USAN, Too: We’re “Back on Track” for Merger
This from USAN this morning:
In January, the SAG Board voted overwhelmingly to invite AFTRA to jointly negotiate the 2011 Theatrical and TV Agreement. This past weekend, the AFTRA Board voted unanimously to accept the invitation. Under the leadership of SAG President Ken Howard and AFTRA President Roberta Reardon, our unions are moving together in a positive direction. The negotiations will be handled under the same rules that the 2009 Commercial negotiations were successfully conducted.
Thanks to your support, and the support of members around the country, Screen Actors Guild and our sister union, AFTRA are once again back on track for cooperation, joint bargaining and Merger.
USAN says:
“Screen Actors Guild and our sister union, AFTRA are once again back on track Merger.”
Somebody tell AFTRA. I don’t think that they know that their on track for merger, let alone want one.
Is that because you know what AFTRA is thinking, or are you just guessing because you haven’t personally been told anything?
Merge with AFTRA? Isn’t that the union where all the performers actually work?
AFTRA, since the last merger failed, has been on an independent path. They’re not getting on the merger path anytime soon. They’re not rushing into SAG’s arms.
I’ve been told personally, by someone in AFTRA, a National Board Member in fact, that it will be “years” before the two unions merge, if ever.
Which by the way, is somewhat similar to what the moderators of this board have said, fairly recently. The moderators on this board seem to have good contacts with AFTRA’s upper echelon.
Mike…you just refuse to SMELL THE COFFEE…AFTRA and SAG are going to MERGE.
What language would you like used to receive the message???
Are you reading the news? Are you reading the blogs? Are you reading at all? Can you read? Can you understand that the goal of SAG and AFTRA has been merger once we got rid of the slime aka MF Cult members?
What do you need to wake you up??? A siren? A bomb? A lawsuit?
Yes Lilly, I read the blogs. What have the moderators of this blog said regarding merger? What did Handel say? What did Diamond say?
They ALL said its ain’t happening anytime soon. Did you read what Denny Delk said today? The term he used was “long haul”. In other word years, if ever, which is exactly what Handel and Diamond both said.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you’re in denial.
Who told you Mike, Anne-Marie or FRancis Fisher?
I know several AFTRA board members, Mike, and I can tell you that Merger is never far from the front of their thoughts. Don’t misinterpret how with the what. A lot of work will go into Merger, again. To do it right, will take some time, and thought and man/woman hours, but it will happen, and it’s not years away. WE can’t afford it to take that long.
it will take years for SAG and AFTRA to merge.
This year they are busy with the prelim of TV/Film contract.
But they will talk about merger. Probably bdhind closed doors.
Next year, if the TV/Film contract is signed, they will bring the talks out in the open. And that will continue all year.
Two years down.
In 2012 they will finally come out with a basic plan that will be kicked around and have the rough edges smoothed over.
By the end of 2012 or early 2013 they will be ready to send the deal to the membership.
It ain’t an easy thing and it will take “years”. But it will get done.
That is as long as we keep electing people who will talk, not shout, and listen, not wear earmuffs. and see, not wear blinders, the benefits of one union representing all the talent who entertain and inform the people of the United States.
And I see Equity joining the group right after. And the Musicians etc etc.
Neither union should be rushing into it. There’s a lot of groundwork to be done. It’s pretty clear you want everyone to stop talking about it and thinking about and believing it is in the best interests of members of both unions, but hanging on to the slender reed of “it’s not on the agenda today” to mean it isn’t going to happen when the groundwork is done is truly wishful thinking.
You’re probably right that merger is years away. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea, or that it is generally appreciated as a good idea by the leadership of both unions.
and WGA…and eventaully all the creative people can sit together at one side of the table….I have a dream!…
I think 2011 comes the big push, probably with a vote in 2012.
For one thing, Ken Howard made it a campaign plank. He needs to show visible progress before running for re-election.
So the second half of 2011 the joint committee gets formed, and (I sincerely hope) a credible 3rd party consultant gets named to do an in-depth study of the long-term benefits for the membership(s) while addressing the common concerns that are usually raised (p&h and such). While the landscape has changed enough since 2003 that it is at least possible that an effort as scantily documented as that one might succeed next time, it would be foolhardy in my view to count on that fact.
Next time there better be a few hundred pages by experts on why this is a good idea, addressing multiple areas –p&h, cost savings by functional administrative areas, benefits of combining volunteer bases, etc– over short, mid, and long-term (with “long-term” being the typical career length of a successful middle-class actor).
Who is Lilly? You are replying to my comment. Right? Denny posted where? I dont’ see it here. And when?
Love Handel, not sure diamond is over not getting a job and it seems to influence his writing, but Handel and Diamond are not in either union last time I heard. They comment and anaylize pretty well. Especially when it comes to negotiations and law suits. (Handel predicted Gang of Four would be drawn out to this embarrassing time frame..he also called it a huge waste of dues money.)
I’m not in denial, Mikey boy. Wait and see. Truth be told, the energy it takes to tell you die hard MF Cultees what is right there in the middle of your face is called a “nose” is not worth the effort.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s not called a nose. Maybe it’s called “egg”
Time to support the Merger effort which has been rolling along all this time.
Mike, Would you be supportive of a merger that sucessfully merged p/h and kept broadcasters in their own separate category? Or are you completely opposed to a merger of any way shape and form?
Mike… you are dead wrong. Merger is very much an issue that AFTRA would like to see progress on. The opportunity just never existed with Doug, Alan and Anne-Marie at the helm. I reached out during the Commercial W&W when I chaired the New Media Subcommittee in Hollywood, Gabrielle was my Vice-chair.
I cannot speak for National Board members but I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that merger is thought of favorably among the folks I affiliated with during my time there. Merger under the right circumstances, with both parties working in good faith would be an extremely welcome event. Something I (and others) could get behind without much convincing.
JC
I definitely would support a merger that put all screen actors that perform in TV, motion pictures, video games and new media into one union. I would have no problem then merging with equity, either. The devil is in the details. I would want the SAG health plan, the SAG pension plan, The SAG system of governance (direct democracy for electing the SAG president, rather than a convention). I would not like other professions such as newscasters and radio DJs voting on actors contracts. I do not want a “super board” allowing staff to devise different contracts for every basic cable show.
The list goes on and on.
Yawn. Old MF talking points…
On March 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM
mike says:
“I would not like other professions such as newscasters and radio DJs voting on actors contracts.”
Why? What is your reasoning behind this statement? Please tell us, because we are all dying to hear.
Mike, did you know that Equity also represents Stage Managers? They aren’t actors. Do you want Equity to get rid of the Stage Managers or what?
Oh yeah, and what about those pesky chorus folk?
Maybe you should re-think the AEA is OK statement.
Perhaps Mike believes in Qualified Voting, FF. After all, aren’t actors the only persons qualified to vote on actors’ contracts? I don’t guess Mike would actually like to take the extra step and declare that only actors who work a particular contract should be able to vote on that contract. Sort of like the voice-over SAG actors who voted exclusively among themselves and rejected the last SAG Interactive contract – thereby taking SAG out of the video game business. But maybe Mike would say that the TV/Theatrical contract is a BIG CONTRACT so every member who thinks they’d LIKE to work and who EXPECT to work under that contract should vote on it. Broadcasters wouldn’t LIKE to work and don’t EXPECT to work under the TV/Theatrical contract. Just ask Howard Stern or even David Letterman. Oh. Wait.
You must be a weather person from Peoria, if you can’t figure out why.
Mike may have missed “24″ last week when Ernie Anastos, the WNYW-TV news anchor, appeared on camera reading a news story related to the plot. You think Ernie knows he is just being used to subvert SAG’s God-given right to represent “screen actors?”
“Perhaps Mike believes in Qualified Voting, FF. After all, aren’t actors the only persons qualified to vote on actors’ contracts?”
I am not interested in voting on radio DJs, contracts, Why should they vote on actors contracts? Would Farm workers vote on auto worker contracts?
“Sort of like the voice-over SAG actors who voted exclusively among themselves and rejected the last SAG Interactive contract – thereby taking SAG out of the video game business.”
Of course as usual Tom is wrong again. You have it completely bass akwards. It was the AFTRA voice-over actors who voted exclusively among themselves and approved the last AFTRA Interactive contract. SAG was the union that let the likes of Marisa Redanty, a person that doesn’t work the interactive contract, vote.
The reason why the two votes were different is a mystery. AFTRA as usual refuses to release the vote breakdown. One reason was probably the fact that AFTRA staff was in the “voting booth”. They actually called up actors and TOLD them how to vote. How many actors and which actors they called and which actors they didn’t call, obviously influenced the outcome.
“But maybe Mike would say that the TV/Theatrical contract is a BIG CONTRACT so every member who thinks they’d LIKE to work and who EXPECT to work under that contract should vote on it. Broadcasters wouldn’t LIKE to work and don’t EXPECT to work under the TV/Theatrical contract. Just ask Howard Stern or even David Letterman.”
In a merged union, with a group of diversified professions, the various professions should only vote in the area that they work. AFTRA already separates its members into groups for representation. If you’ve crossed over and work in more than one area, you should be allowed to vote in the additional area or contract that you worked.
Can’t answer my simple question, can you Mike? Too bad, I thought for a second that you might have been able to illuminate me with your wisdom. You see Mike, you seem like you have a lot to say but the reality is you don’t have anything to say, do you Mike?
He was employed as an actor. If he has a SAG card and is a paid up member. He should be allow to vote on SAG contracts.
Mike,
If you are a working actor, stick with us and we’ll take care of you.
If you’re not a working actor, then go away, you have no business here.
But please, for the love of god, stop embarrassing yourself.
I’m for qualified voting as well, Mike. I’m surprised you are.
The MF Hollywood V/O cabal took SAG out of Interactive and sent all games to AFTRA.
The MF Hollywood blunderers screwed SAG TV/Theatrical negotiations and sent all pilots to AFTRA.
All performers in front of cameras or microphones should be in ONE UNION.
And tomorrow he wakes up and he’s a newsman again. He got the “24″ gig because it’s a Fox show and he’s the Fox anchor in NYC. You’re not terribly consistent here, but, what else is new?
Know matter how loud you scream, it ain’t happening any time soon. Get used to it.
Why anyone thinks broadcasters would choose to vote on actors contracts in large enough numbers to actually impact the results decisively in a combined (and greatly enlarged) union is utterly beyond me other than as a booga-booga point.
The anecdotal case is “some” broadcasters voted on the last one when SAG was campaigning against it (which, helllooo, that should be evidence right there of wildly unusual outlier circumstances that are unrepresentative of ongoing reality of a combined union). . . I haven’t seen any evidence that there is a good reason to think it impacted the results. If someone has some to point at, I’d be happy to look at it.
The fear is that the weathermen will vote FOR a contract that the union leadership is telling members they should vote FOR.
But the easy solution is some form of qualified voting, and I don’t have a problem with that.
VG
I know what the fear is –my question is where is the evidence it is a reasonable fear that might actually have impactful results?
Provding links to 5 or 10 weathermen blogging/posting about having done it last time when they perceived their union leadership to be under attack from an external competitor doesn’t prove anything, and on at least two levels –1). Whether they would have done it if it was the kind of internal spat that is the bread and butter of any democratic entity and 2). That there were enough of them who didn’t talk about it publicly, but did it nonetheless, to actually change the results of the election or get even in the near ballpark of doing so.
Anecdotal evidence *is* evidence, but there are good reasons why it is generally considered only the starting point for a serious investigation, not the conclusion point.
Oh, yes, point 3). Increase the union size from 70,000 to 150,000 when making the analysis of whether #2, if found to be true, could happen in the combined union.