Yes, She’s Done it Again
Once again, Hollywood President and National First VP Anne-Marie Johnson, the reigning Queen of Membership First, is squarely in the middle of yet another dispute over a plain violation of the SAG-AFTRA Non Disparagement Agreement. It’s Johnson’s second in a week that will likely end up before the AFL-CIO.
Johnson’s election letter, while protected under the disparagement agreement’s exception for statements of candidates, requires SAG to disavow the statement within 24 hours, or face yet another fine of up to $2 million for disparagement. The non disparagement agreement language in question is paragraph 8b:
Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to require either party to take any action that would interfere with a candidate’s exercise of free speech rights guaranteed by federal labor law. No liability to a party shall arise because of a candidate’s communication that violates paragraph 4, above, as long as the union that is not being disparaged promptly issues a disclaimer to its members (e.g. a notice posted prominently on its website), with a copy to the other union and the Umpire, affirming that it does not support the communication that violates paragraph 4,and, int he event of notification of the violation by the other union, does so within 24 hours of notification.
Johnson’s latest campaign e-mail is a broadside attack on AFTRA’s Exhibit A contract, something that is not permitted except by a candidate under the Non Disparagement Agreement. It follows her taking the chair of a Hollywood Board committee she chose to discuss raiding AFTRA… another violation of the NDA.
The raiding committee, formed despite the objections of interim NED David White and SAG General Counsel Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, has already led to emergency high level discussions between SAG, AFTRA and the AFL-CIO. Now SAG’s staff are in the uncomfortable position of trying to convince President Alan Rosenberg and the NEC, both of which are dominated by Membership First, that they not only have to disavow their own faction’s formation of the raiding committee, but that they have to OK a statement by the union specifically disavowing Johnson’s campaign statement.
And, if I’m not mistaken, and as you point out above, they only have 24 hours to issue their disavowal, right?
Tick tock…..
And if Rosenberg and the MF-controled NEC do not disavow the statement…then they’ll have to answer to the Membership why their dues dollars are being spent on a political action.
Looks like this time AMJ and MF have got both feet in their mouths. If the don’t disavow, they’ll cost the guild money, which they’ll need to explain to the members…..and if they disavow their own factions action….well….
It’s obvious that their arrogance is going to be their own downfall.
disavow away. If they don’t, then it’ll just add more weight to the argument that MF are actually anti-union. Membership First: Union Busters.
Uhh, that reads they have 24 hours from formal complaint by AFTRA. Has AFTRA made a formal complaint?
Well, I guess it doesn’t say “formal complaint”, so let’s be precise –has anyone who is authorized to act on behalf of AFTRA given a “notification of the violation” to SAG?
A few other thoughts:
1). The email response from AFTRA to their members certainly isn’t a “notification of violation” to SAG. It’s addressed to their own members (whether some SAG people are dual-union or not is irrelevant) and doesn’t include any key words re the disparagement agreement to think they even intended it to be such notification.
2). As wonderful a resource as SAGWATCH is, and as well read by movers and shakers within both guilds, posts here also don’t constitute notification by AFTRA to SAG. There are well-understood and formal channels for official cross-guild communications (I don’t know what they are, but they surely exist) and SAGWATCH ain’t them. Jane Peeved from AFTRA firing off an email to Jill Bully from SAG is also not “notification” unless Jane and Jill have been designated by their respected Guilds to be the channel of communication for such things.
3). Surely the SPIRIT of the agreement would require SAG, if SAG were to perceive a violation before being notified by AFTRA, to address the violation –but the letter of the agreement does not require them to do so other than “promptly” (null amorphous word), and only if they themselves perceive the violation. Otherwise they get 24 hours from notification by AFTRA thru usual channels.
4). Having said all that, I’d really like to see AFTRA ignore this so far as the disparagement agreement goes as just the usual sharp elbows of an election campaign. I do not think they do themselves any good to be perceived as trying to stifle or intimidate debate in the middle of their own political campaign by repeatedly tripping off 24 hr deadlines under SAG. That won’t support the impression AFTRA leadership has been doggedly communicating –which is they are the responsible grownups in this situation. Let MF own “petty” until/unless the provocation gets really extreme –and this ain’t it, in my judgement.
–
Ed. Response – Your completely correct that a post here is not a notice under the agreement. But just because there is a post here does not mean that there hasn’t been a proper notice sent to the Guild. We’ll have more on this later this afternoon.
Thanks, Ed. Here’s hoping AFTRA and SAG settle on some kind of one time blanket disavowal of all political candidate statements as sufficient to the occassion, while urging candidates to practice restraint in such statements for the common good, etc. That would both make the point necessary to be made, and prevent a useless and unseemly (for both parties, in my view) Groundhog Day merry-go-round of 24 hr cycles between here and election day.
geo,
you are really going out of your way defend this. one wonders why?
I myself am a little torn about what AFTRA’s response to this should be, but I know I wouldn’t be trying to figure ways to justify and defend what is happening.
Actually, while typing this I decided I am no longer torn on what AFTRA should do. The should pursue it, if it is deemed in violation of the N-D agreement it means up to $2mil to AFTRA and its members. Big plus for AFTRA as well as a gigantic negative against AMJ in her campaigns in both AFTRA and SAG as it would show a lack of responsibility in protecting members due funds (along with the track record of law suits and anti-ratification campaigns etc)
Don’t bust your buttons over this – it would have been entirely appropriate for them to form a Hollywood subcommittee to study merger possibilities acceptable to their constituents. That might include – “…all actors in the SAG division, everyone else in some other thingie, and a chance to vote on a total divorce in 5 years.” Smells like raiding, but couldn’t be a violation of the disparagement agreement since you don’t know what positions a committee might take in the future. Yet you could certainly keep reporting the brave speeches being made by the uncensored membership expressing themselves before your saviour committee.
My point is – either they’re stupid and cannot wisely pursue their goals, or this is a deliberate provocation designed to lead to more lawsuits. But that’s only if we let it – AFTRA should just pronounce it “silly” and as such, incapable of being disparagement.
Dear Formerly,
You mean AFTRA should behave like adults, exercise their fiduciary responsibility to protect their members, file an objection, and penalize the jackanapes who attack AFTRA and jeopardize their own organization in contradiction of the agreement that was made in their names? I gotta admit, you are absolutely right. The logic couldn’t be simpler. But mark me, there will be someone here soon who will say it is all AFTRA’s fault. Gardyloo!
Hollywood did not form a task committee to study merger idea, it formed a rading task force…read the motion. That is the big issue, to me; AMJ’s email is salt on the wound.
I think AFTRA has every right to pursue AMJ and others just as they did Angel Thompkins and consider kicking them out of AFTRA….The motion went against the advice of David White and Duncan Crabtree-Irleand…and this is MF’s way of daring someone to just try and stop them. SAG should not have to apologize, or disavow, its board members’ behavior….and as fiduciaries of the Guild if their actions cost the Guild money, they should be accountable to the membership.
Nah, I’m not defending it. See my post earlier today on the AMJ thread. I’m just not sure AFTRA is best served by getting into a cyclical (and who believes this is the last time AMJ will trigger this particular political campaign clause?) “there goes AMJ again!” thing as part of an election campaign. It’s just that in my opinion, AMJ as irresponsible bully and AFTRA as patient adults is a political winner. AMJ as marytr and AFTRA as bully trying to keep her from educating their members during an election campaign may not be, particulary now that MF is not running SAG’s national board.
Maybe I’m too sensitive on the political martyr for the guild’s members front –my grandfather considered Jock Yablonski a friend, and my best friend in 2nd grade was the grandchild of the owners of the bar where his assasins got liquored up while they were in town plotting the deed. I used to play in the parking lot.
Go after her on the “raiding” thing all you want.
EVERYTHING IN THE NEW MEDIA TERMS of the SAG/AMPTP tentative agreement
- INCLUDING CLIP CONSENT –
except low-budget made-for-internet and move-over for pre-1974 product
WAS ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY DOUG ALLEN, THE MF-DOMINATED NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE (including Anne-Marie Johnson)
before AFTRA even sat down to bargain.
Want me to repeat that?
EVERYTHING IN THE NEW MEDIA TERMS of the SAG/AMPTP tentative agreement
- INCLUDING CLIP CONSENT –
except low-budget made-for-internet and move-over for pre-1974 product
WAS ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY DOUG ALLEN, THE MF-DOMINATED NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE (including Anne-Marie Johnson)
before AFTRA even sat down to bargain.
Does anyone here remember the ‘dance’ on the Ed Sullivan show (hey, c’mon, I was a little kid) … that, when they faced one direction, it was a man, and when they faced the other direction it was a woman? My point is, AMJ is that extreme in her taking of positions, and all at the same time/moment.
She ‘chairs’ the AFTRA raiding task force coming out of Hollywood, she sends out campaign material (for her SAG compadres) that blasts AFTRA’s newly minted contract, and now she’s – SERIOUSLY, folks – running for the AFTRA National Board.
She’s the dancing he/she.
The crowd’s going wild.
V.
Vested.
Perfect analogy.
That dance routine is an old vaudeville turn that predates the Sullivan show by at least a generation, My grandfather would revive it for local benefit shows he produced, usually casting the beefiest Elk/Mason/cop/coach in the organization in the half-and-half role. It never failed to bring down the house. So, you still qualify as a kid.