It is not widely understood but the labor movement in America has always depended for its survival on support from a certain layer among employers. This idea might come as a shock to many on the so-called “left” for whom the “boss” is always, like in a Snidely Whiplash cartoon, the enemy. But in the real world of building a strong democratic labor movement, in a culture that prizes a dog eat dog version of capitalism, winning over some segment of the employers is critical to union survival and even success.

How does a union do that? By making an argument that unionization can help build a stronger and more resilient industry because of higher labor standards such as better working conditions and improved pay. There is a wider benefit to these improvements felt beyond the pocket book of individual union members. A strong labor movement means a strong economy and that helps employers, too.

In other words, a strong labor movement helps win the battle against the “race to the bottom” in labor standards.

Over many years, SAG has done a good job in this regard in many of its markets. One example, apparently, is to be found in Oregon as evidenced by this OpenLetterToDavidWhite from Tom McFadden of the Oregon Media Production Association to David White, the NED of SAG-AFTRA.

Mr. McFadden writes: “we feel that growing and maintaining the U.S. share of business means supporting and protecting labor standards while holding performers to the standards of professionalism that our industry requires in those locations where the business is protected.”

Such support from an association that represents employers as well as labor is relatively rare and raises an important question: what is the connection between the decision to shutter numerous SAG-AFTRA offices and the union’s strategy to improve the conditions for their members? Does the current SAG-AFTRA leadership understand how to engage employers in fighting a race to the bottom in working conditions?

No public explanation is available which is fine, of course, since it may be appropriate to keep that strategy under wraps. But the problem is that much of the dissent about the shutdowns is coming from well known union activists. That suggests there is no clear connection to a strategy.

Some union activists argue that the shutdown proposal should have been brought to the upcoming union convention for debate. That makes a lot of sense because it would have allowed the union to debate the idea openly. Unfortunately, it is not the approach taken by the current union leadership. Perhaps Snidely has gotten to them already.

Nashville based long time SAG activist Cece Dubois makes an important point in responding to a SAG-AFTRA decision to shut numerous local offices: this is a decision that should have been made at the upcoming union convention. But transparency and accountability are not, apparently, values critical to the recently merged unions. Other reports indicate that open opposition is now breaking out with merger supporters now claiming they would have opposed merger had they realized the impact on key locals like Portland.

As I have said several times here and in the debate about union mergers, it is easy to cut costs through a merger but it is harder to make the case that mergers will increase revenues, either for the union or for the members. There is no indication for example that the SAG-AFTRA NED David White, not a trade unionist by nature or background but a former studio lawyer, ever considered ways to use the existing offices to organize new members and to increase SAG-AFTRA leverage in the industry.

SAG activists around the country struggled for many years to spread SAG’s pro-union gospel to areas other than NY or LA especially as the entertainment and media industries spread business to new areas like New Mexico. During the 2000 commercials strike the branch offices were critical in gaining support from other parts of the labor movement, including support from the UAW in places like Nashville. (Nashville will retain one staff member after heavy lobbying.)

The labor movement itself will be that much poorer without the presence of SAG-AFTRA in these cities.

SAG Watchdog-Your daily Internet source for SAG/AFTRA related stories, articles & photos!.

The actors and broadcasters union negotiating team has reached a new contract with the advertising industry. The terms were supposed to be strictly confidential pending a meeting of the 160 (!) member national board of the union next weekend. But as is inevitably the case in Hollywood someone leaked the deal terms, this time to the new union’s favorite scribe, Jonathan Handel at the Hollywood Reporter.

While the precise language is not available and the terms are, as is also inevitably the case in Hollywood, complex, debate among actors has focused on the proposed 6% up front wage increase. Actors known to have favored the merger of SAG and AFTRA are touting this term while merger critics point out that spread over four years (keeping in mind that the wage hike is a one time event until the contract expires and has to make up for a one year freeze the unions agreed to a year ago) they barely will keep up with inflation.

The tension emerging now is usual for the union but is likely increased because of the kinds of promises made by merger advocates when SAG and AFTRA agreed to create what was called a “new union.” Much was made of the idea that merger would increase the bargaining leverage of the unions. If so, a deal like this does not provide much evidence.

Historically AFTRA has been the more business like union of the two. And so predictably merger backers defend the deal by contending that “unionism is business.” This is the evidence of an employer mindset filtering its way into the union membership. When that happens the employer sits back and smiles because he knows that he has succeeded in getting union members to do his work for him. One merger advocate, for example, suggests the one year wage freeze does not count because SAG and AFTRA not the new entity SAG-AFTRA made that deal – a classic corporate excuse often heard when employers restructure their companies to avoid union contracts.

Mergers like the one engineered by SAG and AFTRA moderates always look attractive on paper but the real merger that must take place for a union to be successful is to unify membership around shared goals and a strategy. That is much harder to do. In the case of these unions the suspicious shift of TV pilots to AFTRA contracts was instrumental in securing votes for the deal. It comes as no surprise then that the new entity has failed to achieve significant gains in its first true test. The merger was built on a culture of “unionism as business” and that is not a basis for genuine success for what must be a collective and creative effort.

The first major test for the leadership of the newly merged SAG-AFTRA union is now underway. The union leadership has reached a tentative deal over work in commercials with ad industry representatives.  Details have not been released pending approval by the union’s bloated new board of directors upon which now sit some 160 union members. If the deal is approved by the board at its meeting on April 20-21 it will be sent to the 160,000 rank and file members of the union for ratification.

Union president Roberta Reardon, former head of AFTRA, has said she is pleased with the new terms.  SAG-AFTRA staff head David White recently said on the first anniversary of the merger of SAG and AFTRA that the “landscape” had shifted. Presumably this means the union has been able to increase its leverage to lead to greater concrete gains for its members. Once terms of the commercials contract are made public the union membership will be able to decide if, in fact, that has been the case.

SAG-AFTRA & Ad Industry Reach Tentative New Commercials Contracts Deal – Deadline.com.

The promised benefits of merger seem to be eluding the now combined membership of SAG and AFTRA, the two major actor unions in Hollywood. Even Jonathan Handel of The Hollywood Reporter, who is close to the current union leadership, was forced to acknowledge the “internal tension” affecting the union. The simmering conflicts are reportedly affecting both staff and the elected leadership.

One oddity reported by Handel but not examined is that the new union, which on paper has 160,000 members many of whom are not regularly working as actors, has 550 staff members! So much for the promise of a streamlined and efficient new union as a result of merger.

Handel’s reporting of the “tensions” is not specific and it does not get in the way of Handel’s opining that “one actors’ union is much more harmonious than two.” No evidence of this harmony is provided other than PR statements from union leaders who promise that success will take “decades” to measure. That mindset is not likely to win applause among actors. As Keynes put it, in the long run we are all dead.

More importantly, the much hoped for merger of union benefits plans has not moved anywhere near completion, apparently. “The divided system deprives too many actors of health and pension benefits because their credits are split,” Handel writes. Of course, it was the promise of merging the plans that gave union leaders the votes they needed to win the merger vote in the first place.

SAG-AFTRA Executive Director David White told Handel the main accomplishment of the merger “was to shift the very landscape of opportunity.” No one knows what that is supposed to mean but it apparently means little when it comes to actors’ paychecks.

Even Handel, a long time friend of White, seems sceptical and says he’ll “check back in a year and see what that landscape looks like.”

In the meantime, internal tensions may lead to electoral battles this fall for control of the new union entity. Elections and a convention are planned for September.

Stay tuned.

SAG-AFTRAs Year One Scorecard – The Hollywood Reporter.

Sunday Review – Ben Schott – Assembling a Films Billing Block.

Is Netflix’s remake of a British political thriller changing the structure of TV? It’s about time.

TV streaming: six of the best shows.

In a sign that there is more here than meets the eye, prominent litigator Greg Smith, who has a long track record of winning large claims on behalf of fired public sector employees especially police officers and firemen, has taken on the case of Craig Simmons, the fired senior staff member of SAG’s pension and health plan.

According to a copy of the complaint posted on the site of Deadline Hollywood, Smith has filed a suit against the plan and as yet unnamed individuals for wrongful termination in connection with Simmons’ complaints about wrongdoing by the CEO of the $2 billion Plan, Bruce Dow, and others. Smith was profiled in the Los Angeles Times recently in connection with his campaign for the position of Los Angeles city attorney. Smith is joined in representing Simmons by Los Angeles attorney Robert Stanford Brown.  (Brown is the son of Hall of Fame football player Bob “The Boomer” Brown, who played for the Philadelphia Eagles, Los Angeles Rams and Oakland Raiders.)

The new lawsuit comes as SAG itself is being sued by its own members for failing to provide union members adequate information about the future of the pension and health care plan in connection with an ongoing vote to merge SAG with sister guild AFTRA. A decision on the latter suit is expected any day now as a planned hearing scheduled for Monday was recently vacated by the judge, which indicates that he is close to deciding the case based on the papers already in front of him. No doubt, a copy of the Simmons complaint will also be filed with the federal court considering the request for an injunction to stop the merger proposal.

Simmons was fired last year. A letter he wrote detailed numerous allegations about wrongdoing by Dow and others at the pension plan. Near the end of the year, CEO Dow left the fund temporarily on leave in connection with a health issue and has not yet returned to his position. There is speculation that the leave was aimed at easing him out of the fund.

Meanwhile, a report on Deadline that the Plan was the subject of a federal investigation led the Plan’s trustees, which include both labor and management representatives, to admit publicly that the Department of Labor was conducting a field audit of the fund, the toughest form of audit that the DOL can conduct of a pension plan. Deadline has reported that other federal agencies are looking at the fund, but the trustees appeared to deny that possibility.

Unconfirmed reports suggest that yet another senior official of the fund known to be an opponent of Dow was also fired today.

In light of this information it would not be surprising if the attorneys representing AFTRA in the merger would have some tough questions for SAG about the risks that AFTRA might be taking on board if the merger were to proceed.

As information comes out, this post will be updated.