Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KeithBroughton]

Quote:

ot knowing your position/function....Do you get paid the same amount of money for every gig? Or, do you charge some clients more than others? The same amount whether you're behind the Console or pulling cable? Do you make more money than you did 10 years ago? If so...why? Are you not doing the same job that you did 10 years ago? People are generally paid by their experience. If the powers that be, know they're going to record, would they hire some dolt to set-up the Mics, or hire someone that has proven experience? (more than likely, a local Hand would only assist a Band Tech or Recording Engineer, and not handle critical tasks) In a Recorded Event, the Show Producers do everything possible to minimize the possibilities of something going wrong. They know they get one chance to do this RIGHT. So, they hire the best they have at the time, and they pay them appropriately. What don't you understand?

This isn't about what I did or do or have been paid or what I charge to whom.
It's about union workers, not me so you point seems lost by bringing my work into the discussion.
Of course you don't hire a "dolt" to work a high end show.At least I understand that.
The question that is being asked here is if you hire a union worker to do a non recorded show and then hire that same person to do a recorded show, why does that person get paid more if doing the same job.

Quote:

After reading your responses, it's clear that you don't understand where and when these agreements for a pay premium originated.

The explanation following this comment makes sense. I wasn't aware of the history.
Thanks for the insight.

This is a discussion of the rules not a personal attack on anyone. It's good to review and understand rules like this that are in place.
Just because 'it's the way things have been done' doesn't mean it's the way it should continue to be done.
Sometimes, revision might be in order and if we don't question the rules how can we keep them applicable to current situations?

[Charlie Zureki]

KeithBroughton wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 08:06

It's good to review and understand rules like this that are in place. Just because 'it's the way things have been done' doesn't mean it's the way it should continue to be done. Sometimes, revision might be in order and if we don't question the rules how can we keep them applicable to current situations?

  Ok, But, not to attack you or your logic... Just because you've made $200 per gig (or whatever), why, even though you've gained experience and knowledge, should anyone continue to pay your asking price?

  In a twist of "logic",... with your experience, you now know the responsibilities and functions of the job, and you're better and faster at getting results...so...the job is now easier for you.  So...in conclusion... you're not working as hard....which means, I should pay you less money for the same job?

  Hammer

[Rob Spence]

KeithBroughton wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 09:06

The question that is being asked here is if you hire a union worker to do a non recorded show and then hire that same person to do a recorded show, why does that person get paid more if doing the same job.

It seems that the simple answer isn't being obvious..

They get paid more because they negotiated the increase into their contract.

Now, the history that Charlie explained is interesting for sure. but today, it is simply because it has been agreed to.

[Tim McCulloch]

Rob Spence wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 11:43

KeithBroughton wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 09:06 The question that is being asked here is if you hire a union worker to do a non recorded show and then hire that same person to do a recorded show, why does that person get paid more if doing the same job. It seems that the simple answer isn't being obvious.. They get paid more because they negotiated the increase into their contract. Now, the history that Charlie explained is interesting for sure. but today, it is simply because it has been agreed to.

I find it a bit alarming that other technicians seem to take an interest in the financial affairs of others, and it's not "a rising tide lifts all boats" sort of interest.

Personally, if someone wants to save a client some money they can lay their own earnings on the sacrificial altar, but leave my negotiated wages alone.

Tim Mc

[Mac Kerr]

Rob Spence wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 12:43

KeithBroughton wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 09:06 The question that is being asked here is if you hire a union worker to do a non recorded show and then hire that same person to do a recorded show, why does that person get paid more if doing the same job. It seems that the simple answer isn't being obvious.. They get paid more because they negotiated the increase into their contract. Now, the history that Charlie explained is interesting for sure. but today, it is simply because it has been agreed to.

Part of the reason it has been agreed to is that the normal rate that has been contractually agreed to with the venue is for an event that has certain limits on profit due to venue size. When the event also includes future profit from media sales (CDs, DVD, broadcast) the basis of that original contract is changed. In light of the higher revenue stream, everyone involved in the production gets to benefit from that greater profit potential. The local crew who worked the show only have a 1 time opportunity to profit from this, and it comes in the form of higher hourly rates, or additional flat fees. The production can continue to profit for as long as they can sell the media.

Mac

[Jonathan 'JP' Peirce]

Tim McCulloch wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 13:01

I find it a bit alarming that other technicians seem to take an interest in the financial affairs of others, and it's not "a rising tide lifts all boats" sort of interest. Personally, if someone wants to save a client some money they can lay their own earnings on the sacrificial altar, but leave my negotiated wages alone. Tim Mc

Well said Tim.

[Dave Stevens]

Mac Kerr wrote on Sat, 27 November 2010 10:06

[ Part of the reason it has been agreed to is that the normal rate that has been contractually agreed to with the venue is for an event that has certain limits on profit due to venue size. When the event also includes future profit from media sales (CDs, DVD, broadcast) the basis of that original contract is changed. In light of the higher revenue stream, everyone involved in the production gets to benefit from that greater profit potential. The local crew who worked the show only have a 1 time opportunity to profit from this, and it comes in the form of higher hourly rates, or additional flat fees. The production can continue to profit for as long as they can sell the media.

That is a great explanation.  I think those questioning don't have the experience in that realm of production where this is a normal thing.  For example, prior to me "working for the man", I would charge a 10hr day rate of $450.  If it was film or video the 10hr rate increased to $650.  It's standard industry practice.  It's a normal thing, guys.  Even working for the man we're able to do better, but in the form of more overtime. A couple weeks ago we wrapped principal photography on a motion picture that involved several of our productions.  We don't have a broadcast rate but with the OT involved it worked out to almost the same as if we did, not including the benefit package on top of that I didn't get as an independent.  

You full timers that have been doing this for a decade or more, don't sell yourself short.  You have a specialized skill that not everyone that buys a PA at Guitar Center can do.  Maximize your earning potential with your experience and skill.

[Rob Spence]

I don't have any issue with this... I thought I was helping with the answer that's all. Mac also had a good explanation. I understand it and have no issue with it.

[Jay Pemberton]

This thread reminds me of what happened about 15 years ago when I worked for a small public radio station in Texas.  I wish I'd had knowledge of what rights I really had, if any....I was a free-lance recording engineer who worked part-time for the station but did recording for them as well, recording numerous local concerts for broadcast on the station.

That which was recorded for the station was only intended for broadcast once or twice, but a couple of times a local big band took some of the recordings I made for broadcast, and released them themselves.  

The first instance was released on a cassette, and the station's chief engineer insisted on making the DAT master of it for the band, cutting me out of having any say on the sound quality of the end product.  (He didn't do anything to mess it up, to his credit, but that also got his name on the tape's credits as a recording engineer when he'd only run FOH sound at the concert.)

One year later, the band played another concert I was to record, but such circumstances as not having a sound check on the day to determine and solve potential technical problems in advance meant I got a very substandard recording.  

I made my frustrations known to the station's personnel; the material was broadcast over my objections but I wasn't given on-air credit for it.

If only that were the end of the story.  Now the band were going to produce a CD from whatever recordings.  The station were behind me to the extent of telling the band I wanted to have a say as to what parts of the concert recording I'd be comfortable with having out on a release, and also that I'd want to do the mastering thereof.

The band's leader (well on in years, long retired even then) did what he was going to do....I was not in the loop.  What he used for a source was a poor cassette copy of the concert, and four songs from it ended up on the CD.  How do they sound?  As you'd expect:  fuzzy and swimmy, from a combination of undecoded Dolby B, gross azimuth misalignment and transfers from the tape at too high a level so the sound is also a distorted mess in the digital domain.  At least they're on speed.

No engineering credits on the CD though, just typically 'Songs xxx recorded (date) at Kilgore College by KTPB Radio.'.    

[Charlie Zureki]

  Hello Jay,

 The time to negotiate your recording credit (and fee)is BEFORE the recording date.  

 Because you were working for, and being compensated by the Station, and since the Radio Station had been granted permission by the Act for you to record on behalf of the Station for the Station's programming, the Act owes you nothing. (and the Station had already agreed to your "terms" via your compensation)

 It was the Station that gave the Act a copy of your work. It is almost written in stone, that when such recording events occur, that the Act will get a copy (if not the Master Copy) of the performance.

 More than likely, the Radio Station gave up all rights to ownership of the recording when the deal to record the Act was first negotiated.

 There are plenty of Attorneys that write contracts for the Entertainment Industry. Seek an Attorney's advice if you are a free-lance Recording Engineer. Have them drawn up a boiler-plate contract for your future use.

 In your example case... you probably have no recourse.

 Hammer  

 

[ProSoundWeb Community]