The Mind of the Militant

Posted by Craig Mazin on 29 Jan 2009 at 11:27 am | Tagged as: WGA Issues

28 Responses to “The Mind of the Militant”

1. #1
   on 29 Jan 2009 at 2:28 pm # Stuart Creque
   
   

   I highly recommend The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America (http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/elldar.html). A Left-leaning professor took an honest look at radical movements from John Brown’s Abolitionists to the SDS to modern-day feminists and political correctness enforcers, teasing out a common thread: the true believers treat dissenters as the first and worst enemy.

   Why do people who identify themselves as liberal or egalitarian sometimes embrace intolerance or even preach violence? Illiberalism has come to be expected of the right in this country; its occurrence on the left is more paradoxical but no less real. Although equality lies at the heart of the liberal tradition, the earnest pursuit of egalitarian goals has often come at the expense of other liberal ideals.

   In this provocative book, Richard J. Ellis examines the illiberal tendencies that have characterized egalitarian movements throughout American history, from the radical abolitionists of the 1830s to the New Left activists of the 1960s. He also takes on contemporary radical feminists like Catherine MacKinnon and radical environmental groups like Earth First! to show that, even today, many of the American left’s sacred cows have cloven hooves.

   Ellis identifies the organizational and ideological dilemmas that caused Students for a Democratic Society to transform itself from a democratic to an elitist organization, or that allow radicals to justify illegal acts as long as they are free of self-interest. He explains how orthodoxy arises within a group from the need to maintain distance from a society it views as hopelessly corrupt, and how individuals committed to egalitarian causes are particularly susceptible to illiberalism–even poets like Walt Whitman, who celebrated the common people but often expressed contempt for their mundane lives. Political correctness, idealizing the oppressed, and an affinity for authoritarian and charismatic leaders are all parts of what Ellis calls “the dark side of the left.”

   Building on the groundwork laid by Richard Hofstadter in his pioneering book, The Age of Reform, Ellis exposes the shortcomings of today’s left and provides a badly needed historical perspective on the contemporary debate over “political correctness.” The Dark Side of the Left is a gutsy book that is essential reading for anyone who occasionally feels dark forebodings about seemingly noble causes.

2. #2
   on 29 Jan 2009 at 4:08 pm # nmh
   
   

   You’re dead on Craig. I think there is also a core misunderstanding of the dynamic between SAG and the AMPTP. Alan feels like the battle is a personal one that measures his strength against that of Nick Counter – and thus you have his weakness. It’s about ego. If SAG doesn’t get any gold-dust-farting ponies then he has been emasculated by Nick Counter. This fear means that he can only see the short term maneuvers and not the goal. Once he placed his flag in the ground with his initial requests he assumed anything less is a dagger to the heart. He (and other militants) were FURIOUS when they discovered that the AMPTP had made certain requests that they assumed they would give up but that’s because it’s a negotiation. If I want to buy something for $50 and you ask for $75 then I offer $25 and we work to the middle. When Allen negotiates he asks for $75 and says you are a bad person if you don’t give it to him. Someone needs to introduce him to Herb Cohen (www.herbcohenonline.com)!

   Alan wins battles here and there but at the end of the day he has lost SAG members FAR more than they ever stood to gain. For seven months his membership has worked under a cheaper contract, there is declining work available for those who are working as projects are mothballed waiting for a resolution to the conflict, he has spent millions of dollars on meetings and trips and anti-AFTRA campaigns, and he has fractured the union to it’s core.

   His goal, as union president, is NOT to get a deal that has everything he wants. It’s to get a deal that a majority of union members will ratify. That’s it. Period.

   If Alan wants these terms he should become a producer who acts. Own your work. I cannot make as much as management if I am an employee, it’s just that simple. Don’t complain about it. Guess what, Mark Wahlberg makes great money producing ENTOURAGE and IN TREATMENT and now a new series with Scorsese. And there are many more like him (Craig?). Alan, on the other hand, is too lazy to do that, or not talented enough, or just feeling too damn entitled to do it. Regardless of the reason, he’s done so much harm to SAG it’s shameful and now he doesn’t have the manhood to just walk away when he’s been beaten.

3. #3
   on 29 Jan 2009 at 5:44 pm # Stuart Creque
   
   

   His goal, as union president, is NOT to get a deal that has everything he wants. It’s to get a deal that a majority of union members will ratify. That’s it. Period.

   Unfortunately, a true believer in a cause believes that he is fighting for justice. Thus, anything less than what he demands is by definition injustice, and cannot be tolerated. And anyone who says it should be tolerated becomes the enemy of justice, one of the unjust. The true believer finds that flaw most unforgivable in his supposed friends and allies, because he assumed that they were true believers too — thus they’re not honest opponents like the people he’s fighting against, but rather treasonous betrayers.

   I think one reason that good negotiators are often drawn from the practice of law is that lawyers are trained to see both sides of every argument and to find the achievable solution rather than the perfect victory. Even when a lawyer is a true believer, his profession tends to make him act as a pragmatist.

4. #4
   on 29 Jan 2009 at 7:37 pm # voiceguy
   
   

   Alan Rosenberg also sent this e-mail out to the membership. No one seriously believes that he actually wrote it himself, however:

   My Fellow Screen Actors Guild Members,

   Yesterday, on January 26th, a slim majority of our National Board voted to fire our National Executive Director and Chief Negotiator, Doug Allen. This was not accomplished in a face-to-face Board meeting, where the significant minority would have had an opportunity to voice its opinion and where Mr. Allen would have had a chance to face his accusers and address their concerns. Instead, this drastic action was accomplished by “written assent”, the most undemocratic provision allowed by our Constitution.

   As your twice-elected National President, I feel that it is my responsibility to give you my perspective on yesterday’s events, although my ability to do so is somewhat limited. The same majority, 52.52%, that fired Mr. Allen also voted to change our Board policy that designated the National President to be one of the official spokespeople for the Guild. As of yesterday, the only two people who are permitted to officially speak for Screen Actors Guild are our newly appointed interim NED, David White, and John McGuire, our Senior Advisor from New York. The members now have no official voice. I appreciate the fact that Mr. White thinks it is preposterous to silence a duly elected national officer, and so has permitted me this forum, provided I inform you that what I am about to write represents my opinion. However, although I am not writing on behalf of the Guild, I believe I do speak for the nearly 48% percent of the Board who are deeply concerned about what was done yesterday and about how these changes were accomplished.

   Many of us believe that Doug Allen was fired because he was simply too good, too strong, and too much a unionist. His greatest sin was in challenging the idea that we be bound by the concept of “pattern bargaining”, under which actors have been disadvantaged for decades. Doug gave us the courage to accept the fact that we had a legal right to pursue an agreement that addressed the specific needs of actors; that it is unreasonable to think that the DGA or WGA, without asking any questions pertaining to actors’ participation in “new media”, could strike a deal that would adequately address the concerns of our 120,000 members and the diverse nature and needs of a membership that includes middle class actors, background actors, stunt performers, singers, dancers and our biggest stars. I, and the majority of our negotiating committee, were amazed by Doug’s skill as a negotiator and team leader, and by his diigence and breadth of knowledge. We were profoundly moved by his love for and dedication to actors.

   I have no doubt that, if our Board had demonstrated any solidarity whatsoever, Doug and our committee would have arrived at an acceptable deal some time ago. Instead, members of that Board engaged in a systematic effort to sabotage these negotiations by passing motions that prescribed courses of action, and then repudiating those motions, thereby throwing our leadership into a state of chaos and our membership into a state of confusion. This was done consistently and, I believe, intentionally, so that our progressive leadership would be made to appear inept, which would pave the way towards a return to the go-along-to-get-along days of yore.

   Now there is a new lead negotiator in the person of John T. McGuire. Our Negotiating Committee has been replaced by a new, more moderate Task Force. You can expect that not long after this new team enters the Bargaining Room, they will be offered some “plum”, some concession from the AMPTP that was said, heretofore, to be unattainable. This will be given by our employers, not as an act of good will, but as a demonstration of the fact that “reasonableness” will be rewarded, while “militancy” will be punished. Make no mistake, if this should occur, if there is any gain made, or if we are ultimately able to resist one of the massive roll backs that has been demanded, it will not be due to the skill of this new “negotiating team”. Anything that is won from this point forward will still be the result of the enormously hard work put in by Doug Allen and the majority of the negotiating team that has been in place since our W and W caucuses began a year ago this February. I am enormously proud of that team, led by Doug , of which I was a member.

   We were able to change the discussion about these existing deals from the obfuscatory claims that they were somehow “groundbreaking” to a sobering dialogue, illuminating just how damaging these new media deals might be to the prospects of a middle class actor’s ability to make a living.

   You should know that the ability to get things accomplished by “written assent” was also available to the progressive leadership that held the majority in the Boardroom prior to the most recent election. That Draconian option was never employed, however. Despite what has been said about that majority, they always made democracy their highest priority. They understood that a slim majority of 52% or 53 % gave no one the right to ride roughshod over a significant minority; they understood what the use of such a tactic would do to democracy in our union; they never desired to open that Pandora’s Box. Unfortunately, now it has been opened and precedent has been set. I, and the previous Board majority, have always been willing to compromise on any issue. Compromise is the way things get accomplished in a contentious democracy such as ours. To date, I have not been approached by a single Board member from New York, the RBD, or from the ironically named slate “Unite for Strength”, to try and find common ground on any issue. If these elected officials desire to move forward in any significant way in the name of the members, this behavior must change.

   In unity,

   Alan Rosenberg

   Craig’s analysis above goes even more strongly to the revisionism, petulance, and willful blindness displayed in this e-mail. I truly agree that he “wanted the fight.” I would label it the Alexander Haig syndrome — a desperate desire to be “in charge” during exciting times.

   VG

5. #5
   on 29 Jan 2009 at 8:28 pm # sppeterson
   
   

   It seems more to me that he has the Bush syndrome — a desperate desire to create exciting times during which to be “in charge”.

6. #6
   on 29 Jan 2009 at 9:04 pm # Stuart Creque
   
   

   You should know that the ability to get things accomplished by “written assent” was also available to the progressive leadership that held the majority in the Boardroom prior to the most recent election. That Draconian option was never employed, however. Despite what has been said about that majority, they always made democracy their highest priority. They understood that a slim majority of 52% or 53 % gave no one the right to ride roughshod over a significant minority; they understood what the use of such a tactic would do to democracy in our union; they never desired to open that Pandora’s Box. Unfortunately, now it has been opened and precedent has been set. I, and the previous Board majority, have always been willing to compromise on any issue. Compromise is the way things get accomplished in a contentious democracy such as ours. To date, I have not been approached by a single Board member from New York, the RBD, or from the ironically named slate “Unite for Strength”, to try and find common ground on any issue. If these elected officials desire to move forward in any significant way in the name of the members, this behavior must change.

   Of course Alan Rosenberg didn’t write this. It’s clearly the work of George Orwell.

7. #7
   on 29 Jan 2009 at 9:32 pm # nmh
   
   

   I think one reason that good negotiators are often drawn from the practice of law is that lawyers are trained to see both sides of every argument and to find the achievable solution rather than the perfect victory.

   Perfect Victory or Pyrrhic Victory?

   Make no mistake, if this should occur, if there is any gain made, or if we are ultimately able to resist one of the massive roll backs that has been demanded, it will not be due to the skill of this new “negotiating team”. Anything that is won from this point forward will still be the result of the enormously hard work put in by Doug Allen and the majority of the negotiating team that has been in place since our W and W caucuses began a year ago this February. I am enormously proud of that team, led by Doug , of which I was a member.

   I just love the hypocrisy of a statement like this. Basically he is saying “if they get anything you like, thank us.” To which the response is “well then why didn’t you get those things before walking away?” If they fail, he says “I told you so” and if they succeed he says “see what I did?” It’s like when you can’t open the pickle jar and the next person pops the lid off and you point out that you must have loosened it up first.

8. #8
   on 29 Jan 2009 at 10:11 pm # voiceguy
   
   

   It’s also worth reading Patrick Goldstein’s take on Rosenberg (both the song and the accompanying interview).

   VG

9. #9
   on 30 Jan 2009 at 12:40 pm # Stuart Creque
   
   

   I just love the hypocrisy of a statement like this. Basically he is saying “if they get anything you like, thank us.” To which the response is “well then why didn’t you get those things before walking away?” If they fail, he says “I told you so” and if they succeed he says “see what I did?” It’s like when you can’t open the pickle jar and the next person pops the lid off and you point out that you must have loosened it up first.

   I see that less as hypocrisy per se and more as spin. He’s saying that the Good Cops taking over can only win anything from the AMPTP because the Bad Cops softened the congloms up, or at the very least because the Bad Cops remain in the wings so that the Good Cops can say, “Hey, toss us a bone or the members might let Alan and Doug open up another can of crazy on you” (sorry for the mixed metaphor).

10. #10
    on 30 Jan 2009 at 12:44 pm # Stuart Creque
    
    

    Perfect Victory or Pyrrhic Victory?

    That’s just it. True Believers don’t understand the difference: for them, anything short of the Perfect Victory is treason, and a Pyrrhic Victory that embodies the principles of the Perfect Victory is still a Perfect Victory, even if no one survives to enjoy its fruits.

    Lawyers tend to see things in terms of the best deal that can be made. That’s why you get that speech when you report for jury duty about how your mere presence in the juror pool provides an impetus for cases, whether criminal or civil, to be settled before trial, because you physically represent the deadline that is the start of jury selection.

11. #11
    on 31 Jan 2009 at 11:59 am # RogueFilmmaker
    
    

    So finally it comes out. Political ideology is the true disease that’s been eating at some of you. Get over it. If you can’t embrace filmmaking as an art first and business second (the business of selling art), you’re lost.

12. #12
    on 31 Jan 2009 at 1:27 pm # Stuart Creque
    
    

    RogueFilmmaker – speaking of the nexus of art and business, what do you make of this (from NationalJournal.com)?

    Stimulus’ Film Industry Provision Is Ready For Its Closeup

    Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2009

    With even Hollywood facing an economic slump, the Senate Finance Committee’s $275 billion tax title of the economic stimulus package would lend a hand to movie studios that have seen outside financing dry up.

    The Senate bill includes a tax break worth up to $246 million over 11 years for investors in bigger-budget movie projects that don’t necessarily qualify for incentives currently. The provision is backed by firms like the Walt Disney Co., and the industry trade group the Motion Picture Association of America, according to aides and lobbyists.

    Broadly speaking, the Senate bill includes a one-year extension through 2009 of a provision enabling companies to write off 50 percent of the cost of equipment placed in service during that year, same as in the House Ways and Means version. But the Senate bill amends the definition of “qualified property” to include “certain motion picture film or videotape,” bringing the cost of the Senate provision to $5.32 billion, up from the House’s $5.07 billion version.

    Companies that use the tax break would then forfeit the right to use the existing incentive, which allows companies to deduct 100 percent of production costs up to $15 million. That provision is backed by groups such as the Directors Guild of America and is aimed at keeping smaller productions from relocating to foreign countries; it was extended as part of the $700 billion financial rescue plan in October.

    But a problem arises for pictures that cost $30 million or more, which the option to instead use bonus depreciation attempts to resolve.

    It probably wouldn’t benefit blockbusters that take years to produce, a lobbyist said, given that, to benefit, a firm’s asset must be placed in service — hitting the theaters or video market — during that time.

    A similar provision was included in the Senate version of legislation extending pension relief to companies and suspending the minimum withdrawal requirement from seniors’ retirement accounts, which stalled last year. The final bill dropped business tax breaks but preserved the pension and IRA provisions.

    The lobbyist familiar with the discussions said the movie equipment has been “unfairly excluded” from bonus depreciation in the past, which has generally applied to most other equipment purchases. And with the downturn choking capital financing for film projects by companies like Disney, General Electric Corp.’s Universal Studios and Time Warner Inc., enabling investors to depreciate film equipment on bigger projects could make a difference, he said. “Anything that facilitates more outside investment will be helpful in this environment,” the lobbyist said.

    However, as critics scour the stimulus, the film and videotape depreciation provision has attracted notice. “It’s a piece of pork inserted by Democrats in the Senate for their Hollywood friends,” one GOP aide said. “President Obama said that he didn’t want the stimulus bill to turn into a Christmas tree. Well, Christmas has come early for Hollywood.”

13. #13
    on 01 Feb 2009 at 12:08 am # nmh
    
    

    RogueFilmmaker,

    I don’t view them as ordered priorities. Nothing that Alan has done has anything to do with “art”. If it did, then why did they cancel ALL future GCC’s? I’m an independent filmmaker and thus I don’t get a seat at this table. You have the studios on one side and SAG on the other and in the middle are indie producers & filmmakers who are going to have to abide by the decisions these two groups make.

    Political Ideology isn’t what gets at me, it’s the completely and utter lack of rationality.

14. #14
    on 02 Feb 2009 at 3:19 pm # jmay
    
    

    Craig –

    I totally agree with the Victoria Riskin rant.

    But I knew if I caught up on some earlier postings, I’d find something that annoyed me. I know it’s a service you’re happy to provide.

    First, there was the image that you forced on us, of your taking a half-hour long shower in your sacred place. But let’s just skip past that.

    Then there’s this:

    For instance, I think Patric and David both thought they were going to get a short strike, because that’s what they wanted to think.

    Patric and David never in a million years promised a short strike. I was at all the pre-strike membership meetings, and I never heard a single comment of out either of them that remotely hinted of it. So what are you doing?

    You’re throwing mud. That’s all you’re doing. You’re impugning their integrity, saying they didn’t take the prospect of a strike seriously, based on your impression of their secret intentions.

    It’s just a super-douchey thing to say. Soooooper douchey.

15. #15
    on 02 Feb 2009 at 4:17 pm # Craig Mazin
    
    

    jmay:

    I did not say that Patric and David both publicly said they were expecting a short strike, much less promising one. I said they thought that. I did not say this because I wish to throw mud or impugn their integrity. Frankly, I don’t see how that statement is relevant to their integrity at all. I think they did take the prospect of a long strike seriously. I just think that they believed the odds were that it would be shorter than it actually was.

    As for my impression of their secret intentions, well…two things. First, I know a lot of people in Guild governance, and second…I was on the Board myself with many of the architects of this strike. I grant you that my opinion is my opinion and certainly not fact, which is why I wrote “I think.” My opinion is, however, informed. The Writers United group often spoke and behaved in such a way that led me to believe they overestimated our leverage over the companies (and underestimated the leverage that the DGA had over us).

    As such, I reject your accusation of super-douchiness (doucheyness?). That’s not to say I’m incapable of it. In this particular instance, however, I stand by my opinion as informed. Others who are just as informed (or not) may disagree.

    Glad you agree on the Riskin rant. We’ll always have that…

16. #16
    on 02 Feb 2009 at 5:39 pm # Stuart Creque
    
    

    Patric and David never in a million years promised a short strike. I was at all the pre-strike membership meetings, and I never heard a single comment of out either of them that remotely hinted of it. So what are you doing?

    Point of information: in the planning leading up to the strike, was there much discussion of needing to build up a large strike fund to help tide over the striking members? Was there communication to sister unions in the entertainment industry to build up their own member assistance funds in anticipation of a long writers’ strike?

17. #17
    on 02 Feb 2009 at 6:55 pm # Craig Mazin
    
    

    Stuart Creque:

    Well, prior to this strike, our strike fund was quite healthy; there hadn’t been a work stoppage for nearly 20 years. That’s 20 years of both socking money away and investing it carefully. So there wasn’t talk of a need to build the strike fund up; it had been numbering in the several millions for quite some time.

    I strongly doubt there was any such communication with IATSE. Verrone and Young’s relationship with IATSE makes their relationship with the DGA look positively rosey. That’s one situation I can’t blame them for, even though their policies sure didn’t make it any better. Tommy Short is, by all accounts, a challenging individual.

18. #18
    on 02 Feb 2009 at 9:56 pm # AMPTP Stooge
    
    

    Mostly I haven’t posted in a while because it’s all so darn obvious.

    Rosenberg is a self promoter. He had bigger dreams. From what I’ve been told, he was angling to turn this into a run at Congress. For him, it was all or nothing. Eventually he started believing the rhetoric as being real instead of just a tool to get what he wanted.

    Most importantly, this rhetoric of us versus them has to stop. The studios are not evil. Just like any individual person, some do bad things. Some don’t. Writers and actors break contracts all the time and get away with it. They aren’t any more or less evil than a studio. I think as an individual writer or actor or whatever…the best thing you can do is stand up to the militants always.

    But I’m preaching to the choir here. Like you say, there are moderates and there are militants.

19. #19
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 9:53 am # voiceguy
    
    

    Rosenberg (and Anne-Marie Johnson) have now thrown a new monkey wrench in things, filing a lawsuit to block the implementation of the “written assent.” There is supposed to be a hearing a L.A. Superior Court this morning on an ex parte application for temporary restraining order. When the required 24-hour notice of the TRO application was given to SAG yesterday, it and the AMPTP decided to call off the negotiations that were supposed to start today.

    L.A.Times: SAG talks stall over legal move

    Variety: SAG pair want Doug Allen back

    The Wrap: Alan Rosenberg to Sue SAG Over Allen Ouster

    Hollywood Reporter: Legal threat halts SAG-AMPTP talks

    My prediction: Since the AMPTP talks have been called off, there is no screaming emergency, and the judge this morning will take the matter under submission, possibly inviting opposing briefs from SAG (or someone — since it’s a little unclear that Allen and Rosenberg have standing to bring this suit, it’s also unclear who should oppose it).

    VG

20. #20
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 11:16 am # nmh
    
    

    Regarding Alan’s ludicrous legal move this morning I think the motivation is one of two equally bankrupt reasons.

    1) His ego has been so bruised that he can’t walk away from the fight. Years ago I was going to school in Australia and occasionally worked at the pub across the street. One of the door guys, after a bit of a bar brawl, pointed something out. After you have broken up a fight the guy you have to worry about is the one that got his nose bloodied. The winner’s ego is intact and they usually either leave or go back to their friends and have a beer. The loser, on the other hand, has to reestablish their manhood and begins challenging other people and onlookers with taunts like: “What the **** are you looking at?” Alan is the loser and is trying to save his manhood.

    2) Alan sees what is about to happen. The new group is going to sit down and negotiate calmly and professionally for a couple weeks. There’ll be no histrionics. When it’s over a new contract, significantly better than the studios’ LBO will be put to the membership and will pass with a sigh of relief. The new leadership will be seen as pragmatic and professional stewards of the union and they will receive good marks. Realizing this is something that he, too, could do, Alan wants another bite at the apple. He wants to lead that movement so he can receive the credit.

    Either way, it’s all about ego and it’s pathetic.

21. #21
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 12:08 pm # Stuart Creque
    
    

    nmh: Or…

    3) Alan wants his day in court to prove with geometric logic that a second key to the food locker did, in fact, exist, and that it was the UFS board members who stole his strawberries.

22. #22
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 12:12 pm # Stuart Creque
    
    

    Craig:

    I strongly doubt there was any such communication with IATSE. Verrone and Young’s relationship with IATSE makes their relationship with the DGA look positively rosey. That’s one situation I can’t blame them for, even though their policies sure didn’t make it any better. Tommy Short is, by all accounts, a challenging individual.

    If there wasn’t a conversation like that with IATSE, there should have been, for two very good reasons. One, it’s a good thing to let other union members know that they should take steps to prepare for a work stoppage, and two, it would have set up Tommy Short to be the “good cop” to tell the AMPTP, “you don’t know these WGA guys — they’re crazy! They’re not bluffing this time! They really ARE going to strike for as long as it takes!”

23. #23
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 12:40 pm # Stuart Creque
    
    

    voiceguy: Only Variety got the really interesting tidbit from this entire morass:

    Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG’s general counsel

    Sounds like a character from a Bulwer-Lytton novel, doesn’t it?

24. #24
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 12:48 pm # voiceguy
    
    

    Update: TRO denied.

    Judge denies SAG restraining order

    If the plaintiffs were serious about getting a TRO, they really blew it. Most fatally, they failed to give proper notice of the ex parte application to all defendants, which is a huge no-no that even a beginning attorney ought to know about. But it also sounds (through the somewhat garbled wording of the article) as though the legal merits of the complaint were deficient.

    The obvious explanation is that the plaintiffs didn’t really care about the legal merits or validly following procedure; they just wanted to torpedo the negotiations that were supposed to start today. In that respect they were successful.

    However, having sued all these SAG directors as defendants, they now expose SAG dues money to paying for these directors’ defense of the claims, as the SAG constitution contains a comprehensive indemnity provision. So all of us in SAG get to help pay for this ludicrous exercise.

    VG

25. #25
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 3:39 pm # Stuart Creque
    
    

    Well, at least the SAG will have a basis to claim money damages when it countersues Rosenberg and Johnson. (I wonder if naming board members Ladd and McCord in the countersuit would require the Guild to pay for their defense against its own suit?)

    From the article:

    Lee said the argument for the restraining order is that allowing people who are unlawfully appointed to negotiate for SAG will cause the guild “irreparable harm.”

    At what point do the antics of Rosenberg and Johnson constitute irreparable harm to the Guild? I imagine that they haven’t quite risen to the level of an impeachable offense in terms of the Guild’s bylaws, but they have to be getting up there.

26. #26
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 3:47 pm # voiceguy
    
    

    Duncan is a young lawyer who has been SAG’s general counsel for a couple of years. Interestingly, his predecessor as SAG general counsel, David White, is the guy who was picked to be interim National Executive Director.

    I admit it’s not the kind of name you run into very often, especially in the U.S.

    VG

27. #27
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 3:52 pm # voiceguy
    
    

    The irreparable harm argument is pretty hard to demonstrate. Who’s to say that a 10-member committee is going to do a worse job than a 13-member committee that it replaced? How would you even measure it, given that there’s no way to run a laboratory experiment? The plaintiffs seem to be arguing more for process than outcome — “we want our people in there (regardless of whether the new people might come back with just as good a deal, or possibly even a better one).” But however you slice it, the “harm” being cited is completely speculative and subjective. I don’t think it will meet the standard for injunctive relief.

    I have read the actual complaint (it’s available at a link here) and consider it to have very little merit. It’s surprisingly bad.

    VG

28. #28
    on 03 Feb 2009 at 3:54 pm # Stuart Creque
    
    

    Craig,

    You have to fight to get the best deal. If you’re not willing to fight, you’re a stooge, a slave, someone who would happily work for free.

    I’d amend this:

    You have to fight to get the best deal. If you’re not willing to fight to the death, even against impossible odds, you’re a stooge, a slave, someone who would happily work for free.

    Pragmatists look for the best deal possible. Idealists won’t settle for less than the best deal imaginable.