Realistic discussion about IA contract...

[RPSharman]

What would top your list of things we could realistically ask for in the next negotiation.

For me, I would like forced calls to return to how they used to be. Regardless of contract or side letter, if your call is forced you remain at double-time until your proper turn around is given. And I would like to prohibit ANY contract to allow 14-hour days before double-time.

We should not tolerate contract allowances which encourage long days and short turn arounds. If the studios are pretending to be concerned with safety, then this should not be a hard sell.

And for the record, I have NEVER had a forced call, so this would have no impact on my income.

Robert

[Paul Graff]

What would top your list of things we could realistically ask for in the next negotiation.

For me, I would like forced calls to return to how they used to be. Regardless of contract or side letter, if your call is forced you remain at double-time until your proper turn around is given. And I would like to prohibit ANY contract to allow 14-hour days before double-time.

We should not tolerate contract allowances which encourage long days and short turn arounds. If the studios are pretending to be concerned with safety, then this should not be a hard sell.

And for the record, I have NEVER had a forced call, so this would have no impact on my income.

Robert

+1 (to all of it, but I bolded the parts that get an extra-loud "Amen!")

Thanks Robert. Now we just have to effectively relay these thoughts to the negotiators. The whole idea of collective bargaining is to enhance the workers' quality of life. Contracts that encourage 75-80 hour weeks do not forward this goal.

So...

>Double-time after 12 hours absolutely. I get this on every non-union job without a problem (1.5 x base wage for hours 8-12 and double-time after 12 hours). And yet the Union gave it away??!! This always blew my mind.

>Negotiated wages for "new media". I really feel that "new media" should fall within existing agreements. Otherwise it creates loopholes and encourages producers to classify projects wherever the contract is the weakest.

>Some amount of minimum time between call time and first shot. I don't know how this could be effectively negotiated, but increasingly I see call times for second units where it has become a given that you have to get there an hour before that call time to be ready on time. In other words, the call time is not a real call time. Especially with unloading gear, moving your truck, etc. I have no problem getting there early, but the call time should reflect that. It has become an expectation on some shows that you work an hour off the clock before your call time.

The union can't into gear rental rates, but that is a whole other ball of wax. Especially taking a weekly rental rate that's based on months of work and dividing it by five to get the daily rate. Certainly not how it works with any rental house. Longer rentals get a break BECAUSE they are longer rentals. Ah well.

Paul

[studiomprd]

While these are excellent issues to discuss, and I, too, strongly support double time always begins after 12 but unfortunately the IA has made a habit of giving that and more away routinely.

one of the major roadblocks here is that many of these issues are negotiated by "the International", not the "Locals", and the majority of the overall membership won't support many of them, like discouraging long days or weeks...

Pre-calls are negotiable, it is pretty difficult to find a global way of dealing with the individual and varying set-up issues contractually, but I believe the contract pretty clearly makes all of the activities mentioned "on-the-clock".

More specific questions for sound to negotiate in their limited role include staffing issues, and covered positions, which we have been losing ground to (thus my support for merger with L600).

[WhyOne]

More specific questions for sound to negotiate in their limited role include staffing issues, and covered positions, which we have been losing ground to (thus my support for merger with L600).

Michael, Gotta believe I'm thinking about our future all the time. One huge 'con' with regards to a merger with 600 is the fact that in 600 the DPs have total control of the electoral process with two votes per DP, and only one vote for anyone else. Do you think any sound member of 600 would be adequately represented? I don't......

Jay

[RPSharman]

Michael, Gotta believe I'm thinking about our future all the time. One huge 'con' with regards to a merger with 600 is the fact that in 600 the DPs have total control of the electoral process with two votes per DP, and only one vote for anyone else. Do you think any sound member of 600 would be adequately represented? I don't......

Jay

+1

The more I considered it, the more I realized how outnumbered we'd be.

A cautionary tale is that of the Script Supervisors who let Production Coordinators into their union. The PCs outnumbered the Scripties, and soon took over leadership. In negotiating a raise for PCs, they tried to "exchange" several benefits enjoyed by Script Supervisors.

Robert

[MatthewFreedAudio]

What has 695 gained for its members over the past few years in exchange for various items given up?

[afewmoreyears]

F-ck the 400 hours...... Back to 300..... that's my beef.... Not the only one, but the biggest... I still can't believe anyone voted for that... It is clearly meant to scrub the plans of participants..

[wolfvid]

Unionism is dead. The IATSE will cease to exist much sooner than we think.

read this :

Who is worried about a health plan if unions are on the way out under Obamas. Another shining moment where our president demonstrated he no balls:

NYT:

December 16, 2011

Crippling the Right to Organize

By WILLIAM B. GOULD IV

Stanford, Calif.

UNLESS something changes in Washington, American workers will, on New Year’s Day, effectively lose their right to be represented by a union. Two of the five seats on the National Labor Relations Board, which protects collective bargaining, are vacant, and on Dec. 31, the term of Craig Becker, a labor lawyer whom President Obama named to the board last year through a recess appointment, will expire. Without a quorum, the Supreme Court ruled last year, the board cannot decide cases.

What would this mean?

Workers illegally fired for union organizing won’t be reinstated with back pay. Employers will be able to get away with interfering with union elections. Perhaps most important, employers won’t have to recognize unions despite a majority vote by workers. Without the board to enforce labor law, most companies will not voluntarily deal with unions.

If this nightmare comes to pass, it will represent the culmination of three decades of Republican resistance to the board — an unwillingness to recognize the fundamental right of workers to band together, if they wish, to seek better pay and working conditions. But Mr. Obama is also partly to blame; in trying to install partisan stalwarts on the board, as his predecessors did, he is all but guaranteeing that the impasse will continue. On Wednesday, he announced his intention to nominate two pro-union lawyers to the board, though there is no realistic chance that either can gain Senate confirmation anytime soon.

For decades after its creation in 1935, the board was a relatively fair arbiter between labor and capital. It has protected workers’ right to organize by, among other things, overseeing elections that decide on union representation. Employers may not engage in unfair labor practices, like intimidating organizers and discriminating against union members. Unions are prohibited, too, from doing things like improperly pressuring workers to join.

The system began to run into trouble in the 1970s. Employers found loopholes that enabled them to delay the board’s administrative proceedings, sometimes for years. Reforms intended to speed up the board’s resolution of disputes have repeatedly foundered in Congress.

The precipitous decline of organized labor — principally a result of economic forces, not legal ones — cemented unions’ dependence on the board, despite its imperfections. Meanwhile, business interests, represented by an increasingly conservative Republican Party, became more assertive in fighting unions.

The board became dysfunctional. Traditionally, members were career civil servants or distinguished lawyers and academics from across the country. But starting in the Reagan era, the board’s composition began to tilt toward Washington insiders like former Congressional staff members and former lobbyists.

Starting with a compromise that allowed my confirmation in 1994, the board’s members and general counsel have been nominated in groups. In contrast to the old system, the new “batching” meant that nominees were named as a package acceptable to both parties. As a result, the board came to be filled with rigid ideologues. Some didn’t even have a background in labor law.

Under President George W. Bush, the board all but stopped using its discretion to obtain court orders against employers before the board’s own, convoluted, administrative process was completed — a power that, used fairly, is a crucial protection for workers. In 2007, in what has been called the September Massacre, the board issued rulings that made it easier for employers to block union organizing and harder for illegally fired employees to collect back pay. Democratic senators then blocked Mr. Bush from making recess appointments to the board, as President Bill Clinton had done. For 27 months, until March 2010, the board operated with only two members; in June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that it needed at least three to issue decisions.

Under Mr. Obama, the board has begun to take enforcement more seriously, by pursuing the court orders that the board under Mr. Bush had abandoned. Sadly, though, the board has also been plagued by unnecessary controversy. In April, the acting general counsel issued a complaint over Boeing’s decision to build airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina, following a dispute with Boeing machinists in Washington State. Although the complaint was dropped last week after the machinists reached a new contract agreement with Boeing, the controversy reignited Republican threats to cut financing for the board.

In my view, the complaint against Boeing was legally flawed, but the threats to cut the board’s budget represent unacceptable political interference. The shenanigans continue: last month, before the board tentatively approved new proposals that would expedite unionization elections, the sole Republican member threatened to resign, which would have again deprived the board of a quorum.

Mr. Obama needs to make this an election-year issue; if the board goes dark in January, he should draw attention to Congressional obstructionism during the campaign and defend the board’s role in protecting employees and employers. A new vision for labor-management cooperation must include not only a more powerful board, but also a less partisan one, with members who are independent and neutral experts. Otherwise, the partisan morass will continue, and American workers will suffer.

William B. Gould IV, a law professor at Stanford, was chairman of the National Labor Relations Board from 1994 to 1998.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/opinion/crippling-the-right-to-organize.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/opinion/crippling-the-right-to-organize.html

[studiomprd]

Watch for recess appointments from Hawai'i...

[RPSharman]

F-ck the 400 hours...... Back to 300..... that's my beef.... Not the only one, but the biggest... I still can't believe anyone voted for that... It is clearly meant to scrub the plans of participants..

That's exactly what it is, but health care is where we will continue to lose. So we MUST get something in return. Better working conditions need to be what we go for.

[studiomprd]

" we MUST get something in return. "

well, we should get something in return, and it probably won't be higher rates, either!

" Better working conditions... "

... there are two areas to negotiate them, The main (global) IA negotiations is where the action is,--mostly behind closed doors, BTW) and the brief (1/2 day +/-) L695 negotiation is mostly for show, and only for issues specific to our charter, which pretty much means the continuing battle over staffing (3 person crew) and such, maybe even video issues...

In the global negotiations we are greatly outnumbered in members, and influence.

.

[RPSharman]

Yes, but surely our 695 leadership, and those of the regional locals, can pass along any good ideas?

So, I ask again, what are some things we could reasonably ask for? Then perhaps we can pass along our thoughts. These should likely be "global" ideas.

Robert

[studiomprd]

" 695 leadership, and those of the regional locals "

are you forgetting the other Hollywood Locals?? most other regional locals are not involved in the Hollywood Basic agreement negotiations.

of course our leadership may pass along thoughts and ideas, but understand: " In the global negotiations we are greatly outnumbered in members, and way outgunned in influence. ".

and ultimately: the contract is negotiated " mostly behind closed doors "... It was always that way with Nick Counter and Tommy Short, and I get the feeling only the names of the players has changed.

[RPSharman]

Yes, yes, yes. I get it.

But ideas can be presented, by us, by them, by you, by me, whomever.

I am hoping to perhaps get a sensible list of ideas that might be presented to those in "power" to see if we can try to get something back this time around.

I'm honestly a bit surprised by the lack of interest in this thread.

I know the IA suits might not give a shit, but I'm asking for us to give it a try. Otherwise we might as well prepare to accept minimum wage plus crappy managed health care.

Robert

[studiomprd]

" try to get something back "

a nobel but unrealistic dream!

sorry to be blunt, but I have been there (negotiations).

At this point all we realistically can do is hope to limit our losses, which I see as about inevitable in todays climate..

" accept minimum wage plus crappy managed health care "

I don't agree, and doubt that you do, either...2% is the new 3% in annual wage increases, and sadly, there is pressure (downward) on that!

As you noted, you have had a good year and it has been on IA shows.

The health care remains a Cadillac plan in the world of health care plans (which are all taking these major hits!)

and in its quest for increasing its measurement of success, H&W contributions, the IA ("International") will continue to give away everything else, both in contracts and side letters...

Qualifying hours ?? we said goodbye to them last time, and nothing is coming back... It is all about limiting losses right now...

As for limiting work hours, the members of the "Hollywood Locals" overwhelming support maximum OT...

I guess that makes me a fatalist, realistically, when it come to this, which, BTW, is the same for SAG-AFTRA, and even the DGA + Writers guild... and, yes, even the Teamsters.

[MatthewFreedAudio]

I am not in 695 but I am trying to learn as much as I can about it so as to make an informed decision about joining or not.

I highly agree with Robert and I would love to see what helpful ideas can be brought to the table to make gains in the working conditions of sound mixers.

Senator, I really hope you have no part in the negotiations. Being a naysayer helps no one and just throwing up your hands and saying "well, it looks like an uphill battle so just give up now!" is a lousy attitude to take. I would think with your years of experience you would know better and be craftier about how to accomplish improvements within the IA contracts. Evidently not.

[afewmoreyears]

It's like standing on a football field and arguing a penalty after another play has started.... It is that futile... I could care less anymore.... A- FEW -more- years and they can all have a large home drop on their heads...

[studiomprd]

" I really hope you have no part in the negotiations. "

I said: I have been there (negotiations). PAST TENSE... Oh, yeah, I went in full of Piss and Vinegar... and learned the way it is...

People, on our side, looking at it realistically inderstand we are trying to stop the hemmorhaging...minimize the losses. And like Obama with Iraq, declare victory, no matter how bad it really is!

[Mirror]

Yes, yes, yes. I get it.

But ideas can be presented, by us, by them, by you, by me, whomever.

I am hoping to perhaps get a sensible list of ideas that might be presented to those in "power" to see if we can try to get something back this time around.

I'm honestly a bit surprised by the lack of interest in this thread.

I know the IA suits might not give a shit, but I'm asking for us to give it a try. Otherwise we might as well prepare to accept minimum wage plus crappy managed health care.

Robert

If "WE" really wanted things to change then why do "WE" keep voting in the same crowd? Osbourne? Really? I'd vote for anyone but him. He's the guy that said 400 hrs isn't bad.

[RPSharman]

If "WE" really wanted things to change then why do "WE" keep voting in the same crowd? Osbourne? Really? I'd vote for anyone but him. He's the guy that said 400 hrs isn't bad.

Clearly a voting majority elected Jim. No sure who those people were, but it was apparently enough.

I would like ALL non-clerical positions to be filled by working members of our union. It's obvious the climate has changed, and some people are grossly out of touch and dwell on the successes of the "glory days".

What are your ideas, Mirror?

Robert

[studiomprd]

" I would like ALL non-clerical positions to be filled by working members of our union. "

the weakness of this good idea is that we would have a lot of absenteeism, there is already a lot of this with the officers and directors...

[Mirror]

Resurrect John Coffey's dad. Zombie Coffey for IA President. Some serious shit would get accomplished. We've become to pussified for his likes these days I'm afraid.

[David Waelder]

" I would like ALL non-clerical positions to be filled by working members of our union. "

the weakness of this good idea is that we would have a lot of absenteeism, there is already a lot of this with the officers and directors...

I'm not sure that I understand the idea Robert is suggesting.

Mike seems to interpret it as meaning that all the supervisory staff should be actively working and accepting sound/ video/projection assignments while in the office. So, Scott Bernard, the Assistant Business Representative, would interrupt his work visiting sets or responding to inquiries about the contract to take work assignments at, say, Warner's. And Laurence Abrams, the Education Coordinator, would suspend his Fisher boom classes (etc.) to take an occasional boom operating assignment. I think the hazard of this program is obvious. One need only attend an occasional Board meeting to note the Board members absent because they are on location.

Or, it could be that Robert is recommending that the candidates for these positions be drawn from the working membership. But this is already the case. Jim Osburn has been our Business Representative for quite some time now so he doesn't have recent production experience. But he was Mark Ulano's Utility on Titanic so he certainly qualifies as a working member of the Local.

Perhaps Robert was thinking more along the lines of term limits so that the individuals working for the Local don't become calcified in their positions. Like in the legislature this is a practice that has both benefits and liabilities.

David

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

Robert,

I respect your point of view and pardon me if I'm wrong, but when was the last Quarterly Membership meeting you attended? If you want to see change within the local you can always run for an Executive Board seat or as an Officer in the next election cycle. Or raise the question at a Quarterly meeting.

How many have ever read the local's Constitution and By Laws?

I serve on the Board not for any other reason than to see how our Local is run and make change possible from within.

Making a wish list of what our contract should be, or should have been is a wonderful exercise, but it lacks any understanding of how the process of the negotiations are conducted between the IA and the AMPTP.

You can always call the local and make an appointment with Jim Osburn and or Scott Bernard and have a one on one discussion on how it works.

Many of us who have been long time IA members have seen huge roll backs and give aways going back over 25 years. One could easily argue that it is the fault of the International or even our own local. But the reality is that it is due to the ground rules on how these negotiations take place and the rules are set by the employer, the AMPTP.

Scott Smith has written a wonderful series of articles on the History of Local 695 that takes you back to the very beginning of the IA in Hollywood. You will see the enormous struggle that was fought to get a union and that struggle still exists today. Parts 1 - 3 are in the 695 Quarterly; Fall 2010, Winter 2011 and Spring 2011 http://695quarterly.com/previous-issues/

The bottom line is that it is your Local and if you are so determined to see change, then get involved, attend meetings, talk to your Local rep and maybe even volunteer your time to serve on the Board. Believe me, it's worth the effort and is a real eye opener.

[Jeff Wexler]

I salute you, Richard, your statement above is the clearest, most thoughtful and realistic statement under this topic. I could not have said it better. Helpful as well with historical perspective and suggestions of how to understand the situation we find ourselves in.

Thank you.