Has the witer's strike affected you yet?

[robert duke]

So then If you are willing to support your crew and take care of them as you have said before Why not provide for them the ability to have a pension plan and Health care. These are things that the Union gives its membership.

 

I could work all my life as a non union grip, camera, etc and live hand to mouth, not able to afford health insurance and pension funds. If you care for your crew you would provide these things. I would work for lower than scale wages If I was provided Pension and Health benefits. The IATSE has a Low budget contract that is flexible for you the producer and provides these things for the crew. It makes low budget films do able with care and respect for the crew.

 

If you care about your crew you would do these things for them. We as union members are the Union. we as your crew are the pesky Union you refer to. So you take advantage of your crew by not providing for their future. you show to the people around you that it is simply money that motivates you.

 

We want nothing but the ability to provide for our families future.

[Guest]

"I could work all my life as a non union grip, camera, etc and live hand to mouth, not able to afford health insurance and pension funds."

 

These are things that the governments of EVERY industrialized nation on earth, except the USA, provide for their citizens. I suggest the USA provide health care for all of its citizens the way we do in Canada.

 

It's not the job of film producers to provide health care for their crews. We are in the film business not the health care business.

 

What am I supposed to do buy health insurance for a film crew for four weeks? What good will that do you?

 

If the USA can put a man on the moon, they can provide health care for all of its citizens.

 

R,

[robert duke]

What am I supposed to do buy health insurance for a film crew for four weeks? What good will that do you?

 

That is why the Union works for BOTH producer and crew. By being Union you are provided with a crew that is skilled, specialized, capable, safe, certified and knowledgeable. The Union provides the crew with the ability for a pension, healthcare, and support. The Union helps solve accounting errors and offers a safety net when dealing with errant producers. The Union helps the producer by providing for mediation/judification in the event of sexual harrassment, drug/alcohol abuse, job performance and other Human resources issues. The Union provides you with a list of qualified individuals upon request.

 

I wish the government provided healthcare but they dont. I wish there were no wars. I cant do anything but vote for those things. I can utilizing the voice of the Union and its political influence try to sway our government into that. That is not a Union issue here and now though.

 

The unions provide a healthcare plan. A plan that is one of the best in the nation. The Union provides a pension plan for its members. Without this (to bring the government in here as you would) would leave the professional film crews at the mercy of a failing Social security plan run by the government.

 

I ask you Richard to reevaluate your view of the union. Name more than a handfull of Major motion pictures that do not carry the IATSE logo. You will find that the IATSE has helped define the look of every great modern film. The IATSE is here to assist producers. we have the Industry experience rosters.

 

Robert Duke

[Guest]

"That is why the Union works for BOTH producer and crew."

 

Again, it isn't the job of unions or private industry to provide health care. It is the job of governments to do this is the same way they provide, education, fire dept, police dept, & the military. At least that is how we do it here.

 

"I ask you Richard to reevaluate your view of the union. Name more than a handfull of Major motion pictures that do not carry the IATSE logo. "

 

The union is fine for 50-150 million dollar movies, who cares in a case like that?

 

Try shooting union with a budget under 500K, or even under 1 million. To be specific, on really low budget indie productions each crew member has to do multiple jobs. Would the union allow the same person to be 1st AD one minute, then clap board operator the next, then gaffer assistant, then talent co-ordinator, etc etc etc. Spare me the "well it's not safe blah, blah, blah," On no budget indie movies, "by the book" is a luxury few if any can afford.

 

R,

[robert duke]

"That is why the Union works for BOTH producer and crew."

 

Again, it isn't the job of unions or private industry to provide health care. It is the job of governments to do this is the same way they provide, education, fire dept, police dept, & the military. At least that is how we do it here.

 

"I ask you Richard to reevaluate your view of the union. Name more than a handfull of Major motion pictures that do not carry the IATSE logo. "

 

The union is fine for 50-150 million dollar movies, who cares in a case like that?

 

Try shooting union with a budget under 500K, or even under 1 million. To be specific, on really low budget indie productions each crew member has to do multiple jobs. Would the union allow the same person to be 1st AD one minute, then clap board operator the next, then gaffer assistant, then talent co-ordinator, etc etc etc. Spare me the "well it's not safe blah, blah, blah," On no budget indie movies, "by the book" is a luxury few if any can afford.

 

R,

 

It IS the job of the Union to provide for its membership. So it is the job of the Union to provide or at least Offer health insurance.

 

I have worked on a LOT of under 1 million movies, I have worked on UNION movies that were less than 1 million. The union has had shows as small as $250k. The Union is willing to work with budgets that small. It is about making sure people are working in safe ways, in safe conditions, and not run ragged.

 

Yes the Union has no interest in No budget films.

 

But the unions even in LA wont bother you on shows that small, you have to want the union there in shows with less than $500 million. So the unions arent so pesky after all.

 

As for doing multiple jobs, it is up to the individual to allow himself to be put in those situations. It is not that safe is an issue from 1st AD to slate ( AC) to talent co-ordinate it is about quality of the job. You can t do a good job if you are strung out across different departments and responsibilities. You cant coordinate the talent if you are busy slating the scene being shot. you cant do ALL the duties of a 1st AD if you are busy working as an Electrician. you can't do a good consistent job of being a DP if you are being the AD at the sametime. I am NOT saying that it cant be done what I am saying is that Quality is sacrificed. Jack of all Trades, Master Of None.

this is the reason why people specialize, they want quality. If you are willing to accept subpar quality continue this way. At some point you will want better, and you will have cheated yourself.

Your Reel will look haphazzard, your knowledge will be stunted, you will not get the BIG jobs.

DP's like Preito, Hall, et al studied their mistakes and polished their skill, they take the time to look at the image and sculpt it. If you are gaffing and DPing you short change yourself by not allowing your product the time and opportunity to be great.

 

 

 

You dream of doing big shows, then practice doing it that way, Independent film is a really rich ground to learn and experience a craft. If you short change yourself and the people you work with you keep them from learning things the right way, the best way, and the way as many before me have learned to be the most effective way.

 

Canada has a public health care system that works for most people. I have canadian friends who work in the industry and tell me that because they rig they are not allowed to use the public healthcare system. We do things in this industry that your healthcare system does not cover.

 

Here in the USA we do NOT have public healthcare but it is Here that Hollywood is.

IATSE is in Canada and offers a premium healthcare to its membership.

[Guest]

" I have canadian friends who work in the industry and tell me that because they rig they are not allowed to use the public healthcare system."

 

Eh? As we say here?????????????

 

If they are Canadian citizens they have access to the health care system, what they do for a living means nothing. Need clarification on that one.

 

Hey, I'm happy to employ 250 of your union brothers on a shoot. But I doubt I'll ever see a budget that big. In the mean time, it's union free and every one must do 10 jobs on set.

 

Heck I was also catering supervisor, bathroom cleaner, locations manager, and talent driver, on my last shoot :blink:

 

I'll gladly give that all up for the union, if I ever can.

 

R,

[Annie Wengenroth]

I am disappointed that when I joined 600, I did not even get a free t-shirt.

 

Welll, I just lost that feature because they ran out of money before they even started. Gotta love winter in New York. Time to call up my film school brothers and sisters and see if they have anything going on...I mean hey, why not. I guess the only thing anyone can do is just roll with the punches. It could be worse. We could be working 9 to 5 desk jobs or something.

 

...Right?

 

Have any of you guys ever worked at Starbucks? What did you think? :unsure:

[Guest]

"Welll, I just lost that feature because they ran out of money before they even started."

 

Ahhhh, my guess is that in this case you are better off then.

 

"We could be working 9 to 5 desk jobs or something."

 

Yes and those people have things like...a steady pay check, homes, cars, vacations. Silly things like that :huh:

 

"Have any of you guys ever worked at Starbucks? What did you think?

 

90% of the crew resumes I got for the feature I made included a coffee shop as the "current employer" after film school. I know things are tough, but even I was shocked!

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Way back when, I moved to LA knowing no one, had no job lined up, and didn't have a clue how the business really worked. I had a car, most of my stuff, and a list of names from friends of people they knew in LA.

 

I managed to find my way onto random student and "deferred payment" jobs for a few months, learning how to load film and be an AC, all the while burning through the small amount of money I had saved.

 

Things were getting desperate when I finally bit the bullet and took a job at Ralphs (grocery) just to make some money. I lasted two weeks bagging and getting carts from the parking lot. Another deferred payment opportunity came up and I left that illustrious career at Ralphs to go back to working for free as an AC.

 

Naturally, it is impossible to survive on that, and within a month or two, from a contact I had made on a UCLA student film, I somehow got hired on a Corman movie (White Wolves 2) for real money!

 

From there, I dedicated myself to continue trying, no matter if I had to take free jobs just to meet people. I even did a few jobs as a PA for commercials, infomercials, and things like The Billboard Awards.

 

That was until I wound up being a Loader on Murder in the First. The show started out non-union then turned about six weeks in.

 

Up until that time, the money was pitiful and of course I was uninsured. I was living sparsely and had I gotten hurt....

 

Having a union contract protecting us provides A) protection from abuse by Producers who would think nothing of working 18 hour days, 7 days a week, B) livable wages so that we can attempt to have a "normal" life with a home, decent food and provide for our families, and C) health insurance because, like it or not, that's how it currently works in the United States.

 

Ironically, for me currently, I work WITHOUT a union contract that would protect me while I shoot EPK/Behind the Scenes on movies even though the studios and vendors (and to some extent, the union itself) requires that the cameraman be a member of Local 600. Luckily, I have enough experience to back up the rate I charge, which may seem high, but because I'm not eligible for Motion Picture Health, that high rate subsidizes my own health insurance.

 

So, Richard B. does have a point that maybe the employer shouldn't be on the hook to provide union hours/money that goes into a union health plan. And it being the case that our government doesn't currently offer subsidized medicine the way many other countries do... And it being the case that health care is expensive... the only other option is for hourly and/or day rates to go UP. If the US gvnt isn't going to provide health care and if the employers (like Richard) don't want to and find ways around it, then everyone on a non-union crew should demand far more per hour/day in order to just live and survive.

 

Is it "fair"? None of it is fair. It shouldn't be so difficult for anyone to get into the business. No one should have to work so hard for so little just for the hope of creating a real career in the movie business. But that's how it is. Is it fair that an employer should pay extra so that the employees can have health insurance? I suppose not, but unless the employers would rather pay a higher day rate (as is my case) to help cover my direct costs, then it has to come from somewhere. The reality for the moment is that the US government doesn't cover us, and despite laws against it, Producers on all levels think nothing of working a crew hours that seem ridiculous to most of the rest of the working world.

 

So because the world is the way it is at the moment, unions protect the workers from abuse and help to provide income, directly and indirectly, that helps afford a decent living and health care. That's just the way it is. It would be nice if health care didn't cost so much and if houses didn't cost so much and cars didn't cost so much and gas and education and...... you get the idea. But they do so workers need money to pay for it all and Producers need people like us to do the specialty work they need done so that they can have a quality product that will in turn, make them money so they can pay for more expensive versions of all those things everyone else needs and wants.

[Walter Graff]

I suggest the USA provide health care for all of its citizens the way we do in Canada.

 

 

A socialized health care system can not happen in the US as we have a multi trillion dollar industry with 13.5 million employees. The overall health-care industry, including biopharmaceutical and medical device companies, now represents the third-largest sector among the 1,000 largest U.S. firms, behind only energy and retailing. In other words, you can't get companies to simply lay down their profits for the sake of having a social healthcare system. It will never happen in the US, especially since the health care industry is growing at a staggering rate now accounting for nearly 15% of US gross domestic product. So you'll have politicians make all sorts of health care promises, but know that the healthcare industry is not going to change anytime soon, so all they are ever going to promise will never change the system.

[Phil Rhodes]

My opinion of unions is already on the record so I'll keep this brief.

 

It irks me to the brink of insanity that people make arguments along the lines of "unions provide workers with X," where X is job security, healthcare, etc.

 

No. Unions provide some workers with X. Unions provide for well-off, highly successful people who would probably be able to afford X regardless. As I understand it, to join IATSE local 600, you have to start off rich and be in a position to get a lot richer, at which point you start getting sugar poured in your gas tank if you don't start paying protection.

 

People who join these big American unions are not starving paupers at risk of dying from treatable disease. They're usually SUV-driving hot-tub owners with a big apartment in a gated complex, and while I don't begrudge them these trappings of success, I deeply resent the poor-little-me arguments that frequently arise.

 

These unions are blatantly obviously a thinly-disguised protection racket designed to artificially narrow the labour pool. If you are in local 600, you are a member of a premier club, the gold-card fraternity, you have the best pay, most regular employment and most excessively generous conditions of any film crew anywhere in the world and you have absolutely no right to complain about anything.

[Guest]

These unions are blatantly obviously a thinly-disguised protection racket designed to artificially narrow the labour pool. about anything.

 

Don't sugar coat your post Phil, tell us exactly how you feel.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Well whaddayawant, local 600 is an organisation dedicated - indirectly - to minimising my pay, conditions and standards of living, and which wishes me to be as unsuccessful as possible.

 

Phil

[Brian Dzyak]

If you are in local 600, you are a member of a premier club, the gold-card fraternity, you have the best pay, most regular employment and most excessively generous conditions of any film crew anywhere in the world and you have absolutely no right to complain about anything.

 

I can understand the frustration, however union members have that kind of regular employment and the generous conditions because of the union. I personally was struggling along like so many others, working long hours and getting paid little until I was able to join. I wasn't "well off" and still am not, by any stretch. Arguing against a union because some people have better working conditions and better pay isn't the answer. Instead, the union should be working to include EVERYONE who works in the specific business that the union represents and those not "in the club" should be striving to join.

 

What you suggest is precisely what the corporations want... if the unions (IATSE, SAG, DGA, WGA, TEAMSTERS) didn't exist, then Producers would be free to work crews until they died and pay them little for it. Why wouldn't they? There seems to be an unlimited supply of aspiring "filmmakers" being churned out of filmschools every year (take a look at the filmschool page on my website for an exhaustive list). There's always another trained monkey who can hit the button, quality be-damned. The Producers/studios would still make billions in profit and take more of it home. It is the complaining that makes conditions and pay better. The day humanity stops complaining about things that aren't fair or equitable is the day the profiteers and the greedy take over.

 

In a perfect world, we'd all be making movies for the pleasure of creating art for art's sake. But for better or worse, things we need for survival cost money and working in the movie industry is just a way to make money. That's part of the reason we do it and it is the reason studio executives and Producers do it. Investors put their money into a movie so they can make more money than they already have.

 

Look at it this way, movies make a certain amount of money (the pie) and it comes down to dividing up how much everyone will take home from it. If the workers (writers, crew, actors, directors, etc) don't have the protection of set wages, then it just means that someone else (studios, producers) get to take more of it home for themselves. That profit doesn't go away or get "saved." The profit is still there, it would just be distributed differently and those at the top would only be getting more. Those are the privileged you speak of and doing away with unions would be the door to letting the "haves" have more and the "have nots" have less.

 

Believe me, I wish it was different, but it isn't. And yes, unions... or more accurately, those who run the unions... don't always do what seems to be in the best interest of everyone. But it's something and doing something, even if a little flawed, is preferable to doing nothing and having no protections for anyone.

[Phil Rhodes]

> Instead, the union should be working to include EVERYONE who works in the specific

> business

 

Yes, but they're not, are they?

 

Phil

[Walter Graff]

> Instead, the union should be working to include EVERYONE who works in the specific

> field.

 

By design they can not do that. There simply is not enough sustainable work to include anyone that wants to work or who works. Unions have become excluionary guilds designed to keep tehir pool of people working and maintain control over the working relatioships they have. Actually they always have been about exclusion since the late 1600's in the US.

[Brad Grimmett]

No. Unions provide some workers with X. Unions provide for well-off, highly successful people who would probably be able to afford X regardless. As I understand it, to join IATSE local 600, you have to start off rich and be in a position to get a lot richer, at which point you start getting sugar poured in your gas tank if you don't start paying protection.

 

If you are in local 600, you are a member of a premier club, the gold-card fraternity, you have the best pay, most regular employment and most excessively generous conditions of any film crew anywhere in the world and you have absolutely no right to complain about anything.

Phil,

Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about on this issue. The things you say just are patently untrue. I'd go into it more specifically, but I'm confident that changing your mind is next to impossible.

[Brian Dzyak]

> Instead, the union should be working to include EVERYONE who works in the specific

> field.

 

By design they can not do that. There simply is not enough sustainable work to include anyone that wants to work or who works. Unions have become excluionary guilds designed to keep tehir pool of people working and maintain control over the working relatioships they have. Actually they always have been about exclusion since the late 1600's in the US.

 

Allow me to rephrase/elaborate... unions don't GET us work. They just protect us when we do get it. It still comes down to who you know and those individuals knowing what you have to offer.

 

And yes, having a union card is a kind of ticket that lets you get on a specific ride, but the process to get the ticket in the first place more or less is a guarantee that employers are hiring skilled and qualified workers. This isn't to say that there are qualified, skilled and talented workers who don't have the ticket, but employers are able to rest a little easier at night knowing that they have hired experience. Yes, it costs more than just grabbing anyone off the street, but that's life again... we tend to have to pay for higher quality. We do that with all sorts of everyday items. Why should someone's skills/experience/talent be any less of a commodity and worth less?

 

Back to the exclusionary part... I can't comment on that one way or the other, but I do know that without any unions at all, workers are exploited. US union filmcrews aren't necessarily better or worse than, say, those in the UK, Australia, Hungary, or anywhere else. But Producers do get those workers cheaper for doing the same work. So, movies still cost a boatload to make, Actors are making more, the crew is making less, and Producers and Above-the-Line take the "savings" they "earned" by exploiting foreign workers and put it in their own accounts.

 

Given that situation, I don't understand why non-US crews don't rally up arms and demand equal treatment/pay as their US counterparts? Instead of crying foul against the protections a union gives, why don't crews the world 'round make their own union and stop agreeing to be paid less for the same work? Does the act of making a movie provide that much personal satisfaction that so many are willing to do it while being exploited and abused? Maybe after I win the lottery I'll have the freedom to go work for free "for love of the craft." In the meantime, I have to make a living and try to squeeze in a life too. I assume that most other people want the same things too. But maybe I'm wrong...

[Phil Rhodes]

> Given that situation, I don't understand why non-US crews don't rally up arms and

> demand equal treatment/pay as their US counterparts?

 

Because in most civilised parts of the world it's illegal, either as an anticompetitive price-fixing cartel or as a protection racket, both of which IATSE 600 appear to be.

 

As we've seen from other correspondents, the only reason it works or can work is because of these things. And while I'm the first person to stand up in support of workers' rights, I refuse to be a hypocrite - anticompetition laws exist for good reasons, and there's something wrong if we won't hold individuals to the same standards as corporations, even though corporations are more frequently so flagrant in their actions.

 

There seems, entirely unsurprisingly, to be a split here between the people who are in the union, who support it, and the people who aren't, who are less supportive. Which goes to show, I suppose, that at some point everyone has a price.

 

I admit it's a difficult question. It is of course out of the question that I would ever be offered membership in this organisation, but were it hypothetically to happen I would be torn between the obvious personal advantages of signing up, and the blatantly unjust foundation on which the organisation stands. Either way I would be under absolutely no illusions as to what was the morally correct position.

 

Phil

[Walter Graff]

Allow me to rephrase/elaborate... unions don't GET us work. They just protect us when we do get it. It still comes down to who you know and those individuals knowing what you have to offer.

 

Absolutely and one of the things that many who are not in a guild think is true. Being on a union roster is sort of a catch 22. You can work in union situations but have to make sure you do or jeopardize your status.

 

 

I do know that without any unions at all, workers are exploited. US union film crews aren't necessarily better or worse than, say, those in the UK, Australia, Hungary, or anywhere else. But Producers do get those workers cheaper for doing the same work.

Without the guilds that are in place now, it would be a free for all, and while most non union people are now abused beyond belief in many areas of production, it would be quite worse.

 

 

Given that situation, I don't understand why non-US crews don't rally up arms and demand equal treatment/pay as their US counterparts?

 

Fear! It worked in the 1920s when it meant either feeding your family or not, but today in our more passive aggressive world, people let themselves get abused. Sure they complain about it, but it is very difficult to actually get them to do anything about it. Blame it on how society is structured and how you are taught to stay in line in school as the basis for it. Hence why only 20% of the US votes. Oh they'll talk about how they like and who they hate, but no one does anything to change things. It's always been that way. Part of human nature. Look at the history fo revolutions to see that all major revolutions were done, not by majority but minority. Bolshevik revolution for instance was 900 angry farmers who marched into town and changed an entire country just as the Wall in Germany feel due to only a few hundred people, not the society that lived under it for many years and just as the 100,000 students in China (Tiananmen Square) changed the politics of a billion people. So it's really part of being human to simply accept things and not really do anything to change it.

Edited December 16, 2007 by WALTER GRAFF

[Brian Dzyak]

I would be torn between the obvious personal advantages of signing up, and the blatantly unjust foundation on which the organisation stands.

 

I wasn't aware that protecting workers from unscrupulous employers was an unjust foundation.

[Bruce Greene]

> Instead, the union should be working to include EVERYONE who works in the specific

> business

 

Yes, but they're not, are they?

 

Phil

 

 

Phil,

 

Local 600, the camera local, has been open since 1989.

 

Before 1989, it was kind of as you described and led to the creation of a large experienced workforce of non-union workers...

 

Now, I don't remember the exact rules, it takes I think proof of 100 days of non-union work (within 3 years) to get on the producer's experience roster and be eligible for union employment. Not a very difficult thing to achieve for most camera people.

 

Other craft locals have different rules.

 

Also, the camera local now has no seniority rules and is pretty much every man/woman for himself as far as finding employment. Union membership is no guarantee of a job or health benefits.

 

-bruce

[Brad Grimmett]

There seems, entirely unsurprisingly, to be a split here between the people who are in the union, who support it, and the people who aren't, who are less supportive. Which goes to show, I suppose, that at some point everyone has a price.

 

Phil

Phil,

Please don't accuse the members of Local 600 of being for sale, or sellouts, simply because they joined the union. Of course, we're all for sale to some degree. We make a living (in any industry) by trading our skills for money...for a price. Being in a union doesn't change that or somehow make it worse.

[Mark Dunn]

Price-fixing of the sort apparently practised in the US, by the DGA, IATSE and the like has been illegal here for years. My professional association (in still photography) stopped publishing even suggested day rates twenty years ago to avoid any suggestion that it was a cartel.

I'm amazed that it is still allowed in what is supposed to be a free market.

[John Sprung]

Again, it isn't the job of unions or private industry to provide health care. It is the job of governments to do this is the same way they provide, education, fire dept, police dept, & the military. At least that is how we do it here.

Of all those things and more, such as the DMV and road maintenance, the only one that government here does at all well is fight fires. Given those odds, I'm glad they have nothing to do with health care. Unless there's a good reason to have only one organization doing something, like running the police department and the courts, I'd rather have it done by many competitors. We're better off without government health care, which is why really sick Canadians come here for treatment. I wish they'd spin off education, but once they get hold of something, they never let go.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.