VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD!

[COURVO]

Although the dust has not quite settled from the SAG-AFTRA merger, I'm feeling the need to move ahead with declaring Fi-Core for ethical reasons.

Others more knowledgeable than I have stated one must RE-APPLY for Fi-Core now that the merger is finalized.

I chose not to apply for Fi-Core to begin with, between my membership being approved, and the merger happening (only one month's time), as it would've been an exercise in futility.

So now...when should I initiate the process to seek Fi-Core status? Is it time?

I hope this simple question will not spark a huge debate about WHETHER to apply for Fi-Core. I'm aware of the philosophical division surrounding this issue, and I've decided FOR Fi-Core. Just...is it time now?

CourVO
_________________
Dave Courvoisier - Las Vegas, NV
http://www.CourVO.com
CourVO@CourVO.com
Courvo's "Voice Acting in Vegas" Blog: http://www.CourVO.biz
on your phone at courvo.mobi
702.610.6288
"I'm not a news anchor, but I play one on TV."

[jsgilbert]

Since you currently reside in Nevada, a right-to-work state, you may wish to explore the protections this offers you.

I might suggest you contact a labor law attorney or direct a question to www.score.org

If you are dead set on declaring "dues paying non-member status", (Fi-core), you can send a letter stating your desire and send it to the attention of either of the Co-Presidents listed on the SAG.org page at the Los Angeles address.

(for your consideration) The following is taken from the right-to-work code:

§ 613.130. Unlawful agreements concerning membership in
labor organizations as condition of obtaining or continuing employment; penalty
1. As used in this section, "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which
employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to make or enter into any agreement, either oral or in writing, by the terms of which any employee of such person, firm or corporation, or any person about to enter the employ of such person, firm or corporation, as a condition for continuing or obtaining such employment, shall be required not to become or continue a member of any labor organization, or shall be required to become or continue a member of any labor organization.

3. Any person or persons, firm or firms, corporation or corporations violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Enacted 1911, as amended 1967.)

RIGHT TO WORK

§ 613.230. "Labor organization" defined.

As used in NRS 613.230 to 613.300, inclusive, the term "labor organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. (Adopted November 4, 1952)

§ 613.250. Agreements prohibiting employment because of nonmembership in labor organization prohibited.

No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization, or shall the state, or any subdivision thereof or any corporation, individual or association of any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any person from employment or continuation of employment because of nonmembership in a labor organization. (Adopted at General Election 1952.)

§ 613.260. Certain contracts declared illegal and void.
_________________
j.s. gilbert

js@jsgilbert.com
www.jsgilbert.com

"today is the first day of the rest of the week"

[COURVO]

JS,

Thanks, as always. You're an incredible resource.

My quandary, though, is whether my right-to-work status protects me for any job outside the borders of NV (99% of my work)...even though I may reside IN the state of NV.

I'd heard from others that living here doesn't give me that protection, which is why I seek union Fi-Core status to protect my current stable of non-union clients, while still giving me access to Union jobs.

Dave C
_________________
Dave Courvoisier - Las Vegas, NV
http://www.CourVO.com
CourVO@CourVO.com
Courvo's "Voice Acting in Vegas" Blog: http://www.CourVO.biz
on your phone at courvo.mobi
702.610.6288
"I'm not a news anchor, but I play one on TV."

[jsgilbert]

As I understand it, if you got on a plane and flew to a non right-to-work state (or drove there), this may be true. If however you are physically in Nevada (or any other right-to-work state) when performing the work, then no problemo.

Of course there is also the possibility of converting non-union work to a union contract. In many cases, your client doesn't even need to know.

If you actually anticipate that you will be going out of state to perform work that could qualify under a SAG/ AFTRA agreement in the very near future, then you may wish to declare Fi-Core status. If this is not the case, you might wish to wait until the situation presents itself.

I might still address this question at SCORE.org, where you will get an answer for free from a properly qualified professional.
_________________
j.s. gilbert

js@jsgilbert.com
www.jsgilbert.com

"today is the first day of the rest of the week"

[ConnieTerwilliger]

[captain54]

Regardless of your/our rights, you have to consider the unspoken buzz and stigma attached to Fi-Core

I can't speak for all major markets, but generally speaking there is a slight attitude attached to Fi-Core performers.. that they can't compete steadily for union work so they have to venture outside the borders.

Again, this is generally speaking but there's always the risk that people that do the hiring/representing will view you this way.

[jsgilbert]

Tought times that we live in and I personally look at this issue and see relevant points on both sides. That's why I generally try to prevent information as opposed to opinion.


My personal experience is that the producers simply want to make sure that a particular talent is "available". This means that regardless of whether you are a union member or dues paying non-member (fi-core), do not let your dues lapse.

As far as the rest of it, I am sure there are plenty of individuals on both sides of the fence, as well as many who sit firmly on top of it.

Will the merger strengthen the 2 unions and allow for a stronger position when it comes to collective bargaining? Or will more and more signatories feel there is no longer a need to utlilize union talent and look to leave the fold?

Why suddenly did SAG and AFTRA deceide to quickly bury their differences and join forces, with combined votes of well over 85% of the membership ratifying?

Only time will tell. One must be true to themselves and respect their business model and ability to own their business and thrive. I suspect that if the
union(s) fully understand and respect this, we will see a new era for them and a greater respect and understanding for all.

I believe that it's impossible to "whip a dog into loving you", nor do I feel that living in poverty is any sign of great respect or pride for any organization that fails to properly address the needs of their membership.

Understanding the law and how it applies to you is the first step, then search your head and heart for the rest.
_________________
j.s. gilbert

js@jsgilbert.com
www.jsgilbert.com

"today is the first day of the rest of the week"

[ConnieTerwilliger]

Outside the major markets, there is not enough union work to compete for. That was the reason I ended up going FiCore. AFTRA contracts dried up in San Diego,

But the reasons have evolved a bit due to the fact that technology has changed the way we work as voice talent...especially outside the major markets. We work out of our own studios, with our own tools, on our own time, frequently self-directing - this is not employee work and the union has no provisions for this.

Yes, for non-broadcast projects we could use a paymaster and feed it through union contracts, but then we end up with W2 wages again. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If the union could work with 1099's, I would seriously consider this option. With spot work, though, that is another story. Perhaps that area as well needs to be re-addressed so that there are some buy-out options. Small market, clearly limited run, that sort of thing.

Although I have seen what can happen with buy outs. I remember a fairly well known talent who started out in San Diego and ended up in LA and after she achieved some measure of popularity, a local business in San Diego dug up an old old TV spot she had done for them (prior to some cosmetic surgery!) and started re-running them years later.
_________________
Playing for a living...
www.voiceover-talent.com
YouTube Channel: http://youtube.com/connieterwilliger

[Philip Banks]

If one presents the case for or against Union at some point when a fact is stated you'll hear my favourite line from the film Lair, Liar.

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!

Actors and other showbiz types live in a world unlike most real people and so their Union exists to ensure the rights of members are protected in the unlikely event that they are ever gainfully employed.

For VO specifically SAG AFTRA needs to look at how the rules really benefit working VOs because for the majority, they don't.

[Deirdre]

I know this isn't specifically the tenor of this thread, but the biggest problem I see is the MASSIVE GULF between what the market is willing to pay for non-union work and what the union thinks should be base or "scale" pay.

The idea that you can easily "turn a job union" is a pipe dream in most cases considering you'll have to convince a client to up their fee 300% and have a paymaster bill them, since becoming a signatory is silly and invasive in oh, so many cases.

Connie, we can't include 1099 pay because non-wage pay cannot be covered by collective bargaining for some damnable reason which is not OUR unions' problem, but a national labor law problem.

Our unions should quit wasting resources finding ways to punish us for working and figure out how to allow the work we DO to count toward our collective benefits, so it doesn't appear as if we're trying to "maliciously contribute to our pensions", as Philip would say.
_________________
DBCooperVO.com

[Philip Banks]

Union - Have the right to eat expensive cake twice a year.
Fi-Core - Have your cake and eat it.
Non Union - Solvent Leper.
SAG AFTRA board - Like the Tolpuddle Martyrs, historically significant but need to be dragged screaming and kicking into the 1930s.

[melissa eX]

More a bit off-topic but to elaborate on DB's note:

It's all about price fixing.
It's anti-trust laws and price fixing. There's a line . Economic competitors – which legally we all are - cannot get together and set prices. Each person is free to set their rates on their own – but they cannot collude with their competitors to set rates.

Unions – collective bargaining – are excluded from the anti-trust provisions. But only to the extent that those providing services are employees. The principal behind the NLRB act is it is supposed to protect employees from the power of their employers, not help the self-employed in their contractual dealings with clients.

The result is you must be an employee in order to benefit from collective bargaining. Which is where the paymaster comes in. You become an employee of the paymaster.

However, if you have an FSO (For Services Of) agreement you can have the paymaster pay to your company. In that case they can back out just the H&R or P&H and their fee and not take the taxes. One remains responsible for those – as we are now as independent contractors. I don't know what exactly qualifies for an FSO. A corp. does, LLC does. Does a DBA? I don't know.

As a fun fact. Some (particularly those attempting to enact right-to-work laws) - have argued the point that collective bargaining violates anti-trust laws. It hasn't flown however.

[ccpetersen]

Melissa,

You raise an interesting point about the FSO part of it. For many years I have been a SAG/AFTRA signatory so that our company can hire union talent. In a few cases, I've had to become the paymaster and do those damnable withholding forms -- which caused me no end of merriment (NOT). It was with a most straight face that I could say that I was XXXX Famous Actor's boss (if only for two hours). But, that enjoyment was always, always mitigated by the fact that I had to spend HOURS looking up the relevant forms for the IRS and charging the correct amount of withholding. And, there are HUGE gray areas in those calculations, and asking the IRS about the proper way to calculate was always a crap shoot. But, at the time I first did it, I was willing to do so just so I'd know the process. I figured that was the price I paid for being a sig and having access to voices that my clients thought they wanted (or that I thought I wanted).

It was always with great joy that we'd get an actor who had his/her own corporation to which we could pay the fee (minus the P&H, which we'd send to the union coffers), and be done with it.

My own VO fees go through our company (it's a sub-S corp), and I suppose if I were to go union (which is not in the forseeable future, but you never know), then I'd do it that way, too. I suppose I'd have to give up being a sig, although I suppose I'd have to ask the union about that now. Our corp has the withholding rules all programmed into our software, and it saves us from a world of hurt when it comes to doing the correct withholding, etc.

Thanks for raising that point.
_________________
Charter Member: Threadjackers Local 420

[Deirdre]

All this stuff is valuable to know and altogether FAR too Byzantine for most actors to deal with.
It is patently absurd for a single player to have to become a corporation in order to meet the requirement to be an "employee".

We are work for hire. Unless you've got a contract (and even a lot of broadcast stuff is "at will"), you are a vendor. NOT an employee.

I understand the unions' position on this now (Thanks to Melissa Ex!), although it took ages for me to understand it. since NO ONE at the union could explain it.
However, here's the deal: The H&R funds are NOT PART OF THE UNION. They are run on behalf of the union. The Unions make the rules about who gets to play in the pool, so the UNIONS are the ones holding the actors hostage to their antiquated "employee-status" bullshit. If the unions could get their collective heads into the sunshine, we'd be able to include the work we do independently in our health and pension fund earnings.
Unfortunately, the union admin and committees are full of people who have no idea what it's like to either work as a freelancer OR WORK AS AN ACTOR AT ALL. These guys making decisions that affect the way WE do business have no idea under the sun what a client pays for a union actor's services.
_________________
DBCooperVO.com

[ccpetersen]

DB, hear, hear!!
_________________
Charter Member: Threadjackers Local 420