More Opinion Favoring SAG Petition Drive

56 Comments »

1. A better idea would be a talent threshold. By that standard I don’t think most of these petitioners qualify. (Yes, I’m looking at you Stephen Collins and Ned Vaughn.)

   Comment by Stephen Vauhn — March 18, 2008 @ 9:30 am

2. Stephen Collins for President!
   Common sense.

   Comment by Tom — March 18, 2008 @ 9:37 am

3. It’s interesting how some of the actors who support this petition (like Ben Affleck) say they are all for supporting social equality in general, but when it comes to their own well-being are eager to create a caste system among their peers.

   Comment by Ally — March 18, 2008 @ 10:14 am

4. It’s a nice idea, but it’s not going anywhere. The MFers depend on the uneducated and unemployed for their margins of victory. They won’t do anything to upset their applecart.

   Comment by Robvious — March 18, 2008 @ 10:38 am

5. Mr. Collins wrote that he was, “stunned to find that the number of crew members with SAG cards out numbered the actual cast”, then he went on to question, “would a grip” or other crew card members ever vote no on a SAG contract.
   Lots of people in this industry belong to more than one union. When you imply that crew personal aren’t worthy of having one of your elite SAG cards and wouldn’t vote in SAGS best interest…it makes you sound like a pompous ass.

   Comment by btl teamster — March 18, 2008 @ 11:44 am

6. I’d like to see some voting numbers, in fact ANY SINGLE number to show that these “affected members” even have a leg to stand on– Any number to show that this whole movement isn’t just fear-based propaganda.

   In the 2006 SAG dues increase vote a WHOPPING 27% of the SAG membership bothered to vote. Where were all these SAG lurkers and (brace yourselves)Crew members (gasp!) that Collins doesn’t think are worthy of a vote in that ballot? Three quarters of the membership didn’t vote. How about a fact on this issue: What are the number of “vanity card holders” (as the “affected members” are calling them) that actually vote?

   And finally at the risk of repeating myself this is a movement by scared, yet busy, actors who make quite good, far-over-scale money and don’t want to see their jobs interrupted by a strike that only benefits those of us working for scale– those who the contract ACTUALLY AFFECTS. So there, The only affected members are those of us who have not been as lucky as Breneman, Vaughn, and Collins. The problem for us is that there are so few jobs for actors and you all at the top of the food chain are hogging the ball. It’s really not that you on top are so gifted in our craft and certainly not better qualified to suss out the financial issues for us. Get over yourselves. You’ve been so lucky. I know a lot of equally talented actors who have not been.

   Look, it’s a Union. A union is about ALL it’s members, not just the rich. And Nikki, why don’t you publish long time SAG member and SAG VP Kent McCord’s informed and opposing take on the issue which he sent out to all SAG members? What’s Rosenberg have to say? With the exception of Ron Livingston this whole thread is pretty one-sided. Where is the voice of those who have not signed the petition. Many well-known actors with name value have not “signed”. Just pick a name not on the alleged signers list and ask? This petition in less than 1% of the membership and you’re giving them all the voice. WWPKD? (What Would Peter Kaplan do?)

   Comment by Zackery — March 18, 2008 @ 3:14 pm

7. Uh, as far as I’m aware this is the first reference I’ve seen made to the equivalent in residulas. Since a main purpose of this appears to be to target anyone sympathetic to membership first, you better run that one by your cohort. MFers seem to have pretty good resumes and have got to make plenty in residuals even if they’re possibly a bit older on average, that’s apparently principally what’s meant by the constant refrain of “we’ve got to get rid of those vanity card holders.” Also known as “grrr I hate democracy.”

   Comment by Muronao — March 18, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

8. An Open Letter to SAG President Alan Rosenberg:

   Dear Alan:

   When they say it’s not about elitism. It’s about elitism.

   When they say it’s about “strengthening” the union it makes anyone with a critical mind ask of their vaguely Orwellian term: How? By disenfranchising the majority of the Screen Actors Guild with respect to contract ratification? How does that strengthen anything?

   This proposal of the so-called “Working Actors Voice” group simply cannot be supported by facts. So like any fact-challenged group they rely on supposition and false assumption.

   Namely: If you don’t make any or “enough” money (in a given year or years) you won’t vote responsibly on contract proposals. Or, in Stephen Collins’ words you won’t have “a concrete stake” in the outcome. Really? How does he know that? He doesn’t because he can’t. So Collins, like any disingenuous debater, relies on paper tigers that he can create and then knock down.

   Full disclosure: Under their proposed rules I would qualify to vote on all contracts. But that doesn’t make me incapable of seeing and smelling a bad idea when it crosses my path. Just because I made it on the bus doesn’t mean I’m cool with the idea of leaving the rest behind.

   Based on the language of the SAG Constitution one can argue (and I do) that even a person who hasn’t worked in five years (but who could get a job in the next month) has an enlightened self-interest in the contents of a contract they could one day be working under. Much as a middle-class tax payer may vote against an onerous inheritance tax measure because one day they intend to be rich and leave it all to the kids.

   I repeat this objection every time I hear proposals like this: If you charge people money to join a union and you accept their annual dues (and a cut of their earnings, no matter how meager) they’re a union member in good standing. Create a two-tiered system and you’re on a slippery slope to an ineffective union. What’s next? A sub-group of series regulars splitting off from the union because they don’t think actors with guest star credits have a stake in their contracts?

   If you establish the principal that it’s okay to deny a member in good standing their right to vote on contracts based on a mutable definition of what “affected” means, then you’ve created an arbitrary standard which can be constantly changed, not on the basis of actual facts, but the whims and beliefs of a minority view of who is “responsible” and who isn’t.

   Furthermore, the argument of Collins, Brenneman et al. is defeated by the very language in the SAG Constitution they cite to support their case. The constitution says, “All collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.” The supporters of the proposal to strip union members of their right to vote on contracts make a dishonest shift of word and meaning when they carelessly and intentionally conflate “membership affected” with their phrase of choice “affected member.” I’ll leave the details to the class-action lawyers but, in brief, the former term refers to the total membership of SAG and the latter to an individual. As I said above: One can argue based on the actual language of the union’s constitution that all SAG members are potentially affected by the terms of a new contract and therefore should get to vote on them. The Brenneman group’s phrase seems to be a self-justifying circular argument: Only “affected” members should vote and oh, by the way, we get to define what an “affected” member is. To paraphrase Orwell: Imprecision in language leads to bad ideas, bad action and weakened institutions.

   The argument of Collins and Co. is not only intellectually dishonest; it’s contradictory. They say, for example (and with elitism in full view) that the members disqualified from voting on contracts can still vote on other measures—the selection of SAG leadership, strike authorization, etc. But if the members they want to disqualify can’t be trusted to vote responsibly on contracts, how can they be trusted to vote on who gets to run the union or when union leadership wants the membership to authorize a strike? They can’t have it both ways.

   I never thought anyone would make me sympathetic to Peter Bart and his overbearing ways. But since Stephen Collins brings it up, why shouldn’t Bart get a vote? He’s a member of the union. Ditto Harvey Weinstein. If we deny people the right to vote on SAG contracts because we don’t like them…do I need to finish the thought?

   We live, to our detriment, in a new age of the oligarch–on Wall Street, on Main Street and on K Street. And, I might add, when dealing with a corporate studio system that tries (and succeeds) in getting actors to do a so-called One-Day Guest Star credit for half of what they made five years ago. In such an age, wouldn’t it be better if the Screen Actors Guild found a way to extend the franchise and power of our membership rather than balkanize and marginalize it?

   Sincerely,

   Christopher Grove

   Comment by Christopher Grove — March 18, 2008 @ 9:21 pm

9. The question I posed to Ms. Brenneman in DHD’s comments section some weeks ago remains unanswered.

   Mr. Collins asks, “Would these grips, electricians, makeup artists, producers, or writers ever vote NO on a SAG contract?”

   First off, it is certainly not just the aforementioned who would be excluded by affected member voting.

   Second - and this is the question that Ms. Brenneman and Mr. Vaughn have not deigned to answer - what documented evidence exists which demonstrates a compelling need to disenfranchise a significant percentage of the SAG membership from voting on the contract???

   All Mr. Collins provides is an unsupported assumption concerning how multiple cardholders and producers may vote. On the other hand, alienating a huge percentage of the membership in the run-up to a potential strike is extremely likely to lead to far fewer boots available to hit the pavement.

   Logic dictates, Mr. Collins, that SAG is better served by solidarity, by strength in numbers.

   In making their case for a change from the current status quo, it is incumbent upon the advocates of this change to make their case in such a way that the evidence is clear and irrefutable, and their proposed course of action the more beneficial. Mere suppositions and assumptions based on a cardholder’s status as a BTL member, an actor/producer (as Ms. Brenneman is), or the head of a television network for that matter, carry no weight.

   There is one other thing I am loathe to bring up, as factionalism is divisive and I personally am all about peace, love, and unity.

   It was recently pointed out to me that many of the actors who signed this petition have also been active in the Restore Respect faction.

   I cannot help but wonder if, as the evidence of this perceived threat to the guild is entirely lacking, the leaders and signatories of this petition have other personal motivations for advocating this course.

   I await an appropriate reply showing documented evidence of a threat to SAG posed by multiple and/or “vanity” cardholders, and assurances that in fact any perceived personal motivations for advocating this course are a mere chimera. Please note that as a political science major in college, I will readily recognize that assurances of the latter without corresponding evidence of the former constitute nothing more than mere rhetoric.

   Comment by mheister — March 18, 2008 @ 10:34 pm

10. If the two-tiered voting system is introduced, SAG will make the same deadly mistake that the WGA made by forcing its less successful members to obey the will of the elite after denying them the right to cast a ballot on those decisions. Who needs the AMPTP to divide and conquer us when we do it to ourselves? SAG was formed because stars like James Cagney and others threw their weight along with those who weren’t stars, and everybody did well. Successful actors who are paid above scale should remember that there wouldn’t even be a scale without the rank-and-file power of SAG behind them.

    Comment by Nat Segaloff — March 19, 2008 @ 7:53 am

11. A few responses to those who’ve posted regarding my letter here:

    bti teamster wrote: “Lots of people in this industry belong to more than one union. When you imply that crew personal [note: I think you meant personnel] aren’t worthy of having one of your elite SAG cards and wouldn’t vote in SAGS best interest…it makes you sound like a pompous ass.”

    Well, OK. I and my group are not gonna join in what we’ve come to expect is more name-calling, but, yes, many people in our industry are members of more than one union. I’m in 4 myself, including Actors Equity. But I can’t vote on Equity contracts right now because I haven’t worked one for over six years. I don’t feel that Equity is denying me my democratic rights, or behaving in an elite way. Their policy makes sense to me. I have no problem not being able to vote on, say, the Broadway contract. When and if I work that contract again, I’ll be able to vote on it — that’s as it should be.

    In the United States, if an American lives abroad, he or she eventually loses his or her right to vote in American elections, unless he or she comes back to America and re-establishes his or her participation in American life. That’s a fact. That’s the way our larger democracy works. By the thinking of some who oppose our petition drive, anyone who has ever lived in the US, or who has a dream to visit or live here, should be able to vote in American elections.

    Zackery wrote: “Look, it’s a Union. A union is about ALL it’s members, not just the rich.”

    Zackery, this proposal has nothing to do with being rich. Have you really looked at the list of supporters? For every “star” on the list, there are at least 10 names you’ve never heard of. These are working performers simply doing their best to make ends meet by working SAG and AFTRA contracts. A union is about protecting its members in the work place, and assuring fair and timely payment. It’s normal, common labor practice in most unions in the U.S. for long time non-working members not to vote on contracts. Since you insist on facts, that’s a fact. That’s why SAG doesn’t send me animation VO or interactive gaming contracts, among others. When and if I work those contracts, I’ll gladly vote on them – but contracts should be voted up or down by members who have a concrete stake in the outcome. That’s fair, it’s common sense, and most unions do it (that pesky fact again). Are you suggesting that most unions aren’t democratic? Do you feel that WGA and Equity are elitist?

    Christopher Grove is passionate, and clever. He attacks, insists upon facts and proof, but provides nothing but his own opinions in the process. He goes so far as to paraphrase George Orwell’s words about imprecise language. Wow.

    Christopher, the imprecise language we’re concerned with is in the SAG constitution. In its language saying that contracts should only be voted on by “members affected thereby,” it does not define what an “affected” member is. We’re merely seeking to define the word “affected” in precisely the same way that most American labor unions, including WGA, Actors Equity, and DGA do. (That’s a fact.) But our arguments, like yours, are our opinions. The SAG constitution refers to the membership many times, but only when it mentions sending out ballots for contracts does it change the language to ‘members affected thereby.’ That signals a difference, and there’s for a reason for the change. It means what it says. The board has a responsibility to define the clause. We are simply suggesting a definition. It’s up to the board to refine our proposal and bring us into compliance with the constitution.

    And, for the record, and, since you brought up “full disclosure,” I don’t know Harvey Weinstein, but I’ve met Peter Bart a few times over the years, and, far from what you assume, I like him. I also agree with him that he shouldn’t vote on ratifying a SAG contract. (And, in the interest of full disclosure, he and I haven’t met or spoken for many years.)

    Christopher, Zackery, bti teamster: you and I have a lot of different opinions about what strengthens a union, and a democracy. But you support your argument with your own opinions and then insist on facts from me. Can you possibly accept the fact that we’re simply having a difference of opinion? Democracies are all about honoring dissent. (That’s another fact.)

    The ability to differ in opinion and to argue important issues, in a civil fashion, is a true test of a democracy. Our petitioners have worked hard not to be divisive.

    One of the things we’re repeatedly being called is “elitist”—for daring to suggest that SAG and AFTRA do what WGA, Equity, DGA, and most American labor unions do: implement some sort of definition of who’s “affected” by a contract. Are you suggesting that these unions, and hundreds of others, are all elitist? Because facts are facts, and most unions do what we’re asking our unions to do.

    Extending mheister’s reckoning, if SAG opened its doors to tens of thousands more who don’t make their livings as actors, those numbers alone would strengthen the union. And like Mr. Grove, he insists on facts and evidence. But where’s the evidence that mere numbers have strengthened SAG?

    To producer-writer Nat Segaloff: I need to remind you that James Cagney and other stars threw their weight behind the union because, at the time of SAG’s origin, the union was made up almost entirely of people who worked the contracts for a living. Fact. And it’s a situation that SAG has wandered from in recent years, to the detriment of our bargaining power.

    Mr. Segaloff also writes: “Successful actors who are paid above scale should remember that there wouldn’t even be a scale without the rank-and-file power of SAG behind them.” This is circular, but I think he means that there wouldn’t be a union without the rank-and-file members. I agree 100%. Mr. Segaloff, please look at the names of the people who have signed our petition. The vast majority of them are rank-and-file, by any definition.

    And here’s another fact that perhaps our detractors will consider: even if SAG adopts the most liberal possible definition of who is an affected member, working actors would still greatly be outvoted by those who don’t make their livings in SAG. We have no expectation of “taking over the union,” or any desire to do so. We’re just trying to restore a common sense definition of who votes on contract ratification. Precisely what the constitution requires. That’s another fact.

    Stephen Collins

    Comment by Stephen Collins — March 19, 2008 @ 11:29 am

12. Mr. Collins -

    Thank you for reading my comment and responding. As Abdu’l-Baha said, “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”

    It is my hope that as we actors continue this discussion, we will find the common ground we need to stand as one, in solidarity, in our contract negotiations.

    You said:

    “Extending mheister’s reckoning, if SAG opened its doors to tens of thousands more who don’t make their livings as actors, those numbers alone would strengthen the union. And like Mr. Grove, he insists on facts and evidence. But where’s the evidence that mere numbers have strengthened SAG?”

    With all due respect Mr. Collins, you are the one “extending” my reckoning here. This discussion is not about requirements for admission into the Screen Actors’ Guild, it’s about the rights and responsibilities of those of us who have demonstrated our ability to be professional actors by acquiring SAG work, paying our way into the Guild, and paying the dues required to remain in good standing.

    Because you, sir, are advocating this change, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why your proposed change is a better course than the current one. Thus far, no such demonstration has been forthcoming. To the contrary, the letter now posted at workingactorsvoice.com calls the current situation “unsettling” and “dangerous” without providing a shred of evidence to support this claim.

    Further, the primary supporting argument the letter provides is that some other guilds have a similar policy, including the WGA, DGA, and Actors Equity. Leaving Actors Equity aside, affected member voting did not help the WGA one iota. The WGA won the gains it made in its most recent contract after years of hard work re-unifying a fractured membership and expending badly-needed resources in organizing and research. As for the DGA, a huge percentage of its members are not directors; they’re AD’s and other BTL professionals whose interests clearly diverge from those of directors. The last contract the DGA negotiated speaks for itself.

    The letter also argues that guild members who do not have a concrete stake in the outcome are “vulnerable to manipulation”. Experience has demonstrated that voters in any contested election anywhere are vulnerable to manipulation – lies, deceit, spin-doctoring, fear-mongering, appeals to our baser nature or our better angels. One may just as easily argue that you, sir, and the 1,000+ actors who signed this entreaty are the victims of manipulation, manipulation perpetrated by those who have, again without a shred of hard evidence, set up this straw-man argument that vanity or multiple-union or producer/executive card holders will vote against the best interests of the guild as a whole.

    This is why I asked for evidence of a cabal. Lacking such evidence, a proposal for “affected member voting” carries no weight, and must be rejected out of hand.

    Comment by mheister — March 19, 2008 @ 12:53 pm

13. Stephen Collins said:

    >>By the thinking of some who oppose our petition drive, anyone who has ever lived in the US, or who has a dream to visit or live here, should be able to vote in American elections.<<

    That’s not the argument at all. Those who oppose the petition are saying that if you make someone a SAG member (or a citizen) and have them pay dues (or tax them) then they have the right to vote. And while some states tried to create literacy tests and poll taxes to keep those they didn’t want to vote from doing so, this was later outlawed. Why on earth would you want to follow this path?

    Comment by andthentherewassag — March 19, 2008 @ 3:06 pm

14. Mr. Collins wrote: “It’s normal, common labor practice in most unions in the U.S. for long time non-working members not to vote on contracts. Since you insist on facts, that’s a fact.”

    With a statement like this I think we are getting closer to your understanding my problem with this “affected member” voting proposal you and your colleagues are championing.

    Your statement above is what we call an assertion. It has no supporting facts. You have offered absolutely nothing to back it up, save the idea that you know it to be true. And using a word like “most” doesn’t inform me either. Do you mean 50.0002% or do you mean 99.9%, or, as I suspect, you really don’t know the number. And so here, even in what might be called your rebuttal, you still really don’t have any facts. And that is my problem with your request to take my vote and the vote of many others–in fact 80% of the union or more– and put it in solely in the hands of you and your fellow champions of rhetoric.

    If you could show me that you have researched your position well or at all, and that you are able to understand the issues and use that understanding to make intelligent decisions I would be more inclined to let you and your comrades have my vote. I still would not let you have my vote because that would be absurd. But at least you would have given me pause.

    And let’s assume your statement is true that most unions do such and such. Your argument would still suffer as we say in Latin, argumentum ad populum. My Latin isn’t so great, but I recall it’s a fallacious argument based on the idea that most people think X is true, therefore X is true.

    And regardless of all that, most unions are not SAG. In fact now I’m using “most” which is vague. So I will say all unions are not SAG–except of course SAG.

    The SAG membership is in a unique field with unique working conditions. Some of the more positive working conditions that benefit you have been conceived, fought for, and approved by the whole of the SAG membership over the years and yet now for some reason you can’t seem to explain–don’t even attempt to explain–we, the majority of the Union, are not worthy of a vote anymore.

    But again, back to the part about my call for facts. As Judge Smailes said in Caddychack, “Well…we’re waiting.”

    And we’re waiting for you and Ms. Brenneman, and Mr. Vaughn and whoever else shows up as your ad hoc spokesperson.

    The questions are, but not limited to: Who exactly are these “vanity card holders” as you vainly call them, and how in fact do they vote? Or do they vote? Because in all SAG votes I can find with a cursory search only about 1/4 of the membership votes. In the 2006 commercial contract vote 21% of the membership voted with 95% of those in favor of the contract. In the 2006 dues increase ballot 27% of the membership voted. Where are the scary 90,000 voters you allege are so subversive in these votes?

    Show me where these alleged corrupt vanity card holders have a negative or positive affect on anything. (I will note the current buy-in of about $2200 plus yearly dues has a positive effect the Unions financial standing.) Show me how the crew, who I guess you think are corrupt in their thinking and would vote against a SAG strike in favor of their crew job, are so negative for negotiations. I don’t think the crew or the SAG membership as a whole are as self-serving as you might be–my mistake–”as you might think,” I meant to say.

    And with all this in mind I have to say this whole idea sounds a little fishy. Under what condition would you vote in favor of a strike? Would cutting the number of SAG extras per production day be a stumbling block? Would doing away with the pay bump for a Silent Bit affect you? Would creation of the One-day-Guest Star to subvert an existing pay rate for Guest Stars be the issue? New media? The Ultra Low Budget guidelines? What are the issues that so concern you and your friends about this potential strike?

    We have no idea what contract specifics are important to you and your comrades. You’re not saying. It’s fishy, Mr. Collins. It’s smells like fish.

    Comment by Zackery — March 19, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

15. Dear Zackery,

    Our petition is for one thing and one thing only: to create a meaningful, common-sense definition of what an “affected member” is. Our petition does not address any other SAG issues or politics. Our purpose is to rise about the factional politics of the past years; you won’t hear my views on other SAG issues here. Our petitioners aren’t interested in telling SAG members how to vote. We are interested in who votes–on contracts. If you think that having grips, makeup artists, producers, and vanity card holders vote on our contracts is a good thing, you’re entitled to your opinion. My common sense tells me that this isn’t good for SAG. Yes, that’s an assertion. Finally, I can’t prove it any more than you can prove that it’s good (as you seem to be saying) for SAG to have, say, Les Moonves vote our contracts up or down.

    You criticize me for making an “assertion” with no “supporting facts.” Do you not see that everything you state is also an assertion, and is simply your opinion? You’re quite clever about this, to be sure (he who fires first often “wins” in politics). I’m not interested in “winning” or “losing” that way, or in engaging further here. Let’s agree to disagree.

    Comment by stephen Collins — March 19, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

16. Dear mheister—

    So much of this comes down to a difference of opinion. Most American unions require a member to work a contract in order to vote on it. That isn’t a coincidence, or beside the point. It’s common labor practice. It’s a fact. It’s relevant to our argument.

    Our definition of “affected” member is quite liberal—and, I repeat for the umpeenth time, very much open to discussion and refinement.

    I think you need to check your dictionary about the word “cabal.” Your last post said, “This is why I asked for evidence of a cabal. Lacking such evidence, a proposal for ‘affected member voting’ carries no weight, and must be rejected out of hand.”

    A cabal is a secret political clique or faction, or, more loosely, a plot. I have no need or desire to prove to you or anyone the existence of a cabal here. Did you mean something else?

    As if to nullify the fact that the DGA uses a form of member affected voting, you mention that a huge portion of the DGA are ADs. That’s true. But a majority of DGA members (including ADs) work, regularly. And an overwhelming majority of DGA members voted to ratify the new contract. My guess is that working DGA members were pleased to have made historical inroads into payment for digital, online media. (Does SAG have to accept their terms in pattern? Not necessarily. That’s up to our negotiators and, eventually, our affected membership.)

    You wrote: “the letter now posted at workingactorsvoice.com calls the current situation ‘unsettling’ and ‘dangerous’ without providing a shred of evidence to support this claim.”

    Well, we cite evidence and facts, and you keep ignoring them. The main evidence we cite is that SAG contracts are voted up and down by a great majority of members who don’t make their livings as actors. Their lives aren’t significantly changed by the outcome of a contract vote. This, of course, is our opinion. It seems like common sense to us. That’s why over 1300 rank-and-file, middle class, and star actors signed on unhesitatingly. Most other democratically functioning Americans unions agree with our position.

    You are entitled to disagree. Even to call us elitist, as so many keep doing. But to prove your claim, you’d have to get others to agree that most unions in America are elitist, including Actors Equity and WGA.

    You seem to have made a New Rule: you wrote, “It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why your proposed change is a better course than the current one.” Well, we keep attempting to do just that, but our arguments and facts don’t seem to be enough for you. I believe that the facts, and labor precedent, speak for themselves and support our position. To me and other, it’s simple common sense.

    Those who disagree with our position love to point out that SAG is a union, there for all its members—but when I point out the fact that most unions, including most creative unions, use affected member voting, they insist that, well, SAG is different. Sure it’s different. But it’s a union. It’s a trade union, created to protect its workers in the workplace and to ensure their fair and timely payment. Let’s agree to disagree.

    There’s no cabal here. We’re right out in the open (taking below-the-belt, hurtful insults from some who oppose what we’re suggesting). Personally, I believe that James Cagney would side with us if he were around. I don’t believe he envisioned a union where non-working members outnumber working ones by enormous majorities. But that’s my opinion. I can’t prove what Cagney would do any more than you can.

    I doubt that anything I say will convince you, but I do appreciate your being civil in your last posting. That’s a start.

    Stephen Collins

    Comment by Stephen Collins — March 19, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

17. Can someone who is connected with this petition - perhaps you Mr. Collins please address the issue that you all have been dodging? The fact that it will have a greater affect on restricting minorities, women, senior members, and even less attractive people than it will on say, white men.

    I previously linked to the charts SAG distributed about the breakdown of available parts - 70% or more parts were for caucasians.

    The acting business, unlike so many other unions that may or may not have voting restrictions is in large part based on who you are physically - it is a prerequisite to get in the door and be seen. Then talent comes in. If the fact that there are 50 blonde blue eyed hotties required and only two Asian dry cleaners on any given day means that Asians HAVE LESS JOB OPPORTUNITIES, then restrictions based on working a certain number of days hurts minorities. Until the opportunities are equal and Hollywood expands its minds - oh for that happy day - this petition is unfair to many people based on race, gender, age, looks, height, and weight…look at the breakdowns.

    Also, you are not arguing for having worked at all in TV and Film, you are putting a number of days in. If its just about vanity card holders that haven’t worked in a long time then why doesn’t one day of principle or extra work suffice (not that I would support that either).

    Comment by SAG MEMBER — March 19, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

18. Stephen you said in support of your group’s proposal:

    “The main evidence we cite is that SAG contracts are voted up and down by a great majority of members who don’t make their livings as actors.”

    That, by the way, is only evidence that a lot of low-wage/no-wage dues-paying SAG members in good standing vote on contract issues. Not evidence that the status quo is in any way detrimental to the well-being of the membership at large. It could, in fact, be evidence that this no-wage/low wage group is engaged in the affairs of SAG, has done their due diligence on the matter and voted with a great deal of knowledge with respect to the issues and challenges that face working actors. Much as I as a voter in the outside world can vote on statewide ballot measures that, if passed, will have no direct effect on my life but may at some time in the future.

    A few follow-up questions for you (or anyone in your group): 1) Why is the status quo demonstrably harmful? 2) What damage has the status quo demonstrably done to the union and its membership? 3) What benefit would your group’s disenfranchisement of 90% of the dues paying membership deliver to the membership of SAG?

    Stephen, I too appreciate the civility (and exhaustiveness) of your replies but almost everything you say fails to address the central question raised by your group’s efforts: What exactly is the problem you’re trying to fix?

    If you’re going to make what may be the most radical change in the structure of voting in the Screen Actors Guild’s history it’s surely not too much to ask that the proposal be based on solid, verifiable, quantifiable facts.

    You have not demonstrated that having lower or no-wage actors vote on contract ratifications is by definition a bad thing.

    In your witty reply to my “Open Letter to Alan Rosenberg” you very deftly avoid the central and fatal flaw of the premise of your group’s whole enterprise: That people who don’t meet certain income targets aren’t qualified or capable of making rational and informed decisions with respect to SAG contracts. You seem to think that they can make rational and informed decisions with respect to authorizing a strike (the key economic weapon in the arsenal of a union). So why can’t the same group be trusted to make rational and informed decisions on contracts that may (or may not), at some point in the future, directly affect their earnings?

    Your whole argument is a tautology based on opinions and self-justifying reasoning: “We think people voting on a contract that don’t make any money is a bad thing because we say it’s a bad thing and it must be stopped.”

    Arguments need to be bolstered by facts and evidence. Your group’s opinion that so-called vanity cardholders voting on contract ratifications is ipso facto a bad thing is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Big difference. And the opinion of any minority, no matter how well intentioned, should not form the basis of a major policy shift.

    Finally, and parenthetically, can we please discard the term “vanity cardholder?” First of all it’s a smear. Second, in 22 years of being a SAG member I have yet to meet a person who flashed a SAG card at a party or in a coffee shop and said: “Check this out. How cool am I with my $200 a year SAG card! And I get to vote in elections every two years!”

    (As you seem to be carrying a lot of water in this debate for your group-—at least in this forum–one final question: Is there anyone else in this group that will engage in a principled and civil debate on this issue?)

    Comment by Christopher Grove — March 19, 2008 @ 9:46 pm

19. To ‘Sag Member’,

    The point you raise is an interesting one. If I get you right, you’re asking: Will minorities, some of whom are undoubtedly under-represented in performing roles, find themselves further under-represented on the voting rolls.

    I can understand the challenges the minority members of all kinds face in the casting world, but I feel that to address those concerns at the time of voting is too late. The time and place for representation of minority concerns is at the Wages and Working conditions meetings, to which every member is welcome. I’ve found them to be highly responsive to the concerns of those who attend. If the issues are fully addressed there and presented in the offer to management, then they can be voted on by the members of all stripes who are affected by it.

    No system will please everyone but the constitution does say we have to draw a line. The line we’ve drawn is a proposal that will be considered by the board and it is up to them to create the definition.

    And a definition must be made. The Electrician’s union (non-theatrical) has affected member voting. In order to vote on their contract, you have to be working at the time, show up at the union hall and give a voice vote. Nobody screws with electricians. SAG and AFTRA members, of course, have VERY different issues than electricians, but one thing that we share is that, at the negotiating table, the employers don’t care if the non-working union members go out on strike. The only thing that matters to them is whether the people they want to hire are available at the time. It ain’t pretty, but it’s what matters during negotiations.

    Further, the one thing that any other union in this country would not tolerate is having it’s employers on the voting rolls. That is a matter of fiduciary responsibility that must be addressed by the board. They and the card-holding grips, hairstylists, execs, and caterers have a patent conflict of interest when it comes to striking. If I made my living as any one of these, would I ever even consider going out on strike for a new residual schedule? I think the answer is no.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 19, 2008 @ 10:01 pm

20. Dear Mr. Collins -

    Thank you for your frank response and your kind words.

    To clear up a couple of things briefly, when I used the term “cabal” I was not referring to your coalition but this hypothetical group of actors who would secretly vote against the interests of the guild. If that wasn’t clear in my prior post, I apologize.

    Also, it was another commenter who referred to James Cagney, not me.

    Now, on to the basic premise. You essentially hold that contracts should be only be voted on by members who make their living specifically from acting, hence the name of your group, Working Actors Voice. The reason you cite is the fear that guild members whose income accrues primarily from something other than acting jobs would vote against the best interests of the guild. You can cite no hard evidence that they would, only a supposition based on their other job (BTL crew, TV network head).

    Now if the concern is to eliminate from the voting pool SAG members who are more likely to vote against the best interests of the guild (I am assuming this is your motivation, otherwise, why propose a change?), what about actors whose votes may be tempered by their other financial concerns? Shouldn’t we also disenfranchise actor/producers, and actors who own shares of stock in the big entertainment conglomerates or important production companies? Doesn’t it stand to reason that the actor/producer who clearly has a vested interest in driving down the wages of their fellow actors, because it will put more money in their pocket, may very well vote for a lousy contract? Therefore, isn’t it time to exclude the likes of Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Drew Barrymore, Adam Sandler, Sean Penn, and Amy Brenneman from our democratic processes???

    Is that exclusionary proposal just plain silly? Absolutely. But I am making a point. We in SAG have long had a particular threshold for voting on contracts. It’s not based on what you have done, but what you may very well be doing next year. We understand the vagaries of the business, because we live them.

    Are there a few SAG members who got their cards as a result of their power in some other part of the industry? Absolutely. Did a few cheat? Yes, and I’ve heard at least one very talented and prominent actor testify to this publicly. Even if that handful somehow colluded and voted as a bloc, are there enough of them to sway a contract vote? I seriously doubt it.

    Now what about the SAG members who have slogged along, and for whatever reason just haven’t achieved that working threshold you’re proposing? Isn’t it quite possible that some of them were amongst the boots on the ground carrying picket signs with the writers earlier this year, and would also be carrying signs for their own guild should worse come to worst? Why oh why would you want to make them feel like they don’t matter, like they’re less than you, especially after they have played by the rules to earn and keep their SAG cards?

    Where you see people you fear could vote against the best interests of the guild, I see people who are making a serious investment in their own futures. They invest their time, their talents, their money in pursuit of their dreams. The last thing any of them would logically do is spoil the meat before they got a slice.

    With contract negotiations coming up, shouldn’t we all be speaking with one voice, acting of one accord, in order to secure the most beneficial contract for all of us?

    Comment by mheister — March 20, 2008 @ 12:20 am

21. Dear Mr. Waring -

    You said, “the employers don’t care if the non-working union members go out on strike. The only thing that matters to them is whether the people they want to hire are available at the time.”

    I beg to differ. If this proposal for “affected member voting” were to become the SAG rule, it is quite possible that a large number of actors would go Financial Core (Angelina Jolie’s dad did, and he’s working). It’s a reasonable and understandable response to disenfranchisement. Such actors will have no problems with crossing a SAG picket line (which won’t be that tough anyway, as there will be, relatively speaking, so few actors left to picket in the first place).

    In the event of a strike, are Brad Pitt or Will Smith replaceable? No. James Spader and William Shatner on Boston Legal? Probably not (but then again, David E. Kelley is rather famous for his wholesale on-camera personnel shifts). How about the casts of most low- to mid-budget films? The casts of TV series that aren’t in the Nielson Top 20? The moguls in such a situation may very well roll the dice with brand-spanking new Fi-Core talent, extending the strike, weakening SAG, and quite possibly leaving some striking working actors with no jobs to come back to.

    As Ron Livingston so sagely noted (and I’m paraphrasing), behind every working actor are five very talented actors ready and willing to take that job.

    A brief bird-walk. True story. An actor on a TV show became the flavor of the week with fans, and got a big head. This actor was called in to the showrunner’s office for a chat. Their conversation was light, seemingly insignificant. The actor’s prima donna behavior didn’t even come up. After this talk, the actor left his prima donna persona at home and showed up to work. What happened? The showrunner had headshots scattered on his desk, headshots of actors who were the exact same type as the prima donna.

    Most actors, working or not, don’t have the luxury of knowing they’re irreplaceable. Lamentably, we’re not. As a guild, we lose sight of this at our own risk.

    Comment by mheister — March 20, 2008 @ 12:50 am

22. Dear mheister,

    I agree with your premise. There are plenty of good actors not working regularly, but please take another look at the requirements in this proposal. They are broad and reasonable and by our estimates would include over 75% of the membership of SAG and a greater portion of AFTRA. Our website, http://www.workingactorsvoice.com, has more info.

    The proposal is designed to include performers at many levels of a career. Someone having a rough patch shouldn’t be denied a vote on a contract that affects them and I think our proposal takes that into account. But someone who only does commercials should not have the same vote on a TV/TH contract as someone else who does.

    I don’t work commercials and I’ve never understood why I’ve gotten ballots for that agreement. I don’t receive the ‘interactive’ ballot or the ‘puppetry’ ballot and that seems right to me, because I don’t know what they’re about. It only seems reasonable to me that you should only vote on things you know about. Yes, a member can educate themselves on the issues, but the constitution says ‘affected’ and to me that means someone who’s had experience with the contract. Maybe we can quibble on the extent of the requirements, but isn’t the principal a valid one?

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 20, 2008 @ 9:27 am

23. Todd -

    In short, the principle of “affected member voting” is not a valid one.

    You mention your non-involvement in commercials, but you must be aware that more and more, regulars on series and actors in movies have their likenesses and their public images linked to products placed in said programs. In effect, with product placement, ALL actors are commercial actors, whether they choose to appear in 30-second TV spots or not.

    Product placement does affect employment. As I pointed out in a prior comment, Will Arnett had to bow out of the role of KITT’s voice (a Ford Mustang) in the new Knight Rider television series because of his association with General Motors. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine Val Kilmer, now the voice of KITT, losing another series acting opportunity because the program is sponsored by Chrysler.

    More fundamentally, the commercials contract is not the equivalent of the dancers’ situation because, as Ron Livingston pointed out, only a small percentage of the members have that particular specialized skill, while by contrast, ANY actor may be cast in a commercial if they fit the call. The same very obviously applies to series television, movies, and content produced directly for the Internet, wireless, or other New Media.

    On top of all that, if you caught a break and suddenly came in demand to hawk deodorant, tell me with a straight face you would hesitate even one second before cashing in. Seriously.

    As I pointed out in my last reply to Stephen Collins (I LOVE all things Trek, so contradicting him is not the easiest thing to do), every actor who has a valid SAG card has met the threshold for voting on the contracts we’re talking about. We’ve proven we’re professionals by getting jobs, we’ve proven our interest in gaining more work as professionals by joining the guild and keeping our dues current. This is as true for Brad Pitt as it is for you and me.

    The purpose of the guild is to protect the rights of ALL its members through the collective action of the ENTIRE membership. Disenfranchisement invites acrimony from within the guild and competition from Financial Core and non-union actors from without (and don’t kid yourself. An enterprising producer could easily make a movie starring Jon Voight and an entirely non-union cast, and shoot it in a right-to-exploit state like New Mexico). In the changing landscape of this industry, SAG cannot afford to entertain exclusionary policies.

    Also, with formal contract negotiations about to commence – and this is the same question I posed to Mr. Collins – why oh why would you choose to purposely alienate literally thousands of members you rely on to help make real the threat of a strike and would ask to support you should worse come to worst? Why would you roll out Financial Core like a red carpet and invite producers to recast TV series and possibly movies with less expensive and easier-to-exploit talent??? Why would you take these actions that would only weaken the guild and make it far more likely SAG would be forced to accept a lousy contract???

    The affected member voting proposal, moreover, is a fear-based response to a threat that its proponents cannot even provide solid documentation to back up, and have admitted as much in their responses in this comment section. In other words, in real terms, the threat doesn’t even exist.

    In short, the affected member voting proposal does not pass the fairness test OR the what’s-better-for-the-guild test.

    Comment by mheister — March 20, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

24. Dear mheister,

    I must disagree with almost everything you’re saying.

    I believe this is the heart of your argument:

    “The purpose of the guild is to protect the rights of ALL its members through the collective action of the ENTIRE membership.”

    Here is where I think you are half right. I agree with the first part and disagree with the second.

    How can you justify Stephen Spieberg’s vote, having the same weight as your own.

    The state of California has a version of affected member voting– the residency requirement. I can’t vote on issues that only affect San Diego because I don’t live there. I may visit there sometimes but I’m not really affected by their politics. I’m Californian, so I get to vote on state offices and such, but I don’t get to influence the politics in San Diego, and vice versa. The requirements we’re proposing are far less strict, the the principal is the same. By you’re reasoning, because I’m Californian, I should be able to influence the outcome of elections in San Diego. That’s seems wrong.

    I think you’re running together the ideas of unionism and solidarity. Here’s why I think that. The WGA has some pretty onerous requirements for voting in general. There are four categories of membership, only one of which is awarded voting status. Did the ‘Associate’ members, who couldn’t vote, refuse to walk the picket line on the grounds that they were not accorded the same rights as ‘Current’ members? Frankly, I don’t know, but I doubt it. Certainly, there was no talk of revolt by the former. Most unions operated under some kind of work requirement. That isn’t by itself a reason to do so, but it is the norm.

    Unionism is about collective bargaining for the good of the members, solidarity is about showing support for the cause. They’re similar but not interchangeable. If there are members who would bolt, because they were denied a ballot on a contract they’ve only worked minimally or not at all, then I think that shows poor understanding of the distinction.

    You’re right, I would probably do a commercial in a second, but until I do, I know bubkis about contract, the working conditions, the wages, and the residuals. And therefore I shouldn’t vote on that collective bargaining agreement.

    I believe the Fi-Core threat is tantamount to fear-mongering. And I mean that from both sides– the members you are speaking of and those at the other end the spectrum, who feel their vote is outweighed by voters who have little or no stake in the outcome. I think those threats shouldn’t influence the reasoned decision-making of the national board.

    Thanks for you thoughtful comments. I doubt anyone’s reading us anymore, but it’s good to have an exchange with another Trekkor.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 20, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

25. Todd -

    I don’t believe electricians are hired by the color of their skin, hair or eyes, or by their height or weight. Or how cute they are, for that matter. That’s what makes SAG vastly different from a number of other unions.

    It is one thing to ask employers to be more open minded about the physical descriptions they are willing to hire, and to try to get something written into contracts as you suggest they could do at Wages and Working conditions.

    It is another thing to restrict people’s ability to vote on THEIR wages in THEIR OWN union because their physical description means it is harder for them to meet some arbitrary requirement of days worked. I’m not just talking about penalizing people based on race but on any number of areas where the balance is off in the breakdowns. I find this ethically wrong. And why kick someone when they are already down (fighting tooth and nail for one of a handful of roles). There was a time when black people and women couldn’t vote in America - that’s what this smacks of. THE JOB OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT EQUAL - that’s a long term problem to be addressed - but to put a new law into affect that because of that means SAG marginalizes Black, Asian, Native American, Latino, Middle Eastern, fat, really short and really tall, and plain people, etc, etc. is just plain WRONG.

    And no one seems to have an answer for how everyone who doesn’t fit into the much needed categories aren’t going to being underrepresented and unfairly penalized when it comes to voting if this goes is passed.

    I’d like to hear from Stephen Collins.

    Comment by SAG Member — March 20, 2008 @ 6:56 pm

26. Todd -

    Let’s take your California/San Diego analogy. Obviously only residents of San Diego vote in the city’s municipal elections, as they are ones who, living in the city limits, pay taxes.

    If membership in SAG is California, then the contracts that Working Actors Voice would like to change the rules for are like state laws, and SAG dues are like state taxes. Submitting a contract for approval is like a state initiative. Citizens would be analogous to actors who have proven their citizenship by having procured professional employment on SAG signatory productions, paid their membership fees and kept up their dues (taxes).

    Every citizen of the state of California may cast their vote on initiatives, whether it directly affects them or not.

    To follow your analogy, what you are proposing is taxation without representation, for which Americans fought a bloody revolution. Or perhaps you’d prefer to look at the work test as the equivalent of a poll tax, a device used successfully in the South to disenfranchise African-Americans.

    Either way, viewed in this light, your proposal smells rather anti-democratic and un-American, wouldn’t you say?

    As a fellow Trekker, you’ll understand me when I observe that the Yangs would not abide by this.

    PS - There may be a lurker or two still following this thread.

    Comment by mheister — March 20, 2008 @ 9:10 pm

27. Dear Sag Member,

    I have no doubt that you are right about the under-representation of a variety of minorities in the the number of roles that appear on screen. There are biases in Hollywood much as there are in the country as a whole.

    I think the more relevant stats for us would be the number of SAG and AFTRA members of a particular minority who work regularly verses, say, white males that work regularly. I believe your assumption is that minority SAG and AFTRA members, overall, get a lesser percentage of jobs than white males. I’m just not sure that’s true, or rather I think it depends on the minority in question. I suspect that black males as a percentage of their overall membership work more than white males as a percentage of theirs, whereas the reverse is probably true for older women. That is a complete guess on my part, but I know for a while there, producers couldn’t get enough Asians, then Middle Easterners were in demand. My point is that the use of minorities is very much in flux and affected member voting is in no way a throwback to racist days. The definition is purposely very broad and may wind up even broader in committee.

    If I read you right, by your reckoning everybody should be able to vote on any contract whether they’ve worked it or not, whether they know anything about it or not, whether they’ve worked at all in recent years, or whether they’re a grip now or an exec. As long as they have a card, they can vote. If that is your position, then I’m afraid we disagree at the most fundamental level.

    It’s not a new law. It’s already being done with regard to the interactive contract and the puppetry contract. The constitution asks that the contract ballots be sent to the members affected thereby. We can dicker with the definition, but it has to mean something. We can’t just ignore it because it’s hard to get a job.

    P.S. Sorry about not being Stephen Collins.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 20, 2008 @ 10:45 pm

28. From Frances Fisher:

    This whole issue is a political move by RR/WA to regain a majority in the next election, and they are using actors (many of whom I communicated with, who did not know the ramifications of what they were signing) to use their names for the next election.

    My question still stands: How can members of SAG seeks to disenfranchise actual SAG members who are actors, yet Aftra has not yet stepped up to the plate to disenfranchise members who vote on the TV/Theatrical contract who do not even work the contract: Broadcasters, diskjockeys, weathermen, etc….they vote on the TV/Theatrical, pertaining to actors, yet this faction of SAG would seek to disenfrachise their own members,brothers and sisters, who earn status in SAG by actually working the contract?

    This ill-timed letter cannot come at a worse time: we are going into the most crucial negotiations in recent history, and they are requesting a split amongst our membership. That is insane. For shame. Opening up another weakness within our membership in front of the AMPTP.

    And let me ask this question, with a hopeful response:

    If you are asking for qualifed voting, then you must be saying that you did not like the last, say, two last votes in the TV/Theatrical contracts, otherwise, why would you be raising this issues?

    Did you not like the one-year extension that took us out of parity with WGA, and that hung WGA out to dry? Is that what you are saying?

    Are you saying that non-working members voted for this extension, and that you would have voted against it? Do you even know what I am talking about? I doubt it.

    I contend, because I have communicated with enough actors who signed this silly letter, that they were misinformed about the intent of this letter, and they are being used for political gain.

    Let me be clear: Vanity card holders, who do not seek work and hold it for their egos, have no place in our union. Les Moonves But doing this right before a negotiation, when all actors should be standing shoulder to shoulder, is folly of the highest order.

    I have to ask: what is your agenda? Why would actors go against actors? We should all be standing together. It is embarassing that this issue must be played out on DHD, instead of being brought to the Guild, as any member has a right to do.

    So I ask this question: Why are you airing your dirty laundry in front of the world, instead of picking up the phone?

    Comment by Frances Fisher — March 21, 2008 @ 1:56 am

29. BTW Screen Actors Guild Members will never vote to disenfranchise themselves.

    Comment by Frances Fisher — March 21, 2008 @ 2:21 am

30. Let me expand a bit on what some of the above commenters are saying (and bear in mind that I am not an actor but I am a fan and viewer and someone who by virtue of having worked to help the writers with their strike has taken more than a passive interest in the upcoming actor’s unions negotiations with the AMPTP)

    A few commenters such as SAG Member above have mentioned the fact that as it stands minorities and certain ‘types’ have fewer opprotunities to get cast and thus disproportionately bear the burden of qualifying to vote.

    I note with interest and commend to you all the following article:

    Art imitates life for ‘Breaking Bad’s’ RJ Mitte
    Both the young actor and his character on the AMC series have cerebral palsy.
    http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/cl-ca-mitte2mar02,0,267428.story

    I noted with particular interest the following exerpt [***emphasis mine***]:

    “Though for special-needs actors in Hollywood, that place seems small. According to the SAG study, researched by Olivia Raynor and Katharine Hayward of UCLA, ***only a third of SAG members with disabilities reported working in a theatrical or TV production in 2003, and those who did worked an average of 4.1 days that year***. Chief among the complaints: only being considered for disability-related roles, and then seeing those roles given to able-bodied actors anyway.”

    Now take a look at the proposal (located at:
    http://www.workingactorsvoice.com/proposal.shtml)

    For TV/Theatrical contract voting, an “affected member” is any member in good standing who, over the previous 2 contract terms (6 years) or total years as member if less than 6 years,:

    1. Performed an average of 5 days principal work or 15 days background work per year (or an equivalent mix thereof); OR

    2. Had average TV/Theatrical residual earnings per year equivalent to 5 principal days at scale; OR

    3. Is fully vested in the SAG Producers Pension Plan or the AFTRA Retirement Plan and has previously worked under the TV/Theatrical contract.

    The way I am reading this says that most SAG actors with disabilities wouldn’t meet the qualified voting requirements if the 2003 study data haven’t improved…they simply haven’t worked enough days to qualify (and let’s not quibble whether those days are in background or principal roles because 4.1 is less than both 5 and 15).

    Keeping people with disabilities from participating in the self-governance of their union might also invite scrutiny of SAG (and AFTRA if they adopt something similar) not to mention the AMPTP signatories under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

    Folks this is *definitely* something that the people employed in SAG’s legal department need to look over and render an official opinion on. My gut tells me that this petition is going to be illegal under the ADA, but someone who knows that statute better needs to compare what the petition says with what the ADA says. Otherwise SAG by adopting this petition could be putting itself into a legal morass and further doing damage to the chances for employment to those card holders with disabilities. Employment discrimination claims lawsuits in Federal court are not something you want to mess with (and they can also be brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal agency).

    The article continues on [with ***emphasis mine***]:

    “It should be noted that language has long existed within the contract between the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) and SAG that affirms a “commitment to a policy of non-discrimination and fair employment” and “to continue the active promotion of diversity,” but hopeful words don’t necessarily mean implementation.

    ***A point of contention among disabled actors is that they aren’t included in the Casting Data Report that’s published by SAG each year, which details the hiring practices and employment trends in film and TV related to ethnicity, age and gender — but not disability. The data is made available because of a questionnaire producers are required to fill out regarding their productions, but in past negotiations, SAG hasn’t been able to convince the AMPTP to add a disabilities column to the page.***

    ***”They’re very hesitant to include that on the forms,”*** said Rebecca Yee, SAG’s national director of affirmative action and diversity.

    Of course, certain disabilities are more noticeable than others and actors often choose to hide them. ***The study found that about half of those surveyed chose not to disclose their disability on their résumé or in the casting office, for fear of impeding their chances of getting the part.***

    Perhaps this is an issue that the backers of this petition have not fully and rationally considered…I would strongly suggest that they look into how carefully they have tailored their language before they propose something that could well be illegal not to mention unworkable.

    S.E. Olson
    Moderator & Law & Order Criminal Intent Fan Liason
    Fans For The WGA
    http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters/
    United Hollywood Member
    http://www.unitedhollywood.com

    Comment by VDOVault — March 21, 2008 @ 7:37 am

31. To Ms. Fisher,

    You have ascribed such nefarious motives to this letter and I really don’t see the connection. We are offering no candidates, no opinions on any other issues and we certainly aren’t telling anyone how to vote. We are asking the National boards to excercise their power to implement a constitutional provision that has been selectively ignored for some time. If you know something I don’t, bring it out into the open, because it seems to me that your argument is not with us but rather the SAG constitution, for it’s quite clear on the subject of affected member voting.

    I’m glad you’re speaking with other SAG members, but please don’t persist in the falsity that we’re not pursuing this with AFTRA. We are.

    On the one hand, you seem to be in favor of removing some people from the voting rolls and not others. Fair enough. On the other hand, you seem to offer no way to do anything about it. We are.

    Why now? Because a decision on whether to accept or reject an agreement is made more potent if the people who are making that decision are known to be making a sacrifice. For better or worse, the AMPTP could not be less concerned about the strugglers in our guild. That doesn’t mean you and I don’t care, but what matters at the negotiating table is whatever carries weight with the other side. If they see that it’s the people they want to hire, large and small, that are willing to go out on strike right after a long work stoppage, than they know we mean business. If on the other hand the vote is mixed with members who have little or no stake in the outcome, then there’s reason to believe that divisions might occur in the ranks that can be exploited to the guilds detriment.

    And as I’m sure you know, this policy does not require a membership vote, just a vote from the national board of SAG and likewise for AFTRA.

    To S.E. Olson,

    I mean no disrespect when I say this, but your reasoning seems so far fetched to me. This proposal has nothing to do with employment. The chief rules governing this situation are from National Labor Relations Board, which give wide latitude to union boards when it comes to setting policy.

    Since this isn’t a matter of employment, public services, physical access, or telecommunications, I don’t see where the ADA comes in. Your point is, I believe, that it is a matter of representation, but since the proposal is the same for everyone, I don’t see where people with disabilities are at any greater disadvantage than anyone else who suffers from the sometimes idiotic casting practices that float through our business.

    And let me say again, we’re not making policy. That’s the board’s job. This is a proposal that will be considered and worked over in committee. Our hope is that it will remain substantially the same, but we have no illusions about the political process.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 21, 2008 @ 10:52 am

32. To mheister,

    As you might suspect, I disagree. The proposal is more like an executive order, since it needn’t be voted on by the members at large. Also, it’s implementation is nothing new, since it’s already being applied to the puppetry agreement and the interactive. Submitting an agreement for approval is not like a state initiative, because state initiatives do affect all state residents. A general referendum in SAG more closely approximates an initiative.

    I could go on, but here’s the thing. Do you believe that someone who has only worked the interactive contract, say, should be allowed to vote on the TV/TH agreement simply by virtue of his or her having the SAG card, or do you think that person should have had some recent experience in that field? It seems to me perfectly reasonable to expect there to be some kind of work requirement in the area of concern. Everybody being able to vote on anything doesn’t make us a stronger union, a knowledgeable and experienced electorate does.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 21, 2008 @ 11:25 am

33. For anyone who doesn’t know, VDO Vault was a HUGE supporter of the WGA during the writers’ strike. He contributed regularly and often to the United Hollywood podcast, giving selflessly of his time not out of financial self-interest, but only because he’s a fan. And his contributions are typically well thought-out and well-documented, just like his comment here.

    VDO, thank you for pointing this out. While I have made my views on the issue abundantly clear, I would add that should SAG’s elected leadership consider this proposal, it must be thoroughly analyzed by our lawyers first to avoid any potential pitfalls, including but not limited to the ADA as well as other civil rights and equal opportunity legislation, and of course federal and state labor laws.

    Comment by mheister — March 21, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

34. To Todd Waring

    I take no disrespect from your comments but because of my legal training (and I must put in the disclaimer here that my areas of specialization are intellectual property law and entertainment law as they pertain to the music business) I can make a very simple and strong argument that what your petition proposes to do will have an *indirect* impact on the employment of actors with disabilities if not a direct one, and one that very likely disproportionately disadvantages disabled actors. Your own union study proves that the average number of days worked by actors with disabilities falls far short of qualification to vote. If the petition wording is adopted exactly as your group has written it by SAG and the impact is great enough to potentially be seen as discriminatory to those actors (and a halfway decent lawyer could make the argument on behalf of one or more disabled card holders), the negatively affected actors could sue the union under the ADA.

    The NLRB while expert in most labor matters may well permit the petition language to become union policy but that doesn’t mean it will not run afoul of the ADA (or as mheister has suggested of other civil rights laws), especially not if the disproportionately affected actors in question were to put the matter to a jury trial (which is something you can do with a colorable ADA claim). This is why I have recommended here as well as via email to SAG’s NED and President that SAG’s legal department look into the matter before allowing the petition as written to be put up for a vote before the general membership of SAG. There would be little sense in your union adopting a rule that could provoke costly litigation to the detriment of all actors (the union would have to foot the bill to test out whether the ADA would apply in this case and even if a court finds the ADA doesn’t apply, that’s a very expensive and painful way to draft union rules)

    I really don’t think that you meant to say that a labor union qualified voting rule has *no* effect on employment…perhaps the effect is indirect, but it is still there. Correct me if I am wrong but at some point if as an actor you want to keep taking union employment you have to join the union. I suppose a disabled actor could pay the requisite initiation fees and yearly dues and elect financial core status (which as I understand it is to elect total disenfranchisement for one’s self), but why should anyone have to do so due to a poorly written policy that can be challenged in court or in an administrative proceeding? The court or EEOC test would leave a negatively affected actor more likely to be able to have a voice in all union matters, especially if the qualified voting proposal does not pass judicial or administrative review.

    I hope you don’t feel badly because I am criticizing your group’s proposal drafting…it would be hard for me to do so too (and the more I think about this, the more I agree with Ron Livingston’s earlier assertions that it is very hard to come up with language well tailored enough to exclude the producer types like Les Moonves and still have enough union members voting such that only the tiniest of minorities can claim to feel disenfranchised…the best thing I could think to suggest is if someone was on the other side of the transaction, i.e. signing actor paychecks or buying or distributing a production or owns a percentage of the production or entitled to gross revenues from a production then that person should be disqualified from contract ratification voting but then that might disqualify actors who have a piece of production coming to them as compenastion for their acting, so here comes another unworkability problem with unintended negative consequences).

    Also time is running short to get this proposed provision bullet proof enough to get it in front of the membership in such a way that it would be palatable to the majority of actors and pass before negotiations with the AMPTP have to commence…unfortunately I suspect for the actors, a majority of members probably would be disenfranchised (in the case of the writers about 2000 of the 12,500 — a clear minority — are inelligible to vote and moreover scripts are not necessarily chosen with prior knowledge as to the gender, race, age, and or disability status of their authors so the case for discrimination is less likely to be made on behalf of a writer).

    I am stymied as to how to tailor the criteria so that no one is wrongly excluded or included and unless you have a very good, experienced and clever lawyer helping you draft your proposed provision, I fail to see how you can fix it especially when the AMPTP negotiations are supposed to begin in just a few days (even great lawyers need enough time to do a good job in drafting contract provisions and rules).

    Moreover, I would like to see actual numbers of who fits your qualified voting criteria and not a mere unsubstantiated assertion on your group’s part that a majority of union members would qualify to vote under your proposal. Do you all know precisely how many actors made at least the equivalent of 5 days of SAG principal scale every year for the past 6 years, not to mention what percentage of SAG actors are already fully vested in the pension plan…such data should be available from SAG. I don’t have those numbers myself, but your group definitely needs to know them so you can sell your idea to the majority of SAG members.

    I figure you are going to have a difficult task because while in recent history relatively few SAG members have voted in presidential and board elections or on other union initiatives, your proposal might still lose even if a paltry percentage of union members turns out to vote…the sentiment I am hearing from the actors I have met is that they are overwhelmingly unconvinced that your proposal is a good or workable idea and are likely to muster the necessary votes to defeat it unless your drafting and/or your arguments improve significantly and quickly.

    I also will 100% disagree with your assertion that you are not as you say ‘making union policy’…you are proposing something that the union membership has to adopt or the whole body or a committee and/or the board has to modify. Unless the union chooses to just reject the proposal as is and totally drops the matter, your group is indeed involved in making policy.

    Assuming the union as a whole doesn’t kill the proposal but suggests it be modified (and I think that is a long shot from the actors I have talked to but it could happen), the time spent on making it workable should not come at the expense of hammering out the best possible deal with the AMPTP…those negotiations have a definite due date which is fast approaching. I do have to question the wisdom not only of the substance of your proposal but also its timing…I believe it will have to be tabled so that the cleverest minds and drafters can devote maximum effort to the AMPTP negotiations. Speaking from my experience as a close observer of the WGA’s negotiations and the resultant agreement, they fought very hard for some precedent setting but remuneratively small gains. If the negotiating committee members and their lawyers want to better their returns in new media and on DVDs etc one iota, they cannot be simultaneously distracted by complex matters like tailoring a workable and palatable qualified voting (and let us not say anything of the interunion or intraunion disputes other than to say that those also need to be temporarily halted if SAG and AFTRA want to make any gains at all over what the directors and writers got).

    However I do have a suggestion for a contract area that those who identify themselves as working actors should be tackling now. How about putting your considerable energies and experiences into working on crafting a replacement general talent representation agreement for SAG members along with a proposal for qualified voting on it? I think that the vast majority of actors with no current representation or prospects of it would agree that they don’t absolutely have to have a vote on what a talent agreement might say until there’s a realistic chance that they will be represented and that those of you who are working probably can see better than anyone else where improvements on the ATA drafted agreements can and should be made. I hope you seriously consider this alternative proposal and that your group jumps on solving this problem while you await the outcome of the negotiations with the AMPTP.

    And finally to mheister I am actually female…because I choose not to use my first name online, I get the assumption that I am male a lot and take no offense at iit. Not that I want to turn this into a mutual admiration society but I could also say of mheister that I am well aware of all the many contributions he made to the WGA strike. While there was a potential financial payoff to him (thanks to pattern bargaining the actors should not have to take less than the minimum offered to writers or actors in areas like DVD residuals or new media) I know for a fact that he too spent a lot of time and energy online and on picket lines supporting the writers. I am saddened that the financial payoff was probably not as great as it could or in my opinion should have been, but nevertheless without support from rank and file actors like mheister, the WGA would not have even gotten a toehold in new media. So back at you my friend

    S.E. Olson
    Moderator & Law & Order Criminal Intent Fan Liason
    Fans For The WGA
    http://community.livejournal.com/wga_supporters/
    United Hollywood Member
    http://www.unitedhollywood.com

    Comment by VDOVault — March 21, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

35. To VDOVault,

    First, if you haven’t read my earlier comments above, let me clear up some points. The SAG constitution declares that ballots for collective bargaining agreements are to be submitted to those members affected thereby. Since, the board already does this by mailing the puppetry and interactive ballots only to those affected, this seems to me to be a clear precedent. We are asking the board to stop selectively ignoring that passage in the constitution. If you disagree with the constitution, that’s different. We are trying to bring the board into compliance, because we believe there is a reason those words were written.

    As regards the proposal, since this is NOT a constitutional change but rather a policy clarification, it only requires the approval of the national board and not the membership at large.

    As for the ADA, I’m still confused by your reasoning. I don’t see how it affects employment or opportunities in the workplace, even indirectly. This not about who can join the union, it’s about who can vote on contracts. I don’t see how a lawsuit by any minority could get traction. Being able to vote on a particular contract does not affect one’s employment status. We’re saying it should be the other way around.

    As to who’s voting, this is a quote from a letter we sent out some months back. It quotes stats from SAG research.

    “The challenging reality is that two-thirds of SAG’s 120,000 members consistently earn less than $1000 per year as SAG actors…
    …As a result, we have seen situations such as the 2001 TV/Theatrical referendum, where 75% of voters had less than $1000 in TV or Film earnings the previous year, or the last Commercials referendum, when more than half the voters had earned NOTHING under that contract for the previous five years.”

    Given that, I’m not convince that even the average able-bodied member would make the requirements, because so many of them don’t work at all. Working 4.1 days a year might actually be above the membership average, I don’t know. So, I’m not sure the ‘average days worked’ is necessarily a good criterion for affected member voting. But something needs to be done to put the working performers, even those marginally working, back in the drivers seat.

    I must assert again, we are not making policy, we are not even involved in making policy. We are suggesting policy, only. We have no more power with the board than any other group of petitioners. Are we having an affect on policy? I hope so.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 22, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

36. VDO -

    Any suggestions for the best kind of soap to remove the egg from my face???

    Comment by mheister — March 22, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

37. Hi Todd -

    I want to thank you for continuing this conversation about affected member voting. As the conversation has continued and as more people have weighed in, the potential pitfalls, legal and otherwise, of this proposal have become much clearer.

    VDO’s points alone should give anyone considering this proposal pause. The potential legal ramifications alone are rather daunting. Expending the valuable and limited time of SAG lawyers while we’re in the middle of preparations for contract negotiations is clearly great folly. The legal exposure under ADA alone could leave SAG broke and unable to organize or properly pursue its other member obligations. Her points should be well-taken by all of us.

    Moving on.

    There are two fundamental problems with affect member voting, either of which should give pause.

    One is that the proposal is based on the faulty assumption that past work as an actor automatically means future work as an actor. It’s a logic flaw. While you may statistically show that producers hire more actors who are experienced than not, this does not mean that EVERY experienced actor is more likely to get hired. It would be just as logical to set an age cut-off for affected member voting - disenfranchising older actors - based on the argument that television and film casting skews towards younger actors, therefore they are more likely to be affected by the next contract.

    Secondly, the affected member voting proposal is fundamentally anti-democratic. As you brought up the comparison to American government, sir, let’s take a fresh look at that. The history of this republic is rife with struggles to extend the franchise against reactionary powers. We started with voting rights for white male landowners before extending the vote to other white males and then black males (after a Civil War and THREE constitutional amendments). Women earned the right to vote by constitutional amendment only after decades of protest. It took more protests, uprisings, and eventually a civil rights movement to clear other major voting obstacles such as poll taxes and literacy tests. The US also passed a constitutional amendment, setting the official voting age nationwide at age 18. In short, throughout the history of the republic we have struggled for more universal enfranchisement. It is a principle we hold dear.

    It is fascinating to me, and somewhat puzzling, that so many actors whose progressive bona fides are otherwise so strong would exhibit such an unjustified fear-based weak-kneed reactionary attitude towards voting within their own guild, and would, in supporting this proposal, hurt the very same oppressed groups whose rights they have so ardently championed in other venues.

    Every actor who carries a SAG card - regardless of gender, ethnicity, disability, or sexual preference - has proven themselves by acquiring professional work. You don’t get a card without doing that, unless you cheated, offered sexual favors to an AD, or hired yourself, and those issues need to be addressed through means other than the wide net of disenfranchisement. With very few exceptions, everyone with a SAG card played by the rules.

    Again, why a group of otherwise intelligent and talented actors would advocate such a proposal is entirely beyond me. I cannot fathom what they have to gain through divisiveness, diverting the guild’s attention from contract negotiations, or acting anti-democratically to disenfranchise fellow actors, including a disproportionate percentage of actors with disabilities and quite possibly other minorities.

    There really is only one group I can think of who has something to gain from actors distracting themselves with such an anti-democratic proposal - the largest AMPTP conglomerates, their water-carriers like Nick Counter, and their major shareholders.

    Comment by mheister — March 22, 2008 @ 5:29 pm

38. Dear mheister,

    We are seemingly at the mercy of the time at which our comments get posted. I believe many of the issues you raise are addressed in my lasting posting.

    But the problem remains, if a member has not worked a particular contract, even a little, why is it ‘democratic’ that they be allowed to vote on it? It simply makes no sense. All the history in the world doesn’t justify voting on some you know nothing about or that doesn’t affect you. None of us has a crystal ball. All we can go on is the past. If you think everyone voting on anything is correct, then your argument is with the SAG constitution, not with us.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 22, 2008 @ 11:14 pm

39. Todd -

    My problem is not with the SAG constitution, it’s with how your group wishes it to be interpreted. Your group is pushing its own radical definition of an “affected” member. Through our conversation here a handful of us have shown that such a significant change is fraught with peril for the guild. No advocate of affected member voting in this thread, or on your website, has been able to demonstrate that a group of actors voting against the guild’s best interests even exists, let alone that any harm has ever actually accrued to “working actors” from the ill-advised collective decision-making of “nonworking” actors.

    If the affected member voting proposal is such a great idea, instead of trying to push it through the current executive board, you and Stephen and Amy and Ned and company can form and push a slate of candidates for the next SAG election, and make this the cornerstone of your platform. If you’re so sure that this is the best way for the guild to go, run on it. In the present, however, it’s a harmful distraction from the important work of getting a good contract.

    I urge all of the actors aligned with Working Actors Voice to put this proposal aside and join Alan and Doug in presenting a single unified voice to the AMPTP in the contract negotiations.

    Comment by mheister — March 23, 2008 @ 3:14 pm

40. To hmiester,

    “Radical”? Some facts:
    –Equity requires it’s voting members to have worked one contract in the prior 6 yrs. That’s 30 to 50 days.
    –The DGA requires it’s members to have worked once in the past 7 yrs.
    –AFTRA requires nothing of it’s membership, so the broadcasters, say, can vote along with everyone else on anything. That’s got to change.
    –The WGA requires the equivalent of writing a screenplay to vote on anything- easily 60 days.
    This is hardly a radical proposal. We are well within the norm. Our requirements are tighter than some looser than others. Further, how can it be radical, if the board already does it for the puppetry and interactive contract? I don’t don’t see your viewpoint.

    I believe the ‘peril’ you allude to is bogus. Given the widespread lack of employment in the guild, there is every reason to believe that the 4.1 days/yr for the disabled group is probably higher than the average SAG member. (good god, there’s 120,000 of us)

    And as to which group of ‘actors’ might vote against the interests of the working actors, we can never know the extent of the harm done; it’s a secret ballot. But how about the one-day exclusion for MRM? I voted no on that agreement, because I knew what it was going to mean for me and my family. I was going to see less money coming in. Would someone who’s never worked the TV/TH contract have a sense of what the ramifications of that give-away were going to be, without someone having to explain it to them? And how about the DVD residual schedule? Should we strike to increase it? Or are DVD’s today’s buggy whips? How is someone, who’s world does not depend on these answers, be counted on to make the effort to understand the ramifications of a vote on an agreement that has so little affect on their lives?

    This business is how I make m living. It’s how I plan to send my kids to collage. When I see that producers, execs, BTL’s, casting directors, members who’ve worked only a few days in years, or haven’t worked at ALL in years, are voting in numbers on the agreement that affects my life, then I look to the board to excercise its fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the working members. And the way is simple. Create a fair and reasonable definition of AMV and apply it across the board.

    This is a professional union created to protect actors in the workplace. It’s about experience and knowledge, not nebulous definitions of fairness or solidarity. You can’t take that to the negotiating table. It don’t fly. And that’s the bottom line. That’s where all this has real affects on person’s lives and livelihoods.

    The effects of a division you speak of are hypothetical at best. I think you’re suggesting that some of the people, who do little or no work and are offended that they can’t vote on a contract they work minimally, would decide to go Fi-core. Is that the revolt you fear? The AMPTP couldn’t care less about them and their struggles. And are those Fi-core folks suddenly going to fill up all the casting slots so that the industry can continue production without the striking actors? Seems unlikely.

    I believe AMV is essential to getting to good agreement. It gives the negotiations muscle, because a yes on the agreement means a yes by people whom it affects and a no is by people who have to give up something by saying it. And that’s what creates meaningful solidarity.

    I believe it is incumbent upon those like yourself to show why you seem so content with having inexperienced and unknowledgeable members on the voting rolls? Why are you not upset that producers, execs and others with a patent conflict of interest still get sent a ballot simply because they have a card? And make no mistake, they will take every opportunity to vote down a strike whether it’s to our benefit or not. Lastly, why would you feel it’s appropriate to selectively ignore the AMV clause in the Constitution? I believe the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who wish to continue violating the intent of what’s plainly stated there in Article XI.

    Now, having said all that, I just reread your post and noticed that you’re first line seems to indicate that you agree with the notion of AMV, but that we are just going too far too soon. Is that the kernel of your objection? Is there a principal in there that you agree with or have I misread you? Since you made a point of not disagreeing with the constitution, I’m curious.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 24, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

41. Hi Todd -

    Interpreting a constitution is much like interpreting revelation in the Bible which is much like beauty - it really is in the eye of the beholder. Infamous xamples of wrong-headed interpretation are legion, from the Dred Scott case to the various millenialists who weren’t swept straightaway to Heaven. So, no, I would personally vote against your proposal for AMV, advise others to do the same.

    We see this situation in fundamentally different ways. You don’t trust that your fellow SAG members on the whole are voting correctly and would like to selectively exclude a percentage of them by an arbitrary work test that you have not shown and logically cannot show has any relationship to future employment. By contrast, in my opinion, anyone who has acquired the professional employment required to join the Screen Actors’ Guild has met the requirements of being affected by contracts that regulate their potential future employee rights, compensation, and benefits.

    Further, you simply write off VDO’s opinion about potential legal exposure as equal to yours. While VDO was not offering paid legal advice, she was coming from the perspective of a lawyer in the entertainment industry, while you, sir, come from the perspective of an actor. A reasonable and prudent person would weigh the opinion of a lawyer in such a matter more heavily than the opinion of an actor (now if we were arguing Meisner and Chubbuck, your opinion would be the weightier one).

    In short, in neither the petition letter nor all the arguments made here have proponents of this anti-democratic proposal shown anything remotely close to a fact-based justification for it, nor have you or anyone else allayed legitimate fears about the legal and solidarity-related ramifications of such a course.

    PS - As we are now 30-something comments in, have we exhausted this thread yet???

    Comment by mheister — March 24, 2008 @ 8:21 pm

42. Todd Waring wrote: “(good god, there’s 120,000 of us)”.

    All be it parenthetically, it’s good to see you’re beginning to understand the issue.

    Comment by Zackery — March 25, 2008 @ 3:22 am

43. To mhiester,

    As I have the potential to live in San Diego, why should I not be allowed to vote in their city council elections?

    Lawyers, per se, are not smarter than anyone else. You’ll notice she offered no response to my arguments. Nor has anyone else.

    What is your definition of ‘affected member’ as it reads in the constitution? Since it appears no where but in that one clause it must mean something other than all members or the clause would have said so.

    It is not for me to interpret it but it is the duty of the board to. We are offering a definition.

    I do believe we’ve said all that we can say. And you can have the last word if you wish.

    To Zachery,

    The more of us there are, the smaller the percentage of us work.

    Comment by Todd Waring — March 25, 2008 @ 8:20 am

44. Todd waring wrote:
    “The more of us there are, the smaller the percentage of us work.”

    Another step forward. The understanding that there are so few jobs available, rather than your previous idea that there are some 119,000 “vanity card holders” v. the 1,000 petition signers. Perhaps, instead of bullying the votes away from your Union brothers and sisters who stand beside you yet suffer the reality of this situation, you and your so-called “affected members” could relinquish 5 days of guest star work a year to give opportunity to vote in your new system to the actors you insist are so uniformed in the art of fairness. Certainly, as you say, 5 days of work is a paltry amount, and how much better and stronger the Union and the world when more actors, and even people, are affected and thereby informed. Your goal is what’s best, right?

    And thereby there would be a more fair distribution of the few jobs providing more people could not only work, but vote, and I think this would fit in with your idea of more fair voting. I realize this idea of a fair distribution of labor is a little more Union oriented than the totalitarian, and I dare say from watching TV largely Caucasian, Union you envision, but perhaps you have been looking on the wrong side and what we need is a fairer division of labor.

    And maybe when you and your comrades are willing to give up this mere 5 days of work a year, the rest of your Union brothers and sisters, the majority, will lead from your example and behave in a more fair way. And while I realize fairness is not necessarily your goal, as I said earlier, I do believe we are heading toward common ground and I hope I get there with you.

    Next let’s discuss the idea that you may not be the only person hoping to put his children through college. As we discuss more of the ideas you think are exclusive to “affected members” I think you will see we have more in common than the difference in our bank accounts.

    Comment by Zackery — March 25, 2008 @ 10:35 am

45. @Todd Waring

    I actually took some time this morning to have a look at the October 2007 version of SAG’s constitution on SAG’s website, gave it a careful read through and I have to say I agree with mheister all the more for having done so.

    Your groups definition of affected member is problematic because you omit much of the provision pertaining to the definition of an ‘affected member’

    Let’s go to Article XI titled ‘Collective Bargaining, Agreements & Ratification’ (page 27 of the printed version or page 29 of a 44 page PDF file online)

    Here is the exact language of the first sentence of that article only part of which you cite as support for you group’s idea of a qualified voting petition

    “Section 1. “Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Article, all collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.”

    Lesson #1 in contract/legal document interpretation is that you have to read the whole provision, piece by piece and in light of the other provisions which it references.

    Since you left off the prefatory language “Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Article” let’s jump ahead a bit and preview Section 2 of Article XI…

    “Section 2. Membership ratification shall not be required for any collective bargaining agreement which the Board of Directors determines in good faith is not to be used in widespread or industry-wide application affecting a substantial portion of the membership”

    I’m going to stop right here and do a bit of explaining.

    What this provision is explicitly getting at is a definition of what DOES NOT have to be put to a vote of a *substantial portion of the membership*. We are doing a bit of process of elimination work here and getting at what is meant by an “affected member” (or more importantly “*a substantial portion* of the membership”

    Section 2 continues…

    “such as agreements covering low-budget films, student films or the like, and interim contracts of short duration”

    Now we are getting at the sorts of things by which you can take ratification away from the entirety or the majority of the membership via *specific cited examples* Apparently low-budget film and student film agreements are clear winners…they affect an insubstantial portion of the membership and thus do not have to be submitted to the membership in its entirety. Following a rule of contract/drafting interpretation that says the inclusion of the specific excludes the inclusion of other unmentioned general or specific provisions, I could easily and successfully argue that since Section 2 of Article XI leaves out the primetime TV and theatrical film minimum basic agreement, this means that the drafters of SAG’s Constitution intented the primetime TV and theatrical film to apply to “*a substantial portion* of the membership” and thus a majority of not the entirety of the membership should vote on its ratification.

    Lets’s also deal with the second class of collective bargaining agreement that does not have to be submitted for ratification to the entire membership (or a majority), an “interim contract of short duration”. I think it is pretty clear that a minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical film that lasts 3 years and covers a multitude of producers doesn’t fit this definition…that’s not a short duration nor is it an interim contract if the usual duration of the primetime TV and theatrical film is 3 years.

    For completeness’s sake let’s finish analyzing Section 2 before going back to Section 1

    “Such agreements shall, however, be approved by a
    supermajority of 60% of the Board of Directors or National Executive Committee voting thereon.”

    By “such agreements” the last sentence of Section 2 of Article XI references “agreements covering low-budget films, student films or the like, and interim contracts of short duration”. So let’s rewrite the last sentence of Section 2 to make it clearer

    “Agreements covering low-budget films, student films or the like, and interim contracts of short duration shall, however, be approved by a
    supermajority of 60% of the Board of Directors or National Executive Committee voting thereon.”

    Note that agreements which affect an insubstantial portion of the membership of SAG require a *supermajority* of *60%* the Board of Directors or the National Executive Committee for ratification. I find it hard to believe that the intent of the drafters of SAG’s Constitution meant for the minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical film that lasts 3 years and covers a multitude of producers to be voted on anything less than 60% of the Board of Directors or the National Executive Committee for ratification. But I am not yet willing to concede that the membership itself should not be voting to ratify the minimum basic agreement covering primetime TV and theatrical film that lasts 3 years and covers a multitude of producers.

    So let’s jump back to Section 1 now that we’ve dealt with the Section 2 exceptions to it:

    “Section 1. “Except as set forth in Section 2 of this Article, all collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild shall be submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby.”

    Now let’s get into the nitty gritty of the rest of Section 1.

    We come to the next sentence:

    “Such ratification may be made either (a) by written vote of a majority of the members voting thereon, at a National Membership meeting or a special meeting called for such purpose, or (b) by written vote of a majority of the members voting thereon, in a mail ballot.”

    When the “affected membership” votes on the ratification of a collective bargaining agreement it has to be done *in writing* at a National Membership meeting, at a special meeting called for the purpose of ratification, or via a mail ballot. That’s pretty straight forward but it still doesn’t help nail down the definition of the ‘affected membership’ so let’s move on to the next sentence.

    “However, membership ratification shall not be required with respect to amendments made during the term of a collective bargaining contract which are of a minor nature, or which are required for purposes of clarification or to resolve problems arising in the administration of the contract.”

    Once again the drafters are defining their terms by the process of elimination so here are the exceptions

    Any amendment made *during* the term of a collective bargaining agreement…this means that when an agreement has expired as the minimum basic agreement for primetime TV and theatrical films will do on June 30th of 2008, this exception does not apply. You could apply it to a pre-existing agreement, but that would mean that once you reach June 30th whatever amendment you make is done

    Here is the second part of that sentence “amendments…which are of a minor nature, or which are required for purposes of clarification or to resolve problems arising in the administration of the contract”

    Minor amendments, clarifying amendments or administrative problem resolving amendments to a still in effect minimum basic agreement for primetime TV and theatrical films do not have to be submitted to the ‘affected membership’ for ratification. If you want to change a definition in a currently existing agreement, make a currently existing provision clearer for interpretation or easier to administer or deal with a minor issue in the current unexpired agreement you can do so by “a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors voting thereon”.

    Which brings me to the very self-explanatory last sentence of Section 1 of Article XI

    “Such amendments shall, however, be approved by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors voting
    thereon.”

    Using our substitution for clarity method of interpretation redrafting that sentence should read

    “Amendments which are of a minor nature, or which are required for purposes of clarification or to resolve problems arising in the administration of the contract shall, however, be approved by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors voting
    thereon.”

    Lesson #2 in contract/legal drafting language
    “Shall” is a mandatory word, “may” is a permissive word, will implies a committment to an action in the future. Anywhere you see the word “shall” the party is obliged to do something.

    So having hit a lot of side cases where “collective bargaining contracts negotiated by the Guild” do not have to be “submitted for ratification to the membership affected thereby” we are still left with the puzzler of who the “membership affected thereby is”

    In a minimum basic agreement with a multitude of producers for what is the most common type of SAG contract the primetime TV and theatrical film contract, an agreement which sets minimums, the floor rates of compensation which a rank and file member cannot take less than and from which a more experienced guild member can negotiate his or her compensation up from, an agreement that governs how health insurance elligibility is determined for all members, and an agreement that governs how pension elligibility is determined for all members, you cannot logically argue that any card holder who has his or dues paid up and has not electe