Hollywood’s Latest Tempest
The teapot that is the Hollywood Board has met once again, and in an attempt to replicate the atmosphere between the democrats and republicans in Congress, Membership First and its Fizzler branch are in a major snit. They’re officially beside themselves that discussion of the continued AFTRA domination of the current pilot season was held in private, without public and observers present.
In posts on a Membership First dominated discussion forum they’ve advanced a variety of conspiracy theories to attempt to complicate what is, in truth, an easily explained and appropriate decision taken at the staff level. What needed to be discussed was the fact that for SAG the numbers have only gotten worse since the last report, and that AFTRA has virtually swept all the pilots being produced for the coming season.
The pilot count currently being used at SAG is 85 AFTRA, 2 SAG. Whether the series that are picked up will be AFTRA or SAG is not decided automatically by the union that has the pilot.
Why couldn’t that discussion have been public? Simple. The 18 month old non disparagement agreement would have made it impossible to fully discuss the issues in a public meeting, but a full and frank discussion could be held in a private, confidential board meeting.
It’s hard to tell if those loudly and publicly complaining about the private session are doing so for effect or whether they simply don’t care if the agreement is violated.
I think AFTRA should be in charge of everything converted to a Quicktime file. SAG should have jurisdiction over all documentaries shot digitally but then transferred to film. AGVA should be in charge of everything performed on ice. I have more, but I’m waiting until I publish my manifesto.
“AFTRA has historically covered most of the sitcoms. It did so in the 1970’s.”
Hmmm…I don’t think this is accurate. All the Paramount shows were SAG and that was THE sitcom lot in those Happy Days. Of course, “most” could mean 51% but I’d bet it was less than half.
In the early 1970’s, All in the Family was shot on tape and after the show became #1 in the ratings, Norman Lear proceeded to produce a string of hits at Television City. All under AFTRA contracts. All in the Family, Sanford and Son, Maude, and Good Times were all shot at TV City under AFTRA.
Most of the top 20 shows in the early ‘70’s were half-hour comedies and many were on tape. Except for the shows made by MTM (Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Newhart) and the Paramount sitcoms (Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Mork and Mindy) which were all shot under SAG contracts – AFTRA was now firmly in control of sitcoms. Lear moved to KTLA and continued to produce more top 10 shows like One Day at a Time and Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. Lear had 5 or more shows in the top 10 at any given time for years. All of them AFTRA.
In the late ‘70’s, things changed again. Through technological innovations, the situs agreements, and the use of non-union extras, SAG, which already controlled 100% of the film half-hour work, undercut AFTRA’s contract and took the majority of the half-hour video tape work away from AFTRA, once again dominating the dramatic television market.
You’re considered MF because you repeatedly put the interests of a small fraction of the membership before the good of the whole. Remember that “everybody here hates Hollywood” stuff? That’s pure MF. You’re considered MF because you think the best solution to there being two unions is to turn the clock back to some time when, you believe, life was simpler because the lines were clearer; 1954, or the 1970s, or just some day other than today, rather than accept the argument that dividing actors upon artificial and arbitrary lines, wherever you draw them, makes no sense.
I, for one, welcome the impending arrival of our Kindlerian overlords. One nagging jurisdictional question arising from your divisions:
Who covers my made-for-Internet, “The Making of ‘The Sorrow And The Pity’ ON ICE!”?
Minor quibble — Sanford & Son was taped at NBC in Burbank.
VG
“It’s because of AFTRA’s selfish decision to drop out of Phase I and cut their own bad deal that we face many of the things we do. SAG has lost all the pilots, and members have and will lose insurance coverage in record numbers.”
Explain to me how cutting a deal that provides for higher payments led to the loss of the pilots. I don’t see the connection that you do.
“By the way, AFTRA’s theft of all the TV shows is not softening “hardliners’” stance toward merger. It’s reaffirming the need to define jurisdiction.”
Just explain how dividing actors by arbitrary distinctions makes them stronger as a group, and we can get on to discussing the “need.”
Not that far back. AFTRA had no scripted prime time broadcast shows at all, less than a decade ago. AFTRA only made what the Phase One agreement referred to as, (Television Prime Time Dramatic Programs for AFTRA only), which were Big Threee network syndicated sitcoms, made by and at TV broadcast studios, in front of live audiences and only on analog video tape.
AFTRA relied it would not survive as a union without finding a jurisdictional loophole. The jurisdictional loophole was “digital”.
This was documented here at this blog by AFTRA’s current Treasurer:
“-FACING A STARK FINANIAL FUTURE, A HURT AND ANGRY AFTRA CHARTS A NEW COURSE- 2 paragraph
The [Stategy]cabinet first met in the spring of 2004. There, NED Greg Hessinger presented a stark financial future. With out creating jobs, without organizing new work, without streamlining its operations, AFTRA could be out of business in a decade. The decision was made to make AFTRA’s mission to organize work for itself, for all catepories to be sure but freelance actors represented the largest population and the area where the most erosion of AFTRA’s work had occurred.”
At the time the meeting took place in spring of 2004 AFTRA had only one show on prime time broadcast TV, according to Variety. Actors essentially had one union in television, SAG.
–
Admin. Note: The above is posted in accord with our policy of allowing commenters to make posts that contain factual errors.
Why, Why, WHY would you want to go through the process of negotiating jurisdiction when merger would make jurisdiction unnecessary?!?
Fred:
“Explain to me how cutting a deal that provides for higher payments led to the loss of the pilots. I don’t see the connection that you do.”
It’s not just higher payments, which are obviously a drop in the bucket for producers. It’s the refusal by AFTRA to attempt to negotiate the things SAG sought in the contract that would protect and properly compensate actors-a DVD increase, product integration protection, no non-union space in the contract, a real increase to bg numbers, and the list goes on. By positioning themselves as the cooperative, go-along-to-get-along union, that sells a 3% scale dayrate increase alone as a reason to ratify the contract when meanwhile actors’ income sinks in so many other ways like loss of residuals, etc…that’s how it was done.
Fred:
“Just explain how dividing actors by arbitrary distinctions makes them stronger as a group, and we can get on to discussing the “need.””
It makes them stronger because there then wouldn’t be 2 unions competing for the work-because it could only go to one particular union. By the way, you’ve yet to demonstrate that merging AFTRA and SAG will create any more bargaining strength. It would simply make each individual actor more replaceable. There will always be a non-union prescence. And it appears that the makeup of the leadership of such a hypothetical union would be the type to never even consider a strike. Such power indeed.
My question was about hyperbole, and I did not retreat with my tail between my legs. The nature of question asking at a Membership meeting does not allow for a dialogue.
You were obviously sitting with a group who feel that only their perception is the truthful one.
We really don’t need to hash this out again(re the bullying by SAG of AFTRA — how many times do you let a bully punch you in the belly before you leave the playground?), and I didn’t say ANYTHING about an apology, I said we owe UFS and the AFTRA leadership thanks for pulling us out of the mess you and those who behave like you got us into. You obviously can’t read, and, on top of that, you anonymously attack me. You are a coward. MF was wrong, wrong, wrong in the way they handled themselves, and their insistence that we hold up a contract for a fight that had already been lost by the the WGA. BAD leadership.
Uh, Mike…either all that stuff you said
Or
SAG and AFTRA can merge.
If it’s made-for- Internet, it’s half AFTRA, one quarter SAG, and one quarter Fi-Core. If it’s on ice, it’s divided equally between Disney and Capades.
speaking of narrow prisms, Matthew. Same old arguments, aren’t you exhausted yet? There is always a lot of gray area, and you insist on HYPERBOLE. The response to Fred’s 2nd quote(your quotes) is arbitrary and you have no proof either way. Nor do you have any substantiation that the leadership of a merged union would by anti-strike. You’re making it up.
Mike,
Even if this was true, so what?
Isn’t it funny, a guy who you believe was the architect of AFTRA’s clever strategy wasn’t good enough to run SAG.
If you’re claiming AFTRA’s jurisdiction not legitimate, prove it. Otherwise, stop whining. Nobody is going to turn back the clock just because you’re nostalgic.
(And, if you’re keeping score, this kind of “let’s look at history through the wrong end of the telescope” post is one of the reasons why people know you’re a MF apologist.)
Yeah we could merge, if it even was on the agenda. But its not. It won’t be until after 2011, according to Roberta Reardon. It might not ever be on the agenda. A lot can change in a year. Right now merger is just wishful thinking.
If SAG actually competed for jurisdiction it would encourage AFTRA to merge. It seema that UFS WANTS AFTRA to get all the pilots….that a weak SAG is more likely to merge. It seems under UFS, SAG is not even trying to organize.
Right now I hear nothing coming from AFTRA that suggest they are interested in merging with SAG.
They are probably to busy trying to manage the windfall of new shows that have been handed to them by UFS.
Actually, they’re probably too busy trying to figure out how they’re going to negotiate TV-Theatrical/Exhibit A at the same time as the Network Code. But angry political sniping is probably easier for you than dealing with reality.
No anger just facts.
The latest from The Hollywood Reporter(4 hours ago):
-”the prospect of merger was not addressed during AFTRA’s videoconference plenary in L.A. and New York”
Merger won’t be on the agenda until after June 30, 2011, according to Roberta Reardon, if ever….
Mike writes:
“They [AFTRA} are probably to busy trying to manage the windfall of new shows that have been handed to them by UFS.”
My lord, of all the moronic comments I have read on this board, this one truly takes the cake.
“Handed to them by UFS”???
Good grief. Membership First was fighting to get strike authorization from the fall of 2008 through early 2009. If Doug Allen had remained in charge, we still would not have a TV-Theatrical contract.
And this somehow means that UFS “handed shows to AFTRA”?
In reality, UFS was the only thing that offered any hope that the shows wouldn’t all go to AFTRA for lack of any alternative.
Of course, UFS is probably also responsible for the braking problems in Toyota cars, and the decline of the tropical rainforest.
VG
VG:
“In reality, UFS was the only thing that offered any hope that the shows wouldn’t all go to AFTRA for lack of any alternative.”
I guess that “hope” didn’t pan out now, did it?
Voiceguy if you really want to go there, the most moronic comment every made on sagwatch was made by…quick go look in the mirror.
Remember you’re the guy that read the entire SAG contract and though that it dealt with TV movies. That take the cake.
SAG SHOULD have gotten a strike authorization before Maguire and White went back to the AMPTP. It’s the only real leverage a union has, in negotiations with an employer. Its the reason they came back with the “deal sucks”(according to David White himself) contract. With a strike authorization in their hand, Maguire and White could’ve told the AMPTP give us the same deal and same expiration date as AFTRA or we’ll recommend that the membership strike. Because they didn’t, SAG is getting 3.5% less than AFTRA. I blame UFS.
William Charlton:
“Nor do you have any substantiation that the leadership of a merged union would by anti-strike. You’re making it up.”
Are you kidding me? Seriously? On the SAG side, this group is full of friends of Richard Masur, who said something along the lines of “There will be no strike during my presidency…” Last negotiation this group fought against even getting a strike authorization, much less a strike itself. And has Ken Howard even mentioned getting a SA in hand prior to negotiations?
And the folks running AFTRA? Please. I can just see Roberta and Kim on a picket line…actually I can’t. When has AFTRA ever struck? Oh yeah, they struck with SAG in 2000 over commercials, even though they had practically no stake in it. They’re probably kicking themselves now because it meant they could have stolen the work like they have with TV. Other than that, they never even threatened.
Just as you don’t lend your car to your buddy who is fresh out of the drunk tank, or leave your child with a babysitter who swears she’s not doing crack anymore, the industry has clearly decided not to put its trust in an organization that has shown itself to be completely capable of self-destructive behavior, until you have a reasonable belief they aren’t going to set themselves, and you, on fire just for the hell of it. Mike and his MF buddies want everyone to believe that everyone in the business has forgotten what happened before the power shift on the National Board. In the real world, this is known as whistling past the graveyard.
Mike,
You are consistently confusing two different concepts;
1. AFTRA is not willing to merge with SAG right now.
and
2. Right now, AFTRA is willing to merge with SAG.
Both of these are true, and they are not mutually exclusive.
When you get down to it, you seems to misunderstand the difference between IF and WHEN. You doesn’t hear anyone talking about WHEN merger will happen (as if you would hear these conversations if they were taking place), so you have concluded they’re still uncertain IF merger should happen.
So, despite your desperate wishes to the contrary, the fact that AFTRA isn’t talking today about merger happening this week or this year, or even discussing publicly WHEN it will happen, doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen when the time is appropriate. SAG’s got bigger fish to fry right now in proving that it is continuing to get its house in order. Suggesting that AFTRA isn’t actively and publicly pursuing merger right now as an indication that it doesn’t want merger at all is just illogical wishful thinking.
I am very interested to hear more about your ideas on how SAG can “compete” for jurisdiction. It is pretty obvious that the NLRB procedure you suggest doesn’t really exist in reality, nor does that bizarre “let’s have an election between SAG and AFTRA” idea that your buddies were yelling about before the last election. So, if there is going to be “competition,” it is going to have to be in some other area. Care to share your ideas?
Mike -
You seem to think everyone else has as selectively short memory as you and the other MeFirst revisionists.
MeFirst has NEVER ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE IOTA of their gross blundering when they were in power at SAG. So don’t be so surprised that I and many other straight-line SAG bloggers continue to hold your feet to the fire to ensure that our members don’t forget that IT IS MEFIRST THAT LANDED SAG WHERE IT IS NOW.
Don’t like to keep hearing about it? Then my advice for you is to crawl back under your rock and let the adults proceed unhindered for at least one contract cycle to get the ship back on course before you resume your whining and slavering for control again.
Reardon never mentioned a specific time frame for merger discussions, other than to say they wouldn’t take place before the TV/Theatrical negotiations.
I know it will further distress you, but when she said that, she also said that “AFTRA is advocating for an assimilation between the two powerful Hollywood unions. . .” so I guess it turns out that somebody at AFTRA is actually thinking about merger after all.
You’re confusing your opinions with facts. I thought everyone learned this was not productive when MF was running things.
If those who insist that actors who are in both unions are “really” much in favor of SAG’s pov on these issues are correct, then in a combined union SAG has something like a 70-30 advantage (and that is conservative given the postulate). . . and in one or perhaps two election cycles this would have the inevitable effect of producing a leadership that reflected that reality.
If, of course, M1st really believes its own rhetoric on what dual-card holders really want. Instead, M1st rhetoric can most kindly be called irrational and self-contradictory when it comes to the AFTRA relationship.
At least I honestly admitted my mistake, rather than completely changing the subject, as you have.
VG
So you think a Strike Authorization should have been placed in the unprepared & blundering meathands of Doug Allen and David Jolliffe driving the MeFirst clown car over a cliff with SAG as a captive passenger?
Absurd.
I repeat, you have no substantiation. You have conjecture and wild guessing. You have a difference in philosophies, a different view of our places in the world. That doesn’t mean anyone is anti-strike. Your problem is that you make no attempt to understand different views of the marketplace. NOTHING in B&W, it’s all nuanced and variable. You, however, have a fundamentalists mindset, and we can all see how that is playing out on the world stage. Have you talked to these people? Have you a conversation?
Has M1st leadership EVER run on a platform of taking the jurisdiction dispute to the NLRB for resolution? Has any candidate for president of SAG EVER run on that? If not, why not?