Working a Union Shoot as a Non-Union DP

[Guest Ben Pluimer]

I've been approached to work as a DP (2nd Unit) on an NBC show. I am non-union, and I expect this job to only last for 2-3 days tops. I most likely have enough non-union days under my belt to join, but the high initiation fee is a bit hard to deal with seeing as I don't have any more union work lined up, and it's not something that I regularly get calls for.

 

Is there some sort of provision that would allow me to work these few days on the show as a non-union DP? Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Ben

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

No.

[peter Wunstorf]

I've been approached to work as a DP (2nd Unit) on an NBC show. I am non-union, and I expect this job to only last for 2-3 days tops. I most likely have enough non-union days under my belt to join, but the high initiation fee is a bit hard to deal with seeing as I don't have any more union work lined up, and it's not something that I regularly get calls for.

 

Is there some sort of provision that would allow me to work these few days on the show as a non-union DP? Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Ben

[peter Wunstorf]

Are you in the 13 Western States?

[Guest Ben Pluimer]

Hey Paul & Peter...thanks for your responses. I'm in LA.

 

I'm willing to join Local 600, and plan to eventually. Do either of you have any advice for this situation? Thanks in advance.

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

If you want to do the shoot join and pay on an installment basis.

[Phil Rhodes]

And exactly how is this not a protection racket?

[peter Wunstorf]

If you want to do the shoot join and pay on an installment basis.

 

 

Does he not need to be on the LA Roster first?

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

Perhaps. Safety Pass training is required for roster status. Best thing to do would be to call the local, talk to a B.A. and get the info straight from the source.

[John Sprung]

I know, it's tricky to make that transition when your bread and butter is non-union. But don't be afraid to talk to 600. Their goal is to get both you and your bread and butter unionized.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Dan Salzmann]

Perhaps. Safety Pass training is required for roster status. Best thing to do would be to call the local, talk to a B.A. and get the info straight from the source.

 

What is Safety Pass training?

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

http://www.csatf.org/safety.shtml

[Mark Dunn]

Are closed shops not illegal in the US?

[Paul Maibaum ASC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop

 

as opposed to:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_shop

[Mark Dunn]

There doesn't seem to be much difference. You can be dismissed for not joining a union.

We put a stop to that 30 years ago.

[Phil Rhodes]

There isn't any practical difference; the entire idea of a "union shop" is a legal fiction designed to allow unions members to make more money than their job is worth by artificially restricting the supply of labour. The fact that this is the raison d'etre of these organisations could not be clearer and until I read those articles I had no idea anywhere was still clinging to the term.

 

I'm not sure why anyone stands for any of this. In a sane world, for every IATSE member there'd be five thousand aggrieved people standing outside the white house screaming about it, and I'm astonished there isn't.

 

P

[Chris Keth]

I'm not sure why anyone stands for any of this. In a sane world, for every IATSE member there'd be five thousand aggrieved people standing outside the white house screaming about it, and I'm astonished there isn't.

 

P

 

A situation like that would assume that most or all work in the field is union, leaving few to no jobs for those not in the union. We all know that non-union films outnumber the union films.

[Phil Rhodes]

A situation like that would assume that most or all work in the field is union

 

I don't think so, although I suspect that most of the money is in unionised productions, regardless of their number. Regardless, exclusivity isn't required for the current situation to inflate union wages (which it unquestionably does).

 

Thinking about it, I'm also astonished that the producers don't get tired of this situation. You'd have thought that if they just tore up the union contracts tomorrow, they'd be able to hire perfectly adequate non-union people for considerably less money, considering that the people who ultimately pay for the union are the producers.

 

P

[Thomas James]

But that is the whole idea which means not getting paid what you are worth but getting paid according to what your needs are.

[Mark Dunn]

On reflection I do appreciate the difference between the union shop and the closed shop. You're not actually fired for not joining the union, you're fired for not paying the fees you would pay if you did.

As the barristers say, a distinction without a difference. It's extraordinary that such legally-sanctioned arm-twisting persists in a G10 nation.

[Phil Rhodes]

Yes, it's hilarious, isn't it.

 

It occurs to me that the union in the US actually doesn't have much effect on anything anyway. Even here, there's "high end" work which pays nice wages and has nice conditions and feeds you and pays overtime, etc, and there's the "lower end" stuff which doesn't. There are two quite distinct groups of people who work on those and there's only rarely a crossover. So, the union/non-union situation exists by default anyway, firmly putting the lie to the idea that this organisation is actually doing anything for its members.

 

The difference - and I think this is an extremely important difference - is that on the occasion I get offered a few days on a high end gig, I can go and do it, as opposed to basically having a union rob my pocket of the money I would have made.

 

If I had to turn down every what-would-be union day I was offered, I'd be in extreme financial hardship.

 

P

[Guest]

Well Phil here's a shocker for you....I used all union performers on The Dogfather, I had two "issues" come up and it was the union that supported me BOTH times. Had it not been a union shoot I would have been in a real jam in both of these situations. However, since the union rules applied I was the one, as a producer, that came out ahead both times.

 

The other big plus with unionized actors is that you are using a pool of people that have survived the trials and tribulations of being an actor. Since getting into the actors union here is a very long and difficult process, the only ones that survive are the people that really have some talent and determination. So essentially the union screens out a lot of the people that just won't cut it.

 

Plus I still have the freedom to use non-union actors if I choose by buying the person a work permit for the shoot.

 

Yes, the talent cost a lot more for OT and fringes, etc. But it ended up being worth it in the long run.

 

The technical unions are a bit of a different situation. You find qualified people within the unions for sure. Yet, you find a lot of excellent and well qualified people outside of the unions as well.

 

This is where the controversy arises, and this idea of the "protection racket" you suggest may exist. More union members means more competition for the available jobs, so what is the motivation for the union to sign up more members? They'll collect more dues, yes, but it still means more people competing for what is always far fewer jobs than there are union members.

 

My biggest complaint with unions in Ontario is that productions shooting in Toronto have a clear advantage over those productions shooting 1-2 hours outside of the city. This is because the unions can supply local to any shoot in Toronto, which means hotels and per diem need not be paid for.

 

If you shoot two hours North of Toronto like I do I must bring in unionized workers from Toronto and pay for their hotels, per diem, and travel time. I can not hire any non-union locals to fill holes in the crew, and yet the union can not supply local workers in my area because there aren't any. Quite simply, it's not fair.

 

This is nothing new, and many other producers feel the same way I do. There's no issue with me discussing this on an open forum since I have made these concerns clear via phone and e-mail direct to union heads here in S. Ontario.

 

R,

[Jayson Crothers]

Ben, you and I are in the same boat. I was asked to shoot 2nd Unit for a Fox television show recently, but I'm currently non-union. The show anticipates only 1 day of 2nd Unit work per episode, which means over 13 episodes I'd work perhaps 13 days (assuming they needed 2nd Unit for each episode, which isn't a guarantee, plus the show is already shooting, so I'd be starting late into the season). To be eligible for this, I had to submit my paperwork to contract services to get on the roster (this is a task in and of itself), then after being approved by them, I had to take my safety training courses (as DP's, we get off easy - I think it was only 4 classes), and now I'm gathering together my money for the initiation fee - I'm still debating if this is the right time to join (cost of joining versus what I'll make on the show). I'm happy to answer any questions, but your best bet is to contact contract services and local 600 - both are happy to provide you information.

[Guest Ben Pluimer]

Thanks, Jayson. As I figure this out and see how it progresses, I might come to you with a question or two.

 

I suppose that with such a high cost of entry, it might always be a tough decision until the high end work comes around more regularly.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Ben Pluimer