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.
Let us just start with ‘entrance requirements’. AFTRA lets anyone
walk in with a check or credit card and join, without any creits at
all. SAG at least requires one to have worked under a SAG contract
to become a member. I have suggested several times an easy way to
resolve this, but nobody pays attention. So forget it. Millie
Ms. Wright,
This is just a difference between the unions, not an insurmountable impediment to merger. Both SAG and AFTRA’s methods work for many unions, the idea of pursuing merger is to find the one that works best for performers, not the one that more members are fond of. The function of this discussion thread is to help performers distinguish between real issues and those that are simply raised as objections.
Is there a difference between SAG and AFTRA’s entrance requirements? Yes.
Should there only be one requirement in a merged union? Probably yes.
Is there any legal, constitutional or philosophical reason why there can’t be a single requirement? No.
So what’s your suggestion?
“A Grand Bargain”
You can not build the power and leverage of the union by keeping potential members out. You need as many professionals IN as possible to stop producers from going to non-union alternative talent. A union is not a club. There is no advantage whatsoever in being “exclusive”. There is only one answer here: open the doors and get as many folks in as you can to improve your leverage with employers. Full stop. End of story.
And let me suggest we stop talking about “merger” as an AFTRA/SAG affair. It isn’t. As 21st century professionals, we need a single media union to cover us whether we act for the movies, television, the stage, a video game or some new computer chip that displays programs on a screen the size of a wrist watch or a 4 story building; whether we are live, digitized, colorized or computer generated; whether we sing grand opera or county; dance ballet or a polka; perform stunts or interview the stuntman; whether we’re broadcasters, actors, recording artists, touring bands, daytime divas or singing weathermen. It’s time for the structure of our unions to mature. Ask for the kind of media union we need and deserve, not an exclusive club that carves up jurisdiction to members’ detriment while needlessly excluding people which only advantages producers.
Consolidated media needs to finally meet consolidated talent.
So, let us consider “A Grand Bargain”. AFTRA, SAG, AEA, AGVA, AGMA, AFM as a single union. Let’s start there and build some real power with which to bargain and stop belittling our own cause. Leadership will give you a dozen reasons why it can’t be done. Industry will hate this idea and do its dead-level best to defeat it. That’s why members must demand it.
If you are under thirty, you should check to see if the structure of unions today is a relic of a different analog day. I think you should be banging on all the union doors to make sure you have one card to cover all the work you can do, not five or six. One dues payment that covers all your work that goes to provide health care and retirement. One union to bargain the best deals today and adequately plan for the best deals tomorrow.
An “Alliance of American Media Artists”. One card. One stop. And one huge reason to keep producers up at night. Anything less is, at best, the 21st century’s 3rd prize.
[img]http://www.sagwatch.net/wp-content/upload/The Alliance of American Media Artists-1.jpg[/img]
Do know that what you are suggesting, was tried before and failed? Have you research why the prior attempt to merge AEA, AFRA, SAG, as well as others, failed? What would you do differently? Another expensive merger failure would be a disaster.
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 love you Ed Fry.
This might be worthy of its own thread. Are “grand solutions” practical, or do they need to be approached one step at a time?
I don’t know, but I’d be interested to hear some opinions from a practical pov. Do you pick up votes or lose votes in individual entities by going for a “grand solution”? Even if you favor a grand solution, presumably you recognize practical considerations in getting there.
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.
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.
I’m listening, Millie. I’m fairly sure a lot of influential guild people read this thread and more will in the future. Tell them again.
My grandmother always told me “patience and fortitude. . . patience and fortitude.”
Ahh … the old “entrance requirements” conundrum. I. DON’T. CARE.
Merge.
God, this is one of the stupid arguements.
Let’s let every single person who ever wanted to be in show biz into the union. What are you afraid of?? Who Cares???? You wanna pay the initiation fee? Great. Thanks for your money – SAG needs it. Abide by Global Rule One and knock yourself out.
One union does it one way, the other union a different way …. I. DON’T. CARE.
Merge.
I have created a Facebook Group http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=122423155250 dedicated to a working idea for merger between the unions. It needs your help! I have found that even people who purport to be interested in merger don’t actually read the plan, and almost no one offers constructive criticism. After partaking in yet another plenary and discussing the basics of my plan, I have some new ideas and will be revising this accordingly. I am also doing more research so that I may include numbers to support my hypotheses that, while this is not ideal for those who think we should merge at all costs nor for those who want no part in merger, this compromise may well be a solid answer and will not destroy either entity.
Just the key points in this plan:
•P/H plans remain intact
•No name change
•Retention of autonomy over undisputed jurisdiction
In Solidarity,
Robert Blanche
deal killers NO residuals no membership input
those who work AFTRA clame her to be the wayward daughter.
look to the election results to see the involvement
look to the staff and elected officials actions and in actions to the needs of the acting community..NEDs and presidents of both SAG and AFTRA need to pull their heads out.as well as anyone not willing to confront the producers on residuals all media and mediums..
merging is small patatos compared to the under compensation of the acting community…
–
Mod. Comment: The dozens of spam messages we delete each day are frequently more coherent than this.
my gosh. This is so weird. I have no idea what his point is or what he is commenting about.
wow.
you would not understand any way even if you were there…
why don’t you all strengthen the 4As and work down from there might take you all a life time..
by the way how many of you are vested..SAG AFTRA ect
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?