Time To Negotiate

[Mark L. Pederson]

The LA Times just published the following email from Dale Alexander, a key grip on The Office, which puts the severity of this strike into clear perspective.

It reads:

“Our show was shut down and we were all laid off this week. I’ve been watching the news since the WGA strike was announced and I have yet to see any coverage dedicated to the effect that this strike will have on the below the line employees.

I respect the WGA’s position. They probably do deserve a larger percentage of profit participation, but a lengthy strike will affect more than just the writers and studios. On my show we had 14 writers. There were also 2 cameramen, 2 camera assistants, 4 hair stylists, 4 makeup artists, 7 wardrobe people, 4 grips, 4 electricians, 2 craft service, 4 props people, 6 construction, 1 medic, 3 art department, 5 set dressers, 3 sound men, 3 stand-ins, 2 set PAs, 4 assistant directors, 1 DGA trainee, 1 unit manager, 6 production office personnel, 3 casting people, 4 writers assistants, 1 script supervisor, 2 editors, 2 editors assistants, 3 post production personnel, 1 facilities manager, 8 drivers, 2 location managers, 3 accountants, 4 caterers and a producer who’s not a writer. All 102 of us are now out of work.

I have been in the motion picture business for 33 years and have survived three major strikes. None of which have been by any of the below the line unions. During the 1988 WGA strike many of my friends lost their homes, cars and even spouses. Many actors are publicly backing the writers, some have even said that they would find a way to help pay bills for the striking writers. When the networks run out of new shows and they air repeats the writers will be paid residuals. The lowest paid writer in television makes roughly twice the salary than the below the line crewmember makes. Everyone should be paid their fair share, but does it have to be at the expense of the other 90% of the crewmembers. Nobody ever recoups from a strike, lost wages are just that, lost.

We all know that the strike will be resolved. Eventually both sides will return to the bargaining table and make a deal. The only uncertainty is how many of our houses, livelihoods, college educations and retirement funds will pay for it.”

[Shawn Nelson]

Aye, they definitely need to negotiate. But every Op-Ed I've read yet sides 110% with the writers, I haven't heard anyone who thinks the Studios are right on this, except the moguls themselves. So how do you "negotiate" when one side is right and the other just needs to pony up?

It does really suck all the crew caught in the crossfires. It's particularly bad what they're doing to Jay Leno to try and strong-arm him into crossing the picket line.

[Jason Francois]

Man, I never really thought about it this way. Sobering to say the least.

[Clint Johnson]

It's a tough call for everyone.

The producers are still losing money on the internet delivery of content and the writers want a cut of revenue which would mean they would lose even more.

The writers can't go to a profit sharing model since the accounting needs for the producers mean that they have to make sure that they never make a book profit. They don't want to let the producers tie them to a minuscule residual like they did with DVDs because they realize that Internet delivery will probably be the primary means of delivery sooner rather than later. Since it is common for writers go years between paying jobs, those residuals mean the difference between giving up and finding another job or keep hammering on the keyboard for another writing gig.

And while these two struggle over this impasse, the below the line people go without wages and start missing payments.

The producers job is to fight to hold expenses as low as they can and we can't fault them for doing their jobs... and when they cave on the Internet delivered content (which they will have to do) it will reflect on the upcoming deals on SAG and the DGA rates so they aren't just holding the line against the writers, it will multiply into hundreds of millions of dollars over the coming decades.

The producers would like the 0.3% from DVDs to carry over onto the Internet but this isn't workable if that ends up being the primary means of distribution. The Writers would like the same residuals as they are getting for TV but that won't work if the only viable internet delivery model means massive direct sale volume with slim margins.

My modest proposal is 0.6% for Internet delivery revenue for the duration of the next contract (three years I believe) with an automatic doubling to 1.2% for the contract after that and then 1.8% for the contract after that. This give the producers time to build a workable revenue model and the Internet to grow as a delivery medium.

Nobody would be happy about that but is the most workable compromise that I can envision for the parties involved and where the technology is going.

Get the the writers back writing and the producers back producing so the thousands of below the line workers can get back to work.

Just my 2.09 cents (2 cents Canadian exchanged into US currency to reflect my pontificating on the US state of affairs).

[John V]

I have a close family member that works on a certain TV production and they will be out of scripts very soon. I just wish the mainstream media would put this strike into perspective. My hope would be that the studios would hire new writers and just forget about the ones striking. Watch how fast they would come running back to the table. So far they have done no talking on boths sides of the line.

[Russ McDonald]

Aye, they definitely need to negotiate. But every Op-Ed I've read yet sides 110% with the writers, I haven't heard anyone who thinks the Studios are right on this, except the moguls themselves.

As you guys know, I'm now in development of a TV series. The costs involved is enormous. There is a large misconception of the fee's paid by networks, and Independent stations for programming.

My show is a action adventure loaded with Special Effects, both practical and digital. My per episode cost is in the millions. If it's a Network like the big four the fee's they pay covers a little over half of the per episode costs. The more they pay, the larger their ownership of my property.

Independent Syndication pays you ZERO in License fees. Your goal in that environment is placing your show in the 26 markets of dominate influence. The deal is a barter, 50% of the commercial ad time is mine to sell the other 50% goes to the local station. Of my 50% of those add revenues 25% will go to distributors that I had to hire. So I could get into those 26 markets of dominate influence.

The key to recouping my investment is exploiting ancillary markets for my show DVD's, downloads, independent syndication, coffee cups, ball caps, even frickin key chains.

Not every show is Star Trek or Friends. Only 1 in 20 shows hit the magic number of 100 episodes. Even after that it takes years to recoup and profit.

Over the 5 years of production it took to get to 100 episodes. I have pay every person from the Leads to the PA's no matter what the outcome.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

"To make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script." Alfred Hitchcock

"Without the roots, there could be no tree." ABW - Anonymous Bulgarian Wiseguy

[John Hunt]

Time for production giants to pony up on promises that date back to when VHS was an "unproven business model" and writers conceded to smaller resids with the understanding they would increase as the model became successful.

Internet delivery is in its infancy. Lessons learned from the past suggest that an internet/cell-phone/fill-in-the-blank delivery could eventually become competitive with current forms of delivery, and minimizing its importance now could be a costly mistake for deserving writers in the near future.

John Hunt, DGA

[david farland]

I knew Abalone was the cause of it......somehow!

[krd]

Dale Alexander notes that he's been employed in the business for 33 years. Few TV staff writers enjoy a sustained career of even 5 years, much less 33, and age 35 can be the kiss of death in the network writing business. Note that a majority of WGA members can't satisfy the minimum annual work requirement to qualify for health insurance.

It's unfortunate for below-the-line staff, but writing for network TV isn't the sort of sacrifice to High Art which will justify spending the balance of one's life clerking at Barnes & Noble or going out on temp jobs when you're 55.

You could argue that any writer foolish enough to go into the medium has to accept the financial insecurity which goes with it, but in that case the pleas of producer poverty fall a bit flat. If it's strictly a business, and everyone for himself, why not the writers as well?

[Chris Parker]

Well, now that reality shows are all the freakin' rage, there is no place for producers to go to get fresh content.

"America's greatest cell phone videos" - the nwe number one hit

[Russ McDonald]

I knew Abalone was the cause of it......somehow!

It is my fault. It's all part of my plan to take over the world. First I break the WGA, then DGA. I don't care about SAG they will lay down like a cheap Australian camera guy.

For the record, if I was negotiate with the WGA I would give them the bump.

I think the WGA in for allot of disappointment. The company's they are negotiating with, are multi-national conglomerates. The media portion of their business is a small part of their profit model, they can hold out.

People love their TV so they will always come back. They Know it and because of that they have the advantage.

[Brent J. Craig]

The producers are still losing money on the internet delivery of content and the writers want a cut of revenue which would mean they would lose even more.

Is it just me or is any percentage of zero dollars still zero dollars?!? If the producers make no money from the Internet, then let 'em pay the writers 0.6% of nothing.

I was interested to learn that the 0.3% writers receive from DVD sales is a hold-over from the videotape days (remember those?). The percentage is so low, because it accounts for the high manufacturing costs of video tapes. It used to cost 1 or 2 dollars to manufacture a video tape. DVD's cost about 80 times less, and the technology for Internet delivery is even cheaper.

I hate to see anyone in our industry hurting. Let's hope they settle this.

[Christian Ford]

I respect the WGA’s position. They probably do deserve a larger percentage of profit participation, but a lengthy strike will affect more than just the writers and studios.

. . .
The lowest paid writer in television makes roughly twice the salary than the below the line crewmember makes.

I'm a WGA member who also shoots and directs now and then; my family were all below the line people, so I have first hand experience of being on both sides of "the line."

I wanted to throw a couple of facts into the discussion because this strike is a very difficult situation for everyone who feels like collateral damage. I, and all the other Guild members I know, feel genuinely guilty about our role in putting so many people out of work in the course of our fight. But this is a put-up-or-shut-up moment in the business of the film and television industry; the precedent that is set now, will be the one that rules the digital age that we, and our successors, will spend their careers in.

A lot of numbers have been bandied about in terms of how well-paid screenwriters are. The NY Times (incredibly) quoted the head of the AMPTP's negotiating committee as a reliable source for this, saying that the average income was 200k. It's not. It's 62k. Additionally, 48% of guild members don't get any work in any given year. All that is meant to say that the majority of guild members are putting their homes/college funds/etc on the line here, too. I know I am.

You may have heard that some Teamsters are refusing to cross WGA picket lines. Partially, this is out of solidarity. But there's self-interest at work, too. A little bit of history. A coordinated SAG-WGA strike back in 1960 caused the studios to finally start paying residuals. Additionally, the Guild won a concession that was considered unwinnable -- a health and pension fund. This was the precedent that all other industry health funds are built upon. Our Teamsters of conscience? They don't get residuals. But their health funds do get contributions from residuals. I don't know the mechanism by which IATSE's health and pension works, but I do know that it exists in part because the Guild forced the issue almost 50 years ago.

Finally, I want everyone to know that the Guild made every possible effort to avoid the strike. We began negotiations six months ago, and the Studios simply would not respond to our proposals. Even at the very end, when the Guild rescinded our request to increase DVD residuals, the Studios wouldn't talk. The Guild wants to negotiate, to find a settlement, has said that they will meet anywhere, any time, but the studios simply won't meet. Won't talk. So, yes, it is Time to Negotiate, but the studios won't. It is my opinion that the Studios are using the strike to do a lot of housecleaning, an excuse to fire staff and cancel production deals they regret, and maybe, they hope, to break a union.

In closing, let me say that it absolutely sucks to have someone else's decision shut down your livelihood. But it is my hope that the Guild will win this fight, and in so doing, set a precedent that means that everyone in our business will -- in time -- live a better, more secure life.

—Christian

[Sean]

It's a tough call for everyone.

The producers are still losing money on the internet delivery of content and the writers want a cut of revenue which would mean they would lose even more.

Another perspective on that notion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a37uqd5vTw&eurl=http://artfulwriter.com/

[Russ McDonald]

It is my opinion that the Studios are using the strike to do a lot of housecleaning, an excuse to fire staff and cancel production deals they regret, and maybe, they hope, to break a union.

—Christian

Christian is hitting the nail on the head here. The heartbreak is they have the War chest to do it. The question is does the audience have the tolerance.

With 500 channels, unscripted programing, and Home Theaters. With DVD sales out pacing box office. They have a staggering amount of choices, this creates a dangerous environment for the WGA.

[John V]

The issue is that these writers get residuals whereas the below the line guys get nothing for their hard work after the show is on the air. Why is it that the writers think they deserve more than the others? It is like asking a designer to make the set and light it...you need everyone to do it. I have an issue with all the more highly paid talent making the others suffer so they can get a few extra cents from an area of the market which is not known how much or if it will make money.

[Clayton Harper]

Independent Syndication pays you ZERO in License fees. Your goal in that environment is placing your show in the 26 markets of dominate influence. The deal is a barter, 50% of the commercial ad time is mine to sell the other 50% goes to the local station. Of my 50% of those add revenues 25% will go to distributors that I had to hire. So I could get into those 26 markets of dominate influence.


It's just like the Mafia! :unsure:

[Russ McDonald]

It's just like the Mafia! :unsure:

The only difference is they don't knee cap you. They just take away your parking space.

The horror of having to find parking is enough to keep you inline. I guess you could stand up and say "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

You would always be able to sell land in Arkansas on Infomercials. I bet Erik Estrada has a kill parking spot.

[David Mullen ASC]

The issue is that these writers get residuals whereas the below the line guys get nothing for their hard work after the show is on the air. Why is it that the writers think they deserve more than the others?

I think writing IS different than the contributions of DP's, art directors, etc. It's the origination of the creative concept that allows for the existence of the product in the first place. Without a script and a story, there is nothing for actors, directors, DP's, art directors, editors, PRODUCERS, to work on, to make money from etc.

Saying that writing is no different than art directing in importance is like saying that the typesetter is just as important as the novelist in book writing.

Besides, the below-the-line unions DO get residuals, they just don't go to individual members. If a producer hires an IATSE crew, then IATSE gets residuals.

[Sven Seynaeve]

I'm not living in the USA, but it all depends who's taking care of the financing. Here were I live we almost have no support from government or private publishers or production firms. That's when I decided to try to make a living on my own ideas. But in most cases it seems that really have to find the money to live on my own. I'm taking risks and I'm sure these higher paid guys also are taking lots of them.
And the most important is that you're awake when a deal gets setted.
It's like the singer from my band who declares "hey man, i've got 50 songs ready to record", then I say , Ok , but will you do all production and finance 4more albums at your risk??? That's the point where they mostly stop talking and wining. Everybody out there has some minor chances to make it out there, luck is an important factor, but eventually everybody could reach everything as long as you live for it and try to work as hard as you can. And mostly people start complaining after something has become a major succes, instead of gathering some money themselves or find partners to produce stuff with.

And like some off you said, bills don't always explain what's kept left from these kind of productions after taxes and expenses.

[Edgar Pitts]

America is a free market system where people SHOULD be judged by their talent and paid accordingly. Unions, whose officials I am sure are better paid then the vast majority of its members, fly in the face of that premise. I am not bashing all unions - Certain unions with hazardous working conditions and standardized jobs are need of representation.

However, when you force creative jobs like writers, actors, etc. in a box, it does not make sense. The more talent you have should lead to higher paychecks. What about this is so hard to understand??? If mediocre people need guarantees to survive, there are too many people in the industry. If they are only working 28 weeks a year, they have plenty of time to pursue other ventures.

I am not against the writers - I certainly understand that a film needs a great script. I am against bloated infrastructure that makes budgets skyrocket where people feel they are entitled to something that don’t deserve. If writers or any one in this industry want a bigger piece of the pie, go out and start your own company and control all the variables - There is nothing more American than that...

Before I started my production company (with my writer/director business partner), I came from the computer software industry. There are no unions protecting programmers. If you write good code, you will be fairly compensated. If you do not or don’t like the working conditions, quit and find another job.

I also hope the other unions strike, and strike for a long time. I hope the studios get creamed and unions get busted. Hollywood and their unions are just like the music and other dinosaur industries who rely on archaic business models and bloated infrastructures. They try to monopolize all means of production. Evil studios + evil unions = why I am independent.

By getting the content out of the hands of a select few, the entire viewing audience will benefit. The internet is ushering a brave new world - the writers see that as a main point in their negotiations. I wish no ill will on the hard working people of this great industry. However, for things to change, the evil empire needs to come crashing down.

Edgar Pitts
Independent Producer

[Scott Murphy]

I've been picketing outside the Warner Bros. lot, since 11/5.

Let me tell you, it sucks. No one wants to be out there. There's only one thing we (meaning: me and every other writer I've spoken with) want less than walking that damned picket line, and that's a shitty deal. Like the one we were faced with taking.

Something you might not know: for every four cents writers receive in theatrical residuals, the DGA receives four cents, SAG receives 12 cents, and IATSE receives 20 cents in contributions to their health fund.

So our fight for increased residuals will also benefit plenty of non-writers.

Still, trust me on this, EVERYONE wants to be back at work. The ball is currently in the AMPTP's court, as our leadership has said that we want to get back to the negotiating table.

There's a web-site that has quite a few videos explaining our position. Check 'em out. Some of 'em are pretty clever. --

http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/

[Russ McDonald]

Hollywood and their unions are just like the music and other dinosaur industries who rely on archaic business models and bloated infrastructures. They try to monopolize all means of production. Evil studios + evil unions = why I am independent.

Edgar Pitts
Independent Producer

Jeezzs, and they say I'm the dark lord, Just kidding Edgar...I respect your wildcat Texas spirit.

This is an easy fix.

Studio's
Give them what they want on the DVD's. On the Download side. Put it on a scale based on gross downloads. As a market increase is realized a better scale formula is used. This formula is capped at twice what they're asking.

WGA
Lower upfront pension and welfare cost's. With a no strike clause, (SAG has one) Make it a 10 year contract, with growth bench marks. Every three years if gross revenue targets are met everybody gets a raise.

These growth bench marks have to make sense for the financiers, as well as the builders of the dream factory.

Now we are all partners in success.

[redcinematographer]

Thank you for posting this. What can below the line people do to help bring the parties to the table sooner rather than later? All sincere ideas welcome. On another note, I have been inviting DPs that now have spare time to take a closer look at Red One and most seem very interested.
All the best,
Pete Brown

[Evin Grant]

The best analogy I've heard is that the writers are like those monks who doused themselves in gasoline and lit themselves on fire to protest a war...

...Fantastic protest but in the end there is still a war and only a pile of Monk ashes.

I see some point in the unions but I think they are bloated and elitist to a degree. What possible good reason is there to charge $10,000 to join as a DP or Director? Is it really just a club for those who can "get in"?

That being said I may be joining soon simply to be able to work bigger accounts.

[Russ McDonald]

The best analogy I've heard is that the writers are like those monks who doused themselves in gasoline and lit themselves on fire to protest a war...

...Fantastic protest but in the end there is still a war and only a pile of Monk ashes.

I see some point in the unions but I think they are bloated and elitist to a degree. What possible good reason is there to charge $10,000 to join as a DP or Director? Is it really just a club for those who can "get in"?

That being said I may be joining soon simply to be able to work bigger accounts.

Damn....

[Brook Willard]

Yeah, Evin's - like - totally famous now. :wink:

But it's true. It costs about $6-7,000 to get into 600 as a DIT. The DP entry fee is just about $10,000.

[David Mullen ASC]

Best $10,000 I ever spent though -- my yearly income shooting features went from $20,000/year to $80,000/year... within one year.

Indie features were paying me about $6000 a feature and if I was lucky if I could find three features a year, but even the lowest union rate works out to about $40,000 on a feature, and I could shoot two of those a year. Of course, this also coincided with the leap from under 1-mil. feature to over-3-mil. features. I had shot about 25 features before I joined the union and spent a decade making about $20,000 a year doing it because no one would really pay more than $1500/week for a DP on many indie features.

So even though it seemed like a lot to join the IATSE, it not only caused a huge increase in my income but I finally had a heathcare plan of my own rather than relying on my wife's work providing it.

Even now, most producers will only pay a DP a little more than guild minimum rates, but even that is about $5000/wk on a feature. So I'm pretty thankful that there are minimum union rates that are decent.

[John V]

I need to point out the that 20 cents going to IATSE is correct. The biggest diffrence is this:

“….each individual writer and director recieves 4 cents on their respective projects as each individual actor recieves 12 cents but the IATSE as A WHOLE recieves 20 cents, that’s the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP….50,000 plus members.”

Writers earned more in residuals this year than in any year prior: $264 million which equates to the average working writer making $205,000 in 2006. Below the line folks resent the fact that above the line unions even consider striking over residuals, which no IATSE member gets at all.

[liquidigital]

My contention is that the strike will last until SAG's contract is up, and then they will hold sway. But as the clock ticks, I believe a lot writers will end up going fi-core. I support the strike though and will be putting everything on hold. In the meantime I'm reading the Red user's guide. :)

[John V]

I personally cannot support a strike that puts thousands out of work so a few can make an extra 4 cents on top of what they already make.

[liquidigital]

I need to point out the that 20 cents going to IATSE is correct. The biggest diffrence is the writers and SAG get a check for themsleves. Writers earned more in residuals this year than in any year prior: $264 million which equates to the average working writer making $205,000 in 2006. Below the line folks resent the fact that above the line unions even consider striking over residuals, which no IATSE member gets at all.

The work of the below the line folks is unequivocally of massive, massive importance. But, they are not the ones turning over their intellectual property; an intellectual property that will generate income over and over again. This intellectual property, as David said a few posts back, is the impetus for a motion picture even happening. So below the line folks may resent the reasons for a strike, but would they have a job in the first place if the writer had not written?

[David Mullen ASC]

The average TV staff writer may be making $200,000 a year, but there are a lot of WGA writers who are not successful TV writers working year after year. Some get on the staff of one TV show but then when the show is cancelled, can spend years looking for another goldmine like a TV series.

Any film worker's salary can be high some years, but there can be slow periods.

Most WGA screenwriters that I know are not making $200,000/year.

Getting on a series is like winning the lottery for any film worker. I've only done one year on a series but it was amazing to get paid for seven straight months!

It really comes down to a philosophical position -- should a writer get residuals for their work? If so, they should get residuals from digital downloading. And the writers, just from studying history, have no reason to trust the studios to give them a share of the internet market once it starts paying off, so this is their chance to put some sort of mechanism in place before a precedent sets in where they don't get paid for digital downloads.

[David Mullen ASC]

It "smells" to me like the AMPTP is secretly spreading around this $200,000/year average WGA salary figure as a publicity ploy to lower sympathy for the strikers. Looking around online, I can only find a figure that the average WGA TV staff writer makes this a year on average. That's a pretty rare and successful person, the guy who gets onto the writing staff of a series that lasts a year, so it's misleading to suggest that this is the average status of WGA writers as a whole. There are a lot who just sell the occasional spec script or episode treatment now and then. I've heard other people say that the average WGA member's yearly income is more like $60,000/year - I've even heard some estimates as low as $25,000/year. I don't know what the truth is, but in general, most unions don't have members that work year-round, regularly, and I doubt that the WGA is any exception.

Looking around some more, the $62,000/year figure is what I run across. There are some who quote the $200,000 figure, by dividing the amount total earned by all WGA writers in the last year and dividing it by the number of members, but that also means that the mean income is about $100,000.

[John Hunt]

From the Wall Street Journal online:

As John Aboud, who is a strike captain for WGA, noted in a comment to my post last week on the strike, that even with all the money Hollywood has made, most writers are not well paid (although those at the tippy-top are copiously compensated).

“Median earnings of all members of the Writers Guild is only $5,000,” he wrote. “How can that be? About 48% of members do not earn any money from writing in a given year. Of those writers who do make some money, one quarter earn less than $37,700 a year.”

http://kara.allthingsd.com/20071107/striking-out-on-creating-an-internet-hit/

Same goes for SAG and DGA...the majority do not make enough to pay the rent.

That said, like David Mullen's IA experience, joining the DGA was the best thing I did for my career...but in many cases, once you reach a certain level in this business, you either join the union when invited or you don't get the gig. I belong to IBEW and DGA because it's part and parcel of my job, not because I sought out union membership.

John Hunt, DGA

[Brent J. Craig]

“Median earnings of all members of the Writers Guild is only $5,000,” he wrote. “How can that be? About 48% of members do not earn any money from writing in a given year.

This is an extremely important point. The problem with writer's unions and actor's unions is that the majority of their members only 'dabble' in their trade. For many people like this, being on strike simply means that they must take an extra shift at the restaurant or whatever second job they hold.

How long can you stay on strike when your union job is only a very small part of your income?

It is frustrating for crew members and every other part of the production chain, because it is NOT a hobby for us. Film work is our livlihood.

People need to consider that.

[donatello b]

just pointing out -
usually - the difference between a 15mil & 80 mil pictures is the amount spent on the STARs ... the below line crew cost is about the same $3-4 mil on either budget ...
i know several persons on TV series that are not going back to work after the turkey holiday next week ... all are worried the strike could be very long .

[John Hunt]

Frustrating, yes. The giant production companies will take as much as they can get always. The writers HAVE given in dating back to the days of VHS when they agreed to temporarily lower resids. The prod cos have promised an increase to acceptable resids for years and have not delivered. At some point, someone has to take a stand, or the prod cos will take more and more and more. It is hard, but the prod cos can only blame themselves.

In this case, the ultimate concern is that every kind of delivery method will eventually be classified as 'internet delivery', and the prod cos will revert to extremely low resids across the board.

It is truly unfortunate, that it has come to this, and I am sure not one member rejoices in the fallout.

[krd]

For many people like this, being on strike simply means that they must take an extra shift at the restaurant or whatever second job they hold.... It is frustrating for crew members and every other part of the production chain, because it is NOT a hobby for us. Film work is our livlihood.

So it's your view that because so many writers can't make a living in Hollywood, they have no right to go on strike?

Or are you arguing that because restaurant work is the true vocation of so many writers, they have no need of residuals? Just do another dish-washing shift instead....

One solution stands out here: quit the movie business and become a waiter. That way, the WGA hobbiests can't put you out of work. Rather, you'll be one of them, in a safe and secure job, and free to pursue Hollywood hobbies, and go out on strikes.

[Edgar Pitts]

So it's your view that because so many writers can't make a living in Hollywood, they have no right to go on strike?

Or are you arguing that because restaurant work is the true vocation of so many writers, they have no need of residuals? Just do another dish-washing shift instead....

One solution stands out here: quit the movie business and become a waiter. That way, the WGA hobbiests can't put you out of work. Instead, you'll be one of them, in a safe and secure job, and free to pursue Hollywood hobbies, and go out on WGA strikes.

What a great attitude... With all this negative vitriol spewing from writers across the board, they are going to eventually cave and take whatever deal is on the table. The production companies have the resources to crush the guilds. All of this will have been for nothing. You can pat yourself on the back at that time...

[krd]

The production companies have the resources to crush the guilds. All of this will have been for nothing. You can pat yourself on the back at that time...

That's entirely possible. The strong generally do crush the weak. But you can't blame people for trying.

[krd]

What a great attitude... With all this negative vitriol spewing from writers across the board....

Oh, come now. The first half of the thread was devoted to claims that WGA writers are rich selfish bastards making $200K a year, and that they don't give a damn about the livelihood of anyone else.

Then it turns out that the writers are actually poor, but they're still bastards -- this time because they all have low-level service jobs, so a strike means nothing to them.

Which is it going to be?

[liquidigital]

What a great attitude... With all this negative vitriol spewing from writers across the board, they are going to eventually cave and take whatever deal is on the table. The production companies have the resources to crush the guilds. All of this will have been for nothing. You can pat yourself on the back at that time...

We'll see who caves in June when the SAG strike happens at the same time. Positive enough for ya'? ;)

[Russ McDonald]

The WGA needs to stop thinking like revolutionaries, and think more like a Capitalist.

[Andrew Kimery]

I support the WGA 'cause what they are asking for isn't unreasonable at all, IMO. Does it suck for the below the line people who are, or soon will be, at home sitting on their thumbs? Yes, but this is just another risk of working in Hollywood. No one is guaranteed work after their current gig is up so, IMO, you should always assume you won't be working for a while after you end a show and plan accordingly. Heck the gig, if it's a TV show, might even get cancelled after just a few episodes. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

And just to put my position into perspective, the strike doesn't effect my current editing position, but the effects of the "near strike" and 9/11 back in 2001 did completely deplete my funds and forced me to move back to the Mid-west and live exclusively off my credit cards until I could get back on my feet. Apparently I have a short memory though 'cause after a only a couple years I moved back to LA w/a simple plan of "don't crash and burn this time." :biggrin:


-A

[Joe Carney]

Hmm, I hate most reality shows. I have about 35 DVDs I've actually never watched. I have high speed internet, so not only can I rent from Netflix, I can watch streaming movies.

Not only do I support the strike, I'm going to boycott TV in general until it's over. Since I hardly watch any TV now (just football)...that should be very easy.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Hmm, I hate most reality shows. I have about 35 DVDs I've actually never watched. I have high speed internet, so not only can I rent from Netflix, I can watch streaming movies.

Not only do I support the strike, I'm going to boycott TV in general until it's over. Since I hardly watch any TV now (just football)...that should be very easy.
Actually, a better way to support the strike would be to boycott those streaming movies, since THAT'S what the writers are fighting for residuals on. They GET residuals from television, it's the DVDs and Internet that are at stake.

[John V]

Ahh but one can make the point that if there were no below the line people to make the writers ideas reality would the writers have work? It can go on and on. When it comes down to it why has every major striek been started by the above the line unions? Writers as a whole earn more and they should. Thet just should not worry about there employers making more. If that was the case every person in the world should strike against there employers.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I definitely side with the studios -- I hate unions. This isn't cole mining, this is film, there is no need for unions whatsoever. I'd fire all of the writers and lock them out permanently. There are 100,000 other good writers who would love to take their place in this industry. There are ten times as many people in every position who have the talent to be given a chance, but it's a tough business so there is not room for everyone.

Screw the unions.

[John V]

My thoughts exactly. Why keep all the other capable writers out of the industry? If it were not for unions these writers would be out on the street...not by their choice. I think I will go to my boss tomorrow and ask for more money. I am sorry that the writers feel they dont get paid enough. I know most Americans would love to make only $66,000 dollars a year sitting at home writing.

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

haha, exactly. The unions often kill themselves, which is why a number of union members have filed financial core status. Sometimes, union requests are perfectly reasonable, like meal times, work days, that kind of stuff. But other times you have to be kidding me. If you shoot with the union wages I have seen quoted in music video books on the industry, you aren't making a $100,000 music video -- you're making a $20,000 video you just happen to be spending five times more than necessary. $500 for a grip? $575 for a gaffer? $2,500 to $5,000 for a DP, $300 for a PA, $1,500 for a makeup person? Are you kidding me? I've worked with great makeup people for $150/day, and PAs are free, go to a film school and start recruiting, how dumb are these people? I think when you get that much money you turn into a retard. Grips are worth $100/day because that's the going rate -- post on Craig's List you'll find 75 grips with years of experience who can do anything and even DP in an emergency or 1st A.C. for $100 a day. It's not my fault there are thousands of people who will work for that price. I'm a producer / director, my job is to hire good people and save money. Plus being a grip is not a really skilled position, I learned how to do that job decently in about 5 hours. If I was a grip on 20 sets I'd be a freakin' pro at it. The wages some of these union people want are out of line. The American average wage per day is about $140/day, so $500 a day for a guy who does NOTHING more than your average Home Depot employee is insanity.

It's no wonder they run budgets up to $100 million on a feature. Don't spend money you can't see on screen, plain and simple. If you pay a grip $500 instead of $100 you're retarded. I was especially amazed to hear that record labels would ok budgets like that when the music video production industry is NOT unionized! This isn't communism, it's a free market economy, and in the free market if I can find a good employee (which I can, and have many times) for $100/day to do basic labor on set, I'm not going to pay $200, or $300, or $500. Doing so would make me a lousy businessman.

[Greg M]

If you pay a grip $500 instead of $100 you're retarded.


:wacko: wow...another day and another great Jonathanism

[Greg M]

You have to start spreading out these gems over several days...I cant take it all in one post:


Grips are worth $100/day because that's the going rate



Plus being a grip is not a really skilled position, I learned how to do that job decently in about 5 hours.




If I was a grip on 20 sets I'd be a freakin' pro at it.


The American average wage per day is about $140/day, so $500 a day for a guy who does NOTHING more than your average Home Depot employee is insanity.

[Andrew Kimery]

As much as I hate to interrupt the brilliant dialogue going on right now...

"The Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) and the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) have issued the following statement today:

Leaders from the WGA and the AMPTP have mutually agreed to resume formal negotiations on November 26. No other details or press statements will be issued." (http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2007/11/amptp-promises-to-come-back-to-table.html)


-A

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I've avoided this thread because I didn't want to ruffle any feathers... But it seems opinions are pretty varied. I personally have a strong dislike for labor unions. I can't think of one union today that actually serves the purpose for which unions were originally created. This applies to any industry, be it mining, construction, filmmaking, plumbing, etc.. I truly believe that unions stifle competition and do more harm for employees than good. OTOH, like David said, having that union card does lead to higher pay because so many studios or production companies in this business have established themselves on a union mentality. This industry is heavily unionized and being non-union is almost the same as being labeled unqualified.

There are plenty of labor laws (in the USA at least) to protect employees. Employees (and employers) often need to do a better job at familiarizing themselves with rights and practices both on a Federal and local level. Unions serve a different purpose these days -- control.

Could the studios do away with unionized employees? Yes. Could they essentially break the guilds? Yes. Will they do this? No, definitely not.

It's about control. The studios (and large companies in this and other industries) like unions. They can work with the union representatives to negotiate pay scales, employee functions, benefits, etc... Control. All employees coming in have to fit the established contract system. Control. The employer knows that their competition is paying the same wages and placing the same number of people on the same types of jobs. Control. Employees with grievances are handled through established due process via union reps and arbitrators, not directly with the disgruntled employee. Control.

Non-unionized competition is easily looked down upon. It's easy to spin perception that their employees are getting a bum deal or are not treated as well / paid as good. Or that they are somehow less qualified. Often not true, but it sticks. More control...

Employers can put up with a strike or other unionized labor dispute every few years. Eventually it gets settled by someone throwing a few peanuts at the other guy and life goes on. ...It's just business. What these studios don't want to suddenly deal with is a downfall of one of their employee unions or a massive surge of independent or non-union employees. In other words, a complete loss of control. Employers would suddenly be stuck writing their own labor policies, pay scales, benefits packages, all the time wondering what the competition is up to. And dealing with independent employees and agents on a continuous basis. Even if they end up paying employees lower salaries on average, it will cost them more on the back end supporting and dealing with the independent variables.

Another thing we see in disputes like this one that does more harm to employees than good are outside unions taking up supporting roles. Like the Teamsters union shutting down all deliveries in conjunction with a writers strike. Never mind that the writers aren't working and the studio may have 3 months of back-logged scripts to shoot. There's suddenly no craft services because they can't get food deliveries and the 10 new workstations for the editing department are still sitting on a loading dock across town. So now more below the line people get to go sit at home or look for a new job elsewhere when they could be working for the next several weeks or months while the core dispute gets resolved.

And I'll stop there because most people have probably quit reading by now.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Just to add some contrast to my previous post...

My opinions of labor unions aside, I actually agree with much of what the writers are asking for and striking about. I think that screenwriters, especially those writing for feature film, get totally shafted. It's painful to watch someone give birth to a great idea, create a great story around it, this idea gets made into a film that nets a couple hundred million $$ over a few years and all the original writer has to show for it is the $45K he was originally paid for the script (not discounting what Uncle Sam took out of that) and maybe a few extra bucks for every 100,000 DVDs shipped, if he was lucky enough to get that in the original contract.

[John V]

I feel that as a whole unions tend to make innovation go away. There is no incentive to do any better than the next guy. Why do so when you will be paid the same as the guy sitting in the corner on his "break"

[Shawn Nelson]

Hey Jeff, well written posts.

I think my greatest chance of leaving my job in software engineering is to sell a script at WGA minimum and get into that guild, then segue into directing after it, since my writing is my strong suite. Thus, I'm sure as hell hoping the WGA doesn't crumble.

[David Mullen ASC]

I feel that as a whole unions tend to make innovation go away. There is no incentive to do any better than the next guy. Why do so when you will be paid the same as the guy sitting in the corner on his "break"

As a union member, I find that pretty insulting to suggest that I don't really put out an effort to do my best when I get hired to shoot something. Or that my crews just sit on their asses collecting paychecks. I'm really offended. There is such a thing as pride in one's work, and professionalism, and striving to improve oneself and to advance as an artist and in the industry. You don't do that by doing nothing.

Besides, even on non-union shows, the rates for a bunch of electrics, grips, whatever in the same department, at the same job level, are pretty standardized -- you don't pay each electric a different rate based on how you like their work! It would be pretty hard to work out a production budget that way.

Almost every director and DP ever praised here (Terrance Malick, Chris Doyle, Steve Soderberg, etc.) on this forum is a member of some union, so there goes the theory that you can't expect innovation from a union member.

I've shot 25 features non-union and 7 union, and I can tell you that there really isn't a difference in terms of attitude or the way you work -- you try to hire the best people that you can, people that are going to be pleasant under pressure, who know their jobs, and who are fast. That sort of professionalism in people doesn't dissappear the moment they join a union. The main difference is the level of experience that tends to happen with people who have been around longer, and who tend to be in the union.

[Lucas Wilson]

I feel that as a whole unions tend to make innovation go away. There is no incentive to do any better than the next guy. Why do so when you will be paid the same as the guy sitting in the corner on his "break"

Because you're an artist and love your craft.

Sorry Jonathan, but you pretty clealy have zero understanding of the reality of unions in the entertainment industry, why they exist, and why they are necessary.

This comment is just about as insulting and uneducated as it gets.

Be sure to forward your comments to SAG, WGA, DGA, iATSE, and IBEW. FYI - Teamsters also really like it when you talk trash about unions. They think it's funny.

Lucas
------
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA

[Lucas Wilson]

This isn't communism, it's a free market economy, and in the free market if I can find a good employee (which I can, and have many times) for $100/day to do basic labor on set, I'm not going to pay $200, or $300, or $500. Doing so would make me a lousy businessman.

Just remember that everybody you see on the way up, you also meet on the way down. I'm sure those people will be very happy to pay you $100/day for your craft when you're in a jam and need work.

Lucas
------
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I feel that as a whole unions tend to make innovation go away. There is no incentive to do any better than the next guy. Why do so when you will be paid the same as the guy sitting in the corner on his "break"

Bad stereotype there. That's just as bad as saying that all non-union employees are unskilled or under-qualified. Everyone has different work ethics, skills and levels of pride in what they do. Someone who is lazy and sponges a paycheck in a unionized workplace is likely to do the same thing in a non-union situation.

Edit> See David's response.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Just remember that everybody you see on the way up, you also meet on the way down. I'm sure those people will be very happy to pay you $100/day for your craft when you're in a jam and need work.

Lucas
------
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA


Exactly! $100 a day..:ranting2: That is exploitation... Sometimes I don't like unions either; look at the disaster that the French Transport unions are currently inflicting on their country.. But the unions exist because, human nature being what it is, if the studios could get away with paying everyone $1 a day and keeping all the money for themselves they would do it..

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Teamsters also really like it when you talk trash about unions. They think it's funny.

A friend of mine, he's a painter, talked trash about the Teamsters on a job site once. A few days later, his house was ransacked, windows smashed, holes knocked through walls and they drug him outside in the middle of the night and nearly beat him to death in his front yard and left him for dead.

I dislike labor unions... I have several stories just like that one to share. I grew up in the construction business and dealt with lots of union contractors. In Colorado, we're a predominantly non-union state, but they still have a presence, especially with the larger national contracting firms and government subs.

But we have to just accept this as it is. Unions are a way of life. In the film industry, it's heavily unionized, it's not changing anytime soon. The WGA, SAG, etc.. Have their purpose and their place here and we get the good with the bad.

[David Mullen ASC]

Whenever you start thinking, well, maybe we don't need unions anymore... someone like Jonathan posts and you realize that as long as there are producers with his sort of attitude, workers will always be forming unions.

There will always be small independent movies where they want to pay people only $100/day. I don't really have a problem with that because those sorts of movies provide an entry-level position and a way of gaining experience, build a resume, etc. Or work on a labor of love. It's not much of a way to earn a real living though so it isn't really a sustainable model for the industry at large.

It comes down to a philosophical stance -- does filmmaking involve skilled labor? If so, should someone doing skilled labor make a middle-class income if they work whatever is considered "regularly" for that industry? Should they be able to have a healthcare plan? Raise a family? Buy a home? Save for retirement?

Or is this really an industry that only needs unskilled labor working barely above minimum wage? A job that cannot really support a family over the long term, a job really only for college students, young people before they get a "real" job that pays the bills? Jonathan either hasn't thought through the ramifications of an entire film industry based around such low wages, or he doesn't really care, and either explanation is sort of scary.

One thing that was clear in all the years of doing really low-budget features with low salaries is that producers inevitably lost money in what is called "loss and damage" due to inexperienced people working with expensive equipment. You know the story... some guy who plugs in a 12K HMI incorrectly and blows a $2000 globe -- but hey, at least that guy only cost the producer $100/day instead of $200/day, even though by the end of the feature, these cheap grips and electricians have racked-up $20,000 in loss and damage... The phrase "you get what you pay for" comes to mind. Not to mention that time is money on a film shoot, and people who are both good AND fast are highly prized, and highly-prized people generally won't work for $100/day.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Exactly! $100 a day..:ranting2: That is exploitation...

Is it? On the surface, I agree with you. But it depends on what they're being hired for and what he considers "a day". For an 8 hour work day, that's $12.50/hour. It's very reasonable to find entry-level grips and box movers for that. A lot of film students would love to work on a real set in a paid position or earning internship credits for $12.50/hour -- if their school allows it.

OTOH, I'm not sure where he shops for his help, because I can't find anyone who remotely knows what the hell they're doing for that rate. Anyone who knows what they're doing, knows how to manage cables, move lights, is reliable enough to handle my gear, is going to charge a lot more than $100/day. For $100 day, I may as well go down to the temp labor pool and just grab the first three $7.00/hour guys I see that can stand up straight and have a pulse. Then just try the instant OJT approach and hope no one gets killed.

I think some of Jonathan's remarks are off base, but I also think he's working in a different market than what some here are thinking. I've been on shoots for skate and snowboard videos where the producer is some start-up energy drink company, the skaters / riders are dudes getting sponsored by this company, half the crew is made up of friends of everyone involved and there is no budget. Some of these guys get totally jazzed if they can come out and be a set monkey for $50 or sometimes nothing and we just throw some Taco Bell at them. Different world out there if you look in the right places. :watsup:

[GlennChan]

The press release was on November 16... they *start* negotiating on the 26th. That's *10* days after... it looks like AMPTP is willing to let the strike go on / doesn't look like they want to get things settled quickly.

[Lucas Wilson]

A friend of mine, he's a painter, talked trash about the Teamsters on a job site once. A few days later, his house was ransacked, windows smashed, holes knocked through walls and they drug him outside in the middle of the night and nearly beat him to death in his front yard and left him for dead.

I'm really sorry to hear about your friend. I have several similar stories.

In a previous lifetime, I did FOH for a living. Teamsters loaded bands in, and IBEW provided sparkys to get things set up.

Rule #1 - Do not piss off IBEW. Bad things happen. With high voltages.
Rule #2 - If you have a genuinely good reason to get pissed off, see rule #1.

Lucas
------
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
LA, CA, USA

[Andrew Kimery]

I feel that as a whole unions tend to make innovation go away. There is no incentive to do any better than the next guy. Why do so when you will be paid the same as the guy sitting in the corner on his "break"

Um, being a member of MPEG, WGA, SAG, etc., doesn't guarantee you work. So there is plenty of incentive to be better than the next guy unless your goal in life is to be homeless.


-A

[donatello b]

"I'm not going to pay $200, or $300, or $500. Doing so would make me a lousy businessman"

and then again - at some point NOT paying those rates will make you a lousy businesssman ...

who knows ?? i guess well have to see where you go over the next few years paying $100 per day for your crews ... in the SF area you pay the guy standing out in front of home depot more then that to work in your yard ...

i would assume you expect the same pay as your crew ?
so that's 500 wk X52 = $26,000 year ... i can't live on 26k a year ! medical insurance alone for 2 (late 50's) $13,800 year ...

i've worked with 100 day grips and 500 day grips and they are very different .. like any job you start off at 100 day and within time you work your way up the $$ scale ... i'm spoiled by 500 day grips, 700 day gaffers etc ....
you have your choice- hire non union crew or union crew and sometimes a mix of union & non union ....

[Evin Grant]

There are two very valid perspectives here, in the end what digital capture and the internet are really going ot do is polarize the industry. There will only be big budget, unionized mega productions (Of which I'm on one now despite the fact I'm not in 600 yet) and everything else will be bottom of the barrel, every man for himself. I do think that you get what you pay for, since the HVX 200 came out I've found myself one of the first and only DPs truly comortable with a tapeless workflow. And now with Red I've increased my rate substantially. No producers seem to really mind because for some reason I inspire confidence in them. And it doesn't seem to matter if it's union or not. I've probably worked 15 union days this year and every time the Prod. co. calls 600 and says it's new tech and they let it go. Eventualy they'll want me to join, the question is, is it worth it if you don't have a feature or show that's gonna pay the entry.

[dino g]

in 20 years in this business, it is like an other business, you get what you pay for. pay a guy 100 bucks a day and then eat 400 in l&d...same amount for the production, but as a producer, 400 of l & d gets you passed over for the next gig.

great pa for $75.00 but a chunk of the prod cube is still attached to the tree he hit because he is a rookie...

the greatest thing about red for me is working with big crews again after taking ten years off to do low budget internet and low bud TV stuff. big union crew bust ass, know their jobs, have less attitude and get things done on time and without a lot of questions.

they are like the freakin secret service with their clear ear pieces and hidden microphones, they know their job and get it done, and if not, the dept head will surely cut them because they do not want to loose their gig because of some slacker that dropped a light on the producers porche.

even at 500 per day a grip can barely afford a house on the westside unless he bought it in 1994.

pay people what they ask for and what they are worth, and then make them earn it...if they pull it off hire them again, if not, kick them to the curb...and maybe they will learn.

on the other hand great thing about digital distribution, production and editing, if you think you can do it better, then do it, go buy an hdv camcorder for 800 bucks and shoot the little johnny video and put it on youtube, if it resonates with the audience, then guess what you may get a gig. at the very least you will learn more about what you dont know and start to respect the people that you thought were unskilled...long live the c47 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clothespin) and catching that clueless producer/production manager that went to college with the executive producer pulling out his hair looking for one in the LA411.

[David Mullen ASC]

i would assume you expect the same pay as your
so that's 500 wk X52 = $26,000 year ... i can't live on 26k a year ! medical insurance alone for 2 (late 50's) $13,800 year ....

Except who can ever find freelance work for all 52 weeks in a year! More likely that you'd find work for 40 weeks if you're lucky and having a good year, so that's more like $20,000/year, not $26,000/year.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Is it? On the surface, I agree with you. But it depends on what they're being hired for and what he considers "a day". For an 8 hour work day, that's $12.50/hour. It's very reasonable to find entry-level grips and box movers for that. A lot of film students would love to work on a real set in a paid position or earning internship credits for $12.50/hour -- if their school allows it.

OTOH, I'm not sure where he shops for his help, because I can't find anyone who remotely knows what the hell they're doing for that rate. Anyone who knows what they're doing, knows how to manage cables, move lights, is reliable enough to handle my gear, is going to charge a lot more than $100/day. For $100 day, I may as well go down to the temp labor pool and just grab the first three $7.00/hour guys I see that can stand up straight and have a pulse. Then just try the instant OJT approach and hope no one gets killed.

I think some of Jonathan's remarks are off base, but I also think he's working in a different market than what some here are thinking. I've been on shoots for skate and snowboard videos where the producer is some start-up energy drink company, the skaters / riders are dudes getting sponsored by this company, half the crew is made up of friends of everyone involved and there is no budget. Some of these guys get totally jazzed if they can come out and be a set monkey for $50 or sometimes nothing and we just throw some Taco Bell at them. Different world out there if you look in the right places. :watsup:


:watsup: :biggrin:

[krd]

Anti-union sentiment is so common in the U.S. that it's easy to forget we're unique in the industrial world, in hating unions more than corporations or even politicians -- despite the fact that the stagnation in American wages runs parallel to the decline of organized labor, and thanks to the class war which both political parties have been waging against the middle-class and poor since the Reagan years. If that sounds like a lunatic Commie rant, the world's most successful investor, Warren Buffett, said much the same thing in recent Congressional testimony.

On that note, we've heard a lot about largely imaginary $200K writers, but not a single complaint about the salaries of studio executives -- the same multi-millionaires with 8 and 9 figure take-home pay who are trying to stiff writers out of a tiny return on internet downloads, and who get their broadcast frequencies for free, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Some people here have even persuaded themselves that the guilds keep non-members out of the industry, when membership is open to anyone who has a reason to join (for example, a guild signatory is interested in hiring you or buying your script?), and union scale barely counts as middle-class.

The typical non-union wage earner in this country hasn't gotten a raise in 30 years, and who does he blame? Not his senator, not corporate America, not the two political parties. No, it's all the fault of the union he doesn't belong to....

[Russ McDonald]

Anti-union sentiment is so much taken for granted in the U.S. that it's easy to forget we're unique in the industrial world, in detesting unions more than corporations or even politicians -- despite the fact that the stagnation in American wages runs parallel to the decline of organized labor, and thanks to the class war which both political parties have been waging against the middle-class and poor since the Reagan years. (If that sounds like a lunatic Commie rant, the world's most successful investor, Warren Buffett, said much the same thing in recent Congressional testimony.)

....

If this is the emotional, and intellectual heart of the majority of the strikers. They are in for a very disappointing out come.

[John V]

I make more for a non-union construction company than I ever will for a union one. I still tend to think that the reason for unions has changed. Originally unions were started to help the worker get better wages. It has turned into one where the unions try to hold the employer hostage. If it were not for the dreaded evil employer where would these employees go or work for? Unions have there place but when they hurt so many other lower paying jobs how is that good for anyone?

[Brent J. Craig]

I think when you get that much money you turn into a retard. Grips are worth $100/day because that's the going rate -- post on Craig's List you'll find 75 grips with years of experience who can do anything and even DP in an emergency or 1st A.C. for $100 a day....

Jonathan, I really hope you are joking and we just don't understand your sense of humor.

Do you really believe you could hire a $100 a day 'Craig's list' grip and have them DP in a pinch?!?

Could you please PM me your real name and location so I can add you to my 'list' to ensure I never work with you or with any company that would hire you.

[Andrew Kimery]

. Originally unions were started to help the worker get better wages.
And safer working conditions. And a standard, reasonable work week.



It has turned into one where the unions try to hold the employer hostage.
Have you looked at what the WGA is asking for? Are you aware that years ago the WGA took a big cut in residuals in an act of good faith to try and help the studios out? The WGA want's a small cut from a new distribution medium (the internet) just like they got a small cut from "old" distribution mediums (TV, VHS, DVD, etc.,.). I really don't see what the problem is. The management/worker relationship is a symbiotic one that gets disrupted if too much power swings to either side.


If it were not for the dreaded evil employer where would these employees go or work for? Unions have there place but when they hurt so many other lower paying jobs how is that good for anyone?
If it weren't for the dreaded, evil employer there would be no unions. Happy, well treated employees tend to not unionize because they don't need to.


-A

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I just recently became a full time DP, all I can say is that in a business where you only work a few weeks out of the year, you HAVE to charge at least $500 a day in order to survive. Get real man. If you consider that outrageous, go yell at a bunch of wedding photographers who charge around 1-2 grand per wedding they shoot... oh but wait, most don't even work more than 30 weddings a year... It's simple business math.

I always hear above the line people on super cheapo shows complain about guy's like me costing "too much". I always politely remind them that we don't cost too much, they just don't have a big enough budget. Many people in the super lower budget world seem to miss a big point about making a film. Your not making a movie, your making a business that has the potential to earn a lot of money. Why do you think every film is its own legal entity? Treat it like that, and spend whats necessary. A "brick and mortar" business can cost millions to set up right, why on earth they can't see it that way with their film just boggles my mind.

I once had an offer to shoot a feature that had a total budget of $30,000 for everything. Yes, that included pre-production, production, and post. I turned it down. Why? Because thats a budget where everyone works for free and all the money goes into the show (rental fees, location fees, etc...), a show that earns a producer money, and everyone else is penniless. Its just dumb. I would have made out somewhat OK (only because of my personal gear rental), but I know my AC's and grips would have earned barely peanuts for their 14 hour work days.

I used to admire people claiming they made a full length feature for under 50 grand. I once saw someone claim under 10 grand. Now that I work full time, I see it differently. I now see those films as very bad examples for the next generation of filmmakers, and guess what... they all had pretty horrible production value and not a single soul working on them got compensated.

Go Figure. End of Rant.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I just recently became a full time DP, all I can say is that in a business where you only work a few weeks out of the year, you HAVE to charge at least $500 a day in order to survive. Get real man. If you consider that outrageous, go yell at a bunch of wedding photographers who charge around 1-2 grand per wedding they shoot... oh but wait, most don't even work more than 30 weddings a year... It's simple business math.

I always hear above the line people on super cheapo shows complain about guy's like me costing "too much". I always politely remind them that we don't cost too much, they just don't have a big enough budget. Many people in the super lower budget world seem to miss a big point about making a film. Your not making a movie, your making a business that has the potential to earn a lot of money. Why do you think every film is its own legal entity? Treat it like that, and spend whats necessary. A "brick and mortar" business can cost millions to set up right, why on earth they can't see it that way with their film just boggles my mind.

I once had an offer to shoot a feature that had a total budget of $30,000 for everything. Yes, that included pre-production, production, and post. I turned it down. Why? Because thats a budget where everyone works for free and all the money goes into the show (rental fees, location fees, etc...), a show that earns a producer money, and everyone else is penniless. Its just dumb. I would have made out somewhat OK (only because of my personal gear rental), but I know my AC's and grips would earn barely peanuts for their 14 hour work days.

I used to admire people claiming they made a full length feature for under 50 grand. I once saw someone claim under 10 grand. Now that I work full time, I see it differently. I now see those films as very bad examples for the next generation of filmmakers, and guess what... they all had pretty horrible production value and not a single soul working on them got compensated.

Go Figure. End of Rant.

What about future payment?

[Mark L. Pederson]

If you pay a grip $500 instead of $100 you're retarded.

When I do pay pay a grip $500, it is not becuase I am retarded.

It is because I know the level of skill I get for $100. I don't hire cocky guys who think they can learn a skilled trade in 5 hours.

I know grips I would pay $1000 a day for, because they are worth it.

I don't know who you are, or how much professional experience you have in the industry, (I doubt you have much) and I am rather bored with getting into "pissing contests" with amateurs on this forum - but I find your comments to be offensive.

But alas, free speech and all - you are entitled.

But I can assure you, I am not ... retarded.

[krd]

If this is the emotional, and intellectual heart of the majority of the strikers. They are in for a very disappointing out come.

I have no idea what's in the heart of any striker, and wouldn't venture to speak to that question. The causes of strike are specific, and known to all.

However, if you have a factual rebuttal to claims I've made, I'll try to answer your objections.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

What about future payment?

Are you referring to "deferred payment"?

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I thought some here might be interested in this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6hqP0c0_gw

[John V]

"If it weren't for the dreaded, evil employer there would be no unions. Happy, well treated employees tend to not unionize because they don't need to."

So your trying to say that the unions in the industry are not happy. I dont think anyone sees that the ISATE get 20 cents for 50,000 union members..WGA members get 4 cents per individual. How is that fair? If we are talking abnout making things fair why not pay everyone the same. Seems to me that the lowest paid memebers should be striking. I am sorry for being so into this but when family members lose their jobs one can't help but do so.

BTW the amount you pay an individual in this industry is very much inflated. This fact you can't deny. The average worker on any given production make much more than the average American worker. So from my point they should have nothing to complain about.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

BTW the amount you pay an individual in this industry is very much inflated. This fact you can't deny. The average worker on any given production make much more than the average American worker. So from my point they should have nothing to complain about.

Inflated??? How so? The average American worker works a 9-5 job (typically with benefits), 5 days a week. I'm lucky if I pull in a total of 50 days worth of work a year with no benefits, thus I need to charge a higher rate for my services. Simple economics, its not hard to understand at all, and its not over inflated one bit. The only way you could say its over inflated is if that person is working every single day like any other full time employee in America, but the honest truth is that very few people in this business can pull that off.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

People have no problem paying their mechanic $120 an hour but if it's for something creative all of a sudden you're supposed to starve and live in poverty.

There is still a strong prejudice against "useless" and "silly" jobs. After all, we enjoy our work "that's payment enough." -end rant

[Andrew Kimery]

So your trying to say that the unions in the industry are not happy.
I'm saying that employers that worked people for long hours, in dangerous conditions for little compensation sowed the seeds for unionization in this country. Employees who are treated/compensated in a fair/reasonable manor have little motivation to unionize.


BTW the amount you pay an individual in this industry is very much inflated. This fact you can't deny.
Yer entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. BTW, "this industry" is a pretty broad term that covers a large range of income levels. Not everyone works projects w/$100 million budgets.


The average worker on any given production make much more than the average American worker.
What's the average annual income in America and what's the average annual income of the average worker on any given production? And since most production people live in Los Angeles would it be unfair to include a cost of living adjustment for them?


So from my point they should have nothing to complain about.
So the writers, who get residuals as part of their compensation, shouldn't complain because the studios are moving to a new distribution medium and are refusing to give residuals for what goes out over the new medium?

Lastly, in your opinion, what should be the earning ceiling for people? Should no one be allowed to make more than $50k annually? $100k? $500k? At what point do you say, "Oh, sorry. You make too much money so you no longer deserve to get paid for your work?"


-A

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Going back to the $100 a day grip... I just finished two jobs where two separate min wage interns cost over $2000 in screw ups. (not our interns). sometimes saving Money, costs alot.

[GlennChan]

BTW the amount you pay an individual in this industry is very much inflated. This fact you can't deny. The average worker on any given production make much more than the average American worker. So from my point they should have nothing to complain about.
There's a number of things to consider:
A- Paid hours + unpaid hours of work. With many freelance professions (mechanics included), the worker will spend a lot of time on unpaid/unbillable hours. Finding work, training on new technologies, etc. etc. And they may or may not receive benefits.

B- Overtime / long hours. If you are to work 14-16 days, you should get paid a premium. This is more true in production.

C- For some lines of work, it takes a long time to get to where they are. Many(/most/all?) ASC members took several years to break in... getting very low income while doing so.

D- There are different ways to slice statistics to support whatever viewpoint you want. People tend to slice statistics in ways that favour their position... there's many ways to abuse statistics.

E- The work is not steady (e.g. months of unemployment), so for the added risk I think it's fair to get paid more.

But if you feel it's inflated then that's how you feel.


If we are talking abnout making things fair why not pay everyone the same.
You mean like communism? (Sorry, being facetious here. Communism is arguably a good idea in theory, but it didn't work out that well...)

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Are you referring to "deferred payment"?

Yes, deferred payment is the right term :).

When fixed by contract, it seems like a perfectly acceptable option to me.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

You mean like communism? (Sorry, being facetious here. Communism is arguably a good idea in theory, but it didn't work out that well...)

I second that and I think you can really trust me on the matter:

IT DOESN'T WORK.

:biggrin: :watsup: :matrix:

[david farland]

Producers saying I don't like unions is exactly like criminals saying I don't like cops!

Take them away and watch the exploitation.


Dave,

[Russ McDonald]

I have no idea what's in the heart of any striker, and wouldn't venture to speak to that question. The causes of strike are specific, and known to all.

However, if you have a factual rebuttal to claims I've made, I'll try to answer your objections.

All human choices have emotional content, its the cornerstone of what we do as writers. We exploit that singular human dynamic to create drama, it's our bread and butter.

This is the danger that faces the WGA, support of public is never a lock in todays environment. Case and point; grocery strike in California, consumers crossed that picket line every day. The picket line they crossed was full of people they had a much closer relationship with. Than they will ever have with you. The public doesn't look at unions like same way they did in hey day of Teamsters.

All organized groups have a collective emotional state.


So here is a WGA CHECK UP from the Neck UP!

Just because you are a Guild Writer doesn't mean you are a good Writer. The state of network television today speaks volumes of proof, to that statement.

You live in a Free market Republic, not a artistic commune. So as a group are you acting like revolutionaries, "We are Mob hear us roar!" or "Lets set up a win, win here"

The latter is the key to getting even more. The former is they A-Train to getting your ass kicked. I think you deserve more, and I could get you more.

Why? Because I think like a "Commercial" artist.

The Trade Unions in this Industry are equally guilty, for the migration of
off- shore production. I was crewing back then and I, as well as allot of union members, got screwed in the end.

Krd.

You folks are acting like you have them by the balls, and the truth is they got you by throat.

[krd]

All human choices have emotional content, its the cornerstone of what we do as writers. We exploit that singular human dynamic to create drama, it's our bread and butter.

This is the danger that faces the WGA, support of public is never a lock in todays environment. Case and point; grocery strike in California, consumers crossed that picket line every day. The picket line they crossed was full of people they had a much closer relationship with. Than they will ever have with you. The public doesn't look at unions like same way they did in hey day of Teamsters.

All organized groups have a collective emotional state.


So here is a WGA CHECK UP from the Neck UP!

Just because you are a Guild Writer doesn't mean you are a good Writer. The state of network television today speaks volumes of proof, to that statement.

You live in a Free market Republic, not a artistic commune. So as a group are you acting like revolutionaries, "We are Mob hear us roar!" or "Lets set up a win, win here"

The latter is the key to getting even more. The former is they A-Train to getting your ass kicked. I think you deserve more, and I could get you more.

Why? Because I think like a "Commercial" artist.

The Trade Unions in this Industry are equally guilty, for the migration of
off- shore production. I was crewing back then and I, as well as allot of union members, got screwed in the end.

Krd.

You folks are acting like you have them by the balls, and the truth is they got you by throat.

First of all, you're making some unwarranted assumptions about my interest in this matter ("you folks?"). Beyond that, you sound more bothered by the views you attribute to the strikers, than anything they're actually asking for. Maybe that's because the "demand" is so apparently reasonable and modest.

I don't know who's acting "like [they] have them by the balls" -- the strike looks more like an act of desperation mounted against powerful interests which refuse to negotiate. In that case, you have a choice: fight or roll-over.

In any event, I don't speak for WGA or the strikers, so any quarrel you have with me is not one for the union.

[Russ McDonald]

So you are the revolutionary. From what I have researched on the issues around the strike. Is short the people who risked to most e.g. The money should pay you more, because they have opened another market, and risked more money doing so.

You are far from the only ship in the harbor. I write circles around 95% of the writers in your Union. The principals of collective bargaining are clearly defined. For it to work you have to have leverage.

You use a strike as a tool. For that tool to have any effectiveness, you have to be the only way, the other side to can get what they want. Sadly the WGA has no such Leverage.

This forum is full of talent, that can out Direct, out Write, and out Produce any Union crew. At 60% of the budget.... That isn't a boast, that's a cold hard fact. The longer you strike the faster the other side of the table will realize it.

Thinking like a Capitalist is your only way out of it.

I would sign your deal tomorrow, but you aren't negotiating with me... But that's because I love revolutionaries.

[Ruairi Robinson]

This forum is full of talent, that can out Direct, out Write, and out Produce any Union crew. At 60% of the budget.... That isn't a boast, that's a cold hard fact.

http://www.manatee.k12.fl.us/sites/elementary/palmasola/rcfo1.htm

[Gavin Greenwalt]

So you are the revolutionary. From what I have researched on the issues around the strike. Is short the people who risked to most e.g. The money should pay you more, because they have opened another market, and risked more money doing so.


The studios aren't risking anything by 'opening a new market'. The market is wide open and busy take a look at any pirate sites, TV-Links, etc etc. They are just afraid of monetizing it because it's new and scary. They know full damn well that it's how almost all of their home sales will be made in the not too distant future.

Studios are just a giant film mutual fund. The infrastructre already exits for selling and trading they just need to choose the right stocks. But a mutual fund shouldn't be able to buy a stock (a screenplay/project) and then only pay for the stock if it performs well. Obviously that would be great for the mutual fund owner and investors, but the company needs something in return.

If the studios hadn't been such... err ummm... asswipes about how they define profits none of this would have been a problem in the first place. Instead they've cornered themselves by redefining a fair and equitable solution and required the unions to get fairly payed whether the studio is making a "profit" or not.

I place an enormous amount of blaim on the studios' previous actions. You can say "let the free market operate" all you want. But then the studios will have to pay the writers up front an enormous sum of money every time. If the studios want the writers to accept the up front financial risk by a deferred payment plan they need to actually pay their fair share when the cash starts coming in something that they clearly cannot be trusted to do without a union breathing down their neck.

Whether we like it or not unfortunately our profession has a halo on it of being something that is "glamorous" and exciting. As a result there is unfortunately an enormous line of people who are willing to work for free, long hours and be disposed of a few years later without any safety net. In a free market that's a situation ripe for exploitation.

[Russ McDonald]

http://www.manatee.k12.fl.us/sites/elementary/palmasola/rcfo1.htm

Thanks for test, but who cares.

I took another test once. I shot my trailer on super 35mm, and posted it. For a total of 1300 dollars. You couldn't brew coffee on a union set, for that.

I used that to get 50,000 dollars and shot a full feature in 10 days, and it's looks as good or better than stuff, shot a 100 times the price.

When it comes to this forum. I'm far from the only one that can say that. So in the interest of complete clarity I'll call it a Axiom.

[Mark L. Pederson]

There might actually be a funny reality TV show here -

The $100 A Day Grip

[Russ McDonald]

Whether we like it or not unfortunately our profession has a halo on it of being something that is "glamorous" and exciting. As a result there is unfortunately an enormous line of people who are willing to work for free, long hours and be disposed of a few years later without any safety net. In a free market that's a situation ripe for exploitation.

Thank you for highlighting the danger the writers face. They are not a group of Doctors who hold the cure for cancer in their hands. It's just entertainment...

[Ruairi Robinson]

Thanks for test, but who cares.

I took another test once. I shot my trailer on super 35mm, and posted it. For a total of 1300 dollars. You couldn't brew coffee on a union set, for that.

I used that to get 50,000 dollars and shot a full feature in 10 days, and it's looks as good or better than stuff, shot a 100 times the price.

When it comes to this forum. I'm far from the only one that can say that. So in the interest of complete clarity I'll call it a Axiom.

Sure, it can be done. All it means is nobody gets paid.

But when you have people working with you for free, don't you wish you could pay them what they deserve?

getting stuff done cheaply is not the greatest claim to fame, and if you do it, you should only have to do it once - to prove yourself. If you have to do it after that, it just means you are CHEAP.

R.

[Finner]

Exactly Ruairi

I know from my experience is that my projects are only as good as my team and I feel fortunate when I have good people willing to give there all for the end product. I want them happy and fair payment is part of that.

By the way congrats Rauiri on your feature deal.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Thank you for highlighting the danger the writers face. They are not a group of Doctors who hold the cure for cancer in their hands. It's just entertainment...

<rant>
Well I like to stand up for my fellow entertainers who work hard, provide a service that is desired (probably more than a cure for cancer for more tha 90% of the population) and believe it should be a viable occupation for the people who make it happen.

I've turned down a $30,000 project because the only way I could get it done would be to ask people to work for free on something I damn well knew was making the client a pile of money.

In my mind it's a question of priorities. And unfortunately the film business has become one where financial irresponsibility has become glorified as "passion" and "determination". Taking out 2 mortgages and maxing out $100,000 in credit cards has become practically the endorsed route to success for independent film makers. And along the way it doesn't matter what it takes as long as you can express your "passion" to the world even if it means using mild deception and empty promises to get it done and a trail of bankrupt financially ruined individuals.
</rant>

[krd]

You are far from the only ship in the harbor. I write circles around 95% of the writers in your Union.

Three quick comments, and then an end to it:

- it's not "my" union.

- the lousy writing quality on network TV is exactly what the studio execs and the sponsors want, and it's the only thing they'll pay for.

- give writers a free hand, and you'll get "The Sopranos", "Deadwood" and "The Wire", not more Charlie Sheen, Ray Romano, Grey's Anatomy spinoffs or bathroom and genital jokes. And even if the writers were as bad as that, they would still deserve a share of the revenue they create. Ever heard of the "social contract"?

[mezmo]

Hi Guys,
Lets face it, unions can be a pain in the backside on many occasions,
but they are responsible for many standards and conditions we enjoy in the
workplace. The are also an essential part of a democratic system and
without them we'd all still be down the mine working for Lord Twit and two shillings a week.
I love people who rubbish the unions and say we don't need them, they are
also the first people on set to remind you it's time for a lunch break and
when your about to go into penality rates.
So even though they are not members of a union, in many situations they
insist on standards set by the union, and set over many years of collective
bargaining by the union and it's members.
Funny that.
There was a time in hollywood when actors were paid a hot meal (lunch)
in exchange for a good day's work. Mezmo

[Russ McDonald]

Not once in this whole post have I said that WGA does not deserve what they want.... Not once

I have gotten this rap as the Dark Lord of Production. I'm trying to help you emotionally step back, so you can win.

Who do you think has the advantage, and why?

[Russ McDonald]

Sure, it can be done. All it means is nobody gets paid.

But when you have people working with you for free, don't you wish you could pay them what they deserve?

getting stuff done cheaply is not the greatest claim to fame, and if you do it, you should only have to do it once - to prove yourself. If you have to do it after that, it just means you are CHEAP.

R.

I may be frugal, but I am far from cheap. Just go to the What would you rent it for thread.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

- the lousy writing quality on network TV is exactly what the studio execs and the sponsors want, and it's the only thing they'll pay for.

I completely agree with that and have always thought this. I just don't understand why it has to be this way. Perhaps someone could try to explain this to me.

One would think that each network having one or two shows that are a "must see" would be a good thing.

[GlennChan]

Is it mediocre though? If you take any particular writer, there will be variation in the quality of his/her work... some of his/her work will be really good, and most of it will be more average. Just because of that variation, a lot of writing will not be stellar quality.

2- If you compare student/amateur scripts to professional scripts... I think you'll find that the professional scripts on average are much better. Student films and directors who write their own films would be examples of this (IMO).

3- Another possibility is that the execs meddle with the writing too much (i.e. revisions/changes), leading to bad premises.

From the Wikipedia:

In his Q&A/comedy DVD, An Evening With Kevin Smith, writer/director Kevin Smith relates an anecdote about when he was hired to write a draft for the new Superman movie, which would have been called Superman Lives. According to Smith, Peters demanded that Superman was not to appear in his iconic costume, nor fly. He also instructed Kevin Smith to include a gay robot sidekick to Brainiac voiced by Dwight Ewell and a fight scene involving Brainiac and a pair of polar bears, and insisted that the final act of the film must consist of Superman fighting a giant spider which would be unveiled to Superman in a scene reminiscent of King Kong's reveal in his titular film. Later on in the DVD, Smith notes that the summer after he worked with Peters, he saw Wild Wild West, a movie produced by Peters, which similarly contained a giant robotic spider.

Many fans blamed Peters for the decade long loss of Superman on film, as well as the nearly $50 million loss that Warner Brothers took as a result of several failed attempts to reignite the franchise. In Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman, Jon Peters admits "the elements that I was focusing on were away from the heart, it was more leaning towards Star Wars in a sense, you know. I didn't realize the human part of it, I didn't have that." He subsequently served as Executive Producer for Superman Returns, the 2006 movie directed by Bryan Singer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Peters

[Russ McDonald]

2- If you compare student/amateur scripts to professional scripts... I think you'll find that the professional scripts on average are much better. Student films and directors who write their own films would be examples of this (IMO).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Peters

This is the most uniformed opinion I've read today. This is a business, always has been, always will be. Socrates was singing for his supper just like the rest of us.


Most Show Runners, start out as a Staff Writer. They're both responsible for the state of TV.

[donatello b]

"the lousy writing quality on network TV is exactly what the studio execs and the sponsors want, and it's the only thing they'll pay for"

or
TV is based on # of viewers - you can have great writing but if you don't have the viewers - it's out of here .. and remember one of the shows will always come in last in it's time slot no matter if they all have great writing one eithers gets the ole 86 or moves to new time ...
the bill for TV is footed by sponsors - if a show has the demographics & numbers for their product they'll pay the $$$ ... the most expensive time for ads are during the super bowl & i think academy awards ...

so is it really the studio that wants bad writing or is it the viewers that end up supporting bad writing by viewing them ? if nobody tunes in = they are cancelled ... there have been many shows with good writing that never made it past the 3-4th show because they didn't find a audience ..

bottom line - it's not good writing that keeps a show on the air - it's the number of viewers ... good writing wins awards BUT if that award oesn't translate into viewers ?? then that translate into no $$ - and that translates into cancelled !!

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm quite happy with the current state of TV writing. More happy than I think I've ever been. There are at least 7 shows that I am eager to see every week. I can't remember another time when that was the case. Hell I even think 2 and 1/2 men is pretty funny from time to time. It is what it is. Can it be compared to the writing of something like Munich? No. But I'm not going to go home at 10pm and crash in front of a heavy drama. Sometimes stupid is the order of the day.

Are there some really sad shows out there? Sure. But there will always be projects that don't live up to the dream.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Socrates was singing for his supper just like the rest of us.

Singing? :sorcerer:

[Russ McDonald]

Singing? :sorcerer:

It's called a metaphor.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

It's called a metaphor.

A metaphor? :watsup:

OK, sorry, I'm just a little touchy on the Socrates subject.

:clown2:

[John V]

Since when has it become of to force your employer to give you more of their money? Writers do deserve money but in my view residuals have destroyed everything. If I make a product I dont expect the purchaser to pay me 4 cents everytime they use it or talk about it. Employers should make more than you...thats why they are employers. They are there to make money not give more of it away.

[Joe Carney]

Sure, it can be done. All it means is nobody gets paid.

But when you have people working with you for free, don't you wish you could pay them what they deserve?

getting stuff done cheaply is not the greatest claim to fame, and if you do it, you should only have to do it once - to prove yourself. If you have to do it after that, it just means you are CHEAP.

R.

Thats how I feel. Even if I were to do a fan film, I want to pay people for their time. It is worth something. Even on a low/no budget project, at least offer gas money and good food.

Of course I picked a heck of a time to be looking for a good writer. hehehe.

Joe

[Andrew Kimery]

Since when has it become of to force your employer to give you more of their money?
So people should work for whatever amount their employer offers no matter how low it is? No one should ever leave a job for another one w/better benefits? No one should ever ask for, or expect, a raise?


Writers do deserve money but in my view residuals have destroyed everything.
How do you think residuals have destroyed everything?


Employers should make more than you...thats why they are employers.
Shouldn't this sentiment be directed more towards A-list actors rather than writers? I guarantee A-list acting talent drives up budgets way, way, way more than residuals the WGA wants on internet distribution.


They are there to make money not give more of it away.
And how do they make their money if they have no one working for them? I don't think paying for goods and/or services to properly run your business is "giving money away."

Have you had a chance to find those annual income figures yet?


-A

[Joel Kaye]

Employers should make more than you...thats why they are employers. They are there to make money not give more of it away.

Everything is negotiable. If the studios don't want to pay the writers more then they won't. Maybe they'll break the Union. Maybe they'll go unscripted. Maybe they'll realize they don't have anything without good writers.

Personally I think the writers are solving the wrong problem. They need to figure out how to become the employers and retain ownership of their own work. They can gather investors, hire producers, directors, actors, crew and do their own thing.

(I suppose we can talk about Hollywood's stranglehold on distribution right about here... but the writers have a stranglehold on scripted content)

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

When I do pay pay a grip $500, it is not becuase I am retarded.

It is because I know the level of skill I get for $100. I don't hire cocky guys who think they can learn a skilled trade in 5 hours.

I know grips I would pay $1000 a day for, because they are worth it.

I don't know who you are, or how much professional experience you have in the industry, (I doubt you have much) and I am rather bored with getting into "pissing contests" with amateurs on this forum - but I find your comments to be offensive.

But alas, free speech and all - you are entitled.

But I can assure you, I am not ... retarded.

If you're talking about grips on something like Spider-Man 3, I get it, you need really experienced grips. I got great grips, however, who worked their butts off for a 24-hour day and got everything done fast, knew all of the equipment I was working with, and had a few years of experience for $100/day. If I would have paid more the shoot would NOT have gone any better.

I'm sorry for your "experience" -- you've been in this industry so long, and you don't know enough to show for it. I'm really sorry for a lot of people in this industry, they have years and years of experience and yet haven't learned anything. It's sad.

[Greg M]

very very sad...actually we are "retarded", so please forgive us.

[Cail Young]

a 24-hour day

This scares me.

[GlennChan]

24 hours, $100 = $4.17.hr
Less than the minimum wage.

2- Damn, I took the bait. :help:

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Blah, blah... Blah blu-blah blah, blah blah. Blah blaaaah bubablah blah. :wacko: :blink: :wacko:

[Chris Nuzzaco]

If you're talking about grips on something like Spider-Man 3, I get it, you need really experienced grips. I got great grips, however, who worked their butts off for a 24-hour day and got everything done fast, knew all of the equipment I was working with, and had a few years of experience for $100/day. If I would have paid more the shoot would NOT have gone any better.

I'm sorry for your "experience" -- you've been in this industry so long, and you don't know enough to show for it. I'm really sorry for a lot of people in this industry, they have years and years of experience and yet haven't learned anything. It's sad.

A 24 hour day shoot results in footage that usually looks like crap.

Why?

Because most people can't think straight after shooting for 12 hours even with good on set catering to keep them going, and I get this funny feeling that you didn't even have catering....

[Chris Nuzzaco]

JonathanLB,

Would you work a 24 hour shoot, devoid of any catering, as a grip for $4.17 an hour?

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

It seems to me that most of the people thinking the writers are being unreasonable are people who are NOT currently supporting themselves in a filmmaking career, but are doing it on a hobby with whatever money they can scrounge up from waiting tables. And no offense to them, but it's just interesting how the concept of MAKING money instead of SPENDING money on their films is so foreign and frightening.

You may be happy to spend every dime you have, after you've paid for this month's rent and Ramen, on your latest vanity project, without concern for making any return. But that doesn't mean everyone ELSE has to work that way, and when film is a multi-billion dollar industry, there is NO reason that the people making the films shouldn't get a cut of the income their films are generating.

Sure, the employers are expected to make the lion's share. The most the writers are asking for is 2.5%. They're currently getting 0.3% and if the studios have their way, they'll soon be making 0%.

[John V]

I give you the example of a building design company. Lets call the designers the writers. Lets call the homeowners the studios. Now if I were to try to charge the homeowners residuals everytime they make a comment about our design or someone looks at the home I dont think the homeowner would be willing to give me any money for that.

[liquidigital]

Your analogy doesn't work. A house is not intellectual property. It does not generate revenue for the homeowners again and again and again. Once the homeowners sell it, they've acquired their profit. Imagine if they could keep selling the same house and earning money off of your design, over and over again, then wouldn't you be entitled to some of it? Here's a hint... If anyone reads this and determines the answer is "no," this shit is way above your head and you should never, ever post on a forum for fear of appearing stupid to your peers. ;)

[Andrew Kimery]

I give you the example of a building design company. Lets call the designers the writers. Lets call the homeowners the studios. Now if I were to try to charge the homeowners residuals everytime they make a comment about our design or someone looks at the home I dont think the homeowner would be willing to give me any money for that.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit for analogies, are we?

How about this...

The designer sells his designs to a construction company for a reduced rate w/the contractual stipulation that the construction company give him a small percentage every time they build a house using his designs. All is well and good until the construction company starts using a space age composite material (let's call it SpaceWood) instead of natural wood to build the homes and stops giving the designer his cut. The construction company feels that they don't owe the designer money anymore because they are using SpaceWood and the plans the designer drew up (before the implementation of SpaceWood) used natural wood. So now the designer is refusing to draw up any more designs until the construction company agrees to pay the agreed upon percentage for the designs regardless of building materials used.

Not a completely 1:1 analogy, but a bit closer than yours.

-A

[Joel Kaye]

Let's call the writers TALENT.

TALENT OFTEN GETS RESIDUALS. You know... like songwriters, directors, actors...

This thread is getting stupid. There's no law or verse in the Bible that dictates who gets what in a business transaction. LOOK - if they can negotiate to get it then they GET IT.

I personally would love to see a law passed that broke up the media oligopoly in this country.

[John V]

Agreed. BTW designers are selling their intellectual property to the homeowners and contractors.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Agreed. BTW designers are selling their intellectual property to the homeowners and contractors.
But presumably under the agreement that the design will only be used once, OR they negotiate their price based on the presumed re-use of their work. If a designer's work is going to be used for ten houses, that's nine jobs that HE isn't going to get, so you best believe that if he agrees to allow his design to be used more than once, he's asking for more money. But there's only so many houses that are likely to get built based on a given design, so that sets the upper limit of that the homeowners/contractors are going to pay.

The thing with writers is that it's impossible to put a reasonable cap on how much a movie could make. Who expected Pirates of the Caribbean 2 to make over a billion dollars? Because a film script represents a potentially infinite revenue stream, writers basically take a small percentage of what their script could be worth up front, on the agreement that the more money it makes, the more the script was worth and therefore the more should be paid for it.

The other way to do it would be to just do away with residuals, assume that a given film will make the billion dollars it has the potential to do, and just pay the writer $10 million up-front for every script, instead of deferring it based on the film's sales. I think the WGA would take that deal.

[Alexander Nikishin]

haha, exactly. The unions often kill themselves, which is why a number of union members have filed financial core status. Sometimes, union requests are perfectly reasonable, like meal times, work days, that kind of stuff. But other times you have to be kidding me. If you shoot with the union wages I have seen quoted in music video books on the industry, you aren't making a $100,000 music video -- you're making a $20,000 video you just happen to be spending five times more than necessary. $500 for a grip? $575 for a gaffer? $2,500 to $5,000 for a DP, $300 for a PA, $1,500 for a makeup person? Are you kidding me? I've worked with great makeup people for $150/day, and PAs are free, go to a film school and start recruiting, how dumb are these people? I think when you get that much money you turn into a retard. Grips are worth $100/day because that's the going rate -- post on Craig's List you'll find 75 grips with years of experience who can do anything and even DP in an emergency or 1st A.C. for $100 a day. It's not my fault there are thousands of people who will work for that price. I'm a producer / director, my job is to hire good people and save money. Plus being a grip is not a really skilled position, I learned how to do that job decently in about 5 hours. If I was a grip on 20 sets I'd be a freakin' pro at it. The wages some of these union people want are out of line. The American average wage per day is about $140/day, so $500 a day for a guy who does NOTHING more than your average Home Depot employee is insanity.

It's no wonder they run budgets up to $100 million on a feature. Don't spend money you can't see on screen, plain and simple. If you pay a grip $500 instead of $100 you're retarded. I was especially amazed to hear that record labels would ok budgets like that when the music video production industry is NOT unionized! This isn't communism, it's a free market economy, and in the free market if I can find a good employee (which I can, and have many times) for $100/day to do basic labor on set, I'm not going to pay $200, or $300, or $500. Doing so would make me a lousy businessman.

Hi Jonathan, you're an idiot. :biggrin:

[Jeremy Teman]

I know your not supposed to solicit your services on the forum like this, but.....

If anyone is looking for a grip, I charge $5/hr with a 48hr straight minimum.

Good day

[Jim McKinney]

I know your not supposed to solicit your services on the forum like this, but.....

If anyone is looking for a grip, I charge $5/hr with a 48hr straight minimum.

Good day

What are you doing Tuesday?
Of course you'll have to fly yourself in and work as a local.

[Greg M]

I know your not supposed to solicit your services on the forum like this, but.....

If anyone is looking for a grip, I charge $5/hr with a 48hr straight minimum.

Good day

I would like to book you for the rest of your life....or until I work you to death, whichever comes first.

[James T Mather]

cheap rental and crewing is fine if your lofty aspiration is to do cheap n nasty music videos for unknown bands on a home video camera on 24 hour shoots with a soggy sandwich in your hand at mealtime for 100 dollars - and yes, you'll always find uninformed students to turn up on these shoots and work for a few bucks under the illusion that they're getting closer to the "industry" - when, in fact, this sort of junk and methodology is one step above porno shooting.


The great thing about music videos is that there are no requirements to narrative or pressure from the client to complete a shot list - no pre-agreed special effects shots, understanding of narrative filmmaking, product photography, motion-control multipass, steadicam, cranes, 3d match moving, health and safetly concerns, time pressure etc.

At the top level people are hired because they are specialists and experienced. Any twit can grab a video camera, fire up a smoke machine and get a workable music video made with no skills or ability whatsoever - wideshot of band, cutway of fret board, back to singer etc - maybe make it "edgy" by lobbing in some handheld etc - and if it doesn't work in the edit? fine. Just slow mo that bit, cut to the drummer etc - painting by numbers filmmaking - for this you hardly need a crew - so cheap cameras, cheap crew = cheap result.

I don't want to pay to see a star wars or genre movie made for $1.98 shot on a home video camera with some dodgy gripping written by students. Surely the aim is not to cater to the lowest common denominator but the highest - otherwise you are a used car salesman.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

and yes, you'll always find uninformed students to turn up on these shoots and work for a few bucks under the illusion that they're getting closer to the "industry" - when, in fact, this sort of junk and methodology is one step above porno shooting.

Really? That's too bad... I mean, too bad if that's where porn rates. All my aspirations of becoming a great director/producer in the porn industry have been crushed. Thanks a lot, dude.


The great thing about music videos is that there are no requirements to narrative or pressure from the client to complete a shot list - no pre-agreed special effects shots, understanding of narrative filmmaking

Whoa, there... I suppose that all depends on the client and what they want. It's true that dodgy, amateur, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants music video creation is very prolific, but that doesn't account for all. I actually shot my first ever music video just 6 weeks ago. And it was a very professional gig with a very strict set of demands. Specific shots, planned FX, etc.. Actually, the image quality didn't have to be that good and much of the lighting was hap-hazard. But everything was getting a CG treatment to look like construction-paper cut-outs and water-colors. Kinda nifty... I didn't get to handle the post on this one, too bad, would have been a lot of fun.


Surely the aim is not to cater to the lowest common denominator but the highest - otherwise you are a used car salesman.

Unfortunately, many in Hollywood would disagree with you. That lowest common denominator makes up one huge movie-going audience. Demographics, marketing, numbers, it's still a business with the intent of making money. All too often, that still comes before art in this biz.

[Jeremy Teman]

cheap rental and crewing is fine if your lofty aspiration is to do cheap n nasty music videos for unknown bands on a home video camera on 24 hour shoots with a soggy sandwich in your hand at mealtime for 100 dollars - and yes, you'll always find uninformed students to turn up on these shoots and work for a few bucks under the illusion that they're getting closer to the "industry" - when, in fact, this sort of junk and methodology is one step above porno shooting.

The great thing about music videos is that there are no requirements to narrative or pressure from the client to complete a shot list - no pre-agreed special effects shots, understanding of narrative filmmaking, product photography, motion-control multipass, steadicam, cranes, 3d match moving, health and safetly concerns, time pressure etc.

At the top level people are hired because they are specialists and experienced. Any twit can grab a video camera, fire up a smoke machine and get a workable music video made with no skills or ability whatsoever - wideshot of band, cutway of fret board, back to singer etc - maybe make it "edgy" by lobbing in some handheld etc - and if it doesn't work in the edit? fine. Just slow mo that bit, cut to the drummer etc - painting by numbers filmmaking - for this you hardly need a crew - so cheap cameras, cheap crew = cheap result.

I don't want to pay to see a star wars or genre movie made for $1.98 shot on a home video camera with some dodgy gripping written by students. Surely the aim is not to cater to the lowest common denominator but the highest - otherwise you are a used car salesman.

Sounds like you may have been one of those uninformed students, perhaps?

If that's the "industry" that the film student would like to get in to then $100 is not bad. I'm sure most people are well aware of the type of work they will be doing, and if not they will learn quickly. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Saying that there are "no requirements" or "pressure" on any music video is plain ignorant. Sure, there are a lot of low-end bands that can only afford a cheaper, less experienced crew. But look at your local carpet company's commercials on TV. They are very low-end, probably didn't have much of a structure or organizing, but then again, like the bands, they don't have much money.

Large bands/record labels have a lot of money and are very professional. They have requirements, deadlines, narrative, etc. Obviously, there is a lot more involved than you know.

Like Jeff said, money comes before art...

[James T Mather]

apols - didn't mean to diss the music video industry as a whole Jeff - and I too have shot music videos both dodgy and for well known bands - some videos have aspirational value - I was particularly referring to the dodgy, f-b-t-s-o-y-pants music video making rather than a catch all - all this, mind you, with specific regards to the "unions are bunk" blather earlier.

As regards Hollywood Jeff, lamentably, you're right.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

apols - didn't mean to diss the music video industry as a whole Jeff - and I too have shot music videos with some aspirational value - I was particularly referring to the dodgy, f-b-t-s-o-y-pants music video making rather than a catch all - all this, mind you, with specific regards to the "unions are bunk" blather earlier.

I know... My post was largely tongue in cheek. Kinda like my response to the porn issue. :) I probably should have put a few smileys in there or something. I do agree with you though - the crappy music video is far too common. It's one of the things that so many aspiring filmmakers run out and shoot. I'll probably find myself shooting some once I get my RED. Hopefully they won't be the f-b-t-s-o-y-pants type. But who knows. My first couple RED projects will probably be a mix of whatever I can shoot on as small of a budget as possible just so I can get the camera and workflow all figured out.


As regards Hollywood Jeff, lamentably, you're right.

Sadly, that was the serious part of my post.

[HD Hildebrand]

Wow - what a thread.

If the strike is anything like this thread, it'll never get settled.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Don't worry, the producers are hiring those $100 a day students to write
scripts. The TV season was full of crap shows and I can't wait to see
what the students can come up with.

[James T Mather]

Then the students could hire kindergarten students at 50 dollars a day and make a profit -

who in turn could hire Ewe Boll for twenty five to both write and direct.

It's a win-win for everybody. Except the 100 dollar grips who would have priced themselves out of the market.

[Finner]

It's a win-win for everybody. Except the 100 dollar grips who would have priced themselves out of the market.

Grips are pulling down 100 greenbacks these days! How does a guy get trained to do that job.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

In light of $100/day grips, I feel it necessary to adjust my 2008 rate schedule for certain key positions. This should help maintain a competitive advantage in this cut-throat industry.

Preliminary 2008 day rate adjustments:

Experienced DoP: $200
DoP in Training: $100 (we just use one of our excellent grips)
Gaffer: $109
1AC: $100 (just another grip)
2AC: $65
Sound Technician: $105
Assistant Sound Tech: $45 (the dude just holds a mic, right?)
CG Specialist / Compositor: $140
CG Specialist / 3D Artist $125
DIT: **$101 (a grip that can insert a CF card and can count)

All day rates assume an 18 hour day. Weekly rental rates will be assessed at the rate of 3 days. Other incentives to this new price schedule will include 2-day week price considerations when booking for more than 2 weeks. **For 2-week or longer rentals, your DIT is free if you book an experienced DoP along with both a 1st and 2nd AC.

Due to the WGA strike, we are also running specials on writers. Please inquire directly as our rates are too low to list publicly.

______
Disclaimer: These rates are entirely fictional and may only be redeemed from the Easter Bunny on Easter Sunday at your momma's house. Be sure to mention the coupon code: "Santa's Little Elves" to receive an additional bonus 40% off.

[Russ McDonald]

It is getting easier to separate the Professionals from the Chumps.

Please, enough with the 100.00 grip.

Are Grips hired to Write, surprisingly to some I'm sure. The answer is, no.

There are so many talented and experienced people on this forum, that you can gain knowledge, that would take you years of individual achievement to acquire. All you have to do is stop the crap above.

Lets refocus on the the Writers strike. How many reading this thread have, read the current WGA contract?

The single largest cost in film production is Labor. If you go all Union across the board. Roughly 14 cents of every production dollar goes to Union pensions, and health benefits. ( Agin to clarify dollars spent on Labor)

If your paying Tom Cruise and Ridley Scott money. That is an enormous amount of money, and we haven't even gotten to the below the line costs.

That's why you form an LLC for every film. You sign a SAG contract to get a name Actor, maybe you go with the DGA maybe not, and go shoot in Canada. Sound familiar.

The Unions have to evolve, if they change their business model. They would triple the work here in the US.

[David Mullen ASC]

The Unions have to evolve, if they change their business model. They would triple the work here in the US.

Yes, but who wants twice as much work for half the salary?

[Finner]

The single largest cost in film production is Labor. If you go all Union across the board. Roughly 14 cents of every production dollar goes to Union pensions, and health benefits. ( Agin to clarify dollars spent on Labor)

It's simply the cost of doing bussiness. Look at plumbers, electricians and other skilled labour. Houses are expensive, cost of living is expensive, people need to make money and skilled film technicians unlike a typical employee work from contract to contract and have no guarantee on where or when they will be working next deserve an above average wage. If you don't want to pay people don't produce.



That's why you form an LLC for every film. You sign a SAG contract to get a name Actor, maybe you go with the DGA maybe not, and go shoot in Canada. Sound familiar.

Check the global money market. The Canadian dollar is no longer $.60 against US it is now around the $1.05 mark. So it is good Canadian crews that draw productions but there is definately a slow down comming to Canada with the high dollar.



The Unions have to evolve, if they change their business model. They would triple the work here in the US.

Most of the A-list crew work for above scale so they set their rates not the unions. Also even though A-list are more expensive most are always busy.


There are so many talented and experienced people on this forum, that you can gain knowledge, that would take you years of individual achievement to acquire. All you have to do is stop the crap above.

Life is short, try and lighten up a bit. The $100 grip is pure gold humour.

[Joe Carney]

It is getting easier to separate the Professionals from the Chumps.

That's why you form an LLC for every film. You sign a SAG contract to get a name Actor, maybe you go with the DGA maybe not, and go shoot in Canada. Sound familiar.


We're cheaper than Canada now, hehehe. Lower dollar and several states that have nice incentive programs... check out Louisiana and New Mexico with their great rebate programs. The Federal Govt has tax incentives for low budget movies and TV production.

You usually don't see the rebates listed in the budget since they don't come till after you are done. There is no reason not to pay people a decent salary if you want highly qualified personnel.

Of course there is no reason to pay any actor 20 million USD, but that is the executive producers fault, not the below the line folks.

[Russ McDonald]

The kind of deal I'm talking about here goes way beyond a currency exchange.



David, If I could get you more Union scale work a year, and at higher net pay with no loss in benefits, would that be something you would consider.

Finer, yes the "A" list crew do set their fee, as the Producer I still have to pay 14% of that, over and above the talent fee I have already paid

With Respect Zeke, Virginia I have know doubt has the talent, but it's infrastructure doesn't even come close, to the California film infrastructure.

[Finner]

Finer, yes the "A" list crew do set their fee, as the Producer I still have to pay 14% of that, over and above the talent fee I have already paid


Hi Russ

I am not sure with US unions but I have belonged to three up in canada Stunts, IATSE (SPFX), IATSE (Camera). The % above my wages that goes to the union used a lot of it to then pay my health care/dental, holiday pay and retirement funds. So I would be suprised if all of the 14% you are unhappy with really goes to the union.

All this said I do understand the frustration of unions vs producers. Unions do tend to make things a little more difficult then needed at times. Also I do really like your "It is getting easier to separate the Professionals from the Chumps." quote as it sums up a lot here at times.

cheers
Daren

[Russ McDonald]

Hi Russ

I am not sure with US unions but I have belonged to three up in canada Stunts, IATSE (SPFX), IATSE (Camera). The % above my wages that goes to the union used a lot of it to then pay my health care/dental, holiday pay and retirement funds. So I would be suprised if all of the 14% you are unhappy with really goes to the union.

All this said I do understand the frustration of unions vs producers. Unions do tend to make things a little more difficult then needed at times. Also I do really like your "It is getting easier to separate the Professionals from the Chumps." quote as it sums up a lot here at times.

cheers
Daren

First and foremost I am not anti-union.

Finer, if you got a 50% raise. Would you pay a 10% increase in your union dues. With no loss in retirement or Health Insurance (I thought all you guys up there, have free health care.) On top of that you get more work days a year.

The Union as a concept needs to go through a reformation of it's identity, and how its going to survive, in todays integrated world. I pray it will evolve.

We as a group manufacture entertainment. Our commodity is luxury in peoples daily existence. We're not their Grandfather, who worked in an unsafe coal mine for 15 bucks a day. The public is the ultimate arbiter of our collective success... They will never to be that connected to us as workers, They have far to many choices that can fill their need for entertainment. The Networks and Studios know this.

I'll say it again, WGA is in trouble here.

I would go deeper into it, but I have to get back to work....

[Russ McDonald]

Has anyone ever broken down the the exact savings which go to "runaway productions" to Canada? For example, how much of the money saved represents Canadian tax incentives? How much is reduced producer contributions towards medical costs, thanks to government-provided health insurance in Canada? And exactly how much is attributable to salaries?

When Canada is effectively subsidizing salaries by providing services, tax incentives and social welfare programs that the U.S. wouldn't think to match, isn't it unfair to blame American unions for nominally higher wage and benefit costs?

It's not like a Union built car or truck, that goes to dealer, who marks it up or up-sells a service agreement. The union worker, nor the Union who built the car gets a cut of that money.

Entertainment Unions get a Back End deal. Their is allot of fingers in that back end Pie.

Why would I hire you for 600.00 a day it total cost. When I can go offshore and get the same quality if not better at 450.00 a day. Now multiply that by a crew of a hundred, then multiply that for an 80 day schedule. It adds up, and it adds up quick.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Let's see... my healthcare plan costs the company the equivalent of 10% of my wages before taxes add retirement matching and I'm already at 15%. 14% sounds about right.

[David Mullen ASC]

David, If I could get you more Union scale work a year, and at higher net pay with no loss in benefits, would that be something you would consider.

Not really, not at the 12 to 14-hour working day system we currently have -- I don't want more days at less money per day and then make-up for that by getting a lot more of those 12 to 14-hour days. Then I'd never see my wife. Or post on the internet.

However, I would be willing to get the same hourly rate, work shorter hours per day for more days per year, and make the same total amount per year. However, I don't see the producers willing to agree to a 10-hr max work day...

[krd]

Why would I hire you for 600.00 a day it total cost. When I can go offshore and get the same quality if not better at 450.00 a day. Now multiply that by a crew of a hundred, then multiply that for an 80 day schedule. It adds up, and it adds up quick.

You caught me before I deleted that post -- I figured there were already enough nasty posts here, mine included, and why tempt more? -- but here goes anyway:

If your concern is lowest possible cost, there *is* no reason to pay me $600 if you can get the same service for $450 in Canada. And if you could get the same service for $37.50 in China or India, that too makes sense.

I was arguing that the U.S. government is providing active incentives for off-shore production, thanks to its social policies, while the Canadian government is doing the opposite. Instead of blaming the unions for getting their members the benefits and health care which the U.S. government refuses to provide on a socialized basis, as our competitors in the industrial world do, including Canada, wouldn't it make more sense to change U.S. policy?

[Russ McDonald]

You caught me before I deleted that post -- I figured there were already enough nasty posts here, mine included, and why tempt more? -- but here goes anyway:

If your concern is lowest possible cost, there *is* no reason to pay me $600 if you can get the same service for $450 in Canada. And if you could get the same service for $37.50 in China or India, that too makes sense.

I was arguing that the U.S. government is providing active incentives for off-shore production, thanks to its social policies, while the Canadian government is doing the opposite. Instead of blaming the unions for getting their members the benefits and health care which the U.S. government refuses to provide on a socialized basis, as our competitors in the industrial world do, including Canada, wouldn't it make more sense to change U.S. policy?

The U.S. did 12 trillion dollars in GNP in 2005 the closest Industrial nation that year was Japan at 4 trillion. Canada came in 9th place at just over a 1 trillion that year. That means that us is responsible for over 41% of the Gross Global Product.

Every Nation on the planet has a trade deficit with the US. Our markets are open. Were most industrialized nation we trade with have massive trade barriers against American made products.

The only policy change I can see is to restrict your access to American markets. (not my style though) The U.S. isn't a hyper power because of our military. It's because Joe and Jane Citizen work in a free market. That's why the cream of the world talent, no matter what the field of endeavor. Immigrate here and become citizens.

This is what I would do if I ran the Unions. The unions need to act like a temp agency. They pay the workman's comp, pension, and heath insurance.
They increases the hourly minimums by 50%. To offset the new cost's the union dues go up 10%. That would be huge for production in U.S. For the WGA, SAG, and DGA I would Double the minimums and then double that fee as a buy out of all rights and residuals.

My production cost go down, you get a raise everybody is happy.

[Joe Carney]

With Respect Zeke, Virginia I have know doubt has the talent, but it's infrastructure doesn't even come close, to the California film infrastructure.

I agree with you about Virginia, but I was talking about New Mexico and Louisiana. It seems both places are adding plenty of infrastructure, and you don't need to do post at either place. I understand you're issues, just trying to add some perspective. CA has the infrastructure, but from a pratical issue, it's one heck of an expensive place to live and work. Of course so is Northern VA. I'm wondering if that cost of living skewers peoples point of view when it comes to salaries compared to other parts of the USA. I'm refering to SOCAL and NYC.

[krd]

The U.S. did 12 trillion dollars in GNP in 2005 the closest Industrial nation that year was Japan at 4 trillion. Canada came in 9th place at just over a 1 trillion that year. That means that us is responsible for over 41% of the Gross Global Product.

Yeah, and we have infant mortality rates which look more like a third world country than a rich industrial democracy, the worst disparities between rich and poor in the industrial world, and the highest child poverty rates of all industrial nations. Meanwhile, the middle-class, which has had no income growth since the 1970s, was forced to borrow trillions of dollars to fund new tax cuts for the top 1% of the population.

Somebody please close this thread.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Yeah, and we have infant mortality rates which look more like a third world country than a rich industrial democracy, the worst disparities between rich and poor in the industrial world, and the highest child poverty rates of all industrial nations. Meanwhile, the middle-class, which has had no income growth since the 1970s, was forced to borrow trillions of dollars to fund new tax cuts for the top 1% of the population.

Er... I'm not sure what statistics you're quoting and from what source(s), but OK... No point in arguing here. This thread has indeed lost its way.


Somebody please close this thread.

I want to, but it's like watching a slow-mo train wreck and the cars are filled with explosives or hazardous chemicals. I just can't wait to see what happens next. You have to appreciate this thread. Without it, many of us would have never known just how retarded we are.

re: closing this thread... I'll think about it. But maybe I'm just hoping some more pearls of wisdom pop up in here.

[Shawn Nelson]

It's interesting everyone hashing on the $100/grip thing. While I agree that's pretty bad, and no one would want that (well, hopefully no one...) but it's interesting to note something. I was reading David Mullen's journal for the filming of "The Quiet" starring Elisha Cuthbert and it had an almost $1 mil budget and he says in there that they were paying the keys $100 a day and everyone below that was even less. So, apparently more than the grungy indies do those sort of things.

[David Mullen ASC]

Like I said, the low-budget movie that wants to pay people near minimum wage are not going to go away, and in fact, they serve a function, to provide newcomers for a chance to work in the industry, get training and experience, etc. And they provide the filmmaker a chance to get his first project made, or a non-commercial art project.

But it's not really a long-term business model that makes sense for the filmmaker or the crew people. It works well only for first-time directors and beginner crew people. After that, it only makes sense for non-commercial experimental-type art films or some other personal project that is a labor of love for all involved. And those tend to be very small in scale.

[krd]

Er... I'm not sure what statistics you're quoting and from what source(s), but OK...

[Note edits -- more information provided]

I don't have time to dig out the original statistics for you, but google provided these two quick citiations on child poverty in the U.S., and wealth disparities, the first from wikipedia, and the other from a 1995 New York Times article (it's only gotten worse since then).

Child poverty: "In 2001 the poverty rate for minors in the United States was the highest in the industrialized world, with 14.8% of all minors and 30% of African American minors living below the poverty threshold. Additionally, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the U.S. than in any other developed nation except the United Kingdom, which had the lowest standard of living for impoverished children." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Wealth disparities: "New studies on the growing concentration of American wealth and income challenge a cherished part of the country's self-image: They show that rather than being an egalitarian society, the United States has become the most economically stratified of industrial nations."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEED61430F934A25757C0A9639582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

And one more, on infant morality:

Wednesday, May 10, 2006; :(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html

Okay, I was wrong by one country, that time. We're not quite the worst, just the second worst.

The data on wage growth you can easily get from the Bureau of Labor statistics, adjusted for inflation. The claims about tax cuts are readily available and recent -- the Bush tax cuts are funded 100% by borrowing, which is the burden of all taxpayers, present and future, not just those receiving the bonanza, which are high income and capital gains earners.

Time to close the thread yet?

[Greg M]

I would have payed David $100/day to grip for Elisha Cuthbert

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's interesting everyone hashing on the $100/grip thing. While I agree that's pretty bad, and no one would want that (well, hopefully no one...)

Well, there's more to it than the $100/day thing. It was the "if you pay X for Y, then you'r retarded" comment. $100/day is pretty ambiguous and it could be reasonable or it could be unreasonable -- depends on the job, the experience level and just what a "day" entails. I'm not justifying the context in which the $100/day grip was mentioned, but it's not entirely unfeasible to have such a thing if valid conditions present themselves.


[Note edits -- more information provided]

OK, OK... I was just saying I didn't know what statistics you were referencing and that it didn't really belong in this thread. But thanks anyway. :) I have no reason to argue, I mostly agree. My only real complaint with many of those statistics is they rely too heavily on estimates and projections, even more so with other countries as comparison. I often feel that they're skewed somewhat in order to focus the american reader on the american condition. But at times this can do a disservice to other countries by pulling focus of this audience away from their situation. To take poverty into consideration, I believe that poverty in America deserves the attention of every American. However, there are numerous places in the world where the average standard of living is several levels of hell worse than any poverty or homelessness in the USA. I often think that gets lost in many of these comparative statistics.


Time to close the thread yet?

Yes, it is... But I'd feel guilty if I closed it now with such an OT post and that I'd essentially have the last word and there'd be nothing anyone could do about it. :bleh:

[Mike Prevette]

Who could live off $100 days? $100 x say 20 days = $2,000 x 12 = $24,000 before taxes!!!! You ain't living in LA on that, and if you are your in your car. Plus 20 day a month is pretty optimistic. It's a disservice to your peers, and all the skilled technicians that have come before you to work for that.

I can understand if it's a 3 day shoot for a friend, or a producer who has given you a lot of work, but it's no way to operate all the time.

This is a very small business that makes a LOT of money, there is no reason that any skilled professional should work for less than a Mcdonalds trainee.

[Shawn Nelson]

Location, location, etc. Is Seattle that great? I have some friends who are great crew members (grips, art directors, etc.) and they were talking about doing features for $50 a day. They were bitching, but they all did it.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Who could live off $100 days? $100 x say 20 days = $2,000 x 12 = $24,000 before taxes!!!! You ain't living in LA on that, and if you are your in your car. Plus 20 day a month is pretty optimistic. It's a disservice to your peers, and all the skilled technicians that have come before you to work for that.

Live in LA on that? Nope, you're right, not gonna happen. But like Shawn said - location. Also depends on the job, person, etc.. For a skilled grip in a permanent or semi-permanent position, $100/day would be totally unreasonable. It would be a downright insult.

If McDonald's new-hires are making more than that in LA, then they're getting paid a lot more than they are here. Going rate here is about $7.50/hr or about $60/day on an 8-hour shift. I know, my cousin took her first summer job this year at McDonalds. Respectable for a 16 year old girl that wanted something during the summer that paid better and more regularly than babysitting. But anyway, if you want the sad reality, I know lots of people who work very hard every day of their life and rarely see $100/day. My sister-in-law is a 911 dispatcher and she works 4 10-hour shifts each week and sometimes more to pick up overtime where she can, 6 personal sick or holiday days off plus 2 weeks paid vacation each year. Bonus pay on major holidays -- not like 911 stops answering on Christmas Day, you know. She works the equivalent of about 220 days/year and makes about $28K. You know what.. That's about $125/day on average and she's been doing this for nearly 5 years now. She loves her job and refuses to do anything else. But with what she puts up with, the amount of responsibility and the service she provides, you would think she'd get paid a bit better. FWIW, she's trying to get a position doing the very same thing in Arizona -- can't recall exactly where, not Phoenix/Scottsdale, more near Chandler, I think. But they operate nearly the same, but pay nearly 3X as much and the cost of living there is about the same. Go figure.

[Mike Prevette]

Well Shawn I don't know your friends, or how experienced they are, but they are most likely making a big mistake by doing that. It hurts the whole industry when people make a practice out of working for so little. I know it's really hard to turn down work when you are just starting out. You just have to take a stand and say your worth more than $50 a day. You could make that amount doing almost anything, hell I did day labor once at LaborReady and made more than that.


Lowest I ever worked for was $150/flat as a beginning loader on a feature. As a 1st the lowest I ever worked was $350/10. I'm sure there are people who work for a lot less. I'm sure there are jobs like that here in Seattle, but they don't call me. I started in the biz under some very talented people, and my first "on set" was with some A list people. So I realize I'm a little fortunate. That being said I don't think people should under value themselves. This is my career, and frankly my life, I'm committed to it, so it's in my best interest that everyone gets payed fairly. i worked very hard before I got my first job to know everything I could. 8 years of reading American Cinematographer, and scrounging every bit of old gear and knowledge I could before I ever set foot on a set.

Also I have noticed the people that get their experience on the $50 a day jobs need to be completely retrained by the time they make it to the normal productions.

[Mike Prevette]

Lets also be clear by "indie" do they mean something their buddy is doing for fun.

Or something intended to be a full up production.

[David Mullen ASC]

I sort of disagree -- there are micro productions that pay next to nothing (or actually pay nothing) that people do for the experience and the connections. You aren't "hurting the industry" because (1) no industry person would work for those rates anyway, and (2) the production is too small to pay anymore than what they are paying. So saying that all productions must start out by paying $150 minimum for the smallest crew member is like saying that no feature should ever be made unless it has a budget of at least $100,000, or whatever it all adds up to be.

Now if this was a successful producer making a string of straight-to-DVD or cable TV movies where he wanted to pay everyone that little, my attitude would be different because clearly he's making a chunk of change here and doing it by paying people minimum wage.

But for some indie art film with poor commercial prospects made by a first-time director who has managed to only cobble together $50,000 to make his feature, I don't see a problem with offering people basically a token payment for the chance to get some experience -- they always have the right to turn the job down.

My first feature as a DP was shot in 35mm with deferred deals on stock, camera, lab, and crew for about $45,000 hard cash, and was made by a fellow film school graduate. I never did get paid for it.

Other countries without a healthy micro-budget indie film movement have problems providing entry level access to filmmaking, so young people find themselve shut out of a big industry filled by people who have been doing the same jobs for decades.

[wshultz]

David, was it a valuable experience doing that first feature deferred? Would you do it again in hindsight? That is sure how I'm going to have to find crew for my first attempt.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, the director has been a friend for all these years since and he married my 1st AC... I still work with him on occasion.

But my warning is just that you get what you pay for, and if even if people agree to such low wages, you have to treat them well by keeping the working hours reasonable and feeding them properly.

Some disagree with me on this one, but I feel some token payment, even if it is minimum wage, is better than a deferred deal where it is likely that no money will be paid. Others would rather have a larger salary on paper, on record, even if they are never paid it so they are never known for working for a low sum. My feeling is that people, when they get paid even a small amount, feel obligated to work in return, that there has been a symbolic transaction of money for services. People who work for free essentially may not even bother showing up for work that day.

[donatello b]

i'm pretty sure that all 750 a day AC's did a job for FREE or worked for under 100 day when they were starting out in the business ...

we all have our day rate .. then we all have a for friends rate & friend of friend rate ... and of course a rate for those project we just love and want to help create on them ...

deferred payment is NO PAY ... 90+% chance you will never see a dime ... i've always had the position that if i'm going to get nothing then i want alot of nothing ... IMO if one normally gets payed 500 day then deferred has to be more then your daily or weekly rate - think like a investor - RISK vs. REWARD ... this way you can tell frineds that you are making 1000 day ( then say deferred in a whisper - you'll feel alot better then saying 100 day deferred)

from my experience on deferred - one page contract/agreement is all that is needed - the more pages = the more likely you'll never see any $$ , anything over 5 pages = they are not going to EVER send you a dime and they know it today ... the only projects i've received $$ from deferred projects have been the ones where the agreement was a hand shake ! ...
and then there are POINTS which are a good laugh ...

[Dan Blanchett]

I will be in that position soon, trying to make a feature for less than a $100,000. I'd like to pay all crew and talent $100 day and pray it's enough to keep the production on track for 25 days. If I could pay more, I would, both for the crew's sake and to ensure a smoother experience. People who want to make a feature find a way to get it done by whatever means they possess... or the movie never gets made. It's not about screwing anyone over.

[James T Mather]

People who want to make a feature find a way to get it done by whatever means they possess... or the movie never gets made. It's not about screwing anyone over.

Sure, that's absolutely fine and to be expected but tempers flare only when individuals (not you) spout off that the people in the industry are "retarded" (to quote the freshman term used) to pay market rate to specialists to do a complex and challenging job that took considerably more than an afternoon to master. It's not about having a pop at the little guy attempting to self-finance but on the general principle per se.

Good luck with your project.

[Dan Blanchett]

Sure, that's absolutely fine and to be expected but tempers flare only when individuals (not you) spout off that the people in the industry are "retarded" (to quote the freshman term used) to pay market rate to specialists to do a complex and challenging job that took considerably more than an afternoon to master. It's not about having a pop at the little guy attempting to self-finance but on the general principle per se.

Good luck with your project.

I agree... I would fully expect to pay market rate if the budget allowed (guess that makes me retarded). But I don't see there being a pandemic of specialists being undercut by those willing to work for cheap. Experienced crews will find projects (or vice versa) that can afford them, and those with less connections/experience/opportunities will work on projects like mine that would not otherwise get made. Seems like the natural order of things.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I always view it on a continuum. What is the client getting?

I directed a gig for $.17 an hour by the time it was done. Obviously there are hundreds of people who work for free. But if it's a commercial--for profit--studio controlled money making endeavour. The little guys don't take the hit. That's exploitation. You share the risk you share the reward.

It's easy to string people along "Next job you'll get payed.. just stick with us a bit longer." Meanwhile the boss better not be making any money.

[Russ McDonald]

Meanwhile, the middle-class, which has had no income growth since the 1970s, was forced to borrow trillions of dollars to fund new tax cuts for the top 1% of the population.

Somebody please close this thread.

Cant let it go.

The top 1% of wage earners shoulder 34% of income tax paid into the government. The top 5% pay over 53%. My wife and I have a combined income that puts us in to that 5%. We own no yachts, private jets, and my kids go to public school.

We in the states live in a Free Market Constitutional Republic. This will never change, ever. So get off of your socialist, commie, pinko high horse:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: (just kidding)

The middle class of this great nation is always going to be like that. Their income growth is netted out by the increase in cost of living expenses, of course their is no growth. It's all relative.

The sad truth in any human dynamic is: 20% make things happen, 60% wait for things to happen, and 20% walk around wandering what just happened. Which one are you... In America it doesn't mater weather your black or white, man or woman. We are separated by the above Axiom.

The top 20% will always drive the marketplace, they innovate, they take the greatest risk, they reap the greatest rewards, and they pay the most taxes.

The 60% ride the coat tails of the top 20% implementing the innovation, taking very little risk, and paying little in taxes.

The 20% benefit from the innovation, take no risks, pay no taxes, and scream oppression by the 20%.

The difference between the levels is personal motivation. America is a workers paradise. If you have the determination, intellect, and integrity there is no stopping your climb up the latter.

17 years ago I was practically homeless, now I have a beautiful home. Not because someone handed me a key and said, "Hey your a white guy, someone screwed up, and forgot to give you the White Guy Package, heads are going to roll for this outrage!"

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Now I take exception to that. That top 20% does not take the most risk. Having to choose how $4m is going to be invested in two different companies and then losing a million (of your $4m) is NOT a risk.

Risk is not knowing if you're going to be able to eat next week. Risk is going back to college when you already work a 50 hour week in order to hopefully be able to get a better job. Risk is choosing between grocery shopping or having health insurance.

You make 100,000 a year and the risk you're taking is if you'll make more money.

I feel completely blessed to have had parents who planned and were financially able to send me through college and let me focus on learning instead of working full time in addition to school. I feel blessed to have grown up in an environment where I could always feel safe and secure in order to be able to concentrate on my dreams. And had the *security* to follow leads which weren't immediately profitable.

I think you and I have a vasly different definition of what constitutes taking a risk.

I am who I am thanks to my genetics and upbringing. My success was completely the result of the universal dice. I can no more blaim others for their failures than I can take credit for the opportunities that were provided to me. I fully support pinko commie policies to give others who weren't blessed by birth to be able to be given the freedom to take a chance and escape living day to day.

[David Mullen ASC]

Not everyone in the top earning bracket crawled their way to the top by the sweat of their brow. Some were born into wealth or married into wealth. And not every wealthy person risks a large percentage of their personal fortune in a business enterprise.

And not everyone has got the personality type to become an entrepreneur, which is the problem with the whole "I made my millions so why can't everyone else?" way of thinking. Some people are just highly skilled specialists who want to earn a decent living providing a needed service. That doesn't make them some sort of "parasite" riding the coattails of the rich. That sort of mentality suggests that the majority of mankind exists merely to serve the wealthiest of people -- and should feel grateful for their serfdom.

The value of a member of society isn't necessarily determined by the size of their bank account. People who grow our food, defend our nation in wars, tend the sick, invent new technology, etc. all contribute in other ways than providing capital investment.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm thankful there are people who are relatively content to serve me burgers. And in response I want to look after them so that they can keep serving me burgers. But not create an environment where if their strengths, abilities and motivations lie elsewhere are unable to use their abilities to better drive the economy elsewhere--enslaved to the immediate demands of survival.

Bringing it all back full circle-that's what residuals bring. The safety to stop working in order to create something that might be great, risky and innovative. Even the greatest minds usually get it wrong. If you have no breathing room to create a few failures you'll never be able to get into a position where you create something truly great.

[rod bradley]

Hear hear and bravo for the humanity, insight and integrity expressed by Messrs. Greenwalt and Mullen. They embody what the true spirit of this country and the best of whatever authentic culture it offers is really all about. It's a pleasure to hear it so gracefully expressed. Many thanks.

Rod Bradley

[Russ McDonald]

Now I take exception to that. That top 20% does not take the most risk. Having to choose how $4m is going to be invested in two different companies and then losing a million (of your $4m) is NOT a risk.

Risk is not knowing if you're going to be able to eat next week. Risk is going back to college when you already work a 50 hour week in order to hopefully be able to get a better job. Risk is choosing between grocery shopping or having health insurance.

You make 100,000 a year and the risk you're taking is if you'll make more money.

I feel completely blessed to have had parents who planned and were financially able to send me through college and let me focus on learning instead of working full time in addition to school. I feel blessed to have grown up in an environment where I could always feel safe and secure in order to be able to concentrate on my dreams. And had the *security* to follow leads which weren't immediately profitable.

I think you and I have a vasly different definition of what constitutes taking a risk.

I am who I am thanks to my genetics and upbringing. My success was completely the result of the universal dice. I can no more blaim others for their failures than I can take credit for the opportunities that were provided to me. I fully support pinko commie policies to give others who weren't blessed by birth to be able to be given the freedom to take a chance and escape living day to day.



Not only are you that guy, your a moroon. (no it's not a typo, thank you Roger rabbit )

I run a production company I take enormous risks. I build something, I invest in a project, so you can have a job, and can eat donuts, or I'm sure in your case, a organic bran muffin at craft service. You get paid way before I see a dime of profit. If I don't at least break even I can loose it all. That my friend is risk.

"Risk is not knowing if you're going to be able to eat next week. Risk is going back to college when you already work a 50 hour week in order to hopefully be able to get a better job. Risk is choosing between grocery shopping or having health insurance. " I've lived this thank you for making my point.

I bet if I look hard at your life I would find, that beside that silver spoon in your mouth. That you worked your ass off, you did not sit on the side lines, you recognized opportunity and you exploited it, I'm sure in an ethical manner.

This country has numerous program to help the least fortunate among us, to get the the boost that your parents afforded you. The nation has many examples to numerous to list here. It not a class thing, it's not a birthright thing, it's a self motivation thing. Daddy may have paid for the degree, but you earned it.

I know for a fact you have encountered individuals, that had the same silver spoon that you outline above. Who amounted to nothing. I am sure as well you have encounter individuals who started with nothing and achieved everything.

That is the point of my post. To have value achievement must be work for, it can't be handed out like today's news paper. That's why Marxism fails, that's why European socialism is collapsing under it's own wait.

The 20/60/20 principle is the base pairs of the cultural DNA. Like gravity they are unescapable.

So again which one are you 20/60/20. I'd bet money your a top 20.

[Russ McDonald]

Not everyone in the top earning bracket crawled their way to the top by the sweat of their brow. Some were born into wealth or married into wealth. And not every wealthy person risks a large percentage of their personal fortune in a business enterprise.

And not everyone has got the personality type to become an entrepreneur, which is the problem with the whole "I made my millions so why can't everyone else?" way of thinking. Some people are just highly skilled specialists who want to earn a decent living providing a needed service. That doesn't make them some sort of "parasite" riding the coattails of the rich. That sort of mentality suggests that the majority of mankind exists merely to serve the wealthiest of people -- and should feel grateful for their serfdom.

The value of a member of society isn't necessarily determined by the size of their bank account. People who grow our food, defend our nation in wars, tend the sick, invent new technology, etc. all contribute in other ways than providing capital investment.

It isn't a parasite thing Dave, the 20/60/20 principle has nothing to do money. It has to do with self worth 20% of DP's are innovative, 60% of DP's copy the technique for their own gain, 20% of DP can't do either well, and criticize the innovator, because they lost the business.

As a business man I do not pay slave wages, but I will not pay a champagne price for a bottle of beer.

[donatello b]

"The top 1% of wage earners shoulder 34% of income tax paid into the government. The top 5% pay over 53%. "

i get the 34% income taxes ...
i don't get how one pays 53% when the top income bracket is 30 something % ...

[Russ McDonald]

Let me help you It's a pie chart thing. Of all the total income taxes paid into the treasury, 34% percent of that total figure is paid by the top 1% of wage earners.

FYI when you look at say the top 10% of wage earners. The taxes they pay account for just over 64% of total revenues paid to the IRS.

[krd]

Oh lord, here we go again. One last time, and I swear that's it:

"The top 1% of wage earners shoulder 34% of income tax paid into the government."

That's quite true, but you omitted the really interesting piece of information. The top 1% owns about 34% of the national wealth in the U.S., and that figure goes up every year. So, in effect, the top 1% is getting the bargain of the century. The richest Americans would be paying FAR MORE than 34% of the tax pie, if our tax system was actually progressive -- the idea that the wealthier one is, the greater one's ability to pay, and the greater one's debt to the society which made that wealth possible.

"We in the states live in a Free Market Constitutional Republic. This will never change, ever. So get off of your socialist, commie, pinko high horse (just kidding)"

This linking of democracy and "free markets" is not, oddly enough, to be found in the U.S. constitution. Rather, it's a new idea -- the invention of the Bush administration and the right-wing think tanks funded largely by billionaires who inherited their money. Richard Scaife Mellon is probably the worst billionaire trust fund offender, but there are others.

"The middle class of this great nation is always going to be like that. Their income growth is netted out by the increase in cost of living expenses, of course their is no growth. It's all relative."

You make it sound as if wage stagnation happened by accident. In fact, it's the direct result of government policy. Anti-union legislation, lax or no enforcement of what labor laws remain on the books, cuts in social spending, abandonment of the education system, and regressive tax policies have effected an astonishing transfer of wealth in the last 30+ years, from the working poor and middle-class to the wealthy. After vigorous wage growth in the 40s, 50s and 60s, wages today (adjusted for inflation) are actually lower than they were in 1970. This is not a law of nature. It was a direct result of government policy and business objectives. You may approve of this wealth transfer; but don't pretend it's inevitable.

"The difference between the levels is personal motivation. America is a workers paradise. If you have the determination, intellect, and integrity there is no stopping your climb up the latter."

That may have been true at one time, but the U.S. is at the bottom rank of social mobility in the industrial world today -- just as it is in so many other measures. Even the United Kingdom, with vestiges of the class systems still in place, does better than we do today. This isn't to say you can't advance professionally in the U.S., or that you can't get rich. What is does mean, however, is that you're born poor in the U.S., you're highly likely to remain poor. Similarly, if you're born rich in the U.S., it's highly likely you'll die rich. It's that simple, like it or not.

Finally, in your love song to the imaginary free-market, you neglect to note that no democracy has ever survived the disparties in wealth which are so marked in the U.S. today. Countries with these disparities tend to be highly corrupt, thanks to unnatural concentrations of wealth.

In fact, such countries tend to get horrendously bad political leadership, because it's bought and paid for by the country's most powerful interests -- incompetent and thieving at the same time. Sound familiar?

[Bill Goehring]

Thank you, krd, for saying so eloquently what I would like to have said.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I have a nice new car, I have a stable job, I have health care, very little remaining student loans, I'm able to save towards retirement, I'm happy with my apartment and I can spend money on professional advancement such as shooting. I think I deserve to be taxed more heavily than someone who strugles to keep afloat. My financial well being is reward enough and I'm not even anywhere near the top 10%. It's the responsibility of those who have the means to assist those who do not. I have benefited more from the national infrastructure payed for with tax dollars than any 7-11 clerk.

The poor aren't poor because they "just aren't trying hard enough". I think it's naive and downright arrogant to suggest that one is completely responsible for their own success. We're all victims of circumstance and we we're certainly not all created equal but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all be entitled to a warm bed, a hot meal, time off to live life and adequate health care.

If you ask me the poor are working harder than any other for significantly less reward. If it's so great and so easy living off welfare the rich could give up all of their money and stop paying taxes. Obviously the rewards of wealth are greater than the sting of only buying one house instead of two.

Gas costs $3.29, milk is still whatever it is that milk costs, the garbage man doesn't care how much money you make and electricity doesn't check your tax returns. The poor may not pay much in taxes but in proportion to their income they're taxed pretty heavily on the day to day things. Not to mention the mere existance of the affluent drive up the cost of living making it more difficult for the poor to afford the basic necessities.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Oh, snap. I knew I should've closed this thread.

Anyway, this really isn't the proper forum to discuss this sort of thing. Sure, it's OT discussion in here, but even that has it's limits before we get into political mudslinging and non-winnable debates over who should pay for what. If anyone wants to continue this, they can take it up privately.