Contract Negotiations

[David Waelder]

The IATSE International has announced they will mail ballots on June 15 so the membership may vote to ratify (or not ratify) the Memorandum of Agreement recently negotiated with the AMPTP. Local 695 has scheduled its quarterly meeting for Saturday, June 9, so the new agreement may be reviewed prior to receipt of the ballots.

I had the privilege of attending many of the negotiating sessions in March and thought I might provide some useful perspective by an account of the events I witnessed.

First, I should explain some of the limitations of this account:

This was the first time I witnessed a negotiating session. I have no experience with the conduct of negotiations under Al DiTolla or Tom Short so, although I discussed historical issues with other participants, I bring little historical perspective to the task. With legal affairs of this sort, precedent is often an important component.

Although I was present over several days, I was not there every day.

Many of the caucus sessions were open to all in the delegation but there were also a few private caucus sessions attended only by Business Representatives and I was not privy to any of those. Moreover, there were also some private negotiations between Mathew Loeb (for the IATSE) and Carole Lombardini (for the AMPTP) and, obviously, I did not attend those.

This is my own account; it has not been vetted or cleared by the Local.

David

[David Waelder]

Negotiations fell into two sessions: the locals and the generals. Local issues were negotiated first, followed by matters that concern all parties. In the past, the local matters were handled in small, discrete sessions. The Grip Local would present their issues on Monday and Tuesday, followed, perhaps, by the Wardrobe Local on Wednesday and Thursday. Any issues not successfully resolved in the individual negotiations would be tabled and incorporated into the “generals.” During the general negotiations there is considerable pressure to resolve any loose ends in the interest of concluding an agreement that benefits all. Since the other locals may not be fully cognizant of the import of issues raised by sister locals, they are often impatient to achieve a resolution. In this environment, issues important to individual locals were often pushed aside.

Matthew Loeb broke this pattern to achieve a process that would better protect the interests of individual locals. Rather than have each local meet individually with representatives of the various producers, he insisted that representatives of all locals be present for all the negotiating sessions.

The actual sessions took place at the offices of the AMPTP in Sherman Oaks. They have space in the ground floor of an office building at 15301 Ventura Blvd. in Sherman Oaks. This is one of the buildings that partially replaced the Galleria shopping mall that was partially demolished following the Northridge earthquake in 1992. The parking garage is still present and many shops and restaurants still remain so it’s a convenient location for this sort of event.

A large room off the lobby served as a caucus room for the locals. There were also small rooms available where individual locals might caucus privately. Another large room served as the general meeting room for negotiations. Each local would have at least four or five delegates and each of the AMPTP entities (Disney, Paramount, etc.) would have several representatives, usually attorneys, to look after their interests. The two parties were seated facing each other, perhaps sixty people on each side. Carole Lombardini, President and chief negotiator for the AMPTP, chaired the sessions.

It is a large group, and the process of introductions at each session was unwieldy, but it did ensure that everyone heard the issues and concerns of each local and also the immediate responses, if any, from producer representatives. No issue would later be swept aside because others were unaware of its import or consequence.

Almost as soon as the negotiations began, they crashed.

Several Locals made presentations of their issues and then it came time for the Production Coordinators. For a long time, coordinators did not have any representation and they did not participate in the health or retirement plans. They have recently (I believe) been folded into the health plan but the producers still do not recognize representation by the IATSE for other matters. When their representatives began to make their presentation, Carole Lombardini closed the session, refusing even to listen to what they said. She maintained that production coordinators were management, not labor, and could not be represented by the IATSE. It’s a difficult issue because there are elements of management responsibilities in their duties but they don’t choose their own hours and they don’t (usually) have hire and fire authority. On balance, a production coordinator is more employee than boss.

Responding to this challenge, Matthew Loeb immediately cancelled scheduled sessions for both Locals 700 (editors) and 729 (set painters). The negotiations came to a complete halt and no date was set for their resumption. There was some talk of seeking a strike vote although I’m not clear if this was just rumor or official.

After about a week of brinksmanship, the negotiations resumed. Matt Loeb and Carole Lombardini met in private and negotiated some compromise that permitted the larger effort to go forward. I couldn’t say whether anything was resolved or if the matter was simply tabled for a later date.

I tried to schedule my attendance for days when Local 695 was scheduled to make a presentation so I heard only a few issues from other locals. One in particular stood out and may be emblematic of the challenges faced in these negotiations.

Thom Davis, Business Agent for Local 80 and also an International VP, made the presentation of issues for his local. Some years ago, in the interest of granting flexibility to projects shot locally, the IATSE granted an accommodation to shows primarily shot on stage but with an occasional need to work on location. This would describe pretty much every scripted television show. Ordinarily, Golden Time Hours (double time rate as distinguished from the ‘normal” overtime of “time and a half”) start after twelve hours. But, for shows that would start the day on stage and then travel by car or bus to a location, this was waived and Golden Time would not begin until after fourteen elapsed hours. This would allow a production company a little bit more freedom to work on location without exceedingly high overtime expenses. It was an accommodation that, for the most part, served both parties well.

But union members were increasingly annoyed as they found themselves “bussed” to locations only a few blocks from the studio and then worked for long hours but paid only time-and-a-half overtime. On one occasion, the location was a gas station literally across the street from the studio. Crewmembers could walk to the location in less time than it took to go to the commissary for lunch. In some cases, the off-lot location was as close as the craft services table. Invariably the studio would invoke the “bussed to location” exemption and deny double-time rates until after fourteen hours. This seemed a clear violation of the sprit of the agreement and Thom Davis sought to modify the agreement.

Rather than acknowledge that this application of the waiver fell outside the original intent, Carole Lombardini contested the point. She brought out a copy of the Basic Agreement and scrutinized the exact text of the applicable passage. She pointed out that nothing in the original text limited its application to locations at any particular distance from the studio. The original text said only that if crew were “bussed” to the location, then the waiver would apply. This was so even if they were bussed only fifty feet. Since there was no other indication in the text, she said, there was no way to ascertain what the original intent was.

To my way of thinking, this kind of response goes beyond disingenuous “lawyer-speak." I am also somewhat puzzled, as I would think that this sort of contemptuous disregard for the other party would not serve the long-term interests of the AMPTP. Scorched-earth practices rarely lead to smooth and trouble-free operations. But, perhaps this is intended as a message that they are in the drivers seat and the locals should expect every request would be vigorously contested. In any event, it provides a context to judge the outcome of the negotiations as a whole.

From the beginning, the demands and expectations of the producers presented a considerable challenge. Only three days before formal negotiations were scheduled, the producers submitted a lengthy document with their proposals. The next part of my report will deal with issues raised by that negotiating document as they applied to Local 695.

David

[RPSharman]

I seriously hope that if this contract passes, that as crew members we start to go by the exact word of the contract too. If it's "bussing", then refuse to walk accross the street, etc.

We need to make sure that the DP and other department heads are on board with not allowing their crews to start work early, or work during lunch (including the film/tape break "at lunch" which requires working into the lunch break), etc.

[David Waelder]

I seriously hope that if this contract passes, that as crew members we start to go by the exact word of the contract too. If it's "bussing", then refuse to walk accross the street, etc.

Rob, that's part of the problem. For purposes of determining when double-time rates apply, it really makes no difference whether crew people board the van or walk to the "remote" location on their own. So long as production supplies a shuttle-van, the "remote location" rules apply.

But the larger point in recounting this story is to provide some context, some sense of the difficult circumstances under which these agreements are forged.

David

[Laurence]

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.

[Peter Kurland]

I've said before and I'll say again, the West Coast Basic must be negotiated simultaneously with the Area Standards Agreement covering the majority of the rest of the country. The AMPTP is more than happy to lock out LA as they can shot in their choice of incentive state while paying significantly lower rates and benefits. The IA needs to negotiate on behalf of the entire country and be willing to stop work on all productions until some of these safety and quality of life issues have been resolved.

At the last ASA negotiations, Carol Lombardini said "I know life in production is not a happy one." So why don't they improve conditions so we can all be safer and happier. After all, the heads of these companies are earning tens of millions of dollars per year.

[Wyatt Tuzo]

The IA needs to negotiate on behalf of the entire country and be willing to stop work on all productions until some of these safety and quality of life issues have been resolved.

At the last ASA negotiations, Carol Lombardini said "I know life in production is not a happy one." So why don't they improve conditions so we can all be safer and happier. After all, the heads of these companies are earning tens of millions of dollars per year.

+1000

[RPSharman]

Rob, that's part of the problem. For purposes of determining when double-time rates apply, it really makes no difference whether crew people board the van or walk to the "remote" location on their own. So long as production supplies a shuttle-van, the "remote location" rules apply.

David

I understand. My point is that production will provide ONE van to invoke the rule. But if every grip were to wait for the van, refuse to walk across the street, etc., then it would no longer be cost effective to choose to skirt the rules.

This is obviously an extreme example, but no different than letting other rules slide.

Robert

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Robert,

In your example, production would then provide the necessary number of vans to prevent the delay, far cheaper than double time.

As explained, the AMPTP s not skirting a "rule", meaning a clause in the Basic Agreement, but following it to the letter.

The intent of the clause is not the problem. The problem is that the unclear language used, has come back to bite the ass of the IA.

Blame that on the IA attorneys who failed to grasp the nuance of what they negotiated.

[RPSharman]

Robert,

In your example, production would then provide the necessary number of vans to prevent the delay, far cheaper than double time.

As explained, the AMPTP s not skirting a "rule", meaning a clause in the Basic Agreement, but following it to the letter.

The intent of the clause is not the problem. The problem is that the unclear language used, has come back to bite the ass of the IA.

Blame that on the IA attorneys who failed to grasp the nuance of what they negotiated.

It was my understanding the rule only applied to the grips, per David's example. More vans and drivers might be cheaper than double-time for an entire crew, but not for one department.

On my current show, we have shot 28 episodes (of 30) over 15 months. 2 hiatuses, 3 different blocks of airing, all called Season 1. 600 called their rep, as each season under our sideletter gives us more holiday/vacation pay, etc. The answer came down that "there is no specific language in the contract which defines a season, so they can do what they want."

This is why we need to do as Peter stated. Renegotiate the basic and the ASA, and redefine with legal language what has previously been "customary".

Robert

[David Waelder]

It was my understanding the rule only applied to the grips, per David's example

I am under the impression (but could be mistaken) that the rule applies to all. It just happens that Thom Davis raised the issue on behalf of the membership of Local 80 but I believe it effects everyone.

Part of the problem may lie in the practice of not recording the proceedings so there is no record, other then notes scribbled on legal pads, of exactly what was said in any negotiating session. When the negotiation is concluded, the legal staff of the AMPTP writes up all the negotiated points into a contract. They distribute that document to the IATSE which, in turn, distributes it to the various locals.

In Local 695, James Osburn has long had a policy of having office staff make side by side comparisons, looking at the new contract with previous contracts and with notes taken during the negotiating sessions, to be certain there are no surprises in the new document. This is a good and careful policy but it doesn't address the fundamental issue of the document being drafted entirely by the AMPTP. It might better be done by a joint committee or in some other fashion that might permit input from the union.

By the way, I believe this practice of permitting the AMPTP to choose all the language also applies to negotiations with SAG and AFTRA and other guilds. (Not that that makes it OK)

I suppose we could blame legal counsel for failing to spot the loophole but I doubt if there is any language so precise that a clever and unscrupulous person couldn't find a way to exploit it. Contracts work well in an environment where both sides are interested in working together (albeit grudgingly) toward a common goal and work less well if one side is scheming to game the system. This is why I thought Carole Lombardini's response was so outrageous. In context, the intent of the accommodation is obvious - res ipsa loquitur - and contesting it seemed mean spirited. After all, no one was seeking the overtime pay retroactively, only that the studios abide by the spirit of the agreement in the future.

David