1065767943 64.165.229.96

If you work in Commercials, or if you ever plan on working in Commercials, please read this letter: You are about to receive yet another ballot from Screen Actors Guild.

You will be urged to vote YES on the proposed Commercials Contract (which is set to expire October 30th.)

HOWEVER

You will NOT be given a PRO-AND-CON statement, nor will you be informed that there are very good reasons to vote NO!

Once again, S.A.G.’s leadership has voted to deny S.A.G.’s membership a minority report, which would give you the point of view of those who are opposed to the approval of this contract.

Didn’t we all just go through this with the failed consolidation proposal?

Our leadership has learned nothing from the events of a few short months ago when their zeal to silence
any opposition led in part to the defeat of the proposed merger of S.A.G. and AFTRA.

During the Consolidation debate, you might remember that S.A.G.’s leaders explained their reasons for denying a minority report: they claimed that the opposition had not gotten 25% of the Board votes needed to trigger an automatic minority report.

This time 27% of S.A.G.’s Board voted against the proposed Commercials Contract, which should have guaranteed a minority report.

Although this exceeds the 25% that S.A.G. leaders say is necessary for a minority report, your elected leaders have once again found away to make sure you don’t get this information.

In order to “win at all costs”, S.A.G.’s leaders have included the votes of AFTRA Board members in order to reduce the NO votes to only 19%.

In other words, AFTRA has been given a say as to how S.A.G.’s Board members can and cannot communicate with S.A.G. members!

At best this is political trickery At worst it is a deliberate attempt to bypass the will of the membership to get a quick YES vote and lock you into a contract for the next three years that could seriously impede your ability to make a living in commercials.

Last month you elected 25 of the 33 Membership First candidates who ran for the S.A.G. Board. Here is why they voted NO on this poorly negotiated contract:

*THERE IS NO MENTION OF COMMERCIALS MONITORING IN THE AGREEMENT. Over the next three years, potentially tens of millions of dollars in unreported residuals could have been going into your pockets and into the S.A.G. Pension and Health Fund. That’s money YOU have a right to, because it’s money that YOU earned but S.A.G.’s negotiators did nothing to guarantee that you will ever see any of it.

*AD SPENDING WILL EXCEED 30 BILLION DOLLARS this season but cable residuals were increased by only 5%. Divided by the three years of the contract, that’s less than 1.67% per YEAR ! *This translates into a maximum raise of $121. Actors who appear on cable commercials will continue to be victimized by overexposure (which prevents you from getting further work) and for this you will be compensated about a hundred bucks and there will be no raise for another three years!

1065477610 64.164.245.22

To all California Readers:

As you know, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union facing severe cutbacks in wages and benefits have been forced to go on strike against Ralph’s, Von’s, Pavilion’s and Albertson’s.

SAG Watchdog ask all SAG Members to shop at a Union Supermarket for the duration of the strike! The following Markets are NOT being struck…..Gelson’s, Stater Brothers, and Mayfair.

Staunch union member Steve Barr sums it up pretty well “I Don’t know about you but I’ll be more than happy to spend a few bucks extra at Gelson’s to avoid crossing a picket line, or buy anything from SCAB checkers.” Well said Steve.

A Union spokesman urged customers to try and shop at a union market…or any market other than Ralph’s, Von’s, Pavilion’s or Albertson’s.

—-

All SAG members please join us in doing all we can to support the efforts of UFCW!

SW Editor & Chief A.L. Miller

1065392482 64.165.227.178

The Bulletin Board wars are heating up on the new commercial contract proposal that will soon be going out to the membership of both SAG and AFTRA!

Those in favor of the contract are being described as DOVES and those against are being called HAWKS.

What follows is a thought provoking exchange between the designated “Dove,” New York AFTRA board member Anne Gartlan (1ST VICE PRESIDENT), and the so called “Hawk,” Hollywood Board member David Jolliffe. Is one a dove and the other a hawk? You decide.
—

Anne Gartlan writes:

I appreciate the care with which you posed your argument. It’s rare on this bulletin board. So it is with respect that I say what I say.

The Hawk/Dove model you describe (and I hope my use of YOUR Hawk/Dove model doesn’t prove inflammatory)doesn’t describe the history to me. Labor Contract negotiations are more complicated than the “price haggling” you describe. Prior to the 2000 negotiation, there was much ‘sabre rattling’ by the Daniels Hollywood Hawks (again, YOUR label, not mine). The trade press coverage of that ‘sabre rattling’ was even mentioned by Industry’s lead negotiator on the opening day of negotiations in 2000 and he stated how un-helpful it was to negotiations. The tough talk about pay-for-play in cable and ‘doing whatever it takes’ helped set the scenario for the strike. It led to Industry’s position that they wanted Class A-use replaced with a buyout as COUNTER for our PPP proposal. Of course, who wouldn’t want PPP, but it was never achievable, especially at the rates envisioned in our proposal.

The dynamic insured that we would have to go on strike. The Hollywood Hawks were on strike for PPP, and the rest of us were on strike to preserve Class A. Industry has stated they want to get rid of Class A in ALL of the recent negotiations and we have held onto Class A in every other negotiation without a costly job action.

Had we not gone on strike, I believe we could have ended up with the same deal in April, ’00 (at the contract’s expiration) as we got in October (minus Internet coverage, which was a good surprise to all of us). But we ‘Doves’ knew the H’wood Hawks would have had it defeated in referendum. The Daniels contingent had just defeated the merger referendum in ’98, so we had very good reason to believe they would control the same voters.

The following is very critical to understanding the gains in 2000. Remember, the 140% increase in o/c cable use was PAID FOR out of the wages of OTHER aspects of the contract, NOT because the Hawks held out so long. The haggling you spoke of really happened in our OWN committee. We all knew the goal number, i.e., the dollar figure Industry was willing to put on the table. WE had to decide WHERE to put it. The v/o rate, for example, took a huge hit for our o/c brothers & sisters, the 4.5 Session Fee increase was much lower than customary, again there was no increase in wild spot, there was a ramp-up in the o/c cable rate, so the full rate increase was NOT in the rate until the third year of the contract (therefore it had a reduced impact on the cost of the contract). AND it was paid for by the lost wages in 2000 due to the strike. Those numbers LITERALLY went into the calculation.

I also wish to take issue with your argument in other posts that we have lost ground against Ad Spending. That has never been a valid measure for our contract purposes. We’ve always been less than 2%. The reason ad spending is up so much (yes, cable continues to gain ground) is due to the enormous increases in Network ad time, an increase that is counter-intuitive given the fragementing of the network audiencesi.e., higher CPM’s for fewer eyeballs. But as the advertisiers know, it’s still the biggest bang for their buck for products with mass appeal.

If saying that I’m a reasonable Dove means that I think strikes are not good for us, I plead guilty. They should always be the weapon of last resort. I voted FOR the strike in 2000, but for the reasons stated earlier. And we have money-ground to recover and good will-ground to recover with our bargaining partners. Yes, I see them as our business partners, not just our adversaries. Industry is made up of human beings who can get their backs up just like we can.

Many a career that I know will never recover. Industry got used to younger, more inexperienced non-union folks, and I believe my generation aged 10 years during the strike. You are talented, and fortunate to be one of the few of us doing so well, and I applaud you.

Given this economy, given the unions’ economics, this negotiation was a smart way to go. It respects the big picture, which includes the upcoming TV/Theatrical negotiations where we have to try to do something to stop producers from invoking the Tape Rates for all of their digital productionsTape Rates that are in BOTH the AFTRA & SAG contracts. That’s HUGE! And the W&W’s are [HERE]. Our unions can conduct negotiations on only so many fronts at one time….

If this contract is voted down, we will be back at the bargaining table and all of the onerous proposals Industry can think of will be back on the table. They got NOTHING out of this contract but labor peace, which is not nothing. To camapaign against this deal is to camapaign for a strike, because that is the only way it can all play out. I don’t mean to fear-monger here, that’s just what will happen.

I don’t really expect that I will change your mind. I hope to present some arguments for those who ‘lurk’ here, i.e., read-but-don’t-post. But again, I appreciate the respectful way you present your POV; I have tried to do the same.

—

Mr. Jolliffe responded:

Anne says we “saber rattled” prior to the 2000 negotiations, and that THAT “helped set the scenario for a strike”. She then glosses over the fact that the “saber rattling” was over the fact that we had just gotten a letter from the JPC in September of 1999 demanding a Class-A rollback to a buyout of $2.045.45 on-camera per cycle. This letter was sent BEFORE we had ANY cable proposal determined. So to claim that the JPC had the Class-A buyout on the table to counter or cable pay-per-play proposal is impossible!

She then goes on to say the we could have had the same deal we ended-up with, except for Internet coverage, “but we ‘Doves’ knew the H’wood Hawks would have had it defeated in referendum.” And “The Daniels contingent had just defeated the merger referendum in ’98, so we had very good reason to believe they would control the same voters.” PA-lease We don’t “control” ANY of the members. What we knew, as did Anne, was that the members would never approve the deal that was offered us by the JPC!! And I don’t believe for one second that if we had been offered no Class-A rollback, .15% added for monitoring, .50% added to P&H and H&R, and $2,460.00 in third year for cable, that ANYBODY would have turned that down. But that wasn’t what was on the table when we went on strike. What was there was: A buyout for Class-A, $1,350 max cable, no Internet, no monitoring money, and no P&H increase.

Anne says we paid for the cable increase out “other aspects of the contract”. What other aspects? The money wasn’t there! The money on table when we went on strike was nowhere near the money we finally ended-up with!! It is impossible for us to have taken the deal offered us in April and turned it into what we ended-up with. Which is the claim Anne is making. We went on strike with approximately a 5%-6% increase on the table. We ended-up with well over 10%. Compare that to the deal being offered today of, (at it’s best), 6.5%.

Anne is partially correct though when she says that the V/O Community gave to the on-camera performer. What the V/O Community graciously did do was TAKE LESS OF AN INCREASE. But trust me They still did very well and received a 90+% increase ($760.50 to $1438.50) over the 1997 contract where the on-camera performer received 140%. (Remember, it was the on-camera performer that was getting killed by overexposure in cable.)

Anne mentions that we’ve lost money ground and good will ground. As to the money ground The last two earnings quarters of the Commercials Contract have skyrocketed since November when the full $2460 rate kicked in. As to the good will ground I also want good will between the JPC and us. But the thing that some seem to forget, is that it was the JPC that came after US. They threw the gauntlet down in 1997 when the stated they weren’t going to pay Class-A residuals after the year 2000. Please remember that!! Them coming after Class-A was NOT a counter to our PPP for cable proposal. A proposal by the way that Anne and EVERY SINGLE S.A.G. AND AFTRA BOARD MEMBER VOTED FOR!

I don’t tell people to yes or no on this current contract. There are many issues at play – collectively and individually. (Larry Cedar’s post about the different dynamics from 2000 to today says it all) All I say is that

I’m voting “no” because of the pathetic 5% increase in on-camera cable. An increase that destroys the hard fought pattern we established for a much greater increase. And that this “wages and fringes” only negotiation has brought back the lowest wages and fringes in history. I also feel that this current contract sets a terrible table for the upcoming TV/Theatrical Negotiations.

—

Thanks to Ms. Gartlan and Mr. Jolliffe for their articulate, informative debate.

All we can say is give us more! The above debate appeared on www.Idotvads.com — Plenty of fire works and lots of interesting perspectives on SAG politics. We at SAG Watchdog suggest you check it out. To reference all the remarks made in the above exchange go to the Bulletin Board string that begins with “140 percent: a perspective.”

SAG Watchdog Editor and Chief A.L.Miller

The above photographs where not those of the actual participants or professional look-a-likes—but where an actual Hawk and Dove.

In a September 21, 2003 article written by Times Staff writer James Bates, James Cromwell in commenting about the opponents to Consolidation stated “If we had come up with a cure for cancer they would have voted against it.”

A Local branch President in a scurrilous e-mail stated unequivocally that “If Melissa Gilbert brought a referendum in favor of oxygen to a vote of the membership, Kent McCord would raise $50K to send you a glossy flyer enumerating the ways in which breathing will kill you.”

And in the most outlandish statement as reported by Variety Magazine, SAG board members Richard Dreyfuss and Mike Farrell issued a similar attack in a recent message: “Some will object, we assume, to anything!”

Now we at SAG Watchdog wondered if these accusations were true. Would consolidation opponents vote against a cure for cancer. Would Kent McCord raise $50 K to send a glossy flyer enumerating the ways in which breathing will kill you. And would opponents object to anything. For instance would they object to getting a million dollar residual check? Would they object to winning an academy award? And, Would they object if they didn’t have to pay a fifty dollar co-payment every month for health insurance?

Anyway to answer these questions, SAG Watchdog did a survey among Consolidation opponents to find out if the above Pro Consolidation statements were true.

In our state of the art scientific survey conducted by a professional E-mail service, We asked opponents if they would have voted against a cure for cancer, or would in fact object to anythingto please hit the ol’ reply button, and e-mail SAG Watchdog with a “yes” response! If they would NOT have voted against a cure for cancer–and would NOT object to anything, we advised them to not respond!

We did not receive a single response proving once and for all that the above outlandish allegations by the hyperbolic Pro Consolidation crowd were not based on scientific data. The SAG Watchdog Survey has a margin of error of Zero.

SAG Watchdog award winning Editor & Chief A.L. Miller

PS, Kent McCord has already assured SAG Watchdog that he would NOT raise 50 K to send out a glossy flyer enumerating the ways which breathing will kill you. However he did remind members to stay indoors when there is a smog alert.