The Merger Discussion
After reading the Betsy Salkind piece and the comments in that thread, Clancy Brown wrote us with a great suggestion. Why not start the “merger” discussion from a fresh perspective, all in one place…right here.
Here’s what Clancy suggested:
Keep it front and center on Sagwatch. I ask this only because I don’t want to have to explain why MF doesn’t equal “kill AFTRA”.
That’s not my position, but I don’t want to arrest the evolution of an important thread by having to go there.
The past politics of this is the tail-chasing that continues to impede progress and I’m glad to see the effort of your regulars to escape it.
Some, clearly, won’t ever, choosing instead to obsess about this person or that statement, legacies and histories, blah, blah, blah; but that’s true with a few in MF as well.
Threads like this could scoot us past all that. It’s what needs to happen.
No need to post this note. I just wanted to suggest progress and a way to maintain its momentum.
Is it possible? What would it take? What would make a merger plan really good? What are the deal killers?
We seem to have a moment…perhaps the calm before the storm. Let’s talk.
For instance, if you take long views. . . do you make a grand solution more likely if you go for one immediately, get 4 of 6 to agree. . .and thus make the other 2 more likely to see the utility “next time”?
I don’t know. I’m an amateur historian, even been published in a academic journal in one of my areas of expertise. I always consult historical precedents on this kind of thing. . .but it seems to me the historical precedents are pretty evenly balanced on such a question.
Look, David, if you learned to communicate effectively with the English language maybe you’d stir up some decent responses to your “comments.” I see you have this same problem on all the boards you “post” on. Are you trying – in some misbegotten way – to be “special”?
BTW – I have over 20 qualifying pension years vested in *each* of SAG, AFTRA, and AEA. So what?
The “Grand Solution” was tried and the not so grand solution was tried. So far, no merger plan has worked. You’ll find the answers as to why they haven’t worked, with a little research. The issues that prevented a merger then and the issue today are remarkably similar.
What has been tried before is a bit irrelevant, isn’t it? The industry we face today is radically different than the one we faced as recently as 2003, the time of the last “merger” attempt. Why is this significant? Because what was true then – that the artists’ unions were out of alignment to the structure of the industry they were a part of – is even truer now. And as “new media” becomes a bigger and bigger share of all media, the need for flexibility in bargaining and nimble organizing is greater than ever. In fact, for the smaller unions of any grand bargain, they don’t just face lower expectations or contract diminution, they could face extinction.
The past is our guide only to the extent that it shows us what we must NOT do. A broad-based media union is the only union that will have a chance of tackling all the challenges we face from new technology and audience preference to changes in the patterns of economics and corporate ownership, and changes in the regulatory environment.
The organizations that we’ve relied upon to aide us in coordination of contracts and solving jurisdictional disputes are not up to this task. They were not designed to deal with dramatic downsizing, job consolidation, audience migration and a tech revolution that will feed a public desire for “when I want it, where I want it, how I want it.” So much for “appointment television”.
A single Alliance to rep us as we do whatever we do for the same five or six employers. But don’t linger. Once a union goes out of business, it takes its jurisdictional authority with it. And in this day and age, it would be legally impossible to retrieve, much less extend, that jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction. The recognized right and authority to bargain. Without it, you’re a version of “Stella Dallas” with your nose pressed against the window. The more jurisdiction you have, however, the more you have to talk about. Authority translates to power. And power can translate across many industry segments, especially for companies horizontally consolidated.
We, the entertainment union folk, are currently consumed with internal squabbles. We are accustomed to adjusting to changes that come from industry. We are so used to it, in fact, that we can’t imagine a situation where we ourselves might actually shape some of that change. But that possibility exists, even now, only with real coordinated action. It would exist to a much greater degree with a union that was properly aligned with the industry it faces. An Alliance of American Media Artists with wide bargaining authority, better organization and control of labor, efficient use of dues monies, and easier attainment of health and retirement benefits. Easier to belong to. Better at organizing. A much better professional partner for those who are smart enough to belong. And because of all of these factors, a much bigger headache for industry.
Perhaps what we should be looking at is some kind of “Advil Quotient”. The smaller the number, the less trouble we’re able to cause industry, the less effective we are at the bargaining table. The higher the number, the more trouble we can be, the more successful we are at bargaining the issues that matter to all of us.
Anyone want to take a poke at what our current quotient might be? Whatever the answer, ask yourself why it isn’t a ten. Because we’re nowhere near that number. And we deserve to be. We need to be.
The sooner members figure out they should demand it, the sooner we’ll get there.
Why did the past merger attempts fail? This needs to be discussed, so that these problems might be ameliorated, before another merger is attempted.
Some reasons have not changed.
—————————————————
Example from Variety:
The notice disclosed that as of Dec. 1, 2008, the market value of the assets in the (AFTRA)plan totaled $1.507 billion while the value of the benefits in the plan was $2.151 billion — or $644 million short.
As with the SAG, DGA and WGA health and pension plans, the AFTRA retirement fund is a separate entity from AFTRA and is operated jointly by trustees representing AFTRA and the industry.
In 2003, the AFTRA retirement fund made a similar request to the IRS to extend the amortization period from 15 to 25 years because of “substantial” stock market investment losses during the previous three years which had seen the fair market value of plan assets hit $1.4 billion, about $280 million short of the $1.68 billion value of vested benefits.”
—————————————————
Noting the problems, that AFTRA is continuing to have with its pension. Why should actors want to put all of their pension “eggs” in one basket?
–
Admin. Comment – We’ve heard that the McNary article is both inaccurate in places and misleading in others… and from all appearances, that’s correct. Neither the SAG nor AFTRA plans has a “shortfall” in funding.
Very few funds actually have cash on hand today to pay all the benefits that might be due over the lifetime of all the participants in the fund. That neither the SAG nor the AFTRA plans have 100% funding isn’t new – they haven’t had 100% funding at any time in recent memory. But that’s not the same as a “shortfall.”
Also, those numbers are more than a year old.
If you do not understand the differences between the AFTRA H&R and the SAG P&H plans in their funding requirements, you cannot intelligently discuss the subject. Simply put, AFTRA’s plan demands that MORE CASH be on hand in relation to the obligations and potential obligations of the plan, and SAG’s plan requires LESS CASH to be on hand. If SAG had the same funding requirement SAG would probably also be asking for an extension. What AFTRA has asked the government to do is to virtually make the funding requirements, over time, SIMILAR.
Get it?
Please don’t, in a state of ignorance, feed the flames that [those who are trying to maintain separate unions] are fanning every time there seems to be potential for them to slam AFTRA.
For those that have not read the Monday issue of Variety. The article in question:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118013047.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
The date of the most previous merger failure was 2003.
—
Admin. Comment – Variety has gone into “pay” mode, so some may not be able to access that link. In any event, the article appears to have many mistakes.
I thought Fred rather thoroughly disposed of the pension fear-mongering arguement many pages upstream. Tho I agree it needs to be distilled down into a few page document by an official third party consultant, and then released officially.
But even this article obliquely hints at the answer: “the AFTRA retirement fund is a separate entity from AFTRA. . . .”
geo,
AFTRA is continuing to have problems with its pension. Fred was involved with auditing these serious problems in the 1990′s. This article reveal how many recording artist are living in poverty because of the AFTRA funds problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/18/us/former-idols-of-rock-now-confront-the-blues.html?pagewanted=2
For the record, AFTRA’s fund has disowned previous audits that Fred Wilhelms oversaw.
The specific case was when Aftra’s health and retirement fund, and the fund’s trustees were accused of breach of contract and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in the 1990′s.
The point tho, Mike, is that merging the two unions does NOT merge the two pension funds. They are separate entities from the unions themselves.
Ed Fry. You are so right. But what a monumental undertaking. I couldn’t agree more that we need to conglomerate to compete. The question is, “How”? I sure wish I was smart, savvy and connected enough to make that happen. Got any ideas? A summit? Those don’t seem to work though. Can we gain a consensus on the internet? If so, how?
You are also right to forget about the past, that wave has hit the beach and we need to swim out to get the next big honker we can ride in to shore.
I think the answer is quite simple.
The last round of negotiations proved how weak we are as seperate unions.
Pilots signing to AFTRA shows the downside of ‘competing’ for jursidiction.
While we bicker even more work is going non-union.
The solution is simple – merge. IMHO it’s the only way we’ll tay relevant in a quickly changing industry…..