On Tuesday, the Screen Actors Guild is scheduled to release the official list of candidates for the upcoming election now that the nominating period has closed and the Election Committees have confirmed candidate eligibility. Approximately, 1/3 of the total 69 national board seats are open for election this year. Hollywood and New York Division ballots will be mailed to all eligible SAG members on August 19 with a return deadline and tabulation on September 18. Election results are expected to be announced that evening. The Hollywood Division will elect 11 national board members and 22 alternates. Each seat is for a 3-year term (all national board alternates serve one year). The New York Division will elect 5 national board members and 9 alternates. Each of those seats is for a 3-year term (all national board alternates serve one year). Directors holding 7 other national board seats will be elected from SAG branches in Boston, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Nashville, Nevada and Washington, D.C./Baltimore.
There appears to be some general misconceptions
about how this election will, or will not, affect the current SAG-AMPTP negotiations. It might appear that the AMPTP is hoping for a significant shift in the SAG board and therefore stalling the contract talks on the off chance the election might result in a less militant and more compliant group of actor leaders. But that's impossible. Because SAG rules dictate that, regardless of whichever slate is voted in, the guild's negotiating team stays the same and in charge of the talks until the new contract is bargained. So the board may change but not the negotiating team. Besides, the first meeting of the new board elected September 18th isn't until October.
Now that's clear, I'd like to make sure SAG members see the campaign statements I've posted for "Unite For Strength" here and "MembershipFirst" here. Meanwhile, I commend the "Unite For Strength" opposition slate for not letting what will obviously be a hard-fought campaign take precedence over the importance of the current SAG-AMPTP negotiations still underway. I know that the Big Media moguls and their negotiating lackeys were hoping for a repeat of the actor vs actor war that broke out between SAG and AFTRA and caused division and diversion. Instead, the employers were shocked when "Unite For Strength" recently came out in support of the SAG negotiating committee's stand on the all-important issue of New Media jurisdiction and residuals. If you missed it, "Unite For Strength" said on its website:
"Unite for Strength fully supports the recent SAG board motion reasserting SAG's commitment to the core principle that it does not authorize our employers to make non-union product under our contracts, regardless of the medium or budget level. We believe SAG needs new leadership, but we also agree with SAG's negotiators that actors need real gains from a new contract. We agree that the original goals of our TV/Theatrical contract negotiators -- such as pay and mileage increases, increased pension and health contributions, residuals on new media, protection from product integration abuses, increased DVD residuals and preservation of Force Majeure protections -- represent gains all actors deserve. Unite for Strength believes actors should have all those protections and more. We support our families with SAG earnings, so getting the strongest deal for actors is our top priority. And we know our current negotiating team feels the same way. But because SAG is alone at the bargaining table, we have less leverage. That’s what Unite for Strength has pledged to fix.”
Not surprisingly, the "Unite For Strength" slate continues receiving a lot of publicity in the mainstream media. On Friday, CNBC's "The Call" interviewed one of its leaders, Ned Vaughn. Here's the YouTube video and below is the transcript. Notice how her questions are pointedly biased against SAG negotiators:
CNBC's JULIA BOORSTIN: What is the organization's big picture goal when it comes to this current de facto stoppage?
NED VAUGHN: Well, a big part of the reason that we have not been able to make a deal with the producers is that SAG does not have the leverage that it would have if we would combine with AFTRA, the other actors union, and get real leverage at the bargaining table. We feel that is critical. With that kind of leverage, we could make the deal we need.
BOORSTIN: So is your organization ready to accept the AMPTP's offer and get back to work?
VAUGHN: Well, we're not in a negotiating room. So we're not privy to the exact details of the offer that's on the table. And more to the point, we know that what we have to get is cooperation between these two unions to get the kind of deal that actors need. I can't really say whether we would accept that contractment again. We don't know the exact details.
BOORSTIN: Now the [AMPTP] has been incredibly vocal about how much SAG's holdout is costing both SAG members and the industry as a whole. How is your group pushing to avoid these costs to everyone?
VAUGHN: Well, listen, I mean obviously we want to keep people working. But it's critical to us because we make our living as actors that actors get a fair and strong deal. And that's what we're all about. You know, it's by getting real leverage against our employers who are very unified on their side of the bargaining table by coming together on our side or
get that leverage that we can negotiate from a position of strength and make a deal that will keep everybody working.
BOORSTIN: So the studios are now talking about ramping up production to get back to business after Labor Day even if there is no contract. What does this do to the role of SAG? Will this help out AFTRA actors because they can get roles that SAG members are getting?
VAUGHN: You are putting your finger on something very important. Because the unions have gone to the breaking point with this feud and are now negotiating separately. They're not only negotiating separately, they're starting to compete. I don't have to tell this audience what happens when people compete. Prices go down. That's something we cannot afford to have happen to actors. It's a tough way to make a living in the first place. A lot tougher if you're not getting a good, solid deal. And that is why we feel we can produce.
CNBC is still on the air?
Comment by Biz — August 4, 2008 @ 4:47 am
If, in fact the outcome of the election has no bearing on the contract negotiations, why are there no actual negotiations going on - as far as we know? Is the cessation of of meetings an effort to influence the outcome of these elections, in a way unfavorable to the current regime?
I may be naive, but I sense nothing good coming from any this. Judging by the results of former lap dog Tom Short’s efforts to settle early, as usual, it seems that in honor of his last hurrah, the Spawn of Satan, aka Nick Counter, is hunkering down, pulling up the drawbridge and setting loose the alligators in the castle moat. To what end? Don’t all those overpaid studio execs sooner or later have to justify their existence and actually make movies?
Comment by Nelsound — August 4, 2008 @ 9:48 am
I wonder why Ned didn’t ask Ms. Boorstin if she was a AFTRA member and if she was why was she working on a Non-Union show?
Comment by Yosemite — August 4, 2008 @ 10:05 am
It’s odd to me that this “unite for strength” group whose platform is actually designed to divide themselves –the self proclaimed elite who believe they know better than anyone what working means– from us and the current negotiating team get so much attention. They are a paltry, unsupported, selfish, and not-even-all-that-famous group. So who is listening?
And I realize Sally Field who seems to head their list and website is fairly well known and takes Boniva and all. (are those low-production spots even UNION?) But their website that implies “we work an awful lot, you know who we are, and we know better” has to sell that “you know who we are” with pictures to help you connect the dots with all the work they’ve done. Or maybe it’s to get their headshots on the desk of every producer in town.
Whatever the case, I don’t take their work away from them. But I do take issue with their idea that they are the only ones working.
Because there are those of us who are UNION members who are also working and not trading on this idea that if you whine the loudest you’ll get the attention. We are not selfishly trying to divide our UNION to eliminate those who make less from those who make more. We are not trying to divide the UNION to gain favor with the AMPTP. We are in the fight of our lives with the AMPTP.
We are standing behind our leaders, not bedding down with the producers.
And while our list climbs to 6,000 to their 31, their contention is screaming “but we work!”
Many of us work, Norma Rae. Take your eyes off the mirror and look around the factory. Check out the letter of support for our current leaders at Sag.org which approaches 6,000 signatures. You’re either with us or against right now. Those are the two choices.
And while I don’t necessarily subscribe to this idea that if you work in the UNION the world will recognize you, I understand that this is your platform. As such, I submit the first 31 names, roughly, in alphabetical order on our list to compare to yours. Although I would say as exciting as these names might be it’s the 5,000 some below theirs that carry the weight. Sorry there are no headshots here:
Patricia Arquette
Rosanna Arquette
Ed Asner
Scott Bakula
Anita Barone
Bonnie Bartlett
Justine Bateman
David Berman
Susan Blakely
Eric Bogosian
Joe Bologna
Powers Boothe
Tom Bosley
Tom Bower
Josh Brolin
Keith Carradine
Dixie Carter
Seymour Cassel
Dave Clennon
George Coe
Keith Coogan
Beverly D’Angelo
Bill Daniels
Laura Dern
Michael Dorn
Anne Dudek
Frances Fisher
Joely Fisher
Kate Flannery
Jorja Fox
Willie Garson
Matthew Glave
Sharon Gless
Elliott Gould
Andy Griffith
Go to the SAG website. There are thousands more names figuratively holding up a little cardboard sign that says “UNION”.
Comment by zackery — August 4, 2008 @ 11:15 am
Dear Hollywood,
You really need to get your act together. Interviews like this, with Boorstin/Vaughn, aren’t helping anyone.
CNBC’s JULIA BOORSTIN: What is the organization’s big picture goal when it comes to this current de facto stoppage?
Mr. Vaughn,
Why didn’t you point out that this “work stoppage” is due to the AMPTP. You let her imply that it’s all SAG’s fault. You give up ‘leverage’ by whining about the weakness of the unions due to the SAG/AFTRA fiasco.
BOORSTIN: So is your organization ready to accept the AMPTP’s offer and get back to work?
Mr. Vaughn,
Instead of telling her, “No, the contract is not acceptable.” You go back to whining about the SAG/AFTRA situation.
BOORSTIN: Now the [AMPTP] has been incredibly vocal about how much SAG’s holdout is costing both SAG members and the industry as a whole. How is your group pushing to avoid these costs to everyone?
Mr. Vaughn,
Boorstin gives you the opportunity to nail her and the AMPTP on the FACT that SAG is still willing to work, but the studios have shut down production. Instead, you go back to snivelling about ‘leverage’.
BOORSTIN: So the studios are now talking about ramping up production to get back to business after Labor Day even if there is no contract. What does this do to the role of SAG? Will this help out AFTRA actors because they can get roles that SAG members are getting?
Mr. Vaughn,
Here, she hands you a hammer. You could nail her and the AMPTP/studios to the wall. She ADMITS that the studios are going “…to get back to business…”. She continues on about “…no contract.”
Instead of telling her that SAG has continued to offer to work under the old contract, has NOT called a strike and continues to want to negotiate, you go on to concede that your union is at the breaking point!
You are placing way too much emphasis on the SAG/AFTRA problem.
You want leverage, then you need to get the rest of the unions in America, not just Hollywood and all of the people who are your audience to get behind the efforts to resolve this mess.
AS for competition in the acting realm. Believe me, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who would be willing to take your job and eat your lunch, especially after this interview.
Times are tough all over and nobody is crying for Hollwyood.
I’m not a member of SAG/AFTRA or the WGA. Just a Teamster with a withdrawal card who’s been to more than one negotiation.
Comment by Tom Segerson — August 4, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
u4s has some splainin’ to do. say, they gain control of the board. the same negotiating team remains in place, until a deal is signed.
so, nothing changes in the demands of mf. so what is the short term strategy that justifies meddling in the middle of a contract negotiation?
u4s says “we want what they want” (said AFTER the 68 to 0 vote btw) they just also want to “merge” with aftra and install qualified voting. that’s it. that’s the agenda.
merger with aftra would have to be subsequent to the contract, it would be a multi-month, “here we go again,” expensive, probably bitter debate, costing, if it approached gilbert’s cash outlay, over a million dollars of members dues money, all to try for the 17th time, after 17 “no” votes, dating back to 1939, to convince sag membership with a union that just broke their word to negotiate together with sag, (a fact. there’s no spin wiggle room there. AFTRA broke their word. NOT sag) as we had for 28 years, and went and made a substandard deal with the amptp.
that is what I would call a “declaration of intent,” the intent being, obviously, to compete with sag.
so, say sag GETS a fair deal, somehow, via a strike threat or an actual strike (the only way the amptp will give an inch, let’s be realistic), the producers then face a landscape of increasingly digital shoots, right?
so, what does sag do with this fair deal when the amptp starts signing more and more shows, primetime tv, with aftra, because aftra presents the cheaper deal? MUCH cheaper.
and, correct me if I’m wrong, but, if it’s digital, aftra is in the FILM game then as well, right? “shared jurisdiction=digital” so, how exactly does sag deal with this, whether it’s mf or u4s dominated board - with production going to aftra as fast as producers can sign the deal?
the only answer I see is to convince enough dual members that they have to decide not to work aftra contracts. how else?
after 6 months or a year, or 3 years of finding out what a shitty union aftra actually IS compared to SAG, and how much LESS money, residuals, p&h, overtime, workplace protections, etc., they get, will it THEN sink in to union actors minds, that aftra IS a hostile and predatory union out to compete, and win, if they can, with sag?
so, I guess what I’m asking is - would someone please make a coherent argument for why ANYONE would vote for u4s?
Comment by T-rex — August 4, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
“Notice how her questions are pointedly biased against SAG negotiators:”
As well they should be, Nikki! These SAG negotiators have hardly done anything to prove to the membership that they have handled these negotiations with any skill and I expect they will…and should…be swiftly booted out in the upcoming elections. It is definitely time for a change in the leadership of our guild!
Comment by Longtime SAG Member — August 4, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
mr. tom segerson
you are eloquent. and i agree with you. the whole country needs to get organized again. we’ll get it together out here,
hopefully sooner rather than later. i’m glad some ‘outside eyes’, so to speak, saw that interview for what it was.
Comment by harry98 — August 4, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
“…what a shitty union aftra actually IS compared to SAG…”
Want to make AFTRA disappear off the face of the Earth forever? Merge. It’s gone.
It seems to me that we are in worse shape now with contract competition, jurisdictional disputes and an outright union war, than we ever would have been with the hypothetical problems attributed to the last merger proposal.
Less than two percent away from passing. 1,200 votes. I think 1,200 either didn’t like the AIMA name, or didn’t understand that their existing pensions in a merged union were in no jeopardy at all, thanks to ERISA protections imposed on all multi-employer plans.
And what about the big boogie man that opponents harped away at: why won’t they tell us specifically what will happen to the pension plans in a merged union? It’s because it is going to be very expensive to figure that out, and that money is not going to be spent by the trustees until a merger is finalized. But it can and will be figured out.
If what you want is to not qualify for health insurance or pension credits because you have to split your income between two unions every year where you may not meet either one’s qualification threshold, by all means, keep Membership First in power. Oh, and any of you rabidly anti-AFTRA actors who is offered a series regular or recurring role or even a one day guest star on one of the increasingly many AFTRA series out there, especially when you haven’t worked, SAG or AFTRA in a while, I’d like to see you turn it down, you hypocrites. Because you wouldn’t.
Wake up, people. End this once and for all. The majority of voting members want this to happen, so figure out how to merge the damned unions. We all work for the same people. And right now, they’re out maneuvering, out thinking, and out classing us while we blame each other to death.
Jesus Christ, grow the fuck up and get it done.
Comment by Observer — August 4, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
observer:
you will be answered, and soon. there IS a very good reason merger didn’t pass, and it DOES have to do with the pension plans, and it IS a smoking gun. if I have a hefty sag pension coming, and I do, and I’ve earned it, why would I vote to merge with a union that has a plan my plan would have to subsidize? answer: I wouldn’t. stay tuned.
aftra has CHOSEN to be a predatory, hostile threat to the sag actor’s wages, residuals and pensions. THEY made that choice, not SAG. to - EVEN NOW! - AFTER AFTRA has shown their hand! - to be defending roberta reardon and her merry band of amptp butt gals (”aftra, fighting for the right to pay actors LESS!”) to portray sag’s righteous anger over that as “childish” is ignorant of the facts. the facts are the truth, and, as the man said, the truth will set you free!
stay tuned, observer and all who want mf and sag to disappear, and give the store to aftra - the cavalry is coming!
Comment by T-rex — August 4, 2008 @ 10:00 pm