I think on the film set things frequently get tedious for the actor, but that is the nature of the medium you are working in - too many actors who are used to stage productions or even television make this mistake when they are working to create movies. In theatre, the actor is very much a paramount focus of the whole process, and everything revolves around the actor - honing their performance, boosting their ego etc. etc. Weeks are taken to give the actor the feel that they are developing a through line of action, exercises encouraged to get their brains working through every nuance of the character. If the tech team do make an appearance within the confines of a stage show's rehearsals (i.e. before the tech proper), they stay in the background making notes, and discuss issues with the director. It is also assumed that they will 'get it right on the night', and enhance the actors performance. In television, obviously the setup is much more screen oriented, but there tends to be a swiftness of turnover which is necessary for budgetary reasons, and an actor frequently has to be 'on their mettle' in short, sharp bursts.
However, on the cinema set, none of these 'rules' apply. The actor is, in fact, a pretty minor part of the wider cinematic machine. Certainly, it's felt by the director that, even if they value the actor's contribution, everything else about the scene is more important to the aesthetic look of their work - checking the sound levels, the light levels, the way the light is being filtered, the angles the shots will be taken at, the relative positioning of bodies and objects within the space, etc. etc. Every person on the set has a vital job to do, and all are hugley important to the film's successful working and I think Forbes is right - you will never find 'techies' (actually, the crew) 'slacking off' on set, because they have the toughest jobs and longest hours of all to fulfil. What they may do is have very long, sometimes heated, debates as to how to shoot a scene, rig a setup so that it remains out of shot etc. and these can take far longer than is desirable (for both the actors and the director!), but, in the end, it is these decisions that make the film look better, and so are a necessary part of the working process.
In a disciplined and professional set-up, you should always be given the full day's call sheet (not just a call time) and therefore be made aware of what is shooting that day, how long it is scheduled to take, etc. It is true that schedules can be moved around, and that the alloted times overrun (a hazard of the job) - but, actually, it's in the interests of the director and crew to try and bring things in on time as well, and they never overrun if they can avoid it. Equally, the point of the Hokins quote is, of course, so long as you are being paid, don't question the set-up - many people would love to have a job which consists of being given a decent wage for sitting around all day, and then doing five minutes work! (Of course, as Mark suggested, this doesn't mean there is nothing constructive you can be doing as you wait around).
In none paying or student setups, these types of wait can be less forgivable - then, they are often down to an inefficent director and crew failing to know how to manage a shoot day properly, and you are probably right to bawl out a student director, say, for calling you in at 9 in the morning without sending you a callsheet, not using you until 9 in the evening, and failing to pay you a wage for having given up the best part of your day. But this sort of case is different: it is perfectly within your rights in this kind of situation to either force them to speed up the filming, or walk off the set, and certainly to lodge complaints. With a disciplined production company, however, the issue is one of learning to compromise.
