You will notice that blogging today has been light (How about ... non-existent?) There is a reason for this. Kevin Koch and I, along with our faithful counselor Stu Libicki and TAG's negotiating committee, have been in contract talks with animation companies since early this morning, and we have just recently wrapped up ...
We did not, sadly, reach an agreement. We tried and tried but our fine international conglomerates wanted trinkets and baubles we were not prepared to hand over, so the Animation Guild came up short in the giving department.
We had no agreement to keep any of what we talked about confidential, but there's no point in me blathering on about the details here when I'm exhausted and will shortly be headed off to dreamland, but I will say this:
Often there is an elaborate kabuki theater in contract negotiations, with each side coming in with proposals and dollar figures they know will never be achieved, which is followed by much emoting and hand-wringing on the way to a "compromise" and ultimate contract.
We elected not to travel this route. We showed up with a short, snappy list of desired outcomes we believed were reasonable and all parties could live with, rattled them off to the group in the large conference room, and then received their proposals. There were then meetings in "side bar" to try to hash things out (fewer players, more focused negotiating) and then side bars to the side bars.
This went on until after the dinner hour, and finally there was a final big meeting where we were told "yes" on some proposals and "no" on others. (Those others were pretty major items; we had been doing similar things in the little side bar meetings.)
At the end we were still apart. And it's why I love negotiations almost as much as I do organizing. They are seldom life-enhancing walks in the park. Mostly they are long and enervating.)
So we are not done. But I'm still convinced that ... and stop me if you've heard this ... unions and guilds end up with the contracts they have the leverage to get. Sometimes they get less because they misjudge, and sometimes they get more because the Force is with them, but mostly labor organizations end up where they were destined to get in the first place.
Wish I could tell you where that destiny will take us, but I can't. Not yet. Happily, we have a date set for a resumption of talks. I'm sure we'll be letting you know how things develop.
In the meantime, enjoy the balance of the evening. I am off to bed.
Posts
18 comments:
"Often there is an elaborate kabuki theater in contract negotiations, with each side coming in with proposals and dollar figures they know will never be achieved, which is followed by much emoting and hand-wringing on the way to a "compromise" and ultimate contract."Well, yes. Thats negotiating isn't it?
You try to get as much as you can and they do the same. Why LOWER your expectations of the outcome?!? Are you doing it for them? You certainly shouldn't think you are doing it for the union. Because I can guarantee you union members don't want you doing that.
Present a target higher than that which you will be happy with and let them lower it with return gestures in their offer. This is the preferred way of negotiating because without losing anything you can still feel a sense of accomplishment after a long period of negotiating. You aren't negotiating with yourself. You aren't putting up a wall and you aren't putting a target on your chest and letting the studios whittle away at you.
I mean really....
You begin by telling us that traditional way of negotiations is long and difficult and then expound on how long and difficult your other approach turned out to be.
This whole entry has been difficult to read.
What you're asking for is that the guild play 'hardball' which they're just not capable of doing. Dream on.
Ah. To play "hardball," you have to have a small round sphere and bat (metaphorically speaking).
SAG probably has more of that sporting equipment than most. And look where SAG is.
But explain to me how we should be doing it. Seriously. I'm always eager to learn.
Entire books are written about the art of negotiating. Major portions of the curricula of business schools are devoted to the subject. And there is a long history between the actual parties in this case, a history that Steve Hulett has been a part of and knows well.
So it's a little, well, comical, to have someone knowingly and dismissively summarize all they think there is to know about negotiating in a single sentence: "You start too high, they start too low, you both compromise, and call it a day"
If only it were half that simple.
"If only it were half that simple."It is entirely that simple in every single settlement dispute in every single court of law of this nation.
Ever been divorced? Ever won a settlement in a car accident.
Do me a favor, talk to an attorney and let me know what he says.
The problem, (for us), is that we are up against a long range strategy. The companies have been systematically front loading their leverage for decades. Every corporate studio acquisition, every page of work they sent overseas was to empower them to say, "up yours!" to the union at some future negotiation, like now. At least we have the CG boom. If those features stop, a few of the big shots will hurt real bad.
The 'problem' is that our reps are too busy above defending IATSE lobbying in DC against a big bad ghost. What seat is IATSE occupying in the room that matters to TAG?
A divorce is not a labor agreement. Nor is a car accident. And in case you didn't notice, the TAG/AMPTP negotiations are not taking place in a court of law.
The AMPTP has negotiated with the WGA, SAG, IATSE, and DGA over the last year. None of those negotiations were remotely similar. If negotiating were as simple, consistent, and straightforward as the above poster believes, this would not have been the case.
Steve, when you get the chance, it would be interesting to hear what kinds of things (the baubles, etc.) the studios were asking for. I assume rollbacks of various sorts, but it would be intriguing and educational to know what exactly they'd be implementing if the union weren't there to stand up to them!
"the TAG/AMPTP negotiations are not taking place in a court of law.
"neither do settlements. if you had been in one, you would know that its simply two people and their legal representation.
If only it were half that simple."It is entirely that simple in every single settlement dispute in every single court of law of this nation.
Ever been divorced? Ever won a settlement in a car accident. ...
To reiterate anon. above: Negotiations aren't court arbitrations. There is no third party judge deciding on who's "right" and who's "wrong."
Two parties, at some point, come to an agreement. And they have to thrash things out themselves, and there are, almost always, lots of moving parts.
Steve, when you get the chance, it would be interesting to hear what kinds of things (the baubles, etc.) the studios were asking for. ...
We'll get to it, in the proper time and place.
...said Paulson and Bernanke to the committee.
To the last anon, you're encouraged to talk to Steve in person at studio walk-thrus, or to give a call to the studio.
I think "proper time and place" simply means "not in a public forum read by management and the press."
Sorry, meant "or give him a call at the union office" in that first sentence.
I think "proper time and place" simply means "not in a public forum read by management and the press." ...
Correct. Happy to fill anyone in on the details over the phone or at the studio. Just not here.
Not yet.
Better still, active or inactive members should come to the membership meeting next Tuesday, May 26, at Local 44 in North Hollywood, where the current state of negotiations will be discussed in detail.
Pizza and sodas at 6:30 pm, meeting starts at 7, followed by a lecture on Macintosh tips and tricks.
Members only (active or inactive) for the meeting; let me know if you're a non-member who wants to attend the Macintosh lecture.
HA! Delete.
thought as much. Thanks for proving me right.
>:)
Post a Comment