About Us/Contact
Welcome to our new readers, and to those of you who’re returning . We may not know all of you by name, but we’re glad to see you here.
This site was started in late 2007, but really get going in February 2008. Its readership has spiked every time there has been a crisis in SAG. Often that’s meant something bad has has happened between one of two divided groups: SAG’s moderate majority and the hardliners of the Hollywood based faction known as Membership First, or between SAG and AFTRA.
We interpret the spikes as meaning that people really do care about their unions. And that’s good.
Working together, we hope to make a difference. That’s what unions should be all about.
WHY WE’RE HERE
A number of other websites offer commentary on the Screen Actors Guild and its administration. Almost all of those sites are affiliated with and serve as propaganda arms of one or another of the factions that make SAG the uniquely fractured union that it is, beset by internal rivalries and frictions, virtually unable to run meetings without open warfare amongst the members of its elected boards of directors. These stress fractures run not just between the various Divisions and Branches of SAG, but include schisms within the Divisons and Branches themselves.
This site aspires to becoming a place for plain discussion of the arguments on all sides of the issues that divide SAG internally and from other entertainment industry unions, in the hope that with clear exposition and fact checking, members will have the information on which to begin to form a consensus. You’ll be able to find late developments here and as much detail as you like here. Whether you have questions or comments, you’re invited to join the discussion anywhere and everywhere on the site.Â
It may be good or it may be bad, but it’s our plan to spend a lot of time on stuff that’s going to be really interesting only to policy wonks and serious activists. We’re going to try to play it right down the middle, and serve as a neutral source of information for those who care.
WHO ARE WE?
One of the (many) things we never thought of when we started talking about this site was that it might matter who’s doing the writing here. This either goes to show you can’t anticipate everything, or that we forgot a basic Hollywood principle: for those who don’t want to think for themselves (and that’s a lot of folks, particularly when it comes to union stuff), it isn’t what someone says, it’s who says it that matters.
We disagree. We deliberately kept our names out of it because we didn’t want it to be a matter of what films, shows and campaigns we’ve done, what we’ve booked that dictates how people read our notes. Either you agree, or you disagree – with the ideas we’ve put forth, not with us personally. And that’s if we put forth any original ideas at all.
If you find we’ve made mistakes (and we already have, and have fixed those we know about) let us know. We don’t care what your credits are, we care about getting it right.
P.S. One change we’ve made since we started is to be more careful about labeling anything that is our opinion or analysis. That change came as a result of a series of suggestions from a reader – her criticism of the way we’d been handling commentary was good, and we adopted them.
We really do care what you think, and appreciate the comments.
WHO REPRESENTS ACTORS?
Both SAG and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) have long and honorable histories of representing actors and other performers, including singers, dancers, stunt players and, in AFTRA’s case, recording artists, promo announcers and broadcasters. SAG has a substantially larger membership than AFTRA, by about a 12 to 7 ratio. SAG’s membership was bolstered in 1992 when it absorbed the then failing Screen Extras Guild, which had been an independent union for 46 years. The takeover came after SAG twice, in the 1980s, rejected merger with SEG.
SAG does not publish statistical reports on the earnings levels of its members, however, in 2003, during the course of its most recent failed attempt to merge with AFTRA, it did divulge some statistics, revealing that 85% of its members who did not also have AFTRA cards earned less than $10,000 per year under SAG contracts, and that of those who had both SAG and AFTRA cards, 64% still earned less than $10,000 per year. AFTRA’s statistics were better, but not dramatically, and were made perhaps less of a direct comparison because they covered all of AFTRA’s categories, not just actors.
At the other end of the spectrum, the 2003 statistics revealed that 190 SAG only members earned more than $500,000 per year (the highest earnings level in the report) while 904 dual card holders (and 441 AFTRA-only members) achieved that level.
Noted actress Kathy Joosten quoted SAG statistics in an internet posting (registration required)  showing that over the past ten years, on average, a stunning 78% of SAG members earned less than $7500 per year from SAG jurisdiction contracts.
WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW?
SAG is at war with itself. It’s also in an uneasy truce with AFTRA. In the past year only one major contract, the Commercials Contract, has been renewed and ratified. TV-Theatrical is the subject of a bitter feud.Â
With your help and comments, we’ll keep this site as active as we can, recognizing that unless we do it, members will be left with only the propaganda sites and the official union site, which many now criticize as having become nothing much more than spin for the Membership First faction, which last year, for the first time in several years, lost control of the National Board of Directors of SAG.
Your comments are always welcome. E-mail editor@sagwatch.net
I do not know where to put my reply to a few members here that felt that I was in favor of the impending
theatrical contract..I am not in favor of this contract. The incorrect thought that this contract will provide an immediate solution of jobs in California for actors is sadly explainable ..
I would urge all SAG members to return their ballots with a NO vote ,,A better contract is needed. and on the Off chance of passage that AFTRA and SAG members could come to one conclusion that a strike will be needed in the coming new year ,by both unions to regain those lost protections and redress the free slide over to new media all old programing and features..
(No on propositions 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f to lower taxes and state spending to bring work back to our state
–
Admin. Question: Are you the same guy running for the AFTRA Board on the Membership First ticket?
yeah, he is.
Do we use the same system as before? When we want to post we send it to editor@sagwatch.com?
–
Mod. Comment: You should be able to post comments as before, using the submission form below each article. Comments that are flagged as spam now go into a special directory, rather than being whisked off into oblivion. It’s easy for the moderators to look through and sort out the legitimate stuff from the diet and “enhancement” junk.
what’s with the new look? It’s cleaner, but also a little confusing since all dates and times of original posts (not the replies) seem to be gone. I do not actually post or reply regularly, but I do enjoy reading this site.
anywho, my simple feedback is that this new format seems more difficult to follow/discern than your previous format.
That being said, I might just fear change.
Thank you for always trying to keep information available. It’s what the web is for.
Happy Mother’s day to all the Entertainment Industry Mom’s who work so hard to provide for their families.
–
Admin. Comment – The look is temporary, while we do some rebuilding here after last weekend’s database hiccups. The whole system will go down late tonight and hopefully be fully restored by morning.
Older posts ARE still available, though- just use the “older entries” link at the lower left, or, if you know what month – you can access the posts via the “Archives” filter, by months, on the right side of the page near the top – or, if you want to find a specific topic, you can sort by
our “tag,” using the “Categories” filter, also on the right side near the top. When we implement our final “theme” (which hasn’t even been selected yet) those filters may move, but they will remain available.
And…we’ve been called a lot worse than “mothers” but we share the sentiment, and, on behalf of all the mothers here, say, thanks. {VBG}
There is a live interactive interview coming up this Wednesday at 8pm pacific time, 11pm eastern with SAG board member Seymour Cassel to discuss the proposed agrgeement between SAG and the AMPTP.
Have questions or comments on either side of the issue? Instant message them in during the show and lets have a good respectful debate!
You can watch the show live at:
http://www.thestream.tv
If you miss the show live I will post a link here the next day.
Best,
Jeff
Admin. Question: is there a better place on the site to post info about the interview as it may be of interest to many who visit this site?
–
WW Response – We’ll put up a note about it. But – Cassel on TV-Theatrical? That’s pretty much like interviewing Ann Coulter on public funding for the arts.
Wow… then I’m going to really need to be on my toes! Thank you for posting WW… any question you would like to ask?
This “About Us” section is woefully outdated. You’ve got statements like “SAG National Executive Director Doug Allen has become a polarizing figure in this battle.”
It seems like SAGWatch in it’s initial year or so has primarily served as an oasis of reason in the sea of spin regarding the TV/Theatrical negotiations. But once that contract is finally voted on in a couple of weeks (and assuming it passes), what then will be the focus of this site?
Will SAGWatch be promoting one slate in the SAG elections over another, or will you strive to be a neutral forum to debate the various candidate’s merits? Do you intend to push any particular SAG agendas (merger, qualified voting)? You don’t have to answer any of this right now; I’m just tossing this out to think about.
As much as I enjoy the site, I just think readers like me might need some kind of new reason to keep visiting here once the epic drama of the TV/Theatrical impasse gets resolved.
–
Ed. Response – Thanks. We need to update a couple of static pages, don’t we…
After TV-Theatrical we have a crucial election season coming up, one that will do a lot to determine the future of SAG. Then there’s a series of contracts to negotiate, and the question of relations with other unions…like AFTRA.
I think we’ll be busy for a while.
hi,
I am a sag and aftra member. I have been trying to view a copy of the most recent aftra contract online and it crashes my computer every time – even when i try to view it from different sites that have copied it. Do you have a copy of it on your site?
–
Admin. Comment – No, we don’t have contract copies on the site. But when you say “the most recent aftra contract” – what contract do you mean? Most of what are called contracts on either the SAG or AFTRA sites are actually summaries, in pdf format, which require the special reader available through Adobe. Major contracts tend to be hundreds of pages long.
In case you missed it, please note the following collateral damage from the labor unrest over the past 18 months: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-propshop12-2009jun12,0,7328596.story
What is the industry going to do when it becomes impossible for the companies that support it to remain in business?
to expensive to film in new york
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-06-17-woody-allen_N.htm
First of all, thank you for your terrific efforts in keeping the membership informed. I found your site a great source of information throughout all the strike and contract negotiations.
Now I am wondering if there is a way to use the power of your site to “Observe” a new problem that seems to be going on within the internal functioning of the guild. There seems to be a severe slow down in the residuals processing department’s ability to get out our residuals processed and mailed out to us. They are already a month behind and I have received information, which I will attempt to verify today, that they have laid off 1/2 of the staff in this department. Allot of us rely on residuals to pay our bills. After all, isn’t this one of the main issues we were fighting over in the negotiations. The fact is that whatever hard earned gains we have made over the years, then has to go through a system that appears to be broken and will only get worse as new media residuals become more plentiful. There is a large closet at SAG in which reside thousands and thousands of checks waiting to be processed. The system is archaic and needs to be fixed.
If you feel this in not the forum to address these concerns, please let me know. There is a group of us that is forming to figure out how best to approach this serious problem. If there is anything you might be able to contribute, it would certainly be much appreciated.
Please contact me at my email address.
Sincerely,
Steve Alterman
Hey,
I’m just wondering why John Hughes’ untimely death didn’t make it into the site for remembering? He was a great friend to actors and a wonderful talent.
–
Ed. Comment – Perhaps it’s our standard that’s a problem. So far we’ve only posted notices about performers.
hi guys – don’t know if you saw the first post. here’s the second:
WAXWORD Shredding Checks: Whistleblower Mial’s Testimony (part II)
The full transcript, and explosive excerpts, showing document destruction at the WGA. MORE
http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/shredding-checks-whistleblower-mials-testimony-part-ii_5484
—
Admin. Note: For those who missed it, Sharon Waxman’s first post about the Mial testimony is here, and her first column on the overall subject is about SAG and the more than $25 million it is holding that belongs to members.
do you actually publish hopefull infor,ation here?
and who does the censoring of the information /propaganda here./