What a bunch of tools. Not a good time to push this agenda. Last year would have been great, Mr. Vaughn.

I’m a working actor, have been for years. Quite comfortably above any minimum that would be established, but I agree. This goes through, I go fi-core.

Disgusting.

Now is not the time to be putting divisive petitions out to the membership. There is no way the current board is going to enact qualified voting before the next contract and they would catch hell from the rank and file if they did. You still can’t use qualified voting to get around Article XII’s guidelines and you can’t change article XII without a vote of the entire membership.

My dearest hope is that the strike authorization is not needed at all to get a fair contract.

If you want to push for qualified voting in the future, use the established procedures for a guild referendum after we have a theatrical contract. Your proposal at this time does nothing polarize the membership one way or the other and draws focus away from the goal of securing a fair contract.

Since I joined the guild I’ve watched the agent franchise agreements fall apart, and the politics of guild elections become a two party system among other debacles. The AMPTP will pounce on every sign of weakness they see from the guild to dilute their offers in the next contract.

First of all, I appreciate your taking the time to read my comment and respond. Second, congratulations on your new WGA contract. You guys really showed what can be achieved by solidarity and a strong belief in the value of your work.

But if the WGA version of affected member voting is ‘exactly what you’re asking for’, then you, or Ned, or somebody needs to clarify that. There’s a huge difference, in my mind, between requiring a member to have worked under a SAG contract once in the last seven years, and requiring them to have earned $7,500 in every one of those years, which is what, on the surface, Ned’s petition appears to call for.

I also think that someone needs to reconcile the argument that we should exclude young members just getting started because they don’t have enough experience to vote correctly with the accompanying argument that we should exclude veteran “vanity card” actors who have all the experience in the world. And to explain why now is the right time to undertake a political restructuring of SAG.

But I guess what it comes down to most for me, Peter, is that we just don’t know who a contract is going to affect. If you’d have asked me in 1996 whether I thought I would be affected by the cable and home video provisions of the SAG theatrical contract, I’d probably have said no. And under the terms of Ned’s petition, I’d have been barred from voting, having only made $4,986 on Swingers, and less than that on The Low Life, the year before. But if you’d asked me again in 1999 after Office Space hit cable and DVD, I’d have to say, you know what, I kinda was. I was affected a great deal.

Twenty-some years ago, when SAG accepted a catastrophically bad deal on what was then a New Media, I suspect part of the reason was that the majority of the “working” membership felt that those particular provisions didn’t affect them. That “real” actors made their money in box offices and on network television, and that this new stuff and the actors who needed the opportunities it provided weren’t worth protecting. That decision haunts us to this day.

Ultimately, Peter, you, Ned and I want the same thing. We want the AMPTP to give us a strong contract. We want to collectively make wise, informed and savvy decisions about how to get there from here. We’re just starting that process. But I do think we have to be in it together, and I don’t think there’s anything Pollyanna-ish about that, unless you’re referring to the picture Nikki posted, in which case I gotta give you that one.

All the best,
Ron

You said, “Even if the board amended the constitution to allow for qualified voting on contracts the strike article can not be amended without 75% approval of the entire membership.”

Affected member voting exists in the constitution already. It’s not a matter of amending the constitution; it’s a matter of fully implementing the first line of Article XI.

The board already applies a de facto form of affected member voting on the ‘interactive’ agreements by sending it out for ratification to only those who’ve worked the contract. Anyone can come in and request a ballot, but the reality is that the policy exists already.

What are people afraid of? I don’t get it.

Again I’d like to remind you that writers, at least in theory, are not hired based on their looks. So the WGA is very different from SAG, and unless you can give me an argument why this proposed change is not biased - the moral grounds are enough to stop this grassroots movement right now.

Ron Livingston - I wish I’d written that. Thank you.

You asked: How many of the WGA’s recent gains would have been achieved if the only people who respected and supported the picket lines were writers currently working when the strike was called?

As a SAG member and a member of WGA I can tell you that the WGA has in place exactly what we are asking for - affected member voting. Your point supports Ned Vaughn’s argument 100%. The reason that the WGA was so successful was because the only people who vote on their contracts are those people who work or have worked on a WGA contract in the last seven years.

DGA, WGA and Actor’s Equity all have affected member voting — why is SAG the only Guild that allows vanity card holders and someone who worked ten years ago to have a voice in deciding the fate of a contract that doesn’t affect them?

You have a pollyanna view about “unity” and that view poses a danger to those of us who rely on strong contracts to pay the rent and put food on the table for our children.

Ned says “work-related voting requirement”. Whether it is “affected” (meaning working) or based on earnings minimums (meaning working) - its the SAME thing. I have two major problems with these proposed changes.

1. I never said this was elitist. However, this change WOULD BE racist, sexist, age-ist, and looks-ist. Is that enough “ists” for you? We are all actors, acting is our profession, our industry. Yet we do not have equal job opportunities. In other industries, and in the WGA - which Ned thinks is a great example of how this works - your employment is based on things like skill and experience. In acting, before you get to those requirements there is a little thing called the breakdown. Since we PHYSICALLY ARE OUR PRODUCT, we do not all get to go up for the same roles. Ned (as I can see in his picture) being a white man in his, what, mid to late 40s - has more job opportunities than a black woman. Or an Asian man. A chubby white woman. Really, a great number of people. I mean, you gotta love America Ferrera, but how many other trained actresses with her physical description are working their asses off to fight for the handful of 1 line Mexican maids? It’s not exactly fair the number of breakdowns that begin with “beautiful and sexy”, but since “beautiful and sexy” people have more job opportunities - they DO have a better chance at meeting any working/earnings based minimums for voting on contracts. IS that fair? Look at the breakdowns, your TV set, or the statistics - any of them will prove to you that what I am saying is true. There are more parts available for certain people based on who they intrinsically and physically are. That is a reality in this town - and it is a reality that makes this proposed change to voting rights extremely biased.

2. As any actor knows this morning you could have nothing and this afternoon you could book a job. In such a changeable environment I DO get a say in the wages I will be paid. I paid my money to join this union, I will not work non-union, I support the union. I believe in a strong union because I made a commitment to a profession. I deserve a vote ON WAGES - because in the end, I care more about that than who is elected to whatever board.

I would also like to state that I have nothing for or against Rosenberg except that I do think he did a good job in having SAG stand next to the WGA during their strike. So I don’t have some hidden political agenda. I don’t know much about the inside politics of the SAG boards - and frankly it sounds like there is some infighting based on the comments above. I want no part in that. These are my feelings as a sometimes working, but fully committed SAG Member and actor. I eat, sleep, study, live and breathe my choice to be a professional actor. I struggle financially, but I stick with it. I do not deserve to be marginalized.

And whoever said $20,000 over 3 years should be a fair measure - what if someone joined last year and made $10,000? That person is a nobody? What about the person that joined ten years ago, took time off to start a family or even a break and now intends to return to the business. They earned their card, they paid their dues. They want to come back and work.

You can’t predict people’s career paths. We are not working the way up the ladder in a law firm - we are actors and every actor’s career has its own path. But if you join this union what you are saying is I am a professional actor, I will only work union jobs, and I am a member of this community. Its hard for many to join, to meet the requirements or pay the fee. If you do join, hats off to you for knowing how important it is to take that step and making it happen. I’m not going to judge my union brothers and sisters for the success or lack of success they are experiencing in their careers. Its hard enough to be an actor without your union putting you down.

The people behind this movement must have very little confidence in their fellow SAG members’ ability to think. I hope that the SAG board has more.

Also, what most folk seem to be worrying about here is a strike authorization vote with the non-working members saying, “Heck let’s strike, I’ve got nothing to lose.” Even if the board amended the constitution to allow for qualified voting on contracts the strike article can not be amended without 75% approval of the entire membership.

The board and negotiators needs to focus on getting the deal done for the next contract and not the distracting, devisive moves made by “grassroots” movements.

“This push is decidedly NOT about ‘elite’ actors taking anything away from anyone…”

(To paraphrase Amy Heckerling…)

Actually, Kato, that’s exactly what it is.

To wit:

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
e·litist adj. & n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
ThesaurusLegend:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com

P

Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with Ned on a number of points.

SAG, like any union, draws its strength from numbers and unity, not from division and cantonization. Collective bargaining is only effective when done collectively. For a negotiating position to have any strength or credibility, it has to be supported not only by the people currently working the jobs, but by the people who could and would otherwise gladly replace them if given the opportunity. How many of the WGA’s recent gains would have been achieved if the only people who respected and supported the picket lines were writers currently working when the strike was called? The strength of our union is not just the actor who says “I really want this job, but I’m not doing it anymore until you pay me what I’m worth.” It’s the ten actors next to him who say “I really want that job, too, but I’m not doing it, either, until you pay him what he’s worth.” And that’s a sacrifice, too.

The whole point of the Screen Actor’s Guild, or any labor union, for that matter, is that We’re All In This Together. That’s the most important thing to remember as we navigate these next coming months.

I’d like to make one thing clear: I think the general principle behind Ned’s petition is sound, and certainly worthy of a discussion. I, for one, have never worked under a Dancer contract, or a Stunt Performer contract, and I can’t think of any good reason why I should be consulted on either of them. Simply put, they don’t affect me, and I wouldn’t feel qualified to vote on them.

But when it comes to the major SAG contracts, it’s not so easy for me to know exactly who’s going to be affected.

Every one of us knows that in our line of work, you’re up some years, and some years you’re down. And if anything, the major SAG Contracts- establishing minimums and residuals – affect us the most in the years we’re down. When we’re not working a lot. Established stars don’t work for scale; they may get bought out of residuals, or already have back-end participation negotiated for them. It’s precisely the people scraping by, the up-and-comers and the kids working their first and second jobs that these contracts do and will affect the most.

As to an earnings test for qualified voting, I’m not sure why it matters what I made last week, or six months ago, or in 2003; what I got paid in the past is the one thing a new contract is definitely NOT going to affect. These contracts aren’t for past work. They’re for future work. And if someone out there knows who is going to get which jobs for the next three to five years, they should post it somewhere and we can all save a lot of gas money going to auditions.

None of us were born working for more than $1000 or $7500 a year. We all started with empty resumes. But when we worked that first SAG job and got that first paycheck, each one of us benefited from the courage, solidarity and leadership of the actors before us who had the personal courage not to pull the ladder up behind them; who went out on a limb to demand a fair deal and safe working conditions for everyone, whether they knew our names yet or not.

I don’t mean to give anyone offense. There may very well be a way to change how SAG votes that makes us a more effective union, and gives all members a greater voice in the contracts that affect them the most. That’s a great idea, and it’s worth talking about. But proposing to strip 65-80% of the membership of their voting rights against their will is not the way to do it. Certainly not now. At best it leaves us with a membership that is 65-80% fi-core before negotiations even begin. At worst it creates yet another separate group of actors, hungry for work, with no vested interest in supporting any position “SAG Elite” chooses to take, and four times its size. Take one look at the effect that lack of coordination with AFTRA has on our bargaining position and ask yourself if what we need is more division, categorization and animosity.

Now is not the time to question each other’s talent or worth. Now is not the time to point at fellow actors and say, “You’re the problem with the industry.” Now is the time for all members of SAG and AFTRA to take a lesson from the past, to pull together and create the framework that will provide a fair deal for actors working today, actors working tomorrow, and actors working five, ten and twenty years from now, whomever they may be.

Respectfully,
Ron Livingston

I agree that it may be a little too easy for a person to get their “SAG card”, I for one worked hard for 8 years in the trenches for mine, deciding early on that I didn’t want to be Taft-Hartly’d or any other such nonsense, I wanted to earn it…and I did. But once I accepted the guild membership I also accepted the responsibility to uphold the rights of my fellow members, regardless of “how” they got in. You don’t pick and choose which brother of sister you defend in your family, you defend your family as a whole.

Like I said, change the standards of membership if you wish (and I’m not against that) but, as it stands now, we stand together.

“A house divided cannot stand.”

So, as “SAG Member” put it, “…even people who have other primary sources of income do have to make adjustments and sacrifices to fight for what they believe are fair wages for creatives.” And so, if we’re going to pick and choose whose vote counts and whose doesn’t, let’s just stop calling this a “union” and start calling it “club”, with “working members” as the doormen, keeping the A-listers safe inside while the rest of us wait at the back door for the scraps that are allowed us by “those members who are affected by contract voting outcomes.”

“Union” means, the state of being united…it doesn’t seem like Mr. Vaughn and the other 900 understand that fact.