Actor (and very recent Emmy winner) Ken Howard has won the votes of the professional actors of the Screen Actors Guild today.

He defeated three other actor candidates:
Anne-Marie Johnson, Seymour Cassel,
Asmar Muhammed.

A little over a quarter of all the actor members of the guild, who were sent ballots due to good standing, voted.

It appears, once again, that the membership is split right down the middle; when it comes to “party preference”. In other words, and simplified: the votes, this election pared down one basic question. Did the professional actor wish to vote for a candidate who supported a merger between AFTRA and SAG; Ken Howard? Or did the actor member wish for SAG to remain a separate entity; Anne-Marie Johnson, Seymour Cassel?

Then, there was Asmar Muhammed, whose stance strongly included “Background”Actors, who only, in the last decade, became under SAG’s jurisdiction when their own union merged into SAG.

If you compare the voting tallies from the two basic sides, you can see they are kind of split, equally. That is: add up Johnson and Cassel’s final numbers, and compare to Howard’s.

The final vote counts, the percentages, the actors who won SAG Board Member positions, the official press release, and winner statements; can be found right here at Hollywood Actor Prep, on theActor Union News Page.

I wish to end with something totally irrelevant, but it’s my blog and all thus SAG stuff gets boring-as-heck, so since it’s just me, I’m adding this to entertain my silly self. (Maybe your silly self, too.)

Oh never mind…
I may do a whole post on it tomorrow…But it is about the following actor and new SAG Treasurer…

Amy Aquinoalso won, she beat out the iconic Connie Stevens for the SAG Treasurer position. (That is relevant, that I do know. A-hem.)

Actors…Please mail your SAG vote in,  if you haven’t done so.

The mailing deadline is Friday, September  22nd, 2009.   If  you don’t mail your ballot  tomorrow, don’t count on it getting counted!

I have posted the videos of  those running for SAG President, here, on my site, under “Actors Union News”.

I start off with the  Martin Sheen’s latest video for SAG actors, where he talks about why he supports Anne-Marie Johnson.

It’s followed by Ken Howard’s, and then Seymour Cassell’s.

I will try to locate the fourth candidate’s video. Had a problem with his link, when I originally put up this article with the vids.

Update: I have  added SAG Pres Candidate, Asmar  Muhammed’s video there, as well.

Please try to stay informed.

The future of all actors, and the value of actors, depends on it.

And please do vote, if you are  eligible. Ditto about the future of actors,  and our value in this country, the world.

Best,

;~Dana

Emmys Change Their Broadcast, SAG Speaks Out, Stands With Other Unions

From LA Times Aug 7 2009, by Richard Verrier

″

Now The Actors Are Griping About The Emmy Changes

Changes aimed at jazzing up the Emmy Awards aren’t going down too well with the Screen Actors Guild, the big labor union that negotiates contracts on behalf of actors. Their complaint? Actors — who love the limelight, after all — wouldn’t get the “recognition they deserve” under the award show’s format tweaks, the guild says.

The board of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences recently approved changes that would shorten the presentation of many movie and miniseries awards by allowing producers to air edited versions of acceptance speeches during the Sept. 20 telecast.

But the move has drawn fire from the Writers Guild of America, a number of leading TV writer-producers and the Directors Guild of America, which called the proposed changes a “material breach” of its agreement with the academy.

Now, the Screen Actors Guild has weighed in. David White, interim executive director of the union, highlighted its concerns in a letter Thursday to John Shaffner, chairman and chief executive of the academy.

“The Screen Actors Guild remains concerned about the recommended modifications which, if enacted, would reduce the level of recognition that our members, and other talent, have come to expect and appreciate through your program,” White wrote.

White urged the board to review further changes with “input from the guilds” to “arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to this situation.”

Please  Note:

Verrier  didn’t explain, correctly, the changes the Emmy show re-vamp is planning…

….Nor the consequences, that is actually, and viably, making the Cable Networks; and WGA, DGA, and SAG upset.

And also notice his “tone” when describing the situation–About the Emmy Show changes, he uses positive terms: “jazzing up”.

Alternately…Look at how he describes SAG: “big labor union”  (…as if SAG is just s0 very powerful, or does he mean big and bad?)

The word “Complaint” has a negative connotation; thus, he’s invalidating, belittling, the SAG side of the debate.

How about this: “Actors love the limelight, after all”…As if their “griping” is about attention, Plain-old-insulting.

Is he insinuating that the  major Hollywood dissent about the re-vamped Emmys broadcast, is merely Actor Narcissism?  Or just the Actors reasons for now joining the ranks of dissension?

–Not entirely, it appears.  Look at the wording he uses when talking about the WGA, TV  show runners,  and DGA: in their sparse sentence, he uses  professional, legal terms.

Even in the page’s title bar, he writes:

“…changes-aimed-at-broadening-the-appeal-of-the-emmy-awards-arent-sitting-well-with-the-screen-actors-guildthe-board-of-the-ac–dot–html”

Forget about the jamming of Internet Keywords!  He cuts his own words off, and makes typos…He just can’t fit all that bias inside the title bar…!

Is this what all the journalists are so sad to see become extinct? Journalistic integrity?

I’ll spell out the problems with the upcoming  Emmy Broadcast that almost everyone, along the professional strata, here in Hollywood, is “griping” over,  in a post, soon.

Best,

Dana

If there is only one of my posts you consult for information on the SAG Contract, consult this one.

Actor Facts About Acting, Not Celebs…

…Are in these video clips.

…Okay, except Ed Harris, maybe…

I find that the new influx of “Vote Yes” videos, have some recognizable names and faces.  Yet, they don’t get down and dirty with the facts. Or how it will impact and affect real life.

The real life. That is, of actors. 

I know some SAG members will vote because famous people ask them too. I wonder if these famous people are appearing in those videos because someone else asked them to.

I’m not sure that they have looked carefully and clearly over the facts.  They don’t give an indication that they have, in the videos.  

I hear them state outside reasons they say to vote yes: The Economy, the Industry…The Future!

I hear them give reasons that may or may not even be possible: “Give up all these [essential] things so that in 2 years all the unions can get together, as one force.”  I wish that will happen, but I don’t have a crystal ball, and it’s not a hope that I can count on. Remember how AFTRA just went behind SAG’s back and made a secret agreement?  Not one union came out to any of the SAG picketing these past few months. I’m part Pollyanna, but also part-pragmatist.  And all the unions have separately different needs.  Don’t you think the AMPTP is going to give some to some unions and break any solidarity, if there ever really is one.

Heck, actors in the same union aren’t standing together for their needs. Is that really going to happen when groups have all needs that differ?

I don’t think that hope is a good enough reason to give up stuff that we are counting on all the unions together to help us reclaim. Or, the new things we will try to make a case for, after we work for two years without? Nah.

These actors explain why they are voting no… On this current stinkin’-bad SAG Actor Contract

In very real terms.  Two actors who were on”Leave It To Beaver” (!) share a tale that blew my socks off…of the ‘hardball’ that is always played. The greed. It really drove it home, for me, why this SAG contract needs to be taken seriously now; and not put off, and certainly without allowing rollbacks. (Nothing’s changed, hm.)

It makes all the legal mumbo-jumbo easy to understand, in regular-guy-terms.

Regular actor terms…Because that is who this contract affects: The actors on the credits, and those who will be the credits, soon.  Then, you can see for your self why the fine print, the unknown, the holes in the SAG Theatrical TV Contract, really spells out danger, loud and clear.  

These vids are also entertaining…Did I mention that?

Please watch them all; because, together, they handle a thorough range of all the problems.  With proof. 

Okay…Who is on the marquee at Hollywood Actor Prep today?

1. Ed Harris, Actor Director Producer
2. Two Actors From Leave It To Beaver, Older Way-yy-yy Wiser
3. Actor Not SAG, yet, Funny Steve Gelder
4. Actor John Cygan ”The Elephant In The Room” Part 2 

 ”Never Forget It”

Sliding in another video, number 5…

With Respect For The Art Of Acting,

:~Dana

Please send this to everyone you can.  Actors, and non-actors. It’s not in the press.

Use the “share-save button” below. It takes a second. Thank you.

I  Do Have A Fondness For Tom Hanks, But I Am Not Feeling It For This ‘Vote Yes’ Video

I may comment a little later, a little more…  I have already commented on the SAG YouTube site where it plays.  Here is a link to see my small comment there.

You must know, if you are a regular reader of Hollywood Actor Prep, that I do not agree that it is a SAG Contract that anyone should  agree to.

From all that I have learned, I think every SAG Actor should ‘vote no’.

I think, if ratified, it will have devastating effects on 95% of the Actors that are SAG members. I think the “imperfections” that Tom Hanks speaks of can, and will, cause real hardship in actors’ lives.

Real hardship.

I don’t agree with his examples that he uses to illustrate his points. I don’t think they apply, in the way he uses them, and should not be any reason for actors to give up eating, health care, or their dream.  

Which is what the consequences could be, with this contract ratification. 

I don’t believe that actors can be blamed, in any way, for this economy or for its effect on the industry.  Anyway, Hollywood has had a better year than ever, according to Variety.

I don’t believe that actors should give up hard won protections, payments, and rights; that they are absolutely deserving of; because the economy is bad all around.

All the “vote no” actors are trying to do is to go back to the “table” with the AMPTP.  See, the AMPTP isn’t the Producers Union.  That’s a different union.  The AMPTP are speaking for the big powers: the Movie Studios, and the Television Networks.  Conglomerates like News Corp, run by Rupert Murdoch.  Those guys tell them where the line is drawn, and send them to the table with that line that they, as representatives, cannot cross.

Well, ‘that line’ isn’t fair. It’s putrid…So they will have to go back to the big guys and get a better offer.  A better ‘line’ that they can negotiate up to. That’s all. And they certainly can afford it. 

There is no impending strike.  Even if there was, and if  ’The Industry’ would suffer so…Well then that would make it a solution, by that same logic, wouldn’t it? Because, if “The Industry” would suffer from an Actors Strike, then the people at the top of “The Industry” won’t let a strike happen. They don’t want to be hurt, or their companies to be.

They’ll, then, simply pay actors a little closer to what they are worth.  It will be over in a snap…And everybody will win.

Remember though, no one wants to call a strike.  The ‘Vote No’ Actors Don’t.

We just don’t want to be stuck with the hardship in this contract. And the future that it spells out, in the fine print. The bold print, too. 

And no one wants to be blamed for a recession.  Especially when we are just an underdog, so don’t bully us and make it our fault. Or hold it up to us, to save. We are powerful talents and useful to our culture. But not with finance.

We are artists.  We have a hard enough time managing our own financial difficulties. Please don’t make us responsible for everyone else’s…

And joking aside, please don’t ask us to martyr ourselves, in order to save ‘The Industry’.  Not only is that absolutely not in our power, whether we vote no or not, whether we strike or not; it really isn’t up to us, not at all. We didn’t cause it, we can’t save it; and no amount of ‘Yes Votes’ or contract ratifications is going to change the nature of the acting profession, and put everyone “back to work”. It isn’t going to give actors any more work either, not more than they typically would have. Even though that’s the way that it sounds.

To ask us to martyr our own profession, as outlined in that contract, and by insinuating that actors are holding up the economy, is an insult. As is what, $24 dollars, one payment, for all the unlimited running of our performances by the studios and networks?  

$24 dollars.  That’s not an “increase”.  To call it one is almost a slur.

Frankly, I don’t know why they all spent so much on lawyers, and money men, and on the AMPTP, to trot out this whole,  big, nearly incomprehensible load of legal crap; why didn’t they just get a banner at Kinko’s and write across it: “WE DON’T THINK YOU ACTORS HAVE ANY VALUE “.

‘Big’ Was Purchased On VHS And DVD By Everyone I Know, And That You Know, And That Everybody Else Knows Too

(And I know they didn’t buy it because I had that measly part that was a booby prize because Penny gave the bigger part that I had auditioned for, the funny part, to her publicist because she looked funny. But couldn’t act. So it wound up on the cutting room floor.)

Neither Penny Marshall’s publicist, nor I, nor you, for that matter… made very much on VHS/DVD sales from Big. Even though nearly every American bought that movie.

Not one of the three of us, nor anyone else who acted in that movie made money on Home Video sales.  We got bupkus.  I don’t know if all three of us get regular residuals from it, I know she and I do. I guess you do too, because you are voting at SAG.

Why? Because SAG was going to go back to the table and renegotiate for it, in a few years.

Never happened.

Yeah. As you said, in the video, “double the DVD rates”.  But double bupkus, is still nothing, Tom.

In this area is where I am probably going to answer some specific points, one-by-one. Just as soon as I stop hyperventilating from such Post Traumatic Stress..

Tom, I think you are a kind man, a good man.  And you used to care about actors.  Declared yourself a part of the community of actors; and everyone felt, along with you, that it was true.

I just wish this didn’t feel like such a betrayal to your brethren.

Everyone is entitled to missteps, mistakes.

This one, though, has some major influence, laden with major ramifications.

I just wish that it wasn’t so, well…

Big.

Love, Peace, And Truth….

Dana

Actor or NOT?

Got a comment from someone claiming to be an actor, yet it was sent from Disney Studios!!!

The comment was about the  Rob Schneider video, that I posted here on Hollywood Actor Prep Blog, yesterday.  The video is all about why actors should “vote NO” on the SAG Theatrical + TV Contract.

The commenter, who did not send his name with the comment, was opposed to what was said in the video.

He claims to be a SAG member on the “vote yes” side.

But, gee, so is Disney.

Here’s the proof…IP Address AND Whois Database Info…  

ARIN WHOIS Database Search

Relevant Links: ARIN Home Page ARIN Site Map Training: Querying ARIN’s WHOIS

OrgName:    Disney Worldwide Services, Inc.
OrgID:      DWS
Address:    500 South Buena Vista Street
City:       Burbank
StateProv:  CA
PostalCode: 91521
Country:    US

NetRange:   204.128.192.0 - 204.128.192.255
CIDR:       204.128.192.0/24
NetName:    DISNEY-BUR5
NetHandle:  NET-204-128-192-0-1
Parent:     NET-204-0-0-0-0
NetType:    Direct Assignment
NameServer: HUEY.DISNEY.COM
NameServer: HUEY11.DISNEY.COM
Comment:
RegDate:    1995-02-06
Updated:    2006-09-07

RTechHandle: HOSTM216-ARIN
RTechName:   Hostmaster
RTechPhone:  +1-407-824-1939
RTechEmail:  hostmaster@disney.com 

OrgTechHandle: SNO35-ARIN
OrgTechName:   Noonan, Sam
OrgTechPhone:  +1-818-553-7549
OrgTechEmail:  sam.noonan@disney.com

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-05-28 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Copyright © 1997-2007 American Registry for Internet Numbers. All Rights Reserved.

Here’s a copy of the comment by the supposed “actor”.

I get all comments submitted to the Hollywood Actor Prep Blog delivered into my email box, so that I can approve them. It’s a spam avoiding tool. That is why the WHOIS info is included along with the comment. Always.

I put XX’s instead of his email address, etc. To protect the sneaky. Who didn’t leave a name.

XX  to me

show details 9:06 AM (41 minutes ago)

Reply

New comment on your post #1413 “Actor and Funny Guy Rob Schneider, From A Movie Set :: Video”
Author : XX(IP: 204.128.192.3 , proxy-ce4.disney.com)
E-mail : XX
URL    : http://
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=204.128.192.3

Comment:
Rob Schneider is a good actor and he has his point of view on all this and I applaud him for not calling Vote Yes people liars, traitors or idiots.  But Rob is not a “journeyman actor”; he is quite successful and certainly in the league of several prominent Vote No actors.  And Rob has some facts wrong.        

The first one is the work slowdown.  That was in effect long before the bottom dropped out of our economy,and it was because SAG had no contract as of June 2008.  Sure, tax incentives are at issue as well, but the bulk of it is that studios don’t want to get stuck in production if a strike happens.

The second is the money for re-use on the internet.  To present those numbers without context is very misleading.  Right now, we get NOTHING AT ALL from new media.  The new contract would give us TWICE THE DVD RATE as a start, AND we would have a look at the financial “books” to start finding out how big the pie actually is and therefore what we can negotiate for NEXT TIME.  Also, per an AdWeek article, even Hulu, while bringing in money, is not making a huge profit.  NO ONE HAS MADE THE NEW MEDIA BUSINESS MODEL WORK YET.

The writers went on strike and got the deal that was to be had.  All other deals came from that template.  It’s not satisfying nor does it lend itself to slogans, but that’s the reality.

I am an actor who just started working again after a long time in the “wilderness”, lucky enough to get a new agent in 2008, got my first TV job with the new agent in JUNE 2008, just in time for us not to have a union contract.  I am VOTING YES for the best deal to be had at this moment, and there ARE good things in the deal.  Anyone who tells you there’s nothing there is misleading you.

There is a big difference between “fair” and “gettable”.  Right now, due in some measure to the poor negotiating skills of the previous negotiator, there is no better deal to be had.  If we vote no, then what??  I keep asking that, and beyond having a strike, there is no credible viable answer to what happens next.

I’ll tell you what happens after VOTING YES.  The work slowdown limbo can start to get improve.  More new shows can go to SAG again.  When the shows start filming in a couple of months, our pension and welfare fund will get money. And the raises will go into effect.  And we will get SOMETHING rather than NOTHING from New Media, as well as jurisdiction over New Media.  AND WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT A MERGER WITH AFTRA and seriously looking at what we have to do and where we have to get to in alliances with WGA and DGA to get better deals in two years.

You can see all comments on this post here:
http://www.hollywoodactorprep.com/blog/2009/05/actor-and-funny-guy-rob-schneider-from-a-movie-set-video/#comments

Here’s my comment back …

[Removed the part where I called the commenter a 'wuss'.  On May 30. I apologize for that. I do like it when people sign their names. Not obligatory.]

One brief thing: 

Any actor who feels that they are not worth more than the pay on this contract…well, I feel sorry for you. I will  continue to be certain, that the value of acting is far greater. And, that the reason that the big powerful Studios offered such a low deal, is because they are aware that there are people like you; I do believe they are using that awareness to their advantage, and playing with actors’ fear, insecurity, and powerlessness.

I also  believe that the points of this SAG Contract  are so difficult to understand: in legal terms, how our individual lives will be affected, and the obscure future of New Media. 

Remember that “The Other Side” devised that agreement with the finest lawyers that all that money can buy.  Whatever we don’t understand is exactly how much they absolutely do understand.  It could be that the contract is deliberately obscure.  Lawyers  have certainly done that with contracts, before.  And,  look what that lack of understanding, and the pressure related to it, is doing to “us”–actors–as a group.  

But you, actually, may be  ”The Other Side”.  I’ve been told that during the Writer’s Strike, the Studios hired people to comb the internet and comment on all oppositional blogs.  Hm. Glad Hollywood Actor Prep made your list.

Fear doesn’t stop me, not always.  (Hey, I was an actor; you need to know how to move forward through fear, to succeed.)

Since I believe so strongly in PAYING ACTORS and COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR VALUE, I am speaking out.  This #SAG Contract is so far from anywhere near what actors deserve. It’s egregious.

I think you make one ongoing mistake. You stick to a stereotype about actors, and that may be your Achilles Heel here. 

Actors aren’t stupid.   Not this one, anyway.  Not all of those that showed up at the Hollywood Information Meeting and surprised the heck out of you, by being a VOTE  NO majority.

Brother, did you then roll out the PR!   

You rustled up Tom Hanks to do a video.   (I’ll discuss that later.)

This comment that was  sent to Hollywood Actor Prep Blog may be part of your retaliation, too.

I’ll never know, perhaps; you didn’t sign a name.

However, if you really are a SAG actor, and you really did “vote yes” to ratify this debasing contract…You are entitled to your opinion, we can still be civil. 

I’ll wave to you, as you pass by on a bus, enroute to your auditions. (Because you will not be able to afford a car.)

Most likely, you won’t be able to afford to be an actor.  That is, if this Contract does get ratified.

…Unless you are a trust fund baby. Or, since the comment came from Disney, I suggest you do not give up your day job at  Disney…  

Actors are going to have the toughest time surviving, and getting union work, than you (obviously) can comprehend, or imagine. If this SAG Contract is voted ‘yes’.

…Or…

Maybe you really are a Disney exec.

In that case, you will be driving your Jaguar, and laughing all the way to the bank.

Fresh video about the SAG Contract From  Rob Schneider…

Flyer That Was Passed Around

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

Martin Sheen Simplifies What Is So Wrong With the SAG Theatrical Contract

I have been avoiding my blog, here, at Hollywood Actor Prep.

One reason is that I feel very strongly about this SAG issue.  

As you know, I am passionate about the value of acting.  Wholeheartedly, I believe actors should be paid for what they do. For the artists they are. For their talent that is so magnificent.  As appreciated by everyone, everywhere.

I could go on and on. I’ve done it before, so you know already…  

This Screen Actors Guild Member Vote is so complex that I felt a bit overwhelmed.  How to dissect each piece to explain?  (Hours of research??) My mission is to make  sure that this blog informs and educates.  It becomes tricky to write about something, when it’s so emotionally-charged…When it so seriously affects the future.

If  you read the press how the actors are behaving about this, you’ll see that we all do have a lot of emotion about this…There’s far more sincere drama going on between SAG members than there is onscreen.  As far as the profession of acting goes; these times, and this contract will create changes that will re-define acting, and actors lives; forever forward.

Thank You, Martin Sheen, For Saving The Day!

 …No accident, that he’s the President from the television series “The West Wing”. Also starred in Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now”. Amongst numerous other credits, as well as ’spawning’ actors Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez…Powerful guy…

Special Thanks To These Very Talented Actors, Also In This Video…

It takes a very brave person to publicly stand up, and speak out, against what used to be called “The Man”.  Against “The Machine”.  Against those who hire these actors. Or not…

John Heard

Renee Taylor Anyone who has ever been in a beginner’s acting class knows the names of the two people above:  Renee Taylor and her husband Joseph Bologna. They act, and write. They wrote “Lovers And Other Strangers“, amongst other Broadway hits.

Connie Stevens
If you are too young to be familiar with one of the most beautiful actresses, ever, Connie Stevens; then you may still be aware of her daughter, also an actress: Joely Fisher.

Nichele Nicols–Uhuru

Elliot Gould

Elliot Gould was paid for the following photo.  That won’t happen for actors, anymore, if this contract gets enough votes of “yes”.

Terry Moore

Clancy Brown

Annie DeSalvo

Jordana Capra

Daniel Quinn
 

"Danger---Will Robinson---Danger!"

In Solidarity + In Honor Of The Value Of Acting,

Dana

Now is the time to share this video; the voting, at SAG,  is being held right now. Doesn’t matter if your friends are in SAG, or even actors. Everyone knows someone who is acting, so please email this video to everyone you can.  Inform them, right now,  please.

If you use the white “share save” button down below, and it will do all the emailing for you….Thanks.

This is the official letter regarding the SAG run actor contract information meetings. Please note that it was posted by David White and John McGuire.  They were brought in by one faction of the SAG National Board, in what is referred to as a “Coup”.  Therefore, these meetings may or may not be presenting only the side of those that want the membership to vote “yes” on the contract.

Many working actor members, and SAG Board representatives, consider this actor’s Contract to be so potently bad; they are certain it’s acceptance will damage the acting profession.  That is, if the membership approves it, in the upcoming SAG-membership-vote of whether-or-not-to-accept.  

I will certainly be covering both sides of this SAG conflict over the AMPTP’s offer, during the next few weeks.

I’ll also be doing some actor contract explaining, and simplifying… Here, in the Hollywood Actor Prep Blog.

Dear Screen Actors Guild member,

As you know, the Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors voted April 19, 2009, to approve and recommend to members, new, two-year successor agreements to the 2005 Producer-Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic Agreement and 2005 Screen Actors Guild Television Agreement.

Ballots will be mailed to all eligible members on May 19, 2009. Ballots must be mailed in the return envelope provided and received at the Everett, WA, post office box no later than 5:00 p.m. (PDT) June 9, 2009. Ballots received after this deadline, or at a location other than the post office box, will not be counted.

We are holding member informational meetings so that you can hear about the tentative agreement and ask questions. Member informational meetings are scheduled for Hollywood and New York as follows and will be announced for Branch locations next week.

HOLLYWOOD
Thursday, May 21, 2009
7 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.
Renaissance Hollywood Hotel
Hollywood Ballroom
1755 N. Highland Ave.
Hollywood, CA 90028

PARKING: No-host self parking at Hollywood & Highland – validation available at the Hollywood & Highland complex: $2 for 4 hours when you are validated in any shop, restaurant or theatre that is part of the mall. Guild not responsible for illegally parked vehicles.

NEW YORK
Monday, June 1, 2009
6 p.m. – 8 p.m.
Directors Guild of America
110 West 57th Street (between 6th & 7th Aves.) New York, New York

Unfortunately, no guests will be allowed. Parents/guardians of younger performers under 18 years-old are welcome. PLEASE BRING YOUR SAG MEMBERSHIP CARD FOR ADMITTANCE (paid thru April 30, 2009). For more information call the National TV/Theatrical Contracts Hotline (323) 549-6665 or email contract2009@sag.org.

Member informational meetings are also planned for Branch locations across the country. More information on Branch member informational meetings will be available shortly.

Please plan to attend the member informational meeting in your area to get important facts regarding the tentative agreement. Screen Actors Guild negotiators, national board members and staff experts will be on hand to provide a thorough overview of the tentative agreement.

You can also find more information on the upcoming referendum, including details of the tentative agreement, by visiting the TV/Theatrical Contracts Center at www.sag.org or by emailing contract2009@sag.org.

We know how important this contract is to all Screen Actors Guild members. We urge you to stay informed by visiting www.sag.org often, attending the member informational meeting in your area and contacting us with questions and comments.

Watch for your ballot which is mailing May 19, 2009, and when you receive it, vote yes and return your ballot right away. Don’t delay, ballots must be received by June 9.

In unity,

David P. White
Interim National Executive Director

John T. McGuire
Chief Negotiator

 

I urge you to sign up for email notification from Hollywood Actor Prep. It is safe, secure, and private.  Why do so?

There is so much changing and evolving, currently, that affects all actors.  If  you are interested in the profession, you may miss very important updates and info.  

I am also branching out this blog into other areas that you may want to participate in, it’s valuable stuff. I will invite and include those on the mailing list; before I do so, for anyone else. I may not contact the public at all.

So sign up…at the upper right corner of this page.

Best

;~Dana

Haven’t Hollywood Movie Studios Always Been Like Monolithic Powers?

Yeah. They have. That’s why the Screen Actors Guild came about, and why it was so necessary.  Actors have always needed protection from exploitation.

Which they were able to get, by all of the protections that SAG was able to put into place.  These protections were put into the “contract”.

What’s  happening now, is that the current contract has caused such dispute because some of these protections were removed from the latest contract; additionally, for new media, some of these protections aren’t included.

Hollywood isn’t owned by Hollywood anymore.

Some people think that when Hollywood was running Hollywood; then the community of Hollywood, and it’s actors, writers, and artists, had much more of a say. And that the powers that ran Hollywood had more of an interest in it, and everyone involved here.  More than just dollars and cents, and profits.  

Example: Sony was once Columbia Pictures. Sony is a conglomerate out of Japan. So Sony is not only not owned by Hollywood, it’s not even owned by Americans.

What was once 20th Century Fox Studios, is now called News Corp.  Why “News”?  Because it is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an Australian, who is a newspaper magnate.

Newspapers, both really trashy, and high level; globally.  Now, additionally, among other stuff like the Wall Street Journal… he owns Fox News, Fox Television, the Fox film studio, MySpace, Hulu, and on and on…

Apparently, he doesn’t even like movies.  Really. (I have a podcast that I will be posting so you can hear more about Murdoch…)

The point is not whether Mr Murdoch likes or doesn’t like movies.  

The point is this, if you don’t respect movies, then you probably don’t have much respect for actors.

I’ve got a list, that’s ready to post, that shows just how large these conglomerates are.

I’ll be posting that soon. There’s another change that is important to understand…

The film studios aren’t just film studios anymore.

Neither are the TV networks. They all used to be very separate entities. They were,until recently, based primarily on different coasts. Movies were West Coast; Television was East Coast.

Now, there’s ‘NBC Universal’.

And they all have internet stake.

And almost all, except one, are on Hulu.  

You probably know that Hulu doesn’t pay any of the actors that you watch on it.

So, the complaint is that if these companies can run content without paying the performers in it, then they will. By simply funneling it into the parts of their business that gets away without paying the actors.  Due to the ‘contract’ provisions concerning New Media.

Click on the ‘play’ arrow to watch the video:

More on this and the actor contracts, in my next posts…

In the meantime, please go and sign up on the email list at the very top of the right sidebar.  That way, whenever I add something to Hollywood Actor Prep Blog, you’ll be notified.

I also plan on doing some branching out this blog–Those that sign up will be invited to participate.

Best,

Dana

This is a reprint from a website called ‘Counterpunch’…

The Perils of a Faithless Membership

SAG Should be Praised, Not Assailed

By DAVID MACARAY

On Friday, April 17, after nearly a year of negotiating, a humbled and restructured Screen Actors Guild (SAG) reached tentative agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) on a two-year contract.  The following Sunday the 71-member board voted to recommend the agreement to the membership. 

This contract is said to be no better than the one that’s been sitting on the table since last summer and virtually identical to the one accepted by Hollywood’s writers, directors and competing actors’ union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA).

Because the original team (headed by SAG president Alan Rosenberg and chief negotiator Doug Allen) couldn’t get the deal it wanted, Hollywood is now piling on, accusing the previous leadership of having under-estimated the Alliance, misread its membership, and failed to anticipate the recession.  Indeed, people are now saying the negotiations were an exorbitant waste of time and money.

Those people are wrong.

First, to criticize SAG for not accepting essentially the same contract that was accepted by the writers, directors and AFTRA is to miss the point.  Yes, the WGA (Writers Guild of America) signed the contract, but they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table.  Don’t forget:  They took a 100-day strike to avoid signing it.

Why did they strike?  Because the AMPTP’s offer didn’t adequately address critical issues, including New Media jurisdiction—an area which happens to be (along with residuals) one of SAG’s key agenda items.  And Rosenberg’s committee believed the Alliance’s “last, best and final offer” was still inadequate.  Second-guess them all you like, but don’t say they were wrong for wanting to secure the membership’s future.

Second, a quick look at the dynamics of contract negotiations tells us that there are two (and only two) considerations that matter:  fairness and attainability.  Obviously, what is deemed “fair” is subjective and is going to depend, by and large, on where you’re sitting.  What’s fair to the union may not seem fair to management.  That’s why you bargain. 

As for “attainability,” that can never be known in advance, because a union never knows what can be gotten until it sits down at the table and tries to get it.  Bargaining is not about sharing new ideas or reaching a consensus; it’s about trying to get very powerful and selfish people to part with their money. 

Also, it’s important to remember that if organized labor had routinely accepted management’s “last, best and final offer”—if they took as gospel management’s assurance that such-and-such was simply unobtainable—we’d still be working 12-hour days with no health insurance or overtime premiums. 

Third, management will use any excuse to avoid sweetening the pot.  When there’s a recession, they’ll use the recession; when there’s a hurricane, they’ll use the hurricane; and when the economy is healthy and everyone is prospering, they’ll give you ten reasons why that prosperity is irrelevant to your negotiations.

And finally, the union knows what to expect.  It knows that taking a hard line can be tricky, especially if management chooses to take an equally hard line.  On one side, you have management, fully mobilized and dug in; on the other, you have your usual mix of union people:  loyal members ready to battle, puzzled members wondering what’s going on, and nervous members ready to abandon ship at the first sign of trouble.  It’s Negotiations 101.

Similarly, union bargainers will be regarded as either weak and gutless, or belligerent and stubborn.  Unfortunately, there’s very little middle-ground.  If a negotiating team puts the membership in jeopardy by asking for a strike vote, they’re militants; if they bring back a lousy contract and recommend ratification, they’re wimps. 

So let’s get it right, people.  Labor relations is a contact sport.  Unless you take the view that your union should never fight, or that it should fight only when it’s assured of winning, you’re always going to risk having your butt handed to you in a sling.  But if you’re not willing to fight for a decent contract, you don’t deserve one. 

And not to rehash the past, but if SAG’s membership had remained faithful—if some of its big-name stars had not seen themselves as deputy ambassadors, and set off on their own bizarre, diplomatic mission—this bargain might have turned out differently.

Actually, it’s not over yet.  SAG’s membership could still reject the offer, which would put the AMPTP in a bad spot.  The Alliance can posture all it likes, but a membership rejection, particularly after a board recommendation, would be a body-blow. 

David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright and writer, was former president and chief negotiator of the AWPPW, Local 672.  He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net

You can view this and other op-ed pieces at …. www.counterpunch.org…

Here’s to free speech.

Here’s to overview, to vision, to intelligence. Here’s to succinct and talented writers who can see what only some can, and have a remarkable ability to put it into words, so that we all can see.  Here’s to you, Mr Macaray, for being so skilled that you wrote such a insightful and clear piece, and for being brave enough to speak clearly, and out; in an industry culture that not only doesn’t condone that, but also is fear-laden.  

Above all, I’d like to thank you, Mr Macaray, for having only a good intent.  And for publishing something, for others. Without any apparent personal gain.

I wish that I could say that about all the major parties that are involved in this negotiation.  I wish I could also say that about all of those who have commented, publicly; and even all of those who took on leadership positions in the union. 

I especially wish I could say that, even in a small degree, about the AMPTP and most especially, those people (businesses, corporations) the AMPTP union is representing.  

I urge everyone, when thinking over the SAG: AMPTP conflict, negotiations, offers, voting, etc.

…To remember to include personal gain factors in whoever’s side or opinion you are weighing…

…And true losses, as well.  

Some items on the contract look so glossy and good, and actually may not be.

Same with some of the people who are backing one side or another.

One item or another.

Even those that chose to report (journalists) or blog.

(All Next Week, We Will Be Discussing What The Points Of The Contract Really Say, And How That Can Affect You)

Especially, when you weigh the terms of the AMPTP offer, and if  you are a SAG voter, I urge you to remember to take care of yourself.  As actors.  It isn’t going to just happen. It isn’t all going to work out on it’s own.  Or in the future. 

One side is taking all they can, and has no apparent respect or regard for the acting profession, talent; and especially, does not seem to bear any ethical responsibility to you, in this business negotiation.  

You may be thinking of “fairness” while buying into delusions of marketing.  There is no “fairness” that is even being pretended, by the other side.  Look and see, for yourself.

If you disagree, please comment below, and let me know. I sure would appreciate feeling a bit better about the people who now run our industry, hold the power, and how they regard the talent.  Please, I want  you to!  Enlighten me, and my readers, as to how this is a decent conflict, with decency on both sides.  And that the AMPTP, and the studios, and the networks, have not only decency, somewhere, interwoven in their actions and intent…and that they aren’t knowingly causing harm to the acting profession, as a consequence. 

Thanks.

Here’s the Press Release that was issued by the Screen Actors Guild

…After the SAG board approved sending out these AMPTP terms, to all SAG actor-members,  to vote on.

I will be writing more about the terms of the contract, the SAG member vote, and the ramifications, in the near future.  My goal is to make the information easy-to-comprehend; and to put it in ‘laymen’ terms, and to talk about how it’s going to play out, in real life, for actors.

I’d also like to expose some double-speak, or  bull***t, where there is some.  In other words,  there’s a few points that look like wins for actors, but are actually losses.  There is hype about some things, and it’s really not the truth, nor the bottom line.  I’m not looking to make any wars or take any sides, I just wish to present the facts.

The Actors Will Vote On Whether To Ratify This Contract In May.

That gives SAG, and all actors, plenty of time to get a good understanding of what this all means, thoroughly.  For now, and for the future.

When the terms are sent to the SAG membership, there will be both pro-and-con arguments, sent along with that.  I’ll be posting that.

If there’s more necessary, such as things not covered, details, or simply what that means, in terms of work-a-day experiences for working actors, or pay, or even ramifications of increases, losses, and all that subtext of “putting off ’til tomorrow” stuff.  (…Uh, the Renegotiating-Later-Theme, that has been underlying this whole deal.)

SAG’s Press Release:

SAG President Alan Rosenberg Emails Actor Members

Not an April Fools joke…

Alan Rosenberg, SAG President

April 1, 2009

Dear Screen Actors Guild Members,

As you read in a SAG email sent to you this morning, the Joint SAG/AFTRA Commercial Contracts Negotiating Committee reached a tentative agreement with advertisers early this morning in New York City.  I would like to thank and congratulate the hard-working staff member team for their unity and collaboration over the past months starting with the W & W meetings, and especially during the long 6 weeks of negotiations.  They who worked tirelessly on behalf of SAG members and I know each of them sacrificed time with their families, and work opportunities.

The advertising industry displayed a willingness to have labor peace, and to make compromises even during these challenging economic times, to keep actors working,

It is clear that when SAG members work together, unified and focused on common goals to benefit actors, we really can accomplish many things.

I’m gratified that we were able to reach an agreement with AFTRA and conducted these negotiations together. More details of the tentative agreement will be released once the Joint SAG/AFTRA Board has met. Please watch the SAG website at sag.org for updates and email your comments and questions to Contract2009@sag.org.

Again, congratulations to the professional women and men who gave their time and expertise to these critical negotiations.

In unity,

Alan Rosenberg
National President

Best, 

:Dana

Follow me on Twitter, for alerts as to when I post this blog, and for important actor news.

My Twitter name is __dana__. If you click on that, a new window will open at my twitter page. You can sign up for  Twitter by clicking on this.

Did I hear you correctly, Mr. Scott Wilson?

How many hundreds of millions of dollars, did you say?  

(That won’t go to actors…)

Instead, then, who does that money go to? 

Just so you know, this video was just a general overview, off-the-cuff.  The specifics are coming shortly.

But, just a second…

Does this actor look familiar? Have you been following Hollywood Actor Prep this week? Monday’s Post?… 

Best,

;Dana

Please share on Facebook! You can also email this to your friends, as with all my posts, by using the white “SHARE/SAVE” widget below. It’s 2 clicks to your Facebook page, or to your email, from there.  All secure, too.

Twitter? You bet. Here’s a link to my page, so you can follow me.  My name is __dana__ on Twitter.