Jerry Kernion posted this on the Big Cheap Theatre list serve. I have some thoughts I’m working up on Unions but thought I’d post his entry in its entirety and see if it sparked any debate. I’m in SAG and AEA and I have friends on both sides of the fence with this particular issue…
More later. Here’s Jerry:
Hello,
I attended the SAG meeting last night and feel a little compelled to not only report on what I saw, but also to make one last plea for everyone to consider a NO vote.
The meeting was held in a Renaissance Hotel ballroom and was very full. I would say that the majority of people there were decidedly voting NO. My guess is that the members who are voting yes didn’t deem it necessary to be there and hear both sides represented. I hope that everyone reads about both sides, no matter which way they assume they should vote. The presentation of the contract by David White drew a lot of “boos” and other jeers. The questions that were asked were mostly directed to David White and John Maguire. Neither seemed to be really comfortable with the contract that they had negotiated.
In fact, it was brought up many times that David White himself, our Interim National Director, said this contract sucks. They had no answer when asked, “What are we getting in return for throwing our senior members under the bus by not allowing them residuals for pre ‘74 and pre ‘71 work under this “New Media” category?” NO ANSWER!
We are gaining NOTHING and assuring that they, along with the rest of us who rely on residuals as a major part of our income, will most definitely not have health coverage in the near future and may need to fear for our pension as well. One of the most discussed issues, as it should be, was the fact that this contract allows for NON-UNION work to be done by the studios. This is what the studios have wanted all along, and this is their loophole to get to it in the future. The new contract would allow for work produced for New Media to be Non-Union as long as it falls under some pretty high
budgetary ceilings (please check the contract for the exact numbers).
As Alan Rosenberg pointed out, all of the networks are changing their names to include “.com” at the end. Check it out on your television now. ABC has become abc.com, NBC is now nbc.com, etc. It’s right there at the bottom of your screen.
Why does this matter? Two reasons. The first is that this will allow them to produce “New Media” under the budget parameters and use only NON-UNION talent so as to never have to pay fair wages, residuals or pension and health or even to have to follow SAG rules at all.
The second is that when our television becomes our computer as well, and it will within the next three years or so, all shows (old and new) will fall under “New Media” and thus, will not be subject to any more residuals than the paltry $24 per 6 months usage as called for in this contract.
This is a HUGE LOOPHOLE and, if ratified, will be the beginning of the end of our union, OR any performers union.There are many other egregious parts of this contract and they all amount to ROLLBACKS. Don’t be fooled by the 3% raises offered in the next two years or the .5% increase in pension and health contributions.
These will all be far outweighed by the $400 million that we will lose strictly in residuals for allowing streaming of our work for FREE for the first 17 days and then $24/6 mos thereafter.As I’ve said before, there were mistakes made by our board at the beginning of these negotiations a year ago. Perhaps if they had done things differently then, we wouldn’t be having to accept this contract now.
But we are where we are, and we need to address the situation/contract at hand. Don’t make your decision based on how you feel about who is running your union, but on how you feel about belonging to a union. This union has a long history of standing for the actor. Now we have to make a stand to protect the union.
I have attached a copy of the reasons to VOTE NO that I received from Tom Bower. It is a very detailed and rational list of the reasons why this contract is horrible. Please read all of the info closely and pass on to as many people as you can. Feel free to contact me if you can’t get the attachment and I can send it off to you directly. Don’t let them turn your career into a hobby.
Thanks for reading,
Jerry Kernion
When 99 seat LA theaters start contracting with USA and IATSE 33 for designers and stagehands respectively I’ll care. Or, when every other person listed in the credits of your show/movie gets equal residuals, I’ll give a hoot. Honestly, how many actors are out there are concerned with the wage guarantees of any other union that might work in this town? Alright, probably a lot say yes, but How many actors out there are part of “professional” theater companies that pay scale for designers and don’t expect them to be the primary technicians on their show let alone attempt to hire union stagehands (if any are hired at a fair wage). Yeah, a lot less if not none.
Beyond wage guarantees and healthcare what is the place of a labor union in contemporary labor markets? And if we ever get universal healthcare, or at least a system not tied to employment, the only thing that unions will be collectively bargaining for is money.
So that episode of Law & Order:Crime-Scene-giving-actors-something-to-do-Unit doesn’t send you you’re check that costs more to mail than cut in 20 years, if that’s what you’re so concerned about maybe you need a job. I don’t act and ANYTHING I do for Film or Theater (which amounts to most everything else aside from acting that is done in these lines at some point) is a job that I get paid for and THATS IT. You know what I do for more money after that? ANOTHER JOB. I don’t whine about paying me for a job that’s over and that I was paid for already because someone saw it again.
And what makes acting so much more deserving of residuals than the other creative professions on a SAG flick that don’t get and don’t expect residuals? Just because you’re on camera you think that everytime somebody clicks play on Hulu you deserve a check but not the gaffer?
We’re living in an increasingly free/gift economy and most actors i know of are already doing things for free to get work and sticking a lot of it on YouTube just to be seen on the hopes of getting a paying gig. The big difference to me with “new media” is that actors get paid for acting in front of a camera, it’s put on TV AND their stuff is ending up online (in affect accomplishing the same thing their doing on their own), isn’t that a bonus? how did extra free additional exposure become an evil burden?
I challenge every actor out there to produce an LA production paying union scale wages for their designers and hiring a full crew (union or not even) to support then, take everything you’ve done for free for exposure off of YouTube, pay the other actors in your reel every time it’s viewed and stop observing the 99 plan which is the height of hypocrisy on this issue in the name of getting work.
Then we can talk about getting on board with this residuals contract. Until then, stop whining and get a job.
How do you REALLY feel about it, Ian? You raise a great point about the 99 Seat Theatre plan, something that’s been hashed out at many levels – does it actually allow for more work or does it simply degrade the occupations of the various artists, actors, writers, directors, designers. I tend to lean toward the latter.
It’s why I’ve always pushed for some way to separate the wheat from the chaff. The old Off-Hollywood plan, as I like to call it. Get the Studios to kick in for their favorite companies and turn those companies into real professional houses and let the rest wallow in Equity Waver 99 seat hell.