Laurence

Hands down, this has to be winner of the "Most Ironic Quote of the Day." Or year.

Exactly. If a department head deems a piece of equipment as necessary... and especially if they play the "safety card"... the chances of getting it on production are greatly improved. But many mixers today don't even know how much they cost and approach the topic in self-defeat, afraid to even engage the matter. Too expensive? Who here who doesn't know the true answer would hazard a guess at how much it costs to rent a Model 2 for a week? For a month?

Senator... Talk production into it? It's easier than you think. THERE's that smile. This one's on David Waelder, sound mixer and managing editor of the 695 Quarterly.

Great turnout. Great people to talk with. Great food. (I have a few pics but I must admit, they bear a striking resemblance to prior years.) Lots of newbies came by to experience the first-time joy of jumping up and quickly grinning from ear-to-ear. And lots of experienced boom ops stopped by and always have the same thing to say... I wish I could talk my mixer into asking for one these. Which is why I like it so much when the mixers give it a look and learn A) how great they are, and 'B) how much the rental is lower than what they expected, and C) how great they are. And it was fun to talk with 695'er Andy Adams and hear about him using a Model 2 to battle long takes on his single-camera network tv show and loving every minute of it. Like I say every year, if you missed it this time, mark your calendar for the 3rd Saturday in May next year.

I should have mentioned this earlier but TODAY is the: J.L.Fisher 9th Annual Open House & (Free) BBQ Saturday May 17, 2014 Come anytime from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM J.L. Fisher, Inc. 1000 W. Isabel St. - Burbank, CA 91506 - map http://goo.gl/PFUhzH Local 695 will offer hands-on demos of the 23-ft. Fisher Boom. Jim Fisher will lead tours of the machine shop at 12:00 pm and 1:30 pm. New equipment on display (mostly camera, grip and electric), many familiar faces for chat and networking and lots of (free) food. Look for us in the Local 695 area and say hello.

Some of what has been mentioned here is accurate and some is not. Keep in mind that different people have different reasons for wanting to join, from being able to work under the higher rates of the Basic Agreement to just the idea that 695 membership might add prestige to the resume. But for some, it may not make any sense at all to join. The best advice for anyone thinking about it is to just call the Local at (818) 985-9204 and discuss with Scott. Trust me, he won't be twisting anybody's arm to get them to join.

Two steps. Contact Contract Services http://csatf.org/stfdir.shtml and be prepared to provide them with documentation of 100 days worked as a Boom Operator within the last 3 years. And contract Donna at Local 695 to fill out an application and pay the application fee.

In Senator's post, "CS" stands for Contract Services. There are 2 steps to the process... getting placed on the "Industry Experience Roster" by Contract Services, and obtaining membership status with Local 695. For Contract Services, you have to show that you've worked a certain number of days in your "primary skill" as proof that you know your job. They will determine if work you've done is sufficient for them... and in all likelihood, what you described will be more than enough but you won't know for sure until they review it. Local 695 looks to see that you are, or will soon be, placed on the roster and then you'll submit paperwork and pay a fee.

Congratulations and welcome, Tom.

All I know is I never saw anybody walk out of a movie theater whistling a 2-shot.

This is just another example of the madness that the incentives have brought upon us and it's only getting worse. California is poised to up the ante and as a result, the other states will think their only option is to follow suit, adding to the absurdity of it all by throwing more cash into the pot. In reality, there's a much better option if they all acknowledge that collectively, they're all being played by the Producers. Just stop the madness and stop all the incentives at once. Declare them illegal... which is what they are according to the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution. In all fairness, during these last few years, the incentives have served one useful purpose... they've allowed all of the States that care to use that mechanism to attract work, to train a professional workforce and to build a services and facilities infrastructure that can meet the needs of the film and tv industry. For the first time, they now all have a fair chance to compete and so maybe it's time to stop tossing money at the Producers and truly level the playing field. How about if the States use tax payer money for schools and alternative energy development and let the Producers shoot where the light and the scenery are best suited for the project they're shooting?

Thanks for editing your post Senator, but I predict you will almost certainly be proven wrong.

Senator probably meant to say: "What might happen is..."

Do you get the same bad result no matter what search term you use? Can provide several search terms that fail?

Your browser has been hijacked by crapware and it will keep happening until you remove it.

Can you tell us the exact search phrase that produces these results?

Sounds like your browser has been hijacked by crapware. You'll need to do some digging on your computer if you want to get rid of it.

At the IA convention last summer, there was a discussion about eligibility to run for office. The argument centered around a recently implemented rule that requires candidates for office must have at least 120 days worked in their craft in the 3 years prior to election. One side argued that a long-time member nearing retirement might easily fall short of the required 120 days but could, after possibly decades in the business, prove to be a huge asset as an elected officer of the local. To my surprise, delegates burst out with boisterous shouts of disapproval, with speaker after speaker taking to the microphone insisting that if you haven't worked consistently in the business during the last few years, then you can go take a hike 'cause we don't want ya! I disagree strongly but I appear to in the minority on that issue and the effort to modify the 120-day rule failed. I suspect it's very nearly the same voice you'll be hearing as you move forward with your proposal that could mean employing a BA who had no work days at all in the business.

I see two very different components to this discussion. The issue raised by the original poster asks about the merits of a hired versus an elected BA. Senator seems to have changed the question to, Is it better to choose someone who has experience as a labor professional or someone who has experience in your craft. Hiring versus electing refers to the pros and cons associated with job security, popularity contests, accountability, member input, and more. Choosing someone in the craft versus someone from the outside asks whether it's better to teach a film technician how to handle labor issues or teach a labor professional what the heck it is that we do. I usually lean toward the labor professional but I'm not really sure. I've seen membership meetings where the voice of the people tends to express a very loud opinion to the contrary. It's a topic that can bring out very strong emotions.

No, it is putting it accurately. Some elected BA's last only a term or two and some last many years. I don't think you can disprove that and there's nothing diplomatic about it. Yes, when you've held the job... hired or elected.. it is easier to continue to hold the job whether based on good performance or on political strength and power built up by virtue of holding the job.

The hiring status of the "national locals" Executive Directors, which is what they sometimes call themselves, was implemented long before their Local's contracts extended beyond one state and bear no relation to that fact. It's merely a choice those Locals made after debating the very significant pros and cons of each side of the argument. The tendency appears to be that hired BA's become very entrenched. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't know any examples of a hired BA being replaced by decision of the Board. Although elected BA's can also entrench to some degree, the hired BA is usually "BA for Life" and this may turn out to be the biggest argument against hiring. The upside, of course, centers around things like consistency and avoiding the 3-year cycle of election craziness and doing things just to get elected and possibly having to retrain new people over and over again. Whether on either side of the argument, it seems like it's not an easy choice.

600 and 700 (and I'm pretty sure 800) hire their BA's. Members I've spoken with seem to be very divided on the issue for all the obvious reasons.

Back in the days when you were a member of Local 695, Senator, I never heard you argue that membership meetings and Board meetings and the discussion of internal business should be open to the general public and published worldwide. Why the sudden change of heart? I personally believe that you are wrong but we're all entitled to our own opinions.

John, I do believe the money is safe and the members will still be protected in the workplace and I don't expect to see broad changes in the Local's structure but it's way too soon for anyone to be able to answer all of your very appropriate questions. As bits of information do become available, this public forum is obviously the wrong place to share them.

Wolf, you and I are good friends going back very far and I always enjoy talking with you but when we hit the internet, well, it's complicated. You mean the Local should sell the building they use for an office? The members could do that if they decided that renting is better than owning. Which it's not. You're the only person who has ever even suggested it but fortunately, you're not a member of this or any other IA local so you're voice in the matter has no value and most people realize that your basis for informed commentary on the matter is very tiny.