Anyone looking to predict what negotiations are going to look like when the major collective agreements between actors, writers and crew open up for negotiations here in the U.S. over the next two years need only look north of the border. There the Canadian union representing 21,000 domestitc performers are in tough bargaining with producers including many U.S. based companies like Disney, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros.

Linked below is the union (ACTRA) website with an update. Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting on the possibility of a strike (Actors Strike Looms in Canada). Interestingly, the contract under negotiation covers most of Canada but not British Columbia where Vancouver is located. B.C. performers are in a separate union with lower wages. And the producers are threatening – as they do in the U.S. to move production to B.C. from the rest of Canada. In light of intense concern in the U.S. about runaway production it is interesting to see that the ‘race to the bottom’ affects much of Canadian film and T.V. too. American EMI workers may be able to learn a great deal by paying close attention to the Canadian negotiations. And, of couse, support and solidarity for their fellow performers could go a long way to helping build a critical bridge with Canadian labor that could help in upcoming bargaining in the U.S.

ACTRA – Negotiations Update

Anyone looking to predict what negotiations are going to look like when the major collective agreements between actors, writers and crew open up for negotiations here in the U.S. over the next two years need only look north of the border. There the Canadian union representing 21,000 domesitc performers are in tough bargaining with producers including many U.S. based companies like Disney, Sony, Universal and Warner Bros.

Linked below is the union (ACTRA) website with an update. Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting (Actors Strike Looms in Canada). Interestingly, the contract under negotiation covers all of Canada but not British Columbia where Vancouver is located. B.C. performers are in a separate union with lower wages. And the producers are threatening – as they do in the U.S. to move production to B.C. from the rest of Canada. In light of intense concern in the U.S. about runaway production it is interesting to see that the ‘race to the bottom’ affects much of Canadian film and T.V. too. American EMI workers may be able to learn a great deal by paying close attention to the Canadian negotiations. And, of couse, support and solidarity for their fellow performers could go a long way to helping build a critical bridge with Canadian labor that could help in upcoming bargaining in the U.S.

ACTRA – Negotiations Update

In light of intense interest among union activists in the EMI sector, I prepared the following post on the Change to Win union group that broke away from the AFL-CIO as well as on the new Industry Coordinating Committee that has been formed by the AFL-CIO in the arts, entertainment and media industry sector. It has also been posted in slightly different form on Actors Access, so I apologize for cross-postings! As always, comments and questions are welcome.

Background on the ICC and CtW

The core facts about the Change To Win (CtW) group are pretty well known. Assessing the real meaning or long-term impact of CtW is a bit harder. CtW is made up several major affiliates, with some 40% of the membership of the pre-split AFL-CIO, including SEIU, the Teamsters, the Hotel and Restaurant Employees, the Carpenters and the Food and Commercial Workers.

In their own way and for their own reasons each of these affiliates was increasingly dissatisfied with their relationship with the AFL-CIO. If I was forced to choose one reason among many for that dissatisfaction I would likely say that each of those affiliates has been able to grow their membership in various ways over the past few years, largely because they organize workers in sectors of the economy that are not hurt as much by globalization. So, while the Steel Workers and the Auto Workers have been devastated by technological change and free trade, the Hotel Employees have seen huge job and membership growth in places like Las Vegas, while the SEIU has seen job and membership growth in janitorial work in office parks and cities. The strategy of concentrating on lower paid immigrant labor in the “new” service economy seemed to make sense to those affiliates poised to take advantage of it. That is more easily done by the Teamsters, for example, which has always been willing to organize workers outside its core jurisdiction, than the Auto Workers.

That core idea leads to the ICC debate. If you take the view that you can organize large numbers of workers in these new sectors of the economy you are less interested in the craft and other jurisdictional divisions in the labor movement. So Andy Stern at SEIU developed the idea that many current AFL affiliates should be merged out of existence. At one point he proposes merging all affiliates down to just six big unions. Of course, that has, I believe, terrible implications for union democracy. But Stern has shown little hesitation at forcing through mergers within SEIU so that, for example, the LA janitors were merged into a statewide janitors local with janitors in the Bay Area – coincidentally after a union election in LA put a more militant largely Hispanic group of activists in power who threatened then SEIU president John Sweeney and Stern, who was Sweeney’s number two guy.

When in 2005 it became clear that the idea of a breakaway was real, the AFL stalwarts recognized that they needed to respond. The idea of the ICC came out of the Teachers Union and made its way to the Executive Council where it was passed in 2005. It moves some way towards what Stern wanted but did not go far enough and so Stern and Hoffa left anyway. But the ICC idea was put in place. It does not mandate the formation of ICC’s – that was what bothered Stern. It says that affiliates can form an ICC if they want. If they do there is supposed to be some discipline to the grouping as the “binding” language in the ICC principles that some commentators have highlighted indicates.

However, the ICC idea is on paper and what happens in reality may be very different. There is actually already one ICC for nurses and health care workers (at least those that are left after the departure of the SEIU). And now there is the AEMI ICC. The AEMI ICC idea came out of the Department for Professional Employees, which is a semi-autonomous department within the complex AFL-CIO structure that is heavily influenced by the Teachers Union. S.A.G. is part of the DPE.

Of course, on paper the idea of a bigger stronger union in the entertainment industry makes sense if you are facing bigger stronger global corporations as well as Wall Street and Silicon Valley. But the challenge is not sacrificing the democratic participation of the rank and file membership in the process since after all that is what gives unions their real power and legitimacy. In addition, it is one thing to lump all janitors into a “one big union” but acting, writing, etc., are “skills” of a completely different order. And then there are the rich traditions and culture in the Guilds that gives them such significance. That is why I have suggested elsewhere that the devil is in the details of the ICC. Coordinating with the other affiliates, such as CWA and IBEW, could be very helpful in making sure the ICC hub responds to the needs of the spokes, as it were.

On the one hand, this article in today’s LA Times puts the spotlight precisely where it belongs in today’s EMI labor environment – on the impact that digital distribution is having, first, on corporate revenue models and, second, on the effect these changing models may have on income earned by workers in the heavily unionized EMI sector.

But notice what is missing! While employer representative Nicholas Counter slyly suggests that he shares the “fear” (“I feel your pain”?) of EMI labor caused by the “brave new world,” nowhere does the article point out that the uncertainty caused by the new technology has not stopped big players like Microsoft and Google and Disney from carving up the pie. And when Microsoft sat down with the studios earlier this year to carve out a deal for content to be provided by studios for its online presence they certainly had revenue projections available and engaged in some tough negotiations about how much of the pie would stay on the studio side and how much would stay on the distribution side!

Notice what the Times does – in the face of uncertainty it predicts, almost dares, EMI labor unions into a STRIKE! But if EMI labor can advance a strong argument about the value it creates for the entire EMI sector it can boost its power at the bargaining table and secure significant impact on revnue sharing. This may mean bringing more than just the producers to the table – after all, the real power is in the distribution side of the business as the experience with DVD’s proved. That is the real challenge in the next two years for the unions in this critical sector of the economy.

calendarlive.com: THE NATION – Residuals Debate: Old Script on New Set

Today’s New York Times reports on a dispute among major players in the rapidly changing world of television. It appears that noone really knows how to measure the impact of changing technology on advertising revenues. This is particularly intriguiing in light of internal political developments in the major union representing actors in the EMI sector, the Screen Actors Guild. Recall from earlier posts here that Guild President Alan Rosenberg took a huge political hit from erstwhile allies in the Guild’s more radical Membership First faction for backing an extension of the Guild’s collective bargaining agreement with the advertising industry pending the outcome of a two year study of change in the revenue modesl of the industry. If those who try to track the industry like Nielsen cannot agree on how to model the changes, what is the value of waiting two years to carve up the pie?

A Question of Eyeballs – New York Times

My most recent letter to the FT this time endorsing their call for a moratorium on the use of stock options as a form of compensation. While this may seem an extreme move to some, in light of the recent backdating scandal as well as the growing gap between senior insider pay and that of average workers, the call is long overdue.

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Letters – Healthy reminder of risks of stock options

Marshall Herskovitz (of TV show “Thirty Something” fame) notes that independent producers no longer exist! Hmm, if true, and I think it is, then is a call for a return to that era like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped? Artists are now employees he argues and believes this is a detriment to society. Surprisingly not a lot of applause from the audience – perhaps because he is stating the obvious? Nonetheless, it needs to have been stated. He concludes by contending that independents could be profitable but if so, then what is driving consolidation? Does Wall Street have it so wrong?

2006 Review of the Media Ownership Rules

Alan Rosenberg of S.A.G. is on now to introduce Guild VP Anne Marie Johnson. Rosenberg has now stepped away to allow Anne Marie to speak for the Guild. Not exactly sure why the Guild is doing it this way but Rosenberg clearly wanted to make an appearance. Anne Marie is concentrating on diversity issues for the moment, recalling the importance of seeing an African-American doctor (as in the Cosby show) and linking that to the courage of an independent producer. And a hit on reality shows evokes some applause from the audience noting the value to the Guild of ensemble shows. She wants the FCC to require that 25% of network programming be provided by independents. Now she is getting down to bread and butter issues noting the salary compression that results from concentration of ownership. This is at the heart of the impact of ownership changes. Of course, big money and new technology drives this process and that makes the job of the unions all the more challenging. And now Anne Marie has stopped to loud applause.

2006 Review of the Media Ownership Rules

Taylor Hackford from the Directors’ Guild is on now. He says media ownership concentration imperils the work of his members. He argues there is no “diversity of source” for TV content today. He pointed to changes in the ownership structure that over the last decade have driven independent production companies out of existence. Instead of independent suppliers the companies are all controlled by the big nets. And he discounts the potential of the internet to “democratize” or divversify content production. This is a crucial point because here in the Valley there is a lot of myth making about the web’s “democratic” potential when the fact is that it is big money and big corporations that drive the development of most startups.

But can capital really flow to independent producers as he hopes? This is a titanic battle against the flood of Wall Street money into the big established players.

2006 Review of the Media Ownership Rules

Here is a link to the key court decision that pushed the FCC back when it attempted to expand the power of media companies. At the heart of the case is how many radio and TV stations any one entity can own. Given the huge infrastructure investments that are being made to shift to a digital world this is a critical issue to the industry. Wall Street will try to justify consolidation and mergers as required by this needed investment. But as the EMI unions and community groups argue what does that mean for diversity of content and creativity?

2006 Review of the Media Ownership Rules