NATIONAL BOARD SAYS YES TO JOINT BARGAINING WITH AFTRA ON TV THEATRICAL AND TO INITIATION FEE INITIATIVE
The official statement:
“It was moved and seconded that in light of SAG’s historically productive negotiating partnership with AFTRA, the SAG National Board of Directors directs President Ken Howard and National Executive Director David White to seek engagement with AFTRA in a joint bargaining agreement for negotiation of the Television/Theatrical Contract, under the terms of Phase One, modeled on the agreement used successfully in the 2009 Commercials Contract negotiations. President Howard and NED White shall bring a recommendation to the National Board at the earliest opportunity.”
The vote was 82%-18% in favor.
Here’s Jonathan Handel, with first analysis. The Wrap.
Our view: the Board met AFTRA’s volley with a lob back into AFTRA’s court.
AFTRA’s Strategy Cabinet, the key policy making committee, met last week and approved exploration of “concurrent” bargaining with SAG. That led to meetings between the SAG and AFTRA Presidents to work on how the negotiations could be structured, whether Phase 1’s rules would work. Apparently they decided the tried and true rules are still OK.
AFTRA’s National Board meets at the end of this month and will likely be asked to approve the plan. We’d be surprised if they didn’t, though it’s possible there could still be a detail or two to be worked out.
–
The SAG board also approved 83 percent to 17 percent a review the initiation fee structure nationwide. Meanwhile existing initiation fee reductions in some RBD markets across the country were extended.
So, a majority of M1st members voted both to return to Phase 1 on Theatrical, and to being nice to RBD?
At the very end of the SAG press release is an opaque statement concerning an amendment to the Constitution concerning written assent procedures. If this was the same poorly-drafted amendment that was being discussed a few weeks ago, I will be very disappointed.
VG
The release just says the amendment was “addressed” at the meeting. It doesn’t say what happened.
That’s why I termed the reference in the press release “opaque.” I’m still suspicious that we will see a staff-written provision that is sloppy and designed primarily for the staff’s convenience and not for the good of the membership.
VG
Just curious Voice Guy, what is your legal background?
I’m in my 30th year of law practice in California, and among things litigated a question under a different part of the Corporations Code all the way to the California Supreme Court. It’s a hell of a “day job.”
VG
Did you win or lose?
Getting to the SC is often more about having a stubborn client and a question that at least some judges see as an opportunity to clarify some portion of law that they feel needs clarifying.
In this case, the baby was not just split but it was mutilated beyond recognition.
Because the California Supreme Court is a court of discretionary jurisdiction — that is, it decides which cases to take up (just like the U.S. Supreme Court) — it is always difficult to predict which cases it will choose. The odds of getting California Supreme Court review in a civil case are extremely slim, because of the limited number of cases that court can handle, and the heavy criminal caseload.
The main thing I learned is that the Corporations Code is a miserably drafted set of statutes, the product of a bunch of pointy-headed corporate lawyers who have never been faced with the reality of litigating anything under their fine words.
VG
My two cents is that you don’t have to be a lawyer to have an opinion if you have some experience in negotiations and agreements. For Manhattan Plaza, I and the head of our Policy Committee (made up of 12 performing arts and related UNIONS) pretty much wrote the entire agreement using lawyers to make sure we had it right. But we structured the entire 25 page agreement.
Don’t think you can’t have a good sense of a legal document just because you didn’t go to law school. The key is to ask questions and not to be overly arrogant when a lawyer tells you that a certain paragraph may sound like “A” but actually means “B”.
There are certain, tricky words that can throw off any good intention. Example: best efforts vs. will provide or shall vs may
I’m no expert, but we did ok in sealing an unprecedented 20 year agreement with one of the largest developers in the country.
Voiceguy’s been around the block. I’d take his input on the structure and language proposed for the constitutional ammendment.
The first “litmus test” I applied to the proposed new provision was to ask, Would the written assent process that took place in late January, 2009 have been possible under that provision? The answer seemed to me to be a nearly categorical “no,” and that immediately gave me pause. (I say “nearly” categorical because in theory it might have been possible for one of the other Divisions to go through the formal process of sponsoring a proposed written assent and then having it circulated. However, at a minimum that process would have taken some time — time which was at a premium under those circumstances.)
I also do not like the sloppiness of the language, which seems to me to do nothing but create opportunities for new legal challenge.
Thus, the Law of Unintended Consequences will almost certainly be visited on SAG with such a change. What the change will assure, most prominently, is that the written assent process will be emasculated to the point of being used only for the most routine and non-controversial matters. It will no longer serve as a potential check on filibustering of board meetings, as occurred in January 2009.
VG
Seriously, what’s happening to the vaunted groupthink and lock-step enforcement of party discipline by M1st? I don’t know how many alternates were in the room, and of which flavor, but an 18% minority would probably be around 40% of M1st, with roughly 60% of M1st voting with the U4S/NY/RBD majority?
There never was a “groupthink” or “lock-step enforcement of party discipline” from MF. U4S/NY/RBD maybe-certainly, actually.
Why would MF be opposed to joint negotiations? They were never against it. Sure, they wanted it modified, justifiably. Since AFTRA had 50% say, the issue of a DVD increase was never pressed because AFTRA HAD nothing that went to DVD. But this last round of negotiations, in which AFTRA walked out, proved to be a disaster in every way possible. There should be joint negotiation in every aspect-including cable.
Matthew says: “There never was a “groupthink” or “lock-step enforcement of party discipline” from MF.”
Oh, my friend – you obviously have never been in the National Board room over the past six years.
AFTRA did not “walk out” – they were PUSHED OUT. Top MF “leaders” have now admitted as much. NOW they understand the consequences of their actions. Lesson hard-learned, but learned. THEY were the “cross-overs” the other day. There’s still a hard core to be rooted out this summer.
Must be an ostrich. Stick your head in the sand, and willfully not see the obvious. Lock step for MF? Assuredly. One only has to observe a Hollywood Board meeting to witness it. There was no justification to the modification request. You can’t have two partners negotiating side-by-side with one having a bigger say than the other — then it’s just one tagging along with the “decider”, not really having s say. Merger, which most of the MF camp is or was against, would’ve put the whole thing to rest, and the issue would’ve never come up.
Oh, wait, I’m repeating myself. Over and Over and Over.
There were quite a number of no shows among them yesterday. And they didn’t give UFS members the opportunity to replace them.
Matthew says there was no “lock step” in MF? Sorry, but if it looks like a duck, Matthew.
Phase 1 (in place for what 30 years) had 50/50 power.
AFTRA appointees on the Joint Neg. Committee are ALL AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF SAG AS WELL AS AFTRA.
SAG wanted to “adjust”?
What if your employer wanted to “adjust” your base wages that were agreed upon two years ago?
Ya think you’d have a problem with that, Matthew?
When a union has an agreement with a sister union it should be even MORE meaningful than that we have with management.
Sorry, substitute the word “adjust” for Matthew’s “modify” in my last post
I have attended Hollywood Board meetings. While on some occasions they voted as one, the same was always true with the UFSers and UFS-leaning independents like Fairchild. I seem to recall Angela Watson and Keith Carradine voting against the wishes of the rest of the MFers on more than one occasion-regarding board member replacement, if I remember correctly.
The DVD issue is just one of many that justified MF’s wishes to modify Phase 1. By the way, Mr. Ligon, what MF leaders have admitted AFTRA was “pushed out?”
Meanwhile, what’s the status of the non-disparagement deal (and escrowed penalty funds) between SAG and AFTRA? Will that still be in effect should SAG and AFTRA reach agreement to negotiate jointly?
VG
Stet.
As I understand it, the non disparagement agreement is still in place and the money is still in escrow. I’d bet that if the current NDA isn’t still in place there will be something similar (maybe without less in escrow?) if TV-Theatrical and Ex. A are to be done together.
“If, after 30 days, the parties have not mutually agreed to modify the Agreement, the Agreement will continue in effect as is unless either party terminates it by providing written notice to the other party”.
If such written notice has been provided by one party or the other, both of them have been keeping it mighty quiet –more quiet than I would expect would be possible where $2M (really $4M, since each put up $2M) is involved. That’s enough money that both boards would have had to be notified if the agreement were terminated.
I hope both are getting interest on that money!
Matthew, you keep saying that MFers want to “modify” Phase 1. You haven’t answered how you would feel about an agreement being “modified” after 30 years?
How bout answering that? What if AFTRA (now that it has more and more TV episodics) wanted to “modify” Phase 1 and have say 51% or more votes than SAG.
A partnership agreement is a partnership agreement.
Fifty Fifty is Fifty Fifty
“Modifying” an agreement?? If it’s “modified” is it still an agreement or is it another agreement?
Isn’t “modifying” something that was ALREADY AGREED to by two parties really just changing horses mid stream?
Marisa, I’ve got no problem modifying an agreement if changing conditions warrant it, whether that agreement is 30 years old or 300 years old. The conditions warranted it. SAG had 95% of the TV episodics-it’s obviously less now but I believe it still has more. An issue that was a large priority for the majority of the SAG negotiators was a DVD increase. What did AFTRA stand to gain from a DVD increase? Nothing. So it wasn’t a priority for them. On the other side of the coin, what AFTRA negotiation priorities did SAG ignore?
The fact that the AFTRA appointees are joint SAG/AFTRA members means nothing as well-they go in as reps for AFTRA’s fiduciary interests, not SAG’s. I fail to understand why SAG, which has more members and more at stake, shouldn’t have more say.
All this notwithstanding, SAG was prepared to go ahead with the traditionally constructed Phase 1 despite pointing out the flaws. AFTRA didn’t have to leave. But they did.
Trust, Matthew. You don’t hang around to get attacked and tossed around like you’re riff-raff just because the bigger guy says so.
Plus you are missing a huge point. Two parties agree to negotiate together. REGARDLESS of their relative sizes, they each bring the same number of negotiators to the table, and they have equal say. The UN security council, for example, has several countries of relatively different sizes. Each has the same vote, and can veto a decision arrived at by the other parties. It may be unfair, but it is the only way it can work, equally. What you are arguing for is unequal. You, like the MF stance at the time, want AFTRA merely to be an observer, which they would be with less than equal representation. AFTRA goes to great lengths to respect the size of SAG by appointing only joint AFTRA-SAG members, as has aleady been pointed out. AFTRA lets SAG take the lead where SAG has more of a concern(i.e. Force Majuere).
SAG commercial negotiations were hugely successful, with a 50-50 representation, even though SAG still has more of the commercial work than AFTRA does, even though AFTRA has all of radio, etc. etc.
To reiterate, for SAG to have “more say” would mean that only SAG gets to decide and AFTRA would’ve been merely an observer. If you step outside of the tunnel vision you are currently operating in, you might actually see that.
There simply is no point in trying to convince certain revisionists that they should stop trying to cement their false notions of SAG/AFTRA into history. They have their fingers in their ears and like 5-year-olds are going “Nyah nyah nyah – I can’t hear you!” Matthew – your simplistic and inaccurate account of the SAG/AFTRA relationship just isn’t so and isn’t worth yet another refutation. I understand the MF creed of “Wear ‘em down” with repetition and persistent misinformation – it’s been going on for more than a decade. On this forum it will continue to get you nowhere.
Gee, I wonder what it would take for the voice of AFTRA to have a proportional weight in all decision making? I wonder. I wonder, wonder, wonder. . . . oh, that’s right –merger. It never ceases to amaze me when M1stian voices out of one side of their mouth make their own arguement for why merger makes sense and then out of the other attack merger with great gusto.
Matthew..What? SAG wanted to lessen AFTRA’s votes. That’s not going ahead with traditionally constructed Phase 1. How can you say that?
Now, if you have an “agreement” like a contract with actors, I ask you…if the economy changes, can management “modify” the agreement they have with actors?
I don’t see the difference. You are, in my view,talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Sorry. But you can’t have it both ways. Either you stick with your COMMITTMENT, SAG or you try to wriggle out of it, the same way a slime ball employer would try to “modify” our wages because of thte economy.
That’s the truth, Matthew. No amount of tap dancing can change the truth.
Lets not start this argument again, Matthew. AFTRA determined it had more than sufficient cause to break off Phase 1 bargaining. No amount of revisionism will change that. Blaming AFTRA for certain elements of SAG behaving badly is disingenuous and is beside the point now.
Like you said, AFTRA broke off Phase 1 bargaining. Not SAG.
I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. The question that your comment doesn’t address is they “why.”
The “why” doesn’t matter to Mike and his buddies. If MF can say the breakdown of Phase One was AFTRA’s “fault,” they really don’t need to concern themselves with context. Our lost boy is engaging in the exact same doubletalk over on Handel’s site right now. It gets tedious, but it doesn’t get accurate.
Mike, you know why AFTRA broke off Phase 1 with SAG. We all know you know. They were forced out by design. We all know that. MF knows that. It was a successful campaign by MF. You know that. We all know you know that.
What’s curious is why you continue to make it appear that AFTRA wasn’t forced out by design, even when you know they were, and even when we all know you know.
It makes you look silly.
Sheffc says:
“They [AFTRA] were forced out by design”
“We all know that.”
“You know that. We all know you know that.”
Sheffc,
You might want to seek professional help for your paranoid delusions.
I’m concerned. You sound nutty.
“You sound nutty.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
That’s rich.
Mike, I apologize. I realize now you actually might NOT know why AFTRA broke off from Phase 1. Which would be par for the course for you. You rarely, if ever know what you are talking about.
DO you know why AFTRA broke off from Phase 1? Any idea …. ? At all?
Gee, could it have had anything to do with the MF-dominated SAG national board voting to institute bloc voting for Phase I (in violation of the agreement) in mid-2007? Or the AFTRA-bashing article that Doug Allen published in Screen Actor in the fall of 2007? Or the online petition that Doug Allen set up soliciting SAG members to demand that AFTRA neuter itself in Phase I negotiations? Or the national board vote in December, 2007 to send out a formal ballot to SAG members seeking to cancel Phase I altogether, followed by Rosenberg e-mails in January, 2008 strongly encouraging SAG members to vote for this measure?
VG
“the MF-dominated SAG national board voting to institute bloc voting for Phase I (in violation of the agreement)”
—> AND just plain illegal (period) according to SAG’s outside counsel whom Doug & Co. consulted on the matter.
“the AFTRA-bashing article that Doug Allen published in Screen Actor in the fall of 2007″
—> WITHOUT consulting the SAG National Board or Communications Committee or the Editorial Subcommittee, and 12 pages of multicolored slick pages of unvetted material that cost SAG members over $100,000.
“the online petition that Doug Allen set up soliciting SAG members to demand that AFTRA neuter itself in Phase I negotiations”
—> or the similarly-worded Push-Poll postcard sent out to members – unvetted and not approved by any SAG elected body.
“the national board vote in December, 2007 to send out a formal ballot to SAG members seeking to cancel Phase I altogether, followed by Rosenberg e-mails in January, 2008 strongly encouraging SAG members to vote for this measure”
—> WITHOUT the balls to actually send it out and get slapped hard in the face by the SAG membership who would have said: “NO!.”
VG,
Come on now! Everybody knows that AFTRA forced SAG to pursue bloc voting because AFTRA wasn’t agreeing to be reasonable and let SAG control the negotiations. And in that article, Doug Allen was only trying to shame AFTRA into recognizing SAG’s natural superiority. You could read the pain in every word. And SAG didn’t want to put out that petition or have a vote to cancel Phase 1, but AFTRA forced them to! (Really strange behavior from a union notorious in some circles for being compliant and backing down in the face of aggressive opposition, but that’s an entirely different story for another day.)
If AFTRA had only known it’s place in the greater scheme of things, none of that would have happened, so, clearly, AFTRA is responsible for all that stuff that SAG did. You think you’d get this by now. After all, Mike’s been telling us this for years.
For cryin’ out loud. I know all of YOU know why AFTRA backed out of Phase 1. Little children could understand it. I was asking Mike if HE knew.
Jeez, I was just agreeing with what JCisneros said:
-AFTRA broke off Phase 1 bargaining.
Not SAG.
All of the entertainment trades and major newspapers acknowledge that fact.
Yes, and Britain and France caused WWII by declaring war on Germany.
How typical, you now bolster your ineffectual argument, by bringing up a Germany and WWII analogy.
No, Mike, that was an accurate and succinct analogy. It just went right over your head.
No, david, I disagree. It was an inaccurate, unfair and stupid analogy, to bring up WWII Germany (Nazis, in this thread.
I know “Godwin’s Law” at least as well as you do, Mike. I’ve been “online” since the early ’80s. I’ve been paid professionally to program the Apple II+ when it was the hottest thing going this side of main-frames. I’ve admin’ed two forums that are at least as well-respected in their niches as this one. You mentioned “Nazis”, I did not. Nor “Hitler”, the other no-no phrase. If I’d called M1st “Nazis” or AMJ, “Hitler”, I would be guilty. . . but not only did I not, I would protest such usage here or anywhere else.
But the analogy I did use, is entirely fair. Context matters. Britain and France did declare war against Germany *first* in WWII. And it was in “all the papers” (your justification).
Anyone who doesn’t think that matters, need only reflect on the fact that Russia also dismembered Poland in cooperation with Germany. In fact, after the war Russia basically “moved” Poland far to the east and annexed portions of Poland and “German East Prussia” unilaterlally, with conesquences that still matter today (see Kalingrand and recent contretemps over US misiile defense). But that’s not what “caused” WWII –all that came before; Rheinland, Anschluss, Sudentland, etc is what did.
Yet, Britain and France did not ever seriously consider declaring war on Russia over their horrible behavior towards Poland in September of 1939.
The point was, and remains, “context matters” –that I made the point historically with a famouse case is very much relevant, however you wish to claim otherwise.
Any guesses as to WHY Aftra broke off Phase 1, Mike? You got anything at all? This sad attempt at feigning righteous indignation at brining up WWII to avoid answering the question doesn’t fly.
We’d all love to hear your clever theory as to why AFTRA broke off Phase 1 negotiations.
So they could snag as much jurisdiction from SAG as possible, while SAG was futilely trying to garner improvements on the crappy AFTRA deal.
It worked out fantastically for AFTRA.
Mike, are you saying AFTRA can see into the future?
So your theory is:
AFTRA foresaw into the future that they would break off Phase 1 and they would easily get a “crappy deal”, which would include higher rates than SAG. And they foresaw into the future that SAG would then be futile in their attempts to get a better deal. So then AFTRA foresaw into the future that they could then go to the producers, with their “crappy deal” with HIGHER rates, and get the producers to sign with them instead of SAG, who would have lower rates since they would be futile in their attempts at getting a better deal.
Mike, you’re an idiot.
But, Mike, it must be true –it was in all the papers!
Shefic Said;
So your theory is:
AFTRA foresaw into the future that they would break off Phase 1 and they would easily get a “crappy deal”, which would include higher rates than SAG. And they foresaw into the future that SAG would then be futile in their attempts to get a better deal. So then AFTRA foresaw into the future that they could then go to the producers, with their “crappy deal” with HIGHER rates, and get the producers to sign with them instead of SAG, who would have lower rates since they would be futile in their attempts at getting a better deal
———————————————————-
No This is not my theory. But for a really idiotic theory, read below
———————————————————-
Mike, you know why AFTRA broke off Phase 1 with SAG. We all know you know. They were forced out by design. We all know that. MF knows that. It was a successful campaign by MF. You know that. We all know you know that.
What’s curious is why you continue to make it appear that AFTRA wasn’t forced out by design, even when you know they were, and even when we all know you know.
——————————————————-
Pretty silly, Shefic.
Silly? No.
Accurate.
Accurate in the Bizarro World of SAGwatch.
The claim that SAG purposely schemed to get AFTRA to leave Phase One negotiations, that “It was a successful campaign by MF”, is absolutely absurd.
Mike, I apologize for calling you an idiot. That was totally wrong on my part and i wish I could take it back. But I said it and there it is. My bad.
What I should have said is: you’re ignorant. Much more appropriate. Again, I apologize.
And now I also see how wrong I was to make fun of your crackpot theory. I was wrong to make you look ignorant by pointing out the absurdity of your theory. You did that all by yourself. Again, my bad.
What I should have said was:
So your theory is:
AFTRA realized the people in power at SAG were such idiots they couldn’t possibly do two things at the same time. They could either “futilely try to garner improvements on the crappy AFTRA deal” or “snag as much jurisdiction” as possible.
Mike, you’re ignorant.
Yes, Mike – and if I came up to you from behind and bit you on the neck and pushed you to the ground, calling you a non-working anti-unionist dork, and you got up and moved away from me and refused to talk any further and you left the room that would be YOU “breaking it off and walking out” – I suppose, yes? All your fault?
Nice semantics, Mike.
Do you have any guess as to WHY they broke off Phase 1 bargaining. Any guess at all? Anything?
I’d really like to hear your version of why AFTRA broke off from Phase 1. Seriously.
I agree withthe statement”Mike, you’re an idiot”
Mike, your presumtion about AFTRA is just rediculous. In fact all of your theories are just crap, to be honest. All of your assertions are from left field with no basis in fact.
Mike, where do you get this “stuff”? Are you subscribing to a website monitored by Ann Marie Johnson? Or Kent McCord, Or Alan Rosenberg…or what?
I really don’t care if you decide to stay in the “in the dark” club. But please don’t infect the rest of us with your virus. Because it’s only “germs” after all.
The confusion obviously comes because SAG was against joint bargaining before it was for it.
From Variety Feb. 9, 2008:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117980617.html?categoryid=1066&cs=1
VG