Caucus for Television Editors

Strategies for Survival

Guild members met in caucuses from June 17-20, 1996 to listen to a panel of speakers and discuss strategies for survival in the "new" Hollywood. To focus the talks, the evenings were arranged by classification.

Television Editors

Don't Underestimate Your Power

by Tina Hirsch

The caucus for editors working in television, on June 18th, was moderated by Randy Morgan. Joanne D'Antonio, Duane Hartzell, Alicia Hirsch, Suzanne Malles, Steven Mark, Barbara Pokras, and Randy Roberts comprised the panel.

Mia Goldman spoke of the importance of taking responsibility for our problems and the need to empower ourselves through these discussions. "The more we know, the more ammunition we have".

Ron Kutak talked about the tactical differences between features and television. He emphasized that television editors need to protect the ground floor. "Editors' power won't come from the agents, it will come from getting together". He also restated his position on organizing a show once the shooting is finished. Editors can call the office to ask them to try to unionize the show. He encouraged us to call the office to ask about our rights any time we have a question. Ron alerted us to the fact that on-call editors are entitled to overtime whenever we work more than 12 hours a day but the overtime will be paid at "scale" unless it is specified in our contract that all overtime is "based on the rate in effect".

Randy Morgan recounted his experience as an editor on 'ER'. The first year of production they were in a two-editor rotation and soon found themselves in an impossible time crunch. They ended up hiring a third editor to work on a couple of episodes towards the end of the season. The next year they hired the same editor as a last-minute stop-gap to cut a few more shows. This year he and the second editor refused to sign up for another year unless they were guaranteed a third editor for a good portion of the shows. He said that while two editors might be enough in some situations it wasn't enough in others.

Randy stated that production companies are heavily invested in the new equipment which was sold to them with the promise that it would bring about greater productivity and the need for fewer editors. "The executives will do anything to make their investments look good".

Some editors are actually creating problems by taking flat fees that end up being under scale, and acting as their own assistants. They will justify this by saying that they need the job to survive. "When you take a job below scale you screw everyone else. If we refuse a job because it's below scale or because we aren't being given an assistant, we should be secure in the knowledge that there isn't another editor waiting in the wings to take it."

Barbara Pokras said that our job was both external and internal. The external is what the producers see - a person at a machine working a keyboard and a mouse. The internal part is where the judgment and creativity take place. Producers can't see that. They don't know what the internal process is and that it takes the same amount of time that it always did.

A new practice has arisen which she described as the "We'll make it up on the next one" promise, where they ask you to take a lower-than-normal rate on this film with the promise that there will be another, more lucrative job in the future. A job that rarely comes.

Suzanne Malles talked about staff reductions. She said that some shows are successful in keeping up to schedule with two editors and the executives expect all shows to be able to work that way. On the shows where they have three editors and two assistants, the assistants are over-worked and one editor is always neglected.

"A lot of it is up to us. When we're in power we must stand up for our rights". She suggested that we should discuss the schedule before production begins and that we must warn producers that we might have to add on to the crew. We should also do our best to take care of our assistants and make sure that they get the chance to cut.

Joanne D'Antonio said that when Avids first came in three years ago there were comfortable schedules. "Now we've reached the point where we're working in sweat shops. We have to publicize the fact. Let the public know what we're going through." She noted that when the Writers' Guild wanted videocassette residuals there were articles in the trades every day and eventually they got what they wanted. She added that we're our own worst enemies. Once we've made a schedule, they want us to do it again - sometimes faster.

Duane Hartzell stated that he's been lucky. He hasn't encountered the problem of the unreasonable schedule or mistreatment of assistants. "Not everyone is working in a sweatshop".

Randy Roberts spoke about his experience on 'Chicago Hope.' He said that all three editors cut on each show. If they didn't, they would be laid off for a week between shows. He lamented that he can't look at a show on the air and say "that's mine" anymore. "It's not the producers who are doing it. They don't like it either. It's the networks. The networks have to be educated".

Ron Kutak remarked that if everyone got together and decided not to take these abusive jobs, the companies would fold. "People in post production are the gentlest, most diplomatic people in film. Don't underestimate your power."

Steven Mark said that he, too, has been lucky. He has been working with a producer with a lot of clout who likes to spend time making the show good and, because the show is successful, the network lets him.

Alicia Hirsch, who was once an assistant and on the Board of Directors of the union and is now in management, said that their biggest problem is budget and that she strives to find other ways to cut money so that they can hire enough editors, assistants and equipment to get the job done in a humane way.

Mia questioned whether or not, if we went to management, they would understand.

In reply, Steven Mark said that the networks are losing their audience to cable because cable puts out higher quality programming. As a result they have less advertising revenue. "The only thing that will change our situation is if the ratings go down and the networks understand that it is because of quality". He added that the networks are getting more and more powerful. They've even started getting involved in hiring the editor.

Alan Shefland asked why the union didn't fine us for doing non-union work. Ron Kutak answered by saying that it had come up at Board meetings over the years, but, for various reasons, it was always voted down.

At the time this article was written,
Tina Hirsch was editing 'Dante's Peak'.

Audiotapes of the caucuses
are available from the Guild office.

Reprinted from
The Motion Picture Editors Guild Newsletter
Vol. 17, No. 4 - Sept/Oct 1996.

Guild Home | Newsletter Home | Top of Page

Copyright © 1996, All Rights Reserved by The Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATSE Local 776


	*Strategies for Survival* Guild members met in caucuses from June 17-20, 1996 to listen to a panel of speakers and discuss strategies for survival in the "new" Hollywood. To focus the talks, the evenings were arranged by classification. Television Editors Don't Underestimate Your Power by Tina Hirsch
		The caucus for editors working in television, on June 18th, was moderated by Randy Morgan. Joanne D'Antonio, Duane Hartzell, Alicia Hirsch, Suzanne Malles, Steven Mark, Barbara Pokras, and Randy Roberts comprised the panel. Mia Goldman spoke of the importance of taking responsibility for our problems and the need to empower ourselves through these discussions. "The more we know, the more ammunition we have". Ron Kutak talked about the tactical differences between features and television. He emphasized that television editors need to protect the ground floor. "Editors' power won't come from the agents, it will come from getting together". He also restated his position on organizing a show once the shooting is finished. Editors can call the office to ask them to try to unionize the show. He encouraged us to call the office to ask about our rights any time we have a question. Ron alerted us to the fact that on-call editors are entitled to overtime whenever we work more than 12 hours a day but the overtime will be paid at "scale" unless it is specified in our contract that all overtime is "based on the rate in effect". Randy Morgan recounted his experience as an editor on 'ER'. The first year of production they were in a two-editor rotation and soon found themselves in an impossible time crunch. They ended up hiring a third editor to work on a couple of episodes towards the end of the season. The next year they hired the same editor as a last-minute stop-gap to cut a few more shows. This year he and the second editor refused to sign up for another year unless they were guaranteed a third editor for a good portion of the shows. He said that while two editors might be enough in some situations it wasn't enough in others. Randy stated that production companies are heavily invested in the new equipment which was sold to them with the promise that it would bring about greater productivity and the need for fewer editors. "The executives will do anything to make their investments look good". Some editors are actually creating problems by taking flat fees that end up being under scale, and acting as their own assistants. They will justify this by saying that they need the job to survive. "When you take a job below scale you screw everyone else. If we refuse a job because it's below scale or because we aren't being given an assistant, we should be secure in the knowledge that there isn't another editor waiting in the wings to take it." Barbara Pokras said that our job was both external and internal. The external is what the producers see - a person at a machine working a keyboard and a mouse. The internal part is where the judgment and creativity take place. Producers can't see that. They don't know what the internal process is and that it takes the same amount of time that it always did. A new practice has arisen which she described as the "We'll make it up on the next one" promise, where they ask you to take a lower-than-normal rate on this film with the promise that there will be another, more lucrative job in the future. A job that rarely comes. Suzanne Malles talked about staff reductions. She said that some shows are successful in keeping up to schedule with two editors and the executives expect all shows to be able to work that way. On the shows where they have three editors and two assistants, the assistants are over-worked and one editor is always neglected. "A lot of it is up to us. When we're in power we must stand up for our rights". She suggested that we should discuss the schedule before production begins and that we must warn producers that we might have to add on to the crew. We should also do our best to take care of our assistants and make sure that they get the chance to cut. Joanne D'Antonio said that when Avids first came in three years ago there were comfortable schedules. "Now we've reached the point where we're working in sweat shops. We have to publicize the fact. Let the public know what we're going through." She noted that when the Writers' Guild wanted videocassette residuals there were articles in the trades every day and eventually they got what they wanted. She added that we're our own worst enemies. Once we've made a schedule, they want us to do it again - sometimes faster. Duane Hartzell stated that he's been lucky. He hasn't encountered the problem of the unreasonable schedule or mistreatment of assistants. "Not everyone is working in a sweatshop". Randy Roberts spoke about his experience on 'Chicago Hope.' He said that all three editors cut on each show. If they didn't, they would be laid off for a week between shows. He lamented that he can't look at a show on the air and say "that's mine" anymore. "It's not the producers who are doing it. They don't like it either. It's the networks. The networks have to be educated". Ron Kutak remarked that if everyone got together and decided not to take these abusive jobs, the companies would fold. "People in post production are the gentlest, most diplomatic people in film. Don't underestimate your power." Steven Mark said that he, too, has been lucky. He has been working with a producer with a lot of clout who likes to spend time making the show good and, because the show is successful, the network lets him. Alicia Hirsch, who was once an assistant and on the Board of Directors of the union and is now in management, said that their biggest problem is budget and that she strives to find other ways to cut money so that they can hire enough editors, assistants and equipment to get the job done in a humane way. Mia questioned whether or not, if we went to management, they would understand. In reply, Steven Mark said that the networks are losing their audience to cable because cable puts out higher quality programming. As a result they have less advertising revenue. "The only thing that will change our situation is if the ratings go down and the networks understand that it is because of quality". He added that the networks are getting more and more powerful. They've even started getting involved in hiring the editor. Alan Shefland asked why the union didn't fine us for doing non-union work. Ron Kutak answered by saying that it had come up at Board meetings over the years, but, for various reasons, it was always voted down.
	At the time this article was written, Tina Hirsch was editing 'Dante's Peak'. Audiotapes of the caucuses are available from the Guild office. Reprinted from The Motion Picture Editors Guild Newsletter Vol. 17, No. 4 - Sept/Oct 1996. Guild Home \| Newsletter Home \| Top of Page Copyright © 1996, All Rights Reserved by The Motion Picture Editors Guild, IATSE Local 776