On July 17, shooting for producer R.K. Suresh’s film, Billa Pandi , was halted in Madurai after workers belonging to the Technicians’ Union, which is affiliated to the Film Employees Federation of South India (FEFSI), demanded that they should be paid ‘journey bata’ — higher wages for working far from Chennai. The outdoor ‘bata’ sometimes doubles if the technicians travel a distance greater than what is specified by FEFSI.
In the scale of operations in the film world, refusing to pay the extra allowance may appear to be a case of penny-pinching. But producers say such “unfair” allowances are too many and they all add up. Buffeted by increasing star salaries, questions over ticket pricing and the threat of piracy, the producers say they have to find ways to rein in budgets.
With the Billa Pandi producer standing his ground and refusing to pay up, the Technicians’ Union reportedly stopped the film’s shooting. The issue went on to once again drive a wedge between the Tamil Film Producers’ Council (TFPC) and FEFSI. What started as a stand-off at a shoot mutated into a full-blown conflict between the two organisations, with the TFPC bluntly stating that they will no more hire workers exclusively from FEFSI.
Several issues that had been simmering came to the forefront. FEFSI maintained that the relationship between TFPC and FEFSI will be back to normal once the so-called ‘General Conditions’, which decide how much wage must be paid under special conditions, are discussed and negotiated. The TFPC’s problem with FEFSI, however, was not really about wages, but the broader issue of freedom to hire anyone the producers wanted — a wrenching away from the hold that FEFSI has on film production in Tamil Nadu.
Making optimum choices
The producers began asking why they should be forced to hire more people as laid out by FEFSI. “Who are they (FEFSI) to dictate how many light men I need to employ in my film? We have a right to work with anyone. This is ridiculous,” summed up a producer when asked about why TFPC was holding its ground. TFPC president Vishal even sent out a 14-page document listing what producers will pay going forward, irking the federation.
“The workers are only being paid what was decided upon a couple of years back. We are worried about TFPC’s insistence that they need not work exclusively with FEFSI. With over 25,000 members in FEFSI, how is it fair for the Producers’ Council to state that their members are free to work with anyone they want, not just employees attached to FEFSI?” its president R.K. Selvamani asked.
On July 25, the Producers’ Council made it clear that its members could choose to work with just the number of workers that their production needed and that the council would back them right through.
“No worker, who is attached to a union, can stop or delay shooting, and this is a decision which has been taken jointly by producers,” a statement read.
Following the hardening of TFPC’s stance, office-bearers of FEFSI confirmed that they would go on a strike on July 31. The strike, which lasted for three days, threw the spotlight on the inner workings of FEFSI, which have been largely ignored until now.
While the stakeholders of the industry agree that both TFPC and FEFSI need reform, there is a sense of hurt amongst the daily wage workers that they are being short-changed in this conflict between office-bearers, who routinely switch sides.
Deeper issues
Those who were involved in similar talks the last time around feel that there are deeper issues in the union — who speaks for whom?
For instance, FEFSI is headed by R.K. Selvamani, who, ironically, was a part of the producers’ council during a similar stand-off in 2012.
Film-maker and former vice-president of FEFSI S.P. Jhananathan, who was involved in the talks between FEFSI and TFPC at that time, said that there is a need to differentiate between those who take remuneration, the salaried workers, and daily wage workers.
“Wage is constant for a day. Remuneration is variable. Salaried workers have a stable income. We have top film-makers and cinematographers but a woman who cleans vessels is also represented by FEFSI,” he said. There is a feeling in the industry that some of those who are highly paid are relying on the comprehensive reach of FEFSI to further their own cause.
“Many of the issues that are being discussed today — such as producers deciding how many people they want to employ — were discussed last time too. I will tell you something: how is the wage for a production boy decided? Does he work the same hours as everyone else? To provide the entire set with tea or coffee, he has to wake up before everyone else and finish after everyone else. Only a production boy can give that perspective,” Mr. Jhananathan said.
Stating that those who work for a daily wage form the majority of the 25,000-strong FEFSI, he said that these workers need work on a daily basis.
“How can a rich director speak for a poor labourer? Will he be fair?,” he asked.
FEFSI members attached to various unions are distraught, given how the recent events have played out in public. While they have several demands, including the continuation of the 40-year-old practice of ‘journey bata’, their principal demand is that the council should recall the statement that their members need not exclusively work with FEFSI.
They reiterate that many of the unilateral changes announced by TFPC are already in practice.
“Whether we are given a call sheet from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. or 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., we are on sets two hours earlier. Often, we put in extra hours when the film shooting is scheduled on an outdoor location and we have to travel for over 100 km. We have been doing this for years and haven’t complained, so why the new rules?” questioned a make-up artist, who has been in the profession for 25 years.
Star system questioned
The workers also point out the differential treatment for big stars and big film-makers who are handled with kid gloves, and the issues that arise when poor labourers make certain demands. “The stars take crores and crores of rupees as salary. Is that fair? Can the producers ask them why they are taking that much money? We hardly get work for 10 days in a month. Making ₹10,000 a month is a struggle for us,” said a daily wage worker.
While the council has been reiterating that it is ready to work with members of FEFSI but only on its own terms and conditions, niggling issues related to wages remain unresolved. A major demand for members has been that they be given daily wages when they travel, instead of being given a ‘journey allowance’.
“When we travel for over a day to places like Delhi or Kashmir by train, we are given only the journey allowance that is really low. We need to be paid the whole wages. We are wasting a day in mere travel when we could have worked, is it not?” said another make-up assistant.
For the producers, however, the announcement that they can work with the number of workers the production unit requires is a welcome one.
“We have no problem with paying the workers the wages they demand, but there have been demands from various unions about the number of workers we should have on the sets. For instance, even if I choose to shoot with less light, I am forced to hire several light men. This is a lot of expense to incur if I am making a small film,” said a well-known producer in the Tamil film industry.
A producer said that for bilingual films, workers have been demanding that they be paid double the allowance even though there is no extra work to be done.
Keeping up with the times
On Friday, the first round of talks between FEFSI and TFPC in the presence of the labour commissioner proved to be inconclusive as the latter is said to be firm in its primary demand that its members cannot be forced to work with FEFSI alone. Eventually, members of TFPC hope that they could create a pool of skilled workers and reduce their dependency on FEFSI.
Film producer S. Shashikant said producers should be free to choose talent and questioned whether FEFSI workers have upgraded their skills to match the skill sets that are needed. “For years, we were just supplied labour and this came with a number of conditions imposed about the number of workers that we had to use from 22 different unions. The federation should take up the responsibility of training the workers, as well as get them certified, which would give us quality workforce,” he explained.
Senior members of the industry say things may not be that simple.
“They might think that carpentry is carpentry. However, working as a carpenter in a film set needs a special skill set. Not all carpenters can walk into a film set and create something that fits into a frame,” said a senior film-maker.
With the livelihood of over 25,000 workers at stake, it remains to be seen whether FEFSI can bend over backwards to accommodate the council in order to keep the 40-year-old relationship alive. And more importantly, it may also need to ensure the business of film-making goes on smoothly, day in and day out.
