VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD! Forum Index VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD!
Where A.I. is a four-letter word.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Union Discrimination
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD! Forum Index -> Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Deirdre
Czarina Emeritus


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13016
Location: East Jesus, Maine

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:42 am    Post subject: Union Discrimination Reply with quote

This was included in a sheaf of garbage I got from the actors' union today:
Quote:
"The SAG-AFTRA health Plan does not exclude people or treat them differently because of race, color, national origin, age, disability or sex."


But it DOES discriminate against people who make their money with things that were covered only by the AFTRA contract. In spite of the "merger", the actors' union discriminates PLENTY against former AFTRA people.
SAG has a provision for its members called “Age and Service”. It has an earnings threshold of $11,600 for people who are over 40 with 10 qualified years in the health plan. Unfortunately, this is a feature ONLY of the SAG health plan, and while it has been included in the merged AFTRA and SAG plans, **only SAG earnings will qualify.***

This means that IVR, radio ads, and much narration work that was covered in the AFTRA contract does not qualify.

THIS IS DISCRIMINATION.

_________________
DBCooperVO.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bruce
Boardmeister


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 7921
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I were thee I'd sing that song to those who matter, like certain union influencers. Know any?



B
_________________
VO-BB Member #31 Enlisted June, 2005

I'm not a Zoo, but over the years I've played one on radio/TV. .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Deirdre
Czarina Emeritus


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13016
Location: East Jesus, Maine

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Our own Bob Bergen has been beating his brains out for years— trying to make the ivory-tower empty suits understand what is happening out here in the real world.

And I don't even have any skin in the game any more, but I despise gladhanding by hypocrites.
_________________
DBCooperVO.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
melissa eX
MMD


Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 2781
Location: Lower Manhattan, New Amsterdam, the original NYC

PostPosted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not only that but this particular situation has gone to the top - didn't make a diff. Angry
_________________
www.melissaeXelberth.com
from crime...to the divine(R)
bilingual vo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
todd ellis
A Zillion


Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 10479
Location: little egypt

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

and yet, they cry to the heavens if you decide that there is a better way for you, personally, to do business.
_________________
"i know philip banks": todd ellis
who's/on/1st?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Deirdre
Czarina Emeritus


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 13016
Location: East Jesus, Maine

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To file a class-action lawsuit, you have to be able to state the number of individuals harmed.
Ha ha ha! I wonder how we'd ever find that out?
_________________
DBCooperVO.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Lee Gordon
A Zillion


Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 6843
Location: West Hartford, CT

PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deirdre wrote:
how we'd ever find that out?


An ad in Variety?
_________________
Lee Gordon, O.A.V.
Voice President of the United States
www.leegordonproductions.com
Twitter: @LeeGordonVoice
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bob Bergen
CM


Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nothing the P&H trustees did was illegal or worthy of a lawsuit. It may indeed have been detrimental for some members. But the trustees have the legal right to adjust the P&H as they see fit, and at anytime. This is the way it has always been since the union first negotiated a P&H with management. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the entire fund. But not to every union member. I know this is not always an easy thing to accept or even understand.

What I can tell you is, because change and adjustments are a constant, and may occur anytime during the year, this also means things can change back. And even when there's been no change to effect a member such as what happened to Deebs, each year I get dozens of "I'm less than $10 away from losing my benefits next year. Help!!" I wish I could. In fact, there's more of a chance to help those effected by this/Deebs' current adjustment in AFTRA qualifications.

Despite what has gone down with this for Deebs and others, our P&H is one of the finest in the country. Yes, the qualifications have changed over the years. One of the reasons is that SO much of the work has gone non union. Most guesstimate about 60% of the work since 2000 has gone non union. I think that's a low percentage. But what this means is, 60% is no longer contributed to the P&H fund. Therefore, the trustees are forced to make adjustments, such as raising premiums (we used to have zero premiums), raising the qualification minimums, fewer in network doctors, etc. But it is still an awesome P&H. And I know most here don't relate to this, but this is why I always say it's all about residuals. Most every year I make enough in residuals in January to qualify for benefits the next year. Which is why it has never been about the individual job or the session fee for that job. It's about benefits and residuals. It's about the big picture, not today's gig. And as I saw the non union world overtake the vo industry, adjustments in the P&H were inevitable. The fact that many AFTRA jobs now no longer qualify towards health benefits, the two union health funds HAD to merge! For reasons that would take much longer to explain than I care to type here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philip Banks
Je Ne Sais Quoi


Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 11046
Location: Portgordon, Scotland

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would it be fair to say that the majority of SAG-AFTRA members do not qualify for P&H? Based of the incomes most derive from the business I suspect that is statistically highly likely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bob Bergen
CM


Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Philip Banks wrote:
Would it be fair to say that the majority of SAG-AFTRA members do not qualify for P&H? Based of the incomes most derive from the business I suspect that is statistically highly likely.


You are correct! But it's always been this way. But every member has the opportunity TO qualify. The union was never meant to provide work. It's their for minimums and benefits for WHEN you work. And, every member has legal representation from the union, whether they get benefits or not. This means you never have to track down payments, your dues covers any legal representation needed, etc. And it represented many more vo actors before the internet took that 60% away.

I think most outside the union don't have a clue as to why union members so resent those who work non union. The damage done to our P&H fund is a prime example, and many union members are just now feeling the result. The big picture really has nothing to do with what a non union actor gets for a session fee. But the internet has taken the big picture away and replaced it with the desire to just work over the desire for a career. There is a big difference!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ConnieTerwilliger
Triple G


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3381
Location: San Diego - serving the world

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you are vested, you get the Pension credits every time you work a union job. But to get the Health plan, you have to qualify each year as per this discussion.

But, you are probably correct Philip in that the majority of union members do not qualify. This has always been the case going back to 1978 when I had to join AFTRA. I had a regular part-time staff announcing job and made enough to qualify for about a dozen years, then the signatories went away and no more AFTRA work to speak of.

My math skills are not what they should be, but let me see if I can parse this out to something my pea brain can understand. The first statement here below I think is correct.

- Lower total dollars being collected for the fund(s) due to fewer jobs going union.

However, is it not also true that there is a lower number of people qualifying to participate?

Or are those numbers remaining steady - for arguments sake - in that only the top 5% of people (a guestimate) qualify in any one year?

If the same number of people are qualifying then, yes, they have no choice but to make changes to the plan, but instead of eliminating certain categories with negotiated contracts, why not simply reduce the level of benefits to everyone, or increase the premiums and co-pays?
_________________
Playing for a living...
www.voiceover-talent.com
YouTube Channel: http://youtube.com/connieterwilliger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bob Bergen
CM


Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ConnieTerwilliger wrote:

If the same number of people are qualifying then, yes, they have no choice but to make changes to the plan, but instead of eliminating certain categories with negotiated contracts, why not simply reduce the level of benefits to everyone, or increase the premiums and co-pays?


They have done this! Everyone's benefits have been reduced/adjusted, not just with the merger, but this is a constant. Premiums keep going up, as do co-pays.

As I've said on other forums, I am not a trustee, nor am I on the board at the union. But I have done a lot of investigating since my adorable friend DB informed me of this whole mess. What I have learned is, there were MANY on the board at the union who loudly fought this decision by the P&H trustees. But the P&H trustees are a totally different entity from the union board. And the trustees also includes management. From what I hear, this was not an easy decision. But they thought it to be the best decision for the good of the entire P&H fund. The part that I personally don't like is how members were alerted about it. AND, effected members should have either been grandfathered in, with the rule being that from the start date of the decision only new members are effected. From what I understand many on the board did indeed request this. And the thing that scares me the most is this opens up the possibility for other union contracts in the future not qualifying for health benefits!

Look, it's never over. Statistically it is true that a very small percentage qualify for benefits. But an even smaller percentage were effected by this new AFTRA change. This doesn't help for those effected. But this can indeed change back!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
todd ellis
A Zillion


Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 10479
Location: little egypt

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the P&H trustees are a totally different entity from the union board. And the trustees also includes management.


maybe i'm misunderstanding this all together - but - i grew up and live in deep. deep UMWA country and if the management (p&h trustees) control the decisions & the purse strings ... what's the point of the board?

honest, i am not trolling ... i just don't understand. if that happened here there would be bodies at the bottom of a coal shaft.
_________________
"i know philip banks": todd ellis
who's/on/1st?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bob Bergen
CM


Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 937

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are actually asking a very intelligent question, Todd. SAG-AFTRA has a national board, which consists of members of the union who are members of the various local boards from around the country. The P&H Trustees represents the P&H plan, and consists of a combination of members and management, and a few others. The trustees oversee the P&H, which includes everything from investments, to the governance of the plans. The union board does indeed give/have input, but final decisions for the P&H goes to the trustees. They are two totally different entities, and this is a common business model for organizations and corporations.

The Trustees have a massive job, which is a fiduciary responsibility to manage the P&H fund for the entire union. This means that often they need to make decision that may have a negative effect for some members. But with all decision, all members are taken into consideration. So whatever changes or decisions they might make, these are always for the good of the majority, which sadly often effects a minority.

The same goes on in the Union board room all the time, which I served for many years. You have to look at the big picture. You have over 150,000 members. If a decision is beneficial for 95% of the union, but 5% would find it counter productive, well, to quote Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." If you are one of the few, this does not make you feel any better. But it is the fairest business decision.

This sort of thing came up with the merging of unions SAG and AFTRA. The ironic thing is, it effected the top earners, who were not happy! With the merger, top earner's dues went up quite a bit! Even though these performers could call themselves fortunate to BE top earners, they were still angry that they had a larger percentage dues increase than lower earners. But when figuring out this new union, and what would be the smartest financial decision when moving forward, the board decided this was indeed the best decision for the good of the entire union. Being one of those earners who was effected by this decision, and being on the board, and being one who is a "go to" for all things actors both in and out of the union, I had to remind these high earners how lucky they were to be in the top percentage of earners and, well, to get over it!

But no matter what, it's hard to think big picture when it's you who is effected. I get that. But as I mentioned on another thread, the decisions made by the trustees in the case discussed on this thread is not discrimination. No one, be it the union board OR the trustees, sat around trying to figure out how they could "F" a group of performer's health benefits. THAT would absolutely be discrimination. They made a decision that had a negative effect on a handful of members. GRANTED, a bad decision in my book. And having not been involved in the process, I do not know the bigger picture. But, like I said, I DO now know many on the union board were against it. I'm against the slippery slope of it all, as there has never been a union work contract where that work does not qualify one for health benefits. To me, THIS is the bigger picture. And if you've ever read anything I write, to me it's all about the bigger picture and less about the now.

So, even though I'm no longer in the board room, I have no problem getting my hands dirty in this whole thing. It effects many of my fellow vo peeps who have worked their asses off staying, working, converting work union, only to have this work no longer covered. And I am beyond grateful to these loyal performers, as it's their union loyalty that helps fund the P&H for the entire union. Which is why this whole thing saddens me, as these performers are negatively effected while being loyal to their fellow performers and the industry as a whole. And this could happen again to any member with other work contracts outside our world of vo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dave Waters
Contributor II


Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Posts: 58
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hearing long-time union members openly question the ethics and standards of SAG/AFTRA set me to thinking.

When I first started in this business, I was somewhat intimidated by what I read and heard. Naturally, I wanted to learn from notable professionals who had far more experience than I.

From what I gathered, I figured my biggest obstacle would be finding business in a union dominated profession. At that time, it seemed the message was that outside union membership one could never hope to achieve real success. And, living in the middle of the U.S., meant I had no hope of finding meaningful work.

Being the skeptic I am, I took it to mean that union members didn't want competition. Wink

Living in Kansas, a right to work state, I admit to having no concept of the benefits of union membership. My understanding of a union is to safeguard employees from the company they work for. But, I am the company I work for. I don't need to be protected from myself and the idea that I need protection from people whom I solicit work makes no sense. I just don't work for the bad ones.

And, paying an organization for the chance to possibly get something in return, or not, is beyond my comprehension. Sorry, but I can't imagine a good reason for my money to go toward your benefits. Sounds like classic elitist, dare I say, socialism. I would sooner invest in lottery tickets. Surely, the ROI is better.

In the ten years since I began my business full time, I have discovered that there is a mountain of work waiting for those who are good enough and willing to pursue it. Thanks to ever changing technology, I do sessions all over the globe. I work when I want, with whom I want and charge according to what the market will bear. I don't work cheap and the only people I pay are my agents who earn a commission based on what they actually provide to my bottom line.

I respect everyone's point of view and truly don't mean to be antagonistic, but for those who visit this great forum, especially those new to the business, hopefully this will give encouragement that you can survive and prosper without the burden of union membership.

Have at it.
_________________
Dave Waters
www.davewatersvo.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD! Forum Index -> Chat All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group