i may have mis-used the word “off the card” and for that i apologize. but one thing is for sure, non-union work is non-union work. global rule one in sag is don’t work non-union. even if (especially if) it’s a shop that has yet to be unionized, sag members are prohibited from working non-union. i am unaware of union background performers working non-union, but if that’s the case, i am firmly against it.

non-union work, whether before, during or after a shop is unionized, is against global rule one, and against what i feel a union is about.

moreover, it’s a bit disengenuous to lay the non-unionization of cnn at the feet of sag actors, imo. cnn specifically has been in existence for over 20 years; it’s certainly not sag members fault if aftra has been unable to unionize that shop.

and it’s ironic that asaaf mentions strawmen; imo it’s a real strawman to use actors’ lack of solidarity with broadcasters as the reason broadcasters can’t unionize a broadcasting shop. how the hell can actors help with that? seriously? cnn, you’d better pay wolf blitzer under a union contract, or else we’ll shut down the big bang theory!

it’s ludicrous to think actors can or should help broadcasters and visa versa. it’s two completely different jobs, and i can’t see any way that the two professions can help each other in any very real, nuts and bolts sense.

now i try to remain with an open mind; if you or anyone can describe a logical, possible and likely scenario in which union actor can help unionize a broadcasters shop, i will be happy to listen.

but pretty much what asaaf said did not address my point that merging with a union that allows non-union work is not a position of strength.

anyway thanks for your thoughts, derek, i am not asking people to vote no, i am only asking people to consider the ramifications of a merger that can’t be reversed, and one which is, in my mind, detrimental to the future of the middle class actor.