Boges Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (edited) I don't know who watched the Super Bowl in Canada but there was this really cool ad where guys in a Beer League got "Flash Mobbed" Basically 600 fans showed and announcers started calling the game as if it was a big deal. Pretty cool stuff. Well Actra Toronto is pissed. http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/919673/budweiser-canada-is-not-the-king TORONTO, Feb. 10, 2012 /CNW/ - Labatt Canada has side-stepped the National Commercial Agreement (NCA) to produce a non-union Budweiser commercial for the Super Bowl. A so-called "flash mob" involving over 600 background performers was hired without the wage protection and safety of the National Commercial Agreement. The National Commercial Agreement (NCA) is the industry standard agreement for performers appearing in commercials produced in Canada. The NCA is negotiated between The Institute of Communications Agencies (ICA) and The Association of Canadian Advertisers (ACA) and governs wages and working conditions for professional performers in Canada. Labatt Canada is an ACA member and, according to the ACA web site, Jorn Socquet, VP of Marketing for Labatt Breweries of Canada, also sits on the ACA board. "It's an embarrassing day for Labatt when they're caught exploiting every day folks in their multi-million dollar television ads," says Heather Allin, President of ACTRA Toronto. "We are shocked that Labatt, with whom we have a long-standing business relationship, would undermine their agreement and hire workers for much less than industry-standard pay." Anomaly, the U.S. advertising agency which produced this non-union commercial in Ontario, also used unsuspecting hockey players to promote their international brand. Under the NCA, the hockey players would have been fairly compensated for their speaking and stunt roles and would have had the protection of a qualified professional stunt co-ordinator. What's next? Demanding union wages to appear on the nightly news? Edited February 10, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 This can have two faces to it. On the one hand, Labatt has agreed to operate under legal requirements, and that includes using ACTRA. That ACTRA wastes a ton of money for Union demands, Labatt was duty bound to use them. On the other hand, none of those players were compensated and if that commercial made Labatt a ton of money dont the people who made it happen deserve something? (I bet they all got couplons for free beer) What if one of those players was hiding from something? Labatt could have spent all that money only to lose it because one of the guys sought an injunction. Anyhow, I liked the ad and thought it quite brilliant and the players were quite happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 the hockey players would have been fairly compensated for their speaking and stunt roles and would have had the protection of a qualified professional stunt co-ordinator. OK, that is a pretty funny line.Imagine hockey games having stunt coordinators. Quote The government should do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 What's next? Demanding union wages to appear on the nightly news? Unions could easily turn things on their heads and instead of demanding higher wages and benefits for themselves call for cuts to compensation and benefits for CEO's and other senior execs instead. It shouldn't be that hard to put a shine on unions again and I bet CEO's and execs would probably start cleaning up their acts too. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Why would management of any comapny cede the authority of compensation? Corporations are not democracies where somebody makes a motion and all the staff vote. Quote The government should do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 What if one of those players was hiding from something? Labatt could have spent all that money only to lose it because one of the guys sought an injunction. Anyhow, I liked the ad and thought it quite brilliant and the players were quite happy. I'm sure they had to sign a waiver to appear in the commercial. Just like with any form of "Reality TV" Apparently those idiots on Cops every week sign a waiver to show them being arrested. If I was one of those guys I'd be thrilled at the experience, I wouldn't be looking for a payout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Why would management of any comapny cede the authority of compensation? To steal the shine back from the unions. In any case unions could demand the government simply raise taxes on CEO's to achieve the same purpose. Corporations are not democracies where somebody makes a motion and all the staff vote. That could change, especially now that Canadians are all cozy with the idea of depending on state-owned enterprises for their economic prosperity i.e. our new BFF's in China. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I am dissapointed to see that a signatory company has neglected their obligations! I hope this story becomes well known among actors throughout Canada and Labbats is boycotted WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I'm sure they had to sign a waiver to appear in the commercial. Just like with any form of "Reality TV" I am not so sure. Watch the commercial, these are not actors at all. Watch their faces when the doors open and 600 rush in. Thats not scripted. (but I have been fooled and can be naive too....but I doubti it in this case) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 I am not so sure. Watch the commercial, these are not actors at all. Watch their faces when the doors open and 600 rush in. Thats not scripted. (but I have been fooled and can be naive too....but I doubti it in this case) Yeah I know that's why it's cool. Had Actra had their way, the players and the crowd would have been Union members, making Union wages. I wonder what the hourly wage for pretending to give a shit about a Beer Leage Hockey game is. But they would have to ask the players permission to appear on TV after the fact. I'm sure if a player didn't really want to appear in the ad he could ask to be edited out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Had Actra had their way, the players and the crowd would have been Union members, making Union wages. Yes,this is called fair wage dispersment and it is good for the economy! Are you against having a good economy? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 Yes,this is called fair wage dispersment and it is good for the economy! Are you against having a good economy? WWWTT Apparently some people really believe that driving wages way down will help the economy... Problem is that most of our economy is based on consumption by those very same wage earners... not exports. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 12, 2012 Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 To steal the shine back from the unions. In any case unions could demand the government simply raise taxes on CEO's to achieve the same purpose. That could change, especially now that Canadians are all cozy with the idea of depending on state-owned enterprises for their economic prosperity i.e. our new BFF's in China. Why would governments cede the rule of law to unions to impose their will on the economy or on personal freedoms? Quote The government should do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Why would governments cede the rule of law to unions to impose their will on the economy or on personal freedoms? I wouldn't expect them to cede the rule of law to anyone, but I'd expect them enforce existing laws or make new one where appropriate. You don't think the government should impose it's will when it's been prompted or lobbied to? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 I think that the big companies need to keep good relations with the actors unions or they can't ever use them - they would be boycotted and couldn't use the best talent. Quote  Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) Down in St. Catherines, here in Ontario, there used to be a company that made huge grinding stones and machinery, mostly for large factories. Every year for a LONG time the company would give every employee at the plant a large turkey as a Christmas bonus. One year some union stewards and officers got the idea that some might rather have a "glass turkey", or bottle of booze. So they went to the company management and DEMANDED that employees be given the choice! At first the company was not agreeable. They had been giving turkeys for all those years and had an easy, smooth system set up to administer the program. Besides, there were some fears about contributing to alcoholism or at least, drunk driving. What's more, a turkey could be enjoyed by an entire family, unlike a bottle of hootch. It should be noted that this bonus of a turkey had been entirely a gift from the company. It was in no way the result of some kind of worker contract agreement. It had always been a simple bonus from the company to its workers, free and clear. However, the union made such an issue of it that finally the company gave in. That year, employees had the choice and many chose the alcohol. Never again did that company give a turkey, bottle or anything else as a Christmas bonus! That company is long gone now. There are still ex-workers alive today who tell this story. Edited February 13, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) However, the union made such an issue of it that finally the company gave in. That year, employees had the choice and many chose the alcohol. Never again did that company give a turkey, bottle or anything else as a Christmas bonus! That company is long gone now. There are still ex-workers alive today who tell this story. This reminds me of when I was a union logger. In those days we used to have a chaser and a landing-man in the landing. The landing was where the yarder hauled the logs to, the chaser mainly un-did the chokers and attended to things related to the yarder and the landing-man bucked the logs to length and tended to things related to loading the logs on trucks and on occasion each would help the other out when needed. Depending on the setting, the type of wood, the time of day and other factors either job could range between really busy and fairly slack. It was not uncommon for the landing crew to sometimes cut up waste for firewood which was often shared amongst all including the foreman. Then one day the president of the company flew overhead and was incensed at the sight of someone cutting some firewood to the extent that he eliminated the job of chaser and laid off 6 or 7 of the lowest people in the scheme of things. It wasn't to long before production dropped off and a few overworked landing men were hurt and one was even killed. There wasn't a lot of happiness and the greed of the company only became greater until it was so obvious that environmentalists freaked out and now we're all long gone. One of the things the enviros complained about was all the waste that was left behind... Needless to say we never got any turkeys or bottles either. Edited February 13, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 I wouldn't expect them to cede the rule of law to anyone, but I'd expect them enforce existing laws or make new one where appropriate. You don't think the government should impose it's will when it's been prompted or lobbied to? Why would they cut the nuts off their own economy to satisfy a small group of unionists? Quote The government should do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Why would they cut the nuts off their own economy to satisfy a small group of unionists? Assuming the unionists struck a cord with the public by striking against outrageous salaries, perks, and benefits a much smaller group of CEO's get, the government would be cutting their nuts off instead. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.