SAG-AFTRA Ratify Advertising Agreement; SAG Townhall Features Fireworks

SAG and AFTRA announced yesterday that their combined paid-up membership, about 132,000 members, overwhelmingly ratified the contracts between the unions and the advertising industry. The result was expected, as there was no organized opposition. About 28% returned their ballots, about typical. Of those voting, about 94% voted yes. The deals expire March 31, 2012.

The news from the TV/theatrical side is nowhere near as placid. The ballots went out a few days ago--they're due back June 9--and SAG's conducting a series of town hall meetings across the country. The first was last night in Hollywood, and the fur flew. About 600 people attended; although the crowd was reportedly 70% composed of hardline Membership First partisans, they didn't manage to fill the room. That's a bit surprising. I'd expected an overflow crowd, given their (apparent?) strength in Hollywood.

What they slightly lacked in numbers, they made up in volume and conviction, according to sources inside the room. Fellow MF-ers like SAG President Alan Rosenberg were applauded for their statements against ratification, while pro-contract voices such as SAG interim National Executive Director David White were booed. The approximately three-hour confab kicked off with statements from the dais, and was mostly taken up by member questions and comments, which were described as overwhelmingly anti-ratification.

That dais, by the way, included SAG Secretary/Treasurer Connie Stevens, chief negotiator John McGuire, White, SAG 1^st VP Anne-Marie Johnson (who chaired the meeting), Unite for Strength leader Ned Vaughn, UFS-er Stacey Travis, Deputy NED Ray Rodriguez, and Rosenberg. General Counsel Duncan Crabtree-Ireland responded to questions from time to time.

According to Vaughn, Rosenberg was asked at the meeting what he proposed the union do if it voted down the deal. Rosenberg apparently replied that the union should get a strike authorization and then, if necessary, strike. How he expects to conjure up the necessary 75% vote for a strike authorization is unclear. In contrast to that high hurdle, it only takes 50% + 1 (a simple majority) to ratify the deal.

More colorful speakers at the meeting were Ed Asner and Seymour Cassel. Asner compared the contract's effect on actors to "taking the Jews out and shooting them," leading one audience member to comment that he hadn't expected Holocaust metaphors at a SAG meeting. Well, why not? SAG politics seem to know no bounds.

Cassel, for his part, spotted former SAG president Melissa Gilbert, a mod-erate, and, standing at the mic, referred to her dismissively. Cassel later responded to one of David White's comments by saying "bullshit." This was understandably too much for Johnson, as chair of the meeting, and she ordered Cassel to leave. Out in the hallway, Cassel told me that "I tend to speak my mind, perhaps too candidly." That certainly seems true.

Another notable out in the hall was Nichelle Nichols, who played Uhura on the original Star Trek. We chatted briefly about the Star Trek movie, not SAG politics, let alone Trekian essays about SAG politics. There was also a Jack Nicholson lookalike, wearing a snappy suit, white shoes, and tinted eyeglasses. Maybe it was Jack Nicholson, but somehow I wouldn't expect to see him aimlessly wandering the halls at a SAG meeting and using the hotel ATM.

David White chatted for a bit after the meeting, and explained the contrast between his reaction to the studios' February offer (it "sucks," he said at the time) and the current one ("a good deal with solid gains," he told me yesterday, and, in the context of the economy and the dragged out negotiating process, even a "fantastic" one). The key difference is the contract expiration date, which in the current deal is synchronized with the WGA, AFTRA and DGA (mid-2011). In the February deal, it wasn't, and the significance is that synchronicity allows at least some of the unions to make common cause and present a united front when the contract is up.

White previously predicted the deal would pass, so this time I asked whether he thought it would pass in Hollywood. (That's not necessary for passage, but it would give some signal of a reduction in divisiveness within the union.) He predicted it would, citing the strong messages of support he was receiving from Hollywood members (though not at the meeting), but noting judiciously that "members will vote their conscience."

Ned Vaughn also told me the deal would pass, both in Hollywood and nationally. He pointed to the importance of consolidating gains and negotiating in solidarity with other unions, especially AFTRA, in 2011. I asked if he thought SAG and AFTRA would be merged by 2011, and he replied that he "would love it if they were."

A contrasting post-meeting voice was MF stalwart and SAG board member Clancy Brown, who explained his opposition to the deal in more measured terms than Asner and Cassel had used. He argued that "there's a better deal out there to be had," and cited "the paltry Internet move over residual" and the "larcenous" force majeure settlement as reasons.

The day before, I spoke with 2^nd VP Sam Freed, who is president of the New York board, and separately with board member Mike Pniewski of Atlanta, both supporters of ratification. The latter predicted the deal will pass, and commented that the guild "got the best deal we can." He cited a variety of positive aspects of the deal, and underlined the need for "stability in the marketplace" for labor.

Freed pointed to the estimated $105 million value of the deal, and said it addresses "the plight of the middle class actor." He emphasized that the level of concern MF expresses over new media was not supported by current figures: of $1.3 billion in SAG earnings in 2008, Freed told me only 0.05% came from new media. (That's one-twentieth of one percent, not 5%.) Alluding to the opposition, he quipped "There's a guy who would be complaining if it was raining vegetable soup and he only had a fork in his hand."

In other union news, Variety reports that 85 year-old actor Theodore Bikel "has been re-elected to an 11th two-year term as president of the Associated Actors and Artistes of America." The 4-A's, as it's known, is in turn a unit of the AFL-CIO. Its affiliates are AFTRA, SAG, Actors' Equity and several smaller performers unions: American Guild of Musical Artists (AGMA), American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA), and the Guild of Italian American Actors. AFTRA has a direct charter with the AFL-CIO, awarded last year. The other unions are chartered with the 4-A's, as far as I know, and derive their AFL-CIO affiliation that way (as did AFTRA prior to 2008).

Subscribe to my blog (jhandel.com) for more about SAG, or digital media law generally. Go to the blog itself to subscribe via RSS or email. Or, follow me on Twitter, friend me on Facebook, or subscribe to my Huffington Post articles. If you work in tech, check out my new book How to Write LOIs and Term Sheets.

Comments

[BlueMel57]

SimplyBilly, walking a picket line would not be the only consequence of a strike. You walked with the writers and that is great, truly. But during a strike it's not just writers, directors, and actors not working, but ALSO the crew, the catering services, the dry cleaning services, the drivers and many other people, remember??

This deal does improve over the last deal in several ways --and it's 2 years rather than 3. There are rate raises, and we DO get paid for the internet for the first time AND we will be seeing what the internet is actually making in terms of money so that we can negotiate with that info next time. And for the 1000th time THIS IS THE BEST DEAL THERE IS AT THIS TIME.

You guys persist in:

1) Pretending that there is a viable alternative to the deal on the table
2) Contending that the gains are too small or non existent
3) Getting key facts wrong
4) Calling anyone who disagrees a traitor, an idiot or a coward
5) Bullying in every situation -- booing and insulting people at a meeting about our future? really?

The Town Hall went the way they have all gone lately, due to MF tactics. Those tactics won't help us solve anything, won't help the future of SAG and certainly won't prepare us to be in a better position the next time we have the opportunity at a new contract.

[MattMulhern]

So, please, with the lock-step surrender policy. If you don't have the courage to stand up and fight for a FAIR contract? Then stay home, and watch your union brothers and sisters do it for you.

And be real careful that you keep who your actually are a secret you coward - people whose livelihoods and families are threatened and HAVE to stand up to management via strike with all the struggles and pain that requires will NOT look kindly on those SAG members who show their true colors, by lack of support, if we do, in fact ,have to go out.

People will react accordingly to those they know were anti-SAG and wanted to give it all away to merge with AFTRA.

[MattMulhern]

I
NOW? NOBODY believes this is anywhere close to a fair contract - our OWN NED said "it sucks" and the best that can be mustered from neophytes like Ned Vaughn is "it's the best we can do,"

Well, I'm sorry, that's lacking and it's negligent. It's no secret Ned Vaughn and many in the NY and RBD boardrooms as well as USAN and the rest of UFS WANT SAG to become so weakened they get sucked into a merger on AFTRA'S terms, but I got news for you BlueMel57:

The membership has woken up, and YOUR defeatism is being looked on with disdain. We didn't ASK to be attacked. We didn't ASK to be threatened with the loss of our residuals, we didn't ASK to be expected to accept a huge nonunion space in our contract for the FIRST TIME IN SAG'S HISTORY.

[MattMulhern]

got news for you BlueMel57:

I was AT the last NY town hall meeting at the Westin last December, and the L.A. Town Hall just held was a PICNIC compared to the vitriol and insults that were hurled at Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen. It was, not entirely, to be fair, but, mostly - a circus - with the hostility of the NY board and the anti-SAG, anti-Hollywood, pro-AFTRA, pro-merger partisans POUNDING the people on the dais from Hollywood. Rosenberg took everything without much response until some idiot said he'd be fine because of his wife and his "family situation" - meaning, "you're getting divorced from Marg Helgenberger and you'll be fine money-wise­." Rosenberg literally came down off the dais and started to go after the guy, and I personally was hoping he got to him, before someone hustled him away to calm down. Doug Allen, in that meeting, to his credit, took every criticism, every insult (and there were MANY) and sat there like Yoda, trying to explain, without EVER raising his voice, what his position was and why.

The NY attendees made fools of themselves: hostile, bitter, angry, enraged is more like it, and just spilling over with antagonism at people who, ham-fisted, possibly, too slow, yes, were simply trying, then AND now - STILL! - TO GET SAG ACTORS A FAIR CONTRACT.

[MattMulhern]

Please read last reply to first. thanks. I think that's the correct order...

[SimplyBilly]

Thanks for your post Matt.

I am definitely voting NO and have no problem walking the picket lines again - I was happy to walk with the writers.

It is amazing to me that the HuffPost posts Handel who is so obviously antagonistic towards SAG that his animosity is evident in every sentence without inviting voices from the other side of this contentious labor issue. Come on Ariana - read the posts this AMPTP consultant puts up and read Nikki Finke for a less-studi­o-apparatc­hik voice.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/inside-sags-theatricaltv-contract-informational-meeting-to-ratify-or-not/

[Jonathan Handel - Huffpost Blogger]

I'll simply reply to one thing, which is SimplyBilly's claim that I'm an "AMPTP consultant­." Maybe he meant it metaphorically, but to be clear: I'm not. I've never worked for the AMPTP (or any studio).

[MattMulhern]

Jonathan As I post in my Youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAAFyBymoUM&feature=channel_page

Move-over is NOW and it is cutting the SAG middle-class actor's income by 1/3rd to 1/2 RIGHT NOW. Producers CAN do it and they ARE doing it, and this contract does NOT make up that ground in New Media, so the middle-class actor can have any reasonable hope of even getting back - via New Media - to where they were in traditional media (TV and movies) - before producers started pushing all that content to the internet and NOT paying traditional fixed residual rates anymore.

[MattMulhern]

The question becomes: why? WHY ARE THE PRODUCERS DOING THIS? and the answer is simple: they do NOT WANT TO PAY RESIDUALS ANYMORE. They SAID it in the NY Times in July 2007, they meant it and they are doing it NOW.

Are they pushing content to the internet NOT to make money? Of course not. Will they experience a period where the income for producers on the internet does NOT match what they WERE making from advertising revenue from reruns of TV and movies in network and cable TV? Yes.

But then, why won't they allow the SAG middle-class actor to come along with them as a maker of their product and a "partner" to share in BOTH the losses AND the gains via a percentage of producer or distributor or WHOEVER MAKES THE MONEY'S GROSS?

[MattMulhern]

Producer makes 100 Million in new media project? SAG gets X% Producer makes one million? SAG gets exact same X% Producer breaks even or loses money - unlike in traditional media, where producers HAVE to pay fixed rate residuals - producers in break even or loss situations have NO FIXED OBLIGATION TO SAG.

That allows the middle-class SAG actor to know, when he or she goes to bed at night: "I am losing a LOT of money in move-over of traditional media residuals, BUT, WHEN the producers start to make REAL MONEY in new media (and they will. In many cases they already are) I KNOW SAG has me tied RIGHT INTO THEIR PROFIT STREAM, which should, eventually, bring the SAG middle-class actor at least back to parity with the former compensation system.

This contract codifies terms that will NEVER get us there. You yourself have called the sunset clause "a joke" and, of course, you're right.

[MattMulhern]

Without being tied DIRECTLY via a percentage into the producer's profit stream in new media with contract and legal rules for transparency that cannot be violated due to severe penalties for the producers if they lie or otherwise don't comply - SAG, as a union, and the SAG middle-class actor, as a species, if you will, will gradually become extinct. SAG will NOT have enough income to support it's own overhead and infrastructure.

Now, of course, as some from UFS have said PUBLICLY (James Cromwell) that's exactly what they want " A SAG so weakened it HAS to merge with AFTRA." For many UFS-ers, NY, RBD and USAN members, this is playing out just the way they want - leading to a SAG so weakened, it HAS to merge with AFTRA on AFTRA's terms.

[MattMulhern]

It's no mistake that, when asked by YOU when you interviewed him, Ned Vaughn - a leader of UFS said "I don't care if the merged entity is called 'Uncle Joe's Actor's Union.' "

In other words - for MANY "moderates" - the extinction of SAG is not something they fear or deeply regret - it's something they WANT.

The middle-class SAG actor STILL has a choice: if you believe in The Screen Actors Guild, if you understand that EVERY SINGLE ADVANCE IN BENEFITS we enjoy today: P&H, residuals - the list goes on and on and on - was achieved through either a strike authorization (threat of strike with the backing of the membership via a 75% supportive vote) OR strike itself - if you want a tough, smart, union that represents SCREEN ACTORS - not broadcasters and recording artists, with completely different needs and agendas, then, vote "NO" on this contract, then DEMAND and vote "YES" on a strike authorization, and be prepared to defend your CAREERS, your FAMILIES, your FUTURE, and the future of the coming generations of actors.

[MattMulhern]

This contract will NEVER be renegotiated if we sign it - there is NO precedent for the AMPTP giving BACK a good or even (all we're asking for) a FAIR deal in a new technology (VHS/DVD - cable) once they get the deal THEY want and screw the middle-class SAG actor. NONE. NEVER HAPPENED.

Vote "NO." And then, let's take the fight to the producers and tell them we want a fair deal that allows the SAG middle-class actor the CHANCE to make a decent living and HOPE to break through to REAL money. Otherwise, SAG, as a union, is doomed, and the SAG middle-class actor, will become the producers toy, the equivalent of a WalMart worker.

We CAN STOP THIS - VOTE "NO!"

[pauln51]

I was at the meeting and can concur that Cassel used no profanity with regard to Melissa Gilbert...­he two or three times referred to her dismissively as "Miss What's-her­-name." (and this grumpy old man almost beat Rosenberg in the last election!). Asner's "statement" to my mind was offensive and embarrassing. It's time for actors to accept this imperfect deal, to stop acting like children, and to get smart and UNIIFIED for the next negotiations in two years. Otherwise, our guild is doomed to be regarded as an ineffectual laughingstock in Hollywood.
I am no big fan of Anne Marie-Johnson's positions, but I give her great credit for running the meeting with consummate skill and even-hande­dness...wi­thout her at the gavel, I fear the whole thing would have descended into an utterly useless rant-fest.