Jump to content


Photo

Getting Screwed By The Extra Hours...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
15 replies to this topic

#1 Marque DeWinter

Marque DeWinter
  • Sustaining Members
  • 117 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • New York

Posted 28 February 2009 - 09:26 AM

So I've been trying for a bit to get my initial hours to qualify for benefits...but since the 400 hours increase I have actually had some of the people who were going to help me tell me they need to give the hours to those who are trying to bank so they don't get screwed when teh 400 hours happens (and I'm pretty sure it will happen even though I think its bad no matter what). Now normally I wouldn't care if I had medical or not, but I'm a single dad with a 6 year old... not having medical is an issue. I'm ok until november with COBRA but I'm just trying to find out if anyone else is having similar issues.

Personally I think its kind of ironic about the entire situation. The union members who make the most money from work the most don't need to buy medical coverage because they'll have the hours... those that are short or really need the coverage and can't afford are those that don't have the hours so its a double hit. Either you work enough AND have enough money or don't work enough AND can't afford outside coverage.

~Marque
  • 0

#2 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 28 February 2009 - 10:18 AM

.... and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is situations like this where unrestrained deregulated free-market Capitalism causes a once mighty Republic to destroy itself from the inside out.


More specifically, welcome to the world of.... EPK! where we are "required" to be in the union BUT there is no classification nor contract for us. :blink: Enough hours? How about getting NONE for spending 10 to 14 hours on set with everyone else who also is in the union and on the roster?

The recent increase in required hours is just one more building blocks of the Reagan Era which had the express mission of destroying unions, denying worker rights, and enriching the wealthy even more while leaving everyone else to rot. One Nixon, one Reagan, and two Bushes later, they are winning. Those who HAVE money and the guarantee of work will vote YES on contracts that benefit THEM. Those who don't, will vote NO. We don't know what will happen til the votes are counted, but if there are more who are getting the short end of the stick than those who will benefit then the contract won't pass. With Globalization (another element of the Republican war against the Middle Class), IATSE in the USA is struggling to keep jobs any way they can, but it's like firing an arrow at a battleship. Without fundamental change in economic policy, things will only get worse for everyone as Producers happily search the globe for cheaper labor like other industries have already done.

There are no easy answers.
  • 0

#3 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 February 2009 - 11:06 AM

Good grief what a massive pain in the butt! I can't imagine living in a country without a national health care plan where every citizen is insured regardless of their employment situation.

R,
  • 0

#4 Paul Maibaum ASC

Paul Maibaum ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 163 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 February 2009 - 11:18 AM

The 400 hour qualification does not go into effect until July 31, 2011.
  • 0

#5 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 28 February 2009 - 01:42 PM

Good grief what a massive pain in the butt! I can't imagine living in a country without a national health care plan where every citizen is insured regardless of their employment situation.

R,



The Republican philosophy here is that if someone can't hack it, they should just curl up in a corner and die. I mean that literally... they want everyone else to literally be dead and go away. That's Free Market Capitalism. "Survival of the Fittest." Of course it is hypocritical of that Party as they are the ones who claim to be the "Christian" and "moral" Party that "cares" about "families."

Health Care in this country was seen as a profit making enterprise instead of what it should be about. So the business interests and politicians took advantage of deregulation and sucked our system dry. And Unions are rolling over and agreeing to take it, letting the top echelon win and throwing everyone else over the side of the boat.

My family pays over $1600 A MONTH for PPO coverage for four. I'm thinking of stopping that, taking that money and investing instead. While the stock market is down, the return won't be that great, but at least I won't be throwing all of that cash away on fat-cats who don't really need the cash.

The US is a nation of hypocrisy led by Reagan-era policies. We can only hope that with a new administration, this trend will stop and be turned around. Thirty + years of Republican rule can't be fixed in a week or even in four years. But we know that the Rep's will do everything possible to undermine efforts to help PEOPLE in order to keep their profits coming in.
  • 0

#6 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 March 2009 - 07:55 AM

Good grief what a massive pain in the butt! I can't imagine living in a country without a national health care plan where every citizen is insured regardless of their employment situation.

R,

You always complain about the Canadian taxes. Well, that's what you're getting for your money. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways.
  • 0

#7 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 02 March 2009 - 12:08 AM

You always complain about the Canadian taxes. Well, that's what you're getting for your money. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways.


True, true, it's more a question though of what I get for those taxes. National health care, that's OK. 8 Billion a year in transfer payments to the province of Quebec....NOT OK!!

R,
  • 0

#8 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 March 2009 - 07:51 AM

Just consider the ridiculous bs that we pay for down here....and we don't even get healthcare. 8 billion is a pittance.
  • 0

#9 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 02 March 2009 - 09:43 AM

True, true, it's more a question though of what I get for those taxes. National health care, that's OK. 8 Billion a year in transfer payments to the province of Quebec....NOT OK!!

R,



I don't know anything about the tax/Quebec situation you're referring to there, but several years ago, here in LA, there was a movement to divide the school district known as LAUSD. It is ENORMOUS and covers most of the LA basin (where the less affluent are) and most of the San Fernando Valley (where most of the money evidently is).

You can imagine the fight by those on the LA Basin side of the hill when they realized that they would suddenly lose a great deal of their funding if this measure passed. The "Valley" $$ was being redistributed around which always makes those who have the $$ a little miffed.

So, the never-ending problem is one of philosophy. Because we all live on this island, we have to deal with each other. If one group gets to prosper in a very uneven manner in comparison to a larger group, eventually the system will fail. The wealthy group will either have to escape somewhere to remain safe from theft or death, or they have to agree to "level the playing field" on occasion. Those in the Valley know that their own schools could be much better if they could invest ALL of their own money into their own schools. Those on the Basin side would fall apart. The result would be a larger population of disgruntled citizens who likely would eventually turn on the wealthy in a fairly violent way. This isn't a new concept for our planet.

As unpopular as Obama is with a lot of very wealthy and influential people right now, he picked the short straw and has to do what he can to level that field. The rich have gotten too rich for the system to sustain itself. Globalization ships jobs to the lowest bidder, which means that consumers who used to have decent paying jobs, can no longer afford to buy products that the corporation wants to sell. Thus begins the cycle of decline that is difficult to stop.

That's our perspective on it down here anyway. Without constant "redistribution," eventually the system will fail and then a more massive effort is needed as the dominos fall.
  • 0

#10 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 02 March 2009 - 11:55 AM

That's our perspective on it down here anyway. Without constant "redistribution," eventually the system will fail and then a more massive effort is needed as the dominos fall.


Well Canada is the very epitome of wealth re-distribution. I was referring to the Canadian Equalization payment program where the wealthy provinces must "share" their wealth with the poorer ones. Quebec is at the top of the pack when it comes to receiving money from the rest of Canada then they still have referendums on separating from Canada. That's gratitude for you.

It's rather odd hearing how Americans throw a fit when their money is going to be given to a different school district. Canada solved that problem long ago. Mainly the provincial government decides who gets what.

It seems that some American high schools are the most incredible places on earth, and those in poor areas are literally falling apart. Canada's system is to build everyone the same "average" school.

I doubt Americans are ready for this type of government? Maybe things have finally changed in the USA though and the middle and lower middle class have finally had enough?

Obama certainly talks tough but I think I'll see pigs flying over the moon before I see America with a national health care plan like Canada or the UK has. In order for it to work the billions Americans now send to private health insurance companies would have to be re-directed to the states, and then re-directed into the now public health care system. What are the chances of that happening?

The state's would then set the rates for every thing they pay for, no more free market. Many Americans would be absolutely freaking out at such a prospect.

R,
  • 0

#11 Jason Davenport

Jason Davenport
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 06 March 2009 - 03:34 AM

Well Canada is the very epitome of wealth re-distribution. I was referring to the Canadian Equalization payment program where the wealthy provinces must "share" their wealth with the poorer ones. Quebec is at the top of the pack when it comes to receiving money from the rest of Canada then they still have referendums on separating from Canada. That's gratitude for you.

It's rather odd hearing how Americans throw a fit when their money is going to be given to a different school district. Canada solved that problem long ago. Mainly the provincial government decides who gets what.

It seems that some American high schools are the most incredible places on earth, and those in poor areas are literally falling apart. Canada's system is to build everyone the same "average" school.

I doubt Americans are ready for this type of government? Maybe things have finally changed in the USA though and the middle and lower middle class have finally had enough?

Obama certainly talks tough but I think I'll see pigs flying over the moon before I see America with a national health care plan like Canada or the UK has. In order for it to work the billions Americans now send to private health insurance companies would have to be re-directed to the states, and then re-directed into the now public health care system. What are the chances of that happening?

The state's would then set the rates for every thing they pay for, no more free market. Many Americans would be absolutely freaking out at such a prospect.

R,


Your right we are freaking out over this, sorry for the rant, but getting sick of people not knowing whats going on.

No. we're not ready for this, and never will. America does not need National heath care, we need insurance reform. Why do so many rich Canadians come over to America when the need a special surgery, want to visit top notch surgeons or just don't want to wait in line. We may be expensive but it's the best in the world in terms of technology and advancements. Why is that? Because a Free Market encourages it!

Who would you like performing brain surgery on your child, a government funded hospital with low paid government doctors, minimal equipment (because the gov. didn't think your hospital needed that stuff) or a privately owned hospital that had top surgeons and the latest gear, that they themselves pioneered, because they were free to do so.

You really think that we want Obama, who is now running our country into the craper making decisions when it comes to my health. The Democratic party has done nothing for the poor and helpless, that's why their still poor and helpless! They have been dedicated to solving that problem for the last 50 years.

Now they want to double the national debt (trumped Bush, for all time on spending), punish the people who create jobs in the private sector, and raise taxes during a recession on the people who already pay close to 60% of what they already make.

Fine, the "rich" will just close up shop and lay people off and cancel that 400,000 thousand dollar corporate video that would have employed 20 people for a month. Don't worry you'll have unemployment benefits for life. No need to work. So why should the "rich" work hard to support you who don't. And who gives a crap weather they just spent $50,000 on a new office decorations, IT"S THEIR COMPANY! How may jobs were filled by painters and carpenters etc.

As for unions, I understand the bases for starting them but now they have total run amuck. Why are the car companies failing, because the unions have made it so expensive to build a car that the US can not compete with the rest of the world. And Obama says you don't need a secret ballot, but yet your Vice Pres. is now meeting with those unions in a secret meeting (no press or public) deciding your future, that's real fair and equal.

And go ahead a blame Bush for everything. The Democrats had the power two years before Bush left office. (hummm when did this all start to fail). It was the Democrats that wanted everyone to have a house, and forced the banks to give loans to people who had no business buying and wow they couldn't pay and crash! It was FDR and his New Deal that put the country into a Depression. Oh and of course furthering the Global Warming myth, which is the biggest fraud of all time.

You want to hand over your private life, all that you have worked hard for, to the government so they can do as they please, because your not smart enough to do so, so be it, but count me out.

Liberal thinking and policies are the norm in California, and Cali is rounding the drain as we speak and dragging the rest of the US down with them. Better pack up like like everyone else is, before it turns into Thunderdome.
  • 0

#12 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 06 March 2009 - 12:57 PM

Why do so many rich Canadians come over to America when the need a special surgery, want to visit top notch surgeons or just don't want to wait in line. We may be expensive but it's the best in the world in terms of technology and advancements. Why is that? Because a Free Market encourages it!


Why do so many rich Americans come to Canada for health care? Look it up it happens all the time. Because the publicly funded model encourages research and development where the private sector doesn't bother to tread because, "there's no money in it."

Canada leads the world in high risk procedures like lung transplants because doctors are willing to try these high risk operations knowing that some idiot can't sue them into the ground because it failed.

Luckily for the tens of millions of American diabetics they have their insulin to take every day, just another product of the Canadian health care system. Mean while major breakthroughs are made in Canada on a monthly basis. Most recently a new discovery on the creation of stem cells which skips harvesting them from human tissue. You're welcome. :lol:

R,
  • 0

#13 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 06 March 2009 - 01:35 PM

The Democratic party has done nothing for the poor and helpless, that's why their still poor and helpless! They have been dedicated to solving that problem for the last 50 years.



If you and others like you actually paid any attention at all to how YOU are being manipulated, you would have known about the Reagan era idea in which the Republican Conservative movement came up with a philosophy they called "starving the beast." The basic idea was that if Republican Administrations ran up massive debt, when the Democrats got back into office (and they always do because these things are always cyclical), they would spend more time trying to FIX the deficits and wouldn't have any resources for the social programs that would actually help people.

This is NOT a theory. It IS fact. Your Republican mantra simply states that this is a world where everyone is in it for themselves. Anyone who can't hack it should just roll over and die in a corner.

Of course this is the hypocrisy of the Party that claims to be the "Christian" "moral" and "Family Values" Party. They simply use the Religious Right to get votes, then once they are in, they go about their anti-labor, anti-family, anti-poor ideology because all the Republican Party truly stands for is profit over all else.



Here is just one explanation of the evil philosophy:

starve the beast v. To cut taxes with the intent of using the reduced revenue as an excuse to drastically reduce the size and number of services offered by a government. This weakens the government in order to stop it from growing.

The starve-the-beast doctrine is now firmly within the conservative mainstream. George W. Bush himself seemed to endorse the doctrine as the budget surplus evaporated: in August 2001 he called the disappearing surplus "incredibly positive news" because it would put Congress in a "fiscal straitjacket."

Like supply-siders, starve-the-beasters favor tax cuts mainly for people with high incomes. That is partly because, like supply-siders, they emphasize the incentive effects of cutting the top marginal rate; they just don't believe that those incentive effects are big enough that tax cuts pay for themselves. But they have another reason for cutting taxes mainly on the rich, which has become known as the "lucky ducky" argument.

Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these "lucky duckies." (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their "blood boiling with tax rage."
—Paul Krugman, "The Tax-Cut Con," The New York Times, September 14, 2003


You can also read more about it here: http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=251788
  • 0

#14 Jason Davenport

Jason Davenport
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 06 March 2009 - 06:32 PM

If you and others like you actually paid any attention at all to how YOU are being manipulated, you would have known about the Reagan era idea in which the Republican Conservative movement came up with a philosophy they called "starving the beast." The basic idea was that if Republican Administrations ran up massive debt, when the Democrats got back into office (and they always do because these things are always cyclical), they would spend more time trying to FIX the deficits and wouldn't have any resources for the social programs that would actually help people.

This is NOT a theory. It IS fact. Your Republican mantra simply states that this is a world where everyone is in it for themselves. Anyone who can't hack it should just roll over and die in a corner.

Of course this is the hypocrisy of the Party that claims to be the "Christian" "moral" and "Family Values" Party. They simply use the Religious Right to get votes, then once they are in, they go about their anti-labor, anti-family, anti-poor ideology because all the Republican Party truly stands for is profit over all else.



Here is just one explanation of the evil philosophy:


You can also read more about it here: <a href="http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=251788" target="_blank">http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=251788</a>



Wow. You quote Paul Krugman from the NYT. I'm glad you chose such an un-biased writer from such a reputable newspaper to make your point.

So, you honestly believe that Republicans want people to "roll over and die?" Tell me then, why is it that Tom Daschle (a Democrat), who was going to be the Secretary of Health & Human Services here in the U.S. (until he was exposed as a tax cheat) believes that health-care reform will "not be pain free" and that the elderly should learn to "accept" many conditions that go along with getting older rather than expecting doctors to treat them? As Daschle discusses in his book, "Critical-What We Can Do About the Healthcare Crisis," he advocates developing a "Federal Council" that approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of a treatment by the number of years a patient is likely to benefit . So, if you're a 38 year old woman who discovers a lump that is determined to be cancer, then you may be in luck. But if you're a 68 year old woman who discovers a lump that is determined to be cancer, then you may just have to...oh, what's that phrase you use? Oh yes...roll over and die.

What was it that you were saying about an "evil philosophy?"

Amazingly enough, the first major bill signed by President Obama (a Democrat) included healthcare reform which included a provision for the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The goal of the council is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they drive up the health care costs. In his book, Daschle actually wags his finger at Americans for "expecting too much from the health care system." In other words, say a doctor, who is a medically qualified professional, decides it might be best for a 59 year old man to undergo an an angioplasty because it might prevent him from having a severe heart attack. Well a paper-pushing bureaucrat who has trouble opening a bottle of aspirin may decide that man doesn't need the angioplasty because there's no guarantee it will prevent the heart attack, so the procedure would be deemed "unnecessary" and too costly. So, that man would just have to hope he didn't...here's your favorite phrase again...roll over and die.

The term "evil philosophy" seems to apply here too.

The irony of both examples is that both the 68 year old woman with breast cancer and the 59 year old man with a bad heart would be forced by the government to pay into our wonderful universal health care program. They get to pay for treatment they won't ever receive. If you think I'm making this up, just look at what recently happened in Japan, where every citizen is required to pay into the health system. In February this year, a 69 year old man died in the back of an ambulance after being rejected by 14 hospitals because they were either overcrowded or understaffed. Well, at least he was old, right?

Why is "evil philosophy" coming to mind here?

You say that Republicans are the evil ones, and that we don't care about people. Why then is it that studies have shown the conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals? And how is it that, on average, liberal families earn slightly more than conservative families (6%) yet still give less to the poor and underprivileged? I thought conservatives didn't care about poor people? Or maybe it's just that liberals believe that the government should be the one to "take care" of people, so they don't have to? Maybe that is why people like Al Gore gave only 0.2% of his income to charity in 2000. After all, he could always take other people's money on behalf of the government and still be seen as charitable.

And you claim that social programs "help" people and that Republicans are evil for wanting to halt those programs. If there's nothing else you take away from this rant, please let it be this...Conservatives WANT PEOPLE TO SUCCEED. We don't want people to "roll over and die." If someone genuinely needs help, we're the first ones to hold out a hand to help pull someone up. If someone is unable to make it because of a disability or because of an illness or old age, we will help (after all, it seems that it's the liberals who want old people to stop "expecting" health care). But a hand up and a handout are too very different things. We don't believe that telling someone they "can't" do something because they're poor or because of their ethnicity or gender. Things like welfare destroy an individual's self worth and drive to succeed. If someone is on welfare, he may one day find a job, only to learn that the welfare benefits he was receiving are decreased too soon. A mother living in gov't housing may find herself suddenly ineligible for rent assistance through the government because her new-found job at McDonald's pays too much money. So, that mother turns down the job at McDonald's so she can keep a roof over her child's head. Temporary government assistance becomes a permanent way to live. It's because a system that had the best of intentions actually enslaves generations of people who start to believe that the government is the only thing that can help them. The reality is that it's government that keeps them stuck in their poverty. That is what is anti-poor. That is what is anti-family. That is what is evil.

You and I will never agree on this issue. You'll probably always think I'm evil for my beliefs and that's fine. Because trust me, I can take it, and I won't just roll over and die.
  • 0

#15 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 07 March 2009 - 11:23 AM

If you think I'm making this up, just look at what recently happened in Japan, where every citizen is required to pay into the health system. In February this year, a 69 year old man died in the back of an ambulance after being rejected by 14 hospitals because they were either overcrowded or understaffed. Well, at least he was old, right?


Do you honestly want to get into a "I have worse medical system horror stories than you" debate against those that live in countries with universal health care?

I can tell you that if you do I can EASILY find 50 horror stories about the US system vs every one that you find from a industrialized country with national health care.

Want an example? How many MILLIONS of Americans have been forced into bankruptcy due to medical bills? I've never heard of one single Canadian filing for bankruptcy because of medical bills, ever.

How many Americans use their life savings to pay for an operation in Thailand or India vs having the procedure done in the USA? This is now known as "medical tourism."

Hey, it wasn't that long ago that poor people dressed in hospital gowns and with IVs attached to to their arms where found wondering around the ghettos of Los Angeles. A local hospital just dumped them all there.

I mean I can go on and on and on and.......

FYI Jason, the USA will NEVER have a universal health care system, so you have nothing to worry about. I found this on the web:

" Obama says he is not wedded to a plan on how to fix the problem. But one proposal he has endorsed, giving Americans the option of buying medical coverage through a government plan, is drawing opposition from Republicans."

This will prove to be as bad as the current system the USA uses. This is called a half assed policy, those with private insurance can keep it, others "the poor," can buy their health insurance from the feds. Ridiculous!! There is only way to do it and that is to force every one to pay into the same system. That's right force people....the same way Americans are now forced to pay taxes to support the military, police, fire departments, roads, and schools.

R,


R,
  • 0

#16 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 07 March 2009 - 12:46 PM

Conservatives WANT PEOPLE TO SUCCEED. We don't want people to "roll over and die." If someone genuinely needs help, we're the first ones to hold out a hand to help pull someone up.



Sorry, that's hilarious! :lol:

Ok, maybe you "want" people to succeed... we all do... and we all want at least the basics in life so we don't have to live in a cardboard box and dig through dumpsters to eat. But Republican governments are the first to DENY those who can't "pull themselves up." I don't see much "handing out" by Republican Administrations and there certainly isn't going to be any "handout" as you admit.

And therein is the difference between the two philosophies. "Liberals" (for lack of a better box to put us in) are compassionate enough to recognize that not everyone CAN pull themselves up and we also know that we can't count on so-called "Christian Conservatives" to step in...that's HOPING for help that may not come. Democratic ideals know that people in need can't feed themselves with mere hope, so "we" would like to build in social safety nets to ENSURE that our citizens are taken care of. Republicans may WANT people to succeed, but if they don't, and that "magic potential" helping hand isn't there, then Republicans don't mind if people go by the wayside.

It's the difference between ensuring the stability of the ENTIRE civilization and just looking out for yourself. "Liberals" care about the big picture while Republican ideology is inherent selfish, figuring that if everyone DOES succeed, then the world will be a happy place. Of course, but the reality is far different, which is why ultra-Conservatives build their ideas based on some fantasy that will never ever exist.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

CineTape

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Abel Cine

Opal

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

FJS International, LLC