I had five written questions for James Cromwell. And I’ve received five answers. I’d like to thank him for his responses. In addition, in his return email he attached a PDF of AFTRA’s Schedule A contract for my consideration. As that’s available I believe through AFTRA’s website, I’m not copying it here. BTW he chose the colors in his email to me.
I don’t know if anyone got this before me, but it’s official now. James Cromwell has confirmed he is NOT running for SAG president.
My comments section is open.
ME: Are you absolutely ruling out running for SAG president? Under what circumstances - if any - would you consider a run?
CROMWELL: Yes, I am absolutely not running for SAG president. I would run if we had a consolidated union, which included AFTRA and AEA, a new constitution, which addressed the systemic inequities of the present one, and a system of governance that did not preclude sacrificing one’s career in order to serve.
ME: AFTRA’s Schedule A contract which you supported, and now the AMPTP’s offer to SAG, both contain “open shop” provisions, which means employer signatories are allowed under the terms of the contracts to hire non-union workers for the same jobs as union workers. From my understanding, most progressives as well as the vast majority of union activists favor “closed shop” rules as a matter of principle and for practical reasons. On principle, what is your position on open shop vs closed shop for union jobs? If you favor a closed shop on principle, what the makes actors’ and signatories’ circumstances different than, say, auto workers, nurses, hotel workers, or teachers?
CROMWELL: I believe all work should be under a union contract, whenever possible. My understanding of AFTRA’s Schedule A and the AMPTP contract contract we have just overwhelmingly accepted is that “non-covered performers” (see page 35 of the attached Memorandum of Agreement for the exact and specific wording) can be hired for new, original programing only; that is programing not derived from already existing programs, that it be shown only on one of the new media platforms, and whose production cost are under $15,000 per minute. If there is one “covered performer,” or the production costs exceed that threshold, then the project must be entirely union. It is also a producer’s option, under the above circumstances, to offer a union contract to the “non-covered performer” if she, the producer, is so disposed. The definition of “covered performer” is very broad; that is, it includes anyone who could be considered “a professional” in any entertainment or communications related field. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a “closed shop” versus an “open shop”. Performer’s unions are not hiring halls. We have no seniority, nor “last hired, first fired.” We have no tenure. We are a guild. Would it were otherwise.
ME: You were quoted in Variety as saying, “A union is not a democracy”. What did you mean by that?
CROMWELL: By democracy, does one mean what passes for representational governance in America, where the “single-payer” health plan favored by 60% of doctors and a majority of the general population, is declared a non-starter and off the table for discussion by the head of the senate committee supposedly exploring all options to address a crisis in which 48 million Americans have no health insurance, where health cost are responsible for the majority of home foreclosures, as well as a major contributory factor in the insolvency of the auto industry? As to our particular circumstance, 78% of the members of our union voted recently for a contract which we should have had a year ago, and without which, our union lost millions in residuals and jurisdiction for most of the new pilots, now being made under an AFTRA contact, all because of an unwillingness on the part of the previous leadership to formulate a rational, realistic and considered strategy in concert with every other guild. The questions is, will the membership recognize the bankruptcy of belligerence and intransigence, or will they once again be swayed by half-truths, out-right mendacity and mere pique into electing the usual suspects. A guild is a guild is a guild, as someone once said, and thereby hangs a tale.
ME: You were quoted by a fellow actor as saying, “We are part of the one percent”. Did this actor quote you correctly? What did you say, and what did you mean to get across?
CROMWELL: That fellow actor, David Clennon by name, asked me why I was for the contract we have subsequently approved and against the strike proposed by Membership First. I said, “85% of our union makes less that $10,000 a year as actors; 65% make no money at it at all. Probably only 1% of us actually make a living under the contract, and it is those of us, David, you and I, along with thousands of others in the industry whose livelihoods depend on our working, who will be most affected by a work stoppage and the losses incurred if we continued to work under the old contact.” I spoke to him for over an hour, explicating in minute detail the rationale for my position. That a “friend” should take that fragment and twist it in to a supposed expression of my elitism is indicative of the sorry pass to which some in this guild have sunk..
ME: I was just as saddened by the personal attacks on you in recent comments online, and by the personal attack on Ned Vaughn from the floor during the most recent Hollywood Branch Informational meeting as I was by the personal attacks leveled against Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen over the past couple of years. Will you go on-record now as rebuking all personal attacks against any actor or union official, and ask everyone who values your opinion to keep the argument on a professional and issues-oriented level?
CROMWELL: An old “friend,” Ed Asner, once lambasted Mike Farrell and I for ascribing certain motives to the actions of the previous leadership. “You don’t know,” he said, “why they do what they do, and you can’t disparage them for the motives you’ve imputed to them.” I thought it a very cogent criticism. On the other hand, we live in a society whose rule of law requires one to establish motive when determining the criminality of an action. If what has happened to our union in the recent past represents a dereliction of duty and an egregious disregard of fiduciary responsibility, then I think its time to go in another direction, regardless of the cast. We need one union, a union of all actors, in affiliation with every other union, so we have clout at the table, and that, if need be and circumstances warrant, we can shut the sucker down. That is the only issue, and in my opinion, you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. Basta!
