Jump to content

Score 1 for the little guys


Recommended Posts

The comment thread on that article is fascinating. 

I have to say I see both sides of the issue. If you needed an answer quickly I'd tell you that I'd vote for unions every time, and that workers need more protections than they get. 

Though I haven't been there myself, the other side is that film/TV is by nature somewhat of a lottery. You can't expect a return on all - or even many - of your investments. It's worst in independent film;  the ratio of profit to loss in indie film is enough to scare away all but the most optimistic (or self-aggrandizing) of players. Therefore, as an investor, the obvious path is to minimize your hard costs. Should that extend beyond moral or legal bounds? Of course not. But that's the direction of the pressure these people feel. I myself would never make such a risky investment, so the question of how well to pay the crew wouldn't come up. And people who treat crews badly are among humanity's dirt. 

All the same, without these foolhardy, often egotistical, ill-fated director/producers I wouldn't have learned my craft. It was, in essence, a paid apprenticeship. The stakes were low, in retrospect - I was able to maintain connections by having a professional attitude without true professional ability. I made mistakes I'm not proud of on those films. And on the larger stage, it didn't matter, because the crew knew that the filmmakers were crazy, and that a good film was never in the cards. But on a personal level, I think that there were days I didn't deserve the pittance I was making, because those were the days I really learned - from my mistakes. 

Then there's the way the local union handled this incident. Somewhat buried in the article is that the filmmakers, bereft of their crew, were willing to hire union crew in order to continue production. The union encouraged their members to accept positions and then not to appear for work. This is not acceptable to me. If the producers were willing to hire union crew, that is where the feud should have ended. The real triumph would have been that the film was completed, with the original crew, under union rules. Maybe that was impossible, but when I read that the producers were willing to pay "up to five times" the rate for union crew and been snubbed, I feel that both sides have fucked up. The point is to get things done in a way that benefits both parties. This producer loses his entire investment, and the union is deprived of paying work. Who wins there? 

I will close by saying that I will always be grateful for the effect the film unions have had on non-union work. In my 10 years as a sound mixer I've never wanted to join the union (due to the nature of my work and personality), but I've always benefited from the union standards on meals, overtime, turnaround, and pay scale. I owe you union members a good part of my bread and butter and I'm very thankful. May you live long and prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abe Dollinger:

Somewhat buried in the article is that the filmmakers, bereft of their crew, were willing to hire union crew in order to continue production. The union encouraged their members to accept positions and then not to appear for work. This is not acceptable to me. If the producers were willing to hire union crew, that is where the feud should have ended.

That's not at all how I read the account published by Deadline.

I have to hedge my response just a bit by acknowledging that I wasn't there, wasn't part of the production, and may not have all the facts. But my read of the article does not support the claim that the producers were willing to hire a union crew.

As I understand it, the producers refused to negotiate with the crew or with their designated union representative. Seeking to replace the crew members who refused to work without a contract, the producers were willing to offer substantially more money than they had been willing to pay to the original crew. There is no assurance that these sweeter deals would be for the run of the show; they may have been in effect only for a few days to keep the show filming until the strike action could be broken.

It is true that the union encouraged their workers in the community, if called and asked to work, to accept positions and fail to show. This is hardball organizing, to be sure, but fairly common. You may be sure that the producers are playing an equally nasty game, nastier if one believes the Production Manager's threats about pressing claims of property theft. 

If the producers had, in fact, been willing to pay union wages, there would have been no need to offer multiples of normal rates to recruit a crew. The original crew would have returned to work under a reasonable contract and the producers would have enjoyed smooth operations for the remainder of the project. Typically, wages do not increase substantially when a show is organized - the union tries to make reasonable accommodation for the realities of the budget. But they do insist on payments toward Health & Welfare benefits and payment for overtime hours worked. Even the overtime can be relatively thin on a newly organized show as the rates are often so low but the union would insist that rates would at least match hourly labor minimums in the state with overtime paid in accordance with state law.

In other words, if the producers had been willing to meet the most meager standards they could probably have negotiated a contract. At least that's how it's worked on shows here in California.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

I think your reading of the situation is probably correct, and that negotiations failed on the side of the producers - they sound unreasonable.  I don't understand your statement - "If the producers had, in fact, been willing to pay union wages, there would have been no need to offer multiples of normal rates to recruit a crew" - doesn't one imply the other?  They may have started off as crooks, but if they felt the pressure and called local IATSE members to work, weren't they on the way to becoming legitimate customers?  That's the part of this story that bugs me.

It's not something I think is really worth arguing over.  It's somewhat naive of me to hope that each situation can have the best possible outcome.  At the end of the day I think it's a net positive.  Even though this film went south, it will encourage other producers (and crews) to do the right thing.  I do think that a culture of always assuming one side is right is dangerous, though, and leads to polarization and ultimately things falling apart.  That's sort of the caveat I'm hoping to voice here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  I don't understand your statement - "If the producers had, in fact, been willing to pay union wages, there would have been no need to offer multiples of normal rates to recruit a crew" - doesn't one imply the other? 

Hi Abe,

No argument - we're OK - just a bit of clarification. 

I can't know exactly how things played out on this show but the Deadline account is consistent with how these job actions often go. 

If the crew were to walk out on, say, Wednesday, the producers would face an urgent need to find replacements. Actors and locations are booked and may have limited availability. There is a compelling need to somehow get through the remaining days of the week. If they can make it to the weekend, and a day or two of scheduled downtime, they may be able to bring in new crew from other areas. So, they may be willing to pay a considerable sum just for the first few days of the job action. That's not at all the same as being willing to pay union wages for the remainder of the project. 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The producers of In Search of Liberty, Norm Novitsky and Chip Lane, are both Tea Party activists. They threatened the crew, withheld wages, broke a ton of labor laws (first and foremost, treating the show's crew as independent contractors) and showed a complete misunderstanding of Georgia's right-to-work law. IA international rep Scott Harbinson and ICG rep Darla McGlamery among others did an outstanding job organizing the show. Interestingly enough, Jim Walters, a labor law attorney with the firm Fisher Phillips, was hired by the producers to thwart the crew's organizing efforts. Walters also represents SCAD, the art school most of the crew were from.

Here's a quote from Scott Harbinson, a guy who doesn't mince words: "The irony and hypocrisy of a Tea Party activist like Norm Novitsky misclassifying employees as independent contractors in order to push payroll tax burdens from themselves on to employees—all the while seeking a $300,000 incentive from the taxpayers of the state of Georgia—is lost on no one."

If you're on Facebook, Scott's account of the whole series of events is available as a series of public posts on his profile. I've known Scott since the late 1980's when he was the business agent of NABET Local 15's Mid-Atlantic region and I was a member of Local 15's Executive Board. He's been an effective voice for all of us who do the work of making films all that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First comment, but long time viewer on this site. Just wanted to thank everyone in this community for the experiences and knowledge you share. Having only worked on a half dozen indie features as a Boom Op and small jobs as a Mixer there is little I can share compared to 99% on here, so I just listen/read. But this story inspired me to share a bit of what I've experienced because there's a disturbing trend that follows the weakening of overall union strength in all areas of work. Just as Abe said in his post above about appreciating the union's effects even though he's not a member; I agree wholeheartedly and am very thankful too.

 

I think we'd all agree that there is a place for non-union work too since it would be nearly impossible to create any sub-million dollar film with union labor. To me, this (indie films) is the perfect place to gain an understanding of what it takes to become a professional in the business. Unfortunately, nearly half of the films I've worked on have been quite abusive to varying degrees. Sometimes it's working conditions, like giving the crew no other option but to continually eat meals outside in the rain on 50 degree days because only the talent (as well as Producers and Director) had a tent with heaters. That same film had me continually overhearing the UPM telling the Producer how he cut corners to save pennies and her almost evil giddy responses of giggling encouragement. A low budget horror film so I guess that fits the genre.

 

But what gets me most is that any contract can be written which circumvents minimum wage requirements. It bothers me most in situations where the film is receiving state tax credit reimbursement subsidies. Shouldn't minimum wage and overtime be a requirement when applying for a taxpayer paid subsidy? I don't have an issue with unpaid interns who have no contractual obligation. Often though they're forced to be used and abused or risk being black-balled from future work opportunities in small markets such as mine. The other trend that's disturbing relates to the staffing of TV news. What was once done by three is now being done by one. Is it really safe to send news reporters out on assignment alone? All the while we see the CEO's of these media conglomerates grow exponentially upward while the lower rungs of the ladder continues to drop. To me it's a disturbing trend within this industry and across many industries/businesses throughout our country.

 

Thanks "Wandering Ear" for sharing this article and also to everyone who contributed their thoughts in this thread. There are many great people here that I admire/respect. We may not get many accolades as "Sound People", but deep inside we know what drives the success of any visual presentation.  

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...