Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:41:12 -0800 (PST)
To: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] A Professional Puppeteers Union?


I feel it my duty to write in favor of unions, but
also to say that I think it silly to have a
puppeteer's union here in the USA. We have performers
Unions already that make sense. Mark Cahebay seems to
come up with great Ideas, but to take Jim Gamble's
role for a moment, who will pay for them? Unions are
expensive, a whole bureaucracy that has to be paid
for. I think what he suggests is more of an referral
service, a way of letting potential clients know that
a body of puppeteers says that a given show is good.
Most clients for live shows aren't going to do that
kind of research, and why should they care. 

To reference some recent posts, Lion King did not meet
the measure of some in the puppet community. I too saw
it in LA and thought some of the puppet performances
could be better, but as a whole piece of theater, I
was so engaged I didn't really care. Would I have been
more so if the puppet performing were better? Maybe,
but by how much? The danger of Artists accrediting
other artists is that we are not always the target
audience for the piece. 

As to Matthieu's comments on Unions, he clearly has
not thought it through. 

--- Mathieu René <creaturiste-AT-magma.ca> wrote:
> They are so powerful that they can enforce laws they
> instated themselves, to 
> the rest of the profession.

You say this like it is a bad thing, but what is wrong
with a group representing Artist saying" If you want
to use our people, these are the rules you must
follow". Actor abuse was rampant until the Unions were
fought for .

 If a show wants to hire
> a single member of the 
> UDA because he is perfect in the role, EVERYBODY
> else on the show must 
> either be a member of the Union, or pay Union fees,
> without any of the 
> advantages of being a real member. Quite a barrier
> in one's developement, 
> wouldn't you think?

It doesn't quite work that way here is the States, but
close. The point is, without this rule, Producers
would pay the union (higher paying) contract for a
couple of people, and get outside people who will work
for peanuts to do the rest. Part of the point of a
Union is to help secure work for its membership, and
to try to make the work place safer. Can this be a
barrier to development? Yes, it could, since it limits
the roles you can get as a performer, but is it worth
it? In my opinion, Absolutely! 

I learn from every job I take. I am just now in a
place where I want to earn while I learn. Do I miss
out on some jobs? Yes, but for film and TV, I don't
think I have ever worked on a Non-Union Piece that
wasn't wretched at some point. Union gigs can get that
way too, but less so, and the producers have to PAY to
make you wretched, which is the best way to keep them
from doing it.

> Quite a few artists here refuse to become members
> for such reasons, and 
> evidently are quite limited in their hiring
> possibilities. ALL the big 
> productions for TV and Theatre here are UDA.
> Which means, if you are broke financially, you
> cannot participate. Quite 
> ellitist, me thinks.

Well, at a certain level, it is elitist, but so is any
organization that allows some in, and denies entrance
to other. The reason ALL the big production companies
up there are UDA, is because those performers that are
good enough to do it professionally want to be paid
well for it. If the Producers could get away with
using Non Union performers, believe me they would. Is
Screen Actor's Guild for everyone? Absolutely not! If
you are having a hard time finding work, being in a
Union that limits your options may be bad, no
question. Early in ones career it might be a mistake
to promise never to work Non-Union. Later on that may
change. Did for me. The truth is there are only so
many puppet jobs out there, and for film and TV, there
are more performers than jobs, so there is going to
have to be some selection process. Is that Elitist? 

 
> I'm starting to see anything that gains a critical
> mass becomes cumbersome, 
> complicated, produces red tape, becomes power
> hungry, and in the process 
> does more damage than good, or at least does enough
> damage to put the 
> integrity of a proffession at risk.
> 
> I'm talking professoinal union here. Not the same as
> the quite often 
> necessary smaller unions in companies, designed to
> protect the employees 
> from the abuse of their employers. Even if the
> principles are the same, the 
> mass makes all the difference.

It is true that SAG is not warm and friendly. It is a
business, that is constantly fighting against
corporations that trust me are bigger and less
friendly than SAG. As an individual, I have less
control, but as a big group, we are more powerful, and
I think we should be even bigger-merge with AFTRA. I
don't know where the dividing line is between the
"necessary smaller unions in companies" and
professional unions. Seems to me the larger the
employer is, the larger the union needs to be. 

> I was told by members that even if they want to take
> a lesser paid non-union 
> contract, to their own loss, technically they
> cannot, as this breaches the 
> rules of the Union. 

Yes! for SAG, that is rule number ONE. Why would a
producer pay a performer Union wages when I can take
two performers, and play one off the other to see
which one will do the job for the least? You don't
think this will happen? Think they will both stand on
principal? 

> Besides money issues,  a professionnal Union might
> become so huge that 
> judging someone's professionnal quality could become
> difficult.

That is not a SAG's job. They have no say about who is
good or bad. What they do say is: If someone wants to
hire you, we will let you in. If you have worked for a
year as a principal in a sister union, we will let you
in. If you do your time as an extra, we will let you
in. So ultimately hard work and talent both come in to
play
 
> Here we have a small Puppeteer's Association, of
> which I am on the board of 
> administrators, and we keep it friendly, and human.
> Even in situations of 
> crisis and hot tempers, which are very rare indeed.
> We represent our members to the public and the
> world, as an information 
> resource and a link from them to our members.  We
> also provide training in 
> all the aspects of the field. We do not really
> produce shows ourselves, with 
> the exception of a few events that benefit all our
> members. This makes us as 
> unbiased as possible. We do not engage in silent
> hostilities between 
> companies, should any happen.
> As for the money, we rely on membership fees, and
> government educational 
> grants (for the training we offer).

It sounds to me like this is an appropriate
organization for the people it covers. I am not
judging your association, but my bet is that if the
size of the projects grew, and the dollar amounts
grew, your Association would do so also, in ways you
might not like. 

> For those who think I'm taking this line of thought
> too far, I suggest they 
> take a look at some Science-Fiction books and movies
> that take place in the 
> future. Lots of them show what "could" happen with
> corporations and big 
> agencies when left to their own growth. I'm thinking
> about Brazil(recently 
> talked about here), The Matrix, Gattaca, and The
> Island, but many other 
> works of "fiction" are there as witnesses to what
> could go wrong 

Remember that those are works of fiction. You are
pre-judging Unions based on what could go wrong. I
also do not think you can lump unions with
corporations. Corporations exist to make money for
share holders. Workers have no say in decisions.
Unions exist to serve workers. the Workers elect the
board and vote on policy. Are there problems with
both? Sure, but I know which I like being in better. I
have not seen all of the above, but what is the Union
in Matrix or the other films?

I don't mean to come down too hard, but these are
passionate issues for me, especially saying Unions and
Corporations are the same. As I see it, mostly those
who aren't Union performers gripe about it, but would
still rather be in it...

I think that says it all

Greg Ballora

_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-lists.driftline.org
Admin interface: http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/puptcrit-driftline.org
Archives: http://www.driftline.org