BECTU's Writers Producers and Directors' branch are having a debate about low budget collaborations, NMW and the impact of the recent London Dreams ruling.
Thursday 18 March at 19.00 hours at The University of London Union, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HY
"You, and many others, keep on with this "amateur productions" angle. OK. Point me to an official source where it says amateur productions are exempt from paying NMW."
Well Mike, point me in the direction where the NMW Regulations does claim that amateur products - have to pay the NMW...
At least you are admitting that "many" hold this view, rather than the "few" - who do not...
Aah. Clive. I think I now some MORE of your pseudonyms on various forums.
Mikey Bee's questions over amateur societies and the NMW is absolutely pertinent to the debate. I think it's one you duck on other internet forums isn't it?
No-one on this forum who has read my views on the subjec will be surprised to learn that I'm all for actors being paid for their work, but I find your stance really odd.
Low/no paid collaborations will continue and you can term them amateur if you wish - it's as good a term as any, as people are ostensibly doing it "for love". It still doesn't EXPLAIN why amateurs are exempt from NMW regulations. As Mikey Bee points out, this debate was to kick start an attempt to reach an agreement that would allow actors and crew members to distinguish the collaborators from the exploitative shysters.
I have one firm conclusion to draw from last night's meeting: Clive, you must look nothing like your headshot because I was trying to spot you and didn't! ;)
I have a very cautious sense of optimism from last night's meeting. Very cautious. I thought there were signs from Martin and Benetta of BECTU that there are avenues for low budget film to function with legislation as it stands.
My perception was that the meeting was slowly making some form of headway (and by slowly I mean wading neck deep through molasses, but with a conception of some common ground slowly forming), which was abruptly dismantled by a certain individual. I don't see how they thought their behaviour helped in any way, shape or form. It was a horrible display.
The thing is, there are 'radicals' on both sides of the debate. Working for free is evil and denigrates the industry. Not being able to work for free is a violation of my personal libery as an artist and of my right to create art as I see fit. As Chris Jones said, we have to find a common ground to find a way forwards.
There are intrinsic problems in independent film at present - issues of funding for films, proper information and adequate training for film makers - but hopefully, hopefully meetings like last night's will go some way to resolving these.
Just from an outside perspective (forgive me if I'm wrong!!) it seems that nothing has been achieved by this meeting. None of the bodies had power to legislate and there seems no common concensus.
As emotive as everyone may like to be about this there still remains an NMW and all Filmmakers / Producers (Myself included) should strive to pay it!!
I agree with Clive that otherwise Filmworks regardless of there quality are Amateur if Unpaid.
Oh well the debate rages on!! I just hope it doesn't affect me again with Production companies under cutting me!
Just for the record, I was not at the meeting, sadly... I am unable to be in two places at the same time, even though some think - I can!
I had to deal with the days breaking news of the governments U-turn on up-front fees, which I was 'working' on, until 1am. I knew a month ago, but it was not made public until now, in order to give the government a chance to come up with fresh proposals; which they appear to have nothing else to offer, except words claiming they will do better on enforcing - regulations that don't exist...
Anyway, I sent along a 'spy' to the Bectu meeting on low pay. Who I rang after he had returned home from this event, to get the complete story on events.
Helen, I am not sure what you mean by ducking questions and using other Internet forums under different names?
I am on the Guardian blog as 'Biggles' after registering for garden plants offers. Evidently you are stuck with the nickname, but I do put my real name at the bottom of postings on the NMW.
"nothing has been achieved by this meeting"
Well, I think it is a bit premature to say this, it was only last night.
The Low Pay Commission should be publishing their annual report of their latest consultation, later this month. Hopefully if will have something to say on industry specific guidelines for those in the entertainments industry.
Talking about the issue is helpful, if allows everyone a chance to put over their individual views, That must be a good thing surely.
From little acorns, doth oak trees grow, has always been a motto - that drives me on to take up issues, thought to be impossible to deal with.
For some reason my response to you last night didn't appear. Fortunately I saved it:
So are you telling me that by branding a production as "amateur" that somehow they're exempt from NMW? That's rubbish and you know it.
HMRC makes no distinction between an amateur production and a professional one. You know that and don't try to take this off in a different route.
Show me the evidence, Clive, that amateur dramatics is exempt from NMW.
As you know, it's about an individuals status. Are they a "worker" or not. Forget everything else. It's about that.
Technically speaking, and Benetta Adamson the BECTU rep at tonights meeting has said the same, that am-dram is breaking the law.
The difference is that nobody pursues them.
Why is a production of like minded individuals happy to work for nothing different simply because they're using a camera?
In some ways am-dram is an even worse exploiter than low budget films because they charge people to see the show. In most cases people make short films to be shown at festivals where they have to pay for them to be seen.
In response to your final point, I'm not admitting to anything. It's something which is constantly used by the pro blanket NMW activists and was again tonight.
This whole label of "amateur" and "professional" means nothing in the eyes of the law. You can call it "Trevor" for all it matters.
You both feel that Actors and Crew should not be exploited - Great!! Your differences seem to be in whether people can band together on a freebie as Friends. Well yes they can and have - but they don't advertise to do this!
As far as I am aware Mike, HMRC do not tax hobbies such as AMDRAM or freebie films with no profits. Their definition of Workers is a Professional one where payments are involved and profit generated.
So it's all down to terminology and working practice. Maybe calling something amateur solely means it's not a Business proposition and not Professional.ie You don't derive income out of it only pleasure. It doesn't necessarily equate to the quality of the product! There are some great amateur productions and some have made the leap into Pro.
However that said we produce an inordinate amount of CRAP low/no budget films in the UK every year made by so called professionals. In fact whole sites make profit out of advertising these and taking subscriptions (Not CCP obviously). These people are not just friends getting together!
So would the NMW legislation stop people making films or would it raise the gate so people get the backing to make better films?
That's always open for discussion, but maybe if your film is any good on paper and you're a resourceful and dilligent Producer you will find a way to get the finance. This is half the battle of Producing, as I well know!
"As far as I am aware Mike, HMRC do not tax hobbies such as AMDRAM or freebie films with no profits. Their definition of Workers is a Professional one where payments are involved and profit generated."
Whilst HMRC don't tax organisations that don't make a profit, the definition of a worker is not dependent on the commercial nature or commercial success of the project. This includes voluntary and charitable organisations. (Business Link)
The label of amateur or professional doesn't come in to play. It's about the individual and whether HMRC would consider them a "worker".
I have never said that a group of actors should not band together - to put on a performance. There is no NMW Regulation that stops individuals who are willing,to put on an amateur production for free.
Even when you 'work' for a charity, it all depends on what you are doing and how you are doing it, as whether you should or should not be paid (NMW).
I wonder why Mike gets so excited, when he clearly knows my position on this subject. I and others made time to meet with the Low Pay Commission in November, regarding industry specific guidelines for those working in our industry. There is a need for performers to know when they are entitled to the NMW and... when they are not.
I think I have made my position very clear, on countless occasions. So let us see what comes out in the LPC Report due out very shortly.
The finished report is now with government ministers and they will decide the exact date of publication, according to the LPC advice earlier today.
Ok so it's down to the definition of a Worker. Mike, Your link clearly sets out what a Worker is and it relates solely to contract, written or oral. I raised the Professional term because it relates to Money.
I reiterate that people banding together on a freebie as friends, do not advertise to external parties and do not enter into a professional contractual arrangements.
Contracts can come into play further down the line though when it is a financial / professional matter.
A statement by Maxim Ford that I tend to agree fully with.
"BECTU is not saying that people can not choose to work together on a project for free.
They are questioning;
1) Who should own the property created by a group of workers working for free.
2) That companies making films for profit and with capital should not use free labour to increase their profits.
3) Free labour as the norm as an effect on lowering wages across the board. Witness FILM LONDON now paying only £60 a day compared to BFI pay 20 years ago which was a living wage.
Directors DOPs and some others get a lot more out of free productions than other grades. It is fair that all the people who work on a production should own the production together. THIS DOES NOT EFFECT ARTISTIC CONTROL OF THE FILM, but just like a comissioning body or a studio would let the director make the film but it would be their film to exploit.
SHOOTING PEOPLE seem to want to perpetuate the situation of poverty, as it it proves their "independence". One would hope that the productions that are made are to
Put pressure on conventional media outlets to finance independent films, create a TV Channel dedicated to Indie Films,
Create more paid jobs and oportunities for film careers.
The scandal of thousands of film graduates chasing non existent jobs while TV is full of repeats and US imports has to be attacked politically and BECTU can be strong partner for this. Is SHOOTING PEOPLE up to it?
How do SHOOTING PEOPLE plan to move form amatuer film making to professional film making with real budgets and wages?
4.47 Equity highlighted the problem of work being offered for no pay, giving aspiring performers an opportunity to work in the industry. Our Secretariat also met two actors who raised the issue of the complex nature of the law in relation to the entertainment industry and of roles in TV and film being advertised as unpaid when they were clearly work. They wanted it to be made illegal to advertise work for no pay. The actors, along with Equity, had passed details of adverts offering work for no pay to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and felt that some sort of sector specific guidance for employers and agencies in the entertainment industry would be beneficial.
4.48 During a visit to London we met a group of actors who told us of the problems those in the entertainment sector faced. These included: agencies taking their fees from a day's pay, leaving the worker with less than the minimum wage, and offering no subsequent work to the actor; work being advertised for no pay (but sometimes with expenses); and the complex nature of the regulations in this sector. They told us that those in the industry were reluctant to report abuse for fear that they would subsequently find it difficult to obtain work. ( Click: http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/newsstory.php/27551/equity-campaigner-hurst-complains-of )
4.49 In November 2009, an Employment Tribunal ruled that workers engaged on an expenses-only basis were entitled to payment at least in line with the National Minimum Wage. The case was brought by a department assistant against a film company and was supported by the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union (BECTU).
4.50 We have again heard this year about a number of problems faced by those working in the entertainment industry. We understand that the issues are not always as straightforward as they may appear and that two enforcement bodies, HMRC and the Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate, have an involvement in this sector. While more may need to be done in relation to enforcement of existing regulations, we believe the production and publication of guidance specifically for the entertainment industry would go some way to highlighting the rights and obligations of employers, agencies and workers in the sector.
We therefore recommend that the Government produces, in conjunction with interested parties, sector specific guidance on the National Minimum Wage for the entertainment sector. We will monitor the situation with regard to this group of workers carefully and, following publication of the sector specific guidance, review the effect of its publication.
At the end of the BECTU debate the other week, Benetta Adamson said she'd put together an online forum where people can continue to discuss the matter.
After a few teething problems, the site is now set up here: http://forum.indiefilmuk.org/
The intention behind the forum is to centralise the debate in one place and to create a space where all parties involved can work together on a framework which will allow for future productions to be made within the boundaries of UK law.
"The days of fringe are very much over. Dead. The heyday of the late seventies and eighties, when fringe really was cutting-edge, with flagship ground-breaking venues such as the Man in the Moon (Chelsea) and the King's Head (Islington) - now that would have been worthwhile. There was a time when if you wanted to do a show at the Etcetera, for example, you had to meet with the artistic director, to check the writer, the director and the cast with him (as I did in 1996). Now, they just ask about the money (as was the case the last time I did a show there, in 2004)."
How many of you can relate to this sad tale published again, in the letters section of 'The Stage'...?
"You wouldn't expect a milkman to do his rounds every morning for free, you wouldn't expect a surgeon to do a triple bypass for "expenses only", so why expect a bachelor of the arts to be voluntary? And you know what? Some actors do it. People I know - some good friends of mine - take no money to do their job. And it is a job."
You must login as a candidate to participate in the forum.
Please note:Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of The Mandy Network, nor have they been vetted by The Mandy Network staff.
If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.
