Comments on: Another Opinion Anti SAG Petition Drive

By: Muronao

Muronao — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:45:33 +0000

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%.

By: btl teamster

btl teamster — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:20:07 +0000

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.

By: Peggy Lane O'Rourke

Peggy Lane O'Rourke — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:46:38 +0000

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.

By: Jake Hollywood

Jake Hollywood — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:03:36 +0000

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

By: tom

tom — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:37:05 +0000

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

@angus 9:55 pm is correct

By: aononymous

aononymous — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:55:23 +0000

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.

By: VDOVault

VDOVault — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:01:29 +0000

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/

By: Muronao

Muronao — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:00:48 +0000

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.

By: Frances Fisher

Frances Fisher — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:28:37 +0000

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.

By: angus

angus — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:55:49 +0000

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!

By: David Anthony

David Anthony — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:53:26 +0000

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.

By: tcw

tcw — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:37:27 +0000

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

By: Jon Raymond

Jon Raymond — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:51:14 +0000

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.

By: mheister

mheister — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:11:03 +0000

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)

By: Jimmy D

Jimmy D — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:55:11 +0000

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.