ANTI-UNION BIAS?

Can you please tell me why in the article ‘Atlantic Canada: film biz recovering nicely’ (July 20, page 17) the author finds it important to write in the last paragraph that the feature in New Brunswick (American Sunset) was ‘non-union.’ Practically all of the productions mentioned in this article were union productions but this one. What was the significance of highlighting this? The article was on production activity in Atlantic Canada, not on which show was union or not – because, if it was, the writer would have found that 98% of the shows listed in the article were union, but that somehow does not seem important to him or Playback.

It should also be noted that a large part of the service production activity in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces in Western Canada is largely due to the marketing efforts of the unions, which make more trips to Los Angeles to see the decision makers than most film commissions. It is the unions and guilds working together to promote Canada with some of the best production centers in the world.

One production gets by as a ‘non-union’ show and Playback highlights it. It is pretty disappointing, as this has not gone unnoticed from coast to coast.

It should also be noted that American Sunset will be the last non-union show in New Brunswick.
Rick Perotto,
Business representative,
International Cinematographers Guild,
I.A.T.S.E. Local 667

Unions play a critical role in the industry – no argument here. American Sunset was highlighted because it was an anomaly (i.e. not as a value judgment, but rather because it was an interesting exception). In hindsight, it’s probably unfortunate the story ends on that note as it does seem to ring out, and that certainly wasn’t the intention.
Brendan Christie,
Editor