E-mails From You

Subject: Fw: DO NOT PRESS 90#

9 - 0 - # (on the telephone)*

*_PASS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW_*

*I received a telephone call last evening from an individual identifying
himself as an AT&T Service technician who was conducting a test on
telephone lines. He stated that to complete the test I should touch
nine(9), zero(0), the pound sign (#), and then hang up.*

*Luckily, I was suspicious and refused.*

*Upon contacting the telephone company, I was informed that by pushing
90#, you give the requesting individual full access to your telephone
line, which enables them to place long distance calls billed to your
home phone number.*

*I was further informed that this scam has been originating from many
local jails/prisons I have also verified this information with UCB
Telecom, Pacific **Bell**, MCI, **Bell** **Atlantic** and GTE. Please
beware.*

*DO NOT press 90# for ANYONE*

*The GTE Security Department requested that I share this information
with EVERYONE I KNOW.*

*PLEASE pass this on to everyone YOU know.**

Firstly- thank to all who voted me the hair steward of the New England area. I hope to be a great liaison for all who need me!
I received a call today from Jerry DeCarlo informing me that it was brought up at the last meeting that it may not be necessary for licenses to be required for those who want to become a member of our union for hair. Whoa!! I wouldn't even have thought that would have been a topic to be discussed!! Of course we should all be licensed to do hair for film and TV. I realize that there are presently no licenses required for make-up, but if there were- a license should be required as well. I would not ever feel comfortable working side by side with a non licensed person, and no matter what hands on training one may have or not have, is still not as complete as the training I received as well as the confidence of many years in the field. It should be a given that we all should be working with true professionals and not anyone who may just want to give working in TV and Film a try. I have people ask me quite frequently how to get in the union and they are hairdressers who have licenses. When I tell them what our career involves, it often seems too much for the stylist who is in our field working in a salon. What we do is more than "do Hair"- it's chemistry, art, talent, creativity- if someone is that serious about wanting to do hair for films- let them take the proper steps- go to school- get a license- then apply for entry entering at the bottom rung of the ladder and make their way up, as we all have. I realize that the people who are grand fathered in, but I wonder how much more their expertise would be enhanced if they too had gone to school while also a member of the union??
Let's not try to get money the wrong way by opening up the flood gates to whoever wants to enter- let it be known that I would like to keep our Union a strong, professional one- I just worked with some one who said that they hope the pilot that we were working on went to series so he could have enough days to collect when it was all done. I cringed at that attitude, and needless to say, he did not work on the pilot for long, for other reasons. I can't believe that there are those out there who do not love what they do- lets keep our union strong and keep it healthy. With that I think we can get up from the problems 798 has had and stand strong. Do not weaken the links of what we have left- yes to licensing!

This is the New York State licensing site. Esthetics definition includes the application of make-up.

Please post it the web site. I don't care if we license or not, i think that if we do than every new member, make-up or hair. Or else it is bias. Barber licenses are o.k. too. There is also natural hair license. If we go by the law we go by the law. Florida, and Georgia are also exempt.

Last night's meeting (May 1) was very interesting in that you could see how many opportunities there are with the new Executive Board to make changes within the Union that would affect all the members on many levels. I know, as many of you do, that the new Executive Board is up to their eyeballs dealing with not just our insurance problems but sorting thru an onslaught of lawsuits, sifting thru a back log of files and letters and garbage (LITERALLY as in cleaning out the Union building by hand) in addition to learning how to run the business of owning real estate with rental space AND run this organization on a daily basis dealing with the International, the attorneys and most of all, the members.

There are so many concerns that affect all of us, it is I think mind boggling. One of the issues that was discussed tonight, with lots of passion, was the question of Licensing. The question was whether new member Hair Stylists should be required to hold a Cosmetology or Barbering license and whether or not that should be applied to Make Up Artists as well. Whether or not that was even lawful to have as a requirement.

Well, I'd like to give my two cents worth . My understanding of the law here in New York is that it has never required either a hair stylist or make up artist in the entertainment business to hold a license. And that a Union has the right to have requirements in order to join as long as they don't have anything to do with race, religion, sex, age or anything of a discriminating factor. But as Norman, among others said, I think it should be looked into further. It's possible that it has never been enforced which is not the same thing as saying it's legal. I don't know of a Make Up license. I know of Estheticians licensing but not solely a Make Up Artists license. I applied Make Up, years ago, on the public at Macy's and didn't need any license to do that . So I'm assuming (yes, I know what trouble that can cause) that a License isn't required. And yes, I agree with the comments that having a license to do hair doesn't mean someone is good at it and people who have never held a license can be very good¦ I think it's just protection for all of us. Now the International doesn't give a damn whether our members are licensed because their only concern is in increasing the membership. Period.

In all the Unions not just ours. For them it's about organizing masses of people. But we care. We care about who we work with on a job because when our partner does a bad job it makes us look bad, too. I think hair stylists coming into the Union should be licensed. I think everyone already in the Union should be grand fathered (as it has always been done in all organizations) to be excluded from this new requirement. Will someone come along and challenge that rule? Absolutely. There will always be someone quick to hire an attorney but that shouldn't stop us from regulating ourselves to protect our own interests. I think having a License for new member hair stylists means, if nothing else, they studied the craft of doing hair. Which is better than new members coming in because they're someone's girlfriend/son etc. with no formal training. And for those of you who don't agree, please write your opinion also. Then let's have the entire membership vote on this.

I OPENED THE WEBSITE TODAY FOR THE FRST TIME AND FOUND A WHOLE NEW WHOLESOME WEBSITE. I THEN GASPED AT THE NEWS OF OUR UNION LOSING THAT GREAT GAL AND FRIEND MICKEY SCOTT. EVEN MORE SHOCK AT THE FACT THAT SHE DIED IN AUGUST AND SOMEHOW I DON'T RECALL AN PREVIOUS INFO ABOUT HER DEMISE.

SHE AND I USED TO LAUGH AND CARRY ON AND IT WAS ALWAYS A JOY TO ARRIVE AND FIND OUT SHE WAS THERE. MY DAY WAS "MADE THEN". WHILE I WAS OUT WEST I TRIED TO MEET UP WITH HER BUT IT WAS A HIGH HOLY DAY AND SHE HAD TOO MANY FAMILIES AROUND TO PULL OFF A VANISH FOR LUNCH I WISH I HAD FORCED HER TO CHANGE HER MIND CAUSE THAT WAS THE LAST I HEARD FROM HER. BY SUNNY MICKEY I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU. ROSEMARIE GARDNER

P.S. PLEASE MY CONDOLENCES TO HER CHILDREN. I'M SORRY DIDN'T KNOW TILL THIS DAY FEB 24TH OF YOUR LOSS.

Webmaster's Note: Mickey passed on just as the Vincent debacle began and somehow, most of us missed her passing. Thanks to her daughter, Arlette for the information and the photo - Jack Engel

Correction for next newsletter:

Valerie Gladstone is not the Hair Supervisor of TARZAN

Gary Martori is the hair supervisor, Valerie is the assistant hair supervisor

The information is terrific! Thank you for bringing us in to this millennium.
It is truly appreciated. If there is any thing I can contribute...I will be
glad to help.

Yours truly,

Leslie Storms

I have to say Sonia you have turned out to be a real disappointment. First of all, I remained a swing because I did not want to take on a full time position while I was still making the transition of selling my salon and helping out the new owners.

Now, if I was such a novice hairdresser why did you have me cut your hair after you were growing it out for quite some time. I know you'll say that was a mistake too, even after everyone complimented you on it. But thanks for the nice shirt you bought me for taking care of your hair.

And when did management tell you to let it slide? Oh, I remember when I sprained my ankle on August 5th playing on The Broadway Show League softball team and I had to be out that week. Just because you don't like to hire enough swings to cover your crew when something happens, it's not my fault.
Furthermore, to correct you Aida closed September 5th which makes it a little over 14 months. I also never said that hairdressing wasn't for me anymore, it is a passion that will never escape me.I still take care of many people with their hair needs to this day.

And as far as your judgement of me about professionalism, well I'll let that slide, because you happen to be the only one saying that.

P.S. I seem to remember the girls in wardrobe on Scoundrals telling me that you were inquiring about whether they thought I would be available to work on Scoundrals with you. Hmmmm? Say hi to your good friend Joe for me.

Hi,

My name is Sonia Rivera, and I was the Supervising Hairdresser on Aida.
I had hired Andrew to fill an empty position for the last year and a half of
Aida's run. What I came to realize was, that the day I hired him was an
unfortunate mistake - I now knew why he remained only a swing on the other Broadway
shows. Andrew was and still is a novice hairdresser and had often missed his
cue's. When confronted of this, he became difficult. Since the show was
closing, management asked me to let it slide.

It has been about 18 months since Aida closed. During his time at Aida,
Andrew enrolled in school to learn how to become a stockbroker. He had remarked
that hair dressing wasn't for him anymore. With some schooling under his belt
and less than a year in the stock market, I was surprised to see Andrew back
running for Secretary Treasurer.

I had always felt that Andrew showed a lack of interest/professionalism
in his work. I am afraid that his disposition will mirror itself if he is
elected Secretary Treasurer.

Please, vote wisely and vote for Joe Cuervo.

All the best for the holidays,

Sonia Rivera

I have read your recent post to on the site and am responding.
One of the things you brought up was that of you running a clean campaign. If that is so, can you please tell me why your telemarketers or friends claimed that I was on Vincent Callaghan’s E-board? When the telemarketer was told this was untrue, she said she was not in the union, but that was what she was told (presumably by you). When the member could not be swayed, the telemarketer moved onto my age, stating that I was sixty and inferred that I was too old for the job. I will be sixty on Dec. 20 and I’m proud of it. Maybe it’s me but, if this what you call a clean campaign; I’d hate to see what you call a dirty one.
For your information, I was on the E-Board for 8 years, but, if you checked, you would know this was on Ed Callaghan’s board (Vincent’s Brother). During those days our P&W and general fund were constantly monitored and remained in healthy shape. As Sister Gleason states (as told by John Hall), it was the neglect from the last Trustees of our welfare fund that created the downfall in our Welfare fund (addressed later in this letter). Fortunately, under Ed Callaghan, we were able to build enough revenue to withstand Vincent’s lack of negotiating increases of P&W in our contracts. As a Trustee on the P&W board, Vincent did not seek other policies when the cost of healthcare increased. In fact, if you ask the members in the Jurisdiction, he actually negotiated P&W out of a lot of their checks.
I have been in the local for 35 years, but that should not be the issue of who is a better candidate. When I was in the local for approximately the same time as you, I was voted in as TV Trustee. The main reason was because I was involved in the union functions all along and that is what really matters at the end of the day.

A number of your proposals are contrary to what the members have expressed they wanted:

The healthcare plan and the six month qualification period: If you had shown up to the general membership meeting of Dec. 2004, you would know that this is exactly what the membership does not want. The draining of the fund is somewhat tied to family coverage and that has to be confronted. If you had shown up to the general membership meeting of Sept. 2005, you would be aware that John Hall stated that members wanting family coverage would have to pay for it out of their own pocket. Ms. Gleason made you aware that the International has turned down our request to be part of their plan. You ask if we had questioned him why. There was no needed since he had also explained the reason at the Sept. meeting – we didn’t have the money to buy into the plan.
You claim that Kelly Gleason has suggested freezing wages in lieu of P&W increases. No one has ever made that comment. John Hall suggested that increases should lean more toward the healthcare fund instead of pay raises. He explained that our healthcare fund is dwindling at a steady rate. If we do not correct the situation, we’ll be stable for a year and a half before the fund crashes. The numbers you quoted from the office alone show you that: in 2003 the fund ran in a deficit of $408,793.00, in 2004 the deficit was $1,028,262.00 – that is a $619,469.00 increase in loss. That is more than double the previous years deficit. You should also realize that P&W increases are done in tax-free percentages which, in the long run, are more beneficial than an increase in salary.
I enjoyed reading your statement intimating that we can easily convince Producers to give us both pay and P&W increases. Obviously, you’ve had very little dealings with producers. They know better then you do as to what we’ve lost. I know this must be a shock to you, but they don’t care and will fight to not give anything back. As a matter of fact, at times, they have taken to hiring friends instead of union members (call the new JLo movie).
Since I’m almost sixty and have been in the local a little longer than you, I can list a few items that our Business Agent (mostly Vincent) had lost in our contracts that the Producers won’t want to give back: double time after 8 hrs, triple time after 14 hrs, platinum time, dinner penalties after 5 hrs, the meal penalty was equal to the hourly prevailing rate, we had a twelve hour turn around, 52 hour weekend turn around, we had vacation pay, we automatically went into double time for a night call which started at 4PM, Saturday calls were also double, Sunday was triple, penalties for calls before 6am, no NDB breakfast, we were clocked in at the half hour not on the tenth of an hour, there wasn’t an Area Standard Agreement contract, no 3 tier contracts, no national contract, no east coast council contract, 24 hour cancellation and stand-by pay was enforced. I’m sure there are some I’m forgetting.
This is what I suggest, you call a producer and tell them that the industry has turned around in New York and you think it’s only fair that they should reinstate some of our give backs. I’m sure after he picks himself up from the floor from laughing so hard he’ll be more than happy to give you what you want. If you can guarantee to reinstall these giveaways I’ll vote for you.

You have mentioned to some jurisdictional members that you will bring back Tom Sobeck. The major problem with this is that 798 was not the one that fired Tom Sobeck, it was the International who had him removed. If you believe you’re going to reverse the International’s decision, you’re in for a rude awaking.

You have suggested we convert our main floor to a beauty salon that will rent space to out of work members. I’ll just briefly touch on some of the problems as if we don’t have enough already. The seed money, though you make it sound like pocket change, I can assure you it is not. Who would be the manager to operate this place? In your resume, you claim to be the CEO of a twenty-person salon. I have never actually heard that term used in a twenty-person hair salon before and I used to be a hair stylist for a much larger salon that catered to some of the richest clients in the country. Are you suggesting that you do both jobs? Come to think of it, what ever did happen to that salon you supposedly owned?
Does it concern you that this will be an investment of funds that belong to all of our members and will be primarily used by hair stylists, not make-up artists (excluding almost 1/2 the members in the local) and would be dominated by members in the tri-state area? Also there is no guarantee of profit. I’m sorry, this space can be rented to an outsider, who will make improvements and take all the risk.
Also, if you had come to at least one of the meetings, you would know all about Richard Callaghan. I figure, since you’ve recently spent time in the office trying to get information and numbers to use in your campaign, you might have run into him.

In response to your letter to sister Gleason: In your platform, you had written "In order to save administrative costs, one idea would be to combine our coalition of unions...". There is no mention of healthcare anywhere in that paragraph, so it does in fact suggest that all locals merge into one.
Merging our operating or health fund with other locals to save money is the first step into a slippery slope to losing our autonomy. This is a bad idea and, I can assure you, it is not what the members want. You would know this if you would just ask them instead of trying to sell your ideas.
The only collaboration I can see with other locals is to band together for some sort of standard living increase – or to erase the Area Standard Agreement.

Getting the members a constitution is just a phone call away. If you want the present constitution, all you have to do is call and they’ll send you one. Of course you must be aware that this constitution is going through major changes. The reason I am aware of this, is because this is the committee I volunteered for. We do read monthly reports at the meetings.
You mentioned that most of us did not attended meetings in the past three years. Guilty as charged. There is no defense. But, once we were made aware of what took place, we expended our time, effort and our own money to correct the problem. Where were you?
You mention in you resume that you are a volunteer fireman and participated in the 9/11 rescue, that is honorable. I joined the Navy straight out of high school for 4 years. I spent those years on a carrier during the Viet Nam period. Let me ask, do you think this information is important to a member standing in the rain or snow in the middle of the night, who is being underpaid by a producer?
You mention involving members in the negotiation process. Until Vincent took over, members were invited to attend. Most declined because they would have to sit across from the very people they would be working for the next day, possibly creating an adversarial position with production. It is the union’s responsability to provide a service that protects the members during contract negotiations, on the job discrepancies, monitoring their pensions and their healthcare funds, bookings and so on. You are trying to give the impression that we are trying to bar members from negotiations. We want them to participate through contract proposals gathered by the Stewards or E-Board. At negotiations, the President and or The Secretary Treasurer (or an alternate), will monitor the Business Agent to make sure he/she fights for our demands.

Why do some members have an adverse reaction to your candidacy? Simple, while they were doing all the work and pleading for volunteers you were hiding. Working at a job and working for a cause are two different things. For example: watching a building burn and actually rescuing someone from a fire is not the same.
Since you chose not to get involved, some feel you have a myopic view. Believing that everyone agrees on everything and we are all just yes people is ridiculous. Come to any meeting. There were and probably will be a lot of arguments and different points of view. The difference is, that at the end of the day, we respect each other and know what had to be done. I believe like most of the members that you have a superior attitude and will never bend because you will always feel you are right.

I could continue, but I feel there is enough material on this site to help you educate yourself.

As I stated before, the problem is not the amount of time you’ve spent in the local as a member, it is your lack of involvement, lack of knowledge of union functions and not knowing what the membership wants. Call a member and listen to their problems for a change. I do. Kelly Gleason does. The other Board members do.

However, I know that it will be in the best interests of the membership if there is a dissenting voice on the Executive Board from time to time. Consider it a checks and balances for the good of the membership. The last thing we need on the Executive Board is a bunch of yes men or yes women. That's what you say happened in the past and led to problems."

From the tone of your posts, I wonder if you are planning on being the "dissenting voice" if elected to the Board. We have enough problems and won't be able to make everyone happy 100% all of the time (even each other). We will all get criticized. It's part of the position - nothing personal.

Dear Sister Gleason,

I see it is necessary for me to clarify some of the ideas that I have for the future of the Local since you have clearly missed the point on most of them. In your critique of my platform it is obvious that your knowledge of running a local union, or your understanding of how benefit funds operate leaves a lot to be desired. Before answering your response I should also point out that you ran for the office of president "unopposed" and never put out to the general membership your ideas for the future of Local 798 as I did. I will address or clarify some of your concerns point by point, and along the way I have some questions for you.

Sister Gleason in your response you said that I proposed merging Local 798 with other Locals. You then went on and on explaining why as you said "this would be the death of all Locals". You couldn't be more wrong. First of all I never used the word merge that was your word, not mine. Secondly, I was not talking about merging Local 798 the Union. What I stated was that other Health Funds attached to other IATSE Locals might be interested in streamlining their operations by combining the administration of those Funds. If it made sense to merge our Fund with another Fund so that the membership can be better served, what would be wrong with that? That is perfectly legal under ERISA. You claim to have vast experience in labor matters, but it would seem that you are unaware that the Union, Local 798, is a separate entity from the Health Fund with a separate tax I.D. number and separate filings. Although you constantly rant about the Local being in a financial "crisis" it is not. According to the 2004 LM - 2 the Local has nearly 2 million dollars in assets. Your characterization of my proposal to merge Local 798 with any other Local is totally off base. Let me be clear to you. I never said we should merge Local 798 with any other Local and I am against doing so.

Membership Involvement

As you and your cohorts have continually pointed out, I like most members did not attend meetings in the past. Members don't attend meetings for a variety of reasons. More than half our membership is out of state and that is why I proposed meetings in those jurisdictions. Many members might be unavailable because they have second jobs, or child care issues. Some members feel that the leadership of their union ignores any input or concerns that they might have. Even worse, they fear retribution for speaking out. It is clear Sister Kelly that you and the "Concerned Members Caucus” proscribe to that practice. Let me explain. When I decided to run for Secretary / Treasurer I did so because I truly felt that I would be an asset to the membership of the Local. I intended to run a clean campaign and put forth some ideas for the future. Within two days the insults began. I was called a "hurricane trying to get in your pocket” “a spoiler”, a “joker in the deck”, and “ignorant”. And those remarks were made mostly by some of our newly “elected” unopposed executive board. In addition, friends and family who have volunteered their time to make phone calls to Local 798 members on my behalf were called “sleazy telemarketers”. Tell me Sister Gleason, is this the kind of abuse our members should look forward to if they disagree with the direction you steer this Local? Do you think there is going to be membership involvement if the members' perception of the executive board is that everything must be done their way and only their way? It is not for me alone to get members involved, but as their Secretary / Treasurer I will make sure that each and every member be heard if they so wish, without being belittled or insulted.

Recently I requested copies of the minutes of the general membership meetings for the last four years to review. Interestingly enough according to the sign in sheets for those meetings President Gleason, I did not see that you, Vice-President Bryn, Trustee DeNicola, or Secretary / Treasurer Candidate Cuervo, attended any meetings in 2002, 2003, and most of 2004. To her credit Sergeant At Arms Gladstone attended most if not all of those meetings. My point is that meeting attendance alone does not qualify you for a leadership role in a union, because if it did all those I mentioned would be unqualified. How I chose to spend my time in interacting with the membership in anticipation of running for office was my prerogative. Because I did not want to be part of your “Concerned Members' Caucus” does not make me unqualified or a bad person. The members will vote for who they want representing them, as it should be.

Contracts and Benefits

I am astounded that you could reject my proposal that the general membership have a voice in compiling contract proposals. Even more astounding is you say that most members are not interested in attending contract negotiations for fear of retribution. How do you know this? Are you and the rest of the executive board afraid to sit across the table from management? I know I'm not. Are you saying that you are too weak or unable to protect members who want to be involved in the negotiating process? You said that “if a contract is negotiated right you will not exactly be the best friend of production”. Maybe you are looking to make friends with production, I am not. I will be there to do a job for the membership and I believe there are many good people willing to serve on the negotiating committee.

Health Insurance

Wow! Where do I start with your response to my views on health insurance? In #2 of your response you claim that
John Hall approached the IA earlier this year about Local 798 members participating in the IA health plans, but that the IA refused to accept us. What reason was John Hall given as to why we could not participate? Did you ask? Did he give you any reason? I think the members deserve an answer.
#3 of your response states that the "welfare fund is in such bad shape because the last Trustees did not negotiate a better plan. What do you mean by this? Are you claiming that they had an ability to negotiate a plan with better benefits? Wouldn't that cost more money? Are you saying that the Trustees should reduce benefits? Who were the Trustees negotiating with? You then go on to say that the Trustees siphoned off the reserve fund for the last ten years. If this is true, the former Trustees must have been doing something right to build a reserve that could cover shortfalls for ten years. My review of the Health Funds 2003 Form 5500 (the required filing for such a fund under ERISA) shows that the Fund was reduced by $408,793.00 in 2003 and $1,028,262.00 in 2004. However at the end of 2004 we still maintained a somewhat healthy reserve of $7,133,589.00. Obviously the trend of losing money must be seriously addressed and reversed. As I stated in my platform, higher contributions by the Employers is a must. Plan designs and eligibility need to be evaluated. The actuaries from the Segal Company, our Fund Consultants, can provide this information.

Last, but not least, #4 of your response states “in the next contract negotiation the BA will have to try to increase our P&W instead of a pay raise”. Sister Gleason as the President of this Local and a member of the Executive Board why are you setting the stage for us to get wage freezes for the next three years of our contract? Do you not understand that the contributions to the P&W Funds are based on a percentage of gross earnings??? If our pay goes up, so does the contribution. We need and deserve both wage increases and a higher percentage of our gross earnings contributed to the P&W Funds. With contracts expiring at different times we need to keep our eye on the ball and have a full understanding as to what amounts must be negotiated to fund our benefits.

Real Estate

As far as the real estate issue is concerned, my position is that whatever is decided by the Real Estate Committee or the Executive Board, that decision with full disclosure should only be acted upon after a vote by the entire membership. By that I mean not a vote at a general membership meeting where the possibility of a small group of members makes the final decision. The vote should be by mail, just like the election of officers.

Furthermore the idea of a salon was just that, an idea. Isn't that what this union wants, a little vision? #1 realistically, how would all 1200+ members possibly work there? However I know people that come from out of state for 1 day a month to do 15 clients and go home with 1500.00 for the day. Not bad wouldn't you say? Maybe the membership outside the Tri - State wouldn't mind renting and being a part of their own investment. Or we could just rent it out to an outside tenant and not gain anything from the space at all but an extra check every month. Keep in mind tenants will more than likely not take care of it the way we will. Instead it can be used for the members that have a license or be incentive for others to obtain their license #2&3 it doesn't cost a lot of money to start a salon. At an average startup cost of $50,000.00 to $75,000.00 for every 1000 square feet of space, a salon can easily generate $250,000 per year, (gross). The liability insurance is only a couple of hundred dollars per year. #5 many people left the salon as well and switched to production work. How can you speak for the entire membership? Did you call everyone since my mention of it, only days ago? #6 what does Richard Callaghan have to do with renting out the first floor to our membership towards bettering themselves, there creativity, our Local and acting as landlords. I know it would be a great place for members to supplement their income on a steady basis, especially if there is no work for them in production. And I can't think of a better place for an educational program with scheduled workshops than in our own home.

In conclusion, it is obvious that we do not see eye to eye on every issue. However, I know that it will be in the best interests of the membership if there is a dissenting voice on the Executive Board from time to time. Consider it a checks and balances for the good of the membership. The last thing we need on the Executive Board is a bunch of yes men or yes women. That's what you say happened in the past and led to problems.

PS: I would like to address your statement that “All members have felt slighted in Local 798 for many years. We were all without proper representation”. I think I should point out to you and the voting membership that Candidate Joe Cuervo was part of those Executive Boards for according to him at least twelve (12) years. He either agreed with how the Local was being run, or he sat idly by while as you say the Local delved into a crisis situation. Did his silence speak his consent? And by the way, why is it that you are responding to my platform and not Candidate Cuervo? Are you running for a second office? Or do you speak for him?

From: Andrew C. Lavanziano (A Brief Response to Alan D’Angerio & Francesca Paris)

Dear Alan and Francesca,
Let me educate you a little about myself because you obviously have not done your proper homework. I will address your letter which you have so graciously mailed to even me, thank you. My time however, would be better spent in helping those out there with problems right now. The fact that I have to waste valuable time with your ill informed correspondence to the membership is of concern to me and to many others as well. All of the documentation to answers #1,4,6 & 9 has already been filed federally or with the office.

#1 I do not aspire to be the union’s stockbroker or accountant, however don’t you think it is wise for someone to speak the same language as the people we hire for this. I for one would like to know that we are not being ripped off. Although it is not a big part as you suggest, I believe the word you used was miniscule. Is it miniscule to be able to talk to an accountant or investment advisor about the almost 2 million in our Treasury as of 12/31 2004 of which over 1 million is in a mutual fund, a little over 7 million in our welfare fund and 23.5 million in our pension fund???

#2 There were too many referral numbers to list, however as stated in my cover letter with the Building a Stronger Union Platform you’ll see I will be glad to present them to all that ask.

#3 I am familiar with contract negotiations and I have gone through all of our contracts. I have discussed with other members and shop stewards to find out what they would like to see in their upcoming renewals and surveys will be out to the rest of the membership.

#4 As a Trustee on the P&W Fund I am very aware of the healthcare situation, especially since I have been under our plan for the past two years. Where did you get your information from? You should fire this person.

#5 Now, I ask you, do you actually think that I would be as careless and stupid as to use my securities firm to personally capitalize on our member’s funds? You really have no idea what it is you are trying to imply do you?

#6 Oh, and by the way, fire the person who told you I only worked part time as well. Or have them go to the office and find out next time. If you like I can give you the company manager’s phone number from Aida who saw that I got my check every week for almost two years.

#7 Just because I chose to work with other members instead of partaking in 798’s reform doesn’t mean that no effort was made.

#8 I never said that I would participate in the candidate forum. What I said was that my correspondence would be few and I’d rather have the membership e-mail me personally or call me. At least then I know who it is I am dealing with and not some anonymous hostile person.

#9 As far as attending meetings don’t worry we’ll get to that issue in my response to sister Gleason’s letter to the membership.

So I hope this now clears things up to everyone who you so diligently sent letters to.
Do us all a favor; don’t quit your day job!

My apologies to the other members who have to have their valuable time wasted as well. I’d rather be working for you then to have to answer these letters.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We are writing this letter with many concerns for the destiny of Local 798. You should understand the newly founded position of Secretary Treasurer is the bloodline of our local. This position is not meant for someone with aspirations of being our stockbroker or accountant. Those positions are already filled in the office. The Sec/Treasurer’s daily monitoring of both is a miniscule part of the Secretary/Treasurer’s job.

The Secretary/Treasurer is first and foremost our daily director of the Business Agent and Field Representative and our spokesperson. If any member has a complaint on a job, they are to directly contact the Sec/Treas and he, in turn, tells the BA or the FR exactly HOW to handle the situation. This position not only represents our work situation, our Sec/Treas is responsible in overseeing all contract negotiation proposals and will be required to attend contract negotiations to uphold our best interests. Most importantly, he will be a Trustee on the P&W board with a major influence on both the healthcare and pension situation. Considering he will be in position on the P&W Board and negotiating for us as soon as December of this year, wouldn’t you, as a member, want to be represented by someone who actually knows the healthcare situation first hand?

The fact that Andrew Lavanziano claims, in his cover letter, that his resume makes him the most well rounded candidate for position of Secretary/Treasurer in 798 is absurd! Mr. Lavenziano’s resume states that he has a full time (or is it part time?) job at Westrock Advisors (note: no referral #’s for any of his “credentials” are attached) and has worked mostly part time (for a few years) as a hairdresser on Broadway. We’d like to know if he was even planning on quitting his job – or is he planning on collecting two salaries and giving a half hearted effort to each one? Could it be possible that Mr. Lavenziano is planning on referring our stock business to the other company he works for - in a direct conflict of interest and for his own personal profit? Andrew Lavenziano’s lack of work experience in all categories (he has never worked in film or TV) of Local 798 makes him an unfavorable candidate. The fact that he has never worked enough to even qualify for our healthcare plan is proof that he should not represent us on a P&W board.

As members of Local 798 for over 30 years, we would not feel confident in calling Andrew Lavenziano (who has only been a part time 798 member on Broadway for 6 years) to help us with any work situation or contractual problem. Looking at his resume alone tells us his lack of work history in Local 798 makes him extremely unqualified to answer any of our questions. After a year of cleaning out the E-Board and the corruption, we would not want to see all of our efforts destroyed by Andrew Lavenziano (who made no effort to partake in 798’s reform), simply because he has almost no knowledge of this business and would have to defer to the Business Agent for advice as the old regime did.

We would also like to address the fact that Mr. Lavenziano has not responded to questions posed to him on the www.798members.com website. By Mr. Lavenziano not taking the time to at least post responses in the candidate forum that he agreed to participate in, shows that he is either: not interested in the members concerns, does not know how to answer the questions, or is only concerned about his best interests. Remember, he attended only one union meeting in six years to have himself nominated for a paid position. Where has he been for the last six years? What has he done to help Local 798 to date? Is he even truly aware of the Local’s problems during the last 18 months? We need an experienced 798 member for Secretary/Treasurer who we know has our best interests in mind. In summation and for the sake of this local, please SUPPORT JOE CUERVO!

Fraternally,

From: IATSE Local 798 President Kelly Gleason (In response to Andrew C. Lavenziano's platform and proposals)

I appreciate you finally posting a platform. I can understand that you try to look at the Local from a business standpoint. As you have stated "knowledge is power". Unfortunately, after reading your platform, I realize that you have no knowledge of how a union local operates. I broke down most of your proposal and will try to explain to you how an autonomous union local actually functions.

1) The insurance plan is a one year plan that everyone wants. A 6 month plan was boycotted last November (should've gone to that meeting). A 6 month plan will leave most people uninsured because there isn't enough work. The 6 month plans qualification periods are May-October and November - April. Anyone who knows film business cycles is aware that the work starts to dwindle around Thanksgiving and doesn't pick up again until mid March. That leaves about 2.5 months to qualify for health insurance coverage in the summer.

2) The IA did not accept us into their plan. John Hall had approached them earlier this year.

3) The welfare fund is in such bad shape because the last Trustees did not negotiate a better plan. For over a decade, they ran the same healthcare plan and siphoned money off of the reserve fund.

4) In the next contract negotiation, the BA will have to try to increase our P&W instead of a pay raise - that will affect us for 3 years

Your Proposal to save administrative costs by merging Locals would be the death to all Locals. The reasons this would be a very bad idea are: (Andrew's proposals regarding merging our local can be found here)

1) As Local 798 Hair and Makeup artists, we are autonomous and have a craft identity

2) Our business Agent negotiates contracts tailored to our specific needs in every state - which differ from a studio mechanic or a grip or camera operator. A Business Agent for a generic (or mixed) Local - as you propose - would not negotiate in any craft’s favor. We would get a generic contract that is not craft/work specific and cheats everyone. Combining locals and crossing craft identity would be like combining 798 with the postal workers or bus drivers union.

4) We would lose our pension as the NABET 15 members did in their absorption into 798.

5) We would lose our building – in mergers all assets go to the IATSE (see IATSE constitution)

6) Our contracts would be dropped and our pay would be scaled down. That is the fight now in the Jurisdiction; members are being shortchanged by the Studio Mechanic's contracts, such as the Area Standard Agreement.

8) You would be out of a job - with your downsizing proposal, the position of 798 Secretary Treasurer - along with the entire Executive Board - would be deleted! (Especially if we were to be absorbed by Local 1).

9) We would never have a chance of quality control in our membership's talent, nor would we be able to offer classes - a Mixed Local does not cater to any individual craft within its body.

Local Charters are given out under the parenthood of the International. Each Local is specifically craft oriented and the Business Agent is responsible for negotiating within the working parameters of that craft. The Business Agent position was just amended constitutionally so an impartial Business Agent could represent the local. The Secretary Treasurer was voted on from within the ranks because we need a person who has full knowledge about how a union and its locals function. They are basically “holding down the fort” to prevent corruption.

Opening up 798's building as a salon. The entire membership is the shareholder of Local 798 Realty. There in itself is a whole host of problems: (Andrew's 798 Hair Salon Proposal can be found here)

1) First of all, how would 1200 members create a steady clientele and how do you propose to delegate a fair work schedule to them?

3) We would have to maintain liability insurance to cover each of these workers.

4) Under our Constitution and By-laws, no member needs to be licensed to work in a union. This proposal would require all hair and make-up people to get cosmetology and esthetician's licenses necessary to work in the private sector.

5) Most people chose the Local because they do not want to deal with the public.

The Real Estate issue has been worked on for several months. There are many factors as to why nothing has been acted upon: (Andrew's proposals regarding our real estate situation can be found here)

1) The Trustees were kind enough not to take action in the destiny of our building. They felt it belonged to the members and should be left to the members to decide what to do with it. Therefore, no decisions or actions can be made until the Executive board is in place and they can present options to the membership.

2) Refinancing the mortgage may be difficult with the lien and a few lawsuits against the building - again, this is only something the Executive Board can act upon.

3) The air rights cannot be utilized until Richard Callaghan's lease expires in 2009.

4) At the membership meeting, we learned that the management/real estate companies were not interested in the building until the Executive Board was in place and official business could be transacted.

5) Contractual bids are pending the December 12th meeting

Thank you for reading my real estate report posted on this site. I wish you had chose to participate in the beginning and will possibly consider assisting us in the future.

Membership Involvement (Andrew's proposals involving membership involvement can be found here)

2) The Constitution is being rewritten by the Constitution Committee. The constitution we are following now, has not only been dubbed "illegal" by our Trustees, it has not been updated since 1985.

3) In the Constitution, meetings are held every month. The day has to change from Monday so all members are able to participate. Monday night's meetings are almost impossible for film, television, and even a few Broadway members to attend.

4) The old regime opposed a website, and for that matter truly open communication. That is why www.798members.com was created. Because of the corruption, members wanted to reach the rest of the membership through the Internet, and it was done at members costs - it is not an official site. The Executive Board has to allocate money after they are in place to the Communications Committee. Most of the official website is already outlined and a proposal including costs associated will be made to the new E-Board as soon as it’s in place & official business can be transacted. The committee has been in place & their research completed for some months already. It was commissioned by Trustee John Hall.

1) Every contract is important. Most contracts in the past were negotiated by other Locals since our Business Agent was a no show. We have lost insurmountable benefits because of this such as: vacation pay, early call & night premium, tiered weekend premiums, etc.

2) Most members aren't interested in attending contract negotiation for fear of retribution. If a contract is negotiated right, you will not exactly be the best friend of production.

3) Contract proposals are the BA's responsibility and should be approved by the Executive Board and the Jurisdiction Stewards (after having gone through the negotiations Committee)

All members have felt slighted in Local 798 for many years. We were all without proper representation and had taken to negotiating our own contracts. Over the last 18 months we have worked in ratifying the Local. I see that you have ideas, but you unfortunately are uninformed and should have participated in meetings, committees, and discussions to fully understand the functions of a labor organization and the membership's needs particular to our local. I merely feel that you are not yet qualified to be our Sec/Treasurer because you lack knowledge. If you are sincerely interested, please join a committee and spend time learning about the Local. In three years you can run again with an informed platform.

Fraternally,

First, I would like to extend a CONGRATULATIONS to ALL members of 798: secondly, I THANK those members who uncovered the fraud that was being perpetrated against our Local : who organized and were tenacious in their pursuit for truth and justice: who dedicated hours of unpaid time to methodically wade through the miasma of deception- at their own expense-: who showed that we, in a grass-roots movement, CAN make a difference: that we are NOT apathetic - we are, in fact , pro-active. We are a "union." We are a perfect microcosm of democracy in action: open channels of information , communication, exchange of ideas. It's all a learning process. Sometimes maybe it will be uncomfortable, maybe there will be a delay in gratification, but it's all for the greater good. We are a vital, viable organization and we can implement change. To those members nominated to the Executive board - welcome and congratulations to you all .The task before you is formidable - and exciting. I look foreword to the fruits of your tenure (oh, right--delayed vs. immediate gratification) and offer you my support. Personally, for the position of Secretary/Treasurer I support Mr. Joe Cuervo. I know Joe has a long history of experience within the craft and is highly regarded, not just for his level of skills, but for his perspectives, his humor, his considered opinion- by his peers and his employers. Joe has a significant track record of service in 798 over the years. I only know him to be thoughtful, curious, diligent, self-motivated. I know that Joe has been very dedicated in laying the groundwork for real change, especially regarding our health care issues/ qualifiers - for all members, in spite of the International Trustees- in this past year OK, why am I also writing ? Outside solicitation. Tonight a women telephoned me at my home, to query me on my familiarity with a Mr.Andrew Lavenziano (I only first heard of his name one week ago--ever) . She wanted to encourage me to vote for him Dec. 12. She did not identify herself. I asked what her name was. She hesitated. I said "you're calling me at my house, who are you?" She offered a first name. I asked her ," only a first name? are you in the Local? Which craft are in?" She was reticent, NOT forthcoming Finally, she admitted that she was NOT a member of the Local but ..."hadn't I heard of campaigning"? So, Mr. Lavenziano, I must say that your methodology, to me , is questionable. Your associate didn't even seem to know that we utilize an independent balloting company. Tonight Mr. L.- I feel that you invaded my privacy.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We are writing this letter with many concerns for the destiny of Local 798. You should understand the newly founded position of Secretary Treasurer is the bloodline of our local. This position is not meant for someone with aspirations of being our stockbroker or accountant. Those positions are already filled in the office. The Sec/Treasurer’s daily monitoring of both is a miniscule part of the Secretary/Treasurer’s job.

The Secretary/Treasurer is first and foremost our daily director of the Business Agent and Field Representative and our spokesperson. If any member has a complaint on a job, they are to directly contact the Sec/Treas and he, in turn, tells the BA or the FR exactly HOW to handle the situation. This position not only represents our work situation, our Sec/Treas is responsible in overseeing all contract negotiation proposals and will be required to attend contract negotiations to uphold our best interests. Most importantly, he will be a Trustee on the P&W board with a major influence on both the healthcare and pension situation. Considering he will be in position on the P&W Board and negotiating for us as soon as December of this year, wouldn’t you, as a member, want to be represented by someone who actually knows the healthcare situation first hand?

The fact that Andrew Lavanziano claims, in his cover letter, that his resume makes him the most well rounded candidate for position of Secretary/Treasurer in 798 is absurd! Mr. Lavenziano’s resume states that he has a full time (or is it part time?) job at Westrock Advisors (note: no referral #’s for any of his “credentials” are attached) and has worked mostly part time (for a few years) as a hairdresser on Broadway. We’d like to know if he was even planning on quitting his job – or is he planning on collecting two salaries and giving a half hearted effort to each one? Could it be possible that Mr. Lavenziano is planning on referring our stock business to the other company he works for - in a direct conflict of interest and for his own personal profit? Andrew Lavenziano’s lack of work experience in all categories (he has never worked in film or TV) of Local 798 makes him an unfavorable candidate. The fact that he has never worked enough to even qualify for our healthcare plan is proof that he should not represent us on a P&W board.

As members of Local 798 for over 30 years, we would not feel confident in calling Andrew Lavenziano (who has only been a part time 798 member on Broadway for 6 years) to help us with any work situation or contractual problem. Looking at his resume alone tells us his lack of work history in Local 798 makes him extremely unqualified to answer any of our questions. After a year of cleaning out the E-Board and the corruption, we would not want to see all of our efforts destroyed by Andrew Lavenziano (who made no effort to partake in 798’s reform), simply because he has almost no knowledge of this business and would have to defer to the Business Agent for advice as the old regime did.

We would also like to address the fact that Mr. Lavenziano has not responded to questions posed to him on the www.798members.com website. By Mr. Lavenziano not taking the time to at least post responses in the candidate forum that he agreed to participate in, shows that he is either: not interested in the members concerns, does not know how to answer the questions, or is only concerned about his best interests. Remember, he attended only one union meeting in six years to have himself nominated for a paid position. Where has he been for the last six years? What has he done to help Local 798 to date? Is he even truly aware of the Local’s problems during the last 18 months? We need an experienced 798 member for Secretary/Treasurer who we know has our best interests in mind. In summation and for the sake of this local, please SUPPORT JOE CUERVO!

Fraternally,

A LETTER TO THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP OF LOCAL 798 OCTOBER 25, 2005

Regarding Trusteeship

This is a friendly reminder of what we have been through, and what positive directions we need to continue to follow.

As we all now know, our local was in a steady decline for years. At the time, some members knew this and turned a blind eye, while others were completely unaware. Through diligent investigation, reform minded members came to understand how seriously misguided and corrupt our local had become. They, in turn, informed other members. The manipulation of facts and the gall of those involved is still staggering. The mismanagement of our Local and its assets was literally criminal. This discovery resulted in Trusteeship due to the IATSE’s proven allegation of financial malpractice and loss of democratic procedure. Soon after, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Labor and Racketeering Unit convicted our former Business Agent of two class E felonies. We should not forget that a majority of the general membership failed to participate mostly due to fear of retribution or lack of interest, and therein, failed itself.

When Trusteeship was imposed upon us, there were many questions and concerns. John Hall and Mike Proscia were installed by the IATSE to stop the damage and rebuild our local. As is usually expected by the Department of Labor, the Trustees involved the membership in the reform process. This was done through the formation of a number of voluntary Advisory Committees and various sub-committees assigned to investigate and report on specific union problems. Many members created strong bonds to the Jurisdiction and our segregation from Broadway ended. There are no more secrets. Trusteeship has benefited us all.

Recently, John Hall expressed on behalf of the IATSE that Trusteeship would end “as early as possible in 2006.” Apparently, the International feels that, through joint efforts of the committees, greater participation at meetings and the fact that the membership is embracing itself as a solid unit, the “State of Emergency” is over. The International will be returning our sovereignty, and we will again be expected to govern ourselves within the IA.

The first step will be voting on important amendments to our Constitution and then the nominations of a new E-Board at the Membership Meeting on Monday, November 7th.

The proposed changes to our Constitution will allow us to do what nearly every other major local does already. It will allow us to be represented by a professional Business Agent who is not a member of our local and does not have Executive Board power. In the past, our contracts were always negotiated by one of our members. This did not prove to always be in our best interest. Please understand that the proposed amendment would not exclude the hiring of any qualified member; it simply allows for hiring of the most qualified person. The second half of the amendment is to create a full time, elected, Secretary/Treasurer position, another staple in every major Local. This position will provide the Executive Board and all of the members full-disclosed knowledge of the union’s financial affairs.

We need a quorum on Monday, November 7th (545 West 45th Street 2nd floor – 7pm) to vote on our amendments and to nominate Executive Board candidates. Everyone’s participation is imperative to our advancement of Local 798.

With your best interests in mind,
The Concerned Members

To the "concerned members",

How did I know none of you would have the nerve to respond? Or is the truth that you have nothing to say? The International is simply paying to placate the big mouths to the detriment of our local. Exactly what did the "committee" accomplish by being in Hawaii? When is anyone going to realize that the most likely scenario for 798 is that it will begin to erode at the regional level, as in all of our outlaying areas will end up in mechanics locals and then come down to us in NYC. You all won't be so triumphant when the 706 people are coming in to take your jobs. Has the committee done anything about the fact that since Ed Callaghan was in office films come in from LA and don't even have to have stand bys. Do you think you could go to LA and do that? The fact is that nothing has changed since Vince has left office. The old boy network hasn't been displaced and it never will be. Besides myself there is only one other person who could make a difference running the local and I'm not saying this out of vanity.

If the "concerned members" try to ram this ammendment through it will be a disaster. People who are really "concerned" should demand a referendum vote. Let the membership decide, not a bunch of rabble rousers.

Dear Fellow Members,

The International is planning to break our local. They think that we are too much trouble and they want to merge us with another local as soon as possible. If you people let this happen you are as stupid as they think you are. By having a paid Secretary Treasurer and an outside BA they will bankrupt the local very quickly. The trustees have put all the big mouths into positions of power and wined and dined everyone in Hawaii at the expense of whom? The members. Wake up and see the handwriting on the wall. They plan to put through this last absurd "ammendment" [sic] without referendum to the membership. Why is no one screaming about how much the trustees are spending? Why are the "concerned " members suddenly so placated? Ask yourself these questions. What about the last letter from the trustees? Why are we suddenly operating at a defecit [sic] ? Mark my words, they want this local gone. If we don't prevent it we will be part of Mechanics Local 52 before the next calendar year. The first step will be merging our funds with Motion Picture. If you think this is a great idea get used to the idea of having an HMO as your only choice and a retirement benefit more than $20 less than what we enjoy now. Let's see if anyone has the balls to respond to this email or if you even post it.

A Really Concerned Member.

To all the concerned members, that keep on asking , " what happend to the committee that was to be form or selected. Well, I have been selected. My name is Victor DE Nicola, jr. I am a member of the concerned members of 798 and I just recently as last week received a letter from Mr. Hall informing me that I was select as one of six to sit on this advisory board or committee. I know for a great many of you things seemed to slow up and got quiet, I am not going to venture as
to why.. I do
know that a great many of we concerned members continued to meet and had a meeting as recently as Sunday Feb. 27th, at Nola's studio.. I wrote the members here on the Web site shortly after we went into receivership and mentioned the fact that there were many pros and con's to trusteeship , but felt then as I do now
that in ways it might just work to the members benefit. Things were a mess
and I
don't have to tell anyone that we all pretty much knew, so I ask, all of you, that with a little patience give the situation time to be worked out.. I am not suggesting by any means that we all sit back and let time pass , we concerned members realize that members have to keep abreast of things going on, and constantly address the progress , but with understanding that the mess will take time to rectify. I personally want to thank those who continue to voice their feelings and thoughts on this Web site , especially Felice Diamond , who has written extremely good letters to the union office as well as here on our web site. Her suggested letter or format for others to copy was well done. I don't mean to only single out Felice, because there have been others all you have to do is visit the site every few days.
I chose to write everyone on this the e-mail site because I wanted it to be more personal rather then just factual. I was appointed to the TV. and Tape sector of the six member group, there is also a Broadway and a film. Two people, a hair and a make-up from each of the 3 sectors. I urge all those who read this letter to please give serious thought this our Union , and if anyone has any good suggestions or ideas that they feel will be beneficial to all, please contact me either on my e-mail, ( vicdenicola @ aol.com or by mail at my home..189-39 45th road, Auburndale, New York 11358. You , can even call me at 917 841-9925 and leave me a message and I' all get back to you... Remember , this is not my Union , this is ours , everyone's
and we should all do our part to make it good and something we can all be
proud of.
fraternally yours, victor de Nicola, jr

It appears that the water is settling. Might this be a positive sign? In reading a recent post on John Hall's character, it seems we are in good hands while under Receivership. Regarding Mr. Halls letter about the upcoming Informational Meeting, there are many candidates to concider for this "advisory committee". A lot of members have shown their commitment, on and off this Forum. Where a lot of observations and questions were raised, sometimes in heated debates or perhaps "tongue in cheek", they were meant to stimulate conversation and encourage acknowledgement of what had gone awry in our Local (ie: Lack of Participation). Where the Seated Members will solely be at the discretion of the Trustees, hopefully in the near future, the Rank and File will have absolute power in Vote for our future BA and Board. In the mean time, those appointed will have our faith and best interests.
Fraternally. Jeffrey Rebelo.

Personal Note: Thank you to all the persons involved for their determination and spirit in making this a stronger Union. Where a lot of pending legal issues still need to unfold, hopefully we can soon start anew with a clean slate.

I have been a member of this union for a short while and I feel that I've been dropped into a situation that frightens me.

I joined this union because I felt it was time that I took my makeup career to a higher level of production work, working with professionals, and get what I feel was deserved in return. i.e.: better money and a future.

Now, because of my ignorance to past history in this union I feel that I must listen to all sides and watch.

I'm extremely concerned with the possible loss of monies that all members are entitled to. With how the production world will view this and how this effect the power of the union bargaining with said production companies?

I mean I enjoy working as a makeup artist, working with so many individuals that I know of and look up to.

So, as a song says, "where do we go from here?"