So I can tell you what happened to that petition drive for "affected member" voting that was taken up today during SAG's National Board meeting at the Sheraton Hotel downtown. (For background, see my previous, SAG Natl Board To Consider "Affected Member Voting" This Weekend; Petition Drive Softens Original Proposal.) The issue was heard, the panel deliberated, and the SAG national board voted 60/40 in favor of a motion to refer it to the Guild Government Review Committee "for proper review", I'm told.
Now an argument has erupted over whether this was the proper way to handle this issue with formal contract talks between SAG and the AMPTP beginning next week.
"Petition leaders were not admitted into the room to speak on behalf of the measure, even though there is clear precedent non-board members addressing such meetings (the FTAC initiative being a recent example)," a pro-petition leader who asked to remain anonymous told me tonight. "President Alan Rosenberg declined direct requests to him earlier this week and he rejected the requests of a number of board members who moved from the floor to hear from us framers of this proposal. So the issue has now been referred to the GGRC in a fashion that guarantees the matter will remain unresolved prior to the ratification vote for the upcoming TV/Theatrical contract."
But a source on the opposide side of the issue told me, "The issue was heard and the board voted to refer to committee for proper review. Interesting that they are concerned that they did not have an opportunity to address the board and that the matter was referred to a committee since that's exactly what AFTRA did when they approached them. So the real question is why do they have an ax to grind with SAG? AFTRA took a meeting and formed a taskforce. They did not get a meet with their board either. So why only SAG and why the insistence on doing it now before negotiations? AFTRA sponsored ploy? Employer driven? Who can say. It's an issue that deserves proper study and review and GGRC is where that is done."
But the pro-petition source railed against today's decision: "This course of action runs directly counter to President Rosenberg’s previous statements that the board would resolve the matter prior to the upcoming ratification vote. And we requested a preliminary review from this very committee over a month ago for the exact reason that we did not want to have it referred at this weekend’s plenary. We made this clear to President Rosenberg at the time, but our repeated requests were denied.
"That our proposal has now been referred to 'the committee where things go to die' (as one board member called it when relating the news) leads us to believe that there is not a will to address this issue seriously among current Guild leadership. We will obviously get reaction from the 1500+ members who strongly support the proposal, and decide how to proceed based on the response. This much is certain: the effort to give working actors an effective voice in contract decisions will not go away."
As you know, DHD has been active in this debate by letting actors post their positions pro and con this idea of an earnings threshold for "qualified voting" on the union's contract issues. Stephen Collins, Amy Brenneman and Ned Vaughn have written in favor while Ron Livingston and Frances Fisher have written in opposition.)
Fellow Actors -
I know not everyone is happy with the board’s decision, but let us set aside our differences for the moment and provide our full and unwavering support to our elected guild leadership in the upcoming negotiations.
If we want the best contract possible - and this is clearly every actor’s goal - we must join in solidarity, both within our own guild and with other unions in the greater Los Angeles area. We must demonstrate our resolve by being active advocates for actors and other unionists online. We must use our unique talents to get our message out. AND we must get our bodies out at 9 a.m. on April 15 for the Hollywood to the Docks kickoff (www.hollywoodtothedocks.org) at the La Brea tar pits (right next to the national SAG headquarters on Wilshire).
How better after all to show the AMPTP we mean business as Doug sits down with Nick???
I’m looking forward Tuesday morning to seeing my fellow SAG members, nurses, hotel workers, janitors, longshoremen, Teamsters, and other unionists and labor supporters. Thank you in advance for your solidarity, your support, and your love.
PS - Thank you Nikki for providing the public forum for our spirited discussion. If I had to guess, I’d say this topic will be revisited at a later date.
Comment by mheister — April 13, 2008 @ 12:51 am
As always, when you want the real story, you gotta come to DHD. KFWB(newsradio) reported that the SAG board outright rejected the proposal,not that it had been put into committee, and didn’t mention any of the things you mention here. Anyway, I’ll be very interested to see what happens next.
Comment by VOguy — April 13, 2008 @ 5:36 am
One can only hope that the censoring refusal of MembershipFirst to allow these petitioners to address the SAG National Board Meeting will at long last awaken the working actors in Hollywood to the explicit danger of allowing their union to continue to be run by MembershipFirst.
Comment by Tom — April 13, 2008 @ 7:05 am
The really surprising thing is that the MeFirsters really talk that way. “AFTRA sponsored ploy? Employer driven?” Get real. Some working members of SAG are worried about this, and it’s their idea.
For Rosenberg and his group of fanatics to dismiss their concerns without even listening to the group shows just how out of touch they are.
It’s time for Membership First to be run out of power - the sooner the better.
Comment by T.Obvious — April 13, 2008 @ 9:03 am
Sticks and stones, people. Constantly calling the SAG Leadership “MeFirsters” “fanatics” and a “cabal” as I’ve seen in other posts, just makes you guys sound like a bunch of old men screaming ‘get off my lawn!’ Who could take you seriously? The 1500 that signed that petition represent .0125% of the SAG membership. If you had gotten say, 10,000 to sign, maybe you’d have a little clout.
It’s 2008 - people are sophisticated enough to see through smear tactics used by groups that have no substance to offer. I get the sense most of the old men screaming from their lawns here are actor / producers trying to protect their profits, and vested AFTRA members who want to continue letting the union offer cheap contracts for performers so the P&H money can go into THEIR pensions. It won’t go to most working performers as long as they never make enough to qualify for health insurance or pensions working for peanuts. So selfish (SO Hollywood).
Why don’t you stop being acting like cowards and sign your REAL names to your posts, and let SAG negotiate a decent deal so working actors can keep moving forward with day rates and residuals that provide a living wage to working performers?
Comment by David Sobolov — April 13, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
David Sobolov –
Hasn’t SAG leadership made a constant refrain over the last year of its complaint that AFTRA had 50% voting control under Phase One, even though its share of the covered work was tiny? Didn’t they want voting control to more accurately reflect the amount of work covered?
The 1500+ that support affected member voting may only represent 1.25% (not .0125% — check your math) of the membership, but they account for a VASTLY higher proportion (33%? 50%?) of the work being covered under SAG’s TV/Th contract.
Yet somehow, it doesn’t bother the same SAG leadership that the contract voting control of actual working actors is dwarfed by the many tens of thousands of SAG card holders who NEVER work.
They fear the issue of contract voting is a bellwether of the frightening prospect that actual working actors might ask for proportional control of other types of voting. They fear it so much that they’re willing to ignore SAG’s constitution, which requires that only affected members ratify contracts. (And if they want to stand by the obviously absurd interpretation that affected means all, why aren’t ALL contract ratification ballots sent to the entire membership?)
James Cagney would have barfed over the idea that it’s too much to ask SAG members to work an average of ONE DAY PER YEAR before voting on contracts. He and other early Guild supporters conceived the union to protect working actors – not hobbyists and dilettantes! Six days at any time over six years — what exactly are you people afraid of?!
Oh, that’s right. Losing power.
Too sad.
Comment by Anonymous — April 13, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
Anonymous wrote: “James Cagney would have barfed over the idea that it’s too much to ask SAG members to work an average of ONE DAY PER YEAR before voting on contracts.”
Another unquestionable fact raise by the AMVers.
First, let me say I loved the “Get off my lawn!” analogy.
Second is, the unfortunate side is the 1% of the Union that created and signed this petition have not launched anything close to a sophisticated argument as to it’s merit. I’m not pretending to be sophisticated myself, but, if you’re gonna change policy, you really need more that “IT’S MY OPINION!” and “James Cagney would barf.”
And then to be able to rally an underwhelming less-than- 1% of the membership to support your proposal and expect the Board to hold everything in this extremely important time of negotiations to listen to what you propose–again with nothing but conjecture, opinion, AND a paltry almost-not-worth-mention 1%–is childish.
We as a Union are in the fight of our lives here. The AMVer’s timing, lack of support, and insistence that they be heard is the equivalent of a child standing on the beach at Normandy insisting the Troops take a moment to listen to why they should be read an additional bed time story. It’s not the best time.
And the Board sending the proposal with all it’s 1% of support for further examination sounds about right. And while I know that if you’re on TV and scream enough you can move to the front of the line at the dry cleaners, this is a situation where you’ll just have to wait your turn. Launch you proposal at more opportune time and when there is adequate time explores its merit or lack of merit. That’s the way the world works.
I hope everyone will be at the Rally April 15. I’ll be there. If you want to talk about this further I’ll be the guy wearing the blue SAG T-shirt.
Comment by Zackery — April 13, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Actually, Anonymous, we’re not SAG card holders who NEVER work. Some of just think the timing of your proposal was completely retarded.
Comment by a working actor — April 13, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
Relatively few they may be - but do those 1500 signers know how much power they could wield in their union?
There is an election this Summer. If they were to put money, time, and commitment behind a Hollywood election campaign for a well-chosen dozen of themselves they could see the objectives of the Working Actor Voices realized not only in the other contracts to be negotiated by SAG this year, but in the entire governance of their guild over the next few years.
Believe me when I say that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg of MembershipFirst incompetence thus far made public.
Comment by Bill Gray — April 13, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Dear Anonymous…
Anonymous posts are meaningless. No newspaper or tv/radio outlet in the world would ever print them. Why don’t you show your face if you intend to engage in a debate?
I’m no longer a member of the SAG Board of Directors OR Membership First, so if by ‘you people’ mean the majority of the working members of SAG - I guess that’s me. What exactly are YOU people afraid of?
Yes, my math was off… my mind is a little foggy due to those few years before 2008 without health insurance because too much of my income came via AFTRA where they don’t have a plan middle class working performers could ever qualify for if their income is split between AFTRA and SAG. Sorry.
Oh and speaking of percentages… Los Angeles has something like 65 or 70% of the work in the country, yet all the regional and NY Board members freak out when they don’t get their way. Majority rules in a democracy, kids. Vote for someone else next time if you aren’t happy. That’s your right.
David
Comment by David Sobolov — April 13, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Sobolov says:
“Los Angeles has something like 65 or 70% of the work in the country, yet all the regional and NY Board members freak out when they don’t get their way. Majority rules in a democracy, kids. Vote for someone else next time if you aren’t happy. That’s your right.”
RBD and NY Board members “freak out” only when they have been dictated to by Hollywood - without consultation or input of any kind. Fortunately Sobolov is correct insofar as Hollywood voters most certainly CAN “vote for someone else next time”. If the Working Actors Voices speak loud enough to change just a few numbers on the Hollywood Board we may see how Sobolov enjoys being dictated to by New York, the Regions, and about a dozen Hollywood Board members who are not among the Lockstep Lemmings of MembershipFirst.
Comment by Bill Gray — April 14, 2008 @ 10:32 am
“…actual working actors is dwarfed by the many tens of thousands of SAG card holders who NEVER work.”
A union where the majority of members DON’T work. HMMMMM…Something is wrong with this picture…
Comment by Cassie — April 14, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Thank you SAG. As many posters have pointed out, disenfranchise me if you will, but please don’t then ask me for dues, since “taxation without representation” is unamerican, right. I’ve worked most of the contracts up for review, and have in the last few years as a working single mom with a mortgage, had to make some sacrifices. I really hope that Mr. Vaughn and the other petitioners, when they hit hard times, as statistically most of them will, don’t sink under the embarrassment. This is a time for unity, not further splintering.
Comment by working mom — April 14, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
It’s time for SAG to pull itself together. Please let’s table AMV for after the new contract.
As for AFTRA, lamentably, it looks like SAG can’t look to them to be a reliable ally in the negotiations. It would very cool if AFTRA responds favorably to SAG’s olive branch (and BTW it was AFTRA leadership who totally disrespected the SAG national board in the way they handled their “suspension” of Phase 1), but SAG can’t count on that.
Meanwhile, for the best contract, SAG needs total solidarity. The AMPTP has already signaled that some of SAG’s top priorities are non-starters. The AMPTP needs to know that if they’re not even willing to consider our top priorities, what won’t be starting is the Fall television season or any new film productions. SAG’s proposal package is quite reasonable. Nobody wants a strike, but if it takes a strike authorization vote to get their attention, so be it. If it takes a strike to make them realize SAG is serious about its proposals, that’s on the AMPTP.
Again, SAG does not want a strike. If we authorize a strike, it is because the AMPTP has left us no other choice.
Speaking more generally - I’m going to be at the Hollywood to the Docks rally Tuesday morning at the La Brea tar pits - in the US, the corporations have been quite successful in forcing givebacks from unions, subverting organizing efforts (Wal-Mart), and generally driving the unions down. I personally am in favor of a fair balance between labor and management. Labor has been shoved around long enough. It’s time to stand up for our rights.
Comment by mheister — April 14, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
“Petition leaders were not admitted into the room to speak on behalf of the measure, even though there is clear precedent non-board members addressing such meetings (the FTAC initiative being a recent example),”
Oh my God, you mean people were not allowed to be represented during the presentation of a petition to not allow members of SAG to vote on contracts?
How horrible! How terrible!
How ironic!
Comment by Leo Ruby — April 14, 2008 @ 8:36 pm