Agent Representation for Camera Operators?

[Guest]

Well at least IATSE and the DGC have a tiered payment schedule and allow their members to take non-union jobs when work is scarce. ACTRA and SAG, both have fixed rate amounts, regardless of the budget, and they do not allow their members to take non-union work, no matter how financially desperate they are.

 

Also, in the film trade unions everyone earns "about the same," in SAG one member earns 300 bucks in a year, while another member earns 50 million or more!

 

R,

[Albion Hockney]

I have been reading through this post for a while and just want to say agree with everything David said.

 

I think its very important to take a step outside of the issue of just the film industry and look at what has gone on historically. Workers have been exploited since the beginning of time. The market doesn't work....it never did. If you look at times of less regulation things where terrible. the late 1800's/early 1900's

 

As said Richard you might be an ok boss, but many people aren't and everyone takes advantage of the system from everyside, unions aren't exempt from that.

 

the only solution is every single person apart of the industry being respectful of each other, honest, and fair. HAHA hard to imagine in the modern western world...or well anywhere now something like that being possible.

 

Read some goddamn Upton Sinclair Richard.

[David Mullen ASC]

 

Also, in the film trade unions everyone earns "about the same," in SAG one member earns 300 bucks in a year, while another member earns 50 million or more!

 

R,

 

You see the practical problem of unions -- SAG lets almost everyone in so that you can't get around SAG, but that also means that they have a lot more members than there are jobs, so when you look at the salary figures, it is quite extreme in terms of range. If IATSE had a similar approach to just sign up everyone, then you'd also see a lot of members who are barely working. Of course, IATSE doesn't have the superstars like Tom Cruise throwing off the average.

 

I can't really argue with people who find faults with unions, union members can be the worst critics of all, but on the other hand, there haven't been a lot of powerful forces to take their place in terms of protecting workers. Government protections are not permanent either and relying on the humanity and decency of the rich and powerful, some beholden to faceless corporations catering to shareholders and Wall St., is naive at best. You shouldn't take it personally, Richard, if people are suspicious of producers in general and want some sort of leverage.

[Guest]

 

You shouldn't take it personally, Richard, if people are suspicious of producers in general and want some sort of leverage.

 

Oh heck no, not at all. Everyone is suspicious of film producers, the studios, the banks, the governments that hand out tax credits, I deal with this daily. On some levels it's a compliment :)

 

And as annoying as this will be to members of the board, smart producers study the union rules and figure out ways to use them to their advantage vs their disadvantage.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

David, the problem a lot of people have with the situation is that unions justify their existence by claiming that they're protecting the disadvantaged. That's true in part, but many of them seem to work more by excluding people - either outside the union or outside some sort of in-group inside the union. As a practical matter I suspect many of them are disadvantaging more people than they're really helping, which calls into question the legitimacy of the "we're helping people" defence.

 

They're helping some people, at the significant expense of others.

 

P

[Guest]

As a practical matter I suspect many of them are disadvantaging more people than they're really helping, which calls into question the legitimacy of the "we're helping people" defence.

 

They're helping some people, at the significant expense of others.

 

P

 

I agree with Phil. Although I will not make a habit of it. :)

 

R,

[Adrian Sierkowski]

There is the fundamental issue that you can't possible help everyone-- and that sadly, not everyone get's a fair deal. Unions, in their best incarnations, protect those whom are members thereof and provide a basic understanding, a set minimum level of x for y.

[David Mullen ASC]

When I started out doing a lot of non-union features, the only real protection against abuse were the SAG rules for turnaround, meals, etc. -- even the non-union crew benefitted sideways from the protections that the actors got.

[John E Clark]

David, the problem a lot of people have with the situation is that unions justify their existence by claiming that they're protecting the disadvantaged. That's true in part, but many of them seem to work more by excluding people - either outside the union or outside some sort of in-group inside the union. As a practical matter I suspect many of them are disadvantaging more people than they're really helping, which calls into question the legitimacy of the "we're helping people" defence.

 

They're helping some people, at the significant expense of others.

 

P

 

The way traditional 'unions' have worked in the US is they represent employees... Some had apprenticeship programs to bring in new hires, train them for the skill set required, then represent the group in collective bargaining.

 

The Hollywood style is more like a guild than a union. While both only represent 'employees' because of the way US labor law and union recognition work, from what I can see, there is virtually no 'training' or 'apprenticeship' programs to any great degree for Hollywood style unions.

 

In the US there are also 'right to work states', and as such, the unions can not 'close' a shop to non union workers. In the US there is no 'totally closed' shop, but say, in California, shops do have contracts that require all employees eventually join the union. For example, a SAG signatory production company can hire a non SAG actor for a production, but after some number of appearances (I think it is 5 and perhaps 5 speaking parts...) the actor must join the union or be released from employment. There is a concept called 'Fi-Core' which is where an individual pays union dues for specific elements of the union activities, but can work on non-union jobs as well as union jobs. However, they have no 'voting' rights and perhaps some other limitations.

 

In a 'right to work' state the union can not make that sort of agreement with the 'shop' owner, and so, both union and non union works can be employees, and the non-union employees need not join the union.

 

I think the SAG studio agreement requires the production/studio pay nonunion employees the same 'scale' wages as what the union employee gets. Recall that those high dollar amounts given out by name brand actors, are not 'scale' but way beyond, stratospherically beyond, 'scale'.

 

There is now a SAG type agreement to handle 'new media', that being content produce for 'mobile' and other types of electronic devices, and the production need not pay according to SAG scales for various types of productions.

 

But the hook there is it has to be first distributed via the 'mobile' device method. (i.e.... not in theaters... TV... even 'video on demand' unless it is VOD to a Mobile device) the SAG info details what a 'mobile' device is...

 

I only have had contact with SAG or potential SAG people in the area of head shots, etc. so I don't know what processes there are for the other Hollywood unions. But I think SAG has been the most hard core with its "Rule Number 1", that is no performance without a SAG sanctioned contract or agreement. There was a problem with the merger of AFTRA, which did have a bit looser options in regard to working under contract or not.

 

I think it also is the union that has the greatest disparity between the high dollar members and the 'I had a few roles in some never to be seen films' members.

 

I think there is a use for unions... I think strippers should have been allowed to unionize, in the sense of court cases that considered whether the stripper was an 'independent contractor' (ie not any employee hence not coverable by a union...), or a 'regular employee of the club' and hence unionizable, and stick it to clubs for 'excessive stage fees', or other ways that the dancer's daily take was greatly reduced before they could get out the door (or in the door...).

Edited August 6, 2015 by John E Clark