Proposal Details

days since last accident 181

Proposal Union Position Game Corporation's Position Current Status

Revision to Trailers/Promotion Language. Article I, section 18

Create a clarifying distinction between commercials and trailers. A trailer is anything under 2 min.

Employers would like to continue to broadcast commercials without covering them under the appropriate union commercials contract.

Union proposal still on table.
Employer still says no.

Wage Increase

Union originally proposed with 5%, and countered with 4%

Employer verbally countered with 1%.
In July 2015 they wrote a written proposal of 2%. In Oct 2016, the employers proposed a 3%.
They also proposed, instead of a 3%/year, a combined increase upfront of 9% if we ratify the contract by Dec 1st, 2016.

Settled at 3%/year.

Secondary Compensation

Union agreed to employer’s front end compensation, only if employers could have the option to not have to pay the front end compensation, and instead pay it on the backend for only the most successful games. If an employer chose one option, they are not obligated to the other option.

Option A: Employers Proposal-
Upfront compensation structure similar to employers proposal but includes an additional $50 at “1 Session” level (aggregate capped at $950).

Option B: Employer can instead choose to pay secondary compensation on the backend.
A secondary payment will trigger for each 2 million units sold, up to 8 million units.
The most a performer could receive is 4 session payments, or around $3,000 on the most successful games.

Of the employers we are negotiating with, only 3 of their games in 2015 would have triggered a back end compensation.

The video game corporations proposed a front end bonus structure based on number of sessions worked.

1 Session, $0 Incremental
2 Sessions, $50 Incremental ($50 in aggregate)
3 Sessions, $100 Incremental ($150 in aggregate)
4 Sessions, $100 Incremental ($250 in aggregate)
5 Sessions, $150 Incremental ($400 in aggregate)
6 Sessions, $150 Incremental ($550 in aggregate)
7 Sessions, $150 Incremental ($700 in aggregate)
8 Sessions, $250 Incremental ($950 in aggregate)
9 Sessions or more, $0 ($950 in aggregate)

This bonus would be credited towards any over scale compensation.

Bonus does not apply to games with 10 or fewer sessions.

While we have issue with the front end compensation bonus structure, we understood that this was a model that the video game corporations were most comfortable with so we agreed to their model if they agreed to allow the option for employers to use our back end payment plan instead.

The video game corporations said no.

This is one of our major sticking points in negotiations.

Vocal Stress

As an effort to reduce and prevent injury to vocal chords, union proposed to formalize industry practice of reducing a vocally stressful session from 4 hours to 2 hours, without a reduction in pay.

Split a 4 hour session in half and do both 2 hour sessions for one session fee within 5 business days.

No agreement reached.

The employers’ proposal doesn’t resolve the issue. Their proposal is asking someone to do two vocally unsafe sessions in a week, which can still cause injury.

However, we agreed that both sides will continue to proactively work on the issue over the course of the contract.

2 hour vocally stressful sessions are mostly industry standard even though it is not formalized in the contract.


At time of booking, agents must be told verbally the title of a project. NDAs are acceptable.

Employers proposed to share whether or not the actor is reprising a role, but not the title or whether the game is part of a larger franchise; whether there is objectionable content and whether the game falls into 1 of 3 game genres:

  1. Fighting/shooter/RPG,
  2. Simulation/Racing/Sports, or
  3. Puzzle/Casual/Kids and Family/Strategy.

No agreement reached.

Actors’ representatives need to know the game that their actor is working on so that the agent can freely and fairly bargain for the actors’ employment on a game. Actors or their representatives should also have the choice to decide which games they want to work on.

Most of the games that actors work under would fall under their category #1 Fighting/ Shooter/RPG. This language does not help an actor or agent know what project they are working on.

The employers counter proposal is still very far away from our proposal and still doesn’t address the issue of transparency.

This is another one of our major sticking points in negotiations.

Removing Most Favored Nations

This clause restricts us in making different terms and conditions with other employers whose needs might not fit within the confines of the contract.


Union proposal still on table. Employer still says no

Clarify Language around Stunt Coordinators

Clarify that a stunt coordinator should be on set when a stunt is being performed. There need to be stunt coordinators to direct motion capture otherwise performers get hurt. Stunt coordinators usually also save production time and money because a qualified stunt coordinator is able to get performers though scenes quicker than without one.

Employer has made no commitments or formal suggestions to resolve issue. Employer also argues that motion capture isn’t acting, and therefore isn’t covered under the Union contract thus allowing them to circumvent union safety regulations.

Union and employer disagree over what is considered covered work. However, both sides agreed to continue to work on the issue in a Cooperative Committee

Proposal Game Corporation's Position Union Position Current Status

Employer Proposed: Add language to section 9, article I- fees for actors and agents

Fees to actors and agents if they do things such as, show up late, refuse to audition for a job.

Language is imposing the employer’s responsibility of hiring back a performer onto the union. If an employer is not happy with a performance, they do not have to rehire the actor.

Employer removed fines from proposed language, the remaining language the Employer originally proposed 2/3/15, and has maintained position.

Employer Proposed: Limited Integration

Employer would like to reduce the cost to integrate performances from one game to another.

Employer proposed a session payment buy-out for indefinite use of a performance, up to 300 lines. The performer will get a session payment for each additional 300 lines.

Currently the rate is 135% of total sessions worked on a game, for one time integration.

The Union countered the employer proposal with the employers can buy out the performances within the same franchise at their proposed rate. Their proposal however doesn’t take into account performance capture.

No agreement

Employer Proposed: Cast Clearances

Employers proposed a 24-hours response to cast clearances. Failure to respond automatically grants clearance.

Union countered with 1 business day to respond as long as the employers use our online cast clearance system.