SAG vs. AFTRA

Doc Bernard

Doc Bernard

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

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

Looking around the studio, I have a bunch of stuff I don't use, so you may see some Classified ads from me there, to get the money, although my HVX will not be there.
 
Advice: Don't join until you are a must join. You are now SAG-Eligible, so you can legitimately work on both non-union and union jobs. Your status as SAG-Eligible will not prohibit you from being competitive on SAG projects.

Oh, and of the two, SAG of course is the one to join. Don't worry about joining AFTRA.
 
Don't give AFTRA any money. I am a SAG and AFTRA member. Wait until you're a SAG must join and then, join SAG. AFTRA will just keep your checks, until your initiation fee is paid up.
Why would you give them $1500 up front.

SAG has almost all the prime time shows and all the movies. There are only two AFTRA shows running on TV at the moment (Gary Unmarried and Better off Ted). AFTRA did get lots of pilots but hardly any will get picked up and the ones that do will be cancelled. Why? video still sucks compared to film, no matter what the nerds say. People that aren't fasinated by pixels, don't like the digital athestic as well as film. AFTRA can't do film just sucky digital.
 
don't forget the option of joining SAG as financial core member...not only slightly cheaper but then you can do both union and non.
 
There is no such thing as, "joining SAG as financial core member"!

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

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

If every actor went finacial core there would be no Screen Actors Guild. That's why people that go financial core, are pariahs among SAG actors. That would be the worst thing you could do to yourself or your fellow SAG actors and your career.
 
The reason "financial core" exists is because the supreme court ruled that a union cannot prevent its members from earning a living. If there's not enough union work to go around, "financial core" lets someone work non-union gigs without retribution by the union.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Financial Core is something of a middle ground. Someone who elects Financial Core status resigns from the union and they are no longer a member of the union. However, they continue to pay dues and they continue to be eligible to work on SAG-signatory shoots. Loyal members of the union do not like, appreciate, or endorse those who choose financial core. It weakens the union. As otter1 said, if everyone went fi-core, SAG would cease to exist, because the union would have no leverage: they couldn't expel their members (because there wouldn't BE any members) for violating rule 1, and there wouldn't be any power in collective bargaining because the producers could freely skirt the system and go directly to the actors. Of course, everyone's free to "scab" if they want already, but the bigger names simply will not, and those are the names the producers want, and therefore SAG remains a powerful entity.
 
Last edited:
wonder if Actra has anything like that..
Mind you, most all paying work in Canada is Actra.
 
Barry_Green said:
For the actor who lives where there isn't a whole lot of union stuff going on, fi-core may be the only way they can make a living. Yes it cuts off opportunities; the actor isn't actually a member of SAG and they can never be elected to hold office in the union or win SAG awards or participate in SAG-member events, etc.
Click to expand...

By the time you are interested in getting elected to SAG offices, you may as well toss your hat into the ring for governor of California... and who knows... the Presidency...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
By the time you are interested in getting elected to SAG offices, you may as well toss your hat into the ring for governor of California... and who knows... the Presidency...
Click to expand...

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

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

BUT...want to talk facts?

85% of FULL members make below POVERTY level income off of Union bookings each year.
85% of members pay so the top 8% can get their pension and the management can get a salary.
85% of members NEVER earn enough to get the lowest level of insurance from the union.
 
Last edited:
When you join SAG, you're obligated to uphold all SAG rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go read the laws on Right to Work States. Go read about the Secret Southern Agreements and go read the Federal Laws on the matter and come back at me when you have educated yourself.
 
Last edited:
Michele Seidman said:
As for Producers and them not going SAG because I follow the laws in my state...that is a joke. In fact....in a Right to Work State EVEN SAG films are NOT allowed to ONLY see SAG actors in auditions. It IS illegal.
Click to expand...
This is interesting. Now, my question is: considering how casting in the real world is done, how is this enforced? I mean, the decision to cast a specific actor can be based on any number of things that might not be readily apparent to the actors themselves.
 
Blain

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

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

PS...since they can Taft Hartley a lot more...they also save some other costs.
 
Last edited:
ps...yes folks i altered my posts because i am tired of defending truth. i am exhausted at how easily people avoid learning the laws and how quickly they jump down my throat for trying to defend my rights and the rights of anyone in a Right to Work State.

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

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

otter...you, and people like you are why so many stopped posting on the boards. i almost took my self off of here tonight because i am exhausted by people like you who attack without having ALL the facts.
 
Thanks for the update, Michele. I really don't have any experience in a right-to-work state. But it's nice to know. I would imagine the production company would have to Taft Hartley them since they'd have to be a signatory to use their SAG actors in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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