SAGWatch – Observing the Screen Actors Guild and AFTRA

22 Comments

1. Tom Ligon says:

   October 2, 2009 at 10:22 AM

   To have Chocolate Cheese Spread in our union would mean the end of SAG as we know it!
2. Billy says:

   October 2, 2009 at 12:20 PM

   What really matters here is not these relatively small combinations of companies. It’s the AMPTP, negotiating collectively, versus all the individual unions, each negotiating on their own.

   But, yes, any merger, at all, will be a huge step forward for us workers…!
3. marisa redanty says:

   October 2, 2009 at 12:55 PM

   The anti merger folks will wag the dog. Merger is the next step and the missed step years ago. Most thinking members know this, want this and don’t understand who or what is stopping it.

   We should simply go forward at this point towards merger. Those who scream and yell will be left behind.

   I haven’t heard one argument against merger that made one iota of sense. Not one point is valid or even realistic. Maybe several years ago it was questionable because it was never clarified that the health plan could be merged or that the P&H could be merged after the new entity was established.

   Listen to members? Of course. Continue with the best strategy for our future? Absolutely. Allow the nay sayers to stop the only way we will survive? Nope.
4. Fred W says:

   October 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM

   SAG could never merge with Kraft. They own Oscar Meyer, and combining that with Arlin Miller would allow the Guild to monopolize the world’s production of bologna.

   However, I can see replacing the SAG Watchdog with the Taco Bell Chihuahua, and Mattie could become the spokesman for Planter’s Nuts.
5. Michael says:

   October 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM

   I heard one background “artist” on set complaining that when SAG and SEG merged, his wages dropped from $100/8 to $60/8. Well, they’re back up now, and he’s getting pension and health. He seems to think that merger with AFTRA means adopting lower contracts where AFTRA contracts are lower than SAG. Didn’t matter when I told him that AFTRA contracts in prime-time class A are currently higher than SAG’s.

   Fact is, a lot of those against merger are just afraid, and only worry about how it will affect “me.”

   It’s obvious to anyone who’s able to look past their fears and think just a little bit about community that merger strengthens us. I say it again, anti-merger is anti-union. Truly. the end result of the two competing ideas is either you’re in it entirely for yourself, or we’re all in it together.

   I know where I stand.
6. mike says:

   October 2, 2009 at 3:49 PM

   Not necessarily, not too long ago, the two Hollywood camera unions, video-film, merged.

   I asked a cameraman, if the merger, had lead to a better contracts. He said just the opposite. The contracts are worse for the combined camera unions. They recently lost one operator per show. DP’s are now also considered operators.

   Then you have the disastrous Time/Warner/AOL merger to consider.

   A successful merger depends on many complex factors.
7. Matthew says:

   October 2, 2009 at 5:29 PM

   “He seems to think that merger with AFTRA means adopting lower contracts where AFTRA contracts are lower than SAG. Didn’t matter when I told him that AFTRA contracts in prime-time class A are currently higher than SAG’s.”

   It is you who is confused, Michael. This fellow was obviously referring to AFTRA cable contracts, which undercut SAG’s severely, far more than SAG’s delayed contracts undercut AFTRA’s in Exhibit A. I worked one AFTRA cable show background earlier this year and the pay was $101/8. It’s probably like $105 now. And there are far more of these shows than AFTRA prime time shows, even with the abduction of pilots.

   Also, this guy will probably lose a ton of work if a merger is voted up. The AFTRA people working background who are not eligible for SAG will get access to and compete for his work, and thousands will join before AFTRA closes shop to ineligible performers, competing for that same work also. He stands to potentially lose thousands and maybe health coverage. But because he’s “in it for himself” his opinions must not mean anything.
8. Voiceguy says:

   October 2, 2009 at 5:31 PM

   This commits the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (B happened after A therefore B was caused by A).

   The changes here reflect the march of technology and economics, and almost certainly would have occurred (and been even more significant) without merger.

   Actors face the same techonological and economic forces. At least with a merged union, there is a reduction in duplicative overhead and a maximizing of bargaining power, whatever that power might be. It’s not a magic pill.

   VG
9. Sheffc says:

   October 2, 2009 at 7:24 PM

   What confuses you, Matthew, is the idea that if there was only ONE union we wouldn’t be racing each other to the bottom. For THE EXACT SAME WORK. Pitiful.

   And I love how the idea of lots of background performers scares you. You really look foolish promoting the idea that there are “thousands” of people out there just waiting to become background performers – if only the two unions would finally merge. “Gosh, I’d love to work Background, and someday I will, it’s gonna be so great – but I think I’ll wait until SAG and AFTRA are gonna merge.” Huh?

   Anti-Merger is Anti-Union.
10. Dr. Giggles says:

    October 2, 2009 at 8:23 PM

    If I recall from the last merger attempt there were something like 5000 members of AFTRA doing extra work that had not qualified to join SAG. So while the work pool would increase, it’s not opening the flood gates. AFTRA rates may be lower in some cases, but ALL the extra must be AFTRA; in SAG jobs after the contract limit is reached, all those above can be non-SAG….So which is really better? And the only way we’ll ever parity is these contracts is in a merger…other wise the producer will keep the race to the bottom going.
11. mike says:

    October 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM

    I did not make a fallacious argument, because I qualified the argument with the words ” not necessarily”.

    If anybody use an illogical or fallacious argument it was admin. in the editorial. It is the perfect example of erroneous reasoning by using of the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) to make an argument.

    I just provided counter examples to defeat the defective reasoning which is brought about the editorials use of a fallacious argument.
12. Matthew says:

    October 2, 2009 at 9:36 PM

    Sheff, apparently I have to explain things slowly because you sure don’t think before you write. Your reasoning makes no sense. Thousands of people “waiting” to become background performers? They already ARE background performers-working non-union or AFTRA(a lot of AFTRA only members do n/u bg work on SAG shows/films in violation of AFTRA rules, to the indifference of AFTRA). Non-union extras for film/tv make $64/8. Union extras make $134-139/8. For SAG commercials SAG get $323/8, while n/u get about $125/12. You think those n/u all wouldn’t rather be working for the higher rates? Of course they would, but they can’t because they aren’t eligible to join SAG. There are thousands of n/u bg working in Hollywood just dying to get their vouchers so they can work SAG.
13. mike says:

    October 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM

    Its not true that, as written by Dr. Giggles, “ALL the extra must be AFTRA”.

    Just read AFTRA’s -(Exhibit A) To the Network Code-.
    Just 20 extras, need to be union on prime time broadcast TV covered by an AFTRA contract. Same for Basic and Pay Cable as they are based on the (Exhibit A) rates and terms.

    Soaps, which only account for five shows total and there is only one Soap still left in New York, are the only major AFTRA contract were all Extras must be union.
14. mike says:

    October 2, 2009 at 9:43 PM

    without the typos:

    I did not make a fallacious argument, because I qualified the argument with the words ” not necessarily”.

    If anybody used an illogical or fallacious argument it was admin. in the editorial. It is the perfect example of erroneous reasoning by using of the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (”after this, therefore because of this”) to make an argument.

    I just provided counter examples to defeat the defective reasoning which is brought about by the editorials use of a fallacious argument.
15. Sheffc says:

    October 2, 2009 at 11:57 PM

    Are you so obtuse and full of fear that you don’t even see that your whole argument is a case FOR merger? It’s frightened members like you that will keeps us racing to the bottom, both in rates and numbers. Thanks Matthew. But please, keep explaining to me slowly how we all benefit by having two different rates and two different numbers for covered performers for the exact same work.
16. Matthew says:

    October 3, 2009 at 2:14 AM

    Well, no Sheff, I can’t see how my argument is for merger-since I’ve proven that SAG bg performers stand to lose a great deal with a merge. We don’t benefit from 2 different rates for work. I certainly never said we did-but AFTRA is the one to blame for that. I’m fully in support of Phase One-for Exhibit A, cable, everything. Is AFTRA? I doubt it-how will they undercut?
17. Billy says:

    October 3, 2009 at 2:10 PM

    Actually it was the IATSE camera locals in various cities merged into one “national” local. As I’ve mentioned in the past, this was done to punish the New York City camera local for holding out and getting an adequate contract, as opposed to just going along with the terms of the IA’s Hollywood Basic contract. This took the NYC local about a year to accomplish, by the way. As well, this merger gave the IA more control over what was the NYC local – in other words, the chances of them holding out for a better deal ever again are slim and none. Yes, the contracts are worse for the combined locals. But, that is typical of what the IA does. It is not an inevitable consequence of merging unions.
18. Jeff says:

    October 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM

    I think Mike is right. A few years ago, the Hollywood tv studio camera union, Nabet, opened an office to shoot motion pictures. They claimed that they could work on motion pictures, because of digital aquisition. When the motion picture union, IA local 600 learned about that, they decided to merge with the nabet camera guys. Sounds very similar to SAG AFTRA.
19. marisa redanty says:

    October 4, 2009 at 12:01 PM

    I just did a job that paid alot on a network show. It was AFTRA. I also had trouble making health care eligibility in SAG this year. Matthew, how does bg benefit from that reality? We still have to qualify for both plans which can easily be merged for health care benefits. Given the skyrocketing costs it is nothing BUT a benefit for everybody, bg, sag vo, day players, etc.

    If we had merged (which we SHOULD HAVE) long ago, it would only benefit everybody. I also do not buy that bg would be making less money. All of your argument is based on assumption.

    I’ll tell you this, I would have taken less than my quote if it meant easing the eligibility for my SAG insurance stress.
20. Sheffc says:

    October 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM

    Ahhh … the old blame game. The tune of the truly frightened. Each union is obligated to do what’s best for their members. Both AFTRA and SAG will undercut the other to do that. Blame? Horsesh*t. Your “blame” game and fear keeps us paying two sets of dues, having two sets of P/H, two sets of offices, two sets of admin, two sets of lawyers, and keeps us racing to the bottome in rates and numbers. Thanks Matthew. Cause, gosh, if we were all in one union we might have a little more leverage to raise the rates and numbers.

    Anti-Merger is Anti-Union.
21. Matthew says:

    October 4, 2009 at 5:21 PM

    I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, Marisa, since you haven’t made one. You don’t think people who work SAG bg will make less money when the amount of work they get plummets when all of AFTRA’s current bg and people rushing to join before AFTRA closes its doors enters the worker pool? Then you are seriously deluded. Someone mentioned earlier that there were 5000 AFTRA bg performers not in SAG, and add to that those who would join just before the merge(thousands surely). That’s a significant threat to their jobs, whether you choose to believe it or not.

    Also, your assumptions about a merged health plan are possibly quite inaccurate. There is no guarantee a merged plan would be better-what the qualifying requirements would be, premium cost, etc. I’d love to see an in-depth study of this.

    And lastly-you have a quote? As in more than scale plus ten? Thanks for the laugh.
22. marisa redanty says:

    October 5, 2009 at 10:10 AM

    Matthew, firstly, yes I have a quote above scale plus 10 and have had quotes for the last 20 years. Some shows (SHOWTIME, HBO for example) pay scale plus 10 and that’s it. However, I have had many jobs where the quote is honored and increased incrementally.

    My point was that the earnings were pretty good, not scale and could have helped me get healthcare from SAG more easily. That was the point. If the show re-airs prime time, those earnings won’t help me with SAG insurance.

    THE POINT is that BG benefits from being able to work what is now AFTRA and SAG jobs and have the earnings go into one pot.

    If you are forgetting that the controversy last merger was NOT the health care benefits but the pension, then may I remind you that pension plans can only merger AFTER the merger. Health plans can merge as evidenced by other mergers cited here.

    Secondly, I have done BG, VO, podcasts, principal work and may have to do BG this year because of the latest premium increases.

    Thirdly, BG people I know are complaining that the amount of work is decreasing NOW because so many who never did BG now have to do it to make health care.

    Fourthly, why aren’t you addressing the 5000 AFTRA BG who have more to fear about “losing jobs” as a result of merger because all the SAG BG (much bigger number) will now be able to work formerly AFTRA shows as well as former SAG shows to get the same health benefit each year. I don’t hear any complaints from them. Possibly they have a different mindset.

    AND FINALLY, the mindset that there will be people taking your job, sucking up the work, not enough for me is based on your unenlighted attachment to LACK. It reminds me of a hoarder.

    Whenever a union has opened up its requirements for joining (SAG didn’t use to have the voucher or days worked as BG to join SAG. When I joined you had to work a contract as a principal SAG or wait one year after being a principal on an AFTRA job) the cry is the same. “all these new people are going to come and take my work.”

    If they want you they want you. If the AD likes you, you’ll work. period. Blaming other actors for your lack of work is nothing more than a result of your own fear based mentality.

    Hope you had a good chuckle.