May 24, 2012

SAG-AFTRA: The Merger That Solves Nothing

The Screen Actors Guild's National Board has approved its merger agreement with the AFTRA, the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists. If approved by AFTRA's Board and the membership of both unions, the new union will be known as SAG-AFTRA.

Merger of these two unions with overlapping jurisdictions has been attempted several times in the past without success -- most recently in 2003. However, this attempt has fed off a significant rank and file sentiment to address two key concerns: 1. Having to pay dues to two unions; and 2. Split benefit contributions. However, the proposed merger addresses neither of these issues.

The proposed merger agreement does nothing to streamline the staff of the newly merged union. As a result, the expenses of the two unions will remain largely unchanged. Even if some cost savings could be found, SAG's shaky financial condition means that a dues reduction for members is highly unlikely. Jonathan Handel reported in the Hollywood Reporter that for some members dues actually will increase according to his confidential sources. That the two unions are not touting how this merger will mean reduced dues for all their members likely means this goal was not achieved.

The benefit contribution issue arises from the fact that although the two unions have overlapping jurisdictions, and indeed bargain several of their contracts jointly, they have never unified their benefit funds. As a result, performers who split their work throughout the year between jobs under the SAG contract and jobs under an AFTRA contract may fail to meet the earnings thresholds under either contract to qualify for benefits. SAG and AFTRA chose not to attempt to address this issue before entering merger talks and as a result, the two unions could not solve this problem through their merger agreement. Instead, they must now bargain with the various employers with whom they contract such as the Alliance of Motion Picture Producers and the Joint Policy Committee of advertisers and manufacturers.

However, agreeing to merger without solving the benefit plan issues is like putting the cart before the horse. If the merger goes through, in order to appease the members who have agreed to this combined entity, the union will have to achieve a solution to the split benefit issues. However, the SAG and AFTRA pension plans each have deficits hundreds of millions of dollars in magnitude. Making changes to either plan will be prohibitively expensive. The employers are going to resist having to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars to solve the new Union's problem. That is why if the merger does get approved, there are going to be many unhappy members down the line.

UPDATE: Late Saturday afternoon the AFTRA Board also approved the merger. The members of both unions will vote beginning next month. 

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Partner

Scott J. Witlin is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Barnes & Thornburg and a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Department and the Entertainment and Music Practice Group. Mr. Witlin handles traditional labor and employment matters, including arbitrations, collective bargaining negotiations, compliance with various guild and union agreements, and union organizing campaigns. He represents clients in the entertainment and broadcasting, video game manufacturing, retail, consumer and industrial products, and transportation industries.

310-284-3777

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.