Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: U S film industry unions or associations.

This is topic U S film industry unions or associations. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001676

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 01-23-2003, 11:32 AM:

Dear U S colleagues.
I am one of the seemingly few Australian projectionists on this forum and would take this opportunity to ask yourselves what unions or professional associations cover projectionists and cinema industry workers in the U S?
In Australia we are covered by the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, which covers print/electronic media journalists and workers, actors and performers(equity) and amusement industry workers such as live theatre employees, cinema industry workers and outdoor workers such as theme parks and suchlike.
Secondly at the end of most credits , there is a symbol of a film spool and the letters "iatse". What does this mean and what actually is this organization?
Best wishes to all my fellow colleagues everywhere.
John Spooner. Adelaide. South Australia, Australia.
"skunk@bigbutton.com.au"

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-23-2003, 11:39 AM:

I.A.T.S.E. stands for The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

From their website:" The IATSE is the labor union representing technicians, artisans and craftspersons in the entertainment industry, including live theatre, film and television production, and trade shows."

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-23-2003, 11:50 AM:

The IA was over, when they took projectionists out of their official name. [Frown]

When the union gives up on ya...

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 01-23-2003, 01:42 PM:

Joe & Tim:
It's "International Alliance of Theatrical AND Stage employees."
(International covers Canada, the US, Puerto Rico, Guam, and various Carribbean and Pacific Islands.)
The term "Projectionists" is still part of the title of locals which consist of projectionists, viz.: LOCAL 306 PROJECTIONISTS, although as newer crafts have been added in the film and video editing fields, their titles are often added. Where a local in a geographical area has a mixture of crafts (lighting, stage hands, camera operators, editors, makeup, costume and hairdressing , for example , the term "Projectionists" may not appear. In the IATSE directory, these locals are listed as "Mixed." In film centers like New York and Los Angeles, there are enough members for each craft to have its own local, such as "IATSE Local 644, Camera Operators."

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-23-2003, 02:19 PM:

Gerard,
I got my information directly from the IA website. I checked because I couldn't remember if it was alliance or association.

Here is what is directly next to the I.A.T.S.E. logo on the header of thier Home Page: The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes,
Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts
of the United States, Its Territories and Canada,
AFL-CIO, CLC

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-23-2003, 05:47 PM:

That's the more recent incarnation of the name. For a long time it was the "International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada."

Just so you know, John, besides IATSE as a shortened acronym for the full name, many will simply shorten it to "the I. A." or pronounce the partial acronym as a word: "eye-AHT-see"

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 01-23-2003, 06:51 PM:

Joe & Steve:
Thanks for updating me. I stand corrected. Everything changes.
My 1996 IATSE union card reads "MOTION PICTURE PROJECTIONS,[sic]
OPERATORS AND VIDEO TECHNICIANS AND ALLIED CRAFTS...Local Union 306 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada. Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, Congress of Industrial Organizations and Canadian Labour Congress." I dare say the 2003 title may be even longer, as I believe the IATSE has had some success organizing the ground floor personnel.
My projectionist license was issued by the New York City Department of Gas, Water Supply and Electricity. That became something like like General Administration, before becoming The NYC Department of Consumer Affairs. What once was supervised by technical people is now mostly a license revenue collecting agency.

John:
In the US, besides unions, there are the motion picture Societies, which seek and disseminate to their members knowledge and standards of their technical crafts. Such is the A.S.C.,
the American Society of Cinematographers, the A.S.E. (editors),
the S.M.P.T.E. (Society of Motion Picture & Television Engineers,) etc. Similar groups exist in the U.K. and elsewhere.
There are also fraternal "clubs" which belong to the major national or international ones, such as the Masonic Projectionists Square Clubs, found in major cities.

To the above one must add the Show West, Show East, Drink Nite, Seafood Dinners, and cross-country caravans to visit theatres
and screening rooms where work and lurk the members of Film-tech.
[beer]

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 01-23-2003, 06:58 PM:

Secondly at the end of most credits , there is a symbol of a film spool and the letters "iatse". What
does this mean and what actually is this organization?

The logo for IATSE is actually a five-pointed star-type device, not a film spool.

The 'film spool' emblem is actually the logo for the Motion Picture Association Of America and its presence in a film's credits signifies that the film was submitted to the MPAA's ratings board. There should also be a serial number adjacent to the logo as well.

-Aaron

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-23-2003, 09:20 PM:

Another union would be NABET--National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians. Starting in the late '80s NABET agressively pursued contracts for film technicians as well as television. Several theatrical films made during that time had the NABET bug in the credits instead of the IA bug. Haven't seen the NABET bug anywhere lately though.

Even after the name change, I think IATSE still holds the distinction of having the longest name of any union in the AFL-CIO. [Smile]

Since the IA reorganization and name change in 1995, the formerly separate IATSE cameraman locals (644 in NY, 659 in LA, 666 in Chicago) were combined into one "national local"--Local 600. Consolidation of other crafts occurred at about the same time--in LA my dad's Local 776 (editors and tape operators) merged with Local 695 (sound) and Local 165 (studio projectionists) and others to become Local 700, the Motion Picture Editors Guild.

Some other craft guilds, unions, and professional associations in the North American motion picture and television industry:

SOC - Society of Operating Cameramen
CAS - Cinema Audio Society
SBE - Society of Broadcast Engineers
WGA - Writers Guild of America
DGA - Directors Guild of America
MPSE - Motion Picture Sound Editors
IBEW - International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
AMPAS - Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences--the "Oscar" folks

There's lots of others...

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-23-2003, 11:17 PM:

Gerard, et.al., as Steve noted, I was referring to when they removed "Moving Picture Machine Operators" from the official name of the union. That was there almost from the beginning. When it was removed, it signified the death knell for projectionists.

After all, the IA had failed miserably to protect the craft years prior. The precedent of scabs running booths alongside card-carrying members should never have been allowed. In recent years, IA reps from the International seemed to be more on the side of management; assuming submissive postures and pushing locals to accept, without question, "take it or leave it" offers. No help in negotiation, just a "Sorry, you're on your own" attitude, as they threw you to the wolves.

I will remember that.

However, I've been pleased to know some of the Canadian locals have been very successful in creating and maintaining projectionist contracts -- no thanks to the International, I'm sure.

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 01-24-2003, 12:31 PM:

Dear colleagues.
Thank you sincerely for all your replies and disscussion re my enquiry concerning unions and associations.
I particularly noted the professional undercurrent of concern and disappointment that the union had let the projectionists down to their disadvantage and the integrity of our profession.
As a matter of interest, the address of our Australian association is "www.alliance.org.au"
As a matter of interest also, some of the politics disscussed occurred here also a while back.
Finally, and a new topic, are projectionist,s licenses required in the U S , or were they done away with as happened here in South Australia. We had the highest degree of professional excellence in presentation in Australia when trade licences were required in this state, since they were scrapped the whole thing went the way we expected, straight down. What is the experience over there.
Regards. John Spooner, Adelaide, South Australia. "skunk@bigbutton.com.au"

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-25-2003, 12:17 PM:

John, the state of Massachusetts here in the US still requires projectionist licenses. I think New York City does, too, but I'm not certain about that. In Massachusetts, however, it's really only another means of income for the government. Paying for the license and exam is only a formality as the test questions and answers are widely distributed. It's useless as a regulation device.

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 01-25-2003, 02:33 PM:

You said it Tim, that was one of the most ridiculous tests I ever took. Mostly having to do with ventilation and space between equipment/walls I felt like I was testing to be a building inspector of sorts. I wouldn't have minded all that information if there was still a test involving threading a machine properly and safe handling of Xenon bulbs/large electrical loads. My worst thought is that some kid is going to be doing something wrong when a chain hires them and "trains" them, they get hurt and knocked unconcious, think about how long it might take for someone to notice and come upstairs to check. Even a properly trained person, there were little steps in my booth, what if I fell down them? Heart attack? There were some shifts when I didn't need to say a word to the "floorstaff" or come down for anything. And I see I'm in a bit of a morbid mood today.... [Frown]

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 01-25-2003, 03:51 PM:

Tim,

I don't know about the other provinces, but in BC the IA still exists but in less than good conditions. Most of the big theatre chains don't want nothing to do with them. In the mean time, one chain is offering a real shitty wage. This may have changed since the last I heard ( April 2002 ) but one union projectionist strongly recommended that I didn't waste my time joining the union.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-25-2003, 04:54 PM:

Tim wrote:
The precedent of scabs running booths alongside card-carrying members should never have been allowed.

I don't know about that. I can see that that is a realistic solution. With the coming of xenon, platters, and automation it is true that a highly skilled person is not needed simply to lace up each show and push the button. But the experience and skills of a career (possibly but not necessarily union) projectionist are needed to take care of the little problems that come up, do minor repairs, make sure shows are built properly, and make sure that the semi skilled operators know what they are doing and do it with a sense of showmanship. When management is bent on slashing costs and the "new" (for thirty years now...) technology makes them think that they can just hire anyone at minimum wage to run the booth then the idea of a highly skilled and well compensated professional to act as a head projectionist is one way of preserving a certain number of good jobs.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-25-2003, 08:05 PM:

Agreed with the comments on the Massachusetts licensing exam. It's useless in its current form. Personally, I'd like to see the state (err...Commonwealth) either get rid of the licensing requirement completely or make it actually mean something (i.e. include questions about practical safety issues and maybe include a practical exercise in running a film.) The current test includes lots of legal stuff (amount of flammable liquid that may be kept in a booth, signage and inspection requirements, etc.) with a few questions about electrical equipment (that are pretty obvious to anyone who knows what a rheostat, transformer, and rectifier do) and even a few film questions (number of frames per second/feet per minute) mixed in. It's a 50-question true/false test and the passing score is only 70%. I'd be surprised if more than a handful of applicants didn't pass it.

One question that I've never understood pertains to lamphouse ventilation requirements--according to the exam, xenon lamps require more ventilation than the equivalent carbon-arc lamps. I find this hard to believe. Any comments?

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-25-2003, 11:54 PM:

Well, it seems like it might make sense, given that the xenon needs large volumes of air for cooling. How much air does a carbon arc lamp need for cooling? If it's only a need to pull the smoke out then the requirements would presumably be lower.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-26-2003, 05:16 AM:

A carbon arc doesn't need cooling, the exhaust is to create a draft. It doesn't have to be much - just enough to remove the gases, stabilize the arc, and prevent downdrafts.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-26-2003, 10:41 AM:

That's what I thought. However, didn't the big Ashcraft lamps (Corelight, Super Corelight, Cinex, Super Cinex) have fans in that large upper housing?

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-26-2003, 02:50 PM:

Yes, that was primarily to circulate air around the front and back of the reflector. It was a push-pull blower affair, with two squirrel cages. It wasn't as large as the housing would lead you to believe. The arc only had a relatively small percentage of that air on its face, to create the proper updraft.

Also, when I said it didn't have to be much, that's also a relative term. Smaller trims = less draft.

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 01-26-2003, 07:30 PM:

In a certain 42nd St. NYC theatre with a "temporary" booth built in 1934 of asbestos wallboard, (where I worked for 5 years), the
lamphouse exhaust switches were outside the booth, on the booth roof above the door. Once, in the 1970's, a projectionist was called in on emergency, and flipped the breakers but forgot to turn on the exhausts! Both Peerless Magnarc reflectors cracked with the sound like gunshots, he told me...

[ 01-27-2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Gerard S. Cohen ]

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-26-2003, 11:29 PM:

Gerard, did that booth happen to have a steep projection angle?

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 01-27-2003, 09:45 AM:

Yes, Tim,
VERY steep! The booth was built above the second balcony. And the relief operator called in on emergency was one of the most experienced, but in the rush to do a good deed, forgot about the
eccentric switch layout of this booth (now long demolished, as the theatre has been landmarked and restored to stage performance use.) Had he not been so eager and rushed, he'd have noticed the silence of the exhaust motors...
Gerard

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-27-2003, 10:07 AM:

Gerard,

Thanks for the memories. That Projectionist is a good friend. [Smile]

Bob

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 01-27-2003, 11:03 AM:

Dear colleagues.
Thank you for your replies and info re the licences. As I stated, things really declined since they stopped being required over here.
We now have the business of the "16 y.o.kids" operating in the complexes and the skilled projectionists have left or been paid out.
We often hear stories from our patrons who have been to complexes and have endured out of focus picture,pictures jumping, deafening sound and even the wrong lens (c/s being shown w/s) amongst other things.
On one occasion the picture was jumping badly so the patron located an usher and asked if the operator could adjust the picture(obviously not enough gate tension). They were advised "it has been doing that all week". Incredible!!!!!!
Another event was a preview of Mel Gibson`s latest film in a major complex, with Mel and industry people present. A short while into the movie the picture began jumping badly. Not being impressed, Mel personally went out and requested the problem be fixed.The operator was eventually found in the candy bar making chocolate ice-creams. Form your own opinions on this!
These types of events reflect on all projectionists, including ourselves who strive to on the best possible show every time. We all have the occasional bit of bad luck but the events described are just not on, for example how could a print run for a week and the operator not see it and adjust the tension.
I spoke to a leading manager here in Adelaide who shares our views on poor projection. He stated that as long as cinemas are run with "McDonald`s mentality" by bean-counters we will continue to hear of such things.
I get so angry when I hear of such events, hopefully others also share my concern.
Best wishes to my fellow film-tech colleagues.
John Spooner. South Australia.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-27-2003, 02:51 PM:

Three simple words should guide movie presentation: "Film Done Right". [Smile]

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 01-29-2003, 10:50 AM:

Dear John. Thank you for your reply to my post regards declining standards, your 3 words are apt and sum it all up so well!
Secondly I recently purchased a Kodak DX4900 camera which is really good. The software which came with it was the "Easyshare" disc P/N 6B5923 version 1, and Picture Software P/N 6B5912 version 1.4 disc.
Is this the latest software, or is an update available?
John Spooner. South Australia. "skunk@bigbutton.com.au"

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-29-2003, 11:14 AM:

Kodak software updates and downloads are available on the Kodak website:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/easyShare/dx4900/dx4900.jhtml

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-29-2003, 12:30 PM:

Gerard, I suspected so. It needed the exhaust draft to hold the tail flame off the reflector. For the benefit of the uninitiated, many suprex arcs would run fine with just a duct to the outside, unless there was an excessive angle.
--crack!-- [Smile]

Love those ol' booths, how I miss 'em!