The Same Bad News, From Another Source – UPDATED!
Ed. Note – We’ve received a note from CAA’s spokesperson saying the note being circulated, the one we posted below, is not from anyone at CAA.
A long note (supposedly) from a CAA agent to clients contains some very bitter truth, and offers another perspective on the effect of the TV-Theatrical impasse and the de facto lockout.
Dear Clients,
I wanted to take a moment and give you a number of important updates….
Before I begin, however, I wish to tell you all that I am so very proud of you all for your dogged determination during these most difficult times. Hollywood is being challenged on multiple fronts – labor uncertainty, paradigm shifting and the ‘great recession’.
I know a lot of your are getting antsy to get out more, and frankly many of you are in a tight financial pinch; as such, I wanted to describe to you all the current climate in LA and the factors influencing the current environment.
1 SAG STALEMATE: Since the SAG contract expired on June 30, 2008, there have been few to no STUDIO feature films (this does not include companies such as Lionsgate and the Weinstein Company who are not in AMPTP and as such have completion agreements). Some analysts say there are up to 200 feature films on hold. Around September, we started to see a mass movement of film actors to TV projects. Many of my “name” actors have done one-day guest stars (this is very typical right now), and we are seeing a number of Guest Star level actors doing CO-STAR roles. Remember from November of 2007 to March of 2008, due to the Writer’s Strike, again there were no feature films shot. So for the film actor, there has only been 4 months of work in the last 17 months. THE BOTTOM LINE: Due to the lack of studio feature film production, BOTH film and TV actors are now competing for a limited number of jobs in the episodic and pilot environments.
2. PILOT SEASON: During the Writer’s Strike of 2007-2008, Studios adapted and used the void to eliminate pilot season as we know it. Gone are the days of hundreds of pilots. In fact, this year, there are only 67 pilots to have registered for production – of which only about 35 have bee green lit for production. And this year, due again to a sagging economy, studios and networks believe that by committing named stars to their projects, they will receive more money from this year’s up-fronts from ad agencies. They are banking on star power to leverage better buys at the all important UPFRONTS. So, stars and pop-stars like Richard Dreyfuss, Chevy Chase, Brittany Snow, Elle McPherson, Rebecca Romijn, Ashley Simpson, Scott Caan, Skeet Ulrich, and proven TV talents like Kelsey Grammar, Eric McCormick, John McGinley, Joel McHale, Jenna Elfman, Donald Faison, Maura Tierney, Peter Krauss, Craig T. Nelson, Dax Shepherd, etc…. You do the math, 37 pilots… top stars being sought… BOTTOM LINE: the conflagration of the economy and a lack of roles being cast, means that this pilot season may be even more competitive than the concurrent regular TV market right now. So those of you who have gotten auditions for series regulars… feel great about that!
3. TV: While TV has been steady, again due to the conflagration of film and named actors doing Guest Starring roles, we have seen a horrible trickle down. Many Guest Stars are now doing Co-stars and Co-stars/Developmental Actors (those with less than 5 primetime credits) frankly are not getting seen much. One CD recently told me that she had over 25 women who would be considered ‘working actors’ going for a co-star role. BOTTOM LINE: Again, due to the abundance of name and working actors, many less-developed actors are not even being seen right now.
4. ECONOMIC IMPACT I – THE EROSION OF QUOTES/RATES: There are really three major impacts to actors during this economic crunch. First, we are seeing the erosion of quotes. Due to the availability of so many talented actors, CD’s and Producers are in the driver’s seat in negotiations. When they say, “well we got someone else who will do it for lessâ€, they ain’t kidding. I have spoken to a number of my peers who have confirmed this erosion of pay for their actors. In short, right now, quotes are eroding and for many, the minimum has become the maximum pay.
5. ECONOMIC IMPACT II – THE CONCLUSION OF SAG STALEMATE: Many are hoping that with the end of this stalemate, Hollywood will get back to normal. I have to say, that I am not one who necessarily believes this. First off, due to the economic conditions, most studios have lost their millions of dollars from hedge funds; and European, Asian and Middle Eastern money has dried up. Even Stephen Spielberg has had to beg, borrow and steal to get his company financed
…. And it wasn’t anywhere near what he originally asked for. I believe that, even after the SAG stalemate is over, there is probably not enough money for 50 Studio Feature Films to be done right out of the gate. BOTTOM LINE: While this will help us move towards normalcy, it will not be the cash cow some people think it will be. One side note, is that I expect that more formulaic projects will be down out the gate as Studios will be less likely to take significant risks since most of these projects will be financed by both the studio and their investors. In short, you will see more Iron Mans, Animation, and SAWs… they are money in the bank when you factor in ratios, etc.6. ECONOMIC IMPACT III – OVERALL STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT: It is important that everyone follow the economic conditions closely. I know it is easy to be skeptical over the studios, networks, cablers, production houses, show runners, etc, losing money, but it is a cold-hard fact right now. These entities are truly in a difficult spot. If you have read much lately, there have been dramatic cut backs at every studio and network, from firings to asking show runners to cut between 2-7% of their budgets (not to mention the 25+% cutback shows like the Sarah Silverman were asked to swallow recently).Furthermore, these networks and studios are largely owned by conglomerates who have lost in the billions over the last 6 months. When I attended NATPE in January, all the talk was how to get ‘thinner.’ Everything is getting tight. Budgets, Marketing, Staffing, etc., and this will undoubtedly impact the actor. Also, the foreign sales market (where much of the TV and Film money is made, is being hit hard by the erosion of the US Dollar. So these entities are not able to recoup the costs they were in better days by the one-time explosion of the foreign markets. BOTTOM LINE: The economic conditions are forcing the industry to be as ‘thin’ as possible.
7. COMMERCIALS – INDUSTRY AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS: One analyst said last year, that 2008 was the worst commercial market since maybe 1974. I would not argue with this. Think about it: three of the top products/services for ad agencies are banks, cars and other financial services – all of which were struck down in 2008/early 2009 by this recession. This was confirmed when news struck that even the Super Bowl did not sell out advertising this year. The good news is that the advertising industry tends to be one of the first ones to be negatively impacted by a recession, but one of the first to grow as the recession moves to an end as advertisers of products want to start accumulating market share before the turn of the economy. Another impact trelates to the overall conditions of the TV/FILM/PILOT situation. Many strong actors have made enough money on TV/FILM, etc so that they have not had to do commercials in years. Due to the last few years and the lack of work, many top actors are now back in the commercial market; thus again, causing a logjam in casting. BOTTOMLINE: The economic slowdown has caused a dramatic decrease in ad sales and the lack of work has caused more actors to re-enter the commercial market.
THE GOOD NEWS!! Okay, so that is where we are today. You know me, I try to always call it straight as I see it. So, I am not going to sugar-coat this either. I anticipate that 2009 will be a tough year overall for actors (and agencies). First off, the economy will not likely get straightened out until at least the 3rd to 4th quarter of this year and so all the factors above will remain in place through most, if not all, of 2009. Secondly, until the labor situation gets straightened out, we will not be seeing dramatic amount of film production, and this seems to be dragging along as well (as we enter the 8th month of the stalemate – it was announced today that SAG is thinking now about taking AMPTP to court for anti-trust violations). But again, even if it was finalized, there is not enough investor money to see the film production level normalize and increase for most, if not all, of 2009. Also, since movies cost around $40 for two (tickets, popcorn, etc) – this is not a recession proof field anymore. During our last significant recession, there were few choices for guilty pleasures to get away from the stress of our times – so many people flocked to the theatres. NOT SO THESE DAYS, one can go to the web, TV, cable (not around in 1974, 1982, 1988 much), Video Games, Netflix, RedBox (movie for a $1). So studios are probably not in any big rush to make films– as people cannot afford this once cheap diversion – better to divert for a few bucks to all the many other sources of guilty pleasures. OKAY, so that didn’t sound like good news… The good news is that there are some paradigm shifts occurring that make 2010 -2012 look like it might be one of the most prolific times in Hollywood history. Due to technological developments, there are more platforms being developed than ever. The internet is driving millions of new viewers each year. Zillion is going to transform the way we view advertising. For those who don’t know, it has recently been unveiled by the maker of Real Player and the ‘mouse.’ It is a system that makes you watch ads before downloading movies (they already have 14,000 Titles> ready for download), TV, other forms of entertainment to your TV Screen. However, the consumer can choose the products they want to see (let’s say you go retail clothing and watch a Macy’s ad and love the jacket; you can immediately click on the ad/jacket and go directly to their website where you can buy it). Also, you earn points by watching the commercials that you can use towards purchases. Furthermore, SONY and others are now selling TVs that wirelessly connect to your computer, so you can download TV/FILMS at anytime from your computer (websites like Hula, Netflix, etc) directly to your TV. In short, technology is making more platforms which will require more content than ever. Also, Cablers are all embracing doing scripted shows, some have up to 5 shows this year… again, more content is needed and thus MORE ACTORS!
BOTTOM LINE: More platforms = more content = more actors! So as long as SAG/AFTRA can protect your rates and jurisdictional issues, there will be more good compensated work than ever in Hollywood by 2010-2012.
From the article on this thread “(as we enter the 8th month of the stalemate – it was announced today that SAG is thinking now about taking AMPTP to court for anti-trust violations).â€
is he referring to SAG or MF?
–
Admin. Comment – I think he’s referring to a MF talking point that no one else takes even halfway seriously.
Joosten just posted this on Sagactor
——————-
First: it’s a memo from a CAA agent.
Second: CAA agents don’t represent non-names. CAA doesn’t ‘develop” actors. Actors are either already “developed”, and CAA skims the cream off the top by signing them, OR, actors “develop” damn quick or CAA kicks them to the curb.
Third: “not so Theatrical Box-Office.” I just read the eighteenth mainstream article that box office was up. What the f is he talking about?
Fourth: “So as long as SAG/AFTRA can protect your rates and jurisdictional issues, there will be more good compensated> work than ever in Hollywood by 2010-2012.
Uh.. that ship has sailed, hasn’t it? Isn’t Ms. Joosten on record as being in favor of signing this contract which sells us jurisdictionally down the river? No residuals for original content in new media? Microscopic residuals for ALL other content new media? A potentially HUGE nonunion space in our own contract against the core principals of our union?
The AGENTS are, by all accounts, siding with the AMPTP in this… whatever it is – slow capitulation? What would you actually call what the “moderates” are DOING right now, besides begging to give the livlihood of the middle-class actor away?
Ms. Joosten – I don’t know WHO reps you, but I’d bet the farm it’s not CAA (I’ll check). CAA doesn’t DO “middle-class actors.”
I’d take this memo with a boulder of salt, as the panicked missive of a CAA honcho trying desperately to ward off clients jumping ship because said agent is not getting them jobs.
The “take” of a CAA agent. Us middle-class actors can’t get enough of such wisdom.
Um, yeah I already posted most of this inside look into the inustry in a comment on an old post and was ignored. A CAA agent says it and headline, lol. But anyway whatever it’s all 100% true believe me. Matt just wants to think otherwise because it gives him and his MF lackys reason to keep delaying a conclusion to the stalemate.
This is reality Matt.
The charges of anti-trust violations are serious and have merit. Last night, when interviewed by FOXLA news an AMPTP spokesperson stated “a fringe group” of SAG members are causing the ruckus. “Fringe” as compared to the six or seven AMPTP powerbrokers that control the entire entertainment landscape. We are at a minimum 2000 strong in a union that half of its members won’t even admit to belonging and the other half will go along with which ever way the wind blows. The AMPTP spokesperson went on to say the fringe element is “protesting a deal that hasn’t even been made yet.”
Uuuuuh no, “they’re” protesting the AMPTP refusing to negotiate ANYTHING fairly … similar to the mindset on SAGwatch … they’re just clueless.
It is clear Scott Wilson and his people have a case, they are becoming stronger and being taken seriously. But it’s okay that the editors and contributors here are in denial, when we get the contract we deserve you can always say we had nothing to do with it.
Re: # 1
That’s not the only inaccuracy. The “pilots” info is wrong too. Just an agent making excuses.
#1 –
I noticed that same thing. Again, it’s the problem with an un-sanctioned band of malcontents claiming to be demonstrating under the SAG banner. Remember the recent episode in which Variety headlined a story about this group as “SAG” demonstrating against something until the headline was hastily corrected.
Box office may be up (based on films already completed) but the new film production is down. That’s the consistent report.
I foresee another wave of agency closings, layoffs, and consolidation similar to the one that hit after the 2000 strike. The only saving grace for many agencies is that, without any SAG restrictions in place, they can represent non-union talent as well.
VG
What Mulhooey has overlooked is the simple fact that the “middle-class†actor (he so desperately wishes he was) has been aced out of almost everything by the alphabet-soup-level agency’s clients. This email clearly illuminates that (to everyone except Mulhooey, evidently).
You “middle-class-actorsâ€, [and like MM, middle-class-wannabes], are most definitely affected by what those at the top are now doing, because they ARE (and have been) taking your jobs. Jobs they wouldn’t have even considered a year ago.
This email was a very smart, concise take on the state of the business from ANY actor’s vantage point. While it hurts to hear all this stated so precisely, again, those realists among us have known this for a while. Especially the rates/quotes paragraph. That’s been goin on since the WGA action. No producer or CD even asks for quotes anymore.
Scamper fast, Mulhooey. Don’t let that boulder of salt hit you on the head on your way out.
–
Ed. Comment – We’re going to request that this be the last use of the name “Mulhooey.” While I personally disagree with much of what Mulhern says, let’s try to keep it away from name calling.
#2
I guess you didn’t get the memo. Matt Mulhern doesn’t post here any more. He said so himself, and he’s never ever wrong.
Ok, ED, agreed and done.
Can I still use it as an adjective to describe his posts (as in “another load of mulhooeyâ€)? It is quite descriptive (and thanks, TL).
–
Ed. Comment – Sounds right to me.
Dear VoteYes and MM…Wake up and smell the coffee. Seriously, it’s time. Scott Wilson has not been able to add to his ranks at all. They are hardly becoming stronger. They are officially a fringe group of hardliners, of which you are clearly a part as well. The business is moving on and trying to regain its feet little by little, in spite of some very harsh economic realities for EVERYONE. I hate to break it to you, but the world is not flat, even if you refuse to believe it and are bent on falling on your own swords. Do us all a favor and get it over with. Ask someone to hold the sword for you and be done with it. This constant counterproductive chatter simply for the sake of being antagonistic towards anyone you consider elitist or out of touch has gotten very old. No one gives a hoot anymore about your points (not really), even if you have every right to state them. You are increasingly irrelevant to many of us.
Just a little note re #10′s Scott Wilson reference.
I happened to be at 5757 yesterday and today on some business. There were ZERO picketers yesterday (it was cold and cloudy….) and 4 picketers today, and none of them was Scott Wilson (or Fisher, Asner, Clennon, AMJ, AR…………). Just a few biker-looking guys (no offense meant, just being descriptive) dwarfing their home made signs.
The AMPTP is withering in the face of this mass outrage, I’m sure.
#10 or Are We Making Any Sense Yet? What exactly are you talking about? You sound like an old man on a subway platform. The world is not flat? Smell the coffee? Hate to break it to you? What’s with the cache of the world’s most overused cliches? Can ya’ give us a more updated analogy to make your point more relevant? So you don’t like Scott Wilson. Hooray. Now shut up.
By the way, Crassman, the picketers were in Sherman Oaks yesterday not at 5757 Wilshire, but we’ll keep you abreast … maybe you can pool with Transpo and both get lost.
–
Admin. Note: The same rule applies here. Save the name calling. Effective now.
Admin, I hardly mind at all. Crassman, Kneel, blahblahblah, makes no difference to me, and not at all hurtful. I just consider the source. I noticed MM called you “numb-nuts†under another stream. How’d that get by? See….none of it really hurts or matters.
And, ROTEyes (which, just so you know refers to your constantly saying yes as if by rote to the MF talking points) how many people showed in Sherman Oaks yesterday? 100, 125, 200? Let’s be really gracious and say 250. Out of 50,000 local members that’s still only .5% (and out of 125,000 national members, .2%).
And those 5 guys out in front of 5757 today….were they the ones who didn’t get the memo about S.O. yesterday or the only ones who could muster getting out of bed today after all that fervent policy-shaking picketing yesterday? Or the only ones whose Teamster friends could give ‘em directions?
Still just an infinitessimal lunatic fringe.
–
Ed. Response – That’s the nicest thing he’s called me in weeks. You should only see the stuff that doesn’t go through.
VoteYes…I expected that response. Talk about getting “old”…not to mention predictable…and ever MORE irrelevant.
Attribute comment #15 to me…I was ADDRESSING VoteYes, not writing as them. God forbid.
I thought Matt Mulhern said goodbye? why do we have to endure his crap?
Matt and Vote Yes…Did SAG pay Scott Wilson’s legal bills when he sued SAG and lost the case and then lost on appeal? Do you think member’s dues should be used to pay for the legal fees of members (and ex presidents) who sue the union? Don’t you think the membership should know that such a thing took place behind closed doors and NEVER reported to the members?
Did SAG PAY SCOTT WILSON’S LEGAL FEES WHEN HE SUED SAG AND LOST?
hmmm…interesting…that’s enough of a reason not to like Scott Wilson. And he needs a little GROOMING!!
Matt Mulhern #2: “First: it’s a memo from a CAA agent.”
Nice vetting, numb-nuts.
Redanty
The scott wilson legal bills thing? can you give it a rest? you understand it makes you look crazier than you already are, and you already are seriously crazy.
Why does Ms Redanty saying that MembershipFirst paid off Scott Wilson & Tom Bowers legal bills (after all the court rulings had been in SAG’s favor) with SAG members’ dues money make her “look crazy”? It’s true isn’t it? It was an underhanded and unconscionable act – and every single person on the MembershipFirst slate voted for it.
#19 MATT…I won’t give it a rest until one of you cult members respond to it. Who paid Scott Wilson’s legal fees after he lost his case against SAG? Was it SAG? Why would SAG use member dues to pay off legal bills for a case SAG won? Answer it Mattie boy…or can’t you LIE that well. We won’t comment about your “acting skills”
When the members know what Members First did with their dues money close to $100,000 and did not reveal it to them, there will be hell to pay.
#18 Stuart
Give our Matty a break. After all, this is the guy who fabricated all that “proof” of SAGWatch being run by two guys out of Atlanta, and then watched it get blown apart. If he glories in someone taken in by a hoax, it is clearly just a case of posting envy. Someone succeeded where he failed so dismally.
On the other hand, there is always the possibilityt that our Matty is actually now in favor of the truth (despite the repeatedly broken promise about leaving this site), and you know there’s no one more zealous than a recent convert.
I suppose that’s why MF will make a storng effort for re-election to gain the majority on the board, so they can approve paying for the legal feels Alan, et.al., have incurred in the current lawsuit against SAG. But isn’t that violating their fiduciary responsibility? They should be protecting the membership dollars, not a few individuals of their cult.
#23 & #22
It is very concerning that “executive session” (which is a vital tool to any union and must be protected as such) was thwarted and bastardized by MF so they could spend MEMBERS MONEY to make whole a member who they obviously WANTED to sue our union. To me it is a violation of fiduciary responsibility big time. But, unless we insist that the constitution be amended stating that no funds will EVER be spent to pay legal fees for those who have sued and LOST, I see know other way to keep it from happening again (Rosenberg and cult). I would bet that Rosenberg and cults’ fees are HUGE.
The members need to know about this. They have already wondered who will pay Rosenberg and cult’s legal fees.
NOTE: A legal settlement is not the same thing as what happened here. Legal settlements are one thing and are commonplace as well as making budgetary sense. Paying for SAG lawyers and outside lawyers to drag a case on and on ends up costing more. Sometimes it is more responsible to settle out of court.
HOWEVER, Paying someone’s legal fees after they have lost and lost ON APPEAL is outrageous AND CORRUPT!!!
Where does it stop? If MF can get some member to sue people on the board who dont’ agree with the MF cult and can ASSURE that member it won’t cost them a dime, our dues money is will used as a payoff wouldn’t you say?
Wait til the press gets ahold of this!!
Scott Wilson hasn’t denied it, AMJ hasn’t denied it, no MF person has even commented save Matt who is just asking us to stop talking about it…..
Matt…if you don’t itch, then don’t scratch!!!
“Wait till the press gets a hold of this!â€
You call them right now Redanty! They will send out a truckload of reporters to cover this sizzling hot story form… the Victorian Era!
Who paid Scott Wilson’s medical bills! WHO ? I DEMAND TO KNOW!
Legal bills? Oh, right – LEGAL BILLS ! I DEMAND TO KNOW WHO PAID! WAS IT YOU?!
WAS IT YOU?!
You know Redanty, you could contact Scott Wilson himself? That way we wouldn’t have to read about this EVER AGAIN YOU (DELETED BY EDITOR).
–
Ed. Note: The better question isn’t who paid, but why they were paid.
Fred W #22: I have just one word for you… “transparency.”
Who pays YOUR therapy bills, Matt? Whoever, it’s a ripoff….it’s not working.
I thought you were gone. We’ll just have to start pretending you are. Again.
BTW, I really didn’t think you had it in you, but congrats on your NEW LOW under “Will There Be Serious Opposition to the Tentative Commercials Contract? – Updated”.
Invoking Slavery. Good one.
I’m dying to see what’s next. The Inquisition? The Holocaust?
#27 Neil,
You can tell when our Matty’s been sitting up late watching the History Channel; first it was references to Churchill, then Vichy France and now slavery and the Civil War.
The focus on slavery is more understandable, though, if you remember that our Matty was once a black woman.
–
Ed. Snarky Comment: Come on, now, Fred. Matt was just showing us his incredible range.
Legal fees incurred by suing SAG and losing and losing on appeal is a misuse of our dues money and members should be made aware BEFORE it is tried again with this newest stunt by MF.
It is shocking.
Why Mulhern is talking about Medical bills, i have no clue. But as you see he isn’t addressing the question, neither has AMJ or any MFer. Why? because they are guilty of this outrageous cronism payoff. “do our bidding and we’ll FIX it so it doesn’t cost you a dime.”
Any of them can call me names, rebuke my accomplishments, take pot shots at any and every part of my life. I care not. Because what i am bringing to light and will continue to bring to light for new readers on this site IS THE TRUTH.
If i were in LA, I would have no problem to ask Mr. Wilson IN PERSON and ON CAMERA.
But more importantly, the MFers on the SAG board who allowed this criminal use of dues should be asked about it …outloud….and on camera.
The question (sorry to bore those of you who know the truth) is simple…
Did SAG pay Scott Wilson’s legal fees when he LOST his legal suit against SAG?
Why was this done without notifying the members?
Neil #27: I dunno, you could get some nifty new labor spirituals out of it.
When our work hit the Internet,
Let my people go!
Residuals we could not get,
Let my people go!
Go down, Mulhern,
Way down to Hollywood,
Tell A-
M-P-T-P
‘Let my people go!’
#29 –
The point is that the lawsuit brought by Scott Wilson and Tom Bower was specifically designed to attack Bob Pisano on any grounds that they could find. Bob Pisano (along with Melissa Gilbert) represented the enemy. Membership First hated him, and wanted him out. It didn’t really matter what the grounds were, as long as there were some at least colorable grounds to assert.
Even though the lawsuit itself may not have succeeded per se, it was nonetheless part of an overall successful effort to drive Pisano out of SAG. Thus, no big surprise that the MF-led board rewarded Scott Wilson and Tom Bower for mounting their attack.
Of course, Pisano actually knew something about the industry, unlike, say, Doug Allen, whose knowledge of the business was zero coming in and, from all evidence, not much more than that going out.
In any case, the reason Wilson & Bower’s legal fees were paid is that they were doing exactly what Membership First wanted: A hatchet job on Bob Pisano.
Meanwhile, Monday is the day (according to my calculations) when SAG or any of the individual defendants in the Rosenberg v. Arkin suit can file a summary judgment motion to get rid of the thing. I continue to hope that they will do so. IF SAG’s designated counsel refuses, then one of the individual defendants should step up, hire their own counsel, get the case tossed out, then send the bill to SAG under the indemnity clause in the constitution.
VG
Ah, the group of 20, including the editor and his staff.
This is one influential site.
“What are Redanty and Ligon saying?” can be heard in the halls of SAG.
You’re in a very small sand-box children. Play with your toys.
#30 Stuart
My favorites are “Swing Low, Sweet Rosenberg” and “Wilson Fit The Battle Of Sherman Oaks (And The Walls Came Tumblin’ Down).”
Matt – yes, we may be playing in a small sandbox. Actors are children playing hide-ego-seek….but, trust me, we’re having much more fun than playing in the kitty-litter box you roll in.
#32…Hey Matt…long time no want to talk to. I see your up to your usual antagonistic BS. Tell me…if there are so many children in this “sandbox” and you are such an adult, why do you insist on hanging around? Why not go spend time with your more mature buddies who do nothing but stomp their feet and have temper tantrums when they don’t get what they want. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Everything you utter smacks of hypocrisy. I have never seen a worse superiority complex than what you exhibit. And the really unfortunate thing about it is that it does NOTHING to encourage solutions to our differences. Instead, it only creates hard feelings. One can’t simply disagree with you without being attacked for it. Perhaps anarchy is your goal, not a strong union. In which case, we have the real explanation as to why you spend so much time on here.
Is the sandbox surrounded?
#32 Matt…what are you spewing about? really. You aren’t addressing the issue at hand and i don’t know what you are talking about…you sound like you are on the third day of a binge….
the question at hand is: Did SAG pay Scott Wilson’s legal fees after he lost and lost on appeal in his lawsuit against SAG? Why did SAG not inform the Membership of this use of OUR DUES? Why would SAG pay legal fees to someone who sued the guild and lost and lost on appeal?
what’s your answer mattie boy?
none? of course not….admitting it would really make MF dust wouldn’t it?
Yes, Fred, it is. With Tonka trucks.
From number 14 of “The 20″
“the question at hand is: Did SAG pay Scott Wilson’s legal fees after he lost and lost on appeal in his lawsuit against SAG? ”
I think that clearly IS the question. There are important issues to be resolved, but THAT is THE question.
Matt…still no answer? can’t bring yourself to answer the simple question
did SAG pay scott wilson’s legal fees after he lost and lost on appeal in his lawsuit against SAG?
Yes. it is THE question as members want to know if Rosenberg and the MF cult want to enlist the same corrupt game to make Rosenberg “whole” as he/they did for thier buddy Scott Wilson.
What’s the answer Mattie boy? Did SAG pay the legal fees of someone who lost the case? Simple question…it’s either yes or no.
Cat got your tougue? MF got your brain?
#39 -
“I think that clearly IS the question. There are important issues to be resolved, but THAT is THE question.”
Well, Matt, while it may not be THE question it is certainly a monumentally important one to the future of the Guild’s finances, and therefore the Guild.
What you haven’t directly answered yet, I shall. YES, after suing, losing, appealing and losing, Wilson’s (and I believe Bower’s) legal fees were quietly paid by SAG, the very entity they sued. This doesn’t even happen in a bad divorce. It’s absurd.
Why that’s so important is tied right in to what’s currently happening. The Gang Of 4 will not let go of their suit, and will bleed the union of funds it desperately needs for other things, by counting on that same “settlement”.
Considering you’re all so concerned and vocal about the “losses” being suffered in all the contracts and contract proposals, you’d think the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars on frivolous lawsuits AGAINST the union [by officers of it who are COUNTING ON their bills being paid by that same union] would bother you more.
Or maybe you’re counting on that same thing for all the suits you keep threatening…
That you and your MF pals are so protective of this, and constantly try to ignore it (or glaze over it) makes you incredibly anti-union.
Well said, Neil. Deny the truth. Never explain. Attack, attack. Drain important union resources to serve your agenda and, above all, blame the other guy when faced with the consequences of your actions. The MF’rs cannot answer this question and be done with it. There can only be one reason for that. The consequences concern them far more than the answer itself. To me, Matt is nothing more than a mid-level member of the MF’s propganda brigade who has drunk way too much of the Kool Aid, so he may not even know the answer. Yet he won’t admit to not knowing. It makes him too irrelevant. Fear not. Sooner or later the truth will rise to the top. It always does. And the consequences, I trust, will be even more severe if what some suspect is true.
Sign of the Times:
http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2009/04/05/union_employees_open_to_concessions_but_demand_management_cuts_as_well/
Union employees open to concessions, but demand management cuts as well
By Robert Gavin
Globe Staff / April 5, 2009
Some Boston Globe union workers were stunned to learn of the newspaper’s threatened shutdown. To others, it was not a complete surprise, given the industry’s mounting troubles. Some viewed it as a negotiating ploy, others as a serious threat.
But all of those interviewed said they are willing to accept pay cuts and other concessions to save New England’s largest newspaper – as long as executives and managers make the same sacrifices.
“If management is willing to lead us, to take pay cuts and concessions, I’m sure the union would be willing,” said Bob Sullivan, 56, who has worked as a mailer for 38 years. “We all want to keep our jobs. We all want to keep the Globe publishing.”
Officials from the Globe’s owner, The New York Times Co., and the Globe declined to comment yesterday.
Last week, the Times Co. threatened to quickly shutter the money-losing newspaper unless its 13 unions agree to $20 million in concessions, including pay cuts, reduced company contributions to retirement and healthcare, and the elimination of lifetime job guarantees now enjoyed by some 430 workers, according to union officials and others familiar with the matter. Management told union leaders last week that without serious cutbacks, the Globe is projected to lose $85 million this year, after a $50 million loss in 2008, according to a Globe employee who was briefed on the discussion.
The Globe and newspapers across the country have been hard hit by the recession, accelerating declines that began years ago as readers and advertisers migrated to the Internet.
The concessions will be negotiated separately with each union, according to union officials. Globe management will meet with individual unions this week to detail the concessions they are seeking from each one, said Ralph Giallanella, secretary treasurer of Teamsters Local 259, which represents about 200 drivers who deliver the newspaper.
The Globe has about 1,400 union employees. The Boston Newspaper Guild is the largest, representing more than 700 editorial, advertising, and business office employees. It is unclear how swiftly the unions will need to reach an agreement to prevent closing the Globe, but one union leader has said concessions need to be made within 30 days.
The Globe completed cutting the equivalent of 50 full-time positions in its newsroom through buyouts and layoffs last week. Jenifer McKim, a business reporter who joined the paper in August, said she was just breathing easier after surviving the last round of job cuts. Now, she said, the situation is “bigger and sadder.”
“Last week I was worrying about me, but now it’s not just my job, but this great paper,” said McKim, 42, who grew up in Brookline. “I’ve been reading it since I was a little girl, and I always wanted to work for the Globe.”
McKim, who worked for the Orange County Register in California before the Globe, said she supports making concessions. “We have to change,” she said. “I want to be part of the transition to multimedia. I imagine we’ll always be telling stories and a watchdog in the community.”
Scott Allen, 47, a reporter and editor for 17 years, said he understands the need to make concessions, even on the lifetime job guarantees. Allen is among those with a guaranteed job.
“It’s not sacrosanct,” he said. “It’s protection that I value, but other things are more important.”
Union workers said management must share in the pain. Many have already gone years without raises in the face of continued declines in revenues.
Dan Pushee, 56, a machinist for 30 years, said executives have received bonuses even as workers have been laid off.
“We’ll give back,” Pushee said, “but they’ve got to give back their bonuses and take pay cuts.”
Several managers who declined to be named because they are not authorized to speak publicly said they are willing to make sacrifices. In fact, they fully expect the Times Co. to impose more cuts on management’s pay and benefits. Last week, the Times Co. instituted a temporary 5 percent pay cut for nonunion managers at the Globe and other properties in exchange for 10 additional paid days off.
In January, the company cut pension benefits for existing nonunion managers, and managers hired after Jan. 1 no longer receive a pension plan but rather an enhanced 401(k). And last month, the company eliminated retiree health benefits for nonunion employees.
James McLaughlin, a mailer for 38 years, said workers have been making concessions for years, giving up raises and paying more for healthcare. Last year, the pressmen and union drivers agreed to concessions, including a 5 percent wage cut that will result in annualized savings of $10.5 million, according to a person briefed on the deals.
“It’s tough,” said McLaughlin, 58. “We never thought we’d have to worry about the demise of the newspaper. We’ve given up so much. I think I can give a little more.”
I fear they are rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic. Within 5 years we won’t be seeing daily newspapers, certainly not delivered ones.
Kathy #44: that’s a fitting example. Like passenger liners and passenger railroad service, the print news media are facing a technology shift that forces them to re-evaluate what business they’re really in — or become extinct.
If they decide they’re somehow in the business of converting trees into fossilized data, they’re going to die. If they realize that they are in the business of collecting information in real-time and presenting it to an audience that will accept advertising as the price of attention, they have a shot.
Matt Mulhern #39: Here’s a relevant question, which I asked of you seventeen hours ago.
Now, if you can make a case for how Rosenberg and Allen have been effective and productive advocates for the livelihoods of SAG members, be my guest. Tell us all how their strategy and their execution of that strategy has led to the gains they promised SAG’s members. Point to their accomplishments in improving the contract terms with the AMPTP. I’ll be waiting.
I’ll be updating the weasel clock at periodic intervals.
Stewie
As I wrote on another post – accomplish SOMETHING, get in a union – ANY union, let alone SAG, instead of writing things no one reads, and developing theories on how to better execute people (I’m not kidding – go to his web site).
Take you seriously? Why?
Matt Mulhern #47: Predictable. You’re incapable of answering a direct question. Is it because you lack the brains, the balls or the facts? Inquiring minds want to know — literally.
The weasel clock is now at 20 hours, 40 minutes.
Matt…WE on this site TAKE STUART SERIOUSLY…
don’t you, of all people even dare to attempt to speak for this site;
WE have all gladdly responded and engaged in discussion with Stuart. YOU on the otherhand are like taking out the garbage…we have to do it but don’t necessarily get “inspired” by completing the task.
YOU having the gall to judge Stuart is just a friggin joke!! You who have “accomplished” NOTHING demanding that another person “accomplish something”…”anything” is outrageous….and who is the judge of what is an accomplishmet? You? You who are nowhere and basically a loser? a bitter and failed actor who hates all those who have a job, a career or a passion? What a joke.
Matt…do you think no one recalls your insane and absurd and verbose drivel? or are you hoping someone in this life remembers something of your sad and useless existence?
Marisa #49: I won’t take away from Matt Mulhern the things he has accomplished. He’s written and directed two independent features, one of which he produced. When I first saw his name here, I recognized him from his role on Major Dad, a show I watched regularly. I’ve noted him in other appearances over the years. I won’t get into put-downs over his career and his accomplishments as an actor, writer and director.
But I will certainly take issue with him on what constitutes a realistic winning strategy for a labor union. Even if I stipulate that I have no accomplishments or standing to talk about SAG, that doesn’t change the question — it merely establishes me as the naive little boy, and him as the swaggering, strutting Emperor. I still say he has no clothes, and until he’s prepared to address my challenge, I will still say he’s naked and awfully laughable.
To refresh your memory and his, I’ve asked him simply to address the following:
Now, if you can make a case for how Rosenberg and Allen have been effective and productive advocates for the livelihoods of SAG members, be my guest. Tell us all how their strategy and their execution of that strategy has led to the gains they promised SAG’s members. Point to their accomplishments in improving the contract terms with the AMPTP. I’ll be waiting.
The weasel clock is now at 22 hours, 20 minutes.