Laurence

Bud, I've checked the Contract and you are correct... the 2-hour re-rate is there and it was there and it will be there. Nothing changed.

Robert, NOTHING CHANGED regarding Boom and Utility. There is NO new language regarding Boom and Utility. NOTHING is drawing further attention to Boom and Utility. NOTHING has been added, NOTHING has been removed, NOTHING has been altered. If you think it's a problem now... well, that problem's always been there... but in case I haven't mentioned it, NOTHING CHANGED regarding Boom and Utility.

Kudos for what? There is no reduction in wages for boom and utility. Nothing of that kind ever made it onto the page. Nothing at all changed in that respect.

The proposed language you refer to has not changed. All the misinterpretations and reinterpretations have and will always exist. New language that suddenly shows up when the actual contract is printed will be compared word-for-word, as it always is, and challenged where necessary.

I don't have that contract with me now so I could be mistaken but if it was there before, it stays there. The new contract proposal says nothing about changing that.

Yes, exactly... a new 3rd paragraph... but 106 wasn't replaced. All they did was add the 3rd paragraph which only says that when the production is not recording audio, they aren't required to employ a Mixer or Boom Operator. That's not unreasonable and it's the only thing that changed. Regarding the 2-hour re-rate, I'm not sure if it's just customary or if it once existed in the contract long ago but I know it's not in the 2012 or 2009 or 2006 contracts. It appears the proposed contract does no harm to paragraph 106.

Robert, I believe you are mistaken. Paragraph 106 has not been "replaced". Can you quote the old and the new language you are referring to?

Here is some new information that went up on the 695 site this weekend. It addresses many of the issues that have been raised here. http://www.695.com/h...012contract.php

The current IA leaders are doing that, Crew... building alliances and repairing the damage done in recent years. For example, where the IA was previously at odds with the Teamsters (a bizarre and inexplicable stance for the IA to have taken,) we sat at the table this time with the Teamsters and Basic Crafts right beside us. First time that's happened in decades. Remember when Tom Short actually ridiculed and spoke out against WGA and their strike? Yuh, well, there are still bridges to rebuild but it actually is happening.

Jack Coffey was my third man on the first 3 studio tv shows that I ever boomed. Indeed, that was quite an education. We got along great and at the time, he was constantly amused by my argument that the IA should be more open to new membership. Years later, he made it a point to tell me that I was right and that it was a good and necessary thing to do when the IA opened up. It's all an evolution. Jack was then and this is now. Matt Loeb entered these contract negotiations with a level of transparency and inclusion that has never existed in the IA. Having ALL the locals present for each day of negotiations was absolutely unprecedented and totally caught the producers by surprise. There's no way we could ever know for sure but I'm convinced that the outcome would have been a lot worse for all of us had we not entered that room in force the way we did.

This was on the IA's Facebook page: "Just got word that "The Great Escape" crew got a contract and are back at work! Thanks to everyone for their support, online and out there on the picket line." And here's a little more info: http://www.deadline.com/2012/06/iatse-on-strike-vs-tnts-the-great-escape/

I agree with you, J.D., regarding New Media. They really should have addressed it this time around. Big mistake, if you ask me.

You are spot on about the ASA, Robert. The job is the same no matter where you perform it and we should all be under the same contract. The Producers would be happy to see that happen... with the ASA as the prevailing contract... Ouch.... but if the Basic were to prevail and it were the only contract, that's when a strike would really matter. And that's why the Producers would fight so hard to prevent it from happening.

Either he just loves the attention or the aliens managed to get the password out of his brain.

In principle, I don't disagree with you at all, Robert. Indeed, when does it stop. But before voting for strike authorization, one has to be able to provide answers to some important questions, like... What are the deal breaker issues that you need to have resolved before returning to work? How solid is the workforce and how committed are the members to stand behind the IA leadership and how tightly will they hold the line? How willing would the Producer be to temporarily... or not so temporarily... take the remaining work out of California? How would crew in other states respond if asked to withhold services in support of our strike? If large quantities of work left California because of a strike, how much of it do we think would return after a job action? What is the projected length of a strike and how would the wages lost compare to the benefits potentially gained? Though it may sound like it, asking questions like that is not intended as a scare tactic... it's what you need to do before going down that road. The IA membership is extraordinarily uninvolved and, if history tells us anything, 2/3's won't even vote on this contract at all so that's the reality you're looking at. Will those 2/3's who won't even bother to vote stay home from work if we ask them? The day we can say Yes to that is the day we can say No to the contract... and I'll be right there with you.

Robert... a No vote is not a strike vote but the IA has indicated that a No vote is a "strike authorization" vote. We'll see for sure when the ballots show up. Strike authorization means you're all in and have to be prepared to go for it. That's why I worded my post as I did. Regarding your list of items... I agree and I would vote in favor of all. But I presume you know that we don't just get stuff we want because we asked for it. So how would you pressure them or what would you trade for it?

Actually, I'm not in favor of the New Media provisions. It's bad news. Bigtime. I was at negotiations and that was the thing that upset me the most. It should have been fixed but it wasn't. But do we strike over that? That's a tough one.

Sounds like you agree with Wolf and are in favor of voting for strike authorization. Maybe that's what should happen. What was the deal breaker for you? What item or items would you require before agreeing to work past July 31st and how long would you hold out for it?

Wolf, correct me if I'm wrong. You are not a member of Local 695 and not a member of any another IATSE Local... you haven't attended any of the negotiating sessions... you haven't attended any if the IA's Town Hall meetings or any of the Locals' meetings where the contract was discussed... and you haven't even read the Memorandum of Agreement or seen a complete list of negotiated items. Correct so far? Then on what basis, other than a simple reflex response, are you advocating a 'No' vote?

Robert, you're very correct. Every time the crew "agrees" to waive provisions of the Contract, they weaken the Contract. Allowing the Producer to cheat on meal penalties, turnaround, 3rd man, chronic grace periods and everything else they try to get away with is bad news for us. All you have to say is, "I'm not authorized to renegotiate the Contract and I'd get in trouble with my Local it I did, but if you give them a call, I'm sure they'd talk to you about it." And the Local will, indeed, talk to them about it... but will not agree to violate the Contract.

I personally prefer to see the members' dues spent serving the members... and although we do have outreach initiatives, Cinegear happens to not be one of them. Many reality shows are signing IA contracts... and the discussion of Atlanta is obviously an IA issue and not a 695 matter so I think I disagree with all of your points... except your comment that a booth at Cinegear would be silly.

Eric, the compatibility icon changes to blue when it's turned on and all it does is revert IE back to an earlier version. It only appears when a site has features that would be impacted by the compatibility setting and it remembers the state that it was in the next time you visit that particular site. But it also does a pretty good job messing up other things on the page, too, so it's not really a very good fix.

Cadillac Ranch was created in 1974 by a group of three artists who called themselves Ant Farm. More info here http://en.wikipedia....Cadillac_Ranch. One of those three artists was Hudson Marquez who went on to become a long-time member of Local 695. Hudson is truly a "character" and an extremely pleasant, interesting, original and engaging guy to spend time with on the set.

In all due respect, Robert, you might be taking this a little far. We have NEVER voted on the actual contract. The Memorandum of Agreement has always shown up shortly before the ballots do, just like it will this time. But it might not have been that way. Your business agent... Jim Osburn... fought and won a battle against Bruce Doering and others who were arguing that we should NOT have the right to vote on the Basic contract... that there should have been no balloting, no meetings, no discussion... just a signed contract handed down from the IA. Fortunately, Bruce lost that one. Yes, we have a ways to go, but it coulda been a lot worse.

Richard is correct but we will not have the contract when we at our Membership Meeting nor when the ratification vote takes place. It is indeed a major undertaking to get these things written up and it usually takes many months... often more than a year. (Otherwise, how could those teams of lawyers all pay for their comfy beach houses?) The only thing we'll see anytime soon is the Memorandum of Agreement which is just an approximation of the actual contract.