First let’s have a look at Kathy Joosten’s video. Then a report on that the New York Town Hall Meeting of 6/1/09.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRau1r-SZb4
Now, let’s examine some quotes from the video.
Joosten quote
“Recent surveys say only 8 percent watching anything on the Internet. “
So “only” 8% or around 36,000,000 viewers are currently watching video on the Internet. What Ms. Joosten doesn’t mention is that according to the Nielsen Company,
“Monthly time spent watching video on the Internet grew especially quickly, up over 50 percent since the first quarter of last year.”
One gets the idea that if it were 1981, Ms. Joosten would be quoting figures that downplayed consumers’ use of VHS.
Joosten quote:
Non-union does not mean, not getting paid.
Right, they have to pay minimum wage! (If her statement don’t tell you all you need to know about her and her UFS/USAN/AFTRA First pals, nothing will.)
Joosten says of Martin Sheen,
“He failed to mention it can only be non-union if there are no ‘covered performers.”
Ms. Joosten fails to mention that under this contract, SAG no longer gets to decide who is a ‘covered performer,’ you see, that will be left up to producers:
The producer shall be entitled to rely on the representation of the performer as to whether he or she meets the definition of a ‘covered performer.’
(TV/Theatrical Contract, C. “Experimental New Production: Original Productions Only)
And in light of that fact that by signing this contract SAG will be sanctioning non-union work, how many desperate members will producers be able to convince to go fi-core to get that ‘big break?’
But then that would be just fine with Ms. Joosten. You see, she once stated on a public bulletin board;
“I shall now ask for a Financial Core application and urge others to do so"
(Actors Access 6/25/08)
Miss Joosten states in the video:
Producers will have trouble finding staff because editors, cinematographers, and directors are not supposed to work non-union.
Now that’s funny! You believe that, and I’ve got some real cheap tickets to SAG’s presentation of the Ralph Morgan award to Ms. Joosten.
Call her an old softy but she said on the video:
“There was some comment about Pre 1970 material, won’t be paid residuals when moved to the internet, well it isn’t now, under any other form.”
And, Kathy, the reason it isn’t paid, under traditional media, is because our senior actors made residual concessions, so that we could ALL get pension and health. Of course, you, Ms. Joosten feels entitled to pension and health benefits, but feels no obligation to those senior performers that sacrificed so that you, and all the rest of us, could receive those benefits.
Ms. Joosten reveals a lot about her character, or lack of it, when she has no qualms about throwing our senior members under the bus again; after all according to her it is not germane to this contract. Actually, what Ms. Joosten means is that it is not germane to her. (Her first IMDb credit was 1984)
The truly disgusting fact is that this is the same attitude that UFS Leader Ned Vaughn expressed at the recent Hollywood Town Hall meeting on the TV/Theatrical contract.
Joosten said:
The other thing Martin forgot to mention, or maybe he wasn’t told, is that it (The Contract) has a sunset clause--that is something NO other contract for SAG has ever had.
Maybe that’s because up till now, SAG’s leadership has NOT been gullible enough to think putting a ‘sunset clause’ in a contract that already sunsets at its termination, makes any sense.
Look all a 'sunset clause' means is that the clause will be renegotiated . Earth to Joosten; the producers had no ‘sunset clause’ on force majeure or clip consent--and they renegotiated those clauses.
The ‘sunset clause’ scam is pure pabulum perpetrated by producers for their puppet union members to parrot.
Joosten:
We get to see the books for all the producers, who are doing any Internet Work—and we get to have them looked at by an outside auditor so that so we can determine what kinds of money are being made.
Duh? We already know what kind of money they make on DVD because they tell us so. We knew they made $34.9 billion dollars on DVD sales in 2007--but in 2008 that didn’t help us get even a modest increase on the one percent that we are currently getting—and have been getting for over a quarter of a century.
No! And even if seeing the books would make a difference, we’ve heard the ‘open the books’ ruse before?
Perhaps, Ms. Joosten would care to tell us the last time employers opened their books under the Tri Guild Audits?
Now to summarize Ms. Joosten’s points for voting for this--the worst contract in guild history;
1. Only (8 percent) or 36 million currently view videos on the Internet--and that’s up 50 percent over the last quarter of 2008.
2. “Non union work does not mean NO pay.” And on that Ms. Joosten is correct. For instance if you worked non-union in Atlanta you’d get five dollars and fifteen cents an hour. Of course, after you put in enough time and get enough experience, you can move to Hollywood and the big time where you’d get eight dollars an hour.
3. The contract stipulates that one ‘covered’ performer makes it a union contract. She fails to mention it is producers, not SAG, that gets to decide if the performer is ‘covered’ our not.
4. She admits that pre 70 work is not covered on the Internet--but muses that it isn’t covered under traditional media so what’s the big deal if we screw senior members again.
5. She lauds a contract that ‘sunsets’ in 2 years--because it has a sunset clause.
6. She thinks you should vote for all these rollbacks because we get to look at producer’s books. Hmmm, ain’t that sort of like volunteering to be in a train crash because they promise to let you look at the film of the crash after it’s over?
Considering the fact that this is the best Ms. Joosten and her “Yes” supporters can come up with--in light of all the giveaways in this contract--don't say very much for their campaign to get you to vote yes.
But then Ms. Joosten’s past public statements, certainly tell you why she would support a contract that encourages non-union work and takes away the life blood of actors, residuals.
What can we say if you’d also like to see our beloved Screen Actors Guild crash and burn, vote with Ms. Joosten and her 'go-along to get-along pals; because with sanctioned non-union productions, no residuals, nor decades old protections--and a sell out of our senior performers—that’s exactly what is going to happen.
A.. Miller SW Editor & Chief 
This Report from the New York Town Hall meeting: All did not go well for the Vote "YES" faction!
---
I want to let all know that I dreaded going to the NYC town-hall at the DGA theater tonight, I figured if it was anywhere close to the vicious, shameful tirade from the 350-odd NY members last December at the Westin, insulting the President Alan Rosenberg, and then NED Doug Allen, who took all the abuse without ever raising his voice, it would be a nightmare. Someone got so personal with Alan Rosenberg, he actually came down off the podium, and started to go after the guy, until someone steered him away so he could cool down a bit.
I was stunned by the lack of respect for two guys who were apparently committing the sin of trying to save the f*cking union by fighting off this piece of shi* contract. Did they mistake the sentiment of the membership, thinking they had slam dunk support, and underestimate the undermining tactics of the NY board (especially Richard Masur, Sam Freed and Paul Christie) to say "yes" to an SAV (they already had), then go right out and stab Rosenberg and Allen in the back by actively undermining the SAV they had just UNANIMOUSLY voted up? Sure. But, the behavior of that crowd at the Westin last December was despicable.
Cut to tonight. I walk into the DGA theater, expecting the 180 reverse of what happened in L.A. last week. This time, in NY, it will be a "vote yes" ass-whupping, I'm thinking, just like last week it was a "vote-no" ass-whupping in L.A.
So, I'm sitting there. John McGuire puts everyone to sleep with his slide show as to the nuts and bolts of the contract, then they introduce the panel. Rosenberg's name is spoken, I expect boos, instead? Cheers. Loud cheers.
The question portion kicks in. I can tell by the grunts and mutterings of the guy next to me, he's a "vote no" guy, like me, and, after about 45 minutes of questions and comments, and answers from the panel, just to give it time to sink in and be sure, I leaned over and said in his ear, "this is unbelievable - this crowd is NOT "vote yes" - I am stunned." He says, "well, maybe we're the only asshole* who care and everyone else has voted." I say "yeah, maybe, but, if this is accurately portrayed in the media - you KNOW they and L.A. and all the "vote yes" people are expecting this NY town-hall to be a slam-dunk "vote yes" night, and it's NOT - if anything, it seems to me we're leaning, by the obvious sentiment of a LOT of the questions and statements ("vote no") and by the obvious mastery of the history of the whole process by Rosenberg, who is making decisive, cogent, arguments against the contract, that NO ONE is trumping (not once), and the reaction of the crowd which is beginning to become rather "vote no" in it's exclamations, clapping and vocal support, this is going to be an important night - again - IF the media covers it accurately, for "vote no." The guy says "you're right."
As the evening wears on and the "vote yes" rational keeps getting POUNDED by people who are NOT buying what Sam Freed and John McGuire and David White are selling, it's clear the "vote yes" sentiment is draining from the room. It's clear, they are NOT rallying any momentum, and they seem to slowly have it dawn on them that they are LOSING THE DEBATE IN THEIR OWN HOUSE.
Now, others may characterize this differently, but, I was the FIRST to admit the Westin meeting was unbelievably anti-MF, anti-Rosenberg and Allen, it was a joke.
This time? The "vote yes" got slapped down by Rosenberg's logic and the support for it in the room over and over and over. The "vote yes" side had NOT ONE "slam dunk" stand-up and cheer moment ALL NIGHT. The "vote no" side had many such reactions - not standing up and cheering, but CLEARLY showing the sentiment in the room was not buying the lame "sunset clause" or "align with the other unions" in 2011" or the "we've GOT jurisdiction if we sign this contract!" argument that one guy was frothing at the mouth over at the microphone. This SAME guy did the SAME thing last December at the Westin, and got a standing ovation. Tonight, he did his "we HAVE to sign this, blah, blah, blah," schtick? And he got NOTHING. Very little reaction, and what their was was decidedly mixed, and MY sense was it was tilted towards "sorry pal, we aint buying it - this contract sucks, sit the *uck down."
Scott Wilson FLEW TO NYC for the meeting and was second on line, Some bozo tried through "point of order" to deny him the right to speak because he was from L.A. - the crowd SHOUTED this bozo down and the panel let Scott speak, and he made a cogent, rational argument for why giving up these rights and benefits and protections was definitely NOT in the best interest of the Screen Actors Guild going forward.
There was a LOT of "what do we DO?!" questions: as in "what do we DO if this gets voted down?" "What do we DO if we don't get an SAV?"
To which Alan clearly and patiently explained, "well, if it gets voted down, then I believe it is incumbent upon the national board to support the will of the membership and both send out and this time SUPPORT an SAV. If we then confront the AMPTP with the SAV and they don't give us a fair contract, we strike. That's what we DO - that's the PLAN."
When people kept bringing this up I kept thinking "What do we DO if the Germans invade Paris! What do we DO!?" As if we have a crystal ball. Obviously - we FIGHT for a FAIR contract! We STRIKE and we slap down the weak sister portion of the union and get them out on the line STANDING up for the rights of the Screen Actors Guild. That's what we fu*king DO for chrissakes!
At the end of the night, I yelled out from the back row, a couple things. John McGuire, somehow, actually started DEFENDING the DVD deal from 1986! He started trying to explain that "back then it was 70% theatrical, and 30% foreign - now it's the opposite and we've gone from 30 million in 1990 to 130 million in 2007" - something like that. This is against the backdrop of the recent WGA study estimating SAG has LOST 4.5 BILLION DOLLARS due to signing that deal in 1986, taking the producers word they would renegotiate, which of course - they never did. SAME story in cable!
I saw Alan Rosenberg smiling slightly and looking bewildered by McGuire's words and I HAD to yell out "YOU ARE ACTUALLY DEFENDING THE DVD DEAL?!" at which point Mr. Mcgiure sat back in his chair with a defeated and pissed-off look on his face. Another shout-out was when someone started blathering on about union "alignment" in 2011, and I said "THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR UNION COLLABORATION. NONE." The "sunset clause?" Got ripped to shreds - it has NO force of law - all it means is we supposedly have a "clean slate" in 2011. What is DOESN'T mean is the AMPTP, other than saying "O.K. - sunset clause, clean slate," is under force of LAW required to change ONE DAMN THING in the contract, and Alan Rosenberg explained that Peter Chernin told him way back at the beginning of negotiations "yeah, we can revisit it, but you'll have to give US SOMETHING if you want to get anything."
Give THEM something? On top of what we're giving them ALREADY if we sign THIS shit contract? Is he fuck*ng kidding?
There was also a complete debunking of the "covered performer" myth. It was made clear by tough questioning that logic dictates, and as Alan Rosenberg SAID he was TOLD by Les Moonves of CBS "Oh, hell yes we want to exploit that space - we're going to use it nonunion all the time - as much as we can" - COMPLETELY clearing up this idea that, at the last minute, after ANY producer has gotten down to casting a budgeted nonunion project, that it will be in their best interest to SEEK out someone to say "Hey - Bob is a covered performer! Hey everybody - this whole thing just went UNION!!" - thereby quintupling (?) his costs and making the project fail cause he's budgeted for a nonunion compliant FRACTION of what it will cost him if it goes union! Common sense, right? Well, tonight, that myth was shot so full of holes it sank to the bottom so fast you didn't see the bubbles.
So, unless there's some kind of "silent majority" out in LA. and NY - what I have seen in these two meetings, is a slam dunk "no" meeting in L.A. and what I would describe, charitably, as a 60% to 40% "no" meeting in NY.
This pig might just be going down. I can tell you for a fact, the looks on the faces of David White, John McGuire, Sam Freed and Mike Hodge said "I thought these were friendlies and many of them are not." I saw real worry on the faces, and rightfully so.
Again, if this is portrayed fairly (ha) in the media, this is a BIG shot off the bow of the "vote yes" people. Even Tom Hank's got ripped a new asshole by a questioner. A lot of people in that crowd were NOT pleased.
Matt Mulhern
| Home
| Contact
| Links
| Subscribe
| Classics
| Archive
| Search
| Watchdog Goodies
Old Watchdog responds to Ms. Landingham’s 'Catty Vote "Yes" video.
|