Fizzlerette calls for demonstration at National Board
Making its way through the e-mail chains today is the latest from the Fizzler wing of SAG. The message, in dramatic language, urges members to demonstrate outside this weekend’s National Board plenary. Here’s a snippet:
This Saturday at the National Plenary meeting, many of us believe that dramatic action will be underway to promulgate the DESTRUCTION OF THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD in television. I cannot elaborate further, but it is major.
I urge you to PLEASE come and take a stand for the working-class majority of our Union and assert our presence as the RANK AND FILE MEMBERS OF THIS UNION in a protest at the Guild.
We will have media coverage at this extemely important showing of support and love of our Union
We’re not aware of anything on the agenda that would even come close to matching the “major” action predicted in the e-mail…but then, the Fizzlers often have unique interpretations of any number of things. In their series of demonstrations last year the Fizzlers typically turned out fewer than 50 members who, at the time, opposed the signing of the TV-Theatrical agreement.
The difficulty for merger enthusiasts is, it is a long, long way off. There has to be a thorough process, actuarial studies, if any of the trustees of the SAG plan disagree, it’s dead. So, we’re talking years, then another probable failure, if it gets there, which it probably won’t.
In the interim, you have a current government purposefully keeping SAG weak, not fighting back, not even expressing displeasure, let alone outrage over the wholesale loss of pilots to AFTRA. Producers pick unions, yes, but when they pick AFTRA nearly 100% of the time in TV, when the current government should be deserving of some payback for throwing the previous bums out, it doesn’t take a genius to understand there are larger forces at work here.
The central hurdle is it will take lots of time to get to a merger vote, yet it is already becoming clear, and will become clearer in the days and weeks ahead, how little the moderates are doing for the rank and file. Working to make SAG more powerful goes directly against their plan – keeping SAG weak.
This is the achilles heel of the moderate strategy, and why the current government is doomed.
Oh, and regarding the upcoming demonstration you profess to be clueless about?
Wait and see.
–
Mod. Note: The above is posted in accord with our policy of allowing comments even when they contain factual errors.
“dramatic action will be underway to promulgate the DESTRUCTION OF THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILD in television”.
Well, if one were to deconstruct that (always a danger with zealot communications, because you’re assuming there is a rational –even if strained and overheated– basis for them in the first place, and that often is not the case). . . .
Well, it would seem there could only be three things it could relate to.
1). Resumption of Phase I
2). Something to do with kicking the merger ball forward
3). AFTRAs dominance of pilots two years in a row.
I have a feeling it is #3, but how one could get “dramatic action. . . to promulgate” out of anything the board does this weekend in regards to that would be quite the strain. Unless, of course, the board decides to formally forgo jurisdiction in new TV shows altogether in favor of AFTRA. That would certainly be dramatic along the lines of some of the more unlikely Soap plots.
It’s not about THE agenda…it’s about THEIR agenda!
Isn’t it enough that the MF fizzle brains, essentially TAUGHT the producers how to do without SAG during a pilot season?
Now we have to revisit these wandering fools screaming and spitting outside SAG?
What a Pick-cha:(
Munch on this, Michele:
SAG’s work will get done with you or without you.
With such obvious paranoia you will make the task easier.
Thanks.
Well I think sag officials certainly need to address sags current situation and why we only have two pilots. Although the answer may be obvious to some it needs to be publicly adressed to the memberhip irregardless. That’s just my opinion. Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyones “cause”
The only way to do that is to say that our dysfunction has not served us.In fact, the dysfunction cased people to run away from us. I don’t think there is any way to say that without causing greater drama. In fact their current conceit is that AFTRA has the pilot season because AFTRA and the AMPTP are in collusion. If they believe that, there is nothing SAAG can say that will not make the situation worse.
It occurs to me to wonder if SAG staff actually just. . . .picked up the phone to those 90 shows and, y’know, *asked* them why they went AFTRA. Seems to me that would be a very reasonable thing to do, and they’d probably be happy to tell you. And scope-wise, even if David White was making the calls himself he could probably do it in two weeks or so without much strain on the rest of his schedule. Don’t argue with them, don’t tell them why they were wrong to do it –just ask, listen, and thank them for their time and feedback.
Real data is always better than speculation.
I agree with you, Geo, although it would have been better to do that earlier in the process. Actually, they can still convince them to switch over to SAG. But it would be good information to have, and would clear up the legitimate concerns about collusion, and deliberate attempts within SAG to weaken itself.
–
Mod. Comment: “legitimate”?
Why are the producers choosing AFTRA overwhelmingly over SAG for new pilots? A friend of mine hit it on the head, I believe, with his parallel example:
Toyota has been a respected and admired brand for years, but, given a choice, would you buy one right now? Me neither.
It’s the same with SAG and AFTRA. I wonder if our MF friends are able to see how their own reckless and destructive actions, including attacking most of our sister unions, have so damaged SAG’s brand and reputation in the industry that our employers would rather go anywhere else, even if they have to pay a bit extra for an AFTRA Exhibit A contract vs a SAG TV contract.
To MF’s leadership, I ask how is your ONGOING lawsuit against SAG (your own union) serving the membership? Hundred of thousand of dollars have now been wasted defending against your spurious lawsuit. Yet you continue, like an elephant in a china shop.
It’s becoming more and more clear that MF-First are the ones determined to weaken SAG. Keep bleeding us dry, Anne Marie, Alan and Kent. We love having our dues dollars wasted like this. Disagree with me? Then how about you explain to the membership in the next Hollywood Callsheet why this is a good use of our dues dollars. Otherwise, you can truly help to strengthen SAG by stepping down.
He knows already. He’s had the conversations.
One has to wonder if SAG really wants the answer. I have heard for several years that the producers are sick to the teeth with SAG’s political instability, SAG MFs determination to make our employers the enemy, and their shrieking, ham fisted approach to every negotiation.
What some members call a serious need to work together in an industry that is changing at mach speed, others screamingly call rolling over; all around the same dinner table.
And that, kids, is the issue in a nutshell … in and out of the boardroom.
Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
V.
This is about as useful as the guy who stands at the corner of Ventura and Laurel Canyon every Friday night holding a sign that reads, “Honk if you know someone jobless.”
VG
The comments sound hugely like our buddy, Matt…..the conspiracy theory, the ‘collusion’ the things that are about to happen that he can’t divulge. He was a MF that fizzled in Ny…goe back and read his past tirades and you’ll notice a lot of similar – and exact – wordings.
To SG – you’re right on the money. And now MF doesn’t accept the responsibilty of their own actions – and they expect the new majority to make miracles happen. It took MF several years to mess it all up; it ain’t gonna be fixed so quickly.
Dearest Geo, how can you be so sure those phone calls HAVE NOT taken place?
The answers cannot be put out there to the membership because of possible fines from the Anti Diss agreement.
I’m sorry, but isn’t this reality obvious? If and when our leadership had conversations and “post mortums” with producers about why they went all AFTRA, how could the leadership report this to the membership? It could lead to a fine quite easily.
Any talk about AFTRA and a show that went AFTRA is too close to the line. SAG leaders aren’t about to say that SAG screwed up in 2007 and 2008 and no one trusts us yet. Leaders don’t tell membership that stuff. They just try to improve our image by ACTIONS. By being an adult union again.
To those who are still so deluded…if it isn’t clear as to WHY all the pilots went AFTRA, I think those who “ponder” ought to re read the events of 2007 and 2008…and don’t forget the “You want a civil war…??? I’ll give you a civil war” scream..and the lawsuit…and the 28 hour filibuster and the attempt at a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER on negotiations…and…and
Brought to you by the people who think it’s GOOD TO SUE YOUR OWN UNION.
OHHH TED….we’re shakin’ here…SOOO scarey…
Do you think that scott wilson be out front with bananas on his sign? will you be there screaming and shouting “where are our jobs?”
That should go over big with a city whose citizens are losing homes in record numbers.
Yeah. Such a righteous cause. You’ll get loads of sympathy.
Say hi to AMJ. Make sure Rosenberg tunes up his GEETAR. And remind Doug Allen to bring along the water cups.
Bless us all and Oscar Wilde. Some folks haven’t figured it out yet?
I got two people I can do business with. One I can pay a little less, but they spit in my face and they call me names and I can’t be sure that they will be willing to do business again tomorrow.
Or I can do business with someone who costs a little more, but who enjoys working with me, appreciates my business and I have a pretty good idea will be there for me tomorrow if I need them.
Where are you gonna go?
I don’t think casting the two roles is going to be tough, do you?
“if any of the trustees of the SAG plan disagree, it’s dead.”
Not really. It only turned out that way the last time because MF inexplicably sided with a producer trustee who clearly wanted to stop merger and misrepresented what HE said as the results of the actual professional analysis. If MF wants to stop merger again, they can probably count on allies among the producer trustees, which ought to tell you something about both MF and the producer trustees. Claiming this as a fact simply demonstrates the desperation of merger opponents; they’ll get in bed with anyone to defeat merger.
Don’t you think the producers were happy to see it defeated last time? Doesn’t that make you ask WHY they were happy?
“Producers pick unions, yes, but when they pick AFTRA nearly 100% of the time in TV, when the current government should be deserving of some payback for throwing the previous bums out, it doesn’t take a genius to understand there are larger forces at work here.”
Maybe you can explain how making the “previous bums” look like a viable alternative to the present leadership works to the benefit of the producers, because I don’t get it. Admittedly, MF strategy has always tilted towards the inscrutable, but this one is off the chart. Once again, if producers really want to “keep SAG weak,” why would they do something that will only encourage opposition to a leadership that you claim (without the slightest bit of evidence) to have the same goal?
And while you’re at it, maybe you could offer suggestions as to what the current leadership could do. How does SAG “fight back?” Undercut the AFTRA contracts? Disparage AFTRA to the producers? You want them to “express displeasure?” Do you think this really has to be done publicly? Do you have any reason to believe it hasn’t been done privately? Besides, “expressing displeasure” sounds very close to the central MF bargaining strategy of “it’s not FAIR.” You have to do more. So what’s YOUR plan to “fight back?” You’ve clearly given this some thought. What should SAG do, Ted?
Perhaps SAG should poach some of AFTRA’s staff?
They seem to be doing a good job organizing new shows for AFTRA.
Enough already.
It’s rather obvious who “Ted” at the beginning of these comments is.
M&M’s URBAN LEGEND: The approval of Trustees of the SAG-Producers Pension and Health plans is needed in order to effectively merge SAG and AFTRA.
There’s a rather perverse element in me, however, that does not want to correct, make fun of, or point a finger at the utter stupidity of the MeFirst Fizzlers, because that part of me believes that they should be allowed to wallow, unaided, in the misinformed mire of their enraged discontent.
I don’t suppose there’s any chance the Board will devote any attention to the sunsetting quorum rules that require at least two members from each Division to be present . . . ?
VG
I’d bet on that for April’s plenary, VG.
sg, well said.
The last time SAG did that, your buddies fired them as soon as they got control. I doubt that lesson’s been forgotten.
Boy, do you have that one right, Fred – - – MeFirst summarily and without cause fired the staff SAG that mike says he wants “poached” from AFTRA faster than you can say “Another Million Dollars Down The Drain.”
Well, Marisa, I hope staff did make those calls and at least shared that data with the board (which the non-disparagement agreement would not prevent them from doing).
The “No Raiding” clause would actually be the greater danger here, and that would have to be handled carefully, preferably by David White himself, with the same written script used for each for documentation purposes of what he asked. AFTRA would understandbly be concerned if they started hearing garbled second-hand reports of SAG calling their shows, so the more documentation of the appropriateness of the intent of the call, the better.
As I read the No Raiding clause, even if it is possible for the producers to change unions in going from Pilot to picked-up show, arguably the No Raiding agreement would prohibit SAG from taking an active hand in encouraging that to happen. At least it is not clear to me from the text that WOULDN’T be prohibited, so great care would be necessary.
Like I said, no intent to argue with any of them about the choice they made –just collecting data on why they made it.
OH TED…Ted? Ted? Wake up Ted/Matt…you slept through the big demonstration.
Remember…”wait and see?” or was it “the city is surrounded?”
Anyway, I think you had enough folks out there for a large booth at Dupar’s for pancakes.
Wow. What a turnout. And the PRESS. Gee whiz, how did you pull it off? Did you have busses? Car Pools?
FIZZLE FIZZLE FSST.
Unless you’re afraid M1st! is coming back, what are you worried about?
It is a long shot, but SAG is perfectly entitled to advocate that producers use the one format which they have exclusive jurisdiction, film. The 3.5% cost advantage, that SAG has over AFTRA, would help to defray the added expense. Shows have been known to shoot pilots in one format and switch to another for the series.
Not so “worried” –
You won’t be “coming back” as long as we keep the members connected to true history.
And that’s what we connect them to here.
Geo, here’s how I see it…
The new SAG leadership is not going to utter the words “AFTRA” and “Pilot” in the same sentence at a meeting (Hollywood Board meeting)ESPECIALLY one that has “observers”. The new leadership will only discuss these issues in Executive Session. And that is the proper environment because it gives proper respect to the anti disparagement agreement. Even if the practice seems extreme, why take the chance? AMJ or Rosenberg (if present) could pop off and cost us a huge fine. In my opinion, they have demonstrated that they really don’t care about the membership, but only about the MF “agenda” (whatever THAT is).
Since the former leadership was so cavalier about the agreement, I see our new leadership to be such a refreshing change and far more professional.
That being said, as a member I want my leadership to do the job they were elected to do and not blather on about it in the press or to the membership in print until it is fully and absolutely appropriate. By appropriate, I mean they should inform us when and if(depending on the issue) the atmosphere has been stabilized. At the moment the loss of pilots is a slippery slope for SAG to comment about in public or in print. Why? Because, as has been stated here in other posts, the blame for the development is SAG’s and SAG’s alone. It was no suprise to me that AFTRA would take more pilots the second time around. They had no problems last year and they have a more stable board room. Word on the street is that Rosenberg and AMJ screamed and yelled when staff and legal wanted to report in executive session which should never be questioned by the Board as you don’t know what is IN a report until you HEAR it. Therefore, it is safe to say that SAG’s boardroom (in Hollywood anyway) can be considered “unstable.” That does not make a producer comfortable when they entrust that union with a multimillion dollar project.
SAG is the one who showed producers that they didn’t need to use SAG by forcing them to sign pilots with AFTRA.
What did the producers get? A union that wasn’t imploding.
Since the adults came back to the room, each day the news about SAG has been encouraging. Showing that Ken and Amy can handle the left over radicals who have cost us so much. Today was a great triumph for them.
Congratulations and thank you Ken Howard and Amy Aquino. Thank you so much for bring SAG back into the light. We will be back to the table with our union brothers and sisters from AFTRA and other entertainment unions very soon.
Psst….Mike? Hey, buddie, your “stupid” is showing.
You really have lost your mind, Mike. SAG has no entitlement in this regard. Who are you talking to?
Well, Mike, it would really get down to splitting hairs on whether AFTRA stopped being the certified representative after the pilot, and whether it was really a “new” decision to make re the picked-up show, or merely an opportunity to change what already existed.
If the former, then SAG is weapons-free. If the latter, then the No Raiding clause *clearly* prohibits SAG from taking an active hand on a per show basis.
I think that’s an awfully fine distinction to be relying on when $2M of escrow is at stake. Unless there is very clear precedent on which is the case, which I have no idea if there is or not –I tend to suspect “not”, as why would it have come up as an important issue to decide before now? Legal precedents get set when somebody finds a real-live need to have them get set –that’s the way our system works.
If SAG wants to put out a White Paper on the advantages of film vs digital, that’s one thing. If SAG starts calling AFTRA pilots about to be picked-up and saying “hey, if you go Film then we’re your huckleberry” then that is something else.
Actually, looking again, the language of the No Raiding clause is “recognized or certified representative”.
Well, “certified” is pretty clear-cut. “Recognized”? That’s a heckuvalot more fuzzy, and that $2M of escrow just got in even more danger if SAG is being active in “encouraging” AFTRA pilots to switch when they are picked up.
This is the kind of thing I mean when I talk about “low-probability/high-risk” scenarios vs the sure-thing of merger. It’s not that it is entirely impossible to pull off the first. . .but responsible leadership just doesn’t act in that fashion. Risk/reward have to be relatively evenly balanced (or preferably, much in your favor) before responsible leadership blows on the dice and sends them down the table.
Marisa, since you seem rather ignoranty, I guess I’ll have to make it simple for you. If a production shoots a pilot digitally, they cannot switch unions, because both unions share or claim digital jurisdiction. If it’s SAG digital it stays SAG. If it’s AFTRA digital it stays AFTRA, unless the show switches to film.
The only way an AFTRA pilot, shot with digital method of capture, can switch to SAG jurisdiction , when picked up for series, is if the production switches to film.
SAG is entitled to promote the area in which it has exclusive jurisdiction. Recent productions have had to switch unions, because of the format change from digital to film. It is the only way SAG can pick any pilots this year.
Psst….Marisa? Hey, buddie, your “ca-razy” is showing.
geo,
AFTRA is actively promoting the digital format to SAG signatory producers. Their reason is so that the producers don’t have to use SAG and so AFTRA can increase its scripted TV jurisdiction, at SAG’s expense. Digital gives productions the “AFTRA option”.
Why can’t SAG promote film to “maintain” its TV jurisdiction? It is the responsible thing to do for its membership. Maintaining your memberships work opportunities is not raiding.
Do you just make this nonsense up? AFTRA is promoting the digital format???
Dude, it’s cheaper and more flexible. The studios love it. It speeds up production.
AFTRA isn’t promoting it. The format promotes itself.
“Hi. can I speak to Jerry Bruckheimer, please?”
“Who’s calling?”
It’s Ken Howard at SAG.”
“Hold on, Mr. Howard.”
click buzz click
“Hello.”
“Jerry, this is Ken.”
“Hi,Ken. Congratulations on the Emmy. What can I do for you today?”
“Jerry, I’m hoping that you can see your way clear to doing all those pilots you’re developing on film instead of digital.”
“Why would I do that?
“Well, for one thing, it will cost you more to use film.”
“OK.”
“And doing it on film means you have to do it under SAG contract, and that will cost you even more.”
“OK”
“And there are things you can do on digital that you can’t do on film, so it will really be a challenge for you to present something new.”
“OK”
“And I can even throw in a bonus for you. If you do the show under SAG contract and it’s a hit, there’s always a possibility it will still be around if the nutjobs who almost destroyed SAG a couple years get control again. As they believe the only negotiation tool they have is to threaten a strike, think of all the fun you’ll have wondering if you will be able to do your show on schedule.”
“That sounds great, Ken. Let me get back to you on that, OK”
“One more thing, Jerry . . .”
click
“Hello, Jerry? Jerry? Jerry?”
Yep. That’ll work.
Mike, in a No Raiding agreement world, the devil is in the details. How SAG “promotes” Film vs Digital can make a difference.
Let me ask you directly –do you advocate SAG exiting the No Raiding/Non-Disparagement agreement? Because doing so significantly expands SAG’s field of allowable action. But advocating certain courses of action *without* exiting that agreement is simply irresponsible.
Incorrect.
Fred–
Hahaha. Yep, Jerry will take Ken’s call. I hope and believe Ken would be a little more wise than to take the tack as shown above. I think Ken is a pretty bright and empathic guy (and I’ve ben a fan of his since the early 70′s).
Look, I believe, you believe, Marisa believes, and whole bunch of others on SAGWatch believe we know why the producers did what they did re pilot repsresentation. We’re probably right, as quite frankly we’re pretty bright folks.
Would you agree that having Jerry Bruckheimer (and a whole bunch of others) on record as confirming our belief has more value than just us believing it?
“Well, for one thing, it will cost you more to use film.”
Film does not cost more, the way Network production are made. The digital cameras cost twice as much to rent. They have to rent special, very expensive high def monitors. The have to hire a DIT (digital imaging technician) at $10,000.00 per episode. The job the DIT replaced, is the “film loader” who made 1/3 the wage per episode. Digital cost more to achieve. SAG is 3.5% less than AFTRA. If you use SAG you save thousands per episode on actors wages and background actors wages alone. Digital by all accounts from the pros is still 5 years behind in matching the quality of film. The short list of expenses I just gave more than outweigh the cost of film stock. Post is no easier and sometimes longer and more difficult than with film. ER switched to the RED, for its last few episodes and it cost a million dollars more. There is a strong case to be made and Ken Howard should get on the phone to J.J., Jerry, David Kelly, et alia.
“Post is no easier and sometimes longer and more difficult than with film.”
What nonsense. You can be editing digital takes in minutes instead of waiting for developing and digitizing film overnight. And once digitized, film costs exactly the same to edit as a digital original. Additionally, many film shoots already have digital reference cameras on set to watch playback and have to hire people for that as well as the film crew. That position is redundant in a digital production and constitutes a cost savings.
To prove you have not done your homework and have absolutely no idea what in the hell you are talking about and are laboring under some serious misconceptions. I decide to take the time to explain a “simple” digital workflow. This is only ONE workflow. There are dozens and they are different depending on the system you use and the various cameras. Each have various choices which are constantly changing with new software and different updates etc. etc.
First of all, “Digital” is nothing like a typical AFTRA Video Tape production, where sound and picture are both recorded live on tape.
And the quality is not even as good.
Link:
http://dcinema.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/red-one-vs-35mm-kodak-vision-3-250d/
The digital origination post-production process easily turns into a nightmare compared to the relatively easy and straightforward workflows for film camera systems. Yes, a digital camera saves you some money up front in in filmstack and time for film developement (a couple hours). But the post-production kinks cause you to lose all of of those savings and more, in post. Post is the only one of the areas that is more expensive than film, as I explained previously.
This is ust ONE post-production workflow for the RED camera system, and I’ve left a lot of stuff out. And this is supposed to be the easyiet post workflow!!! !
A person on set is typically dedicated to transferring the footage shot off of the CF cards and RAID drive onto an external hard drive.
Then, once the footage is copied onto the external hard drive, you have to copy the footage over to two more external hard drives.
Then you use an Apple Mac Pro and Apple’s Compressor software to down-res the copies of the RED camera footage.
You have to down -res the footage because raw 4k files are too big and unwieldy to work with.
You end up converting one copy of the RED footage into Apple’s ProRes format and the other copy into DVC Pro HD format.
The reason you do this is so that the editor can first do an offline edit of the DVC Pro HD footage using Final Cut Pro.
Once a satisfactory cut is created, the editor then has to export an EDL (Edit Decision List) of the cut and use that EDL to online edit the ProRes footage.
I haven’t even gone into the various way to correct color LUTS or way in which the technician go through to make digital “look” like film. But it takes hours of computer time.
By the time you’ve resolved all the various glitches along this convoluted process, the show that was shot on film would be already be done.
This comment is for david cooper.
Mike…you don’t know what YOU are talking about. “Incorrect???” you say?
Gotta tell ya, you are so off the mark. The editors have spoken. The directors have spoken. The producers have spoken. The cinematographers have spoken. You have been so far and uniformed as to the reality of the technical aspect of production…it’s time to “own up”. Admit it. Move on.
Tell AMJ to re write your post. The bloggers on this site are “on” to ya.
I still use a black and white TV set and I’m pretty sure it costs much less to operate. ALL the movies I watch are black and white and I love ‘em!
I say, “The old ways are the best ways, Dammit!! And cheaper, too!!”
GET A CLUE MIKE!!!