Can a SAG member act in a non-SAG film if its his/her OWN film?

[Barry_Green]

Isn't that counter-productive? SAG is more likely to come up with a contract that makes sense if indies organized together.

Glad to talk to them. Not interested in fighting them.

They know where we're at, and they know that they have thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members in their union who wish that they could work on productions and make a hundred or two hundred bucks per day doing what they love, practicing their craft, and getting more experience and (maybe rarely) even some more exposure.

My question is -- why aren't the actors clamoring more for it? Why aren't they asking the union to drop the barriers towards them getting this work? If the actors were demanding it, the union would have no choice but to do it.

 

[keylight]

My question is -- why aren't the actors clamoring more for it? Why aren't they asking the union to drop the barriers towards them getting this work? If the actors were demanding it, the union would have no choice but to do it.

I agree with you. They should be working to change their union. But rather than work for change within the union, actors are encouraged (often times by other actors who don't like any unions - Jon Voight for example) to go Financial Core. In my view Fi-Core is an effort to break the strength of the union. Enough members go Fi-Core and the union looses its bargaining position against the studios. Loose that, and bye-bye union. No union - worse conditions across the board.

Here's a nicely written excerpt on Fi-Core from actor-blogger Erin Cronican who says it better than I can:

I know many actors who feel their union fails them because they don’t provide access to enough paying jobs. They feel that it is the union’s responsibility to organize the non-union productions, and until they do the actor deserves to take advantage of the Fi-Core option.

As a member of all three unions who also struggles to find paying work, I understand this position. In the end, it's a personal choice that you will have to make for yourself. One thing to consider when making this decision: after working on many union sets and then visiting several non-union sets, the differences in the way actors were treated were glaringly obvious. Not to say all non-union producers treat actors badly (many treat actors very well) but as a Fi-Core union member you lose the strength of 120,000 members to back you up on basic minimums like pay, rest periods, meals, etc.

Here’s my professional option: You should choose one or the other // union or non-union // and avoid the in-between. This Fi-Core option undermines what the union is trying to do, and I think it can be detrimental to actors as a whole. The whole point of the union is to secure basic minimums in salary, work conditions, and benefits for all actor members, and if some of its members opt to be Fi-Core, then the entire union loses power in negotiating with producers. You also lose bargaining power with your non-union producer when they know that you are a union actor willing to overstep the union to work with them.

And here's a thread over at Backstage on Fi-Core. Lots of people both for and against.... http://bbs.backstage.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9131061/m/130105482

 

[Barry_Green]

I pretty much agree with what you're writing. The thing about Fi-Core is -- it is the only option that a SAG actor has, if they want to actually work anywhere but LA and NY. Okay, that's a bit extreme, but not that much...

Financial Core undoubtedly weakens the union. I mean, obviously it does -- Fi-Core means that you're resigning from the union! So those who go Fi-Core are definitely weakening the bargaining power of the union.

BUT -- and here's the problem, as I understand it -- if the union doesn't work for its members, then the members probably shouldn't be members anyway. So no matter how you slice it, this is SAG's problem to solve.

It's been said many times that only about 5% of SAG members actually make a living from acting. Surely the 95% of members should recognize that the business model isn't working for them, and should either vote (because hey, they all do have a vote, right?) to change it, or resign and let the 5% working actors remain SAG. Would that be a disaster for the union? Well, with their current mentality, probably not, actually. Who is in that 5%? That's your Tom Hanks and your Reese Witherspoon and your Jessica Alba and basically all your stars, all the folks that people pay to see. The studios are still going to have to hire those actors if they want anyone to go to their film, so if the 95% of SAG actors who aren't making a living were all to resign and go Fi-Core, would it really affect the strength of SAG to negotiate with the studios? Probably not all that much. SAG could still enforce in their contract that any non-SAG members hired on a film had to be paid SAG minimums and comply with all requirements of the SAG contract, and so any studio who went SAG (and they all would) would still have to comply with all SAG requirements for all actors on those films, so SAG would still be getting what they wanted... and the studios would go along with it because they need that 5% of actors in order to sell their films...

But if that 95% were to go and form IAG, the Indie Actor's Guild, then -- that would be awesome. There are tens of thousands of really, really good actors out there that we'd love to have access to, and who aren't getting enough work. Take the good from the SagIndie contracts ($100/day on no-budget contracts, no requirement for consecutive employment), drop the crazy stuff (like that I have to pay for first-class plane tickets, in fact get rid of the whole studio zone thing entirely), keep the reasonable things (like meal penalties and turnaround times) and remove all restrictions on distribution and selling and royalties. Actors get treated with respect and paid just like crew does -- you show up, you do your job, you get paid for your day's work, and you move on to the next job.

Seriously, what producer wouldn't sign up for that?

And what actor wouldn't sign up for that? (Well, I know which ones wouldn't -- the ones who are getting SAG wages and SAG royalties... and that's okay, for those for whom SAG is actually working, hey, stay SAG, no problem).

Point is -- production today is not what it was. We no longer pay $250,000 for a camera, Canon's promoting a $16,000 C300 to Hollywood as a viable alternative, and indies are using something like $3500 AF100s. We're not shooting for nine months, with dedicated star trailers and first-class plane flights, we're shooting for three weeks. We're not getting nationwide theatrical release, we're lucky to get a streaming netflix release and to sell a few hundred DVDs; if you get an international distributor you might get lucky to get $10,000.

But there are thousands of these productions going on every year. Tens of thousands of jobs for good actors, if they want them. Sure, $500/day is probably big money to these productions, but how many actors would be okay with that? Probably a lot.

So, SAG actors, the ball is squarely, firmly, and entirely in your court. There's nothing the indie producers can do because we're not organized, we don't have the money to be a major force, and SAG doesn't care if we live or die. But you -- you have the organization, you're already members of the organization! You're already organized into a 120,000 member single entity. All you have to do is vote. If the 95% who aren't making a living want a chance to work a lot more, all you have to do is vote. There's 95% of you in that boat -- it only takes 51% to make it happen.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I pretty much agree with what you're writing. The thing about Fi-Core is -- it is the only option that a SAG actor has, if they want to actually work anywhere but LA and NY. Okay, that's a bit extreme, but not that much...

Financial Core undoubtedly weakens the union. I mean, obviously it does -- Fi-Core means that you're resigning from the union! So those who go Fi-Core are definitely weakening the bargaining power of the union.

BUT -- and here's the problem, as I understand it -- if the union doesn't work for its members, then the members probably shouldn't be members anyway. So no matter how you slice it, this is SAG's problem to solve.

It's been said many times that only about 5% of SAG members actually make a living from acting.

Now that AFTRA and SAG have merged, that percentage may be more, due to TV worker coverage.

And I don't know what happened with AFTRA's 'lack of a hard Rule Number One'... many people like newscasters, and other 'local station' workers, may have problems in markets where the station has not setup a union contract.

At the moment, 'Fi-Core' is the only way to protest, and still work on union projects. It is a form of voting, and as I understand it, a Fi-Core actor can not work on a union contract project during a strke. So, there is still some amount of leverage that the union holds, relative to current signatories, and as such does not 'weaking bargaining' power. Fi-Core dues are specifically to be applied to the collective bargaining process... an not anything else. Fi-Core status also contributes to pension and health insurance as well.

In terms of 'things' that affect the ordinary person most of the time, they are 'working'... obvious, but 'health insurance under a group', and 'pension plan under a group'. The latter two items are 1) available to the Fi-Core payer, 2) things that are difficult to get outside a group.

Technically a 'scab', a term used on the SAG site as one of the 'negatives of being Fi-Core', is someone who works during a strike on a company that has been struck by the union. If there is no strike, there is no 'scabbing' to be done.

--------------------
I think it also ironic that this thread was started, apparently from a SAG member, who asked if they could act IN THEIR OWN MOVIE that was not signed up with SAG...

In this case it is not some starving actor (well maybe...) who is desperate for a job (well maybe...), but someone who has a filmic idea, and wants to make a film for themselves...

This shows the total idiocy of the Rule Number One, and how stifling it is for an individual 'to work on projects of their own choosing'.

What is even more ironic, is this person wants to write and direct... which means if they went the 'union route', and had membership in DGA and WGA... they couldn't even 'think' about this movie with out paying themselves those union scales...

In other words, this person would have to have at least a budget of 250K or more, to cover just 'themself alone'... (I wonder if Val Kilmer pays himself double for his current theater performance???)

 

[keylight]

There's nothing the indie producers can do because we're not organized, we don't have the money to be a major force, and SAG doesn't care if we live or die.

I'd vote for Barry Green, for President of some sort of Independent Producers Association.

 

[Belief Pictures]

I think we forget that SAG-AFTRA and ACTRA are businesses. They are out to make money. They put themselves first not their members and certainly not us. I'd love to use SAG actors but that's not realistic. Isn't scale like $655.00 a day?

That's pretty steep on a sub $100K production.

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

I think we forget that SAG-AFTRA and ACTRA are businesses. They are out to make money. They put themselves first not their members and certainly not us. I'd love to use SAG actors but that's not realistic. Isn't scale like $655.00 a day?

That's pretty steep on a sub $100K production.

Scale on productions over $2.5 million is roughly $800 a day.

Under $200,000 and it's $100 a day. Other budgets vary between those two.


Working on a feature with a $500k budget, scale is $268.

 

[sonofaresiii]

Man, this is something no one seems to know about. On the one hand, I've had SAG actors tell me definitely, there is NO waiver, you have to pay scale and follow the union rules. I've looked up and down through the sag guidelines and agreements and can't find a single thing about a waiver.

On the other hand, I've auditioned SAG people, and said "Sorry, we can't do SAG because this is unpaid." And they say, "Oh, just sign the waiver." And they've handed me a waiver.

So... no one really seems to know. If you're that interested in it, I would try and get ahold of an actual SAG rep on the phone or e-mail and see what they say. I have no idea where people are pulling these waivers from, but they seem to exist. Or are completely made up by the actor. I have no idea.

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

Man, this is something no one seems to know about. On the one hand, I've had SAG actors tell me definitely, there is NO waiver, you have to pay scale and follow the union rules. I've looked up and down through the sag guidelines and agreements and can't find a single thing about a waiver.

On the other hand, I've auditioned SAG people, and said "Sorry, we can't do SAG because this is unpaid." And they say, "Oh, just sign the waiver." And they've handed me a waiver.

So... no one really seems to know. If you're that interested in it, I would try and get ahold of an actual SAG rep on the phone or e-mail and see what they say. I have no idea where people are pulling these waivers from, but they seem to exist. Or are completely made up by the actor. I have no idea.

The only "waivers" I know of with SAG, are non-union actors having a waiver signed so they can take part in a union production. SAG requires that if you sign on as a union production, that you consider all possible union members before signing a non-union member. They permit the use of the non-union member with a waiver to their requirement.

Individual actors having "SAG waivers" sounds like they're just trying to convince you it's okay to hire them, so they can find work.

 

[sonofaresiii]

The only "waivers" I know of with SAG, are non-union actors having a waiver signed so they can take part in a union production. SAG requires that if you sign on as a union production, that you consider all possible union members before signing a non-union member. They permit the use of the non-union member with a waiver to their requirement.

Individual actors having "SAG waivers" sounds like they're just trying to convince you it's okay to hire them, so they can find work.

That's what I thought, except-- and correct me if I'm wrong-- I don't get in trouble for hiring a SAG actor on a non-union shoot, right? I'm not a signatory, so I don't have to follow union rules. If a SAG actor wants to work in my film, all the responsibility is on him/her, so why try and convince me it's okay for them to work in my movie? It's their risk to take.

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

That's what I thought, except-- and correct me if I'm wrong-- I don't get in trouble for hiring a SAG actor on a non-union shoot, right? I'm not a signatory, so I don't have to follow union rules. If a SAG actor wants to work in my film, all the responsibility is on him/her, so why try and convince me it's okay for them to work in my movie? It's their risk to take.

As far as fines or something like that, no; but, SAG (or other unions) may put you on their "blacklist" though, and circulate it to their members telling them to never do a production with you.

 

[sunburst]

As far as fines or something like that, no; but, SAG (or other unions) may put you on their "blacklist" though, and circulate it to their members telling them to never do a production with you.

Thats interesting, and I seriously wouldnt doubt it. Be careful, last time I cast in LA, about half
the P/R I got were from Union actors { for my non union shoot }. The casting ad clearly
stated non - union, so you will be pressured into viewing their calling cards/ attention getting
materials.

Its tempting to audition them, and you will find they are definately higher quality than the non union, on average. I asked if they had a problem with me being NON union. No - they wanted to work. { sometimes they use a different stage name. }.

I avoided casting them, because I just felt they were going to be more trouble for my low budget than they were worth, their protesting to the contrary. { expecting more perks, higher quality crew than I actually had, etc. }

So if this blacklisting is possible, I suggest tossing those resumes, and don't be tempted to even audition them.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Right, you have no responsibility whatsoever. The only person who could potentially suffer consequences is the actor. I have two SAG/AFTRA actors in the web series I'm doing and I'm paying them "scale" of $100/day, but not under a SAG contract or SAG rules which I refuse to do. When I'm at a budget level where I have some AD to deal with all that bullshit then fine, but I'm not going to do it.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

That's what I thought, except-- and correct me if I'm wrong-- I don't get in trouble for hiring a SAG actor on a non-union shoot, right? I'm not a signatory, so I don't have to follow union rules. If a SAG actor wants to work in my film, all the responsibility is on him/her, so why try and convince me it's okay for them to work in my movie? It's their risk to take.

The action that SAG can take with a member who is working on a non-union, or non-qualified 'low budget indie', is to expel the member. The now former member can not work on union jobs... the only realistic option at this time for a 'member' who wants to work in a dwindling market, is to go Financial Core (Fi-Core). At that point they are no longer union members, but may work on union jobs or non-union, as the opportunities arise.

The only time that SAG enters into the picture, as a 'problem', for the production company is if they are a 'union company', and they hire non-union workers. They need to get a SAG waiver, and if the actor has a certain number of waivers, they are required to either join the union, or declare Fi-Core status. SAG's action against a union company hiring unwaivered non-union actors, is to strike the company... which most companies don't want...(*)

I've not looked at the SAG low budget indie 'contract' in some time, but I recall while the cash out of pocket for an member was 'less', there was something to the effect of a differed payment of the 'full' scale rate. I'd have to look at it again. There may also be paying for pension and health as well or something like that...

In any case for a no/low budget production, there was some amount of paper work required on the part of the production company to submit and get approval from SAG for member's working on the project, and further, a member could only work on a limited number of such projects per year.


*This is the case for any union situation, independent of SAG. I use to do a lot of installations of 'new equipment' for my day job. The 'new equipment' had never been seen before, since I designed most of it, from the software point of view, and others on the team designed the mechanics and electronics... yet we would be required to have a 'union electrician' doing the 'work' in a union shop. This lead to delays if the union guy was a stickler. In many cases it was better to find the union guy who wanted to sit in the coffee shop, while 'we' installed the equipment, and only show up at the beginning of the shift. On one memorable occasion, my partner picked up a wrench to tight something, the stickler 'union guy' filed a grievance...

I do have a very dim view of some elements of 'unions' and it is usually in the area of 'getting s*%t done'... in my experience, us installing the equipment would have in no way impacted, lessened(**), or caused some union guy to lose his job...

**Ok more footnotes... in point of fact the equipment I was installing was the first of a large order which eventually automated quite a bit of the process, and further the most of the equipment was going to be installed in places other than the initial plant... so in that sense jobs were going to be lost... but the union had provided a reeducation program to retrain in other areas... guess what... only 1 person a department of 20 was taking advantage of the retraining, while the other 19 where wont to grumble about how the union wasn't doing enough for them...

But I digress... big time...

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

They need to be more like the other unions. My DP is a union 1st AC/Operator. When he works on my projects he calls the unions says

DP: Yeah, so I'm working on this short
Union: What's the budget
DP: I think about $4K
Union: OK... yeah.. whatever, do whatever you want.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

They need to be more like the other unions. My DP is a union 1st AC/Operator. When he works on my projects he calls the unions says

DP: Yeah, so I'm working on this short
Union: What's the budget
DP: I think about $4K
Union: OK... yeah.. whatever, do whatever you want.

I don't know exactly what 'budget' would be appropriate to cover 99% of the low/no budget cases, but I really think these days < 10-15K is absolutely not a 'union' competition potential.

The problem of course is for the panties in a bunch crowd, how to 'audit', the production, to find out if some sneaky producer has not created 100 'small productions', such that when they are all cut together make a 1M budget film... right...

 

[dop16mm]

The return of the serial!!! 10 minute webisodes done under the low budget contract, ultimately released as a feature? I'd never heard of Fi-core before this thread, but it makes sense, most of the video box 'stars' must have taken this route. It totally validates the stories I've heard of meeting the actor from L.A. with a town-car and $5000 cash in an envelope, no contract.

I have the advantage of living in a non-industry town, where no one, cast or crew has any expectation of getting paid. Is community theatre exploitational? People gladly give up a couple of months of Hobby time to a show, and procedes go to the maintenance of the theater. The Artistic director that works at this full time may eek out a meager existence, and is not begrudged for it. Why should it be any different for the ultra-low budget producer/director. I would love to be able to pay people, but not before myself. The only way that would be even possible is guaranteed distribution, cable whatever for x-amount of dollars. Without that its just lottery tickets. I'd rather ask people to join my film for the fun of it than try to scam some people to give us money to get paid, without any genuine hope of being able to pay that back.

The breakthrough no-budgets of years past would have had zero line item for salaries, it all went to film stock. These were not done with full grip trucks of rented gear either, it was either begged, borrowed or whatever. It is no different for current no budgets done with personally owned gear. Except for one fundimental difference, the barrier cost of film resulted in far fewer of those types of productions, and so a higher percentage of success stories.

So yeah if you're putting money into renting a red or whatever and all the cool stuff to go with it, then try to come up with the money to pay everyone $100 a day, crew included. If all you've got is a Gh2 and a dream, it better be a good script. Either way why would you mortgage your life to a SAG contract when you'll be working for nothing for the next year hoping they don't repo your iMac.

 

[Belief Pictures]

Well that is if you use the low budget agreements. They state that they must be shot in the US. I am wondering why?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I have the advantage of living in a non-industry town, where no one, cast or crew has any expectation of getting paid. Is community theatre exploitational?

Actor's Equity would be the union for stage actors. And a quick look to their site, indicates that they do put out notices in regard to their members working in other union's jurisdictions, such as SAG, and they have a list of 'no work for this production', which apparently included 'The Hobbit" for some period of time.

In the quick view, I didn't see a 'rule number one', but I did see something to the effect of a member needs to notify the union if they are going to work on a non-union project in another area... such as working for a nolo budget film.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Well that is if you use the low budget agreements. They state that they must be shot in the US. I am wondering why?

A 'normal' SAG contract has provisions for travel. There's a 'distance' from the residence of an actor, and if that distance is exceeded, travel packages apply. I'd imagine two reasons... 1) travel to a country would, other than Canada and Mexico, be not according to SAG travel scale, 2) tighter control on the 'production'.

One note that... if the SAG member is traveling by air, unless there are 6 others traveling on the same flight, the SAG member must be booked in First Class...

So, if an 'indie' in Vancouver wanted a SAG actor from LA that would be about $1200 roundtrip (economy class would be about $400) + $5K for the week minimum... just to get them to Vancouver... then there's the per diem for the hotel and meals.

And speaking of which... I once got vectored off to Canadian immigration because I stated I was visiting the Vancouver area for 'business'... they wanted to know if I was being 'employed' by someone... as it was I was a presenter at a photo convention... but it was a one time deal..

I suppose someone could claim they were just a 'tourist' but that would probably be against some regulations...