SAG at a Crossroads
To be sure, the choices haven’t changed. But the stakes are certainly much higher, as the Screen Actors Guild faces the next year. While we’re expecting that when the votes are counted Tuesday the TV-Theatrical Contract will be ratified, the ultimate choices don’t change either way.
Two very different visions of SAG’s future have been offered for the Guild. They were updated nicely in the Hollywood Reporter’s interviews this past week with Unite for Strength’s Ned Vaughn and Membership First’s Anne-Marie Johnson.
Over the past nine months, Unite for Strength has formed a solid and effective coalition with New York and the RBD, retaking control of the union from Membership First. This group has done exactly what it promised to do in last year’s election. In a remarkably short period of time, while facing crisis after crisis, the union has reversed course, walking back from a suicidal course of going it alone in negotiations while fighting on a second front with its own membership, both those outside of one faction in Hollywood and those with dual cards.
Unfortunately for SAG, during the time it has taken to effectuate that reversal, SAG’s position in the marketplace has not just eroded – it has suffered a serious collapse. In a shift of epic proportions, at a level not seen since the 1980s, the television business has moved from one union to another. Back then it went to SAG from AFTRA. This time it has gone the other way.
If the TV-Theatrical contract is ratified, it could be a first step towards what we think will be a very slow recovery in SAG’s image. Right now, despite the efforts of the majority coalition and interim NED David White, bolstered by John McGuire, producers and performers alike still see 5757 as a partner that can’t be fully trusted – not as erratic or unstable as it was under the previous regime, but nonetheless an entity to be avoided when possible – and right now there is an alternative. For a slight increase in cost, producers know they can work with AFTRA and get their projects completed with the same pool of professional actors.
Which brings us to the future, and the two very different visions we mentioned above. If more than anything else the producers want to deal with a stable and consistent union, the membership’s choice is a bit different. While we don’t view merger of SAG and AFTRA as anything that can happen for at least another two to three years (we’ll explain that calculation in a moment) we see the THR questions on “What do you do the day after ratification” and “should there be two unions” as, more than anything else, showing the difference between the SAG majority and Membership First.
Unite for Strength
Ned Vaughn:
I absolutely believe that there is a massive majority of people who do the work that this guild covers who very deeply want and need for there to be only one union. If we have learned nothing else from the last year, it is that a two-union solution does not work. Look, I and others like me who are journeymen are going to start having a much harder time in years to come qualifying for our health insurance and our pension credits if the unions remain separate and our benefits contributions are split. And talk of merger is in the air. People understand that even short of merger that SAG and AFTRA must cooperate. We cannot negotiate separately.
Membership First:
Anne-Marie Johnson:
THR: Let’s say that it (TV-Theatrical) is passed, do you have any thoughts on mending fences? Do you and your adversaries take a retreat together or go to Disneyland?Johnson: No. None whatsoever. We move ahead….
If we’re talking about actors seeing eye to eye, represented by both AFTRA and SAG, yes I see that happening. If we’re talking about a standard boilerplate merger, no I don’t see that happening. But if we’re talking about actors, on-screen talent, seeing and speaking the same language and understanding the same needs and concerns, yes I do see that happening.
Johnson did shoot down the idea heard often in Membership First circles about Hollywood breaking off from the rest of the union. While we see rejecting the two union concept as smart, we also see it as a recognition that it’s one of those ideas that is a straw man, never having been a real possibility. Not only does it incorrectly presume that Membership First has anything more than a temporary majority on the Hollywood board, even if its chance of getting through the full union with a 60% supermajority were more than zero, the question of splitting SAG’s assets in two would make the messiest divorce settlement look like a Fizzlers picnic.
Our explanation of “not for at least two to three years:”
Despite the Membership First/Fizzlers rhetoric about AFTRA still wanting to merge with SAG after all the failed attempts over the years, even if it were to be politically acceptable within SAG, right now we don’t think a SAG merger is anywhere on the AFTRA radar. While unquestionably the Unite for Strength victory brought merger back into the realm of theoretical possibility, the AFTRA leadership isn’t likely to seriously entertain a discussion of another merger attempt on the basis of a single SAG election cycle. We think it would take at least two more solid victories by the majority coalition for merger to be seen within AFTRA as worth attempting – and two years would bring us back into the major contract negotiation cycle. We don’t think merger and major negotiations can co-exist. So we don’t see a window where merger could seriously be entertained until at least 2011-2012.
So, here we are.
We haven’t yet seen who the candidates for President will be this fall, but we do see the issues. Two choices. Two visions for the future.
This time, we think, the membership should, and will, care.
Brilliant observations….there is a clear path that needs to be taken if SAG will ever become the respected and powerful union it once was. Any other path will surely have dire consquences for us, the members.
The most important result of ratifying the TV-Theatrical contracts, in my view, will be the establishment of a June 30, 2011 expiration date for SAG. This coincides with AFTRA’s June 30, 2011 expiration date. Simultaneous expiration dates are an essential condition for return to Phase I joint bargaining. Therefore, ratification will set the stage for a return to Phase I.
That seems to me to be the next logical step in the progression toward any eventual merger or consolidation. Without Phase I, discussion of merger or consolidation seems impossible.
This means that should the contracts NOT be ratified, any prospect of merger or consolidation is probably dead for the foreseeable future. Without the ability to negotiate jointly, the two unions — and their contracts — will inevitably drift farther apart. It may perhaps not be a coincidence that the “vote no” crowd overlaps very heavily with the “don’t merge” crowd.
Of course, failure to ratify these contracts will have powerful negative effects on SAG standing alone. Feature film production will remain crippled. SAG member earnings will remain depressed as the 2007 rates continue in effect. More television work will move to AFTRA. Failure to ratify, in short, will push SAG even further into the hole that it is already in.
Let’s hope enough members have better sense.
VG
The desire for a SAG/AFTRA merger, from the AFTRA side, does not currently seem apparent. The desire for a SAG/AFTRA merger from the Membership First faction, which almost 50% of SAG’s elected leaders, is nonexistent. I agree with the editor that a merger isn’t likely to happen, anytime soon. Especially under the aforementioned circumstances. Somebody should tell UFS and USAN.
I suspect you have some context on what you are assuming “merger” really means from a mechanical perspective that I do not. Is there a document available somewhere describing the mechanics of the last proposal? Otherwise I’m left wondering why you think election cycles matter. Surely a merged union will have its own elections?
And, btw, everyone in AFTRA should consider that they will inevitably “grow themselves” into a similar actor politics demographic –as they get more shows, they’ll get more militants along with them.
It will be very interesting to see what the AFTRA NB room looks like/sounds like with AMJ in a seat/at a mic/in print. She better watch her step – and her mouth – or it will be “Angel Tomkins, Redux” …complete with security guards.
V.
I’d be wary of ceding the word “militants” to those of Membership First and their supporters. Were the Khmer Rouge “militants?” Staunchly self-serving does not, in my opinion, translate necessarily into “militant” nor does obstructionism and monolithic obedience to centralized command translate into militancy.
No. They are – as I heard first from the lips of Alan Rosenberg – the “Hollywood Crazies.” Doesn’t mean I don’t love them. Just means I wouldn’t want them running the show. Good for making suggestions, watching the clock, having in the action scenes – but you don’t want them directing the film, planning the shots, or cutting the negative. Or telling you how to act.
USF thought they would restructure the negotiating committee and that the AMPTP would realize how nice and civil they were and would actually negotiate. WRONG! The branches of SAG are AFTRA offices with conflicts of interests. The staffs do a great job of separating-but the actors, not so much.
Mike,
“People understand that even short of merger that SAG and AFTRA must cooperate. We cannot negotiate separately.”
You probably missed this since it was more than halfway through the Ned Vaughn interview and I know you haven’t got the attention span to have reached it, let alone understood it.
Five words that actually constitute a plan:
Mend the relationship. Cooperate. Merge.
Let me know when this sinks in.
the assumption that AFTRA is not inclined to merge is a curious one. do you not know anyone on the board of AFTRA?
From what I understand, a large percentage of the current AFTRA board is very interested in Merger. They just don’t think it’s worth talking about again until SAG gets its s*%# together.
Geo — the articles of merger from the last go round are still floating around. UFS is very committed to merger: it’s what put us together in the first place.
And mike, you show yourself off to be either ignorant or you think those of us who want merger are idiots, don’t actually talk to people, and have our heads stuck in the sand. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s the difference: we’re willing to talk to people, get their feelings about the issues, and come up with a plan. We don’t dictate what anyone should feel, or deride those who different opinions: a diversity of open opinion is preferable to towing the party line.
–
Ed. Response = The item was based on conversations over the past month with leaders of both unions, and upon comments they have made here and in other media. To be clear, we recognize that in their hearts, the vast majority of AFTRA leaders and members would be happy were a merger to take place.
However, the AFTRA leadership has shown that, if nothing else, it’s a group of realists. While they certainly view the election results last summer and the formation of SAG’s coalition (UFS/NY/RBD) as extremely positive developments and have responded by working with the coalition and the new SAG staff leadership in any number of areas (Commercials, Non Disparagement enforcement, etc.), they’ve taken a “wait and see” attitude towards longer term restoration of the SAG-AFTRA relationship.
The question we hear most often when talking to AFTRA insiders is “Is the change at SAG a flash in the pan, or will UFS knuckle down and do the hard work to clean up Hollywood?” Without serious progress on that front, we’re quite certain that AFTRA will make no move towards another merger attempt with SAG.
Fred W. and william charlton,
Unlike many of the Membership First faction, I am completely and totally for cooperation and have called repeatedly on this blog for returning to Phase I.
I have also called for joint negotiation of Phase I “as written” which, as acknowledged by AFTRA’s NED, includes basic cable.
I have noted that there is already a procedure in place for a SAG/AFTRA merger. The aforementioned Phase I agreement, which should be FULLY adhered to for a least two contract cycles before another merger attempt.
Fred W., maybe since you are a relative late comer to this blog were ignorant of this fact. Our maybe your irresistible urge, to be sarcastic, causes a concomitant loss of memory.
to what standard will your merger plans take as a guide for this to ocur? as for members I do not think the vote tally that was witnessed
is any indication that AFTRA members care for anything about AFTRA..
so who are the few who actually controls the direction of AFTRA?
and is it in the best interest of their actor charges..
–
Admin. Comment – The “few” are the members. They elect delegates to a National Convention every two years, which is AFTRA’s highest governing body, and also elect both local and national board members, who set policy for the union during the periods between conventions.
You should know this stuff – you ran for one of their boards. Of course, if I read one of your posts on another board correctly, you got a total of ten votes. 10!
I think that pretty much expresses the opinion of actors as to your judgment of what is in their best interest.
Admin,
Mr. Hillberg is engaging in the usual MF magic numbers exercizes here:
Since only about 3,330 LA AFTRA members voted in this election, that can only mean that AFTRA members are not interested in their union. There can be no other explanation to Mr. Hillberg. The fact that most candidates ran unopposed is clearly not important. The fact that those positions that were contested posed no threat to the direction set by the current leadership is irrelevant. The fact that these numbers are not out of line with historic results should be ignored.
This is the faction that thinks a “slim majority” isn’t really a majority, yet believes that a President elected by fewer than half the voters must be followed without complaint.
This is the faction that thinks a postcard poll result endorsed by less than 9% of SAG membership is an overwhelming mandate for MF.
This is the faction that spent $150,000 to defeat another union’s referendum and saw it pass by nearly a 2-to-1 margin is a “victory.”
And, as Mr. Hillberg again proves, this is a faction that is looking for justifications to continue to keep actors divided and straining to find them in nonsense numbers.
More’s the pity.
In his defense, mike has, from the outset, been consistent in his urging for SAG and AFTRA to return to Phase 1 and joint negotiations “as written” under Phase 1.
Nice backflip, Mike.
You suggest that UFS and USAN are alone in looking for merger right now, (you know, you said “Somebody should tell UFS and USAN” that nobody else is interested.) When it is pointed out by more than one person, that you managed to misread or intentionally misrepresent (wow, what a surprise THAT is) their actual position in an unsuccessful attempt to seem clever, you get your shorts in a wad and wrap yourself in Phase 1, which of course, has nothing to do with what you said.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the new SAG majority is going to immediately press for merger, despite your “analysis” to the contrary. Vaughn said there is “talk of merger.” Not that it was imminent. (Why do I hear echoes of the impending “death of residuals” in your interpretation? I guess you really never stray too far from the pack, even in your fierce independence.)In fact, Vaughn’s rather well reasoned commentary and acknowledgement that there is room for cooperation “short of merger” makes you seem like just another MF loudmouth taking potshots at straw targets.
Why is that?
If this was too long for you, let me know.
Fred W. said:
“do I hear echoes of the impending “death of residuals†in your interpretation”
Fred, I really think you’re starting to lose it. Your implication with this quote, implies another one of your wacky interpolations, of what you “think” I believe. Its all in your head Fred. What I have written in this blog is completely opposite of that quote.
Months ago I gave my reasons for voting “YES” on the contract. One of the three main reasons was that residuals are NOT going to end any time soon. I also added that the network need to replay their TV shows over the summer to promote the upcoming season. That is not going to stop. I repeated this to you several times. Another reason I gave, was that some people, just aren’t that tech savvy. I starting to worry about you Fred.
That’s I’m not I.
Do I believe that USAN has had back channel discussion with “certain” AFTRA leaders?
Yes.
Do I believe that “some” AFTRA leaders are interested in a SAG/AFTRA merger?
Yes, I believe that too.
But I agree with the editor of this blog. That’s why I said “I agree with the editor that a merger isn’t likely to happen, anytime soon.” I was agreeing with the editorial. Again I have consistently stated on this blog that I don’t believe AFTRA wants a merger. Matt Mulhern might have. I NEVER have.
AFTRA has been building market share at an exponential rate. I think they are happy being independent from SAG, at this time. AFTRA doesn’t recognize any jurisdiction boundaries in TV, as long as a Digital Camera is used. Why should they merge? AFTRA, because of its building market share, is gaining members, at an exponential rate. A few years ago AFTRA was shrinking. Why should they merge now? AFTRA is in the stronger position. If you dig into the SAGwatch archive, you would see, I have stated that before.
The editor stated:
“Without serious progress on that front, we’re quite certain that AFTRA will make no move towards another merger attempt with SAG.”
I believe him. I don’t believe that AFTRA is at all eager to merge with SAG at this time. No matter what “some” individuals leaders, within AFTRA, might tell the UFS leaders.
I get it Mike. You’re really, really, really independent. You don’t have to keep telling me. I mean, it’s apparent in every post you make, because you keep mentioning it.
Why is that?
“Mike” – I am so interested that you are completely and totally for cooperation and returning to Phase I – including basic cable as well.
Me too. Did you vote YES for this contract?
If you did not, do you realize that cooperation with AFTRA and returning to Phase I, including basic cable, would be IMPOSSIBLE?
Tom,
I voted YES on the contract.
Tom, we know he voted YES because he’s independent.
We know he’s independent because he tells us he is.
The fact that he takes a page from the MF playbook and suggest that someone who disagrees witht hem is insane rather than stick to substantive issues is just another clue to his independence. Only a truly independent thinker would engage in that tactic because . . .
. . . well, because he says he’s independent, anyway. That should be enough.
I am pessimistic that membership will care. Let’s be honest… just like the general Presidential election, a lot of people just don’t start paying attention until weeks, or even days, before the vote. And when leaving decisions that late, people are much more likely to be swayed by the sound bite and fear-mongering than reasoned thought and consideration.
It’s obvious which parties in this election represent those qualities, respectively. I would hope and expect that if UFS wants to win this election, and truly put the possibility of merger back on the table, they need to start campaigning NOW. And that means member-to-member education and interaction. House parties. Instructional Videos. Flyers. Brochures.
This all takes money, but perhaps there are more than a few sympathetic A-Listers that would consider becoming “high-dollar donors.” The vote on this contract is only the beginning of what is sure to be a brutal campaign. But getting out front is important — keeping MF responding rather than controlling the conversation is essential. And as much as some on this site will hate this suggestion, making friends with and reaching out to media outlets like Finke can only help this effort. John McCain proved for a good long time that being friendly to the press, and granting EVERY media request could endear a personality and result in positive coverage for some distasteful ideas. Not that UFS has distasteful ideas, but how much more can an effective, responsive media strategy aid good ideas? In the end, Obama had a better press relationship than McCain, the supposed master. In contrast, Howard Dean did not have a good media relationship, and subsequently, they tore him apart the first chance they got, over a trivial matter (the “scream”).
Much like our domestic politics, I have a feeling our union politics have gotten to the point where the campaign needs to be constant. Memes are built over time. Start planting the seeds now. The most effective tool is the simple fact that the ONLY way to ensure the mindf**k that was the 2008-09 contract negotiations never happens again is merger. Start putting that message out now, through all channels.
ANTI-MERGER is ANTI-UNION. Now who wants to help me put that slogan on some bumper stickers and t-shirts? I can design them, I just can’t pay for them.
So mike,
Regarding your first comment… Are you against a SAG/AFTRA merger ever? Against a merger at this time (back-burner it)? In favor of taking some initial steps toward a merger? In favor of merger being a main priority for SAG right now?
This aren’t gotcha questions. I’m genuinely curious.
* * * * *
My own thoughts…
I’m looking at it from the perspective a non-affected reader who has had to deal with revising/adapting convoluted infrastructures at a couple orgs/businesses (in sportswear, but the issues are similar). I just see it as a HUGE bureaucratic nightmare on numerous levels. The $$$ costs of competently combining procedures, IT systems, similar staff jobs, etc. will be staggering. Is there even a way to combine benefits where some group won’t be getting the short end of the stick? These company-wide transitions take YEARS and introduce numerous unexpected problems. The leadership at the top of the unions seems so volatile and changes so frequently, it would be a disaster to start and then suddenly stop a major transformation like that.
I’m not saying merger can’t be done or shouldn’t be done. I just think some people toss around the term “merger” too flippantly (like all it involves is changing the letterhead logo) and don’t appreciate all of the non-political dimensions involved. The substantial resources that would be devoted to the “merger project” are resources that could be used to better resolve day-to-day membership issues and expand membership work opportunities.
As long as SAG-AFTRA can once again negotiate together and has the combined leverage of the entire professional acting community, do they really need to tackle all of the headaches an actual merger would entail, right now in this economy?
Cruiser,
My thoughts, pretty much mirror your thoughts, in regards to the merger question.
Before we look to merge, the more immediate route should be working jointly. Back to Phase 1. That can be more easily be attained than a merger. The next negotiation (assuming this contract ratifies) is not that fary away. We would be back to the table in 18 months. Joint negs under Phase 1 now allows us to focus all our resources on that contract…it allows for two more elections to go by. Then whe nthat contract is done we can start on a merger.
And we also need to start something else that MF campaigned against and failed to brint to term, the agency franchise.
With regards to Mike, the true moderates in this may in fact agree with the occasional MF talking point… MF has some legitimate beefs with this contract. I voted yes, but it was a strategic decision, made to repudiate the last two years of incompetent leadership, not because I thought this contract is a home-run. I’m pro-union, pro-merger, and pro-lining up contracts with other unions for a future strike action to get the gains that MF rightfully wants. My beef with MF isn’t what they expect, is how they went about trying to get what they expected.
I agree with Michael, as do many of my fellow acting cohorts who read this blog. (Though according to MF cultists like Eric-Anders there are only 5 people who visit this site.) I am pro-union, very pro-merger and absolutely pro-lining up the contracts. I also agree with most of what MF wants. I used to be MF. I absolutely disagree with how they’ve gone about getting what they want. The cult is dying.
Mike,
I have a strong suspicion that you are once again being confused with “Mikey”.
The one-letter difference is sometimes tough to catch when skimming through. I’ve missed it a couple of times, and thought “Mikey” was having a change of heart, only to be disappointed… *sigh*
“In his defense, mike has, from the outset, been consistent in his urging for SAG and AFTRA to return to Phase 1 and joint negotiations “as written†under Phase 1.”
I agree with Sheffc.