peggynames Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 We have been noticing lately that behind the scenes cameraperson is sent out with no sound technician accompaniment. We questioned the cameraperson and he stated that the company which hires him only allows a sound person to work when interviews are scheduled for that day. In the interest of saving money, the company has cut the sound person because a sound feed can easily be gotten from the sound crew. This alarmed me and the others on our team. We informed the producer that we did not feel comfortable feeding the sound to a non 695 technician and to please check with the union to see if this is legal. The producer got scared of a violation and told the epk company to send out a sound person on every occasion. The sound person that came out I have known for a number of years. He told me that he was forced to take a cut in pay.....take it or leave it.......and that he was very lucky to have a job because the sound crew insisted on it.....the next job with the next mixer won't be like that. I am just wondering how everyone else feels about this situation. Our sound brothers and sisters seem to be edged out of work because we are feeding their camera person directly. Is this right? What can we do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 We have been noticing lately that behind the scenes cameraperson is sent out with no sound technician accompaniment. We questioned the cameraperson and he stated that the company which hires him only allows a sound person to work when interviews are scheduled for that day. In the interest of saving money, the company has cut the sound person because a sound feed can easily be gotten from the sound crew. This alarmed me and the others on our team. We informed the producer that we did not feel comfortable feeding the sound to a non 695 technician and to please check with the union to see if this is legal. The producer got scared of a violation and told the epk company to send out a sound person on every occasion. The sound person that came out I have known for a number of years. He told me that he was forced to take a cut in pay.....take it or leave it.......and that he was very lucky to have a job because the sound crew insisted on it.....the next job with the next mixer won't be like that. I am just wondering how everyone else feels about this situation. Our sound brothers and sisters seem to be edged out of work because we are feeding their camera person directly. Is this right? What can we do? I get the feeling that you're saying that a non 695 tech is not capeable of doing a professional job but only a 695 tech is? As for feeding the camera directly have you been doing double system for EPK's and that's why you're upset? Budgetary constraints are everywhere and rates are either frozen or less than what they have been. As your friend said it's "take it or leave it". Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Eric, I think Peggy means situations when she's on the sound team of a TV show/film and instead of a 1 camera person / 1 sound person EPK team showing up, it's only 1 camera person. Sounds as if even though your union members are supposed to be the designated crew people for handling sound, the EPK companies are trying to edge in on that gray area of "well, if all the sound person is doing is plugging a transmitter into a sound cart and a receiver into the camera, why do we need them?" I would assume that the issue should be framed in the context of minimum crew. If you want sound of any sort then a sound person should be there. It shouldn't matter the degree of difficulty. Our union (52) encompasses more than just the sound crew (unlike 695), but the camera person is still not within the same union. So the jurisdiction of "sound" shouldn't be 600s responsibility. One question: this wouldn't be a situation where the EPK was already paying a sound person (per your union) but basically paying them to stay home? Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Ok, it was unclear from the op as to who was involved in what. Never having been a union person I couldn't understand the 695 issue. Thanks for the explanation. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BobD Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 If I am on a union show, and some behind the scenes crew walks up to me without a sound person, and they ask me to get sound to their equipment, I will tell them to fly a kite.... PERIOD!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 If I am on a union show, and some behind the scenes crew walks up to me without a sound person, and they ask me to get sound to their equipment, I will tell them to fly a kite.... PERIOD!!!!! Even if production wants you to? Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Yeah, but production has to provide the kite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 You did the right thing, Peggy. Thanks for bringing this practice to our attention. I've not seen that on the east coast, but a slightly different scenario popped up last year. A non-union camcorder person showed up to shoot EPK interviews. When called on it, the non-union guy went away and the producers picked up the camcorder and started shooting. That's when I lost track of the event. Seems to me that the producers continued on. Curious as to the groups thoughts on that situation. - Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BobD Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Even if production wants you to? Eric OK, If forced by production, I will first explain why this pisses me off, then, only after a lecture, I will proceed to do only things on my end. I am not their mixer for their behind the scenes show... I will do no more than usual... If THEY give me a transmitter, I will plug it in, I will not however touch, adjust or look at their gear... or involve myself with their system.... What they do with the audio coming out of my gear is their business... I do not believe in the elimination of our sound people, and then turning other sound people into double duty to accomplish their goals... THAT in it's essence, is just not right... And yes, my first comment will always be, "go fly a kite"..... They will have to make a stink to get me to do this..... AT ALL... I promise..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I have to stay out of this discussion as I don't understand the union mentality. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Hey Jan, I think at that point the shop steward should be involved and should be speaking to 52 and 600. If 600 is okay with that practice, then the issue of the producer shooting isn't a problem but that still doesn't resolve the problem of not having a 52 sound person there to facilitate the feed. Ideally, all of this is so you can focus on recording the sound for the important part - the TV show! - and not be concerned with jurisdictions and crewing issues. Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Eric, I'm sure you've been in something sort of similar even outside of a "union" context. Off of the top of my head, it might be akin to a situation where production wants to eliminate the utility or the boom operator because of some weird perception (it's an all wires show, or do we really need to pay a 3rd?). But within the union contracts with productions are crew minimums. On "L&O" our 20 year old contract only had a 2 person minimum. But it was understood that the 3rd was always necessary and hired - no questions. But there was one instance when production wanted to shoot a "2nd unit" thing for a TV screen and they really really wanted the camera mic sound. But, we got our shop steward involved to get 2 sound people hired for that day. Production paid 2 people who never came in. It might sound protectionist. But your protecting the need for your position on a future job. The best weapon production has is a precedent. Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Josh, I was never asked for a feed in this instance, and it was in fact handled -- and I'm certain justly resolved -- by the shop steward. We got hit by a huge thunderstorm and I lost track of the ultimate outcome is all. Wondered if other crews had seen this happen in 52 jurisdiction. - Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Josh, Seems it's a different in the long form projects (tv shows, etc) world than the day player world I work in. Living and working in Florida which is a right to work state these issues rarely if ever come up in my experience. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BobD Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I have to stay out of this discussion as I don't understand the union mentality. Eric In a nutshell, The union is there to "protect" us in quite a few ways.... Although not so much anymore it seems, but that's another story. The idea of persons eliminating a job position that needs to be accomplished, then placing those responsibilities on another person, hired to do another part of the job, is wrong. Now I'm supposed to be responsible for a mix for another show, or on gear I am not really responsible to be attending to... What about my workload, my compensation.... That function, while I am mixing on another show is not part of my responsibility.. Even if they offered to partly compensate me, it is still taking food from another's mouth and is not right. Might as well pay the first person... It is not about money in my scenario. It's about ethics... or lack of... AND WORKLOAD RESPONSIBILITIES!!!!! The union looks out for us... and we in turn lookout for our brothers and sisters.... we are all family.... If we don't look out for our interests, and the interests of our family members.... Things will crumble into a mess.... they do anyway.... Does that make sense.... Without the unions, children would probably still be working in factories.... Still are in many parts of the world.... Give them an inch, and they will take it all, just like the Behind the scenes crews sitting home with no work for their family... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I am just wondering how everyone else feels about this situation. Our sound brothers and sisters seem to be edged out of work because we are feeding their camera person directly. Is this right? What can we do? You did the right thing, and knowing you Peggy, I'm sure it was presented to the producer properly and courteously. We have always for the most part provided a feed (the signal) from the sound cart to the sound person working with the ENG behind the scenes crew, this is proper and expected. I do not know the specifics of any of the union contracts now that determine whether this ENG crew has to be union. I do know that there are some production sound mixers who have refused to provide a feed to a non-union crew (by crew I mean a camera person and a sound person). I think if the production is not subject to any rule that requires that the ENG crew be union or even to be a 2 person crew (camera and sound), they will hire one camera person to do the job. I would be very uncomfortable helping this one camera person with the sound, it just shouldn't be done, union or non-union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Hey Eric, So what happens on the Florida TV shows like 'Burn Notice'? Is there a local IA at all in FL? Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurence Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Did the camera guy bother to have headphones on? Was he paying any attention to the sound? Did he even suggest to the producer that he had the faintest idea how to monitor sound when his primary task was something else altogether? This isn't just a union thing. This is the production sound mixer's work that could be going out on nationwide broadcast. Are you ok with that? Not to mention BobD's very well-stated point about putting a guy out of work. It's not always easy to say No to the UPM, but it is your responsibility to give them the best advice you can offer them. In this case, I'd advise them that this is a very bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 Hey Eric, So what happens on the Florida TV shows like 'Burn Notice'? Is there a local IA at all in FL? Josh I really don't know. I do know there are a bunch of locals here I think 477, 500?, 600? but I have no clue if they're involved in any way or if they're IA. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I think it's fair to acknowledge the grey area this all gets into. You can say "not a good idea" and give advice, but I think contractually you have to fall back on the agreement between the union and the production. If the union is okay with it then after you've told them it's not a good idea, it's their decision on their product to say that they'd like to try it their way. Isn't it similar to the position a DP is in (more on a TV show than a film) where post does all of the level adjustments - maybe not to the liking of the DP? It's "our sound" and "our work" while on set. But just because post can remain face-less to us doesn't mean this isn't all a team effort. In my example below, the "2nd unit" recorded the little camcorder portion without a sound person present (paid 2 people not to come in). But we ended up recording wild versions of the lines a few days later. So what did production end up paying for? I'm not a UPM or Producer and it's their decision to gamble if the camcorder sound would work or not. Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Anderson Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I really don't know. I do know there are a bunch of locals here I think 477, 500?, 600? but I have no clue if they're involved in any way or if they're IA. Eric 600 would be the Camera Guild, but I don't know the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 600 would be the Camera Guild, but I don't know the others. After looking it up, 477 is studio technicians in Florida and 500 is basically a theatrical workers union. The following is a direct cut & paste from the 477 website: "IATSE 477 has no restrictions or limitations regarding members working for “non-union†employers. We do encourage our membership to notify us of their current employment status so that we may better represent them." I don't know if that's standard with other studio mechanics locals but that's how it is here. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 An issue I would have with this one-man band EPK scenario is that I would have to explain to that EPK shooter that they can't count on my audio feed to them being up all the time. Aside from tech issues and moves I might have to make, there is the whole issue of actor privacy etc, so they might want someone w/ a mic on a boom with them for when I kill the feed (which in my case is going to happen frequently). If they are ok with just their camera mic at that point then rock on. Philip Perkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darryl Linkow, C.A.S. Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I do a lot of this kind of work. Both of the shows that I work for who shoot "behind the scenes" footage and set interviews are IATSE signatories and we have a sound mixer and a camera operator per camera. That's right...if we do a set visit with our talent, and we have two cameras, we also have two sound people (Local 695 members). But, the problem I have is that the individual shows, even though they are IATSE-crewed shows, hire non-union EPK crews to shoot their EPKs. This bothers me very much and I have expressed my concern to representatives of Local 695 many, many times. At this time, it seems like nothing is being done about this situation and many Local 695 workers are losing jobs because of this. I applaud those production sound mixers and their crews, working on episodic television and features, who have the balls to tell their producers that they will not provide audio feeds to non-IATSE personnel who are working on the EPK or shooting behind the scenes footage for non-IATSE signatory shows. And if you want to go a step further, please consider calling the local anytime a non-IATSE crew shoots on your set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ken Mantlo Posted June 22, 2010 Report Share Posted June 22, 2010 I too have come up against this situation but didn't think that this might be violating our contract. What is the IA rule? If it is against the rules the correct and polite response would be, "Sorry, I can't. The union won't let me." If there is no rule, how is it different than providing sound to DIT or camera for guide track? Are we not talking out of our ass's until we know what the IA rule on this is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.