In our April 8th update, we requested that supporters express their views
to the SAG National Board. Here are some excerpts:
"My name's Assaf Cohen. I'm a "working joe" type of actor. I'm not a household name but I am fortunate enough to make my living off of SAG contracts and residuals. At first, I had mixed feelings about having to be an "affected member" in order to vote on contract matters. I figured that anyone who is a dues-paying member of SAG should have the right to vote on union matters. Seems democratic. Seems fair. However, after a good conversation with a much more knowledgeable friend, some things became more clear to me. The clear majority of current SAG members, for various reasons, have not worked under a SAG contract recently. They're not directly affected by terms or residual structures (or lack thereof), by DVD sales, by potential 17-day windows of ad-supported, free downloads & streaming on the Internet. Maybe these members are in the early stages of their careers, looking for an agent or manager. Maybe they used to act but have now moved on to another profession. Maybe it's your next door dentist neighbor who worked as an extra a few times, got his vouchers, is now SAG, but has no real interest in acting or even pursuing consistent background work. In any case, with all due respect to these individuals, they are not as affected by the terms of current contracts as those of us who work on 'em at least somewhat regularly. In order for our votes to be meaningful, I now believe that affected member voting is a fair solution. The new proposal has been adjusted so that in order to be eligible to vote on contract matters, an actor needs to have worked a minimum of ONE day in the previous year. That's not asking too much and is a decent (though rough) litmus test to see if a member's still working or trying to get work. I urge you to strongly consider this idea. Don't let my dentist's vote be as important as that of a working-joe actor." -- Assaf Cohen
"I am writing in support of affected member voting, and I urge you to wholeheartedly support this initiative. The recent split over negotiations with our sister union AFTRA serves to underline the importance of a strong negotiating position and a unified voice at the table. That voice must come from the members directly and crucially affected by the contracts. The standard of one day of principal work is not an elitist position and clearly does not create a disenfranchisement of members and, if allowed to be the benchmark, will enable us to focus our energies when the time for negotiations come. Please give our negotiating team the teeth to fight for the membership, knowing they are speaking authentically for the members most affected, and accurately reflecting the position of the Guild. Nobody should need reminding that our union is the Screen Actors Guild, a union protecting the professional interests of actors who earn their living working on screens, visually and vocally, of one kind or another. Any members whose main employment is other than that, either behind the camera, or nowhere near it, have a clear conflict of interest and should not be equally entitled to influence any position, direction or action that the Guild sees fit to declare." -- Alfred Molina
"I am writing to urge that the SAG board support the affected member resolution. The proposed changes would actually strengthen our union's bargaining position, and insure that the next round of contracts would be voted on by those actually affected by their content. There is nothing elitist about this resolution. It reflects common sense, and models the very effective changes that have been adopted by many other unions." -- Adam Arkin
"I am a long-standing member of SAG and want nothing but the best for my union and its members. To that end, I encourage you and your fellow Board Members to support the Affected Member Voting proposal. After researching the issue and discussing it with many of my peers, it is my sincere belief that this proposal is better not only for the members who will be involved in creating the contracts, but also for those who hope and intend to work under those contracts in the future. Who better to chart SAG's course than the members who use SAG wages to put food on their table, pay their rent/mortgage, and send their children to school? They - we - have the union's best interest at heart because our very livelihoods depend on it." -- Richard Speight, Jr.
"I truly believe a reasonable work requirement for contract voting ensures a democratic voice for those of us directly affected by the results of contract voting within our union." -- Minnie Driver
"This is LONG overdue and it absolutely makes NO SENSE not to have this in play. It will not weaken our Union, it will allow our union to make the strongest contracts possible. It will eliminate those that have a direct conflict of interest of being able to vote against what is truly best for our union. The WGA and DGA figured this out a long time ago. My wife is currently retired from the stunt profession. She is a former President of the Stuntwomen's Association of Motion Pictures, Inc. She would no longer be able to vote on contracts and wholeheartedly agrees that this is the correct position to take. I wanted to make sure I am heard on this issue and that our Union does what is right for it's working members!! Very simple...you work the contract, you vote on the contract." -- Ken Howard
"I strongly support the proposal to restrict contract voting to those who actually work the contracts. I urge the Board to pass such a motion." -- Tony Roberts
"I sincerely request your support for affected member voting. It is too logical to reject. As a fortunate vested member (over 50 years as a working actor), I have not been working under the newest contracts for some time. (Still hoping for a call!) I will be entitled to vote, however I'll have to have some seriously sage advice from working members to make a wise choice. We are smart enough to trust the working actors who really know the details. As a former, long time SAG Board member, I understand the difficulty of the decision. But it's time to make difficult decisions. The adjusted request from 'working actors voice' is calm, sane and strengthening." -- Jackie Joseph
"As Houston SAG President I encourage the National Board to adopt affected voting. As you know, affected voting is practiced by the other entertainment unions and is written into the SAG constitution. I believe it is time to honor the constitution." -- Jim Huston
"I was proud to serve on the Hollywood Wages and Working Conditions Committee thsi past February. It was a month well spent. Having affected member voting strengthens our position as a union, it does not weaken it. People directly affected by a contract will take the time to adequately assess the merits of a proposed deal. They know the contract. With the collapse of the quote system, more and more of us are living in a scale + 10 world. It is in our enlightened self-interest to ensure SAG receives the best deal possible." -- Lisa K Wyatt
"I know that every member is concerned about contracts but I will speak frankly; most don't bother to learn about them until it truly applies to them...and even then many do not. That may be a sad fact of life but a fact it is nonetheless. To narrow the gap of foolish thinking and voting ("Hey, I don't know how much turn-around time you need, their offer sounds fine to me, I don't work that contract") let us ask those who do work it, and know it from the feet-on-the-ground perspective, have the say. When the beginning or non-working actor does have work within the contract jurisdiction, they too will have a vote...and should. Until they earn under that contract, I marvel that we should, as working actors under the contract, give weight to their thoughts when they probably do not know the facts, conditions and trials of the contract.
This is not elitist thinking but rather it is pragmatic, lean, effective thinking. As I find myself working less (a character woman in my late 50's) I can only expect to be current in my thinking of contracts I have worked for just so long...based on 32 years of working...but one day...should I not be earning enough to qualify to vote...I will also be out of touch with the industry as it is on that day and I should no longer have a vote. I will always retain my 3 union affiliations and may well work for years to come in all or some of the unions I love....but sentiment and nostalgia are not good compasses for contract negotiations and voting. There comes a day when we all need to bow out and let the working actors protect their current work." -- Joyce Reehling
I have been a SAG member since 1975 and even though work is dwindling as I get older, I still firmly believe in qualified voting. I am willing to let those who work the contracts do the voting, even if it means I have to sit it out. The qualifications can be gracious as far as who should vote - but some guidelines need to be in place." -- Gina Hecht
"I am very committed to the idea of affected member voting. As a thirty year SAG member I have never felt comfortable being asked to vote on contracts I have not worked under and never have done so. I believe it is not ethical to have that power over the members directly affected by those contracts. I hope you will fairly evaluate the fair proposal before you and help us all to address this most unrepresentative practice." -- Joe Grifasi
"As a working member since 1986, a Board Member from 1997 to 2000, NY Recording Secretary 1999 to 2001, a Pensioner and finally a man who has thought about these issues a great deal for many years, I urge you to move on this Affected Member Voting issue and vote it up, in its latest form which addresses the concerns of the greatest number of people who work the contract. This is fair, this is good for the Union, and it is time we made this happen." -- Michael Arkin
"For years now, Actor's Equity has had in place voting eligibility requirements very similar to the ones before you right now. In my twenty year career, I have been on both sides of that eligibility, sometimes able to vote, others. not having worked under that particular contract and not having that vote. Please note that when not eligible, I was never denied a voice, however, in that AEA always welcomed my comments or suggestions via mail or in person during a meeting. The only thing I wasn't allowed was the actual vote once the negotiations had concluded - and this made sense to me. Why? If I haven't worked under that contract in six years, I have no idea of its particular strengths and weaknesses.
Having a vote on a contract should sensibly be connected to one's on-your-feet knowledge of that contract's workings. Not having ever done so, or having done so more than two negotiation cycles previous, is like standing outside of an apartment you lived in six years ago, not having been inside since - and telling the current tenants that you have a say in the furniture and decorating choices. A whimsical analogy to be sure, but imagine if that person showed up at your apartment door - you had to do what they said, then they walked away. And then again, three years later there's a knock at the door.
Let me reiterate that not having a specific vote is not being unheard. Much like AEA, anyone, at any time is welcome to write or voice their support or criticism in a myriad of ways, and it's quite possible that someone ineligible to vote might still have viable ideas for a negotiation. I did so myself a number of times when I was unable to vote in Equity, but still had relevant experience or opinions, and I was always thanked, and often told that my suggestions were brought up in committee or negotiation. I anticipate SAG would enjoy the same process.
In conclusion, my experience with this specific issue is long standing, and having been on both sides of the fence, I find the current proposal fair (eligibility seems quite overly fair), and I wholeheartedly ask your support in SAG adopting these same guidelines. It empowers those who are working under the contract in livable circumstances, while never disempowering others." -- Dann Fink
"It makes PERFECT sense to me that actors contracts should be decided by those who work under them. I wholeheartedly support the very reasonable proposal of the "Working Actors' Voice" group." -- Robert Joy
"I strongly urge you to support the affected member voting proposal. I ask for that support with the knowledge that there will now be votes I am no longer eligible to participate in because I haven't worked the contracts. That's okay by me. The people who work the contracts should have the vote." -- Tracy Thorne
"This is simply putting the accumulated knowledge of thousands of actors to good use by giving those with the expertise the ability to negotiate contracts for the good of ALL union members. This effort is neither exclusive nor elitist but rather seeks to capitalize on experience that can only be gained by actually working under the contracts and understanding, first hand, the difficulties and shortcomings of real working conditions." -- Robb Curtis Brown
"I've been a working member of this guild for thirty-five years now. I am looking for the board s support for "affected member voting" which I, along with 1400 other working actors are seeking. If you look at the 1400 names, you will not see partisanship, but rather a fellowship of actors who have a genuine concern for the welfare of our craft and our ability not only to practice it, but in also having a say in what will affect us. As an Asian-American actor, I can testify about the ethnic and cultural barriers as well as attitudes and beliefs that were in place and that needed to be overcome; so believe me when I say, "I am not an elitist!" The label I hold is UNION!" -- Clyde Kusatsu
"I am a working actor. I have been a proud member of SAG, my parent union, since 1992. I have made my living as an actor since 1996. I bought a house in 2001, and my loan application, made to Wells Fargo, was based on my profession as an actor. The contracts under which I work as an actor affect my ability to pay my mortgage. When a substantial number of people who do not earn their living this way have a say in how I am required to work, I lose out. I believe in votes by those who are affected, not by those who think they understand how my life and my ability to earn my living works. I do not ask to have a say in the contracts or decisions that I do not work under, but I do not want a huge number of people who are not affected by the consequences of their vote to have the power over my ability to earn my living." -- Wendy Worthington
"It is essential that the people who work under a contract be the ones to make the decisions on that contract. Giving voting rights to members who have no vested interest in either what the contract provides or what it precludes makes no sense and is furthermore likely to be counter-productive. It is certainly counter-intuitive." -- Claudette Nevins
"We need each other and we need to be as one together. Our proposal doesn't leave out anyone. It makes sure that when those who have not yet gotten the opportunity to work these contracts, finally do, the contracts will reflect their needs. The contracts will do this, because they will have been supported and voted on by those experienced enough to have considered the ups, downs, pitfalls and non negotiable points that already will exist within their contracts. Future affected members will then be free to vote on things that directly affect them because of their current career and changes within the industry that have to be addressed. Just as we are trying to do now." -- John Kassir
"I am not a celebrity, I do not always make enough revenue to qualify for SAG insurance per year, but I would fully embrace the notion that my fellow WORKING actors are best able to vote on the behalf of all our members. I particularly would want those working to determine my fate if I did not qualify for voting. Who best to make the hard choices but those with a vested interest? I have spoken with many friends on this topic and all, including the ones that don't qualify to vote under this proposal, agree with it." -- Josette DiCarlo
"I've been a proud member of SAG for over twenty years; this is the most exciting idea and way forward I've heard in a long time. Literally every working actor I've spoken to about this reform over the last month agrees that it makes sense, is overdue, and will serve to strengthen our great Union." -- David Brisbin
"I am a working actor and I believe that the recent proposal to define 'affected members' by introducing a one working day per year standard is integral in strengthening our guild. This is not about elitism, this is about bringing the voices of professional screen actors together in unity and with integrity. This is the only way to stand up to Big Media now and for future generations of actors. Give the power to the working actors. Watch the AMPTP sit up and take note." -- Jason O'Mara
"This is a completely sane and healthy idea that many unions have adopted. It is the only way to ensure strength of union ideals and unity. I urge this to occur." -- Jennifer Aspen
If you're a member of SAG or AFTRA, add your name to the supporters list!
Just send a short email listing your name and union(s) by clicking:
Join the growing number of actors who want to strengthen our unions by giving working members greater control over the contract decisions that directly impact their lives.
Watch this page for more Supporter Comments.
|
