• Home
• About Us/Contact
• Key Differences
• Phase 1
• Pension and Health
• Editorials
• Pre Blog Posts
• Letters to SAG
• The Kimbrough Collection
• Letters to SAGWatch
• NED Doug Allen
• Privacy Policy and any other Legal Notice We Think Of
• The Banned Words/IP List

31 Responses to “No Negotiations Watch: Allens Push for a Strike Referendum”

1. William Charlton says:
   October 9, 2008 at 20:39

   Now that they’ve backed us into a corner, the only way out that will salvage their egos and save some face, is by asking the membership of SAG to back a strike authorization. Either we support them in making one bad choice after another, or we neuter our negotiating team. What a lousy choice, and not one we should be put in the position to make. They should know better. I hope the National Board sees the writing on the wall, and they get a directive to settle this contract. We’ve already lost this battle(re New Media), and to have to help some lame angry MF satisfy their ultimate fantasy is unacceptable.

2. admin says:
   October 9, 2008 at 21:00

   Sent to us by Keri Tombazian:

   I just love how the Guild titles this email blast “Negotiations” update. There are no negotiations. This is a pitch for the MF led negotiating committee’s recent little stunt. Not a moment ago, they roared that they were going to call for a Strike Authorization referendum vote. However, realizing what a political hot potato that would be – they decided to pass it off to the National Board.

   While it is true that members of UFS have seats on the national board of directors, it remains to be seen what the board as a whole will do. To be honest, I do not know the strategy, nor understand the mindset of the board at large. To be fair to them, they must have a chance to get into the big room as a national body and see how the wind blows.

   I have remained quiet until tonight on this matter wanting to see how it plays out. However, as the MF Hollywood “leadership” refuses to do the same, and as your questions begin to pile up in my email box, let me assure you: I will not support a strike authorization vote.

   Fraternally,

   Keri

3. just one gal's thoughts says:
   October 9, 2008 at 21:47

   they are nuts. do they actually believe that in the midst of the worst economic times this country has seen in decades, that 75% of the voting membership would vote to go on strike???

   i come from a strong union family and i believe in unions. i also understand that if they go for this strike authorization vote and we don’t give it to them, we completely destroy whatever power our negotiating team has.

   having said that, i CANNOT in good conscience vote for a strike authorization. i do not believe there is anything here worth striking over and that a decent deal can be had without this insanity. furthermore, i do not trust that this negotiating committee won’t strike just because they want to show their power. that is not a good enough reason to shut down what little work is out there at the moment and turn our members out onto the street.

   so please, i beg of you all, do NOT put the membership in this position. do NOT ask for a strike authorization vote. go back to the table, stop the nonsense, stop the posturing and get a deal.

   things are uncertain enough. don’t make it worse.

4. Neil Hassman says:
   October 10, 2008 at 06:26

   I would guess that “In Unity” sign-off indicates the unity between Alan and Doug only (ok, maybe toss in AMJ and a few others…).

   At coffee, lunches, dinners, auditions, the gym, on the phone….there is also Unity among the membership that this is the craziest crap most folks have ever seen. But that unity is not The Allen’s Unity…..

   When will they do what they were elected to do and REPRESENT the will of their members?

5. Dr. Giggles says:
   October 10, 2008 at 07:02

   I’m beginning to thnik the only way to get the message through is to put out the vote to the membership, and let them speak loud and clear…..then start a grass roots movement calling for DA/AR/AMJ resignations, They just don’t seem to have a clue what the general membership wants or needs…how the struggling are desperate, and how the famous have had enough of the BS…..afterall, while the economy dumps, and members lose their mortgages, and a can’t find work, Doug get’s his half-mil paycheck.

6. Thomas Frank says:
   October 10, 2008 at 09:36

   If you agree the producers never had any intention of offering a fair contract on new media, let alone force majeure and the other deal points, that there never were any “negotiations” and the proof of this is absolute: no other union did any better.

   You need to answer the question: why are you bowing down to being ripped off by the producers? Why are you being cowardly and putting forth arguments that pretend the SAG “leadership” had any part whatsoever in the AMPTP’s obstinance? That’s an illogical argument, and I’m sure it ’s the main reason the poll came back 87% “keep fighting.”

   You really have to stop complaining about the elected leadership. They wouldn’t have EVER gotten a better contract without it coming to this. SAG ALWAYS needed a strike authorization, and the very argument you all repeatedly make, the absurd “well, then, why didn’t they ask for it in June?” is so patently obvious, I cringe every time you make it. You complain about their rashness, I see it as prudent behavior. And you all KNOW you’re lying: you wouldn’t have supported a strike authorization in June either! You would have said they were being “reckless and rash!” - NOW you say. they are being “desperate” - well, you can’t have it both ways - which is it?

   The truth is, you NEVER will support a strike authorization, because you are all cowards who won’t give the leadership the authority to use the ONLY tool that has ANY power - a strike authorization.

   So what it comes down to is simply, “be a coward” (the sagwatch approach) or, “be a fighter, willing to strike to be treated fairly” (the overwhelming result of the poll).

   Nothing - not the time line of the “negotiations” so far, not anything SAG did or didn’t do, not the economic crisis - NOTHING explains your weakness, except pure cowardice. You will accept ANYTHING the producers offer you. You are unwilling to fight, and whatever reason you can come up with to justify your gutless behavior - you will.

   You either have the courage to demand fair treatment as a union, or, you don’t.

   You don’t. We get it. Vote no. You’re all ballerinas.

7. Dr. Giggles says:
   October 10, 2008 at 10:34

   TF - our leadership blew it by going alone, without AFTRA by our side. AFTRA got a better deal than what’s on the table. Why, because AMPTP saw we were weaker and united with AFTRA. That’s where the folly began….and has rolled down hill since. Leadership dropped the ball also by starting negotiations much later than we’ve ever done before. Then during negotiations they divided SAG by calling everyone outside LA has hobbyists - the list goes on of specific events over the last 18 months that led to this spot.

   Now we’re in a corner that could have been avoided if their was better strategy up front..

8. Neil Hassman says:
   October 10, 2008 at 11:11

   Mr. Frank,

   Are you this rigid in your personal life? Do you have a mate? Kids? I’m not prying or trying to be negative or harm you in any way, I’m just trying to figure out how anyone could possibly be so rigid and unyielding in a time that demands absolute flexibility and compromise. This situation is only made worse by the actions of MF in the face of all the tumult in the world…

   I agree that IF SAG had gone first, backed by a referendum to strike if the paramount issues hadn’t been met, there would have been a chance to get a good chunk of what MF promised. But they didn’t do that, now, did they? In what [in retrospect at least] looks like the first dumb move in what is now an unfortunately long string, they opted to go last.
   What sense did this make? The DGA spent a fortune on 2 studies….did MF think they’d get a great deal based on those? Foolish, at best, because the DGA’s issues are furthest from SAG’s of all the guilds.

   The WGA DID strike. What’d they gain, really? Nothing they’ll ever recoup after 100 grueling, scary days on the lines. Production went down and has stayed down. The losses, not only to the writers, but all who were affected by the shutdown, were massive, and permanent. Not recognising this was MF’s second big mistake.

   Then, those reasonable folks at AFTRA, recognising the seriousness of the times, MADE A DEAL. Far from perfect, but it does address many issues, and contains a Sunset Clause allowing complete renegotiations at term. AND IT IS A CONTRACT, for God’s sake. And what did SAG do? Pissed up AFTRA’s legs, attacked them in the most unseemly ways, spent hundreds of thousands of [scared, suffering] members’ money trying to negate AFTRA’s efforts, UNSUCCESSFULLY. Did SAG pay attention? Nope. Another huge blunder.

   How many blunders does it take before you stop backing those who made them and seek a better way?

   So, here we sit. Stalemated beyond belief, driven by a few who have ignored the will of the many. Refusing to open their eyes to the dire straits the country, no less the industry, is in. Strike? Who needs it…most actors are already out of work, struggling to pay bills, losing their houses, cutting back, and on and on and on. You think 75% of those poor souls are going to vote to walk out in support of the clowns who put them in this position when there’s zero likelihood MF will achieve anything more than what’s been on the table for months?

   Get real.

   You say [snidely] - “You either have the courage to demand fair treatment as a union, or, you don’t. You don’t. We get it. Vote no. You’re all ballerinas.”

   Well, listen, pal, the courage to demand fair treatment is NOT acting as MF has acted. It takes more courage to admit your mistakes, correct them, and move forward and make a deal than it takes to not recognise the error of your ways, stand pat and make things worse. Worse for the immediate future. Worse for the long term. Worse.

   Ballerinas are extreme physical specimens. They sacrifice tremendously to bring inordinate expressive beauty to a most difficult art form. They are incredibly hard working, lifelong trained masters of a craft.

   As are most actors.

   What part of this do you continue to refuse to understand, and more importantly, WHY?

9. Pat Skipper says:
   October 10, 2008 at 11:28

   They should be sending letters reassuring the members that our pensions are going to be there, considering what’s happened over the past two weeks. Oh, that’s right, their ears are made of tin.

10. Kevin says:
    October 10, 2008 at 12:56

    It sounds very much that Thomas Frank isn’t so much interested in getting a fair contract for SAG members as he is in finally getting to go out on strike. (And in engaging in more tiresome name-calling.)

    At no point does he admit any of the mistakes made by the Membership First group in the botched negotiations and posturing that have led us to this point.

    We’ll just have to see if the only people who vote on the strike ballots are the 8.7% of the membership who said yes to the postcard poll.

11. William Charlton says:
    October 10, 2008 at 13:29

    sigh… Thomas Frank, claiming insider knowledge, and no longer part of the “ruling faction” is not interested in dialogue — he’s only interested in letting us all know that he thinks we’re morons because we’d rather be working with a decent contract than walking around in a circle with a placard. He’s convinced that within the next two years they’ll be no more networks, only google and the like to get our entertainment. He is precisely why most MFers should be voted off of the board — they are not interested in dialogue. They are only interested in sowing division and hate and turning actor against actor, and they’d rather see us not working. One has to ask why.

12. Voiceguy says:
    October 10, 2008 at 14:06

    In this kind of thing, timing and positioning is everything. So far, SAG has acted like a bad tennis player, always ready to swing at the ball here when the ball is actually over there on the other side of the court.

    It doesn’t matter that the ball used to be here. And it does no good to stand still in one place and insist that the ball come to that place. Rather, it’s a dynamic game that requires skill, wit, and coordination — and some luck.

    What we’ve seen so far in these “negotiations” is inexplicable.

    The time for the strike authorization was going into the negotiations. Yet, understandably — with the memory of the WGA strike so fresh in everyone’s minds — there was genuine doubt whether the authorization would pass.

    What a skilled tactician would have realized at that point is that the strike threat was probably going to be off the table, because additional passage of time wasn’t going to improve things. Thus, the job of the negotiators at that point was to make the best possible deal without a strike threat. There was a window of opportunity to do that, but the window has now largely closed.

    Meanwhile, seeking strike authorization now is no different from swinging for a ball that used to be there but is long gone.

    You don’t have to watch an entire tennis match to identify a bad player. That’s what we’ve been seeing here. And a significant portion of the SAG membership is unwilling to hitch its future to the slim possibility that the bad player will accidentally manage to return the ball occasionally. Some might call it cowardice, but many others would view it as common sense.

    VG

13. Thomas Frank says:
    October 10, 2008 at 15:23

    All

    I stop even reading your nonsense after the first paragraph, because you keep making the same tired arguments: “if SAG had negotiated with AFTRA we wouldn’t be in this situation”

    Well, that’s possibly true - we would have already signed this crap deal that violates the core principals of our union.

    As to getting a FAIR deal? Negotiating with AFTRA had ZERO impact on that, because that would have required them to agree to the simplest of principals (and god knows, AFTRA is not big on principals): “No non-union work in the contract, and fair payment for all resuse of members work.”

    And yet, the ridiculous argument is made - “give it to them! violate the core principals!”

    Uh. Why?

    “Because the DGA did! And the WGA did! And AFTRA did! And it’s the eleventh commandment that this “concept” (that’s all it is folks) of “pattern bargaining” is absolute!”

    No it’s not. Show me where it says we have to accept some other union’s crap deal?

    And show me how, if we were merged with AFTRA, the AMPTP would have said “oh my god - they’re merged! This is frightening to us. We HAVE to offer them a deal that DOESN’T violate the core principals of the union” - which, lets not forget, the cowards, like Sam Freed DID do, despite breaking out in a flop sweat at the thought of voting not to be an absolute gutless coward.

    Pointless.

14. Kevin says:
    October 10, 2008 at 16:40

    Thomas Frank is attempting to argue that if he wishes really, really hard, the sun will not come up tomorrow.

    Pattern bargaining isn’t absolute, but it is a fact of life that all the guilds deal with during every contract cycle. This is why many SAG members are disappointed that SAG didn’t start its talks early, when it could have shaped the pattern. Granted, if the NegComm had gone in with the same unfortunate approach that the WGA group did, it wouldn’t have achieved much. But if a calm and reasoned approach had been taken early, who knows what could have been achieved.

    Stamping one’s foot and refusing to accept the current situation is not a solution. It’s just a vehicle for more finger-pointing and name-calling. Which appears to be the approach Mr. Frank assumes will work. It’s unfortunate and illogical, but he seems to be bent on that approach. He has not presented anything to counter the lack of leverage that currently exists other than a stream of vitriol at anyone who disagrees with him. One can only wonder what such a person would do with a strike authorization.

15. supermom says:
    October 10, 2008 at 17:13

    If it weren’t for real men like Thomas Frank, we wouldn’t have had the Alamo !

16. Thomas Frank says:
    October 10, 2008 at 18:04

    “But if a calm and reasoned approach had been taken early, who knows what could have been achieved.”

    SAG: “we are here first.”

    Nick Counter: “Yes. I see.”

    SAG: “We are calmly and reasonably asking you, oh great and wise producers, to give us what we want. At the very least, we’d prefer not to be given a demand we violate the core principals of our union.”

    Nick Counter: “It’s nice to see you Doug and Allen. It’s great you came first - good strtaegy. I’m sure your supporters over at Sagwatch.net will be very supportive. Unfortunately, I’ll have to interupt the meeting for five minutes while I go laugh hysterically.”
    —————–
    “Stamping one’s foot and refusing to accept the current situation is not a solution.”

    (One of a thousand examples) President Bush: “Hello America. Before i head back to the ranch, I’d like to force you all to accept conscription. I have the authority to do it, and I’m sure you’ll all agree to offer up your sons and daughters for my own personal little experiment we got goin on over in Iraq.”

    Sagwatch.net: “Sounds great. Here - take them.”

    Gutless fools

17. james says:
    October 10, 2008 at 20:11

    you want a strike tom, sounds great at what cost? lives, homes, families. people want to be working right know not striking, need would be a better term. how stuffed in the head that you think a strike in seriously bad economic times, when you will have no money, no support from any other union because the sag has lost its support by know. plus how can you support leaders who have failed to reach a deal out of saying i want to get this and i will hold my breath till i get it, i will not bend in my will i will act like a child and say its not fair i want more than everyone else. the concequences that are your working under an old contract for 3 months and you might lose the contract that has been offered it might get downgraded and you will get less than the other unions. timing and tact were needed in reaching a deal not a bull in a china shop technique.

18. Dr. Giggles says:
    October 10, 2008 at 20:35

    We didn’t state any “core principals” until after AFTRA had a deal and the SAG contract expired. Yes, SAG and AFTRA shoulder to shoulder would have resulted in a deal, a better deal, and a contract - and we have nothing now. The only shot left is a strike authorization, at a time when the economy has tank and members have lost all faith in the leadership.,,,and no plan if/when that vote fails.

19. vested says:
    October 10, 2008 at 20:47

    What we needed, but never had, was a negotiator with an overall strategy, played brilliantly.
    Every movement, every choice made has been half-baked, poorly thought out, and resulted only in our ‘leaders’ being ridiculed in and by the press, for … having no strategy at all. It’s been paint balls, shot from the hip. Hence, the mess we’re in.

    Negotiating is a calculated interplay of nuance. There is absolutely nothing nuanced about Doug Allen.

    And a strike is NOT a “strategy.” It’s a “tactic” that’s part of an overall “strategy.” But so far what’s been done has been so destructive, I cannot imagine a strike even working.

    At least a year - preferably more - before a union calls a strike, as part of the strategy, there has to be a concerted effort by that union to build internal strength and unity through outreach and education. Member to member, face to face. Otherwise, when the strike is called, who’s going to carry the signs?
    Union members will give their all to a movement when they feel heard, when they believe that their needs are being fought for, and when they can claim ownership. In SAG, that has been stripped from all members but the MFs in Hollywood. And the destruction started with the denigration of a segment or class of members by other members.

    Handling things the way they’ve been handled so far, governing so poorly as this, is one of the best ways I know to destroy anything of relevance that’s left of a union.

    SAG has become a caste system, with MF fighting to remain king. When the rest of the country falls away (for any number of reasons), and the MFs are finally “in charge of it all” in Hollywood, what exactly will they be in charge of?

    A dusty old museum, I’m guessing.

    Again, I’ll mention:
    “Confessions of a Union Buster.”

    V.

20. just one gal's thoughts says:
    October 10, 2008 at 21:32

    Dear Mr. Frank,

    I don’t know you and nor do you know me. I strongly object to being labeled a coward by you. I walked our picket lines for six long months during the commercial strike. I was a strike captain and I managed to talk many folks into walking off sets to support us. I strongly believe in unions and when we vote to walk out, we walk out together. That is the strength of a union.

    I watched as friends and colleagues lost their health insurance, their homes and in some cases their marriages thanks to the strain of the situation. I also watched as much work left and never came back. I often look back and wonder how much we gained in that action vs how much we lost.

    I don’t expect us to all agree on everything. As a matter of fact, I’d be terrified for this guild if we did. But I do expect to disagree respectfully, without demeaning our brothers and sisters.

    I don’t believe there is anything worth shutting down production over in this situation. You do. I respect your right to believe that and to argue your point of view. Please give me and others who differ with you that same respect.

    Things are tough all over right now. We do not live in a vacuum. The consideration to strike must be looked at both for what we can gain and what we would lose. That is something each of us must decide for ourselves.

    Respectfully yours.

21. Neil Hassman says:
    October 11, 2008 at 06:58

    Thomas Frank

    You say - “I stop even reading your nonsense after the first paragraph, because you keep making the same tired arguments: “if SAG had negotiated with AFTRA we wouldn’t be in this situation” “.

    Actually, sir, you’re quite wrong. I’ve just spent an entire cup of coffee re-reading this, and other, strings and almost no one has said that. A month or two ago, maybe, but not now. Now the focus is strictly SAG. You’re obfuscating, something you apparently excel at.

    Had you actually READ these posts, what almost everyone DOES point out, is the failures of DA/AR/AMJ/MF to listen to membership, adjust their tactics as they went along, and negotiate in a reasonable way. No mention of going in with AFTRA pretty much anywhere. In fact most of us (and in my #8 I remind you of this -) think SAG should’ve gone first, but it was their “tactic” not to.

    But you didn’t read all the way through. You did what so many hair-trigger buffoons do when so locked into their own views they can’t see the forest for the toothpicks. I’m sorry to “name-call” but I’m pretty sure from reading your posts IT’S ALL YOU UNDERSTAND.

    Every post I’ve read, hell, every member I’ve spoken to, just wants their leadership to be more open and even moderate in their approach and demands. Not be the only uber-hardliners in a world of change.

    As we’ve now clearly seen, this accomplishes nothing. That’s what you have now - nothing. That’s what you’ll continue to have as long as they take this tack. Nothing.

    In fact, Mr. Frank, in my post #8 I have SAG and AFTRA separated by 2 other guilds, and clearly point out it was your exalted leaders that chose to change the order and go last. Geniuses. This was an error of epic proportion that changed the tone completely, and clearly shows the way everything following that decision and leading up to their actual beginning negotiations, was blunder on error on mistake.

    Maybe you should try meditation, because mental masturbation just isn’t working for you…Or maybe you should just try READING MORE.

    I’d like to sign off with respect, like Just One Gal, but I have zero respect for people so narrow they resort to repeating an incorrect mantra, ad nauseum, and at any cost, to the exclusion and detriment of others…

22. Tom Ligon says:
    October 11, 2008 at 06:59

    Davey….er….I mean “Thomas Frank”….now that you’ve been voted out by the SAG members who see through Membership First’s barrage of bluster, and now that you’re about to be canned from working your hysterical hijack on the rest of the committees you populate - isn’t it about time that you acknowledged that the “Core Principle” concept you’ve attempted to co-opt and pervert is actually a motion put forward and adopted unanimously by the National Board by Richard Masur - NY Board Member and two-time SAG National President.

    (And what’s with that? MF told us that Richard was Satan. Is this yet another pact with the devil you’ve signed?)

    Davey…er, dammit….”Thomas Frank” refers to::

    “It is a core principle of Screen Actors Guild –

    That no non-union work shall be authorized to be done under any Screen Actors Guild agreement and;

    That all work under a Screen Actors Guild contract, regardless of budget level, shall receive fair compensation when reused.”

    I think it’s admirable that Membership First has adopted Richard Masur’s motion as their mantra, but they also seem to believe that adherence to that chant will somehow cause the world around them to change.

    Now, don’t get me wrong - I love that Core Principle.

    That Core Principle, however, is not Reality. Never has been.

    Union contracts have limits that reflect bargaining power and the need to compromise in order to reach agreement.

    Of course members would like SAG’s reach to extend 100% in every direction, but it’s unrealistic to expect that.

    Residuals are paid only on television replays of films made in 1960 or later.

    SAG’s short film agreement and ultra-low-budget agreement, for example,
    both expressly allow the use of both union and non-union actors.

    Only 19 background performers must be union members on a TV production,
    and only 50 on a theatrical film, under the current contract.

    The point is: the world is not perfect.

    One sad irony of the “core principle of Screen Actors Guild” is that it was always AFTRA’s Core Principle to cover everyone on an AFTRA set - which AFTRA reluctantly broke in order to bring their Primetime contracts into parity with SAG, when they felt there was no choice but to accept SAG’s background numbers.

23. Voiceguy says:
    October 11, 2008 at 09:05

    Variety’s Dave McNary inexplicably states “SAG could strike in November”:

    http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117993816.html?categoryid=18&cs=1

    His arithmetic seems a little shaky to me.

    The Hollywood Reporter offers its own perspective, “SAG: Authorization Does Not Mean Strike”:

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ib51a5e93dda16ab7facd2e6506d9a718

    Obviously, much depends on the board meeting next weekend. I am hopeful that in some way, the board can express to Messrs. Allen and Rosenberg, and to the Negotiating Committee, that it does not appreciate the maneuvering that has gone on to try to box the board in to a “fait accompli.” My original suggestion was that the board should kick the strike referendum decision back to the committee, where it was all along, and own the decision. I still believe that’s a route worth considering.

    But another possibility would be to do what the postcard poll should have done, and truly canvass the membership. Find out whether the New Media issues truly bother enough members to make them worth striking over. Instead of doing another postcard poll, however, SAG should investigate more scientific and valid polling methods (perhaps using the telephone).

    The one thing that cries out from this situation, however, is that business as usual cannot continue. Simply sending out the strike referendum seems to me like business as usual. The obvious elephant in the room at the next board meeting is personnel change, either on the Negotiating Committee or higher up.

    VG

24. Thomas Frank says:
    October 11, 2008 at 09:23

    68-0.

    Unanimous. “We will NOT violate the core principals of our union.” Obviously, whatever support the appeasers and cowards have among the elected leadership was belied by this vote.

    I have no time for calling a spade anything other than a spade.

25. Tom Ligon says:
    October 11, 2008 at 10:06

    Sorry -
    the statement you mention:
    “We will NOT violate the core principals of our union”
    HAS NEVER BEEN VOTED ON
    - unanimously or otherwise.
    Why are you lying?
    Are you that scared?

26. james says:
    October 11, 2008 at 21:03

    i think tom is just bringing up old news, trying to look like he knows something, plus that was the old board which certain members were voted out of and memberships first majority is gone. i see name calling tom and old news is that all membership first has to offer, thats right it is. Everyone is telling you to look at the evidence have you or do you just like shooting your mouth off in support of hardliners who have lost a majority in the board and are using what little influence they have to make sure your working under old conditions.

27. Thomas Frank says:
    October 12, 2008 at 09:41

    2008-07-28

    SAG Board Backs Negotiators’ Demands

    LOS ANGELES, July 28: Amid an internal power struggle, the Screen Actors Guild’s (SAG) national board has backed the efforts of the union’s negotiating team to secure jurisdiction over online content and better residuals for the reuse of new media.

    The board issued its resolutions over the weekend, stipulating that “core” principles of SAG include that “no non-union work shall be authorized to be done under any Screen Actors Guild agreement,” and that “all work under a Screen Actors Guild contract, regardless of budget level, shall receive fair compensation when reused.”

    The resolutions passed unanimously at a vote of 68-0.
    ——————————————–
    Ligon

    Are you high?

28. Neil Hassman says:
    October 12, 2008 at 11:23

    # 24 -

    “I have no time for calling a spade anything other than a spade.”

    But you sure have time for lying, obfuscation, invention, name-calling, misquoting, bullying, hardlining non-existent “core-principles”…. You sure do need to re-prioritise.

    Methinks thou doth protest too much.

29. Thomas Frank says:
    October 12, 2008 at 17:19

    Hassman

    So now there are no “core principals” of SAG and the vote WASN’T 68-0? What else is happening in your fantasy life? One of your clients got a job?

30. Neil Hassman says:
    October 13, 2008 at 06:11

    Those “core-principles” stcking in your craw, TF? All I meant was in spite of them, there is lots of “acceptable” non-union work happening.

    But, as you do so well, you’ve completely ignored the real issues to attack the one thing you think you can…

    Pathetic. Get help.

31. Thomas Frank says:
    October 13, 2008 at 22:02

    Yeah, but, if we strike, it won’t be studio work Hassman. THAT’S leverage.

    -remainder deleted-

Leave a Reply