Handel: White Confident TV-Theatrical Will Ratify
An interesting read: Jonathan Handel’s account of his two hour interview with interim NED David White. White expresses confidence that the tentative TV-Theatrical contract will be ratified, in spite of opposition from SAG President Alan Rosenberg’s Membership First faction.
Here’s an excerpt:
White’s confidence in the possibility of future upgrades led me to pose a question actors ask from time to time: do the studios want to break the union? His answer turned on the intermittent nature of entertainment employment: “Employers have a natural incentive to want weaker bargaining partners, but employers also understand that if unions didn’t exist they’d have to invent them. Unions are the glue,†White added, that allows actors to receive compensation between gigs (i.e., in the form of residuals), that deal with healthcare costs, and with pursuing claims when workers are wronged. He added that having union contracts in place lowers transaction costs—that is, the existence of the union agreement makes it unnecessary for producers to repeatedly negotiate minimum terms with each individual actor.
White’s comments expand on those he made to the Los Angeles Times. It’s definitely worth a click.
the con statement refers to non union on internet to coming in at 25K or less/min. I thought the original was at 15K did this change in he final version?
No, Kathy-it says that internet production coming in at 25K or less will have no residuals. It does not say it is non-union. That number is still $15,000. This tells me that the AMPTP is going to try their damndest to keep these productions under 25K a minute, and make sure they lock this formula in for future cycles. Say goodbye to residuals, folks!
It’s also nice how Handel only asked softball questions to the compliant NED, just like a good friend of the AMPTP would. He didn’t ask how this contract differs from the one earlier that he said “sucks.” Because the answer is that it’s actually worse: He sold out millions in FJ money, now and very possibly in the future as well, for the very uncertain possibility of banding together with the 4 other unions-something that has never happened and likely will not.
I agree with White’s comments that the guild is a necessary component for the employers-but they sure want a weak one, which is what they have now. He’s delusional if he thinks this is good framework upon which to improve the deal. As I have suggested, how come he didn’t insist on a small DVD bump as a show of good faith that the employers intend to revisit new media in 2 years? I guess he was merely carrying on the complicit nature of his buddy, Bob Pisano.
“It’s also nice how Handel only asked softball questions to the compliant NED, just like a good friend of the AMPTP would.”
What a surprise. If you oppose MF you must be an AMPTP shill or appeaser, right, Matthew? That really moves things forward.
As White’s “sucks” comment was directed to the three-year AMPTP proposal, the differences should be clear to anyone who wants to look past the sound bite to the actual facts. I’m not asking you to strain yourself and do this, because you are clearly comfortable relying on less-than-complete information.
You really should try to get someone explain how you get from voting down the current proposal to substantive gains, other than dreaming that such an action would “place the burden on the employers to make good on their stated intent to find labor peace, and to negotiate a fair settlement to avoid a work stoppage.”
You, and MF, have to face the reality that the “burden” won’t be on the AMPTP, it will be on SAG to come up with a proposal that meets their demands and somehow is acceptable to the AMPTP. It isn’t the AMPTP who didn’t deliver labor peace. You’re going to have to remember they accomplished that with everyone but SAG. What makes you think that public perception will be that everyone is out of step but SAG? Face it, Matthew, the “education” programs used by MF when they had power focused more on abusing opponents than they were enlightening. Do you think this is going to change?
The entire industry won’t be angry with the AMPTP, they will, as they should, be angry with SAG. Are you prepared for the astounding amount of villification that is going to come to SAG? Or don’t you care because no one knows precisely who you are?
You, along with MF, appear to believe a better deal is attainable, but the Con statement is significantly silent on how you’re supposed to get there, other than voting down this contract and expecting the AMPTP to collapse due to public pressure that really doesn’t exist.
I’d love to hear someone explain the strategy, and not just give a pep talk about how SAG has to be tough and that will somehow be enough.
And tell me how you justify starting the Con statement starting with a scare headline from 2007 about executives wanting to end residuals when they then went ahead and negotiated contracts with every creative union in the business that not only did not end residuals, but expanded them. The tendency of MF to grab a headline and then ask the world to forget what actually happened afterward sounds a lot like the reaction of someone in pure panic mode.
MF’s Con statement breaks down to:
Phase 1 – Vote down this contract
Phase 2 – ?????
Phase 3 – Get a really good contract.
Care to fill in the blanks?
It’s amazing how Matthew and others can feel that simply because we want something in the contract it should be given. I remember when Doug allen would tell the AMPTP that “we deserve it”…and Carole Lambordini would ask him to explain that statement, and he’d answer….”We deserve it.”
When considering any item in the contract one must consider how attainable is it….what might be the giveback to attain something…and how important that item is over other demands. Then when there is no movement the decision is…is it worth striking over, and what will the finaly costs be to the Guild and to its members.
It’s also very easy for MF to run a campaign against a contract by listing demands someone feels should be in there….and never focus on the plus/gains of that same offering.
Should we demand free parking for the entire membership at studio lots or a 50% increase on all rates and residuals? Neither one is attainable and the cost to try would be exhorbitant.
Undeniably these are not good financial times for our MEMBERS. Here’s a contract with increases in pay, in pension contributions, gains in numbers and jurisdiction.
Vote Yes ….
It seems to me the long-term answer on residuals is one percentage of distributor’s gross that applies to everything from the first dollar –broadcast, cable, DVD, “new media”, and anything anyone else invents later to distribute content.
Get the accounting games and manufactured incentives to favor one form of distribution over another out of the way entirely. Start arguing over what’s an appropriate percentage for actors to have of the total pie rather than gamesmanship over what the “pie” is. Use, say, 2002 (or even 1992 to take the impact of the crummy DVD deal out) total distributor revenues and total residuals paid as a baseline percentage and start the negotiation from there.
My impression right now is the actor’s guilds do not want to give up the hard dollar (rather than percentages) residuals in broadcast, which is slowly withering away. . .and the industry does not want to pay real monies on “new media” knowing that the broadcast residuals will be increasingly unprofitable as broadcast revenue declines. My plan above takes both sides favored crutch for why they are being contentious elsewhere away. Deal with the central issue, and do it across the board in a way that won’t incentivize weird results to escape contract provisions elsewhere.
Question, I’m searching searching but not finding with so many posts…when are the ballots due back in again? Thanks!
Ballots are due June 9th, but it would be foolish to wait until the last minute. Mine will be back in the mail within 24 hours of arrival. It doesn’t take that long to color in the “Yes” box and seal it back up in an envelope.
VG
“Ballots must be received via U.S. Mail at the Everett, WA Post Office box no later than 5:00 p.m. (PDT) June 9, 2009.”
Note “received” not “post marked”, and a Washington state address at that. So like VG said, don’t dwaddle until the last minute.
For non-SAG members who make up the “Watch” audience of SAGWatch, can someone post (or link to) the Pro and Con statements that went out with the ballots. After all of the ballyhoo on the blogs and rally rhetoric, I’m curious what the final arguments wound up being for each side.
–
Admin. Response – We did, yesterday!
“That number is still $15,000. This tells me that the AMPTP is going to try their damndest to keep these productions under 25K a minute, and make sure they lock this formula in for future cycles.”
This is completely ridiculous premise. Under this premise AMPTP will seek to make profits using totally non union actor, writers, directors producers, etc. etc. Yeah, all of those union members are going to work non union jobs. That’ll be a cold day in hell. And won’t those productions be the kind of high quality that will garner big profits for the AMPTP members?
“in FJ money,”
What is FJ money?
“how come he didn’t insist on a small DVD bump as a show of good faith that the employers intend to revisit new media in 2 years?”
What a presumptuous statement. How do you know he didn’t?? And why do you think his ‘insisting’ would result in any kind of a DVD bump? Even my grandson understands that ‘wanting’ and ‘getting’ are two different things.
FJ = Force Jejune.
Is Force Jejune the idiot cousin of Force Majeure? Seriously, even Google said “Dude, you’re on your own!”
June 9th. Got it. Thanks! That’s awesome then that all of this should be done with within the next month. FINALLY!
It was a joke, Geo.
Matthew complained that White “sold out millions in FJ money,” which made about as much sense as the rest of his post.
For a touch typist, the M and J are the same finger. So perhaps he’ll just give us the finger in explanation.
By the way … FYI … we always hear the MF talking point about the pre-1974 residuals being exclude…that was one of those items that was never on the table. Some of MF’s claims about what is wrong with this offer are directly attributable to Alan Rosenberg/Doug Allen/ and the MF Negotiation team – the pre-1974 residuals and move-over issues were both accepted/agreed to almost a year ago….anyone who feels these are lacking in the offer can than AR/DA/MF …
Matthew,
Your pointless “doom and gloom” diatribe is apparently never ending. Voting the TV/Theatrical Contract “up” does not mean the end of residuals in even the bleakest sense. The paradigm of residuals has shifted entirely, and while that makes us all nervous, they are not gone. A formula for new media residuals will not cover the losses incurred by that shift, particularly when per event revenues are so low, nor can it be addressed by SAG alone. WE DON’T HAVE THE SINGULAR POWER! You can eat barbeque in Griffith Park all day long with fired execs and that won’t change. A strike by SAG won’t change it. This whole issue will have to be addressed when a coalition of union organizations goes to the wall two years from now. “Now or never” is a bad strategy without a back up plan, and it is clear MF has no back up plan. AFTRA is too smart to be “purged.” Prudence will have to be our strength in the interim. And patience does not make us weak. Vote YES! to the current TV/Theatrical Contract or risk becoming irrelevant in two short years.
If you pull from your shelf the old contract book and compare it to the new and less improved and diminished contract ..or do you not have that old book on your shelf?? I would encourage a person to vote no unless you have all your information to make a proper vote..
only a predator would have you vote yes through ignorance
–
WW Response – Only a weak producer like you would make a post like that one. If there’s a difference, why don’t YOU identify it?
Could it be because you can’t?
David, you wrote (above) and I quote–
“I would encourage a person to vote no unless you have all your information to make a proper vote.”
Well, the proper information can be found at http://www.sag.org and it came in the mail today with my ballot for the TV/Theatrical contract, and with all that proper information–
I VOTED YES! Thanks for coming around to common sense, David!
This kind of ignorant comment just makes me furious. It makes me think that qualified voting should be based on a literacy test, or maybe an IQ test.
I publicly challenge David Hillberg to point to even one single provision of the 2005 Codified Basic Agreement that has been modified in this new proposal to “diminish” it. Even one.
The truth is that on feature films, the 2005 CBA is virtually untouched under the proposed new agreement. No rollbacks. No significant changes — except that (a) all the basic rates increase, (b) a number of “breaks” are changed to make them more favorable, (c) the number of covered background performers is increased, and so on. But the meat and potatoes of this contract remain unchanged. Schedules A, B, and C are untouched, except to increase the minimum rates. The much-discussed Force Majeure clauses are word for word identical in the proposed theatrical contract. The only change of consequence in the main contract involves revisions that modernize Sections 18.A.(5) and Section 22.J. (reuse) to define things in terms of time instead of feet of motion picture film.
Under the Television Agreement, there are very few changes. The minimums are increased. The residuals ceilings are increased. The major role premium is increased. Similar revisions to the reuse provisions are made. Other changes proposed by SAG, favorable to actors, are made (such as trailer money break, Section 35(d)). And the Force Majeure clause is revised to include expanded language that clears up some ambiguities.
Again, however, the most striking thing about both the Television Agreement and the Codified Basic Agreement is how similar they look to the 2005 versions. To call them “diminished” is just delusional. They are the same, except for the fact that they pay more money across the board.
So what’s the beef?
1. New Media goes from no jurisdiction, no payment formulas, optional coverage to extensive jurisdiction, a number of payment formulas, and non-optional coverage in the most significant areas. This is an improvement over the 2005 state of affairs, and all of the other creative guilds accepted comparable improvements. But the SAG contract opponents are throwing a tantrum because the studios didn’t agree to more generous provisions.
2. The studios did not agree to other proposals that SAG made, concerning matters that are not now covered in the contracts.
The reality is that the proposed TV-Theatrical deal is not “diminished” in relation to the 2005 contracts that are being renewed; it is only “diminished” in relation to the wish list of provisions that SAG tried to get but couldn’t. By any rational, objective measure, the proposed deal is an improvement over the 2005 predecessor agreements; it’s simply not as improved as the hardliners are screaming and hollering and demanding.
I had a long conversation yesterday with a Vice President of Legal and Business Affairs at one of the media congloms, who (as a former DGA member) is not at all hostile to unions. He told me that when he heard Alan Rosenberg on KNX (the big news/talk station in LA) grousing about how “lousy” the New Media provisions are in the proposed TV-Theatrical agreement, he just about put his fist through the window of his car. This is a guy who has spent the last several months dismantling a whole array of new media ventures that his company put together because they had all proved uneconomic. The sites were all fabulously well done, with terrific content and lots of visitor traffic. But they were all bleeding money, and advertisers were staying away in Yogi-Berra-esque proportions. His comment: “It’s fine for my company to keep throwing seed money at these things, but eventually they have to become self-sustaining.” These efforts were not, so they’re all being closed down. The idea that there was some kind of union-busting, actor-destroying conspiracy going on here just made him want to puke.
So let’s knock it off with all the claims that the proposed TV-Theatrical deal is “diminished” compared to the 2005 deal it replaces.
VG
Just for the record, what was the SAG proposal on new media residuals? I’m assuming it was similar to what WGA wanted –a percentage of distributor’s gross from the first dollar (no freebie period). Was it? And what was the percentage requested?