? Type all you want, spinners. For each of you posting here, there are twice as many SAG members posting truth and facts to counter your spin and bullshit.
Lame loser that masquerades as a high-paid negotiator…
I thought it was a joke……It’s not. He’s serious!
Doug Allen’s statement is the single stupidest statement I’ve ever heard from a Union official.
99% of employment contracts in Hollywood have a force majeur clause. If SAG strikes, every studio, agency, management firm, network, production company, etc will lay off large percentages of their contracted employees and kill their producer deals and the employers will not have to pay a cent in severance. A large part of the industry will be decimated.
Geez Ace – You would defend Allen and Rosenberg no matter what they say, wouldn’t you? How do you come to assume that most of the comments come from the “vote no” crowd? Seems that even the most staunch MF supporters are saying “huh?” or “WTF?” along with everyone else in the industry at Doug Allen’s bizarre email. I sure don’t see how this could help Doug make his case for a strike vote at all.
Awards season is just around the corner… I think SAG should add two new categories to their awards:
The “Please put the crap pipe down and/or stop drinking the kool-aid” award goes to: Doug Allen
Obviously, in a related category the next award is:
“Putting the idiot back in fucktard” award goes to: Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen
Nice work gentlemen. We’ll be sure to think of you when we’re not working on commercials, industrials, and any of the 800 under a million dollar features.
Ace: Do you supporters of the Allens ever say anything other than than we are all shills of the AMPTP just for disagreeing with you? And what’s this: “there are twice as many SAG members posting truth and facts to counter your spin and bullshit.” Twice as many? Where are they? Certainly not on this particular thread. Seems to me the cream is finally starting to rise to the top and good sense is prevailing over insanity.
This is such a waste of time, Alan and Allen know that they do not have the votes, enough with the posturing already.
It all gets down to how the SAG Membership is going to vote. Alan and Doug should just bypass the Referendum and allow the SAG Membership to vote on the June 30 offer. If it’s as egregious as they say it is the Membership will vote it down. If they do indeed vote it down then the Studios will impose the Deal on SAG. Thus, a lock-out. There’s your strike with the onus being on Management.
Now, it seems that the vitriol and anger on this thread is a response to the lack of work now and in the future caused by a possible strike. Well, GET OVER IT! Strikes happen all the time in good economies and bad. From what I read SAG is justified in fighting for its future. It’s the collateral damage that’s feared. Just remember, if SAG gets a deal the Leadership is happy with NOW then all the other Industry Unions will win down the line.
Oh, and just an objective observation; Ligon is VERY angry and for whatever reason it seems VERY personal. For this reader it smacks of a political agenda which dilutes his message. Why does he keep bringing up Membership First? In my trying to keep up aren’t they the faction that lost the last election?
Well, Bill, no. I wouldn’t defend AR or DA “no matter what they say”. In this particular case, I offered that I’m not sure why Doug sent out this memo at this time (which might/could be construed as a criticism) but I did give him the benefit of the doubt.
I agree or disagree with any statement I feel I need to. On the other hand, you posting a comment like, “Seems that even the most staunch MF supporters are saying “huh?” or “WTF?” along with everyone else in the industry at Doug Allen’s bizarre email.” Who are these “staunch MF supporters”? Who are “everyone else in the industry” who are posting here? Only a few of the people who posted could be perceived as a SAG member with any pro or con about this memo, and even fewer are claiming to be any part of the industry at all. What I do see is a range of previously-unheard-of posters with a tone similar to what Matt Drudge invites and frequently sends Nikki’s way. What I do see is you trying to make something out of nothing.
Doug Allen’s statement was simple and straight-forward, and I’m sure was to counter the industry-wide criticism that a strike by SAG would “shut down the industry”. What the hell is anyone’s problem with that statement? It’s true, and it’s there in black and white. WTF?
But the naysayers haven’t had any red meat (contract negotiation news) for a couple of weeks, so they latch onto this update in a shallow effort to slight Doug Allen? And for what? Again I say, WTF? Desperate much?
As for the “shills” comment – I didn’t say that either. Truly, I want people to disagree with me. I want people to bring their best arguments into the conversation and convince me (or any of us) of their point of view. But there have been very few who have even made me think twice about their point(s) of view. Not because I don’t want to agree with them, but because they don’t make sense – for SAG or for the industry. Further, they’re not based on facts. Those “arguments” are usually from people who haven’t read the contract offer (too lazy), or are otherwise financially reliant on the current offer passing (actor/producers or other crew members, for instance).
But calling SAG’s leaders “stupid” or “prick” or “an idiot or a liar” or “egotistical” or anything at all doesn’t defend any point of view – it’s just cheap shots (and, I might add, shows a certain lack of dignity from the poster). For instance, spinning the (upcoming) strike authorization vote as a “strike vote” only shows ignorance or laziness for not reading the facts.
If you’re not a SAG member, why all the rhetoric and name-calling at someone who doesn’t matter to you and who has done you no wrong? If you’re not SAG (and therefore don’t get to vote) why are you people trying to make SAG’s leaders look bad? Obviously, again, because it suits your position for SAG to seem disenfranchised and weaken our position to authorize a strike. I don’t care if the AMPTP is paying you, or if Matt Drudge sent you here, or if you’re a struggling ancillary business relying on film production, or if you’re a crew member from a sister union… all I said was that people have made comments which are “biased for your own benefit in some way”. Could that be any clearer?
You non-SAG/industry members get to post here because it’s a public posting forum, but whom are you posting to – SAG members who will get to vote? That is absolutely the AMPTP’s current smear and mis-information campaign, and SAG is doing it’s damnedest to counter that with facts. As will I. Whether you’re a company shill or not, you’ll be looked at as such not because I may disagree with you, and not because your arguments and comments are contrary to SAG’s benefit, but because your arguments are the same arguments that the AMPTP is spewing out – and they’re false arguments. In the end, SAG will vote (theoretically) to it’s own benefit – not to the AMPTP’s, or yours. In the meantime, until I’m shown an alternative (better) plan, I’m standing in solidarity with my union and their recommendations.
AWTY, you’re again trying to goad me into a fight with you by attacking me personally. Not going there, as you have nothing to argue with. “No matter how you dress a pig, Doug, it’s still a pig.” is all you’ve got? Just chiming in with bland criticism and no offer of something better? Typical. You sometimes seem like an intelligent person – I’m disappointed in you here. Any business person who was critical of any current business plan without offering a (better) solution would be kicked out of the boardroom. And as you well know, there are many SAG members besides myself who are diligent about posting positive comments and facts about the current negotiations. Anyone with a lick of sense can read through Nikki’s topic subjects and find them by the truckload. Whether or not they’ll post here remains to be seen.
Because people are on vacation! It’s the holidays! Go be happy!
As a member of the WGA, SAG and AFTRA this is shocking news from my Captain Mr. Allen. We must all stand together with our union leaders up until a point of no return. We are slowly reaching that point. No? Yes? I wish it was that simple. This is fast becoming a bad infomercial. My fellow SAG members we all need to grow up and face the fact that now is not the time to air our dirty laundry in public view. Let’s just get on with it and stop these ridiculous re-education campaign announcements. No more videos on SAG TV! No more SAG hates the AMPTP!
Flip a coin for Christ sake and let the begin the games.
I’ve simply learned that you can’t reason with the unreasonable, Ace. It also seems that when you get a little of your own “goading and attacking” medicine, you cry foul. My comments stand. Not only that, I am happy to see the increasing resistance to this insanity from all quarters of the business. Anyone who has something at stake here has a right to speak their opinion. I have not met one single person who is paid by the producers to write on these blogs. And you have not conclusively been able to point to one. You are, like MF and the Allens, simply trying to control the flow of information to suit your own agenda. Are you honestly telling me that is only your side of the fence that is on vacation right now? And you wonder why I won’t discuss issues with you in depth.
As a non-thespian reading all these bitter threads, it reminds me of a quote from screenwriter Robert Towne when he was asked why one of his scripts had so much vulgar cursing among the characters:
“This is what people do when they’re powerless to act.
They bitch.”
As someone on the fence regarding the strike vote let me just say that the SAG negotiators are officially out of their minds.
This is the equivalent of John McCain suspending his campaign.
And it will turn out just as well.
Seriously, what are these guys thinking?
Let me re-write his letter for you :
Dear Hopeful Dumbasses,
The Strike will not “exactly” end Hollywood like those Studio People say they will. Please realize that you’ll still have a shot to audition for one of those deferred paying USC Short Films.
If we could get a video game company to go SAG for voice over, you can audition for that. But after PIXAR and ILM bailed on us, we’re not holding our breathe.
Oh, and if you really want to pay off your rent. Try auditioning for a Applebee’s Training Video that will be shot in Nebraska. Actually they aren’t going SAG either, they are AFTRA….mothafuckers.
Listen dudes, I didn’t go to college which means I know everything about how this will shake up. The strike would only really mean that all the unions would be shut down. Also, it might mean that your agent might get fired and your manager might retire to pursue their dream of working at an Applebees.
Listen we are really getting a lot of those youtube video makers to go through 30 hours worth of paperwork so they can have you put a Mento in a Coke bottle. We expect that there will be as many “new media SAG contracts” as there are Local Car Commercial film permits.
Vuguru, 60 Frames, and Fox Digital have all vowed that they will never go SAG, but we still have faith that they will know in our heart that they will know difference between an actress that has a SAG Card for doing an unaired Best Buy commercial and the one who is a voucher away from joining us. And if the decission is close, they will chose to do the BS paperwork and go to a stupid meeting and drive to Hollywood weeks in advance to get the folder even thought they have a full time job at Wooden Nickel.
So to you crew workers, brothers at arms, who I have honored so much with my “hey boom guy, why is there no creamer at the craft service table” and our “would you tell the gaffer to get Twilight from my backpack”… trust us when we promise you that even if we go on strike, we will make absolutely sure that you get one of the “800 feature jobs” that is as equal paying to the USC short films that I have acted in through out my disgrunted life.
Best
Doug Allen
So, Ace, I guess you see absolutely no downside to a strike? You believe it will only be a wonderful thing for everybody in the industry?
Be careful as you answer because if you acknowledge there is any downside to a strike whatsoever then you are a shill for the AMPTP–that according to the parameters you’ve set for this discussion.
You sound like you need to step back and think. You say the only people on this board opposing Allen are non-SAG members. I’m a SAG member and I recall a long list of celebrity SAG members signing a letter declaring their opposition to strike authorization. If you really believe all SAG members are in favor of strike authorization then you are living in a fantasy land.
If you are in a large room and everyone keeps saying you’re crazy but you insist everyone else is crazy, guess what?
Please think about it. Defending Doug’s truly idiotic letter to members without any acknowledgment to the sound criticisms of it posted on this board makes you seem stupid. I’m sure you’re not stupid, so…
Think about it.
Someone should seriously consider doing a documentary on this whole sordid affair! Would be insightful, and funny (in a dark humour sort of way)…
Yo, “IA member” -
No, it isn’t personal. Membership First has been running the negotiations with an iron fist on the Neg Comm. They refused to give voting seats to the “new guys” and the “new guys” actually did not win the Hollywood Division – they only won a few seats, which gives a slim National Board majority to a coalition of “new guys”/New York/some RBD. I guarantee you, it is not personal. It is business. We cannot send out the AMPTP’s last offer because it can be improved upon by a new Negotiating team.
Yo, “Ace” (Matt Mulhern)
You asked: ““Membership First/Doug Allen’s plan is
AS SOON AS THEY GET ACTORS TO STRIKE SAG WORK
THEY INTEND TO PASS A SPECIAL “STRIKE RULE” THAT SAYS SAG ACTORS MAY NOT WORK ON NEW AFTRA PRODUCTIONS.” Is this true, Tom, or did you just pull that out of your ass? Did you mean it? Are you positive about that? Can you back that accusation up with any facts? Any facts at all…?”
I know this because they have said it. Several times. Once at least at the New York Town Hall meeting you attended but where you heard so little at because you were busy making faces and cavorting – while I was taking detailed notes on the proceedings. That’s how I’m positive, that’s why I mean it – I heard it and wrote it down. Now, if you don’t like that, you too can write it down, then fold it five ways and place it where the moon don’t shine.
Errr, isn’t the simple threat of a strike already slowing down the industry? What’s the percentage of industry work (in dollar terms or in head counts) that would be shut down?
Tossing and turning night after night because of the strike possibility .Is there a light at the end of this tunnel this has been going on for a good part of a year now with no end in sight.
To Ace @ Dec 30…@8:26
Nice of you to write that Tom Ligon should “crawl back into his hole”. At least Tom Ligon signs his name at the end of a post… and you Ace… go on to call people who don’t agree with you “mystery posters” with their spin (spinners)…Well, WHO ARE YOU ACE? Aren’t you one of those “mystery posters”. I know Ace, your last name is Hole…that makes you Acehole!
Mr. Ligon:
You seem to be on the inside with SAG so I’ll just keep asking questions. I honestly don’t understand why SAG is not united. Aren’t the issues important to ALL SAG Members? Even if there is a political divide why wouldn’t all factions/coasts at least rally around the preservation of your residuals and the fending off of the rollbacks? I keep hearing “bad timing” and “unite with other unions” but hasn’t it been made clear that the DGA, Aftra and IA are out for themselves? Don’t you want to hit Management when they’re hurting too? I don’t find Doug Allen’s letter strange. I believe it’s only addressed to the SAG Membership and is trying to convey hope that there will be some work during the Strike. But, if you shut down the vast majority of prime time TV and Features wouldn’t that have a HUGE impact on Management? I for one am hoping SAG gets their deal because I want to benefit from it when IA goes in again and we already have the precedent in place. I know there will be jobs lost but to think SAG can do better at another time is naive. So, what does a Union do? Stop being a Union because other Unions say so? I want a better deal and SAG can make that happen… IF the SAG Membership can unite!
Sorry, Tom, wrong again. I’m not Matt (though if he’s read your post I suppose he’ll correct you as well). I’m sure a lot of ideas (and threats) are/were floated at each membership meeting. You do realize, don’t you, that until something is voted upon by the board, it ain’t gonna happen…? Your handwritten “notes” don’t make it so. Also, this whole contract negotiation is very personal with you (and others) – you continue to make reference to the differing factions of MF vs U4S. Dude, it’s over. Accept it and get over it. The National Board (and the NegCom) is made up of both MF and U4S (as well as independents, like myself). The board is what it is, and they’ll vote as they see fit, as a unified body.
And Stephen? Where have I said anything about the pros or cons of a strike? Nowhere in these comments, pal. (Though I’ve been very clear about my feelings on that in other topic comments.) Don’t put words in my mouth.
“You say the only people on this board opposing Allen are non-SAG members.”
Didn’t say that, either. Far from it.
Further, you stated, “…I recall a long list of celebrity SAG members signing a letter declaring their opposition to strike authorization.”
Funny, I recall a long list of celebrity SAG producers “signing” (supposedly, but unconfirmed) a letter declaring their opposition to a strike authorization. Which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
This topic is about Doug Allen’s memo, and the facts about what a strike means with regards to other work that would still be available. It’s clarification on specific questions which have been asked. Pretty simple, really.
But you “Vote NO” people don’t like those facts, do you? You don’t like it when the entire industry is presented with facts (not opinions, not exaggerations) about what is happening and what might happen – because it doesn’t suit your position(s), and you might be wrong (*gasp*) about industry-wide Armageddon. All you can do is call this memo “idiotic” (among other things), and call Doug Allen a “prick” (among other things). Great way to present an argument, people.
I’m a little shocked that more WGA folks aren’t posting here, but I suspect that, like me, they’re all still too worn out from our own strike to comment on the merits of someone else’s. But I’ll just say this: At the end of our three months on the picket line the members of my union were exhausted, divided, terrified, and the majority of us were more than ready to take a deal that wasn’t nearly good enough, just so it would be over.
That was us after 100 days on the picket line.
That’s where SAG is right now.
So think about it, SAG Members. Just think about what it takes to have a “successful” strike, and ask yourselves if you’ve got it. Because unfortunately, just because you’re right, that doesn’t mean you can win.
Doug Allen writes: “Know the facts!”
The only facts I consider sacred and relevant:
1.) Cost analysis models of strikes/lockouts lasting 1, 3, and 6 months.
2.) Cost analysis models of gains from (3 year) SAG contract proposal.
Messrs. Allen, Rosenberg et al. should somehow provide such information for all to see, thereby giving the AMPTP an opportunity for same.
Armed with these facts, SAG membership (and all participating industry individuals) can then objectively compare and contrast unemotional dollars and ’sense’ to make their own best objective decisions as to whether this exercise is worth it at this time, or better yet served three years hence.
Absent that – I, for one, must vote against any strike authorization based on the simple fact that current available employment is, objectively, more profitable than unemployment.
Rosenberg/Allen admitted in hindsight at the recent Hwd. townhall meeting, it was their mistake to enter negotiations with AMPTP without a strike authorization. That mistake alone seems to have destroyed SAG’s leverage this time around. Que sera, sera…
P.S.
Folks here that continue to feel the need to personalize and/or vilify opposing views are, obviously, wasting their time and energy for selfish “dramatic” effect.
Dear SAG Leadership,
Please show us the math in simple and easily understandable models.
All other arguments are distracting static/noise.
Okay – one at a time – - -
“IA member”
I’m not “on the inside with SAG.”
It would take a long and involved post to explain “why SAG is not united.” The issues are indeed “important to ALL SAG Members.” There is a political divide and the guild HAS NOT BEEN RUN DEMOCRATICALLY FOR THREE YEARS. Membership First and Doug Allen have been running the guild with only the barest of input by any others – which they have ignored. When some of us have complained, they have said “Majority Rules” – meaning there was no need to seriously listen to the minority. Following me?
Membership First is no longer the National Board majority – but they have put into place committees, programs, task forces, etc. that many of us had less than minimal say about. Those structures and the policies they follow and support are now – for the first time in years – being seriously questioned.
It is not “the preservation of residuals and the fending off of the rollbacks” that are at issue. Those are the political catch-phrases of Membership First. Our residuals are NOT ending. As for “rollbacks” (MF calls them “massive rollbacks”) – do you know anyone who has ever had to invoke or refer to Force Majeure in their entire career? I mean, you personally – not what you may have read. Propaganda.
As for “bad timing” – ever hear the phrase “Timing Is Everything?” It is. Especially for actors. And as for “unite with other unions” – there is only one thing that gives any union the power to strike, and that thing is UNITY. Without it, “strike” is as empty as the bag that Doug Allen keeps his “sense of timing” in.
Management is NOT “hurting.” They’re having a grand old season. And Doug Allen’s bizarre email only underscores that, no matter who it is addressed to. Those impacted most by a strike at this time are SAG members and members of other unions who would lose their work and incomes.
There are those of us who want our leadership to get a better deal, and we think they can if they are our true leadership. I am not naive. I’ve worked in this business for fifty years and love it. I will not have my work and the work of my comrades toyed with by people in Hollywood who dabble in our business or know nothing of it. Fear not, we will unite – and then it will be Membership First who starts pulling away at the “unity” again. And again and again and again.
“Ace”
Sorry, I don’t really care who you are. Forgive my assumption, please. Of course I realize that Strike Rules can only be enacted by the National Board. My notes are only to give me accurate recall when I report what truly happened.
I’m not sure exactly what you think is “over,” dude, but I can assure you there are others than myself who will have more cause to “get over it” than I, when all is said and done.
Love & Peace
Tom
btl teamster…
I… I’m just… *laughing*! You criticize me for not posting my name, and then you don’t sign yours? What? Totally cracked me UP! Thanks for that – I needed it.
And then you (essentially) call me an asshole? Exactly the kind of bleak-minded comment I was referring to. You stay classy, dude. The “Vote NO” campaign needs more people like you! *Big Double Thumbs Up*
Posting my name isn’t relevant. I’m a card-carrying SAG/AFTRA member (as if anyone doubted that) if that makes you feel any better. Certain people know who I am – it’s no big secret. Posting my name would only be, um, anti-productive with regards to my career. And besides, I’m not that vain.
The “mystery posters” I spoke of are mostly at the top of this comment list – people whose names I don’t recall posting in the past, and spouting rhetoric similar to what the Matt Drudge sheeple post. If that shoe doesn’t fit you (or anyone else) so be it. I didn’t say “everyone”. It was all just obvious and overwhelmingly crass.
Tom, the SAG election is what’s “over”. It’s not U4S against MF any longer. Your continued slurs on MF board members, and/or dragging the old MF/U4S issue into every one of your comments is nothing more than sour grapes. I would take your point of view more seriously if you didn’t color it with obvious political (and irrelevant) agendas. And by the way, congratulations on your decades of working as an actor. Seriously. That’s a hell of an achievement, and I know you care about your career and want the best for your (and all actors’) future.
“What’s the point?”
Those who don’t know the answer to this question are missing the point. The AMPTP companies will be affected where it hurts. They don’t do commercial or industrials to maintain their business. But actors can do those things.
A strike would have a targeted effect on the AMPTP companies. But it would also effect a big part of the industry. So there is a point to a strike. Whether it’s a good idea is another question.
I. Can’t. Take. Any. More. Of. This.
Please.
Sign the contract and let’s rework it in 2.5 years.
Who do I have to sleep with to make this happen? Just tell me and I’ll take one for the team so we can get on with our lives. Just don’t say Nick Counter, Ace. Anyone but him.
Dear Actors,
I don’t know about you, but as a person who wants to work out here – I didn’t borrow money from Mom and Dad for a year, live on an air mattress at a crazy’s hippi’s house while PAing for another year, get a snooty office job while I worked 15 hour days for a bipolar boss to hope that I could get to give audiences commercials and industrial videos.
You never hear great athletes talk about how they spent their childhood training because they wanted to endorse fortune 500 companies. They trained and lived their profession because they loved the game.
I left a small town in Kansas to travel out here because I love to put stories onto a screen and to watch people giggle, laugh, smile and cry as they see you puppeteer the emotions of complete strangers. Many of you have a story similar to mine : Spending a year of sweat and blood and ending decent relationships just for the chance to make a movie that I think will benefit the lives of a homesick girl in Oregon or an elderly man twelve years ago is something that I would pay to do. We have no idea how long we will live or what will happen to our money or possessions. The only true legacy that we have, that very few are able to have, is on the film.
I think there are a lot of things wrong with this industry, but the main thing that I fear is a strike. In my free time I work on short films and feature films and have always asked you the cast to call me if they needed anything (i’ve even made reference calls to actors and actresses). I will make it because I’ve been able to save up and have a nice landlord that understand that I might not be picking up a paycheck at 2 PM every friday. But I’ve talked to a lot of people who won’t make it and I’ll make a plea on their behalf because they are good people.
One is a casting assistant, that has talked free of charge to actors at various minority based workshops to inspire our friends of color to not give up faith and that there will be writers. Another is a 2nd AD from Katrina who saw that craft service didn’t have a vegan meal for an actress and went to Whole Foods to get her pizza off of his own dime because he knew the director was facing hard times. They came out here with a dream to help storytellers and by causing another economic hardfall. Once the STUDIO CUTS JOBS from the strike many will not come back. That is the nature of the beast. If it cuts off a limb to save money and learns to live without it, it won’t want it back. How many of you know someone who lost a job at cost of the writer’s strike? Feel free to ask members of Variety to see if the job lists have been overfilling.
I really can only think of the selfless acts that we can do for each other. Maybe you don’t think you’ll ever get help from a projectionist at Warner Bros or a set dresser because they are expendable.
Let’s not waste 3-6 months arguing followed by several years of dirty looks and disrespect. Stalling storytellers and causing people to leave the industry or simply have a job not come back.
What better time than now to lead by example and play brother’s keeper? I think we’re all thankful to make projects with you, and would be even more great ful and work the extra hour to make sure that your legacies to come are sealed. We’re the only country in the world where an artist can come from anywhere and share their dreams.
Thank you and let’s keep inspiring the underdog,
Sean Hackett
You bloggers-without-a-vote (I won’t call you shills) Doug’s e-mail was to SAG members. The AMPTP spins to the public and SAG is educating its membership. thousands of SAG actors earn most of their money doing commercials. Thousands of SAG actors earn their money doing industrials. Thousands of SAG actors work AFTRA shows. Alan’s missive was to remind them that they can vote YES and they will still keep working on their other contracts. It was an excellent e-mail to SAG members with votes. Part of the member education you bloggers-without-votes are so fearful of. Good job Doug. SAG members understand you. I will vote YES. I need my residuals to make it as an actor.
SAG’s problem remains unchanged… Almost all the SAG members hate the AMPTP contract offer, but they’ll never get a 75% strike authorization vote. SAG needs to come up with a new strategy. I don’t know what that is, but if they keep going down this same road, they’re not going to get anywhere.
Anybody check the time that email went out? That’s got to be a late night drunk email, because there’s no possible way anybody in their right mind thought that email was a good idea.
Ace,
I said…
“You say the only people on this board opposing Allen are non-SAG members.”
You responded…
“Didn’t say that, either. Far from it.”
Well, here are your words…
“Only a few of the people who posted could be perceived as a SAG member with any pro or con about this memo, and even fewer are claiming to be any part of the industry at all.”
Ace, I’m simply pointing out this is not the case. There are SAG members here with strong opinions on this memo and I think we can assume there aren’t too many people posting here with no relation to the industry whatsoever.
Then you quote me saying…
“…I recall a long list of celebrity SAG members signing a letter declaring their opposition to strike authorization.”
You respond…
“Funny, I recall a long list of celebrity SAG –producers– “signing” (supposedly, but unconfirmed) a letter declaring their opposition to a strike authorization.”
So, it’s your assumption that any actor who branches their career out to include producer becomes only interested in what can favor their career as producer and all their actor comrades be damned? Isn’t that a little harsh? Every name on that list of celebrity actors opposed to strike authorization is now out to screw actors? Do you really believe that?
Then you have the audacity to get upset when people make assumptions about you or call you names, or call Doug Allen names, and you claim this is not the way to present an argument. If you really feel that way why do you also make the assumption that those opposed to strike authorization don’t know the facts and are too lazy to read the contract (before you tell me you never said that, please go back and read your earlier comments). It seems from reading your posts that you find it absolutely inconceivable that anyone might know what you know but come to a different conclusion as to how best to deal with the problem.
Lastly, you keep repeating, “Doug Allen is just stating the facts.” You’re right. But stating those particular facts as a way of comforting actors leading into a strike is not so comforting and screamingly obvious. I know there is a difference between a commercial contract and a theatrical contract. I don’t need Doug Allen to inform me of that. Any actor who needs to be educated on that should not be voting on something so crucial in the first place. I think that’s the reason people are so upset with the memo. Why can’t you see that? How does, “we’re not shutting down the whole industry, just the majority of it,” comfort you? Maybe you want a strike and so don’t need comforting. Fine. I respect your reasons. But that’s not what you’re arguing here. You’re defending this stupid memo.
“SAG is educating its membership” That’s so funny in a sick sad sort of way.
Anyway, Simon Says “Vote yes” – so I guess that tells you what to do if you want to stay in the game – - -
I’ve sent numerous emails to Mr. Allen as a SAG member regarding the problems we actors have been having. Not once has he emailed me back. Not once.
Having read this email from him, it finally prompted me to google him. Who the H— is this person, supposedly representing the SAG membership?
Here’s a brief piece from SAG in 2006 when he was hired….
“Allen comes to SAG from the NFL Players Association in Washington D.C., where he has served as assistant executive director for almost 20 years.”
Allen has not one bit of experience in the life of an actor. Cronyism has gotten him where he is today. If you come to a business with absolutely no experience, how the heck can you expect to know what to do? This whole debacle reminds me of Michael D. Brown, who was appointed by Bush as had of FEMA. Remember what happened in Louisiana? THIS IS OUR LOUISIANA. I can only hope that after all the smoke coming out of his ass clears, that he and Rosenberg will be toast.
And thanks again Mr. Allen for taking the time to communicate back to me. F—er.
One more thing is ACE Doug Allen or Alan Rosenberg?
Don’t worry, “Make It Stop”, Nick Counter doesn’t sleep with anybody. When he goes home, he chugs down a quart of real human blood, wraps himself up in a black cloak, and hangs upside-down by his toenails in the basement of his lonely mansion.
I’m wondering though, if the AMPTP paid SAG the force majeure money they owe – all of the millions of dollars – if the SAG NegCom wouldn’t sign that deal. For now. Just to get things flowing again.
I wonder…
Thanks for the wonderful letter, Sean. I completely agree and you said much better than I ever could. I’m really, really worried about all the friends of mine who won’t see their jobs come back.
I’m sure Reese Witherspoon will be thrilled to know she can provide for her family by appearing in a dinner theater version of Uncle Vanya in Boise, Idaho for the duration of the year.
“You bloggers-without-a-vote (I won’t call you shills) Doug’s e-mail was to SAG members.”
Simon, this does not obscure the point that he’s waving around having facts he does not offer regarding a very, very INTENTIONALLY misleading generalization.
The “shutting down” of the industry he refers to is the concern of everyone, not just SAG or the AMPTP. That specific statement, in the context he has magically made disappear, refers to the FACTUALLY delicate and weakened entertainment industry beset by economic woes and the lingering effects of the WGA strike.
Obviously the AMPTP have their own agenda, but that doesn’t mean it’s false to say that another strike would devastate the industry. Furtheremore, to act as if the SAG members will be safe due is even more insulting.
If the market is restricted to commercials, videogames and the like, you’re still talking about the same number of SAG members competing for a far smaller pool of jobs that offer less money. This also fails to take into account any money that would be lost on projects that collapse in the interum.
For every 2-3 months that this defacto strike continues, or if an “official” strike were to occur, that is automatically a slew of feature film productions that must be bumped or cancelled because of the special relationship between production schedule and release.
Doug Allen’s letter absolutely deserves the lambasting it has received, from both SAG and non-SAG professionals, because it offers no supporting argument, no supporting facts and fails to address a number of major concerns that reach the people he’s supposedly addressing.
Again, I say supposedly because the primary subject of his letter is addressing a statement that was made about everyone, not just SAG. He has willfully decided to misappropriate the biggest issue facing the industry right now so that he can manipulate people into reading his non-arguments as if they exist in a vaccuum.
Don’t you love it! ANYTHING to avoid DEBATE. WHY? Well, we all know why – debate makes UFS very, very nervous.
“The board debates”
So, despite the bitter divide here, that somehow absolves the need for informed debate for the MEMBERSHIP – not just a relative few in a board room somewhere?
I got news for you “anonymous” – THE BOARD ALREADY DEBATED – AND VOTED.
BUT NOW? Now, they want to OVERTURN their own votes.
Think outside your little box, “Anonymous” (isn’t the name just perfect? “NO DEBATE” signed “anonymous”!)
What POSSIBLE downside could there be, given the complete cluster-F*** UFS has made of already decided upon issues – to SERVE a membership that STILL has not had the chance to see these two sides go toe to toe?
WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF DEBATE? You – UFS – were afraid of debate before the election, you – UFS – are afraid of debate now.
WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF DEBATE?
And if the answer is “we’re not!” (the only answer – don’t you think membership?) – UFS – then, let’s have a debate!
EVERY OTHER ANSWER MEANS TROUBLE FOR UFS.
Maybe both sides fare well. Or:
You might obliterate SAG leadership (MF) and make this a no-brainer! You’re all SO sure of your talking points: “sign contract, wait three years, study the ‘data’, wait for the economy to recover, this does NOT mean the phasing out of residuals, these other deal points – clip consent, reasonble product placement, retention of force majeure, aren’t worth sending out the SAV over – don’t send out SAV, cause it could lead to strike and strike is to be avoided NO MATTER WHAT THE COST TO THE MEMBERSHIP – because of the economy, payment of 60 million already owed to SAG – NONE of this is worth ISSUING AN SAV – to DECIDE whether to empower the negotiating committee to confront the AMPTP with the only tool that counts, and if the AMPTP STILL refuses to negotiate, since they haven;t since day 1, then ONLY the national board has the power to call a strike.
Give the membership a chance to decide for themselves what THEY want, once they’ve learned what they’ve learned up till now –
AND then, give them a chance to see the first SUBTANTIVE debate between the two sides – not some partisan meeting in L.A. OR in N.Y.
Doesn’t the membership deserve the chance to make up it’s OWN mind and decide it’s own fate – AFTER ONE debate? All they’ve heard is partisan rhetoric from both sides.
I bet they’d learn a LOT more actually SEEING a representative of either side stand or sit with a moderator and HASH THIS OUT.
SOMEBODY is WRONG here: MF or UFS.
Why is UFS AFRAID TO DEBATE??? EVERY undedcided or DECIDED SAG member who reads this should contact SAG, MF and UFS (all easily available on the web) and tell them “LET’S SEE A DEBATE – BEFORE ANYTHING IS OVERTURNED OR ALTERED JANUARY 12th.
The officers serve US – NOT the other way around.
I’m willing to live with the results. If UFS cleans the floor with SAG (MF) – so be it. NO SAV goes out, we sign THIS deal, and we move on.
BUT if SAG leadership (MF) cleans the floor with UFS, then the membership should decide to stay the course on the SAV – which has ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR SENDING OUT.
WHY are we allowing a closed meeting demanded by UFS dissent (Arkin and Vaughn of UFS insisted on the meeting) to overrule the will of the national board, the negotiating committee and the membership?
DEBATE!
“Gee, Mulhern, what are you doing, (-deleted-) Anne Marie? I thought she was Alan Rosenberg’s (-deleted-). Of course, all three of you may be (-deleted-) in a (-deleted-) while (-deleted-) each others’ (-deleted-). The (-deleted-) (-deleted-) about (-deleted-) though is, whenever a (-deleted-) (-deleted-) is (-deleted-), the (-deleted-) (-deleted-) (-deleted-).”
This is Tom Ligon, posting on Sagwatch.net. Ever since the Westin meeting in NY, where I sat next to AMJ, after meeting her and Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen for the first time, then sitting respectfully through a two hour mob scene (an exaggeration, but it was way out of hand) without saying a word until the last moment of the meeting when I yelled out “That’s the smartest thing I’ve heard all night” in response to the ONE YOUNG actor who spoke, who schooled the entirely middle-aged to elderly crowd with a “now-media” rif that rendered so much of the “no” argument moot that night.
Ligon, ever since, has been characterizing my behavior and AMJ’s behavior in odd, bizarre and increasingly profane sexual terms. So, this is what the editor over at Sagwatch allows. I’ve asked him to take it down twice. He refuses. And he booted ME off his site for a while for using pseudonyms, before “outing” me when someone asked “who is ‘Mr. Fred?” and the editor wrote “well, the pseudonym has the same IP address as Matt Mulhern, so – it’s Matt Mulhern.”
This is the opposition, ladies and gentleman. I’ve been over the line at times myself, but this is nuts.
Happy New Year, everyone. This is probably going to be a long one…
Tracy, you give me too much credit. I don’t know if I should be flattered or insulted…
Be that as it may, I think all of this rhetoric has gotten waaaaaay out of hand from the beginning. Everyone is reading far too much into this particular memo. It’s very simple and to the point, and answers a very basic question.
A question, I might add, that I asked a SAG Rep on set very recently for confirmation – and got pretty much the exact same answer. I’ll stand on my earlier comment that there hasn’t been enough SAG negotiation “red meat” news lately, so we’re all chewing on this at the moment. And regurgitating it… and chewing on it… and…
But since we’re getting off-topic:
Stephen, because of your point of view, it “seems” that by interpreting my posts, you have chosen to read things into my statements that I neither said nor meant. Even when you quoted me above, your claims don’t hold water. When I first commented, you’ll note that the comments above mine were generally not from industry people, and very few from SAG members. Since then, yes, many more have chimed in. You assume I’m “comforted”, you say I’m “upset”… I’m neither. So let’s not take me out of context, huh?
With regards to your statement, “So, it’s your assumption that any actor who branches their career out to include producer becomes only interested in what can favor their career as producer…” I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say “only”, but, generally… yeah. And you can’t blame ‘em – I’m certainly not blaming them. It’s the right financial move and both you and I would probably do the same thing in that situation. (Okay, I apologize in advance for assuming what you would do.)
But the end of that statement, “…and all their actor comrades be damned?” No, there you go putting words in my mouth again. Some of them might feel that way, but that’s not the point. Once any of those actors becomes able to negotiate their own contracts above scale rates and provisions (and or ‘produce’ their own projects), they are no longer a “scale” actor – and so this fight isn’t their fight. Whether they’re ‘producers’ (and I use that term loosely, with a small “P”) or not, they have a different, separate agenda. And as such, what they think about the contract negotiations is moot and a conflict of interests.
I also get from your comments that you have read both sides of the contract presentations from SAG and the AMPTP – true? And your comments sound like you’re against passing a strike authorization – that is, that you’re a “Vote NO” supporter. Fine. Let’s extrapolate what that means (I’ll use you as an example of an “educated” SAG member who is against a strike authorization, so don’t take this personally): by voting ‘No’ on the strike authorization, and without any other real leverage, you’re acquiescing to signing the offered contract from the AMPTP; further, you’re saying that its acceptable to you that the AMPTP doesn’t have to pay (at least) $60 MILLION dollars that they owe to SAG actors. Correct? Because signing this particular contract includes that caveat. (And you know that because you read the contract, right?)
Is any of that $60M force majeure money your money? Is it Tom Hanks’ money, or George Clooney’s or Danny DeVito’s or Jason Alexander’s? Probably not. It belongs to actors who were caught up a situation out of their hands – actors who didn’t work or get paid, but who weren’t allowed to go out and work somewhere else. That’s called a ‘Force Majeure’ clause, and it’s there for specifically that reason. If it were your money, you’d damn sure want it. It’s not my money either, but I would want my fellow SAG members to stand with me to fight for if if it was. That’s the kind of SAG member I am.
That’s only one easy example of why this contract will not stand. As you’ve probably seen from Frances Fisher’s posts, there are 11 others. When you, personally, claim to be educated on the negotiations and outcome, then that’s what you’re agreeing to.
Before you continue to assume things about me, I’m not “upset” about anything; I’m not TYPING IN ALL CAPS to show how emotional I am (or not); I don’t “find it absolutely inconceivable” that people who can vote in this vote choose to back down and do just that. It’s understandable that fear mongering and spin tactics work on people – just not on me. For the record, I’m not “comfortable” with the outcome of a strike, nor do I want one.
Continuing, you said about me, “…that anyone might know what you know but come to a different conclusion as to how best to deal with the problem.” This may be the most accurate thing you’ve said so far. This is really the crux of the entire situation – not that any of us thinks we’re so smart, but that nobody, nobody has a better idea than what SAG NegCom has presented. If you do, then bring it, dammit! We’d all love to hear it! But all the “vote NO” people seem to be able to do is lambaste the people in charge (deservedly or not), call people names and scorn their efforts to bring this thing to a beneficial (for SAG) end. If there’s a different plan that gives SAG leverage to get the AMPTP to offer a better contract, I haven’t heard it yet.
So when somebody comes here (or anywhere) and starts arguing that they’re “educated” and say that they possess the facts, and they’re telling people to ‘vote NO’, then they damn sure better have something to back up their reasoning other than “Doug Allen is a prick”. That spin is way easy to shoot down.
I’m personally not about anyone agreeing with me on any of my points of view, and I don’t shit all over people who dissent. But if I’m shot at in a nasty way I’ll shoot back with the same. I originally commented in support of the DA memo and its intent, and negated some comments from a particular person who had/has a political agenda – which didn’t begin to apply to the current topic. And because I have the ability to express myself and my beliefs that a strike authorization is SAG’s only leverage – and I have facts to back up those beliefs – I take criticism from those against said vote. And I’ll defend those beliefs when they’re taken out of context and shat on as well.
But I do request that if you have – if anyone has – a different plan that gives SAG leverage to get the AMPTP to offer a better contract, or one that doesn’t rip off your fellow SAG members, then bring it to the table or shut up and admit that you’ll let your fellow union members not get paid. Admit publicly that that’s the kind of “solidarity” you believe in.
In solidarity,
Ace,
I am late to finding this thread and don’t know if it anyone is still reading it, but I will attempt to answer your question nonetheless. I agree that there is far too much yelling and name calling. We ultimately all do want the same things and attacking each other only hurts our collective cause.
That said, I am someone that would fall on the “no strike” side and would like to correct several of the assumptions you make about me and those like me. First, and most important, I do not want to sign the current AMPTP offer. This is why I am against the SAV going out, not just voting no on it. I believe that it is still possible to get the AMPTP to negotiate without a strike authorization if we agree to their terms on the “made for new media” proposals and drop our request for an increased DVD rate. I can’t be sure that this will get us the Force Majeure and Product Placement protections we need and deserve (including the money owed), but it is my understanding that it is a tactic the Neg Comm has not tried. Things get a little dicey here, because no one can comment on the specifics of negotiations and so I don’t and can’t have facts or quotes to express this as the absolute truth, but there are many of us that believe this is the case.
Currently, there are too many issues that we are at odds with the AMPTP over for us to be clear on what we are fighting about. I believe that the primary focus of the Neg Comm has been new media. They stated this very loudly from before negotiations began. And while I am not happy with the offer on the table on new media, I also do not think it is worth fighting over right now. I understand the “precedent” argument. And I hear it when people say “if they won’t give it to us now, why will they give it to us then?” But it seems to me that the converse is true as well, “if you are so sure that they won’t give it to us down the road, why do you think they’ll give it to us now?” I am not naive and don’t think they will ever just “give” it to us. I think we will have to fight for it, but we need more unity and more information to do so effectively.
And this gets to the crux of the point, I don’t think a strike will right now, not in the current reality. To me, the strike threat is more important that the strike itself. And right now we do not present a credible threat. We could possibly get a 75% authorization, but there is no chance of the 90%+ that really sends the message we will stand united. That coupled with the high profile members who have spoken out against a strike tells the AMPTP that we don’t have our big guns in our corner. You may think that these actors opinions are irrelevant because they make too much money for this to really affect them, but these are also the people that the AMPTP (and the general public) care most about. Studios will definitely feel more pressured when it is Tom Hanks or Matt Damon calling them out in the press. We need that arsenal. Without it, the studios will not be sufficiently scared enough by the prospect of a strike for the authorization alone to work. I could be wrong, but they have called our bluff every step of the way and knowing the internal turmoil in the union right now, I don’t see why they would suddenly cave if the SAV passed.
So that means we would strike, and I do not buy into the notion that a strike will hurt them more than it will hurt us. By the time we strike, most TV will be done or close to done for the season. New pilots will go to AFTRA. They will have a line up of reality programs to try out over the summer and if some of those are hits, well, that’s less need for scripted content whenever the strike ends. And new media, our “biggest fear,” well all of that will be done on AFTRA contracts because they have jurisdiction and we don’t. As for movies, they will certainly take a hit, production has been slowed for a while, but I don’t think they are in the danger zone just yet. And, if they do start to run low on product, you know those 800 GCC’s that SAG has given out, who do you think will be bidding on buying those up? (My understanding is that a production can have no studio financing or distribution in place when they get the GCC, but I don’t see how they could stop those films from being sold to studios after the fact.)
I don;t think the studios would be unscathed by a strike, but I do think they could outlast us. And for some reason, it seems to me that they really want to outlast us. I suspect they don’t want to set the precedent of giving one union better terms than the others on something like new media. I’m not saying they are right, I’m just saying I think they will fight us to the death over it. I may be wrong. But I’m not sure I am willing to risk that for financial gains that are insignificant in the present and may or may not be more than that at the end of this contract.
I hope that this explanation is of some help to you. I really do think if we can understand each other better we might be able to find our common ground.
Thanks, Moderate. I do appreciate a calm, conversational approach to discussions.
While I don’t think I posed any “questions”, I agree with most of what you stated. I agree that the NegCom is standing firm on things that we’re probably not going to get this time around. But the force majeure money MUST come across. This may be the AMPTP’s negotiating ace in the hole. They may give that up and pay it if we fold on everything else. (As if it would be a “concession” on their part.)
Further, I agree with your position on the celebrities’ public position(s). It would be great if they’d stand up for their union, but most of them have a different agenda. And as I stated earlier, I understand that position. But I did say in an earlier topic posting that I would want every one of these ’star names’ to publicly stand with SAG in three (2.5) years and demand the negotiation of new media, since that is their main argument at this time. I just don’t think they’ll do that.
I also agree that we (SAG) needs to show a unified front – even if that means holding hands with AFTRA and standing together for the same goals. I don’t know if this is possible either because RR and KH have different goals than SAG – like, the survival of AFTRA. But this has to happen before we’ll be dealt with fairly.
I disagree with your assessment that the AMPTP could outlast us in a strike situation. (Well, they could of course, but why would they?) I say this because they don’t have to. It’s their greed that’s keeping this contract from being signed right now – long term profit-making greed. Nobody discounts that. My point is that they don’t have to take the hit of a strike if they sign SAG’s current offer which is more than fair to them, and they know it. They’ll still win a ton of concessions from SAG, they’ll staunch an industry-wide bloodletting, and they’ll save their precious Academy Awards ceremony. But those liabilities don’t matter at all to Nick Counter without a strike authorization shoved in his face. I don’t either want to go into a strike, but we must, MUST let them know (without bluffing) that we will if pushed that far.
I also disagree that a SAV would automatically turn into a strike (for the reasons I just noted). The AMPTP says it would, but that’s neither here nor there (they’ve lied down this whole road). The NegCom must let them and everyone know that although none of us want a strike, we will. And the AMPTP needs to believe that.
I do wonder what the intent is of the current delayed SAV and the rescheduling of the national meeting. Are they (can they) changing the SAG rules so that we would only need a 51% ‘Yes’ vote to pass an authorization? Are they deciding on whether or not to send out the contract as it is and see if SAG members will agree to it? Are they attempting to get everyone on the same page to provide a more unified front to the AMPTP (and to the industry)?
I truly believe that the AMPTP is done negotiating (or what they call ‘negotiating’), and they’re not budging without SAG standing up for itself and passing a SAV. Because of this, I disagree with the idea that there’s any gray area in between ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ votes on the SAV. ‘Yes’ means leverage and a possible strike – ‘No’ boils down to “sign the current contract”.
I could be wrong, and I absolutely hope that I am. It would be great if there were another tack for the NegCom to take, but I believe they’ve exhausted everything. I also appreciate that you and others “believe” there are things the NegCom hasn’t tried. But as you said, “…I don’t and can’t have facts or quotes to express this as the absolute truth, but there are many of us that believe this is the case.” It seems to me that you’re voting ‘No’ based on that unsubstantiated belief. Otherwise, your ‘No’ vote means “sign the contract”. Maybe the meeting this month will produce some new ideas.
Let’s all hope so.
As you noted, none of us knows what’s going on in those private meeting rooms. And as difficult a job as they have, I tire of them getting lambasted when, as you said, none of us know what’s really going on. I say let them do their job, and support their position. They know what they’re doing, and we don’t.
Thanks for your even-handed and thoughtful response.
Ace,
It is my pleasure to discuss this rationally. I think unfortunately there is far too little of that going on. And when we all discuss calmly and clearly where we are coming from we can realize we are not as far apart as we appear.
First I just want to point out that the money already owed under force majeure protections is not really an issue of this contract. I think there has been talk about reaching a settlement on that money in conjunction with signing this contract, but ultimately that is money we can and should be fighting for in court if it is not delivered. It should not be something we have to strike over.
Otherwise, I agree with much of what you say. And I think ultimately, our differing opinions are based on assumptions of what the AMPTP might or might not do. And they are a tough cookie to figure out.
If the money issues in this contract are as minimal as I think they are, then why wouldn’t they have settled with us already? There are many variations of possible answers but I think it boils down to the generality of two opposing reasons.
1. They do not want to set a precedent of giving one union a better deal than the other unions in the same year. Especially if it is achieved by strike. It gives people the idea that strikes work and they don’t like giving people that idea. That’s why they balanced the WGA getting a better deal after striking, alongside the DGA getting the same deal without striking. I should make clear that in this part I am specifically talking about the new media demands. It is a new realm of jurisdiction being developed and they are justifying their cheapness by keeping things even. Doesn’t make it right or fair but it is a very plausible reason for them to fight these points to the death.
2. They are waiting for us to get the SAV passed. Until that happens they don’t need to budge, so they won’t. Plus they’ve gotten the added bonus of not paying any increases for the last 6 months which saved them a fortune. When we pass the SAV, they will make the concessions necessary for a deal.
So, if you believe #1 to be true you are against the SAV, and if you believe #2 to be true, you are for the SAV. I think if we can realize that this is where the divide is and not actually so much on the issues of the contract we might be a little better off.
As far as my assumptions about whether a deal could be struck if we dropped new media, I will say this. Doug Allen identified the 3 threshold issues for SAG in a letter to the AMPTP in September as (a) full jurisdiction on made for new media (no $15,000/minute bottom), (b) residuals for re use of made for new media productions, and (c) maintaining force majeure protections. He reiterated these as the 3 core issues in the NY meeting. In every comment that the AMPTP has made about negotiations they have said they are not going to give better terms on new media than they gave the DGA, WGA, and AFTRA. They have not altered their offer because we have not given them reason to. We refuse to budge on the main thing they have said they won’t give on. I’m not saying that means they will cave on the other stuff, but I think we need to try. And if I believed that this leadership, after getting the SAV, would drop new media if they still got resistance, then I would be more for voting yes. But I believe that both sides are firmly entrenched on this issue and so loading the SAG gun is more dangerous than not.
As always, I may be wrong, but I fear that the risks outweigh the gains. Let’s try to keep the civil discussion going.
Ace and Matt Mulhern: There’s a scene at the very end of the movie “Revolutionary Road”, where the husband of Kathy Bate’s character has had enough of her ways and simply turns his hearing aid down to the point where he (and the audience) can hear nothing but silence. In many ways, I feel that this is what is happening more and more for many of us when it comes to having any discussion with either of you. Many people don’t want to hear what you have to say now. It’s just “noise”. There is no debate to have any longer, Matt, because the time for debate has passed (for many of us). Our points have not been respected. We have been relentlessly attacked and shouted down for what we felt. It has been your way or the highway. And now, you all act like YOU (and the Allens) are the victims in all of this. We are not surprised at this tact. We are also not buying it.
It’s great that y’all are having even-handed and thoughtful discussions. But get real, the jig is up and has been for some time. The time to have a reasonable negotiation with the AMPTP was a year ago. At every turn our outplayed and frustrated leaders made bad, or worse, embarassing decisions. This was mostly because they had gotten themselves elected on platforms of toughness and confrontation in a time when these postures were useless, or worse, destructive.
They are not bad men, they are in fact massively principled, but they have tragically misread the historical lay of the land and rather than stay open-eyed and flexible they just dug themselves deeper. To our detriment.
We did not have to be where we are, we could’ve had a deal a long time ago and turned our guild into a industry partner, maybe even an industry leader during these difficult times rather than a nemesis and a humiliation. There is no real discussion right now about whether or not to strike. It’s beyond ridiculous and we are the ones who have revealed the absurdity.
To those who scream “solidarity” it’s worth noting that solidarity is something that is earned, not just given mindlessly. There’s no use being in solidarity with the driver of your car when he is going off the freakin cliff.
Ace is correct, unfortunately, in that a no vote on the strike authorization would be widely seen as an endorsement of the AMPTP’s abysmal “last best final” offer.
Where I differ with Ace concerns the importance of the strike vote having to be at 90% to make the point. The higher the percentage, the better, of course, but anything over the threshold gives SAG leadership the leverage they need. The name actors who have called for a no vote are likely to fall in line with their guild, at least publicly, because not showing solidarity with three-quarters of your fellow actors would simply be bad form.
We rejected the AMPTP’s “last best final” gawdawful offer overwhelmingly already. We can’t take anything for granted, but so long as actors realize a no vote on the strike authorization is for all intents and purposes an endorsement of the AMPTP offer we’ve already overwhelmingly rejected with good reason, it seems logical we would authorize a labor action.
What an idiot! How did this asshole get us in this position? He should fall on his sword!
It’s my understanding that the force majeure money forgiveness is absolutely worded into this contract (the AMPTP’s offer). I wish that weren’t true, and I hope you’re right that it won’t be in there. I had commented in the past on the necessity of a legal action on SAG’s part for the money from the AMPTP, but it never appeared on this site. Must have had some other prohibited information in the comment and the entire thing was banished. Oh well.
mheister – a quick note: you said “Where I differ with Ace concerns the importance of the strike vote having to be at 90% to make the point.” Didn’t say that – wasn’t me. Nor do I feel that way in the least. A 90% SAV would make an awesome point, but I neither think that’s necessary nor possible. I wish we didn’t have to pass the SAV with a “super-majority” of 75%, in fact. Who made that rule? Just curious.
I’m a little iffy on your comment, “The name actors who have called for a no vote are likely to fall in line with their guild, at least publicly, because not showing solidarity with three-quarters of your fellow actors would simply be bad form.”
I doubt that because I believe those actors aren’t saying ‘No’ because they think SAG doesn’t have the 75% (as if they’d “go with the flow”). I believe they’re saying ‘No’ because it suits their loyalties to AMPTP producers, and to their own pocketbooks. (Ethics vs. Politics vs. Money – everyone who votes makes that choice.) They probably don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them, and I think that matters more to them than what their fellow actors think. And because it’s easy for them to say, “…let’s not have a work stoppage…let’s come back in three years…” I wanna say that too, but I don’t believe it. I think we’re both generally on the same page.
To love’s labors – your metaphor of, “To those who scream “solidarity” (side note: who is screaming?) it’s worth noting that solidarity is something that is earned, not just given mindlessly. There’s no use being in solidarity with the driver of your car when he is going off the freakin cliff” – isn’t accurate.
Try this: let’s make that car a bus. SAG is in that bus, but we’re being pushed off that cliff by the AMPTP bulldozer, and we’re now teetering on the edge. If the driver of the bus says “don’t panic – everyone get into the back of the bus and we won’t fall”, solidarity says that will work. But if some of the people do panic and jump out, the bus will fall and will likely take everyone with it.
I have a great idea: let’s get the AMPTP to change a few things on their current offer, sign it, and then get back to work. How simple and fair is that?
Oh. That’s been tried already? Damn.
You’re right, Ace, that SAG is on the verge of a great fall. And certainly the AMPTP is not made up of SAG supporters. But the strategy of setting ourselves apart as the militant defenders of guild justice without the necessary balances of vision, pragmatism and common sense has doomed us to failure.
You can analyze all the deal points you want (and you do a fair job of it) but the fact remains that we have, step by step, lost whatever precious leverage we’ve ever had (all SAV questions aside) and are in the process of losing nearly all television. If anyone is telling you otherwise, don’t believe them. I know for a fact that EVERY major television studio has plans, either formal or informal, to completely dispense with using SAG over the next few seasons. This is so much bigger than anyone in our union leadership is willing to admit. They have squandered the hard work of previous guild leadership which carefully built the television side of the union. This is a disaster.
So another metaphor…following your lead. If the driver of the bus has driven the bus in such a way as to allow the bulldozer to push it to the brink….then you may find more than one passenger…getting off the damn bus.