Phase 1
What was Phase 1?
Fully known as “The Agreement covering Phase 1 to Merger,” the Phase 1 Agreement was a contract signed in 1981 between SAG and AFTRA. It covered joint bargaining of the major contracts in the areas in which the two unions share jurisdiction. Those agreements included: TV Commercials, Prime Time Dramatic Programming, and Non Broadcast/Educational/Industrials
Phase 1 was often misunderstood, even by some of the leaders in SAG and AFTRA. In each of the Phase 1 areas there are actually two contracts with identical terms, one covering shows under SAG’s jursidiction, the other covering shows under AFTRA’s jurisdiction. Links to the contracts were here – but SAG has removed its contracts from its website, so some links may no longer work: TV Commercials: SAG contract. AFTRA Contract. Prime Time Dramatic Programming: SAG contract. AFTRA Contract. Non Broadcast/Educational/Industrials: SAG contract. AFTRA Contract.
Note: some of those links may now be broken, because SAG has pulled down many of its contracts from the public section of its website. However, some of the documents have been preserved:
Non Broadcast/Educational/Industrials: SAG contract. Other SAG documents may also be available via http://archive.org.
For a quarter of a century the Phase 1 contract protected both SAG and AFTRA from the unions’ own worst instincts, by eliminating price competition between SAG and AFTRA on almost all productions. That is now over.
Is Phase 1 dead?
That’s hard to say. A few months ago we said, “for all practical purposes, yes…though AFTRA is merely saying it is “suspended.” But it was, in a fashion, resurrected during the  2008-2009 Commercials Contract negotiations, which were done jointly, without a hitch, by the two unions, with a non disparagement agreement under which neither union or its staff or elected and appointed members could criticize the other union. That agreement is still in place, though there have been breaches.
While it seemed to have been resurrected, after a long period during which it was on again-off again and AFL-CIO leaders tried to mediate disputes between the unions, now there seems little question about it. The raiding activity conducted by Membership First during Doug Allen’s tenure led AFTRA’s National Board to recognize that as long as Membership First and Allen were at SAG’s helm, war would be the outcome, and that joint negotiations were impossible.
While the SAG Constitution required adherence to it, and AFTRA was in favor of observing it, Membership First was dead set against it, and announced a referendum seeking to amend the SAG Consitution to eliminate it, AFTRA declared that SAG terminated the contract by imposing bloc voting, SAG rescinded the move, but while publicly engaging in work to develop joint bargaining proposals, Membership First was engaged in behind the scenes activity designed to torpedo joint talks.
BACKSTORY:
In the fall of 2007, SAG’s National Board, supposedly at the request of NED Doug Allen, narrowly passed a resolution imposing what Allen called unit (or bloc) voting on the SAG side of any Phase 1 contract negotiating committee. Because the Phase 1 contract explicitly states that each member of the negotiating committee is entitled to a vote, and because unit, or bloc voting, would result in any minority votes being discarded by SAG, AFTRA declared the unit voting resolution to be a material violation of the Phase 1 contract, and requested that SAG “cure” the breach by rescinding the unit voting resolution. SAG’s National Board refused, again by a narrow margin.
TV Theatrical W&WC sessions were not held under Phase 1, but were “jointly hosted” -Â a curious turn of phrase that led to some confusion, but the final W&WC Plenary was scheduled under the formal Phase One rules, after AFTRA indicated that it isn’t waiting around for SAG to make up its mind, and is moving ahead with preparations for solo negotiations with the producers.
Should We Care if Phase 1 is dead?
That used to depend upon your perspective. Moderate and pro-merger members will stress what they see as the importance of joint negotiating, both in terms of strength at the bargaining table (bigger numbers makes for a stronger union) and in terms of eliminating the possibility of the unions being played off against each other by the producers, whether in a price competition or for any other concessions. Anti-merger and separatist members will stress what they see as the importance of SAG’s independence and star power, and suggest that litigation, raids or the threat of litigation may limit SAG losses in the event of a price war between the unions.
That was the old school thinking. Now even Membership First is saying that going it alone is a problem. More of a problem seems to be putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.
Our view is that the only winners in the SAG/AFTRA split are the producers.
“Those agreements included: TV Commercials, Prime Time Dramatic Programming, and Non Broadcast/Educational/Industrials.”
You forgot one, as written, Basic Cable was also included in the Phase One agreement.
Wrong.
There is no mention of “Basic Cable” in Phase I language.
–
Mod. Comment: The relevant language is as follows:
Tom, you’re wrong.
The Phase One agreement, as written clearly states “Cable”, as the Mod. has pointed out, is an area covered by the Phase One Agreement. Also originally left out of the post was Pay TV.
Furthermore, AFTRA’s NED acknowledged this fact in a letter, dated February 8, 2008, to SAG’s NED, which stated the following:
“As we confirmed during our meeting on Tuesday, the Phase One Agreement as it was originally written, includes Non-Broadcast/Industrial, Prime-Time TV(Exhibit A)/TV-Theatrical, TV and Radio Commercials, Public Television, Basic Cable.”
As AFTRA already jointly negotiates “Pay” Cable(premium channels such as HBO and Showtime), in joint Phase One negotiations, AFTRA’s NED as well as others specify between “Pay”(jointly negotiated) and “Basic”, which is still not jointly negotiated, even though there are many more SAG and AFTRA Basic Cable shows than Pay Cable shows.
“Basic” cable hardly existed when Phase I was worded, and it was NOT listed. “Cable” meant subscription. Don’t get me wrong, I was one of the Board members to first suggest that Basic Cable (and, in fact, ALL areas of shared jurisdiction) be included in joint negotiations. Membership First and Doug Allen were opposed to that. THEY wanted war.
Let’s say, totally hypothetically, of course, that both SAG and AFTRA decide to try merger again. A third party would probably be brought it to assess whether or not the two unions can find true common ground, would advise as to whether merger could be ascertained with each union coming away happy and satisfied as best possible. (Mergers don’t just “happen” because of the will of the constituency. There are so many things that have to be assessed to reach equanimity. It’s like couples counseling)
If this 3rd party were to sit down with all the parties, admin, staff, etc and determine that these two unions can NOT be merged successfully, then what? I mean, this is an actual possibility, yes?
Is there a Plan B? The answer to this can’t be, “don’t worry, that won’t happen” because it might. And it won’t be through the fault of any party. If that 3rd party was retained it would be so by David White and the leadership. So, if that was to occur, what is the Plan B?
Shared Services?
Realignment of jurisdiction?
What actors really want, really need, is to have all their wages, on camera, commercial, theatrical, cable, VO, etc, to pay into their pension and health. How would we make that happen if merger just can’t be done?
(With the number of times we’ve walked to the altar, there is NO assurance it will work this time, right?)
Would we be ready to support another option or just call each other names and try to levy blame while the producers leave us in the dust?
If you have approached marriage with a Plan B, you probably have never been married. That is to say, successfully. Which means to say, probably a number of times. What I am saying is you don’t approach marriage with a Plan B and expect to have a successful, happy, long-lasting marriage. You approach it with both willing to give 150% to the other – or, I say, forget it.
But, Tom, unlike marriage, this is a business. The simile only works part of the way. Because business is business and committing to any risky venture in any business without recognizing that it might not work, could be catastrophic. As it stands, the only scenario that would be benefitted by blindly attempting merger, failing and having no backup is the ideology of political mudslinging. Having no Plan B allows hate mongers and nay sayers alike to point fingers and blame at the failure without ever having to find a way to work together towards a solution.
I submit that we MUST start talking about merger, what it looks like, what we want it to be. And when I say “we” i mean, you and I and everyone that supports merger needs to sit down with skeptics and those who are afraid of it and ask them what their fears are, exactly. Either allay those fears or recognize and address them. Openly. And, after that is said and done, begin to start looking at a backup plan. Just in case.
It would be one thing if this was the first marriage. But, if you were on your 13th attempt at marriage with the same person, either you’d be crazy or, if not, you would definitely want a pre-nup, or some protections in place.
You’re the one who introduced “It’s like couples counseling,” Allen – so live with it. It’s my observation in life that those who marry multiple times actually DO tend to marry (sort of) the same person over and over.
Of course there are always options to fall back on – like divorce, with a pre-nup (as you say). No one I know suggests “blindly” attempting merger. Eyes wide open, says I. It seems to me that the majority of strident anti-merger voices are BLINDLY OPPOSED.
If memory serves, MembershipFirst is the party of NO Plan B.
Like the ATA, previous merger attempts, trying to kill Phase 1, stalling on the TV/TH contracts, Interactive media…etc., there is never an viable alternative plan from them.
Oppose, oppose, kill, oppose.
The best reason for leadership to have mutual discusions about “Plan B”, it seems to me, is to convince themselves (as I think they would) how utterly unworkable it would be. And, yeah, that’s a good reason to talk about it.
20 years from now there will be one and only one major tv/film actors union. . . .one way or another. Control how that happens, or let it happen organically by higgeldy-piggeldy, strife, and employer opportunism. . . that’s the real choices.
Well, we best get them out of control, then, right?
Oh. Wait.
Stop beating a dead horse. M1 is out of power. You want them BACK in power? I’ll tell you how to do that right now. Here’s the map to giving M1 strength.
Move ahead on merger. Absolutely do NOT be transparent. Be as cloaked about it as possible. DO NOT approach the naysayers and ask them what their fears and trepidations are. Do NOT try to allay or quell those fears.
DO all you can to push merger through, squeak it by, just the bare minimum of votes needed to do so. What the heck, right? It’s a “majority”, it’s all you need.
When you do that you will give anyone opposed to merger the reason to fight. The ammunition to win that fight. And they will carry the day. It took 1200 votes to defeat merger the last time. You should be trying for 90% in favor. So anyone opposed has no argument. The fears (like “weathermen!” and “Initiation fees” and “governance”, etc) would have all been answered and put to rest. And there would be no backlash party.
But, please, keep flogging the anti-M1 hatred. THAT makes perfect sense. Why try to find a way to make everyone happy AND get what you want when you can put someone down or demonize them?
Ridiculous.
^
|
What he said.
And, btw, one of the ways you be transparent is to say “yeah, we looked jointly at shared services and iron-clad jurisdiction agreements and quickly came to the conclusion it was utterly unworkable. . . we cannot compete and share services at the same time; we cannot find any workable jurisdictional lines that would serve the best interests of actors and thus would allow us to not compete”.
And, for the umpteenth time (and I’ll keep saying it) get a major consulting house in to look at the 30 years savings of a combined union on a apples-to-apples (i.e. same services as provided today) basis. Or whatever period seems like a reasonable choice for the career length of a “successful middle-class working actor”.