If you pull from your shelf the old contract book and compare it to the new and less improved and diminished contract

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

“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!

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?

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.

Matthew complained that White “sold out millions in FJ money,” which made about as much sense as the rest of his post.