Deadline: IATSE president Matt Loeb has sternly rebuked Editors Guild leaders Cathy Repola and Alan Heim, telling them that their claim that she was removed as a director of the union’s pension and health plans in retaliation for her opposition to IATSE’s new film and TV contract not only is inaccurate but “irresponsible.”
2 comments:
I had not been following this news, but it seems pretty large scale. I would think the director of pension and health would always be the strongest advocate for members of the union. It is very odd to start realizing that the film and tv industry is rapidly changing. With the creation of Netflix, Hulu, Amazon and other streaming services, a lot of union members are working on post-production rather than actual shooting, as mentioned in this article. Because of that, unions need to adapt to recognize the shift in income for the employees. Pension and health has always relied heavily on employer contribution, so the union needs to start shifting responsibility as employers and employment structure changes. I am very curious on how this conflict will result because at this point it seems like just words against words. I'll be interested to follow up and see if the retaliation claims continue further.
The independence that each local has in IATSE combined with the absolute dependence they rely on each other in condensed areas is fascinating to me. While it is a Union members job as a director of a board to ensure what is best for the union members, given that this specific Guild which is most impacted by the changes has thrown their support behind their director who has stood up for the employers right over the participants right is very telling. There is a huge risk involved in film for post-production editing going overseas or to areas where Unions are not necessarily required. As small as these independent houses are, there is also a risk of them putting down their foot and saying that it creates an undue burden to use the union members and therefore they are unable to accommodate union rules. This would be a legitimate concern depending upon the size of the house. If a Director from the Guild has been in these houses and heard them say “We love the union, we love working with the unions, but also times are tough and there’s only so high we can go” the union has to recognize that as a viable concern and listen to the employers plea to keep their fees at a reasonable rate. This feels like a crucial part of the listening phase of conversations was skipped, and the only people who are going to get hurt are the guild that wasn’t listened to.
Post a Comment