AFTRA INTERACTIVE CONTRACT OVERWHELMINGLY RATIFIED
The margin is said to be 2-1. Here’s the official announcement!
The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) – a national union of more than 70,000 professional performers, recording artists and broadcast journalists working in the entertainment and news media – announced today that AFTRA members have ratified a new AFTRA Interactive Media Agreement with video game employers. The members of AFTRA’s Interactive Media Steering Committee, and the AFTRA National Board of Directors previously recommended the new contract for approval.
Voting in an affected member referendum mailed on October 29 to more than 2,200 performers nationwide who worked under the AFTRA Interactive Media Agreement during the last three years, AFTRA members approved the new 15-month contract by 66%, a margin of 2-to-1 in favor. Voting took place online or by telephone, and votes were tallied by Washington, D.C.-based TrueBallot, Inc.
The new agreement, which includes a 2.5% increase in minimum session fees on April 1, 2010, will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2010, and remain in full force until March 31, 2011.
“AFTRA members who work on video games do so using a highly specialized set of skills and require unique protections from their union agreement,” said AFTRA National President Roberta Reardon. “The AFTRA National Board of Directors gave performers nationwide an opportunity to review and consider the new terms and exercise their right to vote. I am pleased that our working members have approved this contract and will have continued access to a share of this multi-billion dollar industry.”
“AFTRA members pioneered union contracts in video games in the late 1980s and recognized at that time the potential for union performers in this industry,” said Mathis L. Dunn, Jr., AFTRA Assistant National Executive Director for Commercials, Non-Broadcast and Interactive Media. “Having now ratified a new contract, AFTRA members have once again recommitted themselves to expanding union employment in this growing sector.”
In addition to wage increases, which bring the session fee to $802 for a four-hour session (the highest such session fee in any performers’ union contract), highlights of the new agreement include:
• An increase in the AFTRA H&R contribution rate by 0.2%, bringing the total producer contribution rate to 15%, and the establishment of a new cap on H&R contributions in the amount of $125,000, both effective January 1, 2010.
• The achievement, for the first time in any contract, of an automatic $100 liquidated damages payment when a producer fails to provide advance notice of vocally stressful work.
• Preservation of two fundamental principles: 1) full union coverage of all performers who render services in Interactive games, and 2) retention of the additional payment performers receive for “Remote Delivery” (currently 135% of the original session fee).
• The establishment of a new category of performance called “Atmospheric Voices” to generate new work opportunities with minimum payments.
• The creation of periodic Union-Industry Cooperative Committee meetings to review and address performers’ concerns regarding work under the new “Atmospheric Voices” provision, or any provision of the contract, during the term of the agreement.
AFTRA members have been working since Jan. 1, 2009, under the terms of a one-year extension agreement to the 2005-2008 AFTRA Interactive Media Agreement, which increased the 2008 session fee rate by 3% to $781.75.
Terms of the AFTRA deal are identical to those rejected in SAG caucuses last month. AFTRA allowed members who have worked the contract in the past three years to vote electronically. SAG allowed anyone to vote who came to a caucus, and only drew 115 voters, who split 42 in favor 73 against, with all 73 opposing the vote appearing at the Hollywood caucus.
Here’s Variety, noting the split between SAG and AFTRA, and noting that the new AFTRA deal will likely doom the possibility of linking the expiration dates of the two unions’ contracts.
I’m still scratching my head and wondering why SAG had to rush to its vote via caucus when AFTRA had time to carry out a genuine vote (albeit electronic) with the entire affected membership.
But the game producers will of course come crawling back to SAG for further negotiation, just like the talent agents did. Oh, wait . . .
VG
AFTRA had a relationship with the producer. SAG did not. The sAG deal only got done with the help of the AFTRA negotiator. Also, AFTRA has an existing contract, but more to the point, they had a Board decision to send the ballot out with a strong recommendation to vote it up before the deadline and then rolled the dice. The SAG Board refused to recommend it. So it was a much bigger risk to send it out past the deadline.
SAG hadn’t prepared for an electronic vote, consequently couldn’t in a timely fashion.
It’s pretty clear that AFTRAns who do this work want to keep doing it, and want to keep doing it under a union contract. I’ve yet to talk to anyone who works the contract., even in Los Angeles that was opposed. But then I haven’t talked to everyone. The only Angelino that I’ve heard rail against the contract hadn’t done a game in six years.
I am sorry that SAG got bushwacked into rejecting the deal, but AFTRA clearly reached out to the people who do the work and kept our performers feet in the door. Hopefully, we can grow the business now.
I hope that this experience leads SAG leadership and staff to never use the caucus process again for a ratification vote. It is clearly flawed, and this result proves it.
I suppose that some antis will want to claim that AFTRA not providing an anti argument in the ballot materials, or union loyalty, is the reason it came out this way.
I don’t acccept that in this particular case. From my pov, this is a nearly perfect case to show otherwise.
This is a specialist group of performers who is very aware of their niche status, of a very new speciality, who can be reliably presumed to be –as a group– very techie hip compared to the general membership. I don’t accept that they unquestionally bought into the leadership arguments unconditionally and in the absence of counter-argument being available to them.
Counter-arguement was easy to find on the web, and they are precisely the group that would have found it. And, as a group, not a lot of “retirees voting the ‘my union right or wrong’ line”.
If it had been a 52-48 result I could possibly see how stacking the deck by leadership could have produced this result. 2-1? Nope. This is “will of the membership” material for this particular group.
“…AFTRA clearly reached out to the people who do the work and kept our performers feet in the door.”
AFTRA informed their entire membership extremely well on this one. Two of my clients do a large amount of work under this contract and they were each contacted numerous times, by phone, mail and email. And they received materials from both sides, with a very clear, reasonable, knowledgable recommendation to ratify.
I hate to say it, (not so much…), but it becomes clearer and clearer SAG could learn an awful lot from those darned hobbyists…
and yet another round of work goes AFTRA…..when will the LA crowd figure out their heels and head in the sand stance just aint working?
Yeah, I know it might be emotionally satisfying to lay this one at M1st’s door. But I have to lay the stinkin’ fish at SAG leadership’s and staff’s door –and last time I checked, both were controlled by U4S.
If I told you it was invalid or inappropriate for you to show up and support your position, I’m pretty sure you’d tell me –quite appropriately– where to stick it.
The process sucked on this one –it seems appropriate to me to lay the blame at the door of the leadership and staff who controlled the process.
Greg, let’s be clear: SAG HAS, and HAS HAD a relationship with “the producer.” The bargaining team we negotiated with are an amalgam of representatives FOR MANY producers, all of whom upon leaving the bargaining table, wish each of their own ‘partners’ in the room to fail at their own game projects. At the start of negotiations in April the Screen Actors Guild ASKED the Aftra guy to stay, as a witness, in no way as any type of negotiator, but to remain an ‘invited observer’ to witness OUR process so that we could co-ordinate a
mutual expiration point together, as long as that expiration point wound up benefitting all actors
who do these games in what will be a greatly expanding longer run when we as a nation have uniform broadband access and we come out of this recession in a place where LOTS of people
start playing fast cinematic nroadband games..
If we have NO games right now with the Guild, and AFTRA just signed a genuine improvement to their existing contract, based upon the work of the SAG team which started last April, alone, and
THEN asked the AFTRA guy to volunteer to stick around strictly as an observer, and we just killed those raises while AFTRA accepted them based upon a broader and far easier voting mechanism which SAG knew about in advance, what did we just do to ourselves?
Just then, not long term, but just two weeks ago?
Help me: what was the overriding thesis that allowed SAG to let this entire thing fizzle away
in the face of the obvious, the short-term increases with a double iron-clad: Principal Work for 4 hours with a raise; “atmospheric” for ONLY four hours, forbidden to do principal work, for the same 4-hour payment, union?
well if they weren’t so short sighted and in it for a quick buck, people may learn a great deal as well. actors are starving, emotional creatures, who tend to be self absorbed so I guess I can’t expect more. But because everyone wants to work nobody looks at the long term picture. Oh well, I don’t do atmosphere, but those who do, have fun with you and your vocal chords.
nobody wants to be a unionist anymore.
But MF campaigned against the contract…they and theirfollowerswere the ones that showed up at the caucus….
Who told who not to show up and support their position?
And did they lock the door behind them? Post guards at the entrances to turn away the other side? Maybe like the movie Elizabeth, after the vote they released the other side from the dungeon?
Yeah, they showed up and participated. Why is that wrong? Why didn’t the other side show up?
It was a bad process badly run resulting in a bad result. Don’t blame the voters for that, blame the people who selected and ran the process.
My views remain unchanged from the comment I posted here on November 2nd — SAG botched this completely.
Geo is correct: “It was a bad process badly run resulting in a bad result. Don’t blame the voters for that, blame the people who selected and ran the process.”
I agree that the process sucked for this one. However, it’s a fact that Membership First used scare tactics to encourage members who don’t work the contract to attend the caucus in LA and vote no. They made the over the top claim that this contract, if approved, would drive down rates on TV/Theatrical and even said that actors might end up getting paid by the word. It seems to me that SAG got “bushwacked” when a handful of very vocal LA members who work this contract came out of the woodwork at the last minute and were used by MF for political purposes.
That said, what would happen now if someone ( say Ed Asner ) puts together a fantastic interactive demo, gets cast in a game and then tells the producer he’ll only do it if it’s a SAG job? Can he do the job under the terms of the old contract?
I seriously think SAG should go back to the producers and say “Well, this is what happens when you make us rush a process. Give us an extension of a month (or whatever it takes) to put this to a proper vote and we’ll try again.”
If they say ‘no’, then they say no. Can’t hurt to ask. Sure, some of the antis will squeal if they say ‘go ahead’, but so what. The AFTRA vote proves to my satisfaction that the caucus vote was not representative because of exceptionally low turnout and short notice.
Knock,knock,knock…Clancy?
How many of the AFTRA voters are also SAG members? Wanna bet over 80%?
Ain’t it a shame that SAG members lost all this work for NOTHING!! For a stupid scare tactic?
And ain’t it a shame that SAG’s own members (i’m betting most of the AFTRA members who voted hold both cards) wanted this contract but those in Hollywood once again have the audacity to take action as IF “THEY KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR THE MEMBERSHIP”?
Pretty sad. Awfully disgusting. Hollywood membership has to vote these creeps OUT OF OFFICE.
ONLY IF ALL THE MFERS ON THE HOLLYWOOD BOARD AGREE TO RESIGN!!
ridiculous statement re no one wanting to be a unionist. Does unionism mean not including the affected members in the process with clear materials so those voting can make a valid choice. Too bad you dislike actors so much…
Umm, what? If your next juicy SAG job offer (and I wish you many) came tomorrow, would you respond, “Only if the MFers on the Hollywood board agree to resign!!”? I suspect you’d think that as much as you’d like that, why should you be punished if they do not?
Geo…my “shout” (sorry about the caps) was made because you suggested that SAG go back to the producers. I wouldn’t want these clowns going back to anybody on our behalf.
That was the point. They screwed up by begging for help to get a contract and then sabotaging it in Hollywood. Then the Hollywood know it all’s bite at the very people WE BEGGED to help us (the AFTRA negotiators). To send these people back to the producers would be misguided.
Dear Denny,
“I’ve yet to talk to anyone who works the contract., even in Los Angeles that was opposed.”
What rock have you been living under? Obviously, you didn’t attend any of the Interactive meetings held in LA. Neither AFTRA’s nor SAG’s. And you are on the steering committee!
Well, let me personally thank you for this lousy contract that you and the AFTRA leadership hoodwinked the affected members into voting for. Shame on you all. You do not represent the best interests of voice actors only your own!
–
Admin. Comment – As we understand it, Denny is a San Francisco member and was in New York doing union business during the meetings. Far from deserving shame, he deserves great credit for his untiring work for the members of both SAG and AFTRA.
I will take care to be clear on this. I am not endorsing MF in any way. MF took advantage of a poorly chosen ratification process. That is on the staff, I regret to say.
But this one isn’t on Clancy. I know quite a few MF’ers who are far less reasonable than him, Marisa. None of whom I will mention in polite company as I detest them so much that I won’t even give them the pleasure of acknowledgement.
Perhaps the question we should be asking is why does the Hollywood Branch (as personified by the MF’ers) look down it’s nose at NY and the RBD? I swear it’s almost parochial.
“But this one isn’t on Clancy. I know quite a few MF’ers who are far less reasonable than him, Marisa.”
The most hated man in town dies. The local priest can find no one to give a eulogy at the funeral until a stranger steps forward and says “I knew his family. I will give the eulogy.”
The service is held. The stranger steps up to the casket and says:
“His brother was worse.”
Aww. Fred.
Not fair to my brother even in parable.
I won’t respond to the MF hate. It’s a distraction to the work at hand.
The Interactive contract is set for AFTRA and it’s members for the next few months.
God be with them/us.
AFTRA’s ratification doesn’t mean it’s a good contract. It’s still far short of adequate.
The Interactive contract is unresolved for SAG and it’s members.
The opportunity now is to begin addressing the needs of members and the industry more accurately and explicitly.
Voting methodology is another discussion. Important, but not my focus right now.
I’m concentrating on building a better Interactive contract.
I’ll let y’all worry about “leverage” and “politics.”
I mean this with all sincerity, Clancy is one of the good guys. He has never been self-serving and he has consistently demonstrated his concern about all SAG (and AFTRA) members. I do not care for how the politics of Membership First has evolved, and I certainly do not agree with the modern stance taken by them. The most polite way to put this is that Alan and Anne-Marie have made some divisive and poor choices.
No viewpoint is perfect. My main concern is just how poorly the interactive agreement was handled by SAG proper. Just how do we get past the differences and actually work together toward a contract that will satisfy enough people to get a signed deal?
Respectfully Clancy, just because SAG rejected the deal doesn’t make it a bad contract. Your statement and mine are equally valid.
~JC
JC
I wasn’t mocking Clancy, I was saying “knock knock knock”
’cause I wanted to see what he thought of all this. I don’t think Clancy is a rabid MFer to be clear. But I am surprised that when he defended the Gang of 4 Lawsuit awhile back.
Staying on topic, I was calling for Clancy to get his take on the latest, that the chip on MFers shoulders just splintered into member’s pocket books. As one who does games, I wanted his input.
No offense meant to Clancy. None at all.
CLANCY…one question…
Don’t you think that given the fact that SAG has less than 20% of this work (and it may be less, I beg for those more knowledgable to correct me)we should build on a contract instead of sinking the contract?
Don’t you think that the AFTRA voters were also SAG members? Wouldn’t you be curious?
I just don’t get the logic of tanking a contract in an area where we don’t have squat as opposed to getting more ground in that area so we can organize and become less necessary instead of more necessary?
Why didn’t SAG aske the affected members? Because it was too damned close the the obvious sane practice of QUALIFIED VOTING. No matter if it is right or wrong.
Because of that we lose the work.
MF hate? Yes I do, Clancy. Sorry but I am being personally financially effected by MF’s failed leadership and so it is PERSONAL for me and my family.
Let’s discuss. Enlighten me. Please?
JC
I like Clancy. I don’t think he’s a bad guy. And in fact we are BFF’s.
I don’t agree with his decision on this contract and want to hear his reasons. Maybe I’ll continue to disagree but I’d love to hear the reasoning. Especially for NOT senting out something to effected members.
I think that my typed responses sometimes lack the giggle factor when read. (No relation to Mr. Giggles)
I am thankful for the hard work and dedication that the negotiating committees do. However, my response is based on his remarks that he hadn’t spoke to anyone in LA that was opposed to the Interactive Contract. Since he is on the steering committee that is supposed to represent the voice actors that are affected by this contract ,it is his responsibility to listen to these members. His comments show that he was not only not listening but chose not to make an effort to find out what happened at the meetings that were held. This contract is BAD for many reasons that were expressed at these meetings.
Now we are stuck with it.
–
Mod. Comment: Well, no, SAG is not “stuck with it,” because it was voted down at the Hollywood caucus meeting.
Yes, we are STUCK with it. Most voice actors are dual card holders. It just means more contracts for AFTRA (at their members expense) which is what they wanted in the first place.
–
Admin. Comment – Actually, AFTRA already had more than 80% of the work in interactive….and the members who work the contract hadn’t been complaining.
This comment is completely incoherent. SAG cannot be “stuck” with a contract that an unrepresentative minority voted down. The only thing SAG is “stuck” with is its expired previous contract.
Meanwhile, any P&H money will go to AFTRA.
VG
Exactly, so why did AFTRA so eagerly accept THIS horrible contract. The ball was in there court. This negotiation (or lack there of) should have addressed real issues concerning interactive voice actors like: residuals, motion capture payments, producers requesting to video the actors in the session with no compensation, use of an actors likeness, and real compensation for vocal stress issues. Instead we found that our union agreed to the creation of a new category which cuts our current pay in half and triples the amount of work we would be required to perform. Instead we have a contract that begins to count words. Heaven help us if this starts a trend and spreads to other contracts. Instead we have a contract that puts the voice actor in the position of tattling on the producer (this doesn’t bode well for future employment.)
At a time when AFTRA had the opportunity to fight for its members it gave us away. This field is constantly evolving, video games make more money than the movie industry. AFTRA operates out of fear that the producers will go non- union. The top selling games use union talent. The ones that matter use union talent. They need us. The producers know it and we know it. It is truly a pity that our union doesn’t.
To Voice Guy,
I am sorry if my response confused you with regard to being “STUCK.” I didn’t say SAG was stuck with it. I said WE are STUCK with it. Meaning Voice-actors, which most happen to be dual card holders. This contract is lousy whether it comes from SAG or AFTRA.