Phil Rhodes Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 It's not about letting anyone "break" a union. If the money isn't there, the money isn't there. If we had a union like IATSE in the UK, then what you'd have would be an awful lot of union crews not getting employed because there's no films being made (incidentally exactly the situation that now exists anyway). You are being slapped because you forced people to do something completely indefensible. The situations are not even nearly comparable. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members geoff shotz Posted January 20, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 oh, i'll do it. phil, you really don't know what you're talking about here. the money is there. i guarantee you that the produceers have it. and when they really, honestly, truly, actually don't, the union has all kinds of side contracts to make almost all film and t.v. show budgets doable. any one of us has the option to work or not to work at those other, lower rates. the price the producers pay an operator over the course of a project is small in comparison to the time wasted while the d.p. tries to wear too many hats. there are a few d.p.'s who do great work without an operator. most projects won't go better without one. producers don't see that though. all they see is the line cost of an operator. it is true that there are projects where operators sit and do nothing. sadly. it's no fun to be that operator. i've been there, it sucks, and i won't do it again. it's hard to find an operator who wants to do that. as for the union, it is a protection for us, the individuals. it doesn't find us work, it doesn't finance our equipment, it doesn't pick our projects for us. we, individually do that. but the union does set basic guidlines for rates, payment schedules, health coverage, and fair/unfair work practices. i won't try to discuss the situation in the u.k., because i don't know the facts. you might very well be working regularly and living a better life if you had been able to keep your unions. here in hollywood, we know that the quality of our projects, our business, our lives, and yes, our finances will suffer if this change occurs. it is merely the tip of the iceberg in the decline of our business. phil, you might want to consider even with all the runaway production, the tax incentives, the unions, and all the other issues there are still an awful lot of producers and projects that willingly want to be made here. there is a reason why. geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Hi, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make there, I found it rather confused, but to restate, I completely agree that the US/UK situations are not comparable. That was my entire point, in objection to someone earlier on trying to do exactly that. Yes it is unfortunate that the union here is rubbish, but then two things occur: - If it was any good, I wouldn't be in it, and; - There's no point in having a union to support an industry that doesn't exist. However, I stand by the assertion that making people pay for things they don't need does nothing but give the producers ammunition. Doing things that are that stupid doesn't make the IA look like anything other than moneygrubbing idiots. That's the only point I'm trying to make. It should be practically axiomatic anyway. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Brant S. Fagan SOC Posted January 21, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Gents-- OK, I'm taking the bait here but too bad. I am upset that once again greed and avarice, just like the roots of politics (politics=who gets what), have now reached into the latest contract and begun to choke off the operator's position. Phil--Since you have not worked in this country at the position and levels stated in previous posts I feel it wrong to try and make statements about it, relevant or not, with regard to who this should resolve itself in this country. Until you reach the level of work where this situation matters, try and stay out unless you have something relevant or helpful to add. I have reached the conclusion that no matter at what level of work you may currently endeavour, you just might make it to a level where this has some impact, either slight or serious. Geoff--Since you have suffered through many levels, I applaud your post and insight. I, too, loathe being a truck watcher and have been there on shows large and small; definitely not good for morale. What I know of the facts of this situation is this. Tom Short is trying to scapegoat Gary Dunham rather than solve the issue for the membership he supposedly represents. While Gary's comments about allowing DP's to request a "no operator" deal are true, he specified that this should only be possible if the request is made during pre-production, ie before the start of principal photography, not ever after that point. These are facts and should not be in dispute, but thanks to Short, they are. Once again selective use of all the facts amounts to propaganda rather than news. Make your voices heard, based on the facts of the case, rather than heresay or propaganda. I value my position as an Operator and I thank the brothers and sisters who fought for this priviledge. Just like I thank veterans for standing tall for the US. Phil--I'm sorry that life in the British system is so bleak. Why not move and make something of yourself. I know you have skill and talents. Everyone has choices in life. Make some. Best, Brant Fagan, SOC Steadicam/Camera Operator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Thomas English Posted January 21, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Life in England ain t that bleak! It rains but it s not bleak. Phil - "There's no point in having a union to support an industry that doesn't exist." - Why are you even bothering to post if your perception of the industry is that it does nt exist in the UK, there is plenty going on just a lot of fools chasing the same work. The sparks thankgod still have a strong union whithin our industry, and thank god to them for the shear number of times they have started pulling the plug. If it was not for them we would be doing 15hr days as standard. "If it was any good, I wouldn't be in it, and;" We are discussing an industry that involves everyone as a whole and for the good of the whole, not their personal preferences, making an argument involving personal prejudices is not contructive. What I would say, not having unions in the UK has made for a very sketchy but creative way of working where nothing is impossible and can often be done at the last minute. I am sure though that there would be a middle more pleasant ground. I wish you the best of luck, whilst almost all DoP s I work for in england prefer to operate because its what we are used to (and been forced into) that is simply what we are used to, If we had been brought up another way we would almost certainly prefer that. It free s the mind to only think about lighting! not having producers force you to operate to save money. So yeah good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 You are making people pay for services they don't need. At the very least it makes you look like workshy agitators. I don't need to be a member of your union local - in fact, I don't need to be working in the film industry - to understand this situation. In fact, it seems like I explicitly need to not be a member of your union local to understand that. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Eric Fletcher S.O.C. Posted January 21, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 You are making people pay for services they don't need. At the very least it makes you look like workshy agitators. I don't need to be a member of your union local - in fact, I don't need to be working in the film industry - to understand this situation. In fact, it seems like I explicitly need to not be a member of your union local to understand that. Phil Now I'm taking the trolls bait Phil, I have said it before. Don't let the door hit you in your substantial ass on the way out. You bring nothing to this place, time for you to go. You were pretty much banished from the CML after Geoff Boyle tried to help you better yourself and your career and not only did you NOT followup on things that Geoff put in place for you. you then had the gall to suggest that he was overpaid and only doing it to help himself. You are in the place you are because you refuse to actually apply yourself and advance your career. The people that you are trying to pass judgement on all have worked their asses off to get where they are. Really what have you done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members RonBaldwin Posted January 21, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 anyone still have that picture we took for Phil a few years back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon Moreau Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Hi, I have been a member of this forum for many years, but not one that posts very often. Being an operator from Canada and a fairly new (6 years) steadicam operator I never felt I had much to add. Having access to this forum and seeing all your passions for the job and the humor towards some of the politics that go along with it has been inspiring to say the least. I have learned so much from this forum just from reading the posts from all of the incredibly talented and knowledgeable operators. This is a time for all to band together as operators. Over the last few years I have notice a drastic decline in the appreciation for the art form that is camera operating. And the respect for the position is not what it once was. Many producers base whether or not you are a good operator based on how low your rate might be. No longer do you seem to be admired for your skill or attitude, the nuance you bring to story-telling or your ability to keep a cool head when it is panic hour. However by saying that I never thought that anyone would think of getting rid of the operating position. I have had many conversations with many of the operators I work with up here and we are all stunned. We are all whatching everything going on down there knowing that eventually we will be faced with the same fate. We all wish you the best and support our brothers and sisters in the local 600. P.S. Phil, I have been reading your posts for a number of years and would have to say that unless you work in the union system this would be a good time to keep your opinions to yourself. Respectively, Damon Moreau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members denis moran Posted January 22, 2006 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Just returned from the NEB meeting of local 600. We were hoping to get the board to vote 51% in favor of recommending NO on the current contract. We thought it was going to be tight vote based on personality and "party line" voting. The results were 100% in favor of a NO vote. I don't know when 600 last had this type of unity. Our elected board really cut through the politics and came through for us. Thanks to everyone who showed up to lend their support and voice. Next up is to get the word out to our brothers and sisters in the other locals and make sure the rank and file know what is at stake. It is not just about saving the job of the operator. It is about finally making a stand and stop giving in. Thanks to everyone who showed support. Denis Moran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members Eric Fletcher S.O.C. Posted January 22, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 anyone still have that picture we took for Phil a few years back? Damn that was a fun night! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members denis moran Posted January 22, 2006 Author Premium Members Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 I'd also like to thank Tim Tyler for allowing this topic to continue. It was a bit off topic but it kept it out in the open for the operators. Thank you. Denis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 Hi, > I have been reading your posts for a number of years and would have to say that unless you work in the > union system this would be a good time to keep your opinions to yourself. Why? Fair practice is fair practice, unless you're taking the position that unionisation is an excuse for institutionalising unfair practice. Which, as I think I've shown, has recently been the case. - Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Members geoff shotz Posted January 23, 2006 Premium Members Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 phil- feel free to add your replies. they add a bit of misinformed, demented, bitter and sad comedy to our day. they do set us off a bit, too. kinda fun in itself. since you don't know, phil, i'll clarify even further. there is a sidebar agreement already in place with our union contract (since 1998, someone correct me if i'm wrong) that allows a production to petition the union during preproduction and request the removal of the mandatory operator staffing position. the option is there already on a case by case basis. what is occurring now is the removal of the position altogether. it isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. it isn't about forcing the producers to pay money that they don't have. it's an attempt to remove many positions on set altogether, with operators being the first in line. the unanimous decision to unite against this removal, by one of the most divided groups around, should be an indicator of how bad an idea this is. as for your state of affairs, i don't think all the folks in the u.k. working away making movies big and small agree with you at all. there are plenty of people making good livings doing great projects over there. you just don't happen to be one of them. maybe things are a little slimmer, but i'm guessing your depressed, bitter, and overly negative personality get in the way of you attaining the knowledge of what that work will be like. you might want to just lighten up a little and enjoy for a change. geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Rhodes Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hi, > as for your state of affairs, i don't think all the folks in the u.k. working away making movies big and small > agree with you at all Oh well, if it's only the "big" UK film crews who disagree with me, at least I'm not that seriously outnumbered... Phil 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.