« BYOB '79 | Main | Embargoed… Marked As The One Who Ran… »
July 10, 2008
Still No Strike Story Worth Repeating
It seems that everyone is now apologizing for the lame coverage of the SAG non-strike. Here's my semi-apology...
Nothing has changed since I wrote about this on February 19.
Listening to the painfully unmoderated and unfocused back and forth between the SAG and AFTRA toppers on KCRW yesterday (embedded below) was to hear pretty much the same old song & dance, though I have to admit that it clarified my sense even more greatly that the AFTRA side really has no defense. When Ms Reardon keeps pushing the "they tried to stop our vote!" as her key issue and fails to debate the real issues, she has already lost my support.
There was a moment when it seemed that AFTRA’s plowing ahead on its own might radicalize SAG, but by focusing on trying to turn – impossibly – the AFTRA vote, SAG leadership shifted focus away from AFTRA’s encroachment by becoming the perceived aggressor.
So now, SAG is screwed. Going out on their own – every other key union has a multi-year deal done - is a near-impossibility. They have no central issue to sell as worthy of shutting the town down again.
But the core issue between SAG and AFTRA remains. AFTRA’s scripted drama/comedy deals are inferior to what SAG has offered… for the actors who work under them. Residuals, pension, and Health & Welfare are all real issues. AFTRA is using the shift to tape from film to eat an increasing piece of the pie for shows with actors performing drama and comedy on camera from a script, a jurisdiction that was never really meant to be theirs. And because their deals are cheaper for the studios, they want to work under AFTRA whenever they can.
SAG has its own real problems as well. The dangerous position of the acting middle class is real and not primarily an AFTRA issue.
All the industry unions have a similar problem. The vast majority of the money their memberships are taking out of films and television shows are not coming out under union contracts. Real hyphenates do exist. But for the most part, a job that is not covered by any of the unions, producer, is the tool that actors and writers use to get paid the real money, particularly on the back end. If the unions tried to force real compliance, the top names might split off and that would lead to non-union projects which would, it seems, lead to the end of the unions as we know them.
On top of that, the agencies and managers have been set free to plunder major amounts out of productions because they control the talent, often making more than the talent for their limited troubles. And talent that doesn’t drive deals? No one cares. They get paid less and less, treated worse and worse, and still, they are happy to be working… beats digging a ditch, right?
Unions can be their own nightmarish high schools. But my sense is that the middle class actors are seeing the union’s ability – and in some cases, willingness - to work in their best interests slipping away. And without the cover of the union, we might as well be back to the contract player days, with only the biggest stars allowed to guide their own lives and careers. And you know, some actors would really benefit from that. But it’s a step down from where they have been with SAG. And they don’t want to go there.
Rough times.
Still, the AFTRA incursion is not a passing issue. The vast majority of actors working on the carefully-but-surely-flawed kind of shows are still under SAG contracts… over 95%. But AFTRA Creep continues. And like runaway production, it’s about choices. Actors, for the most part, don’t have a lot of choice… if they want to work. A few do. Most don’t. The Money does have choices. And logically, they will continue to make those choices to their own benefit. If working under AFTRA instead of SAG saves 2% or 4% on a budget line and there is no downside to working under that contract or shooting on HD Video instead of Film, why not?
On some level, I believe completely in open competition. What spins my head on this issue us that AFTRA seems to be talking out of both sides of its leadership mouth. They keep screaming that SAG is unfairly attacking them, but never seems to make a real argument that their contract, which has emasculated the negotiations by SAG, is the best one possible for actors who work in front of the camera on television. And on cable, which is where AFTRA is making its main push for deals, Roberta Reardon said in this KCRW interview that AFTRA doesn’t have or seek a basic cable agreement, but that it will negotiate deals on a show-by-show basis. So… where is the strength of the union?
Still… everyone seems to understand that a SAG strike is highly unlikely. And that SAG will not get anything close to what they aspired to when they started, when they supported WGA, etc. So why write about it? It’s depressing.
Posted by dpoland at July 10, 2008 09:53 AM
Comments
"Unions can be their own nightmarish high schools. "
Everything is High School Dave...work (Management) and your workplace representatives (Unions). Should it be? Of course not. But that's where apathy and hierarchy meet. Then you have those few politcal animals who are in it for their own self glory.
AFTRA. bitter feelings so no comment.
"On top of that, the agencies and managers have been set free to plunder major amounts out of productions because they control the talent, often making more than the talent for their limited troubles. And talent that doesn’t drive deals? No one cares. They get paid less and less, treated worse and worse, and still, they are happy to be working… beats digging a ditch, right?"
Sounds like we should just say screw it and march back to the Depression and accept a foot on the neck.
In this case Open competition means the poorest members lose Dave. Lowest bidder is going to win there which means Un-equitable arrangements for SAG members.
What would be equitable for SAG and AFTRA members, would have been to much earlier than now hammered out some things in private first. Very short sighted not to have some reciprocal agreement on some of the contentious issues first. Unions do it all the time when there is trolling for the same pool of members. I have participated in that type of negotiation in the past between Unions as a Rep and it's ugly, you lose a muscle flex, but it helps everyone's members to make sure a minimum standard is maintained for everyone.
Few members in any Union will ever get rich, that's why there are unions to start with-- it's about safeguarding the 90%+ of members who are never going to net as much money and benefits as an entry level PA if this train keeps rolling.
Posted by: Lota ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 10, 2008 03:18 PM
in case some numbnuts is going to deliberately misconstrue, I am not a SAG or AFTRA rep, different union, me.
Posted by: Lota at July 10, 2008 03:21 PM
Well, there it is in print, so it must be true.
Of course, some of us have seen the deal that AFTRA negotiated and it doesn't resemble an iota of what you've just said. Don't let facts get in your way though. I'm sure this is careful analysis of the deal and not regurgitation of what other people have told you about the deal.
Do you want to talk actual deal points or would you rather proclaim from on high?
Posted by: hendhogan at July 10, 2008 04:18 PM
I was in the car when this came on yesterday ("'The Treatment' will not be heard today so we can bring you a special edition of 'The Business'...") and man, was it depressing.
And I agree with your point, David, about what Reardon said about cable negotiations. I had no idea that "was 5%, now 50%" number, which was crazy in relation to AFTRA and cable scripted, but it makes me think what the studios were trying to do to the WGA - end residuals, end the Guild - may have a successful partner in AFTRA.
It was nothing if not a frustrating half hour. I liked it when the semi-effective moderator used the metaphor of "turning the hose on the fighting dogs."
Posted by: SJRubinstein at July 10, 2008 04:36 PM
In the perfect working world, Both as AFL-CIO affiliates, SAG and AFTRA no matter how much they rankled, should have sat down and duked out certain points Prior to any negotiation of any deal points for any body of the membership.
Posted by: Lota at July 10, 2008 04:55 PM
Even better, if a perfect working world, there would only be a single union representing all SAG and AFTRA people.
Posted by: jeffmcm at July 10, 2008 04:59 PM
Well that has happened with other Unions Jeff, including my own. You make a reciprocal negot agreement where both are recognized in certain sub-areas.
It isn;t fun. I hated the union my union merged with on certain issues (some negotiating areas still stay separate/autonomous depending on the expertise of whose represented) but it was better for the dues-paying peons who needed protection and benefits, definitely since it meant the two unions couldnlt be pitted against each other in the hair splitting of selling out the cheapest worker.
But egos are big in these areas and some have bigger financial resources to foment discord since it suits a certain outcome.
Posted by: Lota at July 10, 2008 05:12 PM
Hend - I know your position on this... not sure how to respond to you. Clearly, AFTRA got more in this deal than in the last deal. But they are still - and no one I have heard has said otherwise - are giving away playdates, not offering residuals at the same level, or demanding all the protections of the SAG contract.
If you know otherwise on those points, please, fire away...
Posted by: David Poland at July 10, 2008 06:44 PM
The Primetime Exhibit A contract has identical rates and residuals as SAG. The one hour guest star top of show rate increased from $6527 to $6917 in first year of contract and will increase to $7366 by end of contract. Residuals will increase from $3290 on a one hour show to $3372 in first year of contract and will increase to $3457. Compare the rates with SAG. They are right there on the website.
AFTRA got a 10% increase over the life of the contract on scale. Compare that to the 3.5% over the life of the contract of the last jointly negotiated contract of SAG/AFTRA.
The playdates you refer to are in cable. WHICH IS NOT THIS CONTRACT. Is not even an issue as regards to SAG's current impasse.
Yes, AFTRA did not get an increase in DVD rates. They did not get the P&H contributions on top of the residual pool (as opposed to from within the pool) at an estimated cost of $15 million a year (straight from Doug Allen's mouth to me, btw). What AFTRA did do, was get a .5% increase in overall contributions to P&W. Remember the $6 billion that Doug Allen cavalierly threw around as proof that SAG actors made more money. .5% of 6 billion is three hundred million dollars. I'm no math major, but I'm pretty sure that's higher than $45 million.
Clip consent that AFTRA got is the language that SAG tried to get in the first round of negotiations and was refused. Now, however, SAG says it isn't good enough.
New Media is a non-issue unless you believe that the networks will go to exclusive internet delivery within the next 3 years. I don't, but would certainly entertain a contrary position if it were proposed.
Since you don't elaborate, I can't tell you about the lack of "protections of the SAG contract."
I'm going to ask again. Did you read the deal or did you just rely on other people's interpretations?
Do you know the history of the two? You make a blythe comment about AFTRA poaching, but if you actually look at the original agreement between the two, you will see that AFTRA is supposed to control all television and SAG is supposed to control all film.
I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions, but your posts on the WGA, SAG and AFTRA ring more like the stuff I avoid on Nikki's site, then the usual, well thought out arguments you usually post.
Posted by: hendhogan at July 10, 2008 07:14 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)