Distributive bargaining is normally described in terms of how a pie is divided. This is done by dividing the pie up to try and get more of it for themselves. When this bargaining technique is used both sides will have to agree to use it. The goal of distributive bargaining is to win as much of the pie as possible which means that it is a win/lose situation because what one loses the other gains. SAG used this type of bargaining in order to gain more of the pie for residual income from the use of material that can be downloaded or purchased from the internet (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
The bargaining process is a very important part of negotiation during labor disputes. Without this process, the SAG and AMPTP would not have had guidelines to help them through their labor dispute. The Wagner Act of 1935 which was the most important labor legislation was instrumental in setting up laws that unions and organizations must abide by during this process and was very helpful in the SAG labor Dispute. The Wagner Act was one of the most dramatic legislative measures of the New Deal. It indicated that the federal government was prepared to move against employers to enforce the rights of employees to unionize and bargain collectively. It forced the employer to share the decision making power with employees and created a balance of the bargaining process between the employer and employees. This act established employee rights and the enforcement of those rights gave employees the right to organize and join unions and to take part in the collective bargaining procedures. During this process with the help of important labor laws the SAG came to an agreement and voted in a new labor contract with AMPTP (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
One important concept is bargaining in good faith which was created in the Taft-Hartley Amendment and includes tests such as the totality of conduct test. This test is done to make sure that everyone is performing in good faith. Bargaining in good faith helps to deter organizations from refusing to bargain. This would also aid in deterring organizations from using techniques such as Boulwarism and Surface Bargaining, or bypassing the bargaining process by talking with employees. These would be considered violations under the Taft-Hartley Amendments (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
Boulwarism is the process of creating a contract proposal that leaves little room for bargaining. Creating this type of proposal shows a lack of wanting to bargain in good faith. Surface Bargaining is the attempt to delay the bargaining process. Organizations know that they cannot refuse to bargain so they attempt to delay the process. This is done by not scheduling meetings regularly, cancelling them or making changes at the last minute (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007). According the information obtained, this did not seem to be an issue with both parties.
Another important concept is the duty to furnish information so that the bargaining process can move forward. The information must be relevant to the issues at hand and must be delivered without delay once a request is made by either the union or the organization. They must be delivered in a form that is legible and inclusive and can include items such as wages from all groups of employees within the organization (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007
In order for SAG and AMPTP to come to an agreement and vote in a new contract they would have to bargain in good faith which would include creating a proposal that would allow room for changes as well as supplying both sides with the necessary documents in order to make adequate decisions. AMPTP accomplished this by supplying information to SAG regarding the costs of developing theatrical releases by bringing a proposal that included a recoupment formula that would help them to recoup residuals until they broke even.
The SAG finished the bargaining process in 2009 and accepted a new contract for actors and actresses by going through the process of collective bargaining. There was no information given on whether the SAG used lawyers or arbitration to settle this dispute. It is stated in, Drama Inside the Actors' Union, that after a period of time the SAG and AM PTP came back together to negotiate a contract with the actors and actresses which ended in a vote to accept the contract (Whitford, 2007). There are several steps that can be used to get to the acceptance of a labor contact. The steps include mediation, arbitration, and the use of lawyer.
Mediation is a negotiation between disputing parties with a trained mediator that directs the process. The mediator assists the disputing parties in identifying the problem and bargaining for a resolution. The mediator tries to help the parties find common ground and come to an acceptable settlement, but he or she has no power to impose an agreement. Arbitration is normally used for the resolution of commercial or labor disputes (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007). Even though there was no information given as to whether these parties used mediation, mediation was probably a key part as many labor disputes use mediators to help parties come to an agreement.
Like mediation, arbitration is a method of having a dispute resolved by trained impartial people who are knowledgeable in labor disputes. Although arbitration is a private means for resolving disputes, arbitration procedures are governed by state and federal law. Unlike mediation, arbitration decisions are usually final. As a result, in choosing binding arbitration the disputing parties generally give up their right to pursue the matter through the courts, since a binding arbitration award is subject to review by a court only on a very limited basis (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007). In this labor disputes, it is clear that arbitration had not been used because an agreement between the SAG and AMPTP and been reached.
There is no mention of whether the SAG and AMPTP used litigation in their labor dispute. If they had, Litigation lawyers would had been used to decide this labor contract dispute. Before it would have been brought to court, an investigation would have been done to make sure that it was not a frivolous claim. The lawyer would have met with the party which in this case would be a labor union to decide whether a strong case can be made. When this was completed, the lawyer would have written a claim that would have consisted of many court appearances on behalf of his client. He would have spent a significant amount of time in putting the claim together which is the pleading process. After this process is completed the lawyer would have given notice to the other side so that they were able to respond and receive any information that was needed to continue such as, depositions, and so they can request any evidence needed to go forward. This would be the discovery process of litigation. If the labor suit had not yet been settled out of court the next step would be to go to trial in which the lawyer takes all the information he had gathered and presents it to the judge. During this process the lawyers for both parties would have been required to use mediation in order to negotiate a settlement. If mediation did not work, the judge would have decided the case (Personal communication, Blue Earth County District Court Judge Norbert Smith, February 14, 2011).
In the case of the Screen Actors Guild labor dispute, arbitration would have been the best step for them if they were unable to come to an agreement. Arbitration is much cheaper than hiring a lawyer and the process takes less time than going through litigation. Litigation can be caught up in the courts for years depending on the case. During arbitration the claim is gone through very thoroughly and a decision is made regarding the contract. This decision is binding and both sides must abide by it. The only big downfall with arbitration is that the decisions are final (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
It was very important for the Screen Actors Guild to come to an agreement and vote in the new labor contract in 2009. By voting in the new labor contract the SAG gained a 3% raise in income from royalties from material that is resold on the internet. With the deepening recession and Hollywood still reeling from the affects of the Writers Guild Strike it could have been disastrous for the entertainment industry if a contact had not been voted in. If SAG did not come to an agreement there may have possibly been a strike that would have a shattering affect on California who was already seeing a very high rate of unemployment (Riley-Katz & Medina. 2008).
It was very crucial for SAG to send the contract to the actors and actresses for a vote because it could have given the organization and stakeholders a bad image if they continued with the threat of a strike. By continuing to reject any offer from the AMPTP, it may have made them look like they were being very greedy in a time when the United States was in the middle of a recession. A bad image would trickle all the way up to the vice presidents, David Hartley, Mike Hodge, Ned Vaughn and president Ken Howard. It would also affect the National Board of Directors and the Regional Board of Directors all across the country (Screen Actors Guild. 2001). Other ethical implications would be the affect on the economic state of California if they continued with a vote to strike. By going on strike they would have put a great deal of strain on a state that was still trying to recover from a recession and a strike by the Writers Guild a year before. A strike would also affect consumers such as you and I because we would be forced to watch other Television series that were not involved in the dispute as well as reruns while actors and actresses were on strike
Labor disputes can be a very long drawn out process that is very complicating. Each party to the dispute feels that they are offering the best options for their organization but often times they are in disagreement which can cause tension and conflict. The labor dispute between the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) saw many conflicts such as the suspension of phase one by AMPTP when they chose to not bargain with SAG (Salomon, A. 2008), and the threat of a strike by SAG (McFadden, 2008).
The process of collective bargaining was instrumental in helping both parties come to an agreement during the labor dispute. Through the bargaining process SAG accomplished their goal of receiving royalties from material that is resold on the internet for actors and actresses. More than 100,000 members were responsible for mailing in their ballots with a 78 percent vote in favor of the new contract which will last through June 2011. They voted in a new contract in 2009 that gave actors and actresses a 3% raise in income that became effective on June 10, 2009 (Verrier R. 2009). This new contract will cover all content that is resold over the internet by downloading at sites such as Netflix and iTunes as well as the sale of DVD’s and Blu-Ray..
References
Carrell, & Heavrin. (2007). Labor relations and collective bargaining (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hill. (Original work published 2001)
Jensen, V. H. (1963). The Process of collective bargaining and the question of it’s obsolenscence. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 16(4), 546-556. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
McFadden, K. (2008, December 8). The ABCs of a possible SAG strike. Retrieved January 12, 2011, from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28180598
Riley-Katz, A., & Medina, M. (2008). Hollywood Labor Strife: Retailers Dread Impact Of
Walkout By Actors. WWD: Women's Wear Daily, 195(134), 1-1NULL. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Salomon, A. (2008). Breaking Up Is Hard to Do. Back Stage East, 49(15), 3-15. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Screen Actors Guild. (2001) Governance. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from
Verrier R. (2009) COMPANY TOWN; SAG ratifies accord in landslide; Actors get residuals for
shows viewable online and a 3% pay raise. The contract wins 78% of the vote. Los Angeles Times,p. B.3. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from Los Angeles Times. (Document ID: 1743171711).Retrieved from ProQuest.
Whitford, D. (2007). Drama Inside the Actors' Union. Fortune, 156(9), 31-32. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
White, M., & Fixmer, A. (2008, February 13). Hollywood writers return to work after ending
strike. Retrieved January 13, 2011, from
****************************************************************************
SMARTHINKING's E-structor Response Form
(Your marked-up essay is below this form.)
HOW THIS WORKS: Your e-structor has written overview comments about your essay in the form below. Your e-structor has also embedded comments [in bold and in brackets] throughout your essay. Thank you for choosing SMARTHINKING's OWL; best wishes with revising your paper!
*Strengths of the essay: Hi, Dawn. Welcome back to Smarthinking! I am Jodi N, and I will be assisting you with this submission. Your paper topic is interesting, and it reflects the knowledge you have about the SAG labor dispute. Your research is well done!
*Dawn 2196826 has requested that you respond to the Content Development: Dawn, you explain each section adequately. However, there is a disconnect in the way the content develops. For example, you explain the entire labor dispute between SAG and AMPTP before you tie in the specific material from the textbook. The paper seems to be finished once the SAG dispute has been resolved, and readers do not need to read any further since they already know the outcome. How can you better highlight the SAG dispute throughout the entire paper? In what ways could you interest the reader to find out the labor dispute resolution later? In order to maintain readers’ attention, and in order to better connect the textbook material, the labor dispute should be discussed in conjunction with the textbook material. Take, for example, your section on arbitration, mediation and litigation lawyers. There are several paragraphs that seem like a rephrasing of the textbook; it is not clear how these paragraphs connect to the SAG dispute until later on. How could you tie in the SAG dispute sooner? Why is the textbook information relevant in the SAG case? As you review your paper, you will want to see where information could be better developed to demonstrate the connection between the SAG dispute and the textbook material.
*Dawn 2196826 has requested that you respond to the Introduction/Conclusion: The introduction needs to speak to what will follow in the body of the paper. In other words, the introduction alerts the reader to what will be discussed in the paper. While your introduction sets up the basis for the SAG labor dispute, it does not make any mention of the textbook material that accounts for much of the paper. You will need to include the main points of the entire paper in your introduction. What main points are missing from your introduction? How could you best include them so the reader knows what to expect? Then, consider your conclusion. The conclusion needs to stress the main points in your paper. So, the conclusion needs to be developed more; it needs to summarize the paper. Currently it only highlights a couple points. When writing the conclusion, realize that it is the last impression the reader has. The conclusion must be interesting and remind the reader why the paper was worthwhile. What points do you need to add to your conclusion? What do you want the reader to walk away knowing? Considering these questions will help you revise your introduction and conclusion.
Sentence Structure: A run-on, or fused sentence, occurs when two or more independent clauses are connected — or "run together" — without any form of punctuation between them. A run-on sentence confuses the reader because it is not clear where the thoughts begin and end. See the following example:
We went shopping at the mall for school clothes we also treated ourselves to ice cream.
This sentence has two independent clauses - We went shopping at the mall for school clothes - and - we also treated ourselves to ice cream. The sentence is a “run on” because the two independent clauses run together causing confusion.
One way to correct run-ons is by making one sentence into simple sentences. (A simple sentence has one complete thought): We went shopping at the mall for school clothes. We also treated ourselves to ice cream.
Another way to correct run-ons is to put a semi-colon to separate the first clause from the second: We went shopping to the mall for school clothes; we also treated ourselves to ice cream.
Another way to correct run-ons is to put a comma after the first complete thought, and add a conjunction to link the second independent clause to the first. One way to remember some conjunctions is to remember FANBOYS; each letter stands for a conjunction: For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So. We went shopping to mall and we also treated ourselves to ice cream.
Dawn, for more help, you will want to refer to Run-ons and Comma Splices (Chapter 5, Lesson 7)
Also look for an example of a run-on sentence that I noted your paper. You will then want to find other run-on sentences in your paper that need revising.
Summary of Next Steps: With revision, your paper will get stronger. Follow these steps to begin:
- Connect the textbook material with the SAG labor dispute
- Revise your introduction and conclusion
- Proofread your paper for run-on sentences and edit accordingly
You are off to a good start, Dawn! You may want to consider submitting a revised version of this essay to Smarthinking for another review; we look forward to helping you. - Jodi N.
Find additional resources in SMARTHINKING's online library:
You can find more information about writing, grammar, and usage in SMARTHINKING's student handbooks. You can visit the or the .
*******************************************************************************
Please look for more comments in your essay below. Thank you for visiting SMARTHINKING. We encourage you to submit future essays.
*******************************************************************************
Screen Actors Guild
Dawn Zuehlke
Rasmussen College
Authors Note
This research is being submitted on January 17, 2011 for Amy Dieke, B441 Personal and Labor Relations course at Rasmussen College by Dawn Zuehlke
The Screen Actors Guild (SAG), an American labor union that represents actors, and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), a trade organization that represents the interests of producers, studios, and production companies were involved in a labor dispute from 2008-2009. The labor dispute began in April of 2008 as SAG anticipated the end of their current contract in June, 2008.
The SAG’s main issue was gaining an agreement that would include residual payment for actors and actresses. These residual payments or royalties would come from material that is resold on the internet at places such as iTunes, Netflix, and many other sites that have movie downloads with a membership. The royalties would also come from DVD and bluray sales which are not included in the current contract (Whitford, 2007). [← Dawn, since Blu-Ray is a specific name, it must be capitalized.] This would be beneficial to the actors and actresses as it would increase their income in a time of uncertainty
The AMPTP had agreed that they needed to take a look at the way the current system was run but they argued that all one-hour drama shows saw an average of $33 million in debt in the beginning and theatrical releases are at least $70 million in debt. [← Dawn, this is a run-on sentence. It can be corrected by breaking it into simple sentences.] They need to receive the residuals from the sale of DVD’s and pay-per-view to get out of the red in order to make the system work. By losing a percentage of income by paying residual it will take longer to get the new production out of the red (Whitford, 2007).
The AMPTP began the bargaining process in the summer of 2008 by bringing a proposal that included a recoupment formula that would help them to recoup residuals until they broke even. When this was accomplished, this new recoupment formula would then transfer a percentage of residuals to the actors and actresses (Whitford, 2007).
In order for SAG and AMPTP to reach an agreement, AMPTP exercised their right to bargain collectively. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) encourages collective bargaining but requires that both parties bargain in good faith. Once that right is exercised SAG and AMPTP were required to bargain in good faith. During the bargaining process each side will state what they are asking and try to find out how far they can push before the other party threatens to strike which the union may do if an agreement is not agreed upon. This is done through meetings in which the representatives for each party will argue and fight for what they want. There is often a power struggle between the parties until one side realizes that by continuing the fight, they may end with a less favorable agreement (Jensen, 1963).
If a contract is not approved the SAG threatened a strike that would involve the actors and actresses of prime time television series such as House, 24, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, The Office, Fringe, and Desperate Housewives. A strike would not only affect the actors and actresses but may affect the economy just as the Writers Guild of America strike had. According to Michael White and Andy Fixmer authors of “Hollywood Writers Return to Work After Ending Strike,” “The strike cost the Los Angeles economy $2.1 billion,” (M. White, A Fixmer 2008).
There were several individuals including Mike Ferrel who had been an actor in “Mash” who voiced their concerns about whether trust could be given to the president of SAG, Alan Rosenberg and vice president Kent McCord. They were very concerned whether they would be able to bargain in good faith. Their concerns went even further as many stated that Rosenberg and McCord were allowing their egos to get in the way and were not interested in making any kind of a deal anytime soon. This would be considered surface bargaining which is having no intention of securing an agreement and only going through the motions (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007) If this was the case this would have been considered acting in bad faith under the NLRA.
Many of the actors and actresses were concerned that the only goal that Rosenberg and McCord had at that moment was to exercise their right to strike which is found under the Wagner Act. Many of the Executives of SAG were gaining momentum with this notion. Their thoughts were, “If we’re going to have a strike, let’s have a really big one” (Whitford, 2007).
Many union members agreed that a vote to strike would be disastrous at that time. One reason that was given was because of the economy and the deepening recession. Another reason given for not striking was because a majority of the entertainment businesses were still suffering from the effects of the Writers Guild three month strike. A large number of SAG actors pushed to suspend a strike vote indefinitely. A financially devastating blow caused by a strike would not only affect actors and actresses but production workers, talent management agencies, crew members, and technicians as well. In order for a strike to happen, the SAG would have to secure a 75% yes vote from union members (Collins, 2008).
The threat of a strike by SAG did not only make actors nervous but is also caused a great deal of stress in Southern California. Fashion retailers and designers were not ready to see yet another strike that could possibly devastate television and movie production in Hollywood. Many retailers were still trying to rebound from the strike by the Writers Guild of America. A strike by the SAG would be devastating for a state that was seeing plummeting home values, the highest unemployment since 2003, and increasing gas and food prices. The SAG lost the battle for a strike vote because they had finally realized that a 75% vote would be very difficult to achieve (Riley-Katz & Medina, 2008).
During the early part of the bargaining process, AMPTP chose to stop bargaining with SAG on a new T.V. and film contract and suspended Phase One participation. Phase One was an agreement between SAG and AMPTP since 1981 for negotiating together. The suspension of Phase One was not a surprise because of the strain that each party had been feeling for some time. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) tried to bring SAG and AMPTP together to settle their differences but a vote was given to go ahead with the suspension Phase One. One reason given by AMPTP for suspending Phase One was because SAG was too willing to call a strike. Both sides had decided to continue bargaining separately to gain a contract agreement for their union members.
At the end of the year long labor dispute, SAG and AMPTP finally set aside their differences and resumed negotiations. The bargaining process went back and forth several times as SAG would reject AMPTP’s offers in the hopes to secure a better deal. Many of the SAG members were ready for the whole process to be done with and urged leaders to allow them to vote on the final contract offer that was sent from the AMPTP. They finally voted in May of 2009 and accepted a new contract with a 78 % vote. The final contract is very similar to the one offered last fall. The main goal of the labor dispute of receiving residual pay for shows shown on the internet and downloadable through sites such as iTunes and Netflix were included in the contract which gave them a 3% increase in pay (Verrier, 2009).
There are two types of bargaining strategies according to our textbook. [← Dawn, what is the name of the textbook? You must assume the reader does not know the book. In addition, since you reference it, the name must be included.] In order to bargain collectively one of the two strategies must be chosen. The two different strategies are distributive and integrative. Distributive bargaining tends to be more competitive, whereas integrative bargaining is more cooperative. SAG used a distributive bargaining technique during their negotiations. This type of negotiation is used when they are trying to divide or distribute something that is fixed. This is opposite of integrative bargaining in which they try to make more of something (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
Distributive bargaining is normally described in terms of how a pie is divided. This is done by dividing the pie up to try and get more of it for themselves. When this bargaining technique is used both sides will have to agree to use it. The goal of distributive bargaining is to win as much of the pie as possible which means that it is a win/lose situation because what one loses the other gains. SAG used this type of bargaining in order to gain more of the pie for residual income from the use of material that can be downloaded or purchased from the internet (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007). [← Good job here, Dawn, connecting the textbook information with the SAG dispute!]
The bargaining process is a very important part of negotiation during labor disputes. One important concept is bargaining in good faith which was created in the Taft-Hartley Amendment and includes tests such as the totality of conduct test. This test is done to make sure that everyone is performing in good faith. Bargaining in good faith helps to deter organizations from refusing to bargain. This would also aid in deterring organizations from using techniques such as Boulwarism and Surface Bargaining, or bypassing the bargaining process by talking with employees. These would be considered violations under the Taft-Hartley Amendments (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
Boulwarism is the process of creating a contract proposal that leaves little room for bargaining. Creating this type of proposal shows a lack of wanting to bargain in good faith. Surface Bargaining is the attempt to delay the bargaining process. Organizations know that they cannot refuse to bargain so they attempt to delay the process. This is done by not scheduling meetings regularly, cancelling them or making changes at the last minute (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
Another important concept is the duty to furnish information so that the bargaining process can move forward. The information must be relevant to the issues at hand and must be delivered without delay once a request is made by either the union or the organization. They must be delivered in a form that is legible and inclusive and can include items such as wages from all groups of employees within the organization (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007). [← Dawn, you will want to consider how this ties in with the SAG dispute. There should be a connection here with the labor dispute you are discussing so the reader can better understand why this information is included.]
The SAG finished the bargaining process in 2009 and accepted a new contract for actors and actresses by going through the process of collective bargaining. There was no information given on whether the SAG used lawyers or arbitration to settle this dispute. It is stated in, Drama Inside the Actors' Union, that after a period of time the SAG and AM PTP came back together to negotiate a contract with the actors and actresses which ended in a vote to accept the contract (Whitford, 2007). There are several steps that can be used to get to the acceptance of a labor contact. The steps include mediation, arbitration, and the use of lawyer.
Mediation is a negotiation between disputing parties with a trained mediator that directs the process. The mediator assists the disputing parties in identifying the problem and bargaining for a resolution. The mediator tries to help the parties find common ground and come to an acceptable settlement, but he or she has no power to impose an agreement. Arbitration is normally used for the resolution of commercial or labor disputes (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
Like mediation, arbitration is a method of having a dispute resolved by trained impartial people who are knowledgeable in labor disputes. Although arbitration is a private means for resolving disputes, arbitration procedures are governed by state and federal law. Unlike mediation, arbitration decisions are usually final. As a result, in choosing binding arbitration the disputing parties generally give up their right to pursue the matter through the courts, since a binding arbitration award is subject to review by a court only on a very limited basis (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
Litigation lawyers are used to decide labor contract disputes. Before it can be brought to court an investigation is done to make sure that it is not a frivolous claim. The lawyer will meet with the party which in this case would be a labor union to decide whether a strong case can be made. When this is done, the lawyer will create a claim that can consist of many court appearances on behalf of his client. He will spend a significant amount of time in putting the claim together which is the pleading process. After this process is completed the lawyer will have to give notice to the other side so that they are able to respond and receive any information that is needed to continue such as, depositions, and so they can request any evidence needed to go forward. This would be the discovery process of litigation. If the labor suit has not yet been settled out of court the next step would be to go to trial in which the lawyer takes all the information he has gathered and presents it to the judge. During this process the lawyers for both parties are required to use mediation in order to negotiate a settlement. If mediation does not work, the judge will decide the case (Personal communication, Blue Earth County District Court Judge Norbert Smith, February 14, 2011).
In the case of the Screen Actors Guild labor dispute, arbitration would have been the best step for them if they were unable to come to an agreement. Arbitration is much cheaper than hiring a lawyer and the process takes less time than going through litigation. Litigation can be caught up in the courts for years depending on the case. During arbitration the claim is gone through very thoroughly and a decision is made regarding the contract. This decision is binding and both sides must abide by it. The only big downfall with arbitration is that the decisions are final(Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
The bargaining process was a very important part of negotiations during the SAG and AMPTP labor disputes. The Wagner Act of 1935 which was the most important labor legislation was instrumental in setting up laws that unions and organizations must abide by during this process and was very helpful in the SAG labor Dispute. The Wagner Act was one of the most dramatic legislative measures of the New Deal. It indicated that the federal government was prepared to move against employers to enforce the rights of employees to unionize and bargain collectively. It forced the employer to share the decision making power with employees and created a balance of the bargaining process between the employer and employees. This act established employee rights and the enforcement of those rights gave employees the right to organize and join unions and to take part in the collective bargaining procedures. During this process with the help of important labor laws the SAG came to an agreement and voted in a new labor contract with AMPTP (Carrell & Heavrin, 2007).
It was very important for the Screen Actors Guild to come to an agreement and vote in the new labor contract in 2009. By voting in the new labor contract the SAG gained a 3% raise in income from royalties from material that is resold on the internet. With the deepening recession and Hollywood still reeling from the affects of the Writers Guild Strike it could have been disastrous for the entertainment industry if a contact had not been voted in. If SAG did not come to an agreement there may have possibly been a strike that would have a shattering affect on California who was already seeing a very high rate of unemployment (Riley-Katz & Medina. 2008).
It was very crucial for SAG to send the contract to the actors and actresses for a vote because it could have given the organization and stakeholders a bad image. It may have made them look like they were being very greedy in a time when the United States was in the middle of a recession. A bad image would trickle all the way up to the vice presidents, David Hartley, Mike Hodge, Ned Vaughn and president Ken Howard. It would also affect the National Board of Directors and the Regional Board of Directors all across the country (Screen Actors Guild. 2001).
Labor disputes can be a very long drawn out process that is very complicating. Each party to the dispute feels that they are offering the best options for their organization but often times they are in disagreement which can cause tension and conflict. The labor dispute between the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) saw many conflicts such as the suspension of phase one by AMPTP when they chose to not bargain with SAG (Salomon, A. 2008), and the threat of a strike by SAG (McFadden, 2008).
The process of collective bargaining was instrumental in helping both parties come to an agreement during the labor dispute. Through the bargaining process SAG accomplished their goal of receiving royalties from material that is resold on the internet for actors and actresses. They voted in a new contract in 2009 that gave actors and actresses a 3% raise in income (Verrier R. 2009).
by
dawnzue (student)
