Union = ethical work??  As an IATSE member of 20 years, I could tell you unbelievable stories of  unethical practices and corruption within IATSE.  While it might or might not apply to "11th Hour", don't assume that all non-union work is unethical or low paying.  Can be quite the opposite.  

It is true that IATSE, DGA, and SAG will negotiate individual low-budget contracts.  It also is true that union members can mutually agree to waive things like meal penalties to some extent. However, I can understand why producers would rather avoid the unions.

I have volunteered to work on documentaries, because they generally tell stories with which Big Hollywood would not bother, deal with social issues, and typically get little to no exposure or respect.  In other words, it is a fairly thankless job, but we documentarians/filmmakers do it because it is a calling. [By the way, no one has ever taken me up on the offer, generally because they can't imagine what to do with a 3rd person. grin]

However, as a producer, I never ask anyone to work for free.  If you pay them nothing, then you actually have asked them to pay you to volunteer. They must pay for gas to get to/from the location, at the very least.  And, probably have to take days off their job-job to work on the production.

It would be more appropriate to pay the low-budget union scale and invite crew to donate to a production fund or offer a nominal rate with true deferred payment of the balance.  In this case, "11th Hour" with Leo DiCaprio attached is a pretty sure bet for deferred payment.

Craig's List, ProductionHub.com, Mandy.com are littered (intentional word choice) with posts asking people to work for free or "deferred payment", which really means free.  The posters generally are inexperienced wannabees who don't understand paying dues (literally and figuratively), and have made no real attempt to raise the film budget.  

I get calls regularly from these wannabees asking me to be an Executive Producer.  Okay, what that really means is 'put up money'.  I have even gone so far as to spend an hour giving this wannabee ideas of where to apply for grant money, and other ideas of raising money, only to have him call me back a few days later with the same lame offer -- having forgotten that he ever called me.

Experienced crew work for reduced rates all the time on projects or with people they believe in.  But typically it is with experienced professionals who would absolutely pay them their rate when the money came in (even if it was on another project).

Perhaps Leo & Company have worked out something similar, but weren't able to articulate that in the press conference.

Leonardo di Caprio, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt and Ben Affleck are former boy stars now turning into pudgy old men...getting stouter and stouter and developing that little John Amos wrinkle on the nose.

As such, they have to do ever more bizarre and high priced films and make claims on Greeness to get laid.  

Eventually they'll all turn into Jack Nicholson.

What a waste of a question. You should have stuck with your first one, which is a far more important issue. Every attempt to shoe-horn all "progressive" socio-economic issues into environmental awareness only works to marginalize the movement.

Whenever a non-profit foundation has a fundraiser, like a benefit gala, they almost always seek to have a volunteer staff to park cars, serve drinks, and  whatever else. To give of your time to reduce costs so more can be raised for the issue is an extremely honorable thing to do. I'd criticize any foundation that can't recruit volunteers to help offset their costs.

To criticize the film for using volunteers who believe so much in the issue that they are willing to give of their time and expertise to reduce costs to make it a success and raise money for the issue is ludicrous. They should rightly be criticized if they had thrown money away at unions when dedicated volunteers were available.

It's called "Walking the Talk".  Exactly how hard would it have been to follow the rules?

Is Grist union?

Uh, film production is not exactly like parking cars.  The issue is using experienced crew and paying them nothing for that specialized skill.  You intern when you have no experience.  You work for pay when you do.  

If you asked your professional (auto) valet to park cars for free at your fundraiser, he/she might likewise be insulted.  

I don't like "gotcha" questions for worthwhile activist efforts, and DiCaprio et al deserve kudos for the film, but the notion that people should work without pay is unacceptable. Enthusiasm and desire to "do good" are all admirable, but what about reality? There is all too little security in a freelancer's life. A decent paycheck is a minimum requirement.

And it's hard to believe no one could afford to pay the necessary workers SOMETHING. "Someone" like Warners, whose executives are paid well regardless of the project, and whose greenlighters had a decent gamble going, based on returns from the box office performance of "An Inconvenient Truth."  Or, DiCaprio could have fronted the money and been a first-out investor. Risky, sure, but less so than for the freelancer who doesn't have another multi-million $ contract around the bend. Fairness should be a top priority on socially-concerned films, because in one way or another they are all about preserving a decent life. As the scientists have cautioned: the planet will survive; it's people and other living things that may not.

BTW, Current TV gets much of its material for free. And when Current does pay, it's usually based on votes, well after the work has been done, and well below market rates. The cabler is already making a profit after only two years and is often heralded for such a brilliant business plan. It sounds like exploitation, not democracy, to me.

OK, maybe that wasn't the best example to use.

A better example would have been all of the pro bono legal, accounting, marketing, etc. work that the same organizations solicit. My point is that money spent on union contracts when volunteers are available is money that isn't going to the cause.

Instead of asking the important question, "how do you inspire the masses?" the author just made an irrelevant self indulgent statement. It was a pointless diversion from the real issues. No wonder the rest of the press seemed embarrassed.

as an enviro/biologist/media generator I can only say BRAVO to your question.

The media biz is chock full of exploiters wanting folks to work for free 'for a good cause'. Bottom line: Profits get made by those who don't deserve them and VERY NB many of those with the skills/energy/talent to make good enviro media don't ever get enough cash in their own bank accounts to be independent of the exploiters and so many great enviro films DON'T GET MADE.

A better way of asking the union question would perhaps have been to ask how people were paid. After all, some non-union productions do pay their people well. However, the point was made and your story fleshes out many of the issues really well.

People who volunteer too much of their time risk being undervalued and thus ignored. People pay for psychotherapy for very good reasons. We should pay enviro filmmakers well for the same ones and more.

Cheers

Whiskerfish

From a commenter elsewhere on Grist:

Get your priorities right. You are worried about the mosquito while the elephant is running wild.

DiCaprio's tackling the elephant.  Kate, you might consider doing so too.
(I know gotcha journalism's fun, but you might think about whether it serves your readers.)