• Home
• About Us/Contact
• Key Differences
• Phase 1
• Pension and Health
• Editorials
• Pre Blog Posts
• Letters to SAG
• The Kimbrough Collection
• Letters to SAGWatch
• NED Doug Allen
• Privacy Policy and any other Legal Notice We Think Of

8 Responses to “Campaign Watch: Handel to Interview Indy Board Candidates, Says No Contract This Year”

1. Jonathan Handel says:
   September 3, 2008 at 20:44

   Thanks for blogging. A couple notes:

   The interviews are at 2:00 p.m. Pacific / 5:00 p.m., on Friday as you note. This is indeed late in the election — I had not thought of doing live interviews until last week.

   Nonetheless, it’s somewhat surprising that no one else has tried to do such live video interviews. Doing them takes time, and a certain amount of money, and I hope they’re been helpful for the members.

   Also, as bankrupt as the poll may be if the source is accurate, I still think that a high Yes vote would be spun by the union as though it represents the will of the members, and used to further the cause of obtaining a strike authorization. But you’re right, obtaining such an authorization is a long shot. I think, unfortunately, that the election will probably lead to nothing but further stalemate.

   –
   Ed. Response - “would be spun” is the operative phrase. We think it’s unlikely it would matter - no one, certainly not the AMPTP, will be fooled. But, we’ll see, on that and on the election. If Membership First loses control of the National Board, things may get a bit more interesting.

   And thank you for doing the interviews. They’ve been interesting - a great idea.

2. david cooper says:
   September 4, 2008 at 07:04

   Doesn’t the Writers Guild endorsement, the extension of the Commercials contract, the clarification of the financial status of the Guild - all improve the Guild’s ability to mount a credible strike?

   But since the Commercials extension is only six months, they can’t wait. The two sides, whatever the outcome of the election, must meet and decide which of the grab bag in the flyer they want to bet the ranch on. To start the talks again and appear reasonable to our fellow craft unions, we’ll need to trim our demands.

   Seems to me that the poll is discredited and should be quietly forgotten. The only thing that matters is the election outcome and the synthesis of the positions afterwards. The members have already spoken when they voted for the Board. Finally, like the AMPTP is doing - we have to keep a fine watch on the economy for the credibility of any threat of a job action will be highly influenced by that as well.

3. Voiceguy says:
   September 4, 2008 at 09:12

   David Cooper wrote:

   “Doesn’t the Writers Guild endorsement, the extension of the Commercials contract, the clarification of the financial status of the Guild - all improve the Guild’s ability to mount a credible strike?”

   I don’t have a solid answer to this, but my immediate reaction is that these factors are not especially compelling under the present circumstances.

   1. Writer’s Guild Endorsement

   Whether or not the WGA “supports” or “endorses” SAG, there is not much that members can do other than help walk picket lines the way SAG members did for the WGA. The new WGA agreement almost certainly contains a “no strike” clause. Therefore any writer who refused to cross a picket line would be in breach of contract and subject to termination.

   This is why SAG repeatedly sent the following statements to SAG members during the WGA strike:

   • If you are contracted to work on a television series or motion picture that continues to produce while the WGA is on strike, you are obligated by your personal service agreement and the “No Strike” clause in our collective bargaining agreements to go to work. You can continue to audition for work and accept new work if you choose to do so.

   • Finally, and most importantly, we must support our fellow SAG members on every set even if they have to cross a picket line to get to work. They are simply following the advice of their union and honoring their contract. It is not reasonable to expect SAG cast members to risk the potentially enormous personal liability that may flow from refusing to work in the absence of a SAG strike. Please note, the WGA contract includes a similar “No Strike” clause and writers would be bound to the same rules as you are if another union were striking.

   2. Extension of the Commercials Contract

   Six months is not a long time. Jonathan Handel yesterday ran his own time line on the TV/Theatrical negotiations that comes out to the same place I did in a post two or three weeks ago: Just getting a strike authorization pushes us into January, and there would almost certainly be some bargaining before the actual strike was called. I think it would swamp the resources of SAG to support a strike while simultaneously supporting Commercials negotiations. The commercials expiration would have to be pushed forward yet another six months, into the fall of 2009, for this factor to become a helpful one.

   3. SAG Financial Status

   It appears that SAG can continue to operate for some time without dues income during a strike. Of course, the Pension & Health contributions from new work will stop. The real question, in my opinion, is whether the SAG members themselves will be able to survive a protracted loss of income — even if SAG creates a hardship fund to assist members.

   Those SAG members who have significant earnings under other contracts will probably manage. Those who have day jobs, likewise. It will be those whose entire livelihood comes from film and TV work, and who don’t have AFTRA work to take up the slack, that will suffer.

   What I don’t see emanating from 5757 is any kind of coherent strategy for going forward. For example, for all the bluster and chest-thumping in the SAG mailer, I didn’t see anything in there that really seemed like a call to arms for strike authorization. The entire brochure was more of a justification for sitting outside the negotiation room. Since film and television production can, in theory, go on right now, it doesn’t seem like there’s much of a gun to the studios’ heads. The only real gun is one of uncertainty — the risk that if the studios commit to a shooting schedule, it could be disrupted by a strike. But it seems to me that the studios would have plenty of warning, and anything that gets greenlighted would have extensive contingency plans built into it. It’s at most a major annoyance, but not a show-stopper.

   Handel may be right — by the time a strike rolls around, the main thing in jeopardy may be the Academy Awards. Would that be enough to make the studios cave on DVDs (which are still listed in the flyer)? New Media?

   I definitely agree with this thought: “To start the talks again and appear reasonable to our fellow craft unions, we’ll need to trim our demands.”

   VG

4. david cooper says:
   September 4, 2008 at 10:04

   Always a pleasure to read your enlightening comments, Voiceguy. Too bad the debate in the Board room can’t take on such an aura of reason and respect, but hell, I’m a relic who served in the Duke/Gordon era when it was fun and brotherly and respectful and the powers and tactics that morphed into MF were not yet congealed though the founders were present even then.

   I agree that 6 months was too short a time frame and said so in a post a while back, and I conclude that we can only afford a 100 day strike at most because of that, not six months. And you sure can’t put off Commercials again. Therefore the new Board must try and bind up the union’s wounds, choose our battles carefully and implement quickly. A well-oiled Board could do this - the question is whether they and the Exec can change course and leave aside old petty squabbles and not so petty squabbles.

   With one foot in retirement and three toes of the other foot - this is not my battle or future. And I have not commented much on the issues because of that and because of my great respect for the process of negotiations from WWC to now - the vast amount of material digested by those we chose to represent us in this process. But it was misleading to say the Board was unanimous when so many abstained.

   What a lost opportunity - the pamphlet could’ve laid out the situation honestly and allowed space for a minority report and allowed the minority to offer box choices as well. THAT would’ve been an invitation to come together, an initiation of systhesis, a sounding of a new call - and the information gathered would’ve been valuable.

5. Brian McCabe says:
   September 4, 2008 at 10:54

   Was the commercial contract pushed back 2 years or 1? I’m not a commercial agent, so it never really affected me.

6. Voiceguy says:
   September 4, 2008 at 14:09

   The Commercials contracts were set to expire in the fall of 2006. In August, there was agreement to extend the terms for two years. Here’s a pertinent press release:

   ———–

   Joint Policy Committee on Broadcast Talent Union Relations

   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

   Performers’ Unions and Advertising Industry Tentatively Agree on
   Two-Year Extension of Commercials Contracts

   Joint Study to be Conducted Over Next Two Years

   New York and Los Angeles (August 4, 2006) – Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) and the advertising industry’s ANA/AAAA Joint Policy Committee on Broadcast Talent Union Relations (JPC) today announced a tentative agreement on a two-year extension to the Commercials Contracts that cover advertisements appearing on TV, radio, the Internet and New Media, that would run through October 29, 2008. The extension agreement must now be ratified by both unions’ joint national board and approved by both union memberships through a joint referendum, as well as approved by the boards of both ANA and AAAA.

   If approved, the extension engages a yet-to-be-determined consultant to conduct a joint study that will examine alternative methods to compensate performers for their participation in commercials appearing on television and radio, and especially the growing array of new media.

   In addition to a study, AFTRA, SAG and the JPC agreed that:

   · Along with advertisements that appear on TV, radio and the Internet, the agreement will also cover all commercials that appear in new media—for existing platforms such as cell phones and for future platforms yet to be developed.

   · Actors will receive a 6% increase in basic compensation, and the contribution to both unions’ Pension & Health plans will go from 14.3% to 14.8%.

   · The agreement provides advertisers with more flexibility to edit commercials for the Internet and new media.

   · A New Media Committee, comprised of representatives from both the unions and the industry, will be formed. This Committee will be empowered to make adjustments to the agreement to accommodate changing technologies and shifting paradigms within the commercials industry.

   · Advertisers will receive a one-year waiver, which will allow advertisers to experiment with a shorter cycle of use in the new media and Internet areas.

   SAG Chief Negotiator John McGuire and AFTRA Chief Negotiator Mathis L. Dunn Jr. issued the following joint statement: “Because of the tremendous growth of the Internet and digital technology, the unions have agreed to a two-year extension to conduct a comprehensive joint study that will allow us to determine whether existing pay structures should remain the same or be modified. This agreement also means that actors will have achieved increased opportunities for work and better wages and benefits. In a rapidly evolving media environment, our agreement demonstrates that performers and advertisers can work together to deal with change and build a stronger partnership that benefits us all.”

   JPC Chief Negotiator Doug Wood issued the following statement: “This early collaborative effort between the unions and the industry is a balanced compromise, and provides the time needed to develop a comprehensive model that fairly compensates performers and ensures that advertisers receive a fair return on their investment. Today’s call for accountability at all levels of business requires nothing less. I echo the comments of both John and Mathis that this breakthrough agreement was made possible by both sides working together and recognizing one another’s critical needs going forward.”

   The results of the joint study will be considered in the next bargaining process surrounding the advertising industry’s collective bargaining agreement with SAG/AFTRA. Nine consultants from the industry and academia were invited to respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the joint study on May 17.

   Since the early 1960s, AFTRA and SAG have jointly negotiated the collectively bargained recorded commercials contracts.

   ————–

   One of the most significant features in this extension was this one: “Along with advertisements that appear on TV, radio and the Internet, the agreement will also cover all commercials that appear in new media—for existing platforms such as cell phones and for future platforms yet to be developed.” This avoided what could have been huge jurisdictional battles.

   The extension was ratified by an overwhelming majority of those who voted, although only a small portion of the membership submitted ballots. Here’s the September 26 press release:

   ————–

   SAG AND AFTRA MEMBERS OVERWHELMINGLY
   RATIFY TWO-YEAR EXTENSION
   OF COMMERCIALS CONTRACTS

   Los Angeles (September 26, 2006)-In national voting completed today, members of Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) overwhelmingly approved a two-year extension to the Commercials Contracts with the advertising industry covering advertisements on TV, radio, the Internet, and New Media.

   The memberships of SAG and AFTRA voted 95.8 percent in favor of the agreement. Approximately 125,000 members of the unions received ballots, of which 21 percent returned them. The final vote was certified this evening by Integrity Voting Systems, an impartial election service based in Everett, Washington.

   The pact with the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies goes into effect October 30, 2006 and will remain in force until October 29, 2008. SAG and AFTRA members voted on the tentative agreement that was reached with the advertising industry August 4 and recommended by the SAG-AFTRA Joint Board by an almost 95-percent margin in a meeting on August 26. Ballots were sent September 5 to all union members in good standing; performers with memberships in both unions received one ballot.

   SAG President Alan Rosenberg said: “Our members recognized that this two-year commercials contracts extension was a solid, fair deal for working actors. The agreement clearly establishes jurisdiction over commercials appearing on all new media platforms, calls for a crucial joint study that will allow us to analyze the rapidly changing industry and provides SAG members with an expected $45 million in additional annual compensation. This overwhelming approval by members across the country is evidence that Screen Actors Guild is unified and committed to achieving fair contracts. I commend the hard-working SAG/AFTRA member-staff team for its efforts.”

   AFTRA President John Connolly said: “The overwhelming support for this extension to the commercials contracts is a victory for the entire industry-performers and advertisers alike. In exchange for express recognition of jurisdiction and increased wages and benefits, AFTRA will now work in partnership with our sister union and the advertising industry to analyze the rapidly evolving media environment. This agreement will increase job opportunities for professional performers in every corner of traditional and new media.”

   ————-

   VG

7. Voiceguy says:
   September 4, 2008 at 15:33

   Of course, right about now someone in the third row should be raising their hand and asking, “If it took a membership vote to extend the Commercials contracts in 2006, how come it didn’t need a membership vote to extend them this time?”

   I’m hoping the answer is something simple, like “because no material terms were changed in the extension” or “because the extension was only six months.” But I don’t actually know why this extension could be handled simply by board action.

   VG

8. Tom Ligon says:
   September 5, 2008 at 08:14

   “Because no material terms were changed in the [most recent] extension” wins the kewpie.

Leave a Reply