With very few exceptions, the union supporters that I've encountered among reality TV editors are those who would benefit significantly from the motion picture health plan. Usually, those editors have families. Single editors, or married editors whose spouses supply the family's health coverage, tend to oppose unionizing efforts.

So while frank discussions among editors about the pros and cons of going union can touch on a variety of different arguments, one's ultimate position, in my experience, is almost always based on simple economics. A family of four benefits enormously from the health plan, while a healthy single-payer may not see any advantage to taking a pay cut to work on a union show.

Indeed, if the standard scripted union editor's rate is "scale plus ten," or around $2850 a week, the average reality non-union editor is making $3250 a week. With that monthly difference, the prudent non-union editor can afford their own health care and set up an individual retirement account that they will have far more control over than the union's abstruse pension plan.

But not surprisingly, as editors age, marry and have kids, I've seen their position on the union change. Just as importantly, the more time editors spend working union, the more pro-union they become. They become -- literally -- vested in the process.

Naturally, there are some people who support or oppose the union for ideological or political reasons. Not everyone is a purely rational actor. But I think that 9 times out of 10 I can predict a reality editor's position on the union just by asking them a couple of questions about their family finances. Their position will reflect their self-interest.

What does this all mean? Well, when someone asks me why they should join the union, the only good answer I have is the health plan. If we want to attract more supporters, I think we'll have to come up with other good answers to the question.

Interesting point.

Beyond the economics of the health insurance, I think there are plenty of reasons, the most important of which is the fact that you deserve more than a pacycheck for your work since it is critical to the success of the show.

But you're asking about economics.

I say the most important econimc point is the retiree health insurance. Really, the economic value of this may be worth more than the amount you actually collect in cash. The unreal increases in the cost of heathcare combined with the failure of the Federal government to figure out how to deal with the Baby Boom impact on Medicare make having private insurance when you retire something that simply can't be ignored.

-------------------------
Tris Carpenter, National Organizer
MPEG, IATSE Local 700
323-876-4770 x244
tcarpenter@editorsguild.com

Edited: 03/03/2008 at 03:32 PM by Tris

Toonerville,
The premise of your economic equation is based on an assumption that a union editor gets scale. When I do a union job I negotiate my rate just the same as a non-union job. I have never been paid scale in fifteen years. Granted (in the interest of full disclosure) I will lower my rate to 3k for a union job, but the benefits far out way the pay cut.

A ten week union job earns me and my family (4 people) one year of NO-deductible, go-to-any-doctor in the Blue Shield network health and dental coverage. I "gave up" $2500 in pay. The cost of individual no-deductible health and dental plan for one year is about $14,400.

Granted the numbers are not as good for a single person, but you can't suddenly want to unionize reality and get group health coverage when you get married and have kids.

When a reality producer threatens to pay scale in the face of union organizing, it's up to the editors and AEs to stand together for their rate just the same as they stood for organizing and just the same as they stood for it when accepting the job offer. The union has no right to negotiate your pay. They only negotiate a minimum.

Text-book economics says that the EMPLOYEE pays for benefits, not the EMPLOYER. Clearly there are editors working under union contract who make more than scale. I assume Pietro Scalia makes above scale. But if we look at the profession on a whole, I think you will find that non-union reality TV editors generally earn a higher wage than their union counterparts. Some reality editors feel this reflects their invaluable contribution to the creative process. I think most economists would say the salary differences can be accounted for by factoring in our benefits.

This is not to say that the benefits are not worthwhile. I value the health care very much. But I do think it's a little simplistic to say that we're worth "...more than a paycheck." The market will support any given total expenditure for an editor, and how we divvy up that outlay is up to us and the IRS -- not the employer. The sheer size and financial momentum of the health care plans makes our buy-in sensible, yes, but some editors may want more take-home pay instead.

I understand also that LEGALLY an employer cannot lower wages for editors when a show goes union. However, the market is a powerful force, and it will find a way to reach equilibrium. Maybe fewer editors will be hired on the subsequent seasons, maybe new editors at lower rates, etc. We would do better to recognize that fact when we try to negotiate with producers -- assuming we have reason to believe the producers will be flexible in their approach.

Now, what I've just written assumes everyone's working from a place of logical, dispassionate economic self-interest. Real people don't always behave that way. Sometimes people join organizations for status, or to have a social outlet. I joined the Guild as an assistant because at the time I felt INFERIOR as a professional assistant editor working non-union! Everyone around had more or less the same mindset. Nowadays, I know many editors who feel no reason to join, no stigma for not joining, no upside whatsoever. So again, the question of why join the Guild needs to have multiple answers -- some of them emotional rather than just financial.

Another factor: when I was an assistant, I wanted to be an editor. So it made sense to join the Guild. I saw a long future in the business of editing. But many reality editors want to become producers. Since they see no long-term future in editorial, they have no long-term interest in the Guild. To make matters worse, these editors tend to be the ones that certain production companies prize. If these favored editors are against unionizing, which they usually are, it's even harder to get a company to agree to negotiate. I haven't yet found a way to appeal to these people.

I think, in many respects Tooner, your analysis of the market is correct. But thinking through the history leads me to a different point:

Producers pay what they pay because it's what gets them the services they need. If they could pay $1500/week flat and get the service/skill they could live with, they'd do it.

Health and benefits were started in the 1940s as a way to retain workers. During WW II, there were wage controls that made it difficult for employers to give raises -- so, to entice workers to stay, the employers started offering benefits in lieu of wages. It was a time of market shortage in terms of skilled employees. As the men came back from the war, the benefits stayed in place, and were held onto as much of the workforce unionized.

Fast forward sixty years.

You're now workling in a market where there is a certain lack of skilled employees. In order to retain them, producers are spending well into $3k/week. Greanted, they have the money (since the shows are generally cheaper to produce than scripted television) but also the demand for such benefits does not seem to be there -- people are willing to take the money.

So, can we create a sector-wide demand for such benefits?

-------------------------
Tris Carpenter, National Organizer
MPEG, IATSE Local 700
323-876-4770 x244
tcarpenter@editorsguild.com

Your description of the origin of benefits in the 40s fits in neatly with economic theory about what happens in the face of price controls: the market finds a way. Since employers weren't allowed to offer salary raises, they gave a raise in another way -- with benefits. It's the same when you have to put down "key money" on a rent-controlled apartment. You're not technically paying more for rent, but you are paying more to live in the apartment!

Anyway. On the employer side, I think the big issue is precedent. So far, the precedent has been that reality TV is non-union. It's hard to shift the paradigm now. It helps, of course, when the BBC comes in with "Dancing with the Stars" and "Dance Wars" and those shows are union. I hope the BBC continues to staff shows here in LA.

I for one don't think that editors in reality are in such finite supply. Again, a few years back, the market worked as one would have predicted: wages shot up, new workers flooded in, and then wages stabilized or decreased slightly. Wages ticked up slightly after the WGA strike, but not nearly as much as I expected -- principally because the strike ended sooner than I thought it would and we didn't have a second cycle of reality hires in 2008. Most folks were hired at the end of 2007 for the going wage of $3000 to $3500 a week.