SHOW OF STRENGTH AT THE HOLLYWOOD SAG MEETING :: AGAINST RATIFICATION OF ACTOR CONTRACT!
What a shocker! The SAG CONTRACT INFORMATIONAL MEETING, in Hollywood, was expected to be a PR stunt for the ‘vote yes’ side…
Instead, 600 actors turned out, and let everyone know that they were voting NO. No—ratifying—this—”bad—deal”.
I, for one, am relieved. I believe actors should be paid for their work, and paid more than they get now…(How radical am I!)
I don’t mean more pay for the big earners, the actors that make millions; those you read about in the press.
I mean the other 95% of the actors in SAG. Those that you don’t read about. The ones whose names are in the credits at the end of every movie you see. You know, when everyone leaves the theater?
Those professional actors have a life that is vastly different from the big earners. They are talented, skilled, experienced; many you would recognize…And they deserve to be paid.
The new SAG Contract, the one up for ratification, has holes so big that the entire population of actors will not be able to exist as professional actors. That is the estimate. The “profession” will be diminished to “hobby” level. The idea of making a living as an actor, even a hungry one…will be no more.
The actual future outcome for actors, if this contract goes…isn’t in the PR you may be hearing, about this contract; that some fine dollars went to pay for.
The AMPTP Gave Actors A Take-It-And-Die-Either-Way Offer
It’s all in the fine print and the holes; of the Theatrical TV SAG Contract, as offered by the TV Networks and Film Studios, to SAG Actors. It’s a “take it or leave it” offer, or rather a “take it and die either way”, offer.
If you keep reading my blog, I will try and explain it, and organize the items simply, so that it’s easier to comprehend. Dense and complicated…but critically important.
Right now– is when the voting on the contract is taking place, at SAG. The deadline to turn in votes is, I think, June 6?
As I said, I was certainly surprised at the force and overwhelming majority of actors who were ‘voting no‘ and let everyone know it, at the SAG meeting.
I don’t think I was the only one surprised. Some actors stayed away…everyone was expecting a persuasion to ratify…
I think those on that ‘vote yes’side were shocked, too. As was the new regime at SAG…because they, next, counter-acted with an move that will just blow your socks off…It’s just too crazy…
If you think that all along this contract has been a circus of drama, j-u-s-t w-a-i-t…!
But, I am not telling you yet! That’s tomorrow’s post!
First, you have to know what happened prior…
Here’s the article published by Nikki Finke, published in ‘Deadline Hollywood Daily’, on the SAG Contract Vote Information Meeting:
It was not a friendly room towards white or Ned Vaughn of Unite For Strength, part of the so-called SAG National Majority now leading SAG. Both were booed. While SAG President Alan Rosenberg and Ed Asner received standing ovations. There were over 600 people based on staff’s count, described to me as a broad mix of “working, kind of working, rarely working, and never working” actors. Everyone I spoke with agreed that the members opposed to the contract outnumbered those who favored the contract by as much as 75% “Vote No” to 20% “Vote Yes” with 5% undecided.
Anne-Marie Johnson, SAG VP, in 'That's So Raven'
Anne-Marie Johnson convened the Hollywood Division meeting and joining her on the dais where White, Vaughn, SAG Chief Negotiator John McGuire from NY, Stacy Travis, Connie Stevens, and Ray Rodriguez. A slide show covering the contract’s major points was shown. Then it was Q-and-A time with questions from the floor alternated with questions submitted on cards.
Several attendees told me Ned Vaughn made many misstatements, while Stacy Travis appeared overwhelmed by the task of answering queries. White is known for his calm manner but, when the crowd was not pleased with many of his answers, he began to get hot under the collar. Even more so when Rosenberg, Stevens and Johnson repeatedly voiced their opposition to the contract due to very fundamental issues such as the high budget threshold for made-for-New Media productions enabling rampant non-union productions, as well as the virtually non-existent residuals structure for network primetime content streamed on the Internet. “You can make a hell of a TV series for $300,000,” Stevens said.
Vocal “Vote No” advocate Scott Wilson said from the floor that “it is stunning” that SAG was creating a space for non-union work funded by studios.
One “Vote Yes” supporter claimed more pilots were going to AFTRA than SAG. So White was asked specificxally how passing the contract would bring TV producers back from AFTRA. He had no clear answer. A “Vote No” backer said what mattered was the pilots’ success ratio. Said another, “The union we do pilots under is relevant because of thresholds towards penions and health. We’re dishonoring prior generations who fought for residuals and P&H.”
Regarding the latter, Ned Vaughn was asked if he thought SAG was throwing under the bus those older members who’d worked prior to 1971 when it came to residuals. Vaughn stated that their work was so old that they’d gotten paid already years ago. “It’s such a small amount of money anyway…” he added. The crowd didn’t like that reply at all.
Vaughn later told Variety that the “Vote Yes” contingent asked Rosenberg repeatedly to explain how voting the deal down will lead to a better agreement when the AMPTP has said repeatedly it won’t sweeten the terms. “I think a lot of members don’t believe that voting no is going to get us a better deal,” Vaughn told the trade.
Some questions from the “Vote No” contingent caught White in inconsistencies. For instance, on the issue of force majeure, White has continually insisted in the past that an issue like that in this contract will never be negotiated again with the AMPTP, not even in 2011. And, because this is all the guild could get on the issue, this contract should be ratified. (”We will never be able to get anything back in force majeure, that’s for sure,” White has said.)
But when during last night’s questioning, White’s answer suddenly was not as definitive. “He sugar-coated his answer to make it appear as if SAG could go in and renegotiate things,” one “vote No” attendee told me. “He claimed the Sunset clauses allowed for that. Well, you could hear a collective moan from the crowd.”
White also tried to get out from under his quote “This deal sucks”, which I reported he said during a National Board meeting and which the “Vote No” contingent is now using in its campaign to reject the contract. White stated Thursday night that he should have used another word — not because he felt “suck” was an inappropriate word for an Interim NED to use during a board meeting, but because he was misunderstood and wanted to make it clear that there are good things about the contract. “Moans again,” a source told me.
Towards the end of the evening, Ed Asner spoke and received a standing ovation for expressing deep concerns about the contract. Frances Fisher expressed concern about clip use going forward because of the contract.
Actor Frances Fisher
I Received All The Info About SAG’s Informational Meeting, Live, On Twitter…
An actor on Twitter tweeted the whole event, as it unfolded. I am going to put some of those tweets at the bottom of this page, in case you don’t understand much about Twitter.
Here is a summary that the same twitterer sent to me, just afterward, by email. His name is Michael Heister; he’s a member of both SAG and AFTRA….Got a blog, too.
My name is Michael Heister, and I’m an actor member in good standing of both SAG and more recently AFTRA.
I attended and live-Tweeted the meeting Thursday evening (May 21). __dana__ and vdovault were kind enough to retweet (or RT as it’s known in the Twitterverse). Again, my gratitude to them for that and for passing on other information related to the current contract offer. VDO and I became acquainted with each other through the Internet during the WGA strike, and she’s cool and sharp and knows her stuff.
Nikki Finke at DHD did a great job summarizing the event. [Posted above.] If you cross-reference my Tweets and her summary, I think she may have used me as a source. She didn’t contact me or source me, so I have no way of knowing. I can only infer from some similarities in phrasing between my live Tweets Thursday night and her post filed at 3 p.m. Friday. In any event, I’m cool with it and glad to be of service. Nikki does great work, and provides a valuable forum.
To recap, the meeting – one of many being held around the country, but Hollywood is by far the largest division within SAG – opened with introductions of the officials on the dais by First VP Anne-Marie Johnson. Interim National Executive Director (or IED as Nikki Finke so brilliantly acronym’ed him) David White, chief negotiator John McGuire, board member Ned Vaughn all got a mix of cheers and boos. Stacy Travis received light applause. IMHO she didn’t get booed because most of the Membership First folks in the room didn’t know she’s with Ned Vaughn in the Unite for Strength faction. SAG President Alan Rosenberg received a rousing standing ovation. And members were generally polite to SAG’s lawyer.
I slapped myself awake quickly enough to be second in line at the second mic. A built stunt guy galloped to the mic first, and I’m smart enough to know better than to get in the way of a stunt guy. I don’t know where those guys are bred and raised, but they’re the ones I want on my side in a guerilla war after the military falls against an alien invasion.
The first few questions – no disrespect to the stunt guy – were mild technical questions. Then it was my turn.
I asked David White specifically –what changed –in the offer between his February assessment that the deal “sucked” and the deal that we’re now voting on. I framed it as, what changed so the deal went from “suckage” to “non-suckage”. He did not answer my question. Instead of giving us insight into his thinking, or detailing the substantive differences (aside from the capitulation on force majeur and the shortening of the contract length, what is there??? Seriously, I don’t know, he didn’t tell us) between the offers, he burned through my whole two minutes with his regrets about having used the word “sucked” in the first place, so I couldn’t get a follow-up comment in.
A commenter at DHD brought up the person who questioned Ned Vaughn’s credentials as an actor. I responded at DHD, and I’ll reiterate here. We should bear in mind we’re all actors. We’re all professionals. This should never be personal. It’s about the best interests of members of the guild, which to my way of thinking align closely with the best interests of the industry. We argue the issues, not the individuals. For example, I am still in awe of Jamie Cromwell’s work in LA Confidential, and I associate that with my dad. My dad taught drama and he lived in LA in the period LA Confidential is set, and he was very impressed with Cromwell’s performance.
My other observations – including a couple of personal notes – are best read from my Twitter feed.
I will add this, though. I did get some cheers for my question, because, I think, it was the first one to get to the heart of the matter. I asked David White to give me a reason to vote for the contract, and I got a talkative lawyer’s version of crickets. Ed Asner, in contrast to me, got a standing ovation for his impassioned statement of opposition. What can I say? I’m no Ed Asner.
Anne-Marie Johnson
More tomorrow…
If you’d like to read all the articles that I have published on SAG, the-contract-and-controversies!…Go to the upper right and put “SAG” in the search bar.
And if you’d like to follow me, and the others on Twitter: sign up here, by clicking this link.
My ‘twitter name’ is __dana__. Click here to see my page and tweets, and to follow me. You can then get all my tweets about Hollywood Actor Prep. SAG. Me. And more…
In support of the art of acting, and all acting professionals…
:~Dana
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
