SAG strike

smashedburrito

smashedburrito

Well-known member
We are currently casting for a feature film "Trailerpark" and I am starting to worry about the SAG strike. We would be operating under the Ultra-Low Budget Agreement. If SAG strikes would we have to halt production or would they be able to finish if we already have a contract? None of these are name actors, just local professionals who act on the side.

Thanks for the help.

Here is our films thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=151982
 
smashedburrito said:
We are currently casting for a feature film "Trailerpark" and I am starting to worry about the SAG strike. We would be operating under the Ultra-Low Budget Agreement. ...None of these are name actors, just local professionals who act on the side.
Click to expand...

If you're not using names, why go SAG? Are you in L.A.? While I admit SAG has some great actors, there are many good actors that are SAG-E (elgiable) or they are just as good as SAG, but haven't gone SAG. Our feature we're finishing has 2 actors that are on a TV Show as regulars and they aren't SAG. So I'd check to see what the market is, espcially with the problems with dealing with SAG in leu of the Strike.

I know it's not an answer to your question, but just something to think about. If you're in L.A. then you're screwed. From what I've been told, every actor worth talking about is SAG in L.A.
 
SAG doesn't necessarily mean good. You can get 3 SAG extra vouchers and be in the union... means nothing. All that shows is that you really wanted to get your SAG card. It doesn't mean you can act.
 
smashedburrito said:
We are currently casting for a feature film "Trailerpark" and I am starting to worry about the SAG strike. We would be operating under the Ultra-Low Budget Agreement. If SAG strikes would we have to halt production or would they be able to finish if we already have a contract? None of these are name actors, just local professionals who act on the side.

Thanks for the help.

Here is our films thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=151982
Click to expand...


smash...

couple of questions for you first...

Is Ohio Union or not?

If it is, you could have some issues with any talent who is a full member of SAG.

If not a union state...and I quote...best I can "Federal law states that no Union or Guild may override 'right to work' status in any State in the Union". They can threaten, cajole, and wheedle but it is against Federal law to restrict workers in any way to impede them making a living. Also, in those states it is NOT legal to hire ONLY union workers. That is also considered impeding the workers rights.

Are your actors SAG, SAG Eg, and if SAG are any of them Financial Core Members?

If fully SAG in a Union state, they do risk fines if they decide to continue working. They could opt out temporarily but that would also require them pay a fee. Do you want them to take on that cost or are you willing to 'buy them out' for the duration of the shoot?

If they are only SAG Eg or if they are Financial Core, they can work strike or not but in a Union state I could see some grudges being held against anyone SAG Eg...but...

Financial Core members can work a union or non union job in any state.

Hope that helps a little.
 
I've gone to the SagIndie workshop twice now and the last time, the SAG strike was mentioned and whether there would be any issues or not. The rep at the workshop said the strike (if it happens) wouldn't affect anything.
 
Thanks for all the help:

jls4: We are using SAG because we are in a very small town and some of the actors that we want to use are SAG. Our talent pool here is limited but we are lucky enough to have a group of very strong actors who used to work professionally in LA and NY. Some are SAG, some aren't, some are AFTRA or AEA. Basically we are casting the actors that fit the roles, some just happen to be SAG.

Michele: I am pretty sure Ohio is a union state. I think most of my actors are full SAG, but I will definitely check if any are financial core members. We have one AFTRA and one AEA, and while we would still have to pay them $100 a day under the agreement, at least we wouldn't have to worrk about the strike.

Tom: Did the man at the workshop give any reason for why the strike wouldn't affect SAG indie at all?

Also, this was released today:

http://www.imdb.com/news/ns0000002/#ni0612044

Does this change things? I'm terrified we won't be able to make our movie. We start shooting in February.
 
smash

the link went to current stuff and i saw nothing about the strike. any chance you can find the original and copy and paste it here? if you provide the source info it can't get you in trouble.

michele
 
Oh god not another.... I thought this was swept under the carpet! We are still recouping from the last one! I do not know all the details of the SAG strike, but from a crew members perspective (working much longer hours, and under more physically demanding duties) I think actors have it much better then others in the industry, and have only suffered from lack of work because of an over saturated amount of actors easily getting into SAG.

I was sympathetic to writers because they have historically been abused... to the point it was accepted and a joked about. My view on the matter is that SAG is way too large and has way too many members. I think they are representing and 'protecting' an over-saturated union. Protecting the little guy mentality of a union becomes ridiculous when there are too many little guys taking work from one another.

I have no solutions to the problem, as I admittedly don't understand the issues much at all. I personally feel no sympathy for the situation, and especially how it will put most of us (including my job) on the chopping block in a time where the economy is shrinking. I have yet to hear SAG's recent arguments, as most of the negotiations are still under hush hush.

A slowing economy, is (of course) not any reason to suspend peoples freedom of speech, assembly, or striking privileges... but it really makes it difficult to solicit support from other groups in the motion picture industry. As unemployment rates are slowly rising, I see it very hard for the writers to return the support they found from the actors during their strike and so on.

I pray actors can get a compromise. I don't want them to get nothing, but this isn't the best time to strike... or from their point of view maybe the best. If they strike now, they might get what they want only because everyone is fearful of a stirke especially now in these 'times'.

I just started working in LA, and I really don't want to go unemployed after only three weeks!

If this is too political, please delete my post. Strikes are always political.

-Ryan
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
My view on the matter is that SAG is way too large and has way too many members. I think they are representing and 'protecting' an over-saturated union. Protecting the little guy mentality of a union becomes ridiculous when there are too many little guys taking work from one another.
Click to expand...

Some will hate me for agreeing with you but it often seems I am the only one doing the math. 85% of all actors make less than $5k a year on union bookings. That means 85% pay to keep the union going for the top 15% who do not pay dues based on their earnings.

If I remember correctly...low end actor paying a few $100 a year or so to keep up his or her dues while making 5k and guys like Tom Cruise paying a few thousand dollars while they earn Millions.

So...85%...not earning a living IS the back bone of the operating expenses for SAG. 85% won't ever get insurance...won't be able to get the pension...won't ever get back what they put in....
 
Michele Seidman said:
Some will hate me for agreeing with you but it often seems I am the only one doing the math. 85% of all actors make less than $5k a year on union bookings. That means 85% pay to keep the union going for the top 15% who do not pay dues based on their earnings.

If I remember correctly...low end actor paying a few $100 a year or so to keep up his or her dues while making 5k and guys like Tom Cruise paying a few thousand dollars while they earn Millions.

So...85%...not earning a living IS the back bone of the operating expenses for SAG. 85% won't ever get insurance...won't be able to get the pension...won't ever get back what they put in....
Click to expand...

I've always felt that SAG hurts more actors than it helps. If a SAG actor is working at Applebees and a job comes up in a small movie that's non-union where there would not be direct pay, but maybe points. The SAG actor can't participate. Wouldn't it be better to allow actors to pick and choose their own life. Admittedly I'm not an actor, but here in GA many actors don't go SAG or AFTRA because they want to work and going Union would leave them at home.

For someone who is in love with acting, acting is more important than watching the numbers. However we must realize how mistreated actors were before the Union. I just think the whole process needs to be restructured. And maybe actors should be allowed to have different levels of Union membership.

Silver: Actors can work in any project with a budget 0-$50K for points or their own cash value. They only get a small amount of protection from SAG, mainly with 10 hour or less workdays, 2 meals, etc.

Gold: Projects $50K to $200K can work for mixed pay cash + points to be determined by actors, but no less than $75 a day/ $40 half day. 9 Hour or less workdays, medium protection from SAG, 2 meals, $750 donation for any actor with 8+ working days towards their pension.

Platinum: Current Sag-indie to Regular SAG, etc

I'd bet most actors would be in Silver, probably 60%, with 25% in Gold. This would give more of them the chance to be in productions and have the ability to rise in the ranks and do the craft that they love. It'd also make SAG more friendly to smaller projects and production companies.

Right now the only reason I'd go SAG for my next project is to get big time actors the 15%. The rest I'd probably cast as Non-union because of the flexability I'd get. So the 85% are still left out in the cold. Georgia is a "right to work" state. :)
 
smashedburrito said:
jls4: We are using SAG because we are in a very small town and some of the actors that we want to use are SAG. Our talent pool here is limited but we are lucky enough to have a group of very strong actors who used to work professionally in LA and NY. Some are SAG, some aren't, some are AFTRA or AEA. Basically we are casting the actors that fit the roles, some just happen to be SAG.
Click to expand...

If you actors really want to work, there is a work around. I've been told by actors (I haven't verified any of this info) that they can put an alternate name in your movie. SAG is attached to the actor's name, so change the name and you change the affiliation. You'll have to get them to sign on to this, but what it means is: The actor's name is John Doe, but under your movie they are John Dowe or John Q. Doe or Jon Doe.

Hope this helps.
 
jls4 said:
For someone who is in love with acting, acting is more important than watching the numbers. However we must realize how mistreated actors were before the Union. I just think the whole process needs to be restructured. And maybe actors should be allowed to have different levels of Union membership. :)
Click to expand...


A restructure is the best suggestion I have heard of in ages. I am not against the unions at all even if my postings might seem that way. They have done and still do a lot to protect actors. I just worry and question...at what point have they become as oppressive as the employers they came in to protect us from. As with anything there needs to be a balance. In a right to work state it has been a choice for many to stay out of the union unless they leave for a union state. At that point, those who are SAG El pay their dues and head north or west.

I have helped many get their foot in that door and join. So, in the long run I have always been a supporter. They owe hundreds of union actors to my assistance. I am proud to have helped them in any way to get in to SAG. But the attrition rate is high too...because of the restraint on earnings.

Between a rock and a hard place with this one...always am!
 
Michele Seidman said:
... I am not against the unions at all even if my postings might seem that way. They have done and still do a lot to protect actors. I just worry and question...at what point have they become as oppressive as the employers they came in to protect us from. As with anything there needs to be a balance. ...

I have helped many get their foot in that door and join. So, in the long run I have always been a supporter. They owe hundreds of union actors to my assistance. I am proud to have helped them in any way to get in to SAG. But the attrition rate is high too...because of the restraint on earnings.

Between a rock and a hard place with this one...always am!
Click to expand...

I think the situation is like with anything. Things must be in place to protect, but there comes a time for restructure. I don't think anyone is truly against SAG or any other Guild/Union. But I DO think that many times the Guilds/Unions build themselves up for the largest predator (big companies like Universal, Paramont, Fox, etc). So when Mom-and-Pop Productions pops up with .1% of the money, they aren't geared to help them.
 
Prodigi Pictures said:
I agree with many of the comments stated, but there are some misconceptions about SAG.

SAG INDIE
SAG Indie represents everything from student films to low budget feature films.

STUDENT FILMS WITH A SAG CONTRACT
Any SAG actor can work on these. The "production company" can hire both union and non-union actors. Actors do not have to be paid. The contract is easy to fill out and has very little paperwork (compared to a full fledged feature film...for a student who is used to filling out no paperwork, then it may seem like quite a bit).

ULTRA-LOW BUDGET FEATURE WITH SAG CONTRACT
Many more hoops to jump through, but yet again I could hire both union and non-union actors. I only had to pay $100.00 a day. And, it borrows so much from the standard guild agreement that its members are well protected. I have to pay into their health and pension plan, SAG takes a percentage of my gross sales and divides it amongst all SAG actors working on the project and we have to comply by all standard guild rules.

AS A FILMMAKER DO I HAVE TO HIRE SAG OR NOT SAG?
Based on the contracts I mentioned above, there isn't a single DVXuser who can't have the best of both worlds.

WHAT'S THE GREATEST FRUSTRATION SAG?
Bloated beauracracy filled with angry failed actors who absolutely suck at returning a filmmaker's call or helping their own actors. But, other than that...it's great!
Click to expand...

Your SAG knowledge definately out weighs mine since I know you just came off of a SAG project and I'm just starting to look at the contracts. But this is how I see it. SAG-ULTRA LOW Budget $100 a day x 5 (actors on set for avg day) X 10 (days of shooting) = $5000. Plus as you said you have to pay pension and health. My last budget couldn't afford even this small amount. And I shot for over 30 days $15K! SAG even in it's lowest package without the use of points, can't work for me. Again I understand why many people have moved away from points. People mistreating the system, saying there's always something else to be paid, etc. One of the things I did to help me in the point situation was promise my people (cast/crew) an open accounting policy. So if anyone questions I'll show them receipts, etc and prove why they got paid the way they did.

But this still goes back to my original point. One of my lead actors is a great Actor. I mean this guy has been in a few major movies as well as many smaller pieces. He could easily go SAG, but he doesn't. He's been on set for almost all of the 30+ days we've shot. Paid his own gas money even when gas was $4 a gallon and he's getting 17 mpg in his SUV driving 40+ miles to come shoot. And while he wanted gas money and extra money, he wants to work. He wants to be a part of projects that are going somewhere and that are fun and well written. So he came out and trusted me to pay him when I sell the movie if we make enough to cover everything.

I think the biggest breakdown is for actors who just want to work. The argument goes as I read someone break it down on another board.

1 Week an actor works at the grocery store hating every minute, but makes $250.

1 Week an actor is on set of an indie movie and maybe takes home $150 for the week to help with gas, but he's happy.

Under SAG the $150 happy actor is impossible. And think about actors who think they are washed up? We were looking for some "celebrities" to add to "voices" and I started calling agents. I call for a famous black actor who hasn't worked in 20 years, has huge financial problems (which I've seen on the news), but has a very memorable face. I email his manager and tell him the project and that we aren't SAG, but I'm paying. The manager emails me back and says he can't do it because the project's not SAG. So someone who NEEDS MONEY every little bit - I mean this guy is basically making less than $700 a week on his day job. But I can't pay him twice that amount for 1 day because he's SAG and my project is not SAG?

I'll always stand up for actors because I don't want the actors I use to be misused by other directors/producers. But there has to be a middle ground. I plan on going SAG from now on to give me access to larger stars so I won't miss out like I did this time (luckly I found some non-union faces). But I'll just be using SAG for the celebrities, I doubt I'll use them from smaller parts- so all those SAG folks paying dues and working at Applebees will probably not be a part of our next movie.
 
Prodigi Pictures said:
You can hire both union and non-union actors on a SAG Ultra-Low Budget agreement. You are not required to pay the non-union actors the same rate you pay your SAG actors. You do not have to sign them to the same contract. You do not have to pay into health and pension for them.

Based on the example you provided above you can hire the African American actor at $1,400.00 a day AND hire non-union actors in all the other roles at non-union rates.

I'd also suggest you consider working on your schedule more. If you are averaging 5 actors a day on the schedule I suspect your schedule needs work. Many times you'll shoot a scene over two days and only cover half the actors on day one. Or, half the actors for the first half of the day. Who says you have to call actors for a full day? Most importantly...spending money on acting is worth every penny. Most of the crew you can afford are not professionals, don't get what it means to be a professional, do not directly contribute to the craft of your film and are little better than another pair of arms...but actors? They are EVERYTHING. What you wrote above implies (to me, at least) that you don't fully value what actors bring to your project. I apologize if that seems direct...I'm not trying to be rude. Just consider this...are you sure you fully value what an actor is contributing to your movie if you're trying to get them at $150.00 a week? I can't think of a single good actor who would work for me for that little.
Click to expand...

Wow! :) I know Justin that you are direct and that's your personality. But sometimes I think you should take a walk in someone else's shoes before you go too far with them.

Firstly, I'm not going to comment on the first part of your statement because you don't know what our script was like or anyone elses. So in all due respect, you can't even begin to say how many people should and shouldn't be on set at a time.

As for valuing my actors, you have to rethink some. I applaud you and many others who have been blessed with money to do your movies. I on the other hand, so far haven't been that blessed. What's interesting to me is of the implication that just because someone isn't getting paid; they are not good or a professional. I know you don't read all my posts as I don't read every single one of yours, but if you did you'd understand I've been able to put together a group that rivals many, especially since they are free (for now, until I get some money to pay the points I promised). My actors are loved and respected - we're like family. They come out for me because they trust me. Many actors don't work for people for free because they don't trust them. It's not all about money for us, it's about something bigger than that.

I've not been around that long, but I've been around long enough to see lots of things. I've seen people who have no business behind the lens of a camera (by this I mean directors/ producers / writers) who because of a connection or ability to get money are able to make movies, really bad movies with bad acting that they are paying for through SAG or otherwise. If you can conclude that money doesn't fix everything, you should understand that lack thereof doesn't mean you have anything.

I don't understand why people either see things in either Black or White. I don't participate much in some of the threads because I feel that I may not understand what a person's point of view is given what they must be experiencing in their area of the country for their demographic. So I say nothing. But not to be disrespectful to you, because I thank you for the wisdom that you have given this board, the wisdom you have given to me and many others. And I'll continue to read your work and hope for the best for you. But I do not believe that just because I can't raise $250K or $350K or $500K that means my project is doomed or it will be bad. I do not believe that just because another person was able to raise $250K, $350K, $500K that their project is going to be good. Each person has the capacity to do what they will do according to the talent and the resources they have been given. I've seen professional DPs who get paid upwards of $800 a day not be good, but get work because they own a sought after camera like the RED. Where a person who has an A1 is better, but doesn't get work because of his camera.

Professional simply means that someone is getting paid to do a job. The last time I checked it took some actors years before they could act, but they knew someone in the industry that helped them get their start. If my aunt was Oprah Winfrey we wouldn't be having this conversation and you know it. Aunt Oprah would have gave me a million dollars to shoot a film. And just like that I'd be a pro Director. So all that... is excuse my french ... is BULL$HIT! On another thread we were discussing the concept of how many people make it in Hollywood because they "know somebody", it's amazing when you think of how FEW make it when they don't.

So my cast and crew may not be the highest paid, they might have a crazy thing called Faith in little old me, and maybe we have a lot to learn. But I'll be D@mNED if anyone says that I don't love and respect them and that we are in someway handicapped because we couldn't raise $250K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top