Union vs Non-union

C

ColorBalance

Active member
Like everyone else, I was planning a non-union feature. Wanted to hire an actor who happens to be a SAG member. He suggested that if I go union, he can work. Based on what he knew, there wasn't any downside (he can work for $100 / day that I am paying the other actors).

Does anyone know of any pros and cons?
 
Is it a short? If it is, check out the SAGIndie Short Film Agreement. It allows you to mix union and non-union actors. The people there are easy to work with. It's really not as big a deal to shoot under this contract as you might think.
 
It's meant to be a low-budget feature - well under $100k. I went to the site, it says you've to pay $100 / day and a couple more things (insurance kind of stuff). Does that mean that once you sign the contract, you are all set?
 
ColorBalance said:
It's meant to be a low-budget feature - well under $100k. I went to the site, it says you've to pay $100 / day and a couple more things (insurance kind of stuff). Does that mean that once you sign the contract, you are all set?
Click to expand...

There's more to it. First, once you've been approved for the feature contract, you'll need to give SAG a bond to secure payment to the actors. This bond is calculated based on shooting days and how many SAG actors are being used. You'll also need to get a payroll service to make sure the payments (as well as taxes, etc.) are taken care of. The paperwork is given to SAG and they clear it. Make sure you fill out all forms each day of shooting and follow the rules; if you go into overtime/meal penalties pay the additional fees. Also make sure payment is given to the payroll service in time. Don't delay. Also make sure you have insurance for the shoot.

There is a bit more, but you'd be better off getting the info from SAG directly.

Todd
 
I shot SAG for my last short, wasn't TOO big of a pain, they are pretty cool actually. Better than I expected. There were a few things that made me go hmm but basically I have an extremely low opinion of unions (I hate 'em), so that being the case I was more impressed than I thought I would be with the process actually being fairly smooth.

What I'm wondering is how to deal with my feature plan because basically their current agreement changes for films above $200,000 I believe, and unfortunately I see my costs being more like $225,000 to $250,000. It may be a stretch trying to cut them below that. It's probably possible if there is no other way, but it sounds to me like if it's above $200K I'm screwed and will then fall under different rules, etc. I plan to shoot probably with several SAG actors, several non-union, not sure, maybe everyone will be union. I haven't decided for sure obviously but I want one name actor, and that will probably be about 40% of my entire budget, thus why it'll be tough to keep my costs lower.
 
Since my budget is under $100k and I am seeking for only one actor for a couple of days at $100 / day, I believe money wise, I'll be OK. But paperwork? Getting a payroll service? I guess I have to talk to them tomorrow to see exactly how much work they'll assign me.
 
JonathanLB said:
I shot SAG for my last short, wasn't TOO big of a pain, they are pretty cool actually. Better than I expected. There were a few things that made me go hmm but basically I have an extremely low opinion of unions (I hate 'em), so that being the case I was more impressed than I thought I would be with the process actually being fairly smooth.

What I'm wondering is how to deal with my feature plan because basically their current agreement changes for films above $200,000 I believe, and unfortunately I see my costs being more like $225,000 to $250,000. It may be a stretch trying to cut them below that. It's probably possible if there is no other way, but it sounds to me like if it's above $200K I'm screwed and will then fall under different rules, etc. I plan to shoot probably with several SAG actors, several non-union, not sure, maybe everyone will be union. I haven't decided for sure obviously but I want one name actor, and that will probably be about 40% of my entire budget, thus why it'll be tough to keep my costs lower.
Click to expand...
Does any of your budget include deferrals? Deferrals don't count against the $200K (up to a point).
 
Also, insurance is a requirement. You have to have some kind of registration on the script, wether Copyright office or WGA. If they have to stay away from their house, you have to pay for all days their away from their house. So if the person works on Day 1 and Day 3, you'd have to pay them for Day 2 as well. Also pay attention to the amount of hours per day... 8 hours for the daily rate, then you have to do time and half for the 9th and 10th hours, 11th and 12th are double time, anything over 12 hours is "golden time" or the daily rate every hour.

Basically it comes down to, you're going to spending about 2-3 times the amount of money to get this actor than just hiring a non-union member.
 
ColorBalance said:
Like everyone else, I was planning a non-union feature. Wanted to hire an actor who happens to be a SAG member. He suggested that if I go union, he can work. Based on what he knew, there wasn't any downside (he can work for $100 / day that I am paying the other actors).

Does anyone know of any pros and cons?
Click to expand...

The 'down side' is you basically have to set up a business, and so there is no such thing as a 'no budget' film using SAG members, unless they want to come onto the project as Alan or Eileen Smithee.

If you already have a business, you may be able to use your business insurance to add on appropriate riders, requiring various fees to be paid, etc. as well as the accounting system to monitor your 'budget', since if at the end of the day, and you do 'sell', you will want to recoup your expenses, and if someone claims you are 'juggling' the books, you need evidence about your expenses.

You will have to fill out paper work that gives your project budget. As noted acquire insurance, and you may have to pay unemployment insurance as well in some jurisdictions. I don't know what the exact status of 'deferred payment' is on such things, but basically you will become the actor's employer. This also has ramifications for tax law as well.

The closest you can come to 'no budget' is 'deferred expense on budget'.

For a no/micro/low budget production, I'd claim that going for non-union actors that can give a good audition would be better for you, until your projects get enough budget to hire a producer to work through these sorts of problems and have enough money to pay for all the paper work, and required items.

In some states, due to the state's labor laws, SAG may not be able to do anything to the union member, even if they work on a non-union project, without all the regamroll. California is not one of those states...

It really comes down to what SAG can do to the member for their working on your 'non-SAG' project.

The way most films are made, an independent corporation is set up for the production of the film. That way all expenses, or claims, go against that corporation and its assets, whatever they may be. (Setting up a corporation also requires fees being paid...).
 
Last edited:
I like many of the responses and I've learned something from reading. But hereis a few more nibbles to think about. If you have $100K (which for the main poster doesn't matter now. It's been a year! LOL) but for anyone else. I wouldn't dare NOT go SAG. I'd spend $60K for SAG actors, the biggest names I could find and pay everyone else a mixture of payment now and payment later and get the movie shot. With so much competition hitting the market you need marketable stars to push the movie. The only way you get them is through SAG.
 
jls4 said:
I like many of the responses and I've learned something from reading. But hereis a few more nibbles to think about. If you have $100K (which for the main poster doesn't matter now. It's been a year! LOL) but for anyone else. I wouldn't dare NOT go SAG. I'd spend $60K for SAG actors, the biggest names I could find and pay everyone else a mixture of payment now and payment later and get the movie shot. With so much competition hitting the market you need marketable stars to push the movie. The only way you get them is through SAG.
Click to expand...

And would that 60k include Flight Insurance, Pension and Health, Traveling costs, Per diem, hotels, ect.? It's nearly impossible to film a SAG indie film, with the actors alone costing under $100,000.00. You're spending $12,000-$18,000 per actor on a SAG Ultra Low Budget agreement (for a 60 day shoot). If you have over 6 actors, you're in the $100,000+ range, just for actors.

I'm basing this on

Daily minimum: $100 a day (x 60 days) = $6000

Air Travel: $300

Per diem: $25 (x 60 days) = $1500

P&H (15.3%): $900

Hotels: $100 a night (x 80 days) = $8000

That comes out to nearly $17,000 per actor, on the Ultra Low Budget agreement, and that doesn't even include the required Flight Insurance. A 30 day shoot is still over $8000.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
And would that 60k include Flight Insurance, Pension and Health, Traveling costs, Per diem, hotels, ect.? It's nearly impossible to film a SAG indie film, with the actors alone costing under $100,000.00. You're spending $12,000-$18,000 per actor on a SAG Ultra Low Budget agreement (for a 60 day shoot). If you have over 6 actors, you're in the $100,000+ range, just for actors.

I'm basing this on

Daily minimum: $100 a day (x 60 days) = $6000

Air Travel: $300

Per diem: $25 (x 60 days) = $1500

P&H (15.3%): $900

Hotels: $100 a night (x 80 days) = $8000

That comes out to nearly $17,000 per actor, on the Ultra Low Budget agreement, and that doesn't even include the required Flight Insurance. A 30 day shoot is still over $8000.
Click to expand...
What SAG Ultra Low Budget film is going to be employing 6 SAG actors for 60 days, and housing them all in $100 per night hotel rooms for the entire length of the shoot? Not a single one.

An Ultra Low budget shoot isn't going to be more than 25-30 days, and they will employ no more than 2-3 SAG actors a day. Only maybe 1 or 2 of those SAG actors are going to be given hotel rooms, because the others are going to be local / non-union.

I've worked on Modified Low Budget shoots that haven't paid any of the actors $12,000-18,000, and that included top talent.
 
agcohn said:
What SAG Ultra Low Budget film is going to be employing 6 SAG actors for 60 days, and housing them all in $100 per night hotel rooms for the entire length of the shoot? Not a single one.

An Ultra Low budget shoot isn't going to be more than 25-30 days, and they will employ no more than 2-3 SAG actors a day. Only maybe 1 or 2 of those SAG actors are going to be given hotel rooms, because the others are going to be local / non-union.

I've worked on Modified Low Budget shoots that haven't paid any of the actors $12,000-18,000, and that included top talent.
Click to expand...

Alright, so take your numbers.

3 actors at 25 days.


Daily minimum: $100 a day (x 25 days) = $2500

Air Travel: $300

Per diem: $25 (x 25 days) = $625

P&H (15.3%): $275

Hotels: $100 a night (x 35 days) = $3500


$7200 per actor.

Still way to much for a 25 day shoot.

I really don't see the point in only hiring 2-3 SAG actors... that really defeats the purpose of even signing the agreement in the first place.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
Alright, so take your numbers.

3 actors at 25 days.


Daily minimum: $100 a day (x 25 days) = $2500

Air Travel: $300

Per diem: $25 (x 25 days) = $625

P&H (15.3%): $275

Hotels: $100 a night (x 35 days) = $3500


$7200 per actor.

Still way to much for a 25 day shoot.

I really don't see the point in only hiring 2-3 SAG actors... that really defeats the purpose of even signing the agreement in the first place.
Click to expand...
The point of the Ultra Low Budget is to allow SAG actors to work on extremely low budget projects from which they would have otherwise have been excluded, because the production couldn't afford to pay SAG rates for the entire cast.

With Ultra Low, a production can afford to hire a couple bigger names, and keep the rest of the cast non-union.

And I didn't say 2-3 SAG actors in total, I said 2-3 SAG actors per day. Most of the actors aren't going to be filming for the whole length of the shoot.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
And would that 60k include Flight Insurance, Pension and Health, Traveling costs, Per diem, hotels, ect.? It's nearly impossible to film a SAG indie film, with the actors alone costing under $100,000.00. You're spending $12,000-$18,000 per actor on a SAG Ultra Low Budget agreement (for a 60 day shoot). If you have over 6 actors, you're in the $100,000+ range, just for actors.

I'm basing this on

Daily minimum: $100 a day (x 60 days) = $6000

Air Travel: $300

Per diem: $25 (x 60 days) = $1500

P&H (15.3%): $900

Hotels: $100 a night (x 80 days) = $8000

That comes out to nearly $17,000 per actor, on the Ultra Low Budget agreement, and that doesn't even include the required Flight Insurance. A 30 day shoot is still over $8000.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have been more clear. LOL

Use Non-Union Actors for all the principal roles. You can pay these people anything you like according to SAG. As long as your whole budget stays under $200K. SAG doesn't consider these people "Professional". Only when you go over $200K does SAG try and regulate what you pay all your actors.

So if you have names, your per day cost is likely to be more like $4000 a day, not $100. I'm not saying go after someone who's been on Law and Order as an extra, but more like someone you recognize by name who hasn't worked in a while, or maybe a singer or someone like that. Somebody who used to be A list but now does bit parts or is looking for a new breakout role. Remember even people like John Travolta hit rock bottom a few times, if it wasn't for Tarantino and Pulp Fiction, he would have stayed down. Anyhoo I'm getting off topic.

2 Days x 2 Actors x $4000 = $16,000

Hotel = $250 a night (x 1 night =) $500

Air Travel = $1200

Per Diem: $100 ( x 4 days) = $400

P&H (15.3%): $2448

Total = $20,548

But you may have to pay more. I've heard of "named" actors going for anywhere from $2000 to $20,000 a day. But you only need them for one or two days. They should play a supporting cast member, not the lead. A day is enough for you to get through 3 to 5 scenes. So the actor could be in 6 to 9 scenes if you plan right. 5 Scenes is enough for the person to seem very much a part of the overall story.

Unfortnately it's difficult in some areas to get "good" actors that aren't SAG. In right to work states, like mine, many great actors choose not to go SAG otherwise they wouldn't work. In California and places where unions are strong, you don't have a choise but to go SAG because many of the "local" actors aren't that good unless they belong to a union.

So in my little world I do in fact believe $60K is enough to go SAG. I even talked to my SAG representative about 3 months ago and she said you don't even have to do the Bond if you can show that you've made payment arrangements directly with your actors themselves.

Also it is to note that my way of making movies is not for everyone and who I'm generally talking to is those who are barely above "shoebox" indie, not those who have $200K or more to throw around.

For those who believe that you won't get "good actors" to complete or stay loyal to your project if you don't pay them; again that's subjective. Actors are just like anybody else. They want to be a part of a project that they feel has legs. Al Pachino lost money doing the Godfather (because he took a role in another movie and then left that set and had to pretty much pay his whole salary over to a lawsuit of the previous movie.) But he wanted to be the Godfather - he knew it would make him. So you give an actor a great script with a talented crew AND named actors that your non-union non-paid actors get to work with. Your non-union actors will feel awesome and looks not only great on their reels, but makes them feel this movie will get sold.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
I really don't see the point in only hiring 2-3 SAG actors... that really defeats the purpose of even signing the agreement in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree to why go SAG unless it's going to really help you. But named actors are worth it. Regular SAG actors IMO are not, but again this depends on your state. I've seen literally non-union and union actors in states like California and the difference is staggering. The non-union folks can barely read the line off the paper. But in other places like North Carolina - the SAG actors aren't bad, but they aren't better than the union actors. Actors at that point are just actors the union and non-union both have good and bad people.

In a competative market having a name can up your sale maybe 400% or more, depending on type of film, quality and praise.


DJDecay said:
Also. P.S. FYI - If you do go the SAG route - Once a Signatory, Always a Signatory, use a disposable production company, and not like your video business or something...
Click to expand...

Interesting. Good to know. I didn't know that.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people overlook the SAG Fi-Core actors, but they're there. Sometimes SAG won't even mention them. They don't want you to know about them, but now they're being forced to talk, as classes have popped up to inform people about the SAG Fi Core.

This is how SAG intimidates actors out of Fi-Core:

http://www.actorsreporter.com/2010/sag-podcast/sag-financial-core-…-get-the-facts/ (Go here and listen to Ms. Perky tell you about SAG threats)

They state:

Get The Facts About Financial Core

1. Turning Fi-Core means you become a Fee Paying 
Non-Member (FPNM).
(What exactly are you paying a fee for? This doesn't make sense. You're
paying to be allowed to act in a free country). Suppose you say SAG can kiss
a (insert any word for male reproductive organ here) instead, but then you
won't have your chance to be Tom Cruise.

2. Fi-Core can NOT represent themselves as Screen Actors Guild members on headshots, résumés, electronic submissions or web sites.
(But is the person paying union dues).

3.The presumption by SAG when you go Fi-Core is that your resignation is a permanent decision.
(Dumb presumption for obvious reasons)

4.Fi-Core Members are viewed as scabs or anti-union by SAG members, directors, and writers—most of whom also belong to entertainment unions.

5.If you turn Fi-Core, you cannot participate in iActor, the free SAG online casting program—or take advantage of other member benefits.

(Keep in mind this is all while paying union dues as a "Fee Paying Non-Member". What?)

And they top it off with this BS:
REMEMBER: If you are choosing financial core because you were asked to work on a non-union project, you’re missing out on an opportunity for the Guild to organize the project for you and all Guild members. If you’re asked to do a non-union project, call the Guild at (323) 549-6667 so they can try to organize the project before you make a decision that could significantly affect your career.

What about my career you SOBs!?! They threaten an actor's career because they want to eat when there's no SAG work or be in a friend's film who may not have money to have SAG actors, but may still be paying or maybe they just want to act in a film! Who put these morons in charge of us! How f--king dare you threaten me or other no-SAG actors! Who do you think you are? At the same time you make it hard for actors to even get in SAG!

SAG only works for actors who are working constantly or are A-list. If you're not a big name it's a catch 22. And what do they mean "If you are choosing financial core because you were asked to work on a non-union project, you’re missing out on an opportunity for the Guild to organize the project for you and all Guild members."

Hey, how many DVXUsers have put a movie together without SAG? Hm, like, most of us. Don't get played or intimidated by SAG! There are actors who you can get who have names and are Fi-Core. Right now the most well known is probably Jon Voight. You can get him. And guess what? He's still working!!! OMG! What? Yep and still in big movies and shows.

As a Fi-Core Member SAG Actors can work on either SAG or NON SAG jobs, they still get health insurance and residuals on union jobs. The only thing stopping this is directors and such that are loyal to SAG and won't hire you and SAG intimidation.

So yeah now you know the truth, I'm putting it out there. Now what? Get that name actor. You may have to canvas but if you got a little cash you can find someone! I ain't afraid of SAG. Beef with me. I'll take SAG on Jerry Springer and beat all they a$$es legally.

I WANT EVERYONE ON DVXUSER TO KNOW YOU CAN FIND A NAME ACTOR WHO WILL WORK WITH YOU AND AVOID SAG! Many Scream Queens and beloved B-movie actors are Fi-Core. This is America, one of the greatest countries in the world! Make that film and let no one intimidate you! Know the truth! The Fi-Core movement is actually gaining heat and SAG is scared! Rock on!

-Nate
 
Last edited:
Nathyn said:
A lot of people overlook the SAG Fi-Core actors, but they're there. Sometimes SAG won't even mention them. They don't want you to know about them, but now they're being forced to talk, as classes have popped up to inform people about the SAG Fi Core.

This is how SAG intimidates actors out of Fi-Core:

http://www.actorsreporter.com/2010/sag-podcast/sag-financial-core-…-get-the-facts/ (Go here and listen to Ms. Perky tell you about SAG threats)

They state:

Get The Facts About Financial Core

1. Turning Fi-Core means you become a Fee Paying 
Non-Member (FPNM).
(What exactly are you paying a fee for? This doesn't make sense. You're
paying to be allowed to act in a free country). Suppose you say SAG can kiss
a (insert any word for male reproductive organ here) instead, but then you
won't have your chance to be Tom Cruise.

2. Fi-Core can NOT represent themselves as Screen Actors Guild members on headshots, résumés, electronic submissions or web sites.
(But is the person paying union dues).

3.The presumption by SAG when you go Fi-Core is that your resignation is a permanent decision.
(Dumb presumption for obvious reasons)

4.Fi-Core Members are viewed as scabs or anti-union by SAG members, directors, and writers—most of whom also belong to entertainment unions.

5.If you turn Fi-Core, you cannot participate in iActor, the free SAG online casting program—or take advantage of other member benefits.

(Keep in mind this is all while paying union dues as a "Fee Paying Non-Member". What?)

And they top it off with this BS:
REMEMBER: If you are choosing financial core because you were asked to work on a non-union project, you’re missing out on an opportunity for the Guild to organize the project for you and all Guild members. If you’re asked to do a non-union project, call the Guild at (323) 549-6667 so they can try to organize the project before you make a decision that could significantly affect your career.

What about my career you SOBs!?! They threaten an actor's career because they want to eat when there's no SAG work or be in a friend's film who may not have money to have SAG actors, but may still be paying or maybe they just want to act in a film! Who put these morons in charge of us! How f--king dare you threaten me or other no-SAG actors! Who do you think you are? At the same time you make it hard for actors to even get in SAG!

SAG only works for actors who are working constantly or are A-list. If you're not a big name it's a catch 22. And what do they mean "If you are choosing financial core because you were asked to work on a non-union project, you’re missing out on an opportunity for the Guild to organize the project for you and all Guild members."

Hey, how many DVXUsers have put a movie together without SAG? Hm, like, most of us. Don't get played or intimidated by SAG! There are actors who you can get who have names and are Fi-Core. Right now the most well known is probably Jon Voight. You can get him. And guess what? He's still working!!! OMG! What? Yep and still in big movies and shows.

As a Fi-Core Member SAG Actors can work on either SAG or NON SAG jobs, they still get health insurance and residuals on union jobs. The only thing stopping this is directors and such that are loyal to SAG and won't hire you and SAG intimidation.

So yeah now you know the truth, I'm putting it out there. Now what? Get that name actor. You may have to canvas but if you got a little cash you can find someone! I ain't afraid of SAG. Beef with me. I'll take SAG on Jerry Springer and beat all they a$$es legally.

I WANT EVERYONE ON DVXUSER TO KNOW YOU CAN FIND A NAME ACTOR WHO WILL WORK WITH YOU AND AVOID SAG! Many Scream Queens and beloved B-movie actors are Fi-Core. This is America, one of the greatest countries in the world! Make that film and let no one intimidate you! Know the truth! The Fi-Core movement is actually gaining heat and SAG is scared! Rock on!

-Nate
Click to expand...


I got a question on this, you may or may not be able to answer. Can a SAG member choose to go Financial Core after being a member for months or years?
 
There is some misinformation here and some curious statements. First, no you don't have to pay "scale" to SAG actors on ultra low budget films. That's incorrect, you have to pay $100/day minimum. Also I think it's wrong to say that it's not worth going SAG for up-and-comers, especially in a place like L.A., where basically ANY good actor is going to be in SAG because it's just easy to do.

My film starts shooting June 1 and we of course had to go SAG for our leads and also because we're trying to get some name talent involved as well, just here or there, but it's important. We're also DGA because the 1st I wanted to work with is DGA and so is the UPM, so I'll probably join the DGA on this film as well. Most of the unions have reasonable policies when you're working with lower budgets in general. I think they are fair about it lately, anyway. But it's true, expect to do a lot of paperwork, that's what your professional crew is for ;) If you want to be a pro, you have to do things the pro way, and sometimes that is a pain, no doubt about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top