Another fine mess...

I have mentioned in previous posts the depths to which industrial relations have descended in film and television production. A bad case - if ever an example were needed - of the tail wagging the dog.

I'm posting below the letter issued by Screen Producers Ireland to Irish film and television crew members.

Bear in mind, as you read it, that the interests of the few are not the same as the interests of the many. A statement that applies as much to producers as it does to crew members.

Page 1 - click to enlarge


Page 2 - click to enlarge


Page 3 - click to enlarge


Previously on this issue...
More Shop Talk
A Plea For the Facts
Minimum Rates
Closing the Shop

No one shouted Cut!

I was in the process of writing a lengthy post in response to the Creative Capital report when despair got the better of me.

Suffice it to say there is no examination in the report of the profitabiltiy of Irish audiovisual companies, nor of their sustainability in the absence of State support.

Nor is there any accounting for where all the public money has gone over the last 18 years, a sum greater than half a billion Euro. Yes, it can be said that it mostly went into development and production but what value remains? A very few good films but is it, in effect, a bad loan book?

The report concludes with forty-two recommended initiatives under six headings. Only one of these initiatives is to be led by industry - IBEC is tasked with establishing a piracy prevention and policy group. The other forty-one initiatives are to be undertaken by agencies in the public sector either singly or in combination.

The entitled folks of the Irish film industry ask not what they can do for the country but what the country can do for them.

The title of this post paraphrases the title of a book written by John Healy, 'No One Shouted "Stop"'. He was writing about a period of decline in his homeplace, Charlestown, Co. Mayo and the political system which failed to address it. An irony insofar as he was very much a chorusmaster for the kind of politics which has the country where it is today.

Our film policy is no different in its deficiencies and there is remarkably little questioning of it. We are easily distracted by Sean Penn's funny hairstyle, Steven Soderbergh's action antics, Glenn Close's gender-bending, or Gerard Depardieu's shakes on a plane. It's easy to forget that we're footing the bill, whether the PR be good or bad.

At a time when industrial relations in the business have descended to something near anarchy - an outcome, in part, of gross failure to examine the effects of an overly generous co-production policy and of pursuing that policy as if the state were itself a producer - the last thing we should be doing is wasting the little money we have on profligate or hubristic policies.

The late Peter Mair's talk at the MacGill Summer School is printed in part in today's Irish Times. I'm not convinced that many people involved in film will read it and perhaps even if they did read it they might think it has nothing to do with them.

This line from his talk is as valid for our film policy as it is for so many other areas of our public spending - Partly because of the tradition of being hostile to the State and wanting to take advantage of it, we see the State as something you can milk for your own benefit, rather than something you sustain and contribute to.

Practices in the Irish film industry are, right now, as mendacious and meretricious as they have ever been. It's a veritable audiovisual milking parlour and the Creative Capital report does nothing to address the endemic problems.

Nobody wants to go on the record about bullying, intimidation and harassment, or golden co-production handshakes, or the sort of corporate sleight of hand that closes one door against creditors while opening another door to carry on business as usual with the State.

There is of course a contradiction to the title of this post. Someone did shout, Cut!. That someone was Colm McCarthy and we all recoiled in horror because it would be wrong to do away with the Irish Film Board.

It would not be wrong, however, to change the way the IFB does business, to restrict and re-focus policy, to address issues of transparency and accountability, to prevent even the perception that some applicants might be favoured more than others.

In fact it would be folly not to make these changes and contrary, therefore, to the broader interests of the Irish audiovisual sector.

Asterix et Obollix...

Well what else can we call it after M. Depardieu's aerial faux pis?

Report published...

The new audiovisual industry report has just been published - final title: Creative Capital - Building Ireland's Audiovisual Creative Economy.

Read it at this link and see what you think.

Shop Talk

Back in April I wrote a post, 'Closing the Shop?', triggered by stories I had heard about the implementation of the agreement reached by producers' organisation (SPI) and the freelance film technicians' union (SIPTU) in early Autumn last year. This was after ten years of on-again off-again negotiations.

Since then, at the beginning of June, I wrote an as yet unpublished piece for Film Ireland in connection with some of the issues around which there is almost a code of silence in the industry. One of the things I cited was the new agreement. I wondered that it had not been published (I published the pay rates myself here). And I went on to surmise that Clause 3 of the agreement might not have been shown to the Competition Authority.

Now there is a briefing in circulation for producers on the implementation (or should that be the impossibility of implementing that aspect) of the agreement. If this was crystal clear to this layman then how can it possibly have escaped the notice of everyone involved in a process which took all of ten years to conclude?

The briefing goes as follows -
In August 2010, Screen Producers Ireland and SIPTU signed the Comprehensive Agreement for the Feature Film both TV & Cinema & Television Drama Industry in Ireland. This agreement governs the rates of pay and the terms and conditions of shooting crew employed in the production of feature films and TV drama in Ireland.

Since signing the agreement a fundamental issue has arisen with the implementation of Clause 3. This clause is titled “Recognition of parties to this Agreement” and part of that clause reads as follows: ‘For its part the Company agrees to recognise SIPTU as the sole negotiating body for all shooting crew workers covered by this agreement. It shall be a pre entry condition of employment for all shooting crew covered by this Agreement that they become and remain benefit members of SIPTU’.

In discussing the implementation of this clause, SIPTU were of the view that any crew member who was not a member of the union, could not be employed on productions being made by SPI members.

SPI now understands that it would not be constitutional for our industry to impose union membership on existing or future employees, particularly if those employees have worked in the industry for a long period of time. Therefore we cannot agree to the implementation of this clause as proposed by SIPTU. We have set out to the union how we intend to operate Clause 3 and it has also been referred to the Film Industry Arbitration Tribunal which is the dispute mechanism under the agreement. If it is not possible to reach agreement at the Film Industry Arbitration Tribunal, it will go through the normal dispute procedures under the LRC and the Labour Court and SPI will undertake that its members will comply fully with any recommendations issued.

In the interim period, it is important that producers operate Clause 3 in accordance with what we have outlined to SIPTU. That is;
1) Production companies will employ crew subject to them being suitably qualified;
2) Production companies will inform crew in writing of the agreement and particularly Clause 3 (this can be done when start forms are being issued);
3) Production companies will facilitate SIPTU in arranging on-set meetings with crew;
4) Production companies will provide unit and cast lists to the union per Clause 15 (telephone numbers, addresses and any other personal data should not be included as this is a breach of the Data Protection Act);
5) If requested, production companies will obtain consent from employees that their contact details can be passed to SIPTU and they will pass this information on;

To be clear, SPI understands it is a matter for crew alone whether they wish to join a union. The industry does not and cannot discriminate on the basis of membership or not of a trade union.

Under Clause 15 of the same agreement it is important that every production provides SIPTU with the pre-production information set out in the agreement and that this is done at least four weeks prior to the proposed shoot date.

SPI is committed to the 2010 Shooting Crew Agreement and hope that the issue surrounding Clause 3 can be agreed by the parties.

Put this sorry tale together with some of the other 'issues' I hear of - the employment of stand-bys, for instance - and you get a picture of mutually assured dysfunction in an industry already under tremendous competitive pressure from overseas.

The film industry 'Get A Grip!' campaign starts here.