Deadline: Ratification of IATSE’s new film and TV contract was approved last week in a landslide under the union’s electoral college-style voting system, but it was a real squeaker in terms of the popular vote – the closest in the union’s history. And while the popular vote carries no weight under the union’s rules, the closeness of the vote might offer some consolation to opponents of the pact, while serving notice to management’s AMPTP that the unpopularity of the pact could foreshadow tougher sledding ahead when the parties return to the bargaining table in three years.
5 comments:
Popular vote carries no weight to the electoral college? Gee. Where have I heard that one before? It’s interesting to read about the structure of IATSE voting and how it has worked in this situation. While I understand the need for structure in an organization and the need to ensure that a group of union members doesn’t get unruly with turning down every proposal that doesn’t guarantee them a gold limo with an all you can eat and drink buffet hidden inside for transportation to and from work calls (or other similarly wild requests that are probably a bit more in line with actual reality that would sound great to the worker but terrible to a producer), there has to be a better way that doesn’t completely trample a particular local of the union. IATSE’s locals are so independent of each other that it seems unreasonable that one gets completely tossed under the bus for something with a tight popular vote. It may not affect other locals as deeply as it will affect them, and how does that hurt the union as a whole?
The IATSE contract negotiation and the disconnect between the popular and electoral college vote is an interesting topic to examine. As seems to be the problem in other democratic structures the electoral college is seemingly a no longer appropriate gauge of the popular vote and if popular vote is something that, as democracy claims it to be, is important than we must re-evaluate the system and put new methods into place. With that being said it isn’t conclusive if popular vote did or did not align with the outcome and something that must be accepted when being part of the union is that decisions will be made that are not your own personal preference because the union is a larger representative force. Not to say that we don’t need more accurate representation but if this is just a one-off issue than it may not be a major problem in the union. But members of the union won’t always be 100% happy with the choice made, but to change that they need to be involved and continue voting.
Besides the fact that I am totally astonished by the sheer quantity of people in these voting locals (my local has fewer than 50 members), I am very curious about a lot of the information here. To my knowledge, the majority of regional IA stagehand locals don’t have any sort of broad-scale voting like this, most likely because they aren’t separated by craft within individual productions. There is certainly discussion, collaboration, and/or argument regarding regional politics, vendors, and venues, but certainly not on that scale. I looked up a few of the locals to suss out who was at the top of the list in terms of representation, and it doesn’t look too badly skewed towards a particular craft. It genuinely seems like those with more members ended up with more representation. That said, the electoral college system always feels a little unfair, and I don’t understand why the IA leadership decided to implement it in this case. I suppose it presents each local as a united front on one side of a cause. In any case, I’d be curious to find out more about the contract, and why the Editor’s Guild is so against it.
I don't understand why IATSE even has a popular vote if "the popular vote carries no weight under the union’s rules." Is it just for good show? Why even bother if you aren't going to abide by it? Apparently the popular vote is a canary in a mine sort of warning, with the article reporting that "while the popular vote carries no weight under the union’s rules, the closeness of the vote might offer some consolation to opponents of the pact, while serving notice to management’s AMPTP that the unpopularity of the pact could foreshadow tougher sledding ahead when the parties return to the bargaining table in three years." That is a long time for something that a large percentage of the vote didn't want to live with. I certainly hope that the union management recognizes how divided this vote was, and takes steps before three years from now to address fall out. The fact that "under the IA’s rules, a local is bound by the terms of a contract its members whole-heartedly rejected as long as a majority vote of the other locals is for ratification" seems baffling to me--how can a local support something that its members reject in such great numbers?
The politics of IATSE are so interesting to read about. Because it’s such a strong union, and so wide reaching, it’s almost crazy to think that all of these different people are held under one contract. It makes sense of course, but it becomes a little bit like a microcosm of larger systems. The electoral college voting system makes sense from an ease and practicality standpoint, but it suffers many of the same flaws at this scale as it does on a national scale. I’ll be interested to see how IATSE leadership handles this situation, knowing that their system may say everything is happy-shiny, but in reality their people are not so satisfied. Hopefully, in the next contract negotiation, IA will take some measures to ensure a more even voice is heard. If they don’t and another situation like this arises, IATSE could be in for some troublesome times ahead. And in-fighting, no matter how compact or hidden, will always weaken a union.
Post a Comment