Jump to content

A national sound local?


RPSharman

Recommended Posts

Carried over from another thread...

We need to hire the facilitator who put together the 600 deal. Contract is up next year. We need to move fast.

Unequal treatment is why I turned down an MOW this time last year. 695 said it was ok for the company to "hire me out of Los Angeles", as they were traveling me and giving me hotel and per diem, but still pay me the area standard of $31.02 per hour. It was less than the lowest paid member of the camera department. I offered to work for the operator rate ($45/hr). Production hired someone else out of Los Angeles for $31.02/hr.

Question is, would Los Angeles and NYC locals be willing to fix rates equal to camera, which might be a reduction in rate on some occasions. I would.

Mixer - Operator (or operator + 10%)

Boom - 'A' 1st AC

Utility - 'A' 2nd AC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently mixed a show where my rate was $500/12 and I found out part way into the job that the camera ops were getting $600/12. There was a separate DP. I don't feel the sound mixer should ever get a lower rate than a camera op and a boom op should never be paid less than a 1st AC. The sound mixer should always be paid MORE than a camera op.

If a company is hiring you out of LA then they need to pay LA (or NYC) rates, not local rates to whatever other area they are shooting in. If they want a local to that area they should hire a local to that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We in Boston deal with this a lot. "Take the ASA contract or we'll just bring someone in" - As the sound/video rep for the IA here (481), I'd like to be kept in the loop on the thoughts about this, if you don't mind.

Edit: My feelings are that if we all do the same jobs, we should all expect the same wages, regardless of our location. I realize the IA, of course the producers, and maybe you LA/NY locals don't feel the same way... Still, an open dialog would be very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I don't feel the same way. It is far more expensive to live and work in a place like NY/LA /SF etc than it is in a smaller market, so if jobs are going to shoot here the pay has to reflect that difference. Anymore, if the production doesn't need to be in a major city for some reason (locations, access to actors, convenience for execs) then they probably won't be because crew people in smaller markets can afford to work for less. This is unfortunate, but doesn't change what it costs me to stay in business where I am.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently mixed a show where my rate was $500/12 and I found out part way into the job that the camera ops were getting $600/12. There was a separate DP. I don't feel the sound mixer should ever get a lower rate than a camera op and a boom op should never be paid less than a 1st AC. The sound mixer should always be paid MORE than a camera op.

If it is a reality show I always make less than camera op for labor $450/12 for sound mixer camera op is usually $650/12 it stinks for sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I don't feel the same way. It is far more expensive to live and work in a place like NY/LA /SF etc than it is in a smaller market, so if jobs are going to shoot here the pay has to reflect that difference. Anymore, if the production doesn't need to be in a major city for some reason (locations, access to actors, convenience for execs) then they probably won't be because crew people in smaller markets can afford to work for less. This is unfortunate, but doesn't change what it costs me to stay in business where I am.

phil p

While I completely understand, this fact doesn't stop people from joining 695, moving where they will, enjoying the benefits of the hollywood basic working where they are taken, and not keeping that money in Los Angeles at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, If you don't like Area Standards why not negotiate a better rate for yourself and your crew? Even us knuckle gragging grips negotiate on rate. If you don't like the rate, don't take the job. Area standards is just a minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Phil said, cost of living varies quite a lot in different markets. Producers want the skill, experience, and equipment that come with a top-tier mixer but they want to pay lower local rates. That's not to say there aren't top-tier mixers in smaller markets but access to equipment is certainly limited in smaller markets.

Boston is certainly not a cheap area to live. I would think Boston rates are right up there with LA and NY rates. If a producer says "work for this low rate or we'll bring in someone else." Spell out exactly what that will cost them for travel, per diem, and hotel. Producers are watching their budget; speak their language and talk dollars and cents with them. Give them the best bang for their buck and show them why YOU are the person for the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carried over from another thread...

We need to hire the facilitator who put together the 600 deal. Contract is up next year. We need to move fast.

Unequal treatment is why I turned down an MOW this time last year. 695 said it was ok for the company to "hire me out of Los Angeles", as they were traveling me and giving me hotel and per diem, but still pay me the area standard of $31.02 per hour. It was less than the lowest paid member of the camera department. I offered to work for the operator rate ($45/hr). Production hired someone else out of Los Angeles for $31.02/hr.

Question is, would Los Angeles and NYC locals be willing to fix rates equal to camera, which might be a reduction in rate on some occasions. I would.

Mixer - Operator (or operator + 10%)

Boom - 'A' 1st AC

Utility - 'A' 2nd AC

Robert,

I feel your pain (along with many other highly qualified mixers who happen to live outside of L.A. or NY.)

The ASA is a double-edged sword... yes, it allows production companies to operate in locales that provide them with cheaper labor (except members of 600 and perhaps the Teamsters), and yes, it's really not 'fair' for a PSM to be making less than an AC.

If a more 'national' sound union were formed, it would likely translate to better rates for many of us... but it might also cost us the very jobs we're after.

Unfortunately, unless someone can provide evidence that there is sufficient incentive for all concerned (within the Sound Locals, as well as the IA as a 'governing body', chances are it won't fly -- the status quo is too convenient for the IA (especially the Locals) who can offer the reduced rates found in the ASA as leverage (insert shiver here) in bringing the production to their area.

I worked with a Mixer who recently got squeezed out of a network episodic (big-3, prime time) show for this very reason. He refused to work for a lower rate than a 2nd AC... I don't blame him, but at the same time, we have to at some point be willing to accept the reality that as long as our field is as saturated (and as a result, competitive) as it is, then we might have to either take what we're given, or change professions.

I know I am more qualified to mix certain productions than some of the Mixers that have been chosen over me -- productions that I really wanted to mix. My better qualifications weren't enough to get me the job -- decisions made by line-producers aren't always based on who is the best person for the job so much as who is the best person they can get for the $. As long as they're sufficiently satisfied with the results, there's no reason for anyone in any kind of decision-making position to stick their neck out and make waves. Their popularity with those local crew members who would have benefited from the formation of a more 'national' sound union (and the resulting increase in rates) would be short-lived as a result of productions eventual lack of interest in doing anything in their area.

It sucks, but unless we can somehow force that change by way of an unprecedented level of solidarity, I just don't see it happening. That said, I would be all for it. How to avoid the 'hunter into hunted' scenario that would likely ensue is a huge can of worms. I'm definitely open to suggestions.

~tt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt: We have this memo written up. Sometimes it works, most of the time not. Regardless, when it is a director's decision to bring someone in I can completely understand. If I had the relationship with said director I would appreciate the same consideration. That being said, when it's simply financial leverage (yes, shudder) it shows how they feel (IMO) about ALL laborers worths. Our rates aren't even close to LA (I was a 695 member before relocating here to be closer to family) I can't speak for rates in New York.

Taylor: Thank you for the great reply. I realize that if you speak with our 600 brothers and sisters, 'nationalizing' isn't always what you might expect it to be, and may not be an answer. That being said, I find something wrong with using leverage to simply not pay someone what they're worth regardless of location. And yes, as Philip said, it is very hard to talk about without regarding location and living expenses. It's just tough because it is becoming, one way or another, a national industry.

Glad I'm not on the front lines negotiating with the studios, that's got to be a tough seat to be in.

I like that this is being discussed, even if nothing comes of it. Open dialog for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I feel your pain (along with many other highly qualified mixers who happen to live outside of L.A. or NY.)

Unfortunately, unless someone can provide evidence that there is sufficient incentive for all concerned (within the Sound Locals, as well as the IA as a 'governing body', chances are it won't fly -- the status quo is too convenient for the IA (especially the Locals) who can offer the reduced rates found in the ASA as leverage (insert shiver here) in bringing the production to their area.

I worked with a Mixer who recently got squeezed out of a network episodic (big-3, prime time) show for this very reason. He refused to work for a lower rate than a 2nd AC... I don't blame him, but at the same time, we have to at some point be willing to accept the reality that as long as our field is as saturated (and as a result, competitive) as it is, then we might have to either take what we're given, or change professions...

~tt

I would have a few very choice words for a line producer who wanted me to work for less than a 2nd AC. And whomever took that job should be flogged.

It's easy to get a higher rate...we all just use that one, very powerful word that always works in our favor: NO. When the line producer can't find a good mixer to work for the pathetic rate they adjust their budget, add more to the sound department, and BAM! we have a reasonable rate. Yes, it does take everyone (or as many as possible) saying no to them. Doctors, lawyers, consultants, etc all charge handsomely for their services (charity work aside) because it is simply understood that you don't give away your skill for free or cheap. They also have a lot of education backing them up, but so do we. Years of on-set experience doesn't come cheap.

It also takes a producer getting burned just once by an inexperienced mixer to come right back to the more expensive, but capable, professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" We need to move fast. "

That (a national sound local L600 style) won't happen, no matter how fast we (on jwsound) move...

What actually may happen, someday, is a merger of L695 (and the few other sound specific locals) into L600. That is also, I strongly believe, the best way for "national sound" to happen.

" the pathetic rate "

that is subjective, especially considering some of the IA contract rates that have been made available via "sideletters" and organizing deals. A lot of folks, even here, would find that rate pretty darn good, even without travel, accommodations and per diem!

note, I'm not discussing what we ought to get, or comparisons to other positions, but just being pragmatic, as the producers are being, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much agree senator it makes sense for us to be in with camera as camera and sound are the people who "get the goods". And I also agree that the sound mixer should make as much if not more than the A camera operator. I believe that national local that included sound and camera would give both of our trades an advantage in negotiating with production companies and also allow for an alliance between camera and sound crews that would benefit us both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have a few very choice words for a line producer who wanted me to work for less than a 2nd AC. And whomever took that job should be flogged.

It's easy to get a higher rate...we all just use that one, very powerful word that always works in our favor: NO. When the line producer can't find a good mixer to work for the pathetic rate they adjust their budget, add more to the sound department, and BAM! we have a reasonable rate. Yes, it does take everyone (or as many as possible) saying no to them. Doctors, lawyers, consultants, etc all charge handsomely for their services (charity work aside) because it is simply understood that you don't give away your skill for free or cheap. They also have a lot of education backing them up, but so do we. Years of on-set experience doesn't come cheap.

It also takes a producer getting burned just once by an inexperienced mixer to come right back to the more expensive, but capable, professional.

Matt,

Unfortunately the problem with what you're suggesting (and it's definitely been suggested before) is that all it takes is one Mixer to accept a lower rate and all our collective power is removed... unless it's mandated by a national rate structure (ie: throw out the ASA) then we really have no recourse, via the IA or otherwise -- and like the Senator said, to some people the ASA rates are pretty damn good. I don't know what it would actually entail, but if we're seriously gonna push for something of this nature, a combined Camera & Sound union sounds like our best bet.

A pipe dream? Who knows, it could happen, right?

Count me in : )

~tt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a company is hiring you out of LA then they need to pay LA (or NYC) rates, not local rates to whatever other area they are shooting in. If they want a local to that area they should hire a local to that area.

So true. They hired a guy in Detroit for the shoot in Detroit. He then got a better gig and bailed. They had nobody else there to choose from. I think, therefore, the penalty for shooting in a cheap state with limited crew should be NOW you have to pay to bring someone in. The IA and Local 695 told this production they were not required to pay me the Los Angeles MOW rate (I live and work out of Los Angeles), telling me "you can always ask for more."

I asked for more. They said they couldn't pay over scale, which was ASA. Sony policy. This is common corporate mandate.

Another mixer from Los Angeles, with a lot more experience than me, took the job, making less than the "loader" AKA digital utility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked for more. They said they couldn't pay over scale, which was ASA. Sony policy. This is common corporate mandate.

Until the contract mandates more money we won't get anymore because they will keep calling around until they find someone due to corporate mandates. Also remember the value of a sound team is far less then any other department almost all producers. I wish the contracts would all mandate a 3 person sound team as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is a discussion we need to be having with OUR union? I feel like all department heads SHOULD be equal, but you know, camera department is the most important department on set ... at least that's what they tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camera is the most important department?

Hmm... Tell me then... How many blockbuster SILENT films have come out in the last 20 years? How many people leave a theatre humming a two-shot?

Yea. That kind of attitude is EXACTLY what we need to work to dispel, and maybe joining our camera brethren is not the best option if we will be looked at as gaining benefit from the marriage, rather than joining as equals.

I'm fully in favor of a more powerful union, across the board. IA is sadly one of the weakest ones, b/c of the world we are in where producers simply CAN just call around until they find that one starving sap who has to take the job just to make rent.

United We Stand, Divided We BEG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Camera is the most important department? "

maybe not the best phrase, but the operation of the set revolves around the DP, who is the highest paid IATSE person on the crew, lying on the border between above the line, and below the line, the DP is also key in all of the aspects of the project from preproduction through post.

that is how it is! :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the fundamental problems with any proposal for a national Local is that rates will probably go DOWN. When 600 was formed, the standardization of rates moved everything towards the middle ground --- New York camera rates, historically higher than Los Angeles, moved down. Since the International would be the one that would initiate this, and the International really represents ITSELF more than its Members, it would probably go the direction of having everyone, nationally, work at the lower rates you are now working at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not sign on to a "national" union local that intended to equalize pay between small and large markets. That might could be the thing that causes me to leave the IA. I agree that the most likely direction for rates to go in a national scenario is down (for me), and that the IA International would cheerfully negotiate a worse deal for me than I already get if it meant they got a bigger piece of the pie (or just kept their slice the same size while mine got smaller). Sorry to be cynical.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" the International really represents ITSELF more than its Members, "

that is the crux of it...

" the IA International would cheerfully negotiate a worse deal for me than I already get if it meant they got a bigger piece of the pie "

The IA NY HQ, aka "the International" measures its success by contributions to H&W, aka their piece of the pie, and have consistently given away all sorts of "stuff" in negotiations to get any little increase in H&W contributions. When organizing, the "International" will accept any "deal" over minimum wage, as long as they get H&W.

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...