Union?

[Richard Ragon]

Milling over the idea about joining the union.  Been doing the low budget stuff for about 2-3 years now.  Not a lot of talk about Local 695, but I'm sure there was at one time here.

thanks

-Richard

[FSBELLA]

Borg,

One thing to remember is, the union does not guarantee you work. they guarantee your rate.

unlike the non union-low budget world (were I was to), they have a bonifide pay structure. there are like 4 pay tiers or levels of pay. and a union is there for you, for any unfair labor practices that occur on set

there is a roster list that has "active" members, that I here are sometimes helpfull. there are a lot of pros and cons, but for the most part, being a union member is the way to go, among other things, if you want to increase your annual salary,

[Jeff Wexler]

Richard:

Feel free to discuss union matters here if you wish (everyone else can just skip over it if doesn't interest them) or you can also contact me off this group and we can discuss the things that you are interested in. I have a longstanding love-hate (well, love is a pretty strong word) relationship to the I.A. and also through the much longer association, all my life, with my father (who was active at the time of the birth of the labor movement), I am in a pretty good position to talk about a lot of this.

-  Jeff Wexler

[ptalsky]

One question I have about I.A. is can you do non-union work if you're in I.A. or is there some equivalent to Rule One (beaten into our heads) that SAG has?

Thanks!

Phil

[Jeff Wexler]

One question I have about I.A. is can you do non-union work if you're in I.A. or is there some equivalent to Rule One (beaten into our heads) that SAG has?

Thanks!

Phil

It used to be that there were heavy penalties and fines if you did non-union work but many years ago this went away and I.A. members doing non-I.A. work is rarely policed. There are some very important reasons why the I.A. cannot punish a member from doing other work, some of those reasons actually come from several key lawsuits in the 1970's (the ones that I was involved in to get into the union in the first place). The other important event was during the time when Jack Coffey was fighting for the mandatory 3-person crew (and was also pursuing having wireless microphones outlawed --- but that's a whole different story) and most all of the major studios hired 2 person crews (non-union for the sound department only) even though these crews were almost always members of the I.A.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Bondelev]

My understanding is that IA is OK with working nonunion as long as you are getting a similar working environment, that is, good pay, benefits (or added to pay to make up for the lack), paid overtime, etc.

[ptalsky]

Thanks all for the feedback and answers - SAG is a very different beast when it comes to non-union work. 

Phil

[Richard Ragon]

Thanks everyone,

I userstand this doesn't guarantee me employment.  But basically, I want to work on larger sets.  So, like any double edge sword, I can't unless I'm union.

Also.. I guess everyone else just answered my next question about still working the low budget.  Thanks

-Richard

[Michael P Clark]

(and was also pursuing having wireless microphones outlawed --- but that's a whole different story)

Jeff,

That is a story I would like to hear. That is an interesting idea. Obviously we know the outcome, but the idea that it was tried is intriguing. How long did that last, and were there any backers to the idea? How long into the game of wireless did this pop up? Perhaps started as a new thread, or privately if you feel more comfortable that way.

Thanks

[Jeff Wexler]

Also.. I guess everyone else just answered my next question about still working the low budget.  Thanks

-Richard

Be advised that as the union contract(s) get worse and worse, there will be more and more low budget projects that are union. The goal for the International, of course, is to have every project be union no matter what the budget, pay scale or working conditions are for the project. The International gets your dues and the per capita whether you're making $50./hour or $12. There are instances where low budget non-union productions have been organized and unless agreed to as part of the "going union" deal, the producers have actually been able to reduce the pay and further modify the working conditions.

-  Jeff Wexler

[wbrisett]

I have been fortunate to work on both union and non-union shoots as a non-union worker. I can see benefits on both sides, but what really bothers me is that usually I can make more money on non-union shoots as an independent contractor. Now, putting aside the benefits like health insurance (which is VERY important), I think overall the main difference on-set is that there is somebody who will stand up for you if needed on a union set (regardless of your status). Otherwise there seems to be plenty of work on both sides of the coin. If you're in the 695 area, there are some added benefits such as the education classes offered (although you don't always have to be a member to go to these events, but I'm sure there are some that are 695 only), meeting mixers in person who might be able to help you out later.

What have I missed Jeff?

Wayne

[Mick]

PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't HBO, the most successful and wealthy of the cable channels, still employ crews under a low budget agreement of some sort?

Mick

[Jeff Wexler]

PLease correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't HBO, the most successful and wealthy of the cable channels, still employ crews under a low budget agreement of some sort?

Mick

You bet. The contract originally hammered out for HBO by the International leadership was the beginning of the whole multiple contract problem (we have over 35 separate contracts and amended provisions to the Basic Agreement). The stated theory was that these new production companies like HBO, struggling to compete but obviously with some sort of future, should be organized with union contracts so that these productions would hire I.A. crews. To help them out, the I.A. agreed to have special concessionary contracts to allow HBO to get on their feet so to speak. Well, it is quite obvious that they have gotten on their feet but the contract still allows them to hire us at vastly reduced rates. I only did one job for HBO which was Billy Crystal's "61*" (which is the only TV I have done and both my father and I got Emmy nominations) and that was at an hourly rate that was less than I was making on union jobs in the 1970's.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

[Mick]

So I guess the response would be: How is that allowed to continue, that HBO a massive and extremely successful and wealthy organization, is allowed to continue its pursuit of even more wealth and expansion at the expense of union workers. Has anyone broached this issue with Mr Short et al? I'm sure they have and my own complacent involvement in union affairs exemplifies my ignorance of such matters, but I'd love to know how such a blatant continued misuse of an out dated low budget contract has not been re-assessed and brought up to par with parrallel contracts.

Cheers

Mick

[studiomprd]

especially considering HBO is a part of mega-conglomerate Time Warner, which also includes Warner Bros. !!!

[David Waelder]

HBO's continued access to introductory rates isn't even the most egregious example of negotiators being asleep at the switch.

A Canadian producer named Pierre David often shoots very low budget films in the Los Angeles area. I worked for him on a film more than a dozen years ago and the experience included all of the elements of abusive treatment that one finds on low budget productions but even more in evidence and even more high-handed than was typical for the genre. No day was every shorter than 14 hours in duration and 15 or 16-hour days were common. Turnarounds were often short. Complaints were dismissed out of hand and, it goes without saying, there was no payment of any kind for overtime.

I was surprised to learn a few years ago that he continued to make films in LA but with a union crew and a union contract. When I inquired, crew people told me that the union contract paid about the same wages that Mr. David had always paid. People were working for $10 or $12 per hour on a contract that didn't begin to pay real overtime until after 12 or 14 hours. Wages were no more than what one might earn from a fast food establishment except that working for a hamburger joint one at least has the security of stable month to month employment. Working on one of Mr. David's films one would be (as with any film) unemployed again at completion of the project. The union contract does provide payment for the health and welfare support but otherwise it was no better than the exploitative wages Mr. David was paying twenty years ago.

I suppose that even the lowest budget producers deserve a chance to come up to expectations and I can't be outraged that Mr. David was given that opportunity. But I understand he has shot numerous projects at this introductory rate with starvation wages. There is no provision to automatically have the minimums grow as the producer moves on from one project to the next.

(Sorry to hijack the thread but this was an interesting and valuable tangent.)

David Waelder

[FSBELLA]

You bet. The contract originally hammered out for HBO by the International leadership was the beginning of the whole multiple contract problem (we have over 35 separate contracts and amended provisions to the Basic Agreement). The stated theory was that these new production companies like HBO, struggling to compete but obviously with some sort of future, should be organized with union contracts so that these productions would hire I.A. crews. To help them out, the I.A. agreed to have special concessionary contracts to allow HBO to get on their feet so to speak. Well, it is quite obvious that they have gotten on their feet but the contract still allows them to hire us at vastly reduced rates. I only did one job for HBO which was Billy Crystal's "61*" (which is the only TV I have done and both my father and I got Emmy nominations) and that was at an hourly rate that was less than I was making on union jobs in the 1970's.

Regards,  Jeff Wexler

Does the "HBO" special union contracts apply to ALL crew members? or was it sound 695

[Jeff Wexler]

Does the "HBO" special union contracts apply to ALL crew members? or was it sound 695

As I said, my only experience was the one show but it seemed as if every department was affected (most of the crew were veteran feature film people used to making a lot more per hour). There were other problems with the contract we discovered as the work progressed. Most all of us were used to having the idle day or days on location paid as a normal straight time day (this later being reduced, even by the Basic Agreement to 4 hours) but there is another feature of the HBO contract at that time that paid a flat $50. for the idle day (regardless of your position, your deal, etc.). We had a mini-mutiny when this was discovered --- basically the crew said that if we didn't get the 4 hours per day on the idle days we wouldn't be around for work on Monday. The production agreed and we were paid outside the provision in the HBO contract.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Mick]

I'm still very much at a loss to understand why this is not an issue with the union. Are they content to let HBO continue to employ IA techs at reduced rates because if they don't they'll take the work elsewhere? They do that anyway so what's the difference? What am I missing here? Or has this been dealt with and I don't know about it. Is HBO so influential that they can ride roughshod over the union for so long?

Maybe these questions should be asked rhetorically and I should go back to my crossword.

Mick

[RPSharman]

It's my understanding the HBO contract was recently renewed.  I think it was initially a 10 year contract, or something very long.  As Jeff wrote, it was designed to allow HBO to compete with the networks in the development and airing of original programming.

The fact that the contract was renewed, as are many others, with no membership approval is appalling.  HBO should have been required to switch to the basic agreement.

And don't get me started on no double-time until 14 hours on most side letter agreements.  It's the same as telling the producers that it's ok to work a crew 14 hours.  It isn't, especially on shorter low-budget schedules with a faster pace and less experienced crew.

shame on the international, and shame on the locals for not doing more to stop Tom Short.

[Jeff Wexler]

Is HBO so influential that they can ride roughshod over the union for so long?

Maybe these questions should be asked rhetorically and I should go back to my crossword.

Mick

Producers, production companies and the mega-media corporations behind them don't have to "ride roughshod" over the union because they are already partners, dedicated to keeping the product flowing no matter what. This is not new but goes all the way back to the birth of the I.A. in the 30's. The I.A. was formed to protect PRODUCTION, not labor, and the deal was made a long time ago that the I.A. would guarantee a willing and able workforce and would diligently weed out any labor dissidents that would fight for the union to truly represent the needs of the workers. In the 30's and 40's this was accomplished with heavy ties to the mob, in the 50's it was all wrapped up in the "red scare" and the anti-communist activities.

I will dig up some history (try and make it brief and concise) of the International --- these things become painfully clear once you get into the history of our union.

-  Jeff Wexler

[John Coffey]

>>How long into the game of wireless did this pop up?<<

Michael: 

In the 70's, the producers thought wireless were an invention to reduce sound crew costs.  They were trying to hire two man and even one man crews (really) to simply put wireless on actors and get rid of the boom operator and even the third man.  In response to the producers, 695 tried to get wireless outlawed with the FCC....hard to imagine now, but things were pretty contentious with the producers in those days.