SAG actors on non union production

[Mike Brent]

I'm dealing now with this very issue, and it is not an issue, Union, can take a Leave of Absence, and work on a non Union project, but there is a limit to how many times they are allowed to do this.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Will look into it.

 

[Vance Colvig]

Labor unions are formed when industry prospers with little regard for the men and women doing the heavy lifting. Unions are not easy or fun to get established, they arise out of necessity, and the notion that unions are un-American couldn't be farther from the truth. As the numbers and strengths of the unions grew in the 50's and 60's in America, so did the economy and the middle class. You may have noticed that about the time the air traffic controllers were fired by President Regan for going on strike, our middle class began to decline proportionately in numbers. That is when the day of the housewife came to an end, as most families needed two incomes to stay afloat. The rich got richer, the poor became greater in number. There was a shift in wealth, and it was coming out of the middle class, the same middle class that made this country great. Oh yeah, I hear that it was the unions that drove industry out of the United States to off shore cheaper labor. BUNK. If that is the case, then why does a pair of Nike shoes cost $60 in the store when they cost $6.50 to make? Why does a Maytag washer/dryer made in Mexico (with a poorer build quality) still cost the same as it did when made in America? How come some of these labor cost savings aren't being passed along to the American consumer? The answer is greed, and the cost of this greed is a declining of numbers and the quality of life for the American middle class. The idea of an America with the few super rich and many struggling poor absent a robust middle class seems un-American to me. It is not the America I grew up in.

 

[Dustin Cross]

SAGindie makes it pretty easy to get SAG actors in low budget projects. They have rates down to $100/day for SAG actors.

Going 5 minutes over for lunch once, I think most will let slide, but going over for every meal and stupid long days, producers need to pay extra for.

I wish there was a IATSE indie like contract so low budget shows could get some good crew in key positions. The main reason I would like this is so Producers wouldn't screw the crew by working 8 hours before lunch and 20 hour days with a 4 hour turn around. I have worked on a few projects where SAGindie protected the actors, but the producers just scheduled things where the actors were called late and staggered, but the non union crew was worked to death.


Mahalo,
Dusty

 

[Rob Gardner]

I think we are in the twi-light of unions and guilds, as the networks fade and cable (and soon web) distribution is in the ascendency. And sad to say (because it is a nice utopian idea) the unions I have been a ember of (including a retail clerk’s union, a television crafts union, the DGA and WGA) have never done me any good, in fact they cost me either money or opportunities. They become self-sustaining bureaucracies, interested in power and money and keeping the members in line.

But whatever they are, the producers (and I am a producer) are in a buyers position for the most part, outside of the top strata of production. Lower than that, everybody is making deals and often the unions sell out the members in low-budget agreements or whatever, because that is where the business is going. There will always be a top layer of people who name their own price and their will always be greedy bottom feeders who skimp on day rates, food and safety (and production slaves who will happily work for that).

I think it is the business that is changing so that a promise of residual payments or full union staffing or whatever is just not going to be sustainable. Go find a major cable system that is a signatory to anything. Then look at how the audiences have moved away from broadcast television to cable and the net. Look how production moved away from LA, Look how most of the other countries in the world can make movies and television for a lot less than we do. And a lot of them are pretty good movies.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

In that case, it's not a "free market" you favor, it's government regulation.

I always favoured the idea of a fair living starting wage. "Free market" (which these days = monopolized markets) means that people have to starve, or work themselves to death with multiple jobs just to feed their kids, and the rest of us pick up the long term results of dysfunctionality through taxes used to pay for social programs.
Fair living starting wages would fix all that in the long term.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Well posting a blatant disregard for union rules on a (google searchable) public forum will probably get you banned for life from SAG, especially with an ignorant and assinine post like this.

SAG ULTRA low budget. if you cant afford to pay your actors $100/day (= $5 bucks an hour on most no budget, we have no idea what we are doing, omg its a 18 hour day already, shoot)... then dont make movies.

And if you think SAG is the reason blockbusters cost a lot of $? Are you serious? LOL
Dont know any stars that work for SAG union scale on a block buster.

Im a SAG member and a producer. The unions help actors get fair pay from nefarious producers who dont value their worth. eh hem.

Lots of LEGAL ways to get SAG actors in your movies as well. But if you are going to union bash, at least do your homework first.

 

[M Most]

I always favoured the idea of a fair living starting wage. "Free market" (which these days = monopolized markets) means that people have to starve, or work themselves to death with multiple jobs just to feed their kids, and the rest of us pick up the long term results of dysfunctionality through taxes used to pay for social programs.
Fair living starting wages would fix all that in the long term.

Define "fair." The meaning of such a term, if one were to want to define such a thing, would vary greatly according to age, location, marital status, number of dependents, and a whole host of other considerations. If you're just saying to assign values according to need, you're not only talking about government regulation, you're actually talking about a Communist system, whose entire credo is (was) from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. That is a very different and largely discredited view of a sustainable socio-economic system.

 

[Jay Gannon]

Define "fair." The meaning of such a term, if one were to want to define such a thing, would vary greatly according to age, location, marital status, number of dependents, and a whole host of other considerations. If you're just saying to assign values according to need, you're not only talking about government regulation, you're actually talking about a Communist system, whose entire credo is (was) from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. That is a very different and largely discredited view of a sustainable socio-economic system.

(Disclaimer: I would consider myself a proponent of a mixed socalist system)

First off thats the first time I've ever heard someone advocating a capitalist system in a logical manner without referring to Communism in a manner more fitting of a B-Movie (The RED's are invading, pun intended), nice to see theres some reasonable people left in the world.

Yep defining a fair wage is very subjective however I think an average done state by state taking in average housing costs, average food costs and heating clothing ones self would be a fair wage to advocate a minimum wage. I would quite want a fair wage I think that the minimum wage should be enough to support a single person living above the poverty line on.

I also think that unions can play an important part in securing an appropriate wage for skilled work. Many people in the world feel that creative work and creative skillsets are somehow worth less than someone out working in a more manual or physical job and that because someone sits and works from home that they are not nessesarily doing a real job. I think as the workplace becomes more diverse and people begin to appreciate diverse skillsets unions will (Or should, I am an idealist) take on more of a collective bargaining role and protective role of members. This is pretty much the only thing I miss of the unions now that I work the other side of the pond in a non unionised workplace.

 

[M Most]

I think we are in the twi-light of unions and guilds, as the networks fade and cable (and soon web) distribution is in the ascendency. And sad to say (because it is a nice utopian idea) the unions I have been a ember of (including a retail clerk’s union, a television crafts union, the DGA and WGA) have never done me any good, in fact they cost me either money or opportunities.

That is a rather myopic view of what the union movement accomplished in the US. If you think the unions never did you any good, you're conveniently ignoring the notions of working hours, overtime, and general working conditions, none of which would be what they are - on both union and non-union jobs - without the efforts of organized labor over many years. Or would you prefer to go back to the 1920's sweatshops?

I think it is the business that is changing so that a promise of residual payments or full union staffing or whatever is just not going to be sustainable. Go find a major cable system that is a signatory to anything. Then look at how the audiences have moved away from broadcast television to cable and the net. Look how production moved away from LA, Look how most of the other countries in the world can make movies and television for a lot less than we do. And a lot of them are pretty good movies.

The vast majority of scripted programming on many of the cable networks - including USA, TNT, AMC, HBO, Showtime, TBS, FX, ABC Family, and a number of others - are produced with union crews, and virtually all of them have their casts under either AFTRA or SAG contracts, their writers under WGA agreements, and their directors and AD staff represented by the DGA if they're shot in the US, regardless of what state they're in. Production going to incentive states has far more to do with those states legally sanctioning what are effectively bribes to get those productions to locate there than it does with union vs. non-union labor. Although it's true that some of those locations are "right to work" states (Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida are all in that category), that does not automatically mean that the production is non-union. It simply means that those who are employed by the production cannot be required to join the union as a condition of employment.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

Well posting a blatant disregard for union rules on a (google searchable) public forum will probably get you banned for life from SAG, especially with an ignorant and assinine post like this.

you might want to reference the post you're talking about, Tim.....cause it looks like you're talking about mine, and I'm not even talking about SAG, just the state of things in general, in response to another general state of things comment.....

 

[Nick Gardner]

If you think the unions never did you any good, you're conveniently ignoring the notions of working hours, overtime, and general working conditions, none of which would be what they are - on both union and non-union jobs - without the efforts of organized labor over many years. Or would you prefer to go back to the 1920's sweatshops?

My union, local 600, has never done a thing for me except charge me a shit ton of money, then eliminate the position I joined as (operator), increase the number of hours I have to work to be eligible for benefits, and sell out deals to low rent productions (have you ever read the HBO Pilot contract?)

Unions played a valued and important role in the past, and many union members and organizers sacrificed heavily in the process. This is why what the current administrations of many unions are doing is shameful, and cowardly.

That's just my opinion, based on my years of of work and many, many thousands of dollars paid to 600. Oh, by the way, when a friend in 487 got hurt, and Disney refused to pay,it was the teamsters that set it right. 487 was useless.

Nick

 

[M Most]

My union, local 600, has never done a thing for me except charge me a shit ton of money, then eliminate the position I joined as (operator), increase the number of hours I have to work to be eligible for benefits, and sell out deals to low rent productions (have you ever read the HBO Pilot contract?)

Yes. But let me ask you a question: have you noticed what's happened to the US and the world in the last 2 or 3 years? Do you really think that this industry, with or without a union, is immune to the effects of a world wide economic collapse? The notion that the union eliminated the operator position, or that the union arbitrarily and cruelly increased the hours required for benefit qualification, is rather presumptuous given that the contract had to be negotiated in a period of economic catastrophe, and that the costs of health care have skyrocketed due to the US being unwilling to recognize the necessity of a national solution to the problem. That's not the union's fault, it's the unavoidable answer to a question nobody really wanted to ask: what happens if the world goes into a deep prolonged recession. One can't expect everything to continue as if nothing has happened when economic disaster hits. It's not just about one individual, it's about an organization of many that must salvage what they can for the larger group. Sometimes individuals get hurt along the way. That's just the way it is.

Unions played a valued and important role in the past, and many union members and organizers sacrificed heavily in the process. This is why what the current administrations of many unions are doing is shameful, and cowardly.

I see in 600 a group of people that are trying their best to provide benefits when they're basically unaffordable, training for a rapidly changing technical workplace (often at no charge to the membership), more direct attention to specific production issues, and, in time, a resumption of some of the things they've been able to provide in the past as it becomes affordable to do so. Not everything they've done or are doing is something I approve of, but I think Steven and his group have been very sincere and very hard working in trying to right was has been wrong, and trying to tread water in a sea of financial upheaval. Yes, I think the dues are too high. Yes, I wish there was a more flexible banking plan for hours towards the health plan. And a number of other things as well. But in general, I think one should try to be a part of the solution rather than complain endlessly about the problem.

But that's just me.[/QUOTE]

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Wow... this has gotten a bit out of hand eh?

Unions are good in principle.

Yes, unions have some stupid policies from time to time. Most of them have a story behind them that you do not want to recreate.

Workers banding together so that management can't just fire you when you fall off a ladder and replace you with the next eager hungry kid.

Because really, producers will almost always do exactly that if given half a chance.

I remember one show. We shot in studio all day, then did a company move to a location. Once at the location we worked until 4am. Someone fell off a ladder. Thankfully no one got hurt, but it was clearly time to go home. So someone said we should call it a night.

The exec producer started jumping around angrily yelling talking about if we didn't keep shooting then we'd never finish the show and he might as well cancel the whole thing. G&E got mad. Then he threatened to fire the entire G&E crew if even a single person walked off. It was escalating.

I asked G&E to go to our craft services area and offered to come talk to them. I told the exec producer I'd settle the situation.

So I went and "talked" to my guys. I asked them to give me examples of what was going wrong. I immediately sent home any one who felt they had to sleep immediately with a driver, and asked everyone else to start securing the gear.

I then went out to the shooting location and turned off the camera and packed the batteries. I asked my AC's to pack the RED- I knew what was coming.

I looked at the director and said, "I ordered the crew to wrap. We'll need a twelve hour turnaround. Call for camera grip and electric tomorrow is 5pm." I wasn't getting along with the director that shoot, but he saw the sense of my position, so he agreed to wrap and set call for 5.

The exec producer stepped up to argue with me. Before he said anything I said, "I have people falling off ladders. Their work is hard and dangerous. So, in all seriousness, how many lives are you prepared to spend to get the show done? The crew is eager to work, but they need to sleep. If you fire them, the girls and I can't replace 25 guys, the show is over."

If I hadn't backed G&E to the hilt he would have fired them, and asked camera to light and shoot everything, which would have been a disaster. My 1AC, 2AC and camera trainee were all young ladies with little experience in camera and none outside the department. I did have two very experienced guys on B cam... but I thought "forgetting" to mention them would be useful.

He relented.

We of course managed to shoot the show out in time.

Fast forward 6 months. Same exec producer different show, this one with almost all SAG actors, including some older B listers.

Every day was a maximum of 12 hours, most days were ten or less. We shot the show out in 4 days instead of the 6 planned.

We scheduled another shoot right at the end of the SAG show, again non-union. The first day, C,G&E were held on set for 6 hours with nothing to do because wardrobe hadn't made costumes. They were asking us to stay overnight after the wait to shoot the days work. Back to business as usual.

(We didn't stay by the way... but that's where I end my tale of woe.)

So... tell me again how unions are not necessary? Explain to me how much better off we were without them?

The only way to get some people to respect you is to organize and act as a group. Producers only care about money. That's how you have to deal with them. With increased salaries, overtime and penalties.

When money is on the line, producers can and do get organized and efficient. If you make it easy&cheap for them, they just throw more man hours at a problem until its done.

My experience as a producer, and that of the better producers I've worked with and learned from, is that when you treat people better you get better work, and over time faster work. You may not notice on a one day shoot, but on a two week shoot or a month shoot it makes a HUGE difference.

I was stunned on my first go as a producer how easy it was to comply with the working conditions clauses of union contracts... because it had seemed so hard for others.

 

[Rob Gardner]

M Most

It may be that most of the scripted stuff on cable has some Union affiliation, but usually there are deals worked for reduced rates and fees for cable and or/low budget work, but more importantly, non-fiction (reality) television is eating up screen time that used to go to scripted programming. And very little of that is affiliated with any guild or union and it has nothing to do with the economic situation.

Certainly unions at their core intent are a noble idea, but I am afraid their time has passed us by. The UAW didn’t help the auto industry. The industry just changed out from under them. When the American auto industry dominated the world, the UAW was a powerhouse, raising pensions, salaries and so forth and paying their executives huge salaries as well. Well, those times are over.

I used to have an international distributor owned by ABC/Disney that handled high-end international documentaries. Every year, they saw the average budget drop by $50,000 per hour of programming. Now if you are producing hours in the $600,000 range, you can see how a few years would start to compress the metrics all the way down the line. That company is no longer with us.

All I’m saying is that, while noble in concept, in practice, unions and guilds exist to protect and grow themselves not their members. Look how union membership has collapsed in the US over the last 20 years.

Certainly there are times when we are glad to be a member (the WGA got me paid once after a terminal conflict with a producer) but overall, they are an appendage of a passing age. If you want to make a living, you are going to have to be very good at what you do, be willing to be flexible with your rates and fees and work to stay lucky. If you count on your guild or union to protect you in the long term, you will probably end up working at the car wash.

 

[Joel J. Feigenbaum]

Rob:
With all due respect, you are making huge assumptions and generalizations regarding your perceived demise of unions in the new world order. Our industry's guilds and unions do, can and will protect its members. And even its non members. Without their collective bargaining agreements, our industry would, in very short time, become the "car wash."

We, who toil in the fields of film production, are professionals. Those that have gone before us fought long and hard to form professional unions to promote and protect basic needs. Minimum wages. Maximum hours. Safety on set. Working rules for minors. Health and welfare. Just because times are changing doesn't mean the game has changed. If anything, in hard times our guilds and unions are an even more essential component in the workplace. As others have noted, the guilds and unions are working hard to roll with the punches of the "new media."

So don't sell yourself short. And don't kid yourself. Guilds and unions are not the enemy. They are not antiquated. They aren't going anywhere. And we are all better off for them.

 

[Rob Gardner]

Joel

I am making big generalizations because I am talking about big changes. I said that unions come from a noble intent and for many people they have done plenty of good in the ways that you describe, particularly people working in a strong union town or in a market where it is still required that union and guild members be hired. Unions have established safety rules and worked for humane working conditions.

And I don’t want to sound like an embittered loser crouching under my bed in Bemidji Minnesota (not that there is anything wrong with Bemidji Minnesota). I have three Emmys and an Oscar nomination. I love the business and art of production.

But remember when the cable systems showed nothing but a lot of filler? Not any more. Viewership hit a tipping point. Look at the depletion of national television audiences. Look at what is considered a “good” rating now. Look at video on the web now. It is all shifting. Who was prepared for itunes in the music business? Look what happened to newspapers and magazines. Production will not stop, but the fundamental rules of the business will change for everyone except the very few at the top. They are already changing.

I don’t know where it will end up, but it will simply not be the model we have now, its not sustainable. You can bet on that. I wish the unions would protect us but they can’t and they are too invested in the past to try.

 

[Dustin Cross]

eliminate the position I joined as (operator)

Local 600 has eliminated the Operator position? Really?


Dusty

 

[Chris Pickle]

The various Actor unions have become addicted to union fees from folks who are not really actors. I don't think a guild was ever intended to protect pretty people who smile in commercials. 99% of those people end up in a different career and look back on the few commercials they did, or even very tiny film roles, as a different part of their life.