Now it can be told! I spent a big part of Monday at Sony Pictures Animation, visiting the troops and helping on the SPA contract ratification vote...
For those new to the party: The IATSE negotiated a first-time contract with then-new Sony Pictures Animation four years ago. It was a four-year deal, and it came up for renegotiation last month.
The IA sat down and hammered a new three-year pact with Sony in late September. The deal contained wage increases that were 30% higher than the increases negotiated by The Animation Guild and the IA for their respective contracts a year and a half ago; it also had the same sweeteners for the pension and health plans ("sweeteners" = more money into the MPIPHP.)
We held a series of informational meetings about the renewed contract at the studio in the early afternoon, after which SPA employees voted on the deal.
The breakdown: 89% in favor of the renegotiated collective bargaining agreement.
So the contract was ratified for a second time. (And the IATSE -- whose contract this is -- bats two-for-two at SPA).
Posts
12 comments:
Does this cover the animators and TDs at Sony Pictures Imageworks (SPI)?
I understand that SPA essentially "subcontracts" their animation work to SPI, is that correct?
So, is a "union shop" subcontracting work to a "non-union shop"???
I understand that SPA ...
"subcontracts" their animation work to SPI ...
They do.
...is a "union shop" subcontracting work to a "non-union shop"???
It is.
There's a convoluted tale as to why, with which I won't bore you. The short tale is: The IA organized SPA, negotiated a contract and got it ratified, then Sony Pictures Imageworks employees voted up or down whether to be covered by that contract.
They voted "no."
Some ImageWorks employees subsequently regretted their "no" votes, but the reality of the vote remains: SPA union. SPI non-union.
What's Sony up to these days, in terms of projects I mean? Other than "Beowolf"?
Wonder if their plans changed a little after the less than expected b.o. from "Surf's Up"...
> Some ImageWorks employees subsequently regretted their "no" votes,
> but the reality of the vote remains: SPA union. SPI non-union.
Well... they'll always have their "rugged independence". ;-)
Imageworks voted no because it stood to lose too much. Less vacation, no 401k matching and no profit sharing. The only reason SPA voted in favor was because the recently hired union employees who wanted to keep their current benefits. So, they signed the cards...
And I don't know where you get some employees regretted voting no.
Having talked with more than a few Imageworkers, most of them voted "no" without understanding what the union actually had to offer. Sure, there was no matching 401(k), but the union plan has two pensions that combined are far superior to the Sony 401(k) match (unfortunately, those pension plans aren't so neat to explain). And the union health plan was much better, among other things.
And profit sharing!? Over 90% of SPI people aren't eligible for that. Sony execs were coy about whether they'd actually take that away from the "star" employees who got that perk, so it may not have been a loss at all, but those stars and supervisors made certain that their subordinates knew how to vote. ;-)
There was so much misinformation and hostility going around, the "no" vote was no surprise.
So, let me get this straight.
The employees of the animation division of an international billion-dollar conglomerate rejected joining a union because they thought a "profit-sharing plan" was a better deal.
A "profit-sharing plan" that 90% of them weren't eligible for anyway.
That would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
Hey, the employees of a certain Emeryville studio gladly work for much lower wages than their LA counterparts in the midst of a much higher cost of living, for the benefit of busting their wrists on "quality" product with stock options that many end up selling off within a few years to make ends meet.
P.T. Barnum hit it on the nose! The best part is that the "suckers" often fancy themselves as sophisticates. ;-)
I wonder if John L is working for lower wages than his LA counterparts...?
"But it's show business," said the guy with the pushbroom following the circus parade.
the employees of a certain Emeryville studio gladly work for much lower wages than their LA counterparts in the midst of a much higher cost of living
The only info I have about wages up north is anecdotal.
But it's true that in the past, I've run across animation artists who were pretty drastically underpaid. Certainly true of Klasky-Csupo employees in the early days of "The Simpsons," also employees at Spumco.
Plenty of examples over the years.
> I wonder if John L is working for lower wages than his LA counterparts...?
Here's a portion of his DEF 14A filing, online at:
http://paycheck.demo.marklogic.com/detailed-exec-comp.xqy?company=Pixar+Animation+Studios&exec=John+Lasseter
Although it references his 2001 deal, it's pretty eye-opening. I understand that both Lasseter and Catmull had their annual salaries doubled as a result of last year's Disney/Pixar deal, so you can imagine...
Post a Comment