That is part of the culture that surprises me. I worked at a premier post house (well, it was at the time) and that came as such a surprise. Here was this bucolic setting with the best of amenities, yet people were so afraid to make the slightest misstep. Oye, another reason I don't fit into that environment.
Writer's Guild Going on Strike
- Thread starter Paul F
- Start date
That is part of the culture that surprises me. I worked at a premier post house (well, it was at the time) and that came as such a surprise. Here was this bucolic setting with the best of amenities, yet people were so afraid to make the slightest misstep. Oye, another reason I don't fit into that environment.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
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. I've been offered a good amount of union jobs where they would offer around $800-$1200 as a DP labor rate when my DP labor rate was $2500, which they would not go for because they had a "standardized rate," in which case after hearing their rate (before telling them I wasn't union) I would then think, "Glad I didn't waste money joining a union so I could then get paid half as much."
Of course people can still negotiate rates and Roger Deakins is getting higher DP rates, but the fact that for many they go off of the same standardized rates regardless of the level they are at, basically works well for those with less experience (and equipment) and not well for those with more experience (and equipment).
I have lost out on occasional jobs that did have more budget, perhaps once or twice a year, which made it slightly tempting to see about joining a union, but was never enough to attempt to join.
So, I'm not really a fan of the unions due to occasionally losing out of some work by not being union as well as dealing with standardized rates.
And perhaps best of all at the moment, being non-union does not mean I'm not working during a strike, though I suppose union members can still work non-union jobs during a strike, they'd just likely have a more difficult time landing the jobs regularly since they may not have an established non-union client base.
That said, if I was in a union, I may be more pro union, maybe.
Of course people can still negotiate rates and Roger Deakins is getting higher DP rates, but the fact that for many they go off of the same standardized rates regardless of the level they are at, basically works well for those with less experience (and equipment) and not well for those with more experience (and equipment).
I have lost out on occasional jobs that did have more budget, perhaps once or twice a year, which made it slightly tempting to see about joining a union, but was never enough to attempt to join.
So, I'm not really a fan of the unions due to occasionally losing out of some work by not being union as well as dealing with standardized rates.
And perhaps best of all at the moment, being non-union does not mean I'm not working during a strike, though I suppose union members can still work non-union jobs during a strike, they'd just likely have a more difficult time landing the jobs regularly since they may not have an established non-union client base.
That said, if I was in a union, I may be more pro union, maybe.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
That's where I'm at now, transitioning out of freelance DPing in favor of producing/directing/production company owner. I've grown tired of making pretty images to help make someone else's baby (movie) better, when I can have and raise my own children (movies) instead. As a DP, your contributions perhaps make up for around 5%-10% of a film's overall quality, while there are other more important factors that contribute to the overall quality, such as writing, directing, and acting. As a producer(/director), you choose the entire team of people (director, DP, actors, etc.), so instead of the product's overall quality being just 5%-10% of your contribution, it's in a way 100% (or some number much closer to 100%) of yours since you are the one responsible for it existing and choosing all the team, etc. Not to say it's not still a team effort, but since you are responsible for choosing and bringing together the team, the project is much more yours than if you were just one of the many crew members. Of course I'm referring to a producer fully in charge of a project, not just a hired gun producer.
Like if I was a babysitter who had grown tired of helping take care of other people's kids, I'm at a point where I want to make kids of my own and raise them. Directors reach out to me as a DP and expect me to be passionate about raising their babies, and, it's not so easy to get so passionate about other people's babies. I can still do a good job, I could still enjoy aspects of the job, and do better than other less skilled DPs who are able to get passionate about other people's babies, but, it doesn't mean I'm passionate about the project itself. I'm passionate about my own projects.
It's interesting to consider I started out with filmmaking in college as a producer/director, bought cameras after graduating and fell into freelance DP work, which was fine for the time, but as I get older, it's time to go back to how I started, which is making films, and not just making images.
Aside from that, as stated, reasons of ambition (a crew member can only go so far) and liking to be in charge and not working for anyone but yourself.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I can't speak for other people, but there are several reasons my career went towards owning my own production company with a focus on corporate/government production.
First, it allows me to wear many hats. I can produce, direct, write, shoot, grade, create graphics, and edit without being pigeonholed into a single role. If operating camera was the only thing I ever did, I'd have gotten bored and moved to a different industry long ago. Shooting is my primary love, but I enjoy everything about production. Heck, that's one of the reasons producing stock has been so enjoyable for me. It's fun.
I very much enjoy the variety of work that comes from running my own production company. There's a lot of creativity and problem solving involved, not to mention the satisfaction that comes from saying (for good or bad) that "I made that." And even more satisfaction when a video achieves the goal the client needed help with. I don't do music videos, indy films, or other stuff that is just for entertainment. 99% of the work I'm hired to do is just a means to and end for the client, and not the actual product itself. If I can't or don't want to do some of the work, I can easily farm it out to employees or freelancers. But I am always in control. I also have enjoyed hiring young people and teaching them the ropes. Some of my former employees have achived even greater success than myself, and I love that feeling.
If anyone thinks those of who choose to specialize in corporate production do so because of "ego, not working well with others, disliking having anyone tell them what to do.", you are 180 degrees wrong. Success in this arena is 100% the result of knowing how to find, nurture, and satisfy repeat clients. You have to get along with everyone you meet and often make the client believe it was all their doing that made the video a success. If you don't play well with others, you will not last long.
Second, I enjoy working side-by-side with professional business people, corporate/government/military clients, etc. in a business environment more than I enjoy working as part of a crew on a set. I tried that in my early years and was bored stiff. The only time I do like working with a large crew is for live sports, concerts, reality TV, and news. Those production can be a lot of fun, especially when there are hard deadlines. But the pay is **** and I wouldn't want to do that kind of work all the time. But it is a nice change of pace sometimes.
Third, I get to pick and choose the gear that I want to use - because I own it. And I can justify almost anything I want to buy.
Fourth, because I own my own gear and don't have to watch a clock or even work every day, I have the freedom to do a lot of pro bono work for non-profits and other organizations who could never afford to hire professional production services. It helps them get the video they need, they are extremetly grateful for my work, and I get a lot of pleasure from doing that kind of work.
Fifth, I work when I want to and for who I want to. There is great power in being able to say "no", and still know that it is not a career ending decision to pass up work.
Sixth, I am almost always able to work normal business hours, which makes family life and long-term planning so much easier. A shoot that goes into the evening, let a alone the wee hours of the morning, or on a weekend is almost unheard of in my world.
And seventh, I can make far more money on corporate/government/military projects that I would make on a union shoot. I have hardly ever worked for an hourly wage or for a day-rate. Most of my income is project-based -- and that is where the real money is. Nobody got rich for an hourly paycheck. A union offering cut-rate health insurance as a carrot means nothing to me. I will get my own health insurance, thank you. Just as I buy my own life insurance and fire insurance. I am an adult and can make my own arrangements, just a easily as I can buy my own food and wipe my own ass. Yes, I hate paying insurance premiums as much as anyone, but I've always had full Blue Cross coverage my entire career and I don't have to worry about someone pulling the rug out from under me because I didn't work enough during the year -- or because some people I never met decided that I was on going strike. Screw that.
Also, I beleive I am perfectly capable of plugging in my own lights and pushing my own magliner. Why would I want to asscoiate with people who think that is some kind of super-human skill that needs protection from outsiders doing the same work? How childish of them to think they control the sandbox and get to decide who can play. I found a better sand box.
Last edited:
What the heck are you even talking about? The union sets a minimum rate. It's not THE rate. I never work for that rate personally and always negotiate a different rate AND I negotiate rates for my gear commensurate with their cost.
If you get offered a low rate then it's up to you to negotiate a better rate if you think you're worth more. The union don't set that rate.
I am so reluctant to weigh in on this ridiculous baiting and Charles has said it better than I could have.
Maybe those prominent members here who clearly have an agenda against the union can just stick to Florida? Last time I worked there a couple of years ago it was a right to work state and there were a mix of union and non union crew and they aren't allowed to exclude union hires by law.
It's such a long bow to draw to describe union membership as bigoted. Really? Arguing the definition of bigotry? What a hill to die on.
If they only exclude you if you're qualified because you choose not to pay to join then it's not bigotry. Which by the way in this country tends to be associated with far worse personal vindictive that is not about ability or qualifications. You're making a choice to not join, there's nothing preventing you from joining their ranks. That isn't bigotry. You may have a problem with that and that's great to discuss, but calling it bigotry is gross.
I mean OSHA can also refuse you entry to a workplace. Is that Bigotry?
The World Series is only played by American teams playing in an American league. That's bigotry too then. Cancel the World Series!!
World Champs? Now the NBA are bigots too because it's a US basketball team declaring themselves champs...
IATSE...The I stands for International but it's only jurisdiction is the US and you have to be a resident to join. Bigots!!
The ones here arguing against unions seem to be producers or directors or aspiring to those roles. Not crew.
By the way there are plenty of high profile filmmakers who are not guild members. George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarrentino to name a few.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I'm speaking about my personal experience of being offered work on union productions, where the producers would call me and say they had standard union rates and when I told them my rate was higher than that they said they could only pay the standardized rate. It's a trend I noticed with union productions calling me. If your experiences differ, then that's how your experience is. I was talking about my experience.
Regardless of whether or not the union set that rate, it's a trend I've experienced with union productions that I don't come across with non-union productions.
Being regularly offered non-negotiable lower rates on union productions never inspired me to want to join a union. Unions are supposed to help the union members make more money, but in my personal experience when a client calling me says the production is union, they typically had a lower rate they were offering and often were not willing to negotiate at all compared to non-union which were more negotiable.
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.
Last edited:
I'm not discounting your experience at all.
And your experience isn't typical for crew, where union rates are almost always better.
You said the union set the rate, It's just not how it works. Union rates are just the minimum. And they would be less if it wasn't for them being union signatories. You can argue for a different rate, just like if there wasn't a union and a producer rang you to low ball you.
You might not like the rate the producers are allowed to offer. But you made a post saying that the union controlled the rate and compared it to communism.
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I said, "One thing I don't like about unions is standardized rates," which isn't quite saying the union specifically set the rate, but is stating an affect of the union producers offering standardized rates regardless of if the union actually set the rate. From what I gather, the union sets a minimum rate, and the producers probably use that as a guideline to try to pay everyone that rate, without negotiating to offer higher rates (at least many of the producers calling me). So, indirectly, the union did set the rate if they are setting a minimum rate that is resulting in producers offering everyone that rate and not being willing to negotiate higher rates.
Generally if you tell a client your minimum rate to do a job, they won't offer you more money than what you say the minimum you will do it for is. So, if the union states a minimum rate for a position, then it would make sense that a lot of producers will then offer that rate to the crew, and since it is a union (group), if one person refuses that rate, there will likely be other members willing to accept that rate, thus making it more difficult to get higher rates.
Generally if you tell a client your minimum rate to do a job, they won't offer you more money than what you say the minimum you will do it for is. So, if the union states a minimum rate for a position, then it would make sense that a lot of producers will then offer that rate to the crew, and since it is a union (group), if one person refuses that rate, there will likely be other members willing to accept that rate, thus making it more difficult to get higher rates.
Last edited:
I don't know what market you are in Eric, but in LA, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Chicago I have never worked for the union minimum rate. Most of the union crew I've worked with don't work for the union minimum rate either. In these markets the non union rate is always less than the union rate too. I will be amazed if your experience isn't an outlier.
You don't have to work for the rate being offered Eric. Negotiate a better rate or don't work for them. I don't know how the union has anything to do with your negotiation skill in presenting a value proposition to your client.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I will note that a lot of the discrepancy on rates is not necessarily a union or non-union thing, but moreso of the type of work it is. I do a lot of corporate and commercial work which tends to pay better than filmmaking work. With filmmaking, union productions generally have larger budgets than non-union films and thus pay better than non-union films. But corporate and commercial work is often non-union and often pays better than both union and non-union filmmaking.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Being non-union of course I have very little experience working on union sets, so I'm just speaking about the rates I've been offered from union productions prior to them finding out I'm non-union. When they say, "We're paying $800 which is the standard union rate" and I reply my rate is $2500 and they say they can only pay $800 and then we go our separate ways, there's not much negotiating there. I was suggesting that non-union productions that call me tend to be more willing to negotiate because they don't seem to have as much of a hard number that they pay everyone, so could be more willing to meet somewhere in the middle rather than just telling me, "This is what we pay everyone, so we can't pay you any differently." And my market includes Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, and New Orleans.
I don't know what the minimum rates are or if they are offering me the minimum rates. I'm just saying I've noticed a trend where the union clients tended to have lower budgets, mentioned things like "standardized rates" and used that as a reason to be unwilling to negotiate rates.
Eric that's just a production low balling you with the lowest rate they can get away with offering you. Someone will likely take it. Just like if it was non-union. If they rang me with the same offer I would tell them my rate and we would also part ways.
I just don't see a connection between union and non union rates affecting what a bad client offers you.
I just don't see a connection between union and non union rates affecting what a bad client offers you.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
The connection is the correlation of union clients being more likely to low ball me compared to non-union clients. To put it another way, if I was regularly receiving high paying union job offers, then I would be motivated to join a union. As it is, most of my higher paying job offers have been non-union so I have never had enough reason to join a union.
That, and my friends who are in the union generally making less money than me also does not inspire me to join the union.
That, and my friends who are in the union generally making less money than me also does not inspire me to join the union.
Someone on the JW forum made a good point. For years the streaming industry has spent with abandon and the volume of production has increased several fold due to them. These sorts of booms never last as they can't continue to spend this way. Now that the reckoning has come for financial reports, spending more money for writers and actors would seem from their perspective a non-starter. It could break some of them. Perhaps that is the reason for the 'we have to break them' attitude.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I have had the same experience as Eric. Clients
who say they will pay around half my day rate because
‘it is union rate.’ Which leads me to believe a couple
things. One of which is the so called union ‘negotiators’
must not be great at their jobs if that is the best rate they
can negotiate. Definitely not a incentive to join a union
when their standard rate is quite a bit lower than mine.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
This reminds me of how some people tried to say that "ok boomer" was the new N-word. It might feel hurtful and unfair to the target, but that's a false equivalence.
It's not even clear to me who is being discriminated against. Union against non-union? But as you pointed out, if you're a member of the wrong union you can't get the work either. And electrics aren't allowed to do the work of grips on set, etc.
I'd say it's more accurate to call it a monopolization of the labor pool. Or turf war/sectarianism/exclusionism, etc. And I think you have a case to make that it's unfair to exclude workers who aren't in the union. I happen to consider it a necessary evil for the sake of workers' bargaining power that union membership can be deemed a qualification. And we already know what the labor market looks like in the absence of unions. There's no need to run an experiment without unions to find out.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
He's clearly saying he doesn't give a 4-star rating. So, 3 stars at best is the implication
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Erm. What about requiring a college degree for jobs? Is that bigotry against someone who could do the job but never got a BA? And honestly, education barriers like that piss me off way more than union card requirements and are typically WAY more expensive. Elitist anti-social mobility gatekeeping bullshit
Thanks Abe. While my mind is in the gutter, you see things for what they are.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
There's something I agree with here about young liberals today (although there's an energetic parallel movement on the right in terms of restricting personal freedoms and enforcing conformity).
But I don't see how this has anything at all whatsoever to do with unions. Unions in America date back to 1794.
https://guides.loc.gov/this-month-i...t attempt in the,beginning on August 20, 1866.
Plus, anyone can join the union