SAG Board Member Urges AFTRA Boycott

47 Comments »

1. It’s about time someone took this stand. How about pointing out 2 SAG members who are the worst offenders. Courtney Cox and David Arquette, executive producers of Dirt. A show under AFTRA hiring actors for less than they are worth. And the producers themselves have made millions as SAG members, but now don’t want other actors to have the same opportunities.

   Comment by agent anonymous — March 7, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

2. Justine must not have gotten the memo. Membership First’s anti-AFTRA campaign has backfired, and might as well be over.

   What has Justine Bateman done for her union? Gone to Canada a couple of times and sold out everyone else? She doesn’t know squat about jurisdiction, that’s for sure.

   Comment by Tobvious — March 7, 2008 @ 4:19 pm

3. Justine, I appreciate your saying we (the WGA) were “valiant” in our strides for a better contract, and that we “improved on the DGA contract,” but in fact we pussied out and took a crappy deal that never should have been based on the quisling DGA contract in the first place.

   Shame on us, and I hope SAG succeeds where we failed.

   Comment by Writer Bob — March 7, 2008 @ 4:29 pm

4. Agree 100%

   I will be sending an “Honorable Withdrawal” letter to AFTRA

   Comment by Working actor — March 7, 2008 @ 4:33 pm

5. So this is what it all comes down to — SAG wants actors to boycott AFTRA.

   I hosted a meeting in my home back in ‘99 to discuss the proposed merger with AFTRA. The then president of the union, Richard Masur, gave a talk in which he described exactly what would happen if we didn’t merge. He said traditional definitions of which union covered which work would blur. He said there would be a downward competitive spiral as the two unions tried to cover more and more work. He said the new media would be taken over by whichever union offered producers the best deal.

   We’re seeing all that happen now.

   I earn about a third of my income from AFTRA, I’m not about to stop taking AFTRA work. I can’t afford to. Not all of us have had the good fortune of being on a hit sit-com for 7 seasons.

   Ms. Bateman doesn’t want broadcasters to destroy SAG. I don’t want people who don’t work to destroy SAG. When 2/3 of SAG’s membership earn a thousand bucks or less a year, when a third of the membership earns NOTHING, there’s a problem. We have no agreement with talent agents. We had an ill-conceived commercial strike from which we are only now recovering.

   The wonderful thing about the WGA strike was that, because the WGA has qualified membership, the people walking the line were the people actually bearing the cost of the strike. That has real power and meaning to people. When and if SAG goes on strike, the picket lines will largely be made up of people who are losing nothing by striking. That’s a very different message.

   I fear for the future of our union. Demanding that actors choose one or the other is not the way. Especially when lots of us aren’t too thrilled with SAG.

   Comment by Another Working Actor — March 7, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

6. And I would have to add that I think that a word from Glenn Close could have changed Damages from AFTRA to SAG.( Maybe it still could) ! I mean they NEEDED her, and they are lucky to have her. Not so lucky though are the guest stars and day players who see NO RESIDUALS from their work. Lucky to get a gig and then it sucks to see that it is AFTRA.

   Or SAG with AFTRA terms and conditions. WTF ??????

   Peggy Lane O’Rourke

   Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — March 7, 2008 @ 4:49 pm

7. The stupidity of most of Justine’s comments and the complete errors included make it hard for me to comment. Wait until we sit in a room together to bargain an agreement with the inspired leadership of Doug Allen as the chief negotiator.
   It will become apparent to her as it will to all those in attendance that performers cannot “get there from here”. The block headed views she espouses are the real obstacles we have to negotiate as professional performers.

   Comment by ily — March 7, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

8. As a dual card holder who makes a nice living under these unions, I think it is fair to suggest that Ms. Bateman’s point of view is somewhat narrow. I would like to make a couple of observations regarding her assertions.

   AFTRA and SAG have shared certain jurisdictions for decades. AFTRA does not poach. AFTRA seeks to sign employers to contracts that permit members to work. Those contracts are approved by the elected leaders of the union, most of whom are actors. And most of those actors represent the large hiring markets, like New York and Los Angeles. The reference to AFTRA and live shows is a citation half a century old and long replaced by industry (and inter-union) practice.

   Phase One is an agreement between the two organizations that was entered into by both parties to allow mutual cooperation in contract negotiation and application. Recognizing that shared jurisdiction could result in downward pressure on wages, the leadership at the time came to a compromise that would allow each entity equal input into their joint contracts. It has worked well for over a quarter of a century.
   As an aside, I would point out that AFTRA has, in my experience on negotiating committees, not injected itself into SAG’s Theatrical contract discussions, except as it effects the elements of the companion joint Prime Time agreement.

   SAG has long contracted with AFTRA offices across the county to provide services to SAG members outside New York and Los Angeles. This includes contract administration, membership administration and oversight of branch governance issues. It has been the position of SAG that this was more economically desirable than establishing brick and mortar offices in these same locales. SAG members in Chicago, Washington D.C. and other posts in the hinterland would tell you that the arrangement is satisfactory and provides resources they need.

   I am in full support of Ms. Bateman’s statement, “All the performers in SAG want the same thing; an incredibly strong contract so we can earn a proper living bringing entertainment to the world.” I’ve talked with the leaders from New York and the other SAG branches, and I believe they agree. I would suggest that the leadership of AFTRA have the same mindset. Fighting between ourselves is like chickens and ducks fighting each other over corn kernels in the dirt while the weasel sneaks in and steals the eggs.

   Comment by A worki — March 7, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

9. Justine, I’m sure you’re going to be ripped to shreds for this, but you’re right and thanks. And I know people will say this isn’t the time, but seems like it’s never the time, somebody’s got to make a stand sometime.

   Comment by Muronao — March 7, 2008 @ 5:07 pm

10. EARTH TO JUSTINE

    Tut tut, Ms Bateman. AFTRA is a “scumbag union”? AFTRA provides many actors - myself included - with pensions that are two and three times as large as those of SAG. (Does she know what a “scumbag” really is, I wonder.)

    Ms Bateman is woefully uneducated in the jurisdictional history of AFTRA and SAG. Both unions have, over the years, “poached” each others’ work via issues about how it is recorded, where it is produced (”situs”), and how the use & caps of background performers are manipulated. She also erroneously assigns “sitcoms” to SAG. AFTRA once had the lion’s share of all TV sitcoms - lost to SAG’s “poaching”.

    There’s lots of confusion regarding jurisdiction, and it is most certainly NOT “simple”. Instead of sitting down with AFTRA’s leaders and working it out, SAG chose instead to wage an incendiary war against AFTRA that has perhaps crippled our chances for a favorable negotiation. And a SAG “leader” like Justine Bateman evidently thinks that calling AFTRA “scumbag” somehow gives her screed the odor of Truth.

    AFTRA saw the need for “low budget” TV pilots and start-up series. Simple as that. They filled a gaping need. SAG failed to be creatively competitive in Basic Cable. SAG also refused to co-negotiate basic cable contracts with AFTRA. Hello? That’s how comparable contracts are created!

    The fact that there are broadcasters who have refused going union is NOT SAG’s business or problem. Perhaps Justine’s time would be better spent on an effort to organize CNN.

    As a Dual-Card member, I KNOW that I’m getting my money’s worth from AFTRA when I pay my dues. Every month. The wonders of direct deposit.

    Bateman also obviously knows very little about why Phase One was born. Simply put, it was seen in 1980 that one of the two actors’ unions nearly went on strike while the other - covering the same work at the time - had already settled.

    Go ahead, Justine, ditch out of those shared offices in many regions - and SAG will have no presence there.

    I couldn’t care less if Justine Bateman - and any she might convince to follow her - doesn’t pay her AFTRA dues, won’t work AFTRA contracts, and tells her agent she won’t do AFTRA work - or even audition. The entertainment industry will collapse in grief for sure.

    On and on with her inaccurate screed - but one more hilarious life-in-a-vacuum remark of hers I simply cannot resist:

    “How would you like the contract language to be twisted so that if you have points on a film, they DO NOT make it applicable until AFTER the first two and a half weeks? Wow, that would be a lot of money to not have if you’ve got a hit film.”

    Honey, if you’re able to negotiate “points on a film” you ain’t gonna be held to the language of the basic minimum agreement - window or no window.

    Doug Allen has yet to prove that we are “in good hands with” him. If he and Alan Rosenberg can control their famous tempers in these negotiations maybe we’ve got a fighting chance to get the swell contracts that Justine believes she deserves.

    Comment by Tom — March 7, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

11. Justine Bateman is a died-in-the-wool Membership Firster on the Hollywood SAG Board, inculcated into the AFTRA-bashing, ATA-banging, strike-happy cult of actors-gone-wild. What’s wrong with that? For working actors, plenty. Membership First’s record in making gains for us actors is abominable.

    Of the tens of thousands of us across the country who lost jobs, homes, and commercial accounts permanently in 2000, only the few-dozen Membership Firsters claim victory in that failed strike.

    Of the thousands of actors young and old without protection from a SAG Agency Franchise Agreement for six years, only the few-dozen Membership Firsters claim that agents are really our enemies!

    Of the 40,000 AFTRA card-holding SAG members it’s the same few-dozen Membership Firsters who claim AFTRA is undercutting, poaching, costing actors money, etc.

    So far Alan Rosenberg, Doug Allen, and the Membership First faction of the Hollywood SAG Board have attacked our ATA Agents, refused to allow AFTRA to sit at the SAG cable tv bargaining table, then started a war with AFTRA, and are now causing us to lose even more work with the current defacto strike/work stoppage.

    Consider the source. AFTRA is not the enemy. Ignorance, union-busting, libertarian, irresponsible leadership is.

    Working SAG & AFTRA Actor

    Comment by ICHbinaucheinwerkungactor — March 7, 2008 @ 5:21 pm

12. I think I love this woman. Justine, Marry me!

    Comment by reelbusy — March 7, 2008 @ 6:59 pm

13. Hopefully Ms Bateman will be as successful with the SAG situation as she was in leading the charge to get both of those WGA members to vote no on the writer’s agreement.

    If you want to know how SAG leadership and Membership First (those MFr’s) are inadvertently ruining SAG just study her recent missive. These people have clearly lost touch with reality.

    Comment by Tom — March 7, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

14. As someone who has worked on both sides of the camera for more years that I care to admit to, this stance both offends and frightens me. If the actors’ unions don’t find a way to work with the studios, more and more jobs will be lost to shoots out of the country (or, at best, right to work states). Sure, there will be need for the “name” actors, but the middle earning actors will be out of luck. AFTRA has realized what I have long said - a small piece of something is better than a big piece of nothing. Better we should suffer through prepaid residuals than see all the jobs leave.

    And, don’t kid yourselves. Once you get past those first couple of names on the call sheet, actors are considered to be necessary evils by the powers that be, and talk like this is not going to help change that.

    Comment by wackiland — March 7, 2008 @ 10:20 pm

15. You know, it’s actually usually a little harder to do something than it is to piss and moan.

    If Membership First is destroying SAG, then why don’t you run?

    Or, why don’t you at least take the time to vote?

    Right, voting would take too much effort because you’re so outnumbered by unemployed actors. If only they could be stripped of their voting rights it would motivate you to make the most minimal possible effort.

    Back to pissing and moaning, I guess.

    Comment by no elitism here — March 7, 2008 @ 11:47 pm

16. In Justine’s intro, she explains why the differences between SAG and AFTRA. Then she goes on to say “pretty simple”.

    Not to me.

    As a dual cardholder, I just don’t grok why we pay two separate dues to two separate unions to work as an actor. Every other artist and creator in this town seems platform agnostic. I mean, the writers have one guild and the directors have one guild. That seems pretty simple to me. The rest is all b.s.

    I have other issues with AFTRA. Even though our dues pay for their offices, it seems nobody’s working there because the organization failed to respond to my private communications I sent via their website with some concerns I had. So I had to publicly blog about it. Which got the attention of Mr. John Hinrichs, the National Director of Communications for AFTRA. A prompt response was done in which he left a comment and you can check it out here. Though I appreciate the effort, it’s unfortunate that I had to call them out that way in the first place.

    Other than that, I don’t have much else to say about AFTRA. However, I can say without a doubt that Justine absolutely RULES! I had a surprising opportunity to interview her for my podcast. I say surprising because I thought I was going to be interviewing somebody else. She’s got a great deal to say about new media and it’s worth a listen on my podcast available here.

    Comment by T.Barnes — March 8, 2008 @ 12:18 am

17. This is a childish, angry diatribe.
    Point 1. Her insistence that the manner of capturing an image is the determining factor in in union assignment is outdated by about 20 years.

    The demonizing of AFTRA by making bold assumptions that AFTA will always offer lower terms to any producer that asks is misinformed propaganda that passes from angry actor to angry actor. I worked for over 2 years on a prime time AFTRA show for the same rates as SAG, Joan Of Arcadia.

    Phase one is the only sensible way to conduct contract talks so the unions cannot be split. It is interesting that the current sag administration only choose to attack Phase one in the last year. It’s been there since the 80’s

    3. can only be described as the ultimate NIMBY hysteria. Again, joint occupancy has been agreed to for years and has never been seen as a problem. Notably, after all the ranting, Justine goes on “honorable withdrawl” not just out and out quiting. Why such a cautious move if she feels so strongly about being associated with AFTRA? If she is that disgusted by AFTRA why not just quit?

    The rest of it is just actor fear talk about how non unions are going to take over the planet.

    Even more interesting is that the show she recurs on is shot in Canada where only the leads are SAG and the remainder receive no residuals for their work and a great many of those jobs, had they stayed in the US, possibly under an AFTRA contract, would have offered a great many more union work.

    Oh, and as for “Damages”, the guest stars and day players do get residuals. The regulars get residuals after a window of fee showings. And I’ll be you then to one Glen Close knew exactly what kind of contract she was signing.

    Comment by k Joosten — March 8, 2008 @ 6:29 am

18. THANK YOU, JUSTINE BATEMAN! Someone with the guts to tell it like it is!! Anyone who denies the fact that AFTRA is running around this town, bending over for the AMPTP and selling actors at a fraction of SAG’s rate is a lunatic. Or has never had the privilege of finding out that the AFTRA series you are working on is handing over years of “free exhibition days” of your work.

    My fellow actors, isn’t it just so much fun to look at your AFTRA contract and see “residuals pursuant to AFTRA minimums” — and of course, you are thinking, “Great! I can’t wait until this show starts re-running and I start getting residuals so I can continue to feed my family and earn healthcare”. And THEN you find out that “AFTRA minimums” means ZERO????

    AFTRA claims that it is keeping productions from “going to Canada.” Give me a break. The Canadian dollar isn’t strong anymore. There is NO more savings for producers. Any even if there still was — who cares?? I’m not going to get residuals for my work? Then BYE BYE! GO TO CANADA! DON’T HIT A MOOSE AS YOU CROSS THE BORDER!

    Isn’t it ironic that MOST of the news cable channels are NON-UNION? Why doesn’t AFTRA focus on “organizing” those? Instead of working on getting CNN, etc., to be AFTRA union, AFTRA just flitters around offering LOWER wages to producers of shows that would have been SAG! It’s REPREHENSIBLE.

    AFTRA is truly a joke.

    Thank you, Justine Bateman for outlining a good plan. I am going on honorary withdrawal from AFTRA next week. No more dues to a “union” that undercuts another union.

    Comment by Supportive Actor — March 8, 2008 @ 10:03 am

19. k Joosten says “I worked for over 2 years on a prime time AFTRA show for the same rates as SAG, Joan Of Arcadia.”

    First of all, that was a NETWORK show, NOT a cable show. But, of course, what do YOU care about the actors who are trapped in a crappy AFTRA cable contract with years of free “exhibition” plays, right?? You got yours, so screw everyone else, right?

    Secondly, your wages went to AFTRA’s health plan — not SAG’s, correct? You HAVE noticed that AFTRA’s health premiums are SKY-HIGHER than SAG’s. So, in essence, you LOST MONEY having an AFTRA contract rather than SAG’s.

    SAG premiums are $600/year for individual. AFTRA’s premiums are $1,260/year. If you are an individual, you’ve LOST $660 having your contract be AFTRA.

    If you have a family, it’s even WORSE. If you qualify as an individual, your family is covered under SAG for the same $600/year. If you are AFTRA, you have to BUY UP to the family plan, which is $10,320/year!!!! You’ve lost $9,720 having your contract be AFTRA.

    Comment by Supportive Actor — March 8, 2008 @ 10:13 am

20. The only way to avoid the smaller-and-less-powerful AFTRA from undercutting SAG is to have the unions merge. Justine is right in her analyses save for the part where the two unions stay separate. You can’t be snobbish towards AFTRA, deny them the chance to merge with SAG and then complain when AFTRA is subsequently forced to act out of desperate self-interest. Thank g-d the WGA West and East are run by grown-ups.

    Comment by Walk The Line — March 8, 2008 @ 12:42 pm

21. Justine “AFTRA is a scumbag union” Bateman is the National Chair of the SAG Website SubCommittee, the official arm of the SAG Communications Department that is charged with official online communications to members!

    Comment by Bill — March 8, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

22. Well, that means Justine is doing her job! Good for her!

    Comment by I like the truth — March 8, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

23. I find this all very interesting, I’m an Indie waiting to sign with SAG. I will be doing so after the new contract. What happens if the Moguls say, ” Screw SAG, AFTRA will give us a better deal.” I think you guys should play nice, nice.

    Comment by Adobeone — March 8, 2008 @ 5:47 pm

24. Merge? Are you kidding? Why should SAG merge with another union who cannot sustain themselves on their own? SAG is paying $2 mil for the joint offices in every branch across the nation, because Aftra does not have the money to sustain offices on their own.

    Aftra didn’t get their AIMA wish; they wanted to merge with their “sister” union, it was all “make nice” bla bla bla, but when that didn’t happen, they turned around and started screwing their sister union by promulgating basic cable contracts that undermine the actors that they claim to represent!

    Roberta Reardon, President of Aftra, has amazing credits on NetCode; she had no credits on TV/Theatrical (check ImDb.com) That should tell you something about where Aftra is coming from.

    There are 70,000 members in Aftra; 40,000 actors are dual card holders. If actors want to merger into one union, then I say, YES. Let all actors work under one set of contracts that fight for the best wages and working conditions. Screen Actors Guild. SAG is the acting union that has set the standard across the Globe.

    When I know that Aftra is selling out actors for lower wages and no residuals, I wonder where their integrity is toward actors. They have so much on their plate, given the myriad of performers they have to deal with, I know that they are overwhelmed.

    Actors have nothing in common with broadcasters, disk jockeys, weatherpeople, game show hosts, etc…. that is Aftra’s jursisdiction. God bless ‘em. But Aftra is spread too thin to take care of actors. It is obvious in their inability to give actors what they need, mainly residuals.

    So, in the spirit of fairness, and “sisterhood”, wouldn’t it seem fair, if Aftra cares about actors, that they acknowledge that since they cannot take care of actors, that they give it up?

    Aftra would lose 40,000 members. Ah, the dues. The contributions to their coffers. The contributions to
    H&R. The ego-trip.

    I submit to you: If Aftra truly cares about actors, then their primary concern should be that actors are treated fairly, and get what they deserve. Aftra has not done this with regard to basic-cable; ask any actor working these contracts — most didn’t even know they weren’t getting residuals, and GC didn’t even know it was an Aftra contract.

    (Obviously, this is a big Wake Up Call to actors who blindly sign anything put in front of them; they cannot even trust their agents (who have an agreement with Aftra for financial interest, by the way) to tell them what they are signing.

    Back to my point: Aftra has a big problem; they have too many performers that they have to deal with, and they do not have the ability to take care of actors in the way that SAG could take care of them.

    The best way to solve that problem? Let it go. Aftra needs to accept the reality that they do not serve actors, and let them go. Many actors are not getting covered in either unions because their P&H, H&R are split, causing great hardship.

    If Aftra loses 40,000 dual card holders, then maybe they will start to organize what is their jurisdiction — cable news shows, as one example. Right now, live cable news is non-union, and Aftra has been letting it slide for years.

    Instead of invading SAG jurisdiction, I ask Aftra to use their balls to organize their own jurisdiction, and organize CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc…. Maybe then they will fill their coffers with what is rightly theirs, instead of raping actors.

    Comment by Frances Fisher — March 9, 2008 @ 3:34 am

25. Ms. Fisher –

    We should merge the unions to make actors’ lives better. Isn’t that the point of a union?

    Right now, I have more problems with SAG than I do with AFTRA.

    Comment by Another Working Actor — March 9, 2008 @ 8:31 am

26. Ms. Fisher,

    Just an observation, but if there are 40,000 actors that are part of AFTRA, then aren’t there 40,000 actors who believe that AFTRA is serving their best interests???

    Ms. Fisher, just becaause you don’t feel AFTRA is serving your interests, doesn’t mean they aren’t serving the interests of ALL actors. Different actors have different agendas and goals (seems the same can be said for SAG and AFTRA).

    Comment by Intrigued — March 9, 2008 @ 9:16 am

27. One more improvement to fight for on the WGA/DGA contract: Removing the lower rate for ad-supported online streaming for CABLE shows. It makes no difference where a show first airs, once it’s online. More and more acting work (and writing and directing) is going to cable and while the congloms continue to exploit an outdated precedent of lower rates for cable, they have no place when it comes to Internet reuse. A distributor’s gross formula is useless if it doesn’t apply to (originally for) cable shows.

    Comment by Klaatu — March 9, 2008 @ 9:42 am

28. Ms. Fisher,
    You answered one of the questions I wondered about, the Health and Welfare. For an actor not to qualify for their medical benefits because their hours or( days?) are split between the 2 unions is wrong on so many different levels. I would like to think that when these 2 unions talk to the AMPTP, that this is being addressed, actors should be able to combine hours or days from both unions.
    K. Joosten,
    I worked on Joan of Arcadia, and your role as one of “the GODS” was outstanding, the best. You wrote that you worked under an AFTRA contract (the show was shot in digital), but didn’t Joe Mantegna and Mary Steenburgen work under a SAG contract? The reason I bring this up is, I would think that if lead actors are signed with SAG and actors on the same show that aren’t leads sign AFTRA contracts, that it creates a resentment, and what a loop-hole for the studios to go cheaper.
    This industry has changed in ways that ALL OF US are seeing our quality of life go down the toilet. I thought the AMPTP was just cheap with the crew (when it came to cable, pilots, and 1st season episodic).
    At the Nov. 20th, Writers March on Hollywood Blvd., Sandra Oh gave a very passionate speech about the studios sharing…I guess they aren’t listening.
    Well, good luck to all of us!

    Comment by btl teamster — March 9, 2008 @ 10:47 am

29. another working actors says, “Right now, I have more problems with SAG than I do with AFTRA.”

    like what problems?

    1. Contracts? They’re better with SAG.
    2. Health benefits? They’re less expensive with SAG.
    3. Pension benefits? They’re higher with SAG.

    don’t ya love people that throw out lines like “I have more problems with SAG than AFTRA”, and don’t give you any specifics? LOL

    Comment by Supportive Actor — March 9, 2008 @ 1:05 pm

30. Intrigued, no, there are not 40,000 AFTRA members who are thrilled with AFTRA. Frances Fisher is a member of AFTRA, Justine Bateman is a member of AFTRA, there are many, many dual card holders who are not happy with AFTRA. Just because someone belongs to AFTRA does not mean he or she thinks AFTRA is doing a good job of serving his or her interests.

    It’s hard to imagine actors who like to get paid really poorly, receive no residuals, and have to pay outragous health care premiums, but you are correct, diiferent people have difefrent goals and priorities. Perhaps there are some anti-materialists who feel uncomfortable being able to afford food, yet worry that Rupert Murdoch is living an overly Spartan life.

    Comment by no elitism here — March 9, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

31. he entire cast of Joan worked under an AFTRA contract

    Comment by k Joosten — March 9, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

32. Here are specifics:

    I have to have a crappy General Services Agreement with my agent ’cause SAG voted against the agents’ agreement. I’m getting hosed thanks to that.

    I had to go through an ill-advised commercial strike that got me very little and hurt commercial production in this city.

    SAG voted against merging with AFTRA. If they’d merged, we wouldn’t have any of these problems.

    I have other complaints with SAG — late residual checks that can’t be direct deposited at the credit union, bad legal advice from legal affairs, an overall tone to SAG meetings that makes them really unpleasant to attend — but they’re smaller concerns.

    Comment by Another Working Actor — March 9, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

33. no elitism here,

    there is a simple solution for the actors that don’t like being represented by AFTRA… WITHDRAW!!! Since actors are not forced to be represented by AFTRA, it is silly to suggest that even a majority of those 40,000 are unhappy with the union. Furthermore, for 2 of the loudest critics on this post to be members of AFTRA is also telling (and is kind of my point), AFTRA IS PROVIDING THEM SERVICE THEY DEEM WORTHHILE or they wouldn’t be members!!!

    Two unions should not be battling eachother like this (not good for either union or its members), but clearly AFTRA is fulfilling a need to some actors that SAG isn’t (so its not gonna go away). IT MAKES A HELLUVA LOT MORE SENSE FOR SAG TO WORK WITH AFTRA THAN TO ATTACK THEM!

    (with a name like ‘no elitism here’ it seems you would see that SAG is acting very elitist in this situation - read Ms. Bateman’s statement again and see if it doesn’t come across as elitist. even if her points are all valid there is a much more diplomatic way to present your argument)

    Comment by Intrigued — March 9, 2008 @ 3:19 pm

34. I have trouble with both of my unions. I need them both but they’re both driving me nuts.

    It’s true the problems started when Membership First took power. This group’s vitriolic, in-your-face tactics make SAG look like a bunch of amateurs. It’s unprofessional to hold your breath until your face turns blue, and it’s not going to impress the AMPTP. This is business, people.

    I’ve made it regular policy not to vote for anyone who has “Membership First” next to their name. As someone said before me, they’ve lost touch with reality. (And am I crazy? Wasn’t Matthew Kimbrough an original member of the Membership First faction? I’m pretty sure he was at one time on the SAG board. Is this fishy? Someone straighten me out, please.)

    But I’ve gotta admit, when I book a job and my agent tells me it’s AFTRA, my heart sinks. I really hate to work an AFTRA contract because the pay’s so bad. And I had to drop my husband’s AFTRA coverage because we couldn’t afford it. BLUE CROSS IS CHEAPER!!!!

    Why don’t I run for office? I have served AFTRA as an organizer. I have served SAG on a negotiating committee. I have marched. I have voted. But I’m also running three businesses, so that’s my excuse.

    And I’m not publishing my name here because some of those Membership First people are just plain scary.

    Comment by I've just really had it — March 9, 2008 @ 7:17 pm

35. Intrigued, can you please move to planet earth? Thanks. People generally belong to AFTRA in order to work a job that’s covered by AFTRA. They don’t get the option of which contract they want to work under. Yeah, they could go fi-core or whatever AFTRA calls it, but that wouldn’t sit well with many people no matter how much they’d prefer to work under the SAG contract. It’s called jurisdiction, and…yeah, just forget it. If you’ll notice, Justice is saying she wants to essentially go fi-core because she gets nothing beneficial from being in AFTRA, but whatever you say. If you’re aware of masses of actors signing up for AFTRA (which, btw, has no entrance requirements so just about everyone COULD belong, yet SAG, which does have entrance requirements, has three times as many members) just because, out of love for AFTRA or because AFTRA is filling this void that SAG can’t, and not mainly to work jobs under AFTRA’s jurisdiction, then, uh, good for you.

    Comment by no elitism here — March 9, 2008 @ 7:53 pm

36. Screw AFTRA. After the way AFTRA members *didn’t* show up on the WGA picket lines and *did* perform scabbed scripts, they can bite me. I will never hire another one of them on my shows so long as there’s a SAG member to take their place. And there always is.
    You blew it, twatwaffles!

    Comment by TV Producer — March 9, 2008 @ 9:32 pm

37. To step back from the specifics, I am reminded that there are confrontational types and non-confrontational types. It’s one of those “2 types of people in this world” examples. Throughout the WGA strike, I was intrigued by the people who constantly blogged negative smack about the leadership of WGA, the money being lost, the suffering of the other parties (IATSE, etc.) as if there were no costs in any labor action. WGA “won” - although we won’t see clearly the gains or losses of the strike for a good long while. I came to the conclusion that the bottom line on new media is “nobody knows anything” but that it WAS vital that WGA held out for at least a toe-hold, no matter what that toe-hold actually means in the end. Same for SAG, and the SAG/AFTRA conflicts. Justine is absolutely right. Clearly, someone who will “confront” when necessary. The industry has become so anti-actor, and yet, as I have often said, SAG is the most powerful union, hands down. SAG needs to get its troops in line, which means, among other things, A-list talent needs to be reminded - they are part of a WHOLE and must support the WHOLE, or face penalty. If SAG can get its shit together, A-listers, working actors, and non-working members - they can take on the AMPTP in short order. Think of the leverage: “you want to go to Canada? Great! Have a good shoot, eh? Just without SAG actors. Want to shoot in a right to work state? Rock on! But not with that SAG star. AFTRA - you want to poach that contract on that cable show? Enjoy! But, make sure the producers know the dual card holders will be unavailable and won’t work for shit wages and shit residuals and payments going to AFTRA H&P instead of SAG” - hey Dennis Leary - that means YOU. “Rescue Me is a good show, I worked on it - but do you wonder what all those guys EXCEPT Leary are thinking while he’s getting rich as producer/lead? I’ll tell you -”I’m getting fucked. This may be my ONE shot as a regular on a top TV show, and I am NOT getting NEARLY what I would on a SAG contract.” I worked that show, and was told “guest lead? $1500. That’s it. That’s what we pay Charles Durning.” Yeah, THAT Charles Durning, who just won the lifetime achievement award - FROM SAG.

    It’s very simple really.
    Everybody is struggling. Everybody is pushing for that gig. Everybody auditions 30 times for every one job. Everybody needs that one job (or two or three) in a year to be worth TOP DOLLAR. SAG needs to get that done by getting its stars in line, as its most powerful emissaries, and then using tough tactics with the suits that let them know they can take their cost-cutting- while-raking-in-billions-bullshit somewhere else, and SAG can do it by being CONFRONTATIONAL - in a smart, aggressive way. It’s called BUSINESS folks. These people (the AMPTP) aren’t your friends. Hello? They want to pick your pocket while lining theirs. Wise up.

    Comment by MrsWakely — March 10, 2008 @ 10:09 am

38. AS A 40+ YEAR WORKING MEMBER OF SAG AND AFTRA (AND STILL WORKING)AND SOMEONE WHO’S BEEN ON JOINT NEGOTIATING COMMITTES,AND THE AFTRA NATL BOARD AND ITS NATL FINANCE COMMITTEE, I CAN TELL YOU JUSTINE BATEMAN DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THE HELL SHE’S TALKING ABOUT. I WON’T JUSTIFY ANSWERING ALL HER MEMB FIRST /SAGla/ROSENBERG/D ALLEN LIES, TWISTED TRUTHS & PROPAGANDA — IT’S NOT WORTH THE TYPING EXCEPT ONE. HER POINT #3 ON ‘SHARED OFFICE SPACE’.

    THEY ARE NOT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, JUSTINE -AND ALL THOSE WHO NEVER BOTHER TO CHECK OUT ERRONEOUS SWILL LIKE THIS) — THERE ARE ACTUALLY ONLY 5: SAN FRANCISCO, CHICAGO, WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE, ATLANTA AND BOSTON. AND WE HAVE ALWAYS PAID OUR SHARE OF RENT AND SALARIES. JUSTINE’S REMARKS ARE NOT JUST UNTRUE;THEY’RE, TO MY MIND, SLANDEROUS. AND THE GUILD KNOWS IT.

    AFTRA IS A CLASS ACT. JUSTINE AND THE CURRENT ‘SAG LA POWER HIERACHY? UH…NO.

    AND BTW - I’VE LIVED AND WORKED IN NY AND LA BUT DON’T
    NOW. SADLY SAG LA DOESN’T GIVE A S**T ABOUT THE REST OF US WHO AREN’T THERE. AND IT HAS BEEN EVER THUS.

    Comment by TALKWRITE — March 10, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

39. RIGHT ON Justine! In the negotiations, AFTRA is not an asset–but an albatross. It’s time for actors to CHOOSE whom they want to represent them in collective bargaining. No more of this crap: same actor, same performance + different union = less pay and benefits!? It’s time to kick the “T” out of AFTRA for good. I have been resigned from that scumbag union for several years now.

    Comment by Brian Hamilton — March 11, 2008 @ 7:33 am

40. TALKWRITE talks wrong. SAG pays $2 million to the 5 offices. Oddly enough SAG pays more to the Chicago office than AFTRA does. The last time I looked AFTRA was running at a $2 million deficit. Can you imagine what would happen if the deficit was $4 million?

    Comment by Terrence Beasor — March 11, 2008 @ 10:06 am

41. Brian: Great! It’s been wonderful not having you around!

    MrsWakely: Of course SAG is an outstanding union. The problem is the people (MembershipFirst) who are currently in control of it. They are the ones who are responsible for there being split unions, split P&H/H&R, and a lack of unity within SAG membership. They have had 3 years to unite for this moment. They have failed. What they chose to do for the past year is wage a fruitless war against AFTRA instead of going for the big prize: SOLIDARITY. If there is weakness in SAG in the 2008 negotiations it is theirs. If there is strength in the negotiations it is AFTRA’s. MemershipFirst has blown it and all they can do is rattle their cage.

    Comment by Tom — March 11, 2008 @ 10:17 am

42. I have a completely different experience of Membership First. I’m grateful that they work so hard for us. The ones I have met haven’t been “in my face” at all. Passionate, yes, but earnestly trying to get actors everything they can. My experiences, traditionally, have been much better with SAG than with AFTRA. This is a delicate situation, because most of us have to consider taking whatever work we can get. if I had to choose between the two, however, I’d choose SAG.

    Comment by dddkddda — March 11, 2008 @ 9:53 pm

43. http://www.gopetition.com/petition/protecting-actors

    Comment by Frances Fisher — March 12, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

44. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/protecting-actors

    Comment by Frances Fisher — March 13, 2008 @ 9:31 am

45. “If you have a family, it’s even WORSE. If you qualify as an individual, your family is covered under SAG for the same $600/year. If you are AFTRA, you have to BUY UP to the family plan, which is $10,320/year!!!! You’ve lost $9,720 having your contract be AFTRA.”

    As a working SAG/AFTRA member for over 30 years, I’ve become incensed by SAG’s treatment of health insurance premiums. The cost of health insurance has risen dramatically, as has the cost of premiums to members — not to mention the minimum earnings’ requirements. Why is it up to me (as a single person) to make up the difference for another SAG performer to support his/her entire family? Please name another corporation or business in this country that doesn’t make an individual pay additionally for each family member. It’s completely outrageous and an insulting waste of money.

    Comment by anonymous — March 13, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

46. I am not an actor, but curious to know who can ACCURATELY explain the jurisdictional differences between SAG and AFTRA? Are there simple sources of information other than members themselves? The unions do not provide this to students like me trying to do some research. Thanks

    Comment by Jake — March 18, 2008 @ 1:26 pm

47. The fact is that the AMPTP will quickly recognize AFTRA as the exclusive bargaining agent for HD and/or internet distribution. Game over SAG.

    Comment by Realist — March 31, 2008 @ 4:57 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment