Print

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

[Andrew Broughton]

Appreciate your efforts in explaining, Russ.

I believe in fair pay for fair work, and fully support organizations like the IA that help establish and promote this. However, I disagree with extra pay just because the once-removed client (not your employer) is making more money. Now, if you agreed to a lower wage or poor work conditions because your employer said they aren't making anything on this event, and then you find out they DID make money, you'd have a right to be ticked off! This is what it seems the looming strike is all about. And rightly so!


BUT, individually, the workers did agree to the work at the price that was offered. They could have said no (as they are doing now). And likely will next time. What a worker specifically negotiates with their employer, that's up to them (as in the case of sports athletes). But... the employer (the IA in this example) charging their client a higher rate, not because the hours are longer or the work is harder but just because they see more potential money left on the table, just seems wrong.

[Russell Ault]

{...} But... the employer (the IA in this example) {...}

I know you didn't mean to (and many locals do not do a good job drawing this distinction), but this made me cringe. Despite some appearances, IA is not, and cannot, be the employer. Even if the local is providing dispatching and payroll services, the employer is the production (etc.), not IA (we're a union, not a temp agency...).

-Russ

[Andrew Broughton]

I know you didn't mean to (and many locals do not do a good job drawing this distinction), but this made me cringe. Despite some appearances, IA is not, and cannot, be the employer. Even if the local is providing dispatching and payroll services, the employer is the production (etc.), not IA (we're a union, not a temp agency...).

-Russ

Good to know. I was not aware of that.

[Eric Snodgrass]

To quickly chime in here concerning Andrew's queries and comments on the extra pay...
In my IATSE Local when one is hired for an A1 job it is for a live event.  There is no understanding that the A1's work will be anything more than to prepare for, mix and then strike that live event.  The rates, contractually, are based on that.  Doing a live recording for the band with the band's intention being to release it if it is up to their standards of release-quality is different.  The band is not making money on that one live event but will make more money on a recording, continuing to profit off of the labor of the Local A1 and crew months and maybe years after the gig is done.  In our Union Local there are contractual provisions for recordings and uses of recordings (both video and audio).  While those provisions are not an extra $10,000 (which, I suspect, is a made-up number to discourage bands from using board recordings and instead encourages them to hire a proper recording rig), they do make the rates slightly higher to compensate for the extra work (and it is extra work to set up a recording that is separate from the live mix).  Microphone choices, monitor placements, and even sometimes backline placement and band member placements could potentially change to make the recording better (yes, an extreme example but not out of the realm of possibility if the live recording is the ultimate goal of the gig). 

[Andrew Broughton]

To quickly chime in here concerning Andrew's queries and comments on the extra pay...
In my IATSE Local when one is hired for an A1 job it is for a live event.  There is no understanding that the A1's work will be anything more than to prepare for, mix and then strike that live event.  The rates, contractually, are based on that.  Doing a live recording for the band with the band's intention being to release it if it is up to their standards of release-quality is different.  The band is not making money on that one live event but will make more money on a recording, continuing to profit off of the labor of the Local A1 and crew months and maybe years after the gig is done.  In our Union Local there are contractual provisions for recordings and uses of recordings (both video and audio).  While those provisions are not an extra $10,000 (which, I suspect, is a made-up number to discourage bands from using board recordings and instead encourages them to hire a proper recording rig), they do make the rates slightly higher to compensate for the extra work (and it is extra work to set up a recording that is separate from the live mix).  Microphone choices, monitor placements, and even sometimes backline placement and band member placements could potentially change to make the recording better (yes, an extreme example but not out of the realm of possibility if the live recording is the ultimate goal of the gig). 

Thanks, Eric.
That's different than what we're talking about. I'm talking about a typical venue where the artist has their own crew and the IA is brought in to help with setup - rigging, running motors, flying PA, pushing boxes, running cables, etc.
Any setup that is needed for recording (which these days can be as simple as connecting your computer to the console) is not done by anyone in the IA. No extra work, no reason for additional fees paid to the IA that I can see, and yet, this policy seems to remain in place.

[Randy Pence]

Do union video types have similar clauses about recordings for live gigs?

An issue I see with demanding more money for recordings because of potential profits is that the recordings alone would not generate revenue. They will need to be edited, mastered, hosted somewhere, and marketed in order to make any more money. A speaker is more profitable than a sheet of wood (barring any recent supply shortage jokes), because more steps of work are required to produce it from the raw material.

[Andrew Broughton]

Do union video types have similar clauses about recordings for live gigs?

Has the IA added a "Video" dept yet? All they had in the past was "Projectionist". Lol.
(I know there didn't even used to be a Sound Dept, they would be under the purview of "Electrics")

[Eric Snodgrass]

Has the IA added a "Video" dept yet? All they had in the past was "Projectionist". Lol.
(I know there didn't even used to be a Sound Dept, they would be under the purview of "Electrics")

Yes, large theater tours and large venues within my IATSE Local's jurisdiction have separate video departments, depending on the size of the video equipment used.  We will have a separate video department and crew for large stadium tours, one-off corporate and television shows and other events.  This will differ in other jurisdictions, I'm sure. 
Broadway theater Yellow Card (IATSE Union) tours still list Audio and Video under the Electrics department crew numbers but in my opinion that is an antiquated convention that IATSE should consider changing. 

[Eric Snodgrass]

Thanks, Eric.
That's different than what we're talking about. I'm talking about a typical venue where the artist has their own crew and the IA is brought in to help with setup - rigging, running motors, flying PA, pushing boxes, running cables, etc.
Any setup that is needed for recording (which these days can be as simple as connecting your computer to the console) is not done by anyone in the IA. No extra work, no reason for additional fees paid to the IA that I can see, and yet, this policy seems to remain in place.

Our Local Union contracts do cover the premise of bands recording for the purpose of possible commercial/promotional release.  There are clauses that cover live audio and/or video recording, live streaming and live broadcasting.  These pay increases are there, in part, to help put the Local live-event crews on a rate more in line with the other IATSE Locals that would normally be involved in recording.  Not everyone on the crew will receive these increases (for example, truck loaders and box pushers will not experience a rate bump because the band did a multitrack recording);  typically it will be the departments that are involved directly with the recording. 

[Russell Ault]

{...} An issue I see with demanding more money for recordings because of potential profits is that the recordings alone would not generate revenue. They will need to be edited, mastered, hosted somewhere, and marketed in order to make any more money. {...}

{...} No extra work, no reason for additional fees paid to the IA that I can see, and yet, this policy seems to remain in place.

In a nutshell, stage rates are ultimately set roughly as a function of what the market will bear for live events, the revenue from which is inherently constrained by the capacity of a venue (any venue). When a commercial recording is being made those constraints suddenly no longer apply, which means that one of the big assumptions that under-girds how those rates are set also no longer applies.

As an extreme example, look at the recent Disney+ release of "Hamilton". A good portion of the footage used in the release was captured during a couple of normal live performances. The technicians involved likely didn't do any extra work during those performances, but for those couple of shows that work was suddenly visible to an audience that was several orders in magnitude larger, with a similarly-larger revenue base. The audience size limitations inherent in the venue that normally exist simply didn't for those performances, and to me the change in the nature of the product's valuation requires a change in the expectations of the wages being paid to those producing it.

-Russ

[ProSoundWeb Community]