VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD!

[agettig]

This seemed like the right forum to ask this. Please forgive me if it is not. I read the excellent thread started by CourVO but didn't see my question answered. Hence this post.

If you are a member of SAG-AFTRA, can you do non-union work if you live in a Right to Work state? Similarly, if you are fi-core, can you do non-union work? I'm talking with a talent agency in ******* and they said I should be ready to join before too long. They do represent non-union talent but said that will really limit what they submit me for. I got the impression they are really, really keen on unions.

BTW, I live in Michigan and would have to move if I wanted to live in a RTW state.

I know, I want my cake and desire to eat it too. I'm making a decent living right now as a non-union talent. I'm not sure if I even *want* to take this step. I can't be the only person to come to this fork in the road. Your wisdom is appreciated!

(edit - removed city name to protect the innocent!)

[Yonie]

As far as I know, being union makes things harder if you get work on your own, while the opposite MAY apply for when you have an agent. This is if your agent even manages to get you work/auditions.

My tuppence worth.

[melissa eX]

[agettig]

Awesome. That really clears it up for me. Thanks a ton!

[BruceG]

[Deirdre]

The glut of "talent" in the market and the willingness for people to work for dirt has driven the idea of a realistic payday onto a tiny island populated by the few folks who have clout and guts as well as vocal skill.

Melissa is right—if everyone FiCores cavalierly, the rates and protections will evaporate. You can keep your rates high while being a "dues-paying non-member" (AKA FiCore). If you don't, the short run just gets shorter.
_________________
DBCooperVO.com

[Bob Bergen]

DB and Melissa are correct! But I'll go one step further. And this is where I disagree with Melissa.

I am willing to pass judgement. It is not just a personal choice to go fi core. It is a choice that damages/hurts your fellow actor. This is the simple truth. It damages the union, your fellow performers, the industry as a whole, and you, the fi core actor.

Actors who want the best of both worlds do so at the expense of those who have sacrificed personally and professionally to guarantee good working conditions, minimum wages, residuals, and pension/health insurance.

In the old days, which was not all that long ago, knowing the damage done to your fellow actor was enough to prevent most from going fi core. Now, because vo has become so annonomous, more are ok with it as long as no one knows.

And, in the old days, actors who wanted a career, rather than just to work, knew that they were only as good as the company they kept. They had day jobs (or 2) to pay the bills, rather than associate themselves with non union. People today just want to work, even if that means undercutting and lowballing. I always wanted a career. And, I though ahead. I wanted a pension when I turned 65. I wanted health insurance. I wanted a career.


And, I've said this on other posts, the rise in fi core has contributed to the rise in non union work. This has prevented top agents from taking on newbies the way they use to because it's gotten harder and harder for top agents to keep their signed talent working. So in the longrun, you don't get the best of both worlds. There is no longer a best.

Animation is the one genre that will for the most part stay union. This is because of celebrities, as most feature and series animation uses celebrities. Yay for me!!

The good news??? For the first time ever, SAG-AFTRA is acknowledging the erosion of union vo work. They are exploring with my leadership as a Hollywood board member and chair of the vo committee, strategies to bring more of the work back to the union. As well as incentives for both actors and buyers to work/hire union. This will not be an overnight fix. But it is being addressed aggressively and strategically. And, it takes a lot of hard work and sacrifice from all involved. For this to be successful it's going to take some sacrifice from you all as well.

B

[agettig]

I am thinking ahead...hence my questions. But maybe I'm not thinking far enough ahead. This is really good food for thought and I will definitely weigh it in my decision.

I appreciate your insight and perspective, Bob. Even though I'm just one guy with a home studio in little old Portage, MI hustling to keep a home for our big family, the same principles apply.

I guess I have a lot to think about in the weeks ahead...

[Deirdre]

[melissa eX]

They're beginning to understand on an intellectual level, but work still has to be done to pry them out of the automatic emotional attitude of non-union doesn't matter. Some have and hopefully others will see part of the answer lies in reaching out to non-union pros instead of simply dismissing them as the enemy.

[Bob Bergen]

[Bish]

This is an interesting discussion. I have always been a supporter of the union movement and have benefited from being in various unions over the years in my previous careers. I believe in the power of collective bargaining and the validity of providing an umbrella organization for a diverse collection of individual, self-employed, entrepreneurs. I have just gone through the whole union deal with a family member who was initiated just before the merger, so a reasonable amount of study has been done on the matter.

It seems to me that the problem is two-fold... producers wanting to pay next to nothing, and artists willing to work for it. This position is totally circular, and there cannot be a magic-pill fix. I am at a loss as to how the union can have an effect on the situation. The market is bifurcated, with many forces at work trying to drive the non-union part (even further) into the bargain basement. Apart from the industry closing ranks with the union and making everything a closed shop (effectively blacklisting every producer or entity that puts non-union talent into traditional distribution channels), I can't see a way forward, however, this heavy-handed approach flies in the face of Right To Work legislation and is a non-starter.

So, what's the answer? Get the talent into the union and pushing for union rates? I'm working towards that. I reject work if it is too far off union rates... but it pains me to do so sometimes because the work just goes to someone else... the job does not get re-appraised and re-issued at a higher rate because I didn't bite at it! If all talent worthy of calling itself that was in the union, then that may be a way of re-aligning the compensation model... but that's not going to happen... with the current situation there will always be legions of good non-union talent.

I'd join the union in a heartbeat if I wasn't closing the door on so much work. I'd also me more likely to join if I wasn't being gouged for around $3K up front! As I said, since the early seventies, I've been the proud member of a handful of unions, whose dues have always be a weekly/monthly subscription, sometimes based on remuneration. Never have I been asked to pay thousands up front for the privileged of joining. These (new, improved, and higher) fees are an elitist barrier to entry, taking a significant percentage straight out of the pockets of those that can least afford it. I'm not against dues or qualification-based barriers to entry, but I cannot believe wholeheartedly that the union has the general members' interests at heart rather than maintaining its own "country club" status for the benefit of the union itself, it's power-base and prime players.

The US union model can, at times, live up to all the negative impressions that have been generated over the years, and can leave a bad taste in the mouth.

To put this in perspective, the initiation fee into UK Equity is $40

OK, I'm putting my tin hat & kevlar on now
Peter
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

[agettig]

[Bish]

To make sure we're talking apples to apples here, the £26 ($40) initiation fee is then followed by the following subscription fees: (just multiply by 1.5 to get the $ figure)

Gross Annual Income - Annual Subscription
Less than £20,000 - £113
Between £20,000 and £35,000 - £198
Between £35,000 and £50,000 - £340
Income of more than £50,000: -1% of their gross income

So, if you're a working stiff pulling in a low $30K, your fees are around $175pa. Earn $75K, and you're up to $530, and beyond that, it's 1%.

I think SAG AFTRA run around a $200 base PLUS 1.85% of earnings. I stand to be corrected on this.

I'm sorry, but it's figures like these that make me wonder if the union in the US is being run for the benefit of its members or the union itself.
_________________
Bish a.k.a. Bish
Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast.
I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls... I will not feed the trolls.

[Kristin Lennox]