Members of the New York City Council heard testimony last week (10/13) on two linked proposals related to the current actors’ strike against the advertising industry. One measure would ban commercial shoots using nonunion actors on city-owned property. The other would provide daily public access to film permit information.
The latter proposal would put the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) in a better position to organize picketing of spot shoots in New York. Currently, film permit information is made public on a weekly basis, after lensing has already taken place.
The filming ban and daily public disclosure of permits are being worked into a City Council resolution calling for "a fair and equitable" settlement to the nearly six-month-old strike. That amended resolution—based on an initial proposal by City Council speaker Peter F. Vallone (SHOOT, 8/4, p. 1)—will then go before the New York City Council’s Committee on Civil Service and Labor. If the committee passes the resolution—with the shooting ban and film permit disclosure provisions still intact—the full council would then vote on the measure. As of yet, there are no firm dates set for further hearings or votes. And even if the council ultimately approves the measure, it would still have to gain Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s endorsement in order to go into effect.
During last week’s session, advocates and opponents of the amended resolution offered strikingly different perspectives on what constitutes neutrality and legality relative to the matter. City Council members Stephen DiBrienza and Christine Quinn were two prime movers behind the resolution. At the hearing, DiBrienza said that "the only way around this strike is to use nonunion actors" and by keeping city-owned property open to this kind of work, "we are aiding and abetting those who would union bust. Why should we allow our facilities to take sides?"
The Association of National Advertisers’ (ANA) executive VP Daniel Jaffe disputed that neutrality claim. "It’s clearly not neutral to have the city say, "No, you can’t use our property.’ That’s not neutrality."
As for the legality of the resolution, particularly the filming ban, Kathleen Quinn, VP of production services for the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s), cited a 1986 Supreme Court decision which admonished local and state governments for getting involved in private labor disputes. The Supreme Court also noted that such involvement could expose cities, counties and states to potential legal and financial liabilities.
The same legal precedent was brought up by the Joint Policy Committee (JPC)—which represents the 4A’s and the ANA in labor talks—when other cities such as Los Angeles, West Hollywood and Chicago, proposed strike-related filming bans that have since stalled. The JPC also cited the Supreme Court case when New York State Comptroller H. Carl McCall issued a letter trying to get AT&T to refrain from producing spots with nonunion actors during the strike (SHOOT, 9/22, p. 1)
"We will protect ourselves from any kind of overreaching by the government," said Jaffe. "We will fight any effort by any city or state to take action that would be illegal or inappropriate."
However, New York City Council members DiBrienza and Quinn dismissed the industry contention of illegality. Quinn said that there’s precedent for the resolution, citing a ’95 measure banning the use of replacement baseball players in city-owned parks or land during the Major League Baseball strike. So, concluded Quinn, "Not only do I think that what we’re doing is appropriate and neutral, it in fact has a precedent in other legislation that this council has brought forward."
Greg Hessinger, national executive director of AFTRA, testified: "Actors have not been permitted to bring the full force of economic leverage that they otherwise would possess to bear on the industry.… As long as an unlevel playing field is allowed to exist in this city, the advertisers will not be forced to make a fair proposal, the strike will continue, the people and the city of New York will continue to be hurt."
But Matt Miller, president of the Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP), countered that many others are hurting during the strike—and will be adversely affected if production isn’t permitted to continue. "For every actor who is employed on a commercial, there are up to 50 union professionals also working," said Miller.
Runaway production to foreign countries has been exacerbated by the strike, threatening the vitality of New York’s industry, including crew people, according to Miller and Bob Fisher, executive producer/ owner of New York-headquartered Celsius Films. Fisher testified that the strike was only "driving production elsewhere" and "building a commercial infrastructure in other cities."
Others offering testimony were John Sucke, the executive director of SAG’s New York office; actress Bebe Neuwirth; Bob Bailin, president/CEO of Features Systems, a New York-based film equipment rental firm; and Paul Rosen, executive producer of New York-based Cine International Associates.
The hearing was chaired by Councilwoman Lucy Cruz. Among other Council officials present were Vallone, Councilwoman Kathryn Freed, legislative attorney Carl Smith and Council Committee members Karen Koslowitz, Lawrence Warden and Margarita Lopez.
Following the hearing, Miller expressed disappointment over the task of trying to get across the industry’s position to Council members "all wearing SAG ribbons. It seemed that they wanted to pass this resolution before they heard testimony. I actually question why they were even having the hearing. At the same time, I think that the people from the industry gave a compelling case. I think that the big losers in this entire thing [if the amended resolution passes] are the people of New York City."
Miller continued: "What we saw was an unfortunate piece of politics instead of legislation…. We will continue to testify at every hearing and make our voices heard."
