December 31, 2008 by Editor.

Our opinion? Ultimately, it’s not a terrible concept.

But does Membership First really need another $120,000 rebuke, to be paid for by the people delivering it? 

To all who work for our unions and for our members a very deeply felt thank you, and, to all, Happy New Year.  

The SAGWatch team

Posted in SAG Politics, Editorial, Union Politics, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 42 Comments »

December 24, 2008 by admin.

We’re taking a break for the holiday. Barring the unlikely event of the AMPTP playing Santa and us noticing that they did it, we’re all putting union activity aside, and heading for family activities.

We hope you’re all doing the same, and that your holidays are a lot better than this past year!

Posted in Commercials Contract, Interactive, Animation Contract, Basic Cable, SAG Politics, Editorial, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical, Media Business, Union Politics, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 31 Comments »

November 27, 2008 by Editor.

Inspired, perhaps, by the AFTRA message, we started considering what we here at SAGWatch have to be thankful for. Certainly we’d include the members of both SAG and AFTRA who run for office, serve on committees, work through the W&W and negotiating issues - all as volunteers. Whether we agree about specific issues, whether or not we’re with them on slate selection, our lives are all better because they have stepped forward and are working on behalf of all of us. Theirs is volunteerism at its finest.

The staffs of both unions also genuinely care about the members for whom they work.  We may take issue with some of their decisions, but their service should be remembered with gratitude today.

We thank the readers who want to learn more about their unions - more than 200,000 visits to this site in its first five months, with more than 413,000 page views - both are numbers that surprised and inspire us.We thank the contributors whose articles and comments make this site a better place - especially VoiceGuy. We’d certainly include Wrath/pale rider/Balsawood/ Thomas Frank/Bobby66/Franklin Barr/Ted Simon/Mrs. Wakely/T-Rex, who, with 284 comments to date is far and away our most prolific writer, but who probably is wondering why his posts aren’t showing up lately (we’ve got 15 on hold in the moderation area currently). Hint: follow the rules. ONE identity per person.

Anyway, all of us at SAGWatch extend best wishes for a Happy Thanksgiving and a great holiday season to all of you.

Posted in Editorial | Print | 9 Comments »

November 22, 2008 by Editor.

Those of you who’ve been regulars here probably remember a poster who went by any number of names - pale rider, Balsawood, Thomas Frank, Bobby66, Franklin Barr and others. We asked the poster to choose just one - and the choice was Thomas Frank…till this week. We started getting posts in the name of Wrath - from the same person, and we thought, hey, just delete them - anyone who won’t follow the very simple rule - one ID per poster - shouldn’t be rewarded for attempting to deceive everyone as to the number of people holding a particular view.

But we thought some of the messages were worth posting anyway, simply because they present a different point of view than that expressed most often here, and because they have what we believe to be an accurate insider’s perspective - even if we don’t often agree with it. (By the way, we think the same poster uses the name Ted Simon on another BBS system.)

So - here is the essence of one of the recent notes from Wrath/pale rider/Balsawood/Thomas Frank/Bobby66/Franklin Barr:

Let me ask you a question. If you knew who I was and that what I was reporting was 100% accurate, what would your feelings be?

If the answer is “wow - even the moderates on the neg com were so pissed they voted for the strike authorization? That’s not good. There was NO compromise or negotiation from the AMPTP? That’s deeply troubling. Maybe we SHOULD at least give the leadership the tool of strike authorization because clearly, if this information is correct, the AMPTP is simply telling SAG to take a walk on EVERYTHING!”

If, by any chance, there is ANY way you would be persuaded you’re not being hoodwinked, and that the information is correct?

Then you need to start considering how you’ll vote without the knee-jerk response.

Because that IS what happened in that room. And people who were there are going to tell you that.

I mean, take away all the animosity and suspicion and stubbornness on both sides? We’re all actors who belong to SAG and want to have a decent shot at making a living and passing along a profession to the next group that’s economically viable, albeit still extremely difficult to break into?

Then, consider what I say. Because it did happen.

And another:

Here’s the skinny: the AMPTP was STONE in the “negotiations.”

STONE.

The neg com had “moderate” voices heavily involved. The neg com went WAY down the road of compromise. WAY DOWN THE ROAD.

Kapish? BIG concessions.

And the response? STONE. To EVERY SINGLE SUGGESTION.

AND? The “strike authorization vote” To send it out?

WAS VERY,VERY, VERY STRONG. Not just from the “MF crazies.” Also from the people asking the AMPTP to be reasonable in a way the heavy anti-MF-ers on this blog and others would find EXTREMELY reassuring.

THOSE people you’d be cheering on? The “moderates” you want to rule?

THEY VOTED TO SEND OUT THE AUTHORIZATION ALSO

WHY? Because - there was nothing in response. To ANY suggested compromise. And they - even THEY - were PISSED at the AMPTP.

It’s that bad.

They want it all, and they want it now. Their stance is: Go F*** YOURSELF.

So, people? What do we do with that?

Now, do we believe that the AMPTP stonewalled and said “our offer is our offer. Period?”

Sure.

But that’s not a shocker, any more than the fact that the few outvoted moderates on the negotiating committee voted to send out the strike authorization. Voting against it would both futile, because Membership First’s hardliners dominate the committee, and also would be political suicide.

It’s entirely appropriate for the membership to decide whether it wants to give the National Board the authority to call a strike. Whether the membership will actually grant that authority is an entirely different question, as is the question of whether the more moderate National Board would call a strike even if it had the authority to do so.

Anyway, we decided we’d share with you the notes from our multiple identity poster, because we think the viewpoint is worth hearing about, whether or not you agree.

Posted in SAG Politics, Editorial, Exhibit A - TV Theatrical | Print | 11 Comments »

September 18, 2008 by WW.

Speaking in terms that could not be misunderstood, SAG members in Hollywood have joined their union brothers and sisters nationwide in saying “Enough.”

Enough to the posturing. Enough to working without a contract. Enough to the war between the branches. And, perhaps most of all, enough to the Allens’ and Membership First’s war with AFTRA.

If it wasn’t a clean sweep for the insurgent Unite for Strength ticket, it was close. Unceremoniously dumped from the board room were Membership First veterans and heavyweights, among them TV-Theatrical Negotiating Commitee chair David Joliffe, former Ralph Morgan award winner Scott Wilson, bloggers Steven Barr and Renee Aubry, and other hardliners including Michael Bell, Paul Napier, and even Russell McConnell, who chaired the National Background Committee.

Only celebrity seemed to offer any success for the battered Allens. Keith Carradine, a new convert to Membership First, joined JoBeth Williams, Scott Bakula, Lainie Kazan and Joelly Fisher in surviving the UFS tidal wave.Celebrating the clear victory, Ned Vaughn released this statement on behalf of Unite for Strength.

“We offered members a clear choice in this election – end the fighting with AFTRA and instead partner with them to create a stronger union for performers. The results in this unusually high turnout election leave no doubt that is what the members want. We look forward to working with all of our colleagues on the board to move SAG in this new direction.”

Some Membership First supporters are trying to spin this as a “neck and neck” result, Membership First’s mother of all publicists, Niikki Finke, posted the results without comment, and is undoubtedly off looking for black clothing to wear. (see update).

But with almost 25% of the members in Hollywood casting ballots, we see it as not neck and neck at all. The balance of power in SAG has changed.

What was a 52-48 majority for Membership First is no more.

What new alliances will be formed in the future, and how this will play out is something to watch. But this has to be seen as a step ahead for SAG, and for actors and unions everywhere.

Membership First’s slogan during this campaign was “You Have the Power to Take It Back.”The members did exactly that

–Other coverage: Los Angeles Times, apparently no longer convinced that the election results won’t change things. Variety’s calls is a stunning outcome, a surprise (perhaps they should have spoken more to members, rather than lavishing attention on the few vocal hard liners. The Hollywood Reporter has it right, with SAG Members Vote for Change.

–Update: Membership First’s statement, with head firmly stuck in the sand:”

“We appreciate and thank everyone who voted. Analyzing the results shows there was no mandate for either slate. Membership First still retains control of the Hollywood Division board and still controls the vote on the negotiating committee.

“Membership First still holds firm on what we believe are issues that are imperative for our members of the Screen Actors Guild. Those issues are: holding firm on force majeure, holding firm on jurisidoction from dollar one in New Media, holding firm on residuals for product made for New Media, and holding firm on product integration.

And we look forward to the new national board members realizing (once they’ve actually spent time in a boardroom) that what we are fighting for is the right thing for the Screen Actors Guild.”AFTRA on their own starting in 2006 began a campaign of undercutting contracts in order to place more money in their coffers and secure jurisdictions at the expense of the well-being of the actors.

As the postcard poll has indicated, Membership First will continue to fight to maintain fair wages and working conditions for our members no matter what.”

–Update: Nikki Finke spent half a page tonight trying to explain how the results aren’t really a rejection of Membership First or a win for Unite for Strength, then plaintively concluded, “I just hope MF and U4S can now unite about trying to get a richer deal. Because SAG has to start speaking with one voice again. Solidarity against the AMPTP is now or never.”

Posted in SAG Politics, Editorial, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 28 Comments »

September 18, 2008 by Editor.

We received an inquiry from a MSM reporter (one whose work we like) asking for someone from SAGWatch to call him. Here’s why we’re not doing it.

You may recall all the flap and controversy over who we are and why we’re doing this. You’ll probably recall our answer.

“We deliberately kept our names out of it because we didn’t want it to be a matter of what films, shows and campaigns we’ve done, what we’ve booked that dictates how people read our notes. Either you agree, or you disagree - with the ideas we’ve put forth, not with us personally. And that’s if we put forth any original ideas at all.”

We weren’t kidding. This isn’t about us. It’s about our union, or, these days, our unions.

Anyone can feel free to take anything we’ve written and use it for any purpose they’d like. We’d appreciate it if it’s attributed, but at the end of the day we really don’t care. It’s un-Hollywood, we know. Giving up a possible star turn… but it’s the ideas that are the stars here. Not the team.

We’ll answer questions, but only via the site…usually in Letters to SAGWatch.

Posted in Editorial | Print | 4 Comments »

September 15, 2008 by Editor.

Here at SAGWatch, we’re wondering if the end of this year’s SAG election cycle will mean a moderation in the tone of the debate between Membership First and the rest of the world. If members haven’t sent their votes in at this point, they’re probably not going to get there on time. Somehow we doubt it, but we can always hope, right?In the meantime, it’s now just about three months since we went to the blog format, and just over a year since we launched the original SAGWatch site - though our posts didn’t really get going until December 2007.  In the past day or so we’ve crossed the 2000 mark on comments, and are delighted that more members on all sides of every issue seem to be offering their thoughts. We’ve regularly infuriated the folks at 5757 and at Membership First - a bonus in and of itself. We thank them for our nickname - as we’ve said, we didn’t even know our server was in Germany until they started riffing on it.The one belly flop so far seems to be our BBS. We’d thought that bbs.SAGWatch.net   would be appealing, since you don’t have to wait for one of us to get to the computer and approve comments…but that hasn’t caught on yet. We’ll leave it there anyway.Here at SAGWatch blog,  as of tonight the server has registered 239,549 page views in 114,100 unique visits. Not bad for a startup, and we’re taking it as a sign that this is all worthwhile.Still, we remind you that we can’t be everywhere. So we need your help in making this the complete source for independent observations of our unions. Your contributions are always welcome either in comments, BBS posts or by e-mail to editor@sagwatch.net.Here’s hoping Thursday’s election results herald an end to the hostilities between the factions and the unions, and mark the start of rebuilding the unity necessary if we’re all to succeed.

Posted in SAG Politics, Editorial, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 20 Comments »

August 24, 2008 by Editor.

When the e-mail was forwarded to us, we naturally assumed it was a hoax, aimed at keeping people away from this site. We were wrong.

WARNING

It looks like the SagWatch website is possibly infected with some
spyware that will come up on users’ computers as “AntiVirus 2008/09″.
It is a type sometimes called “highjackthis”, first around in 2005 and
causes a cascade of pop-ups. The “highjackthis”/”Antivirus 2008/09″
files seem to live in three places on the computer, including a
document file.
Please let them know about the possibility, I do not want to go on the
site & get my computer infected again. Last night I had just done a
system clean and then I went to 2 sites. My computer got infected
from one of them - I’m fairly certain it was not the other site.

They need to have someone check their site, i think a hacker…(or an
incumbent’s supporter?) has been busy.

Of course it is and was untrue - there’s no software of any kind on this site, no advertising and no pop-ups.

But it turned out that the person who started it wasn’t trying to hurt the site, she actually was trying to help. She was just mistaken. ‘

We thank her for looking out for us…and apologize for any confusion.

Posted in SAG Politics, Editorial, Union Politics, SAG-AFTRA | Print | 5 Comments »

July 21, 2008 by admin.

It’s one sided, OK, and some of you won’t like the political references. We know it. But we can’t help drawing comparisons between what’s going on in DC and what’s going on in LA.

In DC we have a President of the United States who’s been calling himself a wartime president, as the nation is stuck in a war of his own creation. At every turn he and his political party suggest that it’s unpatriotic not to support them.

In Hollywood, it’s the same thing. SAG’s President hasn’t used the exact words, but as we head into this critical election season, Alan Rosenberg has the union stuck in a war of his creation. At every turn he and his party, Membership First, suggest that it’s unpatriotic not to support them.

In both places, there is a sense that the electorate is trapped in a quagmire from which there is no easy escape, and no immediate hope for improvement.

Also in both places there are elections looming that offer a chance for change, and a chance for that hope.

In DC, there is a candidate who has positioned himself as the candidate of change. Whether you see him as actually offering actual change isn’t our subject, or the point.

In SAG, where we so urgently need an agent of change, none has stepped up. We’ve heard rumors that one candidate or another might run against Rosenberg for President of the Union. But what we haven’t heard is any organized effort to elect candidates and alternates to the Hollywood Board - and it is on that board that any change would have to originate.

A change of as few as four seats on the Hollywood Board could alter the balance of power in the union, removing Membership First from its current lock on control of every piece of the National SAG machinery.

The deadline for nominating petitions is almost upon us.

The oft used phase, originally penned by Edmund Burke, is that evil triumphs when good men do nothing. We’d include women in that, too.

Posted in Editorial, Union Politics | Print | 3 Comments »