Non SAG Actor minimum wages?

[Mickey Munday]

there's a basic short film agreement for non union actors for non pay that you can easily customize to be tailored to whatever project you're doing. basically gives you the right to use the actors for whatever you want as long as they receive a copy and possibly meals during the production. i have a word doc version if you can't find one.

 

[Peter Hootman]

if you could send me the word doc I would be forever grateful. I have been looking online and have found a lot of releases, but I found so many different ones that I wasn't sure which was right. My email is peterhootman@gmail.com

Thanks so very much.
Pete

 

[Stryfe]

Me too, please.

stryfecitadel@hotmail.com

 

[Chamber005]

This is all kind of odd, IMO. When you're dealing with the "ultra low budget", you're never going to get a name actor into your movie, so why would you ever deal with anyone in SAG? It makes much, much more sense to use stage actors and simply direct them towards a more subtle performance than they might be privy to. That way you don't have to deal with any of the SAG rule nonsense.

And what's better is that you can probably nab a pretty established stage persona for your project as I've found stage people are much more concerned about the craft and the characters, whereas a film personality won't even stop to sign your autograph, let alone do your movie for next to nothing -- unless they're your grandma's friend's kid, right?

 

[Michele Seidman]

Chambered

I went through this with someone else about stage actors. I started with stage so I am not talking out of turn. But early on...I got little camera work BECAUSE of my stage training. The 2 mediums do require different styles and film needs things to be very subtle compared to stage. Stage actors may care about their craft ( I still do stage and love it), but many think they don't need to alter their craft or their habits are so instilled it is hard to get them to tone it for camera work.

Now..on SAG talent...more than 85% of all SAG actors make less than $5000 a year working on Union projects. So why not use SAG actors? There are way more non famous, starving union actors who would love to do the indie film work for low pay.

Seems you assume all SAG actors are famous and rich by the statement "a film personality won't even stop to sign your autograph, let alone do your movie for next to nothing"

That is less the 1% of working actors!

 

[JonathanLB]

Chambered

I went through this with someone else about stage actors. I started with stage so I am not talking out of turn. But early on...I got little camera work BECAUSE of my stage training. The 2 mediums do require different styles and film needs things to be very subtle compared to stage. Stage actors may care about their craft ( I still do stage and love it), but many think they don't need to alter their craft or their habits are so instilled it is hard to get them to tone it for camera work.

Now..on SAG talent...more than 85% of all SAG actors make less than $5000 a year working on Union projects. So why not use SAG actors? There are way more non famous, starving union actors who would love to do the indie film work for low pay.

Seems you assume all SAG actors are famous and rich by the statement "a film personality won't even stop to sign your autograph, let alone do your movie for next to nothing"

That is less the 1% of working actors!

Yeah, that's a mistaken idea to be sure. On my last short we had 13 actors, 8 of them were SAG. They weren't famous actors, they were just working professionals, a few bigger than the others, but SAG doesn't imply huge name.

 

[Blaine]

And while using a SAG actor is not a guarantee of quality (I've seen some pretty bad SAG actors) the chances are better considering what it takes to become and remain a SAG actor.

 

[Chamber005]

Yeah, that's a mistaken idea to be sure. On my last short we had 13 actors, 8 of them were SAG. They weren't famous actors, they were just working professionals, a few bigger than the others, but SAG doesn't imply huge name.

No, my point is that a great SAG actor will cost you more than a great Equity actor. Because one is used to getting paid more than the other.

If you're a fabulous actor and you are a SAG member, chances are you've got work. If you're a fabulous actor and an Equity member, there's simply FAR less Equity projects out there for you to grab hold of.

But, come on, in the end all that matters is who you can afford and who is right for the role. Hell, you might find the best person for the role and they're a non-actor who will work for sandwiches. It's all about getting the right person for the right role. SAG or Equity or never-acted-before-in-their-life. Doesn't matter. Whatever's right and whatever you can afford is what there is.

If you actually have any kind of budget for talent, though, I honestly think you'd be best served getting TWO DAYS of shooting with a "name" actor than spreading the wealth around to a bunch of unknowns. I mean, as the filmmaker and producer YOU have to risk all of YOUR money. If the actors believe in the project and can see that there is a name actor attached to the project, the least they can do is put off getting paid until after the thing is sold.

But there's just too many factors -- all of which depend on YOUR final vision of the film and YOUR business strategy.

 

[Blaine]

I think sometimes people don't realize that you can get a pretty decent SAG actor at a comparatively reasonable rate. StarMeter rating of 20,000 for $200/day for example. Granted we've paid much more than that, but it can be done.

 

[JonathanLB]

I think sometimes people don't realize that you can get a pretty decent SAG actor at a comparatively reasonable rate. StarMeter rating of 20,000 for $200/day for example. Granted we've paid much more than that, but it can be done.

We had 2-3 inside of 20,000 for $100/day actually, nobody besides the lead made more than $100 for a day, but it was only 2-3 hour days for them, easy work, come in, deliver a few lines, leave. Not too bad. But they did it because I have a guardian angel, haha, my friend and co-producer who is an actress herself knows all of these people and convinced them it would be a fun project, so we got kind of ridiculous talent for not much money. Everyone just wanted to help and have it be a fun project. They definitely did NOT have to do some green director's comedy short, hehe.

Everyone we had was great, my co-producer is apparently not SAG yet, which surprises me, but I think she was holding off, she does tons of great work, has been in a few feature films and commercial campaigns and whatnot, so that is why I was surprised she wasn't SAG. But everyone was fantastic, definitely the quality of SAG actors I have worked with has been extremely high. On another short I had a SAG actor work on it for free, non-union shoot, his risk not mine, and he was amazing! He really made the other actor look like a n00b by comparison, even though he was fairly good too. He was one of the best actors I've yet worked with, that SAG guy who I would never name, haha. Don't want anyone getting in trouble.

I'm SAG signatory now, though, so I can hire SAG when I want, yay.

 

[jls4]

But, come on, in the end all that matters is who you can afford and who is right for the role. Hell, you might find the best person for the role and they're a non-actor who will work for sandwiches. It's all about getting the right person for the right role. SAG or Equity or never-acted-before-in-their-life. Doesn't matter. Whatever's right and whatever you can afford is what there is.

If you actually have any kind of budget for talent, though, I honestly think you'd be best served getting TWO DAYS of shooting with a "name" actor than spreading the wealth around to a bunch of unknowns. I mean, as the filmmaker and producer YOU have to risk all of YOUR money. If the actors believe in the project and can see that there is a name actor attached to the project, the least they can do is put off getting paid until after the thing is sold.

But there's just too many factors -- all of which depend on YOUR final vision of the film and YOUR business strategy.

We had 2-3 inside of 20,000 for $100/day actually, nobody besides the lead made more than $100 for a day, ... He really made the other actor look like a n00b by comparison, even though he was fairly good too. He was one of the best actors I've yet worked with, that SAG guy who I would never name, haha.

I have to say in my experience I agree more with Chamber on this one. The concept that SAG in some way controls every good actor is extremely far from the truth. While I'm not against SAG, and I hope to go SAG on my next project, for small projects there may be no reason to go SAG at all. First we all must remember that we come from different cultures, what I mean by that is some of us are in LA/Hollywood, some are in New York, some are in Kansas. Me, I'm in Atlanta. Georgia is a right-to-work state which means actors here don't feel pressure to become SAG. Many of our great actors are non-union because it's easier to find non-union work than it is to find union work.

I have worked with non-union folks that I watched make a few SAG actors look like they couldn't act at all. It's not to say I think all SAG actors are bad, actually I think the opposite. But what it means is that all non-union aren't bad either. Most of the actors I know work 9to5 jobs, just like I do, but their passion is movies. So on the weekends and on weeknights they search for projects. Doesn't mean they are bad actors - they just refuse to be struggling actors.

But if I'm going SAG it's to pull SAGs top folks, not the smaller ones. I'm sorry, but it's true. If I'm going to jump through hurdles for anyone, then I want the benefit of those hurdles. Now this is also for my culture, if I lived in LA I may not be able to have that same concept since actors quickly sign on to SAG. But in Atlanta, actors are slow to sign on to SAG. Several productions out of Atlanta including many of Tyler Perry's films are filled with non-union actors. Many of which don't go union even after several features. So if I'm going Union it's to pull those who I couldn't pull if I wasn't Union. At that point I don't mind paying extra for those actors since they can help my movie to sell. As Chamber is saying, it's better for a smaller actor to be in a movie with a larger named actor even if the smaller actor is working for free, than to cut into the budget so much that now the production can't afford the larger actor.

6 Lower Nonamed Actors at $300 A Day

Vs

1 Named Actor at $2000 A Day
5 Unknown Non Union at $0 A Day

The lower names won't help in a sale, but the 1 name will.

 

[Blaine]

You are aware that you don't just "sign on to SAG" aren't you? They've got fairly strict requirements. Just acting in a feature won't get you in unless the feature is produced under a SAG contract. Some background talent can earn vouchers and when enough vouchers are earned then they can apply to SAG. OR, the producer can Taft-Hartley a non-union actor into SAG which entails a penalty to the production company. That is how Billy Bob Thornton got his SAG card.

 

[jls4]

You are aware that you don't just "sign on to SAG" aren't you? They've got fairly strict requirements. Just acting in a feature won't get you in unless the feature is produced under a SAG contract.

Yep. But from what I'm telling you I've talked with Actors who said they had everything needed to become SAG, but still decided not to become. In a non-union state there are few if any reasons to become union. Being Non-Union you can still work on Union projects, but by being Union you can no longer work on Non-Union (without some kind of weird work around).

 

[JonathanLB]

You are aware that you don't just "sign on to SAG" aren't you? They've got fairly strict requirements. Just acting in a feature won't get you in unless the feature is produced under a SAG contract. Some background talent can earn vouchers and when enough vouchers are earned then they can apply to SAG. OR, the producer can Taft-Hartley a non-union actor into SAG which entails a penalty to the production company. That is how Billy Bob Thornton got his SAG card.

Ok I'm going to sound like a n00b here but what does that mean? My 1st A.D. said something about that, something about we have to be careful we don't Taft-Hartley anyone in, lol, and I was like oh ok...

I don't get some of the union stuff, I mean for me as a production company to sign as a SAG Signatory wasn't TOO hard, it was a lot of paperwork that was annoying as heck, but still. The 1st A.D. actually told me that as a production company I can get into the DGA really easily, which I didn't realize, apparently if you own a production company or something that makes it a simple process compared to having to show proof of directing work for X number of things? I don't know, that sounded weird to me. Anyway I want no part of the DGA until I was big enough for that to be required, haha.

 

[jls4]

If the production company hires an actor who didn't join SAG after that 30 day period for a SAG-covered role, the production company can have to pay a penalty to the Guild.

Do you know where I can look this up? I'd love to find out the exact terms. Thanks I've read through the SAG normal, low budget and ultra low budget contract and I don't remember seeing anything like that. But maybe I read through too fast.

 

[jls4]

It's in the Union Security Clause of the 2005 Codified Basic Agreement.

The penalty (per violation) is $500.

Do you have a copy of the agreement that you could email me? I can PM you my email address. I sort of answered my question, but I'd love to see the "real" agreement.

What I found was if you're under the SAG Ultra-low budget (<$200,000) you don't have to have all SAG actors/ and or you can choose how to pay all actors except for the SAG minimums. But when you go higher than $200K and enter into the larger contracts, even if a person isn't SAG they still get paid SAG wages. And what you are saying, Ryan, is that there is a penalty for not using a SAG member. I wonder how that works in a "Right to Work" state. Seems like that would be illegal. Anyway here's what I found in the Ultra Low Agreement they have online, for anyone who wants to know.

Performers Covered

The terms of this Agreement apply only to professional performers employed as principal performers, singers, dancers, stunt performers, stunt coordinators, body doubles, puppeteers, airplane and helicopter pilots, narrators and announcers. The terms of this Agreement shall not apply to background actors or to non-professionals employed for training or experience. Accordingly, Producer shall not be required to give preference of employment to professional performers in casting roles for this picture, nor shall the Union Security provision of the Basic Agreement be applicable to the employment of non-professionals or qualify a non-professional for membership in the Guild.

Which I guess is fine for me right now, as I'm hoping to make it to the $200K level. ($170K next time)


Found it. ---

Union Security
Taft-Hartley - First time employment of a non-member must be reported to SAG in writing within 15 days in the studio and 25 days on overnight location, giving the non-member's name, social security number, first date of employment and reason for selection. See Taft Hartley Report Form. Employment of a non-member who previously worked under SAG jurisdiction becomes a "must pay" prior to completion of production.
In order to verify a performer's status (i.e. "must pay" or member in good standing) contact SAG Station 12 prior to each
player's start date.​

Liquidated damages (to the union) for employment in violation of these provisions is $500.00.

Penalties and Fines​

Following are 14 major areas in which penalties (or fines) will be assessed against Producers who violate the agreements.
In some cases a penalty is payable to SAG; in other cases to the performer.
​

Reporting Taft-Hartley Waiver ​

(Union Security Violation-$500). Failure to report or filing report late the first time employment of a non member of SAG within 15 days after employment begins (25 days for players hired at overnight location).
Prevention - Notify SAG in writing. Include player’s name, address, social security number, date of first employment for your company, and rate of pay and guarantee.
​

Hiring a “Must Pay” ​

(Union Security Violation-$500). Employing a non-member who previously worked under SAG jurisdiction and who is or will become a “Must Pay” before work has been completed on your production.
Prevention - Verify the union status of actor by contacting SAG station 12 prior to each player’s start date. A “Must Pay” must become in good standing before commencing work on your film.​

Member Not in Good Standing ​

(Union Security Violation-$500). Employing a SAG member who is not in good standing.
Prevention - Verify status in advance by contacting SAG Station 12. A delinquent member must correct status before
employment begins.
​

Preference of Employment ​

($400, $500, $700). Failure to give preference to “qualified professional performers,” or failure to employ a non-professional who meets one of the exceptions to the rule.
Prevention - Recognized exceptions to the preference rule are listed under “Preference of Employment.”
​

Employment of a member of the production staff ​

($500, $600, $800). The SAG Agreement provides that Producer will not employ members of the Producer’s casting or production staff to work as actors in the film. Certain exceptions are recognized: e.g. animal handlers, performer/director, performer/writer, Performer/Producer engaged by written contract prior to commencement of principal photography and bona fide emergency situations on location.

I thought I'd add in some more info for those who are interested​

 

[jls4]

Actually all of this really reaks. I can see now the difficulties of getting a production off the ground and even see what Todd was talking about. He was the director/producer but also a SAG member and acted in his movie. That forced him to go SAG AND forced him to pay out SAG wages which increased the price of him movie almost tripple what it would have been. When he told me he was up over $100K I didn't understand why until now. The SAG contract forcing non-members to become members at least from the production company's point of view, plus holding for ransom some key SAG players is definately a major blow to up and coming producers who can barely afford the camera. LOL

 

[jls4]

More info - just found online

http://txactor.com/2008/05/21/answering-questions-about-screen-actors-guild-sag.html

In Texas and other right-to-work states an actor NOT in SAG has the same legal right to employment as a SAG member. In other words, a signatory employer cannot deny actors work because of union membership status. In other states this is not the case. A non SAG actor could still be hired if the producer invoked a Taft Hartley provision of the law. Generally speaking that would require the non SAG actor to join SAG the next time they were hired on a SAG signatory production. In Texas, unfortunately, an actor is never forced to join SAG, no matter how many SAG signatory projects they work. For more thoughts on this, please see my earlier post on joining SAG vs staying “SAG eligible” and not joining.

Can an actor be forced to join SAG?
Not in Texas. If you’re in L.A. you will not work in the mainstream film and tv business without that SAG card. Can you be FORCED to join SAG? In strong union states, yes.

So even though this author is not happy that Actors are not forced to join SAG, at least those who decide not to can continue to work on SAG projects.


Here is some Wikipedia info on Taft-Hartley
Union security clauses

The amendments also authorized individual states to outlaw union security clauses (such as the union shop) entirely in their jurisdictions by passing right-to-work laws. A right-to-work law prevents unions from negotiating contracts or legally binding documents requiring companies to fire workers who refuse to join the union. Currently all of the states in the Deep South and a number of traditionally Republican states in the Midwest, Plains, and Rocky Mountains regions have right-to-work laws (with four states – Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and Oklahoma – going one step further and enshrining right-to-work laws in their states' constitutions).

 

[jls4]

If you're working in the ultra-low-budget agreement, though, the penalty wouldn't be due.

If any of that makes any sense (and this is how the SAG representative in my area explained it all to me).

The whole Union Security Clause is specifically designed to get around the Right-to-work laws.

Thanks a lot Ryan. This conversation has helped me out a lot. I plan on doing a few movies soon and I know I wanted to get a few major SAG actors. But I can't afford everyone to be SAG.

But it does seem as thought the Union Security Clause should be illegal. Seems like they are just waiting for a lawsuit. The Taft-Hartley was pu tin place to allow employers to hire who they want and to run their businesses as they see fit, so penalizing a production company is basically discouraging a production company to hire someone and controlling how they run their business - the exact opposite of the Taft-Hartley which is the law.

I guess I'll deal with it when I get beyond the $200K level.

 

[Blaine]

If you haven't been there already, I suggest you take a look at SAGIndie. You can find their contracts there. They make it relatively easy for productions to use SAG actors on low budget ventures, even allowing completely deferred payments on their Short Films Agreement. It also so allows for mixing SAG and non-union actors.