Actors Voting No on the 2009 TV/Theatrical Contract

A sampling of some Screen Actors Guild Members who after reading the proposed Contract have decided to vote NO.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• SAG
• screen
• actors
• guild
• vote
• no
• contract
• tv
• theatrical
• unite
• for
• strength
• membership
• first
• hollywood
• voting
• yes
• sag
• members
• aftra
• martin
• sheen
• john
• heard
• connie
• stevens
• daniel
• quinn
• jordana
• capra
• terry
• moore
• nichelle
• nichols
• bill
• mumy
• elliot
• gould
• anne
• desalvo
• clancy
• brown

[TheSeer100]

It's not just in the media business -- look at the credit card companies, (banks), insurance companies, etc. more greedy CEOs causing an economic turndown and wreaking havoc.

SAG is trying to keep its piece of the pie, that's all. And quite frankly SAG was out there supporting IATSE and WGA just recently on their contracts. And now, since those unions have signed they are becoming dissatisfied as the reality of their contracts is setting in and they don't like it.

[TheSeer100]

So they say by 2011 we can ALL strike, not so easy, because the AMPTP is planning again to stockpile more films so they can wait out a strike way longer than all the unions can who work paycheck to paycheck.

Listen, let the SAG union take this hit for everyone, we've heard plenty of actor jokes before and face public ridicule all the time -- so we can take it.

If SAG wins ALL the other unions will WIN too!

I hope you can see that and thank you for your support!

[MegaJustGeorge]

Clancy Brown's remarks make me think - the actors, writers, directors and crew can all join forces and make the most amazing product in the world. But the producers - apparently - want to make the cheapest product in the world.

And I have to say, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. Were I an actor, I would certainly vote no on this contract.

[Albert18264]

I'm sweating like a film director that's just been told he'll be working with Martin and Charlie Sheen .

[ToyinJoseph]

hell no vote no

[RevelationJoeTess]

Some food for thought--the SAG board members who forced this contract through while lying to the membership and telling them a yes vote would mean tons of jobs for them, call themselves "Unite for Strength". This is a faction of the union who only believes that a small demographic of the membership deserves to be protected-the ones who are on a series or work comes easily to-they wanted that 3% raise for THEM, and cared NOTHING about the TYPICAL ACTOR and HIS PROTECTION. To them, we don't count

[RevelationJoeTess]

We HAD a contract--the OLD one that we were working under the entire time, which offered us much more protections than this piece of steaming sh it that the ignorant members ratified because they were told it would mean they would all have tons and tons of work. WHERE IS THE WORK?

[TheHappyDragonfly]

Vote NO! This is crap. God help you if it passes.

[NewAmericanGoth]

GAME OVER

[skyguy1012]

The Producers added these weird little quirks in the contract to make actors mad enough to keep going without a contract.

If the Elliot Gould-type shallow morons wouldn't have pushed against the AFTRA merger, which would have assured us solidarity ( we vips can't possible have lowly disc jockeys in our exclusive union!)

Lets get a contract in there, and build our strength now!

[skyguy1012]

It is important to get a foothold NOW in New Media (which, think about it... is not even really established yet) and we negotiate better deals in contracts to come. If Producers are using non-union actors while we're on the picket line, we lose. Yes means NOT PERFECT (but is this a perfect world?) It means we have a foothold and a good chance to gain more ground next contract. NO MEANS WE GO BACK TO THE TABLE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO MAKE ANY MORE CONCESSIONS WHATSOEVER, AT ANY TIME.