I wanted to share my thoughts on the recent negotiations that occurred with The Voice, and the subsequent results.
First of all, I want to stress that these opinions are my own, and they exist with a limited knowledge of the inner workings of The Voice camera department, the positions and pecking order, how they supplement the regular shooters with day players, and etc. I have never worked on the show and have only been called one time, some time ago. I was not among those who were called recently, when operators who were called turned the job down and held the line at the proposed higher rate. So I am coming at this as an outsider, but someone with some nominal knowledge of how things work in general in negotiations, and, like you, someone with a vested interest. I am also part of the Unscripted Work Group that occasional interfaces with Local 600.
To start, I think it’s a good thing to establish the concept of what exactly is a “win” as far as negotiations go. When it comes to negotiating, I think what constitutes a “win” is ultimately a combination of the subjective and the objective. Obviously, we all have something to gain by mere virtue of camera operators in our genre able to make a positive change regarding rates on a long-established show. I think it’s important to establish that ANY gain whatsoever, whether it be an increased rate, a better guarantee, or some increased safety protocol constitutes a win in our business, regardless of your personal stake in the decision. So I think that we can start with that: because gains were made on The Voice, this is a WIN.
But just by going through the process of negotiations, it also allows us to establish certain protocol and systems that ultimately will help all of us in the future, whether it be in establishing negotiations, maintaining solidarity, or providing information to our group.
Here is where I am going to inform you that I have gathered a little bit of information from a few sources, and that I will share my thoughts on what I do know. Because this is my opinion, you have the option to certainly read on, or not. You can also agree with me, or tell me to STFU, ha ha! At this point in my life and career, I’m not very interested in pleasing the room, so I’ll just pass this along with that caveat.
I think the first thing that needs to be established is that communication, especially between those who most directly have something to gain from negotiating, is absolutely essential. It is my understanding that there are 5 regular operators on The Voice that were seeking to renegotiate their rate, but that there are also a group of 10-15 day players who are also considered semi-regulars as well (I may be wrong about those numbers; feel free to correct me if so). Now, based on what I heard and also what was established in writing on the Unscripted Camera Peeps (or UCP for future reference) page on Facebook, I understood it as the crew of The Voice was negotiating for a rate of $780/10. Again, not having a personal experience with the inner workings of The Voice, I understood that to mean the rate for ALL operators hired on the show, including day players, part-timers, new hires, etc.
A couple things to touch base on: The first one has to do with establishing a rate to negotiate, and what that rate would specifically be. What I learned is that initially there were (and still is) two different rates for operators on that show, one for the regulars, another for those hired who are not consider regulars (again, if I’m wrong, feel free to correct me). This was not made clear in the messages that were going out during the time that the crew was negotiating with The Voice producers. The way I interpreted it, the proposed $780/10 was the going rate for all operators.
I think the main takeaway here needs to be clarity of message. First off, for those operators involved with direct communication with the show and its producers, I think that, even before a blast is put out on social media or whatever form of communiqué you are using to contact the greatest numbers, the operators need to have had detailed conversations with each other (in my personal experience, group texts seem to work the best) and establish EXACTLY what the goal is and what line everyone is willing to hold (i.e. what rate, and what the agreed lower figure everyone would settle on if they weren’t able to settle with production on the proposed rate increase). For me, it’s much more important that the principals involved in the negotiations (meaning, all operators involved with that specific show whether they be full-time or part-time etc.) have unified knowledge and an agreed-upon goal. These conversations need to happen through the entire process. To my knowledge, this wasn’t happening during The Voice negotiations.
We HAVE to establish a united front before these negotiations begin. I get that everyone has a different stake in this, based on their personal lives and situations and whether they are, or are not enthusiastic about the union or work groups such as UCP, or whatever. I get all of that. But if we are not united, this isn’t going to work. It just isn’t. So communication, on both a smaller level (more specific to the particular goals of those involved with the show) and on a larger level (a more collective goal of the group, meaning all operators regardless of our involvement with the show) is absolutely essential.
In regard to the rate itself, it’s always been my thoughts that the initial rate that you set for negotiations should be the highest rate everyone can agree on. It is pretty much negotiating 101: the highest rate is rarely the rate settled on but it establishes where the range of negotiation begins. Maybe more important than that rate, however, is the rate that everyone is in agreement is the LOWEST in which you would settle. That also has to be established, so everyone involved knows where the line is drawn.
Obviously, negotiating with a production company, especially in regards to an established show, is daunting and can be a little intimidating. There are a lot of elements involved: on-going relationships with production and the specific show, perceived loyalties, personal circumstances. That’s why it’s so important to have rounded up everyone involved, or as many operators possible that have a vested interest in that particular show, and make sure the message is unified. Once that has been established, it’s probably a good idea to elect a point person (a good writer, perhaps) to email something in writing to the production. It needs to be written and worded in good faith, not in a militant tone, but more in a tone seeking a fair partnership with the production. This letter should outline the proposal. Most importantly, it needs to be signed by everyone involved.
As far as how negotiations were finalized with the producers for The Voice, it is my understanding that negotiations settled (or broke down) at the midway between what was proposed by the operators and what was the original deal. I think, again, where communications may have broken down was that day players may have been under the assumption that the proposed $780/10 rate was an across-the-board proposal and that there wouldn’t be two different rates established. All operators, regardless of their position with the show, were going to make the same rate. Also, I heard there is the possibility that, towards the end of negotiations, some operators may have broke ranks and accepted rates from production that were not the same as what other operators accepted. Again, I don’t know if that is the case, but… if it is, there is much to be gleaned from this circumstance. Mostly it goes back to communication between the operators involved with the show. As we gain experience from these negotiations and experiences, by sharing this information we should be able to develop a more cohesive plan from the beginning that will serve us through the entire process up and including the conclusion of negotiations.
It is also my understanding that day players, having held the line on the $780/10 but ultimately having had to settle for the $675/10 may have put themselves in a precarious situation with production going forward, in essence having to “make amends” to get back on the show at a rate in which they initially turned down, but ultimately didn’t have a say in establishing. I can understand those concerns. A couple things come to mind: again, it bears mentioning that, beyond the communication, that EVERYONE understands the stakes of negotiations. There are inherent risks that you undertake when you are part of a group that draws a line in the sand and says, we aren’t crossing this line. But that being said, if communications did indeed break down at the end, I can see where some day play operators might have felt as if their fates were being decided for them, and that they might be outside the process. And if this is indeed the way (or similar to the way) this went down, then we have an unfortunate circumstance, but also a valuable teaching moment available to us, an understanding that we need to stay unified, and simply do better.
In addition, I’ve learned that there may have been legal circumstances that influenced the negotiations toward its ultimate result. I think it’s important to understand that there will be times when it’s more complicated than just butting heads with a line producer or EIC. When it involves network programming, they can marshal formidable legal resources that on the surface can be intimidating. Again, it goes back to communication as a cohesive group in order to understand what you may be facing in your hopes to make a positive and real change. Look, I certainly won’t equate our struggles to BLM, but you need to know that something like negotiating rates isn’t going to be easy or simple, and there are inherent risks that one must take in order to gain something worthwhile. And I know that many are still under the misguided impression that the union is supposed to procure better rates for us. The union is generally willing to advise us on these matters, but most of the time, the contracts between the union and production have already been established and signed, and they can’t support us in what would be consider the “traditional” sense of labor negotiations. The exception to this may be if the contract of a show is up for re-negotiation. But if you think that the union is the vehicle that is deigned to raise our rates, I suggest you go back and read my earlier essay on raising rates, etc.
In closing, I think that there is much that can be gleaned from this experience. I want to stress that I think it’s great that there was an actual rate increase that was settled on; it’s well deserved. Also, we were able to actually see how this model of setting up a vast network between us, the large group of non-scripted operators, would work in an actual negotiation setting. I think that because we were able to, by and large, share the message and support the negotiations in such an all-encompassing way, that alone is a win for all of us. But we can also see where things might have gone wrong, where the communication wasn’t maybe as fluid and forthright as it needed to be. We have an increased understanding, supported by the presumed events during The Voice negotiations, about how essential communication (or lack thereof) is when we are trying to move the needle on rates which are long overdue to be increased. We also need to understand, regardless of our personal situations or feelings, how we as a group of unscripted operators are all affected by this. I think what happened with The Voice negotiations offers us a really valuable template in which to view, and ultimately improve, our methods, as we encounter more future opportunities to take control of our industry and our own destiny.