SAG vs. AFTRA

[Doc Bernard]

Okay I am saving up to join one of the acting unions/guilds. I am now eligible for both, 3 vouchers SAG, and for AFTRA, I am alive (LOL, I have 2 vouchers for them, though).

But as some one that is on an extremely tight budget, I have to choose between the two, eventually I will join both.

Looking around the studio, I have a bunch of stuff I don't use, so you may see some Classified ads from me there, to get the money, although my HVX will not be there.

[ajwwong]

Advice: Don't join until you are a must join. You are now SAG-Eligible, so you can legitimately work on both non-union and union jobs. Your status as SAG-Eligible will not prohibit you from being competitive on SAG projects.

Oh, and of the two, SAG of course is the one to join. Don't worry about joining AFTRA.

[Doc Bernard]

Apparently, I am now AFTRA must-join. Well, there goes any paycheck if I work an AFTRA job.

[otter1]

Don't give AFTRA any money. I am a SAG and AFTRA member. Wait until you're a SAG must join and then, join SAG. AFTRA will just keep your checks, until your initiation fee is paid up.
Why would you give them $1500 up front.

SAG has almost all the prime time shows and all the movies. There are only two AFTRA shows running on TV at the moment (Gary Unmarried and Better off Ted). AFTRA did get lots of pilots but hardly any will get picked up and the ones that do will be cancelled. Why? video still sucks compared to film, no matter what the nerds say. People that aren't fasinated by pixels, don't like the digital athestic as well as film. AFTRA can't do film just sucky digital.

[Michele Seidman]

don't forget the option of joining SAG as financial core member...not only slightly cheaper but then you can do both union and non.

[otter1]

There is no such thing as, "joining SAG as financial core member"!

If you are" finanacial core", you are a dues paying NON member.

You are NOT a member of the Screen Actors Guild, if you are "finacial core"! You cannot vote in SAG elections if you are "finacial core". You weaken the Screen Actors Guild if you become "finacial core".

If every actor went finacial core there would be no Screen Actors Guild. That's why people that go financial core, are pariahs among SAG actors. That would be the worst thing you could do to yourself or your fellow SAG actors and your career.

[Barry_Green]

The reason "financial core" exists is because the supreme court ruled that a union cannot prevent its members from earning a living. If there's not enough union work to go around, "financial core" lets someone work non-union gigs without retribution by the union.

In Los Angeles or New York, Fi-core may be a bad thing for an actor to do to him/herself, or it may not, that's part of living in a free country - the person gets to choose for themselves. But the more who choose fi-core, the weaker it makes SAG, that's undeniable.

For the actor who lives where there isn't a whole lot of union stuff going on, fi-core may be the only way they can make a living. Yes it cuts off opportunities; the actor isn't actually a member of SAG and they can never be elected to hold office in the union or win SAG awards or participate in SAG-member events, etc. But they retain the right to work on SAG productions and non-SAG productions without the union getting the producer or the actor in trouble.

For the most part, fi-core actors aren't the big names, although there are a few exceptions (like Jon Voight). Fi-core exists for those who aren't making enough of a living, which pretty much rules out all the "name" actors.

If you're joining SAG because you believe in the idea of collective bargaining and a large entity watching out for your rights as an individual member, then financial core cuts the union's legs out from under it.

If you're joining SAG because you can't get enough work otherwise, but you really don't want to be a member of a union or you don't appreciate what the union's trying to do, then declaring financial core status may be of some appeal. (with the understanding that the faithful members may very rightly look upon you as a traitor who's sabotaging their union.)

For those who are considering joining SAG, be aware that SAG RULE 1 says (basically) "you agree to never work on a non-SAG production". That's where SAG gets its power and its ability to bargain on behalf of its membership: if you want to use a SAG actor, you *have* to be a SAG signatory, abide by SAG rules, and pay SAG rates, etc. Or, at least, that's the way it's supposed to work. Sometimes actors will choose to violate that rule; there's nothing to prevent a producer from hiring a SAG actor to work on their non-SAG shoot. But, SAG is certainly within its rights to be peeved or to punish their members who do violate Rule One, or to deny that producer the right to ever become a SAG signatory, etc. SAG can sanction or even expel that actor for violating the core tenet of what gives SAG its strength; that's all within its rights as a voluntary member-joined organization. Which is why anyone who harbors the idea of stardom will think twice (or three or four times) before committing to financial core status.

So Financial Core is something of a middle ground. Someone who elects Financial Core status resigns from the union and they are no longer a member of the union. However, they continue to pay dues and they continue to be eligible to work on SAG-signatory shoots. Loyal members of the union do not like, appreciate, or endorse those who choose financial core. It weakens the union. As otter1 said, if everyone went fi-core, SAG would cease to exist, because the union would have no leverage: they couldn't expel their members (because there wouldn't BE any members) for violating rule 1, and there wouldn't be any power in collective bargaining because the producers could freely skirt the system and go directly to the actors. Of course, everyone's free to "scab" if they want already, but the bigger names simply will not, and those are the names the producers want, and therefore SAG remains a powerful entity.

[PaPa]

wonder if Actra has anything like that..
Mind you, most all paying work in Canada is Actra.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

For the actor who lives where there isn't a whole lot of union stuff going on, fi-core may be the only way they can make a living. Yes it cuts off opportunities; the actor isn't actually a member of SAG and they can never be elected to hold office in the union or win SAG awards or participate in SAG-member events, etc.

By the time you are interested in getting elected to SAG offices, you may as well toss your hat into the ring for governor of California... and who knows... the Presidency...

[Doc Bernard]

By the time you are interested in getting elected to SAG offices, you may as well toss your hat into the ring for governor of California... and who knows... the Presidency...

I can do that?!?! I am going to re-place Ar-nie, I am going to re-place Ar-nie! (read this as if I am singing it)

Do I have your votes? I promise the world to you, and as your new governor, I shall make DVXUser.com an official California website. My State of the State Addresses shall be posted here. Forget CNN, they are a bunch of wankers.

[Michele Seidman]

Let me PREFACE by saying I AM pro-union.

BUT...want to talk facts?

85% of FULL members make below POVERTY level income off of Union bookings each year.
85% of members pay so the top 8% can get their pension and the management can get a salary.
85% of members NEVER earn enough to get the lowest level of insurance from the union.

[otter1]

When you join SAG, you're obligated to uphold all SAG rules.

SAG Rule One is: I agree not to work for any producer who is not signatory to the applicable SAG contract. This provision applies worldwide.

I reiterate, you are no longer a member of SAG, if you go financial core.

The savings in dues would be about 1.6% if you go financial core.

Actors reduce the probability of non union producers, becoming SAG signatories, when they go financial core. Why would a producer ever become a SAG signatory, when they have actors, that joined SAG, that are still willing to work non union?

If you're an actor and cannot make a living doing union work, you have choices. You can get a job to supplement your SAG acting jobs or you can remain non-union, to work on non-union projects. If there is not enough SAG work where you live you can always move.

If you and other actors where you live, continue to work non union, after joining SAG, I can guarantee that there will never be enough SAG work where you live. Producers will know its not necessary to be a SAG signatory, in order to employ "SAG" talent where you live. SAG members going ficore, make it almost impossible for SAG to organize more work.

[Michele Seidman]

Otter

funny how you avoided my comment on semantics to bring it back to where you want this to go but I won't bite the bait on that.

As for suggesting I move...funny. I love how someone who knows nothing about me or my life can simply suggest I move. My reasons for ending up here had to do with my Mother having cancer and dying here. Now...want to mention my moving again?

Go read the laws on Right to Work States. Go read about the Secret Southern Agreements and go read the Federal Laws on the matter and come back at me when you have educated yourself.

[Blaine]

As for Producers and them not going SAG because I follow the laws in my state...that is a joke. In fact....in a Right to Work State EVEN SAG films are NOT allowed to ONLY see SAG actors in auditions. It IS illegal.This is interesting. Now, my question is: considering how casting in the real world is done, how is this enforced? I mean, the decision to cast a specific actor can be based on any number of things that might not be readily apparent to the actors themselves.

[Michele Seidman]

Blain

It is not always enforced. I do know that some of the largest Casting Directors in the South East are aware of the law and they point blank tell producers and directors that if they hold any auditions here they may not exclude non-union talent. In fact...in a Right to Work State, producers are not limited in the number of Taft Hartleys they can use like they are in Union States.

This does allow some room to breath since it can often be costly to fly in all of the talent and pay per diem and locations expenses. So, they can hire non-union local talent and pay the day rate without all the extra costs. It is why some productions come to this part of the country. Those with limited budgets can hire SAG lead talent and hire their day players and under 5's and 10's from the local pool of talent both union and non.

PS...since they can Taft Hartley a lot more...they also save some other costs.

[Michele Seidman]

ps...yes folks i altered my posts because i am tired of defending truth. i am exhausted at how easily people avoid learning the laws and how quickly they jump down my throat for trying to defend my rights and the rights of anyone in a Right to Work State.

I am also tired of having debates with people who hide behind fake nick names and never show who they are. I DO consider anyone who keeps all their personal information hidden from the board to be a coward when they go on the attack.

I would say everything I have said here to their face and in front of others but I doubt any of them can say the same when they so easily hide here. Next person to debate me better have their full name and credentials listed because I plan on ignoring anyone who hides behind a nick name.

otter...you, and people like you are why so many stopped posting on the boards. i almost took my self off of here tonight because i am exhausted by people like you who attack without having ALL the facts.

[Blaine]

Thanks for the update, Michele. I really don't have any experience in a right-to-work state. But it's nice to know. I would imagine the production company would have to Taft Hartley them since they'd have to be a signatory to use their SAG actors in the first place.

I recently talked to an SAG actor who was offered a non-union part overseas but had to turn it down due to Global Rule One. So there are definitely a lot of intricacies in the Production/SAG relationship.

[Michele Seidman]

Blain

I don't know as much about the Global rule but the Right to Work Stuff I learned from one of the finest bean counters in the film business. He taught me and told me where to find the information so I could arm myself.

Since the USA is broken in to so many states and the Constitution protects each individual state...the Unions have to...or should be following the law that Governs each state. The Feds made the Financial Core rules because so many people in states like mine were being harmed by the Unions and Guilds. Don't get me wrong...some of the Unions and Guilds do a fine job and do follow each states laws but now and then you have some who get over zealous.

It is very possible that SAG actor could have taken the role depending on the law of the country the shoot was in because no Union in this country has a right to break laws of another country either. I find it frustrating because I don't think that is how any of the Unions were set up. Most of them were all about protecting and now, some seem to be about running over...and that is sad to me.

[Blaine]

It is very possible that SAG actor could have taken the role depending on the law of the country the shoot was in because no Union in this country has a right to break laws of another country either. I find it frustrating because I don't think that is how any of the Unions were set up. Most of them were all about protecting and now, some seem to be about running over...and that is sad to me.Not since 2002. There are some exceptions but not if it's an English language film and the actor is a US citizen. Here's the link to the Global One Rule (http://www.sag.org/content/global-rule-one). Here in SoCal there is a lot of talent both union and non-union fighting for every job, so you've got to be careful not to run afoul of SAG. SAGIndie has made it much easier to use SAG actors, especially when working under the Short Film Contract and the Ultra Low Budget because it allows you to mix and match SAG and non-SAG talent if need be.

[Michele Seidman]

Blaine

The Global Rule is a SAG rule. It is something members agree with...BUT that does not mean it can be enforced if it breaks an actual law. That's the point I am making...like in my state, SAG actors always say "Oh I can't do nonunion, it is against the rules". Those are SAG rules ...that in fact, by enforcing in this state ARE against the law.

So even if the Global Rule has specifics, it cannot legally be enforced if those rules in fact break laws in other countries. The Union could say "you agreed not to do that" BUT if the country has a law that the union is breaking by enforcing the union Global rule...any lawsuit or threat made by the union won't hold up court. In fact, if they try to throw out a member in that type of case...they are not allowed and can be fined by the Feds.

[Blaine]

Blaine

The Global Rule is a SAG rule. It is something members agree with...BUT that does not mean it can be enforced if it breaks an actual law. That's the point I am making...like in my state, SAG actors always say "Oh I can't do nonunion, it is against the rules". Those are SAG rules ...that in fact, by enforcing in this state ARE against the law.

So even if the Global Rule has specifics, it cannot legally be enforced if those rules in fact break laws in other countries. The Union could say "you agreed not to do that" BUT if the country has a law that the union is breaking by enforcing the union Global rule...any lawsuit or threat made by the union won't hold up court. In fact, if they try to throw out a member in that type of case...they are not allowed and can be fined by the Feds.Not disagreeing at all.

The rules apply only to its own members because they have agreed to abide by them. If a person joins SAG, they agree to adhere to Rule One, which states that SAG members will not work for non-signatory producers.

Joining SAG in a right-to-work state is something that has to be addressed by the actor and how it will or won't affect his/her career.

To quote:

85% of FULL members make below POVERTY level income off of Union bookings each year.
85% of members pay so the top 8% can get their pension and the management can get a salary.
85% of members NEVER earn enough to get the lowest level of insurance from the union.

[Michele Seidman]

Joining SAG in a right-to-work state is something that has to be addressed by the actor and how it will or won't affect his/her career.


Exactly!

[Sumfun]

Please help me to understand the law better. I thought that right to work laws state that an employer may hire anybody he wants to regardless of union affiliation. The employer also cannot discriminate against a job applicant because of his union affiliation or lack thereof.

But how does this relate to SAG actors being able to take non-union jobs? Do the laws also state that unions cannot force their members to take non-union jobs?

I am asking because I live in a right to work state, and I would like to know if I can hire SAG actors for my non-signatory productions. Also, what recourse does SAG have against a member who works on a non-union job?

[otter1]

Sumfun,

The Moderator, answers all your questions on the first page of this thread.

BTW, I did not attack anybody, in any of my comments. It would be cowardly to attack while remaining anonymous.

I just wrote the facts.

[Sumfun]

Ah, financial core. Thank you.

Also, could you please clarify for me where SAG and AFTRA have their jurisdictions? My understanding is that SAG covers theatrical motion pictures, and TV programs and commercials shot on film. AFTRA covers videotaped and live TV programs, and commercials shot on video. Is this correct?

[Doc Bernard]

I would say that is not entirely true, Sumfun. ER has been digital for some time now, (shot on Reds), and it was SAG.

The series is now over, but the lines between the the two entities, SAG and AFTRA, are so blurred now, its crazy. But that's a subject for a different day.

[Doc Bernard]

Also, what recourse does SAG have against a member who works on a non-union job?

Suspension or revocation of membership. Remember, SAG can do this, even in a "Right to Work" state. SAG is not the employer, they are just a union. What jobs or roles you take are completely up to you. If a SAG actor wants to work non-union, they can, but then they will have to deal with the possibility of losing their membership in SAG, if they are not FC.

Employers in those states are not supposed to favor only members of a union or non-union people. But it is done. That's why there are auditions, and it is acceptable to ask if someone has union affiliations or not at the audition/interview. If they hear something that they don't like, you don't get the role/contract because "you weren't right for the part". They don't have be precise on the reasons.

[Sumfun]

Thanks, guys.

[Michele Seidman]

What jobs or roles you take are completely up to you. If a SAG actor wants to work non-union, they can, but then they will have to deal with the possibility of losing their membership in SAG, if they are not FC.

By law...the Guild cannot kick out a member for doing non-union in a Right to Work State. They will threaten it but technically it is not legal for them to file suit or actually boot a member for working non-union in a RTW state. Most actors can't afford a lawyer but any such case against an actor in an RTW state will not hold up in court BECAUSE it violates Federal Laws that protect individual state laws.


Employers in those states are not supposed to favor only members of a union or non-union people. But it is done. That's why there are auditions, and it is acceptable to ask if someone has union affiliations or not at the audition/interview. If they hear something that they don't like, you don't get the role/contract because "you weren't right for the part". They don't have be precise on the reasons.

Technically, in an RTW state the production is NOT allowed to ask if anyone is a Guild actor or in a union or not. Most post it on their resume though so it becomes a moot point. Production can decide to hire you or not based on anything they darned well please. Crew almost always hires from their Unions rosters anyway...but they will hire some non-union day players here and there.

But you are right Doc...they don't have to give you any reason for hiring or not!

[Michele Seidman]

The beauty is that if they kick you out of SAG, they can't bar you from working in SAG productions, but they also can't collect any dues from you. So, it's actually better to get kicked out than it is to go FiCore.

But because of that, it's not very likely that they'd expel someone from the Union.


lol..i get your point but maybe it is just me..I think going FiCore is better because you DO help pay to keep the Guild going. Even if you don't agree with everything..you can go to a Union state and do union..to a RTW state and do non...BUT, you still pay dues to keep the administration going and help keep the Guild alive so it can protect talent.

As mentioned before..I really am pro-union. So...FiCore is the alternative to scabbing work and not helping keep the union alive in my book!

just MHO

[Sumfun]

By law...the Guild cannot kick out a member for doing non-union in a Right to Work State. They will threaten it but technically it is not legal for them to file suit or actually boot a member for working non-union in a RTW state. Most actors can't afford a lawyer but any such case against an actor in an RTW state will not hold up in court BECAUSE it violates Federal Laws that protect individual state laws.



Michele, can you please point me to some reference materials that back up this claim? I was under the impression that unions are private entities, and they can kick members out at their discretion.

[Sumfun]

The beauty is that if they kick you out of SAG, they can't bar you from working in SAG productions, but they also can't collect any dues from you. So, it's actually better to get kicked out than it is to go FiCore.

But because of that, it's not very likely that they'd expel someone from the Union.

Good point. So I guess in a right to work state, there's really no advantage in joining a union. In fact it's probably a disadvantage because you have to pay dues, and the production company has to pay additional fees to the union.

[Michele Seidman]

Michele, can you please point me to some reference materials that back up this claim? I was under the impression that unions are private entities, and they can kick members out at their discretion.


Sumfun

Even private companies are subject to State and Federal laws. Just because they are private does not mean they can ignore the law governing a state or municipality.

They can kick someone out but if by doing so, they have ignored a law in a certain area...the actor in question only needs to hire a lawyer and fight back or the Private entity will be subject to Federal and/or State fines if found guilty of breaking the law.

The fact is, more than 85% of actors make poverty wages from film and TV work and most cannot afford to hire a lawyer.

Michele

[Blaine]

Michele, can you please point me to some reference materials that back up this claim? I was under the impression that unions are private entities, and they can kick members out at their discretion.It would appear that SAG can discipline its membership for working on a nonunion production even in a right to work state.

From http://www.nrtw.org/d/sag_aftra_strike.htm

SAG and AFTRA members may resign and declare "financial core
status" at any time in order to escape those unions' rules against
working for nonunion employers. To avoid discipline for working on a
nonunion production, an actor or actress must resign before beginning the
nonunion work.

And this:

Last Song could generate hundreds of jobs for the so-called "right-to-work" state from production crews to extras, plus generate revenue from catering, hotels, transportation and related expenses. In a right-to-work state, no union membership is required to work on film productions, so a greater number of certain positions can be filled from outside of unions, unlike in Hollywood. However, right-to-work does not include actors for studio productfrom http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2009/04/02/miley-cyrus-looking-at-right-to-work-states-for-new-movie/

[Michele Seidman]

Blaine

I am aware of the rules the Guild has and discipline they can carry out in a union state but they 'legally' cannot discipline in a RTW state if that actor/actress wants to pursue it in court because that discipline is in direct contradiction with Federal laws as they regard to RTW status.

When threatened with it, the actors almost never sue. In the rare cases they have...the guild has not won the case and had to revoke the discipline. That is what an Entertainment lawyer here in NC informed me of as did a major film accountant from California.

They both also said, due to actors not being able to afford lawyers, these things are seldom brought to court and no one hears about it...and few challenge it. The lawyer here also said that the Guild has so many lawyers on hand that it is easy to send out letters to the talent about the discipline that will scare them enough to not test it.

I am pro-union and would rather do Fi-core than scab work...but those are the facts as they were explained to me.

PS...looks like we lost the Miley project to Georgia from what I heard the other day....sighhh. Well, at least it looks like East Bound and Down will be coming back and One Tree Hill too!

[Michele Seidman]

A few Financial Core Facts for review:

Legal Point:

In 1988, the Supreme Court again addressed the financial core issue in Communication Workers of America v. Beck (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communication_Workers_of_America_v ._Beck&action=edit&redlink=1). The question this time was whether an employee who is not a formal member in the sense above, but rather a financial core member, can be required to pay full union dues and fees, if those fees are used for purposes beyond collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment (so-called collective bargaining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining) activities). The court ruled in a 5 to 3 decision, with Justice William Brennan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.) writing for the majority, that the financial core obligation does not include "the obligation to support union activities beyond those germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment."

Well Kept Sectret"
http://www.corlessproductions.com/financial_core.htm

Financial Core is a well kept secret in the industry. A SAG/AFTRA actor or any other union member for that manner may choose to go Financial Core for several reasons. One of them is to be able to work for less than union scale, or on non-union projects for deferred pay. Another reason is to work for higher than union scale and to be able to negotiate any salary they are able to. The benefit is that a Fi-Core actor has more choices.

Well known FiCore Member: Charleton Heston - Former SAG President and Financial Core Actor.

So you can't vote but you CAN hold an office!

"Financial Core is an individual liberty issue protected by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Also note SAGs wording:
Of course, the decision to resign is wholly yours. As a nonmember in a Right to Work state (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm), you have the right to cut off all payments to the union, and you will not be subject to union rules and internal discipline. For example, nonmembers are not subject to union rules against working during a strike. If you are a union member, and you work during a strike, the union could potentially fine you and collect that fine in state court.

They say potentially for a reason...

And last but not least:

lhttp://www.bizparentz.org/thebizness/unionfinancialcore.html
"Based on the most current independent audit (fiscal year ending April, 2006), 96.05% of SAG fees/dues is related to representational activities. That is the amount that “Fee Paying Non-Members” (FPNMs for short) would be paying to SAG."

Notice...96%...so FiCore by some standards is weakening the Union BUT it is also paying to keep it running!!

Sorry...just had to make sure the facts are all out there.

I swear I am pro-union...but I also and pro-working and making more than poverty level wages.

[filmman]

The main concern for me as an indie filmmaker is that I expect actors to be professional, and I've found that SAG actors are the only ones who are consistently professional.

So I'm casting FELLINI DIRECTS AGAIN! now and I've listed it as a NON-UNION project with Breakdown Express. I've been making movies for 40 years and I really resent the unionization of talent and the whole union system.

BUT, it's practically impossible to do professional movie work outside of the Hollywood unions; i.e., using non-union talent.

And even if it's possible to do professional work outside the Hollywood union system, it's practically impossible to exhibit or even sell the movies.

So it's Catch 22.

That's why I shoot by myself and use non-union actors only. I wish there was an Indie Union to protect me and other filmmakers and so we would have our own legitimacy as indie filmmakers to work and distribute our movies.

[By the way, vitamin c is a cancer preventive and cancer treatment. Use ascorbate, such as Calcium Ascorbate rather than Ascorbic Acid vitamin c. Ascorbate is hydroxide and won't upset the stomach and therefore mega doses can be used. Mega doses are what cure cancer. 10,000 to 20,000 milligrams (starting with 5 and increasing to 20) injected works the best. Reference work: Vitamin C & Cancer, Dr. Ewan Cameron and Dr. Linus Pauling. It's controversial but the book goes into details of hospital and clinical research. It's worth reading.]

Bob Dylan has a line that says something like this: to live outside the law, you must be honest. I prefer working outside the unions as a filmmaker because I believe unions kill talent. The Hollywood Studio System worked better. Actors were professional and the free enterprise system worked to produce wonderful entertainment. IMO, unionization started by actors (United Artists) is what destroyed the Studio System.

That's why I don't use SAG actors or any crew members regardless whether they are union or not. I prefer working with SAG-eligible actors and I'm honest with them: you're only going to work with me until you join SAG. After that, good luck with your career.

[Michele Seidman]

Of course, if you are FiCore, there's a good chance your Union will call you a scab, and very possibly send out a widely circulated press release naming you by name and telling other members to keep you at "arm's length".

At least that's what happened in my Union (the WGA) when some soap opera writers went FiCore during the strike.

wow..that does not even sound legal. and if they are FiCore...then they are not scabs...scabs are those who take union and non-union IN a union state...at least the way I define it and view it.

and if Charlton Heston was FiCore AND once President of SAG...how can they call FiCore scabs? The logic does not add up on that for me.


The main concern for me as an indie filmmaker is that I expect actors to be professional, and I've found that SAG actors are the only ones who are consistently professional.

I prefer working with SAG-eligible actors and I'm honest with them: you're only going to work with me until you join SAG. After that, good luck with your career.


The first statement I take a little offense too. Because I train actors I can list a bunch who are not union and are always professionals...always on time..always hit their mark..always have lines down...and always deliver!

I do find it intriguing you say that at the start and then down below you say you prefer not to use Union talent...

can you explain this 'seeming' contradiction?

[filmman]

Life is full of contradictions. LOL But seriously, what I mean is that with non-union actors I may end up with good actors after diligent casting and LUCK and so I may end up making an artistically satisfying movie. Also there is little danger of getting black-balled by the unions.

What I hate about unionism is that there are always BLACK LISTS. And so I take my chances with non-union talent and avoid behind the camera intrigues by shooting alone.

I'd love to use well-trained non-union actors when trained by well-known or reputable teachers, such as Stella Adler, etc. I've run into them early on in my career as an indie filmmaker.

Since I'm planning to shoot in North Carolina one day, I may end up using some of the actors you trained even :-)

I shoot no-budget movies, so I cannot use SAG talent with such movies, and I don't like the SAG indie contracts. I don't like the restrictions because I sometimes shoot for literally no money. That is I don't even drive to the location or shoot more than one or two hours, so actors come to the location, do a little work and go home. With digital, I use Zero money and the work itself serves as a little physical exercise, so it's even using up valuable energy.LOL

Sometimes it's necessary therefore to use only non-union talent. And I don't think it's right to use SAG talent in non-union movies, because I don't want the actors to get penalized and end up losing work and prestige as a result of working in non-union movies.

If I ever get to direct a financed feature film, I'll definitely do it SAG and shoot it in 35mm. For me a financed feature is one that rises above the $5,000 level. If someone invests $5,000 in one of my screenplays, I will shoot it as a SAG movie. I will have the producer sign a SAG Ultra Low Budget contract and I'll see to it that the movie plays for a week in a theater. I've found a theater that I can afford to rent for 7 days. And the movie will be eligible for the Academy Awards. So I may end up doing a SAG feature eventually. Right now I'm working with Zero budget and plan on shooting a feature length movie with my Sony HVR Z1U camera in HiDef 1080i 60i. and release it as a digital 2k movie for festivals internationally.

I didn't know you then, but my 35mm feature film BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND premiered at the AVA GARDNER FILM FESTIVAL in 2007. I would have alerted you as you live in North Carolina. The movie actually played at the Ava Gardner Museum together with Hemingway's THE SUN ALSO RISES, and THE KILLERS, (both with Ava Gardner). That's why I have an Ava Gardner character in my new movie FELLINI DIRECTS AGAIN!

[Barry_Green]

Could be wrong here, but it's my understanding that if a show is SAG, a fi-core SAG ex-member is eligible to work on it and will receive the same terms as any other union member, meaning that the production is responsible for paying into the health & welfare plans.

Possible exception would be on the contracts that allow both union and non-union workers; on those shoots the fi-core member will probably not receive union-level wages nor will the production be obligated to pay into the pension & welfare funds for the non-union or fi-core workers.

[Michele Seidman]

Life is full of contradictions. LOL But seriously, what I mean is that with non-union actors I may end up with good actors after diligent casting and LUCK and so I may end up making an artistically satisfying movie. Also there is little danger of getting black-balled by the unions.

Since I'm planning to shoot in North Carolina one day, I may end up using some of the actors you trained even :-)

I didn't know you then, but my 35mm feature film BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND premiered at the AVA GARDNER FILM FESTIVAL in 2007. I would have alerted you as you live in North Carolina. The movie actually played at the Ava Gardner Museum together with Hemingway's THE SUN ALSO RISES, and THE KILLERS, (both with Ava Gardner). That's why I have an Ava Gardner character in my new movie FELLINI DIRECTS AGAIN!

I love when a person can admit they contradict themselves because I think we all do from time to time...very human!

If you shoot in NC dag nab it...use me too! :)

Wish I had known you in 2007, would have given me reason to go up for that festival. I heard about it but I think it was right after I got injured and spent months with a frozen shoulder trying to get any doctor to listen (by the way...that took a year and 2 months and getting to Duke to prove my shoulder was a wreck).


It probably wasn't. A lawsuit is working its way through the system.

The word "scab" means different things to different people. Emotions run high amongst some (especially during labor unrest) and there are some Union members who do consider FiCore non-members to be "traitors" in a sense and would do whatever they could to not work with them, even though FiCore non-members do pay dues (though I am not actually sure whether they pay into the pension and health plans).

Ahhh...not surprised to hear the word law suit on that part!

For the record..FiCore pay in to EVERYTHING...but not the politics! The reduction is minimal.


Could be wrong here, but it's my understanding that if a show is SAG, a fi-core SAG ex-member is eligible to work on it and will receive the same terms as any other union member, meaning that the production is responsible for paying into the health & welfare plans.

Possible exception would be on the contracts that allow both union and non-union workers; on those shoots the fi-core member will probably not receive union-level wages nor will the production be obligated to pay into the pension & welfare funds for the non-union or fi-core workers.

Barry...from my understanding of the terms, you are very correct. The FiCore member is eligible and all the same rules apply to the production and deductions from the FiCore talents check.

The 2nd part you are correct too, accept that...if a FiCore member can wrangle a better deal than SAG rate, that is up to them to pull off....the pension and welfare point I am not sure of in detail...so I hesitate to articulate!

[Sumfun]

It would appear that SAG can discipline its membership for working on a nonunion production even in a right to work state.



Blaine,

Thank you for sending the links. The one from the National Right to Work group is especially helpful in explaining the laws.

In the Miley Cyrus article, I'm surprised to see the author claim that actors in studio productions must be SAG members. The studios may have contracts with SAG, but to exclude non-union actors is clearly against the law in RTW states. But as mentioned earlier, casting agents have their workarounds.


In a right-to-work state, no union membership is required to work on film productions, so a greater number of certain positions can be filled from outside of unions, unlike in Hollywood. However, right-to-work does not include actors for studio productions.

[Sumfun]

I am aware of the rules the Guild has and discipline they can carry out in a union state but they 'legally' cannot discipline in a RTW state if that actor/actress wants to pursue it in court because that discipline is in direct contradiction with Federal laws as they regard to RTW status.



Michele,

Can you please provide a source that supports your claim that unions cannot discipline their members in RTW states? Your previous references didn't really address this point. (Yes, you highlighted that "the union could potentially fine you", but to me that means that it is up to the union to determine what fine if any to levy against a member).

I'm no legal expert, but everything I've read leads me to believe otherwise. Even the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation seem to agree. http://www.nrtw.org/RDA.htm


Most employees do not realize that by joining a union, they are agreeing to be bound by the union's internal rules and regulations (which are the union's constitution and by-laws). And further, most employees do not realize that unions' internal rules and regulations often provide the unions with the power to: a) issue monetary fines against employees who do not "toe the union line," and b) sue those same employees in state court to collect those fines.

Here are the right to work laws from North Carolina, and I still can't find anything to support your position. http://www.nrtw.org/c/ncrtwlaw.htm

Of course, most people would want to avoid being disciplined by the union, but in order to do so legally, you have to resign the union first or show that you were forced to join. But as Ryan mentioned above, even if you resign and claim financial core, the union can still harass you in many ways.

[Michele Seidman]

Sumfun

If I was a lawyer and knew how to find the case law that set the standards...I would. In the mean time...I am going to have more surgery and really cannot spend the time it would take to get you that information.

Besides...some people here (not calling out anyone) think I am against the unions and they are not aware I have helped hundreds of actors get in SAG, and helped numerous others get on the path for DGA, plenty in to IATSE and Teamsters.

So, I am going to drop out of this discussion because people have gotten the wrong idea and I am NOT a lawyer and only quoting what lawyers have told me. I simply live in an RTW state where the actors average pay is far below the national average of $5,000 and I just don't like seeing people starve.

Michele

[Sumfun]

Michele,

Thank you for your reply. I just wanted to understand the laws better, and I think this thread has been very helpful. The issue of unions disciplining their members is really not all that important in the overall picture, so it's okay if you can't find any case law. Your posts have been helpful, nonetheless, and I am grateful for your participation.

Good luck with your surgery.

[Sumfun]

Thanks Ryan. It's ironic that in Scofield, the union actually fined some members for doing work over a production ceiling.

[Olf fat actoria]

If you go Fi-core with SAG. Do you do the same with AFTRA? Can you be Aftra but Fi-core with SAG?

If it's a stupid question please forgive me.

[uglysexy]

Great Explanation Barry. That really covers it.

[otter1]

The following is WRONG....


A few Financial Core Facts for review:


Well Kept Sectret"
http://www.corlessproductions.com/financial_core.htm

Financial Core is a well kept secret in the industry. A SAG/AFTRA actor or any other union member for that manner may choose to go Financial Core for several reasons. One of them is to be able to work for less than union scale, or on non-union projects for deferred pay. Another reason is to work for higher than union scale and to be able to negotiate any salary they are able to. The benefit is that a Fi-Core actor has more choices.

Well known FiCore Member: Charleton Heston - Former SAG President and Financial Core Actor.

So you can't vote but you CAN hold an office!

"Financial Core is an individual liberty issue protected by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Also note SAGs wording:
Of course, the decision to resign is wholly yours. As a nonmember in a Right to Work state (http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm), you have the right to cut off all payments to the union, and you will not be subject to union rules and internal discipline. For example, nonmembers are not subject to union rules against working during a strike. If you are a union member, and you work during a strike, the union could potentially fine you and collect that fine in state court.

They say potentially for a reason...



Sorry...just had to make sure the facts are all out there.

I swear I am pro-union...but I also and pro-working and making more than poverty level wages.


This information is highly misleading at best. At worst it is union busting
Michele Seidman, I assume is finacial core status at SAG. If that's true, she's not a member of the Screen Actors Guild. She works non union.

This is a choice, with which I vehemently disagree.

Not so, in the case of Mr. Heston. Charlton Heston was always a member of the Screen Actors Guild.

If you want the facts go to SAG:

http://www.sag.org/charlton-heston-was-always-a-member-screen-actors-guild

[Michele Seidman]

Someone has posted false or misleading info: The facts as stated in the link provided by otter1.

In 1991, he declared financial core with Actors Equity over a disputed hiring activity, but he never declared financial core with Screen Actors Guild and remained a member in good standing until his death.

And on my status...you are wrong! :)

the facts still remain that MOST actors don't make enough money on SAG work to pay rent. SAG is not a Union...they are a Guild...hence Screen Actors Guild..not SAU.

I AM pro-union but I am also pro-work and paying bills. I am also tired of being attacked for giving the other side of the story that you and others don't seem to want anyone to know!

Now, with work drying up..leading actors who have millions in the bank are taking even smaller gigs and leaving even more actors who are not rich in the dust bin!

[Michele Seidman]

Of course, if you are FiCore, there's a good chance your Union will call you a scab, and very possibly send out a widely circulated press release naming you by name and telling other members to keep you at "arm's length".


If any union sends out information warning people to stay away from someone it falls under Federal Law and could be the basis of a lawsuit under the Federal Restriction of Trade. Most actors don't have enough money to fight.
_______________

and Otter1...you did your own bit of misleading people by posting the words 'This is Wrong' to my post. 1 fact was wrong and I have no problem admitting my own mistake...the rest was accurate. You willing to admit you were wrong doing that as a 'blanket' to my entire post?

I am exhausted by people who think it is ok to attack...mislead...and do so under an assumed name where they never have to face the repercussion.

I have cried over these stupid attacks because I have been dealing with major medical issues and yet still sit here trying to help others. I try to be positive and do some good and get attacked for it. But you and people like you are why I hardly post anymore.

By now I am certain that all the unions involved with actors have me on a 'Black List' because you and others like you keep taking my posts out of context as me being against the unions when I am not. McCarthy'ism at it's finest!

My saving grace is that I don't need to be famous. I love being in this field of work and hope to do it until I die. But I am tired of nameless people trampling on truth and extolling the virtues of something that also has a negative side as if that did not exist!

You help no one by giving them ONLY the facts you want them to hear! Everything good has a bad too...everything. That IS life. At least I am trying to get all the facts out so people can make up their own minds without being given rhetoric.

How many people have you helped join as full members of SAG Mr otter1? Me? More than I can count.

MAJOR NOTE:If I lived in a Union state I would join as a full member but as long as I live in a state where there is too little 'union' work to pay the rent...I would rather survive, eat and have a safe roof over my head then sacrifice my ability to make a living at the work I love.