Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News Alerts and keep your inbox happy
You’ve got to hand it to Asner, taking on all those Sacred Cows who purport to be Liberals.
‘Mrs. Landingham’ should ask the WGA & Patric Verrone why they’re in arbitration over the books for online video including Hulu…they are owed at a minimum data from March 2008 forward & started their arbitration proceeding to get access to the books back in November of 2008. One wonders if that much-touted right to an accounting in the proposed SAG contract (which is identical to the one in the WGA’s and AFTRA’s) is worth anhything given the WGA’s experience recent experience with the conglomerates. If you can’t get your hands on the books without a costly & time-consuming fight every time you or a designated pro want to audit them (and professional auditing also costs the union or the individual actor(s) money), what good is that right?
Also as for online video viewership ‘Mrs. Landingham’ ought to have a look at the latest numbers available (from March 2009) from comScore here: http://is.gd/LMrH
149,410,000 unique US viewers of online video in the 1st quarter of 2009…that’s a heck of a lot more people than only 8% of America unless our 2010 census says our population is now closer to 1.9 billion people in the USA. In 2000 we had ~280, million people so it’s more like half of Americans are watching online video (and these figures do not take into account the heavy TV advertising of Hulu which started in earnest during Q1 2009).
Since online video is a GLOBAL medium (or at least YouTube is currently set up that way & Hulu promises to do the same soon, perhaps as soon as this September UK viewers can watch Hulu too and of course eventually most every country will have Hulu unblocked, local advertising on its content, & local content available in addition to US TV shows & films) the potential audience is far far bigger than ‘Mrs Landingham’ is considering. comScore.com keeps online video viewership numbers globally BTW if you want to size up the potential audiences more closely.
Finally the designation of whether or not someone is a covered performer is in the producer’s final discretion, not the performers & not the union’s. Will performers have the time energy & money to challenge this designation by any means necessary, especially given how little a non-union area could pay them (state minimum wage)? And once the area is declared non-union SAG is PROHIBITED from intervening on the performer’s behalf.
The sunset clause is no solution to actors; everytime a contract expires, everything previously attained is negotiable. I am quite sure that with or without the window dressing of such a clause the conglomerates will be eager to negotiate new media again, and even lower that they’ve proposed now if they can get away with it.
Joosten’s not about getting back TO Martin & the membership just back AT them. A latecomer to professional acting, she has little concern about throwing those in her age group who could get residuals for pre-71 films & pre-74 TV shows on the Internet and in other new media under the bus.
She’s also prominently featured in a 20/20 video at donotpay.org defending the now illegal in California practice of paid casting workshops with casting directors who are being paid by TV studios or film production companies that are light on educational value for actors & heavy on ‘you paid us, we’re more inclined to see you for auditions than other actors who haven’t’ quid pro quo.
Is dumbfounded in the fact that the YES vote continues to think that if we vote down this contract that we won’t get any of the good things this contract has to offer.
We will get to look at the books, we will get residuals across the board regardless of when it was made, we will not make room for Non-Union work in a Union contract, we get clip consent, we will get force majure. So on and so forth.
We don’t have to settle because “this is the best offer we will get.”
We will get it all. Everything we want.
Because we will fight for it.
Don’t roll over. Don’t accept rollbacks.
In solidarity: Vote NO.
Mr. Asner’s courage and candor is truly refreshing.
Mrs. Landingham’s and virtually ALL of the vote yes videos and messages
have the interesting similarity of either a lack of mention of the facts, issues and numbers of the proposal or the more recent development of twisting facts to fit their short term agenda of ramrodding this contract proposal past membership. Which amounts to either ignorance and manipulation by those pushing this agenda or flat out lies to what end we may never know.
SAG members, please pay attention, read all that you can at least the proposed deal and vote after forming an informed, considered opinion.
Why do you think it is that essentially the same people, change their name every few years and still try pushing these eroding contracts through? Quite often going to the extremes of supporting the reasonable demands and desires of membership only to at the eleventh hour, make back room deals and sell us down the river….
undermining us once again.
SAG members and board members, look within, who are you? What do you stand for? If you claim to represent us, how can you be a cause or party to these absolute abandonments of the trust placed in you by the membership?
Hang your heads in shame as you kiss your children goodnight and know that those who helped to provide you and family’s health care and that covered the cost of the their births…will no longer be able to qualify for health insurance or a reasonable pension.
We need a fair a and reasonable deal for all involved and this is not it.
One NO VOTE.
Jooston is a bit misleading. No, the Internet only covers 8% now — but come on, Kathy, we all know that’s WHERE it’s all going. And the No folks are just demanding what the WGA was asking for: if they make a dime, we make a percentage of that; if they make a million, we make a percentage of that. No flat fees.
I stopped when she said only 8% of people are watching anything on the internet. Good point. I guess that will remain the same forever.
How do you lead off your video with such a stupid point?
You have cited incorrect information. The other guilds allow their members to work non-union jobs. Saying that they do not is a misrepresentation and flat out lie if you are actually aware of their systems. Just more manipulation of information by the “Yes” crowd.
ASNER vs. JOOSTEN vs. SHEEN
What big-brain in the YES-man camp came up with the idea of throwing Kathy Joosten out there without a life preserver?
She may rival Hankee in bringing out the most NO votes. Keep-SAG-Relevant must have an undercover agent who suggested Miss J.
“Wouldn’t it be cool to put Kathryn Joosten on as Martin’s old secretary?” Yeah! “Will she do it?” Try stopping her.
Roll camera. Great raw footage. There was a whole lot of editing, but not enough to quell the comedy that kept bubbling up.
My favorite gag: “Non-union does not mean not-paid!”
Runner-up: “Pre-1970s material won’t be paid residuals, when it’s moved over to the Internet”? “Well, it isn’t NOW! And that’s NEVER been a part of the 2005 contract, so I don’t know what all the yelling’s about!”
Third funniest: “Producers will have some trouble finding staff, because editors and cinematographers and directors ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO WORK NON-UNION, along with a whole bunch of the other PERFORMANCE unions like hair and make-up, and don’t even get me started on IATSE!”
I hope some crew folks are watching THIS video. They ought to get a good chuckle off that one.
Whoever dreamed up THIS pitch, and left that material in the picture, has a cruel streak. Must be an infiltrator.
SAG is not like any other blue-collar union. In fact, it bears a more striking similarity to the NFLPA (National Football League Players Association).
Why? Well, the NFL has it’s multi-million-dollar A-listers (Quarterbacks, Receivers, Running Backs) and the like. But they also have their B-listers (linemen, defenders, etc etc). The B-listers may make anywhere from $100,000 to a few million dollars per year because they know they aren’t the star attraction.
But without the linemen and defenders, guess what?, the stars look like crap. They are only able to show off the great talent when they are surrounded with a professional supporting cast that is also the best at what they do, making sure the star looks fantastic and performs well.
When the NFLPA goes on strike, all of it goes on strike, including the stars. They know if they “cross the line” the fallout could be ruins to their careers. Perhaps a lineman won’t block as hard. Perhaps a under qualified scab will not be able to protect the quarterback. Either way, the quarterback, running back or receiver could look at career ending scenarios because of their breaking the strike, or because the strikers were replaced with poor imitations. It is in the star’s interest to support the people who make him look good.
But SAG’s A-listers doesn’t seem to do that. They don’t seem to recognize that if you break the union, and settle for dregs from the bottom for little or no money, you’re not going to make yourself look good on film. In fact, you’ll probably net a few extra bucks up front, and then watch as the material and the quality of the story and product goes down the drain.
Do A-listers really want that? Do you want to look great or simply go after short term gains at the expense of the great American cinema and the great American actors?
It’s in your best interest to be like the NFLPA. When they strike, the owners quiver. They know the stars and the supporting cast are the reason people fill the stands and tune in their television sets every week. They know that sub-par performance with scabs causes people to stay away from stadiums and watching on television.
And the AMPTP knows that too! Why haven’t you SAG people figured that out?! You ARE the product. And they desperately need you! No one star can overcome bad actors, bad workmen, bad stories, and bad directors. They need you!
Gawd, if you only knew how much power your have.
I propose you quit SAG and join the NFLPA. They don’t take $hit from anyone!
Well done, “scuttlebutt” and all. Appreciate it.
Comment by Scuttlebutt — June 1, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Reading your blow by blow right after Mrs. Landingham’s video was fantastic. THANK YOU for not going off on a tangent, and for breaking it down. Those videos can be so misleading.
Spread the word people, educate actors–some aren’t the smartest bunch ;-)
Dear Ms. Joosten,
Makeup artists and hair stylists are part of IATSE, we are not a performance union. The only performing we do is maintaining civility while the actors fight amongst themselves and keep the rest of the community from working. You’re all lucky we don’t stick a brush in your eye.
Scuttlebutt, it’s good you were able to at least set the record straight, here. It appears YouTube has discontinued any further comments re Kathy’s video. Is it possible that only those who support the yes vote are allowed to post there?
Residuals are going to be dead. The union will die. It’s going to be a free for all on the internet. For music, film, videos, etc. Mark my words. This will happen very very soon. The end is coming. Prepare. Vote NO.
Sunset Clause. They always talk about that as if it’s a HUGE point we won. Does it occur to anyone that the mere presence of the sunset clause means the current contract might be inadequate? If it was a good thing neither side would want or need a sunset clause. What do they think we are? Idiots?
Every single actor I know is voting no on this piece of crap. I can’t wait to see the numbers.
helen hill makes a good point about football, which is one of many reasons hiring doug allen was such a smart move on sag’s part. oh, well.
Ok, so I had to do a little net surfing to understand this…Mrs. Landingsham was a character that an actress known as Kathy Joosten portrayed on the West Wing, right? And she’s responding to Martin Sheen, a well-established real person in Hollywood and SAG as if he was the President in his role on the West Wing, right?
Jesus, how messed up is this whole scenario?! Kathy, God bless you for working so hard to get yourself established as an actress in television (see her profile on IMDB), but darling, don’t you feel just a TINY bit used?? Sheen was responding as Sheen, right? (Someone may correct me, because I never watched The West Wing, not because I didn’t want to, simply because of work, family, etc.)
LET THE MEMBERS VOTE! It’s that simple. Then let the chips fall where they may, but if you are shoulder-to-shoulder with your brothers and sisters in a union, then bring it on!
scuttlebutt, you owned it, baby, very nice retort!
I would LOVE to see Martin’s next “Message from” simply be him reading scuttlebutt’s response..
What is this PR firm saying to the “vote yes” coalition? “Condescension is a powerful tool in winning people over. Just remember to really push that. Let ’em know you think they’re stupid and you’ll win every time.”
Yes. Make-up and Hair Are IATSE – and IATSE International sold out it’s membership by signing off with the AMPTP for Non-union wavers: tell
me – how is that proper representation and why did that not go to a nat’l ballot/referendum? My guess – it would have been voted down by the membership if the membership had been properly polled on such a critical issue. It is totally incongruous that a Union would curry favor for non-union workers over the existing membership.
Question – what was the enticement?
I wouldn’t take advice about the internet from a woman who still uses a Rolodex.
The inter-actor civil war that has been going on…SAG vs. AFTRA and now SAG vs. SAG has all but guaranteed that actors will get screwed, regardless of whether the SAG contract passes or not. If it passes, the actors get screwed in New Media residuals and in the various ways more elaborately described by Martin Sheen and many others. If it doesn’t pass, the actors will be forced to continue to work under the rules of an expired contract that doesn’t provide any coverage for New Media at all…so the actors get screwed yet again. This whole affair has been pathetic and sad. I think what is happening demonstrates that SAG and AFTRA should have merged long ago. Had they done so, perhaps we wouldn’t be in this mess. I sincerely hope that SAG and AFTRA take a different course in two years when it comes time to negotiate again…that they negotiate in unison…that the pettiness and character assassinations cease…that people show more respect for one another and have honest debate. If we as actor’s can’t be respectful of one another, then how in the hell will we ever get respect from the producers? Only when we’re truly unified will we ever get what we deserve.
“The sooner SAG crashes and burns the sooner we can be shut of it.” – Kathy Joosten, 2006
Thanks for consistently saying what you say and having the courage to do it. I truly believe that in the future you will be revered as a visionary. I only hope that you are not viewed as a prophet of doom. Whatever the outcome. Thanks for having the balls to fight for what you believe in. Oh… and congratulations on being #1 at the box office. Up was awesome!
Having been on many negotiating teams, I can tell you that this “sunset clause” means absolutely NOTHING to the producers. Do we all remember the DVD sunset clause? “give us until the next contract and we’ll talk about it” That’s what the producers said and when the time came to talk about it; the producers said, “we don’t want to talk about that”. They are liars and don’t really give a crap what happens to we actors. How can you believe them this time when they’ve said those words so many times????????