The headlines seem never to end: "Producers make final offer," "Industry Braces for Possible Walkout," "Strike Threatens to Bring Hollywood to a standstill." etc. etc. etc. And for the past year or two right up to this week, the situation looks pretty grim in the "dream factory" here in LA-LA-Land. And I was thinking …maybe you (who, unlike me, are NOT inside this industry and have only the fan press and TV entertainment nonsense reporting to give you clues) would like to know a little bit more about "Why For?" So here we go:Though there are unions and guilds (never mind the distinction between 'em. That's next semester, okay?) that cover everything that can be done on or around the set of a movie, there are basically FIVE major ones that we need to pay attention to:
THESE folks have contracts which specify their MINIMUM wages ("stars" and their agents and lawyers can always negotiate MORE, of course,) working conditions, rights, procedures to adjudicate violations, pension and health and welfare plans, safety issues, and a host of other particulars of the workplace. And these contracts are negotiated/updated/reformed every three years -- though not all together. They are staggered over various years so that not EVERYbody is fighting at once - -partially to avoid utter chaos and mostly because while there are FIVE groups above (and sub-negotiations within them-different contracts, for example in the DGA, for filmed entertainment, live and tape, network vs. non-network shows, etc. etc.) they are all talking to ONE entity on the other side of the table which can only meet with them individually.
THAT side of the game is the Alliance Of Motion Picture and Television Producers AKA the AMPTP. (NOT to be confused with its other incarnation as the Motion Picture Association of America --the lobbying group for the producers more like a trade association than a negotiating body but made up of the same major companies, nor with the various Academies that give out Oscars, Emmys etc. etc.)
So … Once upon a time, every three years or so, within a few months or weeks of the expiration of the current contract, the two sides (AMPTP and ONE or more of the various unions/guilds-whoever's contract was up next) would schedule meetings to negotiate a new deal, usually leaving a lot of the old one intact and just updating as needed the things that changes in production techniques necessitated, experiences during the three years that needed clarifying, and, of course, increases in wages and other payments.
Once an agreement is hammered out in a highly sophisticated form of horse trading mostly behind closed doors (I've been there/done that BTW on many occasions), the finished agreement that the union/guild representatives endorse is then presented to the full membership of the body for "ratification" -- a majority membership vote up or down, which, of course, the leaders tell their members they SHOULD endorse and vote up. IF they do not vote yes OR if the negotiation reaches an impasse and there's no deal to approve or disapprove of, the union/guild leaders will, instead, ask their members to vote on a "strike authorization" -- to give them the ultimate card to play in the negotiations -- the threat to shut the industry down.
But here's the problem: IF a studio begins production on a film or TV show close to the date of the end of the contract and IF there is NO agreement or if it looks like there might be a fly in the negotiation ointment, then producers are reticent to START anything because it costs SO much more to STOP in the middle and then have to re-start -- not to mention the much bigger financial cost of simply stopping and NEVER re-starting a movie or show and having to throw away all the funds already spent. Let's remember that the major studios are PUBLIC companies who have to answer to stockholders and regulators and must spend their money prudently … or not spend it if that makes more sense.
That's why (a) what's known as a "de facto" strike happens often -- production slows to a crawl or stops weeks before the contract deadline as a self-protection technique by the studios, and (b) why there's a lot of pressure to make a deal and, in recent years, to go negotiate much EARLIER than the last minute to make sure no such slow-down or stoppage happens so that nobody adds the insult of less income under the OLD contract to the injury of a strike instead of a new contract. We have seen some guilds go into "early negotiations" in recent years as much as 6 months or more prior to the contract's official termination deadline.
Remember, please, that strikes in Hollywood affect more than the many hundreds of thousands of us who work in the industry. Movie and TV folks are mostly freelance workers -- they are not on an annual or steady salary. When the show is shooting or working, so are they. When it isn't, they are not. And when NONE are working? Well, strikes-de facto or actual-- also affect our local shops, our dry cleaners, our mortgage bankers, our school tuition payments, and every other ripple-through in the local economy of this "company town" for the movie and TV biz that is Los Angeles.
The losses of recent strikes to the overall economy here have been measured in BILLIONS, not mere millions. And that includes the direct added expenses of starting things up again once everyone comes to their senses. The effects can last for YEARS -- especially for those who, in prior strikes, had mortgages foreclosed on, businesses that serve the industry fail, or even bankruptcies and divorces and other life-changing tragedies happen because a usually thriving industry lost its way and fell apart.
So what's going on right now? Simple: Even though all the unions and guilds go to negotiate in different years, there's usually an overall "issue" that's the "hot topic" of any particular period, and what usually happens is that ONE of the major unions makes a deal to solve that issue first and that becomes what's known as a "pattern of negotiations" that the other groups tend to follow. Because -- in most cases -- it makes no sense for the producers to give a lot MORE in the same area to one group over another. We also negotiate that SHOULD another Guild somehow get a better deal on an issue, everyone else will move up to match that level, too.
Rightly or wrongly, the issue at hand this time around has been "New Media" and the residuals paid on DVD's, pay-per-views, and all the other means of delivery such as streaming video, etc. etc. Many of the unions say the studios are making big bucks on these things and thus the percentage they share should go up. The studios, of course, say "Not so fast. We have higher expenses and we make a lot of flops that devour the hits. And besides, we take the risk by backing the shows. And we just plain think that the current percentage is fine & dandy." There are good and bad arguments on both sides. Lots and lots of them. Way too many to go into here. Trust me.
But, as it happens, the DGA made a deal on this (and everything else) and DGA members approved their contract. And after a pretty nasty & costly strike a few months ago that you certainly will remember from the headlines, so did the WGA. And now that its contract year has arrived, AFTRA has made their own deal. And SAG has been in negotiations on its contract over these same issues and ... Oops ! SAG has NOT agreed to the same basic "pattern" as everyone else. SAG's contract has in fact actually just expired a few days ago on June 30 without reaching a new agreement to replace it. But SAG has NOT asked its members to authorize a strike … yet.
BUT … approximately 40,000 members of AFTRA, who currently have their ballots in hand to APPROVE their negotiated agreement (and must do so by today, July 8th when the ballots will be counted and the results revealed) are ALSO members of SAG (which has well over 100,000 members). And that's where it has gotten really sticky.
You see, as a way of strengthening their bargaining position to get a BETTER deal (they think) the SAG leadership has asked its members who are ALSO members of AFTRA to vote "NO!" on the AFTRA contract. Even though the AFTRA leaders have asked their members to vote "YES!" and endorse the deal they negotiated in good faith with the producers. THIS has caused a HUGE battle amongst the actors with famous folks taking opposite sides, placing ads in the trade papers, giving speeches and press conferences, and generally going nutso (another highly technical labor relations term -- I'd love to explain, but this is already too long … So take your best shot and guess).SOME say this "sabotage the AFTRA deal if you're also in SAG" plan is the only way to pressure the studios to offer SAG and AFTRA both a better deal that will benefit everyone when it becomes the "new" pattern. Others say that for AFTRA to have negotiated in good faith and then have SAG butt in and meddle in their vote and basically tell the producers they didn't MEAN it when they negotiated would not only weaken everyone but give the producers a really good reason to say "a pox on both your houses" and hold out for WORSE terms for the actors in both guilds.
So … Last week, the studios gave SAG a basic ultimatum -- "This is the last, best deal we will offer you. Take it or go on strike." And SAG has said "Well, gosh, we aren't ready to strike just yet or even ask our members to approve one -- We just want to see how the AFTRA vote comes out." And meanwhile, as all three groups fight and offer brickbats in the industry media, and as the DGA and WGA and IA wait to see what happens …
Just about everyone is NOT working because, as I explained, NOBODY wants to start up a show only to have it shut down by a strike. And EVERYbody is still hurting from the very recent WGA strike that shut the town down for months only a little while ago, killed the last TV season, and cost everyone in and out of the industry billions of dollars. Which, they fear, might all happen again. Soon.
SO…the possible results are that either
(A) AFTRA ratifies their contract and SAG realizes it can't do better and takes the deal and THEIR members ratify too and we all go back to work, or ... (B) SAG succeeds in torpedoing the AFTRA deal and then one or both of these unions authorize a strike and the town shuts down which ... (C) won't look a whole lot different than the defacto strike now happening due to the producers' shutting things down to cut their losses but will be a whole lot angrier and nastier and potentially could lead to ... (D) producers saying "Screw you guys -- we'll hire NON-union actors and the big stars will walk away from you because they like their big paychecks more than they sympathize with a union of 100,000 waiters and shoe clerks who once upon a time got an acting job but have nothing to lose by striking and making everyone else in the business lose their butts."
(A) AFTRA ratifies their contract and SAG realizes it can't do better and takes the deal and THEIR members ratify too and we all go back to work, or ...
(B) SAG succeeds in torpedoing the AFTRA deal and then one or both of these unions authorize a strike and the town shuts down which ...
(C) won't look a whole lot different than the defacto strike now happening due to the producers' shutting things down to cut their losses but will be a whole lot angrier and nastier and potentially could lead to ...
(D) producers saying "Screw you guys -- we'll hire NON-union actors and the big stars will walk away from you because they like their big paychecks more than they sympathize with a union of 100,000 waiters and shoe clerks who once upon a time got an acting job but have nothing to lose by striking and making everyone else in the business lose their butts."
Yep. It could get that ugly out here. So stay tuned and we'll see.
I know this was long. But at least now you have some context for what the usually-inept news media will be telling you about what's going on at places like Sony and Paramount and Fox and Warner Bros and Universal and … oh yeah, DISNEY right now. Namely, a whole lotta nothing and a whole lotta name-calling and a whole lot of anger and tension and fear.
Ain't showbiz glamorous? You bet it is. And while the outcome as I write this is truly unknown, at least, I hope, you have some basic background to filter the sometimes incomplete news reportage through ... Because, as a JHM reader, you now know a little better the answers to the famous question: "Why For?"
Questions? Ask.
DISCLAIMER: This is a SHORT and BROAD BRUSH STROKE portrait of a VERY complex subject. The Secretary will disavow all knowledge of my actions. Your mileage may vary. Do not remove tag under penalty of law. Etc. Etc. Etc.
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.