new composer's union

[RobbinsEgg]

If we DON'T try, it's a guarantee that conditions WILL continue to degrade. We are being treated like we are because we've allowed it to happen, and have little power individually to change it.
There will be no perfect compromise to satisfy all of us, but collectively, a union affiliated with one of the most influential unions - Teamsters - will have a stabilizing effect, and provide a floor for fees and conditions.
As was said repeatedly at the meeting, it's the start of a LONG process. If we can attain solidarity among us it has a real chance to succeed.

Why NOT a union?
Sign up ladies and gentlemen, let's roll up our sleeves and see if this can be done.

[Brian W. Ralston]

I wanted to copy my reply from another forum to a question here because it is relevant to the discussion. In discussing how qualifications for a union would work, this person said

Perhaps there could be a more realistic requirement system - such as either referral, recommendation, or experience (even perhaps proof of full time work for a certain period, even with a non-film credit list). There are composers who never work on a Hollywood feature that work full time and make a living, and need representation and bargaining power.

The union seems like a good idea, as long as it realistically supports the non-LA markets along with the established LA composers and production companies by setting industry-wide minimums for fees, schedules and royalty requirements as well.

I'm not an expert on this - just offering my opinion here.

My reply was...

Supporting non-LA markets and even indie productions will never happen guys. Here is why. The ONLY people the union will really represent the way it is being proposed is guys who are doing studio level or network broadcast level film / TV shows. So...unless you make your living scoring a network TV show or a FOX or Paramount movie...the union will have no power. Why you ask?

The Teamsters only negotiate with the AMPTP. Their jurisdiction is ONLY Los Angeles or NY. They can get their New York teamsters to have a NY chapter of composers as well. But those folks would only cover NY productions on that side. So what about films shot in Arizona...or new Mexico. or Canada. Or the UK....or..etc...

The Teamster representative was very clear and said at the info meeting that they will not and do not have any plans to represent composers who score video games....composers who write for music libraries...composers who score commercials, etc....ONLY broadcast TV shows and studio level films where the production companies are represented by the AMPTP. Again...because the studios is ONLY who the AMPTP represents and that is where their power reaches. With them. Outside of that, the power of the teamsters is nothing.

They have a HUGE problem to solve in all of this and I hope they do because there are issues that need to be addressed. They said they need the grass roots "entry level" guy to be angry. They need an upswell of guys in the trenches to want this. They need the recent USC film scoring graduates, the mass of indie guys to want this for their future in order to make this work. They need a critical mass of 75% of the guys in the business to sign on to have strength.

BUT...

The ONLY people the Teamsters will be negotiating with (if successful in getting composers recognized as a union) is the studios and networks through the AMPTP.

There is NOTHING to make an independent production company doing an indie film or TV spec pilot or webisode to sign the agreement and become a signatory to the Teamster agreement.

So...the contract this union will ultimately have will only apply to that top 10% of the guys who are doing 90% of the studio level work. (And many of them are already making above what a union minimum would be in terms of fees). That will not change. I don't see how it can because the AMPTP does not represent anything other than the level those top level folks are working on. And the mass of "young composer" guys they need will see very little to no benefit from this on the level of projects they are working on. That is the important distinction. Sure...if you get on a future studio gig...you will then see a benefit. but until then, all of your indie films will not be under a union agreement and yet you will have to be paying dues and get little to no benefit on your own projects. And in fact, you may even create an image as a union guy where the indie guys are even afraid to work with you even though you CAN do non-union work. Perhaps the indie composer guys can point to what the union guys make and say to their producers, "well...you are offering me a couple thousand and you know the going rate if this were union is $50,000. Just so you know." And the response you will get is most likely, "do you want it or not...I have a list of 100 other guys that will like the credit if you don't want it."

I truly think a lot of composer guys think if they are in the union they will all of a sudden have to get paid more and have benefits. Not true AT ALL. Only if your production decides to abide by the agreement. Unless they are in the AMPTP and have no choice...why would they sign on to any agreement that means they have to pay significantly more money? They won't. If they are an indie there is nothing to make them and they will just shoot their film non-union. Heck...many films will do the production union cause there are no other alternatives and will do all of Post-production NON-Union. There is nothing to stop that either. There are alternatives in music. A lot. You could go with a music library and just license music. They can go find a non-union composer...and there will be a lot around...especially if they go find some guy who scores games and is disgruntled because he found out the union will not help his projects. So...he stayed non-union and yet has all the equipment and ability to score a film if offered.

Let me just qualify everything I have said (which sounds very negative)...by saying that I honestly have not made up my mind and I WILL reserve judgement for a time far down the road. This is only the beginning and it will take a long time. Casting directors took 4 1/2 years to organize under the Teamsters. I bring up these points because I truly hope that these issues will be addressed somehow. Yes I am skeptical. But I am also hopeful that this will ultimately affect change. If they can address these issues, they will have my support. If not...then it will be business as usual and I feel I will not be the only one who takes that approach. There will be a lot of fallout from this, especially if successful. Composers need to know that and not be afraid.

A top hollywood producer (who shall remain nameless here, but know he has done top hollywood films you all have seen) said to me in a string of emails on the subject...

The movie business is dying. These people are living in 1980 when this might have made sense. Entry level jobs will continue to be on smaller non-union films if you are a union member as a composer you won't be hired for those. Even on IATSE movies, most of post is done non-union. ...

This is akin to the IATSE still photographers thinking that because still cameras can now shoot video that the still photpgraphers will be hired to shoot EPK without realizing that video cameras can ALSO now shoot stills - so what is to stop videographers from shooting stills.

It is not thinking ahead at ramificaitons.

I see no upside for anyone in this action, personally.

It will just force producers to look elsewhere for music - and "license" it from a music library rather than to hire a specific composer. This is done all the time to avoid dealing with Unions.
....
There are so few jobs, why make it harder for non-Williams and non-Horners to get them?

The only one who will benifit will be the teamsters Pension Health and Welfare funds.

It's just not 1980 in the movie business anymore!
...

at some point in your career you will have a perceived value as a composer - but because there is a union agreement in place - THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL BE PAID, when in all likely hood you could earn more. There are simply, like directors, too many composers out there for you to negotiate a higher-than-scale deal - even though your work in the future under the current system may allow you to negotiate more.

It's just not 1980 in a time BEFORE computers when there were many movies and few composers. Now there are few movies and many composers.

really misguided in my humble opinion, the more I write about it.
....

IF I COULD MAKE THIS FLASH I WOULD... The composers are BLIND to what just has happened to SAG and WGA where the studios have "taken away their performance royalties (residuals) and even proper credit for their work" and to allow actors without their permission to appear to endorse and advertise products for sale, without additional compensation. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST CONTRACT. This has happened to SAG and WGA and the studios are not even honoring the negotiated WGA deal for new media. This happened in spades to SAG.

Are the composers blind? Have they been listening to music too loud to know what is going on?

As a producer, I can tell you that I look on composers as a dime a dozen. Sorry. Like directors (and an awful lot of guys who call themselves director but when push comes to shove do not have the ability to deliver what a multi-million dollar film requires) there are simply too many people out there wanting to do what you do.

As a producer I know that.

There are very, very few people out there wanting to be casting directors or grips or teamster drivers. There is no advantage for James Horner or John Williams to be in a union, just like no advantage for Tom Cruise or George Lucas. Many of the big powerful movie stars sided with the studios during the SAG strike, effectively castrating the union. All it will take is a handful to defect.

...

The ship has sailed, the horse is dying on the ground and the composers are so out of touch they are kicking a dying animal trying to make it get up when it is near death.

Study the -beating that the MPAA gave to WGA and SAG - and IATSE - whose members ARE SPECIFICALLY NOT COVERED on studio producitons made for the internet!
...

THIS IS DEAD ON: I think the status we have now actually gives composers a great amount of power to conduct their business and make their deals the way they want. They need to build their own demand like any other competitive business.

Just saying!

[Houston Haynes]

FWIW - I don't think anyone is blind to the situation, but there are many, many, many opinions (informed and otherwise) of what to do about it. The dialog with Teamsters 399 is part of the process of separating the possible/plausible from pie-in-the-sky demands that may be postulated. (i.e. "turn back the clock" and other fatally flawed mindsets)

The end result *may* well be that forming a union/guild does *not* make sense for the parties involved. But it would be premature to abandon the idea until all of the options are explored and the ramifications fully considered.

[Brian W. Ralston]

ummmm....Houston....who said anything about abandoning the idea?

[Houston Haynes]

After what you just posted, that's a rhetorical question, right?

[Brian W. Ralston]

Apparently Houston (and I say this respectfully from one composer to another) you either did not read the entirety of what I just posted and/or allowed it to serve as discouragement instead of motivation. Especially the part where I said that I bring up these problems to be solved because they are real and have to be solved by us as composers if this is going to successfully happen. I even bold typed some of that statement. You can not point to one word in what I typed that is either not true...or where I said composers should just quit now. You reacted to your own interpretation to what was said...which frankly was an incorrect interpretation you did on your own. There is no hidden meaning or inference there. I meant exactly what the words said.

Organizing with the Teamsters 399 does not address anything that would happen in the independent film world where those productions are not AMPTP signatories. It also will not address anyone working in video games, commercials, music libraries, etc...The Teamsters 399 negotiate with the AMPTP. That is it. That is the extent of their reach.

How would you propose to solve this issue?

Figure out how to address that...and we will get to the necessary critical mass.

We have a lot of work to do.

If we composers think that we will not have to deal with these issues, and the teamsters will just magically make them go away with union membership...we have another thing coming.

95% of the composers I know...are seriously myopic to music issues alone and DO NOT see the whole filmmaking picture. They have no clue of all the things that had to be wrangled before they were even hired. Also in the Post-Prod world, where editors are being asked to be colorists because the technology is allowing them to do so, sound designers are being asked to produce final sound mixes and do ADR recording themselves because the technology makes it easy and anyone with an Apple computer and garageband has on their website they are a film composer, it is obvious the business model for making films has changed from years ago. If there is going to be strength in numbers (getting entry level guys to sign up), the proposed union MUST address folks at all levels of work and not just the studio and network productions negotiated by the AMPTP.

[Houston Haynes]

I'm pretty sure you misread/misinterpreted my meaning. I think it's too easy to read that post as a discouragement, and my reply to to admonish people to *not* read it as such. We're getting a bit lost in the weeds looking for the same thing, methinks.

Organizing with the Teamsters 399 does not address anything that would happen in the independent film world where those productions are not AMPTP signatories. It also will not address anyone working in video games, commercials, music libraries, etc...The Teamsters 399 negotiate with the AMPTP. That is it. That is the extent of their reach.

How would you propose to solve this issue?

I think it's a false/premature postulate. The *real* question is "can/should we address every problem in the music-for-media industry at one time?"

If you listened carefully to what the committee was saying at the meeting, they are being intentionally specific in addressing a specific strata - and I believe that there's a very pointed strategy in that. *Just* dealing with the issue at the AMPTP level (*if* it's successful) has the potential to set a precedent - but that remains to be seen. I believe that they've made the calculation to address *this* part of the issue in a specific manner in order to have a chance at it filtering out to other areas. I'm just guessing at this point, but it makes sense to me that they picked a large, meaningful target and then address other areas after the foundation is established.

[Brian W. Ralston]

The disconnect I am having with what was proposed at the meeting is this. Yes...they are addressing a certain level of work initially. Productions the AMPTP would cover. The disconnect comes from the push/desire/need for the masses of entry level guys to join up to reach critical mass.

And I am saying...why would these guys join? Why should an entry level guy join a union (if he qualifies) when that very union will not address anything he will be working on initially...and there is honestly no guarantee it will address anything in the future. Only a hope. But that hope is bound by the fact that the Teamsters 399 only negotiates in mass with the AMPTP. Sure independent productions can sign with them one at a time...but why would they sign when it would increase the bottom line of their music budget by a significant amount from what they do now?

Alan Elliott literally said we need USC grads and the young entry level guys to get mad and join. And Jim DiPasquale also explained that in past union attempts when the A-list composers were approached about joining, many removed themselves from the equation due to industry pressure. We were also told that there is one A-list guy who supports us for sure...but his agent would not let him come. And that the composer agencies were strongly NOT behind this because it would cut into their percentage cuts with the package deals that are being made now. There were a select few in the room and I appreciated their presence.

If they need the young guys...they need to find a way to throw them a bone. They need to find a way to provide some benefit to them as well. I don't know...maybe that dangling carrot can be the rule (which they already have I know) of a way a composer can do non-union work...combined with being a member simply gives you healthcare coverage whose only requirement is to pay union dues. Maybe that would be the bone. Heck...my private health insurance now is more than double what monthly union dues would be. if I could get awesome Health insurance through the union by paying dues alone (even maybe until future contracts get stronger), I would save money and thus that alone could be a big factor in joining.

The composer organizing committee has done a lot of good work to get this far and I applaud them for that. But, they still have a LOT more to do to make this palatable to the guys they really need most...the mass of young entry level guys doing the thousands of indie films and projects out there that probably still won't have union protections any time soon. That is their largest problem as I see it.

[Brian W. Ralston]

For the record my composer friends...I am not planning on just sitting back and playing armchair quarterback...pointing out problems and failing to try to suggest solutions.

I have been thinking A LOT about the very issues I have brought up and I WILL be talking with the organizing committee and possibly even Steve Dayan at the 399 to see if any of my suggestions to address those issues would be a possibility. Because again...I truly have not decided either way on any of this and I am cautiously optimistic this will open a dialogue among us all that will ultimately make the composer situation better in the end...the far end....way down the road...like...that little spec over there....yeah...that one.

:wink:

[Houston Haynes]

Agreed on all counts