Campaign Watch: Cassel Posts Video Statement
It’s both bizarre and at the same moderately revealing. It calls itself “unedited” but at the same time says it’s excerpts in an obviously heavily edited interview-style production. It contains a lot of softball questions.
On Merger: He’s against it. He says SAG has bad leadership that hasn’t enforced jurisdictional boundaries with AFTRA.
Should the branches have equal power to Hollywood within SAG: “If you work in Portland and do theater, you should, and I support that, but I don’t think you should have the same voice that I do living in LA or in New York and trying to make a living.”
Qualified voting: He’s against it. “What qualifies you is that card.” People who are pushing qualified voting are making a lot of money.
His eight years on the board: “I have not seen much done.”
Minimum Earnings to qualify for Board service? No. “I’m no better than someone who makes a million dollars and they’re no better than me.”
What would he do to make things better for all SAG members: “By taking the contracts we have and possibly tearing them up.” Residuals, he says, are important to the middle class actor. (Everyone else, not so much, we guess.)
SAG Staff processing residuals: “I don’t trust them anyway.” There’s a problem with some of the people at very high salaries that” in my opinion don’t do that much.” More people should work on residuals and less on liason with the press and other things.
His qualifications:
“I came from the steets of Detroit and worked as a waiter in NY at Jack Dempsey’s while I was studying acting. I worked at the Stork Club while I was studing acting. Sherman Billingsley fired because he thought I was Jewish, put a gun into my face. I worked to become who I was. And some people luck into it and God if you’re that pretty and that handsome good luck to you. But the hard work pays off better.”
Cassel says he’s not afraid of other board members, and says he’ll fight for actors.
By your posting
I agree with him that SAG leadership hasn’t inforced jurisdictional boundries. Since that goes for present and past leadership of all political parties, I’m thinking that the lawyers have told them to not touch it for whatever reason. So if you can’t fight for jurisdictional boundries then you have to buy out the competition (very expensive) or join with them as equal partners.
He is against qualified voting but yet appears to be for qualified management. Anyone can vote but only Hollywood and New York should make the decisions on running the union and the contracts.
His right about not much done while Membership First was in power. Example in 2008 Membership First was in power and failed to negotiate any of the 8 contracts that expired that year.
He was a member of Membership First during that time.
2009 U4S got a slim Board majority and, I believe, 5 of those contracts have been re-negotiated with substantial increase for SAG members.
I guess he doesn’t earn a million dollars a year as a SAG member.
But is he better then the background person who doesn’t even earn a pension or health credit?
While the President is not supposed to be involved with the staff, except for the Executive Director, who’s gonna want to work for someone who already has made the statement that he doesn’t trust them. I think the President would want to praise the staff so that they would want to work harder for him and the union.
Lots of actors made it by working hard. And a lot never made it by working hard. So it is no big deal how you got where you are. It is a big deal on how you plan to treat people and get their respect and how you plan to get a strong power base against the AMPTP so as to better our, already, pretty good contracts. Tearing them up doesn’t really help.
Leslie, you’re absolutely right:
If “what qualifies you is that card,” then isn’t that card as valuable in the hand of a regional branch member as in the hand of a Hollywood or New York member? Doesn’t it entitle the branch member to a voice equal to the Hollywood and New York members?
I thought class division was a tool of management, not of unionism.
It is a sad fact well known to political types and their consultants that issues are great for rallying the base and getting people to vote. . . but solutions to issues often just get you a thank you and a gold watch. Winston Churchill losing election just after Germany’s surrender being the classic example.
This is even the more true when you aren’t sure you could even deliver the *desired* solution in the first place, which is likely the case with the jurisdictional issue.
I’ve sometimes wondered if the pro-merger folks should force the issue on litigating the jurisdictional issue to put it to rest for once and all.
“I’ve sometimes wondered if the pro-merger folks should force the issue on litigating the jurisdictional issue to put it to rest for once and all.”
And while you’re at it, ask for Obama’s birth certificate. You might as well roll up all the illusory non-issues into a single package.
Besides, you don’t have to litigate this, Geo, and you shouldn’t if you don’t believe it’s a legitimate issue. (The US Constitution requires an actual dispute between adversary parties, but they’re picky that way.) You get counsel to issue a formal opinion and leave it at that. It’s pretty clear that counsel has informally advised SAG that there’s no issue here for over 50 years.
And, as SAG has learned from the current suit, no adverse rulings are ever going to be enough to stop the true believers from asserting their case. Despite your obvious endorsement of the SAG Lawyer Full Employment Act of 2009 (which I am sure my brethren in the California labor law bar appreciate), the last thing SAG needs is more litigation and another senseless fight with AFTRA.
Oh, a formal analysis from general counsel would count for the purposes I had in mind, which is just laying the issue to rest for everyone this side of the fever swamps. The art of politics isn’t in convincing the 10% you can’t get no way, no how. It’s in limiting that 10%’s ability to influence others on a given issue.
Let’s make it more complicated, shall we?
How about the actor who lives in Portland, works nationally out of his or her own broadcast-quality booth, is vested in both unions, qualifies for union insurance — sometimes AFTRA and sometimes SAG — every year, and yes, works in theatre directing, acting, coaching… works films and TV series shooting in the region… makes a better living than 99.5% of all actors living in LA, and still gets to live in one of the most beautiful cities in the country.
Is that poor unlucky performer worthy enough to have the same “voice” as LA actors?
We will continue to battle for our civil rights in the Branches, and we demand equality in all things union. But gosh, we hope you LA folks never figure out how great it is to live on the other side of the Grapevine Wall, and move here.