During my term at AFTRA H&R, I discovered a technical error in the language of one of the CBA’s. It was clearly unintentional and undoubtedly stemmed from the fact that old language had been carried forward when some other provisions had been amended in subsequent negotiations. As the AFTRA employers thrived on ambiguities in the contract, I suggested to union officials that a correction be made in the next negotiation.

“Can’t do it,” I was told, “They’ll want something in return for fixing the problem.”

“Even if it is a mutual problem?”

“Especially if it is a mutual problem.”

The old, ambiguous, self-contradictory language is still in the latest version of that Code. The risk it represent is still there. If that provision had been covered by a Sunset Clause, it would have been on the table and fixed without the need to exchange anything else for the correction.

Thanks to the Sunset Clause, the AMPTP doesn’t have the luxury of that position in regard to new media terms. They cannot ask for concessions elsewhere to renegotiate those terms. They have committed to revisiting the subject, and revisiting it from Page 1, Line 1. If they don’t, the NLRB can tell them they have to.

Of course, the Sunset Clause will only be effective if the AMPTP abides by it, or if they are forced to abide by it. It doesn’t mean they are going to act like angels at the table the next time around. It means, however, they can be forced to live up to the promises they made in this contract to start over.

Are they on notice from the beginning that won’t be acceptable? Sure. And so far as I know, there is general agreement that everyone on both sides of the table knew the original DVD deal was “temporary” too, at the time. I’m not saying the sunset clause has no value at all, but I think the value is actually the promise from guild leadership to its members rather than any impact on AMPTP’s position on the matter. Where it is still problematic is there is no way to remove the original deal from the context when the discussions start next time. Any discussion will still get framed as relative improvement from that baseline. “7/14″ residual-free streaming still becomes “50% better! –how can they reject a 50% improvement?!”

This is not an intellectually indefenisble position. The financial losses in this three year cycle pale compare to the losses over the next 25 (or more) years if they are right. I know that’s not a comfort for those with the tyranny of a mortgage payment to make in the interim.

What it rests on, however, is the idea that *no one else* in the labor end of the industry learned anything from the DVD experience. Not U4S, not WGA majority, not WGA minority, not *any* of the creative guilds. You can say the sunset provisions aren’t really binding on AMPTP, and that’s true, but they are psychologically binding on the guilds, and their members are not likely to let that promise go unfulfilled.

Here’s the main difference between MF, and the rest of the board.

For MF – a stike is the goal.

For the rest – a strike is a tool in obtaining the goal, a contract.

Which would you rather have on your board?

–

WW Response – I think that may be a bit unfair to MF (hard as that may be to believe.) I don’t think their goal is a strike. They simply don’t have a clue as to how to negotiate a contract without one. They keep repeating that fiction that the only way actors ever get anything is a strike.

That’s crap. That’s stupid. But you’ll never convince them of that.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) more or less kept the global peace for 60 years, but it has to be credible on both sides to work. . .