The Screen Actors Guild is pissed off at Trey Parker and Matt Stone's South Park.
The Comedy Central animated TV series South Park is engaged in re-casting. SAG members are instructed - in accordance with previous National Board directives - not to audition or accept employment on this series.South Park is not covered by any SAG agreement, and its producers are not providing SAG wages, benefits and conditions of employment. Please do not accept any employment or renew any contract unless you have confirmed with SAG that the show's status has changed.
Because it is vital that you stay in good standing with your union, please be advised that employment on South Park would currently subject a SAG member to a RULE ONE VIOLATION.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Comments (6)
It should be really interes... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Mad William Flint | February 23, 2004 1:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It should be really interesting to see how this shakes out. Especially given the steady plummet in union membership across the board in recent years.
1. Posted by Mad William Flint | February 23, 2004 1:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2004 13:23
2. Posted by Scipio | February 23, 2004 6:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
DIE SAG DIE!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
2. Posted by Scipio | February 23, 2004 6:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2004 18:32
3. Posted by Damon | February 23, 2004 7:42 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I thought you were joking.
Then I thought THEY were joking.
Now I'm just sad.
It's what unions have come to in America.
They used to be important. Now I think they're probably a net drain on GDP and bad for the country.
3. Posted by Damon | February 23, 2004 7:42 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2004 19:42
4. Posted by Alec | February 23, 2004 11:50 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Unions were ALWAYS a net drain on GDP and bad for the country. Like all other forms of collusion between sellers of a good or service, collusion in the selling of labor ought to be illegal.
4. Posted by Alec | February 23, 2004 11:50 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 23, 2004 23:50
5. Posted by Thomas | February 24, 2004 1:46 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Actually, that should read:
Like collusion in the selling of labor, all other forms of collusion between sellers of a good or service ought to be legal.
What's wrong with unionism isn't that there is "collusion" involved; it's that this particular collusion is protected and even sanctioned by federal fiat while others are not. This imbalance is what creates "a net drain on GDP" and is "bad for the country."
5. Posted by Thomas | February 24, 2004 1:46 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 24, 2004 01:46
6. Posted by Jeff | February 24, 2004 8:50 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
You know what this means, of course:
Mr. Hankey is now non-sanctioned poo.
6. Posted by Jeff | February 24, 2004 8:50 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on February 24, 2004 08:50