2-1-08
SAG To Hold Referendum on
Ending Phase 1
It really is a Catch 22.
The Screen Actors Guild doesn’t want the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists to dictate the terms of a film contract that only SAG actors work. In the past, SAG president Alan Rosenberg points out, the AFTRA part of the joint negotiating committee for TV and film has, for the most part, voted unanimously. The SAG part has, for the most part, been divided between Hollywood members and New York and branch members. Hollywood members are the majority, but, say, even a 12-1 SAG “no” vote, combined with a 13-0 AFTRA “yes” vote means that the “yeses” win. Rosenberg and many Hollywood members who work primetime TV and films don’t like having the majority vote within their own union mean nothing.
So, they’ve proposed “proportional representation,” which would give more votes to the union that has a higher percentage of people working the contract. In the case of the TV/Theatricals contract, that would be SAG.
AFTRA doesn’t want to give decision making power for television strictly to SAG. AFTRA, president Roberta Reardon points out, is a television union. Most of their TV contracts are in daytime or news. But they do have some primetime scripted programming and they use the TV/Theatricals contract as a template for other contracts, such as basic cable. And, Reardon points out, AFTRA doesn’t sign a film agreement with producers. They sign their own television agreement.
“My position and the position of AFTRA is that they are two separate unions with two separate contracts, and what proportional representation does is to hand over control of both contracts to one union,” says Reardon. “Each union has 50 percent of the joint bargaining committee because we have two separate unions.”
So, if they don’t bargain together they’ll likely be weaker. But if they do bargain together and don’t have proportionality, SAG feels its position is weaker. And if proportionality is enacted, then AFTRA feels its position is weaker. In the meantime, it’s looking more and more like AFTRA and SAG will be negotiating separately with TV and film producers.
It seems to be a complete impasse. Nobody wants to budge. And while there might eventually be a winner and a loser, who knows how bloody the battle ground will get before that happens.
The first salvo has been fired, however. The SAG national board voted last month to send out a referendum asking if its members wanted to end Phase 1—and recommending a “yes” vote. The ballots will go out Feb. 22.
“We’re between a rock and a hard place,” says Rosenberg. “We don’t want to end Phase 1 and we don’t want to go into a 50-50 situation with AFTRA. We need to end Phase I so we can reformulate it.”
Rosenberg adds that SAG approached AFTRA about changing Phase 1 a year ago, but that AFTRA has steadfastly refused to talk about proportionality.
For Reardon, the mystifying part is why proportionality is an issue now, before SAG and AFTRA have even sat down to figure out what they want from TV and film producers.
“I have always found it stunning that we were counting votes before we knew what the question was,” says Reardon. “I’ve said for a long time that we need to sit down and find out what’s really on the table.”
SAG executive director Doug Allen scoffs at that, and accuses AFTRA of stalling on setting up a Wages and Working conditions committee, so that the two unions can formulate their bargaining strategy.
“We asked repeatedly for them to engage in W&W planning and negotiations and they just flat out refused,” Allen says.
In addition to the proportionality dispute, Allen is upset with AFTRA for what he calls undercutting SAG in basic cable. (See the PerformInk stories: “AFTRA, SAG on Verge of Permanent Split as Negotiations Approach,” 11/23/07 and “Jurisdictional Disputes Threaten to Break AFTRA/SAG Alliance,” 8/31/07.) Rosenberg is upset about basic cable, too, but he finds it odd that many of the same people who think AFTRA should maintain a 50-50 split in the TV/Theatricals contract use as an argument against separate negotiations the possibility that AFTRA will employ the same tactics and undercut SAG in primetime TV.
Reardon promises that that won’t happen.
“We’re not in the business of dropping rates to get work. We’re not going to be out having a fire sale on AFTRA contracts to attract producers. I don’t think our members would stand for it and I wouldn’t support it.”
Reardon points out that before the Phase 1 agreement in 1981, AFTRA and SAG sat at the same table with primetime TV producers, and they consulted with each other during the process. She thinks this could possibly happen if Phase 1 ends for the upcoming negotiations.
So what is it that the two unions are so afraid of? It has to do with the word “strike.”
Rosenberg points out that politics within unions is much like politics on a national scale. There are the conservative elements and the liberal elements on both sides of the mid-line. And there are the radical, or fringe, elements on either extreme. The fringe liberals are the ones who want to strike at the drop of a hat—and Rosenberg readily admits that some Hollywood members fit that description. But the fringe conservative members will not strike at all, for any reason, and Rosenberg believes some of the SAG voices against proportionality are in that camp.
“This undermining our majority is an expression of people never wanting to go on strike for any reason whatsoever,” he said, adding that in general AFTRA is on the conservative side of the line and SAG is on the liberal side.
“The conservative wing of our union—I believe—looks very much like AFTRA,” Rosenberg says.
If Phase 1 ends, everything—even the commercials contract negotiations this fall—will be impacted. But both sides express hope that the impasse will be resolved by then. How, or in who’s favor, remains to be seen.
Jurisdictional Disputes Threaten to Break AFTRA/SAG Alliance