Writer's Guild Going on Strike

[Eric Coughlin]

On the subject of producers telling you guys (Eric and alaskacameradude) that they are paying "union rates"...on what kind of jobs? Local 600 doesn't have rate scales for commercials, corporates, industrials, docs etc. There are a good 10 different rate cards covering a variety of television and feature projects, and there are different rates for Western, Eastern and Central regions. The closest thing to a standard union rate would be the Basic Agreement, which is currently $126.90/hr, 8 hr minimum call. But if the type of work you are being asked to do would not fall under what the Basic Agreement covers, it's pretty much irrelevant. They could simply say the rate we budgeted is $1000 day, versus saying we used a union rate. It doesn't matter either way. They put a number into a budget and that's what they want to pay. Whether it is a signatory or non-signatory job, you or your agent have every right to counter that rate with a higher one. As Doug is pointing out, it's just a basement number and somehow suggesting that the union is a bad thing because they say that is a strange way to think about it. What if they offered $600 instead? With gear? Like plenty of jobs do now? Has nothing to do with the union, has everything to do with the producers and their budgeting.

Difficult to recall for sure as these are occasional calls over the years, but corporate, broadcast, documentary, commercial, maybe movies but probably not as much. Maybe broadcast the most, network television, reality TV.

I think ya'll are getting a bit hung up on if the union is directly to blame or not. Let's just imagine the union is totally blameless, perfect saints, but, there is still a trend where union jobs pay less, then, again, it wouldn't inspire me to join or support unions.

Once I start getting regular $2500 labor rate offers for union jobs with an additional $2500 and upwards per day for my equipment rental, and am missing out because I'm not union, then I would consider joining a union (if I wasn't currently in the process of quitting freelance DPing), but I never got enough good union offers to want to join, while I have regularly gotten those rates and higher on non-union jobs (though 2023 has been a pretty crappy year as far as fully budgeted freelance DP clients compared to 2022 and 2021).

 

[alaskacameradude]

Most of the best zombie movies have a greater subtext that they are exploring. Yeah they can be mindless entertainment, but what's wrong with that? Surfing is mindless. Driving a car fast in circles is mindless. There's nothing wrong with entertainment for it's own sake.

We have told each other stories since the beginning of humanity. It's one of the most human things we do.

Doing a commercial or a corporate doco means you're using the craft of storytelling to directly sell a product or a message, something that leads to direct commerce. That's a big difference in my view and changes everything about how you work.

Nothing is WRONG with mindless entertainment. I was merely saying it wasn't somehow 'automatically more desirable to work
on' than other forms of video production such as a doc or branded film.

I've worked on commercials and narrative drama. Commercials have Clients, Agency producers and Production company producers on set telling the director what to do, literally shot by shoot.

The difference is you don't have a "client" monitor on a narrative set. The storytelling you're doing is for its own sake, not to sell widgets. In movies the director tends to be answerable only to themselves. The few times I've seen producers or studios get involved its a lot more respectful. TV is a bit different because you do have showrunners.

Not to take away at all from commercials and corporate doco because I've sure done those as well. I just prefer when the creative decisions are just about what's best for storytelling, not what's best for making money.

Um.....it's typically not called a 'client' monitor....instead a 'director's' monitor. And if you are the DP (because that's what I do, I'm not a director)
you are answerable to the client on one hand or the director on the other. Either way, it's not really MY project and I basically have to do
it the way THEY want it done. Not much different.

I am in this business because I love storytelling, I love being a part of a team and collaborating on a creative outcome. For a long time I didn't get paid very well for what I did but I didn't care because I was involved in making images that entertain, that people remember and celebrate. I love doing this with friends, going through extreme working conditions and emotionally elevated circumstance to try and solve story telling problems finding ways to elevate the work of my cohort and peers. I'm not in the "business" for making money because there are so many better ways of making money out there than this.

Good for you, seriously I'm happy you like it. Everyone has things that appeal to them and when you find them, it's awesome to
be able to do those things as your career.

Still with this BS? Sorry but only I set my rate of pay. It has nothing to do with what the union sets as a minimum rate of pay (and conditions), just like minimum pay doesn't mean we're all communists working for the same minimum rate. Do you work for minimum wage? You don't. Does having a minimum wage determine what you charge? Because that's your logic here.

Seriously? Why would I lie about this? You think I really care that much what you think? It has happened....and happened multiple times
to me. Unless you are saying it is 'BS' that they try and tell me the maximum they will pay is x$ per day because that is 'Union rate' in
which case I agree. Basically BS. Maybe just an excuse to try and lowball me, but they literally have sent me a rate sheet which
showed their 'union operator' rates on them, so if that is the case, they at least went to a little effort to make it appear legit.

 

[alaskacameradude]

On the subject of producers telling you guys (Eric and alaskacameradude) that they are paying "union rates"...on what kind of jobs? Local 600 doesn't have rate scales for commercials, corporates, industrials, docs etc. There are a good 10 different rate cards covering a variety of television and feature projects, and there are different rates for Western, Eastern and Central regions. The closest thing to a standard union rate would be the Basic Agreement, which is currently $126.90/hr, 8 hr minimum call. But if the type of work you are being asked to do would not fall under what the Basic Agreement covers, it's pretty much irrelevant. They could simply say the rate we budgeted is $1000 day, versus saying we used a union rate. It doesn't matter either way. They put a number into a budget and that's what they want to pay. Whether it is a signatory or non-signatory job, you or your agent have every right to counter that rate with a higher one. As Doug is pointing out, it's just a basement number and somehow suggesting that the union is a bad thing because they say that is a strange way to think about it. What if they offered $600 instead? With gear? Like plenty of jobs do now? Has nothing to do with the union, has everything to do with the producers and their budgeting.

Doug Bee, on the mandatory staffing of operators and protectionism. Years ago some DP's including Roger successfully lobbied the local to allow them to circumvent this mandatory staffing. So now, if the DP requests in prep that they intend to operate themselves, production is not required to hire a standby operator. At the same time, what is protected is that production cannot force the DP to operate, and they cannot make that a condition of employment, which is often the case in non-union situations. This not only protects operators from losing work, it protects the DP from having to do two jobs (and yes I do believe that they are two jobs, especially when multiple cameras are involved that the DP has to oversee). What this is really about is once again, keeping the producers from exploiting the crew so they can save some money. Make sense?

Charles it's been on a variety of different projects. Network TV news for two separate networks. One season of a TV series (comedy).
Reality TV. Commercials. And as I mentioned, these places sent me their 'rate sheet' which included their supposed 'union rate' on it.
Was it legit? I mean I suppose they could have made it up and typed up some fake rate sheet. I'm non union so I don't really know
about what unions do or don't set as their rates. Would they be showing me a rate sheet with 'minimum' rates and trying to convince
me that is a 'standard' rate and hoping that since I'm non union I won't know any better? I mean sure that could be it as well.
And sure, plenty of other jobs have offered me substandard rates which I have declined. But in that case they just say:
'We don't have the budget' or 'you are too expensive' or something similar.

Which is fine. But I'm talking about when they specifically tell me:
'We don't pay that. We pay union rate which is shown on our attached rate sheet.'

And I'm thinking:
'But I'm not in that union!'

 

[alaskacameradude]

Difficult to recall for sure as these are occasional calls over the years, but corporate, broadcast, documentary, commercial, maybe movies but probably not as much. Maybe broadcast the most, network television, reality TV.

Yup, network TV and other TV shows are definitely the most common offenders but I've had it on other
things like docs, corporate and commercials as well.

I think ya'll are getting a bit hung up on if the union is directly to blame or not. Let's just imagine the union is totally blameless, perfect saints, but, there is still a trend where union jobs pay less, then, again, it wouldn't inspire me to join or support unions.

Once I start getting regular $2500 labor rate offers for union jobs with an additional $2500 and upwards per day for my equipment rental, and am missing out because I'm not union, then I would consider joining a union (if I wasn't currently in the process of quitting freelance DPing), but I never got enough good union offers to want to join, while I have regularly gotten those rates and higher on non-union jobs (though 2023 has been a pretty crappy year as far as fully budgeted freelance DP clients compared to 2022 and 2021).

Word! Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[ahalpert]

I doubt I would be. You probably have to be
somewhat intelligent to make money on Wall
Street. But obviously making videos seems like
more of a ‘fun’ job than some office worker.
After my 5th straight 12 hour day running around
shooting a doc though I can say it’s a lot more
‘fun’ from the outside looking in, like most things.

You also have to be somewhat intelligent to make money making films. But the finance industry has higher maximum, median, and minimum earnings.

I didn't say "fun," I said "love." It's like being an astronaut -- that's an incredibly tedious job and the lucky ones only make it off-world 3 or 4 times in their whole career. But all that is worth it to them because they have a fetish for space like I have a fetish for movies.

I just don’t get this bent towards ‘artistically enriching’
or ‘spiritually enriching’ and how it tends to be tied
to scripted narrative projects. Working on someone
else’s idea for a ‘great zombie thriller’ is not leaps and
bounds better than working on a documentary on the
fishing industry in Alaska or a commercial for ‘Grunden
raingear….as used by everyone on the Deadliest Catch’
or whatever corporate branding film is your particular
favor. I mean if you are more fulfilled that way, go nuts!
I just don’t understand it, as it’s all pretty much the
same to me (outside of perhaps certain non profit
promos which might tend to at least make you feel
that you are contributing to a good cause.
But narrative is just mindless entertainment, no
particular good cause there.)

I can't skip ads fast enough. But I've been bingeing Barry for the past month and I can't wait to watch it at the end of the day. Making that show must have satisfied the creative urges of a whole lot of people and it's nice to think that you bring joy to the multitudes now and for years to come. A documentary could do that, too. I was most excited about this year about Oppenheimer. Haven't had a chance to see it yet though.

 

[ahalpert]

As I said I'm doing more producing and directing than freelance DPing these days, so I no longer really have any aspirations to be a high end freelance DP. Now, I wouldn't mind winning an Academy Award or Emmy as a producer/director, but it's not that high on my life goals and also unlikely, and to self fund my own projects, I don't need to join a director's or producer's union.

I was trying to explain why someone might legitimately say what you quoted:

I also find it ironic that when I tell other union crew people that I am not union, some seem to think, "Maybe some day you'll make it and be successful," while as a non-union member I was making significantly more money than them.

Probably they just don't realize how much money you're making. But they might have a legitimate point that if you continue to DP, the most prestigious work may require union membership.

Of course, you can do what you want when you self-fund your projects. But there are people you won't get to hire if you're not working with unions. And I thought that the ideal outcome for such producing is that you make a hit and then get financing and distribution from big studios for your future projects, which may then require you to hire union crew. Someone earlier said that Tarantino was non-union, but it looks like he joined in 2012.

"Quentin Tarantino directed six feature films before becoming a DGA member, in 2012.[SUP][14][/SUP] Those who are not members of the guild are unable to direct for the larger movie studios, which are signatories to the guild's agreements that all directors must be guild members." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_Guild_of_America

 

[Doug Bee]

Doug, are you suggesting alaskacameradude and I are making up this "BS" about union producers calling us and saying they have standard union rates which happen to be lower than our regular rates?

That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth.
Let me quote you back your own words.

One thing I don't like about unions is standardized rates, which is like communism in that you are offered the same rate as everyone else regardless of your level of skills, experience, cost of your equipment, etc., which then makes you less motivated to perform better than others if you'll still get the same pay rate.

It is just wrong and shows you do not understand what the union does or how it works.

I think one difference between narrative and corporate work as a freelance DP is narrative tends to allow more creativity, where you can get all artsy fartsy, try new lighting styles, unque camera movements, specialty lenses, etc., while on a corporate shoot, most of the time is best to do standard three point lighting for interviews and pretty flat lighting for b-roll, if you're using lighting for b-roll at all. Commercials that are made like 30 second cinematic movies can be much more creative from a DPing standpoint, but a lot of corporate and commercial work is not narrative style.

I am going to disagree. You can apply a creative approach to any form of work, be it corporate or interviews. You said it is like clockwork? You have mastered lighting?

I have worked with many highly regarded DPs and they always are curious, never thinking they have mastered anything. Many late career successful DPs in drama did not start in narrative.

Um.....it's typically not called a 'client' monitor....instead a 'director's' monitor. And if you are the DP (because that's what I do, I'm not a director)

you are answerable to the client on one hand or the director on the other. Either way, it's not really MY project and I basically have to do

it the way THEY want it done. Not much different.

Cool. Condescension.

SOP on commercials is a CLIENT monitor / village, typically as far from set as possible. Typically lot's of drinks and food and PA's. And a PRODUCERS monitor, somewhere between the CLIENT monitor and the DIRECTORS monitor. And yeah then a DIRECTORS monitor on QTAKE. And a DP / DIT monitor. And likely Art / props / AD are streaming on a QTAKE and you make sure none of the clients can log in.

Seriously? Why would I lie about this?

Never said you lied. But saying the union set your rate is BS.

It's just wrong.

The market sets the rate. You set your rate. You agree or don't agree to a rate that's offered to you. Maybe in your world someone rings and says X is the rate and you say I only turn up for XXX and then that's the end of the story. Maybe that correlates with low ball producers on crappy jobs saying hey we're paying this low union rate that's well below what you normally get. Say no. Even if you're in the union you get to say no. That's nothing to do with the union. It says some low ball producer has called you after they've been turned down by many others.

That's not the union negotiating a rate for a market. It's not communism. You do not have to accept a low ball rate just because you are in the union.

 

[Doug Bee]

Someone earlier said that Tarantino was non-union, but it looks like he joined in 2012.

But still not WGA. Even got Oscar wins and nominations for best screenplay. Hey back on topic right??

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I'm sure I could still improve my interview setup skills but I've gotten to a point where I feel like I'm mostly doing the same thing, there isn't much room for improvement from myself, the clients often don't want some artsy fartsy totally unique interview, so it's all pretty basic and straightforward. I filmed weddings for awhile and at first they were fun and exciting but once I developed a routine (which made me good in a way, less prone to mistakes), it became more boring because it was the same thing over and over again. That's not to say I became the best wedding filmmaker in the world so had no room for improvement, just that I no longer felt challenged which made the work less interesting, and the same goes for interviews now. They're too easy.

I mean, what sounds more challenging to you, filming your 1000th interview setup, or producing and directing a movie? For me, it's the latter.


It's all fine and dandy to say, "It's not the union's fault," or whatever, but are any of ya'll in the union here regularly getting $2500 and upward labor rates? Obviously some union people can get those rates, but are ya'll regularly getting those kind of rates? Last I heard even moderately budgeted TV shows like Charles works on were paying around $1,000 per day for labor, but I'm just going off of what I've heard, so if my numbers are off, feel free to correct me. And on top of that, the rental rates they offer from what I've heard (again, feel free to correct me) for long form content tends to be pretty low compared to the daily rates of corporate, commercial, and documentary work.

I never said I fully understand how the union works since I am not in the union, but I do understand that when most of the union production calls I get offer lower rates, it does not entice me to want to join a union.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

And since you're repeatedly referring back to my communism quote implying that I had factually stated it was directly the union's fault (the union of which I do not really know how it works), I will go ahead and rephrase what I meant to try to be more clear.

Original: "One thing I don't like about unions is standardized rates, which is like communism in that you are offered the same rate as everyone else regardless of your level of skills, experience, cost of your equipment, etc., which then makes you less motivated to perform better than others if you'll still get the same pay rate."

Revised: "One thing I don't like about producers for union shoots calling me stating they have non-negotiable standardized union rates is how that is like communism in that you are offered the same rate as everyone else regardless of your level of skills, experience, cost of your equipment, etc., which then makes you less motivated to perform better than others if you'll still get the same pay rate."


Is it the union (and the existence of it)'s fault if producers offer "standardized rates"? I don't know, but, I also don't know if it really matters, because lower rates are lower rates regardless of the reason. I just know if the union didn't exist, I wouldn't get calls offering lower rates while also saying it's a non-negotiable "standardized union rate."

 

[Doug Bee]

It's all fine and dandy to say, "It's not the union's fault," or whatever, but are any of ya'll in the union here regularly getting $2500 and upward labor rates? Obviously some union people can get those rates, but are ya'll regularly getting those kind of rates? Last I heard even moderately budgeted TV shows like Charles works on were paying around $1,000 per day for labor, but I'm just going off of what I've heard, so if my numbers are off, feel free to correct me. And on top of that, the rental rates they offer from what I've heard (again, feel free to correct me) for long form content tends to be pretty low compared to the daily rates of corporate, commercial, and documentary work.
.

Charles already quoted the basic agreement rate.

Few actually get paid that rate.

A commercial DP is 5-15K per day depending on who it is. Some charge prep some don't.

A typical TV episodic DP was getting 10-15K plus $500 box rental per week depending on the show and the DP's market presence, plus about 6K per month for living away from home plus car plus a few return first class flights and maybe a few weeks of grading if your agent is any good. Most TV shows are 6-10 months and usually aren't shooting where the DP lives.

And maybe gear on top of that if the DP owns lenses or heads or monitors or fiz units whatever. Last show I did the DP rented his remote head to the show for 120K for 8 months. Plus of course medical and pension is taken care of.

Are you making that and booking work every day for a 6-10 month straight stretch on your corporate gigs? Doco? Just for being a DP without gear?

 

[CharlesPapert]

I will concur with what Doug said above other than I'd probably drop the range of rates down by 25% from those quotes, overall.

There was a distinction made somewhere above about operator rate vs DP rate. The basic agreement number I listed was DP rate. Operator scale is lower, of course.

I'll double down again on the "union members make less". As Doug points out, you are free to state your rate and walk away if you don't get it. Every market is different. Some are able to charge more, others less. The point of scale rates is to provide a basement. You cannot approach someone to work on a union production and ask them to work a half day, or a cut-rate on this one and we'll get you on the next, or any of that BS that regularly happens in the non-union world (if you guys say that is never asked of you, you are simply fortunate because I hear the stories endlessly in person and on message boards/Facebook).

Equipment rental is not regulated by the union whatsoever. That is entirely a matter of negotiating with the line producer. What might be confusing is that I have talked here about the ever-increasing discounts on rentals that producers have pushed on longer-term projects, which hurt both rental houses and owner/operators alike. But that is a separate discussion.

When you are talking apples to apples on a non-union show vs a union show, lets say a reality series, the expectation is that the non-union rates would indeed be higher. Why? Because the producers do not have to pay P&W (pension and welfare) and other associated costs, so the non-union employee is getting no benefits from that job outside of their paycheck, and higher pay rates make up for that.

 

[alaskacameradude]

Never said you lied. But saying the union set your rate is BS.

It's just wrong.

The market sets the rate. You set your rate. You agree or don't agree to a rate that's offered to you. Maybe in your world someone rings and says X is the rate and you say I only turn up for XXX and then that's the end of the story. Maybe that correlates with low ball producers on crappy jobs saying hey we're paying this low union rate that's well below what you normally get. Say no. Even if you're in the union you get to say no. That's nothing to do with the union. It says some low ball producer has called you after they've been turned down by many others.

That's not the union negotiating a rate for a market. It's not communism. You do not have to accept a low ball rate just because you are in the union.

Basic comprehension. I NEVER mentioned communism. I NEVER said 'the union set my rate.'
What I DID say is that I have had networks and production companies call me to hire me for
a job. And when I give them my rate they have told me 'We don't pay that. We pay union rate
which is x$'. And this union rate is less than my day rate. Now OF COURSE I can (and do)
decline. You don't have to be in a union to say no if you feel like you are worth more than you
are being offered. Somehow, I have been able to do just fine getting my rate.....all without the
benefit of 'collective bargaining.' My conclusion from being told many times by various networks
and production companies that 'they don't pay $xxx, their rate is set by the union and $x' is the
union rate was that $x is the union rate. I have no reason to believe these clients are lying to me.
That is all I said. Again, I'm not in a union, so I don't understand exactly what is going on here.
Are these 'union rates' a minimum rate instead of a standard rate? Maybe so. Are these clients
using these 'minimum rates' to try and lowball me? It sure wouldn't surprise me although they could
just say 'our budget doesn't meet your rates' like everyone else. Maybe they feel like claiming
that they offer union rates, makes them appear less of a 'bottom feeder?' I don't know.
My point was, that as a non-union person....my experience of the union, is that I periodically
see clients telling me 'this is the union rate we pay' attached to a lower rate than I make.
And that does not incentivize me to want to join a union (not that I really could anyways
because of my location.)

 

[alaskacameradude]

When you are talking apples to apples on a non-union show vs a union show, lets say a reality series, the expectation is that the non-union rates would indeed be higher. Why? Because the producers do not have to pay P&W (pension and welfare) and other associated costs, so the non-union employee is getting no benefits from that job outside of their paycheck, and higher pay rates make up for that.

AH HA. This was kind of what I was wondering. As someone who does not get any health benefits or
retirement benefits from the union.....why would I work for the union rate? It seems to me that the
'total compensation' package for a union employee is significantly more than just their pay. So if
someone is NOT in the union, they would have to fund their own retirement account and health
insurance. Which makes sense then that they want to make more than 'union rate' so that they
could fund those things. Again. just an academic exercise but what you said makes a lot of
sense to me. A good reminder that it is important to remember that when I say I charge more
than what these clients are offering for 'union rate' it is true...but I also have to self fund things
like retirement and health insurance. So I basically need to charge more just to break even
with union members. Which is why I don't want to work for what they tell me is 'union rate'.
But from the client (who is offering me union rate) point of view, maybe almost everyone they
hire is in the union (and gets the associated benefits) and they are just assuming I would be
receiving these benefits as well? That is likely what is going on here.

 

[Paul F]

.... for now, they are accumulating cost savings from not having to pay wages while the strikers are not earning income.

I dismissed this statement earlier (post 324). I really missed the implication of this statement, even after Tom clearly explained it. It shows how blind we can be due to our embedded viewpoints. What Tom didn't directly say (I don't think), and what was a palm slap to forehead this morning, is how long this strike can go on since streamers quarterly financial statements are going to improve as the strike continues. They can stay away from the negotiating table a l-o-n-g time while not affecting their quarterly reports. Sure, this only works up to a point. But it's not good for the WGA or SAG/AFTRA.

With the streamers losing money, having to lose even more money to give writers and actors more money is not a viable plan. So to end the strike is not something they are in a hurry to do. Given that they lose less money being on strike......hey, this could stretch out a long time.

Warners/Discovery - lost $217 million last quarter
Disney streaming - $1 billion lost last quarter
Peacock - $2.2billion lost in 2022
Paramount streaming - $511 million first quarter 2023

 

[CharlesPapert]

AH HA. This was kind of what I was wondering. As someone who does not get any health benefits or
retirement benefits from the union.....why would I work for the union rate? It seems to me that the
'total compensation' package for a union employee is significantly more than just their pay. So if
someone is NOT in the union, they would have to fund their own retirement account and health
insurance. Which makes sense then that they want to make more than 'union rate' so that they
could fund those things. Again. just an academic exercise but what you said makes a lot of
sense to me. A good reminder that it is important to remember that when I say I charge more
than what these clients are offering for 'union rate' it is true...but I also have to self fund things
like retirement and health insurance. So I basically need to charge more just to break even
with union members. Which is why I don't want to work for what they tell me is 'union rate'.
But from the client (who is offering me union rate) point of view, maybe almost everyone they
hire is in the union (and gets the associated benefits) and they are just assuming I would be
receiving these benefits as well? That is likely what is going on here.

Chances are that a line producer who tells you they are used to paying union rate is a) fully aware that this is simply a tactic or b) too green to know what these means other than this is what they were told in a meeting with the producer. I would love for those of you who are being fed that line within a non-union situation, that you suggest back to them "then it would be appropriate to supplement that day rate with the fringes and P&W that you would also be contributing on a union show". I'd be curious to hear what their response would be! After they've picked their jaw off the ground, that is.

 

[Doug Bee]

With the streamers losing money, having to lose even more money to give writers and actors more money is not a viable plan. So to end the strike is not something they are in a hurry to do. Given that they lose less money being on strike......hey, this could stretch out a long time.

That is a theory. The studios can loose money for longer than the writers.

I am not sure it is as calculated as that though. They are in direct competition with each other and they have overlapping areas of conflict. It is not good for business to kill your supply line. While they may have plenty of stock of the old stuff they made, it is just going to hurt their business if they do not keep feeding the supply line. The audience will start ending their subscriptions, not by churning, but just not spending the money. Why churn to another provider if you have already seen their back catalog.

 

[CharlesPapert]

That's not exactly my experience.

My understanding is actually that you have to apply for a waiver on each and every show if the DP wants to operate a camera and it's two cameras or less. The DP can't just expect to operate on a show by themselves without hiring an operator. Can you name a show that does?

But in many parts of the rest of the world it is routine for the DP to be the A camera operator. You may believe that operating is a seperate job that should be protected, but it's just not the way the rest of the world works. People like Roger and Greig have come up working that way. I've seen many excellent DP operators try to negotiate a mandatory operator in the US and it not go well.

It is protectionism. It's mandatory staffing and it's at the project by project whim of the local. So be it. I think these days it's mostly not a problem because there's rarely single camera shows any more and even single camera shows generally want a specialist like a Steadicam op, but it's only in US union shows that the operator position is enshrined as a seperate position.

And I totally support a production NOT forcing a DP to operate if they don't want to. From what I've seen, most US trained DP's are usually mediocre operators too unless they've specifically come though operating

I'm left all confused by this as I feel like we are saying the same thing--a DP requests in prep that they be allowed to operate, the show asks 600 for a waiver. then they don't have to hire an operator. I can't name any specific shows because I don't really pay attention to such things but I would say, most of Roger's movies (exception being 1917 given the nature of it), and Bob Richardson for starters?

As far as the rest of the world--we were just talking about our local, so not sure why that is relevant? There are plenty of other aspects of production that are different elsewhere.

I'm not denying it's protectionism. That is what minimum staffing is all about. Producers would love to cut our crews down to the bone if they could. That is literally the point of the union, to give us protection from the almighty axe that doesn't give a flying f*** about us and what it takes to get it done. Right?!

So I think we were basically saying the same thing?

As far as DP's operating and being mediocre...oh man. Don't get me started. The number of times as an operator that a DP expected me to break the laws of physics for them, like having A and B cam next to each other getting an over-the-shoulder and a tight closeup and somehow thinking we can have tight eyelines on both...I was like, you sure you actually did this job once? Or everyone's favorite, lining up a shot on the finder with their back to a wall without allowing for the length of the camera.

 

[alaskacameradude]

Chances are that a line producer who tells you they are used to paying union rate is a) fully aware that this is simply a tactic or b) too green to know what these means other than this is what they were told in a meeting with the producer. I would love for those of you who are being fed that line within a non-union situation, that you suggest back to them "then it would be appropriate to supplement that day rate with the fringes and P&W that you would also be contributing on a union show". I'd be curious to hear what their response would be! After they've picked their jaw off the ground, that is.

Hahaha.....seriously I will try that next time!

 

[ahalpert]

?

As far as DP's operating and being mediocre...oh man. Don't get me started. The number of times as an operator that a DP expected me to break the laws of physics for them, like having A and B cam next to each other getting an over-the-shoulder and a tight closeup and somehow thinking we can have tight eyelines on both...I was like, you sure you actually did this job once? Or everyone's favorite, lining up a shot on the finder with their back to a wall without allowing for the length of the camera.

Sounds like they need some sort of periscope-style offset system