Some time back I did an interview for the www.fxguide.com website. It covered -- surprise, surprise -- the state of animation and visual effects workplaces, the state of animation and visual effects workers, where they've both been and where they're likely going.
It dovetails nicely with this article:
Unlike every other craft in the film industry, there is no union for visual effects artists. This seems to be a matter of timing as much as anything. Modern visual effects techniques are only a few decades old, and the digital side of the visual effects arts really only has about 20 years of history as a popular filmmaking tool. The other filmmaking disciplines such as acting, directing and music composition date back to the very beginnings of the film industry.
This newness has left digital visual effects artists with absolutely no collective bargaining power whatsoever. In this age of weakened unions, many of these artists are understandably leery of the idea of unionization. Additionally, visual effects artist currently work under constant threat from producers of having their work sent off to India or China. (The irony of sending creative work to a country like China that routinely censors communications -- including the announcement of this year's Oscar® nominations -- doesn't seem to bother these bottom-line seeking producers.) ...
Mr. Stranahan has it slightly wrong. The Animation Guild has been representing visual effects employees for decades. (What is Shrek, Aladdin or The Princess and the Frog, after all, if not ninety-minute long visual effects? Which, come to think of it, is what Avatar mostly is.)
The fact that we don't represent a lot of live-action visual effects is apparently what eats at Mr. Stranahan ....
But here's the rub: even though visual effects are an increasingly large part of the blockbusters to which Hollywood is addicted, the people who create them have relatively little clout. There are lots of reasons for this, from effects houses underbidding each other for jobs and gutting their own profit margins, to effects workers being categorized as "independent contractors" when they're actually employees, to lack of unionization.
This last problem was driven home to me when I attended a discussion at UCLA between Scott Ross (then the CEO of Digital Domain), and Tom Sito (then the President of the Animation Guild.) Ross was there to argue how unionization was really a bad and counter-productive thing for effects artists, but a short exchange during the audience's Question and Answer period undercut his argument. It went like this:
Angry Questioner: You know, Scott, I've worked at Digital Domain for a couple years now, and what really burns me is, on our last big project, all of the effects crew got pushed down below the Assistant Directors and Unit Production Managers' names in the credits at the back. We were way at the freaking bottom.. That's just wrong, man. Why did DD allow that to happen?
Scott Ross: I totally sympathize with you. Your names should have been higher up. But we couldn't do it, because the Directors Guild has a contract with the majors that forces us to put their people's names ahead of everybody else's.
Tom Sito (taking the microphone): And I'd like to point out that those A.D.'s and producion managers are ahead of the effects artists because they're in a union.
Scott Ross (after staring at Tom): Touche.
My advice to effects creators and everybody else: Know your rights. Know what the laws and regulations are. And know the addresses and phone numbers of the agencies that enforce and monitor the laws. (Knowledge is power, and power is -- if you decide to use it --leverage.)
Never stop training and learning. Never stop networking. And never stop living below your take-home pay.
Thanks for listening.
Here is the latest fxguide.com podcast. And here is my first fxguide.com podcast interview from August 2008.
If you have problems with the podcast widgets you can right-click to download the August 2008 and February 2010 podcasts in .mp3 format.
Posts
12 comments:
I'm with you most of the way, but some of us *ahem* contractors would prefer to be contractors.
When you're dealing with short term projects (2 - 4 months), we need the flexibility in cash flow and the option of providing our own health care.
Things like IRAs and tax deductions are also much easier to manage when you're given your whole check (and the responsibility when it comes to paying your taxes).
The only reason to take a W-2 staff position in this business is if they give you a multi project (and hopefully indefinite) contract, and you have dependents who need the health insurance.
Even then, the odds that you'll be working at the same place for more than 18 months are slim to none. Maybe with a break every so often, but c'mon, companies don't care.
The truth is, Unions (and the wannabees like MBO) only protect you IF you're employed. The rest of the time, you're on your own.
When Disney's animation team went on strike, they actually had the power of damaging Walt's business.
Now, VFX/Animation artists don't have anywhere near the power needed to take on conglomerates. We don't have the power to get the state to offer tax incentives like other countries (or states, if you're in CA. Michigan has a 42% tax break on labor for film). For the most part, we knew this when we got into the business, but that doesn't make it any smarter.
So, make sure your passport is updated and start reading up on incorporating, because you may be working in a different country or creating a small boutique studio in the next year or so.
No matter what you do, make sure you do something, because there's no way in hell anyone will do something for you.
(p.s. -
I bet come Oscar time ol' Jim Camereon won't even acknowledge that there were visual effects in his movie, let alone speak out on the behalf of people who worked on it.)
Unionizing wouldn't suffer from such bad PR if our brothers and sisters in government labor contracts did not abuse their leverage. Alas, it's too good a gig to let go of. And at the expense of labor in the private world. This is not what labor law was meant for.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013424060649464.html
Abuse of leverage is often in the eye of the beholder.
For instance: Did CitiBank, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America abuse their leverage? (They don't seem to think so.)
I'm with you most of the way, but some of us *ahem* contractors would prefer to be contractors.
I've no problem with preferences, but there's the small issue of state and federal laws.
If somebody is working as an employee (in-house, taking direction, using the company's equipment, etc.) they can't really opt for independent contractor status, even if they want to.
I wouldn't expect Goldman Sachs to argue against their self-interest. It’s in their blood oath they take as disciples of the market. Now unbridled self interest has been tried in the court of public opinion and declared guilty. At least for the time being, as long as the American people don’t go running back to the bottle again, which we are prone to do….
Labor flies the flag of social responsibility above self interest, but when tied to government interest, it conveniently and consistently votes ‘me first.’ That is just as corrupt as the free market philosophy in my book. It is especially relevant to our own trade union, as we are the real deal.
I’m on FDR’s side – government employees have a social responsibility that overrides the interest of labor. A wall needs to be erected. So far, labor interest in DC is failing us, and failing TAG.
I wouldn't expect Goldman Sachs to argue against their self-interest.
I don't expect human beings to act in anything other than their perceived self-interest.
And GS, in the service of self-interest, has no devotion to the free market, witness their eager adoption of Socialism when it suits their purposes. Yet you expect to unions to adhere to "social responsibility." That's not a bad idea, and I'm in favor of rolling back public employee pensions in California from 90% to 75% of final salary because its bleeding the state treasury, but I think expecting "social responsibility" is a tad unrealistic.
However, I'm delighted that you're a fan of FDR. No doubt you share his stated desire for National Health Care, yes?
I'm with you most of the way, but some of us *ahem* contractors would prefer to be contractors.
When you're dealing with short term projects (2 - 4 months), we need the flexibility in cash flow and the option of providing our own health care.
...
The truth is, Unions (and the wannabees like MBO) only protect you IF you're employed. The rest of the time, you're on your own.
Random thoughts on the above:
1) Solo artists living outside of Massachusetts' universal health care system will get screwed on individual health plans in the States, especially if they have any kind of preexisting condition. I've already been rejected multiple times by multiple health insurers. There is no real "option of providing our own health care" for solo artists.
Artists with a willing partner can form a "business" of two people and purchase guaranteed-issue group insurance for that business, bypassing the preexisting condition exclusions. However, again, solo artists get screwed outside of Massachusetts.
2) MBO is not a union "wannabe." It's a !@#$ing libertarian's wet-dream, right down to the realtime tax deductions.
MBO does not offer union benefits. MBO does not wield collective bargaining. MBO does not set minimum wages or handle grievances like the Local 839. MBO does not even protect all of its members with health insurance -- each individual must choose whether to purchase the MBO guaranteed-issue group health plans with pretax dollars.
MBO offers several conveniences, Roth/traditional 401(k)s with a $49,000 max and a shot at guaranteed-issue group health insurance for individuals. This is well worth MBO's small pretax fee, but it does not compare to what the Local 839 offers.
3) That said, it is not true that the 839 and MBO only protect employed members. Both the Local 839 and MBO offer some protection for their members post-employment.
When I finished working at Warner Bros. Feature Animation, I had banked so many hours that I got a year's worth of world-class health insurance for myself *and* my spouse for "free" through the Local 839. I also received a severance check and a small amount for my IAP, which I will receive upon retirement. That's a fine deal for about six months of work.
I'm also grateful for the 839's non-profit American Animation Institute classes, which help protect and maintain my skill set.
I'm still new to MBO, but it, too, seems to offer members a chance to protect themselves post-employment. MBO members can choose not to pay themselves their entire "payroll," instead setting aside some of the funds in their "employer" accounts. These funds can then be used to pay for MBO's guaranteed-issue health insurance plan with pretax dollars after the job ends, instead of switching to COBRA right away and paying for the same insurance with post-tax dollars.
Really interesting thread.
I think social responsibility is paramount with regard to government labor contracts, GSE's, and limitless corporate lobbying. I don't think it is being unrealistic to demand it any more than I think it is unrealistic to incur continued unsustainable debt. That's exactly what parasites like GS feeds on. It always comes down to how much debt we can afford to sell overseas. GS will thrive whether or not the US government does. Everything else is irrelevant until that is addressed.
There are two ways you can look at it - either GS's free market model folded under the pressure of a market they created and had to be rescued, or GS fully understood they were operating under a flawed free market model that would ultimately crash, and they shorted it earlier and more aggressively than everyone else. Watch just two minutes of CSPAN and you quickly come to the conclusion that it was the latter that is likely closer to the truth.
I'd settle for reduction of pension down to 65%. They're all boomers anyway. They can grow gardens to make up the difference. They wanted the simple life, so here's their big chance.
If somebody is working as an employee (in-house, taking direction, using the company's equipment, etc.) they can't really opt for independent contractor status, even if they want to.
Hi, Steve,
For working in-house at a studio, artists can choose independent contractor status in one of two ways:
1) Run their business as an S-Corp and hire themselves out on a consulting basis
2) Rent MBO Partners' services for a 4.5% pre-tax fee. The artist becomes an employee of MBO, which then lends that employee to the studio as a consultant.
An S-Corp/MBO status means more taxes for the artist, since the employer does not have to pay half of the Social Security and Medicare taxes for that artist. However, the S-Corp/MBO artist gets to to write off expenses on their taxes, purchase health insurance with pretax dollars and get access to retirement accounts with a higher $49,000/year limit.
I think Local 839 hands artists a far better deal. However, at least two VFX shops around here are using MBO's services when hiring artists to work in-house.
... 2) Rent MBO Partners' services for a 4.5% pre-tax fee. The artist becomes an employee of MBO, which then lends that employee to the studio as a consultant ....
This thread is getting a little old, but my thoughts anyway:
I've dealt with the "loan-out" gambit in the past. The problem is, it's essentially a gambit whereby the primary employer (the effx studio) is trying to get out from under IRS regs.
There is no way that a visual effects person, working inside a studio beside bonafide employees doing exactly the same thing, is anything other than an employee.
Studios are simply attempting to off-load their responsibilities under IRS regs and the law, and MBO is their enabler.
And whether this gambit holds up under IRS assault, well, I guess we will see, won't we?
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter, Steve.
Ironically, my co-workers take greater offense at MBO's pre-tax fee than they do at the studio dodging IRS regulations. A few VFX artists I know refuse to work for studios on an MBO-basis solely because of that pre-tax fee. They're probably doing the right thing for themselves, but for the wrong reason.
To all the freelance digital artists who like myself are sick of MBO trying to make a buck off us – I’ve created a linkedin group to organize our opposition to MBO partners and similar groups:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=2762465&trk=anet_ug_grppro
Please join and help me out on this!
Eric
Post a Comment