Support for LAist comes from
Made of L.A.
Stay Connected

Share This

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.


AFTRA Members Rejoice as Judge Allows Vote on SAG Merger

Image via Facebook
Support your source for local news!
The local news you read here every day is crafted for you, but right now, we need your help to keep it going. In these uncertain times, your support is even more important. Today, put a dollar value on the trustworthy reporting you rely on all year long. We can't hold those in power accountable and uplift voices from the community without your partnership. Thank you.

When the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists announced that they'd be mailing home ballots for member to vote on a potential merge, some Hollywood folk weren't happy. A group of SAG members, including Martin Sheen and Ed Harris, filed a lawsuit to try to block the vote from taking place. Yesterday, a judge rejected the suit.

According to City News Service, U.S. District Judge James Otero wrote in his decision that the merger wasn't up to the court to decide.

"Voting in favor of merger may or may not be in the best interest of the majority of union members...But the decision, for better or worse, belongs to the members, not to plaintiffs and certainly not to the court.''

The lawsuit contended that SAG and AFTRA officials didn't sufficiently examine how the merger would affect members' health benefits and pensions. To that end, the plaintiffs suggested that members were being duped by the two groups.

Support for LAist comes from

The Chicago Tribune reports that in his opinion, Otero seemed to suggest that perhaps there weren't enough facts about the consequences to members' benefits, but that it was still up to members to vote.

"Judicial interference with the members' right to decide whether they would like to proceed with merger despite the lack of concrete information about benefits would not serve this public policy," he wrote.

Most Read