This blog is meant to inform, educate, and at times be controversial. I had put an blog yesterday in regards to the opinions of how SOME new sag members treat other people on the set ( and I am not saying the old don't do it. I just hate it either way when I and many more see it.) Now with that being said I don't mind criticism to myself or even debates I find them healthy, but what we got was a Firestorm of a war on both sides of the subject. To the point there were very harsh words between to unknown commentors, at that point I did the best thing and pulled the whole blog out. Now I will say this once and that's it if we raise a subject to debate it should be healthy and we should see all sides. But the moment I see a threat or a very ugly exchange you will be kicked off. I don't care about criticism, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But the things that are brought up on this blog are from the new and from the old that approach me and tell me what's o
Comments
--more cost-of-living increases, such as the first mileage reimbursement increase in 30 years.
--the prevention of non-union new media productions.
--the right to consent to, and profit from, product integration.
-- payment of pension and health benefits on top of, instead of deducted from, DVD residuals.
SAG members are holding a solidarity rally at their headquarters in Los Angeles on June 9.
WHY SHOULD SAG PREVENT NON-UNION PRODUCTIONS?
As for the AFTRA contracts -- the MF group basically has a negative knee-jerk response that anything about AFTRA is bad. These people - the MF'ers -- are not about deception and outright lying. They are trying to abolish decades of efforts to merge the two unions. They want, instead, for SAG to be the only union - but more than that, they want SAG to promote what's good for L.A. actors and whatever will hurt actors elsewhere.
meant: These people - the MF'ers -- are not ABOVE deception and outright lying.
The trying to keep work in L.A. scenario I'm not sure about. Could be some truth to it I guess.
But I agree why should L.A. have the monopoly? I am a New England actor and thrilled that I no longer have to think about moving to L.A. in order to get film work!
If that's all they want is to protect their monopoly. Bump em! And when they ask for a strike vote I'm saying NO because I want to continue working!
If there is a strike go work in an office, restaurant, store, post office, start a business, whatever! This is not L.A. you guys act like you've never done anything besides act. The suits want you to have that defeated attitude. Striking is sometimes a neccessary evil for for the greater good. And your pay checks will reflect that once it's over.
But I guess I have to realize alot of people are ok with getting short changed as long as they can buy a sandwich. PLEASE, there is so much more to life than a sandwich.