Airing Opinion Against SAG Petition Drive

54 Comments »

1. Wow. Well put. I totally agree.

   Comment by Chris — February 14, 2008 @ 11:33 am

2. I knew I liked Livingston for a reason. His articulate and thoughtful letter just reinforces what I’ve always thought about Ron: he’s intelligent, reasonable, and principled. If more of that could be found in this town, imagine how truly great this community of filmmaking would be.

   Comment by jake Hollywood — February 14, 2008 @ 11:50 am

3. Bravo, Ron. Unity is key, folks. the WGA wouldn’t have gotten the contract it did if splinter factions rose during the walkout. Yes, there was a threat, but they were smart about it. they didn’t do it publicly.

   Again, congrats Ron!

   Comment by Andre — February 14, 2008 @ 11:51 am

4. Ron, to say that actors who are prohibited from voting on major contracts would not be able to muster union loyalty and solidarity with fellow performers is off the mark. And while you make an even-tempered argument, you defeat it when you arrive at the rock-solid logic regarding actors not voting on contracts for dancers or stunt persons; you wrote: “Simply put, they don’t affect me, and I wouldn’t feel qualified to vote on them.”
   There is a vast gulf of difference between the motives compelling a working actor in a SAG election and those driving an actor who is not acting. We all know how pissed we get at our agents, employers, and even fellow actors when we’re not working. An electorate composed primarily of out-of-work actors is an unstable, unreliable, and easily manipulated body of voters who vote with an entirely different set of motives held by the working actor who is feeding a family. (Remember the asinine mistruths put forth as arguments against merger during the ‘03 vote?!?)
   The logic I’ve witnessed in past strikes includes: “Hey man, I ain’t workin’…I got time to strike! It’s a great way to see your buddies,”…or, “Screw ‘em, I’ve got nothin’ to lose in a strike! Those assholes are gonna pay!”…or, “What’s another month on the street; it doesn’t affect me, I’m an accountant-with-a-SAG-card…STRIKE!” Think I’m kidding? Just wait.

   Comment by Working SAG/AFTRA Actor — February 14, 2008 @ 11:59 am

5. Very well said Ron. I agree.

   Comment by reelbusy — February 14, 2008 @ 12:04 pm

6. Thanks, Ron, for stepping forward and articulating this position so clearly and eloquently. I was very uncomfortable when I received the e-mailed petition from several other union members. As a SAG/AFTRA member for fifteen years, I have worked under numerous contracts, and am wary of any more divisiveness in our unions, whether based on income, on-camera/off-camera status, television or film, broadcaster, actor, singer or stunt person. United we stand, divided we fall!

   Comment by Union Gal — February 14, 2008 @ 12:18 pm

7. Oh my goodness. My already latent crush on Ron Livingston just supernova’d.

   Comment by Velveeta — February 14, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

8. Ron says this: “I, for one, have never worked under a Dancer contract, or a Stunt Performer contract, and I can’t think of any good reason why I should be consulted on either of them. Simply put, they don’t affect me, and I wouldn’t feel qualified to vote on them. But when it comes to the major SAG contracts, it’s not so easy for me to know exactly who’s going to be affected.”

   And I believe it is the crux of the issue. I don’t want someone who’s only been a grip, a hairstylist, a realtor, a car salesmen, or even a producer for the past ten years voting on the agreement. I do want someone who has worked the contract even a tiny bit to be able to.

   The board has the obligation to sort out who’s affected and who’s not.

   Strength doesn’t come from everybody joining in whether it affects them or not, it comes from the working stiffs being squarely behind a job action and not feeling railroaded by the vanity card holders (those who’ve worked next to nothing in the past ten years).

   It’s not about how much money you make it’s about making sure there aren’t voters with either no interest in the outcome or an actual conflict of interest.

   Nothing would please the studios more, than to know that the actors they want to hire are equivocating during a strike, have been placed in that position because a majority of voters weren’t directly affected.

   Every other union in the country does it (except AFTRA. that needs to be looked into). The WGA strike was a success because of this style of voting.

   Comment by todd waring — February 14, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

9. the thought of unemployable actors exercising their power to vote for a strike is absolutely terrifying and i pray the petition drive succeeds…HOWEVER…Ron’s not wrong here. He’s not wrong. He’s just scaring the bejezus out of me.

   Comment by Hemi — February 14, 2008 @ 12:52 pm

10. Right on, Ron.

    Comment by writer-actor — February 14, 2008 @ 12:53 pm

11. Thank you, Ron Livingston. You put it extremely well.

    A union’s strength is in all of its members, not just a wealthy few. I’m willing to listen to alternatives, but a “qualified voting” plan sounds like a divider, not a unifier.

    Comment by Petrea Burchard — February 14, 2008 @ 1:20 pm

12. Ron,

    Thank you for such a wonderfully uniting letter for our union. At yet another pinnacle moment, for so many in Hollywood, your words carry a beautiful message of truth. I look forward to all SAG members standing together for inspiration, standing together for strength, standing together for change, and standing together for our future.

    Comment by Rudi Rose — February 14, 2008 @ 1:32 pm

13. He makes some pretty good points.

    SAG does not exist to serve the interests of the A-List, they have agents and publicists for that, but to protect the rights of the hand-to-mouth working actor who will probably never see their name on a star in the sidewalk.

    While I’m sure the other side has their points, qualified voting reminds me of the early elections where only landowning males had the right to vote, and that’s not good.

    Comment by Furious D — February 14, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

14. It took me more years than I would like to admit to pay my rent and bills from the money I earn as an actor thanks to SAG and its residual tracking infrastructure. Yet I did manage to find some work in all of those years and to suggest that my interest, commitment and love for SAG would not be diminished if my voting rights were taken away unilaterally by the union is indicative of such a pursuit not being thought through.

    How would something like this work? A membership vote where we vote to remove our right, which cost me $1500 in membership initiation fees, to vote? Or procedurally bypass a vote and remove tens of thousands of union members in “good standing” right to vote? And there will be no consequences to such a measure?

    Yes there will - fracture. And the AMPTP will love it. Just in time for the June contract expiration. Ron was a gentleman with his response but my feeling is that an idea should be thought through before being implemented, or risk being assessed as thoughtless.

    Comment by Robert — February 14, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

15. good for ron livingston. i am a member of both the wga and sag. I just spent 3 months on the line for my union. I make more money as a writer than as an actor right now. Yet i have made good money as an actor and expect to do so again in the future. The idea that as a dues paying member i would be denied the opportunity to vote on an issue that is at the core of why i’m a guild member is offensive and foolish.

    Comment by eric — February 14, 2008 @ 1:59 pm

16. Ron is right. What is the point of a union if not all the members are able to participate in building it’s future? If this type of mentality continues to drive SAG than they may not have much of a union in years to come. Unions are there to not only support those fortuante with jobs but also those who are not as fortunate and take the responsibility of protecting them.

    Comment by Brian — February 14, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

17. Very eloquent. Thank you Mr. Livingston. I too am a member of SAG. I walked the lines with the WGA as recently as last week, and I concur with your opinion. The WGA was unsuccessful in 1988 because of a rift between television and motion picture writers, and nobody benefited from the bad deal they made. They realized this time that if they do not hang together, to cop a sentiment from the American Revolution, they shall surely hang separately. It really is about unity and solidarity.

    Comment by mheister — February 14, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

18. very well put Nikki

    Comment by amanda — February 14, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

19. I agree completely. My son is a nineteen year old SAG member who has worked his first, second and third SAG jobs, and is auditioning all the time for the privilege of working another one some day. He has voted when SAG asks him to vote, stayed informed about the WGA and DGA contract negotiations, and will be on the picket line with SAG if it should strike. Now is NOT the time to alienate a newcomer, an enthusiastic and loyal newcomer. Unity won the day for WGA and will win the day for SAG. Thank you, Ron, for standing up for those just starting out.

    Comment by Kathie Wilson — February 14, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

20. Ron is right…
    Let’s also think of what will happen to SAG/AFTRA if they implement Ned Vaughn’s idea…struggling actors and other disenfranchised members like dancers and stunt people will move to decertify. This represents a full 80% of the membership. Pretty hard to finance union operations without dues and pension & health contributions coming in.

    Comment by Observer — February 14, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

21. Dear mheister,

    The WGA has affected member voting. The requirements for voting on the agreements are stiff. Take a look for yourself. The poor results of the ‘88 were the REASON they instituted affected member voting. They wanted to be sure that anyone who voted to go on strike had a significant stake in the outcome. I think the results of this strike have born the fruit of that policy change.

    Comment by todd Waring — February 14, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

22. Wow. That is quite the TPS report. Go Ron Livingston.

    Comment by tuptim — February 14, 2008 @ 3:34 pm

23. I think that this petition comes from the idea that these 900 SAG members have no faith in Rosenberg and his NEG COMM. He’s hellbent to go on strike. Just look at his and Bateman’s statements during the WGA strike. Without the vanity cards he may not get an overwhelming strike vote. It will make the guild look weak and full of rhetoric.
    The gains that the WGA made are good, I don’t think SAG can get a much better deal with or without a strike.

    Comment by just a thought — February 14, 2008 @ 3:48 pm

24. Why do people keep acting like those members who are working less frequently or not at all right now want a strike. Or that Rosenberg wants a strike. No one wants a strike! We are all aware of how hard the strike has been on this town. People want fair wages.

    It was helpful to the WGA for SAG to take a hard line and stand by them. It would not be helpful to go into a SAG negotiation saying “I sure hope you’ll treat us fairly, because we’ll NEVER strike.” What position do you want Rosenberg to take? Do you want him to go in begging? A strike at least needs to seem like a possibility - because its the only power we actually have on our side.

    Instead of expending energy trying to get SAG members kicked out of a vote on their potential wages, or taking out premature ads that act like the unions are unwilling to negotiate, Why doesn’t everyone just get off SAG and Allen’s and Rosenberg’s back and let them analyze the DGA and WGA contracts and finish the W & Ws. The writers haven’t actually accepted their agreement yet, the DGA hasn’t released their agreement - so really, put the timeline in perspective.

    Comment by SAG Member — February 14, 2008 @ 4:29 pm

25. Working SAG/AFTRA actor, isn’t Livingston right that the typical working actor needs the contract more than the A-lister? You’re so suspicious of the motives of currently unemployed actors, but what, there’s some kind of vast solidarity beween heart-of-gold A-listers who don’t need the contract and working actors who depend on it? With de Nero, Streep, Clooney and Hanks lining up to undercut their own union, good luck finding A-listers who give a damn.

    Todd waring, don’t look now but the results in ‘88 and ‘08 were the same. We authorized a strike and got hosed both times, the only difference is that we caved quicker this time. Qualified voting made no difference to the outcome, except probably to piss off dues paying members who have no voice.

    Comment by Way to go — February 14, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

26. Totally agree. My favorite point is that the contract is for FUTURE work; the amount of work in the past should be irrelevant. Great to see a good actor with brains to match!

    Comment by Dave — February 14, 2008 @ 4:56 pm

27. I have an idea.

    Since the big money earning actors have agents, lawyers, accountants, and others to look after their interests, why not bring in qualified voting, but change the qualifications.

    If you make more than $1,000,000 that year, you’re not allowed to vote in union business. Let those who need SAG, vote in SAG.

    How’s that for a trial balloon?

    Comment by Furious D — February 14, 2008 @ 5:07 pm

28. “Now there’s a straight-shooter with upper-management written all over him.”

    And my other favorite…

    “Peter, it looks like you’ve been missin’ a lot of work lately.

    Well, Bob, I wouldn’t say I’ve been missin’ it.”

    LOL! I can see the SAG “speechless” strike YouTube videos now…

    Comment by John — February 14, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

29. Both parties make valid points but I dont think the crux of the issue is A-List actors vs Non A-List but working vs prestige members. There are alot of people holding sag cards that havent acted in 20 years. It makes little sense that they should be able to vote on issues that have little meaning to them. I think instead of salary based voting it should be work based. Wether its a 3 min Geico ad or wearing tights in Troy as long as they are working actors they should be able to vote.

    Comment by Steve — February 14, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

30. Todd,

    Thanks for reading the comment and replying to it. And for not making fun of my shirt.

    I’m not sure how to reconcile the argument that we should exclude young members just getting started and still working side jobs because they don’t have enough experience to vote correctly with the accompanying argument that we should exclude veteran “vanity card” actors who have all the experience in the world? Because if the test is past experience, then our older members who may or may not have worked recently are a great voting asset. And if the test is who this contract will most affect down the line, then the members just out of school have more right to vote than any of us.

    If you’d have asked me in 1996 whether I thought I would be affected by the cable and home video provisions of the SAG theatrical contract, I’d probably have said no. And under the terms of Ned’s petition, I’d have been barred from voting, having only made $4,986 on Swingers, and less than that on The Low Life, the year before. But if you’d asked me again in 1999 after Office Space hit cable and DVD, I’d have to say, you know what, I kinda was. I was affected a great deal.

    So how do we sort out who these upcoming SAG contracts will affect?

    Well, they affect anyone who is qualified and able to hold one of the corresponding jobs over the next three to five years.

    And do we maybe need some sort of formula or test to determine who we consider qualified and able to hold one of those jobs?

    We have one: a member in good standing of the Screen Actors Guild.

    It’s my personal opinion that anyone who feels the need to sort it out beyond that should first explain why they so distrust their fellow Guild members.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful and civil discussion of this very important matter. And for the shirt thing.

    All the best,
    Ron

    Comment by Ron Livingston — February 14, 2008 @ 7:03 pm

31. Todd Waring -

    I stand corrected on the issue of affected member voting being the case today with the WGA.

    I educated myself as much as reasonably possible about this and previous WGA strikes by reading DLD, UH, talking to WGA members on the WGA picket lines, and other sources, and I understood that at least one important reason the WGA splintered in 1988 was the TV writers’ perceived interests diverged from the motion picture writers in regard home video, and that since whole season DVD box sets of Desperate Housewives are now on the shelf at my local Costco, they have come to rue the day….

    Was it the non-working WGA members who screwed the pooch in ‘88, or antsy TV writers???

    And if it was the TV writers, how did affected member voting fix this problem???

    I thought the disunity the writers had experienced for so long was changed through effective leadership and the realization of a common threat.

    And applying the WGA’s lessons to SAG, if there’s a good way for affected member voting to get the guild a better deal without seriously or possibly permanently alienating the disenfranchised actors, leaving them thinking they may as well go Fi-Core for all the love their guild is showing them, I’m all ears.

    Comment by mheister — February 14, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

32. I want to pull my name from that list of 900 after reading his thoughts.
    He persuaded me. Wish I would’ve talked to him/read this view before making my decision to sign.
    Smart guy.

    Comment by Not quite six figures a year — February 14, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

33. Most SAG members don’t work in union covered jobs. That’s a sad fact. The WGA and DGA have qualified voting. If SAG bases qualified voting on a minimum number of days worked over a period of two to three years (as opposed to earnings), then the actor who did a few days on a $100 / day or even a deferred short would have the same rights as the actor who gets $20 million. Is it so out of line to say that if an actor doesn’t work three days (not three jobs, but three days), he/she is not a professional actor? If you check, you will find that three days in three years would be more than most SAG members work. Another sad fact. And it wouldn’t be a forever thing - if the actor becomes active and actually gets work, then the voting rights would be re-instated, because the actor would be actively involved.

    It’s been noted that not every SAG member votes on the dance contract, or the animation contract, or some of the other specialized contracts. And that’s how it should be.

    And, in case my signature doesn’t give it away, I’m one of those people who would likely lose their voting rights under this scenario. Yet, as long as it’s based on days worked and not earnings, then I would be more than happy to support it.

    Comment by Rarely working actor — February 14, 2008 @ 9:32 pm

34. I have been posting here as sagmember for months but for some reason there is another person using the name with slightly different spacing, so I hope there is no confusion.

    I think Ned’s group makes some very valid points if you have been following sag politics for some time, we lost a important opportunity to merge with aftra which would have raised our pay and helped members with two health plans, and we lost ata/agency agreements due to appealing to majority of members who don’t work, don’t follow issues and are easily swayed but what board members want them to do.
    Ron makes excellent points but I don’t think he understands what the other group was saying, they are FOR the working actor, the middle class actor and those starting out. This page is not the place for this debate as it is an internal sag issue.

    I am horrified by A list stars trying to undercut the union by pressuring our leaders when we are still going through the process of figuring out what we want to ask for.
    Let them pressure the amptp and their buddies who hire them, they could give us a fair deal early enough to avoid any further slow down. That is what we members want but they are lobbying the wrong people and undercutting our solidarity as a union in the process. It probably doesn’t affect them if they don’t get a good deal this go round, but it does affect the rest of us. They may lose millions in one film being postponed or scrapped but we may lose our union and pension. If they want to help, lobby the moguls but stand with our union in public who has been there for them since they got their SAG card.
    Are you producers or ACTORS????? The writers didn’t go into their negotiations with the most famous writers taking our ads to urge their leaders to talk, or in essence, settle early so this doesn’t happen. NO one wants another strike but do you really thinks this helps us look united in their eyes.
    Good luck at next SAG awards, we will remember this.

    Comment by Sagmember — February 14, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

35. DOCTOR Livingston, I presume?

    Comment by Zackery — February 14, 2008 @ 10:43 pm

36. May I add my support of Mr. Livingston’s elegantly written statement in response to Ned Vaughn’s petition to include only the elite of the Screen Actors Guild members in the contract negotiations with the studios. Back in 1933, the Guild was founded in an effort to abolish exploitation of actors in Hollywood who were being forced into tyrannical contracts with the major movie studios, contracts that did not include restrictions on work hours or rest periods and often were renewed solely at the studios’ discretion. I admire those few who decided that a union was a worthy venture.

    I used to make my living as an actress, working mostly in commercials and television. Due to my husband’s career, I moved to a non-union city and have found the location prohibitive to doing union work. Yet I still pay my dues to SAG. Why? Because I support my fellow actors. Because I believe in the solidarity of 120,000 actors having a voice. Because I dream of returning to a city that honors the SAG contract so that I may work again. In the meantime, I follow the news. I vote for my guild representatives. I see not only blockbuster movies but independents and documentaries. In other words, I stay active because I’m passionate about the business of acting and filmmaking.

    I write this letter to make my single voice heard. I write to encourage all those that vote to make a conscientious effort to know the issues. I write to express my concern that the studios could use Ned Vaughn’s “elite” in an inappropriate manner. By threatening their current livelihood, the bargainers for the studios could lure the elite into an erroneous negotiation, not beneficial to the entire union.

    What would happen if the United States declared that only those people who made over one hundred thousand dollars were allowed to vote for president? You know what would happen.

    We pay our dues. We have earned a vote. Let us vote.

    Thank you for your time.

    Comment by Daryl Wood Gerber — February 14, 2008 @ 10:51 pm

37. This is a horrible idea.

    I have been a working SAG actor for many years. Last year I was diagnosed with cancer and have spent every day since then thankful I had that insurance.

    Unfortunately, it also made for a year where I didnt book, first time in 7….sorry, I was a little preoccupied.

    Now, you say that I dont get to vote. Right on, thank you. It is great to know that now that I beat cancer, and am finally getting back into the swing of auditions that I cant vote on a future contract that will effect me by the end of this year.

    Here is a question? Are these the same people that told us if we went on commercial strike they were going to get us pay per play residuals on cable that NEVER HAPPENED…

    I cant wait for the time when some of these people have a “bad year” and start to get stripped of their rights.

    Comment by John — February 14, 2008 @ 11:48 pm

38. Way to go, Ron! <3

    Comment by Kelli — February 15, 2008 @ 1:20 am

39. Bravo, Mr. Livingston. Excellent points.

    I wasn’t aware of this petition and find it ridiculous. Who comes up with this stuff? It’s amazing how hard good people have to fight just to keep things rational.

    The naysayers here complain about a fractured union but this would cause that fracture if anything would. Their posts are quite ironically antagonizing and full of animosity. But what else could you expect from anyone wanting to support something so irrational.

    I suspect they must be studio pawns looking to help the AMPTP break the unions. We all know those guys are paid to post to sway opinion. The only thing is the AMPTP can’t fathom how transparent they are.

    I loved Swingers. Loved it. What an inspiration. Office Space was a classic. Beautiful stuff.

    Comment by Jon Raymond — February 15, 2008 @ 1:48 am

40. I have not worked with Ron, but I have met him. At the time I thought he was articulate, intelligent and thoughtful. Now, I KNOW he is.

    The word union means unity. Splitting the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ breaks the union and it will lose the collective bargaining power that makes studios shudder.

    Besides, Ron is right, look at the writers, they took on Benjamin Franklin’s idea of “We must hang together or we will surely hang apart.”

    In solidarity, A

    Comment by Angel — February 15, 2008 @ 5:57 am

41. Sorry sagmember, I’ve posted in the past with this name. Didn’t mean to cause any confusion, I’m sure there’s enough room for two proud members of SAG on this blog seeing as the spelling and spacing are different.

    Unfortunately, I don’t know where else we could hold this discussion - it certainly isn’t a discussion that should be held behind SAGs doors once the petition has built up any steam. Or left as an internal debate to have the results presented to us down the road without the general membership’s temperature having been taken. And the organizers of the petition should know NOW what the going sentiment is, so hopefully they will choose on their own to discontinue their efforts.

    The first I heard of this petition was on this blog. It was not forwarded to me for consideration! It seems to be making the rounds by some hidden route to those the organizers think hold enough power in their signature to make this look like a popular and well supported petition. I kind of feel like we were being submarined as a membership body. If they had floated the idea openly, they would have met this kind of response sooner. Perhaps they would have less people on the petition to date (as the person experiencing signer’s remorse above indicates).

    I would love to see this petition in full and the actual language, as to date the most information I’ve gotten on its contents comes from Mr. Livingston. Is there a petition site somewhere where I could read it and see who these 900 people who support it so proudly are (sit down, Chad, you’ve been counted - still wonder why I don’t use my real name…)? Someone please post a link, so I can better educate myself. NED, you’ve been quite silent - care to shed some light on those of us who haven’t been privy to this petition or invited to join your grassroots movement? Maybe upon reading it you’d find more supporters (there’s always the chance).

    Also, as there seems to be some confusion in some of the newer posts - lets clarify that nothing indicates that this is something the Board is doing to us or that is in the works from SAG’s offices - this is something a group of members are proposing. Perhaps our union should take an official position on this soon and put this to rest so we can focus on the message of a strong and united union instead of this sidebar.

    And Mr. Livingston, since people are at it, I will say: I MISS STANDOFF! Hostage situations were never so much fun.

    Comment by SAG Member — February 15, 2008 @ 8:26 am

42. This proposal to means test union voters (and potentially disenfranchise them)is arrogant, un-democratic and short-sighted.

    Either you’re a union or you’re not. Once in, you pay your dues (literally and figuratively) and you get the privileges of being in the union. One of which is to have a say.

    If I have a bad year after working for 20 you want to take my vote away from? Do my views suddenly not matter? Money equals relevance? That’s kind of like the thinking that denied women and minorities the right to vote because they patronizingly weren’t thought capable of voting “responsibly.”

    This proposal represents the kind of thinking that lies behind literacy tests or poll taxes. A democracy is a democracy. The logical extension of the proposed SAG means test is a society where we get different votes depending on how much we earn.

    Also: If you marginalize people in the union what’s the point of being in the union? This sort of proposal could potentially back-fire, create a lot of resentment and cause thousands of people to go Financial Core robbing the union of money, great ideas and energy. What kind of rallies are you going to have in case you go on strike, where 80% of the dues-paying membership has no say in the outcome? If nothing else, this would be grounds for an interesting issue for the Supreme Court.

    Comment by Chris Grove — February 15, 2008 @ 8:51 am

43. Thank you, Ron,

    For taking the time to write an intelligent, cogent response to this issue. As a working actor who would qualify to vote, I want my fellow SAG members by my side in a democratic union, not disenfranchised and decertifying to take jobs from Guild members.

    Scott Tracy Griffin

    Comment by Scott Tracy Griffin — February 15, 2008 @ 9:39 am

44. I, too, have been working on the effort to improve SAG contract voting procedures, and I’d like to respond to Ron Livingston’s thoughtful comments.

    In some areas, Ron and I are in complete agreement. I’m pleased he thinks the general principle behind the effort is sound and worthy of discussion. His acknowledgement that he can’t think of a reason to be consulted on contracts that don’t affect him—that he wouldn’t feel qualified to vote on them—is a point of view we share. I don’t receive the Animation VO ballot. That’s not a measure of my “talent or worth”, but simply reflects the fact that I haven’t been working in that field.

    The SAG constitution requires that contracts be ratified by “the membership affected thereby.” It doesn’t say “the entire membership” or “all members in good standing” as it does for voting on officers. Nor does it refer to “potentially affected members”.

    It seems that Ron’s real concern isn’t whether the constitution should be followed, but how to define “affected”. The fact is that virtually every union in the country—including the WGA and Actors’ Equity—has come up with an acceptable and accepted set of criteria. SAG (and AFTRA) can—and must—do it too.

    Ron is concerned about “people scraping by, the up-and-comers, and the kids working their first and second jobs”—I am too. It is precisely FOR those members that we need this. When I joined SAG (to shoot a Tampax commercial in Coney Island, no less!) I felt such gratitude that the members who proceeded me had used their experience and expertise to secure a contract that was now protecting me.

    Without a reasonable definition of “affected members”, Guild demographics put contract voting overwhelmingly in the hands of those with little knowledge of the contract and no stake in the outcome—and perhaps even a direct conflict of interest. This includes thousands of SAG card holders who work on crews, in writers’ rooms, in studio offices, in entertainment law firms, as management, etc. These members don’t act in film or TV, and their livelihoods would only be hurt if the union held out for a better contract by walking out. How hard will they fight to get actors a better deal?

    We are NOT asking for an earnings threshold. The number of days worked—not amount of money earned—is the common test for “affected” members. For work like ours, it must be averaged over a time span long enough to accommodate the inevitable “ups-and-downs” of our business. The Equity standard is one job (typically at least 6-8 weeks) within the previous 6 years. I believe SAG should consider something similar – perhaps an average of 5 days of principal work and/or 15 days of background work per year, over the previous 6 years. (Three background days has been used as an equivalent of one principal day for union entrance.) Of course, the 6 year period would be prorated for newer members.

    A standard like this—for contract voting only—will broadly include members with working knowledge of the contract and some concrete stake in it. And because it eliminates the influence of those without such a stake, it will give the “affected” members—those who depend on the contract and know it best—an effective voice. This gives maximum credibility to the vote and strengthens our hand in negotiations, which results in better contracts for all members, present and future.

    Ron says there may be a way to change how SAG votes that makes us a more effective union—that it’s a great idea and worth talking about. Once again, we agree.

    This IS that idea, and we are talking about it. And if ever we could benefit from a more effective union, it is right now.

    Thank you for your consideration,
    Amy Brenneman

    Comment by Amy Brenneman — February 15, 2008 @ 2:09 pm

45. I agree with Amy Brenneman because she makes good points and is hotter.
    What? If most people can base their presidential vote on that I can base my vote on this subject thusly.

    Comment by MT-vA — February 15, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

46. Dear Ron,

    Thanks for reading my post and responding.

    As you can see from the specifics given in Amy Brenneman’s response to you, what’s being suggested is a modest work requirement over a long period. That sounds like a reasonable, inclusive standard.

    It’s true you can’t know who is going to be affected in the future, but you can decide who has knowledge of the wages and working conditions of the recent past.

    The problem with “a member in good standing of the Screen Actors Guild” is the number of people who fall into that category who’ve made nothing in SAG for years, who have no financial interest in the outcome, or worse have a conflict of interest with us who’re trying to make a living in this business. It’s a far bigger problem than most people think and I believe following the clause in the Constitution that speaks about ‘members affected thereby’ would go a long way solving it.

    As for the shirt. I think it’s lovely and I wouldn’t waste another second being embarrassed by it’s soft and feminine drape.

    Thanks for listening, Todd Waring

    Comment by Todd Waring — February 15, 2008 @ 5:13 pm

47. One thing can be done to see if we really need QV. When I mail in my ballot on the outside envelope is my name. Lets have SAG check those names to see just who is voting. When only 20% in fact vote I find it hard to beleive that so many are people that have no stake in the contract.

    So before you insult so many by telling them they have no right to vote even though they never voted before, causing them to think about going Fi-Core. Lets find out just who is voting.

    Comment by Yosemite Stokesberry — February 17, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

48. I totally agree Ron! Thanks! As a longtime member of SAG, I believe that if one is paying their union dues, then they have a right to vote.

    Just because someone isn’t currently working under a said contract, does not mean they are not actively auditioning for shows or projects that the contract covers.

    This petition is nothing but elitism in my opinion and will lead to a huge number of Fi-Core filings if passed.

    Comment by SAG Actress — February 18, 2008 @ 8:54 am

49. Ron-

    Bravo on such an erudite submission of your opinion!

    Although not part of SAG, I am a member of another large union in the United States, and the very idea that members be slotted into a caste system based on annual revenues defeats much of what a union is meant to accomplish.

    While you’ve enjoyed success, it’s heartening to see that you haven’t lost sight of what it was like to be struggling to gain those early SAG jobs, hoping the next would bring success.

    I hope the majority also recognizes this.

    A nation divided cannot stand…. hmmmm seems to me somebody important once said that….. I think the same principle can possibly be applied here!

    Regards,

    NY Yellow

    Comment by NY Yellow — February 18, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

50. I’m not a SAG member. I probably won’t ever be, but I know some people who are and some who plan on joining soon. Having read through this discussion, it seems that the main point of conflict is defining who is capable of voting responsibly on future contracts. If I’m wrong, please, let me know.

    The petition drive argues that SAG members who have worked a certain amount of time in recent years have a better knowledge of the contracts they work under. Thus they have should be the ones voting.

    Ron and others argue that because these contracts could affect any SAG member, working or otherwise, that any SAG member should be able to vote.

    I think there’s a solution somewhere that can satisfy both sides of the debate. It’s a matter of knowledge, right? Is there a way to educate members, working or otherwise, about a contract being put before the union?

    I would personally support the idea of trying to spread working knowledge of the contracts to as many members as possible before excluding them from the vote in the first place. If the actors in question are willing to take the time to become responsibly knowledgeable, then their vote seems as legitimate to me as any other.

    Anyway, that’s my two cents. There might be a middle ground here, something to satisfy both sides.

    Thanks.

    Comment by a Nebraska student — February 18, 2008 @ 8:00 pm

51. Mr. Livingston’s comments are laudable, however they illustrate some of the very misunderstandings about SAG contracts which lead to the confusion and political infighting that gives SAG a bad name in town.
    People don’t understand how collective bargaining works, or what the contracts cover or do not cover, nor what is in (and not in) the union’s power to do for any member.

    Ron mentions the “Dancer contracts” and the “Stunt contracts”, but there are no such things in SAG. In essence, Ron votes on their contracts and they vote on his right now:
    SAG’s contracts are separated not by the type of acting work, but by the kind of program format. The two major contracts are the TV/THEATRICAL (negotiated with the AMPTP) and the COMMERCIALS contract (negotiated with the advertisers- the ANA & AAAA). The work of dancers, stunt performers, background performers, singers, puppeteers, body doubles, voiceover actors, (including walla groups), and principal on-camera performers are all covered by the same contract– and all those folks are considered “affected” members no matter which specialty they employ, as long as they work under a SAG contract. The reason the specialties are not separated out into separate contracts (with separate voting) is so the smaller specialties can benefit from the bargaining power and visibility of on-camera principal performers… especially the A-list ones who can shut down a production if necessary (or get one green-lit, as the case may be).

    We’ve all been on set where the producer has gifted his niece a two line role so she could get a SAG card, or thrown in somebody from the writer’s room when the first actor couldn’t hit the jokes past the audition– even though that writer or mistress has no intention of making a career out of acting. And that was eight years ago. Oh, but people love to vote for the awards show! You don’t have many vanity cardholders in the United Steelworkers determining whether THEY strike or not. SAG’s problem is unique in a celebrity obsessed culture.

    I’d like to think I’ll play third base for the Mets in a few years– I’m fast and I’ve got a good arm and big dreams — but does that mean I should get to vote on the Baseball Player’s union contracts? I mean, no, I’m not in the majors now but I LOVE baseball and I know I COULD be famous if somebody’d give me a shot…

    We can’t let people vote on what they hope might affect them some day and call that “fair” when those folks so grossly outnumber both the ones who actually DO work and the ones who ultimately WILL– the ones whose wages and working conditions determine whether they get health care or their kid gets braces or the rent gets paid.

    Just printing, mailing, return postage and ballot oversight (contracted through a third party company) on contract votes to all SAG members costs hundreds of thousands of dollars in members’ dues money. For EACH referendum. Considering how few who actually WORK do bother to vote, even if you defined “affected member” as any SAG member who worked just ONE day under that contract over the past three years, that’d save tens of thousands in dues money that could be put to better use organizing MORE jobs in cable and new media.
    We’ve got limited resources– let’s be smart about this. What the struggling underemployed actor wants are more union jobs - more than a vote on a contract they’ve never worked.

    If it’s primarily the Unemployed and Never Employed who vote to strike on any contract (whether it be out of sincere passionate fervor or any nefarious cause), the union takes two massive risks in allowing this policy: 1. That the A-listers, who don’t technically “need” the union, are willing to leave their jobs, never cross the picket line, and fund the strike with their dues money at the behest of non-workers, and 2. That the producers won’t call the union on its bluff and opt to squeeze SAG with a prolonged strike while the work moves overseas or into animation, like it did during the commercials strike, never to return.

    For the strongest positioning in negotiations, you need stakeholders at the bargaining table, and stakeholders making the decision as to whether to strike. A strike means your negotiations failed- it is the worst case scenario, not the best. That means the dancers, the singers, the stunt performers, the extras — anyone who WORKS under the SAG contract and will be affected by the costs and the outcome must know what they want in a contract and what they’re willing to strike for. And you get your willing and influential pro-union A-listers rally public support and exert financial pressure on the producers, knowing it wasn’t a bunch of vanity cardholders who sent them out on the picket line in the first place.

    The tyranny of a majority does not a union democracy make when that majority are not really professionals pursuing work in that field.

    $.02 from an actor who just missed re-qualifying for health insurance.
    Thanks.

    Comment by T.S.A. -SAG member — February 29, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

52. Mr. Livingston is a pretty smart guy. He writes very well, and should; after all, he is a Yalie who majored in English Lit. His belief and loyalty to his union is certainly respected as well as his opinion on this matter.

    I’d like to point out, however, that any union does not fully represent loyalty and solidarity among all its members. People who take jobs in many union shops are only in the union because they need the job and are required to join the union. Quite often “We’re NOT All In This Together”. Of course you want safe working conditions, fair pay, etc., but you also need to put food on the table and keep a roof over your head. How many of us out there have voted against a strike because we HAD to keep working. T.S.A. writes, “Oh, but people love to vote for the awards show!” I know what you’re saying. That’s just like people always have money to buy their cigarettes, beer and lottery tickets but they’re the first to bitch when their taxes go up.

    Everyone is touched by Mr. Livingston’s concern for “the people scraping by, the up-and-comers and the kids working their first and second jobs.” Is he really expressing concern for former psychology majors, former ballerinas and his kid brother? Mr. Livingston states, “Every one of us knows that in our line of work, you’re up some years, and some years you’re down.” EXCUSE me, but this is not just true in the entertainment industry, but many other industries as well. How about farmers? He grew up in Iowa, he should know that. Maybe he is not aware of how many company closings, corporate downsizings, business relocations to foreign countries and re-orgs have gone on resulting in job losses. Hasn’t he heard about the Big Box companies kicking the little guy? Did he every read stories such as about one man who used to earn six figures then had to take a job at Sears selling paint? He goes on to say, “And if someone out there knows who is going to get which jobs for the next three to five years, they should post it somewhere and we can all save a lot of gas money going to auditions.” (He displayed his big, fancy house on a “celebrity” home improvement show; I don’t think gas money is a problem with him.) Can I tell you how much gas money I could have saved going to job interviews I have walked into where they already knew I wasn’t going to get the job? He performed at IO West in January to “support” the WGA strike and didn’t even have the decency to shave or comb is hair. I think the Hollywood lights got too bright.

    T.S.A. states, “SAG’s problem is unique in a celebrity obsessed culture.” Actors and writers are nervous over losing compensation on their work that goes out on video, DVD and the internet and I can’t say that I blame them. But, lots of people have implemented cost-saving or other beneficial procedures at their jobs, and then got booted out so a lower grade worker could come in and do the same job for less money. Those people who got booted out can never continue to get compensated for what they did previously, even though the company continues to reap benefits from their performance while at the company. The entertainment industry is facing a difficult issue on what technology has done to it. Join the club entertainers, the rest of us have been dealing with the same problem. Think about how many secretaries, receptionists, etc. lost their jobs to the automated voice attendant or whatever, the next time you talk to a machine or get an e-mail with horrible grammar because the manager is now writing his own correspondence (Mr. Livingston is an excellent writer who obviously doesn’t have that problem).

    If the SAG goes on strike, no one will really care. Sure, it was a long three months while the WGA was out – but not really. Of course my wife missed new episodes of Desperate Housewives, but you know what? It really didn’t matter because everyone just went to their DVD collection or logged onto Netflix. Ironic, isn’t it? Everyone turned to one of the big reasons WGA was on strike to begin with (while they were on strike). The general public (aka the person in the audience eating the popcorn) is pretty much getting fed up with the entertainment industry and how entertainment is presented to us. For example, why was Standoff canceled? Why weren’t Holly or Music Within in a theatre where I live? The Oscars had their lowest ratings ever because, we (the fans) are getting fed up. One night of prime time TV on four major networks and these were my choices: Deal or No Deal, Wife Swap, Big Brother or American Idol. Now what kind of writing or acting do those require?

    The bottom line – it’s TOUGH in EVERY line of work, and hey - we all really do put our pants on one leg at a time. SAG members obviously have some big issues ahead and will have to fight tooth and nail like the rest of us.

    Mr. Livingston is a pretty smart guy who can act. Maybe he can figure out the end of the whole mess. I guess I sound like I’m having a case of the Mondays. Why shouldn’t I? I currently earn a living sitting in a cubicle every day where no man is meant to be.

    It was a good post-it note Mr. Livingston. By the way, my wife says she LOVES the shirt. Good luck to all of you.

    Comment by Comment from the Cubicle — March 5, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

53. Nice, Ron. Sounds like a guy from Iowa who understands the concept of “Union”. Might’ve even worked for a “real one” at one time. We live in a time when ABC Productions can syndicate a show to ABC Family at one tenth of it’s market value since they no longer have true open bidding (capitalism, if it was fair we wouldn’t need unions…I worked at Hormel in the 80’s, they split our union and crushed us..watch Barbara Kopple’s 1990 Oscar winner “American Dream”..by the way, the guy from Mexico that does my old job at half the pay has no insurance and Hormel, which changed it’s name to “Excel”, even though they still make the exact same products (ABC Family) had record profits last year..which is great if that “profit sharing” thing our former union signed with them was put into action. L, Tom Arnold

    Comment by Tom Arnold — March 19, 2008 @ 11:04 pm

54. Amen!!!!

    Comment by Mel — April 6, 2008 @ 11:40 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment