If SAG were the union WITH a contract and AFTRA was in the spot we’re in, I can’t see us SAG members being willing to forgo work under SAG during an AFTRA strike. Furthermore, the “no-strike” clause in our contracts would forbid us from creating what – as VG suggests – would amount to a secondary strike. We’d have a ratified contract, and should report to work.

The point is to make a living.

V.

AFTRA members who voted to ratify the Exhibit A deal reasonably believe that they voted to keep working. Those members who are dual cardholders have never been given the opportunity to vote yea or nay on SAG’s version of the deal. It is therefore debatable, at best, as to which side (AFTRA or SAG) holds the moral high ground in this situation.

For SAG to try to intimidate AFTRA members (whether or not dual cardholders) into not working on AFTRA productions during a SAG strike would be dicey. Whatever the actual legalities are — and I don’t know who I would even trust to answer that question — there may be some people (particularly dual cardholders) who would CHOOSE not to audition for an AFTRA production where the production company also happened to be a SAG signatory that was being struck. But there are surely others who understood that when they voted to ratify the AFTRA deal they were accepting its terms, and intended to work under those terms. For SAG to rattle its sabers at those people seems at least morally, if not legally, dubious. It would succeed primarily in exacerbating the already massive polarization and dissension within SAG.

Let us hope that better sense prevails during the upcoming mediation sessions so that we never have to find out what the limits of SAG’s authority may be.

VG

So much for union solidarity.

–

Ed. Comment – To us, it seems more like they’re actors, looking for accurate information on the effects of any potential strike.

It seems like a different situation for an AFTRA member to accept work within AFTRA’s jurisdiction from an employer against whom SAG is striking. If the AFTRA signatory can’t hire people, arguably it violates the no-strike clause in AFTRA’s contract. Also, the 4A policy smacks of an illegal secondary boycott, although I doubt if there is any direct legal authority on the question.

In any event, employers will have plenty of warning if and when a strike authorization is sought, and will undoubtedly take whatever strategic steps they deem prudent. I for one am hopeful that the mediation process will yield results. No one thought it would work for Boeing either, and it did (after five straight days, in the context of a going strike that was costing Boeing $100 million per day in lost revenue).

VG

Who really is to say WHO has not been bargaining in good faith? You? Me? Alan Rosenberg? SAG’s Negotiating Committee “leadership” are some of the most intractable individuals I have ever met. The one positive thing that has happened on the SAG side of these negotiations has been the recent Hollywood elections where a good portion of this “leadership” was tossed out of the board room. The entire approach of the Neg Comm has been thus repudiated by SAG member/voters.

I know one highly-charged Membership First backer who works regularly as background/stand-in for an AFTRA show. A show that SAG presumably could strike if “Mike” is correct in his premise. He/she would HAVE to continue to work in the event of a SAG strike against their producers or a) legally lose their bread & butter jobs, or b) (less likely) be sued.

“An AFTRA/SAG actor should not WANT to hurt their other union(SAG) by working for a producer that SAG has been forced to call strike against.”

It’s not a matter of “WANTING” to “hurt” their union – it’s a matter of being caught in a trap NOT of their own making. The vast majority of working SAG actors did NOT want SAG to throw AFTRA out of the SAG negotiating room and did NOT agree with Membership First’s flawed “strategy” in approaching the AMPTP. The bunch that has maneuvered SAG into a deleveraged position – for the most part – would not be seriously hurt by a strike. Unfortunately, they are aiming their ego-driven dick-swinging guns at other working actors.

To suggest or imply that these rogue union Usuals are more “patriotic” or “union-faithful” than working actors who want to keep working is merely toeing the Membership First party line.

“Depending on the show, they could [theoretically] do it with ONLY contracted actors (no guest/co stars) and continue production. They could even use “featured background” actors.”

That is probably correct the “featured background” if union, even though technically not under contract, “might” be obligated to continue working if they had been established in a regular settings. For the sake of continuity.

Regarding this statement by Tom Ligon:

” Also, there is no SAG rule against working in another union’s jurisdiction while SAG strikes.
If anyone thinks there is such a rule, I’d like to have it pointed out to me.”

I never said there was such a SAG rule.

However, there is 4A’s rule that prevents actors that are not under contract from working for a producer that a sister union is striking. That would undermine the sister unions strike.

The only way SAG will strike is if the producers are not bargaining in good faith, after the membership votes for a strike authorization.

Why would an AFTRA actor, under those circumstances, WANT to work for a producer that is not bargaining in good faith with SAG. That SAG is forced to call strike against?

An AFTRA/SAG actor should not WANT to hurt their other union(SAG) by working for a producer that SAG has been forced to call strike against..

Also, there is no SAG rule against working in another union’s jurisdiction while SAG strikes.
If anyone thinks there is such a rule, I’d like to have it pointed out to me.

It would be interesting to see SAG attempt to strike against producers in another union’s jurisdiction.
It would also be interesting to see SAG issue a strike order
seeking to prevent SAG members working in another union’s jurisdiction.

Perhaps – along with all the other enormous costs of a strike -
Duncan Crabtree Ireland – SAG’s head of Legal -
could put together an entirely separate legal department of a half dozen or so lawyers & support staff
to deal just with the litigation that would arise from such actions.

I know this because I have a client on an AFTRA show (with a relatively large cast) and that’s their SAG strike contingency plan, cleared through the production company’s legal beagles.

All other SAG or AFTRA actors should not accept employment from struck producers.

It depends on the whether or not production company, the guy works for, is struck by SAG.

Some production companies have shows under AFTRA as well as SAG jurisdiction.
Dual card members that are under contract to the production company would be obligated to keep working. Dual card members, that are not under contract to the production company, could not accept work while SAG is striking the production company. Yes, even though the show is AFTRA.

That would eliminate dual union (SAG/AFTRA) actors from accepting work on this AFTRA show. Single card AFTRA members, also cannot accept work if they are not under contract to the show, because of 4A’s rules.

–

Ed. Comment: We believe that advice to be incorrect. If a production company has a signed union contract covering a production and personal service contracts covering the employees on that production, it would be illegal not to honor the contracts.