A double standard or a lesson learned? Hopefully, the latter describes Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan’s effort to help prevent writers’ and actors’ strikes against the TV/feature industry. As reported in this week’s issue (see p. 1), Riordan has commissioned the Milken Institute and Segabo Associates to conduct a joint study on how a strike or strikes would impact Greater Los Angeles.
"Any strike would devastate thousands of innocent victims who are not represented at the bargaining table, across a range of industries," stated Riordan. "We must also acknowledge that a strike will cause tax revenue shortfalls that will affect city services like police protection, sanitation, fire and transportation."
The Milken/Segabo research will pinpoint how many jobs and how much tax revenue Los Angeles would lose if a strike action came to pass. "I hope that by gathering and publicizing solid information on the impact of strikes, I will be able to persuade all parties to find common ground and avert a strike," explained Riordan. "It is my responsibility to look out for the future of Los Angeles, and to make sure the concerns of those who are not represented in the negotiations are brought into the process."
What a difference a year makes. At this same time in 2000, the advertising community was careening towards the actors’ strike. That six-month strike adversely impacted the domestic economy, fueling runaway production. Support services in major entertainment centers like Los Angeles suffered huge losses. And arguably a large measure of runaway filming will continue because during the strike, more advertisers discovered the economic benefits of shooting in Canada and overseas.
Yet during that half-year, Mayor Riordan was silent. In fact, the only attempted political intervention exacerbated the problem as the Los Angeles City Council considered banning all spot location lensing that employed nonunion actors (SHOOT, 7/7/00, p. 1). Similar proposals surfaced in New York, Chicago and West Hollywood. Indeed, what about all the people not at the negotiating table whose livelihoods would have been further damaged by an ill-advised filming ban? Thankfully, those proposed bans were never adopted, in part due to vigorous industry lobbying.
So, is the glass now half full or half empty? The optimist might regard Riordan’s latest action as being prompted by last year’s labor unrest. Having witnessed the profoundly adverse effects that the strike against the ad industry had on the local and national economy, Riordan saw fit this time around to try to meaningfully intervene.
However, the cynic might contend that commercialmaking still falls below many public officials’ radar, whereas the high-profile TV/feature biz continues to register on most politicians’ agendas.
Unfortunately, it’s difficult to definitively determine which perspective is closer to the truth. Clearly, though, the situation underscores the importance of spotmakers attaining a strong voice in local, regional and national government.
In that context, perhaps a decision that chronologically came in between the 2000 strike and this month’s preemptive move by Riordan looms as significant. In December, the Association of Independent Commercial Producers’ (AICP) national board moved to establish a federal political action committee (PAC), as well as PACs in New York and California.
Right after the national board meeting, AICP president Matt Miller commented on the initiative to form PACs (SHOOT, 1/5, p. 1). "If we are going to get the ear of government, we have to play in the big leagues," said Miller. "Cities need to understand our business, and elected officials are going to be important in order for our industry to be competitive in a global economy."
