NO SAG STRIKE! Petition

[Michael Stumpf]

Michael,

 

"they are in NO position to be making demands for what THEY think they DESERVE from the people who hire them and pay them a VERY attractive wage for what they do already"

 

Look, I'm not for a moment supporting a strike, etc. but I can't help but find the irony in the above statement. Don't we ridicule those Steadicam operators that work for scale - a sum of money that many people in this world think is a lot - while we hold out for "an VERY attractive wage?"

 

Sure, we sight the heavy loads we carry, career longevity, skill set, etc. but how is this different than how an actor sees its?????

Face it; we all want the largest piece of pie we can get and there is nothing wrong with that!

 

The actors should not strike because of how it will effect most of THEIR membership first & foremost. Then they should not strike because of the people that surround them and make them look good (i.e. us) and then finally they should not strike because of the damage to the economy on the whole. They should not NOT strike because of their current salaries or because anyone else may think they are overpaid.

 

PS - please don't swear on the Forum.

 

 

Alec, your comparison to our wages, that's a different story and not really a accurate comparison.

I'm not saying that the more skilled actors can't get more than the beginner actors.

I'm not saying that the actors can't ask and get more than scale for more difficult or skilled work.

 

Those are the 2 points you made in your "rebuttal" neither of which I said anything against or believe otherwise.

And neither of which are any points of the purported strike either.

 

Pay for experience and pay for skill level are two totally different issues completely.

 

I swore on the forum, where?

[Alec Jarnagin SOC]

Michael,

 

Sorry if I seem to be singling you out - its just that your response got me thinking (a good thing). All I'm saying is that I find it a bit surprising that so many of our labor activists (yes, I put you into that category - as well as me) seem to be down on the actors. I confess that this includes me as well. This thread just makes me rethink my position a bit, but ultimately it does not change my mind about a strike though. You are dead on regarding the experience issue; something that I had not seen mentioned elsewhere. All I'm saying is that it is a Union's job to defend their own and ask for the best possible wages and work conditions. With this there is a certain responsibility though that the WGA and now SAG have failed at, which is do your homework before you come to the table and begin negotiating early. Our own IA is very good at that part of the equation, yet they gave up the operator's position. We are all giving up too much these days yet we have no recourse because everyone is afraid. Its a damn shame.

 

By the way, I looked at your post again - I thought you had used the "F" word, but you left out the "c." Technicality since one's brain fills it in, which is the point I guess.

[Michael Stumpf]

Michael,

 

Sorry if I seem to be singling you out - its just that your response got me thinking (a good thing). All I'm saying is that I find it a bit surprising that so many of our labor activists (yes, I put you into that category - as well as me) seem to be down on the actors. I confess that this includes me as well. This thread just makes me rethink my position a bit, but ultimately it does not change my mind about a strike though. You are dead on regarding the experience issue; something that I had not seen mentioned elsewhere. All I'm saying is that it is a Union's job to defend their own and ask for the best possible wages and work conditions. With this there is a certain responsibility though that the WGA and now SAG have failed at, which is do your homework before you come to the table and begin negotiating early. Our own IA is very good at that part of the equation, yet they gave up the operator's position. We are all giving up too much these days yet we have no recourse because everyone is afraid. Its a damn shame.

 

By the way, I looked at your post again - I thought you had used the "F" word, but you left out the "c." Technicality since one's brain fills it in, which is the point I guess.

 

I agree with what you said.

But like our losing the operator position, that wasn't the IA, that was our "leadership" in Gary and others.

Like we got rid of him, SAG members need to get rid of their current "leadership" as what they are doing is NOT in the best interest of their members and the unions members as a whole.

They surely need to stand their ground and get what they can WHEN they can, but do it in a responsible way.

Failing to negotiate early is not responsible.

Failing to "negotiate" period is not responsible.

And desiring to strike when the VAST majority of working SAG members do not want it, and in an economy teetering on the edge of depression is not responsible.

And taking an elitist attitude towards their members over AFTRA, and the DGA (even WGA and IA) is not responsible.

 

I guess i'm more for peace than war, even though I know sometimes war is needed when all else fails.

But what the studios are offering is not failing, but what SAG leadership seems to want is war.

 

Their union is doomed for failing soon anyway, with the uprising of HD, AFTRA will take the reigns and in 5-10 years, SAG will be left begging AFTRA to merge.

Doing what SAG is doing now is just speeding that process up, as productions NOW are reporting switching from film to HD so they can continue shooting or START shooting and just use AFTRA members.

SAG is pretty much shooting themselves in both feet.

 

I just want everybody to get back to work full time and not worry about another work stoppage. It's too slow now and there's too many productions holding off starting until this SAG thing is settled.

 

It's all good bro.

 

Oh, by the way, I don't even remember or know where I used part of the "F" word in a post.?

[Ramon Engle]

Gentlemen, enlighten me: How does shooting HD rather than film play into skirting around SAG?

 

Ramon

[Charles Papert]

Ramon:

 

AFTRA has traditionally had jurisdiction over the "tape" side of the business, like soap operas, live events, talk shows etc. However the advent of HD has caused lines to blur a bit.

 

Michael:

 

see your post #13 above, end of first full paragraph.

[Ramon Engle]

Ok, one more question: Are most actors members of both SAG and AFTRA? Or is that not allowed?

Reason I ask is if SAG continues to completely misrepresent its constituents and choke the industry it would be an easy transition for the thespians to simply burn their SAG card and pledge full allegiance to AFTRA. Or am I living in a very simple world?

So on HD episodics that aren't soap operas who has jurisdiction? SAG or AFTRA?

 

Ramon

[Eric Fletcher S.O.C.]

Ok, one more question: Are most actors members of both SAG and AFTRA? Or is that not allowed?

Reason I ask is if SAG continues to completely misrepresent its constituents and choke the industry it would be an easy transition for the thespians to simply burn their SAG card and pledge full allegiance to AFTRA. Or am I living in a very simple world?

So on HD episodics that aren't soap operas who has jurisdiction? SAG or AFTRA?

 

Ramon

 

 

Many actors are dual members. Not all HD shows are on AFTRA contracts depends on the network. NBC/Uni has told all incoming pilot actors that they need to be dual members if the show is on a sag contract....