Hollywood preps for Teamsters walkout

[John Sprung]

Gee Saul not sure your, film workers only work six months a year so they need double the pay when they do work, argument will hold up with many people.

 

Indeed, that's why there are day gigs. When somebody tells you they're an actor, the next question is "which restaurant?"....

 

It's not reasonable to be paid so much that you can take six months of vacation per year. It is reasonable to be paid enough that you can do OK working at something else the other half of the year. What that means is a demand for jobs that you can get and drop at a moment's notice, like waiting tables. The cost of that flexibility is lower pay. To balance that lower pay, the film work should command higher pay, so the average for the year is a wash with normal employment.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Saul Rodgar]

Indeed, that's why there are day gigs. When somebody tells you they're an actor, the next question is "which restaurant?"....

 

It's not reasonable to be paid so much that you can take six months of vacation per year. It is reasonable to be paid enough that you can do OK working at something else the other half of the year.

 

-- J.S.

 

 

I agree that $1500 a day is a hell of a lot of money, but if the Teamsters can collectively bargain that amount, more power to them. I have never made nowhere near that amount doing camerawork, or anything else really. Would I like to? Sure.

 

But in terms of what it is reasonable, what it is reasonable to me may not be to you. I know people (some former clients of mine) who make $30,000 a month by sitting on their butts in their 5,000 sq feet, million dollar home doing nothing all day. And yet they complained they are too poor, and how they couldn't pay me my daily rate. Completely unreasonable as far as I am concerned.

 

One thing I have learned is what you think your time is worth and what you can get for your time are completely different things. Again, looking at the current headlines indicates how subjective the pay scale perceptions can be:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100723/ap_on_re_us/us_pay_czar;_ylt=AjBveWEIGfTt5ebG7N3x60Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNjczZqN3NqBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNzIzL3VzX3BheV9jemFyBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDMTEEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3BheWN6YXIxN2JhaQ--

 

Talk about unreasonable pay scales. These people caused the financial mess we are in, the got bailed out by the taxpayers and that money was used to lavishly compensate those responsible for the disaster. I am sure if you ask the actual recipients of the money, they will be fine with it, telling you how deserving of the money they really are, etc .

 

 

The film unions in the UK and Australia have been weakened substantially over the last 20 years. That's a trend that may hit North America at some stage.

 

When I see fat cats who nearly brought the entire system down with their manipulations and speculations, who got out of it scot-free, and with millions in bonuses to boot, I sure hope there are some unions keeping the balance out there. :ph34r:

Edited July 23, 2010 by Saul Rodgar

[Guest]

Saul, not sure your, the rich are thieves therefore a union driver should make $1500.00/day argument, will hold up either.

 

R,

[Saul Rodgar]

Saul, not sure your, the rich are thieves therefore a union driver should make $1500.00/day argument, will hold up either.

 

R,

 

I didn't say that a driver should make $1,500 a day. But that if they can get that kind of money, more power to them.

[Tom Lowe]

The point is that the workers need to be available to work on a show. While $1,500 a day is extremely high, in order to survive film workers need to save what they make during the high times. That is just a reality. Those who don't save at least a portion of their wages don't last too long in this industry, that I know of.

 

These are not highly skilled "film workers." These are freekin van drivers. I am talking about those white passenger vans. When the shows are non-union, these jobs always get snapped up quickly by college kids and unskilled laborers. Any random person off the street can do it. They only need to know how to turn a steering wheel and read a GPS.

 

So how does this deserve or merit $1,500 a day? This is such an insult to the intelligence of any reasonable person, and such a case of outright extortion, that it literally causes and producers and directors to take their shows and flee elsewhere -- often overseas.

 

It's ironic that you bring up the State of California as an example in FAVOR of unions? State unions have totally bankrupted California. We have fire chiefs making $350,000 a year and retiring at age 50 with 100% pay! $350,000 dollars??? Are you kidding me? Is that being a "public servant"? Then they go get another state job when they turn 50, and can rake in close to half a million a year!! It's a total outrage. And what about those prison guards making $110,000 a year in California while hundreds of thousands of private-sector people are unemployed?

 

And let's not forget that California already has among the highest taxes in the nation -- gas, income, sales, corporate, etc. This state is DEAD BROKE. We have no money. None. Zilch. In fact, we are 20 billion in the hole. And still the unions demand more.

[Brian Dzyak]

 

Teachers have been used as an example, although I think it is not a perfect analogy, they get paid for the summertime, when they don't work. Otherwise there would be no teachers at the beginning of the fall because they all needed other jobs.

 

That's actually untrue. Teachers do not get paid to lounge around in the Summer. At least my wife (a teacher) doesn't. :)

[Brian Dzyak]

I didn't say that a driver should make $1,500 a day. But that if they can get that kind of money, more power to them.

 

I agree. I find it interesting that most "Capitalists" are the one's who whine most about workers earning too much while defending the rights of CEOs to make 1000x what their employees do. The only justification for wishing ordinary workers to earn less no matter what the job, is to protect the true agenda of the "Reagan Revolution," which was to destroy the Middle Class which so threatens the security of the Aristocracy of the planet. Allowing "ordinary" people to have too much money means that "the rich" can't exert the control over them that they desire. So, by forcing wages DOWN and keeping unemployment steady (a verified strategy of Alan Greenspan), it keeps "workers" in their place, just happy to have a job. That any ordinary worker would defend that strategy of the Fascist Right Wing is truly mind-boggling.

 

I'd have to wonder if anyone in the camera department would turn down $1,500 a day because they don't feel that their skillset is deserving of such a wage? Unions are NOT "destroying" California or our nation. Unfair trade policies and other pre-Reagan/Bush protections are. Our tax base has been undermined because A) Reagan and Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and B) trade policies like NAFTA sent millions of well-paying jobs over our borders and across the seas. US workers need to stop whining about ordinary people making "too much" and start fighting back against the Right Wing Agenda and return to sensible economic policies where EVERYONE can earn a comfortable living. :)

[Guest]

B) trade policies like NAFTA sent millions of well-paying jobs over our borders and across the seas.

 

Let's get our facts right Brian, NAFTA involves Canada, The USA, & Mexico. So what well paying jobs went "overseas" as a result of NAFTA? Last time I checked the map Canada, The USA, & Mexico, where all joined together as one land mass. :blink:

 

Also you say, "borders", can you point to one American job that went to Canada as a result of NAFTA? Plenty went the other way to the benefit of the US BTW.

 

Finally you made a post, and you forgot two keys words, Milton Friedman!!!!! :D

 

R,

[Brian Dzyak]

Let's get our facts right Brian, NAFTA involves Canada, The USA, & Mexico. So what well paying jobs went "overseas" as a result of NAFTA? Last time I checked the map Canada, The USA, & Mexico, where all joined together as one land mass. :blink:

 

Also you say, "borders", can you point to one American job that went to Canada as a result of NAFTA? Plenty went the other way to the benefit of the US BTW.

 

Finally you made a post, and you forgot two keys words, Milton Friedman!!!!! :D

 

R,

 

Most willfully ignorant Americans and Conservatives don't know who their own Messiah of Economics is. It's easier to just say "Reagan" and then they all get it. B)

 

You answered your own question from paragraph one in your second paragraph so I'm not sure why you asked it in the first place. You phrased your first paragraph as if I intentionally disregard the "land mass" of North America, which, if you reread what I actually wrote, will prove your assertion incorrect. Perhaps there is a job waiting at Fox "News" for you. ;)

 

As to question two, yes, most of our Movie-of-the-Week work went north of the USA border as well as many episodics. Doing what I do, I'm still shut out of working up there, while just a few department heads are allowed. If it's in Canada, I can't go. What's so "free market" about that? Were those job losses a direct result of NAFTA? It's difficult to say, but it is clear that there is a correlation between the Clinton years and the "great sucking sound" as millions of US jobs left our borders here. The Reagan Revolution stood for one thing: decimate the Middle Class and return power of all kind to the Radical Right Wing wealthy Aristocracy. Despite their claims to the contrary, the USA Conservative movement is anything but "patriotic" and "for the Constitution." The LAST thing they want to see is universal freedom and democracy. Giving "ordinary" people such things would (and did) threaten their continued wealth and power. They don't want that to happen.

 

That's why this notion of "Free Market Capitalism" is such a joke. A TRUE "free market" would mean absolutely NO restrictions on the movement of the labor pool across borders AND a one-world currency so that Corporations couldn't play nations against each other.

 

The other thing to go would be the tax incentives bribes that essentially pay Corporations to keep more of their money while depriving municipalities of tax revenue for such silly things like schools, libraries, hospitals, roads, bridges....

Edited July 24, 2010 by Brian Dzyak

[Saul Rodgar]

I agree. I find it interesting that most "Capitalists" are the one's who whine most about workers earning too much while defending the rights of CEOs to make 1000x what their employees do. The only justification for wishing ordinary workers to earn less no matter what the job, is to protect the true agenda of the "Reagan Revolution," which was to destroy the Middle Class which so threatens the security of the Aristocracy of the planet. Allowing "ordinary" people to have too much money means that "the rich" can't exert the control over them that they desire. So, by forcing wages DOWN and keeping unemployment steady (a verified strategy of Alan Greenspan), it keeps "workers" in their place, just happy to have a job. That any ordinary worker would defend that strategy of the Fascist Right Wing is truly mind-boggling.

 

I'd have to wonder if anyone in the camera department would turn down $1,500 a day because they don't feel that their skillset is deserving of such a wage? Unions are NOT "destroying" California or our nation. Unfair trade policies and other pre-Reagan/Bush protections are. Our tax base has been undermined because A) Reagan and Bush cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and B) trade policies like NAFTA sent millions of well-paying jobs over our borders and across the seas. US workers need to stop whining about ordinary people making "too much" and start fighting back against the Right Wing Agenda and return to sensible economic policies where EVERYONE can earn a comfortable living. :)

 

AMEN, brother!!!

[Saul Rodgar]

Let's get our facts right Brian, NAFTA involves Canada, The USA, & Mexico. So what well paying jobs went "overseas" as a result of NAFTA?

 

 

Actually, they did, if somewhat indirectly. Here is a very oversimplified version of what happened:

 

One of the terms of NAFTA was that Maquiladoras (sweatshop factories) would be set up along the border US border in Mexico (so that Mexicans wouldn't have to come to the US for jobs anymore) and that the Mexican gov't would guarantee they would beef up infrastructure and social services with the taxes the transnational corporations would pay (most roads leading to the Maquiladoras were dirt, most workers lived in squalor, violent crime against women in particular was on the rise, etc.)

 

When this didn't happen-- the tax money mostly went to corrupt Mexican officials, one assumes-- and among other reasons, like the entry of China to the WTO, a lot of those companies closed up shop in Mexico and left for China -- which has better infrastructure, cheaper wages and plenty of skilled workers and engineers. "In a deregulated world, there is always someone who will work for less. "

 

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_nafta_failed_mexico

[Tom Lowe]

You guys are waaay off topic. The question is about unions for United States film and TV productions, specifically the "Teamsters" and whether their demands for $1,500 a day for van drivers, for example, are causing damage to the local film industry.

[Saul Rodgar]

You guys are waaay off topic. The question is about unions for United States film and TV productions, specifically the "Teamsters" and whether their demands for $1,500 a day for van drivers, for example, are causing damage to the local film industry.

 

Well, thing is, all these issues are interconnected. One can't seriously and honestly look at an issue without acknowledging the factors related to said issue. The challenges facing unions in the entertainment industry are related to the issues that unions across many industries face nowadays. It is often said: "No man is an island," which applies likewise to the issues facing such men.

 

However, and merely to set the record straight, I do believe it was you who gladly compared Teamsters' paychecks to those of regular industry drivers and former professionals currently moonlighting / or fully employed at Starbucks . . .

 

Getting paid $1,500 a day to drive a van is a "living wage"? You must be joking. We have teachers making 1/10th that amount. And they have college degrees. How about the millions of unemployed former professionals out there who are making lattes at Starbucks right now for $7.50 an hour? They would kill to get a job driving a van for 1/5th the amount of money these "Teamsters" are demanding.

 

[Tom Lowe]

My point was, to illustrate how ludicrous it is to force productions to pay $1,500 for van drivers. I mentioned Starbucks as an example of how paying van drivers $1,500 a day relates to our current labor market. So I was definitely staying on topic in terms of that.

 

I wasn't the person who brought up how state employee unions have completely bankrupted California, robbed our citizens blind, and corrupted our politicians. I brought that up in response to claims that unions should not be held responsible for budget problems in California, which they clearly should. "Public servants" should not be making 10 times the salary of the average citizen. No reasonable person could support that, IMO. We have state government pencil pushers making more money than President Obama. It's absurd.

 

Anyway, again, back to the point. If you were a producer thinking about filming a BMW commercial in a city, for example, and you were trying to reduce costs, would you be happy about paying van drivers $1,500 a day when you could easily hire them for $200 a day? You might say $200 a day is "taking advantage" of people, but there are millions upon millions of Americans who be glad to collect 200 bucks a day to drive actors and crew around Hollywood. It beats flipping burgers for $7.50 an hour, wouldn't you agree?

Edited July 24, 2010 by Tom Lowe

[Brian Dzyak]

 

Anyway, again, back to the point. If you were a producer thinking about filming a BMW commercial in a city, for example, and you were trying to reduce costs, would you be happy about paying van drivers $1,500 a day when you could easily hire them for $200 a day? You might say $200 a day is "taking advantage" of people, but there are millions upon millions of Americans who be glad to collect 200 bucks a day to drive actors and crew around Hollywood. It beats flipping burgers for $7.50 an hour, wouldn't you agree?

 

Well, yes, but agreeing to that mindset suggests a race to the bottom. You're suggesting that BMW (and whatever Corporation is in charge of BMW commercials) should seek out those willing to work for the lowest amount of money anywhere they can find them.

 

What Unions do is set that "bottom" and say to Corporations and other employers that "this" is the rate and these are the working conditions. Employing people outside those parameters is tantamount to taking advantage of people in need.

 

What's more is that the past thirty years of "Reaganomics" have intentionally created conditions whereby unemployment is kept artificially high in order to suppress wages. It's one thing to have, say, an over-saturated market of too many Camera Operators on planet Earth which would, naturally, drive their rates down. It's quite another to artificially create a shortage of JOBS in given geographical areas so that those who live there (raising families, etc.) are forced to either accept lower wages (that aren't high enough for where they live) or find something else to do for a living... or move to where the Corporations have moved the work. In the case of a company like Whirlpool that JUST decided to fire over a thousand employees just so they could get cheaper slave labor in Mexico, perhaps those former US employees could move to Mexico and continue working, albeit at a lower day rate. But for those in the movie business, is the suggestion that everyone should just be nomads, trying in vain to follow the tax-incentive trail, with families in tow?

 

So, yeah, driving a van for $200 a day sure beats flipping burgers, but driving a van for $1,200 a day beats driving it for $200 a day. I don't understand the willingness to throw fellow blue-collar workers under the proverbial bus and make them work for less instead of throwing blame where it's due...at the transnational corporations and the Conservative movement which seeks to undermine the Middle Class and keep everyone in a state of "just happy to have a job" as YOU are suggesting. It's a ridiculous assertion to tell ordinary working people that they are earning too much. Where is that same sort of venom when it comes to Corporations and to the CEOs who run them?

 

I mean, what's the alternative here? Should we set up some kind of Commission to establish a list of all the jobs in the world and assign an hourly rate for what those jobs are worth across the board? Who gets to decide that? Who's to say that a van driver ISN'T worth $1,200 a day? Sure, it is "just" driving a van, but look at what they are driving FOR. Who is in those vans and what do they do? What happens if those people aren't delivered safely and efficiently to their destinations? What would that cost be? Heck, since we're at Cinematography.com, why don't we talk about the inherent worth of the Film Loader. Why is THAT person earning the least in the department? The Loader "only" takes film out of the mags and puts new film in. Hardly a "difficult" job. Right? But what happens if that person screws up and flashes a shot mag? How much is that mag of film worth? What if that particular mag had a one-time only stunt on it? Maybe the Film Loader's pay should go up and down relative to what is on the mags that he/she is working with at any given time during the day. No? Seem silly? Yes, it does, but who here is going to argue that since loading and unloading film is so easy, that they shouldn't be paid more than someone who flips burgers? So why would anyone in their right mind argue that van drivers aren't worth whatever they can get too?

[Brian Dzyak]

Anyway, the point is that you don't fix economic problems and "runaway" production by driving wages down and making ordinary working people suffer and have a lowers standard of living.

 

Instead, you fix it from the top, at the most fundamental level. FDR began the movement which was continued by others, to protect US products and workers by having fair trade policies and high tariffs on imported goods. The bottom line was that if it could be made here (in the USA), then the tariff was higher than if the company had just stayed in the US and employed US workers. That kept employment at a steady and high rate and helped build the considerable infrastructure we all enjoy today.

 

But the Reagan Revolution worked to dismantle all of it. Under the guise of "fiscal responsibility" and "patriotism," we are feeling the effects of their irresponsible economic policies, tax cuts to Corporations and the wealthiest 10%, and outrageous spending sprees which they themselves labeled as "Starve the Beast." Conservatives do nothing BUT spend outrageous sums of tax dollars and work hard to drive Corporations OUT of the USA. Their goal? Fill the coffers of Corporations and those who run them and keep our nation in a perpetual state of debt in order to stall such "Socialist" efforts of Progressives, like Social Security, Medicare, Health Care, and anything else that actually is meant to help people in need. And those people are in need BECAUSE OF the economic policies of the Conservatives.

 

So, yeah, this all seems "off topic," but it isn't. Not by a long shot. God willing, EVERYONE should be making $1,200 a day. I mean, why not? Do these people http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/ deserve that much more money that you or me or anyone else on this forum or the van drivers or those flipping burgers? I don't think so, yet I hear NO whining from the Far Radical Right about suppressing those wages. Instead, all we hear is that labor unions are "destroying" our nation. Gimme a f'ing break. <_<

[Tom Lowe]

Well, yes, but agreeing to that mindset suggests a race to the bottom. You're suggesting that BMW (and whatever Corporation is in charge of BMW commercials) should seek out those willing to work for the lowest amount of money anywhere they can find them.

 

They should find the talent they need for the best rate they can get. That's the way business works.

 

So, yeah, driving a van for $200 a day sure beats flipping burgers, but driving a van for $1,200 a day beats driving it for $200 a day.

 

And making $200 a day beats making $0 a day when the production flees to Australia or Spain.

 

I mean, what's the alternative here? Should we set up some kind of Commission to establish a list of all the jobs in the world and assign an hourly rate for what those jobs are worth across the board? Who gets to decide that? Who's to say that a van driver ISN'T worth $1,200 a day?

 

The free market will determine the value of what someone contributes to a company or project.

 

Either you believe in the free market or you don't. It's the free market that is causing productions to flee Los Angeles and the United States.

[Hal Smith]

They should find the talent they need for the best rate they can get. That's the way business works.......

 

And the business of Labor is to make damn sure that the bosses drive Chevys, not Bentleys.

 

Executive: "Greed is Good".

 

Labor: "Solidarity Forever".

[Guest]

FDR began the movement which was continued by others, to protect US products and workers by having fair trade policies and high tariffs on imported goods.

 

Brian, I have no idea how an intelligent person like you can be so short sighted?

 

Do you not realize that millions and millions of US jobs are directly tied to exports? The US exports billions of dollars worth of goods and services each day.

 

For Pete's sake look at Hollywood films!!!!! They dominate the entire global film market, no one even has a chance to compete for film audiences in their own freaking countries!!

 

You want high tariffs on imported goods to protect US workers? Fine. Then sit back and watch as the rest of the globe says f-you America and closes their borders to US imports. Then watch as America's unemployment rate skyrockets.

 

I mean really Brian, what planet are you living on? You think the world will sit back and allow the US to pursue a high tariff policy? Of course not, the rest of the world will retaliate with trade tariffs of their own on goods from the USA.

 

Think about it!!

 

R,

[Hal Smith]

Do you not realize that millions and millions of US jobs are directly tied to exports? The US exports billions of dollars worth of goods and services each day.

Richard,

 

You live in a country with half-way decent national health care, a financial system that was regulated enough that it didn't melt down, a modest defense establishment, a sensible balance of trade, etc.

 

I live in a country that watches people die because they can't afford medicine and doctors, a casino financial system operating like all casinos...solely for the benefit of the owners, a defense establishment that bleeds the federal economy, billions of dollars going overseas, money that returns to indebt us to a dictatorship, etc.

 

Back in the day when I used to visit Detroit regularly I used to marvel at just how differently I was treated by Canadian Customs when I'd to over to Windsor as opposed to how American Customs treated me on return. Canada? Courteous and professional. American? Surly and insulting.

[Justin Hayward]

God willing, EVERYONE should be making $1,200 a day. I mean, why not?

 

Everyone?

[Justin Hayward]

I was a PA with the transportation union on some traveling late night talk show when I was right out of college. My job turned out to be driving the head of the drivers union around the city while he slept in the back.

 

Im scared for this country to know what he was making.

[timHealy]

I doubt van drivers are getting 1500 bucks a day unless they worked a 24 hour day. Then they deserve it, but who would want to ride with them if they did not get a nap somewhere durning the day. As opposed to grip electric trailers or campers, van drivers can have the hardest teamster job. They are picking up crew and actors and hour or two before general crew call, then make pickups and drop offs all day, then drive people home and to parking lots, and then drop off film and sound at the end of the day. Who came up with that first number and where did it come from? A payroll accountant or heresay?

[John Sprung]

They are picking up crew and actors and hour or two before general crew call, then make pickups and drop offs all day, then drive people home and to parking lots, and then drop off film and sound at the end of the day.

 

Jeez, wouldn't it be smarter to have two shifts?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brian Dzyak]

 

 

 

The free market will determine the value of what someone contributes to a company or project.

 

Either you believe in the free market or you don't. It's the free market that is causing productions to flee Los Angeles and the United States.

 

The "Free Market" could perhaps do what you suggest, only we don't truly HAVE a "Free Market" economy. We have Monopoly Capitalism. A true free market would allow all workers to travel across borders as freely as the transnational corporations do. A true free market would include a one-world currency. But instead, we have a system designed to benefit corporations. They are able to essentially extort governments for the biggest "tax incentives" and use currency exchange rates to their advantage. Sure, this allows the Corporations to profit heavily, but it leaves workers out in the cold, fighting for every scrap, "just happy to have a job" no matter how low the wages are driven down.

 

This nonsense of "free market" just doesn't work. It never has and never will given the current design of Globalization. If we did have a true "free market," I'd be on board. But we don't and we likely won't, so I can't find myself supporting a system that is designed to make real people suffer in very real ways just so that a few at the tippy top can live in obscene luxury. That's not free market Capitalism. Not even a little bit.