SAG members did you vote? Did you read the mailers, talk with friends and make your decision? Variety has already certified this as the worst year for productions started in, well, ever. Will we rebound? Will we recover to former heights?
The internet is taking over and internet users want everything for free. Piracy steals billions a year. There's no way to make any money.
And yet celebrations are being had at the studios for box office return that are at a record pace. Hmmm. what aren't they telling us? Economic downturns have always been good for entertainment and alcohol sales. So why the squeeze on us? Why are we the problem? It seems, not unlike the GM debacle, it's only the darn union that seems to be the problem. The folks that make the decisions and sign the checks aren't to blame for any of the wrongs, they're just in place to accept the accolades for the "rights."
Actors are always seen as greedy. The producers, who do have the bigger burden of running the whole thing, are never accused of being greedy in any of the accounts of the negotiations that I've read. I haven't heard anyone report that they are being unreasonable. It seems to be a better story that actors who just have to show up and say words, oh, and then do publicity tours and, oh yeah, then have to deal with people asking for photos and autographs for the rest of their lives, they are the only ones with a greed affliction and surely the blame for this ridiculous contract dispute.
But there is that other union who did jump right in bed with the producers and by golly didn't they get rewarded. What did I hear from my agent? 70 of 77 pilots this last, lame, pilot season were AFTRA pilots.
Membership First is campaigning against this contract hard. Actors are fighting actors. AFTRA is fighting with SAG. The news is that Membership First devotees are also running for board positions in AFTRA so they can block a merger should that silly, silly, idea come up again. Actors fighting actors. Gosh this all makes so much sense.
You know what's missing? The plan. I don't hear a plan from the NO side that tells me how the new, fat, contract will be gotten except the plan that states, "we strike and really force their hand." Membership First has forced everyone's hand and this is where we are folks. AFTRA only wants to grow and they have a teammate in doing that but it's not SAG, it's the producers. SAG had a shot to make them a teammate and didn't take it. It was a failure by us the members to allow this stupidity to take place.
Does Alan Rosenburg have a song ready for the vote results? Will he continue to spend SAG money to reinstate his bulldog negotiator? The Irish conflict waged on for years after the real issue of Prods and Catholics had passed. It became about not wanting to admit that previous bad decisions had led them to where they were. There was too much money at stake and too many dead to have either side to admit they were no longer fighting out of cause but out of habit.
How can we actors still be fighting? We are the only allies we will ever have.
Vote your conscious and then when the merger vote comes up, and it really has to, look back here and I'll help you decide to vote yes on the merger. I will be giving math lessons to those board members that still believe that divided we gain strength.
What happens if SAG membership rejects this contract? What’s the plan? How can the guild obtain a better deal right now?
It’s not complicated but, the truth is, SAG leadership has not exhausted all available options and strategies to reach an acceptable deal. Management is simply stonewalling. It’s time alright - time for the membership to assert itself and demand that the negotiators get serious.
The rejection of the contract is just the first step to overcoming the intransigence of management and motivating them back to the bargaining table. A rejection by the membership – not by the National Board nor the lead negotiator nor interim staff – tells the AMPTP definitively that their terms are unsatisfactory and there is more work to be done. SAG members will insist that management now address their concerns and their priorities. The good news is that the AMPTP companies will discover there is a lot of common ground and that SAG can be very helpful in constructing solutions to shared problems of mutual interest.
For example: Both SAG and Big Media want to participate in the low-budget New Media production space. Common ground with shared objectives. SAG can help. It has decades of experience with “low-budget” and “experimental” contracts. The middle road leads to examining those contracts to see how they might be modified to effectively port over to New Media production. In some instances there is even limited tolerance of non-union performers through strict adherence to union security rules.
Another example: Creating new revenue from old product. Here’s common ground. Both actors and producers would like to develop new revenue resources, but the management-proposed Internet move–over structure is too meager and restrictive and so, unacceptable. But if the proposal and metrics could be massaged and tweaked to apply to ALL moved-over product, regardless of when it was originally produced and without any free exhibition window, it starts to look less parsimonious and more mutually beneficial.
Still another example: Force Majeure protects not only contracted actors but maintains management’s flexibility in unforeseen circumstances. It’s legal ‘boiler plate’ that has protected contracted parties for years and years across all kinds of arrangements and obligations. More of a ‘common practice’ situation than ‘common ground.’ The existing Force Majeure protections and claims mechanisms are not broken. Management just forgot it was there and could be righteously applied due to the 100 day WGA strike. A reactionary weakening of fundamental safeguards is not acceptable. What is acceptable is a refinement of the language to more definitively determine management’s financial exposure in any given circumstance, especially a strike by another union. This would preserve not only the essential protection but also solidarity with our sister unions while reducing the risk of management getting blind-sided by unexpected or specious claims. This way they could better and more concretely manage risk in the event of a job action that might affect production.
One more: Both parties recognize and value the ownership and control of their respective products. Common ground and a common principle. Surrendering control of Name/Voice/Likeness by actors in perpetuity is as unacceptable as it would be for Disney to surrender Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Snow White, or Woody & Buzz to Public Domain. It violates the law in several states and common sense in all of them. The consent process could be streamlined, however, with more information about management’s difficulties, intentions, and expectations. The proposal on the table is management’s first and only idea. SAG can be open-minded about this issue as long as the essential rights of actors are protected. There are many solutions that, with more information from management, could be hammered out in short order.
SAG and the AMPTP have very similar views on many of these issues but from different perspectives. More effort is required to find mutually beneficial solutions. Up to this point, however, management has had no inclination or incentive to look beyond their exclusive needs. A rejected contract gets their attention and starts the process.
If membership’s rejection of the Last Best Final Offer fails to induce management to re-open talks, the next step is a definitive demonstration of collective will and resolve to reach an acceptable agreement. This is most effectively accomplished by obtaining a Strike Authorization from membership. A Strike Authorization by membership empowers the SAG National Board to debate, strategize, and implement any work actions in connection to the contract. It is a very powerful statement and more often than not induces acceptable compromises from management.
The 75% standard required to achieve a Strike Authorization is important and correct because it sends a very clear message to negotiators on both sides of the table. “Get it done! Now!”
If management remains obdurate and nothing acceptable has developed, the SAG National Board is obliged to debate the efficacy and possible strategies of a work action. This is an integral step and why the authorization is so effective. Federal Law gives trade unions tremendous flexibility in how they might prosecute a strike. It’s not an ‘all-or-nothing’ proposition necessarily. In SAG’s case, this elasticity could prove particularly dynamic.
Serious American labor unions have used targeted work-actions to great effect. The last time the UAW resorted to a strike, they targeted specific shops. Three days later, Ford settled and is currently the healthiest of all US automakers. Ford is solvent, took no federal bailout funds, and the UAW is not part of the ownership structure. Is Ford succeeding in this economy because of a strike? No, not directly. It did cause that management to become more proactive and forward thinking, and that approach has helped Ford deal more effectively and responsively in a deteriorating economy.
The “Plan” is plain old “Labor Union 101”- the step-by-step legally mandated procedure for motivating management to address labor’s concerns and priorities. It is a cold and deliberate process that exerts more pressure with each action. It is designed to check and test the resolve and solidarity of the membership as well as focus negotiators and, over time, escalate the urgency for both parties to compromise.
Even more simply put: In the event of the contract’s rejection by the members, SAG will ‘play it by the book.’ Simply, deliberately, and transparently ‘play it by the book.’ That strategy has not been applied yet, and until it is, SAG has not exhausted all of its options, has not made the best effort for membership.
Simply recommending and promoting what management wants is just plain lazy. The National Board Majority needs to do more, needs to work harder for the membership.
Rejection of the contract changes the discussion. Second-guessing the past and recriminations are irrelevant. New questions like, “What would be an acceptable contract? “or “What new common ground can be established with the AMPTP to achieve an agreement all can tolerate?” or “How is solidarity most effectively and expediently developed across the entire membership to accelerate the process?” become the order of the day.
Some may proclaim that a sub-75% contract rejection will doom an SAV. But why? A contract referendum is about a given contract and nothing else. If voted down, that question is over. Done. If moving on to a proper contract requires a Strike Authorization, then the next referendum is about a Strike Authorization, not a previously rejected contract. When a proper agreement is reached, then there will be a referendum about that agreement. And if there are political scores to settle there is an election every year. Focus on the issue at hand, move forward, do it by the book, renew and assert solidarity. That’s “The Plan.”
There is no effective alternative to solidarity.
Posted by: Day Player | June 08, 2009 at 04:29 PM
Sorry - for got the attribution.
I copy and pasted the above essay from the Membership First website. So that answers that question...
The next question is, "What is the Yes group's plan?"
Not advocating either. Too late for that.
Just asking...
Posted by: Day Player | June 08, 2009 at 04:33 PM