Well, the other shoe dropped at SAG this week.
For me, it was the last straw.
Starting today, I'll be urging actors and performers under the Guild's jurisdiction to jump ship, and set the ceremonial barge adrift.
Over the years, as a full-fledged member, I've put up with a lot of nonsense from staffers and Union reps at the Screen Actors Guild.
The party is over as far as I am concerned.
Of course, the attitude was always thick over there on Wilshire Boulevard.
The suits thought their sh** didn't stink, alright.
And, the individuals hired (and elected) to do the bidding for Guild Members, were not only slow in delivering once they stood at the plate, but downright rude and insulting to the membership when they encountered any criticism back.
Just this past year - during the toughest contract negotiations with the Producers to date - the truth rang out loud and clear.
Screen Actors Guild reps were only interested in saving their own butts and at any cost.
Unfortunately, that selfish (misguided) approach split the Guild in two - and ultimately - resulted in a total loss of faith in the SAG, the negotiating teams, and the powers-that-be (the executive leadership & paid employees hired to run day-to-day affairs).
Thumbing your nose at a producer, or a powerful movie studio, is generally not a good idea in
uncertain times.
Nor does it bode well to mistreat and/or ignore the wishes of a Guild Membership.
For example, this past week it came to my attention that a member - who mailed in a dues payment for $50.00 - was ousted from the Guild because of an oversight over a paltry $8.00 shortfall.
The mind-boggling disgusting scenario went down something like this.
The member mailed in a check for $50.00 to ensure membership was not suspended for failure to pay the required fees due every six months.
Imagine that!
Approximately one month later, SAG returned the lone check (in spite of the fact it was good) uncashed with a note informing the startled actor that because there was a shortfall of eight dollars (he should have written a check in the sum of $58.00 to meet the current obligation), the Guild proceeded to cancel membership without further notice.
This is a example of the kind of dim-witted, mean-spirited - unjust - guild action that goes down at the Screen Actors daily with nary a concern about the livelihood of the member in question - or even their feelings - for that matter.
If there was a mere shortfall of eight lousy bucks, surely there were sufficient grounds to overlook the shortfall, apply the payment, and allow the member to remain in good stead.
If that was not the case, as a matter of form, shouldn't a staff member have contacted the individual about the problem, so the balance could be paid without the necessity of such severe (outrageous) action on the part of the Guild?
Isn't that what professionalism is all about?
In view of the fact the individual in question was a member in good standing for twenty years, it shocks the sensibilities to learn that SAG would act in such a barbaric disgusting fashion!
At a time when the economy is bad (and actors are out of work due to budget restraints, a slow down in production, and run-a-way filming out-of-state) surely the Guild should be trying to show a little compassion (and mercy) on its unemployed members who are struggling to eat and keep a roof over their heads.
In recent months, SAG lowered the boom on SAG actors who chose to go on "honorary withdrawal" from the Guild, as well.
In spite of the fact a member may have done so due to financial hardship, or pressing family commitments, SAG now requires that an actor face a sort-of "inquisition" (to ensure their leave of absence was innocent and devoid of any political motivation) before membership will be reinstated after a"court" finding that establishes merit to the petition.
Huh!
SAG is supposed to be a union representing its membership, not a Nazi concentration camp where actors must tow the line, or face a "holocaust".
For the aforementioned reasons, I have decided not to support SAG any longer in their contract negotiations, stand behind their efforts to unionize all productions here and/or across the country, or bother to take it upon myself to enlighten actors about the benefits of a "Union" house.
In fact, I plan to recommend productions go non-union - or better yet - urge actors to start organizing a new Union for performers that will ultimately (i) care about the well-being of the worker (ii) have compassion on a performer's plight when times get financially tough (iii) endeavour to represent the best interests of Union Members and not just the prurient interests of paid employees, managers, and the self-serving contracted Executive Branch.
Amen!
