Is a More Efficient Transfer Policy within IATSE Possible?

Is a More Efficient Transfer Policy within IATSE Possible?

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
At 100 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
Ryan Bennett started this petition to IATSE President Matthew D. Loeb

Sisters, Brothers, Kin,

Since moving to Los Angeles, I've been unable to work my usual position as a Set Dresser and have had to work as an Art PA for less than half of my day rate. If you're an IATSE union member who has moved to a new market, I'm sure you know my pain. Even though I'm a card-carrying union member (Local 491) with years of experience, I'm not eligible to join Local 44.

Why is this the case? 

To join Local 44, you need to be employed for thirty days by one of the signatories to the Hollywood Basic Agreement to gain roster status. Once you have roster status, you can apply for membership in one of the Hollywood locals. The other way to gain membership is to work on a non-union project that gets flipped and signed into the IA agreements. This all makes sense for a person who is new to the industry, but why would they make someone who's already in the union jump through so many hoops?

In a last-ditch effort I requested a transfer card be sent from Local 491 to Local 44. This is the response I received:

"Local 44 does not accept transfers."

I've been discussing this matter with several of our brothers and sisters in various locals, and it can take years to get your thirty days in LA. "I worked as an Art PA for eight years before I was eligible."-A quote from one of our brothers in Local 44. This process is archaic and clearly needs an update.

Where is the solidarity?

An actor who is a member of SAG is cleared for work whether or not they're in Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, Etc. They don’t show up in Chicago and have to work as an extra for two years before they become eligible to act. Why don't we take care of our brothers and sisters in a similar way? This would appear to be an inefficiency in my opinion. And it's an inefficiency that doesn't reflect solidarity or standing together with our brothers and sisters.

What is the solution?

I don't think I'm being unreasonable by requesting that we draft a new transfer policy. I propose that a preexisting union member relocated to a new territory be able to: 

  • Prove your residency
  • Prove your union status
  • Pay your dues
  • Take a test
  • Get on the list
  • Get to work

If you also recognize this as an inefficiency and believe we should take better care of our brothers and sisters moving forward--I ask that you sign, or at the very least, share this petition.

In solidarity,

-Ryan Bennett, Local 491 Set Dresser

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
At 100 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!