new composer's union

[Zastrozzi]

I was also at the meeting last night and after all I heard, I fully support the Unionization effort.

There were a couple of handouts and if anybody wants to view the material, I've made them available as a .pdf download. You can download them here: www.leehuff.com/union/Union_Handouts.pdf

[scientist]

houston, thanks so much for posting such an in depth report. the more information is out there the better. also thanks zastrozzi for a link to the meeting documents...

[Houston Haynes]

Deane Ogden has been on this topic since it resurfaced a little while ago, and has a thread going where he's soliciting comment:

http://www.scorecastonline.com/2009/...questions.html

Feel free to chime in - it's worthwhile to keep the conversation going.

[Daryl]

I wonder what a composers' Union would achieve. i can see a few possible advantages, for some people, but disadvantages for most:

1) There would be Union and non Union gigs. The non Union ones would pay just as badly as they do now.
2) Union composers would not be "allowed" to take the non Union gigs, and so could end up with less work that they currently have.
3) If the cost of hiring a composer increases, there will be less hired composers and more library music.
4) There could easily be a delineation between post and composing, so that the same person wouldn't be allowed to do both. There have been suggestions that post engineers are trying to cut composers out of the deal, by wanting to do the job themselves. Any composer in a Union would be entitled to try to stop this.
5) More work would be sourced abroad, much as it is with orchestral gigs. For composers it would be much easier to work remotely, so it would be all pluses for the producing team.

I can think of lots of other disadvantages, but until all the above points have been considered, and a solution achieved, a composers' Union is not really a very good idea, IMO.

D

[dpasdernick]

This is interseting and a delicate subject for many. We run the gamut of A-List composers getting 7 fugure salaries to people who give their music away to get their name out there. Since the internet, and therefore the ease of pirating music, has pretty much killed the record industry there seems to be a lesser value put on music these days. There are so many people comsing now, from the dude who throws 6 "Acid" loops together and calls it a composition to guys who create A-List quality music with VSL, etc.

Also, if you consider that an iPod can hold tens of thousands of songs, and that a song on iTunes costs around $.99 in a perfect world that would mean people that own a full iPod have paid over $10,000 for their music. I don't think I've met anybody who tells me they pay for everything they have on their device.

Unionizing composers, while the intention is to help us, will ultimately push the unionized composers out of the running. There will always be a non-union guy who is just as good and willing to work cheaper and my bet is that the dude who's paying will go with him (or her).

We are experiencing very difficult times worldwide as we enter a global economy. So much of what we do has lost it's value. (Remember the unionized autoworker?) My guess is if you plant your feet in the ground and start demanding "union type benefits" for composing your phone will stop ringing. I am not trying to be anti-union, I just think this is a cold reality. We are in a race to the bottom here in America anyway.

2 cents,

Darren

[Houston Haynes]

2) Union composers would not be "allowed" to take the non Union gigs, and so could end up with less work that they currently have.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. The way it was explained at the meeting is that composers *could* work non-union gigs with the stipulation that they report the work back to the local, so that they could attempt to get the production on a contract. It's different than the way things are handled with SAG and other unions but is analogous to others.

As for the other factors and run-away production - do you really think that a composers union would accelerate the trend? Honestly - do you think the erosion of working conditions could progress any faster? From my experience, the studios are in a race to the bottom as it is - and the only thing that a unionization effort would do is cause them to waive their hands around their unspoken effort in order to draw attention to it - to use as a wedge against the effort.

One of the things that was discussed at the meeting was how there were analogs to the casting director's union - where the question was raised about hiring casting directors out of Toronto or Vancouver and so forth. The answer had a familiar feel to it - that it's the relationship with the principals that make a particular casting director a worthy hire. They still have to chase down the gig - they still have to work with/through an agent/manager. They still have to negotiate. The difference now is that *when* they land the gig then the insurance, pension and other factors of the collective bargaining agreement are paid by the studios. As a side-note, it was explained to us by the casting director at the meeting that the line budget for a studio production *HAD* entries for paying those fees on behalf of the casting directors - but were never actually paid until they were unionized. The studios were putting those "dummy" lines in the budget to pad out the numbers - so they could re-coup them at the close and re-capture the funds.

Is anybody surprised by this? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

I think anyone that has lived and worked in Los Angeles as a film and TV composer understands the challenges and factors at play. But as I have postulated in other forums, in order to be *real* part of the conversation you have to come to grips with the possibility that a composer's union *might* work - however limited it might be in today's economic context. Until you get to that point then you're shouting into the conversation from the outside.

[Houston Haynes]

From a Facebook thread on this topic:

Anton Sanko commented on Deane Ogden's post:

"i just had dinner with mike post, george s, clinton, BT, michael penn, rolfe kent, ed schearmur, and chris young. all are interested in the prospect of unionizing. we want to take out a full page in variety with 100 working composers names on it. "

[scientist]

1) There would be Union and non Union gigs. The non Union ones would pay just as badly as they do now.

i have personal experience that proves this to not necessarily be true (although it certainly has at least some truth to it). the graphic design industry has a regulatory agency (the graphic artists' guild), and most graphic designers that i know are not members. however, the organization is large enough, and transparent enough in their dealings - e.g. they publish the guild handbook which can be purchased at any bookstore - that their information is easily accessible and taken as standard. thus, even non-guild employers and employees still have a valid reference for "this is how it is, this is how much i deserve to get paid, this is how rights are divvied up". in my 10+ years as a graphic designer, i never once had an employer balk at paying on par with guild standards. granted, the pool of potential employers and employers in graphic design is larger than that for composing, but this concept still applies: make the minimum work standards common knowledge and/or easily accessible and they have a good chance of becoming just that...STANDARDS. right now we have none.

for this union to work they have to be open to the reality that non-union work exists (and this is stated in the meeting memo), and still be helpful to those who engage in it. in the end, helping even non-union members receive fair wages/benefits from non-union work helps everyone involved.

my biggest worry with this is that the teamsters won't come to grips with the uniqueness of the industry, and will try to apply auto-worker standards to what is a creative and fickle industry. number one in my mind is that everyone at the table needs to remain friends. an adversarial relationship will serve no one. michael bay already blows enough stuff up, i don't want him to set his sights on composers too.

[Houston Haynes]

The AMCL FAQ says this about the subject:

What about non-guild work?
In instances when production companies either refuse to become, or have not yet become, signatory to the guild agreement, guild members would be permitted to work for the company as long as the guild is notified.

However, though members would not be bound by contractual minimums, they would not receive any guild benefits nor have the advantage of guild safeguards if problems arose with the producer/employer during the term of employment.

Their website is here:
http://www.theamcl.org/

[scientist]

also, i'm trying to 'RT' any useful information i come across on twitter. find me as @scntfc. i've got houston haynes and deane ogden followed so far.