If it weren’t for the task force that went ‘back’ in with DW and JM, we would STILL have nothing to vote on.

I know of no one who is claiming that this contract offers us everything we want. I’ve never yet seen any contract that DOES. Gains – and respect – come in incremental steps.
That’s why it’s called ‘negotiate’ and not ‘dictate.’

V.

Let’s calendar this out it MF terms.

The contract somehow gets voted down (mid June). Then there would be about a month for SAG to find a way to it’s next step, giving AMPTP time to react. No, let’s say an SAV goes out – that will take 6 weeks….let’s say the SAV miraculously passes….there will be more time as SAG and AMPTP talk (or not)…then we strike. That would be about September (and it will be huge fodder for the elections). A strike would last a long time, it won’t settle overnight. Let’s say 100 days like the WGA….and let’s say some very minor gain is made that we vote to end the strike.

The point is, the new contract would be much more than 18 months of AFTRA and the others….AMPTP is not going to give us an 18 month contract…in fact, they will be angered over their losses and will certainly be sure to not give us any leverage in the future by giving us syncronization.

Meanhwile, in addition to the losses incurred during a strike, in addition to more projects signing AFTRA while we’re on the line, we will have lost a SECOND pay increase and will have been working without a contract for 18 months.

Do the math – $1.4 mil lost per week ofr 18 months…our members will have lost $100 million just becuase of not working with new rates, compound those losses by not working – period – udring a strike….another 100 mil…

Tell me how this contract could possibly be worth losing $200 million and more work to AFTRA?

Politics aside, we’d bett much better serving our members, and serving the future of this Guild, by VOTING YES now, and working HARD to prepare for the next contract negotiation, starting by mending fences and jointly working with AFTRA.

So there would be my goals. I can’t speak for MF, but I am sure that if a strike is authorized there will be a solid plan to achieve meaningful gains. And by the way, a strike would give SAG leverage to demand a synchronization of the contracts. The AMPTP can’t go to AFTRA for their movies or established hit TV shows-there is power in a strike if we can get it authorized.

That’s not a message, that’s a call from the Psychic Friends Hotline.

What has MF proposed going forward from voting down the contract? Do you think they have a responsibility to the people they are asking to vote against the referendum to explain what they intend to do? Does it bother you that they haven’t even tried to do that?

Do they believe they can get a strike authorization if the “no” vote on the referendum is not overwhelming?

Do they believe they can get substantive improvements from a strike? If so, what are they?

Do they believe the million or two to be made in first-dollar new media jurisdiction worth the loss of tens of millions of earnings lost to SAG members from a strike, and the loss of the increases already in the package, plus the loss of hundreds of millions in earnings to the rest of the industry?

Is that million or two worth losing contract synchronization with the other unions? You know that will be off the table if there’s a strike and new negotiations.

Give me something more than a jeremiad about the risk of not being tough. Being tough in the negotiation room without a plan is what put SAG in the position of having this proposal.

Generally speaking, you don’t survive as a union by simply taking what management gives you. Make no mistake, if this contract passes the moguls will be emboldened to screw us over even more in the future as they know they can get away with it.

You keep talking about the validity of MF’s message. Other than “we’re right and everyone else is an AMPTP shill,” exactly what IS the MF message?

I mean, did you really miss Steve Diamond writing that Membership First was “damagingly dogmatic” and that SAG’s President (a Membership Firster fer sure) “has very little to say that is worth listening to” ?

At the center of your post IS a valuable message; reason, moderation, civility and strength.

Once we’re rid of Membership First (or whatever they’ll call themselves tomorrow), SAG will have all that, and more.

1. The fact that the NEDs of both unions happen to be lawyers does not mean that the unions simply “sent lawyers” to do the union’s work with the AFL-CIO umpire. They sent their NEDs.

2. If he’s implying that the unions should have sent people other than the NEDs for this important meeting, and that those people should under no circumstances have law degrees, I find that notion ridiculous. This is not a setting for well-intentioned amateurs. Moreover, the AFL-CIO umpire would probably be unwilling to deal with anyone other than the NEDs.

3. If he is simply lamenting the fact that both SAG and AFTRA have NEDs who happen to be lawyers — indeed, lawyers seem to be all around the entertainment industry — then I think it’s more a sign of the times than anything else. It’s not the worst credential for an NED to have. And Doug Allen’s lack of a law degree didn’t seem to do wonders for SAG.

VG

Seems that Mr. Diamond is slowly losing his mantle as the SAGWATCH go-to lawyer for biased MF attacks. Oh well, I guess there’s always Jonathan Handel for that.

–

Mod. Comment: Huh? SAG is engaging in “bureaucratic and parlimentary [sic] nonsense” by responding to a claim under the agreement that Rosenberg and Allen put in place?