As long as I've been doing this, I've heard the complaint -- mostly from corporate types: "the damn unions cost too much money."
It's a fine old whine, but mostly, ah, incorrect. Unions, particularly IATSE unions, aren't budget-busting cost drivers. Let me give you a few examples of what is:
Fourteen years ago, TAG organized a show that a large conglomerate was financing. The director-producer, knowing the company had deep pockets, was hiring everybody who walked through the door and met his approval $200 to $400 above market rates (which, in turn, were then $200-$400 above scale.) The company that was paying these big bucks had no idea what normal wage rates were, and apparently didn't ask.
They were somewhat amazed when they found out (much later) what the market rates were. # # # # # # #
Seven years ago, a couple of corporate execs told me over lunch that of course companies could afford to pay residuals -- if they wanted to. But they didn't want to. (No duh.) # # # # # # # # #
In the early nineties, when television and theatrical animation were roaring along and salaries were climbing and budgets got bigger every year, it was the practice of one large tv animation studio to nickel and dime every expenditure in the pre-production phase: cut time for scripts, speed up boards, ship incomplete shows. Then, of course, the company would spend any amount of money on the back end to salvage the screwups at the front. When an editor I know questioned these skewed priorities, an exec explained to her: "Oh, pre-production comes out of a different budget and charge number, and we have to really watch it. But we have plenty of money to fix things when we're facing a deadline."
# # # # # # # # #President emeritus Tom Sito told me a long while ago how Peter Schneider -- then the head of Disney Feature Animation -- bragged about all the overtime Disney paid on features (this was the early nineties) and how the o.t. was just a tiny fraction of the budget and hardly made any difference in overall costs.
# # # # # # # # #I've seen studios where projects were in development for a year and nothing got greenlighted. And 150 people were yearning for something concrete to do, and quietly gnawing their way across the carpet in abject boredom. (That studio was shut down after three years.) And I've seen studios where everything ran like a Swiss watch and people worked happily for half a decade and more.
# # # # # # # # # #The point? Union wages and work rules aren't the biggest drivers of costs. What makes the major difference -- time after time -- is how well management does its job.
Posts
6 comments:
speaking as someone who has no clue. What about the non-wage expenses. What does it cost the company to be union that are outside of wages?
The benefits package adds around $180 per week to wages (this varies somewhat according to classification; I won't bore you to death by breaking it down.)
L.A.-based animation studios that are non-union sometimes pay competitive union wages, sometimes not. And sometimes offer some kind of benefits package, sometimes not. You really have to go case-by-case.
Steve,
I always wonder why on earth studios within LA County (who sub from TAG signators) often opt to pay artists the benefits' monetary equivalent, rather than the(much more vital and, indeed, accruable )benefits themselves.I'm sure they are all aware that they can assign specific projects to a signatory payroll service without committing their entire studio to a contract. To my understanding the only extra cost would be that of the payroll service itself.
Is such a service prohibitively expensive enough to justify that course, or, at the end of the day, does it boil down to issues concerning the trust fund audits?
Is such a service prohibitively expensive enough to justify that course, or, at the end of the day, does it boil down to issues concerning the trust fund audits?
No, not expensive.
But the reason it isn't done is? Some signator studios pay artists over union scale and leave it at that. They pay overscale to compete on market wages, and by doing so, they've included the "monetary equivalent" of benefits, and they've satisfied the requirements of the sub-contracting clause.
The best way to get benefits is to organize the studio.
Steve,
It's all well and good that the clause requirements are satisfied, but if the cost of paying for the actual benefits (as opposed to the monetary equivalent) is a virtual wash, why would the subs opt not to do that? By not doing so, it looks like they really don't give a damn about the artists-- especially since, as you indicate, cost is NOT the issue.
Unless management at these places have been living under rocks, they must realize how crucial these benefits are
to the increasing numbers of us who work gig to gig;not to mention those with families and dependants for whom Cobra payments can well exceed a grand per month.
There's no really great excuse for that, is there? It's pretty damn callous, IMHO.
By not doing so, it looks like they really don't give a damn about the artists-- especially since, as you indicate, cost is NOT the issue....
You're perceptive. And IMHO -- having talked to some of these folks -- your perceptions are correct.
The U.S. is the only industrialized nation (outside of South Africa) that doesn't have universal health insurance. Even Taiwan, that bastion of anti-communism, went to single-payer, universal health coverage in the middle nineties.
Post a Comment