Breaking in

[ChrisConnelly]

Hey guys, I'm currently a film student in Pennsylvania and I was wondering if anyone would be able to tell me the process for joining the union, and how difficult of an undertaking this would be. Much thanks for any advice!

[David Mullen ASC]

If the union, you mean the camera guild, Local 600 IATSE, you need to show that you worked 100 days in the U.S. or its territories over a 3-year period, paid work, in the specific job area you are joining under (camera assisting, operating, D.P., etc.).

 

You don't really have to be in a hurry, right out of film school -- I didn't join until I had been shooting features for ten years. It all depends on how quickly you think you'll be working on union films and thus need to be a member. It's expensive to join (as a D.P. at least -- cost me $10,000 up front plus $1000 a year in dues).

[ChrisConnelly]

Thanks for the info. Do you happen to have any idea what the costs are to join as an assistant?

[Mitch Gross]

Thanks for the info. Do you happen to have any idea what the costs are to join as an assistant?

Last time I checked it was around $4500. Just call Local 600 and ask.

[Bill DiPietra]

It all depends on how quickly you think you'll be working on union films and thus need to be a member. It's expensive to join (as a D.P. at least -- cost me $10,000 up front plus $1000 a year in dues).

So how does it turn out to be worth while? What kind of benefits do you get by joining that union? That's a lot of money.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, the primary benefit is that any larger budgeted job that pays well will probably be a union shoot, so if you're not in the union, you'll be limited to some degree to smaller budgets and lower salaries -- which is fine, especially if you're paying your dues and are building a resume.

 

The other main benefits are overtime after 8 hours and that the producer has to pay into your health & pension plans.

 

But there's no reason to join the union and pay all of that money unless you are at a point where you'd be offered a number of union jobs, which pay better and thus will make up eventually for the costs of joining. It's sort of like the "when do I get an agent?" question.

[Leon Rodriguez]

Texas is a "Right to Work" State and unions shouldn't be a problem here but they are. They will always want their pound of flesh.

 

Once people are in the union they are afraid to work without a waiver. Indies are placed in a position to have to ask permission to hire or fire or go late on a shoot or whatever. We give them the authority to dictate the terms of our craft by joining them in the first place. We empower them with the right to threaten our livelihood. There was probably a time in history when unions were a good thing but that time is not now. They supress a lot of good art from happening here in Texas. It's just heartbreaking.

 

What if everyone just stood up and quit. and everyone just spoke for themselves and set their own parameters on what they will or will not do and for how much. What a range of talent to configure a production from! There would be a flood of creativity unparrelleled in history. If only we would speak for ourselves.

 

How many of us have a friend who is locked in by SAG or would otherwise star in that last script you wrote? What a frustrating anchor to have to tread water with.

 

Don't give them your money. Take that money and shoot some film without their permission. The world will have gained a piece of art. Give them your money and our craft has grown more captive.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm in a union and it does at least save me some cash; they've also managed to recover monies owed with nothing more than a threatening letter. The opportunity to spread insurance costs among members in this way is to me what the word "union" really means.

 

In the US, it seems to have been more about keeping as large a slice of the pie as possible for as small a number of people as they can possibly get away with. I guess it's just another form of sticking together, but it seems more designed to reinforce the divide than help anybody out.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

>What if everyone just stood up and quit. and everyone just spoke for

>themselves and set their own parameters on what they will or will not

>do and for how much.

 

Great -- you throw out the power of collective bargaining and it's every man for themselves. So a few powerful people get whatever they want and everyone else is screwed. No overtime, no turnaround, no meals every six hours, etc. Anyone who complains is replaced by some eager person willing to work on a movie no matter how much they are abused.

 

It's like people are suffering from selective memory loss as to what film production was like in the 1920's before union rules controlled the length of the work day, etc.

 

Even on low-budget non-IA productions, the crew gets some trickle-down benefits from the SAG rules regarding meals and turnaround.

 

All the union-bashing that is going in this country is threatening to turn America into a third-world workforce. Look at the grocery worker strike here in California - corporations have taken out loans in hundreds of millions of dollars from other corporations in a collective effort to break the union because they all want to follow WalMart's employing practices (I like the one about how WalMart locks in their nighttime employees.) But for some reason, it's OK for big corporations to work collectively to beat up on some grocery store workers to cut their wages and benefits -- but collective bargaining is a bad thing for the regular employee out there?

 

Sorry, but as an individual, I have almost ZERO power to use against the producers and studios on Hollywood. If the unions disappeared overnight, someone would re-invent them all over again because ultimately, people find more strength in numbers.

[Jeff Tanner]

Before transitioning into a DP I was first a PA, then an electrician, then a gaffer. As an electrician and Gaffer I was in the union and it was a huge benefit. As a crew person "under the line" it is impossible to have a voice that production would listen to. Every production that came to town tried to screw us because we couldn't possibly know any better (since we didn't have a Los Angeles address). Never mind that we all worked on major Hollywood movies, national commercials, music videos for the "big names", etc.

 

Without our union we had nothing to bargain with. The union took the weight off of our shoulders by negotiating for us. If a production wanted the skilled labor, they paid the union rates (this was the case regardless of the production being Union or not). Like David mentioned, without the union we would be forced to work for whatever the production wanted to pay or we would not work at all. Unions are a huge reason why so many people are able to make a living in this crazy business. Even those not in the union benefit daily from their existence.

 

Now that I am no longer a gaffer, I'm no longer a member of any union but that is not because I believe that they are useless. It is because as a DP I have a voice that IS listened to. If I were offered a union show, I would join the union but until then I can put that money to better use.

 

Jeff Tanner

[John Pytlak RIP]

Here is one issue:

 

http://members.cox.net/12on12off/

 

http://www.theasc.com/cgibin/store/acsstor...atalogno=22400x

[Mitch Gross]

As a non-Union DP who just left a job interview for a feature film where everyone on the crew was to be offered the same fabulous rate of $75/day, I can say that I think the union is a very good thing.

[Leon Rodriguez]

I can see that it looks different from the inside. I fall into the catagory of some eager person willing to work on a movie no matter how much they are abused because it's not abuse if one is eager to work. Maybe all the filmmaker can afford is $75/day but the script is worth doing or lets you do a shot or use a process that you might not otherwise get to make. I will have gained more than the $75 bucks. I'll know how to do that shot or process. What if it's my script and I had something important to say about a human issue? Does it really not get made because of the demands of those trickle down restrictions? I think small films have a right to be made. I understand LA is immersed. It's the heart and bulk of the industry. Nothing can happen there without union approval but Texas still has a chance at independance. I'd hate to see us fall under the union thumb. From my vantage point I'd rather shoot a motion picture than pick cotton for my $75/day.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Leon Rodriguez

[Mitch Gross]

No, for $75/day they are trying to get a large, qualified professional crew to work four six-day weeks (24 days total). If you want to hire a bunch of film students or amateurs and give them a small stipend so they can pay their rent and eat while they toil away on your movie, then that's fine I guess. But working folk need to be protected from exploitation. I'm not saying that everyone deserves to live like a king, but this is a commercial -- albeit low budget -- production that is budgeted at several hundred thousand dollars. Perhaps a DP is going to get something out of a production besides the small check, but what is the average grip or PA going to get? Abused and exploited, that's what.

[David Mullen ASC]

Hey, I've spent 10 years shooting small non-union indie films. Over 20 of them. Just because unions exist doesn't mean there won't be low-budget non-union films for people at the beginning of their careers to work on.

 

The problem is that after several years of that, you actually want to start earning a living at what you do, rather than be supported by a long-suffering wife... you know what I mean?

[Leon Rodriguez]

I didn't intend to offend anyone. Especially folks I respect. I've resigned myself to holding down two jobs many, many years ago. Film (first) and whatever else it takes to feed the family. That's why when a production disintegrates around me because my crews are squeezed by their union, I don't know how it works, bosses, I guess, it's all that much more painful. I certainly want what's best for my talented film friends and always try to get them as much as is available. It's almost never about money. They want to do the picture with me but I sense their fear. I care for them so I don't impinge on their friendships. The project fizzles out. Old familiar story.

 

The unions will always win because we let them win, we actually want them to win. If I lived in LA I might feel differently. There's always the next production starting up. Easier to just give in. You can give up the straight job and follow the rules. I, personally just can't let somebody tell me how to make my picture. I just can't.

 

I don't want to bum anyone out. I just want to get my pictures made. My credits go back to early seventies. If unions keep a picture from being made by intimidating my talent, they keep me from working consequently they invalidate my life's work. How does that warrent any loyalty?

 

Let's just agree that we disagree. Two different places two different perspectives. In Austin it's all independant film, big or little budget. We should take a stand. Not that we'll win. But I don't see any other way but to just go down fighting. After 30 years, I'm not going to stop making film. Just can't.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Just a few thoughts based on what people have said.

 

> Great -- you throw out the power of collective bargaining and it's every man for themselves.

 

If you're not in a powerful union, it already is.

 

> But working folk need to be protected from exploitation

 

Yes sure. But unless they're in the union, they aren't anyway.

 

> The problem is that after several years of that, you actually want to start earning a living at what you do

 

Yes, absolutely, but unions or not there is only so much work going around. Because some people are union-bound to charge extortionate rates it means that all the money goes to a lucky few. The rest live off their parents, bar work, or just get out of the field.

 

In short: unions, sure, they're great when you're in them, at least the big scary American unions, but they exist solely to screw you over if you're not.

 

All a union does for them is suck the majority of the cash away from the little people. I would hazard the opinion that IATSE actually stops more people holding down a worthwhile job than it helps. Unfortunately it's a gloriously circular problem because the people it benefits are those in control of the situation.This is how it used to be - even when I was younger - in the UK, and it seems to be how it is in the US; for an often insanely right-wing country you do have some incredibly socialist labour laws.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

You're not suggesting that if there were no unions in Los Angeles, everyone would get more work at higher wages??? All I think would happen is that wages would drop overall -- so you might have the same amount of work spread out among more people at lower wages. So basically the least experienced might find more work but the average person over the long term would get less work for less money. Again, the WalMart effect - turn Americans into third-world laborers in their own country and tell them they should be lucky to be getting anything while the people at the very top make out like bandits and avoid paying taxes.

 

There's only so many ways to slice up the pie...

 

It's the natural tendency of a workforce to organize in order to exert some control back from the people who own things, who naturally have the upper hand. Because a group of laborers has more strength than a single laborer. And when a group organizes, the intent is to benefit the members of that group, not those outside of the group. And one of the ways that unions, guilds, etc. have been able to sell themselves to producers, owners, etc. is to suggest that they will get something for their money - more skilled labor, etc.

 

Unions don't get formed because everything is peachy-keen for the workers. People don't go through the pain of forming a union just for the fun of it, or out of greed. They form them because they see no other way to protect themselves, especially when we have a government that protects the wealthiest few over the general population.

 

Would the general workforce in the film industry, the actors and crew people, be better off with no union? Would they get out of the producers and studos MORE retirement and health care benefits, MORE overtime, HIGHER wages? I really, really, really doubt it.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> You're not suggesting that if there were no unions in Los Angeles, everyone

> would get more work at higher wages???

 

What I'm suggesting is that when a union reaches the level of influence that IATSE has, it increases people's earnings more by exclusion of the masses than by its own good works. This is unjust.

 

> the WalMart effect - turn Americans into third-world laborers in their own country

 

I think you'll find that the giant Japanese industrialists did that in about 1975 - at least, talk to anyone who worked at that time for RCA or General Electric.

 

> tell them they should be lucky to be getting anything while the people at the

> very top make out like bandits and avoid paying taxes

 

That's exactly what powerful unions do! Allow a carefully-selected few to make a fortune, while everyone else scrapes around.

 

> It's the natural tendency of a workforce to organize in order to exert some

> control back from the people who own things

 

Sure, organise, but once you start making membership as narrowly exclusive as the enormous unions you have, you are in danger of artificially narrowing the field, the point I made above. If US antitrust laws were as applicable to individuals as they are to corporations, this would be illegal.

 

> And one of the ways that unions, guilds, etc. have been able to sell themselves

> to producers, owners, etc. is to suggest that they will get something for their

> money - more skilled labor, etc.

 

As far as I know most Local 600 positions do not involve any verification of skill level. I've certainly worked a hundred days as an editor in the last three years (I've probably worked a hundred days as an editor in the last ONE) but you wouldn't exactly want me cutting your feature film, would you?

 

Large unions in the US are famous for reinforcing their hold on the relevant industry through underhanded tactics and outright intimidation; read about Robert Rodriguez' famously non-union production and how much time was spent cleaning sugar out of fuel tanks and repairing slashed tyres.

 

> Unions don't get formed because everything is peachy-keen for the workers.

 

Sure, in the first place. It seems to me that in many cases once they get too established, and exercise too much influence, they can cause problems. I am possibly the least conservative-oriented person I know, and my dislike for Margaret Thatcher's politics knows no bounds, but the amount of power wielded by the coal miners' unions in the UK back in the 80s was absolutely preposterous. I mention this mainly because the legal changes made then are the reason that BECTU is a mere shadow of its former self; but if this were not so, it would not be saving me all that insurance money.

 

> Would the general workforce in the film industry, the actors and crew people, be

> better off with no union?

 

If by "general workforce" you mean people in the union, then the answer is obvious, at least initially. Taking a broader view of the health of the industry as a whole, I have a feeling that the long term effects of a less militant union can only be positive. Here, where we do not have a strong union, experienced and well-respected crew are not suddenly unable to find work or charge appropriate rates. In the US, unions do not guarantee this anyway. The fact that BECTU membership may be comprised in part of inexperienced beginners doesn't hurt anybody because union membership is not intended to infer capability. What we don't have is a huge gap between success and failure, the political and social militancy, and the unpleasant activistic undertones of a union with a stranglehold on its sector. BECTU doesn't destroy anybody's career by preventing them from working; I'd bet that IATSE does that all the time.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think you can say "you only need 100 days to get in into the I.A. so how much better can the talent level be" and "the I.A. makes it too hard for the majority to get in."

 

Either it's hard to get into the I.A. or it isn't. I'm not sure how much of an impediment the 100 days of past paid work rule is. I took ten years to join because I never was up for union work so there was no reason to join and spend that money. When I was potentially up for union work, I turned in the paperwork and got in. And it was worth the money because the salary rates are higher.

 

So I'm not sure how I was being "shut out" of the union or had lost any work because I wasn't in the union. There is a lot of non-union work here in Los Angeles. It's not like you have this big unemployed workforce who can't get work because they aren't in the union, standing outside of the studio gates looking in. The union and non-union members in Los Angeles seem to find about the same amount of work (just that the non-union work pay less well.)

 

Nor do I think that the union would be better by being weaker. If it were weak, there'd be no point in having a union, would there? It would just be a social club.

 

It seems there is more resentment against the union outside of Los Angeles where they are all fighting over the few film productions that come to the city.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I don't think you can say "you only need 100 days to get in into the I.A. so how

> much better can the talent level be" and "the I.A. makes it too hard for the

> majority to get in."

 

Is it really the hundred days which make it hard for people? If it were that easy, even I would be eligible to join! My point here was exactly that - the talent level isn't apparently controlled, but they're making it as exclusive as possible. This sounds EXACTLY as if someone has decided to artificially narrow the field to drive up prices. It's a patently transparent piece of maneuvering which would be called out for exactly what it is - a price-fixing cartel - if a large corporation was trying to do it.

 

> Nor do I think that the union would be better by being weaker. If it were weak,

> there'd be no point in having a union, would there? It would just be a social club.

 

A union can be "weak" (or, perhaps, not unreasonably powerful) and still offer collective benefits, such as properly-trained and briefed legal help, insurance, credit, pension and other benefits. Membership costs become more a subscription and less out-and-out extortion, and - here's the kicker for me - what work you take and what you get paid becomes a matter for you and the employer. If I feel like taking a job for lower than usual rates, I don't want to be told not to by a union - especially if I am actually paying them for the priviledge!

 

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

There is so much misconception about the unions and what they do. I'm a non-union DP just as David was until a short time ago. I work all the time and have never felt any real pressure from the union to join. I will occassionally get a call asking me if I was interested since I've been working here in town for so long and a lot of people know me, but it's never been a threat, more like "if you sign up you could be elligible for benefits and get a chance at the bigger jobs." A pretty friendly situation.

 

I work on low budget features, music videos, corporate videos, and anything else that pays the bills or is of interest to me. I regularly hire Local 600 ACs and other union-affiliated crew. They are always calling into the hall to get a waiver for the job. With the exception of Local 52 (grip/electric) this is never a problem. Our productions are generally too small to be able to pay out union wages and benefits, but since the membership still wants to do the job the union says okay and allows the waiver. There's nothing sneaky or underhanded--it's just an organization looking out for its membership to make sure they are not exploited. The union generally wants to get the membership proper wages and benefits, and also insure that they will have decent working conditions. I can tell you that we very much insist on the working conditions anyway, and the terms of this are in no small way defined by the precedents of the union contracts, even though we are not bound by them. Most of the details of my Deal Memo are taken straight from the Local 600 employment agreement, and this becomes the basis for all the crew for the production. Do you really think there would be a meal every six hours if an organized group such as a union had not fought for it?

 

Unions are not the enemy. For me membership does not make sense at the moment, but perhaps it soon will. But I still benefit from the union's existence on a daily basis.

 

No offense, but if you wish to make movies but are unable to based on your finances and what the union is demanding, perhaps it is because you are simply asking too much. I often get people saying to me "I want to make a feature film in 35mm with explosions and crane shots and Steadicam moves but I only have $50,000 for the whole thing!" Well buddy, you just don't have enough money. And I shouldn't have to suffer through 18-hour days with no food and no sleep for pennies just so you can achieve your grand vision. That's exploitation and that is what a union is designed to stop.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> And I shouldn't have to suffer through 18-hour days with no food and no sleep

> for pennies just so you can achieve your grand vision. That's exploitation and

> that is what a union is designed to stop.

 

This is exactly it. You are not exploited like that now; you would not be in a union either, but you do not need to pay a large organisation to say "no" for you. And while this is the core intention of a professional organisation, all else is extortion and intimidation.

 

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

Hi,

 

> And I shouldn't have to suffer through 18-hour days with no food and no sleep

> for pennies just so you can achieve your grand vision. That's exploitation and

> that is what a union is designed to stop.

 

This is exactly it. You are not exploited like that now; you would not be in a union either, but you do not need to pay a large organisation to say "no" for you. And while this is the core intention of a professional organisation, all else is extortion and intimidation.

 

Phil

I'm really unclear as to what you're saying, and I fear that you missed my point entirely. The reason that I can make this stand to not be exploited is because the Unions exist and have been fighting this fight for some time. It was a big deal in the late 1800s when the Chicago meat packer unions finally won the right for workers to not have to regularly work 14 hour days, seven days per week. The standard work week in the US is now 40 hours, but it used to be more than 80. When I work on indie films I often work 72 (6 days @ 12 hours per).

 

Even though I am not a member of the union, I benefit from the battles it has fought. I would not be able to enjoy the standards I work under now if the union had not been there.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I just don't agree. The fact that workers are able to refuse unreasonable working conditions has more to do with class emancipation and employment law than it does to some random organisation which likes to make a noise about it.

 

Phil