SAG politics and L.A.’s workers

Re “SAG’s new face,” editorial, Jan. 29

Your editorial didn’t address the real issue at hand: politics.

When the Unite for Strength faction of the Screen Actors Guild went to the media and complained about then-Executive Director Doug Allen and his negotiating team, it purposefully took away any chance of SAG getting a better deal.

How? It showed the studios that SAG was divided. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers used that divide and stood tough, as if they knew the tough negotiating team would be replaced.

I would not be surprised if they did know.

Politics is a dirty game, but to inject it into an important negotiation at the cost of the members is shameful. Robert Amico

Valley Glen

The writer is a former SAG Hollywood board member.

::

As a small-business owner who has relied on the entertainment sector for upward of 80% of my business, I take no position for or against the parties involved. I simply wish the parties would at least make efforts to impose an interim deal so that this industry, and indeed this city, can get back to work.

I understand that the issues at hand have long-lasting implications for both sides. However, those who support the industry can’t hold out forever. Effective negotiations take time, but losing an entire sector of feeder-businesses like mine will only result in higher costs if and when productions get back to work.

I take very seriously my responsibilities as an employer. I have 12 highly skilled craftspeople who rely on my company to provide for their families. Once lost, the skilled labor force that staffs businesses like mine may not return.

I have done all that I can to help my company survive, but only so much can be done without orders coming through the door.

Nathan P. Sindel

San Fernando