Tense Weekend before a Hot Monday
SAG Interim NED David White, top lawyer Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, and, presumably, SAG President Alan Rosenberg will be spending the weekend trying to work out exactly what they’re going to say to the AFL-CIO’s umpire on Monday. That’s when the umpire, the individual responsible for monitoring the SAG-AFTRA Non Disparagement Agreement, will hear from both SAG and AFTRA in a session scheduled to formally hear a complaint about the Hollywood Board’s action forming a committee to raid AFTRA. (The agreement prohibits raiding as well as disparagement).
The raiding committee is the result of a resolution offered by Membership First’s perennial AFTRA-basher Angel Tompkins, who was expelled from AFTRA almost a decade ago for trying to lead a decertification campaign from inside the union’s boardroom. It was backed by most of the Membership First’s partisans who forced it through the Hollywood boardroom they control over the objections of White and Crabtree-Ireland. Membership First’s leader, First VP Anne-Marie Johnson promptly appointed herself chair of the committee.
Apparently not satisfied with just one major violation of the Non Disparagement Agreement, Johnson then fired off an e-mail bashing AFTRA’s Exhibit A contract, something she’s permitted to do as a candidate for office, but something which the SAG has to disavow within 24 hours after receiving a complaint.
As of this writing, no disavowal is posted on the front page of the SAG Website. But it’s not clear whether the e-mail will be discussed at the Monday session with the umpire, which is currently scheduled to be held by conference call.
This is also a peak weekend in the AFTRA election cycle, in which  Johnson is leading a small band of Membership First loyalists trying to add to their small foothold in the AFTRA boardroom. That group includes several who were rejected by SAG voters last summer, as the membership rejected the group that then narrowly controlled the SAG Board and threw out several key Membership Firsters who had seats on the TV-Theatrical negotiating committee.
AFTRA’s NED Kim Hedgpeth, President Roberta Reardon and top lawyer Tom Carpenter are expected to be the union’s reps on the Monday conference call. It’s not known what level of sanctions they’ll request from the umpire. The non disparagement agreement calls for fines of up to $2 million for violations. Previous violations – all by Membership First partisans – have been handled quietly, without public announcement or fines.
This one is unlikey to be handled in such a fashion.
She should be run outta town on a rail along with AMJ and AR for her absoulute reckless disregard for the disparagment and for disrespecting SAG and the members should the decision come down against SAG and the 2mil penalty imposed.
Without a doubt she must resign from the board immediatly no matter what happens. The only thing this kind of BS behaviour does is to highlight the true colors of the MF faction which is actually a good thing for members to know.
Maybe give SAG choice – $1 million, suspended with her resignation from the Guild.
By the way a new email address my show there new alter-ego…
Info at ActorsRights.com – but the web site, for now, is just a place holder
Off the board would be a good start, Doc.
Does anyone know if David White has the power to make such disclaimers on the website as the disparage agreement provides for on his own, or must convene the board to get authority to do so on a case by case basis? I’d think he does have such authority.
That’s a pretty key point, it seems to me, as to whether those dreaming of a $2M payday for AFTRA are just kidding themselves or not. Is AMJ going to stop doing this kind of stuff during the campaign? Everybody who believes that, raise your hand. So to what end such a cycle of AMJ reckless statement, AFTRA complaint, SAG disclaimer? Heck, White could authorize whoever to copy ‘n paste the last one and change the date.
Sure, one blanket website disclaimer from SAG would usefully make a point worth making, but IMO beyond that AFTRA should avoid the tarbaby.
The website is controlled by the committee headed by Justine Bateman and MF. The problem with the political structure right now is while MF no longer holds a national majority, they still hold a majority on every committee and has only given token assignments to U4S.
The joy would be to get every yes voter kicked off the Board but that would probably create way too much political sympathy for them.
Pete DiCico is a really smart man but I don’t know what he could do that would really make a difference except levy a fine that gets the membership’s attention.
–
Ed. Comment – Greg has just revealed himself as someone who really does know what’s going on. We hadn’t used the umpire’s name. And he’s right. Peter deCiccois smart, and is an unsung hero of the labor movement.
geo,
I don’t believe a $2 mil fine will be levied for this action, but I would hope it would be something significant. I do agree with you that AMJ is not going to stop this kind of stuff, but that is where smart individuals (who realize that) and have fiduciary responsibilities decide that best resolution is to remove her from the SAG board. Problem solved. No longer being an oficer of SAG, AMJ would be free to say whatever she wants as she would no longer be bound by the N-D agreement and SAG would no longer be responsible for her actions. Simple, clean, efficient.
Editors – You said previous violations were handled quietly, does that mean some sort of penalty was levied against SAG or was it just a warning letter? I don’t need details of the penalties, just curious to know if the umpire actually ruled that SAG was in violation of the agreement of wheter it was handled quietly by means of “lets all play nice” with no official ruling.
–
Ed. Response – Previous violations were handled directly between AFTRA NED Kim Hedgpeth and SAG interim NED David White, with the umpire being advised that the two sides weren’t going to make a big deal out of the violations. The AFL-CIO expressed appreciation for that approach, and the violations were basically dealt with by the mutual consent of the parties – the umpire didn’t have to make the call.
While Justine Bateman Chairs the web site, it is a sub committee of the Communications Committee….and David White does not need the web site sub comittee’s committee’s permission on everything to be posted. That committee was there to oversea the redesign, and it did so waaaayyyyy overrrrr budget.
It seems EVERYTHANG that MF touches costs our membership a lot of money. When I add up the costs of…firing Doug Hessinger and Bob Pisano…the web site overrun…the lawsuits….the trojan push-poll card…the attack on AFTRA’s contract….the cost of the prolonged negotations….the filibustered Plenary….and now the disparagement issue….we’re talking major, major money – members dues lost.
Geo – No one is ” dreaming of a $2M payday for AFTRA”. That is the nightmare scenario to be avoided by SAG is possible.
Two unions, which are both affiliated with the AFl-CIO, sharing exactly the same jurisdiction, and both competing with each other, is unprecedented. The two unions are in this situation, because one union raided jurisdiction. The union that raided jurisdiction is AFTRA. Up until the last few years, AFTRA only repped actors in prime time broadcast TV in “live” audience sitcom. Then when SAG negotiations were at a standstill. AFTRA opportunistically grabbed all the pilots, this past year, in probably one of the most egregious acts of “raiding jurisdiction” in union history. The union that should be fined for raiding is AFTRA. If SAG is fined, they should tell the AFL-CIO to go pound sand.
A
–
Ed. Comment – That comment displays a lack of understanding both of the jurisdiction issues and of the non disparagement agreement. The fine, if there is one, won’t be for raiding per se, it will be for violating the agreement, which, one should remember, was signed by the Allens, not by the current administration.
My understanding is that if a fine were to be assessed and paid, it would not go to the disparaged party, but instead to some other charity-like AFL-CIO entity. Is that incorrect?
–
Ed. Response – Yes, that’s incorrect. See below.
I don’t know for sure where the money – fine money – would go, but that’s a great question. Ed, do you know?
Re: another post … for anyone to say that- if the fine is levied against SAG for the breathtaking violations that came out of the H’wd meeting – that SAG should tell the AFL to “go pound sand” is idiotic and unrealistic in the extreme. ‘Myopic’ coms to mmind.
When you sign a legal contract, and you then violate the terms of that contract, you are required by law to abide by the remedies outlined in said contract.
What part of that does a normal, sane person NOT understand?
The arrogance coming out of Hollywood is palpable.
V.
–
Ed. Response – Paragraph 6(d) of the Non Disparagement Agreement allows the umpire to order payment of a fine to the offended party.
Mike – “Then when SAG negotiations were at a standstill. AFTRA opportunistically grabbed all the pilots”
The producers went with AFTRA because they have a contract and can guarantee completion.
You post these wild accusations constantly in typical MF fashion and then attack those who call your BS as ignorant. No one is buying the MF rhetoric these days and your leaders (AMJ,AT, AR) are selling a bill of goods we don’t need.
Nobody “grabbed” anything from SAG – SAG left the barn door open and the new shows went for the greener grass by CHOICE.
I think Nikki published DiCicco’s name when the agreement was reached. Of course, that doesn’t mean Greg isn’t a member of the illuminati.
Thanks for the insight, people. Best wishes to Mr. DiCicco –I do not envy him that job in the least.
Once again, Mike [above] uses “raiding” to describe AFTRA’s increased presence in Television.
Ridiculous. Idiotic.
And does not call for any more of a response than the 100s already posted refuting the term and justifying AFTRA’s actions.
It is kind of funny that people like mike want to complain about AFTRA “stealing” shows from SAG. Not only is it absurd considering SAG doesn’t have contract from which AFTRA could steal anything. Secondly, it flies right in the face of MF rhetoric about AFTRA undercutting SAG. AFTRA rates are higher than SAGs right now and will be for at least 2 years, so they just conviently drop that argument and now its the fact they are “stealing” shows. Which is also funny because MF has vehemently denied that the prolonged contract negotiations has cost SAG to lose any % of primetime scripted shows.
mike, do you care to address any of that?
Mike,
“Two unions, which are both affiliated with the AFl-CIO, sharing exactly the same jurisdiction, and both competing with each other, is unprecedented.”
In many locations, jurisdiction over hazardous waste removal is shared between two or, in some cases, even more unions. The choice of trade employed is up to the contractor based purely on his election of the means of removal (not unlike the producer’s choice of format). In most cases, there are two or more available means, which creates direct and complete competition between the unions for the same work. In some cases, on larger jobs, it is not unknown for two “competing” trades to be working next to each other, doing essentially the same work.
Ironically, the competing unions in that field have discovered that the best protection for all their members is in joint negotiation of the terms of collective bargaining to cover all the removal work. What do you think they know that has escaped MF?
It might really help your arguments if you stopped making sweeping and erroneous statements like this. It demonstrates a profound ignorance of labor history disguised in terms of unsupported expertise.
There is no such thing as “shared jurisdiction”.
AFTRA raided SAG’s jurisdiction. AFTRA should be fined.
The only reason AFTRA claims jurisdiction, is that then say “digital capture” is shared jurisdiction. Any TV show made with digital cameras is up for grabs in the openly aggressive and acquisitive AFTRA union. A union that prior to ‘Joan of Arcadia” never had any broadcast prime time TV show that wasn’t a sitcom
–
Ed. Response – Do you just make these things up? “There is no such thing as shared jurisdiction???”
A Google search shows Results 1 – 30 of about 4,120,000 for shared jurisdiction. (0.29 seconds). Books have been written about this phenomenon that you insist does not exist.
Do you think the sun revolves around the earth, too?
Mike,
“Then when SAG negotiations were at a standstill. AFTRA opportunistically grabbed all the pilotsâ€
More MF spin that ignores actual history. There was never anything to keep any producer from signing up a production with SAG while “negotiations were at a standstill.” (Except maybe reluctance to deal with a screwball union.)
What do you think? AFTRA went around to producers and said “sign with us, it will cost you more money, so it makes a lot of sense for you to do it.”
Mike, seriously, go read a book, get some education, read a contract, actually ask an intelligent question, do some research. I’m sure to you the world is flat as well. Maybe we shouldn’t stand to close to the precipice. We might fall off.
Is there a way in which the National Board can censure the Hollywood Board for violating the non-disparagement agreement?
The feud between SEIU and CNA/NNOC over representing registered nurses made SAG & AFTRA look like Lucy Ricardo and Ethyl Mertz by comparison. But the nurses got smart and realized they were playing into the hands of management.
What astounds me is that the situation for actors would be so much easier to resolve once and for all through a SAG/AFTRA merger — but too many selfish people stand in they way, putting their own personal ambitions over the good of their union brothers and sisters.
Mike,
The producers went to AFTRA. The producers had every right to go to either SAG or AFTRA but they chose AFTRA. Pilots are not automatically SAGs by some divine right or any other right. The producers made the choice of union. It is not a market where each union shops around and solicits producers.
But, even if it were a market where each union solicited producers, then it would prove that AFTRA has much better organizing efforts for its members.
As for your “There is no such thing as shared jurisdiction” statement, that is patently false and shows your complete ignorance of unions. IATSE, NABET and IBEW have all shared jurisdictions over the same types of jobs in the entertainment industry for many years. For example, IATSE has jurisdiction over the audio jobs for the Jimmy Kimmel Show. NABET has jurisdiction over the audio jobs for The Tonight Show. IBEW has jurisdiction over the audio jobs for KCBS news broadcasts. All three shot in Los Angeles. All three are the same jobs. All three have different union representation.
The people who are really pounding sand are the ones who believe SAG has jurisdiction over all actors simply because the word “actor” is in its name.
Mike,
Enough, already.
In addition to the hazardous waste removal example (which involves LIUNA and several specialty unions that were offshoots of other trades), I suggest you also continue to ignore the existence of shared jurisdiction in the field of nurses and other health care workers (SEIU and the CNA/NNOC) and office workers (SEIU and OPEIU).
You may not like reality, and you may choose not to embrace it, but that doesn’t make it any less real for everyone else.
You would think that if anyone in MF seriously thought AFTRA was “raiding” SAG jurisdiction that a legal challenge would have been at the top of their agenda when they had unfettered control. Especially after, as MF would have it, AFTRA “abandoned” Phase 1. Why do you think that didn’t happen?
“Two unions, which are both affiliated with the AFl-CIO, sharing exactly the same jurisdiction” – posted at 7:15am
“There is no such thing as shared jurisdiction” – posted at 10:21am
Let’s examine both quotes posted here in on this board in this thread today a few hours apart. One says that the two unions (referring to SAG & AFTRA) share the exact same jurisdiction. Then the other quote says there is no such thing as shared jurisdiction. Clearly, one of those individuals is absolutely wrong as the statements are in direct contradiction of each other. Oh, I forgot to mention both quotes were made by the same person! LMAO, clearly somebody will say anything at anytime as long as it is convenient to their point (reality be damned).
mike you have removed any credibility you might have had contradicting yourself like that without any explanation, but out of curiousty just wondering if you want to take a stab at addressing my previous question from earlier? You know, the one regarding AFTRA’s rates being higher than SAG’s (you know the union that undercuts SAG)and yet AFTRA is signing most of the new projects anyway(eventhough MF says that it is not happening)???
I’ve refuted this claim before but once again I’ll ask:
What do you think happened, Mike?
In your head, I guess, with all the car dealerships dying, AFTRA went out and *raided* a bunch of BMW and Mercedes dealerships and *stole* the salesmen. Set them up with desks at the headquarters and tasked them to go out and get “customers”.
So every morning they drink their crappy coffee and, dressed in their poly suits and cheasp ties, hit the pavement visiting producers. They offer leather seats, upgraded stereos, hell, even chrome 22s. Anything to *steal the deal*.
And those producers, those guppies, they just roll over and acquiesce because they are so dazzled they don’t notice that AFTRA’s more expensive.
Is this what you believe? Because if so, you’re the biggest fool, and the PERFECT MF/First Cult supporter they’ve got.
Enjoy the indoctrination, er, picnic.
But don’t drink the Koolaid.
I scrolled up and re-read the original posting and it seems to me that this latest “AFTRA-raiding” situation is one in a long line of MF tactics that disrespect all the players involved, push if not break rules and intentionally antagonize. And what follows each incident is damage control. And this is going to continue and get worse. I think it’s time to really look at changing the game somehow.
I think SAG and AFTRA need to strongly consider how to merge, and how to somehow approach that idea in a completely new way. The world, the business and the unions have changed since the last attempt to merge. By the time there is a new contract to negotiate [provided the contract on the table is agreed to, the next contract would be in about 2 years, right?], we must be in a stronger position than all the SAG in-fighting and the AFTRA-SAG fighting have allowed us to be. If there’s another way other than merging, that’s great, and I will freely admit I’m not up on all the possible other choices. But one way or the other, this shooting ourselves and each other has to stop so that we can deal with the real perils and problems of being a union dealing with studios that are worldwide conglomerates– and those perils and problems are also only going to get tougher.
In general, I think SAG is at a “wake-up call” kind of moment, I believe, and what we do with it will make or break us.
BlueMel57
BlueMel57,
I think you nailed it.
It’s a tough room, Mike. Gotta get your facts straight.
Or,
Go back to the MF driven sites, where the facts play a smaller role.
BlueMe157…we agree on the need to merge…however MF is against no matter what. The last effort to merge was fought hard by MF and even though 58% of the members voted to merge, the referendum failed by about 700 votes.
MF will fight any effort to begin a merging process, and they will fight any referendum as well. So, the only way a merge could happen is if MF candidates are not elected to SAG (or AFTRA).
Todd,
All my facts are correct.
Stewart and Fred didn’t read my post carefully
It take to long to answer every erroneous post.
I have corrected so many mistakes on this board by ignorant posters, it gets tiring especially with someone as long winded as Fred W. With him I usually don’t bother.
I’ll correct them point by point a little later. I enjoy pushing the buttons of this group. It keeps them popping the blood pressure medication.
Mike – the Dr. detects a bit of paranoia schiz here…you make a statement not based on fact, and doznes of people correct you, but you insist they are all wrong. Won’t hold up in court.
So MF defeated by preventing a supermajority a previous effort to merge SAG and AFTRA? In favor of what exactly given they are trying to get on AFTRA’s board now and/or “acquire” AFTRA actors?
I’m trying to figure out why it matters how a merger happens, say, 4 years after it has happened by whatever means?
Dr. Giggles, I agree with you about MF standing in the way of any merger, and I will go further to say that there are several things that would need to coordinate to regain, restore and revive the health of SAG. More about that in a moment.
But first: Mike. I’ll quote you: “I enjoy pushing the buttons of this group. It keeps them popping the blood pressure medication.”
Mike, that proves my point exactly about tactics of disrespect and intentionally antagonizing. This is not a game and nothing will be solved or won for either side of these questions by pushing people’s buttons.
Dr. Giggles, I think that all the pieces need to be considered together in order to get SAG and its members back on track:
First, to stop the bleeding, get the contract approved to get us out of the limbo, work slowdown, more AFTRA shows by default situation we’ve been in for a year.
Second, a focus on what works and what doesn’t work, in every area, and finding a way to convey that to the members. What I mean is, the MF tactics have weakened the Guild and cost a lot, literally and figuratively. And the one good thing about the past year of no contract and everything bad that went with having no contract is that it should be proof that those tactics and that mind set really don’t work. The costs can be listed and quantified and hammered home. Essentially, if you want more of this, then stick with MF, if not, stop listening to them and help us get SAG back on track.
Third, a focus on what needs to be in the next contract and what position SAG has to be in when those negotiations happen, in order to get those things. And what’s needed would include voting out as much of MF as possible, effectively educating the membership on where we need to go and how to get there, and making clear the power of a merged AFTRA/SAG union. Divide and conquer wouldn’t be possible [or at least much less possible] with a merged AFTRA/SAG.
And I think all this would need very clear, simple, consistent messaging. Now, do I know exactly how to do all that? No, I’m just one person, but I do very much think it can be done. And I think UFS proved they were onto something by getting so many people elected. How it was done should be examined and expanded and refined if need be.
BlueMel57
Mike said: “I enjoy pushing the buttons of this group. It keeps them popping the blood pressure medication.”
OK, now I see you for what you are with that statement Mike – a TROLL plain and simple by definition. You get off irritating people who are discussing a serious matter that involves their very livlihood. With this one statement you have lost any credibilty whatsoever. Back under the bridge troll YOU DON’T MATTER HERE.
Mike,
Now we’re supposed to believe that you are just making stupid statements to provoke responses? Nice try, but I think you’re making stupid statements because you have nothing else to bring to the conversation.
My blood pressure is fine. Intentional ignorance like yours evokes pity in me, not anger. You, on the other hand, seem to suffer from abnormally low blood pressure, as it is clear not enough is getting to your brain to allow you to tell the difference between truth and fantasy. Go lie down for several months.
The truth is what seem to drive people up the wall on this site. The mistake and factual errors on this thread are endless. I don’t have all day to sit in front of the computer correct the ignorance.
Let me correct just one thing where you and Stuart erred. I stated that Two unions, which are both affiliated with the AFl-CIO, sharing exactly the same jurisdiction†is unprecedented. You and Stuart tried to refute that by giving the example of CNA/NNOC and SEIU. WRONG.
CNA/NNOC= AFL-CIO
SEIU = CTW
Two different umbrella groups. Change to Win and the AFL-CIO.
The list on errors in to long but I’ll do one more “(SEIU and OPEIU).”
OPEIU=AFL-CIO
SEIU=CTW
You need the nap Fred.
Then we having eric spewing his errors.
“For example, IATSE has jurisdiction over the audio jobs for the Jimmy Kimmel Show. NABET has jurisdiction over the audio jobs for The Tonight Show. IBEW has jurisdiction over the audio jobs for KCBS news broadcasts.”
IATSE has jurisdiction “outside” of “TV studios” like ABC. Of course IATSE has jurisdiction Jimmy Kimmel is not made at a TV studio. To quote Doug Allen there are bright line of jurisdiction between NABET and IATSE.
The worker at KCBS voted for the IBEW to be their collective bargaining agent. That’s why NABET is at NBC studios but not KCBS. Bright lines of jurisdiction between the two unions. You make my point.
–
Admin. Comment – The above is posted in accord with our policy of allowing people to post comments even if they contain factual errors.
Mike, you clearly do not understand how jurisdiction works. Perhaps you should consult a labor lawyer. You’re not even close here.
—
WW Comment – Mike, how do you explain GE/NBC? In some places the writers are WGA. In some places they’re NABET. In some places they’re AFTRA. Do you think the jurisdiction fairy just confused and delivered the babies to the wrong houses?
OPEIU and the SEIU were both in the AFL-CIO before 2005, and both shared jurisdiction under the AFL-CIO until then.
The fact that they are not both in the AFL-CIO now doesn’t mean they both weren’t before 2005, and it certainly doesn’t mean they didn’t share jurisdiction until then.
Unless you’ve got a new definition of “unprecedented” that means “I just won’t acknowledge anything different,” you’re wrong again, Mike.
Although the names might lead one to assume they are locals of a national union — like SAG/Hollywood and SAG/NY are locals of SAG national — the WGA, West, and the WGA, East, are two separate unions that share jurisdiction over the same employees of the same employers. They have an affiliation agreement, not dissimilar to the SAG-AFTRA Phase 1 agreement, that establishes which union has primary responsibility over which employees (WGA, West, has primary responsibility over AMPTP writers; WGA, East, has primary responsibility over PBS Writers, ABC Newswriters and CBS Newswriters), the make-up of negotiating committees, joint membership voting rules, disbursements of dues, etc.
“Sure, one blanket website disclaimer from SAG would usefully make a point worth making, but IMO beyond that AFTRA should avoid the tarbaby.”
geo. “tarbaby”? Really? geo.
Any one else find this incredibly racist? wow.
Doreen: The “tarbaby” reference is not racist — it’s a folk tale: a farmer puts a tar-coated figure of a rabbit in his carrot patch/cabbage patch/whatever. A rabbit comes along, greets what he thinks is a fellow rabbit, gets incensed when the figure ‘ignores’ him, strikes the figure and gets stuck on the tar. Rabbit stew. I read this story as a child years ago. The reference is apt — AFTRA should avoid getting ‘stuck in the muck’. At least, that’s how I read Geo’s comment.
Help me out, folks: I can’t remember the source. I think it’s from the original collection of “Uncle Remus” stories that Disney’s “Song of the South” was based on.
Jaxy/Doreen,
If I remember correctly, in “The Hero With A Thousand Faces,” Joseph Campbell claims there are over 250 different versions of the tarbaby story around the world. The best-known version is the Disney movie, but even that has direct roots in the West African mythology surrounding Anansi, the trickster, including his escape.
Nonetheless, it has picked up some racial connotations. You can ask Mitt Romney, who was only one of a series of politicians forced to apologize for the usage in a non-racial context.
Fred, that’s right. The Anansi story has the trickster spider getting trapped by a figure made of sticky beeswax. When Africans were brought to America, they adapted the original tales to use North American animals as a substitute for African ones (and one supposes that a trickster rabbit is more relatable for small children than a spider).
The racial connotation of ‘tarbaby’ arises both from the source being African folklore and from the fact that a figure of a baby made of tar would be black. It’s not the original meaning of ‘tarbaby’ that has given it the sense of a racial epithet, it’s the misuse of the term AS a racial epithet by bigots.