« Campaign Watch: Anne-Marie’s Handel Interview | Campaign Watch: The Allens Send A “Labor Day” Message »

Campaign Watch: The Ned Vaughn - Handel Interview

Unite for Strength leader Ned Vaughn provided a sharp substantive as well as stylistic contrast from his Membership First opponents, as Vaughn led off a series of interviews hosted this week by entertainment lawyer Jonathan Handel. Rather than offer specific differences on current negotiating positions, Vaughn said his group believes if it unseats six to seven Membership First National Directors, Unite for Strength will increase bargaining power by moving to represent “all the faces and voices that fill our employers screens.”

Vaughn took a far less dogmatic and far more pragmatic approach to the various issues facing SAG, though he offered few specifics on how Unite for Strength would achieve its goals. he answered several questions by saying that he couldn’t be specific because he doesn’t have enough information on things ranging from the current posture of the TV-Theatrical negotiations to the willingness of NED Doug Allen to work with a new SAG board of directors that might not have Membership First in control.

Vaughn took a wait and see approach to questions ranging from whether Allen would be fired to how to increase leverage in current negotiations and to how a merged SAG and AFTRA would look and/or be organized. He did express dissatisfaction with Allen’s strategies and initiatives, but he reserved his specific criticism for Membership First, which he said is not doing a good job.

Where Membership First’s spokesmen expressed views that those outside its Hollywood actor ranks as ”hobbyists” or less important because the bulk of the work is in Hollywood, Vaughn said he’d like to see a union with all entertainment employees under its banner, including both above and below the line workers.

“We can take a cue from our employers,” he said, “you don’t see ABC Disney saying we don’t like Viacom because they sell billboards.” His position is a direct contrast with Membership First, which is pushing the talking point of all actors in one union, which union already exists, and is SAG.

Merger, Vaughn said, is his group’s #1 priority, far oustripping qualified voting, the issue that brought Unite for Strength together. “If you offer me a choice between merged union with no Qualitied Voting and two unions split with Qualified Voting, I’ll take merged union any day.”

When asked about his relationship with AFTRA’s NED Kim Hedgpeth and its president Roberta Reardon, Vaughn said he likes them and “looks forward to a chance to bring us together.”

Membership First has seized on one comment Vaughn made in the hour plus long interview, in which he said he didn’t care what the name of a merged union would be. Vaughns full comment on the subject was, “Uncle Joes Actors Union” would do for me! I say that somewhat kiddingly, listen, I value the history of SAG. It’s a union with a rich and storied history. It’s a great union that I’ve proud to be a member of, and it has served me very well. But what I care more about than SAG’s history is future of actors going forward. And the only way to protect it is to CREATE A NEW UNION, and again, I think the name matters very much less than the leverage of combining the two.”

This entry was posted on August 29, 2008 at 21:54 and is filed under SAG Politics, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical, 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

6 Responses to “Campaign Watch: The Ned Vaughn - Handel Interview”

  1. Mr. Fred says:
    August 29, 2008 at 22:13

    what a thoroughly detailed and unbiased critique of ned vague’s performance the other night.

    I was waiting, quivering with anticipation, knowing your take on it would be substantive, direct and strong. just like mr. vague.

    and - I am not disappointed.

    u4s:

    dissolve sag. call resulting entity after merger with aftra…whatever.

    want everything sag wants in current negotiation, so as not to appear weak. but have no chance and no plan how to get it.

    take the issue we formed over and are most passionette about - qualified voting - and because we find out, or our surprise - that sag member’s don’t love “vote for us - so we can take your vote away!” as much as we do - pledge to put it in the attic like a crazy uncle.

    now dammit - THAT’S A PLATFORM.

    now - let’s all climb up on that platform and JUMP OFF!

    one! - two! - thr… hey guys! guys?

  2. Mike says:
    August 29, 2008 at 23:03

    The platform of UFS is about merging AFTRA and SAG.

    Ned doesn’t even know if AFTRA will agree to try another merger.

    Even if AFTRA agrees to try another merger, odds are *16 to 1* it will fail.

    I have voted for a merger twice since I’ve been a member of both unions. I don’t think a merger is possible anymore. The super majority threshold is too much to overcome.

  3. un obrero says:
    August 30, 2008 at 01:49

    Like all progress, this is a not a question of “if”, but of “when.” If we are too dumb collectively to make it happen in our lifetime, it will occur after we are gone. Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if we could share in the benefit of it? Maybe it is worth working for.

  4. Voiceguy says:
    August 30, 2008 at 07:54

    Right now I would settle for someone who had any kind of strategy for uniting SAG itself. The tone of divisiveness is being set from the very top. Alan Rosenberg seems to be hell-bent on alienating large segments of the SAG membership and its elected leadership (particularly NY and RBD). It’s all snark and “my way or the highway.” He doesn’t even pretend to care about building consensus or restoring any sort of unified purpose and direction. He comes across as a narcissistic boor.

    Doug Allen has shown zero — zero — capability to act as a leadership force in these circumstances. His attitude toward the membership can only be described as condescending. (It may be that he displays the same attitude toward the board — I can’t tell.) Every communication from him carries the tone of “let me do the worrying” and “children shouldn’t be around while the adults are talking.” There is not even the remotest hint of “I know you’re concerned” or “I understand that things have taken a worrisome turn.” Rather, it’s all a supercilious and, frankly, totally unbelievable snow job — particularly the Cheshire-cat-like claim that “talks are continuing” when all evidence is to the contrary. I cringe to think what kind of whitewash and artful wording is coming in the long-awaited postcard mailer, whenever that comes. The attitude communicated by Allen makes my flesh crawl. I don’t trust him, I don’t believe him, and I don’t respect him.

    In sum, I cannot express how disappointed I am with both Rosenberg and Allen. If the election of Ned Vaughn and the other U4S candidates helps set the stage for a change at the top, I’m all for it.

    VG

  5. Voiceguy says:
    August 30, 2008 at 08:23

    And speaking of how history repeats itself, read this article on how the firing of Joanne Kessler in October, 2005 — right after Rosenberg and the MF crowd came to power — hobbled SAG on the eve of the 2006 Commercials negotiations. As we now know, there were no negotiations.

    http://www.backstage.com/bso/news_reviews/other_news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001477189&inp=true

    VG

  6. Locke says:
    August 30, 2008 at 08:32

    I thought Ned was respectful of Doug Allen. He even went so far as to say - “The NED takes his direction from the National Board.” ( in other words Membership First )

    I went back and listened again and here’s what Handel said about Doug - “He’s clearly become a flashpoint for the studios and the agents and the A-listers as well. They feel that in meetings with them he wasn’t respectful. He didn’t have a realistic view of their position on issues.”

    Later Handel asked Ned….”Doug’s been so prominent in taking a hard line he’s become a flashpoint. Is it possible for him to change enough of his spots that he can become an effective negotiator?”

    OK, I’ve heard a lot of horror stories about Doug. I’ve even heard that folks working for a prominent consulting firm we hired almost walked out of a meeting because of his behavior. How worried about this should we be? In the Membership First interview David Joliffe was very clear that he thinks Doug is doing a great job!

Leave a Reply