Calendar
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Oct | Dec » | |||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
Categories
- Animation Contract (6)
- Basic Cable (5)
- Commercials Contract (66)
- Editorial (9)
- Exhibit A - TV Theatrical (366)
- Interactive (16)
- Media Business (66)
- Miscellaneous Hate Mail and Threats (3)
- SAG Politics (233)
- SAG-AFTRA (185)
- Uncategorized (23)
- Union Politics (28)
Latest Postings
- January 6, 2009: Commercials - The Next Great (Endangered) Frontier
- January 6, 2009: Everywhere you look...
- January 5, 2009: Nine Broadway Shows Close on Same Day
- January 5, 2009: WSJ: Ad Spending Expected to Drop 6.2% this year
- January 5, 2009: Commissioner Gordon Departs
- January 5, 2009: So, How's Your Sense of Humor This Morning?
- January 5, 2009: Allens Heading for RBDs in Search of Support
- January 4, 2009: Worth a Read, as Usual
- January 4, 2009: Does Bumping Doug Allen from TV-Theatrical Violates His Deal? - UPDATED
- January 4, 2009: Ordinarily We Wouldn't Post on this, but...
Links
Archives
« No Negotiations Watch: Almost Qualified Attendance? | WGA Staffers Arrested at American Idol Picket »
No Negotiations Watch: Variety Says Talks “May” Resume
No sources. No hint of what makes him go for the line. But Dave McNary writes in Varietythat TV-Theatrical negotiations could resume next week. The article follows today’s session between federal mediator Juan Carlos Gonzalez and the AMPTP. The producers have said SAG already has the “last, best and final” offer on the table. The economy has only gone south since the offer was made.
Here’s all McNary offers:
No date’s been set yet for the resumption of SAG contract negotiations, which broke off July 16 after 42 sessions. Neither side had any comment Thursday.If SAG and the AMPTP meet again, the earliest possible date would be next Thursday. The AMPTP restarted negotiations for three days this week with the Intl. Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees about the West Coast contract covering 18 locals; those talks are scheduled to resume Monday through Wednesday.It remains unclear if SAG and the AMPTP can reach a deal. SAG’s negotiators have contended they have to achieve sweeter terms than the other Hollywood guilds, while the congloms have insisted repeatedly that they won’t revise their final offer, especially amid a souring economy.
November 14, 2008 at 05:42
No set date for the resuming of talks. But they might happen. Of course. OF-FREAKING-COURSE. I am so sick of this incompetent B.S. So now what?
Best case scenario: They sit around on their arses through the Holiday and consider meeting in early December, they meet three times over the course of the first 3 weeks, then all take off for Christmas, then come back after the new year and reach a deal in mid January.
Worst case scenario: All falls silent now. We hear nothing as the Holidays come and go. They AGAIN discuss meeting in early January, they actually do meet and talks break down AGAIN and they approve a strike which lasts through the Oscars, into the Spring, and they go back to the table come Summer 2009, a year from when they first began talks.
Even the first scenario sucks, because it’s just a bunch of wasted time. I don’t like the sound of silence because that means nothing is being arranged. If there was a meeting for negotiations planned, we’d hear about it. I mean unless it comes out today (which one can only hope) then we likely won’t hear a peep until after Thanksgiving. Sigh.
I AM SO SICK OF THIS!
November 14, 2008 at 08:30
Shall we accept the deal offered - which is less than the AFTRA deal - or try to improve it? Anything we can do without going on strike is worth the effort. I for one would be willing to accept the same as the AFTRA deal if it were offered … and then plan the battle for the next contract - but we’re not up to the AFTRA contract and deserve better than what’s om the table now.
November 14, 2008 at 09:25
But SAG was offered the same deal previously if the reports were accurate, and they refused. Now the deal has become for less and SAG is angry? Come on. Look, I hope they can convince AMPTP to bring it back up to be equal to AFTRA’s, it’s only fair. But if they refuse, then SAG can only blame themselves. And besides, it seems many in charge of the union aren’t just wanting a contract that is equal to AFTRA (obviously, since they refused it previously), but rather they want BETTER. And that is not right, especially given the economy.
I want AMPTP to draw up the same deal, and SAG to sign it. Both sides should be willing to do that at this point. AMPTP needs to play nice and SAG needs to accept it when they do so everybody can get back to work and new film productions can get greenlit!
–
Ed. Comment - we saw the comment from Dr. Giggles and wondered if he was signaling that the AMPTP has - as it said it might - reduced the offer from “last, best and final” - which was the same as the AFTRA Exhibit A deal.
November 14, 2008 at 09:52
As far as I know, the deal offered SAG was not identical to the AFTRA deal not only because AFTRA left SAG to deal with Force Majeure, but also there were nooks and crannies in AFTRA’s New Media areas that SAG had objections to. The AMPTP has not, to my knowledge, reduced their LB&FO.
It seems that SAG could easily have had the AFTRA equivalent back in June, but God only knows what Dougie has been mucking with since.
Speaking of Force Majeure - I have never in nearly 50 years ever had to deal with that. Has anyone writing on these comments ever in their work life had to deal with Force Majeure? I ask this because I believe it to be a “principle” that only High Profilers & Stars deal with in any practical sense and who negotiate it into their deals themselves, since they usually have one project after another lined up in advance with little wiggle room, and need to be compensated if a production gets stalled. And series’ Regulars? People who get “locked up” and are held out of the market due to unforeseeable circumstances.
Anybody?
November 14, 2008 at 10:45
Dave McNary seems shameless in putting out stories based on nothing. Earlier this year, folks will recall, he ran a story claiming that the Negotiating Committee was planning to send the AMPTP offer to the members for an up or down vote. Just like the present story, that one was based only on speculation (or maybe some off-the-record comment from a SAG staff member whose view didn’t count for much).
Let’s consider: It’s not absolutely necessary for the two sides to convene in a formal gathering (even if they stay in separate rooms) for a deal to be cut. The terms could be arranged by shuttle diplomacy, if there is any movement on the two sides.
SAG is sending strange signals, however. For example, this caucus to talk about pre-1974 television streaming: What is this really supposed to accomplish? Is it just an indirect “educational” tool? What’s to talk about? If you ASK the people affected by this, of course they’re going to say that they want residuals for internet streaming of anything they performed in. And why is this caucus only being held NOW — months after the issue arose? This seems more like cover for a strike authorization. And it’s a strange issue to choose, because essentially all the members would be asked to stop work on behalf of a relatively small group of SAG members who would be affected by this. It is a surpassing mystery, displaying an incoherent “strategy” on the SAG side.
VG
November 14, 2008 at 13:43
Does anyone know if people who worked on “Adam-12″ or “Room 222″ get paid residuals? Or did they fall beneath the line?
–
Ed. snarky comment: Well, we know one person who worked on Adam-12…
November 14, 2008 at 15:22
Re: #4
Regarding Force Majeure, I think SAG has many claims its pursuing because of the writers strike.
Are “clips” one of the “nooks and crannies in AFTRA’s New Media areas that SAG had objections to.”
What ever happened to the “clips issue? Specifically how does the new AFTRA Exhibit A contract deal with this issue?
–
Ed. Response - Presumably you’re asking about clip consent - but, actually, there were several “clips issues” in Exhibit A, and several disagreements between the Allens and AFTRA on the issue. Here’s a collection of notes from our earlier posts.
November 14, 2008 at 18:09
“Regarding Force Majeure, I think SAG has many claims its pursuing because of the writers strike. ”
Regarding Force Majeure, the recent claims SAG is pursuing HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS….and does nothing to answer my questions in Comment #4.
Anybody?
November 14, 2008 at 18:52
That’s not entirely true, Tom. AMPTP is trying to change the Force Majeure rules because of its experience during the WGA strike. They are trying to cut out that after x number of weeks they have to put people back on the payroll or void the contract. Force Majeure is not an indefinite term. It’s a fixed term.
In other words, without the Force Majeure protections as they currently are, any long lasting strike loses a part of its teeth.
Editors:
Snarky, yes, but still a legitimate question. Another MF power player (whether on the board or not) was in the other series.
–
Ed. Response - You mean the choice of the shows named in your question wasn’t accidental??? We’re shocked.
November 14, 2008 at 19:22
At the Town Hall meeting earlier this fall, Doug Allen (I think — it might have been Alan Rosenberg) said that the AMPTP had insisted on bringing the Force Majeure issues into the negotiations, even though there was no direct connection between those issues and the rest of the negotiations. I forget the precise wording used at the meeting, but the essence was that the AMPTP insisted on putting Force Majeure on the table as a condition of talking about anything else.
They also said that the arbitration claims on Force Majeure were going to take a number of months to come to hearing — I’m not sure why. At the rate things are going, maybe the arbitration hearings will start before any further negotiations take place, assuming that the process of moving toward the hearings is still going forward. I certainly hope that SAG is still preparing for those arbitrations. (A more recent communication from Doug Allen said that SAG had put a proposed resolution of Force Majeure on the table, but we don’t know what it is.)
VG
November 14, 2008 at 20:07
Ed:
No, they were intentional choices. I wanted to know if those two major forces in MF currently receive residuals from Old Media or not. Cause I don’t know. But if they were not currently, I would figure free usage in New Media would REALLY stick in their craw. Hence, the meeting.
Voiceguy:
My understanding is that none of the arbitration claims can be adjudiated because there isn’t currently a deal in place. But I’m not a 100% on that.
November 15, 2008 at 15:55
I must have been at the same town-hall meeting as voiceguy. I seem to remember hearing that the AMPTP was attempting to bring pending Force Majeure claims into the contract negotiations. These Force Majeure claims ad up to millions of dollars in liabilities for the producers.
Regarding AFTRA and the “Clip” issue.I seem to recall that the deal was contingent on the development of a process for securing consent.
Has a specific process for “clip consent” been worked out by AFTRA?
November 17, 2008 at 16:52
I’ve posted this in the other thread, but I’m curious if anyone can verify what I’ve been told about the force majeure situation. My source says that the issue is not that the AMPTP is denying that it is obligated to pay the force majeure payments from the WGA strike. It’s that MF interpreted the force majeure clause in a manner far beyond what the AMPTP would do, and then demanded the maximum payment under the MF interpretation. In other words, the argument isn’t whether payment is owed - it’s about how much is owed. And that the AMPTP reaction was to simply try to remove force majeure from the new contract if it was going to be this much of a problem. I’d be happy to hear a clarification or a confirmation if anyone has that.
November 17, 2008 at 22:56
Kevin, your post explicitly identifies “MF” as the party that has “interpreted the force majeure clause in a manner far beyond what the AMPTP would do”.
How do you know the it is just “MF” and not SAG lawyers that has interpreted the force majeure clause in this manner?
Is it possible in your mind, that the AMPTP is attempting to renege on its contractual commitments regarding the force majeure situation.
The AMPTP members wanted to get out from under a lot of expensive production deals. So the producer locked the WGA out for enough time so that this deals could be voided.
This caused the force majeure clauses in the SAG contract to take effect. Now the AMPTP doesn’t wanna pay up. They can’t have it both ways.
Your source is a producer methinks.
November 18, 2008 at 08:12
MIKE -
“How do you know the it is just “MF” and not SAG lawyers that has interpreted the force majeure clause in this manner?”
“MF” and “SAG lawyers” are the SAME, Mike.
Who do you think hires the lawyers at SAG?
Who do you think fires the lawyers at SAG?
Mike -
“Is it possible in your mind, that the AMPTP is attempting to renege on its contractual commitments regarding the force majeure situation.”
Perhaps so, Mike, but my understanding is that the present negotiations between SAG and the AMPTP have been chiefly characterized by Doug Allen/MF’s continuously out-sized, unrealistic and heavy-handed demands in many areas of the contract, and that this is what has led to the current impasse.
November 18, 2008 at 09:42
Sorry, Mike, but my source is in SAG, and is not a producer.
To restate, I was not told that force majeure didn’t apply - it does, and the money should be paid. The question is the amount that the AMPTP owes under the clause. I was told that the MF group demanded a much larger payment than the AMPTP believes it owes and the response to the outsized demand was to say “We’ll just take it out of the contract”. Neither approach seems reasonable. I’m trying to get clarification on what happened.
Your opinion about the WGA strike is understandable but incorrect. The WGA walked out on November 5 of last year. They were not locked out. Once the WGA did that, the AMPTP took advantage of the situation to drop several deals, although nowhere near as many as people predicted they would. And the most lucrative deals stayed in place.
As I understand it, the AMPTP and the MF group that conducted these negotiations have gotten into an unfortunate battle of egos, the current result of which is that SAG has been working without a contract for 4 1/2 months while the economy continues to sour.
I truly hope that a solution can be found soon, and that the federal mediator may have more success here than with the WGA situation.
November 18, 2008 at 11:00
Kevin,
Regarding your source, I will not speculate on this blog but considering the fact that you are a 2nd A.D its is fairly easy to figure out who the “source” is and the position he or she holds with SAG.
When you state:
“Your opinion about the WGA strike is understandable but incorrect. The WGA walked out on November 5 of last year. They were not locked out. Once the WGA did that, the AMPTP took advantage of the situation to drop several deals, although nowhere near as many as people predicted they would. And the most lucrative deals stayed in place.”
That is not entirely correct either. The WGA East east walked out while the WGA West was at the table with the AMPTP. The WGA West wanted to continue to negotiate. When the AMPTP heard the WGA East was on strike, the AMPTP made a opportunistic and strategic decision to walk away from the negotiating table, until force majeure would allow them to end many of the expensive production deals that they wanted off the books.
Poor coordination between the WGA East and WGA West lead to what most WGA members consider a management lockout. The East and West branches of the WGA are semi-autonomous.
I too share your hope that a solution can be found soon but referring to the “MF group” rather than to SAG’s negotiators, only serves to marginalize these negotiators and divide SAG members along partisan lines.
This has been disastrous for our union and SAG’s negotiating position. It only helps and emboldens the AMPTP to continue its intransigence, regarding what almost everyone, even on this anti-MF blog, considers to be an unacceptable offer.
I think some people on this blog, hate MF so much, that supporting SAG negotiators (whom happen to be MF members) to these same people, is anathema. Getting SAG members a good deal, is secondary to seeing MF lose.
November 18, 2008 at 14:01
Mike, you’re correct that I work as a 2nd AD. But I’m not sure what you’re thinking regarding who I know at SAG. In addition to being a SAG member myself, I deal with a large number of SAG people - from the everyday member to various reps to the people on the various committees to some friends on the Negcomm. The identity of the person who spoke with me on this occasion is not the issue and should not be part of this discussion. What is at issue is the information, which you have not disputed or clarified. I’m trying to get clarification from anyone who would be in a position to know whether in fact the statements are correct. If they are not correct, I’d love to hear what the truth is regarding the Membership First stance on force majeure vs. the AMPTP position. I still haven’t heard that - and it’s crucial to our understanding of how this went into limbo.
Your characterization of the beginning of the WGA strike isn’t completely accurate. You’re using the Nikki Finke version of that story, as she told it back in November of last year. When you put all the accounts together of what was happening, including all the various media sources and the various WGA members who were openly discussing it across the web, you get a different picture. The WGA East and West were failry well coordinated as far as the strike went - with both presidents speaking jointly about what was going on throughout the action. The reality of what happened at the last minute attempt to negotiate in early November 2007 is that the AMPTP asked the WGA not to go out, but the WGA could not give that assurance without having made significant progress. And by 9PM on Sunday night, they hadn’t made that progress. When the AMPTP heard that the picketers were already out on the east coast, and had it confirmed by the negotiators at the table, they did walk away from the table - something all of us wish they hadn’t done. They came back to the table three weeks later, only to walk away again after the WGA negotiators kept putting things back on the table that weren’t going to be in the contract - like reality and animation. The bullheadedness was on both sides, and the result was that everyone else in the industry got caught in between.
Most WGA members that I know personally and have worked with do not consider the situation last year to have been a lockout. It was a strike, period. And it ended when the WGA took a version of the deal made with the DGA. And the WGA took that deal because their negotiators knew that the deal wasn’t going to get significantly better even if they stayed out another four months waiting for SAG.
The reason I refer to the Membership First group (I use MF as an abbreviation, not as an insult) is because they are the ones who promised a better contract and better terms through a tougher negotiating posture. But that isn’t what happened, regardless of anyone’s opinion of it. There has been “intransigence”, as you and the Membership First group call it, on both sides. Yes, the AMPTP submitted a deal that wasn’t even up to the one that AFTRA took. But this was after the Membership First group spent the last month of negotiations trying to derail the AFTRA contract rather than achieving its own.
I personally have no “hatred” for Membership First. I voted for some members of that group in the last election. I also voted for some members of the other group. I don’t care what faction of SAG “wins” or “loses” here. But I’m very interested in seeing SAG get a decent contract that everyone can live with, and I’m committed to keeping the history correct. Too many people are trying to rewrite the history of the WGA strike - some of them being the same people who tried to rewrite the history of the 1988 WGA strike and various other actions in between.
November 18, 2008 at 14:35
“I too share your hope that a solution can be found soon but referring to the “MF group” rather than to SAG’s negotiators, only serves to marginalize these negotiators and divide SAG members along partisan lines.”
*He’s only being realistic. MF has lorded it over the others on the negotiating team during these negotiations and Doug has listened only to MF. Perhaps the rotten circumstances they have gotten SAG into will encourage them to have the others participate - at least they’ll be able to attempt to spread the blame. SAG members have been divided along partisan lines for the 10 years that PA/MF have been pushing for control. When they finally got control, they were unable to advance the fortunes of the guild even though they have purposely ignored non-MFers.*
“This has been disastrous for our union and SAG’s negotiating position. It only helps and emboldens the AMPTP to continue its intransigence, regarding what almost everyone, even on this anti-MF blog, considers to be an unacceptable offer.”
*Agreed. And MF is 100% responsible for the present circumstances. The only non-MF action is being taken this week - because of the mediator brought in by non-MFers. MF however still has control of the committee and is in a position to queer whatever deal could come out of mediation.*
“I think some people on this blog, hate MF so much, that supporting SAG negotiators (whom happen to be MF members) to these same people, is anathema. Getting SAG members a good deal, is secondary to seeing MF lose.”
*Hate does not help. All non-MFers want to get SAG members a good deal. But MF has egotistically driven the thing so far into the ground, who knows what good can come of it? SAG members will not strike over unrealistic issues.*
November 19, 2008 at 00:11
Kevin, Though you seem to concede that the subject of a AMPTP lockout vs. a WGA strike is debatable. I still contend that it was a lockout
Your antipathy towards Nikki Finke whether justifiable or not is clouding your judgment of the matter. If Nikki said it, you seem compelled to dispute it. The lockout was predicted and written about by many people, not just Nikki Finke
Everyone knew that the senario that the AMPTP feared most was the three guilds (WGA DGA and SAG) striking in unison and bringing Hollywood to a halt. Producing just about anything would become impossible. If the writers, actors and directors walked out together, the AMPTP knew they could potentially push losses into the billions.
That was the powerful bargaining chip that the unions were holding over producers heads, if the WGA were allowed to extend its negotiations. The worst case scenario for the AMPTP, was the WGA talks lasting until the SAG contract expired.
The producers could foresee the guilds’ joint action and locked them out before they could strike, essentially snatching the stick, before the unions could beat them with it. The WGA lockout also weakened the resolve of actors, by putting them out of work and by extension SAG’s ability to get a strike authorization vote.
The unions were no match for Nick Counter. He neutralized them with the lockout.
Its water over the damn now.
On “MF”. I doesn’t matter whether you intended it as a pejorative or not. Besides being inaccurate, it serve no good purpose at this crucial time, to identify the SAG’s negotiators as the “MF Group”.
November 19, 2008 at 10:59
Mike, you seem to be misunderstanding my statements a little here, so I’ll try to be clearer.
I did not say or concede that the idea of a lockout was debatable. The WGA went on strike, as authorized by its members and planned for several months prior to the event. They were not locked out. That is a simple fact, all opinions aside. Whether the membership felt that they had no choice but to go out does not change the fact that they were on strike. A lockout is when the companies lock the employees out and do not permit them to come to work. As we know from the events of the strike, some WGA members did in fact return to work, some under fi-core status, and some working under their producer, director, or actor hats. (If you want a very interesting discussion of this situation, I recommend watching the DVDs of the second year of “30 Rock”, specifically the untitled 10th episode. Tina Fey gives a surprising account of what was happening on the set as the strike was going on.)
As for Nikki Finke, my issue with her is that her posts, particularly regarding the WGA strike and the current impasse, have only been about 20% accurate. Most of the stories she posted during the WGA strike were gossip or innuendo, usually posted as fast as she could as a way of getting a “scoop” before other news services could do it. In some cases, she was accurate - particularly the embarassing account of the WGA and the AMPTP having a fit about the number of chairs in the negotiation room. In many other cases, she was completely off. In one specific case, she posted the rumor that a group of influential WGA members was meeting to try to pressure the leadership to end the strike. Not only was this untrue, it turned out to be a hoax - one that was intended to out one of the more outspoken strike activists. She never retracted or apologized for this error. In many other cases, she simply rewrote her posts after the fact to retroactively remove her mistakes or misstatements, without acknowledging that she had done so. You’re entitled to think of her as a good source, but her credibility is just not that high. I’ll allow that she can be very entertaining, but that doesn’t make her accurate.
Your interpretation of the situation surrounding the WGA, DGA and SAG is nearly 90 degrees away from what actually happened. The simple truth is that everyone in town expected the WGA to actually wait to go out on strike until July 1. It was expected that the WGA would simply work without a contract (as they did in 2004, and as SAG has been doing) until they could line up with SAG and go out together. At the same time, it was expected that the DGA would start early negotiations in November or December and have a contract done long before July. Faced with the AMPTP clearly stockpiling scripts and material, and with the strong likelihood that the DGA would preempt everyone by setting the pattern before WGA and SAG could go out, the WGA leadership chose to go out early. The purpose of this was clearly to hold the TV season over the AMPTP’s heads - figuring that the pressure of doing that would compel the AMPTP to make a better deal, and allow the WGA to set the pattern for once. (It was this strategy that led the WGA to send out pickets on that Sunday night while the talks were still going on - presumably to show the AMPTP that the WGA was serious about striking.) Unfortunately, the AMPTP didn’t cave in - they called the bluff and dared the WGA to wreck the TV season. I agree that Nick Counter was able to neutralize the WGA, but not with a lockout that didn’t happen. He simply refused to fold. In fact, he turned up the pressure when he presented David Young with that ultimatum in early December - something that Young couldn’t figure out how to deal with (say, by presenting a WGA proposal asking for the AMPTP to take things off the table to show their own good faith…). I must agree with you that Young was no match for Counter, and it was truly ugly watching that happen.
I agree that the result of the WGA striking early, and then capitulating to a version of the DGA contract, effectively kneecapped SAG’s ability to organize a successful picket campaign. If they had waited for SAG, the collective picket would have been much more powerful. If they had stayed out until July, SAG could have added its strength to the existing pickets. Of course, the WGA leadership judged that they wouldn’t get that much better of a contract by staying out into the summer, and that the economic damage done by an 8-9 month strike would be much more than anyone would ever earn back. But the result of all this was that many people in the business were left out of work for over 6-7 months due to the strike and its fallout. (Most TV shows didn’t come back after the strike, thus heroically extending the unemployment for people for another 2-3 months until the next TV season could start.)
This isn’t a situation of “water over the damn” (sic). This is a matter of understanding our recent history and learning from it, so we don’t repeat the same scenario when the whole thing starts up again in 2 years. Too many people are trying to rewrite this history, and it really doesn’t help anyone. I had the same issue during the strike with people trying to creatively re-interpret the events of the 1988 WGA Strike without knowing what the issues were in 88 or what actually happened. (I was there for that one too, and it wasn’t the story told on blogs everywhere last year.)\
As for my reference to the “Membership First Group”, I’ll try to be clearer. This isn’t an attack on MF - it’s a proper factual note that Membership First was in solid control of the NegComm during the negotiations that ended by July. I have that from people on the NegComm. It’s not an opinion or a judgment. It’s a statement that the negotiations followed the Membership First strategy, which in turn was then evaluated by the members during the recent election. Like you, I hope to see a better situation result from the discussions with the mediator, and I want to see a fair and decent contract for SAG. I think we agree on that point.