Local 600 membership

[Mark Henderson]

"But it never came up because for whatever reason, I didn't end up taking the job. Besides, I wouldn't take the job if I had to pay my own living expenses in NYC -- it's too expensive to live there! Half my salary would be eaten up by my expenses... or I'd be commuting to work from way outside the city.

"

 

David:

 

I know what you mean. I just ran the New York Marathon. To do it, I flew up to New York and stayed in a hotel. When I was looking for a hotel room, I checked out rooms on the island itself and everything was $350.00 per night and up (up quickly). There was one place for $150.00 per night, but the pictures on the internet made it look more like a dumpster. I stayed across the river in New Jersey at a Holiday Inn for a much better rate. I couldn't imagine paying my own way just to get a job in New York. It was $28.00 just to take the train ($14.00 each way) across the river into the city. It was a great city, though.

 

Mark

[Mike Panczenko]

East coast members can work as locals in NY as well as where they are located. West coast members can do the same in LA. Central region members get the choice to choose either city, IIFC.

[Mark Henderson]

East coast members can work as locals in NY as well as where they are located. West coast members can do the same in LA. Central region members get the choice to choose either city, IIFC.

 

Mike:

 

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense now. I guess that evens things up a little since most of the work is in either LA or NY, or at least generated out of those two places.

 

Mark

 

 

 

"I have been up for union features in NYC where they were only budgeted for local DP's, so I'm not sure how I would have gotten around that if hired, because even if I were willing to pay for my own lodging just to get the job, I would think the union would object because it violates the intent of the "local hire" concept, i.e. to encourage productions to hire locally. But it never came up because for whatever reason, I didn't end up taking the job. Besides, I wouldn't take the job if I had to pay my own living expenses in NYC -- it's too expensive to live there! Half my salary would be eaten up by my expenses... or I'd be commuting to work from way outside the city."

 

David:

 

Thanks for all the great info. You are a great asset to this forum.

 

Best wishes, Mark

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Mr. Mullen: I'd be interested to hear what the union has actually done for you, other than graciously allowing you to work. Oh, and that safety video, which I'm sure in the manner of safety videos worldwide was pretty patronising (not to belittle the necessity of safety in the workplace, but you know what I mean!).

 

Phil

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

Mr. Mullen: I'd be interested to hear what the union has actually done for you, other than graciously allowing you to work. Oh, and that safety video, which I'm sure in the manner of safety videos worldwide was pretty patronising (not to belittle the necessity of safety in the workplace, but you know what I mean!).

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

From what David has said before, his income more than doubled the first year of Uninion membership making the $10000+ investment, the best money he ever spent!

 

Stephen

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yeah, but if that's just a matter of them allowing it to happen, that's not actively helping. Removing a prohibition is a very odd way to define assistance.

 

Phil

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

Not speaking for David Mullen, but for myself, the union:

Sets minimum hourly and weekly wage standards, sets the conditions where overtime applies, maintains a safe work place and establishes means where saftey issues can be addressed and not adversly effect the relationship between crew and the producers, sets meal periods and penalties when these periods are not adhered to, provides health benefits to those working the minimum hours to qualify (this is a big deal, these benefits are worth around $800.00 per month if one doesn't qualify), provides a pension and free health benefits to those qualifying upon retirement, provides opportunities to network with other union members, and provides the opportunity for members to address violations of the contract by producers without jeapordizing the relationship between the crew and said producers.

This coming November I will have been a member of IATSE Local 600 (used to be Local 659) for 30 years.

[Mark Henderson]

Hi,

 

Yeah, but if that's just a matter of them allowing it to happen, that's not actively helping. Removing a prohibition is a very odd way to define assistance.

 

Phil

 

Seems like a pretty bitter statement coming from a guy who lives in a country with 60% taxes. :-)

 

Just kidding, God save the queen.

[Stephen Williams]

Seems like a pretty bitter statement coming from a guy who lives in a country with 60% taxes. :-)

 

Just kidding, God save the queen.

 

Hi Mark,

 

It was Mrs Thatcher as prime minister & Sir Geoffery How as chancellor that abolished the 60% taxation rate in the UK roughly 20 years ago. Max rates today are 40%

 

Stephen

[Stuart Brereton]

Not speaking for David Mullen, but for myself, the union:

...maintains a safe work place and establishes means where saftey issues can be addressed and not adversly effect the relationship between crew and the producers....

 

Isn't one of the major issues in Hollywood filmmaking the extremely long hours? From what I've heard here and elsewhere, 14-16 hour days are the norm. It hardly seems that Local 600 are maintaining a safe workplace if they allow this to happen on a regular basis.

 

Perhaps they're too busy counting membership fees?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

It's also no secret that many US productions choose to shoot elsewhere because of not only the high costs (directly or indirectly due to such an unflexible and regulated work market), but due to red tape. I have shot with numerous American production people/directors here and they all complain about the 1 hour health and safety briefing and de-briefing they have to go through every day. All the eastern European boom countries in filmmaking owe their success in some part to the tightly regulated and expensive US filmmarket.

 

Even with the pound almost 2 times more valuable than the dollar, shooting in the US is never an option here. Even though they want to and specifically want US locations - it's just too expensive. They end up going to South America, South Africa, Eastern Europe or even New Zealand. Heck, tons of US production even come to London to shoot, altough this is one of the most expensive cities in the world. One has to ask why that is the case.

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

The last 2 series and my last pilot that I worked on the days were held to 12 working hours, 13 elapsed with the hour meal period.

Producers are trying to hold costs down and one of the ways to do that is to maintain efficiency and keep overtime at a minimum.

It is difficult for the union to police this....however, when the days do go long on location, more and more productions are offering hotel rooms for crew members, and this is a direct result of pressure being put on the producers by the union.

Furthermore, I feel it is part of my responsibilities as Director of Photography to help directors and producers prepare for each day to help keep the hours from becoming excessive.

There are many factors that contribute to long hours and that could perhaps be another sub-forum in itself.

I find it interesting how much negative factors are being discussed as opposed to the positive aspects of union membership. It is my belief that the benefits of union membership far outway the potential negatives. That does not mean that there is not room for improvement.

To comment on ?1 hour health and safety briefing and de-briefing they have to go through every day?, I have never experienced this on a daily basis. There is a mandatory saftey meeting when stunts, firearms or explosives are used in a given set-up and there is almost always a madatory saftey and ?sexual harrassement in the workplace? meeting at the beginning of every production, but in my experience, as I said, this does not occur on a daily basis. Also, this is not something required by the union, but rather by the producers and studios? Legal and Human Resource Departments.

[Stuart Brereton]

The last 2 series and my last pilot that I worked on the days were held to 12 working hours, 13 elapsed with the hour meal period.

 

I'm only basing my comments on anecdotal evidence from other threads on this forum, and on CML. However the '12 on - 12 off' campaign, and Haskell Wexler's film 'Who Needs Sleep?' would seem to suggest that the union membership thinks there is a problem even if the Local 600 leadership doesn't.

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

Local 600 is the union membership and there is acute awareness within the administration of the union of the problems of excessive hours.

With all due respect, my knowledge is first hand, not from "anecdotal evidence".

Edited January 14, 2007 by Paul Maibaum

[Stuart Brereton]

Local 600 is the union membership and there is acute awareness within the administration of the union of the problems of excessive hours.

With all due respect, my knowledge is first hand, not from "anecdotal evidence".

 

So, given the 'acute awareness' and the extraordinary power that Local 600 has (from a UK point of view, at least) why are they not acting to stop it?

 

IA600 is a powerful union. It presents DP's with a demand that they join, and a sizeable bill for membership, as has been recounted elsewhere on this forum.

 

If I had just paid out $10,000 to join a union, I think I would demand that they use their power to intercede in what appears to be THE major issue in Employer/Employee relations in Hollywood.

 

Please don't take this as a personal attack. In the UK, we used to have the ACTT, which had its balls cut off by the Thatcher government, and now we are left with a paper tiger, BECTU. You have a powerful union. Make them work for you!

[Michael Most]

It's also no secret that many US productions choose to shoot elsewhere because of not only the high costs (directly or indirectly due to such an unflexible and regulated work market), but due to red tape. I have shot with numerous American production people/directors here and they all complain about the 1 hour health and safety briefing and de-briefing they have to go through every day. All the eastern European boom countries in filmmaking owe their success in some part to the tightly regulated and expensive US filmmarket.

 

Well, it's a secret to me, and I've been working in the industry for almost 30 years. There is no "red tape problem" in L.A. or anywhere else in the US that I know of. When productions seek out other locations, it's for two reasons: 1. Money, and 2. the location itself. Quite frankly, that's it, except for certain circumstances in which the film financier has some influence on the location choice. As Paul already stated, safety meetings are only held whenever stunts or special effects are about to happen that the crew needs to be briefed on, and I as a crew member solidly support that. The safety meetings are brief, to the point, and necessary. In fact, I consider the extreme attention to safety to be one of the primary advantages of working in the US, and particularly in Los Angeles, as I have worked elsewhere and seen what happens when safety becomes a secondary concern.

[Michael Most]

So, given the 'acute awareness' and the extraordinary power that Local 600 has (from a UK point of view, at least) why are they not acting to stop it?

 

They are, and have been, doing everything they can to encourage producers to keep the hours reasonable. However, the contract spells out specific monetary penalties for the long hours, and that's the only real, legal, financial inducement there is. The only other option would be a job action, and that would require the rank and file membership's approval - an approval that, in my opinion, would simply never happen. For everyone who resents the long hours, there are numerous crew members who value the overtime those hours create. Working on a television series for 10 months straight is not an easy job by any stretch of the imagination, so the financial reward for it is part of what keeps everyone going. Having said that, there are numerous shows that do keep the hours reasonable, but it has a lot to do with factors outside of the crew's control - the director that week, the cast, the scripts (stuffing 90 scenes into a 56 page script is going to cause a lot of production hours, no matter how you look at it), reshoots, etc, etc.

 

IA600 is a powerful union. It presents DP's with a demand that they join, and a sizeable bill for membership, as has been recounted elsewhere on this forum.

 

The "requirement" of joining the union exists if you want to work for union signatory production companies. If this was not in the contract, the union would lose much of its ability to service its membership, because a lot of the money that funds the pension and health plan comes directly from the producers via residuals (yes, the same type of residuals that go directly to the actors, writers, and directors, but in the case of the IA, they go to the pension and health fund instead).

 

If I had just paid out $10,000 to join a union, I think I would demand that they use their power to intercede in what appears to be THE major issue in Employer/Employee relations in Hollywood.

 

Well, clearly you haven't lived or worked in Los Angeles on a regular basis. If you had, I don't think you'd be making that statement.

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

In response to questions and concerns regarding Local 600's awareness of and desire to address and rectify the problems associated with long hours, I invite those interested to access Local 600's website, www.cameraguid.com/, and hit the "search" button in the blue field on the left of the page, and type in "sleep".

And again, with all due respect, "the extraordinary power that Local 600 has (from a UK point of view, at least)" is, perhaps, overestimated.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Paul Maibaum

[Stuart Brereton]

Well, clearly you haven't lived or worked in Los Angeles on a regular basis. If you had, I don't think you'd be making that statement.

 

No Mike, I haven't, but I still think that $10,000 to join a union is a lot of money, particularly when the benefits that membership gives you are dependent on you working a certain number of days a year.

 

I've also heard stories from reliable sources that the leadership of IA600 is more interested in feathering its own nest than it is in representing the interests of its membership.

 

Regardless, I actually do believe in unions, when they work.

[Matthew Buick]

I'm an American who's been working as an AC in the UK for almost two years now.

 

However, unfortunately due to new visa regs, I may have to return to the US.

 

Oh my, that's an awful shame, the UK is such a lovely place, why don't you take whatever citizenship test we have here?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

What makes me laugh about LA is that it's supposed to be the world capital of filmmaking and yet both law and profligate litigation mean that you can't put a tripod down on a street without a permit. Local byelaws not withstanding, I can set up on a street corner anywhere in London with no prep at all, so long as I don't become a public nuisance, and the worst exposure I have is the minute possibility of a public liability claim.

 

That said, the last - excuse me, Michael - hobby project I did in LA showed that the standard and level of motivation of - excuse me - hobby-project-level cast and crew is visibly better there than here.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

To comment on “1 hour health and safety briefing and de-briefing they have to go through every day”, I have never experienced this on a daily basis. There is a mandatory saftey meeting when stunts, firearms or explosives are used in a given set-up and there is almost always a madatory saftey and “sexual harrassement in the workplace” meeting at the beginning of every production, but in my experience, as I said, this does not occur on a daily basis. Also, this is not something required by the union, but rather by the producers and studios’ Legal and Human Resource Departments.

 

Same with me -- I've never had daily safety meetings, and any safety meeting before a stunt or explosion or process trailer shot lasts about five to ten minutes at the most. So I don't know where that notion came from.

 

No Mike, I haven't, but I still think that $10,000 to join a union is a lot of money, particularly when the benefits that membership gives you are dependent on you working a certain number of days a year.

 

It is a lot of money, but it was totally worth it for me -- my yearly income more than tripled after I started shooting union films. Also, unfortunately, a good chunk of union fees and dues goes to dealing with the rising cost of health care in the U.S., particularly for the retirees, a problem that every corporation is dealing with.

 

As for Local 600 office holders feathering their nests, if anything, becoming an elected official for the union is more than likely going to hurt you when you go out on job interviews. Steven Poster may be the new president of the union, but he's still a working DP and some producers may be hesitant to hire a union officer for a shoot, lest they feel they will be forced to follow every union rule to the letter.

 

I can't speak for the larger IATSE leadership though, but I don't see any evidence of "featherbedding" in the Local 600 officers that I regularly come across. The only complaint along those lines was when Local 600 built a new office building headquarters, but if you had seen the place they were before, it wasn't totally unmotivated.

 

Yes, Phil, LA residents are notorious for demanding that the city make shooting here as difficult as possible. But if you had put up with a century of shooting in your neighborhoods and seen some of the abuses that had gone on, you can understand why so many people have a "not in my backyard" attitude, even if they work in the film industry (maybe especially because they work in the film industry and know what can happen when a shoot comes in.)

[Chien Huey]

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions around. For that reason, I actually called both the LA and NY union halls to find out what's entailed in joining IATSE 600 and then based my decision on that information. In the end, it's too early for me to join (as an AC). Internet forums, great as they are for discussion, should be validated whenever used as a data source.

 

As for the safety meetings, I was a PA on a big union show in NYC and there was only a safety meeting whenever something or someone was blown up or a gunplay was involved.

[Stuart Brereton]

It is a lot of money, but it was totally worth it for me -- my yearly income more than tripled after I started shooting union films. Also, unfortunately, a good chunk of union fees and dues goes to dealing with the rising cost of health care in the U.S., particularly for the retirees, a problem that every corporation is dealing with.

 

David,

 

I'd like to reiterate - I am not anti - union, but it seems that of the two benefits that you mention, Healthcare is dependent on you working enough days to qualify, and Income is not so much that the union helps you to earn better money, merely that they stop preventing you from working on bigger budget jobs.

 

As a hypothetical question, what would have happened to you if, after paying your $10,000 to join, you had a very poor year (as happens to the best of people)? If you don't make your days, don't you lose your healthcare? What about the roster? Don't you also have to work a certain number of days to remain on that?

 

I thought unions were supposed to support their members when they were out of work, not penalise them

[Matthew Buick]

Hi, sorry to interject.

 

What happens to a cinematographer who is really talented but can't afford the union costs?