Let us promote your talents...to be found!
Taking the pulse on the proposed SAG/AFTRA merger
Hello fellow actors.
I was hoping to get an idea about what the general feeling is out there regarding the proposed SAG/AFTRA merger. Not necessarily your own opinion, but more like what you're hearing on set. Is it overwhelmingly one or the other? Which way does the wind seem to be blowing?
Views: 572
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bill Mootos on
-
Just sent this out to a member who was curious about the 2003 merger referendum:
I wish I could be brief, though there are many things to say about that 2003 merger. It needed to pass (just like now) with a 60% majority from both unions. In AFTRA it passed by 76%, and in SAG it just missed with about 58% of the votes cast (about 58,192 members voted). If 1,300 people voted differently, or if even some of the others who supported merger (but didn't vote) had voted, it would have passed.
So why did people vote no? Here are some of the reasons:
By 2003, SAG had already become very factionalized. There was bad blood between the Hollywood faction Membership First (who were, and still are, anti-merger) and the rest of the Board. This included the "Restore Respect" party of Hollywood, led by Melissa Gilbert, James Cromwell, Mike Farrell, and many others. MF had spread fear of merger by targeting Hollywood's very large background community, telling them it would threaten their jobs - a tactic they are using once again in LA and NY.
The plan would have put the 3 categories of performer into 3 separate, independently run "silos" for Actors, Broadcasters, and Recording Artists. It was to be an umbrella organization called "AIMA" (The Alliance of International Media Artists), and no one liked that name. The Actor silo was to be called "The Screen Actors Guild", but the anti-merger message was that "SAG will be no more". This particularly resonated with those long-time members who fell for that line: they voted no because the name SAG (they were told) was going away.
One of the major things that killed it was P&H. The situation back then is what it is now: our national boards cannot dictate to our plan trustees what will happen to the plans. The P&H/H&R plans are separate entities, run by their own board of trustees. Just as we cannot tell what our plans will look like a year from now (because of contribution variables, investment performance, etc), we could not tell members exactly what the new P&H plans will look like. We DO know that once the unions merge, the plan trustees would need to do what is in the best interests of plan participants: the obvious solution would be to look into merging the plans. Health would be pretty easy to do, as it is a “money in, money out” type of plan. Pension is more complicated, and there are a number of options. Whatever the result, it would be based on what the plan trustees feel is best for the plan and its participants.But in 2003, this is what frightened members - that the future of the P&H situation was not crystal clear. And this is one thing we’re seeing again, which is what the anti-merger factions (basically Membership First once again, who shed that name since they lost credibility in the SAG Boardroom) are capitalizing on. The fact is, no one can say what will P&H will look like exactly. And they won’t be able to, whether we merge or not. But these folks don’t care about that – they are all about anti-merger slogans like “If you don’t know, you must vote NO.” It worked in 2003 (just barely), and they are counting on it working again.
Back in 2003, Membership First somehow obtained email addresses to a very large number of SAG members, and sent very alarming and lie-ridden unsolicited emails to members. This was before the age of Facebook, but even at that time these emails went viral. They caused more confusion, and prompted a NO vote from many frightened members. The source of the email was traced to a makeup artist in LA who had connections to Membership First, and while it was clear that he was working with them he never admitted where the email list came from. These emails, along with a postcard from Ed Asner that arrived to members at the exact same time as ballots, prompted many to vote no. Ed Asner, who was elected as SAG President in 1981 on a platform of merger, was part of Membership First, and his postcard encouraged a NO vote on the basis of all the reasons listed above. This is most likely what influenced the remainder of the NO votes.
One important thing to note is that back in 2003, one of the reasons we wanted merger was that the Digital Age had already arrived, and it was clear that jurisdictional issues between SAG and AFTRA were only going to get worse: both video and film (which in the past helped to define jurisdiction) were fast on their way out, and digital was open to both unions. While many members already saw their earnings being split between 2 different unions, it became clear that would increase with both television and new media becoming more divided as well. Back then the Membership First response was that the looming problems of digital media were exaggerated and that “SAG will always be the more powerful union – if producers have a choice they will always choose SAG!” It has been definitively proven that they were wrong.
So ultimately, I feel this merger has to happen. I don’t see this vote coming up again in the next ten years, if ever. It’s already been almost a decade since the last attempts. Is the new plan perfect? No, but what I think is not ideal, someone else will think is great. And are the unions perfect right now? Far from it. Solving the problems of split earnings, jurisdictional wars, paying 2 unions to administer our contracts, etc. is vital if we want to remain relevant and make a living.
I have heard nothing from the opposition that makes any sense or is even close to being effective in solving the issues facing us.
Take care,
Bill
-
Permalink Reply by Kathleen O'Neil on
-
I actually do have a specific question regarding timing. I've taken a look at the proposed merger agreement and in part X G 1 it says (should the merger go through) merger of locals must be completed by Dec 2012. That's one of very few specified dates. I understand that they didn't specify since this was only a proposal and they didn't know if/when everything would move forward, but now that it is being put up to vote, what would be the "effective date" for the new union should it pass? Is it the deadline for votes to be tabulated (March 30), or is there something else that would need to happen first?
-
NYC & New EnglandPermalink Reply by Bradley J. Van Dussen on -
An interesting site to learn more: www.sagwatch.net
-
-
Hi Kathleen-
Good question. Once passed by the membership, the Merger would go into effect immediately, meaning SAG-AFTRA would be incorporated on March 31, the day after ballots are counted. The transition period be that date of incorporation until the first Convention, which is to be held before October 1st of 2013.
The "merger of locals" you mention refers to any local that would be comprised of former SAG Branches and AFTRA Locals. In Boston, we have one office and a separate AFTRA Board and SAG Council. By the end of 2012, these combined locals/branches are required to meet as one local body. In our Local, we would likely meet very shortly after the effective date of March 31, as our office (for all intents and purposes) "merged" as a SAG and AFTRA office long ago.
The first brand new election of SAG-AFTRA would take place in the spring or summer of 2013, where an entire new Local and National Board would be elected by membership. Once that Board is seated, the official transition period is over, and the first newly-elected SAG-AFTRA Board would govern alone.
Hope that helps....(and Bradley, I agree - www.sagwatch.net is a good site!
Bill
Kathleen O'Neil said:I actually do have a specific question regarding timing. I've taken a look at the proposed merger agreement and in part X G 1 it says (should the merger go through) merger of locals must be completed by Dec 2012. That's one of very few specified dates. I understand that they didn't specify since this was only a proposal and they didn't know if/when everything would move forward, but now that it is being put up to vote, what would be the "effective date" for the new union should it pass? Is it the deadline for votes to be tabulated (March 30), or is there something else that would need to happen first?
-
-
Yes, that does help. Thank you, Bill.And again, thank you for taking the time to respond.
I understood most of what the merger agreement talks about, but I was unclear about the time-frame once voting is concluded and I didn't seem to find any mention of it online. :)
Kathleen
-
-
Sure, any time. I haven't looked to see where it says it, but I know it's in there.
Any other questions, feel free to ask away!
Also, there will be a Merger Info Meeting for members in Pawtuckett on Monday night (Feb 27), and another Town Hall Merger Meeting in Boston on Monday March 5. Keep an eye on the SAG AFTRA Blasts; it should also be up on the website soon, as well:
Bill
-
NYC & New EnglandPermalink Reply by Bradley J. Van Dussen on -
To ensure members have what both sides believe or are talking about, here is a "no merger" site: http://www.save-sag.com/
I cannot confirm any of the statements made on this site, please research for yourself. Feel free to contact Bill Mootos, Russ Gannon, Roy Souza who are infinitely more informed on the merger.
-
-
Hi Bradley,
I would not trust the information on "Save-Sag" as it is created by the people who are actually suing the union (it should be called "Sue SAG"). This group, formerly known as Membership First, are the ones who are responsible for the shift in TV work to AFTRA; they are also the ones who were intent on closing our Boston office over the past decade.
All of their points are effectively responded to with the "Myth Busters" at www.sagaftra.org/faqsA good impartial site that discusses merger is: www.sagwatch.net
Just a reminder that we have a meeting in Boston tonight (March 5) at 7pm at the Boston Park Plaza Hotel. I hope to see you those of you who have questions!
Bill
billmootos@yahoo.com
-
NYC & New EnglandPermalink Reply by Bradley J. Van Dussen on -
For those who have may still have questions regarding merger, there will be another LiveStream event this Sunday, March 18th. For details visit:
www.sagaftra.org/eventsEvents | SAG-AFTRA - Information on the proposed merger of Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA
SAG-AFTRA merging Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA into One Union
To see SAG-AFTRA One Union Boston's Wall, follow the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/n/?SAGAFTRAOneUnionBoston%2Fposts%2F4041507...
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Welcome to
NEActor
Quickly Find an Actor:
© 2024 Created by Bradley J. Van Dussen.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
