By MCN Editor editor@moviecitynews.com

Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors Approves Merger Package with AFTRA

Posted Saturday, January 28th, 2012 - Comments Off on Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors Approves Merger Package with AFTRA
Be Sociable, Share!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LOS ANGELES (January 27, 2012) – The Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors today voted overwhelmingly to approve and recommend a plan to merge with AFTRA. The board met in a regularly scheduled plenary meeting in the James Cagney Board Room at the Guild’s Los Angeles headquarters and voted after reviewing a merger package put forward by the SAG and AFTRA Group for One Union (G1) that includes a Merger Agreement and Constitution.

Collectively, these documents outline the plan of merger, dues and finance structure, membership requirements, and other basic attributes of the successor union. The same merger package must now be approved by AFTRA’s National Board of Directors which is scheduled to meet on Jan. 28, to review and vote on the package. Should the AFTRA board approve the merger package as well, a referendum will be sent out for a vote by members of both unions in the coming weeks.

The proposed name for the new union is SAG-AFTRA.

The resolution read:

“It was moved and seconded that the National Board of Directors, on the recommendation of the Merger Task Force, approves the proposed Merger Agreement between Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, and further approves the proposed SAG-AFTRA Constitution. The National Board directs that the proposed Constitution and Merger Agreement be submitted for membership approval by mailed ballot referendum, in cooperation with AFTRA. The referendum materials and ballot shall be mailed on or about February 27, 2012, with a ballot return and tabulation deadline of March 30, 2012.”

Approved: 87.1% – 12.9%

The G1 held five rounds of meetings to create the successor union merger package. The meetings, which began in June of 2011, followed a historic Listening Tour conducted by SAG National President Ken Howard and AFTRA National President Roberta Reardon.  The G1 finished its work January 16 with a vote approving the merger package debated and approved today by the SAG National Board.

Follow SAG Communications on Twitter (twitter.com/sagnews) and Facebook (facebook.com/screenactorsguild)

About SAG
Screen Actors Guild is the nation’s largest labor union representing working actors. Established in 1933, SAG has a rich history in the American labor movement, from standing up to studios to break long-term engagement contracts in the 1940s to fighting for artists’ rights amid the digital revolution sweeping the entertainment industry in the 21st century. With 20 Branches nationwide, SAG represents more than 125,000 actors who work in film and digital motion pictures and television programs, commercials, video games, corporate/educational, Internet and all new media formats. The Guild exists to enhance actors’ working conditions, compensation and benefits and to be a powerful, unified voice on behalf of artists’ rights. SAG is a proud affiliate of the AFL-CIO. Headquartered in Los Angeles, you can visit SAG online at SAG.org.

###

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Movie City News, Press Releases | Comments Off on Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors Approves Merger Package with AFTRA

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon