IATSE Strike Discussion Thread | Deal ratified

[Plain Old Tele]

6 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

What I thought is that most studios prefer using VFX because VFX houses can ask for less money from studios while continuing to maintain their profit margins by paying then paying their workers less money. I don't think the studios aren't actively asking for VFX houses to pay their workers less, but I doubt they would like to be billed more by VFX houses.

I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe this is the case, phrased in those terms. In any case they also don’t know what the profit terms for each film is to begin with. “Prefer using VFX” is also a really broad term: prefer using VFX in what case, for what task?

 

Let’s say it’s the case of shooting on a physical bridge at a certain location. A studio might solicit bids from various VFX houses on the number of estimated shots required, as well as what specific things might be required in each shot. But they would also price out what it would take to shoot at that particular location, what it would cost to shoot at another bridge at another location (with maybe a few VFX shots to cover the differences), etc. It’s very hard to pinpoint (and point the finger) that somehow the non-union status of VFX crews is the key factor… not to mention most major VFX houses have A-teams, B-teams, C-teams, and so forth in terms of cost. You hire ILM at top dollar, you get their A-list team. But you might be able to get ILM at a lower cost with a lower cost team as well. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Plain Old Tele

[lorddemaxus]

2 minutes ago, Plain Old Tele said:

I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe this is the case, phrased in those terms. In any case they also don’t know what the profit terms for each film is to begin with. “Prefer using VFX” is also a really broad term: prefer using VFX in what case, for what task?

 

This feels more like a conspiracy theory than something that makes tangible sense in the real world. 

I don't see how it doesn't make tangible sense that in a competitive industry like the VFX industry, VFX houses are willing to decrease their own costs as much as possible so that they can meet the demands of studios (which is also to cut their costs as much as they can). Not saying this is some elaborate Hollywood conspiracy but just everyone trying to produce stuff for as cheap as possible.

[Plain Old Tele]

2 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

I don't see how it doesn't make tangible sense that in a competitive industry like the VFX industry, VFX houses are willing to decrease their own costs as much as possible so that they can meet the demands of studios (which is also to cut their costs as much as they can). Not saying this is some elaborate Hollywood conspiracy but just everyone trying to produce stuff for as cheap as possible.

But the question was whether this reason is why studios “want” to replace practical production with VFX as much as possible to keep costs down, and I don’t think that’s the case. 

[Porthos]

Quote

IATSE Contract Ratification Decided by Razor-Thin Vote Margins in Two Guilds

By Gene Maddaus

Plus Icon

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

Cheyne Gateley for Variety

The IATSE Basic Agreement ratification passed on Monday by the narrowest of margins, with a few hundred votes in two guilds deciding the outcome.

 

A bare majority of the 40,000-odd members of the 13 West Coast locals voted to reject the agreement — with 50.4% voting no and 49.6% voting yes. But the union’s contracts are ratified based on a delegate system, with delegates awarded based on the majority vote within each local.

 

By that measure, the contract was approved by a vote of 256 to 188. This is the first time in 32 years that an IATSE contract has been ratified despite being rejected by the majority of voters.

Two of the three largest locals — Local 44 and Local 700 — voted in favor of the agreement by close margins. If either had voted no, it appears the contract would have been rejected, and negotiations would have to start over from scratch — with a real possibility of a nationwide film and TV strike.

 

IATSE Local 44 represents propmakers, set decorators and special effects employees. The membership voted to ratify by a margin of 400 votes, with 2479 in favor and 2079 against, or 54.4% to 45.6%, according to an email shared with members.

 

The margin was even closer in the Motion Picture Editors Guild (Local 700), which voted to reject the Basic Agreement three years ago. In that guild, the contract was approved 51.9% to 48.1%. The local did not release a raw vote tally, but did disclose that 7,093 members voted (representing 82.2% turnout), which gives a margin of about 270 votes.

 

IATSE has not released a delegate breakdown, but each local is awarded roughly one delegate for every 100 members. Based on the eligible vote totals, it appears that if either Local 700 or Local 44 had voted “no,” the Basic Agreement would have fallen well short of the 223 delegates needed for approval.

 

The contract was narrowly rejected by the third big local, the International Cinematographers Guild, Local 600. In that union, 52% voted no and 48% voted yes. Again, the union did not put out raw vote totals, but the margin is roughly 255 votes, based on a total ballot count of 6,398.

The contract was unusually contentious, as many members urged a “no” vote because they believed it did not do enough to address long hours on set and a lack of meal breaks, among other issues.

 

“Our members want quality-of-life issues improved, and we did it but they’re going to want more,” said Scott Bernard, business representative of Local 695, which narrowly voted for the agreement. “I think the producers are going to get the message the members still want more. They want safer hours and safe sets.”

 

Of the 13 Basic Agreement locals, eight voted to ratify: 44, 695, 700, 706, 729, 800, 871 and 884. The other five rejected the deal: 80, 600, 705, 728, and 892. The vote of each local union was confirmed by a combination of members and local leaders.

 

The vote was also extremely close on the Area Standards Agreement, which was ratified by a delegate tally of 103 to 94. The ASA covers about 20,000 workers in 23 locals around the country, including in production hotspots like Louisiana, Georgia and New Mexico. 14 of the 23 locals voted yes, and the other nine voted no. The contract did win a majority of ASA voters, 52% to 48%.

 

 

 

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/iatse-contract-vote-razor-thin-margins-1235112711/

 

Is this it, or is there anything else happening?

[Porthos]

Also:

 

Quote

The margin was even closer in the Motion Picture Editors Guild (Local 700), which voted to reject the Basic Agreement three years ago. In that guild, the contract was approved 51.9% to 48.1%. The local did not release a raw vote tally, but did disclose that 7,093 members voted (representing 82.2% turnout), which gives a margin of about 270 votes.

 

Of interest to @Plain Old Tele, I suspect. 

[grim22]

2 hours ago, Porthos said:

 

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/iatse-contract-vote-razor-thin-margins-1235112711/

 

Is this it, or is there anything else happening?

This is very popular vote - electoral college vibes.

[Eric Duncan]