Jump to content


Photo

Just moved here & want to eventually join IA Local 600


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Grant Babbitt

Grant Babbitt

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Glendale, CA

Posted 14 September 2011 - 05:42 PM

I just moved here from Kansas (where I just graduated from the University of Kansas) & I want to eventually join IA Local 600. I have been trying to find ways to do so, and seen some of the requirements, but it seems somewhat confusing. I have had a lot days back home, as a Camera Op (non-union), that I have all of my pay stubs from. Will any of those count towards what I need? Also I am doing some work as Utility for the Camera Dept. on some non-union (BTS for Union movies/tv) work. Will that title earn me any days towards entrance into 600? Is there also anyway to track or count days that are non-union, but were paid in cash, deferred payment, or non-paying? Is there also any kind of program that someone starting right out of college can get into, on track for 600? Something like the DGA trainee program, but for cinematographers? Anyone have any advice? I do have some skills when it comes to camera operation, and I have used a lot of formats... my problem is getting the work through who I know. It is a slow process, and I'm kind of wondering if I can expect to be applying for 600 within a year or 10 years. Just not sure about all of this, and would love ANY help, advice or guidance. Thank you so much!!!

- Grant
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 September 2011 - 07:22 PM

You need to prove that you have worked 100 paid days in the U.S. within a 3-year period dating back from the date of application, work in the job classification you are applying in (AC, operator, DP, etc.) Pay stubs, letters from payroll companies (the best), etc. are needed to prove this. Yes, of course they count non-union work, what else would you be doing if you're not in the union?

I didn't join Local 600 for almost a decade since I started working, after my 23rd feature film as a DP. Up until then, I wasn't up for union jobs so there wasn't a reason to join and pay the fees and dues. So you don't have to join Local 600 right away, you can take some time to gain the work experience needed.
  • 1

#3 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:35 PM

What David said. Don't be in a rush to join until you're up for those jobs. It's $13K to join, then over $100/month and another 1% off your earnings. And you won't qualify for the health plan in years unless you go straight into episodical TV or features. This money is better spent somewhere else when you're starting out. But when it's time, sure, do it.
  • 0

#4 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 14 July 2012 - 12:30 AM

And after you pay 13K and come up with 100 days of paid work, what benefit will being in the union be to a person?

Charging someone 13K for the right to work seems criminal to me. Even the mafia let's you join for free.

Unions ain't pickin' my pocket ;)

R,
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 July 2012 - 08:24 AM

My salary doubled in the first year of being in the union and tripled the next year. I get a healthcare plan and I get a pension when I retire. Unless you are a top commercial DP or some sort of director-DP or are basically your own production company, you can't make a decent living as a non-union cinematographer and you probably would only get healthcare if your wife had a job and were covered through her.

So my fee in joining the union was the best investment I ever made, and it paid for itself within a year.
  • 0

#6 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11934 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 July 2012 - 09:29 AM

My salary doubled in the first year of being in the union and tripled the next year.



It's an impertinent question, I guess, but I have to ask: did this happen specifically because of things the union did, or was it simply that the union was simply preventing you from doing the more desirable work?

I suspect the latter, and that suggests to me that it is really a protection racket.

P
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:18 PM

[/size][/color]

It's an impertinent question, I guess, but I have to ask: did this happen specifically because of things the union did, or was it simply that the union was simply preventing you from doing the more desirable work?

I suspect the latter, and that suggests to me that it is really a protection racket.

P


That doesn't address the healthcare and pension issue (people living in countries with a national healthcare system don't have the same fear of being uninsured and ending up in a hospital with medical bills the size of college tuitions... Or maybe that's a bad analogy because they probably have a national college system too...)

I was never blocked from a union job but joined at the time my career put me in the running for union jobs. Let's face it, almost all feature and TV jobs above a certain budget are union - you can call that a protection racket if you want or simply protection period against falling wages. Truth is that if there were no unions, wages would be lower overall across the U.S. industry so I would not be much better off today even on bigger shows... And I'd still be facing the problem of healthcare insurance and retirement funds. Not unsolvable but if wages had been driven lower by the disappearance of unions that makes solving the problem of healthcare and saving for retirement all the harder. I think everyone has seen the charts that show the shrinking of the middle class matches the decline of unions in the U.S.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:31 PM

One aspect of non-union feature filmmaking I don't miss is the lack of a common tiered pay structure. With everyone making their own deals with producers you sometimes end up with someone like a gaffer or sound mixer making more than the DP but almost everyone else getting offered minimum wage, electrics and grips being offered $100 a day. It's near impossible to put together a solid crew under those conditions, it's very hit or miss. And I end up having to ask how much each crew member is getting paid before I can decide whether to take the job. When there is a union contract, issues like when overtime kicks in (though variable today with various regional contracts) is a lot less contentious... There were moments on almost every one of the 23 non-union films that I worked on where the crew threatened to walk off the job because of unsafe conditions, lack of overtime, etc. -- there's a word for that: collective bargaining. In other words workers joining into collectives of some sort is almost inevitable. It's the most common method for a weaker worker to fight a powerful producer, band with other workers to offset the natural power of people with more money. Sure power plays like that are rarely perfectly balanced or stable, but the past 30 years have been a period of shifting power back away from labor and into capital -- maybe to fix an imbalance the other way in the previous decades -- but the net result is, not surprisingly, more more power and money concentrated in fewer people. This is the point where Adam will argue that everyone overall worldwide is better off today but from the perspective of a U.S. worker that isn't true.
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 July 2012 - 05:13 PM

This is the yearly cycle of Phil calling unions protection rackets and me defending them, etc. I think we started arguing this around 1998...

I just want to add that I accept that some of the criticisms of unions have a ring of truth to them and sometimes they are their own worst enemy, but I also see them as a natural expression of capitalism, though that seems contradictory -- in a sense what I'm saying is that there is always a socialist element to capitalism and vice-versa, otherwise neither could survive in the real world. Captialism needs a regulated market, it needs a court system to handle claims and grievances (and patents), it needs a transportation infrastructure, it needs healthy workers, and it need customers with money to spend -- and it rarely can or wants to provide all of that through private systems.

We're talking about the power of the market, the power of money, and the power of the individuals who participate in that market. Sometimes an individual worker needs to combine forces with other individuals to take on the abuse of power that sometimes happens from management, capital, labor, even government. But this balancing of power is always messy and rarely stays in a state of equilibrium. So unions are a flawed solution to a problem but you can't really eliminate them without creating some other method of balancing power, lest there becomes no way for the individual to counter an abuse of power by forces larger than they are. Saying "just get rid of the unions and let the market determine what to pay workers" is like saying that the market is always going to give fair wages for work because workers are always free to go to another employer that pays better. That's basically a fantasy because employers can collude and agree among themselves to keep wages down in order to maximize profit. Look at the film industry, when the IA negotiates its contract with the 200 or so members of the Producers Guild, they are actually today only negotiating with five or so international mega-corporations like Time-Warner, Fox, etc. Do you think it's that hard for five corporations to agree among themselves where they want to set wages and benefits and then throw a lot of money to get their way? It's a wonder that even a big union can fight such power, and it's much less likely that an individual worker could without the back-up of a union. But this doesn't negate the flaws of the whole union system.
  • 0

#10 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 14 July 2012 - 09:42 PM

It's the most common method for a weaker worker to fight a powerful producer, band with other workers to offset the natural power of people with more money.


Yep, and producers are getting fed up with it, hence the shift in production to places like the Ukraine and Romania, far far away from the union bosses and their members.

NIKE and Apple learned this long ago. It's why Apple has 500, 000 employees in China and only 20, 000 in the USA.

R,
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 July 2012 - 10:20 PM

Yep, and producers are getting fed up with it, hence the shift in production to places like the Ukraine and Romania, far far away from the union bosses and their members.

NIKE and Apple learned this long ago. It's why Apple has 500, 000 employees in China and only 20, 000 in the USA.

R,


So it's actually wrong for workers to band together, instead they should meekly accept whatever is doled out to them without complaint? So the solution is for U.S. workers to accept 3rd world wages and working conditions? The truth is that manufacturers would have moved jobs to wherever people could be paid cheaper regardless of whether there were unions. There arent that many union workers in the U.S. today and they are still moving jobs oversees, so the problem isn't unions, the problem is that people living in the 1st world don't want to be treated like they are living in a 3rd world country.

What manufacturers fail to understand -- and what Henry Ford understood -- is that many workers are also customers, so if you drive down wages or move jobs oversees, you create less demand for your own product, and to compensate, you drive down wages further and move more jobs oversees to cut costs.

Anyway the drive to maximize profit is basic to capitalism so the impulse to seek workers who can work as cheaply as possibly is always there, unions or not. If there were no unions in this country, they still would be going to China for manufacturing. And eventually people in those countries start to unionize unless suppressed. And then the jobs start to move to an even poorer country.

On the other hand, there is still union production in the U.S. otherwise I wouldn't be out here in New York about to shoot another season of "Smash" -- for some reason NBC doesn't feel the need to make this show in Romania... Wages may be lower in other parts of the world but there are other costs to making movies besides the crew wages. I suspect building Times Square in Romania or shooting this whole series against a green screen in Romania may be more trouble than simply shooting in New York.
  • 0

#12 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:42 PM

Sure there will always be the need to actually shoot in New York or LA. But this need has dropped through the floor in the last 15 years. Peter Jackson had no problems recreating New York for his King Kong remake shot in New Zealand.

The issue here really for union workers is that they have never dealt with their own unions from the perspective of the customer, i.e. the producer.

If a member of IATSE or SAG was suddenly made into a producer and had to deal with SAG and IATSE from the other side of the coin they would find themselves getting very frustrated.

The union you belong to David is impossibly hard to deal with, I know, I've had to deal with 600 and 667. Quite frankly they are a massive pain in the ass.

Sure 150 million dollar productions have an easy time dealing with IATSE, they have a slew of producers and lawyers. Try being a 1.5 million dollar production and dealing with IATSE, Ha Ha, good luck!!

They will put the producer of the small movie through the wringer so bad, he'll run and never use IATSE members again.

Have you seen the IATSE paper work a producer must deal with? One thing is for sure, every union in Canada and the USA hates trees! They want to see as many cut down as possible.

I understand that the USA has a crappy healthcare system compared to the rest of the industrialized world and that's not your fault. I don't feel though it's any producers responsibility to contribute budget funds to help pay for the healthcare of crew members. Producers make movies, it's not their job to pay for things like healthcare premiums and retirement benefits.

That is the job of government.

R,
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:00 AM

This is from an interesting article in Daily Finance:

The Walt Disney Co. (DIS)
Robert Iger: $29 million (2009 Compensation)
Disneyland Hotel Housekeeper: $10/hour, $26,000/year
One CEO = 1,115 entry-level employees

Cablevision (CVC)
Founder and Chairman Charles F. Dolan: $15 million (2009 Compensation)
James L. Dolan: $17 million (2009 Compensation)
Customer Service Representative: $13/hour, $33,800/year
One CEO = 505 entry-level employees

Wal-Mart Stores (WMT)
Michael T. Duke: $8.5 million (2009 Compensation)
Starting Sales Associate: $9.75/hour, $25,350/year
One CEO = 335 entry-level employees

Nike (NKE)
Mark G. Parker: $7.3 million (2009 Compensation)
Starting Sales Associate, NYC Store: $9/hour, $23,400/year
One CEO = 311 entry-level employees

Time Warner Cable (TWC)
Glenn A. Britt $15.9 million (2009 Compensation)
Cable Installer: $20/hour, $52,000/year
One CEO = 305 employees

--

I'd also add that currently in the U.S., the difference between average CEO wages and average workers' wages is 231 times.

So if you were wondering where U.S. workers got this strange idea in their heads that they could organize and argue for better wages even while corporations are claiming poverty, this is one reason. I've personally never understood the capacity for some people to feel more concern over the plight of billionaires and their mega-corporations than over the plight of an average worker. "Poor corporations, can't those darn unions leave them and their millions in peace and just accept the scraps from the table?"

People like to go on and on about economic freedom... well, how can an individual fight for his rights against the richest people and the biggest companies in the world? By themselves? Or by organizing into larger groups? Why is the economic freedom of these corporations more important than that of an average worker?

We've spent the past 30 years deregulating, weakening unions, privatizing, etc. all because the argument was that it would benefit everyone, and yet the end result is one of the biggest economic collapses since the Great Depression and a widening gap in wages plus the majority of wealth in the country being held by a smaller percentage of the population -- who now also have more power to affect elections since money equals free speech according to the Supreme Court, and money equals power according to anyone with half a brain. And despite the mess we are currently in, people keep proposing more of the same -- "oh, what we need is more deregulation, more weakening of the unions, more privatization, more tax breaks for the wealthy... and then the results will be the complete opposite of what has happened so far!" What is it that they call doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

--

I'm sorry that low-budget productions find unions difficult to deal with, that should change. As I said, it's not a perfect solution to the problem (labor versus capital), but it's better than no solution at all.

The internet seems to indicate that the crew of Peter Jackson's movies worked under a collective bargaining agreement. So it's not like he shot "King Kong" in New Zealand just to escape New York union crews. More likely that given he was creating 1930's New York using CGI, it didn't really need to be shot in New York, same goes for "The Great Gatsby", which I suspect also had a crew working under some sort of collective bargaining agreement.
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 July 2012 - 12:42 AM

Sorry for being combative... I see your point Richard. You need a strong union to counteract the power of large companies, but it makes less sense against a small producer who does a small movie once every couple of years, because now the power is imbalanced in the other direction, on labor over management.
  • 0

#15 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 15 July 2012 - 01:38 AM

Sorry for being combative... I see your point Richard. You need a strong union to counteract the power of large companies, but it makes less sense against a small producer who does a small movie once every couple of years, because now the power is imbalanced in the other direction, on labor over management.


That's exactly correct....why fire all the same weapons at the little producer as a giant Hollywood studio?

What's more infuriating is that when when you work two plus hours drive North of Toronto, IATSE can supply ZERO local members. But they still insist that you import Toronto crew members, and give them a hotel and per diem, plus travel time. You can't hire locals so this increases the producers costs and locks out local talent from training in the film business.

Again, if you are a mega studio, who cares? A small independent producer on the other hand has to say forget IATSE all together and use a 100% non-union crew. So IATSE loses in the end.

Then again, when do you see "logic" and "unions" appearing in the same sentence?

R,
  • 0

#16 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11934 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 July 2012 - 05:29 AM

My objection to unions - or at least to the union under discussion here - has never been their traditional role. Of course it's necessary for employees to be protected from employers, and especially so in a situation where everyone's freelance or on short-term contracts, and where there are ultimately so few major employers in one city. I have no blanket objection to unions in general - I'm a member of a union, although not one that I suspect most IA members would take too seriously, and even then it has done or at least sponsored things of which I don't approve.

The problem I have with it is that they appear to encourage exclusivity by making it difficult to join.

As regards dues, I understand that healthcare in the US is expensive (which is a whole other essay), but my understanding is that a lot of people don't qualify for the healthcare provisions in any case, so it probably isn't about that - it's about restricting the membership to people who have already been made wealthy by success, exactly the sort of people who don't need the union's help in any case.

Also, the initiation fees are absolutely exorbitant. The union can't know how long someone's going to be a member, or for how long, if ever, they will qualify for some of the higher-value benefits, so there can be no connection between initiation fees and the union's outgoings - it's simply about preventing people from joining up.

There are also alarming stories - on this very board, as I recall - about American unions' tendency to attempt to overlook work that would qualify someone for membership on the flimsiest of pretences. This starts to smell dangerously like a closed shop, or rather, as most closed shops actually are or were, a private members' club to which membership is by invitation only. In short, you have to know someone, your face has to fit, etc., and it's less about ability and more about ensuring all one's friends are well taken care of. This is how a lot of governmental politics works, and it is despicable behaviour that plays directly against what most unions claim to try and do - to help the disadvantaged.

All of these characteristics play toward exactly one motivation, which is to restrict membership. The union appears to do other unpleasant things as well, such as "turning" a production, in which case all the crew on that production are faced with the choice of either agreeing to pay the union very large amounts of money indefinitely, or losing their jobs. I view this as extortion and I'm astonished it's legal in any civilised country. But mainly, as I think I've shown, it seems to be about artificially restricting the labour market, in which case of course you can increase wages, of course you can increase benefits, of course you can better working conditions - but not through any great works, cleverness, or political activism. It's done simply by artificially narrowing the field.

I would have a lot more time for unions if they were willing to admit the pathetically obvious, that this is their modus operandi, but really my opinion is irrelevant. What's much more relevant is that unionisation of this sort actually disadvantages far more people than it helps, simply by excluding the non-members from gaining the most well-paid employment. Without such an arrangement, various people would do variously well or poorly-paid work at various times. With a union of this sort, the well-paid work is exclusively reserved for members, and everyone else works three jobs or starves.

So yes, it may appear from a member's perspective that the union helps protect workers rights; whereas what's actually going on is that it protects the rights of a small, lucky minority, at the very large expense of everyone else.

I have no objection to labour unions where they act as an organising force for workers' rights, but if an organisation wants to claim to be a union, it needs to have a fairly inclusive membership policy. Otherwise, its claim to the title is untenable, simply because most of the people who work in the industry it claims to represent are not members, and therefore don't get healthcare or retirement benefits anyway.

P
  • 1

#17 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 15 July 2012 - 07:28 AM

That doesn't address the healthcare and pension issue (people living in countries with a national healthcare system don't have the same fear of being uninsured and ending up in a hospital with medical bills the size of college tuitions... Or maybe that's a bad analogy because they probably have a national college system too...)


Some people do, it depends on if the national healthcare system supports that individual or not.

Actually the big worry is often more not being able to afford the health care at all and having to accept a overall and potentially culmalitive decline in health as a result. National health care systems have their own issues basically as you might expect.

love

Freya

Edited by Freya Black, 15 July 2012 - 07:29 AM.

  • 0

#18 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 15 July 2012 - 07:41 AM

They will put the producer of the small movie through the wringer so bad, he'll run and never use IATSE members again.


Maybe that is a good thing? It seems to me that the system over there is a two tier system which I think might have certain benefits. Humans have this thing for status and hierachies being basically apes. This is what they are most comfortable with and such a system does allow for a certain amount of clarification of stuff.

I mean you are a tiny producer so, basically you are in the other tier and shouldn't be working with people from the higher caste anyway.

I've seen this be an issue in the UK quite a lot lately in a slightly different context where because there isn't a system like this in the UK, there becomes all kinds of arguments. If people know which tier they are in then this is clarified for them and you don't get the thing of tiny productions getting bashed for the same stuff that large productions are getting clean away with.

Personally I find all this status stuff offensive but it's really important to people so there we go. :(

love

Freya
  • 0

#19 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 15 July 2012 - 08:02 AM

This starts to smell dangerously like a closed shop, or rather, as most closed shops actually are or were, a private members' club to which membership is by invitation only. In short, you have to know someone, your face has to fit, etc., and it's less about ability and more about ensuring all one's friends are well taken care of. This is how a lot of governmental politics works, and it is despicable behaviour that plays directly against what most unions claim to try and do - to help the disadvantaged.


Doesn't the UK have the same thing going on in the TV industry over here only worse?
Ability is definitely irrelevant. I mean the UK is not a meritocracy and nor is the states.
I wonder if some of these ideas come out of schooling, as a child a lot of people are told that if they work really hard and get certain qualifications or have talent etc, then they will be judged according to this. That idea is of course nonsense. It takes a long time for adults to click that that stuff was all made up tho and even longer for them to start to realise that it's not about ability or talent AT ALL! I think the media often try and sell this idea a lot too. This is why I love the TV series "Misfits" about a group of teenagers on a government programme who develop incredible special abilities in a thunder storm one day. Each week you tune in to see if they will ever manage to get to do anything real with their special abilities or will just spend the whole time trying to survive. Most of the time you are just happy that they didn't manage to end up killing their social worker again. Contrast that to Iron Man.

At least in the union in the states, you have a chance of getting in or improving your situation. Here in the UK, well I guess you might be able to marry into the right family or something?

I would have a lot more time for unions if they were willing to admit the pathetically obvious, that this is their modus operandi, but really my opinion is irrelevant. What's much more relevant is that unionisation of this sort actually disadvantages far more people than it helps, simply by excluding the non-members from gaining the most well-paid employment. Without such an arrangement, various people would do variously well or poorly-paid work at various times. With a union of this sort, the well-paid work is exclusively reserved for members, and everyone else works three jobs or starves.


Isn't that the point tho, to create a pool of people who are protected so that not everyone ends up starving or doing 3 jobs? You say that the union is a protection racket, but isn't that what they claim to be. Don't they claim to be protecting their members?

love

Freya
  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 July 2012 - 09:23 AM

Local 600 (the camera union) is one of the easiest to get into, and the fees are lower if you aren't joining as a DP... but I was talking to someone in another union and that union was thinking of restricting membership because there aren't enough jobs for the members as is. And that brings up the classic conundrum that all unions face, which is if strength lies in numbers then they should just let everyone in (and there are some unions in the world where that is more or less true, the enrollment is almost automatic) -- only the other hand, if everyone is in, then there is a lot of competition among members for fewer jobs, so members start to ask for closing the door on new members and the charge that the whole thing is a protection racket, or that unions push featherbedding (forcing management to hire more people than are actually needed).

One classic notion of a union is that it provides a trained workforce with better skills than outside the union, more or less a guild instead like in the Middle Ages. But then that implies restricting membership in order to control the quality of the workforce so that one can point to producers and say "here you'll find the best in the business, that's why it's worth signing a contract with us". But if you restrict membership too well, then a skilled non-union workforce arises in the same market creating an alternative for producers. So then you let those skilled people into the union but now the members who are already in are complaining that they aren't working as much as before.

So the notion of a guild (small, skilled workforce in a closed shop more or less) and a union (large workforce organized to create a counterweight to the power of large companies, workers that are too many and too organized to go around) are at conflict with each other. But unions persist trying to be a bit of both. Just makes me glad I'm not trying to run a union...
  • 1


CineTape

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Visual Products

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Opal

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine