'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 … 
SAG's "Unite for Strength" slate in the upcoming SAG election issued the following the statement regarding the matter of affected member voting:
"We came together under the Unite for Strength banner to run for the SAG Board of Directors to accomplish one goal above all others – unify SAG and AFTRA to give actors more power at the bargaining table. However, Membership First has attempted to mislead members about our intentions by suggesting that we seek to strip some members of their union voting rights, including the right to vote in elections such as this one.
"This suggestion is absolutely false. Earlier this year, prior to the rupture of the longstanding joint negotiating agreement between SAG and AFTRA, some of us supported a proposal to apply to the TV/Theatrical contract a principle already used with other SAG contracts. This would have limited ratification voting to those members with at least minimal experience working under the contract. Contrary to what Membership First is telling members, the proposal would not have limited the ability of any member to participate in elections to select Guild leaders or in strike authorization votes.
"Moreover, we have repeatedly stated that affected member voting is not part of the Unite for Strength platform or a goal of the slate. Regardless of the merits, it is a non-issue in this election – and Membership First knows that.
"Because our unions no longer have a functional partnership, our goal is clear. In order to remove any doubt about our intentions and to focus attention on the real issue in this election – whether SAG should seek unification with AFTRA or continue fighting them – we offer the following pledge: We will take no action as members of the SAG Board of Directors to take away any member's right to vote on SAG contracts or any other SAG matter."
- Hollywood 31 To Challenge SAG Leaders
- AFTRA Sends "Affected Member" Voting Issue To Committee For Consideration (...Just Like SAG Did)
- SAG Natl Board Sends "Affected Member" Petition to Committee For Later Review
- SAG Natl Board To Consider "Affected Member Voting" This Weekend; Petition Drive Softens Original Proposal
- More Opinion Favoring SAG Petition Drive (Stephen Collins)
- Petition Drive Leaders Have Met With SAG
- Another Opinion Anti SAG Petition Drive (Frances Fisher)
- More Opinions Pro SAG Petition Drive (Amy Brenneman)
- Airing Opinion Against SAG Petition Drive (Ron Livingston)
- SAG Petitioners Clarify Their Position... (Ned Vaughn)
- A-List Actors Pressure SAG To Start Talks
Loading ...
well. all but four members of the unite for strength slate signed
the affected member voting petition.
so, if all but four of them believed in this enough to sign their names a few months ago,
what makes anyone think
that they don’t believe in it just as strongly now?
if it’s something that nearly all of them believe in, how can it not be an issue in this election?
it seems like there is a good deal of backpedaling going on here.
they’re trying to buy it back.
they keep diluting they proposal so it doesn’t sound so offensive,
but if any change is made to the “One actor, one vote” standard,
the qualifications can keep being altered depending on on who is in power and what benefits their agenda.
it seems as if the unite for strength people have taken the temperature of SAG members, realized the rank and file loathes the idea of
qualified voting, and is now downplaying the enthusiasm they all have for this proposal.
this is known as “FLIP-FLOPPING”.
So are they also saying that if NY or one of the branchs put forward the motion for AMV they would vote no on it?
Even with this pledge it still showed their mindset in the first place.
Plus they really need to expand on how they think they can merge with AFTRA. Is it SAG absorbing AFTRA or they other way around?
Glad they addressed this.
Now, HOW will your merger plan work, U4S? It’s one thing to state the obvious, that we’re better off bargaining together, but I’ve seen absolutely no details on how they plan to pull off a merger.
It also appears they weren’t honest with the numbers when accusing MF of mishandling the funds. U4S would go a lot further with some detail and transparency. I’m not entirely happy with MF by any means, but U4S so far has me looking harder at all the independents.
and then u4s said…and then mf said…and then the “allens” said…and then the amptp said…and then aftra said…and then ny sag said…
Everyone else is saying…are you people nuts???
Focus…contract…focus…contract…
So. Now,it’s become:
1. merge with AFTRA with, no sense of how, after 16 attempts since 1939 have been voted down by SAG membership – AND U4S hasn’t put forth a single SENTENCE including any new research, plan to fix the bugs that got it voted down the last time, they don’t address ALL the SAG members who can’t stand the lies and backstabbing of AFTRA, the underselling of actors for Roberta Reardon and Kim Hedgepath’s and AFTRA’s personal gain, the fact that these two women would have ZERO intention of giving up power in such a merged union – in short – NOTHING. NOT ONE IDEA. NOT ONE WORD.
2. They NOW COMPLETELY back off “qualified voting” – one of their 2 signature issues – ONLY because they found out (duh…) that an agenda that included the line – “vote for Unite For Strength! So we can take away your vote!” was, uh, counter-intuitive, and the SAG membership rejected it like a diseased liver.
3. Describing the current contract: “We want SAG Wants – and more!”
Now – that’s a direct quote, regarding U4S’s plans for the current contract. But, again – not ONE WORD as to HOW they are going to get a fair percentage deal on new media, which is THE issue the AMPTP refuses to budge on. Literally, nothing – no ideas, proposals, pledges, plans – zero.
So, can someone please explain why these people are joining a separate faction and running to unseat Membership First, which refuses to bow down to the AMPTP, and is fighting, despite the cowardly action of the NY board who AGREED in the national board vote meeting – 68 to 0 – to support the current SAG negotiators stance on new media, and NOW, have reneged on their promise of support and issued a weaselly press release whining that “it’s really, really, hard, and the AMPTP are being mean!” They want “movement.” In fact they DEMAND movement! But – what do they suggest? It seems to me, Membership First is ready, willing and able to make a deal, but the AMPTP is the entity blocking movement. So, Membership First, while trying to press forward through back channels, OBVIOUSLY has to wait for the results of the election before they can claim enough of a mandate to ask the membership for a strike authorization vote. THAT’S the ONLY leverage that matters, unless we plan on knuckling under to the AMPTP’s new media cluster-fuck of a plan, which, if history is any guide (VHS/DVD – hundreds of millions of dollars in lost residuals for actors over the last 24 years) the producers will NOT “revisit” or “renegotiate” once they get SAG to sign the deal as is, and create a precedent that ties our hands for good. Unless we strike later, and, why wait? let’s do it now before it’s too late – we HAVE to at least threaten to strike and make sure we have the resolve to do so if necessary.
My god, the MF defenders are out in force today. They must be really pissed that they can no longer lie that Unite for Strength wants to take away your vote.
I wonder if Kima is familiar with the word Democracy???
MF ran unopposed last election, so according to your thinking;with no contract, no deal in sight, members are suppossed to just let them continue to mismanage our union until we can no longer make a living, because god forbid someone question their strategy????
I don’t think so, thank god someone else has stepped up to try and put some sense into that boardroom. I agree they are fighting for difficult issues, I agree we need to stand up for our future but they have no leverage now due to the constant bad decisions they have made. It’s time for some new blood, and I honestly can’t imagine how they could possible do any worse.
“Because our unions no longer have a functional partnership, our goal is clear. In order to remove any doubt about our intentions and to focus attention on the real issue in this election – whether SAG should seek unification with AFTRA or continue fighting them – we offer the following pledge: We will take no action as members of the SAG Board of Directors to take away any member’s right to vote on SAG contracts or any other SAG matter.”
Translation:
Because SAG and AFTRA are no longer on speaking terms, we at United For Weakness promise to no longer attempt to disenfranchise SAG members who are qualified to vote due to the simple fact that they are members of SAG.
Again, I say this as a fangeek — and yes, we fans are watching you (and I’m brave/dumb enough to interject my opinion into what is, after all, a public forum) — what about the fact that your failed attempt to disenfranchise your fellow Guild makes you look categorically undemocratic do you not understand?
Honestly, as a fan, I’ve been scratching my head over that one for the past several months. I mean, I know through reading this here blog that NYC Guild terms dictate that NYC SAG shoots have to use a few more Guild members than shoots in Hollywood have to have and thus, the ability of Hollywood branch actors to acquire as many credits as NYC branch actors is significantly hampered not only by the terms that the Hollywood branch has had to abide by with the studios but also because the Hollywood branch, due to the fact of its significantly larger membership, its members’ chances of acquiring credits is yet again severely diluted compared to the terms that the NYC branch, with its smaller membership and better must-hire terms gets.
But who exactly did you think you were fooling by attempting to stack the vote more fully by attempting to disenfranchise Hollywood branch members?
Also, with regards to the motion that you’ve filed to bring in a federal mediator if “no significant movement” is made by August 25th: Again — who do you think you’re fooling? You’re trying to force the negotiating committee to take whatever the AMPTP offers them (essentially giving the AMPTP a blank check) and bring it up for a full guild strike vote to be set by the 25th, which, because of the vagaries of assembling the resources necessary to take such a vote, means that such a vote would take place less than 10 days or less before the SAG election on September 18th?
I’m asking this as a fan — why push for the sheer waste of money of trying to force a strike vote before your guild’s election? I mean, this is so obvious that a non-member fangeek like me can get the politics of it — the election is going to be a referendum on Rosenberg and the MF platform anyway!
If you intended to weaken Rosenberg and the MF and to thereby expedite the contract talkes by creating some sort of a metaphorical one-two punch against them with the mediation filing, you did the exact opposite: you pulled the punch, making it look like you can’t unseat Rosenberg *or* expedite the contract talks without outside help.
With the scenario of both this looming mediation deadline and the election coming, what makes you think that the AMPTP is going to give you a better contract, even the DGA contract, when you have essentially admitted — in public, through your competing press releases and websites, mind you — that you cannot present an argument strong enough on its own merits to unseat Rosenberg or MF on your own?
I mean, really, it begs the question: if your position is so strong, why do you think or feel that you need to try to put on the extra pressure? Pressing for federal mediation (aka trying to force a strike vote) before the national election is, in poker terms, going all in on a bad hand.
The AMPTP isn’t about to go back to the negotiating table before the election anyway, especially since, no matter how the election turns out, your national negotiating board by your own rules and regulations will still be negotiating under the hardline terms that both factions of SAG, you and MF, both approved months ago.
So on the one hand, you’re trying to force your negotiating committee to accept whatever bad contract they’re given before August 25th, timing such a deadline so that a strike vote would have to be taken just before the national election and on the other hand, you’re attempting to have SAG give up the additional leverage it would have after the national election on September 18th regardless of which of your factions wins on the 18th and you’re gambling all of this on the empty threat of bringing in a federal mediator when such mediation didn’t work when it was tried during the WGA’s dispute?
My god, you United For Weakness peeps are funny.
Mediation isn’t going to work, so the August 25th deadline is entirely unnecessary chest-thumping that, rather than make you look strong, like you think it does, makes you look weak. It doesn’t matter what you’re trying to achieve, whatever potential validity there is to your point of view or what slight and/or misstep you think MF has committed against AFTRA and/or you — SAG in general (not to mention the public) is going to look at both sides of the argument and see that:
* AFTRA took a stupid deal and were going to take a stupid deal no matter what Rosenberg, MF or SAG’s national negotiating board were going to do
* u4w have aligned themselves with said takers of said stupid deal
and
* in a transparent attempt to try to get elected, u4w is threatening to file for mediation and thereby admitting that they don’t have the votes, the strength, to get elected when they tried to disenfranchise a significant segment (read: any segment) of SAG voters like they were Floridians being purged from the voter rolls. (My god, Norma Rae, how could you?)
In other words, at every stage of the dispute, you not only look weak, you are weak.
— Rob J.
PS: And, oh yeah, whoever on the Psych cast/crew thought it was funny to name a 70’s terrorist group Soldiers Against Government? Now, normally, I’d be willing to write off something like that as the writers just being cute and petulant and at least attempting to tweak both sides of the argument, but since one of the show’s two headlining stars is running for the SAG board under the u4w banner, I think it’s safe to call it cute and petulant and an embarrassing future entry on Psych’s Trivia page at the Internet Movie Database.
I mean, dudes, we watch the show to find the freakin’ pineapples — did you think no one was going to notice your equating SAG with a domestic terrorist group?
Honestly, they all seem full of crap. The Membership First slate has to go. They have led us all down a dead end path, and this whole industry knows it. But Unite For Strength doesn’t sound any saner, more trustworthy, or wiser.
I agree with “Jenius”….
I am all for one actor’s union…but ONLY if AFTRA gets absorbed into SAG so we get SAG rates and residuals. And only if it is only for actors – no DJs and news people who have different priorities. And only if NO AFTRA leaders (those who couldn’t care less about the actual livelihood of working actors…or seem to care about actors at all for that matter) are allowed to lead. Then I would vote for one union.
So can anyone make that happen?
And not for nothing, but I don’t understand why we keep electing actors to run SAG. Just because I bake the best bread in town doesn’t mean I know how to run a profitable bakery. How many of us have worked in theaters that were run into the ground by well-meaning (and even intelligent) actors trying to be Business Managers/Directors? Why do we expect any different from the Unite For Strength or Membership First groups? Good lord. Inmates running the asylum indeed.
There’s only one really good reason to vote for Unite for Strength.
They’re not Membership First.
Jenius said:
“Now, HOW will your merger plan work, U4S? It’s one thing to state the obvious, that we’re better off bargaining together, but I’ve seen absolutely no details on how they plan to pull off a merger.”
Isn’t that really the collective job of a seated board? To hammer out a workable merger plan together, with lots of listening and ideas from all sides being heard and evaluated? To expect one side to present “the plan” even before any discussion among board members has taken place is imbecilic. I’m all for giving Unite For Strength a fair chance.
Oh, and in an earlier thread that I can’t find anymore, someone calling herself t-rex said something to the effect of, “…there was a reason that the membership turned down the last merger attempt and that reason will soon be revealed; the smoking gun…”
Does everyone reading this clearly see that this statement makes no sense? How can something that has not been revealed be the reason voters used to make their decision to not approve the last merger referendum?
I’m more convinced than ever that the people in majority on the SAG board right now are impaired and dangerous at best if the above is an example of their reasoning.
btl teamster said:
“and then u4s said…and then mf said…and then the “allens” said…and then the amptp said…and then aftra said…and then ny sag said…
Everyone else is saying…are you people nuts???”
I think you know the answer to your question. SAG is an embarrassment. The people running it are crazy. Their behavior has become so normal to them that they don’t know anything else. It’s time for the SAG membership to get real about this. I’ll bet the majority of them that vote though – the chronically unemployed and perpetually entitlement-bound – won’t, though.
Actingup stated earlier:
“I am all for one actor’s union…but ONLY if AFTRA gets absorbed into SAG so we get SAG rates and residuals. And only if it is only for actors – no DJs and news people who have different priorities.”
What about the extras? Can we exclude them too? Because if we did that, all of our problems would be solved. Immediately.
Boy oh boy, is it ever hard to track all the misinformation and spin being put out there by the Membership First supporters here!
One thing I’ve heard over and over is that it was wrong and disloyal of U4S to challenge MF’s administration “during a time of war.” Does this sound familiar to anyone else other than me? Don’t question us!! Just trust us!! We know what we’re doing!! You’re disloyal for questioning us when we’re obviously doing such a great job!! The parallels are so similar it’s a bit creepy.
Since when is dissent unpatriotic? Last time I checked, America was founded on dissent and challenging authority gone amok is the MOST loyal thing you can do. Loyalty to your country (or in this case your fellow actors) not a particular administration.
Next, what exactly are the major accomplishments of MF? After careful research, I’ve managed to distil their major accomplishment. Let’s all cheer and offer a standing ovation for their crowning achievement. That’s right… i-actor!! Woo hoo!! Please just ignore that for 7 years now under MF’s sage administration we’ve had NO AGENT AGREEMENT! Don’t we all love our GSA’s? Aren’t they swell? Thank you Membership First for screwing us there.
How about squandering the little good will SAG had earned during the WGA strike by demonizing a fellow performers union? Whereas most union administrators might handle these matters internally, Membership First thought it would be wisest to PUBLICLY air our internal issues and focus on full on war with AFTRA, rather than staying focused on the real war with the AMPTP. That sure bought us a lot of good will from the industry and fellow unions… Thanks Membership First!
I wasn’t sure about U4S at first, but the more lies, obfuscation and sheer profanity I hear from Membership First, the more I’m drawn to the more thoughtful and strategic attitude of U4S. What a waste of time, energy and money for SAG and AFTRA to battle, argue and point fingers at each other when they should finally frikkin’ merge! 79% of SAG members polled in 2003 said they want merger to be pursued, but MF, in its infinite wisdom, decided that they knew better than the membership and decided to ignore and disregard the will of almost four fifths of the actual membership! Seriously, MF has had more than plenty of time to wreck our union. I say kick ‘em out. It’s time for change.
hey SG
aftra has an agreement with the ATA.
an agreement that they didn’t allow the membership to vote on.
no, it was decided by the board.
SAG lets it’s membership vote on matters that important.
the reason SAG hasn’t agreed to what the ATA wants is because it’s a huge conflict of interest.
but that’s okay with you, right?
give them all what they want. the ATA, the AMPTP.
if you are an agent or a suit, your post makes perfect sense.
if you are an actor, the amptp prays that people like you run for the SAG board and wind up on the negotiating committee.
Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen have done the opposite of either trying to pick a fresh fight with AFTRA or continuing the old fight – the larger, stronger union invited the other union to rejoin them at the table for the upcoming commercials contract negotiations.
Unite for Strength has offered no specifics whatsoever on what they would do that the current SAG leadership is not doing to mend relations between SAG and AFTRA. They’ve changed their position on affected member voting (all but three or four candidates on the Unite for Strength slate signed the AMV petition, and at least two – Ned Vaughn and Amy Brenneman – argued passionately for it a scant few months ago right here at DHD). They apparently agree with Membership First about New Media. The fiscal irresponsibility charge has been blown right out of the water. Their website offers no specifics on how they’re going to be better for background performers, either.
The one thing Unite for Strength has left is what they would do differently vis a vis AFTRA. And they have no plan. At least, no plan they have voiced publicly, that voters may compare to the record of current SAG leadership. Now if more Unite for Strength candidates had a track record in guild elective office, then they could say, you know us. You know what we can do, because you can see what we’ve done. But the Unite for Strength slate apparently doesn’t have that, either.
Experience? None that they’ve even tried to provide. A plan for doing a better job with AFTRA? No specifics. AMV? Flip-flop.
If you’re going to sell the idea that SAG voters should switch horses in the middle of the stream (in the middle of a very tough contract fight), you have to give us some strong reasons your horse is better. Right now I can sum up the Unite for Strength website in five words: we don’t like their horse. Frankly, that’s just not good enough.
In fairness, SAG wasn’t dealt a great hand going into the theatrical contract negotiations. The DGA signed a rotten lousy deal. The WGA’s was not much better. AFTRA did what AFTRA does best – appease the moguls.
The reason Alan Rosenberg is holding out so patiently on New Media is that this is the contract the AMPTP is looking to use to set the precedent for the next three decades. They themselves have referred to the New Media framework in the other creative guilds’ contracts as “well-established”. The AMPTP is playing for keeps to the tune of tens of billions of dollars over the next three decades. Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen – to their credit – are hanging tough. We can have a contract tomorrow, if the AMPTP decides at long last to be reasonable.
IMHO, we should stick with current leadership – Membership First leadership – because they are hanging tough under very trying circumstances. They have patiently kept their eye on the prize, despite a range of distractions. The very fact they haven’t settled for a piss-poor contract despite enormous pressure proves their mettle. We need to keep them there to finish the job.
According to Tuesday’s Hollywood Reporter, AFTRA has accepted SAG’s invitation to go together into the commercials contract negotiation under Phase 1.
This is good news for all union actors.
The reason I was against the 2003 merger was because it would have created an IATSE for actors where all the unions voted on one contract to cover all the unions. Now some may think “Man that would be powerful” well you may want to look at what happened during the last IATSE contract where the prodcers picked one union to screw royally while being nice to the others. Guess what? The other unions didn’t have a problem with it so long as they got what they wanted.
To Mheister,
Your posts contradict each other. You think MF is doing a good job and then you say thank god Aftra is going to do Phase 1 with SAG and this is good for all the union actors. You can’t have it both ways!
MF tried to dissolve Phase 1 waaay before Aftra walked away and they went out of their way to alienate them which is NOT good for all union actors. IF they worried about that then we wouldn’t have the Aftra contract to deal with now, and no leverage now with no contract in sight. If they really wanted to protect the actors they would have found a way to work with AFTRA, we are all worse off due to their policies.
Their hatred of Aftra blinds there good judgement and we the members are suffering for it. I say merge with Aftra, make SAG contracts the norm and eleminate this
distracting fighting we are currently facing.
IMHO, we should stick with current leadership – Membership First leadership – because they are hanging tough under very trying circumstances. They have patiently kept their eye on the prize, despite a range of distractions. The very fact they haven’t settled for a piss-poor contract despite enormous pressure proves their mettle. We need to keep them there to finish the job.
Excellent strategy, Mheister. Hang tough! Until when? Are you planning on boring the AMPTP to capitulation. Perhaps there’s a secret weapon still in the wings that SAG plans to spring on Management to get them back to the table.
Good luck with your new contract, I’m sure the film industries in New Zealand, Canada and Eastern Europe appreciate your ‘eyes on the prize/don’t mettle’ strategy.
It is not a matter of having pre-determined plans, it is a matter of being willing and inclined to DEVELOP them.
It is not a matter of having Board or governance experience – that element can be gained quite swiftly once a SAG director is elected.
It is not a matter of knowing HOW merger will take place – it is a matter of being willing and inclined to include ALL PERFORMERS in film and television in one powerful union. If you are willing and inclined that way, the eventual plan will emerge.
Membership First has – for over five years – used the tactics of DIVIDE AND OBSTRUCT to get their way even though they have not provided – or been willing to develop – any plans.
(Incidentally – to whomever stated so on this thread – iActor is/was NOT an MF baby. iActor would have been up and running if MF had not killed the Gilbert administration’s dues increase for purely political reasons).
DIVIDE AND OBSTRUCT has been a powerful and successful tactic in these modern times, best utilized by the Bolsheviks in constructing the Soviet Union.
Although a powerful tactic, it is an unworthy strategy because – I believe – individuals who sustain life sooner or later incline to UNITY AND FLOW.
SG
“One thing I’ve heard over and over is that it was wrong and disloyal of U4S to challenge MF’s administration “during a time of war.” Does this sound familiar to anyone else other than me? Don’t question us!! Just trust us!! We know what we’re doing!! You’re disloyal for questioning us when we’re obviously doing such a great job!! The parallels are so similar it’s a bit creepy.”
——————–
W Bush:
“Excellent strategy, Mheister. Hang tough! Until when? Are you planning on boring the AMPTP to capitulation. Perhaps there’s a secret weapon still in the wings that SAG plans to spring on Management to get them back to the table.”
———————
Look, both of you:
The current SAG leadership is OBVIOUSLY waiting for the results of the election. Something COULD, in theory, happen before then. BUT, once the current leadership either gets no vote of confidence, OR, a vote of confidence from the membership, ONLY THEN will they have the mandate to ask for a strike authorization vote. THAT’S what’s going on everyone. They HAVE to wait until then, so they can at least threaten to strike. Otherwise, there IS NO LEVERAGE.
The producers have succeeded brilliantly in dividing the membership, at least in the eyes of the press. Only the election will tell us where the membership actually is: do they want to stand tough and fight for a fair new media deal, and avoid setting a precedent that could cost SAG members BILLIONS of dollars in the long run, OR, does the membership support a faction that says it’s going to take the EXACT same stance in current negotiations, then, in some fairy tale, get what they want on new media and merge with AFTRA?
Please consider the rational: do you really think U4S will get what MF led SAG is asking for in new media, even though Rosenberg and Allen will STILL be leading them, and they themselves – U4S – want the same thing?
This entire “where’s the movement?” and, “why not challenge the current leadership during a time of crisis” line of reasoning?” thing? – would be helpful and, perhaps productive, if what U4S is proposing was different regarding the contract before us. BUT:
They say they want what SAG wants.
Therefore, if they gain control of the board, they will walk into a negotiation, still led by Rosenberg and Allen, under SAG rules, and, in their own words:
“want everything SAG wants – and more!”
“They couldn’t do worse” is not an argument! We must deal with what’s before us. We must decide whether or not to give new media to the AMPTP!
SAG and Membership First says no. U4S says no.
So, please, someone make a coherent argument as to why anyone should vote for a group of actors to replace a sitting board in a time of crisis, when they want the same thing regarding the contract that the sitting board wants?
I still haven’t heard a single word, let alone a compelling argument for that.
sagmember,
the ‘hatred’ that you say MF has for aftra, i feel can be better typified
as extreme frustration and aggravation.
frustration at aftra for undercutting basic cable contracts in hour scripted drama,
which has never been part of their traditional jurisdiction
frustration at aftra for allowing their members to do non-union work.
they have never attempted to organize cable news shows. why?
it’s their jurisdiction. some of their people work a union gig and then literally walk across the hall and do a non-union job.
why won’t aftra take on the difficult but do-able task of organizing cable news? i don’t know. maybe they don’t want to piss off the
conglomerates. maybe this is part of their ‘flexibility’.
frustration at aftra for taking bum deals, like this amptp offer that’s in front of us now.
you say people are suffering because of MF.
others say take the deal, we are losing out on the cost of living increases if we don’t.
that’s like saying take the deal and make pennies now even though you will certainly lose dollars in the near future.
another point of view might be that some suffering has been caused by a union who undercuts, allows non-union work and
takes substandard deals to ‘go along to get along’.
now, is there a plan to merge with aftra?
i’d love to hear it.
“It is not a matter of knowing HOW merger will take place”
“It is not a matter of having pre-determined plans, it is a matter of being willing and inclined to DEVELOP them.”
“It is not a matter of having Board or governance experience”
“DIVIDE AND OBSTRUCT has been a powerful and successful tactic in these modern times, best utilized by the Bolsheviks in constructing the Soviet Union.”
Tom Ligon
Oh, Tom… methinks you might wish to desist with the posting. This is an argument that should be filed under: “dangerously naive.”
And Bolsheviks? Notwithstanding the absurdity of the comparison, last time I checked, SAG still has a democratic process. the people representing us were elected to represent us.
The reason I said that SAG and AFTRA working together under Phase 1 on the commercials contract is a good thing is precisely because of what AFTRA did separately from SAG with their Schedule A agreement. At least with SAG at the table, AFTRA’s fold-first-claim-victory-and-blame-SAG-later tendencies may be somewhat mitigated.
BTW, I favor a merger and actually go further than most actors. Roberta Reardon made a valid point on KCRW a few weeks ago. AFTRA is sitting across the table from essentially the same moguls whether they’re negotiating for actors or broadcasters. As far as the media giants are concerned, content is content. Scripted, reality, news, docs, concerts, stand-up comic shows, clip shows, so on all can be monetized, shown on network television, pay television, cable, the Internet….
A lot of my fellow actors on both sides of the current political divide would be well-served to broaden their idea of who should be covered by an actors’ union. As far as I’m concerned, Bill O’Reilly is one of the better actors on television right now. Yeah, he’s playing some blowhard AH version of himself, but to Fox, his show is really no different than Prison Break – it’s just an excuse to sell eyeballs to advertisers.
And let’s be real about broadcasters. On the whole, we’re not talking about legitimate journalists any more, we’re talking about talking heads. Even Keith Olbermann, who is absolutely amazing and one of the few actually putting some gray matter to good use, was and is a sports guy. Don Henley totally got it right in Dirty Laundry: “Well I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here. I just have to look good….” If they’re going to be actors, why not start representing them as actors?
AFTRA, lamentably, has proven itself time and again a producers’ lapdog union willing to sell out its members to expand it base in scripted television. So I don’t favor just any merger. SAG should swallow AFTRA whole – broadcasters and all – and then burp. Frankly, I think Paul Moyers would be far better served with Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen at the table than current or recent past AFTRA leadership.
If we’re going to merge properly, we need a group in power that knows SAG’s power and isn’t afraid to use it, a group that knows the value of patience in a long negotiation, and knows how not to let the nattering nabobs of negativism (that would be Unite for Strength) distract them from continuing to act in the best interests of the guild and its membership. In other words, the group that puts the Membership First.
PS – Spiro Agnew should have trademarked “nattering nabobs of negativism”, but I’ll give the late VP (or whichever speechwriter fed him this one) credit anyway.
M. Heister
William Safire. A right wing crank.