The PGA Healthcare Initiative Isn’t The Lifeboat You’ve Been Waiting For

By Rebecca Green

On February 25, at the 2024 Producers Guild of America (PGA) Awards, the PGA announced “a landmark initiative aimed at ensuring health insurance benefits for every qualified producer working full-time in the film and television industry.” While this sounds exciting, as producers are one of the only people on set who do not receive healthcare or pension contributions from their employer, what the PGA set forth is not going to save you. Let me explain. 

Pulled from the PGA website, here is the language of the initiative:

The Guild is asking that all production companies (including studios and streamers) provide health benefits for qualified producers with credits recognized by the PGA who are working full-time on their eligible projects by: (1) making contributions through the Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plan for eligible producers on qualifying productions and (2) for all other producers who can’t access benefits through an existing industry plan or union contract, including a direct payment line item in their production budgets for producers to purchase their own health insurance.

PGA has suggested that production companies offering a production budget line item contribution commit to budgeting at least $3.33/hour/producer for eligible full-time producers to be used towards the purchase of a health insurance plan.

WHAT DEFINES A “FULL-TIME” PRODUCER?

The biggest lesson I learned in leading the launch of the Producers Union is that the producing community itself cannot agree on the definition of a producer. In order to determine which producers were eligible to join the union, we had to define the role and in a time when a film has a dozen “Produced by” credits claimed not only by the day-to-day producer, but also financiers, actors, managers, lawyers, and anyone else deemed necessary to get the movie made, this was extremely challenging. 

On one hand, producers wanted to define the producer role as unique and necessary, while on the other hand, remain flexible in the amount of work they would do on any given project. There are some producers who believe packaging a project (securing IP, script development, casting, raising financing etc.) is the most important part of the job and if a producer fills this role, it’s not vital for them to be on set 100% of the time. Then there are producers who believe what’s most important is getting into the weeds of production, being on set every day, managing department heads and talent, running cost reports, handling the film incentive, overseeing post production and delivery and so on. In reality, there are actually very few producers who secure IP, develop a project, and handle every producer duty throughout the entire process. While the Producers Union Executive Committee eventually decided on a definition for the purposes of eligibility, not everyone was happy or felt included. 

Why does this matter? Well, the PGA’s healthcare initiative states that those who will receive healthcare contributions under this initiative are producers “who are working full-time on their eligible projects.” But how does the PGA or an employer define a “full-time” producer? What does “full-time” even mean? Can more than one producer be “full-time?” 

The PGA has the PGA Mark, a certification system that “identifies which producers performed a majority of the producing functions on a specific motion picture in a decision-making capacity.” However, this determination does not come until the film is completed and you apply for certification and are vetted. So who determines which producer (as there are always more than one on a project) is “full-time” at the start of the process when healthcare contributions should commence? What are the qualifications that make you the “full-time” producer? 

WHO ENFORCES THIS INITIATIVE?

While the PGA had once been an actual union, recognized as such for several years by the AMPTP, it was stripped of its union status by the California Court of Appeals in 1974. The PGA makes it explicitly clear and publicly states that they are not a union. Because the PGA is not a union, it has no way to enforce the healthcare recommendations they’ve made or hold accountable the companies who have pledged to sign on to the initiative. 

The PGA states they are “a non-profit trade organization that represents, protects and promotes the interests of all members of the producing team in film, television and emerging media.” However, this language sounds more meaningful than it actually is. In reality, the PGA has no collective bargaining agreement with the AMPTP or legal standing to “represent” or “protect” producers in any sort of negotiation, as the WGA, DGA, IATSE or Teamsters do for their members. Being a member of the PGA is akin to being a member of Film Independent. Both organizations advocate for filmmakers, provide education, resources, and community building, and produce award shows. 

So, if I produce a movie with Blumhouse (one of the first of four companies to sign on to the initiative (along with Legendary, MACRO, and Berlanti Productions) and Blumhouse decides there isn’t room in the budget to honor their pledge to pay my healthcare contribution, who do I call? The PGA has no authority to force Blumhouse to pay my healthcare contribution in the way SAG would step in and not clear your actors to work if your employer doesn’t pay benefits. The PGA initiative is merely a suggestion, there is no legal way for them to force companies to actually follow through, even those who have made the pledge.  

HOW ARE HOURS CALCULATED?

The PGA has suggested that companies commit to budgeting at least $3.33/hour for eligible full-time producers to be used towards the purchase of a health insurance plan, but producers don’t work on hourly rates. Yes, it is possible to back a fee into an hourly wage, but who determines how many weeks and hours you work to calculate this math when we know producers work far beyond the scheduled pre/production/post schedules? What if an employer only wants to calculate your healthcare contribution based on 2 weeks of post production when you’re managing an edit schedule that is 10 weeks? Is your workweek based on 40 or 60 hours per week when you’re probably working 80? How is this suggested hourly rate calculated?

For comparison, in the Producers Union Basic Agreement, we decided that producers would be guaranteed a minimum weekly salary for 10 weeks of pre-production and production and 5 weeks of post-production with a healthcare contribution of 12% based on the weekly salary. An employer wouldn’t be allowed to negotiate/pay you any less than this 15 week guaranteed minimum with healthcare benefits. 

$3.33 AN HOUR IS TOO LOW

Let’s do some math… As outlined in the 2023 DGA Basic Agreement, for directors “On motion pictures with budgets greater than $2,600,000 but equal to or less than $3,750,000: The Director’s initial compensation shall be no less than $75,000 for a minimum guarantee of 13 weeks. Employer will contribute 8.5% to the Pension Plan and 10.5% to the Health Plan.”

Let’s assume that on a DGA film I’m producing, at the above budget threshold, the director is getting the minimum salary of $75,000 for 13 weeks. That would mean the employer is making a DGA Health Plan contribution of $7,857 and a Pension Plan contribution of $6,375. 

Let’s also assume on this film that as the producer, I too am making $75,000 for 13 weeks and my employer has agreed on a 60 hour workweek for the sake of calculating the PGA healthcare initiative. That calculates to a total of 780 hours, which would mean my employer is making a healthcare contribution of $2,597 on my behalf, which is less than half of the director’s healthcare contribution required by the DGA. 

Why would the PGA undercut producers by suggesting such a low rate?

IT’S NOT EASY TO QUALIFY FOR THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY PENSION AND HEALTH PLAN (MPIPHP)

To be eligible for the MPIPHP Health Plan, you must work for an employer that is either an AMPTP signatory or is signed to the IATSE Basic Agreement and willing to make contributions on your behalf. To qualify for healthcare insurance coverage through the MPIPHP, you must be credited with 600 hours of work within a 6-month qualifying period. Once you have met the requirements for initial eligibility, you will be eligible for benefits in each subsequent 6-month period provided that you work or are on a weekly guarantee, resulting in a minimum of 400 hours and your coverage has not come to an end. (Hours earned over the minimum are eligible to be banked and/or rolled over from one period to another.)

MPIPHP eligibility makes it almost impossible for low budget producers (who are largely championing projects helmed by filmmakers from underrepresented communities) to qualify for coverage, as these films are typically not financed by AMPTP signatories or signed to the IATSE Basic Agreement, and even if they are, shorter shooting schedules would make it challenging to meet the qualification hours. 

Additionally, as producers, we spend many unpaid years developing projects before there is a financier on board, before there is a paycheck or bankable hours that can be put towards healthcare eligibility. Unlike a director of photography or editor who can juggle multiple projects in a year, most producers are only in production once a year if that – I myself once went three years without being in production while still actively working to get films made without compensation. 

If a project isn’t eligible for MPIPHP, the PGA is suggesting companies still add a line item in the budget to pay producers directly for their healthcare, but we all know that the better option is being part of a group plan that is more cost effective and almost always has better coverage (thanks for nothing Blue Cross). 

Insurance, no matter how you procure it, is complicated, but the MPIPHP Health Plan makes little sense for producers.  

THE ONUS IS ON PRODUCERS

One can assume that the answers to the questions I pose above is that producers will have to iron out these details themselves with their employers and fellow producers when negotiating their service agreement. For example, if there are multiple producers on a project and the employer only wants to pay healthcare for one producer, it will be up to the producers to decide who gets the benefit. When it comes to whether or not you’re considered “full-time,” it will be up to the employer to decide if you’re required to be on set 100% of the time to receive the healthcare benefit. And it will be up to the employer to determine how many weeks and hours qualify for your healthcare contributions and there is nothing in place to keep your employer from under-calculating your work to save money. 

Without specific definitions and calculations from the PGA, this initiative requires producers to negotiate these unanswered questions on a project-by-project basis, over and over again, with no continuity from one film to the next, unlike our collaborators who have a fixed guaranteed minimum rate of pay and healthcare contributions stipulated by their unions as they move from project to project. And while producers are negotiating their producer agreement, they are also usually in the middle of negotiating the finance plan and cast deals, which is a vulnerable time for producers, as we are fighting to get everything we can for the film before considering our own deal, often putting the film before our own best interests. Announcing a healthcare initiative, but then putting the onus on producers to negotiate how it will work is short-sighted and unfair. 

I do know of a few producers who have been able to negotiate healthcare contributions into their contracts, but they are considered top-tier producers who have leverage to make this ask – what about junior or emerging producers who have not racked up the same big credits? Also, with no minimum salary guidelines for producers, who’s to say that employers won’t just lower your producing fee to compensate for the additional healthcare contribution? 

NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL APPROACH WILL WORK

Perhaps the PGA has all these details sorted out, but they haven’t been made public yet. Though given the wide scope of producers they have as members, and the varying roles and needs of each type of producer, it’s highly unlikely they have all the answers.

It must be noted that the PGA membership is comprised of 8,400 members across many types of programming. The PGA recognizes the below list of crafts people as part of the producing team as being eligible for membership:

Producer
Production Coordinator
Post Production Manager
Executive Producer
Supervising Field Producer
Post Production Coordinator
Co-Producer
Segment/Field Producer
VFX Producer
Co-Executive Producer
Supervising Story Producer
VFX Co-Producer

Line Producer
Senior Story Producer
VFX Production Supervisor
Supervising Producer
Story Producer
VFX Coordinator
Associate Producer
Post Production Producer
VFX Coordinator
Production Supervisor/Manager
Post Production Supervisor
Animation Producer

Inherently, such a wide body of membership makes it impossible to come up with a one-size-fits-all approach to any sort of standardized salary or healthcare recommendations.

Perhaps what the PGA is recommending does work for many of these positions, but I am writing this opinion piece from the point of view of what some call the “capital P producer.” The person who is the first to believe in a director’s vision and is the last person to be found when taxes are due 10 years after a film is released. This initiative does not feel designed for my fellow producers who are constantly grinding to champion new voices with little to no compensation. It feels, at best, a nice press release for the PGA.  

BETTER THAN NOTHING

Some have said, ‘this is better than nothing,’ which saddens me. My work supporting producers started in 2010 when I was hired as the Coordinator for the Sundance Producers Lab & Fellowship. During my time at Sundance was when some of the first conversations around producer sustainability were introduced and 15 years later, I’m still having the same conversations with producers about their (mostly financial) struggles. Yes, there are now more labs and grants available to producers than in 2010, but having four production companies take a vague pledge that is not enforceable should not be called a “landmark” or “groundbreaking” initiative.

When I started the Producers Union with Chris Moore, I told him that I only wanted to do the work if we could be a union. Producers need an overarching basic agreement in order for us to have a chance at making a living in this business. While support organizations like the PGA have their purpose and place (Dear Producer is one of them), what producers need right now is legal collective bargaining power to protect ourselves and the valuable work we do. Work that launches and sustains the careers of our collaborators while ours stay stagnant and suffer. 

In lieu of a union basic agreement (the Producers Union has one, but has no signatories yet), if organizations or cohorts of producers are going to put forth recommendations and pledges to protect producers, I encourage them to think through the intricacies of how their initiative will be executed in real life and spend the arduous time sorting through all the different scenarios and obstacles that could arise and come up with solutions. Hollywood has long been a union town, with the WGA and SAG established in 1933 and the DGA in 1936. In times when union participation was waning in other industries, Hollywood’s creatives remained steadfast in solidarity. However, as union participation is growing across the country, Hollywood is in a unique anti-labor moment where egregiously high paid CEOs are actively working to crush the power and spirits of our workers. Even with long-standing collective bargaining agreements in place with the AMPTP, the WGA had to strike for 148 days (the second longest strike in the union’s history) and SAG for 118 days in order to get a fair contract. And fighting words are already being thrown around with IATSE currently at the negotiating table. If the producing community is going to demand equitable treatment by our employers, our efforts can’t be half-assed or rushed to put out a press release. We have to have a fail-proof plan that unifies us all to stand together and go at it as hard as we can. If we don’t, these fractured efforts will be all for naught.