Dear Fellow Members:

I am the working wife and mother of three kids (one of whom is about to graduate high school) - so I know about being busy. However, I will attend and I urge you to join me this Thursday evening at the Renaissance Hotel at the SAG informational meeting for the TV/Theatrical contract.

The press will be there. And so will the opposition, led by our (thank God his term is almost over) SAG President, Alan Rosenberg. We need to get out a strong show of support for this contract. If you think passage of this contract is a fait accompli please think again. If we want change – we have to make that happen with our votes, our voices, and our very real presence

Thursday, May 21, 2009
7 – 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.

In the meantime, clear your calendar for Thursday. Membership First is terrible at running our union. But they have so far done a better job organizing. Let’s show them and the industry that we truly support this contract. It is also important for as a preliminary to the next election.

Keri

Three very important pieces of action on our part in the life of our unions.  Here is what they are and a message from Unite For Strength about all of them.  
VOTE!  DO IT.
Keri

AFTRA Board and Delegate Election:  You have that in your mail now
JOINT AFTRA/SAG Commercial Contract: You have that in your mail now
SAG TV/FILM Contract: Coming soon

Chances are, the SAG /AFTRA Commercials contract referendum and the AFTRA elections ballot are in your pile of mail right now – and the SAG TV/Theatrical referendum is on its way. How you vote in each will help determine your future as a professional performer.

THE CONTRACTS

UFS strongly urges your YES vote on both contracts. We’ll be writing about the TV/Film contract in a separate email – in the meantime, please visit www.SAG.org to see a brand new video featuring SAG members from across the country explaining why they’re voting YES.

As for the Commercials contract, suffice it to say that even in the current divisive climate at SAG, that contract was approved unanimously by both the SAG and AFTRA Boards. If that isn’t a recommendation, we don’t know what is, so please mark your ballot YES and mail it IMMEDIATELY: it has to arrive by this Thursday May 21st.

THE AFTRA ELECTIONS

Just as important for your future is your vote in the AFTRA elections. And there the answer is also clear: the AFTRA Leadership Team (www.aftraleadershipteam.org).

Like Unite for Strength, the candidates of the AFTRA Leadership Team understand that to fight effectively for our rights and careers we must be strategic and unified. They understand what performers need, and approach our profession as a business. They know that having two unions representing us is a fundamental problem – and that merger will solve it. That’s why the AFTRA Leadership Team has consistently supported merger.

The other group that’s running – Membership First – rejects that approach. As part of SAG’s current and former leadership, they led a costly attack against AFTRA in the run-up to the last negotiations, and now want to bring their divisive tactics to AFTRA itself. No matter how they dress up their approach, it boils down to the same thing: more fighting between our unions.

The AFTRA LEADERSHIP TEAM – for Strength in Unity

If the past year has taught us anything, it’s that when our unions fight, we lose. The AFTRA Leadership Team has already proven itself, navigating turbulent waters with a steady hand. You can trust them to work hard with SAG to bring all performers together and harness the true strength of unity.

Please find your AFTRA ballot, vote for the candidates listed below, and mail it right away - but no later than June 1st - so it arrives by June 3rd.

Unite for Strength

PS: If you’re a New York member, you’ll find an equally strong group of candidates, all committed to unity, at www.AFTRAnow.com.

THE AFTRA LEADERSHIP TEAM CANDIDATES (To view a PDF sample ballot – click here)

If you thought about ignoring your AFTRA Board election ballot when it arrives – please consider the following. This is turning out to be an urgent election.

Last night at an open Hollywood Board SAG meeting, Membership First passed the following motion made by Angel Tompkins a member who was expelled from AFTRA.

"I move that a task force of Hollywood board members only be formed, to explore the acquisition of actors of AFTRA. The Task Force is to be made up of seven (7) Board members, National or divisional with the Chairperson to be the first Vice President of the Hollywood Board. And this task force is charged to bring back their recommendation as a motion to the Hollywood board which in turn the Hollywood Board will bring such a recommendation to the National board.“

The National Labor Relations Board has a word for what Angel and the MFs want to do... Its called “raiding”. What an irresponsible waste of time. Elected and staff will now have to spend precious time setting this right.

Our Vice-president, Anne Marie Johnson knows full well that there are rules in our SAG by-laws that balance all committees to include members from the branches. What an abuse of the chair to allow this motion to stand. Shame on her.

MF is now on record with their true purpose: not to merge our unions – but to gut AFTRA. Remember – the tv/theatrical contract that is keeping actors working now is the one that AFTRA negotiated. The union that is currently protecting the interests of actors is AFTRA.

No surprise – every “yes” vote on the motion came from Membership First. Every member of Unite For Strength voted “NO” - There were a handful of MFs who abstained from the vote out of concern that by their vote they might be in violation of the non-disparagement agreement that is current in place. A couple of MFs simply broke with their party and voted “no” - good for them.

I have been in both unions since somewhere around 1976. I have been active either on the board, in committees, or as union activist since 2000. I have seen a lot of antics coming from membership first and their predecessors, the Performance Alliance. And yet, I confess, I am dumbfounded by this move. Please indulge me now as I have strived hard to avoid falling into name calling. I believe in principle over personality, issue over party. So I ask you to forgive me my analogy here: they are like a feral dog after a bone when it comes to destroying AFTRA.

Please keep them out of the AFTRA board room.

Keri

This went to the New York Membership of SAG from NY Prez Sam Freed. I echo his props to the joint Chairs. What a great message from Sam.

Keri

A Message from New York Division President Sam Freed

To the New York Membership:

A tentative deal has been reached on our Commercials Contract. The proposed contract, unanimously approved by the joint negotiating committee, must now go to the joint Boards of both SAG and AFTRA for approval and then be ratified by the membership.

This negotiation marks a tremendous accomplishment for both our unions and the industry. We should all be incredibly proud and thankful for the work done by the joint committee that consisted of both elected and volunteer members. The national Chairs of the Committee, New York Secretary Treasurer Sue Anne Morrow for SAG and National President Roberta Reardon for AFTRA should be especially congratulated for their leadership. Lead negotiators John McGuire, Mathis Dunn and Ray Rodriguez were equally masterful in negotiating a deal that will serve our membership for the next 3 years.

You will be provided with more details about the proposed contract once the joint Boards approve it. But in short this deal preserves Class A residuals, increases minimums across the board, increases pension and health contributions and sets standards for the internet and new media.

The solid gains in this proposal are made even more phenomenal considering the economic atmosphere in which they were made. I am eager to present them to you for your consideration and ratification.

We are moving forward.

In Solidarity,

Sam Freed
New York Division President

From: Screen Actors Guild <memmail@sag.org>
Reply-To: Screen Actors Guild <memmail@sag.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 04:45:57 -0700
To: SAG Members <memmail@sag.org>
Subject: SAG and AFTRA Reach Tentative Agreement with Advertising Industry

Dear Screen Actors Guild Member,

I am very pleased to inform you that early this morning, the SAG/AFTRA Joint Commercials Negotiating Committee, under the capable leadership of John McGuire, Mathis Dunn and Ray Rodriguez, reached a proposed deal on the commercials contracts. The committee voted unanimously to recommend this agreement to the SAG/AFTRA Joint National Board for approval and membership referendum.

I would like to express my congratulations and sincere appreciation to the members of the negotiating team for their hard work and dedication during this challenging process.

Please take a moment to review the below news release which provides some details about the proposed agreement.

In unity and looking forward.

David White

---

AFTRA AND SAG REACH TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WITH ADVERTISING INDUSTRY ON NEW COMMERCIALS CONTRACTS

NEW YORK (APRIL 1, 2009)—Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists announced today that the AFTRA/SAG Joint Negotiating Committee has reached a unanimous tentative agreement with the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) on terms for successor agreements to the AFTRA Television and Radio Commercials Contracts and the SAG Television Commercials Contract, subject to approval by the SAG/AFTRA Joint National Board.

The new three-year agreement contains a more than $36 million increase in wage rates and other payments for all categories of performers in the first year of the contracts, approximately $21 million in increased contributions to the SAG Pension and Health Plan and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Fund, establishment of a payment structure for work made for the Internet and other New Media platforms, important new monitoring provisions, and improvements for choreographers, extras, and Spanish language performers.

The new contracts also contain an agreement in principle outlining terms for a pilot study for the purpose of testing the Gross Rating Points (GRP) model of restructuring compensation to performers as proposed by Booz & Co. The two-year study is scheduled to commence on April 15 and will be conducted by a jointly retained consultant engaged by the Unions and the Industry. The results and possible adoption of the study’s findings will be subject to negotiation by the parties not later than January 3, 2012.

The unions successfully protected the critical “Class A” payment structure and continued unchanged the editing provisions in the existing contract.

Highlights of the new agreement include:

• Three-year agreement, term effective April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2012
• 5.1% overall increase in wages and other compensation over the life of the contracts, including a 4.43% increase, effective April 1, 2009, in Class A, Wild Spot, and basic cable session fees
• For product made for the Internet or in New Media, 1.3 times the minimum session fee for 8 week’s use and 3.5 times the minimum session fee for one year’s use
• 0.5% increase in the employer contribution rate to the AFTRA H&R and SAG P&H plans bringing the total contribution rate to 15.3%. The agreement provides for a cap on P&H and H&W contributions, but the committee successfully negotiated the industry from their initial demand of $250,000 to $1,000,000 per performer, per contract, per year.
• Secured five, new covered jobs for commercial extras, up from 40 to 45
• Established new exclusivity provisions for made-for cable only commercials
• Instituted, for the first time, a contract provision to pay extras a round-trip mileage fee of $8
• Increased foreign use payments under the Spanish Language section of the contract

“The AFTRA and SAG commercials contracts provide our members with the solid foundation they need to sustain their careers and families,” observed AFTRA National President Roberta Reardon and AFTRA Chair of the Joint Negotiating Committee. “In this round of negotiations, during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we successfully improved wages and expanded benefits to keep our members working now and in the future. This is a major victory for our unions—and a victory for organized labor as a whole—and I applaud the Joint Negotiating Committee for their vision, hard work, and solidarity.”

“I am so proud of the work of our Joint Negotiating Committee. It was a hard-fought negotiation and our greatest victory was in protecting Class A residuals payments. By securing a joint study to research and develop a workable compensation model, our negotiating committee protected every member who works under these contracts across the country,” said Sue-Anne Morrow, Screen Actors Guild Chair of the Joint Negotiating Committee.

“Our Joint Negotiating Committee held together in the face of some very tough issues and they stood firm for our core principles. We have achieved a deal that brings significant improvements to these contracts. Our gains include establishing the first-ever payment structure for made-for-the Internet and new media commercials and significant increases in wages during a very troubled global economy. I am proud to take this tentative deal to our Joint National Board,” said John T. McGuire, Screen Actors Guild Chief Negotiator.

“The Joint Negotiating Committee provided us with clear objectives borne out of the nationwide Wages and Working conditions meetings leading up to the negotiations,” said Mathis L. Dunn, Jr., Chief Negotiator for AFTRA and Assistant National Executive Director for Commercials, Non-Broadcast, and Interactive Media.“ Among the priorities, our members asked us to increase minimum compensation and preserve Class A. We achieved those objectives and more, including agreement on a test study that will allow for a meaningful exploration of how best to adapt our contracts to meet the changing needs of all performers working in the shifting landscape of new technology.”

Formal negotiations between the 26-member AFTRA/SAG Joint Negotiating Committee and the Industry began on February 23 and concluded on the morning of April 1 in New York City.

Details of the new agreement will be submitted to the SAG/AFTRA Joint National Board for approval at a date to be determined, and if approved, will be jointly mailed to the membership of both unions for ratification thereafter.

The Screen Actors Guild is racing toward the rocks and the quibblers, the anonymous and the gutless critics can't seem to quit flailing about, blades drawn, apparently unaware that they're only stabbing themselves and destroying the union they claim to care so much about.

David White is a man of integrity.  His willingness to step into the SAG maelstrom has surprised many, but those who know him bless him for caring so much about the union he served fairly and honorably as its general counsel that he is willing to set aside his own business and step back into the fray to help sort things out.

As David White clearly knows, the Screen Actors Guild is more than the frustrated, wounded egos that have turned it into the industry's laughingstock.  It is an honorable union with a storied history. It represents the hopes and dreams of thousands of men and women of all ages, types, races, creeds, genders and belief systems who want the chance to express themselves and have their shot at the brass ring.

The membership is not served by this back-stabbing and blood-letting.  They want to work.  They want to be represented by reasonable, thoughtful people interested in creating the conditions in which that can happen.  They are sickened by the continued chorus of whining, screaming, name-calling, back-biting, bickering and smearing.  They want the Screen Actors Guild to regain the stature and respect it once enjoyed so they can get on with their careers.

David White represents exactly that hope.

ENOUGH!!

Mike Farrell

...however the recent events require more than a few bullet points. Here’s the scoop and my thoughts.

The National Board’s rejection of the last best & final offer from the AMPTP was a response to an untenable change in the term of the contract (more on that below.) Yet – it was half of the never-say-die MF Board members who voted against the motion to reject a bad deal. Yes, the folks who wanted to take us on strike voted against rejecting a bad deal. I applaud the members of Membership First who resisted the movement of oppositional voting.

Last week SAG went back to the table ready to make a deal. We made huge moves with substantial gives on our part. But the AMPTP pushed the ball even farther away. They seem to be attempting to capitalize on the fact that we have been taken a long way down a lousy road. But make no mistake – John McGuire, David White, and our negotiating committee, along with our moderate majority on the board – are not going to simply roll over for what could irreparably damage SAG.

The AMPTP wrote into their last best & final (LBFO) – a new expiration date of the contract. This poses a huge problem, not only for SAG but also for the rest of the entertainment unions.

By insisting that SAG accept an expiration date 10-12 months later than AFTRA, WGA, and DGA, the media conglomerates are trying to permanently compromise SAG’s bargaining leverage. Putting SAG last in line for “pattern bargaining” means SAG will have no influence on the pattern; which hurts SAG most, but weakens all the entertainment unions. SAG is by far the largest and separating it from its sister unions would greatly benefit our employers. The more the creative unions can harness our collective strength, the better it is for ALL of us.

44,000 of us are dual members of SAG and AFTRA and like it or not – we are now competing against one another. We MUST fix that. On the surface, the LBFO gives SAG and AFTRA a chance to bargain together before AFTRA’s contract expires on 6/30/11 – but what might seem like a compromise from the AMPTP is really a poisoned apple. According to the offer, if SAG and AFTRA fail to negotiate and ratify a joint agreement by 6/30/11, AFTRA’s contract would expire but SAG’s would still be in force for another 10-12 months. If the unions decided a strike was necessary, SAG could not participate because it would have to fulfill its contract until May of 2012. This “compromise” may seem to address the need of SAG and AFTRA to bargain jointly, but in reality it leaves the AMPTP holding all the cards. They can offer an inferior deal and if SAG and AFTRA do not accept it, the whole thing blows apart – leaving both unions de-leveraged, and SAG stranded far behind its sister unions.

So what happens next? In the immediate, SAG must focus on the commercial negotiations which started today in New York. (Thankfully, it’s a joint negotiation with gracious AFTRA).

Knowing that McGuire/White and the moderate majority are in the lead, I am confident they are planning quiet steps to get producers to reconsider their unacceptable overreach. Those steps could include back-channel communications, visible support from our sister unions (which has been noticeably absent), and direct appeals from rank-and-file and high-profile members.

Some of you have asked why not let members vote on the LBFO. Simply put – the SAG board has never sent out a contract that the it can not recommend, much less one that it has rejected. That is a precedent we want to protect.

Make no mistake - I take a back seat to no one in wanting these negotiations to be over. But it would be imprudent to insist that the new leadership fix it in one fell swoop after the horrible mess they were left with. I am willing to give them some time and support to work it out.

Despite my desire have this done yesterday, I’m still willing to give this some breathing room to see what can develop – especially in light of the important work that must be done right away on the commercials contract.

Keeping you posted,

Fraternally,

Keri

I am sorry. I have no commentary at the moment. I am restraining myself from a big spew of words that will help no one. But I will get a day or two distance and be back with more. In the meantime, here is the news:

VARIETY BREAKING NEWS- SAG REJECTS 'FINAL OFFER' FROM MAJORS

The Screen Actors Guild's national board has rejected the majors' take-it-or-leave-it final offer by a 73% margin. SAG made the announcement Saturday night following a day-long meeting, two days after talks on a new feature-primetime deal broke down. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers is insisting on a three-year deal, while SAG wants a deal that will expire on June 30, 2011.

Well, as many of us predicted, the longer we futzed and fought and delayed getting back to the table – the worse off we became. I am in the process of analyzing what I, as a working member of SAG & AFTRA, will do in the shake down. When I have an informed opinion, I will share it with you. In the meantime: I URGE you go to sagwatch.com and read up. On the surface, it seems that AFTRA – for all its “wimpiness” has proven to be the stronger, smarter, better positioned, better in tune LABOR UNION.

Click and read: http://blog.sagwatch.net/

Get a hankie. Or a stiff drink.

Keri

I am very pleased to report that the AFTRA New Media deal is well at work bringing productions that would otherwise have been non-union into jurisdiction. There is nothing so useful as actual case-history unfolding before our eyes.

What follows is a report of new web-series currently in production. As I mentioned, I do not have the resources of time to produce a video. However, God bless actor David Lawrence who answers the “elephant” video better than I in a video response. The link to David’s video follows my brief blog:

A producer reports that they are in the middle of producing several web series, each with 5 to 10 episodes a piece. The content mirrors reality or variety t.v., with low-key product placement. Although not a national signatory to the Net Code, the producer looked at the AFTRA language prior to commencing production. They realized that even with their very low budgets, these productions would be above the per-minute budget to qualify for the Experimental waiver. And, even though the shows are using real people or amateur performers, most of the shows would also end up using at least one Covered Performer – again, making the show ineligible for the waiver.

The producer – someone with whom we bargain (not a student making a film) ended up signing the Net Code and has been hiring a several actors for these series under AFTRA contracts. The wages are 100% negotiable, but they’ve been reasonable. Contributions are going into the AFTRA Health & Retirement funds. Payments are being made on-time, since timely payment still applies to New Media production. Instead of pushing this totally non-union, AFTRA has brought the production under their umbrella, even in a production that used primarily non-union performers. Hello – we win. AFTRA performers have more opportunities, contributions are made to our pension fund, and we are another step closer to the practice of jurisdiction in New Media becoming the standard.

We must set a standard of giving our employers realistic choices that will encourage them to do things above board. It protects everyone, including them.

Please understand what contract negotiators know first hand – contracts are enriched over years. We have to start somewhere – and though certainly not perfect – at least AFTRA has made a real start. We can not afford to let New Media go to the wind the way we did cable; and we are still in danger of that if we do not find a way to circle the wagons. I do not envy our SAG negotiators going into meetings next week. I do not believe it is going to be an easy path back to the deal that the AMPTP negotiated with AFTRA.

Now: here is the link to David’s video. Big thanks to him for stepping up to the camera and giving an actual account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Qp3X5CMcQ

One more thing that has been bugging me – it has been said that Alan Rosenberg tried to unite the Guild by visiting branches and that “no other SAG president ever visited the branches” like Alan. PULEASE. I can name three who did.

And while Alan might have made a show of trying to unite the Guild – he worked against uniting all actors into one union. Which is the only – only – only answer to the question -- how the hell are we going to hold onto New Media.

Have a great President’s Day.
Remember Abe. Remember George.

Fraternally,

Keri

Normally I would not post something anonymously. However, this longtime working actress and friend offered up the details of her own recent work experiences as case studies in what is happening in our business. Because the details are so personal – I have removed her name to respect her privacy. It doesn’t matter – there are plenty of other stories just like this one. Read on:

Dear Keri -

I am in RI. With my sister in law who was just laid off of 25 years in banking.
Two kids -- single mom -- you get the picture.

Anyway, I just got sent the elephant in the room video and was very concerned. Then I read your follow up and I thank you.

I have been letting people know that webisodes still don't have revenue stream and most recently I sat in on a conversation of what I understood to be Marketing execs at CBS who met at the Museum of Radio and Television in NY (I just happened to be there doing research on another subject and listened in) -- they were talking about webisodes and stated the revenue stream was marginal and even with the growth of product they did not foresee profits for another 3-5 years at best.

What concerns me are my last three jobs:

1. March 2009 -- David's Dance -- SAG Contract -- $100 a day, transportation to Buffalo, hotel, and bring your own costumes. It's a great part! Even Prime Time can't offer me that. But SAG Ultra Low Budget is more and more becoming the norm. And they scream about AFTRA!

2. October 2008 -- Mental -- SAG contract -- $1000 a day (same deal was offered to me by LOST but I turned it down and later regretted that I didn't take the trip to Hawaii). -- so now I fly to Bogota, Columbia. Annabella Sciorra and David Carradine star and a known British Actor. Transported to set under armed guard -- don't leave the hotel etc etc -- This is shown only in foreign markets -- no US distribution ever intended!!! I suppose I'll make those lovely foreign residuals. But what a studio. They are shooting a lot of product in Bogota. That's FOX telecolumbia. And the crews -- all columbian with translators for american directors -- and it doesn't appear to be any different than being on the FOX lot on PICO. Except of course you might get kidnapped. But I'm sitting at lunch with working actors like myself - we all live in Toluca Lake -- and here we are being flown into this foreign country -- because we have the talent to do what they need -- and there are 5-6 flights a day out of LAX and Atlanta to Bogota. It's cheap. And it's happening!

3. November 2007 -- The Untitled Lucas Reiter Project -- SAG Pilot -- Barry Sonnenfeld director -- I'm flown to NY, first class hotel, I get on the bus to shuttle me out to Queens where they are shooting - lots of lovely actors -- I turn to one and say "Who are you playing?" "Oh, I'm the vocal coach" "Really?" "I teach everyone here to speak like you" and then I realize all the actors are foreign! Brits, Aussie, South African -- I'm a last minute bit part hire. Why is the US allowing all these visas? Aren't we fighting the war on terror! HA!

I see the death of the American actor. The world is here and if we don't merge (probably worldwide) we will not make it. We are more talented -- both crew and actors -- we have been doing it longer. But they are figuring ways to get around us -- and as the screen gets smaller -- our talents won't mean anything -- you can hide a lot of talentless people on a small screen.

Fraternally,
--

I have been asked the definition of a covered performer. Please remember that if ANY performer on a New Media project is a covered performer the entire production becomes an AFTRA job:

From Ron Morgan, the LA president of AFTRA, in reference to the definition of NM “covered performer” in the AFTRA TV/Theatrical contract.

A Covered Performer for the purposes of low-budget work in Original Programming for New Media is someone who:

• Has worked under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement (CBA) and has at any time in their professional career done any ONE of the following:
• Has at least 2 television (whether broadcast, basic cable, premium cable, or direct-to-video) or theatrical motion picture credits.
• Has at least 2 credits in a Professional Stage Play (e.g., Broadway, Off-Broadway, National Tour, LORT, COST, CORST).
• Has had a total 13 weeks employment on a radio station (including satellite) in a major market. The thirteen weeks do not need to be consecutive nor do they need to be with the same employer.
  
• Has been employed as a performer on an audio book or as a royalty artist on an sound recording commercially released by a major or bona fide independent label
  
• Appeared as a principal performer, announcer, singer or dancer in national television or radio commercial, interactive game, or non-broadcast industrial production.

The employers may rely on a performers representation for verification. The phrase “terms of a CBA” is critical because this assures that even non-union members in right-to-work states who worked under CBA terms in any of the above mentioned ways would trigger union security. What is union security? This means that, not only will there be contributions made to Health and Retirement on that worker’s behalf, but ALL OTHER WORKERS WILL BE COVERED WHETHER THEY MEET THE ABOVE CRITERIA OR NOT.

Seems like a broad definition to me.

Keri

There is a video being circulated of a guy who speaks with sincerity and concern about webisodes and the like. Every person who has forwarded it to me has commented about his sincerity – with which I take no issue. But I do take issue with his “facts.” Look, if I had the time, I would make a counter video because it is so much more fun to take in than a long missive – but I am a working wife and mother of three – I haven’t got that kind of time. So – if you want the facts, read on:

If even one covered performer is used in a webisode, (not only union members, but also many thousands of people who have worked in film, TV, and commercials and not members of any performers union), then the whole job is union (AFTRA). Oh, and every job that the AMPTP companies do non-union they have to report to AFTRA on who they hired in any performing job, so AFTRA can verify there are no covered performers. And they have to tell AFTRA what the budgets are, and be prepared to document the budgets.

What this means is that AFTRA (but not SAG, because we are still working without a contract) will be assembling a database of all this vital information about to what extent the studios are utilizing this non-union experiment, how much production is getting made, at what budgets, and who they're hiring as actors. And the WGA gets the same info in their jurisdiction, and the DGA in theirs. But not SAG.

And the most important thing that the DGA, WGA and AFTRA have achieved, and SAG has not, is that they have been recognized by our employers (the AMPTP) as the collective bargaining agents for the work that their unions cover. Since AFTRA members ratified the contract, only AFTRA has recognized jurisdiction over actors in New Media. SAG may assert jurisdiction, but to this point, we have gotten no recognition from management. That means that under labor law the AMPTP doesn't even have to discuss New Media with us.

Jurisdiction in NM is the big "get" of the 2008 negotiations. Only SAG under Doug, Alan and MF have failed to recognize that, and achieve it. Our narrator also fails to grasp the importance of what the DGA. WGA and AFTRA have achieved.

Some questions about the video:

a) How many of these "hundreds" of webisode projects that he sites are being produced by AMPTP companies, non-union, under and AFTRA contract?

We don't know, because he doesn't say. Seems that if WB, Universal, Paramount, Sony, or any other major studio were on those breakdowns, we would hear about it. It seems that the vast majority of them have nothing to do with AFTRA or their contract or even SAG and our contract.... Because they are not being made by our employers with whom we are supposed to be bargaining.

b) Let us assume that mine is a specious argument. Let’s say for a minute that many of these are being made under AFTRA deals under the new agreement, non-union. How would that lead us to conclude that we ought to have been working without a SAG contract for the past 8 months and that we should authorize a strike now?

Even if we made an absolute dream deal - these webisodes would not be made under SAG jurisdiction. Why would the producers produce these under union contracts when they could be made under AFTRA's provisional contract? This is the reality which Doug, Alan, seem strangely unwilling to acknowledge. They let it get away.

c) What exactly are these projects that average 3-5 actors/webisode?

They sure sound like small, short films. Isn't that what people have been making so far for the net? We don't know, do we? Because he didn't tell us. He mentioned how many there were, and he mentioned how little they pay. But he never mentioned what kind of projects they are, or who's making them.

One of the reasons the studios cited for wanting to be able to experiment at these budget levels was that people were already making webisodes - primarily non-union. Only a handful have been made under SAG contracts - 800 since 2001. That's about eight days of production at the current production pace, according to our narrator. So, clearly, this has been a completely non-union area of production till now.

The studios wanted to see if there was a way for them to get into this directly... if the economics would make sense. And the DGA (then WGA and AFTRA) decided that they would rather get these new filmmakers in under our tent, then leave them out there in the strictly non-union world.

Just once I would like to hear someone say exactly how they think we have any leverage to get this life-or-death deal done. They never do. They just keep insisting it must happen. I mean no disrespect to the guy in the video. I will say it again: AFTRA improved the tv series contracts and got their foot in the door on webisodes. SAG doesn’t even have a feature film nor tv contract, let alone new media.

Why that guy is not making a video supporting the need for merger, I do not know. Wait a minute – he DID. If we want any piece of NM – we had better get it together and unite.

Because the board of the Hollywood Division of SAG now allows members from its area to attend board meetings (after signing a form about no-no’s), I thought it would be worthwhile to see if they’d let me in to watch the February 2nd meeting last week.  This was the first meeting scheduled after National Executive Director Doug Allen was fired by the National Board and replaced by Interim NED David White, who I knew when he was SAG’s General Counsel from 2002 to 2006.

Because Doug Allen’s hard-nosed style made him the champion and the favorite of the Membership First faction that hired him, and because said faction continues to control the Hollywood Board even after losing control of the National Board in the last election, this meeting, being David White’s first as NED promised to be interesting.

To set the stage, as it were… Membership First is the current name of the faction that, in essence, split our union into ‘political’ groups. Organizing an effort to assert control over the Guild in the 90s, this group succeeded in defeating then-President Richard Masur and installing William Daniels, their titular head, as president.  The Daniels Administration led us into the commercials strike of 2000, torpedoed a Masur-led effort to solve problems between SAG and the ATA (the collection of agents representing most of the working actors), re-wrote the Guild’s constitution and, in general, disdained and tried to minimize the input, effect and value of members in the New York and Regional Branch Divisions of our national union.

This Hollywood-centric group, operating under different names but known in recent years as Membership First (MF), has demonstrated a proclivity for tactics and rhetoric that have caused it to be referred to in the media as the ‘militant’ faction of SAG.

In the years my wife, Shelley Fabares, and I served as National Board members and on the Hollywood Division Board (Approx. 2001 – 2005) - Shelley for three years on both Boards and I for three years as SAG’s First VP under President Melissa Gilbert and one year as a National and Hollywood Board member - we worked hard, along with allies in Hollywood, New York and the Regional Branch Division, to repair what we saw as the damage done by the attitudes, choices and behaviors of the Hollywood-centric-types who continued to be a loud and often obstructionist presence in the union by dint of their strength on the Hollywood Board.

During our terms, for example, they sabotaged an agreement we negotiated with the ATA agents, waged a dishonest campaign that just barely kept the consolidation and Affiliation agreement (that would have merged AFTRA and SAG and averted our current problems) from succeeding, and made life so desirable for our bright, inventive and gutsy NED, Bob Pisano, that he decided to step aside and allow the position to be taken over by the terrific man who had been running AFTRA, Greg Hessinger.

In the 2005 elections, Membership First achieved its long-sought goal by attaining enough votes in Hollywood to give it control over the majority of the Guild’s National Board, with the single voice of moderation in Hollywood provided by the incredibly courageous Morgan Fairchild, who has maintained her seat, and somehow her sanity, in the ensuing years.

The first National Board meeting under this new majority and its president, Alan Rosenberg, engineered the firing of Greg Hessinger and the abrogation of the contracts of two executives he had hired, acts that cost the Guild’s members hundreds of thousands of dollars and a significant portion of the union’s already-battered reputation.  

Deteriorating relations with New York and the Branches were then exacerbated by the hiring of Doug Allen and a new, even more assertive posture for the Guild. This new energy resulted in the quick, embarrassing defeat of Mr. Allen’s attempt to force the ATA agents into an agreement, assaults on AFTRA that nearly destroyed SAG’s 30-year-old Phase One relationship with that sister union, a now 7-months-long stalemate in negotiations between SAG and the AMPTP, the infamous attempt to scuttle AFTRA’s contract with the AMPTP, and a wasteful, expensive, tone-deaf campaign for a strike authorization in the midst of our country’s worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The growing confusion, upset and dissatisfaction of the membership then resulted in the election, last September, of a significant number of independent, non-MF actors to the Hollywood board.  Coalescing as Unite for Strength - their primary focus reuniting with AFTRA – these new faces on the Hollywood Board joined with Morgan Fairchild to bring a different, more rational energy to the National Board’s majority.  

In the first meeting of the newly-constituted National Board on January 12th, 13th, they put forth a motion to fire NED Doug Allen and disband the Membership-First-dominated negotiating committee that had been unable to complete an agreement with the AMPTP.  This effort by the majority was frustrated by a series of parliamentary tricks and filibustering that refused to allow a vote on the measure.  This unprecedented attempt to frustrate the will of the majority, orchestrated by the now-minority MFs and abetted by the Chair, President Alan Rosenberg, succeed in making SAG an industry-wide laughing stock by creating a 28-hour board meeting at which no business was allowed to be done.  None.

Told that any future attempts to assert their authority and fire Doug Allen would meet the same impasse, the Board majority used a little-known constitutional owner granting them the authority to act outside a meeting and, on about January 26th, presented a “written assent” signed by the majority of SAG’s National Board members to the Guild’s legal counsel.  This document, verified and accepted by SAG’s counsel and outside advisers, fired Doug Allen, installed David White as Interim NED, disbanded the negotiating committee, replaced it with a Task Force made up of members from all divisions, and named John McGuire, a 40-year SAG staff member and veteran negotiator, as the Guild’s chief negotiator.

As you might imagine, President Rosenberg, 1st VP Ann-Marie Johnson and their MF colleagues were not happy.  Thus, my interest in attending the February 2nd Hollywood Board meeting.

Told that the MFs had arranged for a protest demonstration outside the SAG offices before the meeting and had asked their supporters to stack the list of spectators, I tried to get on the list and failed. Hearing that one could wait in line and be admitted if the available seats were not all filled, former National Board member and Guild Treasurer James Cromwell and I went to the SAG offices early and stood in the Stand-By line hoping to be allowed in.

When the demonstration outside concluded, many of those in or watching it came into the lobby and joined us in line. Some were from the stunt community and some were background actors, two constituencies the MFs have formed ties with. As we waited, a few of them engaged us in conversation, questioning how we could support an end to residuals, the “gagging” of President Rosenberg, the illegal firing of Mr. Allen, and a list of terribles they had been told by their MF leaders. We explained, over time, that none of this was true and some of them actually listened.  We learned, as well, that a lawsuit and request for a temporary restraining order were being filed by President Rosenberg, VP Ann-Marie Johnson and two MF National Board members, Kent McCord, and Diane Ladd, challenging the firing of Doug Allen. Did I say obstructionist?

We were allowed into the crowded meeting, given further instructions as to what visitors could not do, and then brought into the Cagney Room to be seated. The meeting began forty minutes late, due, we were told, to the unusual number of visitors this evening.  VP Ann-Marie Johnson, an intelligent and articulate woman, chaired the meeting, explained what would take place, and then asked staff, board members and the visitors each to introduce themselves.  After a couple of pieces of routine business, Ms. Johnson read the statement of the chair (the VP chairs the Division meetings, President Rosenberg chairs only National Board meetings), which was interesting.  With new Interim NED David White to her immediate left, she spoke strongly against the action of the majority (without mentioning the lawsuit she was filing) and lauded the no-longer-employed Doug Allen as the strongest and best leader and negotiator in SAG’s history.  This, of course, was met with wild applause from the MF majority and many in the peanut gallery around us.

I don’t recall if it was before or after the statement of the chair, but Ilyanne Kichaven, Hollywood’s Executive Director, made an eloquent pitch for unity which was roundly applauded and quickly forgotten. Next, Ms. Johnson introduced David White, explaining that he would speak, the floor would be open for questions, and then she would allow statements from the members.

David White gave a brief account of his background; acknowledged that he knew many of those on the board from his years as General Counsel, spoke a bit about his personal philosophy, his view of and affection for the Guild, and how he intended to fulfill his obligations as Interim NED.   He kept it short and left the rest of the time for questions.

As expected, it was a grilling. The questions were quickly reminiscent of the “are you now or have you ever been” era.  Who approached you about taking this job?  I want names!  When did they approach you?  On what date?  You were hired as Legal Counsel by Bob Pisano: do you have a continuing relationship with Bob Pisano: did Bob Pisano arrange for you to get this job?  Have you spoken with Bob Pisano about the job?  What is the nature of your relationship with Bob Pisano?

Clearly, they thought they could tar David with an association to someone they hate – and because they hate him they think everyone else does.  But David was great.  He explained, patiently, that he worked for the law firm that Pisano had met with and was hired for the job.

No, he said, Pisano did not have anything to do with his being offered this job.

Then, when the interrogator asked if Pisano had called him, he said, “Yes.  After word got out that I had agreed to take the job, Bob Pisano called me and said, “What the hell are you doing?’”

It got a great laugh.  Try as they could, they couldn’t rile him and over time only made themselves look smaller and more petty. Because each questioner had a limited time, it quickly became clear that there was a prepared list of questions – a kind of script – that was passed along from one MF to the other, all intending to expose what they saw as a gross conspiracy perpetrated by evildoers that had stripped them of their champion, not to mention their majority.  The toxic tone in the room quickly took me back to our time on the board, a period rife with personal attacks, lies, power plays and histrionics.  After one of our first meetings, I remember Shelley, exhausted and near tears, saying, “These people claim to be union supporters, Democrats, but they behave like the Bush Administration!”

What was wonderful was watching David White respond, calmly, clearly, patiently, to each question, brushing aside the sarcasm and the lousy implications and giving the facts as he knew them. They wanted to know how much he was being paid and who had negotiated his contract, to which he said his contract was only now being negotiated.  When he started to answer the question about his salary he was interrupted by SAG’s General Counsel, Duncan Crabtree, who pointed out to the board members that some of this information was inappropriate for an open meeting and should only be discussed in Executive Session.

After the interminable questions ended, having been lightened only by a few welcoming notes offered by some of the non-MF members, Ann-Marie called an end to the questions and opened the floor to statements. And now it got nasty. Possibly because David had handled his end of things so well, many of the questions became spears thrown at the non-MF members present and the National Board in general.  How dare they use this illegal device, the “written assent,” to fire Doug Allen?  Did they lack the courage to debate the issue openly and allow everyone to vote on it?

This, it was clear, was for the benefit of their supporters who were avidly listening and applauding every time a nasty shot underscored one of the talking points they’d been fed. Finally, one of the new board members was able to speak to these charges and explain that when they had tried to do just that, to debate the issue in the National Board meeting and vote on it – (at this point the Chair tried to cut him off, saying it would be inappropriate to discuss what had happened at the National Board meeting.  He, however, was not cowed by her and said he had no intention of talking about the business of the meeting and went on, explaining) - they had not been allowed a discussion or a debate for the length of the meeting, which left the ‘written assent’ as their only avenue to achieve the will of the majority.

After this, more MFs claimed Alan Rosenberg had been “gagged.”  How could people who believe in free speech do such a thing, they wanted to know?  But none of them acknowledged, or mentioned, that then Doug Allen was in charge he and Alan Rosenberg would not allow any of the elected officers to speak officially, even to his or her own division members, without having what they wrote edited by Hollywood.  What the written assent did was, in essence, the same thing, saying that Rosenberg could speak or write his own opinion, but no longer could he speak officially for the union without clearing it with the majority.

However, true to form, the next speaker and the next and the next continued the barrage of assaults on the now-hated majority.  They spat out words like “unity” as a curse and swore there would never be unity.  They spewed vitriol on the new members and said those who signed the ‘written assent’ did so in blood. (I don’t remember the exact words, but it was about ‘blood’ on the document.) It was awful. I remember when we were part of the board, trying to explain the level of toxicity in these meetings to other actors and finally coming to the understanding that you actually had to be in the room to “get” it.  And here we were in the room again, getting it. Poor Jamie had his head in his hands half the time.

The harangue ended, finally.  The strategic mistake the new members, the rational members made, I think, was allowing Ann-Marie to cut off the list of speakers when only her MF colleagues were lined up to spew.  It allowed them to dump on David, to harangue the new members and to condemn the written assent and what they called the unfairness, the gagging, the illegality of it all, without any rational response.

When a break was called I walked over to say hello to Morgan and some of the new members.  I could see their shock. This was not something they had experienced before, it appeared, and one of them even told me he was thinking about not coming back.  I encouraged him to stick it out – not only to stick it out but to encourage his friends to run for board seats this year so the rational voices could take Hollywood back.

Jamie and I left, shaking our heads at the behavior of these people once again.  But maybe, we said, just maybe if enough people care about their union to put in some time, we can get it back on the rails.

The next day, as you know, Rosenberg, et al’s suit and request for a TRO were filed.  That knocked the scheduled reopening of negotiations with the AMPTP off the tracks again.  A couple of days later the judge refused the restraining order and said he thought the lawsuit had little chance of success.  Rosenberg’s lawyer said they’d appeal. But today, I hear, the National Board met once again and, after another attempt at filibuster, the majority succeeded in passing all the ‘written assent’ motions in a meeting, so the negotiations are again rumored to begin this month. It’s your union.

Mike

Dear Screen Actors Guild member,

As I enter my first full day today as your new Interim National Executive Director, I have reflected on a Los Angeles Examiner story from 1937 that once hung on the wall of my Screen Actors Guild office when I served as General Counsel.

The article chronicled the moment when the studios had finally recognized the Guild as the labor representative for actors in the motion picture industry. A grainy photograph captured members celebrating the news together, the joy in their faces richly evident. That moment, and the incredible work that it took Guild members to reach that moment, have served as the foundation for 75 years of history that has followed.

In my previous tenure at the Guild, I worked alongside several elected National Boards, two presidents (current President Rosenberg and former President Melissa Gilbert) and three National Executive Directors. My intention now, as Interim National Executive Director, will be to work with your current National Board to navigate through a period that is brimming with both challenges and opportunities – from completing our TV/Theatrical negotiations; to preparing for and securing a new Commercials contract as well as several other smaller but critically important labor agreements; to repairing relations with our sister unions; and addressing a polarized political system that is perceived by too many of our members as being close to broken. As we confront these efforts together, my overarching goal is this: to help restore your confidence that this is a union where strong and wise decisions are made despite political differences.

The greatest challenge facing this union is to find a way for democratic leadership to flourish – for disagreement and debate to build into unity and power. The Guild’s diversity of opinion should, and must, serve as a source of strength and solidarity. I believe in the Guild’s capacity for this. And that is why today I offer two messages to each and every member: First, I will be at the office each day to work with your talented staff and your National Board to achieve objectives that advance your interests as actors; and, second, it is time to turn the page on the most destructive aspects of the Guild’s internal politics.

In this swiftly changing environment, we will not be successful if we do not work together. This effort will take an entire union – all members, from background actors, to stunt performers, to voice over actors; those working in film television, commercials, industrials and video games; dancers and singers; middle-class actors, to high-profile ones, to struggling artists working each day to break through for their first chance. We must work together. Because if not, the well-known words that a previous leader offered to a once-divided collection of citizens will matter to us now: united we stand; divided we fall.

During this extraordinary period for both our union and country, I am again reminded of the achievement of the Guild’s founders as recounted in that 1937 Los Angeles Examiner story. Their achievement came as a result of a supreme effort by a group of committed performers willing to set aside their differences in pursuit of that shared purpose. The result: they built an organization whose membership card today remains the ultimate benchmark for professional performers. The triumph of the Guild’s founders cannot be overstated – nor can the sacrifice, wisdom and political maturity that was required to achieve it.

I enter this interim role with the grand history of the Screen Actors Guild rooted firmly in my mind. I did not seek this position, but I am honored to act as its temporary custodian. You have my pledge that I will direct all my energies to steadying this historic organization and ensuring its success. I thank the Guild’s National Board for the confidence and trust they have placed in me on your behalf. And I look forward to working together, in solidarity.

David White
Interim National Executive Director
Screen Actors Guild

Effective Monday, the majority of the National Board asserted its authority and terminated the employment of our National Executive Director. Every National Board member of the New York Board approved this action. It was a difficult and considered decision to make but it was done in recognition of the current circumstances of our negotiations.

Those circumstances are these: Seven months after its expiration, we have yet to reach a deal on our TV/Theatrical contract. We continue to work under old terms and without the full protections of a contract. Since an offer was placed on the table on June 30, 2008, our members have lost a potential $51 Million in minimum increases and $7.4 Million in pension and health contributions. Screen Actors Guild has lost $900,000 in dues money. Our Basic Cable Contract that is directly related to the TV/Theatrical contracts has expired. Producers are shifting work away from our Guild because of uncertainty. A call for a strike authorization resulted in a very public split of opinion among our rank and file and high-profile members, putting the success of that authorization in doubt.

To address these issues the National Board voted to appoint a new lead negotiator, senior advisor to the Guild John McGuire, who has successfully negotiated over 30 contracts in his 40-year tenure at the Guild. The National Board also voted to replace the current TV/theatrical negotiating committee and create a task force that more accurately represents the new majority of the Board. We will move swiftly and judiciously to conclude negotiations with this new dynamic in place and secure the best possible deal for the membership.

The National Board also voted to appoint David White as Guild interim National Executive Director. David comes to this position with great experience having been our former General Counsel. He has extensive knowledge of our contracts and the inter-workings of the Guild. He is well known and respected in the labor community and entertainment industry. He will hit the ground running as he takes on this enormous responsibility during this momentous time. I have great confidence in David, having worked with him as a National Board member when he was formerly with the Guild.

***********

The Commercials Contract negotiations begin here in New York in about a month. John McGuire will serve as lead negotiator for these contracts too. To prepare for these negotiations we conducted an extensive wages and working conditions process where members were invited to provide input. That input was provided at meetings not only in New York but also across the country. I have great faith in our W&W Committee, whose members have devoted countless hours in order to prepare us to secure the best contract possible. We all owe them many thanks.

Significant to the success of these negotiations is the fact that SAG and AFTRA will be negotiating this contract jointly under the Phase One agreement. This is how these contracts have been negotiated since 1981. Our mutual cooperation is critical as we deal with the many challenges brought to this contract by the rapidly changing landscape of the advertising business.

I am encouraged by the changes that the National Board recently asserted. Changes of this magnitude may create uncertainty but I believe that as they are implemented they will facilitate our staff in furthering the interests of our membership. I am convinced that this new direction can bring results that will unite and strengthen us.

In Solidarity,

Sam Freed
New York Division - President

We've received email expressing thanks for the action taken by the National Majority of the Board of Directors.
Here are a few of the notes.

I am delighted that some sanity has returned to SAG. What I cannot understand is the degree of distance from reality testing that AR, AMJ and company seem to have. It is as though they are not living in the same world. Both of their letters were stupifying in the complete reworking of the events. As soon as he contract mess is cleaned up I hope the leadership can start to address Merger and qualified voting. I think the later is terribly important as it will go far to remove some of the emotional amunition of the hard liners.

Kathy Joosten

---

I am in total agreement with the actions taken by the majority members of our board. This is a most welcome, turn of events...Thank you (board members) so much for all the hard and difficult work you all have done regarding the firing of Mr. Allen. I am very happy with the >results you all have accomplished. It is a relief to know we now have some strong mature leadership...

Marsha Mason

---

I congratulate the majority members of the Screen Actor’s Guild for acting promptly and expeditiously to break the deadlock which has been paralyzing our union for so long. I realize that it was accomplished by a rarely used proviso in the Guild’s Constitution which was made necessary by a filibuster of minority members preventing reform. You’re to be further congratulated for behaving according to our by-laws. Hopefully this will empower our union to sit down for good-faith negotiations with the Producer’s Guild, the Agents, and our peers in AFTRA. I look forward to a ‘new day’ in the tenor and behavior of SAG and wish you all the best. I extend best wishes to David White and welcome him back to SAG. He has been sorely missed.

Sincerely,
Peter Coyote

---

SAG’s been stalled for far too long, and the situation was crying out for a new approach. I applaud the Board members who took this bold action. Only that which changes, remains true. Carl Jung

Jamie Lee Curtis

---

I'm relieved that the National Board has acted. I feel confident that this change can get us a livable deal soon and start repairing the damage that's been done, so that two years from now we’ll go back to the table united and strong.

Stephen Collins

---

Bravo Board members. I am particulary happy and proud you're succeeding in breaking the log jam that has cost so much time and energy and yes, angst.

My warm wishes to you and David White. I am more than confident that you and Mr. White will use this fresh approach to benefit all of our members, including me.

Onward! In Solidarity,
Patty Duke
Past president
Screen Actors Guild

---

My hearty congratulations to the SAG Board for moving us into the right direction. A destructive faction has wasted much of our time, but it would appear that we, too, can choose "hope over fear" and now, thanks to your actions, we can move forward to start making positive change.
Thank you.

Sincerely,
Loretta Swit

---

I’m thrilled to see the majority leadership of the guild take good and decisive action.

David White was the head legal council of the guild, when I was president. He is wise, reasoned and incredibly tough if need be.

I am absolutely confident that the guild is in the best hands possible.
Melissa Gilbert

I post the following without analysis.  Everything that I have written in the past is a comment on President Rosenberg’s perspective on what occurred.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Screen Actors Guild <memmail@sag.org>
Reply-To: Screen Actors Guild <memmail@sag.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:36:33 -0800
To: SAG Members <memmail@sag.org>
Subject: A Message from National President Alan Rosenberg
My Fellow Screen Actors Guild Members,

Yesterday, on January 26th, a slim majority of our National Board voted to fire our National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, Doug Allen. This was not accomplished  in a face-to-face Board meeting, where the significant minority would have had an opportunity to voice its opinion and where Mr. Allen would have had a chance to face his accusers and address their concerns. Instead, this drastic action was accomplished by "written assent", the most undemocratic provision allowed by our Constitution.

As your twice-elected National President, I feel that it is my responsibility to give you my perspective on yesterday’s events, although my ability to do so is somewhat limited. The same majority, 52.52%,  that fired Mr. Allen also voted to change our Board policy that designated the National President to be one of the official spokespeople for the Guild. As of yesterday, the only two people who are permitted to officially speak for Screen Actors Guild are our newly appointed interim NED, David White, and John McGuire, our Senior Advisor from New York. The members now have no official voice. I appreciate the fact that Mr. White thinks it is preposterous to silence a duly elected national officer, and so has permitted me this forum, provided I inform you that what I am about to write represents my opinion. However, although I am not writing on behalf of the Guild, I believe I do speak for the nearly 48% percent of the Board who are deeply concerned about what was done yesterday and about how these changes were accomplished.

Many of us believe that Doug Allen was fired because he was simply too good, too strong, and too much a unionist. His greatest sin was in challenging the idea that we be bound by the concept of "pattern bargaining", under which actors have been disadvantaged for decades. Doug gave us the courage to accept the fact that we had a legal right to pursue an agreement that addressed the specific needs of actors; that it is unreasonable to think that the DGA or WGA, without asking any questions pertaining to actors' participation in "new media", could strike a deal that would adequately address the concerns of our 120,000 members and the diverse nature and needs of a membership that includes middle class actors, background actors, stunt performers, singers, dancers and our biggest stars. I, and the majority of our negotiating committee, were amazed by Doug's skill as a negotiator and team leader, and by his diigence and breadth of knowledge. We were profoundly moved by his love for and dedication to actors.

I have no doubt that, if our Board had demonstrated any solidarity whatsoever, Doug and our committee would have arrived at an acceptable deal some time ago. Instead, members of that Board engaged in a systematic effort to sabotage these negotiations by passing motions that prescribed courses of action, and then repudiating those motions, thereby throwing our leadership into a state of chaos and our membership into a state of confusion. This was done consistently and, I believe, intentionally, so that our progressive leadership would be made to appear inept, which would pave the way towards a return to the go-along-to-get-along days of yore.

Now there is a new lead negotiator in the person of John T. McGuire. Our Negotiating Committee has been replaced by a new, more moderate Task Force. You can expect that not long after this new team enters the Bargaining Room, they will be offered some "plum", some concession from the AMPTP that was said, heretofore, to be unattainable. This will be given by our employers, not as an act of good will, but as a demonstration of the fact that "reasonableness" will be rewarded, while "militancy" will be punished. Make no mistake, if this should occur, if there is any gain made, or if we are ultimately able to resist one of the massive roll backs that has been demanded, it will not be due to the skill of this new "negotiating team". Anything that is won from this point forward will still be the result of the enormously hard work put in by Doug Allen and the majority of the negotiating team that has been in place since our W and W caucuses began a year ago this February. I am enormously proud of that team, led by Doug , of which I was a member.

We were able to change the discussion about these existing deals from the obfuscatory claims that they were somehow "groundbreaking" to a sobering dialogue, illuminating just how damaging these new media deals might be to the prospects of a middle class actor’s ability to make a living.

You should know that the ability to get things accomplished by "written assent" was also available to the progressive leadership that held the majority in the Boardroom prior to the most recent election. That Draconian option was never employed, however. Despite what has been said about that majority, they always made democracy their highest priority. They understood that a slim majority of 52% or 53 % gave no one the right to ride roughshod over a significant minority; they understood what the use of such a tactic would do to democracy in our union; they never desired to open that Pandora's Box. Unfortunately, now it has been opened and precedent has been set. I, and the previous Board majority, have always been willing to compromise on any issue. Compromise is the way things get accomplished in a contentious democracy such as ours. To date, I have not been approached by a single Board member from New York, the RBD, or from the ironically named slate "Unite for Strength", to try and find common ground on any issue. If these elected officials desire to move forward in any significant way in the name of the members, this behavior must change.

In unity,

Alan Rosenberg

I am posting this message from our new Interim National Executive Director, David White.  DO NOT BLOW IT OFF.   Please. There  is light at the end of the tunnel... but we are still in the tunnel, on the tracks, firing up our engines.  Do not be a dozing passenger with slack jaw and drooling mouth.  Know where the train is headed.  Stay up to date.

Please read on.

------ Forwarded Message
From: Screen Actors Guild <memmail@sag.org>
Reply-To: Screen Actors Guild <memmail@sag.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:08:37 -0800
To: SAG Members <memmail@sag.org>
Subject: A Message from Interim National Executive Director David White

Dear Screen Actors Guild member,
 
As I enter my first full day today as your new Interim National Executive Director, I have reflected on a Los Angeles Examiner story from 1937 that once hung on the wall of my Screen Actors Guild office when I served as General Counsel.  
 
The article chronicled the moment when the studios had finally recognized the Guild as the labor representative for actors in the motion picture industry.  A grainy photograph captured members celebrating the news together, the joy in their faces richly evident.  That moment, and the incredible work that it took Guild members to reach that moment, have served as the foundation for 75 years of history that has followed.
 
In my previous tenure at the Guild, I worked alongside several elected National Boards, two presidents (current President Rosenberg and former President Melissa Gilbert) and three National Executive Directors.  My intention now, as Interim National Executive Director, will be to work with your current National Board to navigate through a period that is brimming with both challenges and opportunities – from completing our TV/Theatrical negotiations; to preparing for and securing a new Commercials contract as well as several other smaller but critically important labor agreements; to repairing relations with our sister unions; and addressing a polarized political system that is perceived by too many of our members as being close to broken.  As we confront these efforts together, my overarching goal is this: to help restore your confidence that this is a union where strong and wise decisions are made despite political differences.

The greatest challenge facing this union is to find a way for democratic leadership to flourish – for disagreement and debate to build into unity and power.  The Guild’s diversity of opinion should, and must, serve as a source of strength and solidarity.  I believe in the Guild’s capacity for this.  And that is why today I offer two messages to each and every member: First, I will be at the office each day to work with your talented staff and your National Board to achieve objectives that advance your interests as actors; and, second, it is time to turn the page on the most destructive aspects of the Guild’s internal politics.
 
In this swiftly changing environment, we will not be successful if we do not work together.  This effort will take an entire union – all members, from background actors, to stunt performers, to voice over actors; those working in film television, commercials, industrials and video games; dancers and singers; middle-class actors, to high-profile ones, to struggling artists working each day to break through for their first chance.  We must work together.  Because if not, the well-known words that a previous leader offered to a once-divided collection of citizens will matter to us now: united we stand; divided we fall.
 
During this extraordinary period for both our union and country, I am again reminded of the achievement of the Guild’s founders as recounted in that 1937 Los Angeles Examiner story.  Their achievement came as a result of a supreme effort by a group of committed performers willing to set aside their differences in pursuit of that shared purpose.  The result: they built an organization whose membership card today remains the ultimate benchmark for professional performers.  The triumph of the Guild’s founders cannot be overstated – nor can the sacrifice, wisdom and political maturity that was required to achieve it.
 
I enter this interim role with the grand history of the Screen Actors Guild rooted firmly in my mind.  I did not seek this position, but I am honored to act as its temporary custodian.  You have my pledge that I will direct all my energies to steadying this historic organization and ensuring its success.  I thank the Guild’s National Board for the confidence and trust they have placed in me on your behalf.  And I look forward to working together, in solidarity.
 
 
David White
Interim National Executive Director
Screen Actors Guild

I have boodles to say on this but am spinning plates of work, motherhood, wifedom, and service. In short – democracy was served in spite of the recent and ongoing attempt by the minority faction of the national board to thwart the will of the majority with their unruly and obstructionist antics. Alan Rosenberg’s assertion that this is the “darkest day” in union democracy is truly bewildering. Either he does not understand how a democracy works, or he is possibly is suffering from something that causes him confusion.

In any event – finally – onward.
Keri

Doug Allen steps down from SAG- Move follows brutal battle over negotiations
By DAVE McNARY

Doug Allen is stepping down as national executive director and chief negotiator of the Screen Actors Guild following a brutal internal battle over how he’s handled SAG’s long-stalled negotiations.

Today we took an important and necessary action to address the leadership crisis at Screen Actors Guild. Representatives from SAG’s National Board majority delivered a “written assent” document to SAG headquarters which authorized the following: Doug Allen is immediately replaced as National Executive Director by former SAG General Counsel David White, who will serve as interim NED; Guild Senior Advisor John T. McGuire is appointed as Chief Negotiator of all SAG contracts; the TV/Theatrical Contract Negotiating Committee is replaced by a Taskforce which will complete negotiations on behalf of the Board of Directors.

In a meeting two weeks ago, a majority of the board sought to make the crucial changes now contained in the written assent, but were derailed by President Alan Rosenberg and a minority of board members through endless parliamentary games and improper behavior. By filibustering for over 28 straight hours, they prevented the Board from ever taking a vote on the majority’s proposal.

This unprecedented level of obstruction has paralyzed the Guild.

Written assent is included in SAG’s constitution to allow a majority of the Board to take action outside the boardroom if necessary. While extraordinary circumstances may require the use of written assent, we do not believe it is a desirable way to conduct Guild business. In this case, the unrelenting obstruction by a minority of board members has left us no alternative.

This action has the support of all but one of the National Board members from SAG’S New York and Regional Branch Divisions, and all in the Hollywood Division except those affiliated with the group Membership First. The signed written assent documents were delivered today to SAG headquarters in Los Angeles.

Upon implementation of the approved motion, Interim National Executive Director David White will assume control of all Guild operations and will coordinate with Chief Negotiator John McGuire to contact the AMPTP to undertake resolution of TV/Theatrical Contract negotiations, which ground to a halt nearly seven months ago. The leaner TV/Theatrical Taskforce will work alongside Mr. McGuire as the "eyes and ears of the board," providing input and support as contract negotiations are concluded.

Beyond the stalled TV/Theatrical negotiations, there is much work to be done and SAG members can rest assured that we have secured an exemplary leader in David White. A Rhodes Scholar, Mr. White has extensive industry experience and was SAG's General Counsel from 2002 to 2006. He knows the Guild and its contracts, and has the respect of our staff and the entertainment community. Our Chief Negotiator, John McGuire, is a 40-year SAG staff veteran who has negotiated over 30 contracts and is held in enormous esteem throughout the industry and the labor movement. We have complete confidence in his ability to deliver the best possible contracts for our members.

These much needed changes will allow SAG to chart a new course. We will work to secure a TV/Theatrical Contract that can be sent to members with a positive recommendation, and to effectively resolve all our outstanding contracts, including the Commercials Contract. We will also work to rebuild vital relationships in the entertainment and labor communities, and to reestablish Screen Actors Guild as a respected and powerful institution, protecting and defending performers nationwide.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its entirety, the written assent accomplishes the following:

- Removes Doug Allen as National Executive Director;

- Engages David White as interim National Executive Director;

- Names John McGuire as Chief Negotiator for all contracts, including the TV/Theatrical Contract currently in negotiation;

- Replaces the TV/Theatrical Negotiating Committee with a Taskforce, which will represent the Board of Directors;

- Directs that only interim NED David White, John McGuire, or their designee may communicate on behalf of Screen Actors Guild to other organizations, the general public, or the press;

- Retains the law firm of Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers LLP to advise the National Board and represent the Guild in negotiation of the terms of a written contract with David White;

- In response to voting irregularities at the last Board meeting, instructs SAG staff to develop and implement a fraud-proof security system to regulate the use of the voting remotes used by Board members to cast their votes.

*In the interest of compliance with the AFTRA-SAG non-disparagement agreement under the AFL-CIO, Members of SAG’s National Board majority who are also AFTRA officers or board members wish to officially record themselves as abstaining from this statement.

Ever watchful, our Mike Farrell reached out today to set the record straight on the matter of Sean Penn’s stance on the Strike Authorization. Richard Verrier in the Los Angeles Times made mention of Sean Penn supporting the “leadership” of SAG. Read on for Mike’s clarification

Good article today about SAG, but you were wrong about Sean Penn. I don't know where you got that information, but he's not happy about having been characterized as being with Martin Sheen in backing "the leadership."

I was surprised to see him so positioned and contacted him to find out what moved him over. He told me it's not the case, he's "not happy," and he's going to find out how his name could have been used in this way.

Well, as I'm writing this, I was just sent a statement from his assistant with a quote from Sean.
Here it is:

While Sean Penn had taken a position of support for the SAG leadership several months ago, and while he has been in discussions with both factions of the Screen Actors Guild, the LA Times claim that Penn is in support of strike authorization is radically misinformed. Penn has been involved strictly on the basis of confidential meetings related to strategy. His position remains confidential and no one from the LA Times made any effort to contact him. Says Penn, "It is ludicrous to take old information that pre-dates the Wall Street crash and attribute it to current labor union issues."

Thanks.

Mike Farrell

Dear Former Colleague Asner,

Unless you can reassure me to the contrary, I will have to assume you have gone over to the dark side based on the following quote from Dave McNary’s story in Daily Variety, FRI 1/23,09, p.48, third column, penultimate paragraph:

“In another development, former SAG president Ed Asner said in a widely circulated email that he supported a boycott of the eight nominees for SAG awards,including Josh Brolin, Steve Carell and Sally Field who came out against the authorization vote.”

I realize you may have circulated your email before Frances Fisher’s public retraction of and apology for her own diatribe in which she had urged a boycott of eight nominees for SAG Awards. If that’s the case, you should follow Frances’s example and disavow your own attempt to encourage a McCarthy-era blacklist of those whose union politics don’t suit you.

Shortly after your first election as president of our union, you came under attack by those on the right for your support of the Sandanistas in their attempt to overthrow a repressive military regime in their own country. Kathleen Nolan and I were proud to lend you our public support during a press conference in which you defended your right to freedom of speech however controversial your opinions might be.

That was not the same Ed Asner I see today, who is willing to support a boycott of fellow union members who hold opposing views on a political issue within the union—a boycott which, if it succeeded, could adversely affect the future careers of those targeted by depriving them of an award that’s supposed to be based on artistic achievement, not on political correctness.

How unworthy of a man in your position.

Bill Schallert

Here is an  encouraging message from the actual majority of the Board.

A MESSAGE TO SAG MEMBERS FROM THE NATIONAL BOARD MAJORITY
Unite for Strength and Board Members from Hollywood, New York and the Regional Branches*

As you're undoubtedly aware, SAG is currently beset by a crippling leadership crisis. With the TV/Theatrical contract having expired nearly 7 months ago, negotiations at a standstill, and our negotiators' strategy hinging on a strike authorization vote for which there was clearly insufficient support, we called for a special National Board meeting to consider a new approach. At that meeting, held Jan.12-13, we attempted to postpone the strike authorization vote, replace Executive Director and Chief Negotiator Doug Allen and the negotiating committee, and direct a newly appointed negotiator to restart talks immediately. Despite strong support for these steps from a clear majority of the National Board, President Alan Rosenberg and Mr. Allen's other board supporters stood squarely in the way of our implementing them. For 28 hours straight, they used filibusters and other parliamentary games to run out the clock on the meeting and prevent a vote from ever taking place.

The next day Mr. Allen proposed a new plan to shelve the strike authorization, go back to the table to see if "producers would improve their offer" and then send out that offer for ratification with no board recommendation to members, only pro and con statements. It is noteworthy that when faced with a call for his removal, Mr. Allen suddenly saw no value in the strike authorization that has been the cornerstone of his strategy, and indeed the topic of a 12-page promotional newsletter delivered to Hollywood members just days ago. But unlike the plan we were obstructed from putting into place at the meeting, his is not a serious effort to get a better deal. SAG has never sent members a contract that our National Board didn’t recommend ratifying. We shouldn’t start now.

We firmly believe that SAG needs a change of course and a new captain. Mr. Allen has held fast to a failed strategy for over half a year, even as members have lost nearly $50 million from working under an expired contract. In addition, under Mr. Allen's tenure, numerous other expired agreements have languished without renegotiation, SAG's strategic relations with its sister union AFTRA have been badly undermined, and partisan tensions within the Guild have grown steadily worse.

With new direction, we can turn this around and put Screen Actors Guild back on the right track. We will work to quickly send members a TV/Theatrical contract that carries a positive recommendation from the National Board. We will also focus on successfully negotiating the Commercial agreement and other remaining contracts. We will rebuild vital relationships throughout the entertainment industry, and bring much needed stability back to the Guild. We are now planning concrete steps to achieve this and will keep you updated as events warrant.

*In the interest of compliance with the AFTRA-SAG non-disparagement agreement under the AFL-CIO, Members of SAG’s National Board majority who are also AFTRA officers or board members wish to officially record themselves as abstaining from this statement.

I have not heard from Frances Fisher decrying the call for blacklisting emails that she forwarded. And frankly, I was ready to move on, letting this fade into the background as we all anticipate the meeting of January 12th. But after reading the following note from Julie Garfield I decided to make a cry of my own. Julie’s father, Academy Award nominated actor John Garfield was the victim (and I do not use that term lightly) of the original Blacklist.

Today, Screen Actors Guild must take make its own voice heard on the subject. I want to hear from Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen on the matter. As the crafting of a modern day blacklist came from a National Board Member, leadership must address it. Alan? Doug?

In the meantime, here is the email (forwarded with permission) from Julie Garfield.

Dear Keri,

My name is Julie Garfield. I am the daughter of John Garfield. John Garfield was the most famous movie star brought down by the Blacklist. He was hounded by HUAC, our phones were tapped, he was followed by the FBI, and his career was destroyed. He died of a heart attack at the age of 39. I call it a broken heart and a broken life. SAG did not stand up for him, nor for the others who were blacklisted during this shameful time in American history.

When I see a list of actors, like the one forwarded to me from this blog, and a message not to vote for them for awards- it sends chills down my spine. To think that certain union members would stoop this low is horrifying to me.

Whoever it is who is responsible for writing this list, does not deserve to be a member of our Union.

Sincerely Yours,

Julie Garfield

An email has been circulated by a member of the SAG Board of Directors, who has a political agenda, and is attempting to punish other SAG members for taking a stand in opposition to her position. She defines anyone who disagrees with her position as "disloyal" to Screen Actors Guild.

We have an unfortunate and ugly history with those words in this union. Over fifty years ago, another group in power at SAG chose to apply the words, "disloyal", "traitor", and "subversive" to some of their fellow members who had the temerity to question the actions of their union and their government. In order to punish anyone who did not agree with those in power, a Blacklist was established and, out of fear, SAG's leaders supported it.

The Blacklist was evil. But it worked. People's lives and careers were seriuosly damaged or destroyed.

Eventually people with courage stood together and denied these bigots their power, and put an end to this despicable practice. But now, it seems, a new group of people who think they know what everyone else should think and feel has decided the time has come to bring the Blacklist back.

Well, SAG, the DGA, the WGA, AFTRA and the AMPTP have already made their decision about such tactics. All made statements that they would never again tolerate this kind of intimidation and abridgement of people's rights. For that is exactly what is being attempted here. If you take a position which the bully boys (and girls) don't like, they will call you names and label you "traitor" and "disloyal". Well, in this day and age the members of this union and the members of this industry will not tolerate such behavior. They will see it for what it is -- demagoguery of the worst kind -- and do with it what it deserves -- flush it down the toilet.

In the fifteen years that the SAG Awards have been held, there has never been an attempt by any faction within SAG to politicize them. That is as it should be. These awards were conceived of as an opportunity for actors to be honored by their peers. The sole criterion for the awarding of these honors has been artistic achievement. That must continue to be the case.

Richard Masur

It is stupefying. I witnessed some pretty awful tactics during my time on the board of Screen Actors Guild and the years since. But I am hardpressed to recall anything as counterproductive, intolerant, and contrary to the very principles of union than what you are about to read.

Two emails have been circulating around the blogosphere today. Because of the way the headers appear, the first email seems to be penned by Board member Frances Fisher. However, I contacted Frances directly, and she informs me that she did not write either of them, but merely forwarded them. It is a good lesson that when forwarding something, one must consider including commentary, lest they be accused of propagating the content of the forwarded item.

I hope that Frances will come out immediately with a strong statement decrying the hateful suggestions of these emails.

To the emails: the writer of the first email informs us that she will make her SAG AWARD votes based, not on the merit of the nominees performances, but on how they make their conscientious voices heard in this time of peril for our union. The second writer claims only to be a fan and calls for every voting actor to “boycott” these members. The notion that we would punish our fellow union members in this free country for speaking up in the governance of their professional community is, I repeat, stupefying. Read for yourself below:

From: ff@francesfisher. com
To: ff@francesfisher. com
Subject: FW: The S.A.G. Awards & Eight disloyal nominees
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 01:27:45 -0800

Dear Actor Friends,

I'd like you to look at this list of name actors:

Alec Baldwin
Josh Brolin
Steve Carell
Sally Field
Michael C. Hall
Susan Sarandon
Tony Shalhoub
Kevin Spacey

These eight and several more of our "high-profile" fellow Guild members have recently done two things:

(A) They have advised us rank-and-file members to VOTE NO to giving our National Board the authority to call a strike if the AMPTP refuses to improve itsinsulting and contemptuous "last, best and FINAL" offer.

(B) Now these arrogant elitists are trying to take away our right to even HAVE a vote on this critical issue. They are telling the National Board to withdraw the strike authorization referendum. This is the National Board which is now dominated by "Unite-for-Strength " and USAN, their New York allies. U4S and USAN are the same faction which these SAME STARS endorsed in the September board election.

And this is the same U4S/USAN-dominated National Board which voted, in October, (by 97% to 3%) to (1) call in a Federal Mediator, AND -- if mediation FAILED -- (2) send out ballots to us -- the membership -- asking for the authority to call a strike if the AMPTP continued to insult and demean us.

And now, many of those same National Board members, with the support of a long list of star actors and star actor/PRODUCERS, are ready to renege on their vote — their promise! -- to give us members a voice in these fateful negotiations about the future of middle-class actors.

I'm feeling angry and I'm feeling powerless. And I'm ready to do something I wouldn't have dreamed of until now.

I'm ready to do something radical. I cannot claim the following idea as my own, but I am determined to act on it.

This advice I'm pasting here was posted on the website USActorsOnScreen. com. I'm not telling YOU what to do, only that I am going to follow the advice below anduse my vote for the S.A.G. "Actor" Awards to send a message.

---

Darling Actors,

I'm just a fan. I'm especially a fan of character actors. (My heart belongs to Claude Rains. And Gale Sondergaard is one of my role models.) And I follow the labor scene. Lots of struggles on lots of fronts. Not just the Hollywood scene, though it's especially juicy. BOYCOTTS can be an effective weapon in labor struggles. And my labor savvy tells me that YOU have a boycott weapon, in your hands, right now.

It's a ballot. Your awards ballot.

Like every other self-respecting Hollywood institution, you put on an annual AWARDS show. And show-business handicappers love to read YOUR awards as OSCAR tea-leaves. (That's why many of us tune in.) Well, the following actors have two things in common. ONE is that they are nominees for S.A.G. "ACTOR" honors.

Thing TWO-in-common is this: These rich-and-famous nominees have all signed on to Danny DeVito's famous open letter. The one where DeVito and his fellow stars tell YOU that YOU should vote against giving YOUR National Board the option of calling a strike, if, IF, the networks and studios keep treating you with contempt.

Thing-TWO-in- common means this, at least to a watchful fan: These nominees seem to want their union to be weak and to capitulate to the moguls.

And yet, THEIR UNION might give these union-underminers that prized statuette.

Those DIS-loyal nominees are . . .

JOSH BROLIN ("Milk")
KEVIN SPACEY ("Recount")
SUSAN SARANDON ("Bernard & Doris")
MICHAEL C. HALL ("Dexter")
SALLY FIELD ("Brothers and Sisters")
ALEC BALDWIN ("30 Rock")
STEVE CARELL ("The Office")
TONY SHALHOUB ("Monk")

If I were a regular, ordinary, not-rich-and- famous actor, and if I wanted my union to be strong so it could fight for me . . . would I want to give any of these rich-and-famous UNION-UNDERMINERS my vote? Would I want my union to give them such an honor -- MY UNION's ultimate stamp-of-approval?

I would remember those names when I began to mark my ballot. Most of us in labor only get to vote for union officers, or for new contracts. YOU get to vote for actors who perform outstandingly, AND who (you hope) support the union that is honoring them.

If the networks and studios beat you down, it will be a disheartening signal to other working folks across the country. Don't let it happen. Use your strength. And use your awards vote.

Vote for actors who are loyal to their union.

In solidarity,
A spiritual daughter of Jane Darwell

January 7, 2009 7:19 PM

Oscar nominee and former SAG treasurer Jamie Cromwell has teamed up with vet Mitch Ryan and others to create a powerful - and disturbing - look at what another strike could do to our already fragile film industry. To take a look at it, go to http://www.savethebiz.org (and click anywhere on the screen.)

You bet I do.  And that is why I am fighting for SAG to stay strong and work toward getting the benefits that were  managed to be secured by the WGA, DGA, and more specifically to our needs, AFTRA.

SAG’s scary rhetoric about the dire need for the strike authorization is misleading - and frightening - particularly on the subject of residuals. But it is not the "End of Residuals" - it is the beginning.  Over the  last months, as part of its "education" campaign, SAG staff has made trips to sets telling series actors that if we  don't take a strike (authorization) residuals for actors on network series will go from our current $3200 (for a one-hour) to a mere $27 - next year.  There are a few videos being passed along to this affect as well.

What SAG does not make clear is that this scenario supposes that the networks would immediately stop airing their reruns on TV and post them only on the internet.  SAG can not support this assumption, nor explain what the networks would do with all those empty hours  of prime-time programming, or why they would give up that ad revenue on product they already have in hand.  They just continue to chant the mantra until it becomes accepted as fact.

The actual fact is that if SAG got only what AFTRA achieved with its new contract, the $3200 network residual would itself go up (with cost of living  raises) - and it would be supplemented with an additional $27 if the  show was aired on the internet.

I know – we all know  - that is not huge money. In fact, one could call $27 a pittance.  But it is a foothold.  And that is what we need right now in the internet: a foothold – jurisdiction.  What’s more, that 27 bucks is more than we get when some network programs are rerun on cable. And it is more than we have been getting from internet airings while working under the expired SAG contract - which is zero.  

AND most important, it is only for the next 2 1/2 years: After that, the new contract requires that it be completely renegotiated based on real world figures: the money producers made in this  market  during the intervening years.

I have heard the cry, “this is cable all over again.”  No it is not.  We learned from cable.  We built in the safeguard of the sunset clause.  And, some of us are planning the essential element of strategy to have ONE bargaining unit by the next negotiation.  We are not simply saying, vote no on strike.  We are mapping out a strategy to ensure that this does not happen again in 2 years.   

For more facts - go to:  
http://blog.sagwatch.net/
And
http://digitalmedialaw.blogspot.com

Here is an excerpt from Jonathan Handel 's post "SAG: No Good Reason to Strike":  

"SAG Statement: The new media deal will be "the end of residuals as we know it." Analysis: This statement pretends that the rather distant future is today. It's a form of fear-mongering that telescopes reality, and is built on two assumptions: (1) The assumption that broadcast networks will  completely stop rerunning programs on their networks, and rerun programs only as move over content on their websites. (2) The  assumption that broadcast networks and cable channels will completely  stop creating scripted programs for their networks and channels, and create programs only as original made for new media content.

These are two big and speculative assumptions. Studios and networks would do these things only if the audience has virtually all disappeared from existing networks and cable channels, and all migrated to the Internet. That's not going to happen any time soon, for reasons discussed in the preceding four "SAG Statement" items.

Indeed, it may never happen at all; the future is a slippery thing.   So far, the Internet is a supplemental market, not a replacement market. That's because the large audiences and large ad dollars are still in  television, not the Internet. As long as this remains true-as long as the networks use their traditional networks and the Internet- then the Internet compensation/residuals will be additive to the compensation  and residuals provided by traditional media.

Also, if this does happen-if the audience does move entirely to the Internet-the producers and networks are likely to make a lot less money than they have to date...

But if the producers figure out how to MAKE their money on that – and they probably will – we will know what that money is and be in a position to demand our piece of it, as long as we are by then a united front.

We actors tend to be a bit myopic at times.  For example, some of us seem oblivious to the realities of the economy around us.  Should the state of our nation’s economy factor into the steps we take in this delicate time?  I think it does.  Read the following splash of cold water and decide for yourself. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.san&s=97573&Nid=50766&p=978136

This came in last night from Unite for Strength. Even if the choice seems obvious, I so appreciate their asking the question.

As for option 2, is adopting a new approach even in question at this point? Because the current one is, um… a bust. Do you realize that our contract expired six months ago and that SAG members have lost over forty million dollars in lost pay increases from working under an expired contract? That’s real money that will never come back – to our health insurance plan, to our pension plan, and of course, to members’ pockets.

Can SAG get some improvements to the AMPTP’s final offer? I believe so, but a new approach will be essential. Doug Allen and the current negotiating committee seem locked into a strategy that has simply failed, so adopting a new approach may require a real shake-up. If that’s what it takes, commence shaking.

Subject: Strike authorization - UFS wants to hear from you.

As you may already know, SAG’s strike authorization referendum has been put on hold until the national board meets on January 12-13. The announcement was made last Monday after Unite for Strength’s Ned Vaughn and Adam Arkin met with SAG president Alan Rosenberg and National Executive Director Doug Allen to request a meeting of the board to consider whether the referendum should proceed.

Several concerns were addressed. Growing numbers of prominent and rank-and-file members have added their names to online petitions such as the one at www.nosagstrike.com . Others have voiced their opposition through increasingly blunt public letters and statements. Within SAG’s leadership, the New York Division Board issued a statement calling for the referendum to be dropped, a position supported by board members from other regions.

These developments, along with the many private expressions of opposition we’ve received, make it clear that SAG’s National Board must determine if it is wise to go forward with a process that is causing such a rift in the Guild. Board members from UFS will play a key role in that decision, and we’d like to know what you think:

1. Do you want the strike authorization referendum to proceed despite increasing member opposition? Or…

2. Do you want the national board to withdraw the referendum and adopt a different approach toward negotiating the best deal possible?

Tell us how you feel and please forward this to any SAG members you know, so they can weigh in too. Unite for Strength is working hard to unite professional performers into one powerful union; that’s the best way to avoid situations like the current one. Listening to members is a vital part of that and this decision is no exception, so please let us hear from you.

Respectfully,

Amy Aquino and Arye Gross

If you didn’t receive the email directly, responses should be sent to info@uniteforstrength.com

Three quick observations before I take off for the New Year:

1. In watching the press comparisons of the number of actors who have signed SAG’s support of authorization petition (2500 plus signers) with our petition supporting the DeVito/Perlman letter against the authorization (currently at 1700 plus signers) - I see a piece of the statistical pie that no newspaper nor blogger has mentioned. That is, our response ratio compared with SAG’s. Screen Actor’s Guild sent a solicitation to its vast email base, that is tens of thousands more than we have. Our response ratio is huge. Theirs is a pittance.

2. The thoughts and deep emotions expressed to me by many fellow members has been moving. My neighbor – a long time MF supporter – told me that he could not “cotton supporting a strike.” He compares SAG going out on strike at this time in our nation’s and our industry’s histories to raising a middle finger to working class America. Another dear friend, and working actor informs me that he is voting “yes” on the strike authorization because he believes it will kill SAG. He explained that if that is what it takes to get us one union, so be it. While I disagree with his choice of action – I am struck with the fact that this smart, working actor understands how essential it is for the very life of our industry to MERGE one way or another. Countless members have emailed me their personal sense of embarrassment that our leaders have behaved so badly. Again, I strongly advocate voting against the authorization.

3. Ed Asner took a pot shot at former SAG President, Melissa Gilbert in the Los Angeles Times. Of her recent editorial about the strike authorization, Ed did not respond to Melissa’s points, but instead made inference that she is just a child, saying, “there are a lot of us who are older and wiser...” Really Ed? How easy is it to conjure up images of little Laura Ingalls. But that is not who Melissa is. She is a savvy business woman, artist, wife, and mother. Working steadily in the business since the age of 2 – she has 42 years of experience and relevance. She was our Guild President, sat on the AFL-CIO, and continues to have a very real stake in the outcome of our contracts.

I am taking off for the New Year, but I will be sending an open letter to the High Profile members who have come forth in this crisis. Look for it after the first.

Until then, I wish you a safe and joyous New Year. May the blessings that last increase in each of our lives and the circumstances of our lives be a pleasure in which to engage.

Be safe.

Fraternally,

Keri Tombazian

Long time working actor Todd Susman cares deeply about our industry and our union. He walked the picket lines in 2000 and has supported activist efforts to bolster the union over the years.

I just read a letter by someone insinuating that members against strike authorization are aiding management in union busting. Not me. I'm against authorization because I want SAG to flourish.

The people tempting union busting are the leaders campaigning for authorization despite our massive division. What makes them think authorization will intimidate producers when producers know we’re drastically at odds and that all the plenary sessions in the world won’t foster unanimity? What makes them confident that authorization won’t spawn a splinter group, especially given the stature and star power of some members in opposition?

These folks are playing with fire. Authorization is a last ditch warning or a perilous bluff. We've shown too many cards to bluff, so, if we authorize, we have to be sufficiently united, impassioned, ready, willing and able to wage war. If push comes to shove and we’re not committed, we’re looking at an attenuated blood bath in which all but the rich go broke a drop at a time.

Right now, authorization is a bigger threat to us than our adversaries. Asking for it is a lose-lose. If it’s denied, SAG looks weak. If it’s given, there’s no going back if a deal isn’t made. By seeking strike authorization, our leaders are inviting disaster.

Todd Susman

You may have already heard, but strike authorization ballots are no longer going out… on January 2nd. Doug Allen announced today that the ballots are now being held until after a special national board meeting, called for January 12th. Could it be the beginning of the end for strike authorization? We’ll have to wait and see what the board decides. But one thing is certain: the collective noise we’re making is beginning to pay off. Keep on making it loud and clear so the board knows exactly what you want on January 12th.

Here’s Doug Allen’s announcement of the change:

Dear Screen Actors Guild Member,

A number of National Board members have expressed concern about the organized opposition to SAG’s vote “yes” campaign to encourage members to authorize the National Board to determine whether to call a strike in the TV/Theatrical contracts.  While almost 100 high profile members and 2524 total members have endorsed the strike authorization vote mandated by the National Board, more than 100 high profile actors and 1373 actors have lent their names to the opposition campaign.  This division does not help our effort to get an agreement from the AMPTP that our members will ratify.

Accordingly, President Rosenberg and I have decided to call a special face-to-face National Board meeting in Los Angeles, during the week of January 12, to discuss how we can address this unfortunate division and restore the consensus demonstrated by the National Board at our October meeting.

The Christmas and New Year’s holidays, and the Commercials Contract W&W plenary in New York the first week of January, preclude scheduling such a meeting before the week of January 12.  In accordance with our Constitution, this special meeting will constitute one of our two face-to-face plenary meetings for 2009.

In light of the subject matter of this special meeting, the strike authorization balloting will be re-scheduled to take place over a three-week period immediately following this special board meeting.  This will provide us with more time to conduct member education and outreach on the referendum before the balloting.

This meeting will replace the January 24, 2009 plenary and will occur in Los Angeles all day January 12, and part of January 13.

Doug Allen

National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator

Reading accounts of SAG’s decision to delay the strike authorization vote, I was struck by this near the end of the L.A. Times piece (bold and italics are mine):

Allen's e-mail was sent out after he and Rosenberg met earlier in the day with actors Ned Vaughn and "Chicago Hope" star Adam Arkin, representatives of Unite for Strength, a coalition of actors with moderate views that recently won key seats on the national board.

In a statement, the actors said they expressed their concerns about the "growing rift" over the strike authorization referendum.  "We feel it’s imperative that the National Board have a chance to reconsider whether the referendum should proceed, given what’s been happening. We appreciate that they’ve taken our concerns seriously."

Isn’t it nice to have someone taking our concerns seriously? And better still, they’re making things happen. I knew there was a reason I voted for these guys.

Dear Fellow SAG Member,

Cathryn Michon here, and I’m here to share how though I applauded the wise leadership of Alan Rosenberg during the writer’s strike, I now have come to the decision to vote no on his request for strike authorization and have signed the petition at www.nosagstrike.com.

Whatever your opinions on this critical issue, I ask you to take a few minutes to consider my position.

I am a member of SAG, AFTRA, WGA, and ASCAP. I supported the WGA strike and paid the price--physically, mentally, and financially. I walked around in driveways with a sign in my hand, blistering my feet, boring myself silly, and losing money (the TV show I had worked on was cancelled. Was it because of the strike? Well, it certainly didn’t help). But I felt the sacrifice was worth it.

So I’m not voting no on the SAG strike authorization because I lack the guts (or as the blog rhetoric constantly says, “the balls”) to strike. In my opinion, SAG ended the writer’s strike. The refusal of SAG actors to attend the Globes, and the threat of no Oscars was real leverage in action and a good lesson to us all in how striking can sometimes work. I feel Alan Rosenberg did a great job leading SAG at that time.

Others have already spoken eloquently about how the deepening financial crisis is a reason not to strike, and I agree, but it’s not my primary reason for voting no.

I’m voting no because it’s a terrible business decision for all actors. We are in a negotiation, and yet we have no leverage. Further, we will not gain leverage by authorizing a strike. Our leverage for this negotiation was lost when a) SAG and AFTRA did not merge, and b) AFTRA signed a contract with the AMPTP.

We have two unions that represent actors, and it’s causing us to actually undercut each other. Can you imagine if the UAW struck General Motors, but GM could legally hire the same workers, for less money, through another competing union?

I attended the Hollywood Town Hall and was saddened that the language from the podium was so inflammatory. Nevertheless, I tried to hear why our President wants this strike authorization, and what I did hear in the hour and forty five minutes of pro-strike authorization “education” was that our core issue is that in the current offer is that there are no provisions for residuals in NEW material made for new media.

That’s right, our core issue is web series. Do you know anyone currently earning a living in this format? Because of the writer’s strike, we fought for and won residual jurisdiction when traditional product (series, features, mini-series) is delivered via the internet. The numbers aren’t where we’d like them to be, and yes, the companies are not paying internet residuals in a timely fashion, but no strike would change that. That’s why, as guilds, we have full-time legal departments that can sue for enforcement of contracts.

Follow my logic in what we could term the BEST CASE SCENARIO:

Let’s say SAG strikes over residuals for content created specifically for the web, and after 100 days of picketing, we get the AMPTP to agree to a residual structure for web series. So we won!

And then what happens?

Any smart producer will simply produce their web series under an AFTRA contract, with no residuals.

Why wouldn’t they? It would be legal, and cheaper. At the same time, more and more pilots will be produced under AFTRA contracts and SAG will weaken. It’s a win/lose scenario: Even in a win, SAG will gain nothing from a strike, or even the threat of a strike this time around. However, if we settle our contract in January, we will have gained something the AMPTP will come to regret: Our contract will come up at around the same time as the WGA and the DGA. If we further mend our fences (and perhaps merge) with AFTRA, then we will have real solidarity among the artists unions, and real leverage to get even more of the internet pie next time around.

So, as a member of the female gender, may I humbly suggest that rather than having “the balls” to strike, we actually need to take a cue from women, synch up our periods (so to speak) with the other guilds to make it so that we’re all crabby at the same time, and as our contracts lapse, all of the artists who work in entertainment will be able to pursue an agenda with unity and strength.

Won’t you join me in having “the ovaries” to vote no?

If you find my argument persuasive, I ask you to join the 1,418 SAG members who have signed the petition at www.nosagstrike.com. Thank you for listening. If you don’t agree with me, please know that we can agree to disagree without name-calling. I respect your right to have a different opinion than I do. If you do agree, please feel free to forward this to other SAG members.

Best,

Cathryn Michon

Labor stalwart Susan Sarandon is just one of the members adding their name to the movement of opposition to the strike authorization. Ms. Sarandon walked the picket lines alongside us in the commercial strike of 2000. She is no interloper for the AMPTP.

SAG is spending a tremendous amount of time and money in their “education” campaign. All we have is word of mouth and email. Please do not for a minute think your vote does not matter. When those ballots hit your mailbox among the post holiday bills, mark it and send it immediately.

Every single one of us who oppose this must vote or face the consequence of a strike. In this economy. With one performing union rolling right along with a solid contract; under which many actors are working and will work in a strike. No leverage. We have no leverage.

More news as it comes...

Keri

No holiday break for SAG- Battle over strike authorization continues - Variety
By DAVE McNARY

While capitulation and denigration of hard-earned gains of the last decades would be unconscionable, it is imperative for SAG leadership to be aware of what the current climate in the world of labor/management is. While no one is suggesting rollbacks in our contracts, it is intellectually immature of those at the top to believe they can run counterintuitive to the thinking of some of labor's hardest and most devoted fighters. Further increases in evolving media must be achieved, but this is the wrong time to be pushing the inside of the envelope. Read on:

For UAW, sacrifice or surrender?
Members' wages and benefits will be slashed under federal loan deal
By Peter Whoriskey
The Washington Post
updated 3:22 a.m. PT, Sat., Dec. 20, 2008

For decades after its founding in 1935, the United Auto Workers stood as a powerful model for the American labor movement, an influential organization that historians credit with uplifting living standards for all working Americans.

But with the announcement of the federal loan deal yesterday, the union found itself being forced into concessions that some described as tantamount to surrender.

The $17.4 billion federal loan agreement does keep the domestic auto industry alive. But the terms of that loan also insist that the wages and benefits for union workers be lowered to "equal" the average of nonunion workers, specifically, those at the U.S. plants of Nissan, Toyota and Honda.

Those and other concessions would essentially erase the significant distinctions between union and nonunion auto workers, and the lack of such union worker advantages would render moot the union's fundamental purpose, some industry analysts and labor experts said.

It was the financial crisis, as well as the domestic industry's slippage against foreign automakers in the United States, that forced the union to acquiesce, albeit reluctantly, union leaders said yesterday.

'Keep Americans working'
In a statement, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger said the loan "will keep the doors of America's factories open, keep Americans working and prevent the devastating economic consequences for millions of Americans."

But, he noted, the union was disappointed that Bush "added unfair conditions singling out workers."

Exactly how tough the agreement ultimately will be on union workers is far from certain.

The language of the loan agreement sets specific "restructuring targets" that General Motors and Chrysler must use their "best efforts" to meet. Compensation must be made "equal" to the nonunion workers, and work rules must be "competitive" with those at nonunion plants. The companies also must reduce compensation to workers who have been laid off — the jobs bank and at least half of the company's payments into retiree health care must be made in stock, not cash. If the companies fall short of those targets, they are required to explain why.

The payment in stock makes the health fund more risky. The wage concessions could force average wages down to $24 an hour from $28 an hour, analysts said.

But it is far from clear whether the Obama administration will hold the companies and the unions to those requirements. Democrats immediately signaled some opposition to the toughest provisions.

At a news conference in Chicago yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama said that workers should not be the ones "taking all the hits" and that all stakeholders "are going to have to play a part in this process."

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the committee overseeing much of the government financial rescue efforts, was far tougher.

"The president has added an unfair assault on working men and women, which could require them to accept a disproportionately large reduction in what is currently legally owed to them," he said in a statement. "I am particularly opposed to the notion . . . that could give foreign auto companies in effect the ability to dictate wages for all American auto workers."

Frank said that because those requirements were "unilaterally inserted" by Bush, the Obama administration "should take whatever steps are necessary to remove them."

Whatever happens, however, the financial crisis has made clear the profound weaknesses in the union's position.

Circumstances had once been so different for the union, which was founded on the idea of protecting worker dignity and promoted innovations such as pensions and health care for all workers.

"The auto workers were for many years the model for the American standard of living," said David Montgomery, emeritus professor of labor history at Yale University.

Their power stemmed in part from the stunning success of the U.S. auto industry.

In 1950, for example, General Motors reported record profits, declared the largest stockholder dividend in U.S. corporate history and couldn't build cars fast enough. So when the United Auto Workers threatened to strike, the company agreed to a landmark deal with pensions, a cost-of-living formula and cut-rate health insurance. Fortune magazine hailed it as "the treaty of Detroit."

Twenty years later, the union seemed to have become, if anything, even more powerful. When legendary UAW President Walter Reuther addressed the union convention in 1970, he was bullish on the organization's prospects.

"We are, without question, the strongest and most effective industrial union in the world," he said. "We have taken on the most powerful corporations in the world, and, despite their power and their great wealth, we have always prevailed."

Now, those who have followed Reuther face a far different landscape.

"We recognize that going forward there's going to be a restructuring of the companies and all the stakeholders are going to have to make sacrifices, and we're prepared to do our part," said Alan Reuther, the union's Washington representative and Reuther's nephew. "But that path forward, as painful as it may be, is preferable to bankruptcy, not only for our workers but also for the economy and whole country."

Cultural differences
Historians date many of the union's problems to the arrival in the United States of foreign auto plants — the ones they are now being leveled with — in the early '80s.

Workers at those plants received less in wages, benefits and jobs protection. But when the United Auto Workers tried to organize there, they failed.

Some of that has been blamed on the cultural differences. Most of the new foreign-maker plants emerged in the South.

But even in Marysville, Ohio, where Honda built a plant, the United Auto Workers were unsuccessful.

"That was in their own back yard," said Jonathan Cutler, a professor at Wesleyan University and the author of "Labor's Time: Shorter Hours, the UAW and the Struggle for American Unionism." "If you can't organize Ohio, you can't organize your way out of a brown paper bag."

'Capitulate'
The growth of the foreign-car plants in the United States placed increasing pressure on the domestic automakers and, in turn, the United Auto Workers. The foreign competitors, using nonunion labor, saved money in wages and used that advantage to gain ground on the U.S. automakers.

"When the UAW exposed the Big Three to insurmountable competitive disadvantages, it cut its own throat," Cutler said.

Now, with the bailout loan requiring at least rough parity with the nonunion plants, the union essentially has been forced to capitulate to the nonunion movement.

Getting "down to the level of foreign companies undermines the meaning of having a union in the first place," Montgomery said.

"This is another stage in the defeat of the UAW," said Dan Luria, a former UAW economist and now research director of Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center. "On the other hand, it could have been a lot worse."

Staff writer Steven Mufson contributed to this report.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

MSNBC threw some erroneous numbers out in their reporting on the likelihood of a strike.  Backstage News Editor, Andrew Salomen reveals the holes in MSNBC’s reporting and does some prognosticating of his own.

In the dialogue about Strike Authorization, there have been some unfortunate insults hurled at actors who also produce.  Thanks to actor Ken Olin for addressing the strike authorization from that particular perch on the entertainment tree.

Dear Alan,

I am writing in response to the email that I received from you on December 13th. In it you ask that I give you and the other SAG board members the authorization to strike against the AMPTP.

After reading your request I visited our union website and watched your taped message. You promise that a strike is "a last resort option", and assure us that it is a bargaining tool to be used "only if it becomes absolutely necessary". Fair enough. Except this presupposes that I feel confident that my best interests and the best interests of the film and television community are being entrusted to persons who are capable of making mature, informed, disciplined and reasonable demands, rather than potentially ruinous ones based on their own limitations.

The problem for me is that since autumn of 2002, I am wary of any leader who asks for the authority to act with as much force as he deems necessary, while at the same time promising to use that force "only as a last resort option". There is simply no guarantee that he is going to be reasonable when determining what constitutes "last resort", or that I will share his opinion of what that means. Maybe I'm paranoid. But I believe an authorization to strike means that we will strike. And that is, in no uncertain terms, UNACCEPTABLE.

I have been a member of the Guild for close to thirty years, as well as a member of AFTRA for as long or longer. For the past twenty years I have been a member of the DGA. For the past nine years I have been an executive producer. First on a series created for cable, "Breaking News", and then on "Alias", and now on a series I helped to create and continue to run, "brothers & sisters". In all those years I have never failed to support the leadership of any union of which I am a member. But at this juncture I feel compelled to do so. Not because I am loyal to the studios, nor disloyal to our union, but because I am vigilant when it comes to protecting actors. That means defending their rights as well as being truthful about their responsibilities.

I believe the most egregious misperception currently being perpetrated on the SAG membership during this contentious negotiation is that "management" is "playing games" (your words) and greedily trying to rip off actors, even if it means destroying the union and the film and television business. Not unlike our national election in which the language of fear and demonization failed to resonate in the face of a message that was at its source hopeful and inclusive, we must stop approaching the future with an us-versus-them mentality and a divisive and grossly oversimplified rhetoric. Yes, the entertainment business will look very different in 15 years. But that will be true for all of us. In fact the eight CEOs that "rake in multi-million dollar pay days" that you reference in your taped web speech may be as obsolete as the eight actors who as the top wage earners in the Screen Actors Guild earned over $400,000,000 last year as stars of blockbuster films.

Make no mistake. I believe the men and women who negotiate across from you are tough and anything but altruistic. But the "management" I have worked closely with these past nine years; studio executives,network presidents, and CEOs, are also responsible businessmen and women who have no interest in hastening their own dem e. They may work for large companies where our form of media is only one source of income, but they are still people with experience in the same business as us. We share a common experience. And they want it to survive. So I choose to believe that they understand all of the exigencies confronting our industry far more clearly than the people from the dot- coms who we will have to deal with if the current business model is destroyed as a result of a strike.

I believe we all must bear the burden of the changes that are imminent. Actors should not sacrifice disproportionately in the days to come. And they should not be entitled to profit disproportionately either. If the future offers the same kind of extraordinary wealth that the past has, then two and a half years from now management will be loathe to hinder their revenue stream more passionately than they will have the will to fight our union for the compensation we would then deserve.

If we shut down television and film production now many people will lose their businesses, their homes, their savings, and their sense of some common purpose in our creative endeavors. They will be people who depend on a weekly paycheck. They receive no residuals, they never have and they never will. They will be from every part of our industry. Some of these people are, in fact, management. We have a responsibility to not cause further hardship to these members of our community. Certainly not now. Believe it or not, almost everyone I work with, from the top down, loves making stories and wants desperately to preserve the essential joy that comes from taking part in making those stories for the movies and television. Now is the time to state loudly and clearly that all of us share that dream. And all of us share in the reality that our way of life is changing as surely as it is everywhere in the world.

There is no scenario in which the benefits to actors that may come as a result of a strike outweigh the costs to our entire community.

There is no case to be made for a work stopage. None. I will not give you or "our" chief-negotiator (a man who has never done a days work on a film or a television series) the authority to strike.

Ken Olin

Tony Award winning actor Anthony Crivello (Kiss of the Spiderwoman) forwarded us a splash of cold water - in the form of an article which reveals the loss of jobs in today’s economy is hitting actors on every front. Here is Anthony’s note, his call for unity, and the article.

This is not a good time to strike.
Actors have limited outlets for ancillary work- and that includes "odd-jobs" or second professions.

This article addresses the Broadway and commercial theater. But don't think that London and the Regional Theaters are also not feeling the same crisis pinch.

This is a time for diplomacy. This is a time for AFTRA and SAG to put past disagreements behind, and JOIN FORCES. From there, we can proceed. STRENGTH IN UNITY is the only way to achieve our desired goals.

In Solidarity and Brotherhood,
Anthony Crivello

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sent: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:11 pm
Subject: [TheatrMail] TIMES / Broadway Has a Devil of a Time Finding Angels (Ticket Buyers, Too)

December 16, 2008

Broadway Has a Devil of a Time
Finding Angels (Ticket Buyers, Too)
By PATRICK HEALY

These are difficult days for Elizabeth I. McCann, the longtime theater producer, who has been able to raise only $3 million so far for the $6.5 million transfer of "Hair," the '60s musical that is scheduled to start rehearsals on Broadway next month. Even her most dependable investors, Ms. McCann said, are sitting on20their money.

"People are dreadfully afraid to put money into shows right now, and it has made it a very tough climate for raising money," Ms. McCann said. "I'll go on record and say I will capitalize 'Hair' in the end. But it's very tough."

The ripple effects of the recession and Wall Street's slide have now fully engulfed the New York theater: highly successful shows are closing early, Off Broadway hits can't find money to move into empty houses, audience attendance is down (and during the holidays, no less), and theater producers and publicists are scurrying behind the scenes to identify the rosiest news possible to offset the doom and gloom.

But even the best Broadway press agent cannot spin the fact that New York theater appears to be entering one of its darkest periods: with the surprise announcement on Sunday night that the much-lauded "Gypsy" would close seven weeks ahead of schedule because of poor box-office sales, 12 Broadway productions ˜ including once-dependable crowd pullers like "Grease" and "Hairspray" ˜ will be closing in the first half of January, either because of weak sales or because they were already set to close.

Other ambitious musicals, like "Bob Fosse's Dancin' " and the already delayed production of "Vanities," are all but officially postponed until at least the 2009-10 season because of financial considerations, people closely involved with those production s said in interviews on Monday.

If producers, directors and actors are concerned about the current state of Broadway, they are even more worried about what it might augur. Will the bad economy make it more difficult to raise the millions of dollars to mount shows next spring and fall, like "Catch Me if You Can," based on the DreamWorks movie, and August Wilson's "Joe Turner's Come and Gone"?

Theater is rarely a winning investment, producers say, but now some investors are struggling with whether it makes any sense at all to put money into shows that are simply not drawing audiences. (At the same time shows like "Billy Elliot" and "South Pacific" continue to do strong business.)

Several major Broadway shows have been running for weeks now with swaths of empty seats, including "Avenue Q" at 69 percent and "Equus" and "August: Osage County," both at 54 percent. Low attendance figures have led to speculation that "August" and "Avenue Q," once popular attractions, will close this winter or spring, but producers of those shows said that no closing notices were expected. "Equus" is scheduled to close in February.

Then again, few people saw "Gypsy" as closing anytime before its scheduled end date in March. But on Sunday night, just as some producers and publicists were chewing hard on the mixed reviews for the expensive new musical "Shrek," the producers of "Gypsy" announced that the show would=2 0be closing on Jan. 11 in spite of its pedigree and its three Tonys ˜ for the lead, Patti LuPone, and her two co-stars.

Some producers said that while the economy was to blame for some losses, there were shows ˜ "Gypsy" among them ˜ that had simply run their course before the optimists predicted.

"While some shows are certainly getting ready to close because of this new economy, others are using it as an excuse rather than simply acknowledging that the show was ready after a long run," said David Stone, producer of "Wicked."

Roger S.20Berlind, a producer of "Gypsy," said in an interview that the show might have been scheduled for a run that was too long. According to attendance figures for Broadway shows last week, "Gypsy" was playing to only 59 percent of capacity, and it did less-than-expected business during the Thanksgiving weekend.

But he emphasized: "We can't pretend we're immune to the effects of this incredible economic malaise that the country is experiencing. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Psychologically, people might feel it's really frivolous to go to theater at $200 a pop."

Though several widely anticipated productions appear on track for the spring ˜ "West Side Story" and "Guys and Dolls" among them ˜ the anxiety on the street is more immediate and palpable. The long-awaited revival of "Pal Joey," for20instance, lost its lead actor, Christian Hoff, while still in previews, and some members of the show's creative team said in interviews that they were concerned about the strength of this revival, which opens on Thursday night. The show has been discounting tickets and has sparked some stream of negative chatter among industry insiders.

Disney Theatrical Productions, meanwhile, announced on Monday that it was extending its "Kids Go Free" ticket offer until Dec. 23, giving buyers one free ticket for a child with each ticket purchased for "The Lion King," "The Little Mermaid" and "Mary Poppins" for shows in early January to mid-March. One Disney executive said the discount, which has al ready generated $2 million in sales, was its best hedge against an economic climate hitting three shows that were once among the best attended.

David Schrader, managing director for the Disney Theatrical Group, dismissed the jabs that some Broadway producers have been taking at the news that "Mary Poppins" and "The Little Mermaid" were each playing at only 70 percent of capacity last week.

"I would say they're holding up fairly well," Mr. Schrader said, "and the great thing about 'Kids Go Free' is that it gets people to commit to the theater well in advance."

For all of the concern about attendance numbers, virtually every Broadway house that will empty in the first half of January is expected to be filled by anot her show this season, said Charlotte St. Martin, executive director of the Broadway League. Ms. St. Martin convened a meeting and conference call on Friday with producers and publicists to discuss survival strategies if the winter turns dire. The League is planning a seasonal promotion effort with the working title "Broadway Now More than Ever," aimed at residents of the tristate region.

In the winter and spring season Jane Fonda is returning to Broadway for the first time in 46 years in "33 Variations," a new play by Moisés Kaufman ("The Laramie Project"); Joan Allen and Jeremy Irons will star in "Impressionism," by Michael Jacobs; and revivals of "Blithe Spirit" and "Hedda Gabler" are scheduled. And there was good news for the producers of "I rving Berlin's White Christmas," a fixed-run show, when they learned that it knocked "Wicked" from the top spot in the Broadway grosses for last week.

Yet even some of the biggest hits of the fall are feeling constraints in this economy. "Blasted," which has been selling out at Soho Rep for weeks now, with lines outside for returned tickets almost nightly, has drawn interest from backers into moving to a new space ˜ yet no one, thus far, has been willing to write the first check, according to people closely involved with the show.

"The last 15 years have been boom years for theater ˜ I always expected the pendulum to swing, and I simply see this as a corr ection," said Nancy Coyne, chairwoman of the theater advertising agency Serino Coyne. "The good news is that so many straight plays are now coming in the spring, and I think New Yorkers will come out for them once the tourists go away. We're horrible snobs. We hate tourists from Cleveland."

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

The page of the growing list of supporters of the letter to SAG by Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman is live and ready for you to add your name.

OK, I've confirmed it with my webmaster. She will be able to finish a page tonight that will allow any SAG member to sign on in support of the letter sent today by some of our most prestigious members. It will go live at www.nosagstrike.com just as soon as she's finished (she's a whiz, thank goodness), so check that link late tonight or early tomorrow morning. Then... add your name.

This is a golden opportunity to keep a bad situation from getting much worse. Over 130 accomplished SAG members made their feelings clear today - now it's your turn. It is truly laudable that these stars spoke out, but it is simply not enough. Even though some are among the most dedicated unionists I have ever known, they will be dismissed by others as uninformed, not really affected by all this, or worse, as just a bunch of rich producers. That is not only laughable, it is offensive. Let’s be honest; these high profile members are the first members the Guild turns to in the thick of a job action. And they have been some of the first responders on past picket lines. But now, as they bring their well informed concerns to the leadership, they are dismissed. So, let’s stand beside them. The best way to prove the naysayers wrong is for rank and file members to show where we stand. Any SAG member can do just that at www.nosagstrike.com. It's time to make your voice heard.

I thought Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman’s letter was good enough to have a permanent place on the home page – and apparently, some very big stars really liked it too. Earlier today, over 130 SAG members re-sent Rhea and Danny’s letter to SAG leadership with their own signatures underneath. It’s a list full of prestigious names, so I won’t try to single them out. You should read ‘em all anyway – they each deserve our deep appreciation for speaking out so clearly. I hope it will encourage everyone who feels the same to follow suit, and I’m trying to do something about that. More shortly. For now, here’s the letter and the signers:

12/15/08

Dear SAG Board Members, officers and staff:

We feel very strongly that SAG members should not vote to authorize a strike at this time. We don't think that an authorization can be looked at as merely a bargaining tool. It must be looked at as what it is -- an agreement to strike if negotiations fail.

We support our union and we support the issues we're fighting for, but we do not believe in all good conscience that now is the time to be putting people out of work.

None of our friends in the other unions are truly happy with the deals they made in their negotiations. Three years from now all the union contracts will be up again at roughly the same time. At that point if we plan and work together with our sister unions we will have incredible leverage.

As hard as it may be to wait those three years under an imperfect agreement, we believe this is what we must do. We think that a public statement should be made by SAG recognizing that although this is not a deal we want, it is simply not a time when our union wants to have any part in creating more economic hardship while so many people are already suffering.

Let's take the high road. Let's unite with our brothers and sisters in the entertainment community and prepare for the future, three years down the line. Then, together, let's make a great deal.

Sincerely,

Seinfeld great, Jason Alexander, has this to say about the strike authorization. And I thought I loved him before…

Hello my friends and colleagues,

Like many or most of you, i have been struggling over the state of our union's current negotiations and the upcoming ballot to authorize a strike. It is a very complex issue at a very complex time. I have received emails and missives from several people of integrity, representing several aspects of the thought process.

For better or worse, here is my response. I offer it for your own thought process, neither to advocate for or against, but merely to weigh.

Our Screen Actors Guild, from my perspective, is in a very precarious position. We have been for many years. We have internal fractures with factions that cannot seem to find common ground and often cannot find common courtesy. We have had long standing relationships, like our agency franchise agreements, lost. We have seen our relations with our sister union, AFTRA, equally degraded.

Additionally, our industry is undergoing enormous seismic shifts. I'm sure I do not need to point out that the pillars of our television and film systems are crumbling. A new technology is emerging to challenge the traditional formats and models. We are finally becoming an industry of the 21st century, but we are still tenaciously holding to structures from the 1900's - structures of production, distribution, accounting, financing, etc. the necessity for "professionals" in the entertainment industry is being constantly challenged.

In a time when i believe all the creative unions should be sitting down with the producers and joining together to protect our mutual interest in keeping our industry professional and profitable, we instead pursue selfish self-interest and the marginalization of each other. We don't need the outside world to destroy us, we can do it ourselves.

However, SAG has a very current dilemna and it needs a resolution. To strike over issues that are real and legitimate, or not. Our best interests are not being represented with the current offer from producers and our reps feel that only austere behavior can move this negotiation forward. but the reality is that to do so, we would subject our entire industry to a work stoppage during the most catestrophic financial times in the last 50 years. Can SAG afford to be the nail in the coffin while being so close to being the corpse inside it?

My personal feeling is - no. I cannot in good conscience vote to take a stand that i know will stop good men and women from earning their livings at this time. I cannot stand on a picket line and prevent grips and gaffers and technicians and operators and caterers and office staff from earning their livings. I can't send jobs that should be under sag contracts scurrying over to the even worse conditions of an AFTRA contract. i cannot tell people who are struggling that i come first. I just cannot.

What I am willing to do is accept a lesser contract and ride out these most turbulent of times. Or better yet, I would ask our reps to accept the best version of the current deal but only for an 18-24 month limit. At that time, SAG would have first and best crack at establishing a realistic contract going forward, instead of being the last guys into the pool. The DGA sets the bar in each negotiation and we get relegated to those perameters all the time. Let's be the first union in going forward, instead of the last.

Also, during those 2 years, we could and must focus on the two issues that diminish us the most - the vast internal chasm of our own union and the ever-growing gulf that divides us from ourselves in AFTRA. We must repair our houses. If our own ground is not firm, how can we possibly expect to make a stand for others? We have work to do, not work to stop.

We can survive a few years of less than perfect compensation in order to do the hard work of mending our own broken bones. We need to support each other. We need to understand each other. And we need, more than ever to work together with our fellow creative artists to protect each other and our industry as a whole. That is the best and greatest work we can be doing right now. Not drawing lines in the sand over digital residuals.

Yes, proper compensation is vital. Yes, there are issues to fight for. But we are not an army ready to stand alone right now. Nor are our allies ready to support us in that fight. So before we take arms, let's pause and rally our troops, truly understand what we are fighting for and stand together. For that, we need time, focus and some very hard work.

I am voting no to strike authorization for now. We have other work to do.
I wish you all a happy, healthy, peaceful, successful holiday and i look to our new year, and our new country with optimism and hopefulness.

Your colleague,
Jason Alexander

An important correction-
Jason Alexander’s letter is terrific in its overall message.  It also reveals a common misconception held by many members. That is, the frequently invoked but utterly wrong piece of conventional wisdom that AFTRA’s contracts are universally inferior to SAG’s.  Not only is this incorrect, but in this particular case – AFTRA’s recently ratified Exhibit A Contract is demonstrably better than SAG’s expired TV/Theatrical Contract.  Remember, the contracts were exactly the same before this last round of bargaining, but since AFTRA has successfully improved and ratified its contract, it is more expensive to the producers and better for actors. That means significantly higher pay rates, improved working conditions, higher contributions to pension and health plans, etc.
 
I agree wholeheartedly with the overall message of Jason’s letter, and I see that  it’s important to set the record straight on this commonly accepted misinformation.
KT

Close your eyes and picture that. Can you say, tension?

(PS. More posts this weekend – I don’t know how the daily bloggers do it.)

A STATEMENT FROM
THE NY DIVISION BOARD OF SCREEN ACTORS GUILD

We are your elected representatives on the Screen Actors Guild Board. We are united in our dedication to our constituents and in our allegiance to Screen Actors Guild and all that it provides: fair wages; safe working conditions; contracts that compensate for today's work, while anticipating tomorrow's reality.

Screen Actors Guild is on the verge of a strike.

In October, SAG had a national board meeting. Negotiations for our TV/Theatrical contract, which had expired in June, had been stalled for months. Working under an outdated contract our members were losing $1.7 million a week. In response to this desperate situation, SAG’s national board voted to request a federal mediator, renew negotiations, and achieve a deal. We also agreed that failure to make a deal would trigger a strike referendum. If 75% of voting members voted "yes" on the referendum, the national board could then decide to call a strike.

Negotiations failed. Then something else failed, too. The American economy.

With that collapse, everything has changed. Our members, and our industry, are struggling through the worst economic crisis in memory. While issuing a strike authorization may have been a sensible strategy in October, we believe it is irresponsible to do so now, in the face of widespread layoffs, cutbacks and reduced programming. The hardest and most important decision any union member must make is whether or not to go on strike. Before we ask you to make that choice, we feel we must, as your elected representatives, make every move we can to get you a deal.

With that imperative in mind, we make the following demands of Screen Actors Guild:

• That all plans for a strike referendum cease
• That the president of Screen Actors Guild, Alan Rosenberg, immediately call an emergency National Board meeting;
• That the national board appoint a new negotiating task force to replace the current negotiating committee at this emergency meeting;
• That the AMPTP be encouraged in the strongest of terms to return to the table

With a fresh team, the AMPTP will return to the table, and we can get a fair deal. A deal that will not cost careers, homes, lives. We want our members to understand that while strikes are sometimes unavoidable, we will do everything in our power to avoid this one.

In Solidarity,
The New York Division Board of Directors of the Screen Actors Guild

Statement of Screen Actors Guild National President Alan Rosenberg

Los Angeles, December 12, 2008 -- The Screen Actors Guild today released the following statement on behalf of SAG national president Alan Rosenberg:

“I am shocked and troubled that some members of our New York Board have issued a statement to the press regarding our October 2008 national board directive to send a strike authorization referendum to SAG members. Oddly, a portion of the group that now holds the majority of votes on our national board, and who voted as part of the 97% majority to send this referendum to members, has now reconsidered.

The global economy was failing before the new board voted in October to send this referendum. We are keenly aware of and sensitive to the fact that the economy has further declined since then. When economic times are tough, members rely on their union even more to protect them from management’s tactics. I believe we must be even more vigilant during these challenging times. The solution to the industry’s economic hardship must not be rollbacks that cripple our member’s ability to earn a living.

The national board must take these facts into consideration when deciding whether to exercise the authority we are seeking from the membership to call a strike. Only the newly constituted board that passed the strike authorization motion in October has the authority to call a strike once 75% of the members who vote approve the strike authorization.

The New York board never asked me to call a board meeting, and they did not take the opportunity to do so during our National Executive Committee meeting three days ago. In fact, I have never been notified of their “demands,” as their statement was sent directly to the press, not the Screen Actors Guild.
This action encourages and emboldens the AMPTP and seriously harms SAG members throughout the country. Apparently, some of the NY board members’ responsibilities and obligations to SAG members come behind their own political agenda.

I will in fact call an emergency national board meeting, but for the purpose of discussing the ramifications of this extraordinarily destructive and subversive action of the New York Board. The board will be notified of the date and time shortly.”

Remember all the love in the air a year ago as thousands of SAG members in Hollywood and New York joined striking WGA members on picket lines? As they say, that was then…

Screenwriter Michael Seitzman, a staunch supporter and participant in the writers’ strike, lays out why the WGA was right and SAG is wrong. Here’s a taste:

“The WGA had the sympathies of many others in the industry, the talk show hosts, the politicians, and the activists. Where have those people been through the many months of this current dispute? Crickets. At a time when the UAW is being called upon by many to take a hard look at its labor agreements as the auto industry falters, how can SAG justify such a dangerous and doomed attempt to improve upon a deal that was won in a completely different economy, after a bitter strike?

"SAG has not refuted the AMPTP's assertion that they've been offered the same deal that the WGA and the DGA agreed to. Our membership signed off on that deal after four months of a painful work stoppage. Yes, of course the deal should have been better. But many of us believed it was the best we could do at the time. Many also felt that any benefit to continuing the strike was far outweighed by the clear and present need to get the town back to work. And that was then. The time we're in now isn't more hospitable to a work stoppage or a better deal. The only thing SAG's timing is more hospitable to is home foreclosure.”

Read it all here.

That’s a crucial question and I’ll keep coming back to it, but here’s an insightful analysis of the deal and unresolved issues from attorney Jonathan Handel. The whole piece is worth reading, but here are a few choice bits:

On New Media Jurisdiction:
Thus, each side says the other should concede on this issue that, as far as I can tell, means very little. Meanwhile, SAG is missing out on 3.5% increases in television and theatrical minimums, and other increases that I blogged about two days ago; also, pilots are shifting dramatically to AFTRA (which does have a deal). Does it make sense for SAG to forego these increases, continue to lose market share, and strike over something so meaningless today? No.

To reiterate: The dollars involved in original made for new media product are trivial, and almost certainly will be for the next three years. In contrast, what SAG is losing in increased minimums is a much greater amount. If there's a strike, the studios will likely pull the offer, and then--particularly in light of the collapsing economy--SAG won't even get the 3.5% increases that the other unions got and that are on the table. This is an economy where people in general are losing their jobs, not getting increases.

On New Media Residuals:
So does this mean that the issue of residuals for original made for new media productions is significant? Eventually, yes. Today, no. If you're an actor, ask yourself this: when is the last time you auditioned for an original new media production, let alone worked on one? Probably never. When's the last time you even watched an original made for new media production (made by a studio, not some 20-something in his garage)? Maybe never as well. Simply put, there are very few productions of this sort, and even fewer that generate any revenue to speak of. Their economic value is dwarfed by television and theatrical production. Once again, SAG is fighting over pennies while ignoring the real dollars that members are losing by foregoing the 3.5% annual increases in television and theatrical minimums.

And:
“All that's left of "now media," when it comes to a discussion of whether to authorize a strike, is a very small number of original made for new media productions. Their economic value is miniscule today. That's not "now media"--it's closer to "no media," if you insist on a catchy slogan. Sometime in the future, there may be real money here; there probably will be. But, as I said in the preceding section, SAG should fight over these issues in three years, when the economics may actually mean something and when the guild may actually have leverage.

And, another point to remember- AFTRA has shared jurisdiction over made for new media productions, including original made for new media productions. If SAG tries to obtain gains in this area, more of this work will probably shift to AFTRA, which has the same exception to jurisdiction that SAG objects to. The work will then be non-union under the AFTRA deal, rather than union under the SAG deal. SAG's boxed in: the more it fights for, the more it loses to AFTRA.”

Read the whole piece here.

I'II put the letter Rhea and Danny wrote to SAG president Alan Rosenberg on the home page, because it says things SAG leadership must hear, and every voting member must consider. The letter speaks for itself, but two lines deserve special attention:

“We don't think that an authorization can be looked at as merely a bargaining tool. It must be looked at as what it is – agreement to strike if negotiations fail.”

Folks, a strike authorization means a strike. The negotiations have already failed twice. The AMPTP has clearly shown they are not going to meet the demands of SAG’s negotiators if they include non-starters like a DVD residual increase, and yet SAG continues to hold fast to that and other demands – even during the recent mediation process. The negotiating committee is NOT going to back down from those demands if they get a strike authorization. So we will have a strike.

"Three years from now all the union contracts will be up again at roughly the same time. At that point if we plan and work together with our sister unions we will have incredible leverage."

Could it be any simpler? The biggest problem SAG has right now is a serious lack of leverage. With two unions representing actors and negotiating separately, that will always be the case. The ONLY way to make a meaningful stand on the important issues of new media, DVD residuals, and others is to work together. That’s the only way to make sure producers CAN’T hire actors unless they meet our needs. That’s real strength, but SAG’s negotiating committee is asking us to take on this huge fight from a position of weakness. That’s just not smart.

BRAVO to Rhea and Danny for speaking out! Here’s their letter:

December 2, 2008

Dear Alan,
We feel very strongly that SAG members should not vote to authorize a strike at this time. We don’t think that an authorization can be looked at as merely a bargaining tool. It must be looked at as what it is – agreement to strike if negotiations fail.

We support our union and we support the issues we’re fighting for, but we do not believe in all good conscience that now is the time to be putting people out of work.

None of our friends in the other unions are truly happy with the deals they made in their negotiations. Three years from now all the union contracts will be up again at roughly the same time. At that point if we plan and work together with our sister unions we will have incredible leverage.

As hard as it may be to wait those three years under an imperfect agreement, we believe this is what we must do. We think that a public statement should be made by SAG recognizing that although this is not a deal we want, it is simply not a time when our union wants to have any part in creating more economic hardship while so many people are already suffering.

Let’s take the high road. Let’s unite with our brothers and sisters in the entertainment community and prepare for the future, three years down the line. Then, together, let’s make a great deal.

Sincerely,

Rhea Perlman and Danny DeVito

We need our contracts to be fair and strong, and I support any efforts to that end. If the facts showed that a strike authorization would push the AMPTP to give in to the demands of SAG’s negotiators – I would campaign in favor of it. A strike authorization, at the right time and under the right circumstances, can be powerful and necessary. Right now is simply not that time, for many reasons. Here are just a few:

1. A strike authorization means a strike. The producers will not come back to the table over threat of a strike. Talks have been stalled for months and they knew this vote would happen if the mediation process failed, but their position changed very little. They are not afraid of, nor unprepared for a strike. SAG’s negotiators are holding out for terms that no other union got, including increased DVD residuals. That gain alone would require a strike.
2. Not enough leverage. Because the AMPTP has a signed agreement with AFTRA, they can keep right on producing under AFTRA contracts, even if SAG is on strike. 44,000 SAG members already have AFTRA cards and more will join to do the work that’s available. This seriously weakens SAG’s leverage.
3. SAG will lose TV productions (and pilot season) to AFTRA. It’s already happening. As Variety reported, "If they're about to go on strike in mid-January, why would we not do deals with AFTRA wherever possible?" said a senior business exec at a top TV shop. "The short-term mentality of (SAG's) leadership is just staggering to us." Can SAG really afford to say goodbye to pilot season?
4. Our Pension and Health Plans will be damaged. A strike will hurt the plans and would keep many from getting the jobs they need to qualify. And by sending more work to AFTRA, it would make matters worse – struggling and “middle class” actors will have a much harder time qualifying for benefits if their earnings are split between two unions.
   
5. It’s the economy. A strike requires the support not only of members, but also of other unions and the community. The turmoil created by SAG’s position in the face of a massive economic crisis means that SAG simply won’t have that support. A SAG strike will put thousands of members AND non-members out of work at a time when people are increasingly desperate to keep their jobs.