Campaign Watch: If A Candidate Falls in the Forest…
You may have noticed the big announcements of Membership First candidate Anne-Marie Johnson’s call in teleconferences, at which she promised to answer questions from members. We’ll confess that none of us dialed in for any of the events, but Jonathan Handel did.
He says only 16 people dialed in to today’s event – including other Membership First supported candidates, and that the last time around the number was about the same. Handel also offers more detail on the call (many of the questions seemed scripted, and a report on Johnson’s latest campaign proposal.
16? One can’t hope but wonder if that’s indicative of Membership First’s support level at this point.
It was a joke.
I called in and listened. Garbage. Junk. Non event.
Jonathan Handel writes,
“In an out of left field question, someone asked whether pro wrestlers should be allowed to join SAG. Johnson answered that they would have to if they were in a film, but that pro wrestling matches, because they are shot in sequence (i.e., in the manner of live shows), would potentially be under AFTRA jurisdiction, and so the question should be directed at that union. But why not allow wrestlers to join anyway? The current SAG election is a slam-down, so they’d fit right in.”
Funny. But the logic shows the absurdity of having two unions: either way, whatever one thinks of pro-wrestling, it is an act and it is being filmed with actors who happen to be pro-wrestlers. It’s then sold as an event with some sort of story and people tune in to watch it. Why should it be this union or that union? The thinking is tortured. Are those events even covered under any Union contract?
–
WW Comment: that’s not entirely out of left field. There’s a post somewhere about a WWE cast member who says they’re going to do a feature, and the cast want it to be SAG. This makes sense to me, since I’d bet if they do one and it makes money, WWE will do another. I’m surprised they don’t go AFTRA for their show, but I don’t have any idea what benefits WWE offers its employees.
It was in the Baltimore Sun:
Shane Douglas-”We’re aiming to shoot a movie in December and we’re attempting to make it a SAG production, which will give the wrestlers who are involved the option to join the Screen Actors Guild, which would get them health benefits”-
Some wrestling are done live. Since they are scripted, shouldn’t they be under EQUITY.
Equity shows have been broadcast live. When that happens are they also under AFTRA, so the performers are getting two salaries? And if that performance is filmed and edited and played later shouldn’t they be SAG?
It is all so confusing.
SAG can represent live and edited shows.
Another reason to merge all THREE unions. It is my understanding Equity has been trying to organize live wrestling for many years, with on-again, off-again attempts.
It would be much easier to organize this type of thing if the performers (non-union wrestlers) could be convinced that, by joining, they’d get a contract for their live performances AND televised AND film.
Another reason I keep repeating “anti-merger is anti-union.”
The real problem with unionizing pro wrestling is that the outfits running the shows pretty much determine who gets seen and who doesn’t, and who gets the promotion and who doesn;t. Tick off the bosses and you can be very quickly find you’re just not popular anymore and, as you usually don’t own your “persona” any more than Harrison Ford owns Indiana Jones, and find yourself performing in high school gyms in Iowa for carfare.
It was a joke. I called in but did not comment. The whole thing was Staged. Email questions were balanced and not staged (14 of them) BUT, the call in folks were the same as the last teleconference. STAGED. FAKE AND BIASED.
I am confused by this post. Marisa, first off, you called in, why didn’t you participate in the open question forum at the end? Certainly that would have been a great opportunity to confront AMJ with the lawsuit question beyond the answer she gave. It has been raw meat in your teeth for, well, since I’ve been on this board. I am disappointed to know that you were on the line but didn’t ask any of your more incendiary questions. The proceedings might have become quite lively.
You say it was “staged” but then you say that the email questions, which took up a full 95% of the teleconference WERE balanced. There were only about 3 or 4 open call questions taken. Then you say it was fake (which is contradicted by your statement that the questions were balanced (your word)). And then you say it was biased. Well, I would concur with you that most of the callers were M1 supporters. I would seriously doubt that the candidates would have offered opinions that conflict with those that they have been running on for months. And, if the opposing callers (like yourself, for example) chose not to ask any question to put them back on their heels or challenge the tenor of the conversation how could a one sided teleconference by ONE party be expected to be anything BUT biased?
You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You have to put your money where your mouth is. Or was.
It’s quite easy to attack M1 from the comfy conclave of a similarly biased blog. There is definite comfort in numbers. But you even admit that 95% was balanced and NOT staged.
So, once again, I am confused. You are angry that 5% was not balanced? In a sponsored, one sided political informational party forum?
I was one of those 17 (at the point when I called). I thought some of the answers were well thought out and not incendiary. It makes me wish more and more that we had had some sort of debate between the two factions.
(not serious)
16? I’ve heard of larger turnouts at a hermit convention.
That’s not a big enough cast for a reality show. (“Are You Smarter Than Erik Anders-Nilsson?” “Anne-Marie Johnson’s Boardroom Nightmares?”) Maybe they should have offered free flu shots.
Doesn’t anyone find it strange that the only Ponies And Ice Cream NOW! candidate to say anything publicly during the entire campaign has been Erik? Admittedly, if Leo, Weston, et. al., showed up somewhere as candidates, they might have to admit to being embarrassed by the company they keep, but for Mulhern to skip a chance to press forward on his attack on John Wells and have AMJ and Erik miss the chance to echo his arguments, you have to wonder what is going on.
All that means is that MF isn’t getting much of the sitting-on-the-fence vote, as most people who had decided opinions would have voted early.
Sixteen sounds a bit high.
Right Pat. When you subtract the 4 (or was it 5?) candidates, Jonathan Handel, myself and at least one other who tuned in to observe only.
That leaves 7 or 8 truly interested SAG members. And that is generous as you must assume that the candidates had somebody call in to support them.
It was a dud. But the concept of the teleconference can be a good tool in the future if not used during campaigns.
I hear that her last teleconferences had the same numbers. She touts the calls as wildly successful. It begs the question, what does she consider “successful?” And how does that translate for success for SAG?
False and untrue mis-information again.
There were almost DOUBLE the number of callers falsely printed here.
DOUBLE.
And remember–this was the 3rd outreach via teleconference–and it is just days away from ballot count.
Most who choose to–have voted already.
Why are you all so bitter?
First it was that AMJ would take NO live questions–THAT was proved false–SHE took caller questions EACH and EVERY conference call.
But keep spreading the manure!
“And remember–this was the 3rd outreach via teleconference–and it is just days away from ballot count.
Most who choose to–have voted already.”
So you’re saying this wasn’t such a good idea?
And while you’re here, Erik, please let us know what you think about your running-mates comments about John Wells’ election. Do you support him, or do you repudiate him?
By the way, one of “your own”, Alan Lulu, claims to have been #17 in the queue (see above). So where are YOU getting your info from, Eric?
Excuse me, Neil, but how am I one of Erik’s own?
Oh, please. Are you not MF, or at very least MF Friendly?
You knew what I meant, you just (like all your pals) like being a contrarian.
Good luck with that come Thursday. Hope you have a hobby, too.
So, one can’t agree with anything M1 or even have relationships or friendships with board members from that party without being affiliated with them?
How is it, then, that I was approached by two members of UFS about running for the board on that slate?
How is that I am the chair of a subcommittee, the chair of which’s main committee is a prominent UFS person? How is it that another UFS person on that committee was the one who suggested that I be that chair?
Do I agree with everything M1? No. Do I agree with everything UFS? No.
Have I had meetings with prominent members of both groups? yes.
Ask the chairs of the commercials contract negotiating committee whether or not I was instrumental in bridging the gap and divide that separates the parties?
Unless I make snarky, hate-filled, vitriolic, acerbic anti-Membership First comments, then I’m not part of the club, am I, Neil? You guys love to attack Matt Mulhern for his hate-speak, and I think he puts his foot in his mouth further than anyone I have ever seen, but you are guilty of the same non-inclusive, our-way-or-the-highway, if you’re not with us then you’re against us mentality.
Well, that doesn’t work. It has never worked. It will never work.
Figure out how to work WITH those who see things differently, then, perhaps you can have a successful dialogue.
When asked how we can replicate what transpired in the Comm Contract Negs for the TV/Theatrical (and it was someone YOU respect that asked me) my answer was “find the centrists. Not the people who SAY they are centrists but really just want the destruction of the other party. Find the real centrists and bring them together and have them get the information together and work that way.”
Does this not work for you Mr. Hassman?
I am, once again, confused by your statement, “Good luck with that come Thursday. Hope you have a hobby, too”.
The “Good Luck” you are wishing me seems to indicate, through sarcasm, that M1 will not be successful this Thursday. Fine. Whatever. I’ve heard nothing but nice things about Mr. Howard and I trust many of the people that support him. But, then you follow up that sentence with the hope that I have a hobby.
So, paraphrasing your sentence, “M1 will not win on Thursday. I hope you have a fall back job.” Because of your ire and vitriol you can’t seem to see that you have, through terrible syntax, just said that a victory for Mr. Howard will result in the need for us to all have another job.
Or maybe, just maybe, what you are insinuating is that I am a “hobbyist” who does not make a good living as an actor.
My accountant, agent, manager, investment portfolio, properties, campaigns, charities & bank account would disagree with you there.
However, if you mean that we shall all, as actors, become “hobbyists”, I would be shaken by that. As I’ve never had another job.
(There’s no “reply to this comment” under your response to me Alan, so I hope you read this here)
Wow, methinks thou doth protest too much.
All I’ve ever read from you here is defense of MF and MF positions. I assume that in that response somewhere is buried the fact that you consider yourself an independent. Good for you.
But an independent that follows one side pretty much to a tee and yet still maintains they’re independent not only isn’t, but hasn’t got the courage of their convictions.
So, claim your independence all you like, (and during this election cycle I’ll admit that’s pretty smart),but IMHO, if it quacks like an MFer…..
And, sincerely, Mazel Tov on your brilliant career being the “young Stuart Pankin”. I genuinely admire working character actors more than anyone else in the business…but it doesn’t mean I have to like your union politics.
Actually, Erik, the number was about 16. I’m not sure why you’re constructing a larger number – if you have evidence, you can explain it.
Here’s my evidence: I called in to check the numbers. Specifcally, I stayed on the call using my landline, then briefly called in using my cell phone so that the callin system would report “There are __ callers.” I got 16 or 15 each time. The previous week’s call was slightly lower.
And of those 16 or so, there were 4 candidates, plus me, Marisa Redanty, plus I’m sure a few people you guys recruited (which I wouldn’t blame you for; it’d be silly not to)and probably a small number of UFS/USAN folks. So you were probably speaking to at most 8 or so undecideds.
That said, I’m glad you guys did the call. I believe in as much open discussion as possible during elections, which is why I did my video interviews the previous year (I got several hundred viewers per video), and why I reported on the call.
And if I’d had the time to do video interviews again this year, I would certainly have invited AMJ and other MF candidates to be included, just as I did last year.
In s strange way I agree with Eric.
Maybe it didn’t have a great turnout but it was there.
Maybe it was one sided but it was there.
Maybe it was all scripted and really just a political statement but it was there.
My side wasn’t there or anywhere.
Don’t know how much these teleconferences cost—can’t be to much if Membership First doesn’t mind playing to empty houses.
So, maybe it is a way to go in the future. In the future of campaign speeches and Board Meetings.
Let’s think about it.
Les
This will be a very good way to reach out to members. I would like to see it used throughout the year for several issues.
As far as UFS/USAN and blogs, email questions etc., I guess they realized that it is much more impactful to be there face to face, which they have been.
Though you and I did not plan the campaign, I think they were on the ground more than MF.
We’ll see if it worked this week, right?
Marisa
So, Eric, you’re defending and BRAGGING about (maybe) 32 callers to a main candidate at the end of the voting cycle?
Really sad, man. I hope you have a hobby.
NH,
He does, he’s an extra.
Actually, his hobby is running for SAG board….
AFTRA INFORMER how dare you ridicule a jobs that SAG members do.
Why don’t you put in the next round of negotiations for the elimination of Background actors. Or how about stunt people. Wait let’s get rid of hand models in commercials. Let the actors do it.
Your higher than mighty attitude embarasses me and all the other actors–speaking and non-speaking–who are trying to make a living in this very difficult profession.
And Dr. Giggles, I don’t know who you are or what you do for the union but, while I disagree with all that Eric stands for and disagree with people running for office without ever serving on committees , as Eric never has, at least he is running because he cares about SAG. He is trying to do something–ARE YOU.
Leslie,
I DO know Giggles, and he has served his union extremely well over the years and continues to do so in this cycle.
I understand how sensitive a lot of these issues are, but I also understand at the point we’re at now, gallows humor (which they’re both exhibiting) is pretty common, and fitting.
if you are between the ages of 25 and 65 and your only earned SAG wages come from extra work, then my friend, it is a hobby.
Leslie,
Doc has been active and in the fight for years. On the right side, I might add.
So ’stepping up’ would be redundant for Doc. Seeing the whites of their eyes is more like it, with Doc in the foxhole.
Thanks Doc -
V.
Leslie,
Perhaps you need to meet EAN in person. it can be quite enlightening.
I believe Marisa can back me on that one.
Oh yes. it is an unforgettable experience. Just inspiring.
Now for me: Erik is a person who is soo clueless about SAG or any kind of union or politics that is it difficult to decifer why MF made him the spokesman for the NY branch of MF???
Erik is probably an ok guy to have coffee with but he is so obviously not at all schooled in unionism.
Because he has chosen to run for office several times and NEVER WON…in additon has NEVER volunteered to serve on even ONE SAG COMMITTEE which is very irionic, we have to wonder exactly who Erik is and what he wants? His lack of involvelment in SAG but wonting to run for office over and over is weird. It has to make one think “what is this guy’s real agenda? He won’t volunteer, yet he runs for office each year??? Whad up with that?
Very suspicious.
Thanks for the info on Dr. Giggles. Glad to hear that he is taking part in the betterment of SAG. Heck, maybe we are on some of the same committees.
AFTRA Informer, I have met Eric and as I said I don’t agree with any of this positions.
But for you to call Background work a hobby is just stupid. Most Background performers are actors trying to make a living and trying to move up the ladder. Manny make pension and health credits year after year doing Background work.
Some probably make more money then many SAG members who do dayplayer.
Or do you think that the SAG member who only does one or two or three day players a year takes acting work as a hobby?
Should have Bruce Willis quit the business because it was only a “hobby” when he did Background work? He was lucky, and talented, and got bigger and better jobs.
It was attitudes like yours that gave Membership First the foot in the door. They didn’t care about Background actors but they played to them and won seats and looked what happened.
Your attitude reminds me of CAN who wanted to drum the Background out of the union. Let the principals work along side non-union unqualified Background performers and see how well shooting goes.
I’m glad that most of the votes are in because any undesided voter who reads your comments would vote Membership First East and West totally.
We both probably agree how to run the union, how to negotiate, how to make SAG the most respected entertainment union again–the only difference I want to do it with everyone and you want to do it alone (and how far did that attitude get Membership First)
Maybe we do serve together, Les …
LS,
If you haven’t moved up the ladder by the time you are 25 years old then it’s time to find another hobby. If at the age of 65 you want to supplement your income then background work is not the worst thing in the world. But if you are in your prime working years and you are still an extra and only an extra, buddy you got problems.
–
Mod. Comment: This is really off-topic and represents the kind of personal attack we prefer not to perpetuate here.
Mod,
Just speaking in generalities about extraing, not attacking LS at all.
Sorry if it came off as an attack.