As, usual, the Ol' Dog has added a few comments to the following article.
--
SAG in the hot seat
Leaders pressured to start talks
By DAVE MCNARY
Pressure on SAG to reach a settlement on its film-TV contract is reaching a high level of intensity. 
Leaders of the Screen Actors Guild are being pushed by high level talent, studios and other unions to defuse fears that actors could mimic writers and go on strike. And a campaign's been gaining steam -- with backing from Ben Affleck, Sally Field, Teri Hatcher and Charlie Sheen -- to impose an earnings requirement for SAG members to vote on whether the guild strikes.
So, our smiling fellow actors, to the right, want to exclude 85,000 SAG members from voting, because they don’t make enough money. 
Gosh, do you think that if there's a strike, they would deign to allow those low-wage earners to go out and picket? Because if SAG depended on our friends to the right, our picket lines would look like the lines outside of one of Ben’s movies. By the way the lady on the bottom right, is Kathy Joosten, she has publicly compared belonging to SAG to having a colonoscopy
Several top stars are planning on going public with their campaign to persuade SAG leaders to commit to negotiating a deal as early as possible, rather than wait until May or June to start talks. George Clooney voiced such a sentiment at last week's luncheon for Oscar nominees (Daily Variety, Feb. 5).
You da man, George!
By going public with what the producers want to hear, George Clooney and others have effectively undermined any strategy SAG might have had to get a better deal for members. But then, maybe it wasn’t SAG member George Clooney speaking, but Smokehouse Productions owner, George Clooney. Here’s a thought if Mr. Clooney really wants to be a positive force in securing a good deal for fellow members why doesn’t he volunteer to be part of the negotiations, hell, he could even get his production company to sign an interim deal. And should he then sign-off on a deal similar to the DGA deal, I want him to come before the membership and tell them that the show they worked can be(Under the Add-supported Streaming provision)shown for as little as $23 dollars (Less than a buck a showing) for 24 exhibits which most likely would include a year, with a cap of $98 dollars for series regulars.
No talks have been scheduled yet for the SAG-AFTRA contract on feature films and primetime TV, which expires June 30.
The antistrike lobbying efforts kicked into high gear two weeks ago, after SAG president Alan Rosenberg and national exec director Doug Allen went public with their dissatisfaction over the DGA's tentative deal at a time when the WGA was still negotiating its pact with the moguls.
Rosenberg and Allen -- who have been closely aligned with the WGA throughout the strike -- proclaimed that the DGA deal would not automatically be the model for a new SAG deal, asserting that such an assessment would be "premature." They also blasted several new-media provisions of the DGA deal, which largely served as a template for the WGA pact.
A few days earlier, during the SAG Awards, a number of attendees noted that Field and Rosenberg had gotten into an argument after Field told the SAG president she believed the guild should move quickly to start contract talks. Field had been one of the on-camera SAG representatives during the opening lead-in of the telecast of the event.
When a noted labor negotiator like “Norma Rae” Fields strategies, you better listen. Whether early or deadline motivated negotiations are more effective is debatable, but according to noted negotiator Herb Cohen , in his book “Negotiate This” “If there is no perception of a deadline there’s little inducement for taking action, much less for accommodation and compromise.” But what is not debatable is that for someone like Ms. Fields to publicly chastise SAG leaders strategy, without discussing it with them beforehand, could clearly undermine negotiations and weaken SAG’s already weaken position in those negotiations. (Apparently there are a whole slew of top name stars willing to sell out the Screen Actors Guild to get there production companies back to work. More on than in my next post.)
The antistrike efforts appear to have paid off most visibly in SAG's move calling off its divorce with the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists. SAG announced over the weekend it's returning to the usual joint bargaining with AFTRA -- which takes a far less confrontational approach than SAG at negotiations -- and called off a referendum that would have given the blessing of SAG's membership to the split with AFTRA.
Far less confrontational approach is an understatement . They will give them what they want including your residuals. And don’t kid yourself they, with their USAN SAG New York and branch board member AFTRA operatives, will decide what contracts SAG gets. For instance, the last time SAG wanted to get an increase in DVD, the vote went down something like this. AFTRA’s negotiating team voted 12/1 against it. And SAG's voted 8/5 in favor of trying to get it. (Those 5 against getting an increase in DVD where from NY and the branches.) So, those with the most at stake in the matter the Hollywood representatives where outnumbered by AFTRA and their operatives. 17 to nine. And its gonna be the same damn thing this time around. Oh, and that one AFTRA negotiator that voted with SAG. She was promptly removed from the AFTRA negotiating team.
SAG made the move a week after AFTRA threatened to get in front of SAG via separate primetime negotiations in early March, undercutting SAG's potential leverage. AFTRA topper Kim Roberts Hedgpeth has disclosed that the unions -- if they can sort out details of joint bargaining -- are planning to be ready to start negotiations by March 31.
SAG's also seeing pressure in quieter ways with the end of the WGA strike. Studios are indicating to agents this week that they're generally holding back on commitments to feature projects until SAG signs a new deal -- particularly since they've been stockpiling features in recent months as a hedge against a SAG strike.
One tenpercenter said he's expecting a flurry of calls today, but noted they'll lean heavily toward projects already far along in development.
Additionally, more than 800 actors have signed a petition asking that SAG's board institute a "qualified voting" requirement that would limit those able to vote on the contract, though the document didn't offer a specific recommendation as to an earnings threshold but noted that less than 20% of SAG members earn at least $7,500 annually.
Besides Affleck, Field, Hatcher and Sheen, signers so far include Jason Alexander, Kevin Bacon, Kathy Bates, Maria Bello, Amy Brenneman, Helen Hunt, Diane Lane, Debra Messing, Kyra Sedgwick, David Strathairn and Rainn Wilson.
Brilliant! At the time fi-core is raising it ugly head, these members have come up with the perfect way to encourage it. The only benefit a member loses if he/she goes fi-core is the right to vote, and these SAG members want to take away that privilege from 85000 fellow members. 
Brenneman told Daily Variety that the key concern behind the move is for SAG to come into negotiations with the strongest possible bargaining position. "What we're hearing from members is that they've felt for years that this is something that needs to be addressed," she added.
Amy Brenneman has absolutely no idea what she is talking about. It is the same Ol’ Story. Go after the little guy. Now, I was on the picket line just about every day during the 2000 strike and I never saw one of the names listed above on the picket line, but I did see a hell of a lot extras and rank and file actors that these elitist would deny the vote. It really, amazes me that self-centered people, who happen to be working at the time, somehow think that entitles them to privileges not bestowed on the poor actor that happens to hit a dry streak, or is trying to get a foothold. These “Us Only” members would have denied Harrison Ford the right to vote, for all those years that he struggled---ah, building a strong bond between him and the guild-- and of course, after being treated like a second class member all those years, he would have still stepped forward and given that $100,000 dollars to SAG during the strike, ah, right?
The two-week-old petition, circulated by 23-year SAG member Ned Vaughn, asserted that the clout of working actors to decide on SAG contracts has been diluted because of the preponderance of nonworking thesps in the guild.
More BS. There’s has never been a contract recommended by SAG’s negotiating team that has been voted down in referendum. Look, this is not about these contracts anyway, but rather is about the ATA. Does anyone honestly believe that Ned Vaughn could spontaneously start a petition 2 weeks ago and reach all these high profile members, and get them to publically support taking away fellow members right to vote, without consulting their publicist,agent or manager. More likely, they got a call, a quick unbiased summary of the petition, and then a nudge to sign it. Huh? Oh, right, Ned just happened to have those hi-profile actors email addresses, and they just happened to read his email and said, "Hey, that sounds like a good idea."
"The challenging reality is that two-thirds of SAG's 120,000 members consistently earn less than $1,000 per year as SAG actors, and only one in five SAG members earns even $7,500 annually. But anyone holding a SAG card can vote on our major contracts," the petition adds. "Not only is this unsettling ... it's dangerous. There's a good reason virtually every union in the country -- including the WGA, DGA and Actors' Equity -- requires work experience to vote on contracts: because doing otherwise weakens a union's position."
What’s unsettling is that a group of self-centered actors think that they are entitled to take away the vote of a fellow dues paying SAG members, who abide by SAG’s Rules, just because they happen to be working at the time, and he/she doesn’t. Especially, in light of the fact that many of the names on the petition are the same people that are willing to give producers whatever they want just so THEY can keep working, with no interest on how there giveaways will impact future generations of actors. If indeed, these actors where the leaders back in the Fifties and Sixties, actors would have no residuals or pension and health today. In fact, what have most of those who want to deny others a vote, done for their guild besides received benefits because of those that came before them. The irony here, is that, there are probably many of our older members who sacrificed for those benefits that will most likely lose their vote, if these self-serving, selfish, elitist get their way.
Discussion of the petition came up at Saturday's meeting of the SAG national board, but was quickly put aside, according to a board member who attended. Brenneman said Rosenberg and Allen will be meeting next week with reps from the petition group, but stressed that she and her allies aren't committed to a specific resolution.
"We don't have an iron-clad proposition," she added. "We want to hear what the leaders have to say."
Better yet, she might want to hear what her fellow 85,000 SAG members want to say, ah, again maybe not. I’m sorry but someone like Amy Brenneman, who as far as I know has never done a damn thing for SAG’s membership, suddenly wants to take away members right to vote, in my opinion she ranks right up there with Adam Corolla—and we all know how his career progressed after he turned on SAG during the strike of 2000. I’m putting her on my boycott list. And there are 85,000 other SAG members who might want to protest, her anti-democracy stance.
This lady wants to take away most of our members vote.
SAG had no comment Tuesday about the petition drive.
The petition contends the SAG board can limit voting on a contract to those affected by the contract, and noted that SAG already has such a provision for its voiceover animation and interactive-gaming pacts.
More double talk, actually what it says is in Article X1, Section 2. "Membership ratification shall not be required for any collective bargaining agreement which the Board of Directors determines in good faith is not to be used in widespread or industry-wide application affecting a substantial portion of the membership.” This would include voice over and interactive. If qualified voting was already allowed, why did Melissa Gilbert and Restore Respect/USAN pals try and amend the SAG Constitution with a qualified voting amendment. To see photocopy of actual document click the following link.
http://sagwatchdog.com/cgibin/admin_config.pl/read/34
Approving qualified voting on SAG's major contract would represent political dynamite for board members, however, since such a move would almost certainly have to be approved by SAG's members as a constitutional change -- a highly unlikely prospect. Asked about that scenario, Vaughn responded by contending that the petition cites language in the SAG Constitution that contracts be ratified by the "membership affected thereby."
Like I said, if qualified voting was already constitutional why the amendment, beyond that how could anyone say that all members where not affected by the decision concerning any agreement or lack of agreement. If 85,000 members excluded are not affected, then would that mean then that they would not have to honor picket signs.
The issue of "qualified voting" last emerged six years ago after SAG's members voted down a revamp of its master franchise agreement for agents. After the measure lost, agents complained bitterly that nonworking actors may have been the key component in the no vote, pointing to stats showing that only 30% of SAG's members were repped by agents and that 23% of guild members did not work at all during 1996-2000.
Like I said,again, this ain’t about collective bargaining contracts, it’s about power-grabbing agents partnering with employers, becoming employers, and, like the deal they brokered with AFTRA for a half-million dollar payoff, its about moving beyond simply representing actors, by using them in order to expand their power base. Does anyone seriously doubt that AFTRA is being enabled by these agents as they gobble up SAG’s jurisdiction with their inferior minimums and residual giveaways. Hey, don’t forget, under AFTRA they can have a twenty percent ownership in the deal, oh, and hey, with those sweet backend deals what they’re making off actors is peanuts.
The "qualified voting" proposal was crafted in 2002 as a way of restarting negotiations with agents, but the measure was voted down by the board after several members objected to it, characterizing such a move as undemocratic and elitist
Actually, it wasn’t voted down by the board but rather simply wasn’t implemented because Kent McCord told CEO Bob Pisano that if Qualified Voting was “slipped” into our SAG constitution, he would personally help get the necessary 10,000 signatures on a petition to bring it to a referendum--and let the membership be the final judge on the matter.
Read the full article at:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117980854.html
Like this article? Variety.com has over 150,000 articles, 40,000 reviews and 10,000 pages of charts. Subscribe today!
http://www.variety.com/emailfriend
or call (866) MY-VARIETY.
Can't commit? Sign up for a free trial!
http://www.variety.com/emailfriend
--
Well, looks like a lot has happened since my last post critical of the Hollywood’s board decision to give into the threats of AFTRA by returning to joint bargaining, a move that puts the control of SAG’s negotiations in AFTRA’s hands, even though they only have 3 shows affected out of the hundreds negotiated.
The Ol’ Dog understands that the most of the first hour of their Saturday morning meeting concerned moi's post. I can’t exactly tell you the mood of the group, or what was said, but I think its safe to say that I won’t be up for the Ralph Morgan Award this year.
Since, that post, there are those who are saying that I want Membership First voted out of office. Not true. I think they are a good group that made a bad decision. And, beyond that, they are the only ones left that actually give a damn about the membership. Unfortunately, the bad guys are taking over, and there ain't much that can be done now. It will be up to the membership to get involved, and that most likely will not happen until its too late: And their resiudals are a thing of the past, powerful agents call ths shots, and their union is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the power brokers that run this business.
And, although, NED Doug Allen and the SAG board has lost credibility because of their failure to stand up to AFTRA, it probably doesn’t matter, since these negotiations are basically a done deal--what with the sell out by major stars, openly questioning SAG’s negotiations strategy, in the press. A move that signifies weakness and emboldens the AMPTP.
The irony is that they need not have bothered, because with AFTRA at the helm, Nick and the boys will get everything they want. You can bet, the deal we will get is already in place. They could, of course, convince AFTRA to rollback residuals, which would be a feather in Nick Counter's hat.
What the hey, we're in showbiz, and with that $23 bucks we get for down streaming, we can always take the family to Burger King, yes life is good.
A.L. Miller SW Editor & Chief
www.sagwatchdog.com
To all those nice folks that inquired about my shutting down the Ol’ Watchdog, I want to say thanks for inquiring. With everything going down, or perhaps I should say, coming down on our beloved union, I will be around for a few more posts, but will devoting less time to it. I will try however try to keep posting trade articles that affect you.
Final thought. How about this? When all these whinning high-profile actors approach President Rosenberg to move up negotiations, why doesn't he demand that they join the negotiating team.
It might be quite a learning experience for them to see how AFTRA controls the negotiations. At the very least, what better way to shut these people up than to ask them to actually do something for the union that has given them so much.
All formatting and photos are SW's.
| Home
| Contact
| Links
| Subscribe
| Classics
| Archive
| Search
| Watchdog Goodies
They want to take away 85,000 SAG members right to vote! And George, Tom, Robert and other hi profile actors publicly undermine SAG’s negotiation strategy. 
|