Vancouver: A controversial initiative by the Screen Actors Guild means the runaway production debate is heating up and the rest of the world may finally get a little scorched.

Global Rule One, which is supposed to come into effect May 1, is SAG’s unilateral imperative to extend its contract beyond the U.S. border. Specifically, it requires that all SAG members work under the SAG contract on any English-language television, theatrical, commercial or industrial productions made anywhere in the world for the U.S. market.

‘With the ever-increasing problem of ‘runaway production’ reaching critical proportions,’ says the SAG website, ‘it’s time to stand together once again and declare that our SAG contract goes with us wherever we go in the world, or we don’t go!’

Not surprisingly, acting unions have concerns about the aggressive move that SAG says is necessary to protect the long-term viability of the guild in the face of increasing U.S. production filmed overseas and the resulting decrease in contributions to its pension and health plans. According to SAG, there was a 53.6% increase in U.S. production filmed abroad between 1996 and 2000, which represents a loss of $22.9 million in pension and health benefits.

English-speaking unions of the International Federation of Actors (FIA), including SAG, met Feb. 16 and 17 in Toronto to discuss GR1 and SAG returned to Hollywood to relay concerns to its GR1 committee. By May, the FIA will have recommendations that ‘raise the contract standards for all performers and…ensure that rights are enforced effectively across international borders.’

But there is no expectation that the GR1 plan to enhance enforcement will be dropped and unions such as ACTRA, UBCP, Equity in the U.K., the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance in Australia and New Zealand Actors’ Equity will have to deal with a challenge to their jurisdictions.

‘We don’t think SAG has thought beyond the philosophical thrust of Global Rule One,’ says John Juliani, president of Vancouver-based Union of BC Performers. ‘They are still trying to figure out implementation. There are lots of problems and certainly it raises issues of jurisdiction. It’s a big challenge.’

Among the outstanding questions are: What happens to ACTRA or UBCP members who also have SAG cards? How will GR1 impact Canadian actors with marquee appeal who return home to work on lower-budget indigenous production? Is it reciprocal? How are the residual and buy-out systems reconciled? And how much more complicated will international coproductions be, especially those involving multiple countries?

‘The implication is that SAG’s contract is the best, so why shouldn’t [members] sign on?’ says Juliani.

In Canada, producers pay a fee to UBCP or ACTRA to bring in a SAG member, who can work under a SAG or Canadian union contract. If they are on a SAG contract, benefits accrue to SAG. If they are on a UBCP or ACTRA contract, benefits accrue to the Canadian union unless the SAG member specifically requests the benefits flow through to SAG.

The problem, says Stephen Waddell, executive director of ACTRA, is that ‘prominent’ SAG members have come to Canada and worked on entirely non-union productions, meaning that no benefits accrue to any union.

ACTRA supports GR1 on the grounds that it will be easier to organize those non-union productions, he explains.

Waddell, who is somewhat warmer to GR1 than his UBCP colleague, is also convinced the details will be worked out before the enforcement date.

ACTRA has honored the spirit of GR1 for years, says Waddell, through ad hoc agreements that are tough to enforce. ‘Producers can and do refuse to negotiate [those terms] in a performing contract,’ he says. ‘This is a response to what we are all facing in the global production marketplace.’

Waddell adds that there is at least one advantage offered to Canadian actors by GR1. A SAG member working under a SAG contract is paid in U.S. dollars. Under GR1, that member can no longer work under ACTRA and get paid in Canadian dollars, so is therefore more expensive than a non-SAG member – an important distinction for price-conscious producers.

Ilyanne Kichaven, spokesperson for SAG, says GR1 has been a part of the guild since its inception in 1933, but hasn’t to date been enforced.

She says the SAG national board voted on the May 1 date in response to trends of runaway production and other issues such as media consolidation that blurs who’s working for whom.

The May 1 deadline also allows the union to educate members. ‘There are a lot of members who don’t know they have the right to ask for a SAG contract [when working abroad],’ says Kichaven.

The details of GR1, she admits, are still being discussed, but actors working in contravention of GR1 are subject to peer tribunals, fines, sanctions and, in the extreme, expulsion from the union.

The dual-membership issue and other outstanding issues will either be resolved by May 1 or be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, she says, and enforcement will require the cooperation of international unions like ACTRA.

Some industry observers would rather SAG have worked out the confusion before announcing the new regime.

‘It’s a nightmare,’ says Arthur Evrensel, partner at the Vancouver office of law firm Heenan Blaikie. ‘SAG is really over-reaching its jurisdiction.

‘How as producers’ representatives and counsel are we to deal with the conflicts as they arise in dealing with two separate sets of residual structures?’ he asks. ‘In terms of pension and health and welfare, we have different rates. Work conditions are different. We just want certainty and that’s not happening, and May 1 is just around the corner. I hope they extend the deadline until such time as they have resolved these issues with the Canadian unions.’

Ian Edwards

-www.sag.org

-www.ubcp.com

-www.actra.ca