casting noob.. SAG and other union actors.

[astigmatic]

So my casting call went out and I"m getting replys from actors that are sag. I stated that this was a non-union project so I don't get why they're applying? Is there an auto reply function on some of these casting sites? Anyways, it sucks because it seems like the actors that meet what I want are mostly union, lol... Is this why they do it? To get me to go union or are they hinting that they're willing to go non union even though they are union ?

 

[Barry_Green]

You can hire them if you want. Their SAG status is their problem, not yours. As long as you tell them it's a non-union shoot, it's their decision as to whether they want to work it or not.

When they show up to audition, reiterate that it's non-union. If they go forward, then hire 'em if you want.

 

[astigmatic]

yeah, that's what I'll do. I think I know what's going on. There are so many actors in LA, that I don't think SAG keeps track if their talent does non-union work, or really even cares, especially shorts..

 

[NoahK]

Yeah be careful, if SAG smells a penny in your wallet they will come after you for a dime.

Noah

 

[astigmatic]

oh gad darnit... So how does one become a sag signatory? Does using the Ultra-low budget agreement get around this? I thnk my short is over 30 mins(37 pages of script).. am I screwed?

 

[Barry_Green]

I'm not quite following what you're saying here. Are you saying that SAG is an illegal organization that will illegally extort from a legitimate company who in good faith hired an employee? If so, I think the people who enforce the RICO statutes might have something to say about that.

This is, last I checked, America (all due apologies to those outside of America for the rest of this). It is a free country. There is nothing illegal or immoral or unethical or conspiring or "knowingly" ANYTHING about offering employment to an actor. You have a job available, you are free to hire anyone who shows up to audition for it (regardless of their union affiliation or lack thereof).

A non-signatory company has NO obligation to SAG whatsoever. None. Zero. They have no relationship to, and no obligation to, the union. I again assert, if a union member chooses to violate their union standing, that is the union member's business, but it doesn't have any legal repercussions on the employer at all.

Now, you can of course argue that LEGALLY it's okay, but behind the scenes this-and-that will happen. Fine. Again I say that what you're talking about sounds like illegal racketeering and attempting to harm a legitimate producer's ability to earn a living through conspiring. And that should certainly be illegal and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

If SAG wants to put your name on a list saying "don't work for this guy, because he had the audacity to actually hire and pay some of our members for work performed" then ... well... yeah. Whatever. Oooh, don't go work for that guy, because he'll actually hire you and pay you... for a union where barely 5% of the membership can make a living at their craft, boy, that's the last thing we want is to have companies actually hiring our members... (yeah, yeah, I know, signatories, but come freakin' on!)

A union has influence over its membership, yes. Including the ability to fine or even expel members, yes. But the union does not hold any influence over someone who has no bearing or relationship to that union. A non-union production is absolutely entitled to, and will find it legal to, and appropriate to, offer employment to anyone it chooses to, whether union or non-union. That is a legal right. It is up to the union member to decide whether they want to abide by their own union rules. And don't be surprised if union actors accept it -- we are in the middle of the Great Recession, with about 10% unemployment and 95% of SAG members not able to make a living wage. Of course they're going to look at non-union producers.

And, furthermore, while a union can have influence over their union members and fine or expel them, the union cannot prevent a member from earning a living. That's already an issue that's been settled by the US Supreme Court. If a union member cannot make a living by accepting only union-only work, and has to also take non-union work to get by, then the union *cannot* penalize them for it. The person can resign from the union, and work non-union, and also maintain full eligibility to work on union productions too. That's called going "financial core" and is a right available to all union members, not just SAG. And the union cannot say a single thing about it. People are entitled to eat, regardless of the implications to "Global Rule One."

If I misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize.

If SAG can articulate that a producer "knowingly" hired SAG actors on a non-signatory production they sometimes go forth with "must be signatory". So if an actor really want's a gig and is SAG they must hide it from the production company, the production company _should_ refuse to film them if union membership is discovered as the actor can face expulsion from the union after the production is completed and seen (but in most cases this does not happen, SAG just quietly sneaks up onto the production company (after scaring the Actor with expulsion and receiving needed documentation), the person that broke "Golen Rule #1" is now a witness - the only time they don't is when that production is an AFTRA signatory, as SAG/AFTRA have some money locked up in escrow that the other automatically wins if _ever_ a signatory of either is harassed by the other (after their debate whether "HD" is Film or Video/Television.)

Worse yet, if the OP's film-making carrer does not end with this film, his name will go onto some list of "Willingly Conspired to Violate Global Rule 1." or ineligible for signatory type stuff.

 

[astigmatic]

yeah you're right.. I'm in no contract with SAG. I really feel bad for the catch22 they're in. I mean, I'm a nobody who just wants to tell a short story, yet they're willing to violate a contract for it. Maybe it'll make some end meet, or at least give them hope for a good reel... They shouldn't have to worry about this union stuff for this type of gig.

 

[Ted Spencer]

So if an actor really want's a gig and is SAG they must hide it from the production company, the production company _should_ refuse to film them if union membership is discovered as the actor can face expulsion from the union after the production is completed and seen (but in most cases this does not happen, SAG just quietly sneaks up onto the production company (after scaring the Actor with expulsion and receiving needed documentation), the person that broke "Golen Rule #1" is now a witness - the only time they don't is when that production is an AFTRA signatory, as SAG/AFTRA have some money locked up in escrow that the other automatically wins if _ever_ a signatory of either is harassed by the other (after their debate whether "HD" is Film or Video/Television.)

Will the Writer's Guild come after you for run-on sentences?

j/k : )

 

[Barry_Green]

oh gad darnit... So how does one become a sag signatory? Does using the Ultra-low budget agreement get around this? I thnk my short is over 30 mins(37 pages of script).. am I screwed?

You can start the signatory process by going to sagindie.org.

However, if you sign as a signatory, anything you ever produce for the rest of eternity has to be SAG. Once a signatory, always a signatory.

Which is why common practice is to form a separate corporation or LLC and have THAT entity sign as a signatory. When you do that, any production that entity produces must be SAG, but you could produce something apart from that entity (either through another corporation or LLC, or even personally) without it having to be SAG.

Simple advice: if you're doing something small, no profit potential, etc., just try to go non-union. If you've got a great actor who really, really wants to be in your picture but they simply won't do any non-union work, then consider establishing an LLC (most states you can do this for under a few hundred dollars) and sign the signatory agreements in that LLC. But you'll need a few months' advance notice to get the paperwork started.

The "low budget" agreements do NOTHING to minimize your SAG-ness... they provide lower rates of pay for actors, and can alleviate a few of the more onerous burdens (such as consecutive employement, etc) but when you sign the ultra low budget agreement or the short film agreement, you are ALSO signing the entire Basic Agreement. Which is why, once you're SAG (even under the ultra low budget agreement) you're eligible to try to hire Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford. You probably won't get 'em, but you might. You have pretty much no shot at getting them if you're not a SAG signatory. (and by "you", I mean "if the producing entity of the film isn't a SAG signatory").

 

[astigmatic]

Okay thanks. That's way too much complication for this project. I'm up to my head in preproduction and R&D and can't deal with those complications. The project will be non-union and I will make sure the actors know this. If they still want to audtion then they do so knowingly and willingly.

 

[Chamber005]

ROFL!!

Why...in the cosmos would anyone here think for a moment SAG can prevent anyone from doing ANYTHING who is not in their little club? As Barry said, there is absolutely under no circumstances ANY legal grounds in which SAG can in ANY WAY come after a filmmaker for having had a shoot with a SAG actor.

People are bringing up unemployment and...wtf? That has NOTHING to do with you or your corporation in ANY regard. If I tip a waiter and he doesn't report it, that's his fault. The company he works for is not in any legal danger, ever.

SAG matters to people who are a part of SAG. If you are not a part of their club and are not doing a project that includes their label you do not have to give a single poo what their rules are, period.

Please.

 

[astigmatic]

I think you are arguing something different. People are saying that SAG can't touch a non-signatory for hiring someone who is SAG. You are saying that a SAG actor can get in trouble for working on a non-union project. Both points seem to be correct to me. Oh and thanks for the 1099 heads up. I"m asssuming that's the correct form to pay these guys with?

 

[Blaine]

Okay thanks. That's way too much complication for this project. I'm up to my head in preproduction and R&D and can't deal with those complications. The project will be non-union and I will make sure the actors know this. If they still want to audtion then they do so knowingly and willingly.

Okay, you're doing a short. Here are the requirements for a SAG short. ALL MONETARY RENUMERATIONS can be deferred...in other words, SAG doesn't expect the actors to get paid.

Short Film Agreement

Total budget of less than $50,000
35 minutes or less
Salaries are deferred
No consecutive employment (except on overnight location)
No premiums
Allows the use of both professional and non-professional performers
Background performers not covered

We have done several shorts and SAG was actually surprised that we were going to pay the minimum $100 deferred. In our case that necessitated paying the fringes. If you are going to defer the payment (never actually pay them) you don't need to worry about the fringes.

SAG wants you to use their members EVEN if you aren't in a position to pay them.
http://www.sagindie.com/docs/sag-short-film-agreement-sample2009.pdf


SAGIndie has a workshop in L.A. on December 10 and again on January 14. They explain everything you need to know about using Union talent on your short. It's really not that big a deal and as long as you are willing to keep up with the paperwork you can have "professional" talent for the same cost you would "pay" non-professional talent.

 

[Blaine]

For a "short" I think you are WAY over-thinking this. Union members are working on non-union projects all the time. From the Producer's POV, it's no big deal to go union for a short or even Ultra-Low Budget contract.

 

[Barry_Green]

But... DJDecay... there's NOTHING to be hit up. Not the producer, not the production company, not the distributor. No contractual obligation exists with SAG at any level, when the original production is non-union.

Here's the scenario: phone rings. You answer. SAG says "you used our actor." You say "so?" SAG says "you owe us money." You say "No I don't." Then you hang up.

Done.

There's no hassle. There's no contractual obligations. You didn't sign anything. You didn't commit to anything. You did nothing wrong.

What, exactly, do you think SAG is going to do? Nobody owes them anything. If ANYONE has a problem, it's the actor, and even then the actor doesn't owe them anything based on wages! They may get fined, but there's no employer-employee relationship that SAG can touch in any way, shape, or form.

SAG can call the distributor and say "pay us for this film that we have no claim on", and the distributor can say "go to hell." SAG has no jurisdiction. I could show up at your job tomorrow and start demanding payment for all the DVXUser posts you've read too, and I'm pretty sure I know what you'd say to me: "I don't know what you're talking about, I never agreed to pay you anything, go to hell." And my claim would be just as legitimate as SAG's in this scenario.

The behavior you're describing is nothing more than a classic organized-crime shake-down. If SAG tries it, you should refer them to your friendly neighborhood FBI agent for racketeering.

The production company has no obligation to SAG on a non-union production. The distributor has no obligation to SAG, on a non-union production. The theather has no obligation to SAG on a non-union production. The actor, for that matter, has no obligation to SAG to pay health & welfare or pension benefits or anything else, on a non-union production (as far as I know, but not being a card-carrying SAG member I'll admit that I may be fuzzy on that one). Yes the actor has vowed to not take non-union work, but they pretty much all do anyway.

I'm really not following where you're saying the problem is. So SAG calls me to confirm that I hired someone, and asks for the day reports and whatever. I say "Sorry, that was a non-union shoot." <click>. That's the end of it. Over, done, and out. Finished.

Where are you thinking that there's any further liability? You say that SAG might try to shake down anyone further up the chain? On what basis? Why would they think they're entitled to anything? And why would anyone, anywhere in the chain, listen?

(and, by the way, I have no problem with SAG, I support them working on behalf of their actors to secure workable wages and benefits for their members, and for those who want to voluntarily join such an organization and gain the benefits of collective bargaining, well, fine for them.)

Are you somehow implying that because wages got paid, the union somehow "gets a cut"? That's simply not the way it works. The union gets dues from the actor, and health & pension payments from the signatory production company. That's where the legal obligations begin and end. On a non-union production, SAG gets nothing, from either party. Just like I don't have to pay the United Auto Workers Union anything if I hired one of their members to paint my house. It has nothing to do with the UAW. And a nonunion production that hires an actor has nothing to do with SAG. Neither the production, nor any entity thereafter, owes any liability to that union when no contractual obligation existed in the first place.

Now -- if there's a clause in the basic agreement that binds any signatory distributor to not distribute non-union pictures that have SAG actors in them, I'm not aware of it. But if that exists, I can see your point. At that point, the distributor can decide to convert the production to SAG after the fact and pay SAG wages and fees and whatnot, but that's about the only way I could see there being any legitimacy to this notion at all.

 

[astigmatic]

I live in san diego so I don't think I can make it to LA this thursday for the workshop.. I"ll try though.

What do you mean by "fringes"? Are you saying one has to pay extra stuff if they decide to give actors money for the gig(that would give the incentive not to pay at all)? I"m paying gas, meals, +100 bucks a day. Some may be commuting from LA... I don't want to have to pay hotel and day care...lol.

Okay, you're doing a short. Here are the requirements for a SAG short. ALL MONETARY RENUMERATIONS can be deferred...in other words, SAG doesn't expect the actors to get paid.

Short Film Agreement

Total budget of less than $50,000
35 minutes or less
Salaries are deferred
No consecutive employment (except on overnight location)
No premiums
Allows the use of both professional and non-professional performers
Background performers not covered

We have done several shorts and SAG was actually surprised that we were going to pay the minimum $100 deferred. In our case that necessitated paying the fringes. If you are going to defer the payment (never actually pay them) you don't need to worry about the fringes.

SAG wants you to use their members EVEN if you aren't in a position to pay them.
http://www.sagindie.com/docs/sag-short-film-agreement-sample2009.pdf


SAGIndie has a workshop in L.A. on December 10 and again on January 14. They explain everything you need to know about using Union talent on your short. It's really not that big a deal and as long as you are willing to keep up with the paperwork you can have "professional" talent for the same cost you would "pay" non-professional talent.

 

[Chamber005]

I'm guessing you've never dealt with payroll or just went through payroll companies to abstract you from understanding the mechanics of payroll and states unemployment programs - specifically NY and CA.

Now if your production company pays anyone over $600 per annum on a 1099 basis not only are you behooved by the Tax code to report that to IRS but also send someone you've hired a physical document showing their wages.

If you're paying them payroll style, then you'll need to qualify insurance, with-hold income tax on a state/local/federal level - and dispatch this withheld income tax quickly to the govt. entities.

Due to recent changes about "Inter-Agency Information Sharing" local and state governments now can co-operate with the IRS to collate your records/their records.

If you hire an actor, who also happens to get paid in cash by you and claims unemployment while not on a SAG job - they will have problems,

But - IF they by chance attribute their cash income received from you to their annual SAG earnings to meet minimum requirements for _health insurance_ and _unemployment_ eligibility, SAG will immediately become aware of a non-signatory
paying their actor.

This is what I was trying to say in response to "It's not like SAG is so busy enforcing their actors" blah.. blah..

If an actor only needs $500 more dollars or 2 more working days on their YTD to meet the 74 day/$16k health insurance requirements - are they going to be thinking about not working for a signatory production?

That is the reality - Yes in a perfect "free country" system this would all work well. I'm just showing the potential of how SAG will quickly become aware (most likely at the hands of the Actor themselves) about a non-signatory hiring SAG actors without doing any legwork whatsoever.

In order for them not to become aware, the _production company_ needs to take the Actor aside and tell them "Look, this is under-the-table, cash, etc..."

A.K.A. Consipracy to commit tax fraud.

If the production company does not do this, then given the amount of actors in the picture one or two will be dumb enough to attribute it to their YTD with SAG.
SAG then will call your production company to "confirm" eligibility for the days/money of the Actor, asking if such and such actor worked for your production during the month of Feb.as they won't find you on their signatory roster nor be able to cross reference you via E.P. (Entertainment Partners or other known payroll service) (Fade to black..)

As for the waiter analogy, actually the Company/Restuarant withold a default amount of income tax, IRS automatically assumes you're "cheating" with the tips if you're in any gratuity based job. The company holds anywhere from 10% to 20% and does a %50 withholding report on your behalf if your're a Waiter. *SURPRISED?* If that "tip jar" money is not sent to IRS with-in those 2 payroll calendar weeks, IRS will fine you and come after your restaurant. (Sure not in any LEGAL danger (see prison), but fined by IRS with percentages is serious enough for me..)

Okay, you're referring to the actor then not the production company, gotchya. My point was only that a person should never worry about someone else's affiliations -- that's the other person's business.

Also, I could be vague on the law, I've only dealt with payroll wages, but I'm relatively certain that if someone 1099s themselves, the company who is paying them only reports those disbursements when they're filing their own taxes. It's not like, "Oh, I just paid out 2K. I'm going to report it right now." Depending on your company's structure (Inc vs LLC) you would simply report that disbursement when you file with your accountant.

 

[Chamber005]

I think its called the "SAG Distributor's Assumption Agreement." also check out SAG Commercials Memorandum of Agreement - between them and JPC. Only entity exempted is AFTRA or the direct employees of the Advertiser (such as the BestBuy x-mas commericals that were recently shot around here using genuine BestBuy employees.)

Somewhere in there "Transferee" agrees "for benefit of SAG" to pay.....

@Barry - Here is an interesting Article in PDF about SAG shakedowns of anyone further up the chain. In both directions, signatory production, signatory distribution, etc.. etc..
You say RICO, I say TORT. .

http://www.winston.com/siteFiles/Publications/Athlete_SAG_DailyJournal_v2.pdf

So that it does not seem like I'm just running my mouth for nothing. SAG did and will attempt to sue anyone with money involved in hiring via non-signatory a member of the Guild. Any distributor, JPC authorizer and other will immediately turn a non-union spot into a SAG Assumption spot.

The grim outlook is SAG decided that people will try to "knowingly" bypass the non-signatory SAG hiring, and decided to sue.. Not their members, production companies, ad adgencies and advertisers.

P.S. This post is not against SAG in any way . I like them as well.

http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentid=34&itemid=2244

Dude...I promise you're confused on this.

If I hire a carpenter who is a part of a union, his union cannot and will not ever come after me, whether I knew he was in a union or not. And if they tried I PROMISE you a judge would literally wipe his ass with the document and throw it in the union's face at NO legal expense to you.

NO ONE ANYWHERE is under ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION to anyone they hire unless it pertains to FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS (e.g. minors, handicapped, etc). SAG is a union. They only matter in union matters. The only people who they can affect in any legal or financial regard are people who are either in their union or who have signed a contract with them. If I work with a carpenter who is in a union, I have not legally obligated myself to his union. Period, the end.

That's why SAG and The Writer's Guild have to do their little strikes -- because companies aren't paying them what they want or going by their rules, and a union can't do anything about any of it...except to strike. If at any point someone walks off the line and decides to take a job writing, the production company that they just walked back into is 100% free to hire them and have them do work while SAG and all it's members continue marching with their signs.

Just because someone joins a union, it does not mean that the union owns them (or anyone they might work for). It means simply that if they break the rules, they're out; if a production company doesn't make good on its contractual obligations, they're sued. That's it.

(and to the article you linked, first it doesn't sound like SAG is going to get their sticky fingers on those additional funds from the guys who hire the signatory, but more importantly -- THERE IS A CONTRACT INVOLVED WITH SAG. Example: You hired someone to hire someone. The person you hired had to sign all of the contracts, etc to work with this SAG person on this SAG production. So even though *your* company didn't sign anything, the company you *hired* did, thus SAG's position in this case. But if you hire a company to do a commercial and they hire a SAG person but it is not a SAG commercial and no SAG contracts were signed, NO WAY does SAG have a toenail to stand on)

 

[Blaine]

hat do you mean by "fringes"? Are you saying one has to pay extra stuff if they decide to give actors money for the gig(that would give the incentive not to pay at all)? I"m paying gas, meals, +100 bucks a day. Some may be commuting from LA... I don't want to have to pay hotel and day care...lol.

Fringes are the Retirement and Health program. It's currently 14.8% of their pay.

 

[Barry_Green]

I think its called the "SAG Distributor's Assumption Agreement."

Still not relevant to a non-signatory producer at all. The DAG is only relevant when the producer has signed onto SAG, and produced a film under the jurisdiction of one of the SAG agreements. When doing so, the producer is contractually bound to all SAG terms, and one of the conditions of the SAG contract is that if you sell the film to a distributor, you are contractually obligated to get the distributor to sign the Distributor's Assumption Agreement (which all SAG signatory distributors are automatically assumed to have done; if it's a non-SAG signatory distributor, they may refuse to sign it, and if so, the ERISA obligations remain the producer's burden).

However, none of this has any relevance at all if the film was produced non-union. If you are a non-union producer, you are not bound to ANY union obligations at all, because no contractual obligation exists between you and the union. Plain and simple, over and out, done.

also check out SAG Commercials Memorandum of Agreement - between them and JPC. Only entity exempted is AFTRA or the direct employees of the Advertiser (such as the BestBuy x-mas commericals that were recently shot around here using genuine BestBuy employees.)

Again, only relevant if the producer has actually signed the Commercials Memorandum of Agreement. If the producer hasn't signed that, then no (repeat NO) connection to SAG exists, regardless if the actors are union or not.

@Barry - Here is an interesting Article in PDF about SAG shakedowns of anyone further up the chain. In both directions, signatory production, signatory distribution, etc.. etc..

Yes, that is quite interesting. That is an example of tort extortion, and you can almost see SAG's point in that. However, the fact remains that the advertiser isn't a signatory, and therefore no obligation to SAG exists. And it's interesting that the most pro-union, liberal court in the land, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has rejected SAG's contention that dual-employment exists in this scenario if no fraud is found.

SAG's contention here is that (apparently) the ad agency IS a signatory, and they believe the ad agency is still fully involved, and that the agency is trying to conspire with the advertiser to renege on the ad agency's contractual obligations to SAG. But the thing is -- even if SAG wins that case, it still has NO bearing on what we're talking about. The loophole SAG is trying to exploit here is that the advertising agency is typically the one that employs the actor, and the advertising agency is a SAG signatory, so they're contending that fraud is happening because they're all the same parties, all still involved, and they're shuffling the contract over to the advertiser (as an "alter ego") specifically to avoid SAG fees. But there's no assertion here that "hey, because the actor is a member of SAG, you have to pay SAG rates!" Instead, the assertion is that a SAG signatory is trying to weasel out of it by fraudulently assigning responsibility to a non-signatory entity. And, that's still only an allegation; the court may find that indeed there is no fraud or alter ego scenario occurring; that's up to the court to decide.

Regardless, that scenario has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. We're talking about a non-signatory independent filmmaker offering a casting call for non-union work, and SAG actors offering to work non-union. In this scenario, there is no signatory to be found anywhere. Therefore, SAG has not a leg, not a foot, not a toe, not even an atom of toe fungus to stand on, and the employer (the independent filmmaker) is absolutely 110% free of any obligations of any kind to the union. If any penalty applies to any party anywhere here, it is between the union and their wayward union member. And so it remains the union member's right to choose whether they feel that the rewards of working on the production outweigh the risks of, or moral quandaries that come from, violating their promises to the union. But the issue is entirely between the union and its member, and the producer is absolutely free of any consequences.

The Ninth Circuit Court of appeals has also flatly rejected the notion that a non-signatory employer owes any obligation to the union, nor does a signatory employer when owe any obligation to the union when that signatory employer didn't actually employ the actor in question on the job in question. Which further deflates SAG's argument. I mean, read the article:

Case in point: the 9th Circuit held that a contractor who was not a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement could not be held liable as an employer under ERISA.

Says it all right there. That's an over-and-out, case-closed, shut and slammed door. Unless the US Supreme Court overturns that ruling, that's settled case law by the next-highest court in the land.

And you know what? I think the claim in that case was far more likely to be upheld than the claim you're trying to say SAG could make against an indie filmmaker. Why? Because in that case (Majestic), a contractor hired a subcontractor who hired an employee. The subcontractor *was* a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement, which obligated him to make ERISA payments. The sub failed to do so, so the employee sued the contractor -- who was not a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement. The court held that he was not liable for the sub's signatory status. But, the point is, at least in that case, SOMEONE was a signatory! In our independent filmmaker example, NOBODY is a signatory, therefore SAG has ABSOLUTELY NO POSSIBLE WAY TO MAKE ANY CLAIM.

Another quote from that same article:

Simply put, in California, a nonsignatory to a collective bargaining agreement is not liable under ERISA, except in limited circumstances involving alter-ego relationships or fraud."

And if they're not liable under California, it's a very very very safe bet they're not liable in any State in the Union.

Now -- let's make the standard disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I would of course advise anyone who's in any way worried about legal repercussions, to contact a competent and qualified lawyer and get appropriate legal counsel in their state about state and ERISA laws.

But I am very very very very confident in my assertion that SAG has absolutely no say in the private dealings of a non-signatory producer, regarding who that producer hires (whether union or not). They can set up a picket line, of course, but that would be ridiculous; and they have no legal basis to make a claim against the employer in any way. Of course, if the employer is somehow breaking the law, by not paying minimum wage or breaking child labor laws, then sure, SAG could get involved and call the cops on the employer, but that's no different or no more binding than if any private citizen were to report the same activity.

Now, as far as the law is concerned, if there's fraud involved, then there's fraud, and all bets are off. But a good-faith independent non-signatory producer can legally hire anyone s/he wants to, without any fear of legal entanglements because of the Screen Actor's Guild or any other union. (racketeering or other illegal activities notwithstanding; anyone can shake you down for any reason so there's no way to avoid that entirely. All you can do in a case like that is either acquiesce to their bribe, or involve the feds under the RICO statutes, same as you would do under any criminal threat.)

So that it does not seem like I'm just running my mouth for nothing. SAG did and will attempt to sue anyone with money involved in hiring via non-signatory a member of the Guild.

Not true. Read the article. In every case in that article, there was a signatory involved somewhere along the chain.

Any distributor, JPC authorizer and other will immediately turn a non-union spot into a SAG Assumption spot.

Not true. Only if there's a signatory involved somewhere, and if there's fraud or an "alter ego" relationship. If it's a case of only non-signatories involved, no claim is made.

The grim outlook is SAG decided that people will try to "knowingly" bypass the non-signatory SAG hiring, and decided to sue.. Not their members, production companies, ad adgencies and advertisers.

No, what SAG decided is that their signatories tried to knowingly bypass the union by establishing a fraudulent/alter-ego relationship. That's a whole different ball of wax. Had there been no signatory in the process at all, they wouldn't have had any basis to make a claim.