Is this the proof that AFTRA's stated reason for pulling out of joint negotiations with SAG (because SAG tried to poach the B&B cast from AFTRA) was just b.s.? The SAG/AFTRA members who slipped me this letter sure think so:
From: Susan Flannery of THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL
Re: Statement of events leading up to AFTRA leaving Phase 1 and excluding itself from joint negotiations with SAG (Per Ms Flannery's instructions, this letter is to be distributed to the SAG National Board.)April 14,2008
To the members of SAG:
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT!
"NO CAST MEMBER OF THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL HAS BEEN SOLICITED BY ANY DIRECTOR OR ELECTED OFFICER OF SAG TO LEAVE AFTRA AND JOIN THEM...... PERIOD"
The sequence of events is as follows. Shortly after the first cast discussions of leaving AFTRA, Bill Thomas and David Basbaris (AFTRA) called me & asked if there was any substance to rumors of a petition for decertification. There was NO PETITION since we didn't even know we required to have one. Talk about being "Babes in the Woods". I explained to Bill and David that we were only in the early stages of discussions. I gave them my word of honor that we would meet with AFTRA before any final decisions were made.
David and I have a long union relationship, so I felt comfortable that he would take me at my word. I also informed them that we would meet with SAG. There were 3 or 4 phone calls over the next 2 weeks between us about these matters, including a request for a copy of the contract between AFTRA and B& B and setting a meeting with AFTRA. The cast subsequently did in fact meet over 2 evenings with Roberta Reardon and Kim Roberts Hedgepath.
Just so everyone understands, the idea of exploring the possibility for a new 'Collective Bargaining Agent" began with me. There has been over the past 21 years at B&B a growing dissatisfaction with AFTRA regarding health plans, residuals, pensions, meal penalties, turnarounds etc. In the final analysis, the contracts negotiated on our behalf over the years, in our opinion, have fallen very short of our expectations!
Because we still live in a democracy, and have choices, more internal meetings with the cast took place, and the decision to begin exploratory conversations to seek a different Collective Bargaining Agent began in earnest. As members in good standing with Screen Actors Guild, my co-star (of 21 years) John MCCook and I met with SAG National Director Doug Allen & SAG President Allen Rosenberg to ask what our options were. We did not, as has been reported, complain bitterly about AFTRA. We only wanted to know if it were possible for SAG to take us into the fold. However, reality quickly interverned. Doug informed us and rightly so, that any complaints we had regarding AFTRA should be brought to their attention by us.
We acknowledged that, and informed him that we were in the process of setting up meetings with AFTRA for just that purpose.
However, we were already in our minds beyond that point. We never approached this issue out of anger, we simply felt we needed, in the larger view of things, a more focused, stronger, and realistic approach to the changing world of television, and the industry as a whole as it is affected by new media.
Now to the issue of who is truly putting the brakes on our ability to pick the union we choose to represent us. THE AFL-CIO and their part in all of this. According to the AFL-CIO, there is a "side bar" agreement that prevents a group of union workers in good standing from leaving one union and going to another without suffering a 2-year suspension (waiting period) before their union of choice can accept them. Talk about an ANTI-UNION clause! This agreement withholds from union members the protection of a union shop and collective bargaining agent of their choice..... in this case, SAG.
When was this agreed to? When was this issued and why? Why would anyone vote to support, and or accept this concept? A cooling off period ? The National Labor Relations Board and their 42-day waiting period provide that caveat... 42 days to cool off and re-think, before making a final decision to decertify. So we have to ask? What is the real agenda for the AFL-CIO in imposing that 2 yr waiting period? Does this not create a genuine hardship for union members? Has this, among other issues, created an atmosphere and perception amongst union workers that they are not best served by the AFL-CIO?
It seems that as movements continue to grow, the institution becomes more important then the members it represents. Is that what we and other unions affiliated with them are experiencing with the AFL-CIO? I called John Sweeny in Washington DC twice to discuss this rule or regulation and even to plead for a waiver, and he has yet to extend the courtesy of a phone call.
It is time to accomplish something positive and meaningful for the working actor in their affliations with Labor Organizations. "Freedom of Choice" is a good beginning. Who we choose to represent us, and our best interests, should be up to us!
Susan Flannery
Seems to me veterans Susan Flannery and John McCook are likely maxxed out on their AFTRA pensions and now are looking to greener pastures to build SAG pensions.
Comment by Bill Gray — April 15, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
“Who we choose to represent us, and our best interests, should be up to us!”
Talk about not living in the real world. No one has deprived her of her right to choose who she wants to represent her. Nobody is forcing you to stay with AFTRA, if you feel your interests are not being met you are free to leave at anytime. The problem is that she doesn’t want to abide by the rules (or not have them apply to her). If you want the protection of an AFL-CIO union representation, you have to abide by their rules.
From the outside looking in, it is obvious why the rule exists. The union jumping would not stop with one show. Every show would continuously be up for grabs and all union energies would be spent fighting turf wars between the unions and there would be no time left to protect workers against their employers.
It is not in the AFL-CIO’s best interest (or its membership at large) to allow members to jump from one union to the other!
Comment by Intrigued — April 15, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
I think it was pretty clear AFTRA had pie on its face even without this clarification from the primary source, but this is just more fuel for the fire. AFTRA needs to allow itself to be swallowed up by SAG or just die and go away.
Comment by David — April 15, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
I have never heard of any actor wanting to disafiliate from the Screen Actors Guild. However in recent years NBC television reportes and various radio stations have disaffiliated from AFTRA after votes of there employee members.
Comment by Richard Hadfield — April 15, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Because Susan Flannery was working for an employer who is signatory to an AFTRA contract, her approach to SAG for “relief” should have set off alarm bells for the SAG execs. Legally, they should have stayed back 200 feet. They did not do this and they should have known better.
“Intermediaries” (not mentioned by Miss Flannery) might have have been a little too eager to make trouble for AFTRA. SAG was just dumb in how they handled this.
Comment by What's Not Being Said — April 15, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Susan Flannery does not equivocate.
AFTRA’s “reason” for leaving the Phase 1 agreement, appears to be baseless.
There was no “raid” on “The Bold and the Beautiful”.
Comment by Richard Hadfield — April 15, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Now that we have the straight story, on the record, from one of the principals involved, it is clear that Roberta Reardon owes Alan Rosenberg a personal apology.
Oh, and every commenter here who slagged Alan Rosenberg and Doug Allen about this, anonymously or not, should also issue their apologies. The space here I’m sure will suffice.
As for Phase 1, it should be clear that AFTRA leadership was using the B&B brouhaha as an excuse to “suspend” Phase 1 and negotiate primetime and New Media separately (AFTRA’s own news release about the Network Code indicates they and the AMPTP agreed to negotiate New Media for soaps and other work covered under the Network Code along with the primetime contract). The question is, to what end???
Going forward, the hope is that AFTRA wisely waits for the AMPTP and SAG to negotiate, then says, “I’ll have what she’s having”.
The other scenario is, the AMPTP plays footsie for SAG for two weeks, then AFTRA quickly signs an agreement that essentially looks like the WGA deal, and then the AMPTP attempts to use that deal as a bludgeon in the SAG negotiations while lining up new scripted television shows on cable networks (to join Damages and Dirt) with AFTRA contracts. In other words, the fear is that AFTRA stabs SAG in the back and sells out their own members while hiding behind the AFL-CIO’s ridiculous two-year F-you to any ill-represented shop.
Note to Mr. Sweeney - it’s not poaching if the workers themselves initiate the process to change their union representation from one union to another. The workers are highly unlikely to initiate such a change without just cause.
Note to AFTRA leadership - It is certainly not too late for you to change course. You know what you need to do to do right by your members. Your members, along with the members of your sister union, are hoping and praying for you. Their patience, however, may not be infinite….
Comment by mheister — April 15, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
Oh, Stephanie!
Comment by The ghost of Sally Spectra — April 15, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
Susan Flannery is pretty bold and beautiful for speaking her mind and working to get the best for herself and her colleagues. They clearly feel as if they are not being fairly compensated or well treated by their employers and are just looking for a solution. If your union wasn’t backing you up to resolve your issues, wouldn’t you look at other options?
Comment by michael — April 16, 2008 @ 12:02 am
To ‘What’s Not Being Said’ –
Did you miss the part where Susan said (and Doug and Alan said in earlier post) that she was also a member of SAG. Doug and Alan had an obligation to talk to her and John if she requested it.
I’ve never bothered my union head with frivolous phone calls, but whenever I’ve had something serious that I want to talk to the head, I’ve expected to be able to do so. And she has always called me back. If something was so serious that I would request a personal meeting (and use up my precious time), I’d expect her to honor that request as well.
Alan and Doug can’t refuse to talk to a SAG member just because that member is also in AFTRA. Sounds to me like from everybody involved, except AFTRA, Alan and Doug did the right thing… upon hearing what the subject was, they referred her back to AFTRA.
mheister,
I agree with you that it’s not poaching if the workers themselves initiate the process, but I’m shocked to hear that two year rule. I’m wondering if it would actually stand up in court — whether it’s ever been tested or they get away with it because it intimidates people into staying.
I remember having to sign an agreement not to go work for a competing company once and my boss told me upfront the agreement wouldn’t stand up in court but the lawyers could ruin you trying. So nobody tried. Except when he didn’t get his promotion, he bolted to the competitor and our company took him to court and lost… because the agreement interfered with the right to work in your chosen field.
What a mess this all is.
Comment by tired of the stupid disunity — April 16, 2008 @ 12:16 am
Right.
The battered wife (AFTRA) should apologize to hubby (SAG) after enduring over 12 months of brutal attacks because a wide-eyed innocent actress - on the job for two decades & who makes Umpteen-K a day - claims she only had a bit of a bitch-on about her health plan, residuals, meal penalties and turn-around times on a half-hour soap. And claims that she wasn’t pursuing her actions out of anger, but simply felt she needed a more focused, stronger, and realistic approach to the changing world of television, and the industry as a whole as it is affected by new media - the focused, stronger, realistic approach of Doug Allen and Alan Rosenberg who have diddled away their time & members’ dues money when they could have been planning a strategy toward negotiations and instead have mortgaged the future of professional actors by screaming and bullying and making fools of themselves in public in an attempt to advance their own personal ambitions in concert with an absurd radical and unrealistic faction that has taken over a once-proud actors’ guild.
Comment by David Jones — April 16, 2008 @ 5:35 am
Maybe Susan’s trying to tell us she doesn’t know Bonnie Bartlett.
Laughable…but then, so are Flannery’s imperious antics.
Comment by T.Obvious — April 16, 2008 @ 6:22 am
It seems to me that this whole debacle has done nothing less than strengthen the AMPTP’s hand when it comes to negotiating with SAG and AFTRA. The actors can kiss any hope of getting a landmark deal good-bye. Should an actor’s strike come about, it will be more an inter-actor civil war (SAG vs AFTRA) as opposed to the struggle against greedy corporate misers it should be. The actors would go into their strike in a much weaker position than the writers did in theirs and the chances of them being supported by the public and industry at large would be zero. I’m sure Mr. Counter and everyone over at the AMPTP are giggling with glee over their incredible luck. This whole episode is shameful and should not have been played out in the press. I don’t know what the AFTRA people are smoking, but it’s time for rehab.
Comment by John — April 16, 2008 @ 6:38 am
Dear John -
Actors would not be be in this fix if SAG’s Hollywood leadership and Doug Allen had chosen, in January 2007, to renegotiate and repair SAG’s relationship with AFTRA - including clearing up jurisdictional issues. This course was strongly urged by the New York and Regional Division Boards ‘way back then, and Doug Allen and MembershipFirst refused. They are totally responsible for the state we find ourselves in.
Comment by Tom — April 16, 2008 @ 10:23 am
Keep trying, AFTRA, but there’s no way to spin this. You folks outright LIED to make up an excuse to leave Phase I. If you undercut whatever deal SAG negotiates your members will refuse to work your contracts and there’s not going to be anything left for you to complain about. AFTRA will be out of the business of scripted entertainment once and for all. Your members have had just about enough of this b.s. It’s time you started acting like professionals instead of a bunch of spoiled children drunk with what they think is ‘power’
Comment by David Sobolov — April 16, 2008 @ 10:32 am
David Jones hits the nail on the head. The Hollywood-based Membership First faction will be the death of SAG.
MF wreaked havoc on the industry with their ill-conceived commercial strike in 2000. Although they paint the end result as having been historic and positive, those of us who make a living on commercials have never recovered. You can thank MF for giving ad agencies a crash course in taking work out of our country.
Sadly they remain delusional and are hell-bent on a course that could lead to the destruction of their own Guild. Some of their current contract proposals are a sure-fire prescription to kill as much U.S. production as possible. Oh, it’ll be great if they win what they’re after, but if theirs no work left in the ruins, what’s gained?
As Philip K. Dick said, “Reality is that thing which doesn’t cease to exist just because you refuse to believe in it.”
Oh, and shouldn’t someone ask what role William Daniel’s wife, Bonnie Bartlett, played in the B&B debacle? MF members are trolling AFTRA covered shows. AFTRA was right to walk away from Phase 1 since the current SAG leadership have proven themselves untrustworthy.
Comment by Lee — April 16, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Miss Flannery’s missive to the world has the stench of the Hollywood SAG Membership First Attack Propaganda Literary Vetting Committee - the same raggedy bunch of out-of-work poet/actors who regularly approve Miss Frances Fisher’s anti-union thought-pablum. Note in Miss Flannery’s “letter” above the pointed shot-across-the-bow of the AFL-CIO. It is “membershipfirst’s” dream to live like Richard Branson of Virgin Air — on an island: no AFTRA, no AFL-CIO…no rules.
And it is a tragic irony that the majority of elected “leaders” on the Hollywood SAG Board - “membershipfirst” dyed-in-the-woolies - while they SAY they want stronger contracts for actors, the repeated result of their strategy (2000 commercials strike, dragged out interminably, permanently wrecking commercials as a way for actors to survive, their concerted, highly organized year-long effort to discredit AFTRA and the relsulting near-irreparable disunity) has given us nothing but the echoes of laughter from the AMPTP. Nice work, kids!
And thanks for nothing.
Sincerely,
Hollywood SAG & AFTRA Actors
Comment by ichbinaucheinwerkungactor — April 16, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
To “tired of the stupid disunity’
No, I did you miss the part where Susan said (and Doug and Alan said in earlier post) that she was also a member of SAG. Doug and Alan did NOT have an obligation to advise her — only to hear her out. Once they were apprised of what she wanted (decertification of AFTRA in favor of SAG) they had a legal obligation to back off — which belatedly — they did. As Union execs and officials they are legally enjoined from what they were
doing…but they apparently didn’t think there was any difference between high-level executive visits and exploratory phone calls before they walked into a highly visible minefield…
Extending a professional courtesy to Miss Flannery was appropriate, but this was never the issue. You want me to believe they weren’t briefed about the subject of their visit to another union’s shop?
Oh and about the “intermediaries” I indicated were not mentioned in Miss Flannery’s statement: I noticed Lee (above) wrote “…shouldn’t someone ask what role William Daniel’s wife, Bonnie Bartlett, played in the B&B debacle?”
Enough said.
Comment by What's Not Being Said — April 16, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
AFTRA has poached! How can they even try to defend their actions in regards to Dirt and Damages?
Comment by David — April 16, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Does anyone really believe that SAG wants to represent a soap opera? No disrespect intended, but that has NEVER been a goal for SAG.
However I’m sure poaching and undercutting deals on shows like Dirt and Damages and sitcoms like ‘Til Death and Rules of Engagement sure looks good to AFTRA.
Peggy Lane O’Rourke
Comment by Peggy Lane O'Rourke — April 17, 2008 @ 12:23 am
As an “avid fan” of tv, I have been a longtime fan of The Bold and the Beautiful (it’s a guilty pleasure, ok?) and thus have gotten to see Susan Flannery’s fine work. I read the soap mags, and from what I read of her interviews and from what other actors say about her, she seems to me to be an honorable, conscientious person. She’s well-respected as a person and as an actress (shes won multiple emmy’s) She’s been in the industry long enough, and personally i admire her for her guts in bringing this up.
I think SF had been ill recently (maybe a year ago?) and she had to miss some shows. Maybe that finally motivated her to address the healthcare and pension plans? Regardless, I think she’s justified in her own opinions and course of action.
After I found out from this site that AFTRA blamed B&B and SAG, I believed SAG. I just wished Susan Flannery had cleared up the situation sooner in the public media. I just had a strong feeling that SAG and her good name were being soiled. I was actually going to write her to encourage her to do so (I told you i was a fan!). I felt like she is the type of person who would d the right thing. I’m glad she wrote this letter, I just wished she sent it to the media, too. She shouldn’t let AFTRA use her actions as a public scapegoat to ruin her good name. She should defend herself abnd SAG publicly by sharing this info.
Comment by AvidFan — April 17, 2008 @ 8:22 am
I don’t know who’s to blame for this mess, but I do know who loses–us. Can the leaders of both unions get together over a nice dinner of crow and then get back to working for us instead of against each other?
Comment by Charley — April 17, 2008 @ 8:22 am
This should be on the opinion page in the l.a. Times, not lost on a blog.
Comment by Rex — April 17, 2008 @ 8:55 am
Thank you Susan Flannery for speaking out. It has been very confusing. We’ve got your back baby!!
Comment by East Coast AFTRA Coalition — April 17, 2008 @ 10:11 am
“East Coast AFTRA Coalition” my eye!
How about the “Provocateurs Rotting in Studio City and Remembering When Committee…” or “Accountants for Membershipfirst We Hate AFTRA Committee”…or “Morons and Wastrels for SAGDOGWASH.COM Committee”…or “Old Bitter Fat Guys Divorced From Show Business But Still Passing Gas Committtee?”
We all REALLY believe in Susan and what she stands for, as embodied in the charter of the “Complete Lack of Sincerity and Union-Busting Committee.”
Comment by ichbinaucheinwerkungactor — April 17, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
A nice article for Susan. The part I have problems with is the “AFTRA didn’t get us what we wanted” part. I don’t know how they do it for soaps, but in radio, there are always AFTRA members from the unit in negotiation at the table.
AFTRA negotiators and the unit members work together to figure out what’s possible, what to ask for and what to give up in order to get something else. The they go to the table. Perhaps Susan should be the point person for the unit. Maybe she would have responded differently.
I am AFTRA since 1969 and SAG since 1986. From where I sit, both unions are being played big time by the producers. Some of the above comments are so well spun their real motives are almost invisible, but the bottom line is that they divide AFTRA and SAG.
As long as the members remain uninformed, misinformed, passive, or passive-aggressive, we will continue to be played rather than payed.
Getting a consensus in a workforce as widely distributed geographically as AFTRA and SAG members are is a real problem. Email and posts seem like a good idea, but fail miserably when the content increases in complexity and in emotion.
The producers will be happy to make sure these condition continue to thwart solidarity.
In a post last week I saw someone mention the idea of keeping members who have a conflict of interest from voting on the contracts. My question is, how long have members with a recognized conflict of interest been allowed to vote? Shouldn’t they be Provisional Members with no voting or office holding capabilities?
Who are these AFTRA SAG members?
Regards,
Ty Ford
Comment by Ty Ford — April 18, 2008 @ 7:43 am