# Anybody see this letter from the AFM yesterday?



## jeffc (Apr 4, 2012)

http://thescl.com/images/yellowdog.pdf

Just curious what anyone thinks about this. It seems like a bunch of hot air to me. I really don't see how they can possibly enforce this, as it pretty much says that almost every independent film and a majority of tv show contracts are invalid according to the head of the AFM - who, as far as I can tell, has little to no power except for the small club of A-list session people who have made a nice living with the studio paying full union scale. I mean, I'm sure almost anyone would choose to record union and do everything union if we could, but last time I checked we don't really have too much bargaining power on this stuff. Hell, major studio films go to London to do a buyout, so are they all going to be quaking in their boots because the LA AFM sends a letter?

I think all are in agreement that something needs to be done for the union to move with the times and to address the recording in Europe and all that, but I really don't think this is a productive tactic. This is like a record label complaining that people are releasing mp3's instead of vinyl, and we know how the major label system is looking these days.

Just curious what anyone thinks about this...[/url]


Jeff


----------



## reddognoyz (Apr 4, 2012)

Those guys have no clout and they are totally out of touch with reality. Unless you're doing a society date or a broadway show fuggetaboutit. Not one tv production company I've worked with in the last twenty years gives two shits about what the AFM thinks. I have one gig that still affords a union contract, with an ad agency. Other than that every single contract I get has language to the effect that the production will be non AFM. I sure wish it wasn't so.


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 4, 2012)

I could be wrong, but I don't think this letter is really about trying to eliminate non-union gigs. I think the AFM would be the first to admit that that would be hopeless.

Instead, I think this is about when production companies go too far in the other direction and prohibit a composer from even being a *member* of the union. I think Ray Hair is correct in saying that's illegal. It's a "right to work" thing.

That's a separate thing from the fact that it's not illegal for a production company to say that they're not going to pay scale or sign an AFM agreement or pay residuals or whatever. That's all fine and the composer can either agree to the terms or not. It's just that the production company can't go the next step of prohibiting even *belonging* to the union or hiring people who belong to the union. That's messed up, and personally, I applaud the AFM for pointing this out.

Even if it's a non-union gig, the composer still has the legal right to hire union players (again, it's a "right to work" thing) at full scale and even file a union contract if he wants to. Any residuals or other obligations would be on the composer, of course, not the production company, but that's the composer's decision if he want to be on the hook for that.

At least that's how I interpret this.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 4, 2012)

I think Mike G. nailed it.


----------



## midphase (Apr 4, 2012)

It never ceases to amaze me how people can read the same exact document and get such different meanings from it.

Actually it shouldn't amaze me, my posts on this forum (including this one) are the very example of that effect in action.


----------



## JJP (Apr 4, 2012)

Jeff, as has been already pointed out, you misunderstood the letter. Yellow Dog contracts are illegal in the USA. A person can not be denied the right to work for the sole reason of being a member of a union in the USA.

The AFM is actually taking a positive position by offering to stand up for composers who are also AFM members and potentially take legal action if the composers are required to sign such a contract.


----------



## mikebarry (Apr 4, 2012)

He expects a composer to risk his/her gig in order to do this for them? Not going to happen but at least its a step in the right direction. Word has it their will be a GANG letter going around which will explain in depth the important happenings of last week's meeting. I encourage all those interested to join. Lots of good information and amazing talent there. 

http://www.audiogang.org/


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Apr 5, 2012)

For me, the tone of the letter that was an immediate turnoff...insert eyeroll and facepalm emoticons here... It is a frustrating situation for everyone, however their brusque approach doesn't really help. 

We have several orchestras worth of top talent here in town and yet it is a PITA to use them AND maintain a healthy and vibrant lifestyle (instead of having to feed your family peanut butter sandwiches because YOU, the composer, sacrificed your part of the budget to get a generous ensemble together).

It should and really can be much easier to record here than it is now, except that everyone in the middle wants to wet their beaks and no one ever wants to take a pay cut - except us, the composers. It cuts both ways and in this sense if only it cut a third way, twixt the AFM, composers and the peeps making the content we score.....Utopian rant over. The pragmatic realist in me says "ain't never gonna happen."

-B

PS - For the record, I realise I went a bit off-piste here, tangent-wise. But in the end the letter was really about frustration and the further lack of recording going on around town, no?


----------



## Cinesamples (Apr 5, 2012)

Ray is suggesting that we are to "tattle" on our employers if those provisions are in our contract.

No thanks.

However I did learn that these provisions are illegal, I did not know this, so for that this letter is helpful. 

Interesting times.

MP


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 5, 2012)

CineSamples @ Thu Apr 05 said:


> Ray is suggesting that we are to "tattle" on our employers if those provisions are in our contract.


I don't think that's really what he's expecting. This is more about letting us know that it's an illegal clause, so if we see it, we can tell our attorney to have it taken out. The _"contact my office immediately"_ part is just a way of giving us leverage. In other words, if the production company balks at removing the clause, then we can say, _"Gee, I'd really love to lie and sign your contact that says I'm not an AFM member, but they're making a big fuss over this. Here, look at this letter I got."_

In fact, even though it's addressed to us, I think this is really about letting *production companies* know that it's an illegal clause. You know the drill - you make a speech to one group, knowing that the other group is listening. I'll bet this letter has already made the rounds amongst the lawyers and we won't be seeing the clause any more.

Again, this doesn't have anything to do with sessions being non-union or any other broad topics. It's just pointing out that certain clauses (clauses designed to scare people from even *joining* a union) are illegal.


----------



## midphase (Apr 5, 2012)

Brobdingnagian @ Thu Apr 05 said:


> We have several orchestras worth of top talent here in town and yet it is a PITA to use them AND maintain a healthy and vibrant lifestyle (instead of having to feed your family peanut butter sandwiches because YOU, the composer, sacrificed your part of the budget to get a generous ensemble together).
> 
> It should and really can be much easier to record here than it is now, except that everyone in the middle wants to wet their beaks and no one ever wants to take a pay cut - except us, the composers. It cuts both ways and in this sense if only it cut a third way, twixt the AFM, composers and the peeps making the content we score.....Utopian rant over.



I think there are some interesting points raised here that I would like to address with my own thoughts. There seems to be a misguided frustration towards the AFM and unions in general. It's not dissimilar to what is happening around the country, but I do believe that we're upset at the wrong people.

Unions have an obligation and a duty to safeguard the rights and salaries of their members. Composers don't have a union and hence we find it difficult to place ourselves in the shoes of union members, but in truth we should be respecting their resolve to try and hold on to their rates.

That brings me to the real culprit, music budgets are lower and lower. Just when I thought I'd seen the bottom, they keep dropping even more. As freelancers, we have to look at our own interests since we are, for all intents and purposes, small businesses. If the budgets can't afford us real players, we need to come to terms with that reality instead of venting our frustrations towards union musicians' rates. That is just plain silly and misguided.

Now, if you're taking a chunk of your music budget to pay for AFM musicians while your family eats peanut butter sandwiches and your lifestyle suffers, you only have yourself to blame. In effect you are sending the wrong message to the production company, that they can pay you less, and still get a real orchestra on the score. Unfortunately I've seen (and continue to see) many of my colleagues do exactly that which IMHO contributes to the erosion of our wages even though it might seem like a noble intent on the surface.

That brings me up to my final point. The current climate makes it more and more difficult for mid-level composers to use real musicians (at least more than a couple of guys). I'm seeing more and more MFT movies coming in at sub-$20k music budgets...simply not enough to bring in even a small chamber ensemble (plus studio fees, plus mixing, orchestration, etc.). This is the reality, and production companies seem to be perfectly ok with sampled scores, particularly since the samples are sounding very convincing to them. This is something that the AFM needs to deal with if they want to survive. SAG-AFTRA for instance makes it extremely affordable to bring in union actors on a low budget film. Their minimum is $100/day, that would be a 10-hour day, or roughly $10/hour (and some actors will go up to 12 without asking for overtime) and in some cases the minimum can be deferred. SAG has realized that productions come in all shapes and sizes, and most importantly that its members value the opportunity to work often and on projects that attract them. AFM needs to think in those terms as well if they expect to survive.


----------



## mikebarry (Apr 5, 2012)

Mike G, he was actually asking us to do that. I don't really trust this guy at the helm if we wish to go forward in the industry. Fortunately there are a handful of guys who are pushing forward at the AFM.


----------



## JJP (Apr 5, 2012)

midphase @ Thu Apr 05 said:


> Now, if you're taking a chunk of your music budget to pay for AFM musicians while your family eats peanut butter sandwiches and your lifestyle suffers, you only have yourself to blame. In effect you are sending the wrong message to the production company, that they can pay you less, and still get a real orchestra on the score. Unfortunately I've seen (and continue to see) many of my colleagues do exactly that which IMHO contributes to the erosion of our wages even though it might seem like a noble intent on the surface.


=o Well said! I have even refused work on projects where the composer was paying me a sizable portion his own paycheck. I couldn't stomach knowing that I was taking money out of his pocket just so some producer could improve their profits. I don't don't like being a part of undermining composer fees. That's bad for everyone in the long run.



midphase @ Thu Apr 05 said:


> SAG has realized that productions come in all shapes and sizes, and most importantly that its members value the opportunity to work often and on projects that attract them. AFM needs to think in those terms as well if they expect to survive.


The AFM actually has a Motion Picture rate and two low budget motion picture rates. Films with budgets up to $2 million qualify for the lowest scale. There is also a film festival rate for films that are being shopped around at festivals but are not yet distributed. I think a lot of people aren't aware of this.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 6, 2012)

In many ways the industry has caused its own grief, when it comes to budgets.

Session players were too greedy, composers were quite happy to use samples to put more money in their own pockets, and thereby accept lower budgets than they should. Neither party has much of a right to complain about low fees, when they themselves were one of the main causes.

Unfortunately Unions will always move far too slowly to keep up with current thinking, and in the long run lose out for their members. People are basically selfish, and have very little in the way of principles when it comes to cutting the throats of their colleagues.

D


----------



## c0mp0ser (Apr 6, 2012)

I have no problem with the function of a union. They are important for things like setting fair wages, working conditions etc... The AFM is important in that regard.
There are some AFM leadership who really "get it". They have been extremely helpful, and want to do things that are relevant to working in 2012. Let's support those guys.

By the way "Daryl", the session players are not "greedy". Take that back. You have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## midphase (Apr 6, 2012)

I'm with Michael, I really don't get this whole "greedy" union players talk.

It's not like these guys are millionaires swimming in their golden pools overlooking Mulholland Drive....WTF?


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Apr 6, 2012)

These are all good points being discussed. 

Staying "on tangent," I agree that I have spoken with and heard of some absolutely realistic people in the AFM, offering a much needed perspective. This is encouraging. And yes Michael, I agree with you in that I too have no problem with a function of a union.

Midphase also raises some great points. Mind you, my peanut butter sandwich situation was a rhetorical one endemic to our profession. I have certainly not succumbed to this ailment/predicament. I also stated the "peeps that make the content we score" need to realize the situation as well, not only the AFM. However, your SAG-AFTRA comparison is a genuine example of a real-world solution. For better or worse. Pragmatic realism at work.

All of this is connected. These are symbiotic relationships. I for one would love to be able to use ensembles here in town on a regular basis AND have it be economically sustainable/viable. Always tough getting all three sides to come together. 

Art vs. Commerce - a broader topic and certainly further afield than the original intention of Jeff's post. Jeff, my apologies for steering your thread sideways. Thanks for sharing the letter and opening the dialogue. I admit I grumbled when I received the email as well. 

-B


----------



## Daryl (Apr 6, 2012)

c0mp0ser @ Fri Apr 06 said:


> By the way "Daryl", the session players are not "greedy". Take that back. You have no idea what you are talking about.


Firstly I said "were", so I suggest you learn to read. Secondly I stand by what I said. In my view there was no way that they could justify the fees they were charging, even when the budget of the film or TV show was relatively low. Thirdly when you compare the fees and the amount of work with what a touring orchestral musician used to get paid, it is still my view that greed was part of the downfall of the industry.

Just because you don't happen to agree with me doesn't make me wrong. When you grow up and have actually been in the industry for a few years you might learn this. You're not even old enough to remember the "good old days". :wink: 

D


----------



## Daryl (Apr 6, 2012)

midphase @ Fri Apr 06 said:


> I'm with Michael, I really don't get this whole "greedy" union players talk.
> 
> It's not like these guys are millionaires swimming in their golden pools overlooking Mulholland Drive....WTF?


Please read what I said. I said "were", and at the time I was talking about, the session musicians earned 3 or 4 times what any other orchestral musician could hope to earn.

D


----------



## synthetic (Apr 6, 2012)

I picked up a copy of "On The Record" at the meeting, which is the story of the RMA and history of union players in Hollywood. Interesting read, good perspective on where they're coming from.


----------



## c0mp0ser (Apr 6, 2012)

Daryl @ Fri Apr 06 said:


> c0mp0ser @ Fri Apr 06 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way "Daryl", the session players are not "greedy". Take that back. You have no idea what you are talking about.
> ...



Got it. Stay classy, Daryl... and anonymous.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 7, 2012)

Message edited. PM sent.

D


----------

