| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | Sep » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
- Animation Contract (6)
- Basic Cable (5)
- Commercials Contract (66)
- Editorial (9)
- Exhibit A - TV Theatrical (366)
- Interactive (16)
- Media Business (66)
- Miscellaneous Hate Mail and Threats (3)
- SAG Politics (233)
- SAG-AFTRA (185)
- Uncategorized (23)
- Union Politics (28)
- January 6, 2009: Commercials - The Next Great (Endangered) Frontier
- January 6, 2009: Everywhere you look...
- January 5, 2009: Nine Broadway Shows Close on Same Day
- January 5, 2009: WSJ: Ad Spending Expected to Drop 6.2% this year
- January 5, 2009: Commissioner Gordon Departs
- January 5, 2009: So, How's Your Sense of Humor This Morning?
- January 5, 2009: Allens Heading for RBDs in Search of Support
- January 4, 2009: Worth a Read, as Usual
- January 4, 2009: Does Bumping Doug Allen from TV-Theatrical Violates His Deal? - UPDATED
- January 4, 2009: Ordinarily We Wouldn't Post on this, but...
Negotiations Watch/Campaign Watch: Joliffe Won’t Say Negotiations are Continuing, Recognizes SAG Losing Market Share
“That’s a question that you’d have to ask either our president or our chief negotiator.” That was the response of David Joliffe in the recent webcast interview, when repeatedly asked if negotiations are continuing on the TV-Theatrical deal. The Allens have said negotiations are continuing. The AMPTP has said the Allens are making it up.
Joliffe, a key leader in the Membership First party, admitted that SAG continues to lose market share in television, even though he appeared to agree that as of today, the expired SAG TV-Theatrical contract carries lower rates than the AFTRA Exhibit A Contract. Membership First used its control of SAG in an unsuccesful effort to prevent ratification of Exhibit A.
In the interview, Joliffe spent far more time expounding on his group’s differences with AFTRA than discussing differences with the other factions of SAG. “We need to sit with AFTRA and work these things out,” Joliffe repeated frequently. But he offered no specifics on how any resolution could be accomplished, and admitted he didn’t know what percentage of AFTRA was broadcasters or recording artists (correct answers, 5% and 3%).
But, when pushed on the question, Joliffe appeared to call for the destruction of AFTRA. “I’m very clear on my position,” Joliffe said. “We have an actors union. It’s the Screen Actors Guild.”
When asked about the bitter divide between Hollywood and the NY/RBD portions of SAG, Joliffe said he had no easy answers. “I hope it’s repairable,” Joliffe said. “It’s not good that we have these misunderstandings.”
–
Some fact checking:
In the interview with Handel, Joliffe made several mistakes in describing the AFTRA Exhibit A deal. The most obvious was Joliffe’s claim that the contract changed the Taft-Hartley must join period from 30 days to 90 days. In fact, the 30 day period is federal law, and isn’t part of the contract at all.
His claims about residuals, if they weren’t flat out wrong, were misleading. Joliffe used the example of ER being moved to free to consumer new media to claim that actors residuals would be reduced by the DGA/WGA/AFTRA pattern deal (which he blamed on AFTRA). His statement was that instead of a capped 100% of original compensation residual, actors would receive a maximum of $22.70 under the AFTRA deal.
That turns out to be wrong. Before the deal, actors in ER would receive zero residuals on free to consumer new media. Joliffe, who hasn’t worked on camera in years may not realize that programs have been airing on free to consumer new media for years, and no one has been paid residuals for those airings.
After Joliffe, Handel interviewed Membership First incument Ann-Marie Johnson. We’ll post observations on that interview later.
August 29, 2008 at 10:09
If I heard him right, David talked about how great it is that the SAG pension caps got raised. Isn’t it true that now, a high earner can get like 80K per year pension and before they could only get a max of 65K per year?
<p>What David didn’t say is that ( if I have this right ) to pay for the increase in caps the minimum you have to make to earn a year toward vesting is going up from 10K to 15K. A lot of middle class actors stay middle class by combining SAG work with Equity and Aftra work so making it harder to make those minimums will hurt them. Seems to me that if David was really all about fighting for the middle class actor he wouldn’t have left that part out.</p>
–
Ed. Response - Previously the maximum SAG pension was $72,000 per year. Effective Oct. 1 that amount increases to $98,000 per year, with a retroactive to July 2007.
The current minimum for a pension credit is $15,000. Under the plan just announced it will increase to $20,000 over the next five years.
August 29, 2008 at 10:26
And if David was really for the middle class actor, he would be FOR merging SAG, AFTRA and even AEA….this way we’d have a better chance of achieving P&H because our divided incomes would be now counted as one.
Just imagine - you could have had a reasonable year…where your work/ income was made in a film, a TV drama and several stage productions. You didn’t make enough under each seperate union to hit your P&H limit….but if all the work was covered under ONE union you would have.
August 29, 2008 at 10:35
sorry, but you’re wrong (again)
if you’re interested in the facts:
What the AMPTP has proposed to SAG is a 90 day provision before someone would have to join the union when working in New-Media.
The ER example is correct. The residuals for streaming currently are subject to a Side Letter which stipulates that the formula for residuals will be determined at a latter date. (there are claims currently pending) Under the new deal, (that AFTRA has called “groundbreaking”), when a network show moves-over to the Internet the residual for that type of use is as follows: 17/24 days of FREE streaming. If the show continues to run, the residual would then be 3% of applicable minimum for the next 6 months. (for the day player that’s $22.77 - and a maximum of right around $100.00)
The point that was being made is that there is “cannibalization” of network residuals. Instead of shows rerunning on the network for a 100% residual (up to $3290.00), those reruns aren’t happening and instead are being moved-over to the Internet for a fraction of what the used to pay on the network.
Oh, and Jolliffe (2 ll’s by the way) understands how and where television shows air. He’s not only been on 5 of these TV/Theatrical Negotiating Committees - He works the TV Contract as a principal performer weekly.
–
Ed. Response - Sorry, Fred, but it is you who misses the point. The AMPTP making a proposal to SAG is not the same as changing federal law. It is also not the same as AFTRA accepting the proposal, which, we’re told, it did not. Joliffe’s statement was incorrect on both points.
The existence of a claim pending is not the same as anyone actually getting paid. The TV-Theatrical contract as it stands contains no residual for a show originally airing on broadcast that is moved to free to consumer internet delivery. Joliffe’s statement was incorrect. The residual isn’t being “reduced” in the AFTRA contract, it’s a new residual.
August 29, 2008 at 10:59
“We have an actors union. It’s the Screen Actors Guild.”
And that leaves Actors Equity, for example, where?
VG
–
Ed. Response - The operative Membership First quote is, “They’re not actors, they’re theater people.”
August 29, 2008 at 11:28
“The residual isn’t being “reduced” in the AFTRA contract, it’s a new residual.”
well, that clears that up. actors weren’t being paid for reuse on the internet before, so, somehow, this is an improvement. uh, yes that’s true, technically.
but since this is the first contract that specifically addresses and recognizes the migration of content to the internet, the question really becomes:
is this a good deal for the future of actors as all content is going to the web?
and the answer to that is, of course. no.
it’s like saying, “your pension is going from $1000 a month to $200 a month - it’s not “reduced” - it’s a “new pension.”
editor - you should run for office. really.
August 29, 2008 at 11:37
Ed. Response - The operative Membership First quote is, “They’re not actors, they’re theater people.”
Is that a direct quote or a dig?
–
Ed. Response - Direct quote.
August 29, 2008 at 11:41
“The point that was being made is that there is “cannibalization” of network residuals. Instead of shows rerunning on the network for a 100% residual (up to $3290.00), those reruns aren’t happening and instead are being moved-over to the Internet for a fraction of what the used to pay on the network.”
You have proof cannibalization? Are they not re-airing in primetime because they’re on the web or are they not re-airing because the Networks can make more money on airing reality program instead (for example).
–
Ed. Response - Executives of both SAG and AFTRA seem to agree that some level of cannibalization has taken place already, and that it is a continuing concern. It certainly seems smart to keep an eye on this.
August 29, 2008 at 12:06
BUT - as it stands now we get nothing - because there’s no contract. Period.
–
Ed. Response - No SAG contract, you mean.
August 29, 2008 at 12:17
I’m not saying the potential isn’t there, Editor. I want to know if there is proof of it happening now, preferably if we can go back a couple a years and see a growth chart. Maybe that way a picture of what the next 3 years is going to be will come into focus.
August 29, 2008 at 12:23
Ed.
You have posted your observations on the interview of Joliffe.
You will be posting your observations of the interview of AMJ.
Could you post your observations of the interview of Ned Vaughn?
–
Ed. Response - We will, probably late tonight.
August 29, 2008 at 13:35
I just got off the phone with a client. He’s been owed DVD residuals for over a year and a half now from Disney. He’s talked to SAG several times about getting his money. The last time he called, he was told “You shouldn’t rely on residuals. It’s extra income.”
So, my question to whoever wins the election is: will you get the residuals owed when they are owed? Because I think there are a lot of middle class actors out there who could use the residuals they are already owed.
August 29, 2008 at 14:07
some advice for your client. while sag has, demonstrably, upgraded the residuals system - they come MUCH quicker and you can track the incoming ones on sag.org.
tell him to sign in at sag.org, and then, click member services. his residials to date will show up there. and if they’re not listed, he can call the residuals department, but it usually means sag hasn’t received it yet.
the “you shouldn’t rely…” statement? unless the person he was talking too was drunk, I doubt anyone at sag residuals said that. that’s sort of what this is all about, yes? however, the sag residuals people CAN be a real pain in the ass, but, your client can push right back. they work for HIM.
and, what it means is - they don’t have it because disney hasn’t paid it. he should call disney, or you could, since, you know THAT’S YOUR JOB, and talk to someone in residuals.
you have to be relentless, but if you are owed something, and you are informed about how much and what the time frame is for when it’s contractually due at sag?
you’ll find it and you’ll get paid. you can’t sit on your hands with residuals. you have to go after them if they’re late, of your own volition, and don’t stop till it’s in your hand.
August 29, 2008 at 14:17
So, in Mr Fred’s opinion, (am I the last to notice his initials are MF? And damn, didn’t I swear I’d ignore him?), Mr. Asner, Mr. Keitel, Mr. DeNiro, among so many well- to un-known others, are only really PARTLY actors. They all do voice over, they all do stage work, write, produce, etc… which, evidently, isn’t acting! How, and who, deems them worthy of being “AC-TORs (read as if Jon Lovitz) who do other stuff” as opposed to “v-o/commercial/stage people who act”? And, really, what is the f-ing difference? How does Fred keep this straight in his head?
I read an article last year in which DeNiro and Keitel talked about how unexpectedly difficult, [yet fun], they felt working on “Arthur and the Invisibles” (a terrific, mostly animated, kid’s film) was. Every animated character in this film was voiced by a well known star. And THEY referred to it as ACTING throughout the interview, as do the multitudes of stars who now “voice” projects.
Also, I don’t know how much this opinion matters, but as much of a tech-geek as I am, including a serious “gadget” addiction (iphone, hi-def 17″ laptop, etc), nothing still beats watching on the big TV, even my old 32″ tube job in the back room. And, even if the nets don’t rerun stuff, I know I can find almost anything on the cable channels.
For now, I don’t think the exodus is nearly as huge as it will be within a few years when you’ll be able to hook your Cat5 cable to your TV and stream those webcasts into your living onto that big beautiful HD set (which to some degree you can do now, but it’s frustratingly difficult). Our old friend, The [strongly worded, written] Sunset Clause, will allow a real appraisal of this, and therefore a real fighting shot at negotiating real value for those runs, in 3 years… at least for that union that HAS a contract, AFTRA.
August 29, 2008 at 14:38
Re #11
Brian,
I THOUGHT I was going through this with a big, well known, long time major studio that makes a lot of it’s money, and has for a very long time, on animation. I have a client who took over most of their long time character’s voices when the man who did them retired (then died), as well as a number of other projects. We THOUGHT that studio was chronically slow-to-late-to-very-late on these payments based on what SAG was telling us. Guess what?
That’s right, the studio was in fact making it’s payments in a timely fashion. It was a union bokkeeping matter, which his VO agent had to make legal threats to rectify. So I’d hesitate blaming Disney, a studio known for it’s anal bookkeeping practices, and start really getting into it with SAG.
But what’s really horrible about your post is [obviously] the prevailing attitude at the union concerning member issues like this. I guess they’re just too busy telling us how phenomenally great they are….
August 29, 2008 at 16:11
http://www.actorsequity.org/AboutEquity/timeline/timeline_1930.html
Hello,
I’m Rik Deskin and I am an actor. I began acting on stage in 1982 and then on camera in 1983. As an actor I’ve worked on camera in feature films, short films, student films, television shows, movies of the week, mini-series, pilots, commercials and industrials, as voice-over on short films and on the radio and on stage. Every actor knows that theatre is the actor’s medium. You exercise different muscles on camera and your performance is ultimately up to the director and editor. Film is the director’s medium and television is the writer’s medium. (please correct me if I have this wrong).
I am a theatre person, a film person, a television person, a radio person and a new media person.
Actors’ Equity predates Screen Actors Guild by twenty years. And if you read the timeline above, it was Actors’ Equity members (actors) that formed Screen Actors Guild. Until then, AEA negotiated film contracts.
There may be some actors in AEA that only do theatre, as there are some actors that only do film, or television, or the weather, or that morning radio show, but I would say it is anomolous for them to only work in one medium ever.
August 29, 2008 at 16:34
Thanks for the great FIRST HAND post under YOUR REAL NAME, Rik.
Wear ALL your affiliations as an ACTOR proudly, as you should, and deserve!!!!
August 29, 2008 at 16:36
“Mr. Asner, Mr. Keitel, Mr. DeNiro, among so many well- to un-known others, are only really PARTLY actors.”
hass - put on the reading glasses. I didn’t say that, one of YOU said (editor I think) someone said that, from mf, and, I got news for you - while it goes without saying editor provided no proof an mf member said that, any actor worth his or her salt wouldn’t even THINK of saying that.
I started as an actor in a large supporting role on Broadway, in a play that won the tony for best play, among other tonys. not boasting, YOU called into question my bona fides. I’ve spent as much time on stage in nyc and elsewhere as I’ve spent in front of cameras.
and, if you think, hass, that MOUSESHWITZ isn’t a penny pinching ball-buster, give robin williams a call and ask him how quickly disney got that back end to him on alladin AFTER his bullshit up-front fee.
of course voice work is acting, in the context you describe. it’s too bad though that, stars get all the gigs. I know why - subliminally, audiences respond to the familiar, poular voices, they can become a BIG part of the p.r. campaign, if they’re willing, and it’s easy and fun. you can knock it out in one day, maybe a week if you’re the lead.
is standing in a v.o. booth in a building somewhere off 48th street, saying into a microphone “mercedes benz - engineered like no other car in the world” - acting?
well, that’s open to question. it is lucrative though. I did an off-broadway play with THAT guy, who has since passed away, and he used to come in at half hour and just pull the wadded up checks out of his pocket and throw them on the dressing room table - 20k, 15k, 5k…
but now? now, apparently, gene hackman needs the money to tell us how great lowes is, and clooney needs to pay the monthly mortgage on the lake cuomo hose informing us that budweiser is awesome.
again, it would do well to remind everyone, that handel - who used some of my questions the other night in the “interviews” cause I busted his balls about his anti-mf bias, ( I know - don’t believe me, whatever, I’ll show you his freakin e-mail) brought up inflated star salaries twice (!) - but nobody took the bait. if the agent-driven, actor enabled greed would consider peter coyote’s suggestion on dhd, sag would have a hell of a lot more money, and so would middle class actors. that’s, sadly, probably the biggest part of this whole train wreck that nobody wants to touch.
August 29, 2008 at 16:46
Wow, what great credits. If only they were yours….to go along with the films you’ve written/directed/produced/acted-in that you’ve previously cited here.
It would be so much easier to believe your bull , Hairdresser, if you put yourself on equal footing and revealed your name. You crow so loud and proud about your credits…but, unlike every other actor I know, simply refuse to promote yourself by attaching your real name. Why? Because you’re pathological.
Until you do post it, you’re just “acting” like an actor ( /director/writer/producer/????).
Read L-I-A-R.
August 29, 2008 at 18:42
coward (wild bill charlton) and a liar (the hass):
I wasn’t aware of that.
“unlike every other actor I know, you simply refuse to promote yourself by attaching your real name”
uh… I may, in fact, be unlike every other actor you’ve ever known. it’s possible.
neil, I’m concerned about you. your rhetoric is rising, your hostility bubbling up. you don’t believe. you’re a hater. you’re obsessive compulsive, but not in a healthy way neil. I think, if not already, you should consult a psychiatrist. I say that, as opposed to a psychologist, because of the ability to prescribe medicine. just in case.
if i were making up credits, I’d really go for it.
but, no - no mak-ey upp-ey. just me.
August 29, 2008 at 20:15
So, Mr. Fred, in your #17 you said, “if the agent-driven, actor enabled greed would consider peter coyote’s suggestion on dhd, sag would have a hell of a lot more money, and so would middle class actors…”
Correct?
Hmmmm. Isn’t Peter Coyote endorsing the Unife For Strength? We’ll you’ve convinced me to vote for them. Thanks!
August 29, 2008 at 21:30
yes he is.
but if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you can also comprehend that coyote had the balls to call bull on the stars.
the suits are squeezing the middle class actors - and that’s really hard to do, when your entire head is up tom hank’s ass.
another u4s supporter, and stand up guy - and union busting, runaway production enforcing, residuals avoiding, take the one time payout on dvd schmuck producer…
and YOU all are supporting tom terrific and the rest of u4s in that effort:
“new media - give it away! make the deal! we’re losing money! we have no contract! we love aftra! let’s merge!
why’s tom supporting u4s?
well, let’s see. PLAYTONE!
he was at a discussion pre-wga strike and when asked how he felt, tom said “I don’t care if it’s paper or plastic on sets, just take the dga deal.”
fight the power! go tom! use that influence to get these middle class actor people OUT OF THE WAY! BILLIONAIRES FOR NON-UNION NEW MEDIA!
from today’s variety:
“A hint of all this emerged from the recent Lehman Brothers report — a turgid doomsday analysis that scared the hell out of some institutional investors. The report concluded that “the core economic models” of the film and TV business would be “disrupted” by surging digital distribution.”
(so, let’s NOT be part of the surge! smart thinking!)
“The Les Moonves-led CBS already is pushing its Web presence and even building a new movie company.”
les moonves, ex-actor - “sag first!”
August 30, 2008 at 02:59
Mr Fred and his seemingly innumerable alter-egos makes overheated, hysterical attacks that are designed to make him seem to have 1) more voices than just his, and 2) be possessed of an indefatigable lunatic energy. He hopes we will conclude we can never outlast him, and will tire and give up. MF has probably “Stockholm Syndrom-ed” some of their otherwise reasonable adherents through just this method.
But is he really an irresistible force-of-nature nutjob? Or could his inexhaustible time and energy to constantly blog blog blog his clearly arrant bs come from being a very well paid agent provocateur? Maybe this is his job!
Before you laugh, ask yourself, as I did: If that were the case - if someone (or more than one) had been hired to form a movement within SAG, to foment dissent and bitter arguments, to prevent solidarity and inclusion - what would that look like?
When I asked myself that question, the sickening chill of realization began gradually to dawn on me - why WOULDN’T somebody do that? If I thought of it, they certainly could too, and there are millions - no, billions - at stake. And, sure as sunup, there has to be a man in an office somewhere who believes it is his fiduciary duty to his company’s shareholders to MAKE SURE such tactics are used.
So bicker with Mr Fred or whatever the hell his name is, or ignore him for a few days when you can’t take it any more. There may be a bigger picture.
August 30, 2008 at 06:10
As Barry Corbin remarked to me one day in a break from a SAG Board meeting, “David, this is all a bunch of bull—-…” and he punctuated it by spitting tobacco juice into a coke cup he was holding.
DOES ANYONE THINK THERE ARE ANY BALLOTS OUT THERE STILL UNMARKED OR NOT THROWN AWAY? Then who do you think you are convincing with all this invective.? Crap, T. Boone Pickens should harness you all for steam output.
I don’t have any problem believing MF worked on Broadway and produced two unsold films, and completing any independent film is a task worthy of respect, whether it sells or not. I don’t agree with a lot of his points, but I don’t think he’s a liar. Why does he hide? Well, he doesn’t - you’re just lazy. There’s plenty of clues for any internet hound.
Just like in Washington, we have to stop calling each other “traitors” - and understand that there can be and should be different points of view and vigorous debate. And that synthesis and unity can result from gentlemanly debate.
Off the subject but part of the memory stream…
That same day, Mr. Corbin was comparing a union situation to a Shakespeare play he’d done in New York. Given his thick Okie drawl, he no doubt caught the glimpse of disbelief flitting across my eyes, and so he added in the thickest of drawls - “Why hell, I didn’t think I had to change the way I talked at home just to be a actor.”
August 30, 2008 at 07:58
Get it straight what David Jolliffe does for a living.
mr fred: “He works the TV Contract as a principal performer weekly.”
Kind of.
Jolliffe performs “vocal background” work, known as ADR. (Like in those restaurant scenes where extras seem to be chatting etc. - they’re not. That’s all done in a recording studio, by performers like Jolliffe. V/O pros call this “walla-walla” work, or “peas and carrots”.
Jolliffe does not audition for this work. It is doled out to him by Membership First operatives who function as virtual MF Party Casting Directors.
It pays day-player rates AND RESIDUALS. It is easy for him to qualify for health insurance & max out his pension every year.
Can you say “sinecure”? Look it up, mr fred.
August 30, 2008 at 08:06
Great thoughts, Un Obrero. Extremely possible. And the “Allens” could bury the expense under “Education” as they did the AFTRA smear, and much else.
In this latest rant directed at me, he/she/it’s seemingly run out of material and completely lifted my previous recommendations to him/her/it about a psychiatrist and prescribed drugs, and “turned it” on me. He/she/it’s running out of material, “steam”, and any sense of originality, an esteemed, highly decorated, long resume’d (just ask it) actor/writer/director’s most prized possession. He/she/it not only promotes MeFirst, but cites the MeFirst party line verbatim. And he/she/it’s now stealing from his/her/it’s adversaries.
On the plus side, he/she/it finally stopped referring to me in a derogatory fashion and actually used my name, and…..
Ok, sorry, that’s the only plus I could come up with.
Membership First: We put our moles in more places than Cindy Crawford’s.
August 30, 2008 at 09:28
un umbrero:
I cannot argue with your concept. It’s been tracking in the back of my mind since the 2000 strike, and it makes more sense as time goes along. The unbridled arrogance that’s currently being displayed will cause those who are part of the ‘undoing’ to come forward. Why? Because they will actually start to believe that the bullets will bounce off them … in psychological circles, it’s called “Double - 0 - seven mentality.” Stay at it long enough without being checked by reality, arrogance will take you there every time. And ego will tell you to believe it. Funny thing is, these two ingredients are also the very ones that will be your ultimate undoing.
We are at a point of critical impasse at SAG. Time will tell what the ultimate result will be; in the meantime, members’ rights are being summarily and increasingly usurped as the socialist mentality of the MFs continues to expand.
August 30, 2008 at 11:24
you mean - I could get paid for this?
==I need to make some calls.
dooper:
“two unsold indie films.”
no. they actually both sold. am I swimming in cash? nah, but it was a really cool experience, despite consuming nearly 10 years of my life to make 2 films, in and among other acting stuff.
they both sold and you can purchase them both on dvd at amazon.
the hass: I’ve asked the edotir to give you a time out. you’ve been overheated and raw, and that just adds to the stress you’re obviously feeling. I see this post, while snarky and bitchy (I wonder about the bitchy thing… know what I mean?) is free of the more personal insults.
I hate to disappoint you all, I’m just an ordinary middle class actor/writer and director, who thinks you’re all full of crap.
p.s.
What was said was - That accepting a deal like the one on the Table will turn us ALL into “hobbyists”.
It’s funny - The group (u4s) that wants to take the vote away from those who don’t work up to their standard are portrayed as the good guys. While the group (MF) that is on the record saying they will NEVER take away anyone’s vote is made out to be the one who’s attacking those in the Branches who don’t have the same work opportunities.
August 30, 2008 at 12:03
Well, heck, I’d like to rent them - what are the titles?
August 30, 2008 at 12:22
ben hur
and
meet me in st. louis
August 30, 2008 at 14:23
Rik said:
“Actors’ Equity predates Screen Actors Guild by twenty years. And if you read the timeline above, it was Actors’ Equity members (actors) that formed Screen Actors Guild. Until then, AEA negotiated film contracts.”
Rik, I agree “theater people” ARE actors. I believe all actors should have ONE union card.
However, don’t believe that AEA ever successfully negotiated a film contract. for actors in motion pictures. In fact every attempt by AEA to organize actors in motion pictures failed.
The real facts:
A group of actors some of whom were also members of AEA, organized SAG in 1933, in Hollywood. SAG was subsequently recognized by the studios as the collective bargaining agent for actors in motion pictures.
AEA never was recognized by the studios or the NLRB as the collective bargaining agent for actors, in motion pictures. Only SAG received such recognition. AEA also relinquished to SAG, any and all claims to jurisdiction over actors in motion pictures, implied by their unsuccessful attempts to organize motion picture actors.
August 30, 2008 at 15:03
Mike,
Thanks for setting the facts right, my point being of course that it was members of AEA–Actors, that had worked extensively in professional theatre, as many still do, that founded our Guild.
The misconception and myth that Membership First try to proliferate is that the rest of us, outside of Hollywood are “hobbyists” or are not actors. I personally take exception to that since I’ve spent twenty-six of my forty-two years of life working as an actor.
I trained at a professional conservatory and have found a certain level of success working outside of Hollywood.
Would I work in Hollywood? You bet! But as long as I’m an actor, and there is work for me, I will work in Peoria on the right project.
http://www.sag.org/history
August 30, 2008 at 15:09
“Just like in Washington, we have to stop calling each other “traitors” - and understand that there can be and should be different points of view and vigorous debate. And that synthesis and unity can result from gentlemanly debate.”
Mr. Cooper…David, if I may,
Do you like “dooper”? Didn’t think so. It’s pretty disrespectful considering you are not friends with the source and acknowledged it was ok. Yet “Mr Fred” obviously thinks it’s funny. Like “hass”, “wild bill”, “ned vague”, et al, these are not gentlemanly or respectful, especially when a real name is showing, and the target/person has asked (a) not to be addressed that way, and (b) at least know who’s doing it, so we can rationally judge whether to return or ignore it. I’ve personally done both, mostly out of frustration, but will not again…
Each and every single time, he obfuscates. Ask a straight, decent, legitimate question - like “Well, heck, I’d like to rent them - what are the titles?”, only to be answered like this. That’s what you get, more smoke, and total disrespect from behind a veil. It’s not funny now, and hasn’t been for the 2-3 months he’s been doing it on every topic, in every stream, in support of his Grand Exalted Poobahs, which if not his actual employers, are certainly beholden to him for “furthering” their “noble” cause. In fact, that sweet ass-kiss from them at meetings and marches may be why he does it. I’m sure at those, he stands up and proudly says, “I’m Mr Fred (et al). Can I have a round of applause for my [blind] support of you?”, whereas here he’s still hiding.
This is neither a respectful discourse nor the acts of a gentleman, by even the scantest stretch of the imagination. Stir in the lies he’s been busted on, the “facts” he continues to misrepresent, and the obstinate toeing of a hard-line that most here have tried to respectfully point out to him is mostly based in fiction, to no avail, and you get to where we are now.
And that’s really pathetic, when you think about it. This site was originally intended to be informational only, I’m sure. To provoke discussions in the hopes of finding a common ground. A ground on which far more pro-UFS, or at least opposed-to-MF, folks have been goaded into sinking to his level. As people WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE, some of us, myself included- maybe even especially - have just succumbed to that goading, period. Enough.
I believe that Membership First’s time should come to an end. Their collective and individual attitude is beyond egomaniacal. It’s not good for the whole, just themselves. They drove AFTRA from the room, then tried to crush them for having the balls to leave. They’ve alienated the producers by not only presenting a reasonable package in an unreasonable way, but making it much worse by lying about ongoing negotiations. They’ve destroyed the Home branch’s standing among the satellite branches to the degree those branches have rebelled.
This is NOT the SAG I’d been working with for 23 of my 28 years as a manager until 5 years ago. I’d venture a guess it’s not the SAG you joined and are a proud member of. This has gone on too long.
But the worst thing, and MOST importantly, the “noise-level” of people like “Mr Fred” may very well have made enough legitimate members of this once grand union apathetic enough to have completely tuned out, ensuring “Mr Fred” and his fellows will succeed with a small turnout and a slim majority. Come to think of it, this very well may have been his goal all along.
It’ll no longer work for, or on, me. I’ve made my decision (made it months ago, actually) who I’ll recommend my friends and clients support, and vote for. I’ve spent enough time arguing with a non-entity over issues he wouldn’t change his opinions about even if, suddenIy, The Allens told him too. He’s in too deep.
Unite For Strength: Vote for us because we’re not Membership First.
There’s no other reason needed.
See y’all at the celebration!!!
August 30, 2008 at 15:09
and (in addition to mike):
“another group of actors, some also members of aea, tried to destroy sag in 2008, because they were bitter, angry, misguided fools who thought merging with a smaller, hostile, and predatory union, aftra, that had been undercutting actors wages and working conditions for years, was a good idea.
Fortunately, for both sag and actors, cooler heads prevailed, and this faction of actors were roundly defeated in elections. sag went on to challenge the tactics of aftra and waged war against them, instead of the other way around. aftra was eventually stripped of the vast majority of its actor membership, as sag and aftra dual card holders decided it was in their best interest not to work for far less money.
aftra survived, but only as a shell of its former self, representing broadcasters and some musicians. the three remaining acting members, tom ligon, kathryn joosten and holter graham, ended up touring the country in an original, three-person show entitled,
“AFTER: Where’d Everybody Go?” which closed in Seattle, when, under union rules, the cast outnumbered the one audience member, Rik Deskin.”
August 30, 2008 at 18:51
the hass:
“Like “hass”, “wild bill”, “ned vague”, et al, these are not gentlemanly or respectful”
“This is neither a respectful discourse nor the acts of a gentleman”
________________________________
to me, from the hass:
“In fact, that sweet ass-kiss from them at meetings”
“you are a liar”
“shut the f**k up!”
_________________________________
about himself:
“myself included- maybe even especially - have just succumbed to that goading, period. Enough.”
you keep saying that hass. and then you fall off the wagon. you just gotta respond - and that’s o.k. - I’m here for you.
——————————-
“Ask a straight, decent, legitimate question - like “Well, heck, I’d like to rent them - what are the titles?”
hass: if I told him the titles he’d know who I am. I picked up on that, like, right away, and was not “tricked” as, apparently, you all think the membership of sag was “tricked” by mf into voting down merger in ‘03.
you gotta be on your guard hass-ter.
_______________________________
“This site was originally intended to be informational only, I’m sure. To provoke discussions in the hopes of finding a common ground.”
I find this site’s intentions exactly as you describe them. it’s all about common ground. with… each other. other opinions? not appreciated. you get a lot of hostility! you get called names! and told to “shut the f**k up” from obsessive compulsive’s in clear need of medication who then write fantasies about how I should treat him as a gentleman.
this is good stuff.
admit it hass. you’re out there man, you’re flyin around, in your head, all those thoughts. all those upsetting thoughts, you’re reaching, you’re straining, you’re freakin out hass. we’re all reading your own personal meltdown. is it the marriage? is there something bothering you about that? because you, I don’t know, come off VERY… bitchy. you’re a little bit of a drama… queen? is that the word?
there’ s help hass. it’s gonna be all right. we’ll accept you for who you really are.
August 30, 2008 at 19:28
Neil -
None of that was meant to apply to the buzzing wasp in the room. I wasn’t trying to address the hopeless, just those not yet caught in the web of accusation and paranoia. It’s the old principle of treating those you would change - as if they already are what you would have them become. It doesn’t work with everyone but it is the only way I know to change the level of debate, or people. We must be gentlemen even in the face of juvenile provocation.
August 30, 2008 at 20:53
doop:
” We must be gentlemen even in the face of juvenile provocation.”
you let me know when that starts. I’d love to read some “gentlemen” on this blog.
August 30, 2008 at 22:23
re 19, 21, 27, 29, 33, 34, 36 ad nauseum.
YAWN.
August 30, 2008 at 22:40
William –
Ditto. I guess every forum has to have a troll.
VG
August 31, 2008 at 05:00
Anyone hear something buzzing?
August 31, 2008 at 19:07
doop
I do. its the buzz that u4s is going to lose its shirt come september 18th. think about it - no plan, a long term agenda to merge with aftra, that, frankly, aftra itself probably doesn’t want anymore, no idea how to get a better contract, wants what sag wants - and more!
who exactly are you supporting? and why? I need to be reacquainted with your drunken, slurring, weaving logic.