SAG Deal
Posted by Craig Mazin on 18 Apr 2009 at 03:07 am | Tagged as: WGA Issues
Looks like we’ll find out on Sunday or Monday what the terms are. I expect that it will be a version of the DGA/WGA/AFTRA deal, and I also expect that some kind of compromise has been reached on the terminus.
Everything else is fairly predictable as well. The SAG militants will characterize the deal as slightly worse than the Holocaust, and it will be ratified anyway by a pragmatic membership who will appreciate the immediate improvements the deal brings them.
The question of what SAG’s militants have squandered, though, will linger. They may have permanently screwed themselves out of jurisdiction over all television programming…making their comparisons to the rarely-triggered $20,000 network rerun residuals even more inapt.
Stay tuned.
The word on the street is that agreement was reached to keep the expiration date at June 30, 2011. The big unknown is what it cost SAG to get that agreement.
The anti-ratification arguments will presumably be the same as the ones trotted out last year in opposition to the AFTRA Exhibit A deal. In many respects it will probably be the same as the opposition directed to SAG’s 2005 Film/TV contracts.
In both cases, ratification occurred anyway, and I fully expect ratification here.
Notably, in contrast to the AFTRA episode last year, SAG won’t itself be campaigning against ratification this time around.
And, of course, Nikke Finke predictably describes the tentative deal as containing “nothing.”
VG
It seems that the SAG militants have learned a couple of lessons from this debacle:
2, The way to ensure future solidarity between SAG and AFTRA is to run SAG militants for the AFTRA board and turn AFTRA into as dysfunctional and fractured an organization as SAG is.
Sad, really. The obvious and reality-based lessons are that insistence on ideological absolutes is no way to build a winning coalition, and that anything less than unshakable pan-union solidarity is not going to move the AMPTP to grant the concessions that labor demands.
Voiceguy –
Didn’t the “Membership First” National Board members — including Alan Rosenberg and Anne Marie-Johnson — vote “YES” on accepting the AMPTP’s offer from February? And hasn’t the MF faction been pounding the drum that the membership should have the chance to vote on the contract?
-Ted
According to a contemporaneous report whose accuracy has never been challenged, the following Membership First officers and board members voted “no” on the SAG board resolution rejecting the Feb. 19 AMPTP offer:
Thus, since they voted no on the motion to reject the earlier contract proposal, by logic they should vote yes on the this contract, which presumably is an improvement over the Feb. 19 version.
Of course, they won’t, because the entire vote was a cynical and unprincipled act designed to hinder and obstruct the efforts of the new team to get a deal done. It deprived SAG of the ability to say that the Feb. 19 proposal had been rejected unanimously.
Yes, but on the assumption that it would be rejected by the membership. In other words, behind all the scheming and the foot-stomping, the Membership First people wanted the Feb. 19 proposal sent out without recommendation from SAG, with the hope that the members would vote “no” on it. This, in their twisted mindset, would then set the stage for obtaining strike authorization.
I agree that it’s nutty.
And the saner voices pointed out that (a) SAG had no history of sending out contracts for ratification that SAG itself did not recommend, and (b) there seemed little point in spending all the money, and delaying the real negotiations for a month, in order to allow such a meaningless exercise to occur — since the SAG board had already rejected the contract anyway.
VG
Voiceguy #4:
One key factor in the Membership First strategy was to prevent the new NED and negotiating committee from doing anything that would indicate that there was a better deal to be had from further negotiation with less intransigence.Voting ‘no’ on the resolution to reject the AMPTP “last, best and final offer” was a vote to keep that version of the contract offer alive. As you point out, that LBFO was a non-starter with the membership, and the insane hope was that somehow it could be forced out to a membership vote to “prove” that the members wanted a strike. (That brings up the question of why Membership First failed to send out the strike authorization ballot in all the time they held a firm national board majority.)
Okay, so voting “No” on a motion to reject the offer is not the same as voting “Yes” on a motion to accept the offer.
I kind of wish someone on the National Board had made a follow-up motion to accept the offer. All the people who voted “Yes” on the motion to reject obviously would have voted “No” on a motion to accept, but it would have forced the MF people into making their position unequivocal.
-Ted
Ted, I think the MF board members would have gone ahead and voted ‘yes’ to accept the deal, with a view to forcing it out to a membership vote. I think they were of the bizarre view that some of the board majority would vote not to reject the deal because (in MF’s view) they are all belly-crawling lickers of AMPTP footwear and thus would eagerly accept the first deal the AMPTP offered in the post-Doug Allen era.
Their position has been very clear for a very long time: they’d rather have no deal than an imperfect deal, and they’re certain that a strike would get them a perfect deal. Reality has never intruded into this fantasy.
And it’s passed by the board.
SAG NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVES TENTATIVE TELEVISION AND MOTION PICTURE CONTRACTS AND RECOMMENDS RATIFICATION
Los Angeles (April 19, 2009) – The Screen Actors Guild National Board of Directors today voted 53.38 percent to 46.62 percent to approve and recommend to members, new, two-year successor agreements to the 2005 Producer-Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic Agreement and 2005 Screen Actors Guild Television Agreement.
The proposed agreement, covering actors in motion pictures and television delivers 3.5% effective annual increases comprised of a 3% wage increase and a .5% pension and health contribution increase upon ratification, and a 3.5% wage increase in year two.
The board passed the below motion shortly after 4:00 p.m. today:
It was moved and seconded that the National Board directs the Interim National Executive Director to send the tentative agreement between the Producers represented by the AMPTP and the Screen Actors Guild for successor agreements to the 2005 Producer-Screen Actors Guild Codified Basic Agreement and the 2005 Screen Actors Guild Television Agreement to the membership for ratification, with a recommendation from the Board to vote ‘Yes.’ Approved: 53.38% -46.62%
“I urge members to carefully review both the pros and cons in the referendum materials, and exercise their right to vote,” said Screen Actors Guild National President Alan Rosenberg.
Interim National Executive Director David White said: “We are pleased that Screen Actors Guild members will soon be voting on a deal for television and motion pictures. We’re eager to get our members back to work and to focus now on the challenges ahead, particularly on initiating a comprehensive effort to thoughtfully plan for the future.
“Our negotiating committee, task force and professional staff have worked countless hours on this agreement over the last year. On behalf of the National Board, I thank them for their time, commitment and expertise.”
Chief Negotiator John McGuire stated: “This tentative agreement delivers increased contributions to the SAG pension plan, increased minimums, a significant gain in background actor numbers from 50 to 55 over the term of the contract, and it tracks the new media provisions achieved by other entertainment industry unions. The term of the agreement puts SAG in sync with the other unions, and does not include the extended term recently proposed by the AMPTP.”
Provisions of the proposed deal include: • A two-year term of agreement concluding June 30, 2011. • Effective annual increases comprised of 3.0% in wage increases and .5% in pension contributions upon ratification, and a 3.5% wage increase one year following ratification. • A new media structure that tracks those achieved by other industry unions, resulting in gains for actors including: o Jurisdiction on all derivative, made-for new media productions; automatic jurisdiction on all high-budget, original, made-for new media productions; plus jurisdiction on low budget original, new media productions that employee at least 1 covered performer. o Residuals for exhibition of TV and Theatrical motion pictures on consumer pay platforms (Electronic Sell Through) at a greater percentage than those paid for DVD distribution. o Residuals for ad-supported streaming of feature films and television programs. o Residuals for derivative new media programs. • Additional 5 covered background actors in feature films. From 50 to 53 covered background positions upon ratification of the contract, and from 53 to 55 covered background positions in year 2. Adds 1 covered background position in TV, from 19 to 20, upon ratification. • Increased compensation for guest star premium from 7.5% to 10%. • Increased trailer money break from $2,500 to $3,000, or more per week. • Increased overtime money break for three-day performers from $2,700 to $3,000.
Ratification ballots will be mailed to eligible SAG members in early May, with an expected return date at the end of the month. Tabulation will occur immediately upon the conclusion of balloting.
Bargaining for a successor agreement to the 2005 SAG TV/Theatrical Contract began on April 15, 2008.
wow!
http://www.nyfa.com/film_school/programs/screenwriting/
In the it-would-be-hilarious-if-it-weren’t-so-tragic department, Alan Rosenberg has publicly announced his intention to campaign vigourously against ratification of the Film/TV agreements.
There is a time to fight, and there is a time to move on.
It is unbelievable that Rosenberg and Membership First would be so cynical, and so insensitive to the best interests of SAG as a whole. How much more damage do they plan to inflict on SAG?
VG
I like that they are going to allow a “Con” statement to be included as well in voting materials. Not because I think it will make a difference. . . I think it won’t. But it is “test of strength” time, and let’s find out to the satisfaction of everyone this side of Monty Python “just a flesh wound!” guy.
I don’t know what SAG provisions are for such things, but frankly if Alan loses this thing convincingly he should just go. If he can’t bring himself to be president of the entire Guild, then at least go into honest opposition as leader of MF instead.
I think it is fine to have a “con” statement go out. My understanding of SAG policy is that a “con” statement is automatically triggered if 25% or more of the board votes against the contract.
But there’s more to it. Under Doug Allen and the Membership First majority, SAG communications were completely censored and muzzled to try to stamp out any trace of dissent or any shadow of doubt about the course that Rosenberg and Allen were following. Of course, the SAG membership is not totally stupid, and it realized what was happening (causing SAG’s own credibility to vanish in the process). It is symbolic of the new regime that contrary views are NOT being suppressed. Discussion is healthy.
What I find distressing about Rosenberg, however, is that his whole approach is a ticket to oblivion. His and Allen’s tactics have already cost SAG virtually all television pilots, not to mention some $70 million in earnings (and associated P&H contributions). Until last week it also looked like they had cost SAG its strategically valuable 2011 expiration date. This contract vote is the one and only change to reclaim that expiration date, because if this proposed contract is voted down, it can be said with certainty that no future contract will carry a 2011 expiration date.
There is no reason under the sun for the AMPTP to come back and agree to a “better” deal if this one is voted down. Thus, the most likely outcome if Rosenberg is successful in persuading SAG members to vote “no” on this contract is continued stalemate that would last at least until the end of this year, and possibly all the way to 2011. SAG members would still be receiving 2007 rates for what work there still was. AFTRA would continue to siphon away TV work. SAG would be working without a union security clause, and without the ability to take grievances to arbitration. And theatrical film production would still suffer because of the uncertainty caused by the lack of a contract.
A union president motivated by true concern for the membership, rather than selfishness and ego, would recognize that the time had come to declare that his position was no longer tenable. He would come out in support of ratifying this contract, even if he expressed disappointment in it. He wouldn’t try to perpetuate the misery that SAG is already suffering and will continue to suffer even after this contract is ratified.
Otherwise, what is the scenario that Rosenberg and the other hardliners actually envision? A successful strike authorization vote (requires 75% in favor to pass)? Delusional. Or do they figure that they’ll defeat this contract, regain a majority in this summer’s elections, have another round of firings (as they did in 2005) and bring back Doug Allen?
It’s hard to take people like this seriously. They are absolutely delusional. Deranged. Unhinged. A WGA writer who turned in a script with these events would be laughed right off the studio lot. “No one would ever believe this shit,” the production executives would say.
But it’s not a script, and it’s not fiction. People are out there actually doing this. That’s why I consider it tragic.
VG
Well, that’s why it is time to find out if SAG membership is absolutely determined to pull a Thelma & Louise.
I used to respect Rosenberg as a true believer, as I respect most passion volunteered on behalf of a community, but he lost me for good recently with that youtube video song. I love poli-sci theory. I’m even a long-time Mark Russell fan. . .but a president of. . .well, anything, just can’t do what he did there. From a back-bencher or unelected MF supporter that would have brought a poli-sci “yay small ‘d’ democracy!” grin from me without implying support or non-support of the position it was espousing. From an elected president of a divided guild it was appalling.
I’m happy to have been wrong about the AMPTP’s holding to the three-year term. What surprised me about proposed term is, it includes a commitment for SAG to begin negotiations of the successor contracts no later than October 1, 2010. That was a smart compromise by both sides.
-Ted
14 -
Ted, that also means that potentially SAG (with AFTRA, assuming joint negotiations are successfully instituted again) will assume the role of the trendsetter for the other guilds in the 2011 round of negotiations.
Interestingly, the October 1 negotiation start date is only moments after the 2010 SAG elections, which could give rise to some interesting issues should political winds shift again at that time.
Meanwhile, Ted, on a totally different topic: The SAG tentative agreement has a payment formula for Electronic Sell-Through (EST) on product released after the ratification date. I can’t figure out what contractual basis, if any, exists for payment on EST of older product. I seem to remember reading a post from you stating that studios were using the DVD formula for this, but my impression is that there was no explicit contractual basis for this, just a belief that something was owed and that formula was conveniently available Thoughts?
Also, what is the significance of the extensive provisions on “reuse of photography and sound track” on the other payment provisions? I don’t see anything limiting the “reuse of photography and sound track” terms to only excerpts — couldn’t someone contend that they apply to full-length films and television episodes?
VG
VG –
While SAG’s 2005 contracts did not set a rate for payments for EST-type use, it did establish that the Companies would make payments for that use, and the framework of the sideletter (the first paragraph) established that all internet exhibition terms applied to movies produced since 1971 and tv shows produced since 1952.
When some of the studios began offering movies and tv shows in the EST model through iTunes, the studios informed SAG (and the DGA and the WGA) that they would be making payments at the DVD rate.
SAG filed claims, charging the studios with underpayment, based on SAG’s position that the appropriate rate for “EST”-type use is the pay-per-view/PayTV rate — the same rate that applies to “rental”-type use.
Those claims were parked, but are awaiting arbitration.
I noticed that SAG’s proposed “Sideletter on New Media Reuse” still includes the framework/first paragraph that says it applies to movies produced since 1971 and tv shows produced since 1952. I think that means that, while SAG has (tentatively) agreed to a rate for payments on EST use of movies produced since 1971 and tv shows produced since 1952 that are released after the date of ratification, the studios are still required to make payments for EST use on all other such movies and tv shows, at a rate yet to be determined.
In other words, (I think) this preserves SAG’s position that the 2005 contracts require payments for EST-type use at a rate other than, and higher than, the DVD rate imposed by the studios. So SAG can still move forward to arbitration of its iTunes claims.
(this is also what the DGA did, but in a different way. Unfortunately, the WGA eliminated the global applicability framework from our contract, and so gave up claim to payments for EST use of any movies and tv shows except those released after the date our contract went into effect).
But, again: I think that’s what it means. But you should definitely verify with SAG lawyers.
I think the fact that there are terms that explicitly cover the use of photography & sound track in their entirety (ie, full length motion picture) means that, per force, these terms are not intended nor can be applied instead. But looking at the terms themselves it appears as though paragraph 3.A establishes that the use cannot exceed either five minutes (tv pictures under 90 minutes) or ten minutes (tv pictures over 90 minutes, theatrical pictures, direct-to-video pictures); paragraph 3.B establishes when uses consistent with 3.A are not subject to pay; and 3.C establishes that in all other instances, producers must get consent from the performer for the use. But, again, operative phrase: I think. Definitely verify.
-Ted
That’s the best reading I could give — there is explicit language as to the EST payments for product released after the date of ratification, and seemingly a general acknowledgment that something is owed on product released earlier, but the sideletter is silent on what the appropriate rate of payment would be on the earlier product.
VG
Craig:
Any thoughts on the merger? Will there be a post? How are you affected?
Share!
Strike… SAG… Writer’s Guild… Union talks…
Is that all The Artful Writer is about anymore?
Toss out a topic. I’m happy to discuss anything.
Hey Craig (#20) — here’s one:
Whither scripted television?
I’ve been thinking about writing a Sagwatch post on this, but obviously it would be more from the actors’ point of view.
Trends I see:
On networks, reality not just proliferating, but expanding into longer forms. Variety recently ran a piece noting that reality producers are liking more and more the extension of one-hour shows into two-hour shows, because apparently the audience not only stays with the show, but actually grows during each half hour the show is on.
Experimentation with variety/talk during prime time. The upcoming 5-day strip of Leno at 10:00 PM is exhibit “A” here. And of course the news/documentary/exposé shows are still out there.
The evident flight of scripted drama to basic cable. How does this affect writers’ incomes?
General belt-tightening for those shows that survive in the network realm.
You probably have other and smarter things to say on the subject, but I think it may be worth dusting off your crystal ball to ponder where these trends may lead.
VG
I’ve always wanted to read something good on colloboration (voluntary and not) and/or being brought in to do a rewrite on somebody else’s work. What really happens when two (or more) creative and opinionated (if that isn’t Dept of Redundancy Dept) minds get together and create. Compromises. Not compromising. Sparks over here staring a fire over there. Recognizing incompatibility and if there is anything you can do about it. All that stuff. It happens more in Hollywood in all its flavors than anywhere else in the writing world.
Both from a creative aspect and a business aspect, and surviving it with your psyche intact when maybe it is forced upon you.
I noted in Joss Whedon’s interview for. . uhh, crap, I already forgot the name of the writer interview DVD series, but it was good. . .that he said that Toy Story was a joy of a colloboration, but that he has given up on doing rewrite gigs (presumably unless he is in a hard spot financially) because it is very, very unrewarding for various reasons.
Hey, you asked!
“The Write Environment”. . .that’s the DVD interview series. /plug
Craig, when I come home from this goddamn space war, all I want is to fall into your arms…even if it’s only five minutes.
Space war is hell, Craig, and this battledolphin has grown weary.
Pray for me. Pray we will have a chance to hold and smell each other again.
Bd0
I just realized something… How does a dolphin smell anything? It doesn’t have nostrils.
We have nostrils. We have a nose inside our mouths. It looks exactly like a human nose except it’s mounted to the back of our throat. So we smell by opening our mouths.
The dolphin is a peculiar fish.
“Toss out a topic. I’m happy to discuss anything.”
Hey Craig: How about an update on the Fox deal that you and a bunch of other A-listers signed back in, what was it, 2007? Have any of the writers launched production on one of their specs? What was the effect of the strike, and now the recession?
Thanks.
battledolphinzero – I think I saw that movie. Only it wasn’t a nose and it wasn’t a dolphin: it was Linda Lovelace.