More turmoil over at the Screen Actors Guild: A meeting that was supposed to occur Feb. Read the full post.
Feb 3
2009
03:01 AM ET
SAG's Alan Rosenberg attempts to reinstate ousted executive director
- Comments 17
- Add comment
Latest News
- 'Two and a Half Men' moving to Thursday
- 'Walking Dead': Big plans for Comic-Con
- 'Grey's': Watch six minutes of the finale
- 'NCIS' tops Tuesday ratings; 'Talent' dips
- Tom Cruise: 'Playboy' interview highlights
- 'Dictator' sent Seacrest a new jacket
- '90210' season finale shocker: Really?!
- 'Anchorman II': Teaser poster art revealed
As a SAG member, I’d like to know if membership dues are being used by Mr. Rosenberg to finance the increasing billable hours he is accumulating with his law firm to fight the majority of the membership.
Problem is, it appears crazy to the rest of the world. It would be nice “to all go back to work” as one commenter stated, except no one stopped working. No strike.
There is nothing “moderate” about accepting terms of a base pay and working conditions that are unfair, and are so low (and backwards) that it will make it impossible for actors to work, at all. As professionals.
I don’t think anyone really understands what the issues are, and why the actors don’t want to “just sign a contract and move on”. Would you, if it meant working for free or 28 dollars? No health benefits?
Is it “moderate” or “sane” to work for nothing?
As far as a strike goes, the AMPTP are the ones that you may want to talk to about “Not striking”. If the conglomerates (who now own the movie studios and who don’t wish to pay actors) would only pay a fair wage, then there would be no need for striking, or for Alan R. to cause you to judge him, without any knowledge. Should actors work for free? How?