Email From IATSE to members re Writers' and Actors' strike

Dear Film & TV Sisters, Brothers, and Kin

On April 28, 2023, I issued a memorandum with guidance to local union leaders and members working in the film and television production industry concerning the rights and obligations owed and enjoyed by IATSE-represented employees working in the industry. I am reissuing the advice today in light of the commencement of a strike by SAG-AFTRA. All the advice set forth below continues to apply:

Unless prohibited by contract, employees are generally permitted to honor lawful picket lines and may not be discharged for engaging in that conduct unless the discharge was justified by legitimate business considerations of an overriding nature. However, employees honoring picket lines may be temporarily replaced by workers who are willing to cross a picket line.

Below is a review of the major IATSE collective bargaining agreements in the film, television, and commercial production industries. None of them expressly prohibit an employee from honoring a lawful picket line, and many expressly permit employees to do so.

Contractual Obligations
An employee’s right to respect a lawful picket line may be waived by clear and unmistakable language in a collective bargaining agreement. The IATSE is currently mid-term on all of its major film, television, and commercial production collective bargaining agreements. This includes the Basic Agreement, the Theatrical and Television Motion Picture Area Standards Agreement, the New York Production Locals’ agreements, the Low Budget Theatrical Agreement, the Videotape Electronics Supplemental Agreement, the Pay Television Agreement, and the Commercial Production Agreement. All of these contracts contain “no strike” provisions. However, the wording of these “no strike” provisions differ from contract to contract, and therefore they deserve individual attention.

Basic Agreement
The Basic Agreement does not expressly prohibit employees from honoring lawful picket lines. Therefore, employees working under the agreement retain their right to honor a lawful picket line.

Area Standards Agreement
Under the Area Standards Agreement, employees are expressly permitted to honor any lawful picket line.

New York Production Locals Agreements (Locals 52, 161, 764, 798, and USA 829)
Under Local 52, 161, 764, and 798’s film and television production agreements, employees are expressly permitted to honor any lawful picket line. USA 829’s film and television production agreement does not expressly prohibit employees from honoring lawful picket lines. Therefore, employees working under these agreements retain their right to honor a lawful picket line.

Low Budget Theatrical Agreement
Under the Low Budget Theatrical Agreement, employees are expressly permitted to honor any lawful picket line.

Pay Television Agreement
During the last round of negotiations for the Pay Television Agreement, the pay television companies agreed to adopt the working conditions in the IATSE’s major film and television productions contracts, with some modifications. The no-strike provisions in those contracts were not modified. Therefore, it is necessary for you to review the no-strike provision in the appropriate collective bargaining agreement. That may be the Basic Agreement, the Area Standards Agreement, or a Local agreement.

Videotape Electronics Supplemental Agreement
The Videotape Agreement does not expressly prohibit employees from honoring lawful picket lines. Therefore, employees working under the agreement retain their right to honor a lawful picket line.

Commercial Production Agreement
The Commercial Production Agreement does not expressly prohibit employees from honoring lawful picket lines. Therefore, employees working under the agreement retain their right to honor a lawful picket line.

Single Production Agreements (a/k/a “One-Off Agreements”)
A single production agreement may contain its own no-strike provision, or it may incorporate no-strike provisions from another IATSE film and television production agreement. Therefore, the applicable contract should be reviewed to determine if it permits employees to honor any lawful picket line.

Employer Rights
Under existing law, employers have a legal right to temporarily replace any employee who refuses to cross a picket line with employees who are willing to work. However, employers may not discharge employees for honoring a picket line except for compelling business reasons separate and apart from the employee’s decision to honor the picket line.

Conclusion
In summary, unless prohibited by contract, employees have a legal right to honor a lawful picket line. None of the contracts discussed above expressly prohibit IATSE-represented employees from doing do. Employers are generally prohibited from terminating employees exercising their legal right to honor a picket line. However, employers may temporarily replace such workers with employees who are willing to cross the line and work.

In solidarity,
Matthew D. Loeb
IATSE, International President

P.S. Emergency financial assistance is available for members through the MPTF (for those in Southern California) and the Entertainment Community Fund (for US members outside Southern California).

Additionally, a memorandum regarding unemployment benefits within the context of the ongoing work stoppage will be forthcoming.

This note is misleading in one particular: In the final paragraph, Matt Loeb accurately recites the law governing employees who refuse to cross a picket line, including the right of the employer to hire replacements. He does not mention that the employer has the right to retain the replacements after the strike is over -- the persons so replaced go on a "preferential re-hire list."
Since movies and television shows employ cast and crew for the limited time it takes to complete the project, it is unlikely that anyone replaced under this legal scenario will get their job back, even if the unions win the strike.

This is but a minor esoteric quibble. Worth noting, but not earth shaking.

Hollywood unions never have had to worry about the “bust-out.”
The shared labor pool for this industry with portable benefit plans have always required a union contract to avoid anti-trust. For that reason, the producers have never had the Ultimate management weapon -- the Bust Out. "Negotiating" without ever trying to get a signed contract, proking a strike, and then replacing the work force, eventually covertly staging a de-certification of the union by the National Labor Relations Board.

But now with the whore Supreme Court and the evaporation of anti-trust law — they can just bust out the unions and deal directly with the talent while telling the Below the Line employees to live like Uber drivers.

Meanhwhile, another problem is the option of moving production offshore as the global market is rapidly re-inventing itself.

Neither is a prediction, but each is a possibility that the union members and their leaders should consider before throwing down.

Victory is only guaranteed in what used to be called B Movies.

Tags: 
Share
up
11 users have voted.

Comments

The Liberal Moonbat's picture

"Evaporation of anti-trust law"?
When did this happen?

If you're not exaggerating, then I think they just guaranteed the need for violent overthrow.

up
5 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.

Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!

@The Liberal Moonbat to call it evaporation. No cases reversed the "law" in major decisions. Rather, the Federal Government quit filing industry wide anti-trust cases once the old Ma Bell was broken up.

up
6 users have voted.

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

@The Liberal Moonbat I can help. Antitrust was a vibrant area of the law in the mid-70's. By the 1980's it was basically dead, thanks to conservative Chicago School economics. Prior to that, if a major player had an overwhelming market share (think "Ma Bell"), that major player had presumptive "monopoly power."

In the 1980's, Chicago School economists started testifying in antitrust cases that the major players were not monopolists because capital had become international and global, and foreign companies and even foreign governments (think "Airbus") would identify a major player making "monopoly profits" and enter the market to compete with the major player's monopoly. The absence of such foreign (or even huge domestic) competitors entering the market to get some of those monopoly profits showed that there was no monopoly power. Essentially, the "Law and Economics" movement that was started by the Chicago School economists and adopted by the courts judicially created another element that a would-be antitrust plaintiff would have to prove, so antitrust cases all by disappeared.

Fun Fact: my Mom's brother (my uncle) was one of those Chicago School economists and actually won the Nobel Prize in Economics in the 1990's and testified in several cases as a defense expert witness. I am a 30+ year lawyer that would have loved to work on plaintiff's antitust cases, but it was all over by 1990 when I started.

I instead specialized in plaintiff's securities cases, which was alot of fun until the securities industry and the big banks captured the appellate courts in the early 2000's. Then, without any changes to the statutes or even new appellate decisions (precedent) changing the law, I began to lose cases on summary judgment that I had previously won on summary judgment on nearly identical facts. When I appealed, those decisions were quietly affirmed in unpublished opinions.

up
8 users have voted.

@Bring Back Civics I only litigated for about seven years, and I never got anywhere near an anti-trust case. But I did notice the disappearance of anti-trust litigation in the news as of the neo-liberal era. This was one of the major changes in the American business culture that just seemed to happen as of the 1980s. Thanks for identifying where this crap came from.

up
5 users have voted.

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

@fire with fire You are most welcome. My pleasure (actually, my disgust and disappointment).

up
4 users have voted.

@Bring Back Civics @Bring Back Civics @Bring Back Civics 34 for me. My last two securities cases in which I appealed summary judgment dismissals of my client's claims had something eerily similar happen. The main individual defendant (non-corporate) in both cases died suddenly pending appeal and I had to substitute in their estates. I was contacted by the Eff Bee Eye in one of those cases, which was sort of hostile to my client's claim for reasons I could not figure out. The nearest I could figure is that they were concerned that we would deplete the limited amount of funds that they were seeking to recover for their "clients." Alot of wealthy investors took big hits in those cases (these were big "Private Placement" offerings).

up
2 users have voted.

@Bring Back Civics Lawyer for 37 years.
Shit happens, stuff changes. Always in favor of TPTB.

up
4 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Pluto's Republic's picture

...were in the back of my mind as I read the contract.

To me, any discussion of labor laws in the US has to be snark or satire. Among all of the world's developed nations, US labor laws score at the very bottom. (Must be the penance we pay for unapologetic slavery.) As I read it, I was bemused by how much ink was wasted by company lawyers who generated boilerplate about striking and picketing rights in the entertainment industry. The nature of Industry jobs and contracts render these labor laws mostly irrelevant — unless you happen to be a teamster. (And, if you have a teamster job in the entertainment industry, you've already won the lottery.)

Mostly, I was thinking about the maiming of the nation's antitrust laws, which were finally castrated during the Clinton administration, with the rise of the greedy neoliberals. During that time, Predatory Capitalism was unleashed in the US and abroad, triggered by the economic collapse of Russia.

In the decades that followed, the Neoliberal West, both banksters and politicians, flocked to Russia and to Ukraine, to get rich and launder their money. With the help of Russian oligarchs, these Western "advisors" privatized everything in Russia that they could lay their hands on — from government services to natural resources. such as oil. The people of Russia were subsequently impoverished. In 1999, Vladimir Putin became Prime Minister, and then became the President of Russia. Right away, Putin began to apply the brakes to the looting of his country. The Neocons immediately clamored for War. The DC think tanks churned out miles of lies about the new "Russian threat" to the US. Endless lying narratives soon followed, which would be used to brainwash the American people..

Washington imposed disastrous economic policies on Russia in the 1990s. Russia was loaded up with foreign debt while state assets were privatized and plundered by oligarchs sponsored by the West who “cashed out” by selling Russian assets to foreigners.

Russia’s stock market became the darling of the West in the mid-1990s as underpriced mining, oil and infrastructure were sold for a fraction of their value to foreigners, thus transferring Russian income streams abroad instead of leaving the income to be invested in Russia. In effect, Russians were told that the way for their country to get rich was to let kleptocrats, oligarchs, and their U.S. and British stock brokers make hundreds of billions of dollars by privatizing Russia’s public domain.

Washington took advantage of the gullible and trusting Yeltsin government to do as much political and economic damage as possible to Russia. The country was torn apart. Historic parts of Russia such as Ukraine were split off into separate countries. Washington even insisted that Crimea, long a part of Russia and the country’s warm water port, was retained by Ukraine when the Soviet Union was dismembered.

Michael Hudson

.

Since that time, Wall Street became "War" Street. Corporate greed for excess profits became rampant and wage theft was the name of the game. The policies and regulations of the New Deal had finally been erased, along with any effective enforcement of the nation's antitrust laws. Monopolies formed, public utilities and natural resources were privatized, and continuous inflation was baked into the cake while wages stagnated and the wealthy dodged taxes.

The wellbeing of the working class began to steadily diminish in the decades that followed; their lifespans were stasticially shortened by suicides. The constant upward mobility of working class children took a nosedive. They would never do as well as their parents did.

Middle class Americans were methodically disempowered by a lack of informaton. Among the knowledge that is deliberately omitted from the public school curriculum is basic economics, which is the language of politics and international affairs. They also come away from school without a working knowledge of the antitrust laws that once protected them from financial exploitation. They don't learn how business accounting works; how luxuries can be written off against profits, and how depreciation can turn profits into tax deductions. They are not taught anything about the thirty Human Rights to which they are entitled, but do not receive under the US constitution. Public school does not even give students a basic understanding of the law and how to use it. They know very little about medicine and how the human body works; and almost nothing about philosophy or how to think. The outside world is a complete void for most Americans educated in public schools.

Over the past five decades, civilization in the US has traveled a steep downward slope, and the people do not have the tools they need to change course.

up
8 users have voted.

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato