Jump to content

IATSE organizes 'Master Chef' - Will other reality follow?


jacefivesound

Recommended Posts

Many of you have probably already seen this in some form or another, but the IATSE posted this on Facebook this morning:

"Congratulations to the crew of "Master Chef," who have won an IATSE contract with MPIPHP benefits! This victory on a major show helps to raise standards for folks working throughout unscripted TV. The resolve and solidarity of the crew on this show were strong enough to bring the producers to the table and secure a contract without a work stoppage."

I, too, will be working on a unionized reality show beginning next week. I think it's time to discuss and believe that reality TV crews can and should be unionized. Facts seem to become very distorted and producers hear union and run, but I've spoken 'off the record' to a few execs who know full well that unionization of their reality shows won't change their business model. They would still pay the same rates with a small bit more for benefits. Their business model shows so much profit because they don't have to pay a big crew or hardly any 'talent', union rates for reality TV crews wouldn't hit them as hard as they like to pretend it would.

We also spend a lot of time talking about being undercut and not letting younger mixers give themselves away for free. Unionization of more productions will set more rates that can't be undercut, as scale is scale and that is the end of it.

It's sad to look at shows like '1000 ways to die' on which crew tried to organize and production was cancelled completely. These production companies are so hard headed about setting a precedent that this work will be non union, and I, for one, think it's time to fight back and show that we know what we're worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a very good thing...

but beware: " union rates for reality TV crews wouldn't hit them as hard as they like to pretend it would. "

this is because the IATSE will allow any rates on these projects, all they want is dues and H&W contributions...

Very true. This will benefit the union and producers in the long run, as the influx of new union crew members will ensure a greater number of people who will contribute to H & W and who will not qualify for benefits. This will shore up the system with lower up-front cost, helping in future negotiations. The crew members will be guaranteed low, non-negotiable wages, no holiday/vacation pay, and anything else the IA wants to give away on some bullshit sideletter none of us get to vote on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can't comment on your contracts, as we aren't in the same union local, but I would hope that the negotiated rates wouldn't be considered shitty. Yes, the LA unions need members and yes at this point they would probably push any contract so long as they were getting money into the funds, but nothing will happen without a push, so a push in the direction of unionizing and FAIR pay, not low pay, would be a good direction to go in. Many of these mixers make $500+ for 10-12 hours; making that amount plus benefits is still fair pay. (Edit, not talking about narrative mixing here, talking about strapping a bag on and running and gunning ENG style)

As someone who has worked in reality for a while, I'd happily take my same pay with benefits added, no one asking me to do things that have nothing to do with sound, and an overtime structure that will be enforced.

As someone who has worked in reality for a while, I'm also looking to be done with it forever ASAP...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I would hope that the negotiated rates wouldn't be considered shitty. "

actually, many times they are, and the conditions also tend to suck.

In organizing, the IATSE will accept anything and everything as long as the producer agrees to H&W contributions, the only non-negotiable item.

" no one asking me to do things that have nothing to do with sound, and an overtime structure that will be enforced. "

if onlt...

the first item is lost to "interchangeability" and the OT may actually suffer, as under a union contract they might negotiate ST up to 14 hours, and even recalculate your current |(non-union) hourly rate to your detriment vs state labor laws, which a union contract may trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theory and practice often diverge and policies intended to produce a salutary outcome may not bear the fruit we would all wish.

I think that the idea is that a union has a responsibility to provide a health plan and failure to do so would be an failure of trust with the membership. So that benefit cannot, in good faith, be negotiated away. (Although it's true that requirements to qualify for benefits are sometimes set so high that the practical benefit is elusive.)

On the other hand, wages for a particular project are ephemeral. In a typical negotiating situation, the workers have already agreed to accept assignments at meager wages and union organization is sought because hours are excessive and the producers are paying (usually) no overtime at all. When the union agrees to wages at the levels already being paid, the crew people still benefit both from the contributions to H&W and from overtime wages when days run long. (While qualifying for the H&W benefits may be difficult, many of the workers on a show that flips are already union members and may have hours accrued from other sources.)

The theory is that once a company or producer becomes signatory, the wages can be increased on the next show or, at least, the show after that. Regrettably, things don't always work that way, I recall Pierre David, a particularly exploitative producer, enjoying ultra-low negotiated wages for years and years. But I also observe that Matthew Loeb seems to be more aggressive than his predecessors. Perhaps this obvious abuse will at least lessen.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are unions only interested in H&W benefits? I assume it is because H&W is the greatest pocket-liner for the union hierarchy, and the rest of the contract merely allows the membership to show up for work every day.

I don't believe it is pocket-lining, but new members contribute hours, and therefore dollars (via the producers' contributions), to the health and retirement programs. Many of the new members will not qualify for short-term benefits like health insurance (or may be less taxing on the system than older members), or long-term benefits like a pension or lifetime health benefits. Having more members who do no qualify helps to cover the increasing cost of benefits for those who do. It serves the union more than it serves the members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

Your IA Local 481 in Boston organized the show, most likely in conjunction with the International.

There is a little bit of "jumping the shark" by some of the posters.

Under the Basic Agreement in Los Angeles the Employer is responsible for making all the contributions into both that employee's Pension and Motion Picture Health Plan.

Pverrando, (sorry, Jan) made it appear as though these contributions help to "line the pockets" of the Executive of the Locals. If it were true the Justice Department would be filing cases yesterday.

Robert's point is correct, more members bolster the funds.

However the likely hood is down the road, the employees will also have to contribute to both their Pension and Health Plans. This is a norm in many other union contracts, both in the United States and in Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard is right, and I often forget how hard it is to have a union conversation on this forum. Hollywood locals are facing different problems than other locals, and most of us don't identify where we are from.

I am in 481, and I realize our H&W structure is not the same as the Hollywood locals' plans. This, it seems, is why people here feel that all union organization is done for money into the health plan, as Hollywood's health plan is in a bit of financial trouble right now,.

Regardless, maybe it is the idealist in me, but I see much good in the push to unionize our work. I also see good in using the union to train and better our membes, and that is why I like to see the trend of turning the work.

The show that I'm about to start is about unions, so I think the content got us the contract, so to speak...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unfamiliar with the East Coast plan - are there employee contributions too?

Currently the IA Hollywood plans are still in good shape and better than than SAG's plans, for example.

But as the majority of the IA members are growing older, naturally the Pension and the Health Plans are paying out more than they are taking in. If the L.A. based work gets weaker, expect more IA members in their 60's to retire earlier than 66 years old.

This is really no differant from both the Federal Social Security and Medicare plans.

So the desire to bring in more members is crucial for the IA Pension and MPH plans to survive down the road.

If "Obamacare" prevails in the Supreme Court, then I expect the Producers to drop the Health coverage by about 2016, or may be earlier.

The handwriting has been on the wall for some time. LA Producers are doing every thing they can to hire as few L.A based crew on shoots all over the country. This is to avoid any of the "Post 60's" contributions.

"the various collective bargaining agreements which require

contributions to the Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plans (“Plans”)

permit the proration of Post ‘60s and Supplemental Markets contributions under

certain circumstances, which are defined by those agreements."

Is it legal, well define legal?

It will take either a class action suit, NLRB case or both, to put an end to this end run around mandatory contributions to the funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a non-US forum member I find your union discussion very interesting; I guess as I don't really understand the union V non-union project entitlement and wages. A short explanation would be great.

As someone who has to negotiate my pay rate and conditions for every job I have done I the film and tv industry (in Australia) for my whole working life I am interested in hearing about other ways this sometime exhausting taste can be done. I'm not complaining - it just took me YEARS to get any good at negotiating better wages. It does come down to supply and demand in the end. If things are slow then your bargaining position is greatly reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I can't comment on your contracts, as we aren't in the same union local, but I would hope that the negotiated rates wouldn't be considered shitty. Yes, the LA unions need members and yes at this point they would probably push any contract so long as they were getting money into the funds, but nothing will happen without a push, so a push in the direction of unionizing and FAIR pay, not low pay, would be a good direction to go in. Many of these mixers make $500+ for 10-12 hours; making that amount plus benefits is still fair pay. (Edit, not talking about narrative mixing here, talking about strapping a bag on and running and gunning ENG style)

As someone who has worked in reality for a while, I'd happily take my same pay with benefits added, no one asking me to do things that have nothing to do with sound, and an overtime structure that will be enforced.

As someone who has worked in reality for a while, I'm also looking to be done with it forever ASAP...

Ok, just to get an idea of what this means....

say the show paying a mixer $500/10 or 12 goes union. What do you think that means for the mixer? It would count towards healthcare, but theoretically the day rate may not change. How much of that $500/day would the mixer have taken out for union wages, and possibly their contribution to benefits?

I'm not union, so I pay for my health care out of my pocket. I shop to find the best plan for what I need (single, no kids etc). For retirement, I theoretically put money away in some sort of investment. The *better* shows I work on (most of them really) follow the basic union style deals. Meals every 6 hours. Even if I am on a 12 hour day, it is calculated based on an hourly rate of X for 8 hours, then 1.5X for 4 hours and 2X after 12 hours. Never had less than 10 hour turnarounds. We even get meal penalties. I realize those guidelines exist because of unions, but that's not my question.

As far as film/movies/whatever, it's a simple fact that you can't work on the big projects without being union. Everything else aside, that is a reason to do it.

Reality TV is still up in the air. I guess the bigger network shows are union, but many of the non-union cable shows seem to pay decent wages. For comparison, does anybody know (willing to say) what a mixer on something like Survivor, Apprentice, Amazing Race (or some other reality show on the big 3 networks) makes for a 10 or 12 hour day? Is it a lot more than the $550/12 or $500/10 we can get on cable reality shows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you that Amazing Race pays 2500 a week flat. A week consists of seven days, 24 hours a day. It is non union and you use the productions company's gear and there is no guarantee on how long you will be employed for. When you team gets eliminated, so do you.

(I'm working with a mixer who does the show and he said everyone does it for the experience and not the money)

-Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard, 481 has a flat contribution per day from the employer to our health fund. If we have enough in our fund to qualify we get the option for insurance. We can pay toward the fund if the amount in our accounts is too low to cover the cost of one quarter of insurance (it is done by the quarter) - I believe there is a stipulation to how much or often you can pay in your own money, but I don't know the finer details.

It sucks to realize part of the reason we get hired and the work comes here (to new england) is because their residuals don't have to go back into your health care, therefor perpetuating a problem that we wish didn't exist. But you know the crap politics of this business better than anyone else, it would seem. They continue to chase pennies around the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnPaul, it seems to me, from discussions that I've had, that your reality mixer rates wouldn't change, and you'd probably still be able to negotiate yourself a better rate (if you're able to now) - the difference would be payments into a benefit/retirement fund, and attention paid to a contractual way to treat employees when it comes to job classification, overtime, meal breaks, wrongful termination, etc...

Also FYI, "reality" mixer rates are roughly equal to union utility or boom rates for features. It's not as easy as that but it gives an idea...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnPaul, it seems to me, from discussions that I've had, that your reality mixer rates wouldn't change, and you'd probably still be able to negotiate yourself a better rate (if you're able to now) - the difference would be payments into a benefit/retirement fund, and attention paid to a contractual way to treat employees when it comes to job classification, overtime, meal breaks, wrongful termination, etc...

Also FYI, "reality" mixer rates are roughly equal to union utility or boom rates for features. It's not as easy as that but it gives an idea...

Unless I don't understand things, rates on features are related to the budget of the film. Those are minimums of course. That doesn't relate to reality TV. For example a mixer on a $3million feature is not making as much as a mixer on a $100million feature. A mixer on (for example) a decent Discovery networks show is probably making close to a mixer on The Apprentice, right? Amazing race may be something people would bend for a bit because of the experience, but that has to be a big budget show with a huge crew.

If you are already union, or transitioning that way, this is great if for nothing else than counting towards your requirements to maintain benefits.

I can only assume that the (non-union) jobs I work on that give things like OT, meal penalties etc are that way because mixers before me would not put up with anything less. I am grateful for that!

That being said, I have done series that do no guarantee meals exactly at 6 hours because it is a documentary series with one shooting crew on the location. I never felt taken advantage of because it is somehow made up to us, or we are all invested enough in the project that we wouldn't want to walk away if things were really kicking off. Those are also the jobs that don't use a stopwatch on lunch and might cut you at 8 hours if there really isn't anything to film for the rest of the day, and don't do that "we have you for 12, go shoot some b-roll or something for the next 4 hours". That's a two way trust that is earned over time, and probably rare these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rates are dependent on the budget of the film, to a point. Each local will decide a contract based on size of show, and that will determine how much the crew makes. The larger the show the more parties are involved with this negotiation. There are a few different 'tiers' of films below the typical big budget blockbuster. Reality would have to run under its own unique contract, and there does not yet exist, that I'm aware of, any standard contract for reality TV.

What you say about reality rates is sort of correct from what I've seen. A nicer unscripted show will pay a little bit more, although gear is really where I've found the money to be made once you get to the $500-$550/day mark, for 10 or 12 hours depending on where you are in the country. The good companies are aware what gear costs and are willing to pay it, the bad companies just ask for it all to be thrown in.

Many things in contractual situations are set on precedent, so while you may see several tiers of reality show contracts, with slightly different pay structures, one would expect between $450 and $600 to continue to be a norm for a mixer rate for 10-12 hours. Another thing to keep in mind is contracts are written in terms of hourly pay, not minimums (minimums are actually 8 or 9 hours usually, depending on contract). So you'd expect to see something around $40/hour (as you pointed out, (40x8)+((40x1.5)x4) = $560 (for a 12 hour day) as a decent reality mixer rate.

The shows you have worked on where they gave meal penalties, calculated OT correctly, ETC, they do based on union rules even though no union is there looking over their shoulders. I like to believe these companies actually respect their employees, but their motivation is likely so the union doesn't bother to come knocking. Either way, you're seeing union rules followed in a non union environment, which is the precedent being set of how a union reality show should work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Why are unions only interested in H&W benefits? "

As for the IATSE: when they calculate their success, it is based on H&W contributions.

The other factors folks have mentioned are there, but they will agree to anything as long as they get the H&W.

Some locals charge their members a "work dues", and some plans require various contributions by the members, which usually come out of the net pay.

Many non union productions pay properly because it is good business, competitive, and their terms and conditions are somewhat defined by law, and of course some are concerned it may cost them more to be "organized".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing said that I would take issue with is the last part of the statement, 'That's a two way trust that is earned over time, and probably rare these days."

I don't find it to be that rare. Most of the people I work with are professionals, and as such, treat others that way.

How productions treat their workers is usually based on a combination of factors. Often, the producers or line producers are freelancers themselves who have worn a variety of hats through the years and are sensitive to what their crews need and what they have to deal with. It helps everyone to have common expectations, therefore, observing meal and overtime standards creates less confusion and allows everyone to focus better on the project at hand.

Both iterations of the golden rule are at play, and both actually work:

"He who has the gold makes the rules."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

While the first line is often mentioned as a joke, it's not an unfair rule unless used to abuse people. On the occasions when I hire a crew, I expect my voice to carry the most weight as to style, substance, and methodology. Productions work better when there is clear understanding as to what the "rules" are. At the same time, the second line actually works to everyone's benefit in the long run -- both the production and the workers. It not only creates a more enjoyable working atmosphere for crew and management alike, but ultimately induces everyone to be more invested in the project, to the benefit of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "West Coast" IATSE locals fund their health plan in part from residuals gained from TV and DVD sales. The Post 60s residuals. It makes our West Coast locals investors, in a sense. If the movie does well, the plan is funded. If not, then not. But movies shot out of the West Coast (all of them are now, seemingly), only pay a percentage of the residuals based on the number of West Coast members hired. If crew comes from anywhere other than Los Angeles, no residuals are owed.

The last movie I lost, due to this issue, shared with me that New York, for example, requires a higher per hour contribution up front from the production to fund their health plan. Production companies would rather pay more up front for a New York mixer, than have a question mark in their future earnings. Even though it might potentially cost more on a particular project if the movie is unsuccessful. I was told having West Coast locals dramatically affects distribution deals enough that it's not worth it to a production to hire West Coast crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert wrote: "I was told having West Coast locals dramatically affects distribution deals enough that it's not worth it to a production to hire West Coast crew."

Whomever told that to you, distorted the facts. The push to shoot in any state but California is purely an accounting decision. Like all businesses they (Producers/Studios/AMPTP) want to reduce the bottom line and spend less money to improve the cost/profit ratio.

A majority of films go into production with a distribution deal in place. When budgets are proposed - the studios bring out the "red pencil" and tell the Producer what to cut to bring the film into line with what a Distributor (Studio) wants to spend.

The signatory company pays twice. A certain percentage of every paid hour an L.A. based employee works. That amount credits towards your total hours in both your Health and Pension plans.

Once the film is distributed, the Studio pays based on the film's profits, again an amount into the general funds of the Health and Pension plans. Yes, these amounts are what makes the plan solvent for all participants.

The number of L.A. based hires to trigger the "Post 60's" contribution starts when there are more than four individuals. So hiring more local crew has many cost saving benefits.

- A Tax Rebate

- Lower per hour rate

- Less transportation costs

- No per diem and hotel

So Line Producers and UPMs and under a lot of pressure by the Studios to make that happen.

Like most of us in Los Angeles, we have been greatly effected by this business model.

The slowing of production in Los Angeles is not just happenstance. It's part of an agenda, to naturally spend less on below the line, but also to put a lot of pressure on Los Angeles crews and thus their unions to accept lower rates and benefit plans.

Is it working? Each day we hear of fellow crew members throwing in the towel, retiring, moving out of Los Angeles. For us freelancers, it takes a strong stomach and good survival skills to weather the strikes, the economy and the state film tax incentives.

All I can say is fight on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: residuals, if by "West Coast" locals you mean "LA-based locals" it is true that some shows still contribute to that system. Other west coast locals, including my own (in SF) have never been part of that deal.

It was mentioned that the pay for a sound mixer on a feature (etc) film is related to the budget of the film, and is higher than that of doco/reality etc shows. In my experience this is not the case. On higher-budget films the rate for the mixer will rise to the union max for that local, but as the budget climbs higher and higher the mixer rate will stay the same. IE, the mixer on a $30 million film will be unlikely to be making less than one on a $100 million film for the same number of days. For all other features, esp. indies, the rates offered are often far below what I get on docs, for longer hours and more gear.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

More organizing news as IATSE has struck "Fashion Star", today.:

" resulting in a production halt that shut down a scheduled 1:30 p.m. taping and dismissal for the day of production personnel and audience. "

once again it is about H&W:

" There are numerous union crew members on the non-union show – which is permitted under IATSE rules – but without a union contract they are not receiving pension and health benefits. (IATSE Organizer Vanessa) Holtgrew said that wage rates are not a factor in the strike...Reality programming has become a key part of Los Angeles production activity "

http://www.hollywood...hut-down-378821

Edited by studiomprd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...