Fact and Fiction in the Interactive Debate – updated
We couldn’t help but be struck by the wild inaccuracy of some of the claims about the tentative AFTRA Interactive contract coming from the usual suspects in Hollywood. The biggest doozy is the claim that the vote in Hollywood and San Francisco can be taken to represent 85% of the work, since 85% of the work is done in either San Francisco or Hollywood, and the vote between the two (in the SAG Interactive caucuses) was 73-11 against.
That’s incredibly misleading, because, according to AFTRA internal statistics, less than half of the AFTRA Interactive work is done in the Los Angeles local, and that’s where all but two of the votes came from. The two votes in San Francisco, which under the bizarre theory being touted by opponents, would represent almost half the work, were both in favor.
It’s the vote in the SAG interactive caucus in Hollywood, which was 8-to-1 against ratification, that’s being touted as an indication that there’s widespread discontent with the deal.
But that actual vote was 73-9 against, with a total of only 82 votes. And not all of those votes came from individuals who work the contract.
AFTRA’s vote will be of affected members only – and there are 2200 of them. Unlike the SAG caucuses, the AFTRA vote will be by electronic ballot, with a window allowing members to vote at their convenience, rather than having to travel to a meeting during a specific and short time period.
If 25% of the members vote – a fairly normal turnout – the result could be very different.
Do we have a date for when we expect results of the vote to be announced?
Where is the claim made that:
“85% of the work is done in Hollywood.”?
I did see a commenter make this claim:
“Los Angeles and San Francisco where 85 percent of the work is done”
Which is about right. Which would also mean only 15% of the work is done outside of those two cities. Only two people voted in San Francisco which might mean, that at least some of the work up there, is done by L.A. based voice-over actors.
If the vote is limited to actors that have worked the AFTRA games contract, over the last three years, I think the vote will be similar percentage wise, to the recent SAG caucus vote.
The “atmospheric” portion of the the vote cuts what actors make under the current deal by 3/4. Today, doing 20 voices under 300 words you would have to be paid $3208 dollars, instead of $802 dollars. $320 into $3208 = exactly $802. What a great deal… for producers.
If the games producer are able to get away with this… watch out, the TV/Theatrical contract could be next. In the TV/theatrical contract, you make $802 for ONE word. How long will that last, if under the game contract, actors get paid $802 for 6000 words!? (20 voices x 300 words = 6000 words total).
typo: 4 into $3208 = $802
11/22?
It is my understanding, from what I’ve read, is that non-union actors are now doing the “atmospheric” voices.
Which means that $802 for the twenty voices is a gazillion times more than SAG actors are getting for that work now.
les,
It would be nice if you could provide attribution to the claim that “non-union actors are now doing the “atmospheric” voices.” on AFTRA games. Where did you read that? AFTRA allows its “games signatories” to hire non-union voice-over actors? Along side the union actors? I wasn’t aware of this, if true.
The SAG games contract is not an issue at the moment. It has been voted down. My comment is limited to the AFTRA ratification.
—
Admin. Comment – Our understanding is that less than 25% of the interactive work is either SAG or AFTRA…and that most of the companies use paymasters rather than being direct signatories to either union’s contract.
This allows the game producer to avoid being all union on a project – and the union members wouldn’t necessarily even know about it.
Leslie Shenkel,
That is not accurate. A current signatory cannot use non-union actors for anything. So the people we are bargaining with would be in violation of their agreement if they used “non-union” voices in any capacity.
“Atmospheric Voices” does not exist until we allow it by accepting a contract.
By not accepting the producer-defined category, we reject the pay-cut and the stratification of our membership.
We still need to address producer’s righteous concern about the exploding technology that allows for more voice work and their ability to afford it.
At the same time, it is not up to our members or our unions to subsidize their production costs by cutting our wages.
“Atmospheric Voices” was the producers’ first idea. It is not the only idea and it does not address the specific concerns of actors that do this very demanding and difficult work.
There is a better answer but it requires sincere discussion between the parties.
And right now the only way to empower the unions and enable that discussion is reject the current offer.
We have to give ourselves a chance.
SAG botched this to a fare-thee-well.
1. I would venture that the vast majority of SAG members had no idea that a binding vote was going to be taken at these caucuses.
2. The amount of notice about the caucuses was minimal, and actors who had a schedule conflict could not attend. Ironically, the most likely candidates to attend would be those who weren’t working that day.
3. SAG simply should not have let itself be boxed in to this kind of short-fuse voting situation. SAG should have insisted on enough time to at least employ the electronic voting approach that AFTRA is using.
I will be stunned if AFTRA doesn’t vote overwhelmingly in favor of this deal.
AFTRA will get all of the union work. SAG will get none. And if by some miracle SAG managed to get a richer deal with the game producers, that would just create a financial incentive to handle games under the AFTRA agreement (atmospheric voices and all).
It’s like watching Arte Johnson fall over on his tricycle each week on Laugh In. Except it’s no laughing matter as SAG pushes itself further and further into irrelevance.
VG
Of course the trick is to co-operate. Which the unions were doing and should be empowered by membership to continue to do. The debate is not about a ‘richer” deal. It is about a provision that makes no sense from the performer stand-point or the producer stand-point. “Atmospheric Voices”, as most people that do the work on both sides of the glass understand, simply makes no sense. It is bad for actors and it is unworkable for producers. As for enticing more signatories to the fold, that won’t happen either. Read the provision and ask yourself what the incentive is for non-signatories to sign up. There isn’t one.
This business is too elastic to be left to lawyers to negotiate. They will never be able to grasp the complexity or potential of the product by simply counting words and voices and session hours. The interactive industry is every bit as complex as TV/Theatrical or Commercials and needs to be thought about as deeply.
Or you could just treat it as a political football and assure that it will never be properly negotiated.
Personally, I hope that AFTRA does what SAG did, only because AFTRA went second. If AFTRA had gone first in voting results, I’d be hoping that SAG would do what AFTRA did (whatever that was).
I’m not saying details are unimportant when I offer that hope. I’m saying that togetherness is more important.
Then why weren’t all the againsters in the caucus rooms from the beginning? Why weren’t THEY the ones doing the negotiating? It is my understanding that they came in at the end and squawked. They turned this shrinking field of work into an opportunity to play Political Gotcha. Now SAG is out of that business. Sad. No one to blame but themselves. But that won’t stop them from blaming everyone EXCEPT themselves. As usual. What were you – asleep?
I expect AFTRA to vote this up.
It”s about the work. It’s about keeping that work union. It’s about a stinking eighteen months. We’ll be back at the table before we can turn around,and we’ll have a fistful of documented facts regarding the work at our disposal to assist us in negotiating the next round.
Excuse me, I meant to say: AFTRA will have all this.
SAG is now out of this business, thanks to a handful of people who cannot think strategically, long term, or big picture.
V.
I agree with Tom. This is just like the ATA/NATR fiasco again. Negotiators work hard to hammer out a deal, bring it back saying “this is the best we could do, and we recommend it for thus-and-so reasons,” and then the armchair quarterbacks come out of hiding to pooh-pooh it and insist that the negotiators did a terrible job and should be forced to “go back and get a better deal.”
Is there even a single example, in the modern history of SAG, where negotiators successfully went back and “got a better deal” in this kind of circumstance?
Sheesh.
VG
you say…. “Atmospheric Voices”, as most people that do the work on both sides of the glass understand, simply makes no sense.”
I hope you’ll concede that you have this wrong if the majority of union actors who do this work vote it up.
Vested says:
“SAG is now out of this business, thanks to a handful of people who cannot think strategically, long term, or big picture.”
Aren’t the people who do the work, in both unions, the same people?
This is about a relatively non-partisan group of actors, voice actors. These actors probably divide their work between the two unions more than any other group of performers.
I contend that the votes would have been close to identical, if the referendum terms were identical.
Unfortunately one union (SAG) voted in caucuses, with a total of less than 200 actors participating and another unions actors (AFTRA) is having an electronic vote, with over 2000 actors participating. Additionally, AFTRA the union with 2000 actors participating is sending out the ballot with no counterpoints or dissenting opinion, to the recommendation of AFTRA Interactive Media Steering Committee. This will obviously influence the outcome of the AFTRA vote vs. the SAG vote.
–
Admin. Comment – The vote in favor of ratification on the AFTRA board was overwhelming, and the vote against nowhere near enough to justify requiring a minority statement.
If one assumes that what we’ve heard about a near total overlap of members who do this work being in both guilds, then if the vote comes out significantly differently one has to look at a SAG process that relied on a 5.2% turnout (assuming AFTRAs 2200 count is accurate) to reach their result.
And at that point, sadly, you really need to apply the boot to the seat of the pants of SAG staff (and I generally dislike smacking staff around as they usually get it unfairly).
Agreeing to a provision doesn’t obviate its shortcomings. For example, the problems surrounding product integration in the TV/theatrical contract are more profound than anyone anticipated. The fact that the contract was approved didn’t solve those issues and now we are stuck with them until the next round. Will it be harder or easier to fix then?
“Atmospheric Voices” can and should be solved now and we should stand together in our resolve to do just that. It’s not a “right” or “wrong” thing.
Clancy
If you guys didn’t like who was negotiating your contract (you meaning those of you who “appeared” out of the shadows to suddenly have this big issue) why didn’t you follow closely what they were doing and bitch about it at the time?
It’s pretty obvious that SAG just blew off a whole bunch of SAG work with this unfair, undemocratic vote.
Qualified voting is the only answer and you guys are scared of doing the right thing.
Why should AFTRA vote down this contract? They are letting the members decide and the steering committee who all DO THIS WORK and want this contract because they are looking at the bigger picture.
If I sound snarky, Clancy, that’s because I AM PISSED.
If you guys start blaming AFTRA you will have a large pushback from the rest of the country because YOU GUYS IN HOLLYWOOD CAUSED THIS MESS.
Short sighted. Stupid move.
If you had problems, you send the damn thing to ONLY THOSE MEMBERS WHO WORK THE CONTRACT and ask them to weigh in.
What is really sad about all of this is that the drive to make the business non-union will continue to gain momentum. The conservative movement has had almost a free hand in union busting, making exceptions that harm unions, and demonizing unions with the American people. All the while sitting back watching unions argue, fret and not work with the solidarity that was needed and thus exploding.
We sat back for years as UAW was emasculated, the Teamsters were gutted and never thought it could be us in the firing line. Is it any wonder that unions are thought toothless now?
The interactive agreement is sound and AFTRA will vote it up, SAG will not be on board again, and recriminations will be heard all around.
Sad indeed,
~JC
Aftra has 2200 members who do the work, SAG has 754. We were close to being out of the business anyway before we closed the locked door from the wrong side.
You’re a hypocrite. You’re calling for “qualified voting”, yet you admit you never worked the interactive games contract and YOU voted in the SAG interactive games caucus!
You are god darn right I did! I’d do it again if asked by my union brothers and sisters. I did it to help those brothers and sisters that were getting screwed by the stack the room Hollywood stunt.
I didn’t shy away from what I did. I have no shame about it either. I did say and I mean it, if there were even one other branch that was NOT unanimous, I might have not shown up to the meeting. This situation was black and white.
The entire country wanted this contract. Hollywood didn’t. Hollywood played dirty. I took the gloves off to stand with other members.
But qualified voting is still the obvious answer to this happening again.
How can you call ME the hypocrite? It’s the Hollywood meeting that caused a need for those who haven’t worked the contract to weigh in. SAG never required that you had to have worked the contract to vote on it, unfortunately.
QUALIFIED VOTING makes sense and I am all for it. Always have been.
This situation is the poster child of why it is the only way to vote on any contract in any union.
AFTRA know this and AFTRA members can be very proud that their union is allowing the MEMBERSHIP to decide this issue.
Who was your equivalent at the Hollywood caucus? Why do you assume that well-attended caucus was less legitimate than the two members in SF or the 4 members in Chicago or the 27 in New York. Is it because Hollywood was the only caucus that wasn’t unanimous? You confuse me Marisa when you practice tactics you despise and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of members from a particular division. I’m worried that your scenarios are distracting you from sober consideration of the contract terms. Isn’t that the issue?
Clancy – you are a talented actor. I’ve never seen or heard a performance of yours that wasn’t thoroughly engaging. Why and how do you allow others to “confuse” and “exhaust” you? I bet you’re not like that on a set. Perhaps it’s a matter of your not being used to opposition and/or lack of agreement by others?
I don’t think the Hollywood caucus was any more or less legitimate than caucus elsewhere. I do think that a process that relies on a turnout that is somewhere between 5-10% of the electorate, and therefore somewhere between 50-75% less than even SAGs usual low turnouts, is questionable on its own.
“Aginners” (on whatever topic) are always overweighted in low turnouts to start with. There’s nothing inappropriate about that from the aginners side (they get a vote too, and hardly should be criticized for the other side not showing up), but staff and leadership do have a responsibility to know it (which, btw, is political science 101 level knowledge) and provide a process that will maximize the opportunity for the results to match actual member sentiment as closely as possible.
I’m still waiting for the AFTRA results tho before I say too much about this whole thing.
Thanks for the kind words, Tom.
I assure you I have been both confused and exhausted “on set” as well.
Confusion is typically caused by sudden script changes that seem to have no relevance to the story. Usually I can be brought up to speed by asking some questions and listening to the answers.
Exhaustion, as you pointed out in another thread, is usually my own fault.
I would like to know whether the “LA caucus stacking” theory is based on real facts or if it’s just hysterical reaction to the “800 lbs Gorilla” reality of the situation.
Clancy…a little history about why I chose to even go to the NY caucus and as you aptly put it “practiced tactics I despise.” I’ll also explain why I have lingering disdain for Hollywood leadership inparticular.
At the beginning of the WGA strike when Messrs. Rosenberg and Allen saw fit to go after AFTRA in the National SAG Magazine, without allowing fellow board members from NY’s Board to comment, have input, or even read the infamous 17 page diatribe in the SAG Magazine (now called the “DougaZine”) I attended my first SAG membership meeting in many years. I was outraged. “what the hell are they doing?” I said. I attended to formally object to what I saw as anti union behavior. For crying out loud, we were about to go into negotiations for TV/Film, why would these clowns attack our sister union in public so management can see it in black and white? Why not draw producers a map as to how to effectively pit us against each other? At that meeting, I witnessed hundreds of members RALE against Doug Allen, he was hissed and booed. Members made it brutally clear that we were really pissed about what they had done and wanted them to stop this behavior immediately.
Guess what happened? Doug and Alan went further and further with their attacks on AFTRA. They didn’t give a flying rat’s behind about what we members had to say. It was THEIR LITTLE PLAYGROUND.
The New York Membership was ignored, flipped the bird and trivialized by the Hollywood leadership.
That was it for me, pal. That was the moment when I decided that THESE “members” along with Alan Rosenberg, AMJ and Doug Allen in particular were the ENEMY of SAG.
That’s the background of why I took actions that I despise…..cut to interactive.
I am told by members who attended the SAG ‘caucus’ and I read on several blogs that many members attended that meeting simply to vote down the contract for political reasons. Those members did not work the contract. What is worse, there is NO WAY to prove they did work the contract since SAG leadership in Hollywood didn’t see fit to request or discuss that SAG should send out a referendum to those who have worked the contract. And this takes place that “MOST OF THE WORK IS DONE” according to Loren Lester as heard on the teleconference at the NY caucus.
I attended the meeting here in NY and was ready not to vote at all. I would have abstained. I was waiting until I heard Rodriguez’s and staff’s report. Instead, your committee from Hollywood attempted, in my view, to dominate our meeting by wasting time and not answering questions from NY members who attended.
Also, it was clear that there was not ONE single no vote anywhere else in the country, none of the email or phoned in opinions were negative except in Hollywood. The San Francisco Regional President was very helpful. Though the member turnout was only two, I believe he got on the phone and got input from members who couldn’t attend the caucus.
All of this gave me pause, and I determined that the same dishonest, anti union action was afoot. (to me “union” means EVERYBODY, not Hollywood on one tier and the rest of the union on another).
So Clancy, I voted in that meeting for the same reason others in Hollywood voted because…I WAS PERMITTED TO VOTE. I looked at it as if I were doing an “action” against a producer.
Sad to say, but true, Clancy.
When I retire, I have Social Security (if it’s there) and only the SAG pension with a small AEA pension on which to rely. Self preservation drives me to fight WHOEVER stands in the way of my own survival. As a union member and citizen of the world, I will fight for the greater good of my union.
To me, MF has severely damaged a union which I have faithfully served, paid dues, obeyed strike actions, shown up daily to picket, or to disrupt non union productions…WHATEVER WAS ASKED OF ME I GLADLY DID AND MORE….for 30 years. That’s my answer, friend. This stacking of the deck was not going to go unchallenged. Gloves are off now.
For our future, it’s my opinion that SAG should practice qualified voting. If anything, this contract fumble has taught us that lesson. Hey maybe AFTRA will vote this contract down, and I will be totally wrong about this and will stand up and admit my error. I have no problem with that.
Clancy, since you do tons of games, how do you feel about having to do all of the earnings go to AFTRA?
If it were me, I would be happy to build another pension. But for the union to lose those working dues earnings it’s a damn shame when SAG could have had some of that money.
Maybe, if the members in Hollywood who engage in this rabid, senseless, no plan, short sighted tantrums, started to realize the harm they are doing I will change my opinion of them. For now I remain skeptical of EVERYTHING that these “usual MFers” do.
Thanks for explaining, Marisa. can’t reach all of your same conclusions but I do feel better about understanding where you are coming from. I appreciate that. And I also believe we share some common ground. I’m pressed for time right now but I’ll suggest what that might be when I am able. Again, thanks.
Clancy,
Sounds good. Up in Rochester taking care of family and family business…my time is not my own right now.
Marisa, I read your mini-rant (and that’s not a criticism –I love to avail myself of a good mini-rant from time to time! They are very therapeutic when not taken to Mattie extremes.) with interest, some sympathy, and a good deal of sadness.
Here’s my question for you tho –does it matter to you and your opinion/action on these issues that Ken Howard and Amy Aquino are now the national officers of SAG? Does it matter that U4S and NY/RBD members are a majority on the board?
I’m not going to tell you that your anger isn’t righteous –I’m just wondering how much more it takes, and what, before it starts to abate and you start considering that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” (as Freud said) and act accordingly?
The NY/Hollywood mutual antipathy has to start closing for both your sakes (and I feel sure you know it too) –so what’s it going to take for you that hasn’t happened already?
Geo
you said:
“–does it matter to you and your opinion/action on these issues that Ken Howard and Amy Aquino are now the national officers of SAG? Does it matter that U4S and NY/RBD members are a majority on the board?”
Answer: Yes it matters to me a great deal.
You said:
“I’m not going to tell you that your anger isn’t righteous”
My Response:
To be totally honest, the “anger” I once felt a year or more ago has shifted to something more subtle and less strident, if you will. I now take these antics (as I see them) in stride, as a matter of course and adjust accordingly. For example, Hollywood starts off stacking the deck, I listen observe and decide that out of solidarity I shall vote in the NY Caucus.
You said:
“sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”
My response:
I recently quit smoking. Where MF is concerned, once you have been burned, you realize that nothing is as it seems (the long drawn out lawsuit for example which is still costing US MONEY).
You said:
“The NY/Hollywood mutual antipathy has to start closing for both your sakes (and I feel sure you know it too) –so what’s it going to take for you that hasn’t happened already?”
My response:
For both our sakes, you are right and of course I do know that.
I don’t know what it’s going to take, to be honest. I’ll keep working on it. I’ll keep watching and monitoring MYSELF. But frankly, I don’t know what it will take for me to believe that cigars are not….uh….submarines!