Another Opinion Anti SAG Petition Drive

28 Comments »

1. Ms. Fisher,
   Here’s where I stand: I saw you in Valley of Elah; you are not only a supremely talented actress, but truly gorgeous!!
   That said, I actually voted for you in the recent election to put you on the AFTRA Board in addition to the SAG Board, assuming you wanted to bring a positive, constructive spirit to the AFTRA Boardroom. So I don’t understand your rather biting criticism of AFTRA. You’re an experienced hand and know that AFTRA’s jurisdiction runs from 50% of scripted dramatic cable tv programming, 15% of the three hours of prime-time programming, and 70% of all television programming. For its portion of prime-time theatrical, SAG & AFTRA staff and members agreed that, being two separate unions, and although SAG has the bulk of the 3-hour prime-time segment, SAG & AFTRA would have a 50-50 split of votes and negotiating committee seats on joint contracts: Primetime/Theatrical, Commercial, Interactive, and Animation. The makers of the Phase One Agreement knew that neither SAG nor AFTRA would ever agree to be taken out on strike by votes of the other union, thus the equal share of votes and committee seats. Since SAG & AFTRA share 40,000 members in common, it is nothing like the IA & WGA with an essentially different labor pool — the unfortunate animation & reality jurisdictional struggle notwithstanding. The largest category of AFTRA membership is actors (approximately 50,000 of its 70,000 members.) Actors join AFTRA in order to work in soaps, appear on talk shows, radio commercials, interactive, industrial, animation, cable tv dramatic programming, and whenever prime-time programming or commercials are AFTRA. So since we’re talking about the same individuals doing the same work for the same employers, it’s only logical that SAG & AFTRA would be equally represented on negotiating committees, despite the disparity in the 3-hour prime-time segment.
   I know that some Hollywood SAG Board members are of the opinion that only they can truly go for the gusto at the negotiating table, but please consider that DVD residuals and internet apply equally to all performers working the prime-time/theatrical contract whether SAG or AFTRA is your parent union, and that ALL members of the joint SAG/AFTRA negotiating committees must hold both a SAG & AFTRA card and work under the contract being negotiated.
   So we’re all in the same boat, and we’re going to need each other come contract-expiration-time. I hope performers can muster the same kind of solidarity and single-mindedness that the writers did, otherwise we’ll have wanton threats of fi-core and warring camps of actors — a situation that will only benefit the AMPTP.

   In Solidarity.

   Comment by Ichaucheinwerkungactor — February 18, 2008 @ 3:40 pm

2. Ms. Fisher,
   Your suggestion to apply the same earnings tests to AFTRA is a good one for the same reasons its a good idea for SAG. I notice your treatise is rather Hollywoodcentric. If I remember right, during the 2000 SAG/AFTRA Commercials Strike some of the bravest and most effective job actions occurred in Chicago, New York State, etc. Yes, films & tv are posted here, and yes, the bulk of SAG work is done through if not in Southern California, but to parade a cadre on once-great stars before us and hold them up as models of union virtue is to alienate the bulk of us whose faces few will remember but who earn the great bulk of non-star SAG monies in commercials, industrials, interactive, animation, and yes, occasionally on-camera in film & tv. And don’t forget that 40,000 of us proudly carry AFTRA cards in addition to our SAG membership. Many of us who work theatrically came up though the soaps and have fond memories of the great support AFTRA gave us on-set. So AFTRA-bashing, SAG-centric, star parades are a bit off the mark.
   If WGA members in New York hadn’t felt part of the writers’ effort nation-wide, their strike would not have been successful. We need all SAG & AFTRA performers around the country to be in support of performers’ efforts at the negotiation table this Spring, otherwise we can kiss our paychecks goodbye.

   Working Actor II

   Comment by Working Actor II — February 18, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

3. Ms. Fisher,
   Good points. But I was especially interested in your comment:

   “I find it interesting that this issue is being resurrected publicly at a time that our Guild members should be united as we prepare for our TV/Theatrical negotiations.”

   Yes, in the wake of the AMPTP manipulating the media to force a contract down WGA members throats with quotes like ‘the vote passed with a 92% margin’ which really meant 92% of the 35% of members who voted, I question this timing as well.

   My question to Amy Brenneman is, what is the distinction between ‘the membership affected thereby’ and ‘potentially affected members?’ There can’t be one because anyone who falls into either category could just as well fall into the other category depending on the time of day you make the decision. Someone doing just extra work could get booked and suddenly become voter eligible within a week or two. What about someone just coming off a gig and finding they haven’t worked the required time as of a day ago? A decision is made they aren’t eligible. Then what if they book something the next day that makes them eligible after two weeks?

   They have a word for this kind of faulty logic. It’s called bullshit.

   So what you end up with is going back to square one, where you have people voting on things that may not affect them, and other people not able to vote on what does affect them. Now of course, we all know no one would even do this, but what if a studio decided to book or not book actors based on how they expected them to vote on something like a strike? This would certainly put them is a good position to manipulate elections invisibly. Criminal genius

   Comment by Jon Raymond — February 18, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

4. I’m talking about the push to qualify SAG members who vote on the TV/Theatrical contract. Why isn’t the same push being made with Aftra?

   Comment by Frances Fisher — February 18, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

5. Wow Fisher, way to %&$( all over AFTRA… where’s that unity you were talking about?

   Comment by tenpercenter — February 18, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

6. SAG is about to go JIM CROW!

   Why not have two water fountains and bathrooms at the SAG office on Wilshire – one for members who make over the requirement and one in the basement that doesn’t.

   As a SAG member since 1982 I find it an insult to humanity to shutout members of a union on ratifying a new contract based an income threshold requirement. Why don’t we just say all SAG Board members who haven’t starred in a movie or TV show over the last ten years that they must be automatically removed from the board. That would be unfair and ridiculous. It’s a class war of the haves and the have nots. What if in Paris, France the French Government made a law that all artist must be registered with the Government as artist and had to have sold a minimum of $30,000 in art a year to qualify to call themselves artist.

   If this class discrimination petition passes board approval I will publicly encourage all SAG members who are cut off in the voting process to immediately go Fi-Core and burn their SAG cards.

   This reminds me of when in the South Blacks couldn’t vote because the laws didn’t allow us to have equal rights with whites. We were 3/5 of a man that was brought out in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case.

   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html

   Just because the majority of actors aren’t making over $30,000 a years doesn’t give its union the right to classify them to be 3/5’s of a human being. In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks — slaves as well as free — were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country’s territories.

   SAG is about to go JIM CROW!

   Why not have two water fountains and bathrooms at the SAG office on Wilshire – one for members who make over the requirement and one in the basement that doesn’t.

   Chris Jackson
   WGA/SAG/AFTRA

   Comment by Chris Jackson — February 18, 2008 @ 8:49 pm

7. ENOUGH of blaming the media or anyone else for reporting the 92% vote to end the strike! If 65% of my fellow WGA members couldn’t be bothered to vote, then screw ‘em. If they cared enough to vote to continue the strike, then they should have. As I’ve said before, it’s no one’s fault but our own that only 35% of us voted, so stop blaming the media.

   Comment by Can't Take it Anymore — February 18, 2008 @ 9:44 pm

8. “And to the person who took a stab at Hollywood: look up the credits of our Hollywood Board, and see who represents you: working actors like Kent McCord, Anne Marie Johnson, Valerie Harper, Rene Taylor, Joe Bologna, Lainie Kazan, France Nuyen, Diane Ladd, Justine Bateman, William Russ, Joanna Cassidy, Anne DeSalvo, George Coe, Michael Bell, Seymour Cassel, Brett Cullen, Anthony DeSantis, Leigh French, Elliot Gould, Robert Hays, David Jolliffe, Nancy Sinatra, Piper Laurie, Paul Napier, William Mapother, Russell McConnell, Peggy Miley, Esai Morales, Barbara Niven, Susan Savage, Connie Stevens, JoBeth Williams, Angel Tompkins, William Mapother, William Katt, Bonnie Bartlett, Scott Wilson, me, and the list goes on. Check out our credits on http://www.imdb.com.”

   Here is another huge part of the problem. This is just a portion of the SAG board. There are over 75 members of the board. I guess they couldn’t come up with a less efficient way to make a decision.

   Please reform your guild.

   Comment by Steve — February 18, 2008 @ 10:06 pm

9. Frances, I didn’t know your name until I saw your photo here, but I want to thank you for your tireless picketing alongside us marching writers all those days.

   If more of my writer colleagues had turned out as often as you did, we’d have a much better deal to vote on today. I can’t wait to return the favor.

   Much love and respect.

   Comment by ninetypercenter — February 18, 2008 @ 10:21 pm

10. Dear Working Actor,

    My original post came from another thread where I was answering a number of points, including answering someone who accused Hollywood board members of not being working actors. Perhaps I should have clarified further but I did not have time to edit.

    I acknowledge the solidarity all over the country that eventually won the 2000 Commercial strike.

    Aftra is my parent union; my first Aftra job was a soap for 4 years. I ran for the board last year because I care that actors have the best wages, residuals and chance for health care as possible.

    Pointing out facts, to me, is not “bashing”.

    There are inequities between our two unions that are creating the conflict: non-actors voting on the TV/Theatrical contract; basic-cable contracts promulgated that give away 10-15 free days of streaming with multiple plays for the 24-hour day which means actors get no residuals, therefore no Health & Retirement contributions. With salary compression, and the disregard by the Companies of the quote system, an actor cannot possibly make a living under this kind of contract.

    I ran for the Aftra board to represent the actors who want
    Leadership who will not sell them out.

    We are all actors and we should all be supporting our NegComm in getting the best contract possible. That support needs to come from both Union boards also.
    99-CVR-17-R is a resolution adopted by both boards in 1999 that pledged to share contract information and not undercut each other’s contracts.

    Phone numbers are on the back of your card if you feel inclined to make a call.

    BTW, Board members and officers do not get paid for their service.
    .
    Come to the W&W meetings through the end of this month. Your voice will be heard!

    Comment by frances fisher — February 19, 2008 @ 2:39 am

11. I’m old and a member since the late 50s. Your statements regarding SAG, AFTRA are exactly the same as Ronald Reagan’s back in about 1958 or so when a proposal to unite unions came up. It’s preposterous to have weather persons tell actors what’s best. Not only that, but most AFTRA radio people live outside New York and Hollywood. This IS a big deal. Always has been.

    Comment by Howard Veit — February 19, 2008 @ 8:18 am

12. Ms. Fisher,

    You misunderstand the concept of our Unions. We are a family who stands in solidarity with our brothers and sisters.

    The Union’s purpose is to decentralize the power structures that use their “special position” to deprive others of what is rightly theirs. It’s not to keep those who make the money or have the power from keeping what is rightfully theirs; but to keep them in check from participating in acts of oppression.

    Your comments seem to retreat a bit from your diatribe originally posted, stating that you should have edited it better, but was short on time. How foolish of you to act in haste on Nikki Finke’s website. This shows a lack of discernment that concerns me if you are on any board that governs me, my brothers, and/or my sisters.

    Not only does your lack of judgment concern me, but it also seems as if you are trying to isolate yourself and a few select others for special treatment, without any check of balance. I am a firm believer that isolationist attitudes are dangerous because they are antithetic to unions, community, and ultimately the individual.

    Ms. Fisher. As a member of AFTRA, I do not wish to keep you from what is rightly yours. If you find any instance where AFTRA has done so, please present it to us all. I sincerely want the best for you. I hope you feel the same for me, your little brother.

    In Solidarity,

    ejs

    Comment by ejs — February 19, 2008 @ 8:58 am

13. If someone is paying dues to their union, they have a right to vote. Is this the elite actor crap showing its “I’m soooooooo special” face. I picketed with the writers, and respected their solidarity. How nice for the AMPTP… they see you putting your dirty little infighting out for the world to comment on. Just typical actor…. “its all about me”. As actors, you’re already on shaky ground with the BTL crew, we don’t buy into your “elite” B.S., we mostly roll our eyes back in our heads. If you strike, I for one will not honor your picket line. Oh, your board members……when is the last time they worked? Do they get a vote? They read like the cast of “Where are they now”. IF YOU PAY DUES, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE!!!!!!!

    Comment by btl teamster — February 19, 2008 @ 9:15 am

14. The question to all guilds is the why and why not.
    If the body of a guild is the one being affected by the outcome of a guild’s contract, they why should that outcome be determined by a select few.
    Is this not always the concern of many guild members when national political issues are aired to our nation.
    Yet our guild members must feel that we can say one thing to the public on national issues, but be a part of back door politics when it comes to the determination of our contracts associated with any of the guilds.

    Comment by Jimmy D — February 19, 2008 @ 9:55 am

15. I still have one question for the folks arguing in favor of limiting voting to affected members. Where are the facts to justify the assumption that the SAG members you’d like to exclude will act in a manner that is contrary to SAG’s best interest?

    (I first posed this question in a longer post in the thread following the Amy Brenneman piece)

    Comment by mheister — February 19, 2008 @ 11:11 am

16. Can’t Take it Anymore,
    It is a press problem when the media reports that the WGA vote to end the strike was approved with a 92% margin, regardless of whether it’s technically true or that Verone made the statement. To report this figure in the media without qualifying the fact it reflects a 35% turnout and actually means only 34% of members voted down the strike is poor and negligent reporting. Everyone in the WGA knows the facts. But the media represents it as a 92% landslide. Why? because the media is owned by strong right wing union busting companies like News Corp. and Rupert Murdock.

    You can expect more of the same when SAG gets into their negotiations.

    Comment by Jon Raymond — February 19, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

17. How about making longer contracts? Six months of unrest every three years is too fucking much.

    Comment by tcw — February 19, 2008 @ 2:37 pm

18. There are 7500 voting members of the WGA. The others cannot vote because they have not worked in the past seven years.

    6041 WGA members voted in the original strike authorization vote in October.

    81%

    3,775 voted to end picketing.

    50%

    There has not been a vote to ratify the contract.

    Please quit writing that 35% of WGA members voted, it is not true.

    Comment by David Anthony — February 19, 2008 @ 4:53 pm

19. here’s the issue; george clooney, de niro, streep, whoever is pushing for a settlement to be reached on the wga deal line, so there won’t be a sag strike, are doing films where their payday is 20 million dollars, and the producers don’t want to start the process, or they’ll be out of pocket on pay or play deals in the region of 50 mill. So they’re whispering in the stars ears, push for a deal. Why don’t these stars just do the films for love, for lets say 1 million? And everyone can go to work. Don’t make it about your payday, bobby!

    Comment by angus — February 19, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

20. Dear “Little Brother”,

    I believe that you have misunderstood my post.

    Referencing my inability to edit, I said that I posted a response to someone who attacked Hollywood Board members as non-working from a post in Amy B’s thread. I was responding to “Working Actor”’s post above who thought that I was singling out Hollywood and not acknowledging the rest of the country. You can go to Amy’s original posting below if you wish, view the response thread, to better understand.

    I do NOT advocate an isolationist point of view; to the contrary, I do not think that a push to qualify SAG members is wise, especially as we move into our 2008 TV/Theatrical negotiations, and I raised the question, (since SAG and Aftra are “sister” unions, and should be on the same page), why isn’t there the same push to qualify Aftra members, especially members who are NOT actors, yet who vote on the TV/Theatrical contract. Rhetorical question.

    I have presented in my post above one instance where actors are not getting what is rightly theirs: Residuals. Actors should get residuals, and they are not getting residuals (thus no H&R) in Aftra Basic-Cable contracts.

    I want the best for you, and for all actors. That’s why I’m here.

    Comment by Frances Fisher — February 20, 2008 @ 12:28 am

21. btl teamster, is it necessary to diss board members like that? If you think those people haven’t worked in a long time, you should see the resume of many other SAG members, the total number of acting jobs is limited, you know?

    In the WGA, members who do not qualify to vote also don’t have to pay dues. Are the 900 members who want to disenfranchise everyone else going to step up and agree to pay proportionally higher dues, too? One massive payment, one vote.

    Comment by Muronao — February 20, 2008 @ 1:00 am

22. Hollywood history might just be repeating itself…

    I note with interest the following article from:

    The Nation
    April 2, 1938
    Vol. 146, No. 14, p. 381-383

    online link at: http://newdeal.feri.org/nation/na38146p381.htm

    “…There was a considering silence. Eddie Cantor stood up. “I’ve apparently come here,” he said, “under a misconception. If this organization isn’t one that’s going to help every man, woman, and child in the industry, I’ll say good night!” He didn’t have to say good night. Some of them sheepishly, some of them angrily, every star and featured player in the room fell in with Cantor’s demand”.

    Who this generation’s of actors Eddie Cantor is I can’t yet say (perhaps it is Ron Livingston?). But it is imperative that *someone* steps up to end the inter and intra guild squabbling or we fans and viewers simply cannot help you actors (both famous and not so well known) in the same steadfast and forceful way that we were able to help the writers.

    We anxiously await your galvanizing moment behind whomever it is who can unify you so that we can also help you get what you *all* need from the AMPTP.

    S.E. Olson (aka vdovault online)
    Moderator & Law & Order Criminal Intent Fan Liason
    Fans For The WGA
    http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters/

    Comment by VDOVault — February 20, 2008 @ 6:01 am

23. Memo to Chris Jackson: People died because of jim crow laws in the south; No one is going to die because they don’t get to vote on contracts that they don’t work. Can the drama. As to the issue, there should be some sort of income requirement. maybe 15-20k instead of 30k, but something. Like in every union, bitter people vote against good things just to vote against. People with something directly invested will be more prudent with their vote.

    Comment by aononymous — February 20, 2008 @ 9:55 am

24. looks like the amptp has revved up its shill machine again, pooping out phony btl vitriol

    @angus 9:55 pm is correct

    Comment by tom — February 20, 2008 @ 10:37 am

25. Ms. Francis:

    Next time I see you sitting outside at Starbucks, I’m buying you whatever you want.

    If you’re not already a member, I think I’ll grant you honorary membership in the WGA–we could use you–and all the rights and privileges thereof.

    I hope SAGs negotiations go a damn sight smoother than our own.

    Jake

    Comment by Jake Hollywood — February 20, 2008 @ 9:03 pm

26. While the “900 ” names ( which I have yet to see ) may have their own interests to protect, they are also the reason that no one wants a strike. In this instance, SAG is in the best position to negotiate. The AMPTP doesn’t really have to care about “faceless” writers, but they do love their stars. And apparently their Oscars.

    Gotta go with Ron Livingston on the voting. While Amy Brenneman makes some very good points ( like people voting against a strike to protect their crew or office jobs), I don’t see a way to make this fair. I think that most union people would agree to some kind of “qualified/affected” voting as long as that definition included them.

    So where to draw that line? How to make this fair? Would our government require some “income” level before we cast a vote for the president of the United States? Some divisive way to better protect the outcome? No, of course not, and why should we ? Aren’t taxes and dues just “membership fees” in a way? Can’t take the dues money and take away your vote. Unless of course, you care to send me ( and any one you deny a vote) a refund as part of a strike/stimulus package.

    I’ll look for the check in the mail.

    Peggy Lane O’Rourke

    p.s. Frances Fisher, I couldn’t agree more and thank you for all that you do for this union and for people like me. Thanks for giving me a voice.

    Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — February 21, 2008 @ 12:46 am

27. Muronao,
    I think my comment about the board members was” diss lite”. My point is that most of them read as a “remember them?” So, that point leads to…. they are board members, who if some SAG members have their way, won’t be able to vote…..because they haven’t worked. My feeling is… anyone who belongs to a union and their dues are up to date, has the right to vote, and if any SAG members are trying to allow only certain members that right… then they are “elite”. All of us just got over the writers strike, instead of SAG airing their infighting for all to see, RE: AMPTP, I would like to see them get a game plan, start talks with the asshole AMPTP and not have this town face another strike. Having said that, the writers got screwed, which was heartbreaking, the DGA, well what can one say, SAG, god help them had better have their game plan locked down solid. I wrote that I wouldn’t honor their picket line, that was a lie on my part, I’m just sick of all this. If SAG goes on strike I will be O.K. financially….But it would be the financial end for alot of people, 2 strikes would be 2much.

    Comment by btl teamster — February 21, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

28. Ah, I take your point, it’s just that well, someimes the whole “has-been” thing can be a sensitive issue. Unfortunately, I fear that disenfranchising board members might be part of the reason for this campaign (not for everybody, but I wouldn’t totally discount it as a motive). If you can’t beat ‘em or can’t even be bothered to try, then try to change the rules to make it easier for you to win without needing a whole lot of votes or effort. I hope that’s just me being a conspiracy theorist, but some of the hostility that’s been expressed makes me wonder. I agree with you 100%.

    Comment by Muronao — February 22, 2008 @ 1:45 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment