SAG snubs Voight, as pay dispute rumbles on

[edonline]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1405090,00.html

SAG snubs Voight, as pay dispute rumbles on

Staff and agencies
Thursday February 3, 2005

Guardian Unlimited

The actors' union, SAG, has decided not to invite non-member Jon Voight to its prestigious award ceremony this weekend despite him earning a nomination.

The union is in dispute with Hollywood producers under a collective bargaining agreement which Voight is not part of.

The veteran actor recently opted out of full membership of the union and has worked on productions which the Screen Actors Guild does not have an agreement with. He is therefore very much persona non grata with union executives at the moment.

A SAG spokesman said: "In his status as a major movie star, Mr Voight enjoys many protections that scores of working actors and struggling actors do not enjoy and may never have. That is what Screen Actors Guild exists to provide.

"We regret the choice that he made to leave his union and as a result the president of SAG, Melissa Gilbert, in consultation with members of the awards committee, elected not to invite him to attend the awards dinner."

Among the other nominees for the 11th annual Screen Actors Guild Awards are Johnny Depp for best actor in Finding Neverland, Imelda Staunton for best female in Vera Drake and James Garner for his supporting role in Notebook. The awards ceremony is an important indicator of Oscar success and has an 80% overlap with the Academy Awards when it comes to its nominees.

On Saturday representatives of SAG and rival union AFTRA voted to approve a new, three-year contract with studios and recommended that their members adopt the pact. It includes a 9% pay raise over three years, provides more money to shore up health and pension plans, and gives greater protections to stunt actors and extras.

However the deal fails to address the unchanged terms on DVD royalties and it is a moot point whether SAG and AFTRA members will accept the terms of the contract.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by edonline

A SAG spokesman said: "In his status as a major movie star, Mr Voight enjoys many protections that scores of working actors and struggling actors do not enjoy and may never have. That is what Screen Actors Guild exists to provide."


I have a question, though. From what I read...

-- To be a part of the SAG, you need to have worked a certain number of hours. But, seeing as how the SAG considers those hours, and seeing how SAG membership is required for most good productions, then you need to be an SAG member to get that number of hours easily. How does that make life easier for struggling actors?

-- I hear an SAG membership costs a LOT of money nowadays, especially in out-of-work actors terms. How's a struggling actor supposed to pay for it? How does that help him?

That's just a couple of the thousand questions I have for the SAG. I don't know the system very well, and I may be way, WAY out on a limb here -- but from everything I read and everything I know, the SAG, and most unions, just sound like a little good old friends mafia system, and more about power over productions and presence in the industry than the rights and good of the little people.

And that makes this sentence, and the whole thing, sound like a big hypocrisy to me. And Lord knows I hate to side with Jon Voight on anything.

[Ted Pikul]

In Richard Kiel's autobiography he relates a story where he was actively discouraged from joining SAG by a Union rep when he was starting out in the movie business.

Besides would you trust any organisation where Melissa Gilbert was head honcho?