SAG-AFTRA Joint Bargaining: AFTRA Hesitates, Slightly; and More

An AFTRA committee, expected to recommend joint bargaining with SAG, instead referred the matter to a subcommittee, the Hollywood Reporter and The Wrap reported. Curious about details, I contacted a source close to AFTRA. (SAG and AFTRA declined to comment.)

The committee that met yesterday is, in fact, AFTRA’s Strategy Cabinet, a key, 25-member committee that advises the AFTRA National Board on important matters. The Cabinet is chaired by AFTRA president Roberta Reardon and includes AFTRA officers and others.

As the Strategy Cabinet’s action indicates, there wasn’t 100% agreement in the room regarding joint bargaining. However, reports my source, there is nonetheless a sense of inevitability that there will, in fact, be joint bargaining. AFTRA wants to develop a framework that it would be comfortable with.

Fortunately, my source indicate that this framework would probably entail only the three well-understood concepts that I discussed in a recent post: (a) 50-50 representation on the negotiating committee (and equal voting strength for all members of the committee), (b) a non-disparagement agreement, and (c) working out the negotiating schedule to accommodate both the joint bargaining (SAG’s bargaining is scheduled for October 1 – November 15) and AFTRA’s always solo “front of the book” bargaining (that portion of their Network Code agreement expires November 15).

As a caveat, the subcommittee to which the Strategy Cabinet referred the matter has not been appointed yet (this is expected in the next few days, and Reardon is expected to be chair), so it may have other thoughts. In any case, these developments make it all the more important for SAG to make decisive moves at its National Board meeting this Sunday towards joint bargaining.

Two other interesting notes from the Strategy Cabinet meeting. One is that AFTRA is continuing with an organizing training program in all Locals whose purpose, I’m told, is to build strength at the bargaining table in AFTRA’s existing areas or jurisdiction, including by increasing AFTRA’s share of work in a variety of areas. Those existing areas include some where AFTRA’s jurisdiction overlaps with SAG’s – scripted basic cable; new media; and video games – as well as other areas that are AFTRA’s alone.

In addition, the Cabinet created a national Actors’ Equity Cooperation Committee to explore with Actors’ Equity areas of mutual interest and concern. This could be a very early step towards merger; who knows? In any case, cooperation, and perhaps a merger, make sense from three very different perspectives.

First, at the level of expensive stage productions, a number of these are mounted by studios (Disney) and/or based on movies. Cooperation or a merger would allow actors to present a united front during bargaining. Bluntly put, the more sources of media conglomerate revenue that actors can threaten, the more leverage they have.

Second, at the level of 99-seat productions (in Los Angeles, this is the 99 Seat Plan, commonly referred to as Equity waiver; in New York, the Showcase Code), cooperation or merger might result in allowing small producers to exhibit pay-per-view tapings on YouTube or other websites. This could provide producers – and actors – with a new source of revenue, but is currently forbidden by Equity. Instead, promotional tapings of portions of a show are allowed, but not taping or exhibition of an entire show, to preserve the uniqueness of a live experience. Discussion between AFTRA and Equity might ultimately persuade Equity to become more comfortable with new media, and new revenue sources sought by entrepreneurial producers. The other benefit to actors is, of course, more exposure for their work, which is in fact the purpose of the 99-seat arrangements.

Finally, of course, merger would eliminate duplicative dues payments and presumably make it easier to qualify for health insurance and pension for actors who work in both television and live stage. The Equity pension plan, like AFTRA’s, is a defined benefit plan; interestingly, Equity also has a 401(k) plan. (Equity declined to comment for this story.)

Looks like AFTRA may be slowly bringing actors towards the day when all three performers unions merge, though there are certainly many steps between now and then, if indeed it ever happens. Interesting times.

———————

Subscribe to my blog (jhandel.com) for more about entertainment law and digital media law. 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 book How to Write LOIs and Term Sheets.

Qualified Voting Redux

Remember "qualified voting"? Also called "affected voting," it's the idea that only some union members should be eligible to vote on a contract (or strike authorization): namely, those who are actually affected by it – i.e., those who work under the contract. The countervailing argument is that unions are supposed to be united, and thus any member should be able to vote on any contract.

Several months ago, anti-strike forces in SAG pushed for qualified voting, putting forward a proposal that would have disqualified many SAG members from voting because they hadn’t worked even a day in the previous 12 months as a SAG actor. That would have reduced the likelihood of a strike, because actors who aren’t working have little to fear from a work stoppage (they’re already not working). SAG leadership killed the proposal, describing the proposal as anti-democratic.

Ironically, while spurning qualified voting for their own union, SAG’s leadership urges it on AFTRA, complaining that news anchors, weathermen, and assorted other non-actors get to vote on the AFTRA primetime deal now out for ratification. That complaint seems a bit hypocritical to me. What’s good for the SAG goose should be good for the AFTRA gander.

For what it’s worth, the Writers Guild uses a hybrid system: news writers didn’t get to vote on the WGA deal, but all other members, even those whose only credits or writing income was in the distant past, did. That included not only writers of features and scripted TV, but also writers of game shows and late-night variety shows, which are rather different businesses than traditional scripted work.

To put a cherry on it all, we turn to recent news from a third actors union (they all should merge one day), Actors’ Equity, which reached a deal with Broadway theater owners on its own contract earlier this week. In passing, Variety discusses the ratification procedure that will now follow: the contract will be sent to the members, “with voting eligibility reserved for members who have worked under the production contract since 2000.” Sounds a lot like the qualified voting that SAG rejected. Is Equity inequitable, or just sensible? I’m almost sorry I raised the question.