Comments on: Phase 1

By: geo

geo — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:58:03 +0000

^
|

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”.

By: Allen Lulu

Allen Lulu — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:00:33 +0000

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.

By: geo

geo — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:57:25 +0000

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.

By: SAG Character Man

SAG Character Man — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:37:16 +0000

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.

By: Tom Ligon

Tom Ligon — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:29:12 +0000

“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.

By: Tom Ligon

Tom Ligon — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:22:33 +0000

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.

By: Allen Lulu

Allen Lulu — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:07:34 +0000

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.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:36:15 +0000

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.

By: Tom Ligon

Tom Ligon — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:58:51 +0000

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.

By: Tom Ligon

Tom Ligon — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:18:50 +0000

Wrong.

There is no mention of “Basic Cable” in Phase I language.

–

Mod. Comment: The relevant language is as follows:

9. AREAS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING COVERED. The within Agreement will be applicable to the following collective bargaining agreements.

(A.) Theatrical Motion Pictures and Prime Time Television (Television Prime Time Dramatic Programs for AFTRA only); Cable and Pay Television;

(B.) Commercials – Television and Radio;

(C.) Industrial and Educational;

(D.) Public Television.