Sunday, November 16, 2008
SAG gets tough with rule-breakers
C21Media:: "'Rule One states that 'No member shall work for a producer who is not signatory to the appropriate SAG agreement,'' the letter read, reminding readers that 'Rule One is printed on the back of every SAG membership card.'"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The union should absolutely be going after its members. It doesn't make sense they are waiting until 1/1/09 to start. And they are doing it for the right reasons. The union only works if everyone sticks together.
Both sides of the negotiation have taken a hard line that they will not budge. Hopefully the mediator can break each side down a bit so an agreement can be reached, other wise actors and everyone else in the industry will be out work...
Enforcing the rule makes sense to encourage faster negotiations. Printing the rule on the card is a bit funny, but it shows that the union is serious.
Good call for SAG to crack down on the actors. What tickles me is that even with the thousands upon thousands of prospective amateur actors with talent out there available to producers, SAG still carries so much weight because they have identifiable faces. I'm sure it also speeds up the process if you are the AMPTP auditioning people, actors above a certain talent line have been guaranteed to you by SAG. I find this codependency of the two groups absolutely fascinating to observe, I just hope that they play nice.
i'm agreeing with Cody here--the union only works if all the members stick together. that's why it's called a "union." members should have been aware of this rule when they joined, so it should come as no surprise to them that if they break the rule that they get in trouble.
I am surprised actors in SAG are even willing to break this rule. Producers that only use actors in SAG are probably paying more money for the actors than producers who run independently. Once in SAG, I know I would not want to do anything to possibly make me lose my place in the organization. I definitely understand the SAG board going after these actors.
I think that this will serve to make negotiations more expedient and efficiently professional. Now that the rules are clear and the standards understood, business can flow more easily.
Members do need to join together, isn't that the point of a UNION? Good thing that SAG is starting to crack down on those actors. I hope this makes the negotiations go a lot quicker and more successfully.
I get the argument that without some cohesiveness, the union won't have a strong bargaining position, however if the conditions are such that the actors prefer an alternative gig, it seems like a reflection on the job the union is doing. Once a union limits the rights of its' members, clearly there is a problem. Why do the members want to work outside? Why should they have to be part of the union if the union gigs aren't sufficient? This does not seem like a simple issue to me.
Post a Comment