SEE ALSo :http://www.votedownthecontract.com/

CAMERA OPERATORS POSITION THREATENED TO BE ELIMINATED 

BY PRODUCERS AGREEMENT

An attempt was made to include language in the Producers/IATSE agreement that would 

effectively eliminate one of the important positions on the movie set, that of the camera operator.

The effective elimination of the camera operator position would save the producers substantial 

monies and eliminate a crucial position forcing the Cinematographer away from the side of the 

director and into a dual role, challenging the artistic abilities of the camera crews and the 

production as a whole. It would also eliminate a whole country of camera operators taking their 

livelihood and benefits and retirement away.

In a historically unprecedented move, the elected officials of the camera union (IATSE 600) voted 

not to accept the producer’s agreement.

It will take the support of at least half of the other 17 guilds involved with this contract to vote 

against the basic agreement if the camera operator job is to be saved

.

Ballots to the individual members of all 18 guilds will be sent in the near future. 

The producers are said to be confidentially betting on 2 factors:

a) Recently each the 18 unions have been basically self-serving and have never united, allowing 

producers to whittle away at the individual unions agreements.

b) Lack of communications. The Camera local’s members are still mostly unaware of the 

existence of the problem and there is no inter-union communication that could lead to a common 

vote. Each union is unaware of the other union’s deals.

On the other hand this move does not bode well with the producers who are to go into 

negotiations with the actors union later this year. This may be a foreshadow of a “eight thousand 

pound gorilla sitting on the fence”.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CINEMATOGRAPHERS GUILD WILL NOT ENDORSE HOLLYWOOD BASIC  AGREEMENT

LOS ANGELES, January 22 - The International Cinematographers Guild,  

IATSE Local 600's National Executive Board rejected the producers'  attack on members' 

jobs and voted unanimously this weekend to  recommend against ratifying the producers' 

proposed 2006-2009 contract.

The contract as offered to the Guild's Board on Saturday presented a  radical departure 

from the standard practice of employing Camera  Operators in the industry. 

In an unprecedented move and by unanimous vote, the NEB recommended 

that their 5500 members reject the contract.

Cinematography leaders have refused to endorse the IATSE Basic Agreement because 

the new contract allows for the possible elimination of a union camera operator on 

features and TV. 

The Intl. Cinematographers Guild, operating as Local 600 of the Intl.  

Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, has about 5,700 eligible members, and it is one

 of the most prominent below-the-line Hollywood unions, with coverage of  camera 

crews and publicists.  

The Hollywood Basic Agreement, which covers 18 West Coast locals, has never  been 

rejected at the ratification stage. IATSE negotiators had reached an accord  last month 

with studios and nets for a three-year deal that would replace the  current pact, which

 expires Aug. 1.  

No date's been set for sending out the contract for ratification. Should the  members fail 

to ratify the contract, IATSE leaders would be in a tricky spot --  they'd have to seek a 

contract extension or persuade studios and nets to return  to the bargaining table to 

negotiate a deal that would pass muster with the  IATSE membership

.  

The ICG's opposition, which emerged at a weekend meeting, stems mostly from  the new 

pact's elimination of a requirement that union camera operators be hired  for features and 

TV. Though final contract language hasn't been released, the  vote by Local 600 could 

lead to further opposition in solidarity with the camera  operators. 

The ICG said the proposed contract is a "radical departure" from the standard practice of 

employing union camera operators. Opponents of ratification contended that the new pact 

would allow directors of photography to operate  cameras much more than under current 

rules, along with making it more difficult for camera assistants to gain advancement. 

 IATSE president Tom Short did not appear at the national exec board meeting  and 

wasn't available for comment Monday.  

Short, who's held the IATSE post since 1994, had been the lead negotiator in  the 

bargaining of the new pact with the Alliance of Motion Picture &  Television Producers. 

He's been an advocate of making agreements long before  contracts expire, contending 

that employers are more likely to include the best  possible terms at that point in 

exchange for stability.  

Other key terms of the tentative deal:  

·                   wage hikes of 75˘ per hour in the first year and 3% in the second and third years  

·                    

·                   hikes of 0.5% in the second year and 0.5% in contributions to the

·                    Individual Account Plan;  

·                    

·                   a 10% increase in pension payments along with hikes in contributions 

·                    

to the health plan and defined-benefit pension plan  

·                   an increase in meal penalties  

·                    

    * a roster change that allows members to go three years without working instead of the 

current two years without being dropped  

·         an increase in medical provider co-payments and prescription drug  co-payments for members. 

The unanimous vote by the ICG board caught union insiders off-guard. The guild was 

politically split two years ago when Gary Dunham won as president by a 52%-48% 

margin over Stephen Lighthill, after  Dunham's campaign stressed the need for a more

 confrontational stance on  fighting runaway production. Lighthill was among the exec

 board members voting against ratification over  the weekend.  Other key locals covered 

by the Hollywood Basic Agreement include Local 44  (property), with 5,600 members; 

Local 80 (grip), with 2,100; Local 683 (lab  techs), 1,100; Local 695 (sound), 1,500;

 Local 700 (editors), 6,000; Local 728  (electric), 2,100; Local 729 (set painters), 1,000; 

Local 839 (animation),  1,700; and Local 871 (script supervisors), 1,300  members.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It would seem that the producers could tighten their own belts and do

 without a secretary if they are in such need to save money, they can

 answer their own phones and make their own plane reservations. Perhaps 

they could get rid of their janitors as well and empty their own trash.

 It seems idiotic to get rid of a key position an a production that 

makes them their money. 

So far the other unions appear not to be voting with us in this matter.

 Therefore, we (600) will loose the ultimate vote without their

 support. Just because 600 does not approve does not mean it will not 

happen. We all have to talk  about this to all of our friends in the 

different departments (locals) on the crews we are working with, so we

 can defeat  the contract and save the Camera Operator position. Talk 

to your gaffer friends, your grip brothers, the teamster who drives 

your truck. Even the actors, and directors and producers can have an 

opinion and their friends can sway the producer’s side to remove this 

horrible addendum to the contract. Spread the word to everyone you know.

If this can happen to the camera local this could happen to them.

We need to stick together and show solidarity.

 Remember that at least half of the other members of the 17 locals in 

Hollywood have to vote NO to, for this contract to be defeated.  

Remember, there is no more powerful force than word of mouth

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is going to affect us all,. If they can get rid of the camera operators then none of our jobs are safe. Im going to back brother camera.

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

John,

You are right ..It is people like YOU that we need to protect and return their privileges. Still photographers are our brothers and a blind eye has been turned. We must change this progression of loss and turn the tide of change.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here is a thought from a Producer’s standpoint, who recently attempted to put together a budget for a UNION production shooting in the U.S. for a week and a half, then overseas for 4 weeks.  The unions are no longer looking out for what is best for the industry as a whole, and their blatant disregard for the needs of a changing industry are probably going to be the signposts for its demise.

 

For one thing, what you all are concerned about is the elimination of MANDATORY crew hires.  From the producer’s standpoint, you are forcing me to pay a crew member to be on set when I will not use them and do not need them.  At union rates and with the overtime schedules, that one person could cost me as much as $5000/wk if we are doing 6 day weeks, 12 hours each (which is standard for indie films). 

 

In order to better understand what this means, a little history is required.  In the early days of Hollywood, and when the unions were formed, there was no FILM SCHOOL, and training for job skills that are akin to those today was through the locals. 

 

Enter film school in the 70s and 80s, and today.  Now, most of your brethren in the unions who are under a certain age are the result of film students who have aspirations to be directors of photography, production designers, and various other key creative crew who found themselves joining a union in order to keep a regular paycheck.

 

The CAMERA OPERATOR was a role that made a lot of sense when camera operation was a technical skill that could only be obtained through experience and/or apprenticeship within the union structure.  In that case, the DP was an artist and not a skilled laborer, and commonly did not wish to be concerned with handling the camera itself… and may not have ever needed to do so.

 

Film school teaches students to load film into a camera, light scenes and cut film (or use a NLE).  Film school teaches many of the disciplines of the trade in a combined course of production techniques.  Students who graduate from a film school have already a strong knowledge of cameras, film, video, and lighting techniques and technology.  To learn to be a Director of Photography and never touch a camera is unheard of in the film school context.  Today, handheld has become more common than not, and more and more DPs are the result of film school graduates across the world who operate themselves.

 

Now, as a producer, I am always concerned with the bottom-line, but as a film school graduate, and as a strong supporter of the film industry at large, I want to see the industry continue to prosper, and us all to have jobs for many years to come.  If I hire a DP and he (or she) wishes to operate, then why would I argue against it?  Some DPs prefer to do so, and others prefer not.  No one is eliminating the role, but we are asking to make it optional. 

 

I recently produced a short film and we had a separate operator – a job role that I did not think ever existed on a short, especially considering that my operator had done 90% of the prep-work, because the DP was unavailable until days before the shoot.  In the end, the DP did operate himself because my operator due to a lack of sleep and over-exertion became ill two days into production on a 4 day shoot.

 

I write this all because I am deeply concerned that the unions have abandoned independent films in their interest to continue to put pressure on the studios, and such a choice has encouraged me to start to have my own voice.  SAG recognized the importance of indie films, and formed a new organization within the whole called SAGindie, to continue to allow producers access to their membership even when they do not have the resources of the major studios. 

I am a union supporter, but I think that union as a labor organization should do well to adapt to changes and come up with better solutions for the problems of the industry today than to hold onto old traditions.  The latter approach is encouraging and not discouraging runaway production. 

Just my $0.02, but this issue really bothers me.  I called the unions to try to negotiate an agreement to help make my low-budget film union, but they could not accommodate me, yet they indicated that there was still the possibliity of a strike if I choose non-union.  Lots of people are refusing to even join the union today because of policies like this.

 

-
Jim Kass
Alternative Reality Productions
http://www.alternativereality.com

jimk@alternativereality.com
(818)384-6350
 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx