Letters to SAGWatch
October 17, 2008
“I Screwed Up”Three words uttered by Presidential candidate Senator John McCain last night on the David Letterman Show in reference to his previously having blown off Letterman and his millions of viewers in favor of pursuing yet another inept and unproductive political strategy.
“I screwed up.” Perhaps not enough to sway my vote in the election, but nevertheless a baby step toward redemption, toward revealing that he is human, fallible, and possessed of humility and - yes - intelligence.
These are three words that we have never heard from Doug Allen, SAG’s National Executive Director.From his ill-conceived beginnings in union matters in 1974, through his dealings with NFL veterans allegedly cut short on pensions, royalties and health benefits, to the highly-flawed 18-month run-up to SAG Television/Theatrical contract negotiations with the AMPTP, there is no hint ever of this soul-baring admission that is the necessary first step toward putting things right.
The same quality affixes to the words, tone, and attitude of Membership First. This Party has had more than two years of complete control of SAG resources with which to successfully strategize SAG’s mission, and they have failed miserably. Have you ever heard even a whisper of “We screwed up” from any of their leaders?In my estimation, the absence of this phrase requires that bold measures now be taken by the new majority of the SAG National Board. There are less bold moves that could easily be accomplished. For instance, bringing in a mediator - a “referee”, if you will - to aid in the negotiation process. But time is running out, and less-than-bold measures will not sufficiently correct the course of our ship-of-state. At any rate, the present negotiations are merely a (very important, crucial and vital) symptom of a deeper all-pervasive syndrome of blind arrogance and the inability to accommodate contrary opinions - and to attempt to merely patch them together with a referee’s whistle won’t win the big game.
Tom Ligon
–
October 11, 2008
To Whom It May Concern,
To be honest, I am not a member of SAG but I have been following the negotiations since the contract expired.
I subscribe to Google Alerts for Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA and one of my Google Alerts linked to a letter that was posted on your website. The two paragraphs I am most interested in are in red below:
Any work stoppage called affecting the TV/Theatrical contracts will only impact work under those contracts, such as feature films, free television, and pay cable television, and will not affect other Guild contracts. Under such circumstances, Screen Actors Guild members would continue to work on all other contracts including the commercials contract, TV animation, basic cable television and basic cable animation contracts, industrial contract and interactive/video game contract.
All work under these contracts would continue uninterrupted.
The way I read these two paragraphs is that if SAG actors or SAG shows are filmed for basic cable then the strike would have no affect; work would continue as usual uninterrupted. So, for example, the show Supernatural is under SAG and airs on the CW which is a basic cable station; therefore, it would not be affected by a strike call and work would continue uninterrupted. Can you confirm that my take on this is accurate?
If this is indeed the case, do you know and are you able to divulge when the basic cable contract under SAG is up for renewal?
If you are unable to divulge any details about contract renewal deadlines, I do understand. If, however, you could confirm if I’m reading these two paragraphs right, I would deeply appreciate it.
Thank you for your time and information,
Emily
–
Response: Actually, we think it “expired” with the TV-Theatrical contract. The contract template is at: http://resources.sagwatch.net/Basic Cable Live Action.pdf It lists a June 30, 2008 expiration date. However, as we understand it, shows that sign SAG cable contracts actually sign individual contracts using that template - rather than a master agreement, like the TV-Theatrical contract. The reason is that there is no producer’s organization like the AMPTP when it comes to cable. (That’s one of the reasons AFTRA mentions when it is criticized for not jointly negotiating Basic Cable with SAG.)
–Sept. 7, 2008
Will you please comment on the constant flow of propaganda coming from Membership First - even in our residual checks! Anyone else get that little slip of paper in any recent residual checks that puts forward the current SAG administration’s platform YET AGAIN? And the way they wrote it (of course) makes it sound as though I wouldn’t be holding that check in my hand unless “the Allens” weren’t being hyper-vigilant about holding out for the “right deal.”
And on the other side of the slip, where they talk about SAG finances? I’m so glad to know that Membership First “only” spent $104,897.91 on the “Vote No on the AFTRA deal” campaign from a budget that was allocated “for outreach and education.” That was outreach? That was education? Where is the freaking oversight committee????? Is this “legal” under union rules? I’m really fed up.Fingers crossed for the results of the election.
..Name Withheld—
August 30, 2008
Dear Editor,As we celebrate the holiday made possible by the Labor unions across the country, I wanted to comment on the latest official SAG email from Doug, Alan and Connie- you know- the one where they wish us a happy LABOR DAY, tell us they shut down the SAG website, and compare themselves to the founders of SAG 75 years ago.
As far as I can tell from the email from Doug, Alan and Connie, they equate the current SAG leadership with the founders of SAG. While I can only read history from 75 years ago and imagine what it was like to go up against the studio system as a “contract” performer, it seems that I am to infer the current leadership is just as downtrodden, just as beleaguered, and just as mistreated.
David Jolliffe, 8/28/08, as told to Jonathan Handel:
“Well I’ve been an actor my entire life. I’ve been a member of the Screen Actors Guild for 40 years. I’ve been a member of the Board of Directors since 1996 (30 minutes later, he says he’s been doing this for 14 years and served on 50 committees). I’ve been a member of 15 of our negotiating committees. I’ve chaired 10 of them. Those are TV Theatrical, Commercial Performers, Dubbing, Cable, Animation. I’ve participated in all of those negotiations. This is my fifth TV Theatrical contract negotiation now. Uh…I …uh… earn… a… uh…uh…uh… very…uh… comfortable living under this TV/Theatrical Contract, as well as our other contracts- our animation and our commercials contract.”
Poor Dave. Yikes. Poor guy. What a struggle.
Just like the people who founded SAG 75 years ago. Wait- did you just hear that? I thought it was the sound of Ralph Morgan spinning in his grave, but then I realized that he’s been doing that since Scott Wilson copped the Ralph Morgan award right after suing the Guild and letting us pay him off.
AnneMarie Johnson, 8/28/08, as told to Jonathan Handel: “We believe in sending it to the members.” And here’s what SAG is sending to members, coming to your mailbox soon, accompanied by a 12 page bulletin of the “phenomenal” negotiations.
(1) Continue negotiating with the AMPTP to secure a fair TV/Theatrical contract for actors with better terms than the AMPTP’s June 30th final offer OR
(2) Accept the AMPTP’s June 30th final offer without modification
DUH- IT’S CALLED A PUSH POLL.
See what the good answer is and the bad answer is?AnneMarie Johnson also revealed in the Handel interview that this postcard is the journey toward a strike authorization. “Education. Outreach. Education. Outreach. Education. Outreach.
“So, yeah, those postcards. Our SAG dues paid for them, and if 10,000 of us send them back with MERGE WITH AFTRA written on them, they’ll be deemed “various responses.
“But if 85 people pick (1) and 15 people pick (2), well, that’s what will get published: 85% of the people who responded as they were instructed, told SAG they want a better deal! The rest couldn’t be counted because they had “various responses.”
Finally, on Labor Day, I continue to be utterly astounded by Doug Allen, our NED and chief negotiator, who according to published reports, began his NFL professional career by crossing a picket line and breaking a veteran NFL strike in 1974. He’s our guy!He and Alan Rosenberg seem to think that waving at an AMPTP suit in a restaurant, or leaving a voicemail on an AMPTP answering machine is NEGOTIATING.
And we are also paying Doug Allen half a million dollars a year to plaster his mug all over the SAG website. Pick a page. Any page, and there he is- at Dodger games with his wife, howling at a “rally”- whatever- this “hired hand,” to borrow from Mr. McCord’s label for Bob Pisano, is all over the SAG sebsite. Go to the homepage of AEA or AFTRA. There are actors there- talking about how they got their cards, not overpaid execs spending my dues money grinning at a sporting event. Can anybody remember any website pix of Pisano chillaxing on our dime? God forbid we should put union actors on a union actors’ website. Let’s put Doug there instead- maybe there’s a cute shot of him from 1974?
So, Happy LABOR DAY, one and all!
On September 2, I guess I can log on to the new-and-improved-again SAG website…where there will be plenty of photo ops of happy Doug enjoying his salary.And refutations of how the budget ain’t the budget.
And threats to agents (who have no franchise, but hey, let’s yell at them anyway. That’ll put a hurtin’ on them real good).
And exhortations to sign that solidarity list/ stroke the negotiators list/ asskiss the NED list/ shit on AFTRA list/ whatever-just sign it and we’ll use your name however we want list.And the ninth consecutive month where FTAC is still being touted to members as an effective way to fight runaway production, even though it died in October 2007.
In Solidarity,
Liz Zazzi
–
August 23, 2008 Dear Editor:
After receiving some campaign email from someone running for a board seat in NY, I wondered why he was still touting FTAC, the organization that advocated suing Canada over runaway production. Doug Allen advised the board in 2007 to give the trade lawyer presenting the petition $50,000. Much was made of this. Links on the SAG website, articles in the Screen Actor magazine. And then, surprise, it was rejected.
Interesting that FTAC was a MF priority. But SAG’s website archives show only the positive releases and nothing about its failure.
Liz Zazzi
National Board
NYSAG Communications Committee National Co-Chair
————– Forwarded Message: ————–
From: LizZazzi@comcast.net
To: “Dina Del Valle” <ddvalle@sag.org>Cc: “Doug Allen” <DAllen@sag.org;”Duncan Crabtree-Ireland” <DIreland@sag.org”Pamm Fair” <pfair@sag.org>”Peter Frank” <pfrank@sag.org>”Ray Rodriguez” <rrodriguez@sag.org>”John McGuire” <JMcGuire@sag.org>,”Michelle Bennett” <MBennett@sag.org>
Subject: Re: Message from Pamm Fair, SAG Deputy National Executive Director
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:29:13 +0000>
SECOND REQUEST:>>
Where is this on the SAG website?
Liz Zazzi
————– Original message ———————-
From: “Dina Del Valle” <ddvalle@sag.org ;
To: SAG National Board of Directors, Division Board of Directors and;
We learned today that the United States Trade Representative rejected our 301a Filing regarding Canadian subsidies. They issued the statement below.Statement from Gretchen Hamel, Deputy Assistant USTR for Public and Media Affairs, regarding a Section 301 Petition on Canadian Film Subsidies:
“On September 4, 2007, we received a petition under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on the issue of Canadian film subsidies. The petition argued that Canadian subsidies on the filming of U.S.-produced television shows and theatrical films within Canada were inconsistent with Canada’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and requested that the USTR immediately initiate a WTO dispute on these issues. As provided under USTR regulations, the petition was reviewed by an interagency committee of trade and economic experts.
Based on a thorough review of the economic data, other facts, and legal arguments set out in the petition, the interagency committee unanimously recommended that the USTR not accept the petition because a dispute based on the information and arguments set out in the petition would not be effective in addressing the Canadian subsidies. Ambassador Schwab has accepted this recommendation, and has decided not to initiate Section 301 investigation in response to the petition.
“We are posting the following statement on the SAG 24/7 website today:
“Screen Actors Guild is extremely disappointed to learn that the United States Trade Representative did not accept our recent petition challenging Canadian film subsidies. We believe it is imperative to seek every remedy possible to fight runaway production while protecting and improving the wages and working conditions of our members. We will continue our hard work throughout the country to create and improve federal, state and municipal film, television commercial and new media incentives designed to save our jobs.
“Pamm Fair
Deputy National Executive Director
Screen Actors Guild August 22, 2008
Hi! I’ve been a faithful reader of your web blog during these turbulent times. Recently some of my fellow actors expressed confusion regarding the Unite For Strength vs. Membership First war. I posted the following message at my theater company’s web group. I’ve been encouraged to share it with your blog. Although much of it has already been covered on your site, please feel free to post it for your readers.
Sincerely,
William Joseph Hill
“Here’s my 2 cents about this. I think that these issues are veryimportant. Even though this is a Theatre group, most of us are actors,and work in Film/TV/Commercials whenever we can. It’s the best way to subsidize our true love.
When I see studios laying people off, production running out of the country, actors’ quotes going down while their “free post production days” go up, BTL crew having to relocate to a different state (ie.Wilmington, NC, or LA) in order to work on a feature film, I know that things are in dire straits for the Film/TV industry. I see these things due to my unique day job as a Film/TV payroll accountant.
I am supporting the Unite for Strength group because of the misinformation that Membership First (MF) has been perpetuating and confusing members with. They have turned this union into a political battleground and are turning the industry against SAG.This particular letter below is another perfect example of taking ahalf truth and twisting it.While it is true that earlier this year, a group of actors wanted to have “qualified voting” for the theatrical contract — this practice is already done by SAG. How many of you voted for the recentInteractive and video game contract? I didn’t get a ballot either.
This contract vote was limited to those actors who work under that contract. It makes sense because they would understand the wages and working conditions of those particular jobs.SAG policy allows any member who wants to vote on a particular contract to request a ballot. I didn’t bother voting on this contract because it didn’t apply to me currently, and I trusted the actors who work in that field to negotiate a great deal. Why wouldn’t they? And since I still had my right to vote, I didn’t feel like I was being kept out of the process.
“Qualified Voting” does not take away a member’s right to vote forboard members and officers — that would definitely be illegal. When it applies to contracts, it is not illegal, if it was, why would the SAG Leadership have complained about the “newscasters” voting for the AFTRA Schedule A contract?
Our fearless leaders were only weeks ago screaming in favor of qualified voting (ie. Actors, not newscasters) to defeat the AFTRA contract!!! Do you see the double-speak that’s going on?The qualified voting issue was also dropped by the Unite for Strength people. Unless they’re flat out lying to us, I’m taking them at their word. And since they haven’t engaged in double speak yet, I tend to believe them more.
Why am I putting my faith in this group? Because I believe that Membership First has been responsible for the sorry state of not only our union, but our perception as artists in the industry. Remember,my day job is working with the studios, handling a lot of labor issues.I bought into their shtick when they railroaded Richard Masur out. I supported them when they voted the merger down TWICE. I followed their banner during the commercial strike and even helped to vote mostof them in, thinking that they were the ones fighting hard for the union.
Once I started seeing the truth, and how things are getting worse, everything became clear. In fact, it was during this recent SAG/AFTRA war that I finally came to my conclusions. MF’s adversarial attitude towards not only management, but also the other unions (ie. AFTRA and most recently the DGA now), is lowering SAG’s stock in this town.
Just look at recent history:
1. We haven’t had an Agency Franchise Agreement since 2002 despite so many promises to secure one.
2. The Theatrical contract expired June 30th — it’s almost been 2 months without a contract. The studios are going forward now with production under the old terms — which means lower scale rates than the AFTRA agreement that was ratified. Ironically, it’s SAG now who’s undercutting AFTRA.
3. The rates for New Media under a SAG agreement continue to be negotiable (ie. no pay necessary) without residuals. The AFTRA agreement allows for residuals, so no producer in their right mind would ever sign an AFTRA agreement — it’s too expensive.
4. Because the AMPTP is going forward with film production now, itconfirms their attitude that SAG has no teeth, and will never be able to authorize a strike.In my own personal opinion, continuing to support Membership First virtually guarantees this downward spiral. I shudder to think whatwill happen with the commercial contract if we keep “staying thecourse”. It’s time for a change.
Respectfully,
William Joseph Hill
–
August 14, 2008
Neil’s complaints carry a lot of weight when it comes to this site’s worth. Too much poison and whatever hopes the makers had for helping or healing are lost for certain.What I’ve noticed — you got a man, or an extinct dinosaur or some kinda slimy lizard begging for a fight with nothing in his hands. But he talks you into an engagement anyway, and before you know it you’re the one arming him with the sticks and stones you’re throwing his way.
Any wonder he’s got plenty of ammo when he starts throwing back? Or where he gets the rest of it as the fight goes on?
The idea is to keep your arms with you, see, not give ‘em away. Because, these ’saurs and ‘zards got nothing but what you give ‘em. They never did.Let ‘em rant. Let ‘em rave. But don’t pick take keyboard in hand to try and change their minds. It won’t change a thing; it never does with reptiles like this — cold-blooded’s cold-blooded, born and died. All it does is hand over ammo rightfully yours.
There’s nothing worth doing anyway, because like I said, one’s already extinct, and the other’s always in danger of ending up on the bottom or your boot. So let nature take its course, and save your fire for when it’s really needed: first hour of the first day of the first Plenary in October. I’ll be there.
Mal Reynolds
–
August 12, 2008
SAGWatch-ers
,Ok, so I’ll say what a lot of us are now [more than likely] thinking -This board has been an OPEN discussion board. I am not involved in its operation but was drawn to it by the informal, intelligent, level-headed way it’s Editors [mostly] stayed out of the way and presented the OPINIONS of a very eclectic group of contributors (myself included).
Increasingly, though, there’ve been some pretty veiled/angry posts supporting the very hard line taken by the MeFirsters. Far harder and more strident, in their way, than the “opposition”… and by opposition I mean anyone with a view that’s NOT MF’s. This was really enjoyable, like conversations with a group of friends who really like each other, but agree to disagree.
That obviously threatened MF because they’ve seemingly (obviously?) implanted a couple of “moles” to propagate their hard line in their hard way. Between Newt and Dino we now have what are no longer friendly discussions, but CHALLENGES, made in the very same schoolyard bully tone with which the MFers have challenged everything that’s not THEIR WAY.EVERY SITUATION has a middle ground. Yes, facts are facts, but discussions and negotiations are all about the middle ground, and compromise. On this board, as in life, there should be no FINITE challenges, but INFINITE possibilities, because the reality is, that middle ground is the only way ALL sides are going to reach a resolution that makes everyone at leastsatisfied they did their best, if not outright happy.
Neil Hassman–
August 1, 2008
Editors:
I just posted the following topic on the sagactor.com bulletin board site. Thought you should know about it:
Since the Membership First faction of SAG leadership controls the website, is this just another avenue for them to write their perspective? Reasonable people can disagree, but I have been truly turned off by MF’s divisive Bush-style politics and quashing of dissenting views. It makes me less likely to support them even when they are right (as they sometimes are - though I have disagreed with them vehemently over things like the ATA deal, and, with commercials as my main income source, over the outcome of that strike, which was an unmitigated disaster for guys like me, as I frequently hear from guys like me at auditions).
It seems sites like this, the showfax board, sagwatch.net, and others fulfill the role of a mostly dignified dissection and discussion of the issues, but my question is, why doesn’t SAG or AFTRA host their own blog, where commenting by members is freely allowed? This is the democracy of the future, and it seems to me, in the interests of unity and democracy, that a democratically-led union should inspire, welcome, and embrace open debate. The best ideas will gain consensus without the need for calling each other names or suppressing letters to members presenting other sides of the debate. People secure and strong in their convictions should be willing to be challenged publicly, like Lincoln or Jefferson were, or they aren’t so strong in their convictions and are instead broadcasting insecurity and fear.
Such a blog could be behind a members-only link, so we aren’t broadcasting our debate to non-members, but it would allow good ideas to spring up from the roots, outside of the traditional committee route, which is old, tired, and frankly, bureaucratically stifling.
Actors Access: http://resumes.actorsaccess.com/michaelfaulkner
–
Ed. Response: Michael, thanks for the note. We’re not sure whether to be flattered that the Membership First crowd is reading us and that their immitation really is a form of flattery. Anyway, what we’ve done is to try to fill the void by starting our own BBS, at http://bbs.sagwatch.net - please feel free to put your posts there!—
August 1, 2008
Please Post.
Dear SAG Watch: Your sources regarding SAG are really bad.Contrary to your reporting, the SAG “Vote No” campaign on AFTRA Exhibit A ratification did not cost over $257,345.22.In fact, the total expenditure for the campaign was $104, 897.91.The $104,897.91 represents the cost of ALL materials and activities dedicated to this campaign including:· June 9 Rally· June 9 Letter to Members (Printing and Postage)· Telephone Support and Auto Calls (3 calls made)· No Means No Ad in Trade publications· Video MessagesThe money was well-spent in engaging and informing many AFTRA dual card holders who don’t like the Primetime Exhibit A contract, as evidenced by the fact that only 62% voted to pass it (within weeks of the AFTRA Net Code passing by 93%–wonder what caused that huge drop). Keep in mind that that number included voting by thousands of non-actors like broadcasters, weathermen, sound recording artists and others who don’t do this work and still if only 15% of those non-actors, of the total, had voted the other way it would have failed.That is why the Screen Actors Guild National Executive Committee voted to authorize this campaign: to make sure that the AMPTP knows that working actors all over the country are concerned about the AFTRA contract and want SAG to better protect their interests in SAG’s negotiations.We’re willing to believe that most of your misinformation is provided by anonymous sources and not completely manufactured by you, but in the interests of factual accuracy, you really should call SAG before you print such nonsense.Anthony DeSantisActor and SAG Member –Ed. Response: Thanks for the note, Anthony. As our post indicates, the official SAG accounting is exactly as you describe it. However, our post also lists the other charges that other SAG insiders say should have been included in the accounting, but which were not.—
July 20, 2008
Say there,My spies around the country are talking about a particularly onerous hijink the MF-ers have planned for SAG’s next plenary meeting, which is next weekend in New York and LA (via videoconference).I’m told that in order to prevent Doug Allen’s certain firing in October (after the elections,and of course only if Hollywood loses the majority on its division) the MF-ers will try to pass a motion with a significant pay hike and bonuses for Allen. The thinking is, I guess, that if he’s fired he’ll bail in a gold parachute, with the blame for the cost put on those who kicked him to the curb.The MF-ers believe this will either give the “firers” pause before they pink slip Allen, or place them in poor political light if they do fire him.Now, I also understand that the MF-ers aren’t in lockstep for once on this one; that there are a few fiscally minded among them who might object. That only counts if they actually vote against their division in the room, which almost never happens, but it means there is a very slim chance that the motion will fail.Admittedly this is a rumor, but history tells us that it won’t be the first time something this outrageous was attempted at a plenary.From my years working in LA, I know there are plenty of rank-and-file who would object to this, if only they knew about it. Whether or not the Allens would listen is another thing (just last night a regional member wrote me about the many and long missives he’s sent to them, only to never be answered)… still, if they learn of this spendy and unearned bennie about to be handed to Allen on a Membership First platter, the hue and cry might be enough to derail the notion.There’s nothing more I can tell you about this, and if you have questions, it seems to me that MF-er leadership would be the only ones with answers. Just thought you might find it interesting.Finn Jones–Ed. Response - The past three SAG NEDs have all received big payoffs on the way out the door. Considering the huge deficit Membership First has racked up, it wouldn’t be surprising if they argued against another big payout in an effort to protect their “warrior.” However, if there is a change in the control of the National Board, we doubt anything short of a miracle would prevent a change in the NED’s office.—
July 14, 2008
This article is from an independent industry trade publication that has no reason to carry water for the AMPTP. (By the way, it’s interesting that NBC Universal is not mentioned in the list, but perhaps that’s because it’s not a big enough part of General Electric from Wall Street’s perspective.)
Television industry faces dark times
Jul 14, 2008 9:11 AM http://www.broadcastengineering.com/news/television-industry-faces-dark-times-0714/index.htmlLehman Brothers cut the stock ratings of Walt Disney, Time Warner, CBS, News Corp. and Viacom last week over fear that “structural changes appear destined to impact the core revenue and profits of the entertainment business.”Lehman Brothers thinks the television and film industry could suffer the same fate as the music business. “To be clear, our fear is that the damage that digital distribution inflicted on the music industry will replicate itself in the movie industry, and our fears are too great to justify keeping neutral or positive ratings on the creators and distributors of movie and TV content,” wrote Anthony DiClemente, an entertainment industry analyst, in a research note.Lehman lowered its overall view of the industry to “negative” from “neutral.” Shares of all five companies were down in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange.“In reality, while there are many obvious differences between music/audio and movie/video media forms, the core properties of video distribution and consumption are not different enough from music content to continue to justify why movie/TV content will be spared fragmentation,” DiClemente wrote.He argued that as consumers shift to new types of media — movie downloads or TV video recorders that make it possible to skip commercials — the big entertainment companies will struggle to replace traditional sources of revenue.“We believe fragmentation of media as a result of technological change is highly likely to disrupt the economics of traditional forms of movie and TV distribution,” he said. “Content may no longer be king in the entertainment business.”Geoff Bryan
–
July 10, 2008
Neil:
Thanks so much. Congratulations to you; we all did this together.Best regards,
Bill Thomas
–
July 9, 2008
Well, it’s a very happy day in Hollyweird, indeed!!
I am thrilled for my clients, friends, and those who dared listen to Reason, and to my recommendations to ratify, made from a [relatively] impartial place after vetting both union’s positions, both times from the horses’ mouths. And, as I’ve said many times, what I found most impressive about Bill Thomas and all the folks at AFTRA was their sense of Reason. This posture of Reason will go a long way with the AMPTP for years to come.
In a normal negotiation year, Reason might not have even been noticed, but expected. In this year, contrasted against the SAG shenanigans, it stood out like a hundred thousand watt lighthouse in a Maine fog. So, in a sense, we owe “the Allens” a debt of gratitude (smirk smirk).
And this all should strengthen the call to reopen the merger talks, as SAG would now clearly benefit from a close proximity to Reason, something they so sorely lacked these last few months. Reason we’ll need going into the commercial talks. Couldn’t hurt…But there is an odd little piece of business that may come out of this, and we shouldn’t lose sight of the ramifications. Mr. Rosenberg may very well be sitting at home today gloating about the “out” he’s been handed on a silver platter. Really, all he has to do at this point is sit back and LET the AMPTP impose the terms of their LBF offer. This will put him in a position to attempt to semi-rehabilitate his image and achieve a minor martyrdom, especially among his fellow MFers. Knowing they would never get a 75% strike vote, he could surely make himself the “injured party” in this scenario.
Alas, poor Alan, we knew him well…but will he be remembered after the next elections?
So DO remember this at election time, kiddies. Remember this man and his co-conspirators tried to bury you beneath an avalanche of unfounded attacks, lies and all-around slimeball behavior in the cause of “what’s best for actors” (and all paid for with your dues money). We know now this was not true, and as he [openly] stated many times was really in the interest of “his” contract. That would be the one that’s as yet failed to materialize.
And even if it does, it’ll be Bill, Roberta, Kim, Jason, Gabrielle, et al he has to thank for it (but don’t hold your breath waiting for flowers…).
Mazel Tov to all you wonderful folks who do what you do for the rest of our enjoyment and enlightenment!!!! I can’t wait to visit you on the set, eat a craft service lunch, sit in your honey wagon, and feel that buzz that, for me, hasn’t diminished one iota in 28 years. Neil Hassman
–
July 7, 2008
As we all sit here, wondering about the fate of the TV/Theatrical contract, it has occurred to me that the entertainment profession is sitting at a crossroads. While the ratification is very important to keeping entertainers working, I wonder how the community of actors and entertainers is going to pull together after the smoking wreck of the attempt to prevent AFTRA’s contract from being ratified by certain parties in SAG is in the rear view mirror. A great deal is dependent on whether the contract is ratified or not, but no matter which side wins there will be a lot of very hard feelings. Personally, I don’t think that this is good for our professions at all.
What can we all do to repair this rift? Having two unions at loggerheads can only be good news for our employers. The overriding mission of both SAG and AFTRA is to provide for their members value for the dollars in union dues and initiation fees they pay into the system. I modestly suggest that members do not pay into their unions to provide money to fuel a donnybrook. What do we as single and dual card holders do to control our union leaderships when they start speaking for a highly vocal minority at the exclusion of everyone else?
Hold them accountable.
We have the absolute right as members in good standing to participate in the processes of our unions. If we as members sacrifice our oversight over the hiring of senior staff and ignore the elections of delegates, local officers and national board, then we are just as much to blame as senior staff for excesses committed in our names. There is only one answer that I can think of. Participate as much as we can by showing up at committee meetings and paying attention. Ask good questions and expect truthful answers in return. It is only by honest and open dialogue with our elected leaders that we may expect to hold them accountable. Once our houses are in order, then we may come back to some negotiating table in the future as two unions in tandem to get the contracts we deserve. If our leaders refuse to work toward such a goal, it is time to elect new leaders.
There is no “us vs. them,” it is only us and we make a serious mistake when we think otherwise.
When the heat of this internecine feud cools, many people are going to be very embarrassed and unhappy. Then it will be our unpleasant, but necessary lot to pick up the pieces and hold some folks accountable for this whole sad affair. Then maybe we can look forward to actually getting back to the business of our business and the craft we all love so much.
JC
–
July 3, 2008
Hey, kids,Just curious….any reason you didn’t post this (below the “signature” - sent July 1) in Letters To SAGwatch?Also, any desire for a regular “column/contribution” from a long time personal manager? This recent contract issue has really fired up my old hippie-radical core, which actually drove me to become a manager in the first place - protecting creative people who couldn’t protect themselves.I’ve gotten in excess of 250 letters/emails/calls since my first post to you in late June, and I’ve gotta say I truly love being able to help people clarify and make sense of issues. It’s not helping my income much but anyone who knows me will tell you that’s hardly what drives me.Neil
–
Ed. Response: Yes…one reason - we goofed! Sorry… And we’d love to post your comments - we can make a Neil’s Page… Original e-mail below:
From: Neil Hassman
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:55 AM
To: ‘editor@sagwatch.net’
Subject: Hahahahahahahahaha
In a letter to you, posted earlier today, RCB refers to a post on Huffington and asks if the responders are MeFirsters (I love that contraction of their name!!).
The most recent responses are from a “Mrs Wakely” who cites “accurate reporting by deadlinehollywood.com”. I almost peed my pants.
YES, they sure seem to be MFers. I’ll reiterate my comment here yesterday:
“Holy shit..!!!! Maybe I’m the only one in town not familiar with this hack [Nikki Finke], but after reading [just] today’s post I’m blown away by the amount of unsubstantiated quotes she uses, a great many of them from INSIDE meetings no one could possibly have access to.
I guess that makes her a “fly on the wall”..and we all know what attracts flies most, now don’t we?”
‘Nuff said.
Neil
– July 1, 2008
Hello,
I’m a SAG member and avid reader of sagwatch. You might want an editorial rep. to post on this story that appeared on
HuffingtonPost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-handel/amptp-makes-final-offer-t_b_110117.html
.
It appears that most of the comments are from MeFirsters. Would be nice to have some other points of view.
Good luck!
RCB
– July 1, 2008
From: Neil Hassman
Below is an email I just sent Sam Rubin after KTLA ran an outrageous piece including on camera statements from “The Allens”:
*********************************
Sam Sam Sam….
You aired Mr. Rosenberg’s and Mr. Allen’s statements CLEARLY without vetting them. Shame on you. These guys, and their fellows in the Membership First division of SAG are blatant truthbenders, if not outright liars, and the total of what they said in your report at 7:20 was patently false…
I am not in either union, but am a personal manager and have researched this issue ad nauseum for the last month as it seriously impacts my client’s - and therefore my - ability to earn a living.
You only need read SAGwatch.Net, an impartial, no slant informational blog to get at the truth, certainly far closer to it than the claims of these men, who have spent nearly $200k of their member’s money in the last 2 months maligning, and outright obfuscating, the REAL issues and resolutions, and blatantly trying to destroy AFTRA to satisfy their own egos. (And if you go to SAGwatch - which I hope you will - read as much as possible, but read
“http://blog.sagwatch.net/2008/06/20/personal-manager-neil-hassman-endorses-
exhibit-a/” and you’ll get a real capsule view of the issues from me - an impartial observer from the get go).
As the preeminent entertainment reporter in this market, you owe it to your viewers to be FAR MORE CAREFUL about buying into SAG’s misdirection and seek and report the truth.
Neil Hassman
After A-M Johnson’s 7:40 appearance:
Better, Sam,
You see, when Anne Marie Johnson (on at 7:40) presents her (SAG) views, each statement begins with “We think….”. Unfortunately, she’s seemingly the only PUBLIC voice of reason (?) within the current leadership of SAG. When Messrs. Rosenberg and Allen present their views they are ALWAYS flat statements, as if fact.
She may not actually BE more reasonable, but she PRESENTS more reasonably, and that would have gone very far in these talks during the current crisis, in this terrible economic climate.
July 1, 2008
I was searching the web for some balanced explanation of the issues in the ongoing troubles, and was pleased to find your site. The forceful statements of objectivity and non-spin were quite indicative of what I sought. I’ve been going over the site on and off for several days now, though, and I can’t find any non-derogatory explanations of the SAG leadership’s side of the contretemps. Can you point me to some of that material? Or is the statement about “playing it right down the middle….as a neutral source of information” a little spun itself?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not on anybody’s side, though I’m leaning toward the AFTRA position at the moment. I just was taken aback at the absence of anything noticeably favorable to the SAG leadership on this self-proclaimed impartial site. Unless it’s squirreled off somewhere in a corner where I couldn’t find it.
Jim Beaver
–Ed. Response: Jim, there’s no question that Membership First looks on this site as the home of the great Satan, and has by and large not participated. That makes it harder for us to reach our goal of being a resource with both sides fully explained. The Allens wouldn’t even put us on their e-mail distribution list for press releases. But, you might look for items like Anne-Marie Johnson’s article, and our story on the radio debate a couple of days back.When people comment, the only thing we screen for is spam, defamation and obscenity. We don’t care which side of the issue people are on - we post their comments.Since Membership First hasn’t been participating, it has been hard to maintain the balance we’d like. We try to explain their positions - but their explanations would undoubtedly be better than our attempts to make sense of what they’re trying to say.–June 30, 2008
Below is a Letter to the Editor I just sent to the LA Times.
Dear Editors,
In both your Page One story, and the Editorial in this morning’s (June 30) paper, you left out any mention of probably the single most important clause in the AFTRA deal: the very carefully, specifically worded “Sunset Clause”.
This clause makes ratifying the AFTRA deal sensible and defensible.
The leaders of SAG are not only maligning the deal, but AFTRA itself, for taking a deal that they say does not properly cover [among a few other less important issues] online streaming and DVD residual increases. But the fact is there really is NO business model at present for the former, and a rapidly changing (because of streaming) business model for the latter.
The Sunset Clause addresses both (and more). It specifically gives AFTRA the right to begin auditing information/figures for both at 18 months, and completely re-negotiate, with NO ramifications from ANY previous contract terms at contract’s end, in 3 years. This is a major concession which should have rendered all complaints about the currently proposed AFTRA deal moot.
I am not in either union, but as a personal manager my business is seriously impacted by any actions either union takes, as is our entire city and state.
I went to informational meetings at both unions, conducted by top leadership, and was struck by the AFTRA board’s sense of reason in negotiating this deal. While none of the terms are ideal, not only does the entire proposal keep actors [and therefore the rest of the industry/city/state] working, but the Sunset Clause makes the AFTRA deal highly feasible, and it’s omission from both articles was a serious informational error I hope you’ll correct.
Neil Hassman
–June 28, 2008This was just sent to me and while I don’t have a clue who you are (OK…I have my suspicions…) I thought you might enjoy the ridiculous irony here. I wonder if she now thinks that all of these out of work actors and background players are running SAG are just fine? Also…wonder if she realizes that David Jolliffe is Alan Rosenberg’s right hand guy in these negotiations as well as being Chair of the Committee….wonder what changed her mind? If you choose to use this, please don’t include my name. Thanks.just found an article she wrote for the Weekly in 2002 entitled “throw the bums out!” with a pic of David Jolliffe and an enlarged quote about how SAG is full of members who don’t work (http://www.laweekly.com/news/deadline-hollywood/throw-the-bums-out/10318/ ). –Ed. Response: Thanks - that’s good enough that we’ll put up a full post on it.—June 28, 2008William Charlton: “Hey, wait a minute, this is nuts, here’s what I think.”Say, William - you have to go to a NATIONAL SAG Board meeting to hear that these days.Want to hear it in Hollywood meetings?There’s an election campaign this summer.Get busy.But you went as an observer to that meeting! Great!I’ve heard several accounts of it.You experienced vintage Jolliffe & Cassel, I understand.Some fun, huh?Tom Ligon— June 27, 2008Thank you for this wonderful website.I am a SAG actor in Boston, MA.There is so much misinformation floating around it’s obnoxious.I just was up on line at sag.org and saw the No Vote Videos.David Clennon’s comments were particularly offense.I have tons of friends in SAG and AFTRA.I haven’t joined AFTRA yet, because there is not enough of that type of work to be substantive in Boston.I think I made all of 450. this year as a SAG actor.We need to be able to get better wages and better work.We also need to be allied with AFTRA.It’s like the old Union saw says: UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL.Thank you for the Clooney Statement.There will be a video hookup meeting on Tuesday July 1st here in BostonI am going to try and read up as much as I can before hand.By the way: Funny how Rosenberg etal keep sending me emails about the vote, but I can’tFind an email addy for him. Do you know of one?Sincerely,Trudi Goodman–Ed. Response: Thank you for the kind words, and for being involved! For e-mail addresses you might try president@sag.org and arosenberg@sag.org - there’s also contract2008@sag.org.—June 25, 2008
Editors,
I love your site, but I’d like to make a plea to the growing number of posters.
While I think I understand your need(the editors of SAGWATCH) to remain anonymous, the more posters that release their names to stand by what they have to say, the better off we are. Why all the anonymity? Are the MF people going to hurt your career, or make your life already more difficult than they already have? I proudly stand by my opinions, and I think that the more people that do so, the healthier we are, and the more chance we have of staunching this negative and detrimental flow. Stand up and be counted, so to speak.
Some of the problem with the Hollywood Board, based on the open board meeting that I attended recently, is that there is no one that stands up to counter the building incited anger in the room(it was either about AFTRA walking away from Phase One, or the fact that David Jolliffe hadn’t maxed his pension out yet(seriously)). The beauty of a democratic debate is the argument, and the eventual compromise. Here there was no counterpoint, just a cascade of anger. No one to say, “Hey, wait a minute, this is nuts, here’s what I think.”
We need voices raised in protest, and hiding behind anonymity blunts the blow of the criticism.
William Charlton
–
June 24, 2008SAG is lying to members on the SAG website!It says: Send AFTRA back to bargain together with SAG. Vote NO on the AFTRA contract.That’s what it says on the official SAG website!A COERCIVE LIE!There is no agreement or mechanism in place - or hope in hell - that even if SAG were to succeed in it’s campaign to destroy AFTRA’s contract that AFTRA would agree to “bargain together with SAG”. Tom Ligon–June 24, 2008Hi there:The Michael Faulkner piece at the beginning of this e-mail is the most lucid explanation I have seen of what the AFTRA deal is, and what it isn’t. It makes the case for voting “yes” far more compelling than anything else I have seen.GLB –Ed. Response: We agree. Michael posted it as a comment on the Kevin Spacey & Alec Baldwin post, which is where you can find it!–June 23, 2008Friends and colleagues,I’m voting in favor of the AFTRA contract, because it’s in my best interests to do so. I’ve been a member of SAG, AFTRA and AEA since the mid-eighties. I’ve lived in LA since 1988, long enough to have endured two writers strikes and a SAG commercial strike.As a working actor, it’s in my best interests to keep working. I need salary to support my family, I need the health plan to insure them, and I need to keep adding to my pension. Any work stoppage has the potential of devastating us and jeopardizing my retirement. It is not something to be taken lightly.However, there are certainly circumstances under which I would man the picket lines, the hell with the consequences.Now is not that time.The economy is shaky. The housing market has collapsed. The town that I love so much has weathered a difficult writers strike. The uncertainty regarding the actors’ contracts has certainly curtailed production.Many of us rely on two movie salaries to pay the bills, myself included. After six months of labor strife, there is not much more that we can endure.It’s also true for the managers and agents. People who represent character actors and below the line talent are hanging by a string. They’ve managed to hang in through the past six months because they were prepared, but they’re at the breaking point.My fear is that if there’s another interruption in employment, there may not be much for middle-class actors to return to.The AFTRA deal is a fair agreement. It provides a thirteen percent increase for “top of the show” working stiffs like me. With residuals, I’ll take that. It also protects my interests with regards to clip use.Yeah, the DVD deal still sucks, but that was negotiated long ago. Without major coordination and cooperation between all the guilds, a change in that formula was not possible, despite the bravura of the SAG position. Early in the SAG negotiations, even they abandoned their demands, asking instead for an increase in Pension and Health.I believe we deserve those increases. Those increases and more.But it’s time to be adult about this. We’re not going to get them. The strategy of the current SAG leadership has failed. They squandered the time they had to build alliances. Instead, they chose a course of brinksmanship. They’ve waited to the last minute, assuming incorrectly that the conglomerates would fold.They didn’t even bother to build a coalition within the guild itself. They have no organizational charts for a strike, nor have they engaged the membership. In fact, there’s a rebellion in the branches. Hollywood SAG basically stands alone. They cannot muster the seventy-five percent of the membership for strike approval, or they would have done it already.We are now seven days from the deadline, and they are no closer to making a deal than they were two months ago. Indeed, Alan Rosenberg admitted week before last that the guild will not make a deal by the deadline.Why, then, has the leadership not requested a strike authorization? Because they know they will lose.Instead, they have decided to attack the AFTRA deal, because the threshold is lower. It will only take fifty percent of the membership to vote for strike under those circumstances.They say that a “no” vote on the proposed AFTRA deal is not a vote for strike, but that’s hard to believe. They say they want AFTRA to return to the table with them to get a better deal. Here’s a question: why would AFTRA return to the table with SAG after SAG has campaigned to destroy the deal they worked so hard to achieve? They won’t, and SAG knows it.If the AFTRA deal fails, there will be a work stoppage. That is not my best interests. Nor do I think it’s in the best interests of working actors, the industry or my city.That’s why I’m voting yes. I ask you to join me. Pat Skipper— June 17, 2008Dear Editor,I have been an AEA member since 1995, an AFTRA member since 1996, and I joined SAG in 2000 during the commercial strike, in an effort to show I would never scab and work non-union and that I supported SAG. I’ve been living in Los Angeles since 1999. And I’m not a member of any SAG or AFTRA partisan group. I suppose my title should be Independent. And here’s how I see things…I believe AFTRA when it says over the past year or so, SAG has been methodically attacking AFTRA. I think the truth about “The Bold & The Beautiful” is somewhere in the middle. However, I think it was a mistake for AFTRA to solve the problem by separating from Phase I joint negotiations, as I believe “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” I wish AFTRA had taken the high road and put up with the SAG Crazies for the better good of All Actors. But instead, AFTRA chose to negotiate separately…I think the (Exhibit A - TV Theatrical) contract that AFTRA negotiated is a good one, with solid gains. No, it is not perfect, but it’s not bad, considering the current realities of the entertainment business. And if I were voting in a vacuum, I would vote “yes” and ratify it. But here’s the catch… In the most recent email I received from AFTRA on 6/16/08 it says: “[SAG] Spin: AFTRA didn’t negotiate a Most Favored Nations clause in its contract–unlike the WGA, which did. FACT: AFTRA did not get a Most Favored Nations Clause–and neither did any other union in their negotiations with the AMPTP this year.”Now in my opinion, this is a Huge Problem. Because this means if SAG is able to negotiate a better contract of any kind (be it gas mileage or Stand-In’s are not counted as the 20 background actors or whatever), these gains will NOT be automatically rolled into the AFTRA contract. The only clause that is Favored Nations (as stated in the same email I quoted above) is the Force Majeure clause. Any other SAG gains will not be given to AFTRA.Which creates a situation where there will be 2 primetime contracts, a SAG one, and a “slightly cheaper” AFTRA contract. The fact that the WGA and the DGA were not able to get a Favored Nations clause is irrelevant, as Writers are not in direct competition with Directors. But SAG and AFTRA Actors ARE. So there’s the crux of the problem, in my opinion. I like the AFTRA contract. But if I ratify it, and SAG gets a “better” contract, I have set myself up to be under-bid as an actor. By my own actions. And that doesn’t make sense to me. So even though it infuriates me that my SAG dues are being spent to attack another union, when it is none of SAG’s (G.D.) business. And even though I disagree with basically every method MF, Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen have used. And even though I think AFTRA negotiated well and hard and got a very good contract, ultimately, I have to vote “no” and not ratify the AFTRA contract because I do not want 2 different contracts. I want SAG to finish negotiating. And then for AFTRA to return to the negotiating table and get the Exact Same Agreement that SAG gets. It’s the only way to prevent a fight to the cheapest. If anyone sees a flaw in my logic, please let me know. But when I play the different (future) scenarios out, that’s what I see…Sincerely,Linnea Liu DakinSAG/AFTRA/AEA– June 16, 2008I oppose the war against AFTRA because I love SAG.I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved Screen Actors Guild stand as a fine example of unionism.I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with SAG, and there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love.I am disappointed with SAG’s failure to deal positively and forthrightly in negotiations with management.We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to disaster.SAG has strayed to the far country of negativism and the politics of division, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment to our members.It has left minds distorted with irrationality.It is time for all members of conscience to call upon SAG to come back home.Come home, SAG.Tom Ligon – June 13, 2008Mr. Allen, Mr. Rosenberg,I am offended at your misguided campaign to discredit AFTRA’s proposed contract.So, you spend a year attacking AFTRA — trying for bloc voting, trying to neutralize elements of the membership that DON’T AGREE WITH YOU, referendum to do away with Phase One, and so on. Now that your bluff has been called, and you are left with the mess that you and the Hollywood Board started, now what?The actions you are taking could seriously damage the standing of both SAG and AFTRA. YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE YOU STARTED in on your relationship with AFTRA by attacking them. These are discussions left to meetings between the two unions in a year when our contracts are not up for renewal. Bad timing. Bad Year.Get us a contract, a good, reasonable contract, and STOP SPENDING MY MONEY ON ILL-THOUGHT OUT(LIKE THE REST OF THE CAMPAIGNS AGAINST AFTRA), effort to delay ratification. AGAIN YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THIS LAST AUGUST. YOU BOTH GET AN F.My only hope is now the dormant non-voting population of SAG will wake up and finally vote some people onto the Hollywood board that really want to deal with the issues facing us.William CharltonHollywood Working “Middle-Class” actor–June 13, 2008Dear SAG Leadership,As a member of both SAG and AFTRA, I believe that the AFTRA contract is a good contract. I’ve see some of the more important details and I’m thrilled with what has been accomplished.I’m saddened by the actions of SAG to spread misinformation like what I received in the mail today regarding what AFTRA did not accomplish. That piece is just full of half truths and deceit. WHY are you doing this?I do not want to strike. I’ve never really recovered from the last strike.I’m considering withholding my SAG dues as you have spent my dues money on trying to dissuade AFTRA members to ratify this contract. This is none of your business. I believe that SAG leadership might be walking some very shaky legal ground and might find themselves being sued.Stop the bickering and just negotiate a SAG contract that is as good or better if you can. Stop blaming AFTRA for the shortcomings and poor negotiating strategy that SAG chose to pursue.Please grow up and stop acting like spoiled children.Steve AmersonSAG member since 1983—June 13, 2008To: Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg: I just received the latest totally slanted, propagandistic e-mail blast from SAG today. It sickens me to realize that you people are so desperately seeking a scapegoat to blame, in order to try to draw our attention away from your own complete inadequacy and failure as negotiators (not to mention your seeming inability to tell the truth) that you would willingly destroy SAG (and bring down AFTRA with it) in the process! This is psychotic lunacy… Here’s the “clue phone”, boys, and it’s for YOU: a) We got a VERY good AFTRA contract (without any help from you), and we will overwhelmingly ratify it, despite your spending $150,000 of our SAG members’ dues money to interfere with a sister union’s politics, and despite forcing SAG staff members to participate in your partisan Membership First political rallies; b) You have a very small window of time left to you to get serious about negotiating a decent SAG contract; if you don’t take care of business on this one, you’ll be tarred and feathered and ridden out of Hollywood on the proverbial rail; c) the 44,000 of us who hold membership cards in both unions will be holding YOU TWO personally responsible for the mess you’ve gotten us into! Wake up and smell the coffee, fellows… It’s later than you think…–Randy Crenshaw—20-year SAG and AFTRA member, Hollywood (not a weatherman from Peoria)—June 12, 2008Great work you are doing. Thank you. Keri Tombasian sent an alarming ‘correction’ today. It’s even more money Hollywood SAG is spending to fight AFTRA… it’s $150,000 of our dues money and the NEC didn’t even vote to approve that amount.They were told it would be spent. By whom? (Of course you know about this.) Is there any email campaign going on? Anything organized between NY and the Branches?Is this obscene behavior legal ? ZiskaNY SAG/AFTRA—Ed. Response: We’re not lawyers, and can’t tell if it’s illegal, even though some union lawyers have suggested it may be. But it’s certainly an obscene waste of our resources and money.All we can suggest is this (and this is our opinion, obviously): Vote Yes on Exhibit A. Tell your friends to do the same. And when it comes time for SAG elections, remember who acted in your interest, and remember who didn’t.Letters to SAGWatch from before June 9, 2008.