More Opinions Pro SAG Petition Drive

65 Comments »

1. I’m sorry I need something cleared up for me …………… every writer I speak with tells me that you can participate in any vote as long as you are a member in good standing. Now don’t get me wrong……. I don’t really care how another union votes. That is up to said unions membership. I just want to make sure that we are all on the same page. This also may be something that they are unaware of. ………. Anyway,

   Let us not forget that any money negotiated for pension and health effects the entire membership. not just those who work under that specific contract. Every member is indirectly “effected” by “every” contract negotiation. You might not like it but it is a fact.

   Comment by Frank — February 15, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

2. I earned about $40,000 as a SAG actor last year, and am already on track to likely earn more than that in 2008. But Ms. Brenneman’s example (an average of 5 days of principal work and/or 15 days of background work per year, over the previous 6 years) would exclude me from voting. I know she’s only talking about beginning the conversation, but the wide range of pay structures in our guide makes defining “affected” a very slippery slope.

   Comment by Barry — February 15, 2008 @ 5:24 pm

3. Amy,
   Succinct, accurate, well said.
   Brava and thank you!
   But the intensity of the sh_t-storm this is kicking up is a direct reflection of how seldom current Hollywood SAG Board members actually work on-camera and how badly they intend to keep their Board seats!
   Let the show begin…

   Comment by Working SAG/AFTRA Actor — February 15, 2008 @ 5:44 pm

4. Wouldn’t that leave out Ed Asner?

   A man who, in my opinion was a great former SAG president?

   Peggy Lane O’Rourke

   Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — February 15, 2008 @ 8:05 pm

5. Anyone who will be expected to walk a picket line if the union goes out on strike should be allowed to vote on the contract. Period.

   Comment by hyphenate — February 15, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

6. The problem with these sorts of things is either they are so tight, as to be onerous and disenfranchising (as pointed out above), or so loose, thats there no real point to having them. And I think thats what its going to come down to;due to the vagaries of the business, the bar will be set so low as to be pointless. I understand these sorts of rules for things like below the line, construction work, etc, because those things are a set of skills that generally don’t rely on the whims of a casting director (if you know the skills, you’re probably going to get the job), so if you don’t keep up with the rules its probably because you’re not trying. Its not exactly the same as above the line work.

   Comment by Sean S. — February 15, 2008 @ 9:36 pm

7. OK, so I’m a writer and this isn’t my decision, but I think Barry’s example above is a good one. And hyphenate’s point is well-taken also.

   At a time when unity is going to be your most important weapon, I think fracturing your guild with this divisive fight is a mistake. Don’t let your own internal business distract you or you will not have the energy for the AMPTP. Trust me. This is a time for inclusion.

   Comment by LB — February 15, 2008 @ 9:56 pm

8. What about Aftra? How come there is no push to qualify Aftra members “affected” by the upcoming TV/Theatrical contract? Could it be that Aftra doesn’t have a dog in the hunt?

   I find it quite interesting that Aftra does less than 10% of the TV/Theatrical contract, and that nobody is holding them to the same standards. .

   According to Phase 1, the joint bargaining agreement between SAG and Aftra, the negotiating committee is seated 50-50. That means Aftra votes on this contract, (and does NO film, has three Primetime TV contracts,) yet they have a 50% say in how the negotiations go. How “affected” are they? Do you think weathermen and sportscasters and game show hosts and newscasters give a rat’s ass about TV/Theatrical when they get their ballot?

   Why aren’t these SAG petition signers up in arms about that?

   We are in serious W&W meetings through the rest of this month. I urge our members to come to the Guild at 5757 Wilshire Blvd., and participate in our deliberations.

   Yes, I hear you now. Many of us are dual card holders; but Aftra as an institution does not do the work in the TV/Theatrical contract. Excuse me; they do less than ten percent.

   If these petition signers are truly intersted in getting a fair contract — and as my friend Amy B says, “How hard will they fight to get actors a better deal?” I ask you this: How hard will the Aftra portion of the negotiating committee fight, since they only bring in less than 10% of the earnings? And will the weathermen, etc…vote for what actors need?

   I agree that Vanity Card holders should be looked at: (people who hold a card but do not work the contract at all). I submit that we must look at our own SAG Board of Directors, and hold them to the same standards. We have people on our board who have no credits on IMDB; should they be making policy for our Guild with regard to TV/Theatrical?

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

   I submit that any member of Screen Actors Guild, because they are actors, and are seeking work, be allowed to vote on any and all contracts, because they may get a contract at any time that flips them into getting a leg-up.

   Would you disqualify Gloria Stuart, who is basically a founding member of our Guild, who did not work for decades, and who got a job in Titanic in her 80’s and subsequently was nominated for an Academy Award, and won a SAG Award?

   And don’t get me started on the Basic-Cable contracts…

   Hi didely dee, the actors’ life for me.

   Comment by Frances Fisher — February 16, 2008 @ 12:46 am

9. While I have nothing but the greatest respect for Ms. Brenneman and her work, any formula that excludes any paid-up members in good standing from having a voice in deciding on the contract that affects all of us will invariably exclude not just the inactive actors, but active and potentially active actors.

   Also, at a time when SAG should be looking very seriously at bringing more New Media types - who, by their nature, are early adapters and more entrepreneurial - into the fold, any affected voting formula will leave many of them out.

   If this issue had been brought up a couple of years ago, Anne-Marie Johnson, who is currently serving on the Hollywood Board, would have had trouble meeting the threshold example cited by Ms. Brenneman because, as Johnson reported in a newsletter to the Hollywood members, she took time off from her career to care for an ill parent.

   Unless we’d like to go through our 100,000+ membership on an individual-by-individual basis, I don’t know how we can find a fair affected voting formula.

   With all due respect to the proponents of an affected voting threshold, it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

   Comment by mheister — February 16, 2008 @ 1:17 am

10. Hyphenate -

    Damn right! Should be the end of this argument. Taxation without representation? Please! Quick, someone throw some tea into the harbor.

    Comment by WriterA — February 16, 2008 @ 1:43 am

11. Does anybody know what % of actors (SAG members) works an average of 5 days of principal work?

    Comment by Anibal — February 16, 2008 @ 6:03 am

12. “Anyone who will be expected to walk a picket line if the union goes out on strike should be allowed to vote on the contract. Period.”
    Comment by hyphenate

    That’s funny Hyphenate- because for some odd, hard to fathom reason, many vocal WGA supporters expected IATSE and IBT members to walk the picket with them…

    Yet, not only did they not have the ability to vote, they didn’t even have any say in the matter that cost so many of them their jobs.

    You live in a fantasy world.

    Comment by Dan — February 16, 2008 @ 6:54 am

13. “affected”?

    It’s not just writers who can’t write.

    Comment by Brian Moore — February 16, 2008 @ 7:16 am

14. My hope is that by the time SAG votes, they would have cleared all of this up and allow the general membership to vote without exception or proviso. The reason that the WGA strike was as successful as it could be was because of it’s STRENGTH IN NUMBERS. A full membership in front of a studio is much more effective than, well, significantly less.

    Comment by DL — February 16, 2008 @ 8:32 am

15. Amy it looks like you’re implying that card holders not currently acting but working in other areas of the industry would not vote to strike and you are probably right. But, since the SAG constitution requires that the entire membership most vote for a strike authorization, not just the affected members. I cannot envision any possible scenario where 75% of the guild membership would vote to change Article XII so that only affected members could vote to authorize a strike. As I’ve said before, now is not the time to push this agenda. It is too late to push for qualified voting for this contract. Infighting in the last months before a contract expiration weakens the guild.

    Comment by BTL Mom — February 16, 2008 @ 8:44 am

16. These are very interesting arguments.

    My basic question about all of this, is why on earth are actors having this debate publicly?

    They should be having this debate among themselves as union members. Argue, debate, come to a concensus, then present a united, public front.

    Have we ever heard various key members of the AMPTP debating publicly about policy and procedure of their organization? Not really. Why? Because it’s important to keep those squabbles in the family.

    SAG members, all union members, should be encouraged to argue, debate, and challenge their leaders. But I really think it’s to the benefit of all of them to have these squabbles privately.

    Unity can’t just be a concept.

    Comment by Jimmy — February 16, 2008 @ 10:31 am

17. The problem with any “rules” for what constitutes an “affected” union member is that they are, by definition, arbitrary. And they are, as some have suggested a slippery slope. In this case to a destination that’s neither democratic nor viable in the short or long term.

    Intentional or not, there is more than the whiff of elitism in attempts to disenfranchise what would be, in effect, the vast majority of dues-paying SAG members.

    Raising the specter of rogue unionists who are writers, grips, Teamsters, waiters or embittered unsuccessful actors bent on exorcising their personal demons come election day is not a solid reason to deprive hard-working actors of the right to vote. It’s a clever debating tactic because it deals with a mythological figure not a real one. Or verifiable facts. But it’s no different a tactic than a Creationist trying to de-bunk Darwinism because of one anomaly in a vastly complex theory.

    Amy Brenneman’s “five-days-per-year-in-six-years” rule, for example, could easily eliminate me (and a lot of actors I know) from participating in the governance of SAG. Yet I have more than made the minimum amount of money each year to qualify for pension credits and health care benefits for the past 21 years.

    If I’m vested in the pension plan, have enough pension credits to get health care for life once I turn 65, am I not an “affected member”? Not according to Brenneman’s rule. Or any other proposed rules I’ve heard of so far.

    I realize that she’s just floating this as an example. But my case alone points out not only the un-fairness of means testing but the inherent dangers of eliminating viable, credible and wise voices from union business.

    I (along with a legion of middle-class actors) have paid my dues, literally and figuratively. It’s our perspective on issues such as health plans and pensions that should carry a lot of weight in union affairs because we’re the ones that need them the most. For top-tier actors the SAG pension will be a bauble of retirement, much as a Social Security check is to a retired brain surgeon. For the middle class however, a pension and medical plan is a necessary and central part of responsible retirement planning.

    I’m not a lawyer (and yes I have played them on television) but it’s my guess that with respect to SAG and its longtime members there is a fiduciary relationship. I give them my dues and a cut of my earnings every year and the union manages the pension and health funds. I will resist any attempt to take away my right to vote on who gets to run the union and how these funds and plans are disbursed. After all, I have a vested, financial interest in it.

    Democracy, as Winston Churchill once said is messy and inefficient. But, he added, it’s the best system we have. Instituting a SAG means test to determine who gets a voice in union business and who doesn’t will not, ultimately, strengthen the union. It will very quickly weaken it.

    Comment by Christopher Grove — February 16, 2008 @ 10:46 am

18. I made 80,000 last year as an actor.

    I would not be a voting member under this proposal.

    I’d like my dues back if it passes. Ok?

    Also, these rich actors might want to learn about something called ‘timing.’ Because they have assured no advances in this years contract negotiation.

    Comment by Working actor — February 16, 2008 @ 11:35 am

19. I can fully understand Ms Brenneman’s thinking. The true working actors cannot let their contract be influenced by those who hold cards but don’t rely on acting as a source of income. Qualified voting seems extremely fair to me as long as there is a well defined set of criteria and that criteria is applied consistently and fairly to all members. Once a person works enough to meet the threshold for voting, they will have their say in future contracts.

    And to Ms Fisher’s point, yes I would say that Gloria Stuart should not vote if she is not working. This is no disrespect to her or her past accomplishments, just a reality that she isn’t relying on acting to pay her bills.

    Comment by Dave — February 16, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

20. I think this proposal or something like it is probably a good idea.

    Both the WGA and the DGA have some form of qualified voting. Equity has it too. I haven’t voted on an Equity contract in a long time. I’m certainly not offended and am not asking for my dues back. And SAG already has qualified voting on some contracts. I didn’t get a ballot in the mail for the Animation V/O contract and I’m not angry about it.

    Currently, a third of SAG earn nothing a year. Another third earn under a thousand dollars. That changes the perception of what a Guild is. When I was speaking about the impending WGA strike with below the line people on the show I work on currently, one point that impressed and reassured them was that the WGA members voting to strike were people who will actually pay the cost of a strike. I can’t say the same about a possible SAG strike.

    Comment by Another Working Actor — February 16, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

21. I love it when people try to play grammar police on here. The use of the word “affected” in this context is correct.

    Comment by Can't Take it Anymore — February 16, 2008 @ 3:46 pm

22. Dan, you’re shilling for Tom, aren’t you?

    Comment by P. Lee — February 16, 2008 @ 4:27 pm

23. Hey Working actor,

    First, congrats on a great year! 80K? Wow!

    That puts you squarely in the SAG “elite”… and it certainly makes you a “rich” actor. Heck, you easily made more than 95% of your fellow SAG members last year. Way to go.

    What I can’t quite get my head around is how you could make that much and not meet the modest work requirement Amy Brenneman laid out in her post above. It just doesn’t seem to make sense.

    After all, 5 days of principal work at scale pays less than $3800. 15 days of background work pays even less: $1950. (I ran the numbers after I read Amy’s post, ‘cause I thought, “That’s gotta be a typo—5 days? That’s it?” I mean, forget making a living—that won’t even put gas in my truck!

    As a day player (primarily) myself, I know that a day at scale doesn’t pay all that much, so I thought surely they’d want to set a higher standard than 5 days/yr. I’ve never had anything like an $80,000 year. I’ve never even been able to support myself with acting alone (I still make most of my living from a small business). But, geez, I’ve NEVER had a year when I wouldn’t meet that low standard—much less any six-year period! I wanted to double check myself so I went back through my pension statements. In my worst year (my first) I made $5300—and that was 12 years ago when a day at scale paid considerably less—so I know I worked well in excess of 5 days.

    How is it you made $80,000 in a year (again, congrats!)—which, at least monetarily, SO far exceeds the suggested standard—and didn’t do the proposed amount of days? Are you some kind of superstar that gets paid 20 grand per day, and you only worked 4 days?

    Or are you’re saying you wouldn’t meet the standard because while you made $80K last year, you made nothing in the previous 5 years? Well, since it’s an AVERAGE requirement, unless you ARE a really big star, it would be highly unusual to make 80 grand doing SAG jobs without working at least 30 days.

    And since the proposed standard calls for an AVERAGE of 5 days/yr. over 6 years, if you work a total of just 30 days ANY TIME during that 6 years… you meet the standard. You made 80K last year and you didn’t work 30 days over the last 6 years? Unusual.

    Maybe it’s because you’re a brand new member and you just made 80K in your first year? (If so, my hat is REALLY off!) Still, even that shouldn’t be a problem, since Amy suggested that anyone with less than 6 years experience would only need to meet a correspondingly prorated standard. So again, you’re good to go.

    I dunno, I just can’t figure it out. How is it you could make SO much and not meet that modest standard? Heck, the CUMULATIVE TOTAL for the suggested standard—if it were based on money, instead of work—is less than $23,000 over six years. Or if you did all your work as a background performer, we’re only talking about $11,700 over six whole years. You made many multiples of that last year but still wouldn’t meet the standard? I’d truly love to know how, because I want to do what you do!!

    Comment by jafoowa — February 16, 2008 @ 5:00 pm

24. jafoowa -

    Ever heard of commercials?

    My grand total for working on anything other than commercials was $900.

    You put up a hell of a post, though. All for not.

    Comment by working actor — February 16, 2008 @ 5:45 pm

25. Various not-so-brief responses:

    Frances Fisher - Thank you!!!

    Dan - I hear your point and I agree. IMHO, writers and actors are in the same fight, but so are other union members in other professions. It’s not as if NBC is GE’s primary business, after all. For my money, the coolest guy I walked with on the WGA picket lines was an airline pilot who rearranged his flight to Amsterdam to carry a sign in front of NBC that said, “Workers’ rights are human rights”. He knows from rollbacks better than any writer to ever walk a line, and he showed his solidarity with his feet. As a SAG member, if God forbid we have to walk, he’s my example of solidarity.

    Jimmy - it happening publicly because SAG makes its major decisions democratically. I think we will, after a bit of hashing about, come to the same realization the writers did, and the vast majority of us will fully and unreservedly back our leadership through this challenging period.

    As for AFTRA, they should turn over Damages, Curb, Dirt, and the other scripted programming and improvised comedy to SAG. IMHO the only fictional television programming AFTRA should keep jurisdiction over are the local news shows.

    Comment by mheister — February 16, 2008 @ 9:41 pm

26. I’d tell you my name, but you probably have not heard of me, because I am one of those actors who may be stripped of his voting rights by more powerful members. You also probably haven’t heard of me because I am wildly unsuccessful as a television and film actor. I do make a nice living in commercials, however. I think a low man on the totem pole should be allowed to have a say in this debate, because, you know, you’re debating my future without talking to me, as if you are my parents.

    I would also like to work on the effort to improve SAG contract voting procedures, and I’d like to respond to Amy Brenneman’s response to Ron Livingston’s response to Ned Vaughn’s response.

    Like the others, I also believe this is an area that should be discussed and I think the timing is extraordinarily thoughtful. If this “problem” had not been addressed mere months before negotiations, we wouldn’t be facing the prospect of undermining our union’s attempt to better the WGA contract by destroying the necessary unity needed to strike. It is this sort of carefully executed plan that makes me believe strongly in the cause and drives me to support the Afflecks, Fields and Brennemans of the acting world. Especially Sally, because who can forget her portrayal of Norma Rae, where she stood atop a table in a sweatshop and held up a sign that read: “Union, for some.”

    But I have one further suggestion to firm up support and unity in the guild: Purge members who are incredibly successful. I understand this will be controversial, but as Amy recognizes in her letter,

    “Ron is concerned about ‘people scraping by, the up-and-comers, and the kids working their first and second jobs’—I am too. It is precisely FOR those members that we need this.”

    Indeed. Who is less capable of understanding and sacrificing for the working class actor, than those actors who also work under the title of ‘producer?’ Just as Amy points out that ‘thousands of SAG card holders work on crews, in writers’ rooms, in studio offices, in entertainment law firms, as management, etc.,” we must address the issue of actors who also work as producers. As Amy said, “How hard will they fight to get actors a better deal?” Amy was an executive producer of Judging Amy and a better deal for actors would take money directly out of her pocket.

    I only point this out as a way of saying, “My God, what have you people done?” To take a public stance that undermines your own Guild on the eve of negotiations is unconscionable and reckless. You simply cannot tell people who have been paying dues that they to have no say in their union’s contract. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the term “class action lawsuit,” but you can guarantee I’d be looking for my money back if I can’t vote.

    I wish you 900 could take the can of worms you opened and put the top back on, but the damage has been done. If successful, you will have forced thousands of union dues paying members to essentially be force fi-cored. That is what taking away the ability to vote means. An entire future generation of actors will be disenfranchised and the union will lose the power of a strong membership for years to come. If unsuccessful, you have split the Guild during this precarious time of negotiations. Many of these members could now vote to spite your movement, in which case you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Haven’t most of you read The Secret?

    I had faith in those members who live in difficult times, whose dreams are unfulfilled and who were not blessed with that lucky moment. I believed they would do what is right; because I just walked the picket lines with thousands of WGA members, where I learned the fear, which generated this kind of petition, was unfounded. But I guess hoping the rich would have faith in the poor is asking too much.

    Of course, I can’t sign my name to this post, because unlike the successful 900 actors who signed the petition, it could destroy my career. Because many of the 900 actors are also producers, you know, the people we will be negotiating against.

    Comment by Another actor — February 16, 2008 @ 11:14 pm

27. Commercials Jafoowa.

    I made over $120k last year and didn’t do any TV or films. I would be excluded?

    I say make it a pay level. At least 5-10k.

    Comment by Craig — February 16, 2008 @ 11:23 pm

28. Frances,
    To hell with your petty, ill-informed rant. The Japanese have criticized Americans for being incapable of holding two contradictory thoughts in our heads at the same time. Wait ’till they get a load ‘o you. The whole reason for the miserable & sudden failure of the foolish, oh-poor-me-I’m-a-beleagured-actor 6-month plot to undermine AFTRA as a union that also represents actors and has done so for 59 years in television, is when SAG leadership suddenly realized that AFTRA was damned well going to go to the negotiating table alone if current dope-dreamers on the SAG Board kept up the bully-girl boondogle of imposing bloc voting and proportionality upon Phase 1 - a well-working 27 year negotiating deal between SAG & AFTRA that explicitly forbids both and was written by actors far smarter and more capable of genuine union strategy than the snarling, self-pitying comrades in Membership First, which appears to be going the way of Franco’s Spain right now. SAG is composed of 120,000 actors - 7% of whom ever work. AFTRA is composed of 70,000 actors, broadcasters, singers, voice-overs, background players, show hosts, comedians, stunt coordinators & performers - 50% of whom are taking home union paychecks. AFTRA has jurisdiction over 50% of scripted cable television and 70% of broadcast television on the 24 hour clock.
    So the next time you sit down with your aging comrades over whine and cheese, do us all a favor and cogitate upon the concepts of negotiation, compromise, and union solidarity. Complex and subtle, I know, but something that might just be refreshingly different and workable for us performers. If you have any genuine hope for solidarity in the face of the AMPTP machine on June 30, get off the battle wagon and aim your slings & arrows outward, not inward at fellow performers who share both SAG and AFTRA cards with you.
    PJB

    Comment by ichaucheinwerkungactor — February 17, 2008 @ 12:29 am

29. working actor 1, jafoowa 0

    i can’t understand any positive reason why a guild would want lots of members but not let them vote. if nothing else, it sounds like the sag leadership needs to narrow their criteria to join. at least that would be fair.

    Comment by Brian Woods — February 17, 2008 @ 3:53 am

30. Hey working actor,

    $79K from commercials? Awesome!

    I don’t do ‘em myself, but it sounds like you could cast an expert vote on the commercials contract and would work hard to get a good deal next time around—just like I would on the TV/Theatrical contract. That’s how we can protect each other.

    Like I said earlier, I don’t support myself from acting alone, but I’ve always worked more than 5 days per year. Even if I didn’t meet that kind of standard, I’d be for it—it just makes sense. Why should someone who hasn’t worked AT ALL for 20 years be voting on a current contract? Because they might get a job? And what if—like Amy laid out above—that person has a direct conflict of interest with working actors? They should still vote? That’s nuts!

    And whaddya do about the language of the SAG constitution? Skeptic that I am, I checked and it’s there. Why didn’t the writers of the constitution say “the entire membership” or “all members in good standing” if that’s who they wanted voting on the contracts? They use those words elsewhere in the document, but not when it comes to contract ratification; that is left to “affected” members. If that language has any meaning—and surely it must—“affected” has gotta mean something different than “all”.

    Like Amy, I don’t receive the Animation VO ballot. To be honest, I didn’t know there was a separate contract for that until all this came up. And I don’t care even a little bit that I don’t vote on it. Why should I? I don’t do that work, so the contract doesn’t affect me.

    But according to the logic of so many—including Frances Fisher above—I should have my panties all in a bunch that I’m not voting on the Animation VO contract because one day, I might get an animation VO gig! (Hey, I do a dead cold Donald Duck.) Sorry, but that seems like a pretty weak argument for being affected. Looking back at the last six years and having a modest work requirement sounds a lot more reasonable to me.

    The thing that really got me, though, were some stats. When I read that SAG has 120,000 members, I was surprised—but the shocker is SAG’s growth rate. There are 120,000 members now, but there were only 70,000 in 1990. That’s 50,000 new members in just 17 years! Let’s say the next 17 years adds another 50,000—does anyone think the number of acting jobs will even fractionally keep up with that kind of growth? No way!

    What you’d be left with—what you’ve already got, frankly—is a massive organization where only a tiny minority do the work the whole thing is based on. But a huge majority that doesn’t do the work (or very little of it) has all the voting power because of their numbers. That is a train wreck waiting to happen.

    People get VERY emotional about this stuff, but look at it rationally and it makes all kinds of sense. I’ve read people saying that 80,000 members would go fi-core if they didn’t get to vote on a contract. Huh? Did that happen when the writers’ guild made their change? Is there some secret renegade writers’ union I don’t know about? Let me get this straight—you’d go fi-core because you didn’t get to vote on a contract, and by doing that, you’d be persona non grata at the union once you finally started working—so you still couldn’t vote. That makes a lotta sense… NOT.

    Another reason the fi-core thing makes no sense is that SAG voter turnouts are already really low—I think about 25% or so. So suddenly, the 75% who never vote are gonna get all offended that they can’t vote and quit the union? I kinda doubt it.

    And people sure do like to talk about picket lines! Many ask “Who’ll walk the picket lines if everyone isn’t allowed to vote on the contract?” Well, who do you think was walking the WGA picket lines? You think every WGA member in those lines was a voting member? Umm… no.

    This one’s a no-brainer if you drop the emotion. I understand it doesn’t feel good to tell people they can’t vote on something. And apparently it feels a helluva of a lot worse for some of those people to hear it. But you know what? You put a standard like this in place and people WILL get used to it. And it will make SAG more effective. For Pete’s sake—SO many other unions do it this way. Of course they do; it makes perfect sense!

    Comment by jafoowa — February 17, 2008 @ 4:55 am

31. Ms. Brenneman,
    Thanks for your even-tempered wisdom here. Your thinking represents what our performers unions need most in this intensifying debate — alas the opposite of what lurks in the Hollywood SAG Boardroom as exemplified by Membership First showcase celeb Seymour Cassel who showed his true colors to the WGA at their membership meeting by appearing in the 2/16 NY Post Page Six gossip column:

    “February 16, 2008 — The Hollywood writers’ strike may be settled, but veteran actor Seymour Cassel isn’t happy about it. At a recent Writers Guild membership meeting in LA, Cassel said the union caved to management pressure to settle before the Oscars. “I would’ve stayed out. I don’t care what this town wants,” he told The Post’s David Finnigan. “They got it right up the [bleep].” Cassel added as he walked out of the Shrine Auditorium, “And now we’re gonna have to take [bleep] because of it.” Cassel’s rep did not return a call for comment.”…
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/gossip/pagesix/strikers_caved_97830.htm

    Seymour, his mock boy-rage, and that of his fellow union-bashers may be vaguely interesting to watch on-screen, but in this important debate it is as constructive and helpful and as a two-headed cow in a county-fair freakshow.

    Working Actor II

    Comment by Working Actor Tambien — February 17, 2008 @ 7:33 am

32. Timing is everything. It may be all well and good and proper to change the rules after a spirited debate. But given the looming deadlines, it isn’t a debate that should take place ahead of this particular contract, rather the next one. Elsewise, however reasonable and well intended, it just smells funny.

    Comment by Jeff Mold — February 17, 2008 @ 8:37 am

33. @ichaucheinwerkungactor:

    you lose credibility when you resort to ad hominem attacks

    perhaps not commenting in the middle of the night would preserve your presence of mind

    Comment by Observers — February 17, 2008 @ 3:09 pm

34. Sure would like to see people have the courage to sign their names to their posts.

    1. All members in good standing have a right to vote in WGA. They qualify membership to their Guild.

    2. Aftra allows anyone to join, even if they have no job.

    3. SAG requires an actor to have a job in order to join.

    4. Leslie Moonves - CBS, Robert Iger - Disney, Jeff Zucker - NBC, all have credits on ImDb - according to Amy B’s criteria, people with conflicts of interest should not be allowed to vote. I agree!

    That should go for SAG actors who have production companies as well, right?
    ******

    From the SAG Constitution:

    ARTICLE XI
    Collective Bargaining, Agreements & Ratification
    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.

    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, such as agreements covering low-budget films, student films, or the like, and interim contracts of short duration. Such agreements shall, however, be approved by a vote of a majority of the Board of Directors or National Executive Committee voting thereon.
    ********

    5. I have never suggested that anyone get their “panties in a bunch” over not voting on the Animation Contract.

    6. The only reason Aftra has “jurisdiction” over 50% of scripted basic cable is because Aftra has gone to individual companies and made deals that offer 10-15 free exhibition days, so that actors get NO residuals, thus no H&R contributions.

    7. Want to talk about the 6-year free streaming deal Aftra made with Nickelodeon?

    8. Want to talk about the fact that as SAG was working on a formula for residuals on the Interactive Contract, Aftra undermined the process by “negotiating” a deal that has locked actors into working for scale and NO residuals on a billions-of-dollars a year business?

    At a time when all actors should be standing together, I find it very interesting that another union would agree to undercutting themselves, and that SAG members would want to disenfranchise any member in good standing in our Guild.

    Again: I agree that Vanity Card holders who do not seek work and/or are not vested should not be allowed to vote on anything.

    I also think that our own Board of Directors should be held to the same standard. People on our Board should work, and many do not work the TV/Theatrical contract, nor any other contract, yet they make policy. You can go to the SAG website, get a list of our board members across the country, and IMDB them. Do the same for the Aftra board.

    And nobody answered my question about the wisdom of allowing weathermen, sportscasters, newscasters, diskjockeys, game show hosts, etc…to vote on our TV/Theatrical contract. Shouldn’t there be a push to disenfranchise non-actors from voting on a contract that does not “affect” them?

    I can’t wait to get a response to this question - hopefully from a person who has the courage to sign their name.

    Comment by Frances Fisher — February 17, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

35. One of the reasons the WGA strike was so solid (despite rumors to the contrary) was that the East and West coast guilds had made their peace in advance of the contract negotiations. This enabled them to stay united.

    I suggest SAG put off this debate until after your contract negotiations are through. It seems suspicious that this is all coming to a head now…

    Stand strong.

    Comment by writer — February 17, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

36. Anyone who will be expected to walk a picket line if the union goes out on strike should be allowed to vote on the contract. Period.

    Comment by hyphenate — February 15, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

    This is the beginning and end of this debate, as far as I’m concerned. I would only add one more thing: anyone who’s expected to pay dues on a timely basis should be allowed to vote on the contract. Period.

    Comment by Paw — February 17, 2008 @ 5:33 pm

37. And to ichaucheinwerkungactor:

    I am neither ranting, nor “ill-informed”. I serve the membership of Screen Actors Guild as a National Board member, and work the TV/Theatrical contract constantly.

    The question I put to the petition signers is this:
    Why are they not petitioning Aftra to disqualify it’s members (broadcasters, disk jockeys, etc…) who do not work the contract, yet vote on it?

    Comment by Frances Fisher — February 17, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

38. With all due respect to Ms Brenneman, I would ask her if she voted in the last S.A.G. elections and/or any recent referendum? If she has, I would say thank you, but, she is the exception.

    Most of the busiest actors in our Guild don’t take the interest or the time. After all, they don’t work for scale and they negotiate their own deals. What can S.A.G. do for them?

    I believe the people that sign this “epiphany” about The Problem (they perceive) with our voting system, have been hoodwinked into believing they have something to fear by allowing all paid up members to have a voice in their Guild’s Governance. A democracy demands as much, so what are they afraid of?

    Having a strong union comes from numbers and you don’t get those numbers from cutting people out of the process, you get them by bringing lazy, uncaring, uninterested and unmotivated members into the mix.

    You want strength… then instead of spending your time spinning this web of illusion, get out there and find all the working actors, qualified by whatever terms you devise and get them to sign the ballot and put it in the mailbox.

    Comment by Brad Blaisdell — February 17, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

39. Just think if Amy’s plan did pass, All those B-list actors would be rushing over to Central Casting to sign up as Background just so they would not lose their right to vote.
    Just imagine a 2nd 2nd AD telling David Hasslehoff how to do a bananna cross.
    As for keeping someone who as a conflict from voting, who has a bigger conflict then a actor who is also a producer.
    by the way everyone should read section 5

    Section 5. Every member of the Guild shall be bound by the provisions of all collective bargaining
    contracts in effect between the Guild and motion picture producers as the same are or may hereafter be
    amended.

    Comment by Yosemite Stokesberry — February 17, 2008 @ 8:33 pm

40. Frances Fisher,

    How do you read an eloquent rebuttal like Amy B’s and go on a rant about the SAG/AFTRA merger? Are you illiterate or just so blinded by your obsession that you turn and twist every discussion to your pathetic tirade.

    I have a friend who sits with you on the Board of our Guild and he told me straight out last year that you would never allow any sort of affected member voting or qualified voting because you said that that would threaten that mass voting block who put in power. Well now suddenly your “passion” is understood — you want to stay in your queen bee position at SAG, you don’t want anything to threaten your current political power position.

    That makes you a pathetic overweight has-been actress who looks in the mirror and sees her ass getting bigger, her talent receding, her looks going and knows that her frightened fragile ego needs her SAG status to maintain the illusion that you matter.

    I have been a member of SAG for fifteen years and we can do just fine without your hatred and ranting that is nothing more than sound and fury and signifies nothing other than trying to ensure that the idiot SAG members who voted you in power stay sedated and voting for you.

    Retire. Leave the Guild. Your day has past. You have lost touch with what membership wants or needs. Put on your slippers, stay at home, rant at the mirror (where your greatest audience lies) and eats your Twinkies that are making you into fat non-entity that have become.

    Go away.

    Comment by Ton Catt — February 17, 2008 @ 9:20 pm

41. jahoowa,

    I would go fi-core. Sorry if you don’t understand why, but that will be the result of this action. A lot of actors, like myself, will cross the picket lines and audition for work.

    Count on it.

    Comment by working actor — February 17, 2008 @ 10:10 pm

42. Jafoowa -

    There is a huge difference between the overall contract and the specific contracts for specialties like animation VO. If you’re kicking in dues, you’re an active member and have shown by opening your wallet that you at least want to work and/or intend to work.

    If only 25% of the members vote in the first place, why is anyone arguing in favor of disenfranchisement? Isn’t it better to leave well enough alone and not even risk the appearance of disunity?

    Lastly, there is an underlying assumption in the affected voting threshold argument: the SAG members who hold “vanity cards”, or other SAG members not currently out there actively auditioning and working are motivated to vote against the interests of the general membership. Nowhere has anyone thus far produced a shred of evidence to back this up.

    If clear and incontrovertible evidence could be produced to show that a significant bloc of non-working SAG actors are out to vote against their guild, that’s one thing. But without evidence, why should anyone believe for a moment that there is an organized bloc of mutineers within our ranks???

    Barring evidence of a threat, why is any change to voting rules necessary?

    Comment by mheister — February 17, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

43. i think people are missing the real issue. and i say this with love, but
    SAG is full of crazy people.
    At times it even seems to be run by crazy people. groups of these people band together to create little political factions that whip the membership up into a frenzy whenever a contract negotiation is about to happen.
    case in point, the ATA negotiations. our agents use to be FRANCHISED by SAG. they had to be. it was in our contracts. but when certain production companies wanted to buy up a PERCENTAGE of some larger agencies, everybody started getting emails about how the STUDIO SYSTEM was going to start up again and nobody would ever get any work if they weren’t signed with WMA or CAA or ICM or WTF.

    what happened as a result of this irrationality? SAG membership, most of whom do not even HAVE agents, voted against the agency contracts. and now? there are no contracts. ATA came up with their own. because what are we going to do, leave our agents? and the upshot? our agents are entitled to commission MORE of our money. pretty much all of it. what incentive do they have to negotiate with SAG again?

    and what about the AFTRA merger vote? and what about the stupid commercial strike? (people actually went on a hunger strike for that!)

    i’m afraid the crazy SAG factions will pop again, make everyone think civilization rests in the balance, and basically scare everyone into voting NO on a contract that might otherwise keep us off the picket lines and the rest of hollywood working.

    i’d rather see the people who mostly work under this contract (whatever formula they come up with-and i hope its a liberal one!) vote on it. hopefully by the time it rolls around again even more people will be in a position to vote on it.

    and i say this all with love.

    Comment by fratrevwayne brown — February 18, 2008 @ 12:55 am

44. Nikki,
    Why are you allowing offensive and irrelevant personal attacks like Ton Catt’s 2/17 9:20 pm post to pass through?

    Comment by R.B, — February 18, 2008 @ 3:04 am

45. The dues need to be increased. Every other union has high enough dues so that belonging is a commitment. There are no vanity members in other guilds or unions because it would be a waste of money. Only people that make a full time living from their union work should vote because allowing otherwise would be a conflict of interest. Put you mouth where your money is. If you money isn’t coming from acting and you aren’t reinvesting that in your career and union then you aren’t making a viable contribution to your contract.

    The sag dues are so low that most gym memberships cost more. SAG is being run like a gym. Sell as many memberships as you can because in the long run no one will actually use them. Most like the “idea” of getting into shape, but when it comes down to the actual “work” part of it, they would rather not put in the effort. Remember its not what your going to do but rather what you have done.

    Many of us remember the SAG commercial strike. A disaster. Almost all commercials during and after that strike went to Canada for a buyout. Everyone lost. Why? Because it was voted on by members who are not affected.

    Comment by dp — February 18, 2008 @ 5:25 am

46. To Ton Catt/ichaucheinwerkungactor [you are the same person]:

    During the writers strike, nobody attacked Les Moonves for being a has-been pretty boy, bloated and leathery.

    Anytime a woman in power speaks her mind, others try to undermine her by attacking her physicality. Because that’s where women have been taught they are valuable.

    Those days are coming to a close. Hillary Clinton throws stupid men into a tizzy because she can’t be knocked down.

    Frances Fisher throws a pea-brain like you, whether you’re for real or a shill, into a tizzy because she’s strong.

    Dispute the issues or go away because nobody’s listening to a lunatic.

    You are an ugly pathetic person. Can only imagine what you see when you look in the mirror.

    Comment by Disgusted — February 18, 2008 @ 6:48 am

47. This is an important discussion and it’s likely not going to be solved in time for the upcoming negotiations. As mheister suggests, perhaps studies need to be done. Statistics need to be gathered. And obviously, we need to keep talking.

    However, I suggest we take it inside.

    Comment by Petrea Burchard — February 18, 2008 @ 7:38 am

48. Dear “Ton Catt”,

    How about sticking to facts instead of personal insults?

    1. I am not talking about merger; I am talking about the fact that Aftra members vote on the TV/Theatrical contract as well ~ people who are not actors ~ and why are they not being held to the same standard?

    2. I never said anything about affected voting in the board room, as this discussion last year was not an issue; last time it came up was years ago when Melissa Gilbert was our President and it was floated during the ATA debate in 2002, and there was a push to use the “affected” language to disenfranchise actors who did not have agents at the time, from voting on the ATA referendum.

    3. I have no idea who voted me, or anyone else into office; and I have certainly never referenced a “mass voting block” - what is that?

    4. See my guest spot tonight on OCTOBER ROAD, rent IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, or THE KINGDOM, or better yet, come see me in SEXY LAUNDRY at The Hayworth Theatre in LA, running through March 16, and check out my ___.

    Comment by Frances Fisher — February 18, 2008 @ 8:09 am

49. Underneath Ms. Brenneman’s argument is discrimination. It’s undeniable. I’ve been “a working actor” making well into 6 figures a year, and I’ve been largely out of work for a year, relying on residuals. I’d probably qualify any given year, but I gotta go with Livingston. During the strike, I wrote often on Huffington Post and elsewhere of what nobody else talks about. I think it goes to the heart of Ms. Brenneman’s case, because somehow, she is currently under the delusion that she won’t face being shit out of luck, possibly in the very near future, in terms of her own work. Hollywood can go cold on you, very fast, and hardly anyone save a few huge stars are spared the cold splash of water that comes with discovering that no one cares to hire you just now, or possibly anytime soon, thank you very much.

    What I’ve been saying is simple: what’s the elephant in the room? The fact that a handful of “stars” get paid obscene amounts of money, to the overall detriment of any TV or film budget, and their fellow “union” members. It’s unconscionable, and ONLY when SAG has the balls to take it on will the ridiculous inequity in the distribution of wealth in SAG be addressed. When Tom Hanks makes 20 million up front, plus a nice piece of first dollar gross, and the guy who has the “honor” of playing his brother-in-law has to fight for scale, where’s the “union” in that? Stars should be well compensated. If they are eligible for such paydays, it’s ONLY because they somehow have producers over a barrel, and their greed-head agents can go in for the kill. As any “working actor” knows, there is not one thin dime more given out, regardless of credits or recognition, to ANY actor who doesn’t happen to be in a position of power on any particular job. HOWEVER - name me another “union” that features multi-millionaires, like Ms. Brennaman (I found her show unwatchable, but she got stupid rich) lecturing her “union brothers and sisters” on why they should give away their voting rights, so “working actors” can make “sound” decisions for the rest of us? Wow. That’s hubris. How about SAG has a full membership vote on whether or not it’s right that stars suck down 30 to 60% of any given film or TV budget, (think it’s bullshit? Try looking at one sometime. I assure you, I speak the truth) leaving everyone else, regardless of credits, to fight over the scraps? I’d LOVE to see the results on that one.

    Comment by MrsWakely — February 18, 2008 @ 8:29 am

50. As a longtime member of SAG (and one that would be entitled to vote if this passed), I have to disagree.

    I believe that if one is paying their union dues, then they have a right to vote.

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

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

    Take away a union members right to vote and you just gave them the reason to go Fi-Core. That’s the thing you can’t do if you are Fi-Core…vote. Oh wait, they also can’t win a SAG award. But then again, they are just an insignificant union member who hasn’t earned any money lately…so who would nominate them anyways…

    Comment by SAG Actress — February 18, 2008 @ 9:03 am

51. “Rule One is one of the founding principles and strengths of our union: we stand together as actors and do not work without a Guild contract.”

    Maybe we should change it to “All SAG members are equal. Some SAG members are more equal than others!

    Comment by Leo Ruby — February 18, 2008 @ 9:07 am

52. To Ms. Fisher & also to “Ton Cat” (probably a plant/provacateur,)
    My intent is not to launch ad hominem attacks, only to differentiant what is Membership First union bashing from what is constructive. Frankly your suggestion of affected voting at AFTRA is not a bad one, although I think the intent of the affected voting group is to deal w. SAG first since it produces movies and the bulk of prime-time dramatic TV.

    Now to Ton Cat, your post to Ms. Fisher is so outré that either you lost your meds and your Momma’s frantically looking for them, or you’re a plant/provacateur trying to make any criticism of Ms. Fisher’s position look bad. Take a nap….the dirt type.

    PJB

    Comment by Ichaucheinwerkujngactor — February 18, 2008 @ 9:13 am

53. Ton Catt,
    What a horrendous post. I hate to think what SAG would be like if YOU ever held a position of power.

    Comment by Outsider, thank God — February 18, 2008 @ 11:33 am

54. Ton Catt -

    Discussing the issues - even passionately - is one thing. A personal attack is quite another. You, my friend, owe Ms. Fisher an apology.

    If I were moderating this board, I wouldn’t have let that post go up, but since I’m only commenting, I’m going to ask you and everyone else nicely to please stick to the issues.

    Comment by mheister — February 18, 2008 @ 12:06 pm

55. Frances,
    fyi In every joint SAG/AFTRA negotiation no member on the AFTRA side is allowed to be on the neg comm unless he/she holds a SAG card and has worked the contract. So dj’s and news anchors are not involved in Prime Time/Theatrical negotiations.
    PBJ

    (P.S. I STILL think Ton Catt is a plant/provocateur…typical tactic to discredit criticism by making the critics look insane…a tactic employed in history generally by fascists. Beware that tactic employed on this blog where we can wear whatever fuzzy jamies we want and no one can see!)

    Comment by ichaucheinwerkujngactor — February 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

56. Ms. Brenneman,
    So who gets to decide what the criteria are? Where are the lines drawn? Because depending on the lines some people are in and some are out?

    So maybe you should take this into a media blackout negotiation with just the select few with the correct perspective and intelligence for these things. Like, I don’t know… you maybe?

    Alright, enough sarcasm.

    You say:

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

    I’m missing the distinction between ‘the membership affected thereby‘ and ‘potentially affected members‘. Correct me here if I’m wrong, but it’s quite typical in this business to be no one, an extra without a SAG card one day, and two weeks later you’re booked on a sitcom and a member in good standing. So how then, would you know in advance who is going to be ‘the membership affected thereby‘?

    You can’t answer that question.

    If you say it’s who ever meets the criteria at the moment you are then saying those who can’t vote have to live with the voters’ judgments for how ever many years. Those who can vote, some of whom could become ineligible the next day, may not care or have to live with the results of their judgments.

    So you are back to square one, with people voting on things that they have no interest in nor are effected by. But worse, people who do have an interest in it, are disenfranchised.

    fratrevwayne brown,
    We’re never going to survive if we don’t get a little crazy.

    Comment by Jon Raymond — February 18, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

57. I’m not sure I was recommending that studies be done. We’re talking about guessing about how people might vote on whether to strike, or on a contract. Divining voting patterns has always been an inexact science, and in recent weeks we’ve seen just how inaccurate exit polling can be when it comes to voting for presidential candidates.

    A fairer argument may be made for Ms. Fisher’s position that AFTRA should consider affected voting to exclude newscasters and such, but even former weathermen like David Letterman and former talk show hosts like Oscar nominee Greg Kinnear call the fairness of such a strategy into question.

    My point is nobody has or can reliably collect any data, hard or otherwise, to predict the voting patterns of any group within the guild.

    The idea of excluding actor/producers or A-listers because of a conflict of interest is equally problematic. Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are also producers. Would you expect them to fracture the guild? How about Julia Louis-Dreyfuss? Paris Hilton would run a herd of drunk elephants off a cliff for one-tenth of Ms. Louis-Dreyfuss’ fortune (she was an heiress long before earning any Seinfeld money), but Louis-Dreyfuss not only refused immediately to cross a WGA picket line but was out there more actively supporting the striking writers than any other actor of her stature or above that I can think of.

    Splicing away the voting rights of a SAG subset, regardless of which subset and regardless of how well-intentioned the effort is, would be inherently unfair, and would lead the guild down a slippery and dangerous slope into disunity - the last thing you want when facing a well-unified handful of planetary corporate giants.

    With all due respect to Ms. Brenneman and to Ned Vaughn, now is the time for all of us - A-listers, hyphenates, working actors and the rest of us - to show our solidarity with each other and our guild’s leadership. After the guild’s through negotiating the best damn deal we can get and it’s ratified (no matter how many times we have to vote it down and send them back), THEN we can return to our previously-scheduled backstabbing.

    Comment by mheister — February 18, 2008 @ 3:33 pm

58. Dear Amy,

    1. I’m going to assume that you get a hot picture for various genetic and environmental reasons, and not because Finke likes you better.

    2. The only thing I ever had against your show was that we didn’t get to do that movie together.

    3. I want to clarify my position as regards to voting on Stunt Player or Dancer contracts. I do feel personally unaffected by them, but it’s not, as your post suggested, ‘because I haven’t been working in that field.’ It’s because I couldn’t work in that field if a job was offered to me, and for that reason, I’m not actively seeking one. It actually is a matter of talent and worth; when it comes to Stunts or Dancing, I have none; that’s why I feel unqualified to vote on those contracts, and why a large portion of the membership is insulted when it’s suggested that they have no more business voting on the Theatrical or TV contract than I do on the Dancer contract, even if if they haven’t seen me dance. Because they are actively pursuing film and TV jobs- they think they’re qualified to do them, and they feel all they need is one good audition and six or seven breaks to get one. They’re not wrong to think that. They have the example of… well, of every one of the nine hundred names on Ned’s petition to illustrate that it does in fact happen that way for people. They have the audacity to think it’s possible for them, too, and, for the record, the Guild agreed with them when it took their two grand and gave them a card and a pin.

    A collective bargaining agreement between three actors and an employer is not just an agreement between the employer and the actor who gets the job. That’s not even it’s primary function. Your agent negotiates that later. It’s primarily an agreement between the three actors - that no matter which one gets hired, the other two won’t respond by offering to do the job for less. The two actors who don’t work are not only affected by the agreement, they’re the main reason it exists, because it requires them to choose unemployment over undercutting the agreed-upon minimum salary– agreed upon by them.

    So when it comes to the Dancer or Stunt Player contracts and me, the reason I don’t need a voice is because I couldn’t scab those jobs if my life depended on it. But I can’t say that about Theatrical, TV, and 60-75% of my union. That’s not me being nice. It’s just isn’t true.

    4. There’s been a lot of reference made to the writers having qualified voting, and the argument has been put forward that by adopting Ned’s proposal, our voting would be more in line with the WGA’s. That’s not actually the case. Or rather, let me say that anyone making this argument, or considering it, needs to take a closer look at how the WGA actually handles voting. (See the WGA website, under Constitution, Article IV, or for a 1998 article that’s a little less dry but slightly skewed against, try Googling “Older Writers Losing WGA Power.”) Anyway, here it is in a nutshell, as I understand it:

    - After qualifying to join the WGA to join in the first place, a member has at least seven years to get another job in order to retain full dues-paying/voting status. Seven years to get one job. Furthermore, it makes no difference which WGA contract the member works under, how many days the job lasts, or how much the member makes.

    - A WGA member who does not work once in 7 years, does lose the right to vote on contracts, but is no longer required to pay dues. They remain a member of the union, and may choose one of two designations. The first is Post-Current membership, meaning they pay an annual fee (currently $75) to continue receiving WGA services (discounted script registration, the magazine, the credit union, access to seminars and employment events, etc.). The second is Emeritus membership, meaning they remain a member, but forego the above services, and are not required to pay any dues or fees to the WGA.

    - Upon getting any WGA job, under any contract, a Post-Current or Emeritus member is redesignated as Current, and returned to full dues-paying/voting status for a period of four years. Again, it makes no difference which contract a WGA member works under, how many days it lasts, or how much the member makes.

    - As to so-called “vanity card” holders, there is the further provision that any writer who has worked enough to qualify for health coverage for an aggregate of 15 years (this means it could be 15 years in a row, or it could be every third year since 1963) retains full Current status for life.

    - The only WGA provision that comes remotely close to the proposal contained in Ned’s petition is the one stipulating that news staff contracts are only voted on by news staff writers. Because ostensibly, non-news staff writers couldn’t scab those jobs if their lives depended on it. Like me and dancing.

    Going forward, I would submit that if we’re going to continue talking about the WGA model, let’s all be aware that the above is what we’re talking about.

    5. Whether or not SAG’s Background actors vote on the TV/Theatrical contracts, they will definitely be voting on the Background contract. If they vote to strike, it will shut down all productions that employ background, which is pretty much everything but ‘In Treatment,’ and we’ll be on the picket lines supporting them. With this in mind, do you still feel the Background Contract doesn’t affect you? (If I’m wrong about this, someone please correct me. Frances?)

    6. Soapboxing aside for a second, there are no right answers to this stuff, only what we decide for ourselves as a union. I urge everyone to keep it civil and productive, because we’re all in this together. The writers pulled together and got a deal they’re happy with. Maybe that’s because their end of it is fundamentally more cooperative- they depend on each other to get hired for staff jobs and nobody wants to be known as the one who let everybody down. Maybe if actors hired each other, we’d find it easier to get each others’ backs, and maybe if the writers had to do network tests to get a job, they’d rant and flame and tear each other to bits. I’d like to think we can do better, because I personally think we deserve it, and when we stand up for each other, (and for Frances, and for Chad, as many people did) we prove that to anyone who might be listening. Anyway, thanks, Amy, for your great letter, and for considering this one in reply.

    Respectfully yours,
    Ron Livingston

    Comment by Ron Livingston — February 19, 2008 @ 2:40 am

59. What Ron said,

    Nicely done, sir. I’m in both WGA and SAG and you have done a fantastic job of laying out the differences between this SAG petition and the WGA voting restrictions. The plans are night and day.

    The current divisiveness created by this petition is very, very poorly timed. I don’t expect much in the way of advancements on the WGA contract now. Unity is the best weapon in contract negotiations. The 900 have taken our best weapon away, which makes any comparison to the WGA ridiculous.

    SAG/Aftra/WGA

    Comment by David Anthony — February 19, 2008 @ 3:17 pm

60. Everyone should be glad that the background contract is embedded within the full contract because if the BG just had to vote on the BG part, We would never vote for it. Every contract we keep getting screwed. All we ever get is the same 3% raise that principals get and for Hollywood members only 3-4 extra slots which is still far from the numbers New York has.

    Comment by Yosemite Stokesberry — February 19, 2008 @ 8:35 pm

61. Ron Livingston–is there any way you could serve as the public spokesperson for all actors and writers from now on? Thanks for representing what this is supposed to be about. The only thing I’d add is that, as has been pointed out many times before, most members don’t even bother to vote. Wouldn’t a drive to increase voting be more productive than trying to take away voting privileges?

    “Because they are actively pursuing film and TV jobs- they think they’re qualified to do them, and they feel all they need is one good audition and six or seven breaks to get one. They’re not wrong to think that. They have the example of… well, of every one of the nine hundred names on Ned’s petition to illustrate that it does in fact happen that way for people. They have the audacity to think it’s possible for them, too, and, for the record, the Guild agreed with them when it took their two grand and gave them a card and a pin.”

    Comment by Muronao — February 20, 2008 @ 1:48 am

62. Dear “ichaucheinwerkujngactor”,

    We all understand that the Aftra portion of the TV/Theatrical NegComm is seated with dual card holders. I am talking about ratification of the TV/Theatrical contract: All members of both union vote — so people who are non-actors, (broadcasters, disk jockeys, weathermen, etc…) who are members of Aftra vote on this contract.

    My rhetorical question remains unanswered: Why are not the SAG petitioners (many of whom are my friends) asking for the same standard to be set in Aftra?

    Another question I submit to Ned Vaughn, et al: I agree that SAG members who work in management should also be looked at: For example - Les Moonves, (CBS) carries a SAG card. I wonder if and how he votes?

    Comment by Frances Fisher — February 20, 2008 @ 10:59 am

63. Mr. Livingston -

    Thank you again!

    The only other point I’d like to reiterate is the absolute need for unity, not just within SAG, but also between SAG and AFTRA going into contract talks. I just came from a post-strike get-together of a couple dozen WGA writers, a smattering of fans, and the odd actor.

    Frankly, were I to believe only what appears in these comments sections, I’d have to conclude the writers are more ready to back the actors than the actors are to watch out for their own interests. Fortunately I’d also attended a SAG pre-meeting today in preparation for a meeting Friday, and my impression is the truth on the ground isn’t fully reflected online just yet.

    We in SAG have time to get it together, and I’m willing to play my part.

    Comment by mheister — February 20, 2008 @ 11:25 pm

64. Mr. Livingston,

    Hope you don’t mind the levity here for just a brief moment, close your ears and eyes if you must.

    I have a limited amount “Ron Livingston for President ‘08″ bumper stickers left. Get’em while they are hot!!! T-shirts may not be out of the question.

    Thank you for being one of the level headed and calm voices that wants to be heard AND understood concerning this vitally important issue. Others would be well served to take the time to become educated in the true issue and ramifications of setting perimeters on “voting” in a union organization.

    Sincerely,
    AJM

    Comment by Make it or Break it this year — February 21, 2008 @ 12:59 pm

65. aside from having to fill in the above fields in yellow on grey…

    I am unable to find the original proposition which everyone is replying to or opining on. I followed a link on lobbying, but it just led me to a thing about an article that no one apparently wrote but George Clooney signed… I know there is a position out there *somewhere* that everyone has opinions about, but I just can’t seem to find it.

    I’m just a fan, and I know other fans. But I certainly can’t ask my fellow fans to support a group that can’t even agree - and that’s not to even mention the perception that most non-biz people have that All Actors Are Rich (and even if they aren’t, they were the ones who chose to be “starving actors”)
    Having supported SAG, I know people should get paid for what they produce - both when they produce it, and later, when big rich companies are making money off of it *again.* I’d figure that holds for actors as well, but is probably more important for Alan Blumenfeld and Jenny O’Hara(?) than for George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Tom Cruise.
    In fact, you might need something like The Faces of SAG - with actors we often see, but don’t really know - to make your point. (and hopefully they don’t get shoved out of voting by this proposition - whatever it is)

    Pamela Ashworth
    Scott Bakula fan
    Television Fan

    Comment by Pam — February 22, 2008 @ 11:02 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment