Comments (22)

• Wow, he really is very weak and is not good at covering how afraid he is of her and or a spotlight on his in the spotlight ability. Ugh.

  Comment by Me not you — September 12, 2009 @ 6:28 pm  Reply to this post

• Ken Howard writes, “Debating before an audience of cheering and jeering campaign supporters is likely to be long on theatrics but short on clear information about how each of us intends to lead the Guild.”

  #########

  Ken Howard has an extremely low opinion of the intelligence of the membership he pretends to want to represent. It slips into his emails here, in his public statements, and into everything he and Unite for Strength put out. He DOES want to be president, but he is only PRETENDING it is to represent the wishes of the membership.

  His distaste for the membership– who he paints in his correspondence here as an immature bunch of “cheering and jeering” children–is so strong he will not even CONSIDER sitting in a room among us allowing us to address HIM.

  Luckily for us he is so poor at masking his distaste for the membership it makes the upcoming vote for President of Screen Actors Guild an easy one.

  I have been to SAG Board Meetings and SAG Informational Meetings. I saw proud Union members–all adults, all professionals– in line at a microphone waiting patiently to speak. I saw these members listening to the concerns of others. I saw these members sharing their ideas, concerns, opinions, and questions.

  I saw my Union sisters and brothers playing a part in democracy and in our future.

  When I think of it though, I never did see Ken Howard there.

  I voted for Anne-Marie Johnson for President of Screen Actors Guild.

  Comment by zackery — September 12, 2009 @ 7:05 pm  Reply to this post

• Although Ms. Johnson writes that she is willing to compromise, her emails say otherwise…oddly similar to John McCain’s desire for a townhall debate during the recent election. What a waste of valuable time.

  Comment by George Spelvin — September 12, 2009 @ 7:38 pm  Reply to this post

• Wow. You have got to be kidding, Ken. How could a guy 6′5″seem so small, frail and scared. Sack up, man. And you want to lead us into the future? I don’t think so. I can see it now as you get ready to do battle with the producers… in an email exchange no doubt. Pitiful.

  Comment by mgreyman — September 12, 2009 @ 9:23 pm  Reply to this post

• That’s hilarious.

  By the way, Ken, a “written debate of questions and answers posted on a website” isn’t a debate.

  And it’s shockingly lame coming from a man who wishes to lead SAG.

  I look forward to your written statements as our president.

  Comment by Dave Anthony — September 12, 2009 @ 11:10 pm  Reply to this post

• Dear Mr. Howard -

  In response to your last email to Anne-Marie Johnson, may I submit the following from a previous email she sent to you:

  “With regard to written answers and questions, each of our slates operate a website and can easily post what ever we care to post.”

  Both sides have done this already.

  With regard to give-and-take, I note with interest the disinterest you and Unite for Strength have shown in any sort of give-and-take, having disabled comments to any post on your faction’s website as well as the Youtube videos posted by you and your fellow Unite for Strength partisans Tom Hanks and Felicity Huffman & William H. Macy. Apparently your concern about “cheering and jeering campaign supporters” extends to text on the Internet as well.

  How, sir, do you “listen” to actors if you and your faction can’t be bothered to take comments on your campaign website or your Youtube videos? The only advantage I can see is that not listening means not having to trouble yourselves with justifying your faction’s positions on the issues or actually answering questions from the rank & file.

  I have questions, sir, questions I would love to see answered in a timely and forthright fashion.

  I would look forward to your response, Mr. Howard, but I rather doubt you’re listening, or that you can be bothered to respond to a non-famous, non-big-shot-producer, dues-paying actor.

  Comment by Michael Heister — September 13, 2009 @ 12:13 am  Reply to this post

• Wow! Ken Howard has to be one of the most cowardly douchebags I’ve ever heard of. His contempt for the SAG membership drips from his responses. Anyone who isn’t willing to face his opponent face to face is either a coward or has a great deal to hide. I sincerely hope the SAG membership takes his conduct into account when they vote. Ms. Johnson is bending over backwards to accommodate Howard, and he refuses even the barest of compromises.

  Comment by Hank Yablonski — September 13, 2009 @ 12:32 am  Reply to this post

• There has never been a debate between the presidential candidates of any union, including SAG.

  The skills of debate are not high on the necessary attributes for the President of SAG. What is needed for that office is an individual of outstanding character and personal integrity who can command the respect of those with whom he/she must deal as the representative of professional actors.

  We have not experienced that in recent times, and that is what we need now. The strident bellicosity of the recent Guild “leadership” has not gained us one iota of benefit for our members.

  Comment by truthteller — September 13, 2009 @ 7:13 am  Reply to this post

  • What we need is someone who knows how SAG works. Since Ken Howard’s experience is extremely limited, many SAG members want to know what he knows, what he thinks, what his plans are – all in his own words, not by reciting written answers by a committee. It’s not his debate skills so much as making sure he’s doing the answering himself that we need to see. Live debate is the only way to prove he has the mettle.

    And he’s obviously backing down from that.

    Comment by Gary A — September 13, 2009 @ 9:57 pm  Reply to this post

• It seems to me that there was almost no communication about an actual debate here. Anne wanted one thing, Ken another. Neither party is evil because they didn’t want what they felt was something loaded against them.

  Sure, there was some modest back and forth and yadda, yadda. This is the normal course of politics. Usually there is enough communication to come up with a middle ground, but if this is the sum total of their communication, neither party tried very hard to make a debate come about. I doubt anyone on either camp will be swayed by this. The only true offer I saw was to the Q&A on KPCC

  However, I will note that Ken asked on numerous occasions for a conversation rather than emails and was in essence snubbed by Anne. That would have facilitated in actually getting something substantive to occur. Again, not a huge deal.

  I do believe that the ball was dropped with the one middle ground solution for the KPCC discussion. I don’t actually believe they wouldn’t have covered it because of the fires. They have 24 hours a day to fill. Had it been arranged in mid August, I am certain it would have happened.

  After reading this, for anyone to insist that Ken didn’t want to debate at all or was “afraid” is a gross misinterpretation of the events at best and an outright lie at worst.

  It sounds to me like both parties made an attempt, albeit not a very good one, to create some sort of public dialog. This certainly shouldn’t be a campaign issue on either side. It’s sad that it’s taking up any time when there are so many REAL issues that could be discussed.

  In TRUE Solidarity,

  Peter Elliott
  SAG Member since 1991

  Comment by Peter Elliott — September 13, 2009 @ 9:29 am  Reply to this post

• Oh wow.

  How are old school people like Ken Howard ever going to personally make the transition to new media where everything happens so fast & spontaneously much less appreciate the importance of moving early & decisively to secure any benefits, financial or otherwise, from it?

  Viral (aka hugely popular) videos go that way in a timeframe of hours to days. Scandals and crises online also can happen that fast (or faster) and the lack of transparency (or old fashioned forthrightness) exacerbates their severity rather than transcends them.

  If you can’t think on your feet, interact with others (an audience in new media is not only capable of but is expected to be more two-way and ’social’ rather than one-way and passive as they necessarily are in conventional broadcasting/filmgoing) and see that the pace of deal-making is going to be pulled along as quickly as new media venues arise, you’re going to be at a big disadvantage in the new entertainment landscape, maybe as big a disadvantage as actors who didn’t speak English or had ‘funny’ accents were when film transitioned from a silent medium to ‘talkies’.

  I don’t have anything against written debate answers, rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, and summations etc, but there’s something to be said for people who are avoiding the technology and figuring out its use for a mere political debate, and it’s not a positive or promising message.

  Comment by VDOVault — September 13, 2009 @ 10:09 am  Reply to this post

• yeah, that’s who I want representing my union, a guy who is terrified of facing his opponent. Now that’s a leader.

  Comment by Sarah Palin — September 13, 2009 @ 11:04 am  Reply to this post

• This is my take on what is currently happening within SAG, AFTRA (and why), and what has brought us Ken Howard as a SAG Presidential candidate. It’s long and detailed, so read it at your own peril.

  To illustrate my point, a few historical facts…

  For decades, AFTRA was allowed an equal say at the bargaining table with her much larger sister-union, SAG. And why would SAG allow that? Because we’re all in this together, plus there has been a (signed?) agreement that AFTRA would not attempt to negotiate singly without SAG. Further, there had been another long-standing (signed?) agreement that SAG wouldn’t poach (try to steal) AFTRA’s work and vice-versa. (On a side note, SAG has been paying AFTRA’s rent in their own building for… a long time.) All of this is to show that SAG considered its smaller sister-union a fair player, and welcomed her with open arms into our industry.

  This is fact.

  Then early in this decade AFTRA started having pension financial troubles, and in 2003 AFTRA (specifically, AFTRA’s Retirement Plan) had to make agreements with the IRS and ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), which underwrites (protects) the fund, to allow more time to fix the problems and get caught up. Because if, on paper, the fund’s assets drop below a certain amount, AFTRA could lose ERISA protection. By then, those funds had indeed already fallen below minimum ERISA levels. All of this information came about during the last go-round of SAG/AFTRA merger talks. Again, this was 2003.

  This is also fact.

  Though I’m honestly not clear on the ramifications of AFTRA losing ERISA underwriting protection, I understand that the IRS cannot just go in and take pension funds in lieu of taxes; however there is a risk of AFTRA losing its union status if it defaults with the IRS. In ’03 AFTRA got a reprieve from the IRS and was allowed more time to get its pension finances back in order. And they started doing so.

  No matter how well AFTRA’s pension fund did after that point in ’03, the national economic crunch had begun in 2007. No company’s pension funds have done well since then. Conversely, most pension funds are hurting badly. AFTRA was already in financial straits – how do you think their pension fund is doing after the recession of 2008/2009?
  I mention all of this because it’s pertinent to my deduction of what’s been going on inside AFTRA’s boardroom and behind SAG’s back.

  What follows below is speculation, but based on facts and true occurrences…

  The year: 2007. Because of the recession, AFTRA’s already in a financial hardship and teetering again on the edge of losing government protection, and possibly losing their entire union status, crashing AFTRA to the ground. That’s right – no more AFTRA. Unless something can be done.

  Here’s how the discussion in AFTRA’s boardroom probably went…
  “We’re hemorrhaging pension money, our investments are shitting themselves and with so little work out there our members are not bringing much money in. And now the IRS is howling at the door again. We’re desperate! What can be done?”
  “Well, we can try to organize some of the prime-time television shows…”
  “But that’s SAG territory. We’ve always agreed to not poach their prime-time shows.”
  “But we’re desperate!”
  “Hmmm… We have to find a reason if we’re gonna stab them in the back like that…”
  “Hey! I know! We can say that if the shows are shot on the new technology, digital tape, then it’s our jurisdiction, since SAG shows use film and we use video tape.”
  “Arguable, but sketchy. What else you got?”
  “We could make up a story that SAG attempted to organize one of our shows – say, a soap opera – and make a big stink about it. That would give us a reasonable excuse to break all of our promises to them – even the written ones.”
  “I dunno – they’ve been pretty good to us. They already allow us 50% of the power at the negotiating table, even though we do less than half of the work they do. Plus they pay our rent here on Wilshire. If we get them pissed at us, they could try to relegate us back to 30% power on the negotiating committee. And who could blame them?”
  “If they do that, we can act belligerent and say they’re being ‘militant’ and ‘power-hungry’, making them look bad.”
  “But when contract renegotiation time comes around, and it’s coming soon, what if SAG wants to fight for a better offer?”
  “Then we can split off and go in alone and snatch up whatever cheap contracts the AMPTP throws on the table, which will keep us working and make us look like saviors to the AFTRA membership. When that happens, we can offer producers reduced rates so SAG won’t have a chance at organizing those new pilots unless they capitulate.”
  “But what if our contract offer is so bad we have to…”
  “DON’T SAY IT! There’s no way we can afford a strike right now. A work-stoppage will break us, absolutely. If we could weather a strike, we wouldn’t need to split from SAG in the first place.”
  “But then we’ll have to accept any crappy offer the AMPTP throws our way! The membership won’t ratify if it’s a crappy deal – especially our actors.”
  “Whatever. Our broadcasters will carry our water for us. Just don’t tell the actors what’s really NOT in the contract and let the broadcasters know how much we’ll appreciate them voting for ratification. They always get a great contract deal with none of that residuals or new media nonsense.”
  “Even then, how will we survive with so little money coming in?”
  “Well here’s the sweet part – we only have to make it on our own for a few more years. We have AFTRA board members already on the SAG board, right? We get them to push for SAG to merge with us and our financial problems are over!”
  “Didn’t work last time.”
  “Piece of cake this time around. Our SAG friends in NYC are already grousing that SAG Hollywood is the crux of power in their union. They’re less loyal to SAG than AFTRA because they earn most of their money from AFTRA jobs. Let’s get those NY/USAN board members to remember what side their bread is buttered on. Make some phone calls.”

  And so Unite for Strength (“U4S”) was born within SAG, with the edict to create disharmony within the SAG ranks so that SAG would be weakened at the bargaining table, benefiting AFTRA. The “Unite” part was assumed to stand for uniting SAG but it really meant uniting SAG with AFTRA – primary on their agenda. A united SAG would be powerful at the negotiating table which runs counter to their agenda, so that is put on the back burner.

  U4S recruits celebrity/actors and actor/producers and celebrity/actor/producers to run for office as a new, fresh idealistic slate dedicated to get SAG back on track, now that “MF has screwed up the relationship with AFTRA”. The SAG membership already likes these celebrity actors, wants peace and a signed contract, and these actors tell membership how much better SAG will be with U4S running things. Most of them have little to no experience, but star-struck SAG members vote some of these people onto both local and national SAG boards.

  Meanwhile, Doug Allen writes a letter outing AFTRA’s undermining of SAG at the negotiation table – which AFTRA fully deserves – and SAG NY gets pissed off that their “Mother Union” is getting bitch-slapped. They devise a plan to make Doug Allen (and Alan Rosenberg) pay for this slight.

  SAG contract negotiations are at a stand-still, partly because of infighting by people from SAG NY publicly stirring the pot of discontent. AFTRA is now blatantly poaching SAG work, under the guise of “hey, it’s tape, not film, so it’s our jurisdiction”. SAG is dumbfounded that their sister union would pull such a stunt, shitting on decades of good relations.

  SAG NY/USAN get the Regional Boards (RBD) together and they all agree publicly to stand by Doug, our chief negotiator, and support his recommendations. But in fact they’re just waiting until the right time to pounce. At the last minute before SAG can send out a fully-supported strike authorization ballot to its members, U4S (NY/USAN/RBD) surreptitiously gets enough signatures to overthrow SAG’s Board of Directors in a coup d’état, fire Doug Allen (with pay) and muzzle anyone they don’t want talking about it. They continue tearing SAG apart while suggesting that MF stop all the fighting.

  Keep stirring the pot of discontent… Keep SAG weak at the negotiation table…

  With this further complication, SAG contract negotiations are not yet settled. U4S creates a new ‘negotiation task force’ which gets bitch-slapped by the AMPTP worse than Doug Allen and his team got. Still, the worst contract offer in SAG history is recommended by this new task force, baiting the SAG membership with promises like, “Approve this contract and go back to work immediately!” The weary and hungry SAG membership agrees to accept the same crappy offer that AFTRA got. For now.

  Unfortunately, nobody goes “back to work” – immediately or otherwise.

  But SAG board elections are coming up and U4S hasn’t made good on its promise of more work, so the natives are getting restless, and U4S is under pressure to close the merger deal with AFTRA before they lose too many board seats and their temporary power is reduced to a dull whine.

  Meanwhile back in the AFTRA boardroom…

  “Well, the U4S takeover of SAG is complete, but I don’t know how long we can keep it up. We’ve got to appear strong and financially solvent or the SAG membership won’t even consider a merger with us. Plus, they’ve got elections coming up. What if the SAG membership wakes up and U4S pals get denied and booted out?”
  “Then our house of cards falls. If Anne-Marie Johnson and Membership First get back in power within SAG we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. If they find out what our financial situation really is, and deny us a merger, we’re doomed. And now that Anne-Marie and David Joliffe from SAG are on our own board, it’s going to be tough to hide that information.”
  “Didn’t we try to sue her for disparagement back when she was running for our board so we could block her from being on our board?”
  “Yeah, but our case was completely unfounded and got thrown out of court. It was a desperate shot in the dark to keep her nose out of our books.
  “Well, we tried. Let’s hope she doesn’t find out anything before the SAG elections. We’re screwed if our U4S pals can’t convince SAG to merge with us.”
  “What do we do if she finds out and tells everyone the truth? SAG members are asking for proof that our financial trouble are a thing of the past.”
  “Just keep doing what we’ve been doing, girlfriend. It’s called brinkmanship, and it’s working so far. Smoke and mirrors. Bluff, deny and counter-accuse. Deny, deny, deny.”
  “Oh, and don’t forget to send that $100,000 check to the Unite For Strength campaign fund.”

  In a dark NYC apartment, shadow U4S leaders are concocting their plan…

  “We need someone to run for SAG President against Anne-Marie Johnson on our U4S platform. Suggestions anyone?”
  “It has to be someone who will let us pull their puppet strings, like Dick Cheney did to George Bush. But he’s gonna have to be a nice guy. And a well-liked celebrity too!”
  “Let’s see, who we got? Danny DeVito?”
  “No, he won’t want to spend the time away from his producer business interests.”
  “Arye Gross? He put out a supportive letter with Amy Aquino telling everyone to take that crappy AMPTP offer. They’re good eggs.”
  “Naw, Arye ain’t known well enough. We need a real well-known celebrity, so the membership will believe him no matter how ridiculous something sounds. Aquino’s not really celebrity enough, but she’s malleable. Keep her on the short list.”
  “Seriously, how ‘bout a woman to run against Anne-Marie? Like… Amy Brenneman. Or, Kate Walsh? Or even Gabrielle Carteris? She’s already on the board and doing her best to undermine MF.”
  “No, Amy’s too smart – and busy – to take that on, like Danny D. Besides, she’ll never let us tell her what to do. We’ve used her enough as it is and she’s already benefited as a producer from the contract. Kate is, well let’s just say that I don’t think she’ll do a good job as a pup… er, leader. As for Gabrielle… she’s just a pain in my ass, no matter that she does what I tell her.”
  “Wait a minute! How about Ken friggin’ Howard? He’s already on the board too; hasn’t made much of an effort to even attend the meetings; he’s liked by everybody… He’s our perfect empty suit!”
  “Great idea! Call him up and convince him. But don’t let him go one-on-one with Anne-Marie Johnson in any kind of debates. He’ll get his ass kicked without us answering his questions for him. And tell him to talk merger as much as he can. Roberta tells me it’s do or die time.”
  (A noise is heard from the dark corner of the room.)
  “Oh Ken! Sorry, didn’t know you were sitting there, you were so quiet and non-participational. Were you napping?

  End of fable.

  It’s all on the line this time, fellow SAG members. How you vote this election (and if/when another merger attempt is presented to you) will dictate whether or not you have a future surviving as an actor. Yes – something this big is happening in your lifetime – step up and deal with it. If Ken Howard is elected SAG President, he and his U4S cronies will force a merger with AFTRA down our throats. And although AFTRA may well be in okay financial health, they’re not saying so. I fear they’ll be a Trojan Horse to SAG once any merger is completed.

  Let’s not roll the dice and gamble on empty promises from U4S again, huh? Find out the truth about how deep and cold the water really is before jumping off the cliff into that seemingly-pretty pool.

  In True, True, True (*wink-wink*, Peter) Solidarity,

  Comment by Gary A — September 13, 2009 @ 5:47 pm  Reply to this post

• Let’s see… Ken makes the original invitation and Anne-Marie, displaying her prowess as a negotiator, says “it’s my way or the highway.” Sound familiar? (And it got her similar results.)

  Then Ken suggests the fine idea of a joint radio appearance – and suggests, twice, that they talk about the rest.

  But Anne-Marie refuses to have a conversation.

  This one isn’t hard folks: Anne-Marie was clearly more concerned with playing this for political points than actually working out a compromise.

  Is anyone surprised?

  No one needs a debate to see that the bizarre, self-contradictory mosh of ideas that Anne-Marie has put forward as her “plan” – we’ll work with AFTRA, right after we end the non-disparagement agreement and have a referendum about raiding AFTRA’s membership! – will carry on the grand old Membership First tradition of making SAG weaker.

  If that’s your bag… Anne-Marie’s your candidate!

  Comment by JB — September 13, 2009 @ 8:21 pm  Reply to this post

  • You just makin’ all of this up, JB?

    “Let’s see… Ken makes the original invitation and Anne-Marie, displaying her prowess as a negotiator, says “it’s my way or the highway.” Sound familiar? (And it got her similar results.)”

    She didn’t say anything like that, nor did she refuse a compromise. And the offer to debate was out on the table long before Mr. Howard sent her the first email – and he had already shied away from it.

    “Then Ken suggests the fine idea of a joint radio appearance…” (which Anne-Marie agreed to, btw) “… – and suggests, twice, that they talk about the rest. But Anne-Marie refuses to have a conversation.”

    No, she simply didn’t give him her phone number. Did he offer his? Did he say, “Here’s my number, give me a call anytime to talk about this”? Nope. He wanted her phone number, for whatever reason.

    “This one isn’t hard folks: Anne-Marie was clearly more concerned with playing this for political points than actually working out a compromise.”

    What ‘political points’? You mean the fact that Ken was attempting to push her into a corner where he could accuse her of being inflexible? (Which he accused her of.) Yep, that’s what was happening.

    “No one needs a debate to see that the bizarre, self-contradictory mosh of ideas that Anne-Marie has put forward as her “plan” – we’ll work with AFTRA, right after we end the non-disparagement agreement and have a referendum about raiding AFTRA’s membership! – will carry on the grand old Membership First tradition of making SAG weaker.”

    Apparently, a LOT of people want to see and hear Anne-Marie Johnson explain her plan. Ken’s too (not that he has one). Just because you don’t like her and disparage her and her unquestionable qualifications here doesn’t mean that you speak for any part of the SAG membership. Putting words into other peoples’ mouths just makes a person look cheap and small.

    And if that’s your bag… Ken Howard’s your candidate!

    Comment by Gary A — September 14, 2009 @ 10:50 am  Reply to this post

• Who needs to debate the likes of AMJ? Don’t flatter yourself Anne Marie.

  Everybody already voted anyway. Her phone conference got like 12 people. Wow. A National Free Conference call got less people than taxi can hold on a rainy day.

  Twenty says Ken Howard runs away with it. Bye Bye ladies!

  Comment by pauly — September 13, 2009 @ 8:41 pm  Reply to this post

  • It’s that same snotty, shitty, arrogant attitude that is the major turn-off for the U4S crowd. Not surprised that it’s coming from you, Pauly. I’m sure you make Sam Freed proud.

    Pathetic.

    Comment by Gary A — September 14, 2009 @ 9:27 am  Reply to this post

• Gary A,

  Uhm…. not quite. Please make sure you actually KNOW it’s a fact before stating so.

  First, the agreement between SAG and AFTRA dates back a LONG time.(this is the simple aspect, it’s more complex) Anything shot on Film was SAG and anything shot on tape was AFTRA. This got muddled in the 80’s and I think it was redrafted slightly to include things shot in studios under certain circumstances.

  NOW we have things being shot digitally. This problem was known back in the late 90’s and I personally sat in on many meetings about what that meant to SAG. SAG KNEW there were going to be jurisdictional issues with their agreement because things were moving to a new format that was unknown when the balance of power was set.

  I again have yet to see any factual issues regarding the alleged “meltdown” of AFTRA finances. It was a smoke screen 10 years ago and it’s one now. Look at SAG’s finances. Despite the current dire straights of SAG, I can’t make the argument that SAG is in trouble. This pedulum swings, but both unions are and have been financially sound.

  AFTRA’s pension is as sound as any other pension. Again, I have yet to see a SINGLE document to prove otherwise.

  So your amalgamation of “fact” and speculation is now actually fantasy because your core “facts” are wrong.

  Now, onto facts:

  I sat in a board meeting when MF took charge as the Performers Alliance while Richard Masur was President. I WAS a PF member at the time. There was discussion about forcing AFTRA members to join SAG because we had a significant overlapping of membership. As MF gained power, they did more and more to alienate AFTRA and we have seen the results of joing negotiation being suspended due to those actions.

  Those are actual facts. MF has always been out to shoot down AFTRA. However, the actual jurisdictional agreement began to crumble in the late 90’s and that was the reason we tried to merge the unions!!! Had we done so then, there would be NO JURSIDICTIONAL ISSUES.

  I know that is true because I sat in on meeting after meeting discussing the jurisdictional issue that would allow AFTRA and SAG to compete for jobs. THERE IS NO POACHING. The PRODUCERS decide which union to use. Once jursidictional issues went, they can choose whichever union they want. SAG does most films because most films are shot on FILM. However, if it’s shot on digital, AFTRA or SAG contracts can be used. Again… NO POACHING GOING ON.

  Primetime contacts are IDENTICAL. There is no difference to the actor in pay, residuals or any other compensation. Thus the PRODUCERS choose whatever union they want. And by choosing AFTRA, they are intentionally damaging SAG.

  But guess what? If we had merged in the first place this wouldn’t be an issues! We would BE united and working TOGETHER. I believe that’s the only way to stop the hemmoraging of BOTH unions.

  As to the TRUE Solidarity, I got tired of seeing divisive messages being sent under the guise of “In Solidarity” when the message was tearing SAG apart. I believe in your right to disagree with me. I believe the right of the membership to make choices. However, I personally experienced the MF way of “lock step” voting and decided that would damage the guild.

  Each board member should be able to vote the way they feel without repercussions. The party system is creating an “us vs. them” attitude and entrenching the board in a constant battle. It’s no longer about the MEMBERSHIP, but about the POWER structure of the party system. Personally I think the “parties” need to dissolve IMMEDIATELY so we can get people on the board who will think for themselves and vote for the MEMBERSHIP, not a party.

  WE MUST MERGE TO SURVIVE.

  WE MUST MERGE TO PROSPER.

  WE MUST MERGE.

  Not a take over, but a TRUE merger where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

  FACT – MF doesn’t WANT a merger with SAG. They want a hostile take over to strip all “performers” from AFTRA.

  FACT – AFTRA is not going to let SAG strip the actors out of it’s membership.

  FACT – AFTRA vs. SAG is a losing proposition for ALL ACTORS.

  FACT – The ongoing battle between SAG and AFTRA divides us and gives the AMPTP more ways to screw the actors (which we’ve already seen).

  HYPOTHISIS – Unless we MERGE BOTH UNIONS, we will never have enough clout to make the gains we need. If we miss the boat on New Media, it will be cable residuals all over again.

  If we continue to fight as AMJ and MF propose, WE WILL MISS THE BOAT and the producers will have everything they want. THAT is the reason I cannot vote for AMJ and MF.

  If you want a MERGER, you have to vote U4S.

  If you want a continued SAG vs. AFTRA battle, vote for AMJ and MF.

  But whatever you do, VOTE!

  So, In TRUE Solidarity,

  Peter Elliott

  Comment by Petere Elliott — September 14, 2009 @ 10:10 am  Reply to this post

  • Some interesting things in your post, Peter. To wit, “Look at SAG’s finances. Despite the current dire straights of SAG, I can’t make the argument that SAG is in trouble.”

    And do you know why I can look at SAG’s finances? Because we’re not hiding anything – not that there’s anything to hide. AFTRA, on the other hand, is not being transparent with their finances. Why not? If they’ve nothing to hide then why would they not be up front about it?

    Further, what makes you think (or state) that SAG is in “dire straights”? We’re not. Just you saying that doesn’t make it so, and it’s a loaded phrase meant to make SAG look weak. You’re tipping your hand again.

    With regards to AFTRA’s pension finances, as I’ve stated many times, just because you haven’t seen or read something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you went through the merger attempt in ‘03 you know all about AFTRA’s troubles with the IRS and ERISA. Your blind denial of it is comical. Google all terms. Learn.

    Lately, it seems that Ms. Reardon is not supportive of a merger with SAG. And if that’s the case then a merger isn’t in the cards anyway, and we will continue to compete with AFTRA and their underhanded ways (making U4S irrelevant, btw).

    The fact that there is even an AFTRA prime-time contract is the problem itself, not that the producers get to choose. There should be no AFTRA option in prime-time in the first place. They know it, and you know it. Changing the interpretation of the agreement after the fact doesn’t make it right.

    You also said, “Personally I think the “parties” need to dissolve IMMEDIATELY so we can get people on the board who will think for themselves and vote for the MEMBERSHIP, not a party.” – and yet you end your statement with an enigmatic plea to vote for U4S because “we MUST merge with AFTRA”. So which is it? You seem to want your desires met, even if/though the means goes against your beliefs. This is the biggest problem with U4S right now – they want something and don’t care how they get it: by lie, by hook or by crook. Sounds like you’re okay with that.

    Yes, all professional actors need to be protected under one roof and we should all make a concerted effort to make that happen. But a blind, wholesale merger with all of AFTRA and all of SAG doesn’t necessarily answer the problem. AFTRA management IS the problem. Take a look at how they allowed AFTRA actors to get screwed in this current contract.

    I would be all over a merger with AFTRA if I knew, ahead of time, what the situation is and will be. U4S has no plan and is doing no brainstorming (that I’m aware of) on how to make it all work. They’re just saying, as are you, “damn the torpedoes – we must merge!”.

    Apparently you (and U4S) think that we’ll all just become one happy family and we’ll settle our differences (management, operations, eligibility, P&H, etc) over coffee at Starbucks (yes, I’m being facetious). Not. Gonna. Happen (that way). It all needs to be worked out first, then presented to membership so we can make an informed decision and vote knowing ALL of the facts and information, just like in ‘03. We’re not there yet…

    Anne-Marie Johnson is one smart lady, as I’m sure you’ll agree. She doesn’t dislike AFTRA. She’s not an “AFTRA-hater”. She is, in fact, now on AFTRA’s Board of Directors. If she doesn’t support a wholesale merger with AFTRA I want to know everything about why she thinks that, and I’ll trust her recommendations. Ken Howard, on the other hand (as with most of U4S) has no depth of information either way – that is, why it’s a good or bad idea. They just wanna ‘Do It’.

    This election will be over in a few days, then we’ll all have to move on with whatever (and whoever) is elected. I support your right to disagree with me as well, I just don’t like all of the loaded phrasing, scare tactics and hysteria presented by the U4S club.

    “Hostile takeover”, indeed. This is more divisiveness presented by U4S against our own M1st. We are all SAG members first. We should start acting like it.

    Best of luck to all candidates.

    Comment by Gary A — September 20, 2009 @ 4:38 pm  Reply to this post

• Gary A rocks. anybody remotely interested in how we got here? really? seriously interested? read his post. the moderates are KILLING this union.

  Comment by Matt Mulhern — September 14, 2009 @ 10:58 pm  Reply to this post

  • You can spin this issue anyway you like however if you can read Mr. Howard offered a radio debate which in itself should tell you about his business acumen.He blatantly turned down a live or a filmed debate. The excuses he used were pathetic. I asked several members of UFS to tell Mr. Howard that Miss Johnson had also consented to a filmed debate with no audience.The format is written in or live emailed questions from the membership and a moderator, on film. This would alleviate his concern about “jeering and unruly crowds”. I never heard back. I told Ned Vaugn personally to get Ken to comply to a debate. It never happened. That’s leadership qualities? Stand up on your convictions like Sean Penn did when he visited Iraq. He didn’t care what other people thought he challenged and sought answers for himself. The media ripped him up and history proved that his view was correct. The point is he runs from no one. Right or wrong that is the moral fiber we need in a leader. Vote Ann Marie Johnson.

    Comment by Pete Antico — September 15, 2009 @ 9:12 pm  Reply to this post

  • Thanks, Matt. But I would never call any U4S person on the SAG board a “moderate”. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    I appreciate the nod.

    Comment by Gary A — September 16, 2009 @ 8:57 am  Reply to this post