The Contract Services I-9 Scam

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

That's right, you read it correctly.

In 1986 President Ronald Reagan signed the "Immigration Reform and Control Act" ("IRCA") to require employers to verify the identity and the eligibility of ALL employees hired to work in the United States.

From that point on everyone had to fill in a required I-9 form before being legally employed.

In those 24 years, think how many times those of us in the Los Angeles area film industry have filled in one of these I-9 forms? I would guess each of us has done so over a thousand times or more.

However in the early 90's the CSTAF, the Contract Services Administration Fund asked each of us to personally go to the fund headquarters and fill out an I-9 form, telling us that this would mean that we would not have to fill in the same form over and over each time we start a new job.

This was a lie and a bureaucratic legal worm hole that meant absolutely nothing, because as we all know we are still filling in these damn forms on every job.

I received a letter today, informing me that, "your CSATF Form I-9 expired in 2001", and that if I wasn't current, it could effect my employment in the motion picture and television industry.

Two thoughts crossed my mind; First, "current" for the CSTAF is no more than 9 years from the expiration date.

Second, what the hell does filling in the I-9 with every job mean -- if I was not legally able to work the CSTAF would know about it within days.

So now I have to find the time to once again visit the CSTAF offices to fill in their I-9 form.

There must be a way legally to challenge this ridiculous and stupid duplication, no multiplication of all the thousands of I-9's we have filled out. We must put a stop to this incredible stupidity and risk to our personal identities that we spread over every film set on every new job.

What say you?

RL

[Jan McL]

100% concur that this is an incredible waste of time and paper.

Didn't know about the CSTAF thing. Interesting.

Heard (translate: rumor) that payroll services lobby to keep the practice since it earns them $.

My first thought has always been that this is something our unions could negotiate as a quality-of-life issue, for certainly not having to fill out these forms every-darned-time would improve our quality of life. Why is there not a presumption that if you've a union card, you're a U.S. citizen?

Look forward to watching the brainstorming of this issue that totally drives me crazy.

-- Jan

[RPSharman]

I too remember this stupid promise from Contract Services.

I discovered recently that they still had me classified as a y-7a utility sound person.  I called to ask why, since I had reclassified over 4 years ago.  It turns out my I-9 had expired some years before, and rather than actually attempt to contact me, the just labeled me as "not current" and did not make the classification change.

I don't know of any situation that this could have cost me work, being incorrectly classified through Contract Services, but anyone checking the roster over the last four years could have determined me to be unqualified as a mixer.

Robert

[David Waelder]

I've also gone through the Contract Services document dance. It would be worthwhile if any of the employers would accept that documentation so it wouldn't be necessary to duplicate effort. It would also be a good thing to not have my Social Security number, and other detailed personal information, circulating in the (often unsecured) files of dozens of production companies. Many of these are companies that are incorporated only for the run of a particular show and dissolved immediately after. I cannot imagine a more insecure data situation.

Contract Services presently issues a "Safety Passport" document to workers who complete the safety training program. This provides workers with a way to demonstrate to the employer that the have the safety certification.

Perhaps they could provide a similar document to workers who have logged their ID data with the CSATF. Ideally it would be a card with a magnetic code or bar code that the employer might scan to log essential, but coded, identification data.

Now, on a broader subject, I find it interesting that you are only now focusing on the questionable legal and ethical role of the CSATF. This is an organization who's very purpose is to circumvent the provisions of the Taft-Hartley law. From what I can see, the entire entity is vulnerable to a RICO Act investigation into pretty much everything they do.

(Some quick background) In the thirties and forties, in the studio system, producers sometimes found that crew rosters would be padded with workers of limited skills and knowledge. There was terrible unemployment in the Depression and crew bosses would try to get nephews, cousins and neighbors hired onto film crews. Film sets are a nearly ideal place to conceal unproductive workers because so many skilled disciplines are involved that producers would often not be clear on the function of each and every job. To address this issue, producers negotiated an Industry Experience Roster as a prerequisite for employment. Workers were required to have at least 30 days of documented experience in their craft to be eligible for hire. This prevented having grips who would look around for the stars and stripes when asked to fetch a flag. Contract Services was formed as an independent agency, separate from both the AMPTP and the union locals, to maintain this roster.

The plan may have had some merit at the time it was put into play. However, by the sixties, productions and actual hiring had evolved into many independent operators and was no longer (usually) being done by the studios. The union locals came to understand the Contract Services might act as a buffer to prevent their membership rolls from being pried open by new applicants. It was easy to deny new memberships if the new workers would not be eligible for employment anyway. And, anyone questioning the unions could be directed to the independent CSATF agency. For its part, the CSATF was not able to modify contractual provisions without the agreement of both parties, both the AMPTP and the various union locals. For the last forty years the CSATF has existed primarily as a way to control membership in the locals in an end run around federal law.

Being tapped to run the Safety Passport Program was really a boon to the CSATF as it gave them a visible purpose other than circumventing law. And, by the way, they run that program, as least for sound professionals, about as well as you would expect considering their history. (They may perform better with grips and electric, I don't know.)

So, just now we're getting upset with them because they require a little paperwork runaround? To paraphrase Al Pacino in "Scent of a Woman." the place should be burnt down with a flamethrower.

David Waelder

[Darryl Linkow, C.A.S.]

That's right, you read it correctly.

In 1986 President Ronald Reagan signed the "Immigration Reform and Control Act" ("IRCA") to require employers to verify the identity and the eligibility of ALL employees hired to work in the United States.

From that point on everyone had to fill in a required I-9 form before being legally employed.

In those 24 years, think how many times those of us in the Los Angeles area film industry have filled in one of these I-9 forms? I would guess each of us has done so over a thousand times or more.

There must be a way legally to challenge this ridiculous and stupid duplication, no multiplication of all the thousands of I-9's we have filled out. We must put a stop to this incredible stupidity and risk to our personal identities that we spread over every film set on every new job.

What say you?

RL

Richard,

I agree with you 100%....Have you ever asked the people at CSATF why we need to fill out an I-9?  I have and they tell me that this is what the Federal Government/IRS requires them to do.  I have NEVER understood that statement, since I always thought that an I-9 form was only required to be filled out by an employee, and I have never been EMPLOYED by CSATF...I don't think that being on the Roster makes you an employee of CSATF, does it?  And yes, it would be great if the original lie that CSATF propagated, about not having to fill out an I-9 again, for any other company that uses the Roster, was true, but we know that it was just that....a lie!  The only reason that I have complied with filling out an I-9 for CSATF in recent years, is so that Local 695 gets reimbursed by Contract Services for the training sessions that I attend.  And also, I don't get why we have to fill out another I-9 every 3 years at CSATF, since I am STILL a citizen of the USA, just by the fact that I was born in this country....I just don't think it would be possible for me to be unborn and reborn in another country at this time!

Maybe the solution to this problem is, dare I say it, to contact your local Congressman and ask that they look into this problem??  Or look further into why the IRS requires Contract Services to have us all fill out I-9 forms?

[Philip Perkins]

I've never run up against this org., is it just an LA thing?  I have often wondered at the waste of production manpower and my time etc filling out those forms for every job--in whose interest is this?  I also wonder about identity theft and the literally thousands of those forms out in the world my name and info on them, being handed off to people I've only just met and will likely never see again....  What do they do with all those forms?  Shred them?  File them?  Just throw them in the trash?  Donate them as scribble paper to the local kindergarten?

Philip Perkins

[Laurence]

It's not a lie and it's not a scam... it's just required.  And so, until you change the requirements, you'll keep filling out I-9's over and over and over again.  Our Basic Contract stipulates that "The parties hereby confirm that I-9 information must be provided to CSATF as a condition of placement on the Industry Experience Roster." [par. 68. (a)(6)]  The intent, I believe, was to unify the process and to avoid making crew members fill one out thousands of times on the set.  But the Producer, concerned about running afoul of Federal regulations, is probably nervous about relying upon Contract Services to conduct all the verifications because they may believe that many of us don't go there to do it... and they have good reason for being nervous about that because if you look at records held at Contract Services on their website, you'll see quite of lot of crew people have not, in fact, updated their I-9's at Contract Services as required.  In looking at their data, I'd guess that that there is 15 to 20% non-compliance.  That's way too high for the Producers to rely upon Contact Services to keep the I-9's.  I suspect that the letter you received... and I got one yesterday, too... is part of a stepped up effort by Contract Services to get us to take it seriously because until we do, the Producers will never consider deferring the procedure to Contract Services.  Nobody wants to fill out their I-9 a thousand times... but no one wants to go to Contact Services to fill one out, either.  Which is it gonna be?  For the time being, it's both.  If everybody were to actually follow the requirement to go to Contract Services, we might eventually get to the point where we don't have to fill one out on set.

Laurence

[RPSharman]

Laurence,

I was "not in compliance" for years, and received no notification as to that non-compliance.  Perhaps this is changing.

But let me ask this... our "employer" is more often than not Entertainment Partners or Cast & Crew payroll services.  Surely they do not need a new I-9 every time we work for them, and shouldn't one W-4 per year suffice?

Robert

[Noah Timan]

Laurence,

I was "not in compliance" for years, and received no notification as to that non-compliance.  Perhaps this is changing.

But let me ask this... our "employer" is more often than not Entertainment Partners or Cast & Crew payroll services.  Surely they do not need a new I-9 every time we work for them, and shouldn't one W-4 per year suffice?

Robert

If you take a close look at your W2s when they come in at the end of the year, you'll see that even though the paperwork says "Entertainment Partners" or "C&C" the actual "employer" paying and taxing you is a subsidiary (usually some combination of letters that don't make a word, LLC) of the mother payroll company.  That's why you have to repeatedly do it -- because even though they all say "Cast and Crew" or "EP" they're actually doing business as different entities much of the time.

If it's actually the same show and employer, then you don't need to -- for example, if you day play on an episodic, you only have to do start work one time per season. 

[Eric Toline]

LLC stands for Limited Liability Corporation. It is not a corporate name the same as INC stands for Incorporated. As an example, Sound Devices is an LLC.

Eric

[RPSharman]

I get that. I also get that EP used to send one W2 at the end of the year. Now I get many. But they are still the same entity. I still file unemployment using their "main" name and address. It's all the same office, and as far as I'm concerned, the same employer.

One I-9 please!

If you take a close look at your W2s when they come in at the end of the year, you'll see that even though the paperwork says "Entertainment Partners" or "C&C" the actual "employer" paying and taxing you is a subsidiary (usually some combination of letters that don't make a word, LLC) of the mother payroll company.  That's why you have to repeatedly do it -- because even though they all say "Cast and Crew" or "EP" they're actually doing business as different entities much of the time.

If it's actually the same show and employer, then you don't need to -- for example, if you day play on an episodic, you only have to do start work one time per season.

[Laurence]

Robert... as I said, you are not alone in your non-compliance.  I could give you the names of 5 people who I'm quite sure you know personally whose I-9's at Contract Services expired 20 or more years ago.  Fortunately, Contract Services has not followed through with threats to remove them from the Roster, perhaps because they suspect that there could be a lawsuit and/or revolt if they tried.  But yes, the letters they sent out this week appear to be yet another attempt by them to give people a nudge to get this done.

The official rules for the I-9 say that once you fill in an I-9, it remains valid during your employment and if you leave a job and are later re-hired, the old I-9 is still good if the re-hire is within 3 years.  So when you submit an I-9 to Warner Bros. Payroll, that should be good for 3 years, regardless of what show you're on.  Since most people aren't reading the fine print, however, they are probably assuming that a new I-9 for every job is the correct or safest way to go.  But if you worked fulltime in the shop at Warners, for example, your continuous hire would require only 1 form for as long as you worked there.

Since Contract Services is trying to function as a surrogate for the many studios, and since your employment at the various studios is not continuous, then it would seem that the 3-year rule applies.

Laurence

[Noah Timan]

I get that. I also get that EP used to send one W2 at the end of the year. Now I get many. But they are still the same entity. 

But they're not.  My accountant, who often processes taxes for hundreds of entertainment-industry "employees", once joked that there probably actually isn't anyone in the "main office" at Entertainment Partners, on Sepulveda or wherever it is.

I still file unemployment using their "main" name and address. It's all the same office, and as far as I'm concerned, the same employer.

That may be true that to your concern (and many others, since this conversation is had and overheard on sets everywhere), it is the same employer.  However, I believe that to the government, "NUBDTL, LLC" who is actually employing you under the EP header, is not the same employer as "NUSPTL, LLC" who might be employing the show on the next stage, even though all the checks say "EP" on them.  And whatever that LLC company is that actually employs you, well, they're going to be required by the government to prove that it is only hiring and paying actual U.S. residents, and apparently can't just tell the government, "Check with EP to see if they're citizens and don't bother us about it".  My guess is that if they could, they would.  As much as we are annoyed by filling out that form, they all have to be even more annoyed by having to process a whole crew's and a zillion day players' worth of forms each time.  As for unemployment, even though you are only required to report "EP" to the unemployment office, the unemployment office has a full record of all of the various LLCs that you have worked for. 

I don't like it either, and you'd think that there would be a way for EP to farm out our information to all of its various subsidiary LLCs who actually hire us (hmm, now that I've said that, is it better or worse?) -- but, be that our feelings are what they are, it doesn't really help anyone involved to stamp our feet and say, "these forms are all the same and we don't want to fill them out all the time, even if they are different companies DBA'ing as EP or C&C", without a more practical approach to the problem.  I hadn't heard of "Contract Services" before -- I'm guessing this is an LA only affair -- but it sounds like that is what is trying to be accomplished there, and it is failing as well.

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Noah,

Off the topic of my thread, but you say:

"they're going to be required by the government to prove that it is only hiring and paying actual U.S. residents."

By U.S. residents that must include the millions of illegal aliens who are happily being courted by trade unions for their dues, to feed the "union label".

No concern by the U.S. government wether the employees have the legal right to work or even reside in this country.

Everyone turns a blind eye while we rush to the bottom and become a third world country as we robotically fill in those stupid and worthless I-9 Forms.

And Laurence, that was the original thrust of my rant -- let's sue the CSTAF for this ridiculous scam as a straw man for the AMPTP!

RL

[Laurence]

I have been considering joining the union as a third or boom op but it s just a hassle to get all the paper work together for csatf and Im really lazy when it comes to things like that. It just seems like a big hassle for a right to work.

and Im not impressed with the local 695

Again drifting off-topic... but Wow, Matthew, this is the first time I've heard "lazy" as the reason not to join the IA.  I mean, we all have a little lazy in us, but I'm hoping your motivation is more than that.  Perhaps you've been lucky enough to stick to the juicy non-union jobs, some of which can meet or exceed IA rates, but I would think that's hard to do over the long run.  IA guys will complain, quite legitimately, about how the extremely excellent health plan has eroded and added co-payments and will soon be much harder to obtain, and how the annual hourly raises are not as good as they used to be, and how low-budget contract rates are damn near as low as non-union, and how the pension plan would never be enough to live on... but seriously, are you able to match all that?  Have you even got a pension plan?  Or a chance to get employer paid health insurance?  Or a guarantee of overtime?  Or any protection whatsoever?  If non-union work lets you care for your family just as well, then more power to ya.  But as much as we hear guys complain about their union, I suspect that you would be hard-pressed to find many who say they prefer working non-union jobs.

Laurence

[ProSound]

Again drifting off-topic... but Wow, Matthew, this is the first time I've heard "lazy" as the reason not to join the IA.  I mean, we all have a little lazy in us, but I'm hoping your motivation is more than that.  Perhaps you've been lucky enough to stick to the juicy non-union jobs, some of which can meet or exceed IA rates, but I would think that's hard to do over the long run.  IA guys will complain, quite legitimately, about how the extremely excellent health plan has eroded and added co-payments and will soon be much harder to obtain, and how the annual hourly raises are not as good as they used to be, and how low-budget contract rates are damn near as low as non-union, and how the pension plan would never be enough to live on... but seriously, are you able to match all that?  Have you even got a pension plan?  Or a chance to get employer paid health insurance?  Or a guarantee of overtime?  Or any protection whatsoever?  If non-union work lets you care for your family just as well, then more power to ya.  But as much as we hear guys complain about their union, I suspect that you would be hard-pressed to find many who say they prefer working non-union jobs.

Laurence

I have been a member of my IA Local the last two years ( The Local 491) and so far it has been the biggest waste of money in my career they have done nothing for me but take my money and not promote any of us in my city Savannah Ga . Any time there is a job in my city they never inform the production that there are union members here and everyone comes from either Charleston Sc 2 hours away or Wilmington SC 4 hours away or out of Atlanta ( A different Local).  When we did have two films come to town the local did nothing to encourage hiring people in Savannah and everyone came from out of town. As long as the local was getting there 3% they didn't care about anything. I firmly believe that we need a national sound union to have any power at all and I think we would be better off without the union all together if it isn't a national. The 2 union commercials I have done (Which I found on my own and then they turned out to be union) I would have made the same just doing them non union. i hope this all changes in the future but with a local not protecting us by forcing production to hire for our local or encouraging them to hire within the city they are in first I am not hopeful.

I am happy for those who have join there Local I.A and have reaped benefits for it but I am not one of them. I sometimes wish I would have been born about 20 years either so I could have been a sound mixer in a time where it was network news magazines episodic tv or feature films shot on film  instead of reality tv and 3 camera 5D or RED projects.  So I will continue to work hard in my non union bag world and hope to continue advancing in my career.

[Laurence]

Whitney, I should amend my comments by adding that they are very Los Angeles-centric.  I can't comment on other regions.  What you describe is not very positive and sounds like something you would want to discuss with your 491 Reps, but if there is very little IA work in your region and if what little there is is not obtainable, then it would be easy to understand your views on this.

Laurence

[Eric Toline]

"I suspect that you would be hard-pressed to find many who say they prefer working non-union jobs."

Laurence

Look no further than here. I have never been or considered joining any organization that you have to pay that does not get you work. To pay to get on a list that does not offer any type of employment guarentee is wasted money as Whitney states. I would rather give an organization a commission on any work they get me. Obviously the union involvement in LA is a lot different than here in Florida were it's a non issue and the subject never comes up. IMHO no one should have to join a union to work at their chosen craft.

Eric

[Guest BobD]

I feel that Unions are there for representation... I have never looked at it as a job finding service... That is a flawed concept...

  For my dues paid, (which is distasteful for me as well I might add, but, that being said),  we are under a union contract, so the ten thousand times I have been asked to do "this" or "That" (insert any of the 5 thousand ways to get greased up and abused), we were able to simply say, "I am under a union contract.... I am sorry, There is nothing I can do...  $715.84 for Ten hours with another raise coming in Oct.... (I think)....  Complaining... Not me... One day of work, under contract, compared to a non union $500 for twelve, and you paid a quarter of dues... Hummmmm...  Still think it's a rip off...  The trick is to get some of the non union yahoos UNION!!!!! By Yahoos, I mean non union companies by the way... That is the crux of the apostrophe....

  Now, has this situation benefited me?... YES, A thousand times, well over the amount of dues paid.... Every time I'm asked for a Twelve hour day.... Sorry, or a lower rate...sorry, or no meal break... sorry (penalty), or travel days not paid (FULL)...sorry, or pushed calls....sorry..  on and on....

  Throw in some pretty good medical, dental and vision insurance, OK, the vision's not great, but so what.  But, It's for your entire family...Duhhhhhhh.....    Just greased up for 400 hrs now...every 6 months... will be hard for me, a commercial mixer...  Also will cut into my riding time.... ;0..),  Our Pension?  (we'll see if that is actually there when I need it), and someone at the end of the phone..(mostly)...

Does this all add up?... for me it does by a long shot....  Not to mention a requirement here in L.A..., I am not bitter, or angered by it all. It is the cost and means to be a professional in this industry out west...It is simply a deductible business expense... We are running businesses I might add...    Am I a better mixer, no...  Just another union dues paying SOB.... but one with a union behind me...  If I were in Alabama or another smaller market state, doing over the shoulder gigs for $500 a day, I would see no point in it.... I understand that point....  Be a good mixer, use your skills to get your own work... That's how this business operates... Your your best (or worst) calling card... Unless you have an agent, which is rare for sound folks...  And besides, who want's to give up, what,  20%!!! ?

[Jeff Wexler]

IMHO no one should have to join a union to work at their chosen craft.

Eric

Membership in a Labor Union is obviously not for everyone, but it should always be kept in mind that a Union is NOT an agent, not an employment agency, the union will never "promote" you as an individual to secure a job --- the Union will represent you once you are given the job working under the contract. You are NOT required to join a union to "work at ... chosen craft" (Eric is a perfect example with his long career) but if you want your employment covered by a Union contract, then yes, you do need to join the Union to work at your craft.

-  Jeff Wexler

[Guest BobD]

Membership in a Labor Union is obviously not for everyone, but it should always be kept in mind that a Union is NOT an agent, not an employment agency, the union will never "promote" you as an individual to secure a job --- the Union will represent you once you are given the job working under the contract. You are NOT required to join a union to "work at ... chosen craft" (Eric is a perfect example with his long career) but if you want your employment covered by a Union contract, then yes, you do need to join the Union to work at your craft.

-  Jeff Wexler

I was actually forced...  I fought it for years, it then got legal and was forced... To work on shows with union companies, I needed to be in the union. I was free to work out of the union all I wanted, but to work on union gigs, I needed to be in 695...  I then "saw the light"

[Eric Toline]

Membership in a Labor Union is obviously not for everyone, but it should always be kept in mind that a Union is NOT an agent, not an employment agency, the union will never "promote" you as an individual to secure a job --- the Union will represent you once you are given the job working under the contract. You are NOT required to join a union to "work at ... chosen craft" (Eric is a perfect example with his long career) but if you want your employment covered by a Union contract, then yes, you do need to join the Union to work at your craft.

-  Jeff Wexler

There have been a few times here when I was called to mix a job and was told that I HAD to be in the union to work on that project. So in a way regardless of Jeff's statement, I was required to join a union to work at my chosen craft and because I wasn't I lost X days pay. There's something wrong with that for sure.

Eric

[Laurence]

Eric, it may be semantics but you weren't required to be in the union to work in your craft... you were required to be in the union to work on that particular job.  Without the union, your craft has been available and has apparently been one that has earned you a living for some number of years.  Since it sounds like the best jobs in your region are not union, then you might not benefit in the same way that I do.  My dues are so small... especially when compared to many other locals who keep a percentage of all money earned... and the returns that I get from those dues are so large, that membership is a complete no brainer.  But that's Los Angeles.

And BobD, separate from what may or may not be a decent monthly pension payout, there is also a cash contribution made for every union hour you've worked that sits in an account earning small returns.... and it will be there until you request a lump sum payout upon retirement.  It may not be a windfall but it's better than a poke in the headphones with a sharp c-stand arm.

Laurence

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

This afternoon I drove the twenty miles round trip and about two hours of my time to go to the CSTAF building to take care of the "lapsed" I-9 Form.

The CSTAF "Associate" attempted to explain to me how to fill out an I-9 Form, until I informed him that I have filled out about 2000 of them since 1986. He made me aware of a second page, which is  legal sign-off form. This form explains that your I-9 form with the CSTAF is only good for 3 years.

What stood out to me was the boiler plate disclaimer saying that many Producers do not recognize the CSTAF I-9 Form registration and that you will most likely have to fill in an I-9 Form with each employer. Proving in fact that this is a pointless, bureaucratic bullshit exercise.

In our next round of negotiations it is time to delete the I-9 CSTAF Form requirement or create a system where each local has their membership fill out the forms and then they take them to the CSTAF and waste their time instead of ours.

Better yet a class action lawsuit to cease this illegal gathering of information that is really the responsibility of each employer and employee. This valuable information could also be replaced with the current E-Verify system and be faster and more secure.

But this country can't even seal it's own southern border, stop illegals from all over the world entering and sucking off the system. So I have little faith in our government, Union Officials and the AMPTP.

RL

[Laurence]

In our next round of negotiations it is time to delete the I-9 CSTAF  Form requirement or create a system where each local has their  membership fill out the forms and then they take them to the CSTAF and  waste their time instead of ours.

Negotiations can't change Federal law, but what you propose can be done right now.  The law requires than the I-9 be filled out in front of the employer or in front of a Notary Public... so if a Local provides the Notary or has one who works in their office, you don't need to go to Contract Services.  In addition, Contract Services has offered to send one of their representatives to membership meetings upon request.

Laurence