PingBack from http://madrascafeonline.com/MCtest/?p=440

Enjoyed the article except the ALL CAPS breaking its flow.

hehehehehe.......well, y'know...sometimes "EMPHASIS" is there to INTENTIONALLY "break the flow"....

Whatevah. Thanks. I think. (smile)

I have a question.

You said productions will just hire non-union actors. Can they do that? What would be the advantages and disadvantages to that?

Also, you forgot about the worse case scenario. MORE reality shows!!

Nice article, and very insightful.  Also kudos for being even-handed.

First of all, they can hire non-union actors and/or try to entice union members to cross the line. The advantages are financial--with no scale to pay, no guaranteed residuals, no health and pension benefits to pay for, no rules regarding, for one thing, level of transportation and per-diems on location etc. etc. it is much cheaper. BUT....nobody really WANTS this result, because having ONE entity to negotiate with is a lot easier and one standard of "scale" pay and conditions simpler to do cost estimates on than it is to have to negotiate a new contract and deal with every person every time. Collective bargaining is a good thing for BOTH parties when it works. The other option which, as it stands now, is what's going on now that the SAG contract has formally expired is to continue working at the present rates and conditions even without a contract in force.

But the issue becomes: IF the union really po's enough actual WORKING actors by keeping them FROM working for reasons they find frivolous and/or counterproductive (such as not accepting the very GOOD deal that EVERY other union/Guild in town has taken and is working under) then will the seriously heavy hitters jump ship?

Here's an interesting UNofficial statistic for you: SAG has about 125,000 members. It has been reliably estimated that approximately 4500 of them make 90% of all SAG wages in a given year. But EVERYONE votes. In fact, an effort in the past to change their constitution to say that you could only vote on a contract if you'd worked ONE DAY in the past YEAR was defeated. So when/if SAG goes on "strike" it isn't 125,000 actors not working. It is 125,000 people who EVER ONCE or TWICE worked as professional actors continuing to do their jobs in other areas and just refusing to accept acting gigs. Not so for the grips, electricians, etc. etc. etc. who get put out of work in the process. Hence the animosity on the labor side sometimes when the work-stoppage-excrement hits the economic-necesssity fan.

ON the other hand....speaking again as somebody who's actually been among the elite types who negotiate these deals on behalf of a Guild or two.....when WE go into the room, we are united or pretty much so...compared to the producers who are, let us not forget, bitter competitors with each other for your boxoffice dollar or viewing hours in front of the set. That means that they often do not share the numbers on THEIR side or work together amicably....which means that if you do your homework and plan and prepare, these negotiations are not THAT impossible to win at.

If, on the other hand, you let emotion rule (and or inside-the-guild politics and other ulterior stuff like grudges from the LAST bout of such politics, etc. etc. etc.) then things can sometimes get off track. There are both business issues AND emotions at stake here, and thats' why some have suggested that even if AFTRA approves its contract SAG will, indeed, go on strike, if only for a week or three, just to "save face" before making a deal. That is NOT my opinion, just one of the many swirling around town....and it'd be a really, really messy thing to do, too.

Because...? Because remember, there is NO GUARANTEE when you actually fire a shot or lay down an ultimatum that the OTHER guy will give in or make a deal. Actually, a good example you can see in your own life or at least on TV is "Deal or NO Deal." Notice how, when the contestant turns down a lot of money by saying "No Deal" the next offer is very often for LESS? Well, we'll see how it goes.

BTW--I slightly erred in the main article by saying we'd have the RESULTS of the AFTRA vote today, July 8. Actually, close-of-business today is the deadline for the members to get their votes IN. How fast they'll be counted and the results announced is inexact, but a day or three should do it.

OH...as for "more reality shows!" remember...the announcers, hosts, and sometimes the contestants are OFTEN in AFTRA and/or SAG too. So....we may be spared that eventuality, but there are lots of interesting possibilities. Here's one from past history:

Do any of you remember the revival of the classic series "Mission: Impossible" that was shot in Australia and featured, among others, Greg Morris's SON in the role of the electronics wiz? Well...that show came about because of a WRITERS strike--they got the clever idea that with a new young cast and new locations in Oz, they could literally RE-USE the existing scripts and, since they'd already bought 'em, the strike by writers wouldn't interefere as long as no rewrites were done. So...if you look at those shows closely if you get them on disc or as reruns, you can compare them to the CLASSIC "M:I" shows and see that....they're remakes.

Great article and comments JW.  AFTRA passed the adreement by a 63% vote according to the news.

You're so cool. When I grow up, I want to be as cool as John Wayne.

Thanks. And Tuck, yes indeed they did. Which leaves SAG in the following position:

1. They can accept the deal everyone else has agreed is a GREAT deal and solve this thing.

2. They can call upon their members to give them authorization to strike and see how they vote (by no means a sure thing they'd GET approval by a majority, but y'never know.)

3. They can continue to work under the current contract and hope the producers will offer something better, but the producers have said this is it AND have the right to a "lock-out" because the contract has expired. Remember--the producers have said no to any further negotiation--this is the deal, period, per their last statements.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooo.....if the SAG leaders didn't have the support of enough of their dual-membership members to kill the AFTRA deal, will they have the support of enough of their membership to stand up to the producers, knowing that it may result in an industry-shut-down strike and next to ZERO support or sympathy from any other union or guild as everyone goes broke due to their intransigence?

Stay Tuned!

P.S. Re the AFTRA Contract Approval.....

Imagine this if you will: A group of laborers in a given industry has a difficult contract negotiation. They are in the midst of turmoil, they are up against a hugely powerful ownership contingent, and after difficult times and lots of pressure, they emerge victorious and achieve their stated goals on terms they believe are excellent for their members. And they make a statement that does NOT in ANY way villify or crow about victory over their opponents IN those negotiations--i.e., the ownership of the companies where they work. No, the people they choose to identify in their VICTORY statement as the VILLAINS of the piece are......co-worker union leaders who they accuse (rightly) of attempted sabotage!

Pretty amazing, even though the facts warrant it. Here's a quote from the statement issued by AFTRA regarding the ratification, specifically from National President Roberta Reardon:

“Today’s vote reflects the ability of AFTRA members to recognize a solid contract when they see it. Despite an unprecedented disinformation campaign aimed at interfering with our ratification process, a majority of members ultimately focused on what mattered—the obvious merits of a labor agreement that contains substantial gains for every category of performer in both traditional and new media.

“Clearly, this was not a typical ratification process, and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. To those of us for whom labor solidarity is more than just a slogan, the idea that politically-motivated leaders of one union would use their members’ dues to attack another union is unconscionable. Working people do not benefit when their union is under attack."

WOW! Them's fightin' words, folks--and note the interesting angle re. the expenditure of DUES money which was, of course, actually paid for by at least some of the 40,000 AFTRA members who are also members of SAG.

BTW, re those members and the attempt by SAG to get 'em to vote no--clearly at least some were NOT swayed. Here's the numerical breakdown, albeit in approximate numbers:   AFTRA has about 70,000 members, and the contract was ratified by 62.4%. 62.4% of 70,000 is 43,680. If you add 40,000 (presuming all 40k voted NO, which clearly they did not) you'd be at 83,680--more than there are.....

SOooooooooo...clearly the phone robo-calls from Sean Penn, Ed Asner, and others I know about (Mom's a SAG and AFTRA member and gets all this stuff--smile) availed SAG not.

How much acrimony will hang over from this remains to be seen...and felt.

IF you want to delve deeper, the full text of AFTRA's release on the results is here:

http://www.aftra.com/aftra/aftra.htm

Addendum: Here is a link to Nikki Finke's Deadline Hollywood column, a great source for inside gossip that's actually true and some insightful analysis of things Showbiz btw---Nikki has all THREE statements---the one above linked from AFTRA plus the responses by both the clearly unhappy SAG boss and the clearly businesslike AMPTP folks. Read and decide for yourself.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/aftra-members-ratify-amptp-contract/

What I find interesting about you linking to Nikki is that she's been pretty vocal in saying that this ISN'T a great deal and that AFTRA is looking like a bunch of pushovers for caving on clips. That's one of the things your excellent article doesn't mention, is that Nick Counter and AMPTP got AFTRA to cave on paying actors on short clips containing their work.  Nothing like getting something for nothing! (Note: not really a criticism of the article however as it's impossible to mention every detail of this business without writing a book.)

Re 'caving' and clips rights....  FYI. One of the guilds/unions I am a member of has an ongoing study of all things re. the business done by very expert folks. They use this data in negotiations (and since only one guild really does this well and constantly, you now know which--smile): Their study a few years ago predicted that the "new media" portion of revenue would soon be seriously huge--in fact, they predicted 35% or more of all revenues would come from such uses as clips, online streaming "broadcast" of shows, etc. etc. etc. by 2011. They just did an update on that study...and guess what they're predicting now? Less than 10% by then, and possibly as low as 2-4%. That is why they went for JURISDICTION rather than increased percentages, and why this is a politically-charged but revenue-irrelevant issue at present.

As for Nick? He's not the bogeyman. Frankly, having seen this whole process up close and personal for many years, I have to say that the WORST job in Hollywood from my POV is Nick's. He is in the business of herding cats that happen to be bengal tigers, and even when you're Sigfried and Roy, that doesn't always work out well, y'know?

Here's another perspective for you--the whole idea of giving away "free" showings of things for a short window is a GOOD thing because it makes audiences more aware of a show that might otherwise slip into oblivion, and having more long-running "hits" is the key to more money for everyone involved. That's why most of the guilds offered this (some voluntarily before being asked) because they know that the nets and studios are up against an interesting problem if they abuse the privilege or run the clips or episodes too long or too completely--they kill the syndication market. Now in the US the syndie market is nothing like what it used to be, but overseas especially it is still a VERY serious source of revenue. However, how can a studio or a network charge a foreign broadcaster serious syndication fees to show a program to their audiences when it has already been seen for free by them on the internet? Yes, they are still figuring out how to make serious money from online showings, but until they do, killing the current revenue streams without a replacement in kind is bad business.

As for Nikki--I linked to her for the statements from the three parties all in one place, not to endorse or oppose her personal views. She has great sources, but part of the problem with being "connected" AND being widely read as she is sometimes is that she is USED by various parties to disseminate info they want out there for their own reasons. She's smart, but sometimes that is the deal with the devil, journalistically speaking, that she makes to get that kind of access.

Lastly, the clips are not "something for nothing" but something that has been paid for and is, in most case, not generating major revenue yet. That's why getting a deal that says "We own this too, we aren't charging much now, but when/if it gets bigger, our piece will follow suit" was the right move for other guilds and was achievable because it was done without the distraction/anger-causing nonsense that we saw from WGA in the strike and SAG more recently. Just as Nick Counter has to placate the various competing interests on his side, sometimes union leaders are playing a political game of their own AND doing their official duties. Conflicts happen on all sides in such cases. If you know some of the history of past strikes and negotiations, the examples are legion.

A short update--the Producers have now put a deadline on their "last" offer to SAG--accept it as it stands by mid-August OR ELSE we pull it back and offer WORSE terms from then on. SAG is "evaluating" the offer, and they've had one joint session to 'ask questions' about the details but have no further negotiation sessions planned.

SAG is really in a bind here, folks. If they accept NOW what they turned down THEN, they look like petulant idiots. If they REJECT now what EVERYONE else in town has accepted, they become totally unsympathetic with their co-workers and lose anyway because there is no reason for the AMPTP to offer better because any leverage they had re. the possible failure of the AFTRA deal is gone. Furthermore, under SAG's rules, the authorization for a STRIKE has to get a vote plurality of 75% or more, and there is a LOT of doubt that is possible now since the "leadership" has proven unable to "lead" enough members to vote AFTRA down.

We'll see who does what to save what little shred of face they can, but the internal rumblings of this will be long-lived and nasty indeed.

Learn about workplace safety and prevent unnecessary injury!