Jump to content

695 Contract vote meeting this Sat


wolfvid

Recommended Posts

Go to this website

http://saynotothecontract.com/questions-about-the-facts/

find out why to say just NO.

there is plenty of time to negotiate a better deal. The IATSE is in the pocket of the producers. Stop them.

Vote NO its simple.

wolf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I don't believe any of the above makes him or the website any less correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Laurence,

Nowhere does Wolf or the website advocate voting for a strike authorization. Unless I am mistaken, voting 'no' on the memorandum/agreement is not a strike authorization vote. It simply states we do not agree with the terms of the contract and want our representatives to go back to the table and try again.

I want there to be NO contract which allows 14 hours of work without double-time.

I want the old forced call penalties reinstated for ALL contracts and sideletters. Although I have NEVER had my call forced, this is a safety issue about which I am very concerned.

I want "grace" gone. It has been abused for too long.

I want a discussion about webisodes. If they are to promote a signatory TV show, then the rate for the crew on the webisode should equal that of the crew on the series. They are, afterall, commercials promoting the network and the program.

I want a 3% raise.

I want NOTHING taken from my IAP contribution.

And to answer your question, if in the renegotiations the IA cannot convince the AMPTP to agree to these points, and a strike authorzation were to be sent out, then I would vote to authorize the strike... provided the IATSE were smart enough to team up with 399 and also to simultaneously negotiate the ASA. Otherwise, everything would just move out of the "area" into the ASA jurisdiction. Tragic.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laurence, you seem to be in favor of a contract that allows producers to pay minimum wage for jobs such as webisodes. Do you honestly think thats a good thing? The longer you let this go, the harder it is to stop. Are you saying you want to kick this can down the road until things are so screwed up it's unfixable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laurence, you seem to be in favor of a contract that allows producers to pay minimum wage for jobs such as webisodes. Do you honestly think thats a good thing? The longer you let this go, the harder it is to stop. Are you saying you want to kick this can down the road until things are so screwed up it's unfixable?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, this is taken from the website that Wolf posted. It concerns a 'No" vote and strike authorization:

Clarifying the “a “NO” vote is a vote TO STRIKE” Misconception (page 6)

Just so everyone is clear, if you vote “No”, you will ALSO be AUTHORIZING a strike. But, you WILL NOT be voting TO STRIKE. Please note the difference. You are ONLY giving President Loeb the power to call a strike should he deem it necessary. A “No” Vote does NOT mean we are automatically on strike.

I don't want a strike just like everyone else. But these matters can not be swept under the rug any longer. We have to stand up and fight for these things, they will not be given to us. The longer we wait the harder it will be. IF NOT NOW, THEN WHEN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Thanks for the clarification.

The only thing we have is the threat of work stoppage. There's nothing else to "trade". We've given away much and gained nothing. Isn't it time to stop the hemorrhaging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Nothing will work unless the IA is willing to negotiate the ASA along with the renegotiation of the basic, facilitated by a strike authorization from the West Coast locals' membership.

I have no doubt the other areas will line up in the majority to get the work that will leave California.

Problem is, the IA doesn't give a shit about us, so here we are bending over in preparation.

All the issues I listed are deal-breaking issues.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I still don't understand why there isn't one contract with one set of working conditions. Quality of life issues (safety) are not regional. Producers and the IA can choose to negotiate minimum rates per project based on project's budget, shooting location, and crew origin, but why are overtime rates and turnaround and other working condition issues negotiable? The only reason is to justify the massive combined staff of the IA and its locals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laurence,

I've been a member in good standing of Local 695 for 35 years and I'm concerned about the "New Media" contract as it stands.It was written with a "sunset clause" because everybody knew it stunk and would be re-written in 3 years.What happened?

I'm concerned for the new and future IA members because if this is not attended to,it sets a bad precedent for any future negotiations on "New Media" contracts.

The "New Media" will be Huge in the future------I'm a mystic and can see the future.

J.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is much to deplore in the present contract and in the newly negotiated contract. I don't want to speak in its defense.

But I would like to supplement the discussion with a little perspective.

I've been a member of Local 695 for quite awhile - not so long as J.D. but long enough to bear witness to events. Al DiTolla was the International President when I joined and I never saw him take any action that seemed to vigorously support issues important to the membership.

I recall working on a TV show called Freddie's Nightmares in 1989 and, along with everyone else on the crew, signing a representation card for the IATSE. At least two-thirds of the crew working the show were already IATSE members, maybe more. After months of dicking around, the IA representatives informed us that they could not organize this show because there wasn't enough money in the budgets and the producers did not have enough reserve funds to support a union contract. Now, Freddie's Nightmares was a poverty-row TV show but it was being carried by a legitimate network and it was backed by a regular studio (Lorimar? I forget). I can't imagine being unable to organize a TV show with studio backing and more than six months of shooting scheduled. But, at the time there just didn't seem to be a lot of hunger for organizing.

I can't recall any reason to approve Tom Short's administration in the many years that he led the union.

This July will mark the four year point for Matthew Loeb's administration. Since he took over, the union has been much more involved in organizing shows. They've gone after reality shows and made a vigorous effort to enlarge the scope of union representation. Not every effort has been successful; the effort to organize 1000 Ways to Die faltered when the production company shut down the show. But producers are on notice that the IATSE is paying attention and is willing to commit resources to organizing.

As I mentioned in another thread, Matt Loeb has also tackled the issue of how the contracts are negotiated and made changes to ensure that issues, previously swept aside, will now get better scrutiny.

In the course of the present negotiations, he faced the challenge of a large list of unacceptable demands made by the producers at the eleventh hour. Only three days before negotiations were to begin, he received a forty-two-page document containing multiple contract change proposals. He responded by stating that the document submitted by the producers was DOA and immediately discussed seeking a strike authorization. Ultimately, he was successful in turning back the demands outlined in that proposal although it's true that he did not make progress on rescinding some of the provisions already in the contract.

When Carole Lombardini refused to hear issues presented by the Production Coordinators, as I mentioned in the other thread, he broke off negotiations and again discussed a strike authorization.

Ultimately there was no strike so I can't say how much of this was posturing and how much genuine fight. But he has already shown considerably more spirit than his predecessors. If he hesitates to carry through, it may be because he doesn't know how committed the troops behind him really are. He may never know for sure but the best way to develop committed rank and file is to demonstrate that you are willing to engage. He has (slowly) been demonstrating that.

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I may prove to be disappointed. But I was disappointed in Al DiTolla and Tom Short after about five seconds. So far Matt Loeb seems to be walking the walk. We'll see.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole thing was a "show" to convince the membership that something was accomplished on their behalf.

Organizing shows and growing membership does not benefit existing members. It increases the union workforce and creates competition for union jobs, many of which now have crappy pay and no benefits and poor conditions. The inexperienced mixer who is now a 695 member, because his/her webisode organized and paid minimum wage, will be competing with experienced mixers for all the union jobs. But that new mixer will accept whatever bullshit deal comes along, becuase it's "way better" than the minimum wage he/she got on the last job.

All of this only serves the producers, and I believe the IA are fully aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I've said it before, and I've been shot down before, but if we don't all (hollywood basic and ASA) ask for the same treatment, producers are going to go where the contract asks for the least. You can say "we in Cali deserve to get paid the best" but what's the best when they take all the work away, and force you to work under ASA or not work at all? One union, one contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Organizing shows and growing membership does not benefit existing members. It increases the union workforce and creates competition for union jobs, many of which now have crappy pay and no benefits and poor conditions. The inexperienced mixer who is now a 695 member, because his/her webisode organized and paid minimum wage, will be competing with experienced mixers for all the union jobs.

Rob,

You made a good presentation of your concerns at the meeting and I think your points were well received. That may not buy anything of value right away but acquiring credibility is the first part of persuading others to follow your direction.

Here on the forum, I was surprised at your take on the value of organizing shows and bringing in new members. Failure to actively organize the workers in any industry is a death spiral for a union.

Accomplishments in labor relations are often a double-edge sword. It’s true that every organizing effort brings in new members who are then eligible to compete for scarce jobs. But ours is a competitive field and needing to stand out from a crowd is just a part of it. Seeking to restrict membership to limit competition is not the way to deal with this challenge.

In another thread, “Mirror” commented that we should “resurrect Jack Coffey.” I met him only once at John’s shop but his reputation as a vigorous and determined advocate for the union is legendary. Still, I’m not in agreement that we need another “Jack Coffey” to reinvigorate the spine of the union. Quite the contrary, for all his success, I think that Jack Coffey’s policies are the very ones that germinated the seeds of our troubles today.

Coffey was an advocate, I believe, of limiting union membership so working members would not have to compete for jobs with a constant tide of new recruits. (I’m sure John will jump in and correct me if I’m mistaken on that point.) The Taft-Hartley Act does not permit restricting union membership to limit competition but the IATSE locals have long used Roster status as an indirect method to accomplish this. For many years membership in the crafts unions was restricted to those already on the inside or closely related to someone on the inside.

The immediate results of restrictive membership policies are good; the fortunate few already in the club enjoy steady and (more or less) abundant work opportunities. But the long-term results are entirely predictable and not so good. Those on the outside don’t just go away and become pharmacist assistants or telemarketers; they seek other opportunities to work in show business. And that’s what happened – they worked for Roger Corman and Cannon Films and Trans World Entertainment (aka Third World Entertainment) and others. They worked for the small companies making commercials or industrials and they joined alternate labor organizations like NABET. For awhile the IATSE had a lock on the highly skilled craftspeople needed for ambitious projects but, in time, the non-union and alternate union people become better at their tasks. When Easy Rider, shot by Laszlo Kovacs with a NABET crew, did huge business in 1969, it was already apparent that an IATSE crew was not a prerequisite to commercial success. Sadly it was another twenty years or so before most of the locals provided a pathway for membership.

In general, I think that actors have been much more successful at maintaining control of their wages and working conditions. Partly, of course, this is because they are inherently an essential and irreplaceable element in the whole enterprise. But partly it’s because they have long had a policy of bringing into the union anyone cast in a role. Actors have no assurance that they will enjoy a prosperous career but they are, at least, assured that they will be compensated well when they are working. The recent strike was a speed bump for them but that’s because they didn’t fully control the market – my essential point. And their merger with AFTRA should address that issue.

Be careful what you wish for. Gains made by trying to restrict access are the fruit of a poisoned tree.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is really not that difficult and the fine points can all be very well argued by the people who get paid for it. They just have the wrong direction.

its all about how money is shared. they make more every year. they give less alll the time. we are not even getting the same share as last year(s).

"Why do our deals slip backwards as their profits go forward? We are not negotiating to hold onto what we have in a dying industry. We are in a growing industry. Each deal should be better than the last. We are the "talent" they need to make their profits."

"The Big Six Media Conglomerates that own 90% of all Media went from making 21 Billion Dollars in 2009 to earning 28 Billion in net income (aka PROFIT) in 2011."

so lets spread the simple word to vote NO on the contract. AWAKE !

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...