Hollywood Raiding Stunner – Updated!!
Considering the It was a Membership First dominated group, perhaps the word “astonishing” isn’t quite right. But blatant? That’s different.
The Hollywood Division board last night passed a resolution calling for SAG to raid AFTRA. That’s the only way to describe it. The resolution calls for SAG to “acquire” AFTRA’s actors.
“I move that a task force of Hollywood board members only be formed, to explore the acquisition of actors of AFTRA. The Task Force is to be made up of seven (7) Board members, National or divisional with the Chairperson to be the first Vice President of the Hollywood Board. And this task force is charged to bring back their recommendation as a motion to the Hollywood board which in turn the Hollywood Board will bring such a recommendation to the National board.â€
Never mind that the resolution has no teeth. The resolution shows that Membership First, which dominates the Hollywood Board, has no plan to abide by the Non Disparagement Agrement, which bans raiding as well as disparagement between the unions, and is hell bent on resurrecting the war between SAG and AFTRA.
It’s also amazing considering that some of those backing the resolution are themselves candidates running for the AFTRA board. It should be noted that all the Unite for Strength members and some in Membership First voted against the resolution, recognizing that it could lead to heavy fines against SAG. But others apparently didn’t care.
At 5757 they’re in damage control mode right now, trying to assess how badly the action will damage SAG. Stay tuned.
–
Update: Â Here’s the language from the non disparagement agreement:
Neither party will seek or represent or hold itself out as available to represent performers on any production as to which the other party is the recognized or certified representative of the performers, nor will either party in any manner encourage any performer working on such a production to abandon representation by the other party.
As of the moment there’s been no official comment from 5757…Â
This raises serious questions about the candidacy of Anne-Marie Johnson and others on the Membership First “trojan” ticket for AFTRA’s National Board If they supported this resolution, their actions would seem disqualifying as AFTRA directors, due to a plain conflict of interest. Perhaps some of the lawyers who read these posts can offer opinions on that.
Again, it’s time for the destructive, petulant members (I do believe there are some reasonable folks in their camp) of Membership First that are on the Hollywood Board and the National Board, and those who buy into their destructive agenda to walk away. You are done wrecking this union and I’m not going to let you wreck our sister unions.
In solidarity,
Rik Deskin
1st Alternate National Director
Screen Actors Guild
when the hell are these people going to be taken to task for non disparagement violations? Doesn’t the AFL/CIO have to strongly condemn this action? AFTRA shouldn’t have to say a word about it. AFL/CIO should step in and stop this and they should do it with a public statement.
Enough.
The MF Cult is doing this to anger AFTRA so we won’t merge. Rik is right. All those MF who have half a brain should walk away from them right now in protest. Stand strong and get this cancer out of our union once and for all.
Sickening. This is absolutely sickening. Whoever brought this motion to the floor should be brought up on charges.
The First Cult has clearly lost their minds.
I seriously can’t think of any other reason for this.
It is repugnant that there are those who define Courage as the willingness to suffer the hardships OF OTHERS.
BTW – there HAS TO be a process for removing these clowns from not only their positions, but the guild itself.
IF/WHEN fined, per the non-disparagement (non-raiding) clause, they will only continue to escalate their cost to the members of this union.
This is pure insanity.
Follow the (wish for) money:
Rosenberg, Johnson (with the other two of The Gang of Four) and Membership First want to “acquire” AFTRA’s actors so they can take their dues money to pay the legal bills resulting from their lawsuit against their fellow members in SAG.
Merger between the two unions won’t solve that problem, and so Membership First opts for a resolution to “acqire” AFTRA’s actors. Tantamount to pirates taking prisoners.
VOTE YES ON THE THEATRICAL/TV CONTRACT.
VOTE NO ON MEMBERSHIP FIRST RAIDING AFTRA and voting Membership First OUT OF SAG!
I would like to see the exact wording of the resolution that was voted up by the Hollywood Board. Anyone got that?
Another covert Trojan Rabbit plot by H’Wood MFers. Shhhh….be vewy vewy quiet……
Oh this is so funny. 6 replies condeming something and not one knows what they are condeming.
–
Ed. Comment – Glad you’re amused. Why don’t you ask your pal Angel for a copy of her resolution?
Doug, I don’t see what’s so funny. But facts will out.
Membership First’s opinions and work contra AFTRA is a matter of record.
It is the their continuous objective and mondus operandi that I condemn.
is it possible to get a copy of the resolution and the committee that was set up to investigate the “acquiring” of “AFTRA” members?
It should be public record
Yose should be able to do it…he’s so good at that.
Whadya say Yose?
It’s my understanding that, although the vote on this bogus resolution went down party lines, a few MF did not vote in favor of it – but the queen, AMJ, was loudly for it.
They don’t want to merge for one reason- they would lose their board seats and majority control. Merging SAG and AFTRA would truly make us a National union….in case you haven’t noticed, MF feels Hollywood rules….anyone outside is a hobbyist….
I’m looking to find the resolution wording….
I do feel bad for the non-MF mboard members that have to endure these meetings…while the aslyum is run by MF
–
Ed. Comment – Here’s the thing I find puzzling, aside from the question of why AMJ failed to rule the resolution out of order because of the anti-raiding piece of the non disparagement agreement.
AMJ is running for the board of AFTRA, but she’s for this? That seems like a real conflict of interest problem.
It comes down to whether that non-disparagement ‘agreement’ has any teeth or not.
Wendell
marisa, Why are you asking me to find out and not the person who posted it in the first place. After all he or she seems to have a inside track much better then I do. No instead he or she just throws up a post with not one bit of proof and you all fall for it.
I am amazed none of you except for Tom are not demanding proof.
Again I can’t figure out just how SAG can “Aquire” AFTRA members when 40,000 are already Aquired.
And now marisa is hinting there is a committee set up to do this? Where the heck did that come from?
–
WW Comment – She’s not hinting. She’s right. Check the resolution… the one you’re afraid to ask your friends about.
It seems that the Cultists have beocme more and more arrogant, and htis latest stunt proves it.
This is what happens when sociopaths get deeply into their dysfucntion; they start believing their own rhetoric and view of things, and that the rules that apply to others don’t apply to them.
So now AMJ – an AFTRA candidate – is leading the charge on Angel Tompkins’ motion.
This is the EXACT thing that got Angel boopted out of AFTRA. She sat on the AFTRA NB, and at the same time, was campaigning to get AFTRA actors to decert to SAG.
If we can get details on this, Tompkins may gain soome company out there in the tall weeds, as an EX-AFTRA member.
Whoever has chapter-and-verse on how this came down, and whose on the record endorsements are on it, we need that info.
V.
This sounds like the first step in the screwy plan embraced by Mulhern, et als to send all those dual card holders a postcard to ask them who they wanted as their union, and then take the (presumably overwhelming) pro-SAG results to AFTRA to demand that they simply go away, which, of course,Mulhern et als. expect them to do.
Absolutely mindless.
It’s also another example of MF myopia….just because they pass a motion on the Hollywood Board, it does not become a policty or action of the National Union….it still need vetting at the NB level. Angle has been done this road before, and I believe the wording is along the lines of “buying” members from AFTRA…or in other wards can SAG purchase all “actor” members from AFTRA….and this has also been an MF battlecry, how they want to take what they call the “Actors” out of AFTRA and leave the non=acots behind.
In additional to all the other thought posted here, I wonder what the labor law is on this…what is essentially an effor tot raid the membership of another union…but then where would those actors be who are working on AFTRA contracts (like the 62 pilots shot this year)….Are they going to walk away from their AFTRA jobs?…or is there another motion peninding on what it would cost to buy all the TV contract from AFTRA?
We just don’t know how low they will go….but election time is almost upon us.
Here is the Angel Thompkins motion….verbatim;
“I move that a task force of Hollywood board members only be formed, to explore the acquisition of actors of AFTRA. The Task Force is to be made up of seven (7) Board members, National or divisional with the Chairperson to be the first Vice President of the Hollywood Board. And this task force is charged to bring back their recommendation as a motion to the Hollywood board which in turn the Hollywood Board will bring such a recommendation to the National board.”
She needs to be booted off our National Board for behavior unbecoming of an officer. Do not re-elect Angel Tompkins for the Hollywood Board. She is bad news. And furthermore, do not re-elect any of these Membership First potential cadidates:
Alan Rosenberg
Justine Bateman
George Coe
Anne-Marie Johnson
Diane Ladd
Calling the motion raiding is a misnomer.
There have been various ideas over the years, notably when the last of 16 previous merger attempts failed, on a way get all “screen actors” into one union.
One of the ideas, was to purchase or buy from AFTRA, jurisdiction over the very few(at that time) shows that they had under their jurisdiction. AFTRA would then also agree not to organize any future scripted TV. This is not raiding per se. AFTRA would have to agree to this transaction.
–
WW Comment: Go back and read the non disparagement agreement again. It’s raiding, as defined in the NDA. Anne Marie and Angel are individuals who are covered persons under the NDA.
AFTRA would have to agree to what transaction? There is none.
“the Chairperson to be the first Vice President of the Hollywood Board.”
Isn’t that Ann-Marie Johnson?
And didn’t Ann-Marie Johnson state, in an interview on Backstage/Blogstage, that “merger” of SAG and AFTRA meant only that actors in AFTRA be brought into SAG, and AFTRA only to made up of broadcasters and “the radio people and like that”?
From Backstage/Blogstage Jan 26th:
quote-
BLOGSTAGE Looking at it objectively, do you think merger is going to happen anytime soon?
JOHNSON: It depends on what type of merger. A merger that benefits actors can certainly happen.
BLOGSTAGE: How would you define that?
JOHNSON: I would define it as: All onscreen talent who have been traditionally represented by the Screen Actors Guild and all onscreen talent in AFTRA should be represented by the Screen Actors Guild.
BLOGSTAGE: And AFTRA would just represent the broadcasters and the radio people and like that?
JOHNSON: In my opinion.
BLOGSTAGE: What about the argument that actors are becoming so diversified that to have two separate unions doesn’t make sense?
JOHNSON: I don’t know many actors who are broadcasters.
BLOGSTAGE: There’s no place in the future that you see where these two sides can come together and find some common ground?
JOHNSON: After what took place today, it will be very, very difficult.
-end quote
The reality is that you don’t need any motions, or anything else to actors out of AFTRA. All they need is for the actors to no longer want to be part of AFTRA and then they can simply resign! Nothing more is needed. The problem is that a lot of the same people who don’t want actors in AFTRA are members themselves, and they do not want to withdraw and lose the opportunity to work AFTRA jobs. Hipocritical I know. So instead of them simply gathering all the like minded actors who no longer want to be part of AFTRA and withdraw, they want to find a way to force those who want to stay in AFTRA out to pull out with them. What a joke. As somone mentioned earlier, all this is because they want to control. If SAG and AFTRA mergered, they no longer can grandstand and pull crap like this.
(I am no legal expert but I am fairly certain that there is nothing SAG can do to force to AFTRA to give up jurisdiction, so this is all just a big waste of SAG time. The only thing I can see coming of all this is possible legal consequences.)
As to the conflict of interest question, my guess is since she is just a candidate and not an officer of AFTRA there probably is no legal grounds for a charge of conflict of interest. However, I do see a potential for terminating of union membership as conduct unbecoming a member. Like I said before, I see this stunt as causing much more harm to SAG than it every can to AFTRA.
OK Yose. I’m waiting. Just try to form the words “I waaaassss wwwrrrooonnggg” it’s not too hard.
A friggin committee to “aquire” or look into “acquiring” AFTRA MEMBERS.
That takes the cake.
Marisa
Yose…i asked you because you live in California and are so good at coming up with “documents” so i thought in a matter of minutes you could provide the rest of us with the truth.
Man, ‘neveradullmoment’. Let’s all join together and be the force we know we can be and stop haggling over which UNION is more for their members than the other,blah,blah,blah. C’mon let’s all act professionally and responsibly so that our families enjoy these wonderful and well earned benefits. I have nothing against the AMPTP. I would like to remind our creative community that audiences will not put up with inferior work. We are very dedicated writers, directors,and actors who actually love the life. So, pull it all together.
KD
Acquire actors? Like slavery? Absolute gibberish barely worth a comment.
Theses cretins. They can’t even form a proper sentence.
“…that a task force of Hollywood board members only be formed, to explore the acquisition of actors…”
“…bring back their recommendation as a motion to the Hollywood board which in turn the Hollywood Board will bring such a recommendation…”
Pull the plug and send the nurse home.
Don’t get a headache people…
This is SO simple…
This is an idea put forth by David Jolliffe, years ago. I read about it in the Los Angeles Times after the last merger failed. Its been made many times, this is nothing new and barely deserves another headline. Doesn’t anybody else remember this proposal???
Acquire=Purchase. Get it!
This is a proposal to investigate “BUYING” something from AFTRA. This is not an proposal to RAID. Its probably far fetched but not raiding. This is an ALTERNATIVE to merger! GET IT!
sorry to shout.
Has anyone ever tried to sit Ms. Tomkins down and get her to put her thoughts into some coherent form?
The motion is gibberish, but I am no longer surprised it gathered support from MF within the Division. She’s one of them, so they’re for it, even if it doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Everyone who voted for this should be asked why they voted to “acquire actors.” Sooner or later, they’ve got to be held accountable for what is done in their name.
It’s clear, but only from the commentary, that she doesn’t really want to “acquire actors of AFTRA,” but rather “obtain jurisdiction over actors FROM AFTRA.” It is my hope that the task force quickly realizes it can’t be bought, bartered or wrested away by force and just puts this idiocy to bed.
Mike, one of the reasons why you don’t hear much about that idea of “buying” jurisdiction from AFTRA is that the transfer of jurisdiction for compensation is flat out illegal, even if both unions agree to it. I know you’d like Tomkins’ idea to make some sense in the real world, but trying to defend this one is just silly.
Sorry marisa, I never said if it was faulse or not, I just pointed out how everyone was going off when there was no proof at that time.
Well now there is proof and I am a bit shocked at it.
As for your’s and ED’s idea that I have some in-roads with MF, that is far from the truth. I am not with MF nor do I personnally know any of them well enough to find out anything from them. The only times I have any dealing with any of them was on the NBAC.
This is the official wording of the motion (moved by AngelTompkins, a SAG Hollywood Board member who lost her membership a few years ago when, while an AFTRA Boardmember, she openly campaigned for AFTRA members to de-certify their membership and demand that their contracts be SAG contracts).
“ I move that a task force of Hollywood board members only be formed, to explore the acquisition of actors of AFTRA. The Task Force is to be made up of seven (7) Board members, National or divisional with the Chairperson to be the first Vice President of the Hollywood Board. And this task force is charged to bring back their recommendation as a motion to the Hollywood board which in turn the Hollywood Board will bring such a recommendation to the National board. “
AMJ voted yes. There is no comment yet from AFTRA, but leadership (myself included) is to say the least, concerned, and discussing what should be our response…Stay tuned.
Election Ballots were put in the mail on Monday. They should appear in mailboxes as early as tomorrow. June 5 will be the deadline for voters. Visit our website http://www.Aftraleadershipteam.org for more info on the election. It is finished, up and running and frankly, quite beautiful….
I wonder how much this will cost SAG,
in terms of staff time and effort to avoid a “disparagement” fine.
Membership First sure seems to know a myriad of ways to make SAG bleed money.
Matt, Is it possible to determine which of the members of the Hollywood Board are also AFTRA members? Is the membership confidential? Can’t a CD or a agent ask if an actor is a member of AFTRA? Can I ask?
The stupidity is they could have achieved the same end by forming an exploratory LA subcommittee to shape an AFTRA merger acceptable to their members. Same end.
Matt, as a dual-card member…I would support AFTRA bringing these individuals up on charges, similar to the ones filed against Angel Thompkins when she was kicked out of AFTRA. It is clear that these members of AFTRA have every intent of doing harm to AFTRA as a union.
They have stated their mission clearly and often, and their attempt to gains seats on the AFTRA board was to fulfill these harmful actions.
As reprsentatives of SAG they also harm SAG by conduct unbecoming…I am ashamed of them across the board. It is time for the few in MF with any sanity left to wake up and bail out.
Kathy,
I am not going to state categorically the issue of union confidentiality as to a given performer’s status, but it is my belief that, if you call AFTRA, you can receive official contact information for any member. Usually, the contact is an agent or attorney. If one is not a member, the union would probably tell you it had no contact information to give. That would seem to be an easy way of verifying whether or not a given SAG Boardmember is also a member of AFTRA. Certainly, any one of them who is running for any AFTRA office, including Delegate to the Convention, must also be a Member in Good Standing.
Mike,
You constantly refer to the number of times merger has failed as evidence that merger is not what anyone wants. Yet here you say “This is an idea put forth by David Jolliffe, years ago. I read about it in the Los Angeles Times after the last merger failed. Its been made many times, this is nothing new.”
Isn’t the fact that it has been made many times and not adopted evidence that it isn’t acceptable now? Or are you just being hypocritical.
And, by reasserting that Acquire=Purchase, you seem insistant on a concept that violates the basic tenets of labor law; jurisdiction is based by the will of the membership, it cannot be purchased or sold.
Period.
For the moment, let’s pretend that it isn’t illegal. What could SAG possibly put on the table that would make such a “purchase” acceptable to the AFTRA membership? SAG doesn’t have enough money to make up the loss of dues revenue that a “sale” of jurisdiction would cause to AFTRA.
So, the clumsily written Tompkins resolution sets up a task force to either
1. explore what has already been dismissed “many times” by the union (and therefore, by your own standards, a waste of time and resources), or
2. explore something that is patently illegal under US labor law, or
3. to explore “acquiring actors” by other means, which means, simply, raiding.
It’s your choice.
Fred,
To answer your multiple choice question. My answer is:
“1. explore what has already been dismissed “many times†by the union (and therefore, by your own standards, a waste of time and resources)”
Obviously, I don’t support the motion
Fred W – “What could SAG possibly put on the table that would make such a “purchase†acceptable to the AFTRA membership?”
Just to play devil’s advocate here for a moment, my answer to that question would be: The only worthwhile “purchase price” I can imagine would be that any “working dues” and P&H (H&R) contributions from any “jurisdiction-shifted” production would continue to flow to AFTRA over a period of 5-10 years (or however long the show runs). One might say: “Why would SAG pay so much?” My answer to that is: that it would be the price of gaining jurisdiction over all acting work. I’m just noodling on this and that’s all I’ve been able to come up with so far.
–
Ed. Comment: To me that sounds like a non-starter. Why would any union agree to put itself out of business?
You want to merge, fine… but otherwise “acquiring” actors is DOA.
Tom,
Continuing with the theoretical discussion, your compensation idea doesn’t give AFTRA anything it is already getting (dues and benefit contributions on “shifted” work), so I don’t see that giving AFTRA any reason to consider such a deal. SAG would have to substantially sweeten the pot (and get around the serious labor law problems of sending those benefit contributions to the “wrong” fund.) I don’t think SAG’s got anything to add to such an offer.
I think that a jurisdictional realignment might be legally possible (if impossible for political and practical reasons) if SAG was willing to relinquish all off-camera work to AFTRA in return for on-camera exclusivity, but this would make the technical problems of merger look like organizing a dinner for two. And I somehow doubt Mr. Joliffe and Mr. Miller, for two MF examples, would be thrilled to discover they were strictly AFTRA members. This solution, of course, only makes the jurisdictional problems worse because a producer could end up with a performer working one job under two contracts if he or she provided voice-over narration in addition to on-screen performance.
In short, Angel Tomkins might as well have proposed that SAG’s Hollywood Division Board sprout wings and fly. Here “acquisition” exploration resolution has about an equal chance of success. As a statement of intent to take action to diminish AFTRA it was effective, and, to my mind, AFTRA would be completely justified in seeking redress under the non-disparagement agreement. As a statement of what that action should be, it is just completely wrongheaded and stupid.
All the money issues aside, let’s take a think about what causes workers to create unions in the first place.
Lofty Goals.
Does anyone (even the brain dead Ms. Tompkins) really believe a moajority of TWO union’s members would abandon those goals so certain members of one could bail on their [currently stronger] union and join the [currently weaker and in disarray] other? Not likely.
Does anyone (even the brain dead Ms. Tompkins) really believe they could FORCE this action on the members of one [currently stronger] union strong-arming them into the [currently weaker and in disarray] other ? Not likely.
So, other than just the sheer disruption factor, can anyone tell me WHAT THE POINT OF THIS IS?
AT’s real agenda revealed:
“a task force of Hollywood board members only”
–
Admin. Comment: Of course. All “real” actors are in Hollywood, right?
Regarding jurisdiction. SAG and AFTRA should both follow the rules. In my opinion the union that has engaged in “raiding” is AFTRA. I can give examples:
1.Up until 2003 AFTRA’s scripted Prime Time jurisdiction was sitcoms shot on AFTRA designated lots, as defined by the “situs agreement”. Suddenly in 2003 AFTRA decided to go after SAG’s jurisdiction starting with “Joan of Arcadia”. “Joan of Arcadia” is a archetypal “Television Motion Picture” in other words a TV show that is made like a motion picture. This as been designated by the NLRB as SAG’s exclusive jurisdiction. AFTRA also no longer honors the “situs agreement”.
2. Spinoffs, such as the “NCIS” spinoff maintain jurisdiction of the original show. AFTRA has raided the spinoffs of two original SAG shows. These shows are “90210″ and “Melrose Place” both are also television motion pictures. These shows even have some of the same cast members and characters, of the original shows.
In determining jurisdiction there is a specific process in place. The process should be followed. The first stage of the process would be to go the the 4a’s for a determination of jurisdiction. If the SAG membership is not satisfied then it should petition the NLRB for a hearing. If SAG still is not satisfied they could go to court. If the membership is still not satisfied they can vote to decertify AFTRA’s jurisdiction over actors, on the show or shows in question.
Coming up with idea such as “buying jurisdiction” distract from the process put in place by the AFL-CIO and the NLRB.
–
Admin. Comment – The above is posted in accord with our policy of allowing posts even when the posters contain factual errors or misleading information. AFTRA’s jurisdiction was not bounded by the Situs Agreement. And, although Membership First has objected to it after the fact, AFTRA’s jurisdiction over Joan of Arcadia did not come about as a violation of any agreement or rule. Also, jurisdiction over a spinoff is not controlled by the jurisdiction over the original.
While the brain dead Ms. Tompkins may think this is workable the rest are cheering it on because it gives them a focus for their random rages and it feeds the cult mentality. Who would have believed that a nut could convince hundreds of people to either drink the kool aid poison or make others do it. It is the desperate need to rail against the fates, to belong, no matter how stupidly. If AFTRA doesn’t bring charges, I will. Matt, can you suggest how to start the process?
“Mike” – - -
It may surprise you to know that the history of SAG/AFTRA jurisdiction disputation is littered with as much poaching by SAG of what “should” have been AFTRA shows as vice-versa. If you would like me to dig into my files where I have a rather comprehensive history of this, I shall. Meanwhile, you must know that historical precedence (“past practice”) carries at least as much “legal” weight as fifty-year-old decisions, documents & agreements.
Okay, so Mike tell me, how would the situs agreement still even work when it was based on the fact that some products were done by the networks in their studios (AFTRA) and others were done by film studios on their lots (SAG). None of that even exists anymore. What actually had become the dividing line, though unofficial, was film versus tape. And when digital came along, that was blown out of the water. And I can only imagine that had anybody other than Membership First and Doug Allen been in charge as this problem was growing, it could have been resolved by now. And we wouldn’t be so far down in the hole.
–
Ed. Comment – To be fair, this conflict existed long before the Allens’ reign at SAG. The first digital major dispute over digital (at least that I can remember) came in the Pisano-Hessinger era, and was resolved with AFTRA ceding to SAG five Fox digital shows.
The dispute that the editor refers to, happen when AFTRA got all of the 10 pilots on the Fox lot. A SAG lot, as per the “situs agreement”. AFTRA got all of the pilots, that year, by offering the lower UPM/WB rate. Rather than the higher rate that the big three networks pay.
SAG, under Pisano protested, based on the situs agreement. AFTRA settled, which is an acknowledgment of a violation, and an acknowledgment of the situs agreement. They settled by giving up 5 of the 10 shows. Why did AFTRA settle is there was no violation of jurisdiction?
What has happen to the Situs agreement?
–
Ed. Note: Though you’re right that it was Pisano, it wasn’t about rates. The WB/UPN agreement didn’t exist back then. But we’re at the edge of my memory of these things.
I meant to say IF not is there was no violation.
Mike – The new 90210 and Melrose place are not spinoffs, thay are remakes and I don’t think there is any SAG jurisdictions over remakes. AFTRA didn’t raid anything, SAG never even tried to challenge these shows on behalf of the members.
Mike,
“Why did AFTRA settle [if] there was no violation of jurisdiction?”
This really isn’t a matter of limited options. There are a dozen good reasons to settle any dispute that don’t require admitting there was wrongdoing by either party.
For several non-exhaustive examples:
1. The cost of fighting the challenge may have been greater than the revenue from winning. This is a concept that appears completely alien to MF’s insistence that establishing new media residuals is a strike-worthy goal in the current contract.
2. As the question of jurisdiction would not lead to the replacement of AFTRA cardholders with different SAG card holders, the dispute would not have changed anything for the performers actually engaged in those shows, so if it is truly “membership first,” then there was no reason to fight.
3. Somebody on both sides realized a jurisdictional fight between SAG and AFTRA served no larger purpose (except, of course, for the political agenda of a faction in SAG).
In closing, let me turn your supposition on its head. If there really was a violation of jurisdiction, as you surmise, why did SAG concede five shows when they didn’t have to concede any, and could have pressed the issue and driven AFTRA off all ten shows?
Mike – to me the term “raiding” has to do with active effort to change jursidiction by one union to another. In the cases if digital production SAF does not have exclusive jurisdiction and is shared by AFTRA. A producer makes the choice to pick the union.
The 62+ pilots signed under AFTRA this year because of the SAG turmoil and uncertainty of a contract, while AFTRA had a contract.
Historically, TV was originally all AFTRA…until SAG went after the jurisdicion.
The shared digitial issue was brough up years ago and saner heads warned that without merging jurisdictional battles would be inevitable. But MF refused to believe that would happen