Ballots Going Into IATSE Members Hands — But NOT Memorandum Of Agreement

COMMENTS (37)

• I have about a million words printed up on the Facebook site if you would like to read my response there. If you have a FB account and aren’t on that group friend request me and I’ll invite you.

  Comment by Calvin Starnes — Thursday February 26, 2009 @ 4:30pm PST  Reply to this post

• Well, John, if that’s your real name, if you really think the IA was so prescient in 2008 as to forecast the economic disaster of 2009, why can’t the IA foresee the DISASTER in 2012 it is agreeing to in 2009?

  And John, whatever you may think of the deals the DGA, WGA, and AFTRA settled for, they are way better than the deal the AMPTP is making its bitch, the IA, swallow.

  And yes, John, it is far better to work under the current contract than the horrorshow the proposed contract represents.

  Comment by Lionel Mandrake — Thursday February 26, 2009 @ 7:54pm PST  Reply to this post

• Yeah, John, I’d rather keep working under the old contract than agree to increase the 300 hours to 400 hours a quarter necessary to get the six-month eligibility, because I’m going to be among the hard pressed to keep my medical insurance. And I’m sure the measly 3% they are offering will be eaten away by the 2.5 times rather than 2 times monthly co-pay on prescriptions that will become mandatory through the mail, let alone overwhelmed on those times you have to go on Cobra when you don’t make the hours. Makes me wonder if you even belong to the union or are just an outsider trying to force us into a bad contract.

  The IA didn’t choose to negotiate when the economy was stronger. Tom Short chose to negotiate a year early as a final feather in his cap before retirement. I thought it very ominous that after he started negotiating, he decided to retire without finishing the negotiations rather than try to shove this contract down our throats. That should tell you something, if you indeed belong to this union.

  I don’t want to strike, but I also never authorized the union leaders to make these kind of concessions and the only way we can be heard on that is to vote ‘no’.

  If that means that we lose our pay raise (which I sincerely doubt will happen when you are talking 3%… what are they going to do, drop it to 2%?), we’d still be better off with keeping our grasp on 300 hours. Have you priced Cobra payments recently?

  And you should think seriously about that, because even if you are working every day now, that can easily change, with new media and runaway production, but once you’ve given away the farm…

  Comment by vote no — Thursday February 26, 2009 @ 7:54pm PST  Reply to this post

• this contract sucks ass! why do you think Kutak and everyone else is trying to shove it down our throats and threatening us with lies about “a no vote is a vote to strike”??? They know it’s a piece of shit and that’s why they rushed the meetings with the membership before the MOA was made available…so they could dictate the terms to the membership and no one would be able to question it.

  It’s total crap.

  has anyone else noticed that union reps are increasing their presence at union facilities??? funny that they only come around at times like these!!!

  Comment by mixer — Thursday February 26, 2009 @ 9:38pm PST  Reply to this post

• A contract by law should be fair and equitable for all parties concerned, clearly this has not been the case for too many years.

  When I first joined the union they stressed the fact that I could not bargain for any rate lower than the prevailing scale pay; why did my representatives take it upon themselves to negotiate for all of the lower rate contracts we are now working under? Currently my income is less than I was making in the nineteen eighties.

  Comment by Matt — Friday February 27, 2009 @ 10:31am PST  Reply to this post

• As a member of Studio Utilities Local 724 I better not see a Cameraman sweeping the stage or a electrician dead-striking a set. Local 724 is not part of IATSE.

  Comment by Yosemite — Friday February 27, 2009 @ 3:48pm PST  Reply to this post

• Our union has done everything possible to help the AMPTP undermine those in the Camera Guild and divide the Camera Guild from the other Guilds. It’s sent out newsletters criticizing other unions (WGA, SAG) for not just rolling over and taking what the AMPTP served up. It’s blamed the WGA’s strike and not the AMPTP’s forcing of the strike for the current woes in the business. I’ve never once received any criticism of the egregious AMPTP from Local 600 leadership but I constantly get mailings criticizing anyone and everyone who dares stand up to them.
  The most recent mailing sprinkled fear in with the overall pro-AMPTP propaganda. “We better agree to these rollbacks or they’ll take more away from us!” They send out a ballot without linking to the document even IATSE has posted that really spell out the ‘new media’ implications of this offer. They seem to have the resources to send out anti-SAG and anti-WGA propaganda. Why can’t they get this vital memorandum out to members?
  What is the point of paying dues to a union that’s so willing to let the AMPTP use ‘new media’ to destroy whatever power that union had? It’s truly unbelievable.
  Members are screwed whether they vote yes to this contract or no. At least a no vote will get us all a DIGNIFIED screwing!

  Comment by Local 600 member — Friday February 27, 2009 @ 5:41pm PST  Reply to this post

• Part 4. Productions Made for New Media
  A. Recognition
  The Producers recognize the IATSE as the EXCLUSIVE representatives of
  employees..
  D. Terms and Conditions of Employment on Original New Media Productions are FREELY negotiable between the Employee and the Producer…

  Translation: All the IA gives a shit about is collecting money (dues and initiation fees) from its members. Period.

  Comment by Billy — Friday February 27, 2009 @ 6:03pm PST  Reply to this post

• To Billy,
  Out of all the comments left so far, my earlier one included, yours is the most concise and prescient. All of us working and non-working IATSE members continue to pay DUES to an organization which does not represent our best interests. (Kinda like “protection money” in Godfather 2.”) Vote NO.
  Umberto

  Comment by umberto — Saturday February 28, 2009 @ 9:47am PST  Reply to this post

• The problem is everyone wants to WORK-but there are NO jobs-

  The Producers GREED has now CUT many jobs.

  If they want us to get 400 hours then MAKE MORE JOBS-
  Don’t shoot in another country. Don’t cut the crew back.

  Allocate enough money in Post Production to hire a competent crew.

  The Post Production Crew once had a crew of 15 is NOW reduced to 6.
  The Camera Assistants and Sound Assistants are reduced to one person taking on a job that was a 3 person job-
  If they want to insure we all have jobs then I don’t mind the 400 hours-
  BUT there is NO WORK!! SO HOW DO WE GET THE HOURS?

  We want to work to put food on the table and send our kids to college BUT the Hollywood Greed is slowly Killing the UNION.

  This all leads down the road to NON UNION work-

  Comment by Soundwhore 700 — Saturday February 28, 2009 @ 10:33am PST  Reply to this post

• Okay, now I’ve read this memo and it’s worse than I thought. Anything falling under this enormously broad definition of “new media” essentially leaves members working under NON-UNION CONDITIONS AND TERMS but PAYING DUES for the privilege.
  Once more: working under NON-UNION CONDITIONS AND TERMS but PAYING DUES for the privilege.
  PLEASE: Every member, take 25 minutes and READ the memorandum from the POV of someone who intends to use the “new media” definition to hire union crews for rates below anything you’ve ever seen. Read it from the POV of someone who will make demands of you that would once have had you screaming foul to your rep. It doesn’t take much imagination. Got buddies working non-union reality shows? Imagine you’re getting the same deal AND paying ICG dues.
  Nikki, if there’s any public awareness of this stuff beyond the Guild and AMPTP leadership and a handful of wonky members, it will be because of you. The “trades” won’t touch on how bad this contract is. The MSM doesn’t care. I’d assumed, “the contract’s probably shitty but it’s not worth voting no over.” And I would have voted yes and assumed that until it was too late if you weren’t covering this.
  I’d like to hear what Local 600 and IATSE leaders have to say about the changes this contract represents. So far as I know, they’ve taken a page from the Bush/Cheney book and just said, “No need for a lot of confusing INFORMATION, just TRUST US.”
  It would be sad if IATSE rank and file voted yes because this contract seems like the least worst option. Maybe it is and that would be sad. But it would be tragic if the rank and file voted yes because they didn’t know what a yes vote was really giving up. “Old Media” is over. “New Media” is the future. And this contract gives away the future.

  Comment by Local 600 member — Saturday February 28, 2009 @ 12:12pm PST  Reply to this post

• I especially like the part in the agreement that states that if new media starts to become profitable,”then the parties mutually recognize that future agreements should reflect that fact.”
  Is this along the same lines as the HBO agreement that got so much better for us once HBO started making money?
  The only reason that our union and the producers treat us with such contempt is that we let them. We have consistently voted to compromise our own working conditions contract after contract and it should come as no surprise that our own union should consider us stupid enough to accept this insultingly bad proposal just as we always have. At some point we must stand up for ourselves no matter how tough it might be in the short term because to not do so will be painful for the rest of our lives.
  Vote NO

  Comment by A Grip — Saturday February 28, 2009 @ 1:04pm PST  Reply to this post