« Campaign Watch: Handel Invites Indy Candidates | Campaign Watch: The Ned Vaughn - Handel Interview »

Campaign Watch: Anne-Marie’s Handel Interview

Membership First’s representatives to the Handel interview series divided their time, and showed an interesting contrast in styles, while remaining true to the group’s hard line against the AMPTP, AFTRA and the rest of SAG. By contrast with David Joliffe’s low key sincerity, Johnson was glib, a deft politician turning aside difficult questions adroitly,  staying very much on the attack and remaining on message/talking points, even when challenged with precise followup questions.

Along the way, Johnson rewrote some history, putting words in the mouth of Actors Equity NED John Connolly that he certainly never uttered, such as a supposed statement that AFTRA, of which Connolly is the past president, “would do whatever it could to undercut SAG” in order to somehow punish SAG for defeating the 2003 merger.

Johnson went on to insist that the AMPTP has not made a “Last, Best and Final Offer” - a legal term that can lead to declaration of an impasse and imposing the terms of the LBFO. Instead, Johnson said, the AMPTP has only called its offer “final.”

It’s an interesting observation. The original offer, made June 30, was called “last, best and final” by the AMPTP . But that offer is no longer on their website, nor is their statement of that date. Since then, the AMPTP has repeatedly called the offer “final” but has not used the term “last, best and final.” Whether there’s a change or a difference has been a subject of some debate.

Johnson went further than Joliffe, who had refused to answer when asked if negotiations with the AMPTP are continuing (the AMPTP says they are not). Johnson said, “We are negotiating,” though she offered no backup or specifics.

She said she believes Membership First will eventually get a strike authorization vote, which requires 75% for passage, through “education and outreach.” So far no strike authorization vote has been requested, with the conventional wisdom being that the members wouldn’t give the authorization if the Membership First-led National Board or the Allens requested it.

Johnson, like Joliffe, made some mistakes in her effort to criticize the AFTRA Exhibit A deal, which Membership First tried unsuccessfully to defeat. She incorrectly said the AFTRA deal “left the stunt community out to dry” and was wrong in her claim that stunt pilots “are not recognized” in the Exhibit A deal. The deal does not cover stunt pilots in new media productions, but does not change the union coverage of stunt performers in any way, or the traditional coverage of off camera stunt pilots elsewhere.

When she got around to discussing the most organized group of opponents to Membership First, the Unite for Strength slate, she said “I question their motives,” and said her group is “more prepared” than Unite for Strength. “This is not the time to learn on the job,” she said. She also criticized Unite for Strength leader Ned Vaughn for saying he didn’t care whether the name SAG was continued or whether a merged SAG and AFTRA had an entirely different name.

In a particularly surprising comment, Johnson said, “We’re not in it for the money,” which, if true, would lead one to question many of the positions Membership First has taken. Her explanation was that the group is trying to protect what she called “the actor’s lifestyle.”

She called the WGA, DGA and AFTRA deals, “horrific for actors” and didn’t back away, even when confronted with the fact that the AFTRA Exhibit A deal was ratified with a 62% vote. “It’s better to have no deal than a bad deal,” she said.

This entry was posted on August 29, 2008 at 17:38 and is filed under SAG Politics, SAG-AFTRA. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print

23 Responses to “Campaign Watch: Anne-Marie’s Handel Interview”

  1. Neil Hassman says:
    August 29, 2008 at 18:08

    And a “lifestyle” is supported how?

  2. Michael Dorsey says:
    August 29, 2008 at 18:14

    I thought of all three interviews, AMJ was hands down the most cringe inducing. Her answers seemed to be nothing more than vapid regurgitations of the MF bumper sticker/bullett points, and her attempt at “flirtation” with Handel made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. I thought many of her arguments were horribly inconsistent (she kept repeating that MF is about the members and not the institution, then ended by taking enormous umbrage that Ned Vaughn would even joke about changing the sacred name of the screen actors guild). Like Jolliffe, whenever she was really pressed about the myriad f-ups of Membership First she started tap dancing and parroting some inane anti-aftra/RR/pisano/RBD slogan. Truly horrible.

    VOTE MEMBERSHIP FIRST - AT LEAST WE’RE ANGRY!

  3. Mr. Fred says:
    August 29, 2008 at 19:30

    horsey dorse:

    anne-marie knows her stuff.

    ned vaughn? not so much…

  4. Locke says:
    August 29, 2008 at 20:11

    Didn’t I hear Anne-Marie say there have been lots of times when folks from AFTRA shows came “begging” to get their shows covered by SAG?

    Someone told me that the reason some of the cast of The Bold and the Beautiful talked to Doug and Alan about getting the show covered by SAG had to do with pensions. I’m told that these cast members have been doing the show for so long they’ve maxed out their AFTRA pensions. ( Is that like $90,000 a year? ) Anyway, the current AFTRA pension contrubutions of these cast members won’t get them any more money when they retire. On the other hand, if they can get the show coverd by SAG they’ll accrure SAG pension credits. They could then get as much as an additional $98,000 per year if they have SAG pension credits already or can work the show long enough. That explanation made sense to me but I’ve never heard it get any traction. Could it be so?

    and according to Anne-Marie, we’re not in it for the money?!?!

    –

    Ed. Response: The maximum AFTRA pension is $108,000 per year.

  5. Dr Giggles says:
    August 29, 2008 at 20:21

    But that meeting with the B&B and Dou Allen/Alan Rosenberg, which they state didn;t happend, had - according to Doug himself, been a lunch that lasted 2 hours. Did SAG pick-up the tab?

    AMJ and DJ are correct - they are not in it for the money - it’s for the glory and the ego. Money is much easier to find.

  6. Steve Diamond says:
    August 29, 2008 at 22:01

    There is no legal significance to the terms “last” “best” or “final.”

    In fact, the two parties can still be sitting down talking all day and all night. If the employer feels an impasse has been reached they can, unilaterally, impose new terms and conditions on the workforce, with certain exceptions.

    The key legal term is “impasse” - not last, best or final. One court defines it as “that point at which the parties have exhausted the prospects of concluding an agreement and further discussions would be fruitless.”

    The view of the NLRB is that allowing the employer to impose terms unilaterally upon impasse is a way to break the deadlock.

    The union is not without power in these circumstances. The union can use a variety of tactics - if politically feasible - to pressure the employer to improve on those imposed terms. It may take days or months to do that or it may never happen.

    –

    Ed. Response - Thank you. We stand corrected. Anne-Marie’s observation turns out to be much less interesting than we thought.

  7. Mr. Fred says:
    August 29, 2008 at 22:17

    dear mr. diamond:

    we thank you for your expert legal advice. you are obviously a gifted, experienced, intelligent attorney, and we wish you the best.

    we do not however, want you as our national executive director.

    still.

    best

    sag

    –

    Ed. Response - You mean, “Best, Membership First”

  8. Ewan Husarmi says:
    August 30, 2008 at 04:20

    I think she’s a hot box of crazy.

  9. vested says:
    August 30, 2008 at 09:12

    Mr. Diamond,

    The MFs at SAG don’t want you as the NED because:
    You refuse to be a henchman for the MFs.
    Your approach is reasoned rather than strident.
    You encourage movement toward consensus.
    You are a highly educated legal mind, and an educator of others … therefor, you know way too much about how one works within the bounds if integrity. That does not interest the current powers that be at S.A.G.
    You are driven by things other than arrogance and ego.
    You’re not “dazzled” by the tired old glitter that sits on the SAG NB in the form of “used to be” stars.
    In short, you make way too much sense.

    It is clear that you have been spared from the tangled web of self-important confusion that has become S.A.G.

    Enjoy the freedom to speak the truth from where you stand today. Many thousands of S.A.G. members currently are being denied that right. So we thank you for your voice of reason in the midst of the noisy arrogance.

  10. Mr. Fred says:
    August 30, 2008 at 11:12

    dear mr. diamond:

    not if it meant world peace.

    best

    noisy arrogance

  11. Voiceguy says:
    August 30, 2008 at 12:44

    Steve Diamond wrote:

    “The union is not without power in these circumstances. The union can use a variety of tactics - if politically feasible - to pressure the employer to improve on those imposed terms. It may take days or months to do that or it may never happen.”

    It’s worth going to Steve’s blog page and clicking on the link to his SAG strategy memo and the link to his recorded “Lessons from the WGA Strike.”

    There are, in fact, a number of tools available to unions, and we have chosen not to use any of them. He mentions, for example, organizing a one-day boycott of Wal-Mart (the leading distribution channel for DVDs nowadays) to protest DVD residuals. This takes time, effort, and a coherent strategy.

    If you look at public (i.e., non-actor) comments posted after any news article about Hollywood strikes, it is clear that the general public is NOT in the least sympathetic to SAG’s cause (or the WGA or any other guild). The public perception is that actors are already greatly overpaid for doing things that are not particularly hard to do. But I have seen no evidence of SAG doing anything to try to change that perception as a way of gathering overall support for its TV/Theatrical negotiations.

    Although I’ve never met Steve Diamond, I was impressed by his broad-range thinking about how to make the most of whatever sources of leverage were available, and taking the time to plan long-range strategies to do so. This is a quality sorely lacking in the current leadership.

    VG

  12. Mr. Fred says:
    August 30, 2008 at 14:57

    The Gallup Poll did a study. Americans favored writers 60%-12%

    and, yeah, a one day boycott of wal-mart. that’ll help.

    how about supporting your leadership?

    do you guys even try?

  13. Voiceguy says:
    August 30, 2008 at 17:27

    “how about supporting your leadership?”

    Leaders who expect support need to provide some reason to give that support. That isn’t happening. Ergo, the lack of support.

    I didn’t vote for Rosenberg in 2005. He won with only 40% of the votes cast — hardly a “mandate.” Robert Conrad split the vote; otherwise I suspect Rosenberg would have lost.

    I violently disagreed with the hamfisted action of Membership First in 2005 of firing Greg Hessinger and the team he had assembled to work with him. He had hired Joanne Kessler, someone with extensive experience in the advertising industry, specifically to be the point person to get ready for the Commercials contract negotiation in 2006. She got fired in the same bloodbath. SAG didn’t even try to negotiate the Commercials contract in 2006 — it just got extended. Even with three years to prepare for another round of negotiations for Commercials, SAG has simply ignored this area, and is totally unprepared for it today — even without the paralysis caused by its fumbling of the TV/Theatrical negotiations.

    I have never been happy with the decision to hire Doug Allen, and nothing that Allen has done during his tenure has improved my opinion of him. He positively exudes lack of integrity and trustworthiness. He is condescending and arrogant. Most important, he seems to lack any principles or ethical sense, and brings no common-sense perspective to the MF-dominated board. He’s just a hired assassin, seemingly willing to go out and trash anybody or anything on command.

    So, no, I don’t support this kind of flawed leadership. It’s “leading” SAG down a terrible and self-destructive path. It has created more divisiveness and ill will than the union has seen in a long time, perhaps ever. And there is no get-well scenario in sight.

    And, by the way, if all the AFL-CIO union members in the US joined in, a one-day boycott of Wal-Mart would be the top story on every news broadcast in the country. But of course you would pooh-pooh the idea since it didn’t come down from Mt. Allen.

    VG

  14. Mr. Fred says:
    August 30, 2008 at 18:29

    “I violently disagreed”

    see, VG, that’s your whole problem, right there.

    you “violently disagreed”

    you do voice overs. why would you VIOLENTLY disagree with anything?

    what if you just zipped it and stopped ego tripping and let the elected leadeship do its job?

    who gives a sh** what you think of doug allen?

  15. Voiceguy says:
    August 30, 2008 at 22:38

    And that last outburst, more than anything I could possibly think of, explains EXACTLY why no one respects the current SAG leadership. It spawns that kind of juvenile name-calling and personal attack. It is the reason SAG is going to hell in a handbasket.

    VG

  16. Mr. Fred says:
    August 31, 2008 at 19:01

    VG

    YOU are representative of the out-of-control dissent that permeates this blog and is PRAYING for the humiliation of mf in the coming elections, and you call ME juvenile?

    ALL you people DO is bitch, bitch, bitch - you offer NO solutions, you have NO ideas, nothing practical anyway.

    you support a faction - u4s, that in jonathan handel’s own words - and HE’S anti-mf - has NO answers to specific questions, NO experience, and NO plan - except a long term “merge with aftra strategy” - that is a long shot and has essentially NOTHING to do with the overwhelming priority at hand - the contract!

    –

    Ed. Response - Handel isn’t anti Membership First, he’s been critical of their performance. There’s a difference. You, Fred, are now sounding like the radical right wingers speaking of those who opposed invading Iraq. All you have to do is change MF for USA, and you’re right in sync.

    We’ll be addressing the kind of politics you’re preaching in our Labor Day note tomorrow…

  17. Mr. Fred says:
    August 31, 2008 at 19:27

    read by your 10 bloggers.

    I love that you guys are so backed into a corner that you’ve resorted to comparing me to right-wingers supportive of the invasion of iraq. what a cop out. and an insult, by the way.

    I CORRESPOND with handel - he does NOT DENY he’s been ant-mf.

    now, at least, if you read his assesment of ned vaughn and u4s, you see that, up close and personal? he saw and heard that ned vaughn should not be leading a sing-along. let alone a union. talk about an empty suit. you go “live on line!” to make your case to your base (you) and sway the votes of sag, and, in response to key questions as to your plans and specifics as to your strategy, you say “uh… we’ll know more when we get in there.”

    the guy is wwwaaayyyy over his head. and, thank GOD, even if he gets a seat, he’s doing zero to influence the negotiations. the current team stays in place - according to sag rules - “until a deal is reached.”

    yes, they can POSSIBLY garner enough support if they win big to fire allen - but everybody else? same.

    –

    Ed. Response - So you hope. On our “10″ bloggers…with the numbers not quite final, we’re running just under 72,000 page impressions this month - the second full month of the blog. The first full month we were at 69,414.

  18. Mr. Fred says:
    August 31, 2008 at 22:55

    “so you hope.”

    sorry no “hope” involved. sag rules. look ‘em up.

    72,000 “impressions?”

    yeah, 72,000 “impressions” of the same 10 guys.

    every single day:

    1. hassman

    2. david cooper

    3. VO

    4. kevin

    5. brian mccabe

    6. vested

    7. dr. giggles

    8. michael dorsey

    9. locke (rare)

    10. steve diamond (rare)

    11. tom ligon (rare)

    am I missing anybody? you could field a soccer team with this readership, with no reserves. unless, of course, one or two of these are the same guy. then you might have to go for basketball…

  19. Sheffc says:
    September 1, 2008 at 11:19

    I love that she thinks the only ones who read this blog are the ones who post.

  20. Mr. Fred says:
    September 1, 2008 at 11:35

    well, that’s generally speaking the indicator of a diverse, successful blog:

    huffington post

    deadline hollywood

    daily kos

    I could go on.

    not “sagwatch! - one opinion - all the time- from the same ten guys!”

  21. Voiceguy says:
    September 1, 2008 at 11:48

    Deadline Hollywood is a ludicrous example, given that Nikki Finke so heavily censors the comments that it’s pointless to post there unless you’re part of the MF inner circle. At least this site allows diversity of opinion (no matter how uninformed).

    VG

  22. david cooper says:
    September 1, 2008 at 13:35

    The only blogger here is the one posting the stories. The rest of us are commenting - note it says “submit comment” . Too bad there’s not a limit on the number of words, that would prevent commenters from becoming hijack bloggers.

  23. Mr. Fred says:
    September 1, 2008 at 17:47

    vo

    how’s the alternate universe? I just got off dhd, and for every mf lover, there’s an mf basher.

    and to call the opinion here “diverse” is beyond the beyond. the only person expressing an alternate opinion here (except mike occasionally) is me.

    do you think simply lying is really the way to go?

    doop

    one word. skim.

Leave a Reply