Premium Members Christopher T. Paul- SOC Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hey Phil, If you don't see the value of an operator on the set- with or without the ability of the steadicam- then you are already revealing your limited understanding of how movies work here in the states. Your view, from over here is rather limited. Maybe your not that type of operator that Directors and Director's of Photography and Producers see as an asset to their projects... worth thinking about. Your role as an operator might well be superfluous to production. Mine isn't, and I speak for many or all of the talented operators here. The operators here are in a serious time of crisis, and I'm going to avoid- against my nature- the golden opportunity you provided to go for your jugular in front of the International Steadicam community. I will politely ask you to gracefully bow out of this conversation and stop making our legitimate issue about yourself. This isn't about you, it's about us. It's an honest living and we really don't appreciate a heckler from across the pond pointing fingers and snickering. By the way, the studios and talent are both making record profits- more then ever before in history. In dollars, filmed entertainment is the US's largest export. If you think that the money isn't there to properly staff a job you must be high. Please stop making our issue here about you. I'd like to thank those who are keeping the legitimate stream of information flowing for the rest of us. Let's spread the word on sets across the country about how serious this vote is to us. Does anyone know the fine details of when this vote goes before us? It would be helpful to know exact dates and information, so that when we ask our grip, electric, prop & sound friends for their help- we can give them definite instructions as to when this vote comes up. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hi, > If you don't see the value of an operator on the set... Which I do. > stop making our legitimate issue about yourself. I'm not (although I can't stop Fletcher going ad hominem). My point - my only point, the only issue I'm arguing here - is that forcing productions to pay an operator to sit on the truck only gives the producers ammunition in this sort of situation. In case anyone hadn't noticed, that means I'm not disagreeing with you. Oh-fricken-kay? Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members denis moran Posted January 23, 2006 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 There should be more information coming out in the next few days. As for general information as I understand it... The contracts (with the recommendation from the NEB to vote NO) will be mailed out to 600 members at the end of this month and the ballots are to be returned by March 1st. My assumption is that the other locals have a similar timetable. There was a committee set up at the NEB to move ahead on this issue and we will hopefully be hearing from them very soon. Denis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Charles Papert Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 I was once proudly told how the union had mandatory camera operators sitting in the truck reading the newspaper because of this rule. I don't see how that kind of crass stupidity is in any way defensible. You brought this on yourselves. - Phil Phil, since you now seem to feel unfairly ganged up on or misunderstood, I quote this, your first post in this thread, to perhaps illustrate to you why these things never seem to go your way. How does this accusatory statement have anything to do with giving the producers ammunition? What it says to me and everyone else here is that Phil Rhodes considers the following: that the mandatory operator position is crass and stupid, anyone who feels otherwise has an indefensible point of view and that this is all the operator's fault to begin with (since this is a forum of camera operators, when you say "you brought this on", you must be referring to us, not the DP's who put us in the truck to begin with, and who we would be happy to be operating for if they had let us). This then is what YOU bring onto YOURSELF: because you operate from an aggressive, confrontational place, you deny your intellect an opportunity to be taken seriously by others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 Hi, Oh, I'm bored. > that the mandatory operator position is crass and stupid That can't reasonably be implied from what I said. The definite "that" in the second sentence refers to the situation described in the first, which is most certainly crass and stupid. I think you're inferring what you want to be true because you have a psychological need to attack something. I understand the feeling, but really, don't shoot the messenger. Perhaps I don't pull any punches, but this is not local 600's private forum and you can expect to see posts representing a wide variety of real-life opinion. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Tyler Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 I have recieved personal messages from both sides of the Phil vs. The Union arguments embedded in this thread. Please, let's stop the bickering. The points of view of both parties are mostly clear I think, and dragging this out can't possibly achieve much besides a chance at the final word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members RonBaldwin Posted January 24, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 phil is a knucklehead, check the archives...he always has been. best to ignore him and not to respond to his trolling. thanks again to all parties involve keeping us informed of what's going on with this issue. ron b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members denis moran Posted January 27, 2006 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The latest I?ve heard about the Operator issue? We must be careful how we present ourselves to some of the other locals. It seems some of our more ?enthusiastic? members may have been coming across a bit too strong when discussing the issue of the current contract with some members of the other locals. There was a letter sent to 600 regarding a camera crew member making a member from a different local feel pressured by the ?vote NO? . I don?t know the specifics but Local 600 could run into trouble with the IATSE if this continues. I?m sure someone knows the proper ?code of conduct? that should be used in these situations. I sure as hell don?t. The frustration I?m feeling is when I have spoken to friends in other locals about what is in the new contract, none of them know what they have won or lost. Until they have the contract to read? they are in the dark about it. Respect people?s space. Don?t be pushy. Just keep them aware of how the operator position is in trouble. I don?t know if you are even allowed to let them know how it could effect the Hollywood Contract if we fold on this one this year. Three years from now? who knows what might be on the chopping block. If someone has some insight on this issue, please respond. Sincerely; Denis Moran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members denis moran Posted January 28, 2006 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted January 28, 2006 I thought I would forwars this: SOC East Coast Members: HELP SPREAD THE WORD Should the Camera Operator Classification be an Option??? We were able to pack the rooms in the west. Now let?s help get the voices together in the Big Apple! Call your member friends and coworkers! East Coast Regional Membership Meeting. MEMBERS OF IA LOCAL 600: A MUST ATTEND MEETING CONCERNING THE LATEST CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS AND THE ?OPTIONAL? CAMERA OPERATOR POSITION! Listen, question and learn the facts of the fate of a job classification that is threatened. Do something about it!!! Sunday, January 29th, 2006 12 pm to 3 pm (eastern standard time) Local 802 AFM Local Hall 322 West 48th Street New York, NY 10036 All Local 600 members welcome and urged to attend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Michael Stumpf Posted January 29, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 The latest I?ve heard about the Operator issue? We must be careful how we present ourselves to some of the other locals. It seems some of our more ?enthusiastic? members may have been coming across a bit too strong when discussing the issue of the current contract with some members of the other locals. There was a letter sent to 600 regarding a camera crew member making a member from a different local feel pressured by the ?vote NO? . I don?t know the specifics but Local 600 could run into trouble with the IATSE if this continues. I?m sure someone knows the proper ?code of conduct? that should be used in these situations. I sure as hell don?t. The frustration I?m feeling is when I have spoken to friends in other locals about what is in the new contract, none of them know what they have won or lost. Until they have the contract to read? they are in the dark about it. Respect people?s space. Don?t be pushy. Just keep them aware of how the operator position is in trouble. I don?t know if you are even allowed to let them know how it could effect the Hollywood Contract if we fold on this one this year. Three years from now? who knows what might be on the chopping block. If someone has some insight on this issue, please respond. Sincerely; Denis Moran Denis, I'm personally a little baffled and confused by the above. I have myself spoken to quite a few people (both on the phone, if they've called me or via email) regarding the operator issue as I'm sure you and many others have as well. I personally have never pressured anybody to "vote NO" myself as that's not my style. BUT, what is this person that sent Local 600 a letter regarding the pushy camera crew member like 6 years old?? I laughed a bit at that, how ridiculous. So a camera crew member was discussing the issue with someone and he/she got a bit "enthusiastic" and apparently kept "pressuring" this other local member to vote NO on the contract. So this other local crew member got all upset and "ran to mommy and daddy" and told on the camera crew member by sending a letter?? That's absolutely childish and immature! If that other crew member felt pressured or whatever, is he/she not adult enough to say, "okay, I understand, you don't need to keep telling me to Vote No, I'll look into this issue more deeply." and move on? Does this member of the other local that contacted Local 600 also right letters to the Governor when they "feel pressured" by political campaigns to vote one way or the other? And when you say, "Local 600 could run into trouble with IATSE if this continues" what exactly do you mean? If what continues? To me, it sounds like this letter to Local 600 is a scare tactic to get people in Local 600 to STOP talking about the issue out of fear of "getting Local 600 in trouble with IATSE." Talk about unneeded and unwanted PRESSURE. It very well could of been a "member" of the AMPTP who sent this letter using this as a tactic to stop the campaigning to save the operator position. This is almost, well exactly like censorship too. Telling people they (or their union) might get into trouble for speaking their minds and expressing their views? Everybody does things differently, some will stand on street corners waving signs and shouting out their cause and beliefs (again not my style but they have the right to do that), when campaigning, or whatever. But NOBODY can threaten them to stop doing so by saying, "some people (or one person) has felt pressure from you guys campaigning on the street corner (or say picketing) so you must tone it down or their will be consequences." That's not right. People have the right to speak their minds, people don't EVER have to listen. IF someone was being too pushy, you ask them not too. If they continue you ask them once again and walk away. If they continue then you go to the producer and tell them to ask that crew member to please not talk "politics" to them on the set otherwise it's harrassment. If they are continually writing letters or sending emails, you don't read them or block that email address out. It's that simple. I agree with your point of a "code of conduct" (discretion) in dealing with others on hot topic political issues (or of course religion), especially if/when you are AT work. But we better send letters to EVERY politician, political organization (and their members and followers), union (and their members/followers), and governmental agency on the planet, because I don't think most of them got that "code of conduct" memo, you know what I mean? :D I personally encourage everybody to talk about the issue. But I wouldn't force (or pressure) anybody on how they choose to speak their minds. I wouldn't advise pressure tactics on their part, but I also don't condone a political or union organization "getting into trouble" over a couple enthusiastic members way of expressing themselves either. Oh, and Denis, I didn't see that you posted about the meeting on the East Coast here before I started a new thread posting the same info. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Michael Stumpf Posted January 29, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Denis, thanks for the call and the clarification on what happened regarding that person who felt pressured by some Local 600 member.. Maybe you could elaborate a bit more here too for everyone's benefit. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hi, > People have the right to speak their minds Yeah, yeah, that's really the vibe I'm getting. Cough. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members denis moran Posted February 15, 2006 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Here are 2 websites that may be of some interest. http://dropline.biz/News_Bulletin-IATSE_We...cals_Rally.html and www.votedownthecontract.com The latter is pretty new but has some interesting letters. Denis Moran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Alec Jarnagin SOC Posted March 9, 2006 Moderators Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 A dark day in the history of our biz. I just got off the phone with Local 600 & it seems the contract was indeed ratified. The one silver lining is that Local 600 overwhelmingly voted against it. The new contract goes in to effect Aug 1st. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members denis moran Posted March 10, 2006 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 A dark day in the history of our biz. I just got off the phone with Local 600 & it seems the contract was indeed ratified. The one silver lining is that Local 600 overwhelmingly voted against it. The new contract goes in to effect Aug 1st. That's what I was told as well. I was also told that Local 44 voted not to ratify but that didn't give us enough votes. Denis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.