|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Whats with the service companies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Hall
Master Film Handler

Posts: 314
From: London, UK
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 03-07-2015 12:52 PM
Leo posted "... the sort of people who would be willing to take those jobs (on the road all the time) are probably younger guys who don't have the experience and advanced training needed to deal with the sort of issues they're likely to encounter effectively and efficiently. I'm guessing it must be quite difficult to hire and retain people who both have the skills needed to cope with the troubleshooting element of the job, and the willingness to cover hundreds of miles a week and live out of a suitcase for days on end. "..
To us the role of the service tech hasnt really changed from the film days - the day to day role is still primarily one of getting on the road and sorting problems out. The transition from running a booth (where everything can be organised, more or less predicted and your days or weeks pre planned) to the role of a tech (where you never know if you will get a 10pm call tonight requiring you to be on the road by 4am tomorrow) can be a difficult one. Also a tech role is a solitary role - not for everyone. We have some great folk with us now, they drive European cars and get paid a lot more than Sam is suggesting, but the key to their success is their passion for their job and the buzz they get from making silk purse presentations out of (often) sows ear setups. The sort of guy who thrives in the job gets excited by the chance to learn new technology, rather than feeling threatened by it. But the hours can be rough, yes - we try to work so that everyone is 50% of the time in the office, or at least local. The hard part is to provide a route forward for a field tech - not so with us but the larger companies seem to be taking on managers from outside their own tech pools, closing a door for a field engineer to pass through and leaving a 30 year old engineer wondering if he will be rising at 4am for the next 30 years.
Projection skills and familiarity with the gear is important but so is a passion for what you are doing and most importantly a desire to learn new technology. I guess the cinema business has been reasonably static (technology wise) - in the 60s xenons and long play systems, in the 70s and 80s stereo sound and automation and then in the 90s 4 flavours of Digital, however these changes have been fairly gentle. So someone relying on product knowledge was well positioned to move into engineering. But in the last 10 years, even the last 2, the technology has changed so much that a solid diagnostic approach and most importantly knowing where to get (and how to deal with) information. No amount of training, intelligence or diagnostics skills were going to tell me today that my version of "Communicator" wont talk to the newest Barcos - a tech needs to be able to ingest and process new information all the time. Interestingly here at least all of the old school engineers and all 4 service companies have adapted brilliantly to Digital - no casualties at all - a credit to them and everyone here who has made the same transition.
At 4am too.. 300 miles from home in a carpark waiting for someone to let them in...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 03-09-2015 09:37 PM
The important phrase here is "haven't the foggiest what they are doing".
I've worked for organizations ranging in size from two employees to 20,000, in the theater business and a couple of others. In the larger ones, a general, though not absolute rule of thumb (there are a minority of honorable exceptions) is the principle of promoting people out of trouble.
If you are working on the shop floor and incompetent, your incompetence will cause very real problems, very quickly. If you are in middle management, it won't - those problems will be more subtle, take longer to materialize and allow the perpetrator plausible deniability (it wasn't my decisions that caused this ... out of my control ... things done before my time ... etc. etc.).
For that reason, I've seen, time and time again, situations where people who lack the craft skills to do a hands-on job, or can only do it to a low standard, but are good at playing institutional politics and schmoozing, getting moved up. Upper management considers the move a success: after all, the complaints from distributors that their prints are getting scratched, or the complaints from students that they can't teach to save their life, or complaints from insurers that they keep crashing their trucks, stop. In the short term, everyone is happy.
In fact the problem is getting worse, because once these incompetents have management authority over the people who do know what they are doing, they make bad decisions, alienate the staff the business needs to nurture ... you know the rest. But a middle manager who alienates someone he's managing such that the employee is not willing to go the extra mile in a unique situation once in a while is a much more subtle and difficult-to-spot issue than a shop floor worker who screws up a show and you have to give out 600 refunds. So they get away with it.
Conversely, the people who are very good at doing the actual job tend to remain on the shop floor, because that's where they're needed and the incompetents in middle management (keep in mind how most of them got there) feel threatened by them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 03-09-2015 11:52 PM
In sort: the "Blame Game!"
quote: Leo Enticknap Conversely, the people who are very good at doing the actual job tend to remain on the shop floor, because that's where they're needed and the incompetents in middle management (keep in mind how most of them got there) feel threatened by them.
And, for the last dozen years or so, I know this is case with the majority of mid-uppers that have moved up dishonestly, that they feel threatened by my knowledge of both technical and operational.
Yet, I'm not in any way trying to cause issues of workforce imbalances.
Why I feel that I get "pushed in the corner on the shop floor" - to remain there. And agree: where I'm needed and NOT in their 'sandbox.'
Yet, I have changed my attitude on all of this: I like my little corner for I don't want to be, or part in their little 'sandbox' world - better them than me along with 'staying out of radar range.'
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|