* Bonus LA Times story !! * ?? Will USAN & Branches make this Weekend a “Crash and Burn” SAG Plenary ??

Have no doubt there are those who want to see the great Screen Actors Guild CRASH AND BURN!

"If you don't think a lot of the infighting between SAG and AFTRA is created by our employers and THEIR EMBEDDED UNIONBUSTERS, you're fooling yourself!"

Well, she just may have been right, but not in the sense, she intended. If you'll notice it isn't those who opposed her that are parroting producer propaganda but rather those who supported her and who have now thrown their support behind the compliant ones at AFTRA.

Like I said, some of them are a little more subtle than others when expressing their opinion.

Kathy Joosten staunch USAN/UFS/AFTRA First supporter had this to say in one of her anti-SAG posts on the Internet:

"The sooner SAG crashes and burns the sooner we can be shut of it."

And who can forget when NY Board member Richard Masur, and the entire USAN board--in a move that could only weaken our SAG negotiators and give aid and comfort to employers-- issued a public resolution with the following statement:

In failing to bargain realistically with the AMPTP and remove unattainable items from the table, our negotiating team, controlled by the current Hollywood leadership, has pursued an agenda that has more to do with politics than with securing a beneficial contract and has betrayed the trust of the membership.

Talk about a piece of AMPTP rhetoric designed to "crash and burn" any chance our negotiation team had of getting a better deal. What makes this statement even more reprehensible is the fact that these same board members, behind closed doors of the SAG board room, in essence voted not to accept the AMPTP's final offer by abstaining and making the vote not to accept the "deal" unanimous.

As, to Ms. Joosten's anti-SAG statement, all though challenged to do so, not one of the pro AFTRA/USAN/UFS posters would repudiate, neither Ms. Joosten's "crash and burn statement" nor her other anti-SAG statement that came because she was upset with SAG's leadership.

"I shall now ask for a Financial Core application and urge others to do so."

Okay, Ms. Joosten, who in the past has compared belonging to SAG to having a colonoscopy, is obviously an extreme example of the "Crash and Burn" Bunch.

Some like UFS leader Ned Vaughn doesn't seem to want SAG to actually Crash and Burn, but rather wants to combine it with AFTRA's broadcasters, and he doesn't seem to be real concerned about retaining SAG as an independent icon for actors as it has stood for 75 years.

In fact in an Internet interview he said rather facetiously about what any new union might be called.

We'll vote on it. "Uncle Joes Actors Union" would do for me! I, I, I, say that somewhat kiddingly…"

Look, there are many ways to make sure SAG "Crashes & Burns," and one of them would be for this weekend's plenary to deny Members the chance to vote on a strike authorization.

We've all heard, many of those who have parroted the AMPTP rhetoric about SAG's recent post card poll calling it a farce because only ten percent of SAG's members made their choice known. Well, hello, I just saw a nationwide poll on the election with a sampling of only 1000 responders representing over 300,000,000 million Americans and no one seems to have a problem with that, but then the AMPTP only controls the local media. Hmmm, now I ain't no math whiz, but even the Ol' Dog knows that getting 10,000 opinions out of a hundred and twenty thousand members, is a tad bigger percentage than sampling only 1000 out 300,000,000. Oh, by the way, out of those ten thousand members who cared enough about their union and their career to respond 87 percent responded get a better contract.

So, what will happen at this weekend's plenary? Your guess is as good as mine. I have heard from those outside of Hollywood that they want to get rid of SAG NED Doug Allen as Chief Negotiator. Not gonna happen, unless they want to fire him and pay off his contract. You see he's got it in his contract that he will head negotiations. I don't see that happening. And if it does, there will be a lot of explaining to do, and the sh*t will definitely hit the fan.

There are those who say change the negotiators! Ah, okay! But, but, each division chooses their own negotiators, so if New York and the Branches want to change their negotiators, hey, I'm all for it.

Of course, I guess, SAG could, for the first time in guild history, send out a strike authorization with a minority report.

If, there are those who want to do that, I say cut out the middleman and just let Nick Counter and the AMPTP write it.

Who knows, some of our new Hollywood Board Members and a few branch members might just surprise us, and put SAG and its Membership First, by asking for a strike authorization--and giving both our membership and our negotiators a chance to put our employers on the hot seat for a change, and let them worry about all the hundreds of

millions of dollars that they'll lose if those new productions they have gone ahead with, suddenly face shutting down.

Hey, they might evem consider coming back to the table, and rolling back some of those rollbacks, you think?

Although, I doubt that the LA Times could care less if SAG "Crashes & Burns," the following story is another example of the local presses biased reporting.

Do you think the fact that producers ads help keep the LA Times afloat has anything to do with the fact that most of their stories about the SAG/AMPTP negotiations are little more than a regurgitation of producers propaganda.

When a group of actors supported by Tom Hanks and Sally Field won key seats on the national board of the Screen Actors Guild last month, many hoped the guild might finally find a way to break the logjam in contract talks with the studios. After all, the election gave moderates a slight majority over the incumbent and more hard-line faction known as Membership First.

Actually, this is an inaccurate statement. With the UFS' five new gains on the National Board, we now have a level playing field on the National Board. This doesn't necessarily give an advantage to any of the board's divisions. For instance, when the National Board voted on whether to accept or reject the AMPTP's "final" offer, FIVE board members voted with Hollywood's Division to reject the offer.

LA Times: But that optimism has been tempered by some harsh political realities facing the newcomers, who will face a tough decision Saturday when the 71-member national board meets for the first time since the election. The biggest issue on the agenda: deciding whether members should vote to grant strike authorization to their leaders.

Really? And why should their be any decision whether members have a right to vote on a matter that concerns their very future as an actor. It is their union. Hey, we ain't AFTRA yet, and until then members should be allowed to vote on such an important decision.

Times: Predicting the outcome is stumping even veteran SAG watchers. And the new moderate Hollywood board members from the Unite for Strength slate have been conspicuously quiet since SAG's negotiating committee recommended that the board approve a strike vote. Ned Vaughn, spokesman for the group, declined to comment. "Private Practice" star Amy Brenneman, the top vote-getter in the recent elections, could not be reached.

Conventional wisdom holds that moderates will reject the proposed strike authorization on the grounds that a positive vote would be extremely difficult to achieve during the current recession. If unsuccessful, it would also expose the union to a humiliating defeat.

Conventional wisdom? That's AMPTP code for "that's what the AMPTP wants us to put out there!" There is not one iota of proof or documentation that moderates on the board will reject a strike authorization. First off we have SAG history? The board has never rejected getting a strike authorization when asked for. Also, let's not forget that basically the same board that will be deciding on a strike authorization, has already rejected the AMPTP's final offer. Oh, and something missing in this myopic piece is the fact that in one of the biggest polls in SAG history 87 percent of those who cared enough about their future as SAG members rejected the AMPTP's final offer. As to postulation that should members reject the strike authorization it would expose the union a humiliating defeat. More producer hogwash. The only way SAG will suffer a humiliating defeat is if SAG starts ignoring the democratic process by taking members out of the mix.

Times: But that's not a given. Some of the new Hollywood board members think opposing a strike vote would allow hard-liners to unfairly portray them as obstructionist, forcing them to the take the political heat for a problem they didn't create.

Ah, so, are we to believe that any decision they make is based on how that they may be portrayed rather than what is good for the membership. One thing you can say about Membership First, and our Hollywood leadership, obviously their decision making has not been compromised by decisions made based on how they would be portrayed---as they have taken shots from the AMPTP Hollywood controlled media, as well as the AFTRA/UFS/USAN/AMPTP First gang that spends most of their time deleveraging our negotiations while spewing pro AMPTP propaganda.

Times: That, in turn, could hurt their chances to secure further gains in future board elections and achieve their ultimate goal: merging with the smaller actors union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

Ah, ha! So its not about getting the best deal possible, but rather making decisions that will lead to merger with AFTRA.

Times: No doubt, SAG leaders will reassure board members that voting for a strike authorization is not the same as voting to strike, that it will give them the leverage they need to close a deal and that the board will still have final say to call a walkout if all else fails. Although it's unlikely, a strike authorization, which requires approval by 75% of voting members, is still a possibility despite the dire economy. The fact is, the vast majority of SAG's 120,000 members don't work regularly and have less to lose by a walkout than the working actors who comprise a small fraction of the guild.

Ah, now it's the great-unwashed masses BS. Let's try and place a schism between the haves and have-nots of our union. Let's blame them for any strike authorization because they have less to lose than the working actors. First, none of this producer-propelled propaganda has a basis in fact, and is, in fact, disputed by SAG studies on members voting patterns. And truth is, most non-working actors have plenty to lose during strike. They lose their opportunity to audition while at the same time, unlike working actors, they have no residuals to tide them through hard times. The fact is that a strike is hard on all of us! And one only has to talk to both working and non-working actors to realize that none of them want a strike. No one wants a strike, but then no one wants to go against the core principle of this union by allowing signatories to do non-union work. And no one wants to be forced to give up the right to their clips as a condition of employment—or wants their full residuals of a network replay, currently $759 dollars, to be replaced with $23 bucks for six months of endless Internet plays.

Times: Even if it passes, however, it's not clear what effect a strike authorization would have. Studio chiefs have flatly rejected SAG's cornerstone demand -- securing jurisdiction for all Web shows, regardless of budget -- arguing that doing so would alter a new-media framework already agreed to by writers, directors and actors who belong to AFTRA.

Look, everyone knows that the AMPTP outmaneuvered the WGA with the help of the compliant directors/producer's DGA, and got further help of AFTRA's leadership who, after a plea to broadcasters, barely got their Exhibit A referendum past the membership with the lowest percentage in their history. The idea that SAG is obliged to same deal accepted by other unions is something that Joe the Producer is going to have to get past, or he is going to see hundred's of millions of his dollars invested in current productions go down the Drain!