695 passed the IA Contract

[cmgoodin]

Well the MBU/IA contract was ratified by the Local 695 membership by a narrow margin.

If just 13 people had voted the other way it would have been rejected.

Don't know what the other locals votes were.  Looks like I can kiss my health insurance goodbye in 2011.

----Courtney

[old school]

This is bad news indeed. I hope those that didn't vote understand what we lost.

CrewC

[Phil Palmer]

I'm stunned, though I shouldn't be.  How was the voter turn out?

[Thomas Popp]

This is extremely disappointing

[RPSharman]

Turnout was about 30% for 695.  Unfortunately I don't believe the outcome would have been different if the turnout had been better.  The complacent tend to vote "yes" because they don't care enough to know the issues.

The result of the vote is typical in that the majority of people in our present society only vote for themselves.  The nature of the leadership's approval of the contract itself is an indication of that too.  It serves to only protect the existence of the union, not to benefit the membership.  The new contract benefits the main-stream, working, qualifying members of the union by offering a pay raise.  It is devastating for the "less visible" members, who apparently a majority of the aforementioned group don't care enough about.

Robert

[studiomprd]

" The new contract benefits the main-stream, working, qualifying members of the union by offering a pay raise. "

I don't think so!

3% doesn't even keep up!!

[RPSharman]

Well it's consistent with previous raises of 3%, or $0.50 some years.  3% might not keep up with cost of living increases, now or in the past, but I think you'll discover it's way above the national average of employee wage increases.  Most are getting NONE these days.

I'm saying that group has nothing to "lose" in the short-term.  Traditionally I have been part of that group, and would have been happy to give up the raise for a more sensible definition of New Media (and the terms of such), and a maintaining of the status quo for health benefits.  But that's just me.

Robert

[Phil Palmer]

Repost from a Deadline Hollywood post:

IATSE Local 695 representing Sound Technicians, Video Engineers, Television Broadcast Engineers and Studio Projectionists involved in motion picture and television production also wound up with a nailbiter with 276 ballots for ratification, and 244 against ratification. The number of total ballots mailed was 1,646, and total ballots received was 586. The total qualified ballots were put at 522 (with 64 ruled ineligible).

I am curious to find out why 64 ballots were ruled ineligible.  Those could have made the difference in the ratification vote by our local.  The camera local only had 2 ballots ruled ineligible. 

[Jeff Wexler]

I am curious to find out why 64 ballots were ruled ineligible.  Those could have made the difference in the ratification vote by our local.  The camera local only had 2 ballots ruled ineligible. 

This is not the case. In the Camera Guild, approximately 252 ballots ruled ineligible. No one is clear at this point HOW ineligibility was established. There certainly have been instances in this election and in past elections, where members have been secretly declared not in good standing (owing back dues, etc.) and then this is used to disqualify there vote. Also, in Camera, people on the Commercial Roster were not allowed to vote because they don't work under the contract being voted on (but do they get a chance to vote at some other time on the contract they do work under?). Bruce Doering, Executive Director (paid employee who does NOT work under ANY of the contracts) was allowed to vote ("Yes" I would imagine) as were many others who eligibility to vote will be called into question.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Phil Palmer]

Thanks Jeff.  Yes, I see I read that incorrectly.  But it still makes one wonder.

[Paul Graff]

I am curious to find out why 64 ballots were ruled ineligible. 

I am more than curious.  I am determined to find out more.  Ballots ruled ineligible should be available for viewing with the reason for the ruling.  I will call the law firm responsible for the counting on Monday.  This process should be transparent.  It seems to me that those who are not dues-paying members of the Union should not be allowed to vote, but of course, if it is in the by-laws that paid officers may vote, than so be it.

PG

[RPSharman]

10% ineligible.  Hmmm.  Perhaps if it was so easy to to determine someone as an ineligible voter, then perhaps they shouldn't have been sent a ballot.  The ballot itself could only have been screwed up by voting BOTH yes and no, or voting NEITHER yes or no.  It hardly seems that complicated, and with the outcome within that margin of error, perhaps we should be able to have a look.

Also, if 695 were to have voted down the contract, would it have made a difference if the other voting locals upheld it?

Robert

[David Waelder]

Perhaps if it was so easy to to determine someone as an ineligible voter, then perhaps they shouldn't have been sent a ballot.

I would also like to see greater transparency in the process. I am curious why each ballot was ruled ineligible and would like to see the basic information posted online. Furthermore, I think interested members ought to be able to see the actual disqualified ballots at the Local offices to confirm the judgement. (One wouldn't want to "out" a member in arrears on dues by publishing their name on line.)

But I don't think that the Local should edit the distribution list in advance. Several weeks elapse between mailing the ballots and counting the votes. In the interim, a member behind in dues might bring their account up to date. To be in good standing, a member must be dues-paid at the time the votes are counted but might be in arrears prior to that. The system should be weighted to encourage maximum access and participation, not culled and censored from the mailing of the ballots.

David Waelder

[studiomprd]

" I am curious to find out why 64 ballots were ruled ineligible. "

these should be ballot envelopes that are never opened, based on the voter being ruled "ineligible"

"  The ballot itself could only have been screwed up by voting BOTH yes and no, or voting NEITHER yes or no.  "

these would be "eligible" ballots that are opened and found to be "spoiled" ballots, and are not counted in the total vote tallies

[cmgoodin]

What I find curious about this is that your name only appears as the return address label, which has been prefixed to the return envelope.  So there should be no count from that ballot, it should be rejected upon reciept of the envelope.  If they had opened the envelope and counted the ballot, yea or nay, then later realized by going through the discarded envelopes that so and so were inelligible to vote, how would they know which way they voted, and so which vote to count as inelligible?

I wasn't present at the current ballot count, but in the past ballot counts by our accounting firm are handled like this:

Ballots are sent to the entire membership.    When the ballots are returned the un-opened return envelops are checked against the eligibility list that is printed the day of the counting.  Only those in good standing (current on their dues) at that point are put into the stack to be opened.  Those who are behind in their dues or those who have removed the return address label are ruled ineligible and are put aside.  The in good standing envelopes are then opened and the secret ballot envelops are put in another pile.   The envelopes in that pile should have no markings on them that identify the voter.  If they do, they are added to ineligible stack.  Then the smaller ballot envelops are opened and the votes counted.   If the ballot is missing or blank or double marked it is not counted.

-----Courtney

[studiomprd]

completely fair if consistently followed, as I'm sure it all is. That is why an outside organization receives and counts ballots!

" The envelopes in that pile should have no markings on them that identify the voter.  If they do, they are added to ineligible stack. "

while that is the one thing that might be questionable, if that is, and has been the rule, that is reasonable, too, as the instructions do specifically say not to mark the inner "secret ballot" envelope.

[Steve Nelson, CAS]

Is anybody really surprised that this passed? Even though my unofficial tally was probably running about 8 to 1 against. I'm sure you all had a similar experience, and yet...

Who are these people? I guess they are us, after all. I know for example that after a intense sales job by Mike Miller the Script/Production staff local overwhelmingly voted to endorse ratification. Our board made no recommendation but the ballots were accompanied by a strong letter from our BA, as I'm sure was the case at every Local. (Does anyone know of a Local that didn't officially endorse this thing?)

There was a lot of pressure from above to get this over, and deep in my cynical heart I knew it would go, no matter what.

Good luck to us all.

---steve nelson

(yeah, that one)

[John Coffey]

Unless the members get in touch with their union, there is no future, for any union.  Unions are only as strong as their weakest level members.  In this case, that's most of the union.  The producers are strong and prey upon weakness.  Most members can't even force themselves to attend one lousy meeting a year.  When unions were strong enough to match the producers, there was standing room only at meetings.  That was not co-incidence.  Dis-organized labor is what the producers want to see.  Those memberships don't know enough about the issues to even vote on facts.

When I ask members why they don't participate, they say the same old things, mostly that it's a waste of time and one person can't do anything anyway.  That's not true.  Local unions are the most democratic level of society.  There, a very few members can influence very many.  Votes can be swayed and calls for votes can taken instantly that determine all members fates.  The history of all past union struggles and victories rides on the shoulders of those belonging today.

Silence and non-participation gets members what they deserve....ever lower conditions.  Pathetic.

[FSBELLA]

This is bad news indeed. I hope those that didn't vote understand what we lost.

CrewC

And what about the so-called Digital/New Media? there are NO set rates at all according to Elizabeth. (a mixer told me this today, after leaving the local)

So lets say a mixer working a webisode or a digital media gig, actually has to negotiate there own rate? whats up with that?

[old school]

I think disappointment is an understatement concerning the results of the contract vote outcome. Outrage is my second reaction. JC is right about the strengths and weakness's of the union. For the life of me though, I can not see a my folks or my generation watching all YouTube looking content and being satisfied. Change will happen, it always has, but at what speed? There are many markets that exist, not all are 18 to 34.

CrewC

[wolf]

only 2 members of the 695 board of 15 ( or so) made their views known. The unelected BA acted against his members interests. If members don't vote in a new board of directors that care, and if folks with opinions don't organize phone trees, we get NOTHING, the producers share of Hollyweirds growing pie is getting larger. Talking to like minded on bulletin boards in NOT ENOUGH.  wolf

[studiomprd]

" However you feel about the current board, you were not present at the last E Board Meeting and all I can say is that there were lots of opinions expressed on the contract issue. "

in other words, these leaders discussed this hugely important issue in private, and kept their discussions and their feelings private, and otherwise did nothing!

now that is leadership!

[wolf]

Wolf,    I'm not sure if you were at the Quarterly Membership meeting?

=== no I was not. What’s the sense of bitching about a bad vote in retrospect?

However you feel about the current board, you were not present at the last E Board Meeting

===  I am not on the BOD  and there are never visitors, the dates are not publicized, secrecy prevails in effect.

And all I can say is that there were lots of opinions expressed on the contract issue.

=== Who cares what “opinions are expressed” privately in a BOD meeting that noone reports on?  All it does is vents for a few folks, the BA still uses his unchecked powers to support a anti-membership contract. Did the opposition on the board get even ask for third of a page in the mailing? NO they were silenced by JO. It seems JO has learned that scare tactics intimidate enough folk so they vote with him and keep paying his $ 160,000 salary.

"If members don't vote in a new board of directors that care" The word vote is important, because if more members had voted in the ratification ballot, rather than the anemic 36%; perhaps L695 would have been the only local to turn down the contract.

==== Perhaps the BOD should at least publicize its debate in a mailing. Maybe a variety  of ideas would involve a few more members. The BOD has let itself become an invisible rubber stamp.

I totally agree with you that nothing will get done unless more members get involved, speak up, run for the Executive Board and at least vote.

==== The BOD has an obligation to involve people. Instead members are stuck with an absentee President and a burned out BOD and an illiterate BA. We were the only local that did not have even an “informational” meeting before the vote. --- SHAME!  Who prevented this? J.O. of course .  -----  why does the BOD not have a policy of PROXY attendees standing in for absentee members.  That PROXY person should be appointed by the absent member an have a VOTE !!.  This would involve a few more folk.

==== sorry I am so blunt, but NOTHING seems to get thru the hierarchy of L695. And the IATSE is just rewarding itself with our dues for delivering a submissive  workforce to the conglomerates.

==== PS:  Note how easy it can be to kick out the old time CEO of GM! These structures that we held to be self-evident can be changed…  of course if the employees of GM had voted in a new CEO things would really be different – Obama is just a different color oligarch, so the substance stays the same… ( ohh  I know I am gone get it now  :-)

bitterly??  wolf    (knowing full well this post will only engender hate by JO)

Michelle for ‘16 and ’20       

[tourtelot]

Go to meetings, get elected to the E-board and make the changes.  Hard to gripe if we are not involved (that would obviously include me so don't flame me for being holier-than-thou<g>.)

Maybe you can become the future Tom Short<bg>.

D.

[studiomprd]

" Go to meetings, get elected to the E-board and make the changes. "

sounds easy, well at least 2 out of 3 !! several members have tried to follow this path, including our host, and even Wolfie!!  Yes!! Wolfie got involved thru "education", his hot button issue a few years back. 

BUT, the regime has this all figured out, and completely under control...

a BOD wanted more "Education" stuff, (sorry, no names on location!) so the big cheese let him run some events, allowed him to spend some (members' dues) money (even as the employers provide a lot of money for our education via Contract Services!), and include another "activist" whose hot button issue at the time was education, and more specifically having the union hire him to run education, and include training of more people he could send out with his rental equipment (I promised, no names);  another activist wanted a web site, and got one, even though the local has pretty well ignored it, the activist got to be a paid webmaster, and the experience he gained gave him an additional source of income.  Other officers and BOD's have gotten various part time jobs at the local, both for income and H&W purposes, as well as promoting their pet agenda's: remember a former President who hired his boomer to put together a directory??, and the other BOD who opposed the directory out of fear that folks who day played on gig's this BOD did regularly might dilute her credits, ah, but no names!!  and of course we always have some notable title holders, who perhaps feel it is important or valuable for their professional careers to be an officer or BOD, even though they really do not have the time for the gig! It looks good on the CV!

and of course there are the few voting members who keep voting for popular colleagues, knowing they will mostly be a title-holder and perk claimer!

now, with at least one foot firmly inside my mouth, a disclaimer:  it isn't all their fault!! this sort of corruption is insidious,  and the incumbent BA (any incumbent BA) has the system completely wired!!  and in the grander scheme of things, the main requirement the BA's ruling International King has for the various local BAs' is to keep the peace in their little fiefdoms, which means, just as in all political schemes, fooling most of the little people, at least most of the time!

OK, fire away!