Archive Video of Interviews with SAG Candidates

Yesterday, I did live streaming video interviews with SAG candidates and board members from the incumbent, dominant faction, Membership First (represented by David Jolliffe and Ann-Marie Johnson), and the challengers, Unite for Strength (represented by Ned Vaughn). Watch them at http://digitalmedialaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/archive-video-of-interviews-with-sag.html.

Some highlights from the interviews: Unite for Strength appears to have many of the same positions on contract issues, generally speaking as Membership First, although Ned was vague about a lot of this, saying that he wasn't in the negotiating room. He refused to say explicitly whether they would seek to fire the National Executive Director, Doug Allen, but said that he would take direction from a new Board majority if Unite for Strength gained a majority (which Ned said would take 6 seats), and expressed confidence that it would not be necessary to dissolve the negotiating committee in order to get it to take a different approach to the negotiations. Ned also was somewhat equivocal about whether, someday after accomplishing a merger with AFTRA, they might seek to reinstitute affected member voting (qualified voting).

Membership First contends that their actions towards AFTRA this year were not responsible for AFTRA deciding to negotiate separately -- rather, that AFTRA was determined to do so in any case. They insisted that negotiations with the studios were ongoing, but refused to provide details, citing the fact that David is on the negotiating committee. They were at first reluctant to concede that SAG was de-leveraged, but ultimately did. Critically, Membership First revealed its strategy, which has been a source of confusion for many people: educate the members on the issues to the point where it does become possible to meet the 75% threshold for obtaining a strike authorization.

Each of the interviews is about an hour and ten minutes long - but well worth it if you want to be informed. Apparently, the candidates haven't done any other video interviews except soundbite clips.

Again, you can watch the interviews at http://digitalmedialaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/archive-video-of-interviews-with-sag.html.

Comments

[MrsWakely]

Here's my take away from last night's Unite For Strength vs. Membership First interviews by Jonathan Handel:

First, Handel was surprisingly unbiased and fair, given his rather anti-MF stance thus far. He listened, did not interrupt, asked tough follow up questions and, all in all, one wishes Ned Vaughn had agreed to debate Membership First with Handel moderating, and one wonders why Vaughn would not debate.

Vaughn's answer that "we feel the membership should get to know ALL the members and let them speak for themselves," is ridiculous: Unite For Strength is a unified slate that has Ned Vaughn as its spokesperson and on-camera talking head. Vaughn is clearly, as is, U4S, running away from a head to head debate because he believes he and U4S would be damaged - damaged, further I would say, after last nights interviews.

Vaughn says he doesn't know how Unite For Strength, if they gain a majority in the election, would go about changing the dynamic in the negotiating room to SAG's advantage "because we're not in the room and don't know what's being offered."

[MrsWakely]

My dog knows what's being offered.

This is evasion to avoid the reality that, since U4S, in their own words, "wants what SAG wants from this contract - and more!" - and the AMPTP couldn't care less if they see some new faces in the negotiating room, STILL led by Alan Rosenberg - there is NOTHING to indicate the AMPTP has any intention of giving SAG a better deal just because U4S gains some seats.

The truth is, the AMPTP is under maximum pressure NOW because of the tough stance of MF, and lessening that pressure by electing a majority of "more moderate" board members would only lessen the odds of a decent resolution for SAG.

[MrsWakely]

Ned Vaughn did NOT disavow qualified voting. ALL SAG members would do well to understand this: he is only saying that: since the SAG/AFTRA split - caused by AFTRA (THEY walked away from joint bargaining - not SAG) Unite For Strength's "overwhelming priority has become merger with AFTRA" and the qualified voting issue is something they have publicly pledged not to pursue if elected. But, the CONCEPT of disenfranchising SAG members from their right to vote? Vaughn did nothing to distance himself from that - and the qualified voting petition, signed by the majority of the U4S members, is still available on-line.

In other words - you want to give your vote away - somewhere down the line if U4S gains a majority and feels comfortable at some point bringing back the issue of qualified voting? Vote for U4S.

You want to GUARANTEE you'll never lose your right to vote as a SAG member on important issues? Vote for Membership First candidates only.

[MrsWakely]

Vaughn's overriding issue is "merge with AFTRA." When?" "How?" Good luck. Vaughn and Unite For Strength offers NO plan, NO specifics. Vaughn has a utopian vision of "all actors together increasing our leverage at the negotiating table."

He says "I don't care if the resulting entity is called Uncle Joe's Actor's Union" so long as actors get the best deal possible.

Wow. He "doesn't care" about dissolving The Screen Actor's Guild? A storied, proud, institution, now 75 years old, that has fought for and won ALL of the wages, working conditions, residual, and pension and health benefits we SAG members enjoy today?

His flippancy is an insult to the SAG founders, the SAG staff over those 75 years, the SAG negotiators who won these hard fought battles for OUR benefit, the sacrifices, the work, the commitment - in short, the totality of what SAG has accomplished, and what SAG means to it's members, past and present.

[MrsWakely]

It is clear from last night's interviews with Ned Vaughn, representing Unite For Strength, and David Joliffe and Anne-Marie Johnson, representing Membership First, that U4S is made up of misinformed, albeit, perhaps, well-intentioned, complete novices to union politics. They have zero experience, they seemingly have no real plan for implementing any of their ideas, and to elect them to a majority now, because SAG is in a very tough spot AS A RESULT OF a terrible deal offered by the AMPTP, and the compliance of the DGA, the WGA (which IS and HAS been very supportive publicly and privately of SAG's fight to get a better deal) and finally, the hostile and predatory actions of AFTRA.

Membership First is the ONE group currently standing between a threat to destroy SAG (by Unite For Strength) and a "template" contract foisted upon actors thanks to the collusive and compliant DGA, that will mean the end of residuals for actors. Actors rely on residuals for up to 50% of their yearly income. If THIS contract passes, as is? That will cut the middle class actors income IN HALF, and put most of us out of business.

SAG members:

Support Membership First. Vote Membership First. They need your help!