Sag to vote on strike

[Guest]

"Companies must pay overtime to non-union workers who work past 40 hours a week in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA that I can think of. Walmart has been burned on this one a few times now. There are minimum wage laws in all 50 states and 10 provinces. Work place safety laws prevent employers from putting employees into harms way whether they are union or not. I can go on."

 

Well, if you could be a grip on a union show one day, and then a grip on a non-union show the next, I think you would eat those words.

 

What would the differences be? All non-union shoots are awful and all union shoots are wonderful?

 

There would obviously be a high degree of variance here.

 

R,

[Taggart A Lee]

On another note...with the advanced labour laws that now exist in the USA and Canada what benefits do unions really provide other than restricting work from those that are not members of

the union?

 

Companies must pay overtime to non-union workers who work past 40 hours a week in every jurisdiction in Canada and the USA that I can think of. Walmart has been burned on this one a few times now. There are minimum wage laws in all 50 states and 10 provinces. Work place safety laws prevent employers from putting employees into harms way whether they are union or not. I can go on.

 

*****OK, having trouble getting quotes added properly. Hit quote button but my text keeps adding to quote. What am I doing wrong????

 

Sorry

 

Here's response.

 

Points taken.

 

What I was trying to say about "all they can get" is that if they are working for a company that is that myopic and irresponsible they have to cover their asses.

 

Walmart - Marginal healthcare, hours, and each of Sam's kids worth $18 billion? Until the gov't begins to treat labor as they do business I'm going to see the necessity of unions. How about a trickle down economics where it all starts with the guys on the line? Kind of what I've always thought of national health care. Keeps your workers healthy and rested and they WANT to push to succeed. Otherwise you'll always be at loggerheads.

 

But in answer to what benefits do they provide? In our industry the main one I can think of is that they keep the producers honest in terms of the workday, meals, safety etc. Granted, those are covered in the retail and other sectors but we're different due to deadlines, changing work environments etc. I've worked both starting with music videos in the 80's (23 hr days the norm) and there is a difference.

 

Hope I used the quote button properly.

Edited December 29, 2008 by tagglee

[Jim Hyslop]

On another note...with the advanced labour laws that now exist in the USA and Canada what benefits do unions really provide other than restricting work from those that are not members of the union?

I have worked on non-union films. I was working as a PA for $150/week - flat rate, no overtime, and required to work 60-70 hours per week (including at least one drive from Toronto to Windsor - about 350 km - *after* working a full 12 hour day). And then they announced that for the next feature, they were going to REDUCE the PAs' wages to $100/week. I didn't stick around.

 

The production companies were quite clearly violating the labour laws, but got away with it. Why? If I had to guess, it's because there is no shortage of people who want to break into "the biz" so badly they are willing to put up with the s**t to gain the experience. If you complained, you'd probably be fired.

 

I firmly believe that IATSE, NABET, SAG, AFTRA, ACTRA, AEA, CAEA and all the other entertainment-related unions are still necessary. I am not so sure about other unions.

 

--

Jim

[Guest]

I have worked on non-union films. I was working as a PA for $150/week - flat rate, no overtime, and required to work 60-70 hours per week (including at least one drive from Toronto to Windsor - about 350 km - *after* working a full 12 hour day). And then they announced that for the next feature, they were going to REDUCE the PAs' wages to $100/week. I didn't stick around.

 

The production companies were quite clearly violating the labour laws, but got away with it. Why? If I had to guess, it's because there is no shortage of people who want to break into "the biz" so badly they are willing to put up with the s**t to gain the experience. If you complained, you'd probably be fired.

 

I firmly believe that IATSE, NABET, SAG, AFTRA, ACTRA, AEA, CAEA and all the other entertainment-related unions are still necessary. I am not so sure about other unions.

 

--

Jim

 

I'd love to know what shoot that was? I have probably heard of it.

 

And yes you do have a valid point about the number of people trying to break into the film industry vs the number of jobs available. This fact will not change whether a union is in place or not. I have always maintained that if some one chooses of their own free will to give away their labour for below market value then they have that right. It may not be a smart thing to do, but people are free to do so.

 

Here's a question for you and every one else on the forum in fact...have you ever tried to deal with NABET, ACTRA, or SAG, as an independent filmmaker?

 

Give it a try, I guarantee that after you have that experience the glow will quickly come off the unions. The ACTRA bosses in particular are a MAJOR pain in the ass. As a result so many lower budget producers just say "screw it" and shoot non-union.

 

R,

[Taggart A Lee]

Here's a question for you and every one else on the forum in fact...have you ever tried to deal with NABET, ACTRA, or SAG, as an independent filmmaker?

 

 

 

They are a royal pain in the bum. But the opportunities for exploitation in this biz are innumerable. Were I am actor (and let's all take a moment and give thanks I'm not shall we...). I'd rather have a tough union behind me.

[Taggart A Lee]

Here's a question for you and every one else on the forum in fact...have you ever tried to deal with NABET, ACTRA, or SAG, as an independent filmmaker?

 

 

 

 

They are a royal pain in the bum. But the opportunities for exploitation in this biz are innumerable. Were I am actor (and let's all take a moment and give thanks I'm not shall we...). I'd rather have a tough union behind me.

 

 

OK, now I got it...I'm fine...really...

[Guest]

Here's a question for you and every one else on the forum in fact...have you ever tried to deal with NABET, ACTRA, or SAG, as an independent filmmaker?

 

 

 

 

They are a royal pain in the bum. But the opportunities for exploitation in this biz are innumerable. Were I am actor (and let's all take a moment and give thanks I'm not shall we...). I'd rather have a tough union behind me.

 

I would replace the word "tough" with "unreasonable."

 

As a result a large majority of their members simply do not work, while many non-union actors go from booking-to-booking.

 

Contrary to popular belief the unions don't help the actors find work they simply pick their pockets for union dues whether they are working or not. What was that you where saying about exploitation?

 

R,

[Taggart A Lee]

I would replace the word "tough" with "unreasonable."

 

As a result a large majority of their members simply do not work, while many non-union actors go from booking-to-booking.

 

Contrary to popular belief the unions don't help the actors find work they simply pick their pockets for union dues whether they are working or not. What was that you where saying about exploitation?

 

R,

 

 

Local 600 doesn't find me work either. That's my job. But if I'm asked to go up in a bucket during a lightning storm, or accept a 7 hour turnaround after a 19 hour day I know there someone there.

 

There's no perfect system. I might not be asked back if I grieve production. Oh well.

And SAG is without a doubt a pain in the ass to indie filmmakers and should spend some of that dues $$ on a dept that makes it easier for indies to work with them. Maybe if unions were given a the benefit of the doubt a bit more often...

[Guest]

Here's a perfect example of how Canada's actors union, ACTRA, "helps" the independent low budget filmmaker. This is a program they call TIP:

 

http://www.actratoronto.com/TIP/Qualifiy2.htm

 

Read it over. 90% of indie filmmakers in Canada read this page, burst out laughing, and then begin the process of finding non-union actors.

 

And ACTRA bosses honestly think they are assisting the independent film industry in Canada. Bizarre!!

 

To add insult to injury ACTRA has stated that if you don't use them then you're an amateur filmmaker. Except they can't explain how many non-ACTRA films receive distribution all over the globe and many ACTRA shoots end up in the rubbish bin with no distribution at all.

 

R,

[Saul Rodgar]

I would replace the word "tough" with "unreasonable."

 

As a result a large majority of their members simply do not work, while many non-union actors go from booking-to-booking.

 

Contrary to popular belief the unions don't help the actors find work they simply pick their pockets for union dues whether they are working or not. What was that you where saying about exploitation?

 

R,

 

Unions are not hiring halls, that is for sure. Once you work under the union umbrella, they do try to stand behind you and make sure that if you work long hours you at least get your fair share of money.

 

Also, indie productions can get SAG waivers for their actors, I know it is a lot of red tape, but it can be done.

 

As Jim suggests, producers would love to exploit everyone working on their non-union shows. I generally won't work on non-union feature shows, unless there are some REALLY special circumstances. There is a reason why unions are around, and no, that does not involve workers being freeloaders. And while unions are not perfect, the alternative of having no unions at all is totally unthinkable.

 

I can see why a producer would hate an entity who says "No, you are not going to enslave these crew members in the selfish pursuit of your "artistic vision."

Edited December 29, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[Guest]

Unions are not hiring halls, that is for sure. Once you work under the union umbrella, they do try to stand behind you and make sure that if you work long hours you at least get your fair share of money.

 

Also, indie productions can get SAG waivers for their actors, I know it is a lot of red tape, but it can be done.

 

As Jim suggests, producers would love to exploit everyone working on their non-union shows. I won't work on non-union feature shows, period. There is a reason why unions are around, and no, that does not involve workers being freeloaders. And while unions are not perfect, the alternative of having no unions at all, is totally unthinkable.

 

I can see why a producer would hate an entity who says "No, you are not going to enslave these crew members in the selfish pursuit of your "artistic vision."

 

How many US producers have run off and never paid their bills to their union crews? No guarantees are there?

 

You may not want to work on non-union features, that's fine. But I say again, if an individual chooses to give away their labour for below market value or for free there is really nothing a union can do about that.

 

The long term outlook for unionization in Canada and the USA is at best, bleak. Unionized jobs will continue to move off shore to low wage non-union countries. The products will then simply be re-imported back into North America via a container ship.

 

I guarantee that no member of this forum could walk into a Walmart and find 10 products in 10 minutes that say, "made in the USA on them." Good luck finding a single piece of clothing or electronics that is made in the USA.

 

The economy is shifting rapidly and unionization will soon go the way of the dinosaur.

 

R,

[Taggart A Lee]

How many US producers have run off and never paid their bills to their union crews? No guarantees are there?

 

 

For me?:

Union producers = 0

 

Non-Union = lots

[Guest]

For me?:

Union producers = 0

 

Non-Union = lots

 

Good to hear, I would hate to see you or any one not get your money.

 

Probably in most cases the union shoots are better funded or backed by a larger entity like a studio. Heck if they are going to sign union contracts they have to be.

 

Indie people do often fly on a wing and prayer, no question about that.

 

R,

[Saul Rodgar]

The long term outlook for unionization in Canada and the USA is at best, bleak. Unionized jobs will continue to move off shore to low wage non-union countries. The products will then simply be re-imported back into North America via a container ship.

 

I guarantee that no member of this forum could walk into a Walmart and find 10 products in 10 minutes that say, "made in the USA on them." Good luck finding a single piece of clothing or electronics that is made in the USA.

 

The economy is shifting rapidly and unionization will soon go the way of the dinosaur.

 

R,

 

You are mixing apples and oranges though. Manufacturing unions are struggling in North America, but service employee unions not so much, and guess which category film work falls under?

 

Western film crews are second to none, and it will be a while before the mainland Chinese can gear up to competing with motion picture crews, especially with the language barriers. Only time will tell, but certainly it would be too soon to count out film unions at this stage of the game.

 

The way you are talking, we all might as well just give up any shred of hope and work for $150 a 80-hr-plus week so that producers can make a mint. And, as it has been suggested, the way business is done everywhere is changing fast, so I wouldn't be surprised if unions came out stronger of this financial mess than you predict. What needs to happen is that the world economy should even out so that people both here an in China can make a decent living wage. That would put an end to shipping jobs overseas rather rapidly.

[Walter Graff]

Ah, but that's the very mentality that will hasten the demise of unions. (I agree however that people who beg for gov't handouts should not be flying around in private jets.)

 

I love how the media "reports" something and the American public takes it as fact, then takes on the attitude and bias that the media presents. Here's what they didn't tell you. First off, the auto companies were clearly treated differently than anyone else asking for bridge loans. No one bothered to call the AIG guys to the carpet when they all flew to Washington in private jets to collect the rights to 700 million dollars, which they did. In fact those same CEOs still fly private jets today. Some of that money is used to make sure they still fly a fleet of private jets. Where was the media to uncover this? Secondly, anyone that doesn't know corporate America, here is a fact. The insurers of all public companies (and large private companies such as one I work for) require all CEOs to fly private jets and even fly different jets to the same place. The "big threes" insurance companies just like AIGs has that exact stipulation. Yet somehow no one noticed that AIG did it when they and others (who also have private fleets) came to Washington looking for loans, but they sure acted like the auto companies defecated on someones children by flying private jets. Funny how the media works, how gullible the American public is, and how different business are treated differently. Yea and how about those Wall Street firms who took $10 million of that loan we gave them and handed it to their top people as bonuses. No one said anything about that except a small article in the middle of the newspaper the other day.

 

As for the auto unions in the US, they got fat because no one cared that the government subsidized the US auto industry for years. As a result, when it came to contracts the automakers casually allowed unions to get more and more, knowing the government funds would offset most of the loss. When the money stopped the car makers found themselves in a predicament. Who is going to cover all these ridiculous union contracts? And now they are in trouble, and if you work for GM for 12 months then leave you leave with a free car, full health benefits for life, and 90% of your wages for the rest of your life. Not a bad deal for you. Not good for the car companies. Imagine working on a feature and walking away with 90% of your day rate for life, a free HMI and 100% health benefits for you and your family? That will end when the automakers declare bankruptcy in 2009.

[Walter Graff]

As a result a large majority of their members simply do not work, while many non-union actors go from booking-to-booking

 

Correction. I now notice many union works both SAG and AFTRA now saying don't worry about the union, if it's non union, I want to work regardless. I'd say I now work with far more union members on non union jobs than ever before.

[Taggart A Lee]

It's bad when anyone of the fatcats do it Ford, GM or AIG.

 

Not sure I understand your point. Is it that were it not for the unions the big three would be thriving?

[John Sprung]

Why doesn't SAG insist that the top Hollywood stars contribute 30% of the their income into a pool that is divided up equally between the unemployed members of SAG?

Very interesting -- where do I get a SAG card? ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Walter Graff]

It's bad when anyone of the fatcats do it Ford, GM or AIG.

 

Not sure I understand your point. Is it that were it not for the unions the big three would be thriving?

 

My point about the comparisons was to show how the Amercian public spits back what they hear on the news and make it first person when in relaity they know little detail of what goes down and why.

 

As a person who does the advertising for one of the largest auto groups in the US and who deals directly with the "big three" I can tell you that the problem is multilevel and not just the unions. First off the Unions have raped the manufacturers to the point that they simply can not make money making cars. In NY state for instance there are currently about 4500 people who get 90% of their pay with all benefits who retired more than thirty years ago from working on making cars. It simply can not go on and will not when the inevitable happens this year. But to look at the core of the problem, you have to first look at the automakers themselves. I can not tell you how many times I sit listening to internal marketing webcasts by the heads of marketing of these companies and for the two to four hours, I am shocked at how bad their decisions are. It is mind boggling. Go back a while back when all of these companies were guilty of producing cars with more engineering flaws, more shoddy parts, and less concern about how it all fit together. Take that and the opposite effect from the Japanese who went from making particle board interior door frames to making well built, well designed cars. The American makers cared little. They looked at the competition as never making a difference. And even when they did, the American car companies simply said, who cares. But the long term damage was done. The perception that American cars were built like crap became the norm. And time after time, folks found a better attitude, better value, and better relationship with the non American competition. Today, the Americans have turned things around. It took them quite some time. But the damage that was done is still persuasive. American sales have dropped considerably. Now take this perfect storm of really poor marketing, poor perception of quality, unions that rape the bottom line, and competition that has built marketing perception of quality, durability and long life and you have the situation we are in. Not that the Japanese are not in the same boat now. They are. They are in major trouble, but they don't have the unions to deal with so their bottom line and cash flow is far better even though their overall sales are two off more than 50%.

 

But this discussion is apples and oranges as service industry unions are doing well in comparison and will be the last vestige of the unions we knew. Manufacturing unions in the US will all be eliminated in the next ten years and all that will be left are the service unions.

[Jim Hyslop]

I'd love to know what shoot that was? I have probably heard of it.

Well, I have to admit that was almost twenty years ago. From what I've seen, the industry hasn't changed that much, except the low-paid PAs are now not paid at all and are called "interns". Anyway, the films were "Thunderground" and "Murder One".

 

Here's a question for you and every one else on the forum in fact...have you ever tried to deal with NABET, ACTRA, or SAG, as an independent filmmaker?

 

Not yet as an indie. I've worked with ACTRA on a student film, and had no problems whatsoever - other than sending me the ACTRA registration number, they pretty much ignored me. This was about six months ago.

 

Just as an aside - some of you may be wondering how I worked as a PA twenty years ago and am still a student. I took a detour into software development, and recently realized that was a mistake, so now I'm working on getting back into the film business.

 

--

Jim

[Guest]

First off, the auto companies were clearly treated differently than anyone else asking for bridge loans. No one bothered to call the AIG guys to the carpet when they all flew to Washington in private jets to collect the rights to 700 million dollars, which they did. In fact those same CEOs still fly private jets today.

 

Yes the car companies where treated differently for asking for a much smaller chunk of money. The problem though is PR....the auto companies miscalculated the public mood and rich CEOs are simply not generating much public sympathy right now. Regardless of whether or not a company requires the CEO to fly in a private jet, try explaining that to a factory worker who was just laid off from his job making $9.50 an hour.

 

Imagine working on a feature and walking away with 90% of your day rate for life, a free HMI and 100% health benefits for you and your family? That will end when the automakers declare bankruptcy in 2009.

 

I thought that's exactly what the Hollywood unions have been fighting for for years?

 

 

Correction. I now notice many union works both SAG and AFTRA now saying don't worry about the union, if it's non union, I want to work regardless. I'd say I now work with far more union members on non union jobs than ever before.

 

Ah yes "IF" the union allows that, it's nice that SAG will allow such a thing. Is SAG officially sanctioning this Walter? I doubt that SAG is behind this sort of thing. I know the SAG actor may agree to work a non-union show, but I highly doubt the SAG office is saying ok to this.

 

I had a very long conversation with a boss at ACTRA on this very subject. I wanted to bring in a union person to work on a non-union shoot. What I got from the ACTRA boss was....no way, no how, not in a million years. This ACTRA rep made it clear to me that any ACTRA member who works on a non-union show will be immediately kicked out of the union. They have no provisions of any kind for a member of ACTRA to work on a non-union show.

 

This is just another example of ACTRA's total stupidity. If they have a permit system for non-union actors to work on union shows, why not a permit system for union actors to work on non-union shows?

 

They could at the very least have a "hardship" provision and allow a union actor to work on a non-union show in order to earn some rent money. But oh no, they will say to the actor you will have to get a job at a gas station until things improve.

 

R,

[Guest]

Well, I have to admit that was almost twenty years ago. From what I've seen, the industry hasn't changed that much, except the low-paid PAs are now not paid at all and are called "interns". Anyway, the films were "Thunderground" and "Murder One".

 

Oh no problem, I was intrigued because I've heard of nothing shooting in Windsor recently.

 

Not yet as an indie. I've worked with ACTRA on a student film, and had no problems whatsoever - other than sending me the ACTRA registration number, they pretty much ignored me. This was about six months ago.

 

So you where the producer of this student film?

 

Try doing a TIP project with them as a producer, oh it's barrels of fun :blink:

 

R,

[Jim Hyslop]

So you where the producer of this student film?

 

Try doing a TIP project with them as a producer, oh it's barrels of fun :blink:

Yes, I was the producer.

 

No thanks, I think I'll stick to cinematography and let someone else handle the headaches :-)

 

--

Jim

[Guest]

Yes, I was the producer.

 

No thanks, I think I'll stick to cinematography and let someone else handle the headaches :-)

 

--

Jim

 

Right....producing is a pain the ass that's for sure.

 

R,

[Walter Graff]

Ah yes "IF" the union allows that, it's nice that SAG will allow such a thing. Is SAG officially sanctioning this Walter? I doubt that SAG is behind this sort of thing. I know the SAG actor may agree to work a non-union show, but I highly doubt the SAG office is saying ok to this.

 

 

I'll state it more clearly. I said more and more union actors are working non union on projects regardless of the union. This is not good for the union but shows how fragmented the unions are becoming and how much people need to eat.