SAG Should be Praised, Not Assailed

This article was originally posted at CounterPunch.org

The Perils of a Faithless Membership
SAG Should be Praised, Not Assailed

By DAVID MACARAY

On Friday, April 17, after nearly a year of negotiating, a humbled and restructured Screen Actors Guild (SAG) reached tentative agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) on a two-year contract. The following Sunday the 71-member board voted to recommend the agreement to the membership.

This contract is said to be no better than the one that’s been sitting on the table since last summer and virtually identical to the one accepted by Hollywood’s writers, directors and competing actors’ union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA).

Because the original team (headed by SAG president Alan Rosenberg and chief negotiator Doug Allen) couldn’t get the deal it wanted, Hollywood is now piling on, accusing the previous leadership of having under-estimated the Alliance, misread its membership, and failed to anticipate the recession. Indeed, people are now saying the negotiations were an exorbitant waste of time and money.

Those people are wrong.

First, to criticize SAG for not accepting essentially the same contract that was accepted by the writers, directors and AFTRA is to miss the point. Yes, the WGA (Writers Guild of America) signed the contract, but they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table. Don’t forget: They took a 100-day strike to avoid signing it.

Why did they strike? Because the AMPTP’s offer didn’t adequately address critical issues, including New Media jurisdiction—an area which happens to be (along with residuals) one of SAG’s key agenda items. And Rosenberg’s committee believed the Alliance’s “last, best and final offer” was still inadequate. Second-guess them all you like, but don’t say they were wrong for wanting to secure the membership’s future.

Second, a quick look at the dynamics of contract negotiations tells us that there are two (and only two) considerations that matter: fairness and attainability. Obviously, what is deemed “fair” is subjective and is going to depend, by and large, on where you’re sitting. What’s fair to the union may not seem fair to management. That’s why you bargain.

As for “attainability,” that can never be known in advance, because a union never knows what can be gotten until it sits down at the table and tries to get it. Bargaining is not about sharing new ideas or reaching a consensus; it’s about trying to get very powerful and selfish people to part with their money.

Also, it’s important to remember that if organized labor had routinely accepted management’s “last, best and final offer”—if they took as gospel management’s assurance that such-and-such was simply unobtainable—we’d still be working 12-hour days with no health insurance or overtime premiums.

Third, management will use any excuse to avoid sweetening the pot. When there’s a recession, they’ll use the recession; when there’s a hurricane, they’ll use the hurricane; and when the economy is healthy and everyone is prospering, they’ll give you ten reasons why that prosperity is irrelevant to your negotiations.

And finally, the union knows what to expect. It knows that taking a hard line can be tricky, especially if management chooses to take an equally hard line. On one side, you have management, fully mobilized and dug in; on the other, you have your usual mix of union people: loyal members ready to battle, puzzled members wondering what’s going on, and nervous members ready to abandon ship at the first sign of trouble. It’s Negotiations 101.

Similarly, union bargainers will be regarded as either weak and gutless, or belligerent and stubborn. Unfortunately, there’s very little middle-ground. If a negotiating team puts the membership in jeopardy by asking for a strike vote, they’re militants; if they bring back a lousy contract and recommend ratification, they’re wimps.

So let’s get it right, people. Labor relations is a contact sport. Unless you take the view that your union should never fight, or that it should fight only when it’s assured of winning, you’re always going to risk having your butt handed to you in a sling. But if you’re not willing to fight for a decent contract, you don’t deserve one.

And not to rehash the past, but if SAG’s membership had remained faithful—if some of its big-name stars had not seen themselves as deputy ambassadors, and set off on their own bizarre, diplomatic mission—this bargain might have turned out differently.

Actually, it’s not over yet. SAG’s membership could still reject the offer, which would put the AMPTP in a bad spot. The Alliance can posture all it likes, but a membership rejection, particularly after a board recommendation, would be a body-blow.

David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright and writer, was former president and chief negotiator of the AWPPW, Local 672. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net

SAG Watches It All Slip Away

This was originally posted at CounterPunch.org

Capitulation in Hollywood:
SAG Watches It All Slip Away

By DAVID MACARAY

While American labor unions are having their usual rough time of it (not to mention the additional burden of having weathered eight brutal years of Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor), the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is facing not only potential defeat in the form of getting jammed with an inferior contract, but stands to be dealt a bitter humiliation. And the entity applying that humiliation isn’t its long-time adversary, the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers). It’s SAG’s own membership.

Typically (and understandably), a union membership wants it all. That’s the standard dynamic. The members want a first-rate union contract, with all the goodies; but, because of the dangers involved, they want it to come all neatly wrapped up, without any risks. There’s a baseball analogy. The manager goes out to the mound and glibly instructs the pitcher on how to pitch to a dangerous batter: “Don’t walk him, but don’t give him anything to hit.”

What SAG’s rank-and-file wants from its leadership is much the same thing. Bring us back a good contract, a substantial contract, an improved contract, but don’t ask us to join you in a battle or otherwise sacrifice anything important to get it. Above all, don’t ask us to get tough.

Granted, this isn’t true of everyone. There are many defiant SAG members willing to stand up to the AMPTP and fight for what they feel they deserve. But there are many (too many) more who’ve lowered their expectations. Because they are so spooked by the prospect of a strike, they’ve abandoned any hope of a decent contract and now simply want to come out of this thing with signatures on a 3-year agreement—any agreement.

To avoid the trauma of a possible strike, they’re willing to settle for crap. Despite SAG president Allen Rosenberg’s pleas to stay united and focused, in order to help the union’s negotiating team obtain a fair share of revenue created by digital technology (SAG feels it got cheated on revenue from previous technological innovations, such as VHS and DVDs), the membership has chosen open rebellion.

There are simply too many things out there that scare them, too many things that prevent them from falling in line behind their union. The Alliance scares them; the recession scares them; the recent WGA (Writers Guild of America) strike scares them; Bernie Madoff scares them; and, most of all, the union’s strident militancy scares them.

Unfortunately, because SAG has been unable to keep its internal bickering a private matter (when you take out a newspaper ad, you’ve pretty much tipped your hand), the AMPTP has been watching this whole, shameful burlesque from the sidelines, and is licking its chops in anticipation of profiting from it. In truth, as greedy and dissembling as the Alliance is, who can blame them for wanting to take advantage of so easy a mark?

A union in such a state of disarray—with the membership running a newspaper advertisement pleading with its own executive board to “lighten up,” and its own board members trying to get their chief negotiator fired because he’s “too mean,”—deserves every bad thing that happens to it. (That sound you hear in the background is Jimmy Hoffa spinning in his grave.)

On Tuesday, January 13, a group of self-proclaimed “moderates” on SAG’s executive board tried, unsuccessfully, to pass a resolution to get executive director/chief negotiator Doug Allen removed from his job. It was only by means of some slick parliamentary maneuvering (i.e., stalling) that Rosenberg and his cohorts were able to deflect the motion. But it was a horrendous blow to the union, even with Allen managing to hang on to his job.

Based on what’s been widely reported, Doug Allen, SAG’s point man, seems to be one tough bird. A former official of the NFL’s Players Association (as well as a former linebacker for the Buffalo Bills), Allen probably falls into that category of negotiator labeled “difficult.” He fights hard, he fights to win, he isn’t easily intimidated. In other words, exactly the sort of negotiator management dreads and a union needs.

If SAG’s 120,000 members really wanted to come out of this thing with a good contract they would have done the opposite of what they’re doing now. Instead of wetting their pants, they would have come out publicly and defiantly in support of Rosenberg and Allen’s leadership—no matter what their personal feelings—and put the fear of God into the AMPTP.

When you reach this point in a bargain it’s absolutely imperative that you show solidarity. When you reach this point, you need to demonstrate publicly your support of the leadership. You’re on stage now, and everyone is watching. What management fears more than anything—more than rhetoric, more than threats of lawsuits—is evidence that the members overwhelmingly support their leaders. Union solidarity is a scary thing.

Taking out a splashy newspaper ad that’s critical of your own leadership—an ad for all the world to see (particularly the opportunistic Alliance)—is tantamount to economic treason. Even given Hollywood’s storied reputation for bombastic egos and towering self-aggrandizement, what could have motivated someone to pull a bone-headed stunt like that?

If you’re a longshoreman, steelworker or paperworker, and you take out a newspaper ad like that, you’re likely to be picking up your teeth off the floor or finding your car on fire. In “real” unions, you do you’re bitching at the union hall, not in the media. You want to be an “independent,” fine, go it alone. But if you’re a union member, you stay united.

Of course, the fact that A-list actors like Tom Hanks, George Clooney and Alec Baldwin support the rebellion and were the ones who instigated the ad means that no one’s going to make their lives miserable. They’re too big; in fact, they’re bigger than the union. And, frankly, this kind of foppish behavior is precisely why many hardcore labor people view SAG as a “boutique” union.

All that Rosenberg and Allen are asking for is strike authorization. They need something to prove to the AMPTP that they still believe their contract demands are reasonable and that the membership is serious about getting them. No one is promising to shut down Hollywood. A strike vote isn’t the same thing as a strike. Strike authorization is simply a way (arguably, the only way) of raising the sperm count.

But with all that’s already happened, it might be too late for Rosenberg and company to regroup and put together a decent offensive. Unless things change quickly and radically, it will be close to impossible for SAG’s e-board to get strike authorization, assuming they’re still considering taking a vote. A 75% mandate is required, and getting it will be a tall order.

SAG membership had a chance to assist their negotiating team; they had a chance to help move the AMPTP off the dime. By publicly and enthusiastically supporting SAG’s e-board, they could have altered the course of the bargain. Instead, they capitulated. That decision is likely to haunt them for years to come.

David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright (“Larva Boy,” “Borneo Bob”) and writer, was a former labor union rep. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net

SAG's Terrible Dilemma

Originally posted at Counterpunch.org

To Strike or Not to Strike

By DAVID MACARAY

The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is still without a contract, which, even in the best of times and for the most opportunistic of unions, is a tricky and precarious situation. But according to what’s being reported in mainstream and trade media, SAG—led by its fiery, beleaguered president, Alan Rosenberg—is close to slipping into your classic “no-win” status.

Not to get sucked into Hollywood-style melodrama here, but given what’s happened so far, and what looms ominously on the horizon, it can be argued that SAG is in the worst position a union can find itself. With bad externals and equally bad internals, things look pretty damned bleak.

Consider the formidable array of obstacles lined up against it.

First, there’s the economy. The condition of the national economy has been described, variously, as “bad,” as “very bad,” even as “scary bad.” In any case, things are as disturbing as they’ve been since the Great Depression, with the prospect of getting worse before they get better. Not exactly the ideal climate for hunkering down to a tough negotiation.

Second, SAG membership, led by a splinter group of big-name actors, including Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Alex Baldwin and Cameron Diaz, have publicly opposed SAG’s executive board’s decision to seek a strike vote, arguing that this is no time for saber-rattling and putting people in jeopardy of losing their jobs. Succumbing to pressure, SAG leadership announced on December 23 that the proposed strike vote, originally set to begin on January 2, would be moved back to January 14, “at the earliest.”

On the flip side you have a group of other “name” actors, including Mel Gibson, Holly Hunter, Martin Sheen and Sandra Oh. This group is less sanguine. They believe that the issues facing SAG are simply too vital and timely to abandon without a fight, no matter how shaky the economy or how nervous the membership. With Tom and Mel squared off like this, the theater marquee would read: “Forrest Gump vs. Braveheart.”

Third, there’s the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers), SAG’s adversary at the bargaining table. Predictably, the Alliance is playing this up for all its worth, poor-mouthing its financial position and pretending that it’s already gone the extra mile to get a deal when, in fact, it’s barely moved an inch and has no intention of budging another millimeter. When Hollywood producers can get cast as the meek, sympathetic victims, baby, you know you’re behind a million-pound eight-ball.

Fourth, the New York branch of the 120,000-member SAG union is, reportedly, engaged in a nasty, internecine battle with Rosenberg and company, taking management’s view that SAG-West is being reckless and irrational. It’s bad enough having management on your back; just imagine what it must feel like when it’s your own union brethren doing the clawing.

Fifth, there’s been a considerable amount of negative public opinion. Talk radio, letters to the editor, op-ed commentaries, industry blogs—most of it has been critical of SAG, accusing it of the traditional, garden-variety union stuff, plus railing against its leaders for not being man enough to simply admit when they’re whipped.

And sixth, there’s the pressure being exerted by “negotiation momentum.” With the DGA (Directors Guild of America), AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) and the WGA (Writers Guild of America) having already signed similar contracts, SAG comes off as militant, greedy, selfish, and isolated (“Hey, why can’t you guys be team players?”). It’s a grim picture.

But here’s the irony: Despite a sick economy, negative public perception, and a potential membership rebellion, the guys running the show at SAG—the same guys who are being portrayed in the media as “cowboys” and “ego-maniacs”—are absolutely, dead-on correct in their assessment of the playing field and in what they’re seeking.

The critical issues in this bargain involve the broad question of residuals for New Media ventures, technological areas which are still largely untapped and unpredictable, but potentially wildly lucrative. The Alliance desperately wants to keep these goodies locked up for themselves, resisting any attempts to further divvy up with the hired help. It’s not complicated and it’s not surprising. It’s Business 101.

Forget it’s Hollywood for a moment. Treat this SAG vs. AMPTP deal like any other union vs. management negotiation. It’s been a time-honored management practice to use a weak economy as their main argument for not sweetening the pot, even when they’re not being hurt by it. (Note: Worldwide movie revenues continue to climb.)

Of course, anyone who’s ever sat at a bargaining table knows there are two problems with this macro-economic scenario. One is that management never, ever allows the union to take the converse approach—to ask for a decent raise on the grounds that the economy is chugging along on all eight cylinders.

Indeed, when the union tries to help itself by pointing out that the country is wallowing in one of the greatest economic boons in history, it’s told that the condition of the national economy is irrelevant, that they’re not there to talk the Big Picture, that they’re there to talk specific industry-related or company-related matters. It’s a one-way street.

The other problem is that a union can never dig itself out of a hole once they’re in it. When you capitulate because the overall economy is weak (even when the company or industry in question is strong), you will struggle forever to make that up, even when things turn prosperous. In truth, you never catch up; you stay behind forever.

Which is exactly what AMPTP wants. They want a 3-year contract that will give them an insurmountable headstart in New Media. The producers regard this innovative technology as a potential bonanza, viewing New Media the way John D. Rockefeller viewed a new oil field. Why share it, when you can keep it all for yourself—especially if you can use a convenient recession as your weapon?

This brings us, finally, to the little matter of the strike vote itself. And that can be summed up in one sentence: If you ask for strike authorization, you damned well better get it. Period.

To that end, SAG has set itself a formidable task. Unlike many unions, which require only a simple majority, SAG by-laws require a 75% mandate to authorize a strike. Given SAG’s public dissension, even the most optimistic handicappers believe that getting three-quarters of the membership to vote Yes will be a long-shot.

Make no mistake: Nothing kills bargaining leverage quicker than having a strike vote fail. That’s why union leaders usually won’t risk a strike vote if they think it will fail. Not asking your members for strike authorization always leaves the lingering doubt that you may have gotten it, even when—like now, with SAG—it looks dubious. Without proof, neither side can know for certain.

But a membership voting down strike authorization not only erases all doubt, it tells management two things: The members have no stomach for a fight and no confidence in their own executive board. In which case, the union may as well take a shovel and bury any hopes it had of getting a decent contract.

David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright (“Borneo Bob,” “Larva Boy”) and writer, was a former labor union rep. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net