Financial core
Dr. No
Risaroo
"Dr. No" <inh...@myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:3B0F779D...@myhouse.com...
> Do you still get a SAG ID card when you are financial core?
>
No. And if an actor had full membership before they invoked Core,
they must surrender the card. (This was often put forward as the
reason Heston did not go FC in SAG. He claimed it meant too much to
him to give it up.)
FCs are not members of the union in any way (this applies to FC in any
union, by the way, not just the acting orgs). They are considered by
law to be "dues-paying non-members".
Likewise, it is also considered fraudulent for those folks to put
"AFTRA" or "SAG" (or "AEA" or whatever) on their promotional materials
(headshots, resumes, tapes, etc). In the past, this has not been
heavily pursued, but I predict you will see more activity in this area
in the future.
Hope that answers your question . . .
Lisa
Hamlet
Risaroo wrote:
Hmmm - but it does not change your eligibility to work on union
projects? How does that work?
The reason FC came about was all about political ties - with SAG it
had a slightly different effect.
Do you think casting people care?
--
A.V. Yuro II
"Instead of killing and dying in order to produce the being that we
are not, we have to live and let live in order to create what we are."
-- Albert Camus
Risaroo
"Hamlet" <av...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B0FE039...@ix.netcom.com...
> Hmmm - but it does not change your eligibility to work on union
> projects? How does that work?
Nope, you can still work. But seeing as how there is information
about right-to-work all over the place -- I'm not going to provide it
here.
;-)
> The reason FC came about was all about political ties - with SAG
it
> had a slightly different effect.
No kidding. SAG and AFTRA dues collected from FCs total nearly 97% of
the full amount. Neither of these unions spend any dues money on
political causes. That's why I think invoking FC (in the acting
unions) is a real manipulation of the Beck decision. But that's just
my opinion.
> Do you think casting people care?
I have no idea -- personally, I know a couple of folks (agents and
CDs) who don't like it because it messes with "conflict jeopardy" for
commercials, etc. And after last year, franchised agents have about
had it with folks who bend the rules. I say this because often an
actor will have a franchised agent who may or may not know of their FC
status, and usually the way they find out is when that actor is forced
to explain why they are unavailable for auditions, etc. One thing I
can guarantee you is that union MEMBERS don't like it one bit - and
the ire over this has only escalated after the strike. In Chicago,
one of our most powerful CDs is also a SAG member - she wrote a very
eloquent letter to a local trade paper during the strike, detailing
exactly where she was disposing of all the scab materials she was
receiving. Not all FCs in our city took struck work, but many did.
Sigh. It's a sticky wicket, with a lot of layers. I don't like FC
(as everyone in here knows), but it is any actor's legal right to do
whatever they choose to do.
In my experience, the only actors I happen to know who go FC do so
because they can't get enough union jobs.
Done for the moment --
Lisa
Bill491
> > Do you think casting people care?
>
> I have no idea -- personally, I know a couple of folks (agents and
> CDs) who don't like it because it messes with "conflict jeopardy" for
> commercials, etc. And after last year, franchised agents have about
> had it with folks who bend the rules. I say this because often an
> actor will have a franchised agent who may or may not know of their FC
> status, and usually the way they find out is when that actor is forced
> to explain why they are unavailable for auditions, etc. One thing I
> can guarantee you is that union MEMBERS don't like it one bit - and
> the ire over this has only escalated after the strike. In Chicago,
> one of our most powerful CDs is also a SAG member - she wrote a very
> eloquent letter to a local trade paper during the strike, detailing
> exactly where she was disposing of all the scab materials she was
> receiving. Not all FCs in our city took struck work, but many did.
Interesting. FC's in Colorado often sign with two agents.... union and
non-union. Double-dipping. This market had a long history of preferring
exclusivity of representation.
> Sigh. It's a sticky wicket, with a lot of layers. I don't like FC
> (as everyone in here knows), but it is any actor's legal right to do
> whatever they choose to do.
Indeed. (sigh).
> In my experience, the only actors I happen to know who go FC do so
> because they can't get enough union jobs.
My experience, too.
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Risaroo
"Bill491" <Bil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > Interesting.
FC's in Colorado often sign with two agents.... union and
> non-union. Double-dipping. This market had a long history of
preferring
> exclusivity of representation.
Well, that happens here, too - but Chicago is leaning more and more
toward exculsivity every day. What the problem is, though, is that
given the WIDE chasm between union and non-union agents in this city
(on every level) - AND because many FCs don't bother to TELL their
franchised agent that they are FC - what happens is that a FC actor
can go ages "double dipping" with few people knowing about it.
(Because they often don't get cast or called in for as many union
gigs - for a variety of reasons - the franchised agents don't tend to
have them on their "primary radar", ya know?) Little things like
strikes tend to "out" them. Or my agent's favorite from a couple of
years ago: learning that an actor was FC by booking him on a union
industrial, and then losing the client and the commission six months
later because the FC started having the producer call him at home for
future bookings.
Needless to say, he rarely heard from that agent again.
Lisa
The Starmaker
>
> Do you still get a SAG ID card when you are financial core?
Whether or not you're a SAG member, the union has much less control over your
professional life than they would have you believe. In fact, it is possible for an
actor to join the union but still be able to work on non-union projects, retain the
services of a non-franchised agent, and you can work at any pay you choose to
accept, even if it's less than the union minimum. That is, you can if you've
declared yourself "financial core."
Financial Core status is at the very foundation of the basic freedoms we enjoy as
U.S. citizens, and it applies equally to those in so-called "union" states (such as
California and New York) as it does in right-to-work states. As a financial core
union member, you are allowed to remain a member of the union in good standing,
and it enables you to pay much lower union dues than those who do not elect to
exercise the financial core option. Here's how financial core works:
In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision that, although not
specifically intended for the entertainment industry, changed forever the
stranglehold the union had on its own members, production companies and
non-member actors. The decision in the case, Communications Workers of
America vs. Beck, was hailed as a victory against compulsory unionism.
Financial Core is one of the best-kept secrets in Hollywood, and those who know
about it seldom really understand how it works. First, financial core status pertains
only to union members; that is, one would first have to join the union and then
declare financial core, not the other way around. Of course, existing union
membership qualification rules would are still in effect. The union member simply
fills out a card (supplied by the union) and returns it to the union office. This card
attests that the member wishes to resign full membership and to opt for financial
core status. Financial core members are not allowed to vote, and they may not
receive such amenities as the union newsletter, but they typically pay reduced
dues, since none of their dues may be used to finance non-wage related activities
(such as political activities).
In addition, the union's restrictive rules don't apply to members who declare
financial core status. A SAG/Financial Core member may, for example, work on an
independent film production that pays less than SAG scale, and he may even
accept deferred pay if he so chooses. This in no way limits the earnings potential of
the actor -- although he may negotiate a pay rate that is less than SAG minimum,
he can also negotiate much higher if he chooses. That's what financial core is all
about -- choices. In the case of financial core union members, the union represents
the member in matters of wages only, which is, of course, what most people think
unions do anyway.
Here's a quick test to see how much you know about union membership.
Answer the following questions True or False:
1.A union member cannot work on a non-union project
2.All union members pay the same dues
3.A union member cannot accept a job that pays less than
the union minimum
4.To work on a union project, you must join the union and
abide by all union rules
5.A union member cannot be represented by a
non-franchised agent
6.If a union member accepts a non-union job, he will be
expelled from the union
7.Only franchised agents may submit talent for union
productions
If you answered all seven questions "False," go to the head of the
class.
HOW TO GO FINANCIAL CORE
If you decide that you want to go financial core, all you simply have to do is
this:
Send a certified letter to the SAG legal department,
stating your wish to "enable your financial core status."
Their Los Angeles address is: 5757 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca. 90036
They will probably try to talk you out of it, but don't let that stop you. You
will still have to pay SAG dues, you will still get all your health and welfare
benefits, in essence, you are still like anyone else in the union. What you
won't be able to do is run for SAG office, vote in any SAG elections, or
participate in many SAG related functions (like the SAG film society, for
one).
So you have a tough decision to make. Do you want to vote for the next
SAG president or increase your opportunities to work more steadily? Tough
decision. Sure, non union films mostly don't pay anywhere near the SAG
day rates, but you're playing Bingo with more cards now. The payoff may
not be as big, but the payoff will be steady and the bonus is that you can
STILL take those high paying SAG gigs when they come along. You're not
giving up much, you're just enhancing what you have. Many SAG actors
have done it (it's just a well kept secret).
SAG and AFTRA members may resign and declare "financial core status" at any time
in order to escape those unions' rules against working for nonunion employers. To
avoid discipline for working on a nonunion production, an actor or actress must resign
before beginning the nonunion work.
Financial Core Members...here are just a few...
http://www.voiceover.com/male.htm
http://www.voiceover.com/female.htm
http://www.michaelcovey.com/resume1.htm
http://www.dbtalent.com/oldsite/erickson.htm
http://www.actorsnw.com/robertheath/
http://www.productionsourcebook.com/categories/oncamera.htm
http://www.directcast.com/brendaburgett.htm
http://www.directcast.com/brendaburgett.htm
http://www.directtalent.com/tomkimball.htm
many more are FC members.
The Starmaker
Risaroo
"The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> went crazy with the cut and
paste from somebody else's website and wrote:
> Financial Core is one of the best-kept secrets in Hollywood,
Hardly. A more accurate staement would be: " . . . one of the most
loathed practices . . ."
>A SAG/Financial Core member >
does not exist. They are not members. They are just people who (like
anyone off the street) can be hired for a SAG job and receive all the
benefits thereof without honoring the rules of membership.
may, for example, work on an
> independent film production that pays less than SAG scale, and he
may even
> accept deferred pay if he so chooses.
He cannot, however, come to the union for support or arbitration when
he gets ripped off or over-exposed in the marketplace as a result of
working without a union contract.
This in no way limits the earnings potential of
> the actor --
unless they should happen to make a non-union commercial that never
goes off the air in their market, and prevents them from being cast in
anything else. Which happens to FCs all the time. Tripping over
dollars to make pennies.
>In the case of financial core union members,
Which do not exist. They are NOT members.
the union represents
> the member in matters of wages only, which is, of course,
not the truth. The union represents ALL those persons who might work
on a union set in matters of not only wages, but working conditions,
reuse, residuals and pension, welfare and health/dental insurance.
What jerks we are for doing that, huh?
>
> Here's a quick test to see how much you know about union membership.
> Answer the following questions True or False:
>
> 1.A union member cannot work on a non-union project
True. A union MEMBER (FCs are not members) in good standing honors
Rule One.
> 2.All union members pay the same dues
False. Dues are based on earnings.
> 3.A union member cannot accept a job that pays less than the
union minimum
True. But more than ever before, new contracts exist and are being
developed that allow low-budget and fledgling producers to make films
with deferred payment and so on.
> 4.To work on a union project, you must join the union and
> abide by all union rules
False. You can weasel your way out of this if you are too afraid to
put both feet in the water and be a pro. Go FC and do whatever you
want (more on this later) . . .
> 5.A union member cannot be represented by a
> non-franchised agent
True. Absolutely true. Again, FCs are NOT members, so they can be
repped by anyone they choose.
> 6.If a union member accepts a non-union job, he will be
> expelled from the union
Depends. They will be afforded a Trial Board hearing, under the rules
of the NLRB if they violate Rule One. They can be disciplined in many
different ways, depending on the infraction and the circumstances
surrounding it.
> 7.Only franchised agents may submit talent for union
> productions
False. How do you think people become eligible for union membership
in the first place? No one is BORN a union member, folks. Think it
through.
>
> If you answered all seven questions "False," go to the head of the
> class.
And keep getting your facts from the internet, your inspiration from
sitcoms, your nutritional advice from 7-11 and your news from the
Globe.
>
> HOW TO GO FINANCIAL CORE
>
> If you decide that you want to go financial core, all you simply
have to do is
> this:
1). Get real frustrated and look for someone else to blame for why
you aren't getting cast. Ignore any instinct that might involve
personal responsibility, your appearance and work ethic, a slow market
or anything that might require patience or improvement on your part.
2). Approach a non-union agent on the sly and tell her that you are
"thinking about quitting the union", but by all means don't follow
through with it yet. Cheat first and see if it works before you do
anything "hasty" or "decisive".
3). Go on a bunch of non-union auditions and "see if you get
anything". Let the CDs assume you must be FC, but if asked, avoid
answering directly. Leave SAG and AFTRA on your resume to create even
more confusion.
4). Get cast in a non-union car commercial that promises to pay you
$1000 buy-out for two days work. Feel like you're worth something
again, and accept the job with glee. After all, it won't air in your
home market - no one will really find out, right?
5). Show up for the shoot and hope that no one in the union or at
your franchised agency finds out. They haven't called you in a month,
anyhow. And don't quit the unions yet, either. What "they" don't
know won't hurt them - and besides, it's only one little job . . . why
make a decision you don't have to? Why be honest when nobody's
looking?
6). Work two 16-hour days with poor equipment, and a piss-broke and
cranky producer whose brother-in-law is directing for the first time.
Do your own hair and makeup, purchase two new outfits and shoes (for
which you will not be reimbursed). Change clothes and apply your
makeup in your car. Get a half- hour for "lunch", but drive eight
miles to a Wendy's to buy your own. Get a dirty look for coming back
late the second day. Pee in a dixie cup or behind the building,
because the doors to the dealership are locked at night and they don't
trust the producer enough to give him a key so you can use the
bathrooms. Arrive home so tired the second night that you have to
call in sick to your survival job the next day.
7). Get a phone call the following week, requesting that you also
provide voice-over for the job, that very afternoon. You are promised
an additional $200. Blow off another day's work and go to the
brother-in-law's suburban basement to record into his home Karaoke
system. Arrive at 3:30pm and then wait until 6:30pm to start because
the "engineer" had to drive his kids to swimming. Cancel a play
reading you were supposed to do that night at the last minute when you
realize you won't make it on time. Read the "script" in small
segments, as it is still being written as you record. Try and get
through it with no mistakes - not because you're a pro, but because
they have really bad (or no) editing equipment. Because the "studio"
is in the suburbs, it takes you over an hour to get home, and by then
it's midnight. Get a funny feeling in your stomach, and wonder if the
spot is really that cheesy, or if it's just your imagination. Be
somewhat glad that your mom will never see it.
8). Wait one and one-half months to get paid. Then start to get
antsy. Ask the non-union agent where your money is. Their payment
person says, "Hmmm. You haven't been paid for that yet? That's
weird. Let me call them." A week later, call the agent back to
follow up when you haven't heard anything. Remain relaxed when the
agent tells you that no one at the production company is returning her
calls, and "Oh, yeah. By the way . . . I'm quitting to take a job at
XYZ (your franchised agency) next week." Act as though that's
exciting news. Buy her a gift you can't afford, and pray to God she
knows better than to mention your name over there.
9). Wait another three weeks while the non-union agency hires and
trains the new talent payment person. Ask about your money. Get a
prompt reply this time: "Maybe you'd have better luck if you called
them yourself."
10). Pick up the phone and call your buddy, the producer. "What?
You didn't get that check yet? I could swear I mailed it a long time
ago. Lemme get back to you."
11). Wait two more weeks. Call the producer back. "We're sorry, the
number you have dialed . . ." Tell the head of the non-union agency
about the problem. She says, "Look, $500 isn't worth us taking him to
court over"-- $500? He owes you $1200! "Really? I have $500 for the
shoot, and oh, yeah - an extra $200 for the V/O. It's seven hundred.
Still--" Get irate! The former agent told you it was $1000 plus two!
"Well, she must have been mistaken or you heard her wrong. It says
$700 in the computer." Ask what you are supposed to do now. "Don't
worry, we'll keep trying to find him for you. I'm sorry, I have to
take this call. (smile) Might be a booking for YOU, ya know!" Try
not to punch her in the jaw.
12). Get a call from XYZ, the franchised agent. They want to know
why this CD (the one you booked the cheapo spot for) won't see you for
an oncamera national Chevy audition. Something about you having done
a non-union used car commercial a couple of months ago. Whassup with
that? How could you have a conflict they don't know about - and
what's this about working non-union? Tell them you were "thinking
about" going Core and are about to finish the paperwork. Wait through
the pause. "Who booked you on this?" Oh, so-and-so non-union
agency -- heh, heh. Actually, it was where so-and-so used to work.
"Great. Well, thanks for not telling me. I looked like an ass with
the CD." Click.
13). Transfer your feelings of embarrassment and shame into feelings
of anger and resentment at the wrong people. Since you cannot blame
the producers you hope to suck up to or the non-union agent you're
gonna need now, make sure all your feelings of bitterness and abuse
are heaped upon the franchised agent and your fellow union members.
Screw them! That agent never got you much, anyway! And those other
actors did nothing but steal your auditions and jobs, anyway! Vow to
throw in your lot with the non-union agent and go Financial Core.
14). Fill out the paperwork and declare FC, but leave the union names
on your resume. After all, once upon a time, you earned the right to
call yourself a SAG actor! When asked at an audition by a non-union
producer if you are union, smile and simply say casually, "Oh, is THAT
still on there. I forgot to remove it, I guess." Continue to brag to
civilians and your family that you are a "professional" actor. When
they see the SAG Awards and compare you to Tom Hanks or Kevin Spacey,
say stupid things like, "Yup. That's my union, Aunt Dorothy. Me and
Tom and Kevin."
15). Improve your relationship with the non-union agent and actually
start getting paid for jobs you do. Make upwards of five or even
seven thousand dollars in that first year as a FC. Feel so cool that
you forget to notice that you haven't had a union audition or job all
year.
16). Express great joy when you are paid $5000 (all at one time and
with no pesky taxes taken out!) for a series of three non-union
furniture spots that will air locally. Enjoy the "celebrity" of being
"that guy on the sofa" for awhile. After the third year, ask the
non-union agent to "get you out of it", because the CDs are telling
you that it's hurting you. Don't be surprised when she laughs.
16a). Contemplate filing for unemployment, but remember that a). you
still have a temp job and b). no one has paid into unemployment for
you in over three years. Take another day job to pay your back taxes
(which you forgot to set aside the first year) and to pay the
quarterlies you owe now. Wonder how much you had in your SAG pension
before you declared FC, and wonder how you are expected to have the
discipline to set up another retirement account when you're making so
little money.
17). Redirect this new frustration right where it belongs: on the
unions, union actors (who have always held you back) and the
franchished agents who never call - even though you can LEGALLY do SAG
work. Ponder why you are only called in for things "with no budget"
anymore, and rightly assume that it's part of a vast union conspiracy
to keep talented people like you from working and making a living.
Wish you could land a "real" commercial with residuals, and plot the
demise of the furniture store that stole your career away.
18). Act surprised when your mom calls, "Honey, is that YOU in the
car commercial on Channel Five?" Flip on the set. It's you alright,
from three years ago - but they've changed the name of the dealership
and hired a different voice - he's kind of imitating you, but that's
your spot, alright. And it's really poorly done - worse than the
furniture spot, even. Try not to choke when Mom says, "Boy! You must
be making a fortune!"
19). Smile ironically when the furniture company pulls your spots off
the air because of the car commercial. Take it in stride when your
non-union agent says, "And to think. You never got paid for that!"
20). After six months with few auditions and only one booking, sign
up for classes to get your Real Estate license. After all, at your
age, you really shouldn't be a temp anymore. Take comfort in knowing
that you had a full and enriching ACTING CAREER, unfettered by the
strong-arm tactics of the evil acting unions. You got every
opportunity, because you were unencumbered by union membership!!
21). In years to come, try not to get too excited when you hear
rumors of another commercial strike. Remember, you've got condos to
sell, Freedom Fighter!
*******
Moving on with Starmie's pilfered wisdom:
> So you have a tough decision to make. Do you want to vote for the
next
> SAG president or increase your opportunities to
get a few low-paying jobs and potentially jeopardize your future?
>Tough decision. Sure, non union films mostly don't pay anywhere
near the SAG
> day rates, but you're playing Bingo with more cards now.
And isn't that what an acting career really is, folks? Just a big old
BINGO GAME? Christ. Acting is a gamble, but it's more akin to
high-stakes poker than a slot machine or Bingo. I hate these
analogies.
The payoff may
> not be as big, but the payoff will be steady and the bonus is that
you can
> STILL take those high paying SAG gigs when they come along.
And nothing inspires and excites agents, CDs and directors more than
someone who is willing to work for whatever they're willing to pay.
Or for free, with deferred payment that never comes.
You're not
> giving up much, you're just enhancing what you have.
Yeah . . . okay. I'm always enhanced by throwing myself to the wolves
with no one to back me up.
Many SAG actors
> have done it (it's just a well kept secret).
Not really true at all. And it is only a "secret" for two reasons:
1). Admittedly, the unions are loathe to discuss it;
and
2). Most FCs are too ashamed to admit that they have to take
non-union jobs in order to work. (Unlike our friend Jack Rooney, who
is honest and proud - which I do respect, to a degree).
Here's where it gets ugly, folks (and most of you have heard it
before):
IF AN ACTOR REALLY FEELS THAT THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS ARE BEING
HORRIBLY INFRINGED BY ORGANIZATIONS COMPRISED OF THEIR PEERS WHICH
EXIST TO PROTECT THEIR WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, WHY DON'T THEY
HAVE THE BALLS TO LEAVE UNION JURISDICTION ALTOGETHER AND TOIL IN
THEIR OWN NON-UNION VINEYARD?!
Stay far, far away from evil people like me, who - BECAUSE I REFUSE TO
UNDERSELL, UNDERCUT and UNDERVALUE OUR CONTRACTS - are keeping "scale"
where it is and helping to increase it in every negotiation! God
forbid any of my integrity or guts should rub off on them while they
work alongside me in the booth or on a shoot.
If the unions (which are, by the way, comprised of nothing but ACTORS
just like them) are "keepin' 'em down", then I humbly submit that they
should stay the hell away from the health benefits good members help
provide, and the pensions and everything else!
You don't want my peaches, don't shake my tree, ASSHOLE!
Be in or be out -- just don't be a half-assed, chicken-shit nothing --
waiting for scraps to fall from the table of masters you resent and
fear. Have some balls! Have some faith in yourself! Get in there,
side by side and compete with the best - and if it doesn't work out .
. .
(yeah, I'm gonna say it)
go do COMMUNITY THEATRE, local waterbed commercials and play with your
ham radio! There are outlets for people who just want to dabble -
enjoy them! There is no shame in pursuing the craft on a
non-professional level -- but why so many wannabes feel the need to
drag the whole lot of us down with them for some pin money is beyond
me. Either respect yourself enough to stand up for what you are
worth, or accept that you might not have what it takes to work as a
full-time pro.
Regards and Yes, I Mean Every Word of It,
Lisa Lewis
SAG/AFTRA/AEA
Chicago, IL
PS: I will compare pay stubs, resumes and quality of life issues with
anyone who is FC. If I had bailed and gone FC when the going got
rough, I would not be where I am today. You can think I'm being mean
or snotty or elitist, but all I am really saying is DON'T SELL OUT
WHEN IT GETS ROUGH. Hang in there or quit and do something else, but
don't whore yourself. It will never get any better once you take that
step backward!
Drama Queen
>
[polite snip for the sake of bandwidth]
YOU GO GIRL!!!!! I couldn't have said it better (or bitchier) myself! 8^)
LA...@la.com
wrote:
>>A SAG/Financial Core member >
>
>does not exist. They are not members. They are just people who (like
>anyone off the street) can be hired for a SAG job and receive all the
>benefits thereof without honoring the rules of membership.
Yet, isn't it fair for people to have the choice not to pay for
political activities they disagree with when they have to belong to a
union to be able to work (I hope you won't say that SAG membership is
not obligatory for any serious performer).
>> 3.A union member cannot accept a job that pays less than the
>union minimum
>
>True. But more than ever before, new contracts exist and are being
>developed that allow low-budget and fledgling producers to make films
>with deferred payment and so on.
That is indeed one of the ways SAG is very constructive with lower
budget filmmaking. Would that all unions were like SAG on that
subject.
>
>> 4.To work on a union project, you must join the union and
>> abide by all union rules
>
>False. You can weasel your way out of this if you are too afraid to
>put both feet in the water and be a pro.
But in reality, there is no real choice. Film acting is a closed
shop.
>1). Get real frustrated and look for someone else to blame for why
>you aren't getting cast. Ignore any instinct that might involve
>personal responsibility, your appearance and work ethic, a slow market
>or anything that might require patience or improvement on your part.
I thought that Financial Core was about not paying for political
activities one disagrees with. Isn't that the case?
Also you portray being a member of SAG as some wonderful life that all
aspire to when most members don't make a living.
>Not really true at all. And it is only a "secret" for two reasons:
>
>1). Admittedly, the unions are loathe to discuss it;
Exactly.
>
>and
>
>2). Most FCs are too ashamed to admit that they have to take
>non-union jobs in order to work.
I guess it's better not to tak non-union jobs and not work. It's a
hard problem when you're stuck in there I have to say with no real
good solution I can think of.
>IF AN ACTOR REALLY FEELS THAT THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS ARE BEING
>HORRIBLY INFRINGED BY ORGANIZATIONS COMPRISED OF THEIR PEERS WHICH
>EXIST TO PROTECT THEIR WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, WHY DON'T THEY
>HAVE THE BALLS TO LEAVE UNION JURISDICTION ALTOGETHER AND TOIL IN
>THEIR OWN NON-UNION VINEYARD?!
Because you can't have a career when you're not SAG. That's as simple
as that. It's a closed shop.
>If the unions (which are, by the way, comprised of nothing but ACTORS
>just like them)
And somehow that makes them efficient, honest and helpful just because
they're actors?
>are "keepin' 'em down", then I humbly submit that they
>should stay the hell away from the health benefits good members help
>provide, and the pensions and everything else!
>
>Be in or be out
You know very well that it's a closed shop and you can't be out if you
want a real career. Whether you like what the union does or not,
whther you think they're taking too much of your money or not.
>PS: I will compare pay stubs, resumes and quality of life issues with
>anyone who is FC. If I had bailed and gone FC when the going got
>rough, I would not be where I am today. You can think I'm being mean
>or snotty or elitist, but all I am really saying is DON'T SELL OUT
>WHEN IT GETS ROUGH. Hang in there or quit and do something else, but
>don't whore yourself. It will never get any better once you take that
>step backward!
It's true that if you don't value your work, why should anyone else
value it? On the other hand... :)
Opus
Risaroo wrote:
> Settle in with a cocktail, you're gonna be here awhile . . .
>
> "The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> went crazy with the cut and
> paste from somebody else's website and wrote:
>
> > Financial Core is one of the best-kept secrets in Hollywood,
>
> Hardly. A more accurate staement would be: " . . . one of the most
> loathed practices . . ."
<snipped for brevity>
Opus
Opus
> as that. It's a closed shop.
>
showing your ignorance.
Opus
LA...@la.com
wrote:
Well, speaking of ignorance, California is NOT a "right-to-work"
state. I have no idea what would have made you think it was.
As for pretending that you can have a significant career without
belonging to SAG, I don't know in which universe, but not this one.
Opus
> >showing your ignorance.
>
> Well, speaking of ignorance, California is NOT a "right-to-work"
> state. I have no idea what would have made you think it was.
>
I said, stateS, plural. You fail to recognize ALL of the others that
allow a lot of us to have very prosperous careers outside of
CA-central. Just check out the stats for Atlanta and Miami sometime for
non-union actors. Sheesh.
> As for pretending that you can have a significant career without
> belonging to SAG, I don't know in which universe, but not this one.
>
Keep living in your dreamworld and telling yourself that SAG is the only
way to have a successful career, and if that makes you sleep at night,
then fine, leave it alone. But stop pretending to know what the hell
you are talking about, because in this instance, you clearly do not, and
I have told you that time and time again. If you can produce some
credentials or research that shows you know what you are talking about,
then fine, I will continue to debate you on this topic. But for god's
sake, until you can, please stop spouting rhetoric that makes you look
dumber and dumber. I don't blame DQ for beating you up; you don't know
how to debate a topic.
It's this "LAGuy knows all even if it doesn't pertain to him" attitude
that pisses a lot of people off in this group.
Opus
Risaroo
here - this is the same as the one we had a few months ago . . .
<LA...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3b11986c....@news.pacificnet.net...
>
> Yet, isn't it fair for people to have the choice not to pay for
> political activities they disagree with when they have to belong to
a
> union to be able to work (I hope you won't say that SAG membership
is
> not obligatory for any serious performer).
Look at Starmie's original pilfer from the FC website. It says that
the Beck decision really does not apply in spirit to the performing
unions.
AFTRA, SAG and AEA contribute NOTHING to political causes or
campaigns. Hiding behind this ruling is a smokescreen for just
feeling desperate.
And another thing: who do you think PAID for the Beck lawsuit? Beck
himself? No. Think this through, gang:
FC was a victory for whom, most of all? For MANAGEMENT. For the
EMPLOYER. Our so-called National Right to Work Organization(s) are
little more than management-funded operatives designed to destroy
unions from the inside. They poke around, looking for members with a
bone to pick and then pay for their lawsuits. The Marquez case
(another Starmaker favorite) is another classic example of this.
Somebody feels "screwed over", gets picked up by the NRTW and sues
SAG. She lost, but that's beside the point. The point is that these
phony-baloney flag-wavers have no real interest in enhancing workers'
lives -- they are created and paid for by corporations in order to
drive a wedge between members and their unions. The "happy" accident
of Beck was that it's loose wording allowed for an even further
perversion of the intent in the performing unions.
> That is indeed one of the ways SAG is very constructive with lower
> budget filmmaking. Would that all unions were like SAG on that
> subject.
Yep.
> But in reality, there is no real choice. Film acting is a closed
> shop.
No, it isn't. I've only done a couple of roles in major features, but
several under the limited-exhibition and other indie contracts. What
I have accepted is that I will not be a movie star - big difference.
I can and do work in films all the time, and with the unions'
blessings.
And be real - those who have that which classifies as a full career as
a film actor likely NEVER face a period in which they wish they could
work non-union. Usually, they do their student films and other
non-union work BEFORE ever joining SAG - and by the time they join,
they don't need to work off their card or wouldn't dream of working
for free without some union protection.
Please - ANYONE - bring me solid evidence of ANY ACTOR with a
significant film career who wishes they could have worked without a
union contract.
> I thought that Financial Core was about not paying for political
> activities one disagrees with. Isn't that the case?
Not in our unions. AGAIN - in some unions, as much as 30% of dues are
spent on political agendas. This is NOT the case in the performing
unions. The way the dues are handled for FCs is as follows:
The law says that an FC is required to pay their "fair share" of
collective bargaining, etc., and that anything the union spends that
is not related to improving wages and working conditions (etc) is not
subject to dues payment.
In SAG, this means that 97% of the dues must be paid. The savings to
an actor who declares FC is a whopping 3%.
AND YET AGAIN - I have challenged you guys to bring me solid evidence
of someone who has declared FC in a performing union for legitimate
"Beck"-style political reasons. You can't. The ONLY reason actors go
Core in SAG, AFTRA or AEA is to take non-union work. Period.
>
> Also you portray being a member of SAG as some wonderful life that
all
> aspire to when most members don't make a living.
The point here is missed, and it seems we go down this path every few
months. For WORKING actors, there is no better value than union
membership. The unions exist to protect and serve its members when
they are WORKING. The unions have no control (due to the subjective
nature of the business) over who gets cast in anything. Aside from
promoting more minority hires and greater opportunities for performers
with disabilities, there isn't a thing they can legally do to make
someone cast Jack Rooney instead of Nick Nolte (or whatever his
example was awhile back.) They cannot interefere with that process.
(And if they did, we'd hear such an outcry!)
All I am saying is that if you are going to work steadily in this
business, the BEST and most INTELLIGENT way to do it is via union
membership in good standing. Given everything we know about the
realtionship between agents and actors (again, totally subjective and
subject to all sorts of nuance) and the intangibles of "appeal" (most
humans are repelled and not attracted to the scent of desperation), it
is in an actor's BEST INTEREST to do all they can to maintain a good
relationship to a strong franchised agent and not give the appearance
of a "hack" who'll work for pennies on the dollar. I wasn't gonna "go
there" completely, but I'll tell you the truth: in Chicago, NY and
(yes, Starmie) LA, most FC actors are considered second best. Not
only by agents and other actors, but by CDs and directors and
producers. It sends up a red flag -- "Hmmm. Why is this person FC?
COULDN'T THEY GET ENOUGH WORK?" There is an aura of desperation
around those who are FC - I don't know anyone who thinks they're
"savvy", just that they're sad. Sorry, but it's true. It's like they
wear a sign that says, "I want to work union, but if you don't have
enough money, I'll take whatever you offer." May not always be true
or accurate, but that is the "energy" that surrounds it.
Look, a single job or a "dry spell" lasts but a short time in
comparison to an entire career. And I resent those who fiddle around
and treat acting as a profession as ONLY a way to make short money and
get their ego stroked. No one is GUARANTEED a living in this business
(or even in this world) - I'm sick of people behaving selfishly and
stupidly just to satisfy their own short-term desires.
>
> I guess it's better not to tak non-union jobs and not work. It's a
> hard problem when you're stuck in there I have to say with no real
> good solution I can think of.
My brand of "tough love" always calls for either hanging in there and
trying to improve your situation or backing away from the gun. One
good friend of mine is a wonderful actor who (unfortunately) has not
yet "grown into" his type. (He's a young man who is destined to be a
brilliant character actor once his physical appearance and age catch
up to his strengths.) What he decided to do two years ago was go and
pursue another career (in computers - where he is making some GREAT
money) and reenter the "biz" after he turns 50. It never occurred to
him to go around with his hat in his hand, doing non-equity tours
playing "fake" old men before his time. He'd rather wait and enjoy
working for professional wages and adequate working conditions.
Sigh. Why is it that in this profession - unlike SO many others -
people feel an "entitlement" to be successful? And why do they have so
much difficulty accepting that in this profession - unlike SO many
others - the odds of that happening are so slim to begin with?
> Because you can't have a career when you're not SAG. That's as
simple
> as that. It's a closed shop.
It's not, though. ;-) Ask the FCs who are making oodles and enjoying
amazing careers without being encumbered by the evil SAG.
And it is precisely BECAUSE of those laws that no one can ever argue
that it's a closed shop. It's not. Go look it up. US citizens are
free to act whenever and wherever they want, without joining the
union.
> And somehow that makes them efficient, honest and helpful just
because
> they're actors?
No, but what is often COMPLETELY overlooked is that the UNION IS THE
MEMBERS. The union is governed by ACTORS, who - even if they happen
to be very successful, which is rare - have all gone down the same
path and have experienced the same rejections and challenges. With
few exceptions, nobody in SAG was born famous - and none of us were
born SAG members.
I'm frankly sick of people blaming the union for their lack of
success. Maybe they just don't have what producers and directors want
to hire - or what agents want to represent. Why is it always SOMEONE
ELSE'S fault when our dreams don't come true? Whatever became of
personal responsibility and self-acceptance?
> You know very well that it's a closed shop and you can't be out if
you
> want a real career. Whether you like what the union does or not,
> whther you think they're taking too much of your money or not.
Asked and answered (this time and months before).
>
> It's true that if you don't value your work, why should anyone else
> value it? On the other hand... :)
In this business, there is no other hand. ;-)
If you can't maintain your dignity on your own and you're hoping
someone else will give it back to you if you should lose it, you're in
the WRRRRONGGGG business . . .
;-)
Lisa
Risaroo
<LA...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3b120adb....@news.pacificnet.net...
>
> Well, speaking of ignorance, California is NOT a "right-to-work"
> state. I have no idea what would have made you think it was.
>
> As for pretending that you can have a significant career without
> belonging to SAG, I don't know in which universe, but not this one.
Hey, LAGuy -
Opus has a point here. And you SHOULD know better about this by now,
because we have discussed it here many times before. Why do you
continue to make the same inaccurate point over and over? For once,
take the advice given and get off your dead ass and go research the
point.
And she knows CA is not a right-to-work state, and YOU KNOW that
wasn't what she was trying to say, anyway.
And honestly, I have to say this to EVERYONE (and not just you,
LAGuy):
If we're really gonna discuss issues like this in the alt.acting forum
(the sort that really DO have an impact on people's careers), let us
ALL show one another the courtesy of trying to inform ourselves before
we reply. Matters of FACT are different from matters of opinion -
let's try to respect that. Frankly, it is stone-cold BORING to read
the same specious crap over and over again -- and not to be a snob,
but if I were posting in alt.violinist and I were not a musician
myself, I think I would do my best to respect those who actually play
the violin for a living while visiting that forum.
I'm not accusing anyone (but Herman) of that at this point, but we
should remember that some people actually (god forbid) use these
forums as a means of gaining insight. Speculating about matters of
fact about which one knows very little is a slippery slope.
Since I have spent a lot of time educating myself about FC and have
seen it operating below the radar in our industry for about 12 years,
I feel qualified to speak to it. (And as a general rule, I try also
to have the courtesy to type the words "I don't know" when that
applies in a discussion.)
I guess what I am saying is if someone who is not an actor is
participating here because they care about issues that touch actor's
lives, they should please have the decency to sometimes admit that
they don't know what they're talking about, occasionally admit that
they have learned something and/or realize that their comments might
often do more harm than good (especially when they KNOW BETTER).
And by the way, it's not a mandate that everyone who posts here must
reply to every thread, is it? That is getting SO boring. If you
can't say something helpful or at least fairly entertaining or on
topic, just shut it, for heaven's sake.
Sorry, but nothing gets my Irish up more than a "little" knowledge,
and I've seen a lot of that thrown around on this topic since last
year.
Lisa
Opus
> here - this is the same as the one we had a few months ago . . .
>
how to edit this one so as to make everyone happy. Hell, I only had a
list of "What are the various ways I can get into the bidness" question
and Starmaker trashed it until a fly wouldn't light on it. Course, I
guess that should've been an indicator... <G>
I've had to pull it down from its former server, so when I find a new
place soon, and am not so busy personally, I'll resume and definitely
add this to it, but not before getting editing input from everyone.
The Openator
The Starmaker
"Financial Core Status." The union refers to these people as "dues
paying non-members." It is not possible for anyone to say for sure
who is and who is not financial core, because it is not legal for the
union to reveal this information.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
The following is a summary of policies that are followed by the Screen Actors Guild
in connection with the matter of "financial core status."
1) This publication is the notice to each member of the right to take "financial core status" and be in compliance
with the applicable union security clause. An employee at the time of application for membership is notified that
he or she may take "Financial core status" in place of Guild membership and be in compliance with the applicable
union security clause. The term "financial core status" refers to a person who works under a Collective
Bargaining Agreement between the Guild and producers which contains a union shop provision and who is
either (a) a member of the Guild who resigns and takes such "financial Core Status" or (b) a person who is
obligated to pay initiation fees and dues upon entering employment under a union security provision of a Guild
agreement in states where such provisions are lawful and elects not to become a member of the Guild.
2) An employee who takes "financial core status" in states where a union security clause is applied is obligated
to pay the Guild initiation fees and the regular dues as if such an employee was a member of the Guild subject to
a reduction in the amount of dues that the Guild expends for political, sociological or ideological objectives.
3) A member who makes a written request for "financial core status" shall be deemed to have resigned from
membership in the Guild. By such resignation, such person will have no rights of membership (as distinguished
from employment rights under a collective bargaining agreement).
4) The rules on a member who takes "financial core status" and later wishes to rejoin the Guild are set forth in
Article III Section 2 (1), (2) and (3) of the Guild Constitution.
5) The "financial core status" person is only obligated to pay that share of the Guild dues that are chargeable for
the cost of Guild administration, collective bargaining, representation and to relevant and germane
representation matters and cannot be charged on expenses as to political, social and ideological matters.
6) The Guild, at the end of each fiscal year, will, by an independent auditor, determine which expenses of the
Guild for the fiscal year are chargeable and not chargeable.
7) The categories of expenditures based on the opinion of Legal Counsel that the Guild will use in determining
which expenses are chargeable and not chargeable are specified in the Guild's policy and are available upon
request.
8) A person who requests "financial core status" may choose to pay the full amount of the regular dues. Any
member of the Guild who takes "financial core status" or an employee who is required to fulfill Guild financial
obligations under the union security clause; who desires to only pay the amount of dues that are chargeable to a
"financial core status" employee must notify the Guild in writing that he or she does not desire to pay the full
amount of Guild dues. Such written request must be signed by such "financial core status" person. The
reduction of dues will take effect in the next dues period after such notice is received by the Guild.
9) A "financial core status" person may within thirty (30) days after taking "financial core status" or after
receiving the audit statement, file a written objection to any of the items of the expenditures breakdown or to the
percentage of the dues that the Guild has determined must be paid. Such objections must be in writing and
signed by the person filing the objection. If the Guild does not agree with the objection either as to the
expenditures or as to the percentage amount of dues to be paid, then the Guild will notify the "financial core
status" person so objecting in writing that such person has ten (10) days to request arbitration; and if he or she
fails to do so within that time by a written notice, then such person waives their right to arbitration.
10) The Guild will schedule one arbitration per year if any are requested by a "financial core status" person. If
there is more than one request for arbitration, the Guild will consolidate all such objections into one arbitration
proceeding. The Guild will provide an impartial arbitration proceeding through the American Arbitration
Association (AAA). The Guild will pay the administrative costs of the AAA and the arbitrator's fees.
11) The Guild will open an interest bearing, separate and identifiable escrow account. Any portion of dues that is
received by the Guild on behalf of a "financial core status" person that is in dispute will be placed in such
escrow account.
12) A copy of the Guild policy and the percentage of chargeable expences, and legal listing of chargeable and
nonchargeable expenditures, and the most recent audit by the independent accounting firm, is available upon
written request to the Guild.
A Cut and Paste Starmaker Producetion
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
believing that they must become members and pay full membership dues, the Supreme
Court has held that a union must notify employees that they have the right to refuse
union membership and to pay only financial core dues. If the union fails to give the
required notice, the union has violated the National Labor Relations Act and an
employee is entitled, upon request, to a refund of any dues and fees paid by the
employee to the union in excess of financial core dues for a six-month period.
The Starmaker
the employee to resign from the union. However, the employee remains fully
covered by the collective bargaining agreement, and the union must continue to
represent that employee with respect to such matters as grievance processing. But
by refusing to pay for other than financial core activities, the employee often
foregoes any opportunity to participate in strike votes, ratification or rejection of a
new contract, and union official elections.
An employee who has elected to pay only for financial core activities is still entitled
to file a grievance and be represented the Union. Further, the employee would be
entitled to the wages and benefits under the collective bargaining agreement. But
the employee would not be entitled to vote in union elections or even to vote on
whether to ratify the next collective bargaining agreement.
If an employee elects to resign from his union and only pay for financial core
activities, the employer may find itself in a difficult situation. Unions are seldom
pleased to discover than an employee is resigning to reduce his financial obligation
to the union. The employer often seeks to maintain a good relationship with the
union and may find itself caught between the employee and the union.
An employer that solicits or encourages employees to resign their union
membership faces a possible unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor
Relations Act. However, an employer may assist the employee when the employee
initiates the idea, and the employee can stop the resignation process without the
interference or knowledge of the employer.
If an employee advises the union and the employer that he wishes to pay only for
financial core activities, the employer may be caught in the middle. The employer is
often deducting dues automatically from the employee's pay. What is the employer
to do while the union determines how much money should be deducted for financial
core activities? Many employers escrow the dues deductions until advised by the
union as to the amount for financial core activities. At that point, the employer pays
over that amount to the union and refunds the balance to the employee.
There is a growing effort to advise employees of their right to pay only for financial
core union activities. This will likely be a highly-charged political issue as
conservative groups seek to limit the political power of organized labor and the
unions seek to use members' dues to advance political causes.
The Starmaker
rules. A production company is able to choose whether to sign with one union, all unions are
selected unions. Union members are prohibited from working for production companies that do not
sign with a union; it is the individual union member who works for a non-union production company
that is penalized by the union (not the production company itself). "Financial core" membership in a
union permits an individual to work for both union and non-union productions without penalty while
still permitting the "Financial Core" member to enjoy most rights and privileges of union membership
(such as participation in union health and pension plans)
The Starmaker
Five states now have some form of Paycheck Protection on the books,
either banning the
use of paycheck-deducted union dues for politics, or requiring unions to
obtain their members’ permission before deducting money from their
paychecks for politics.
Paycheck protection codifies a simple philosophy: If you want someone
else to give you money for your political campaign, you’re going to have
to get his or her permission first.
The Starmaker
Drama Queen
Good grief Hector, how is a FC dues paying *NON*-member supposed to participate in
the union health & pension plan if they don't even work enough in union
jurisdiction to warrant maintaining membership in good standing, let alone qualify
for health insurance? One $5 pension contribution over a 10 year period doesn't go
very far towards retirement income ya know, ...not even with compound interest.
>
> A Cut and Paste Starmaker Producetion
> The Starmaker
Cut and Paste huh? The story of your credentials.
At least you could have spell "Production" correctly. Sheesh!
de Valois
rhetoric is inconducive to a serious discussion of the issue? All of us can
come up with anecdotal evidence that this decision is a bad (or good...I'm
sure Jack will refute this apocrypha), but let's talk facts, instead of
emotion.
--
Carl
So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
Risaroo wrote in message <9ermok$kht$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
Risaroo
"The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
It is not possible for anyone to say for sure
> who is and who is not financial core, because it is not legal for
the
> union to reveal this information.
Not true. It's legal, they just opt not to do it - because they don't
want any additional attention called to it.
And aside from Wilford Brimley and Dave Thomas of Wendy's (both of
whom went FC during last year's strike), who are the other FC "stars"
you refer to, Starmie?
Lisa
Risaroo
news:3B12EB...@ix.netcom.com...
> Actors Should demand "Paycheck Protection".
which does not apply. First of all, it is totally up to an actor
whether or not to have their INITIATION FEE deducted (usually only
valid on films and AEA productions, where an actor receives a regular
paycheck); "dues" can't be deducted because they are calculated twice
a year and are based on previous earnings. It would be impossible to
keep straight.
Secondly, (as I have said 1,000 times) the performing unions do NOT
donate to political campaigns. When and if they ever do, I would be
willing to entertain someone's "Beck" objection.
Lisa
de Valois
because no one else can claim to be him.
--
Carl
So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
Risaroo wrote in message <9f0c2e$h73$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
LA...@la.com
wrote:
>
><LA...@LA.com> wrote in message
>news:3b120adb....@news.pacificnet.net...
>
>>
>> Well, speaking of ignorance, California is NOT a "right-to-work"
>> state. I have no idea what would have made you think it was.
>>
>> As for pretending that you can have a significant career without
>> belonging to SAG, I don't know in which universe, but not this one.
>
>Hey, LAGuy -
>
>Opus has a point here. And you SHOULD know better about this by now,
>because we have discussed it here many times before. Why do you
>continue to make the same inaccurate point over and over?
Because it's NOT inaccurate.
>For once,
>take the advice given and get off your dead ass and go research the
>point.
>
>And she knows CA is not a right-to-work state, and YOU KNOW that
>wasn't what she was trying to say, anyway.
Then why did she say it wa a right to work state. I mean it's not
like her post was ambiguous.
>
>And honestly, I have to say this to EVERYONE (and not just you,
>LAGuy):
>
>If we're really gonna discuss issues like this in the alt.acting forum
>(the sort that really DO have an impact on people's careers), let us
>ALL show one another the courtesy of trying to inform ourselves before
>we reply.
Hmmmmm.... I did inform myself and I happen to be right and Opus (or
whomever that nick really is) started insulting me... Yeah, maybe
when people think someone made an error they should stop throwing
insults around and say something like "I believe you're wrong"... :)
Risaroo
"de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
news:0kOQ6.18379$Rh7.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> An enjoyable post, Lisa, but don't you think engaging in this kind
of
> rhetoric is inconducive to a serious discussion of the issue?
Not really, Carl. I think the FC Booster Club wants people to
envision a great wide world of freedom and wealth beyond union shores.
The reality is usually a different matter. If we're gonna discuss a
topic this important, we MUST look at both sides.
And there are few issues that threaten the collective bargaining
process for actors more than FC - I consider what I wrote to be deadly
serious. I would have far more respect for those who push FC if they
either shared the potential pitfalls or displayed some concrete
evidence of how it has TRULY enhanced their careers. As it stands,
most are nothing short of snake oil salesmen.
All of us can
> come up with anecdotal evidence that this decision is a bad (or
good...I'm
> sure Jack will refute this apocrypha), but let's talk facts, instead
of
> emotion.
The story I told (while not naming names) is actually true and not
apocryphal in the least. I also know no less than five or six other
people in Chicago who (by their own admission) "panicked" and went FC
during a dry spell and have lived to regret it. Now they can't get
cast beyond non-union industrials, and feel that even if they
reinstated their membership to good standing it's too late to appear
anything but "non-union" in the eyes of local CDs and agents.
Starmaker put forward a vision of FC that compares an acting career to
nothing but a Bingo game. What was missing from that scenario of flag
waving and instant riches was the other side of the story. And if
we're going to equate a career in this business with Bingo, let us at
least recognize that there is a big difference between playing in the
church basement with a top prize of $25 and playing in Vegas with a
top prize of $1000.
One of the reasons I am so rabidly against FC for actors is that it
often hurts them more than it helps. The savings on dues is
insignificant and (given the state of what we laughingly call the
"industrial" market today) even non-union jobs are pretty sparse these
days. But more importantly, too often folks fail to consider all the
other variables (how most franchised agents perceive it, how
vulnerable they are to abuses, etc) - and they wind up sorry they went
FC, but feel they can't turn back.
Here's another anecdote for ya (completely true):
A woman I know is struggling with the decision to reinstate for many
reasons - chief among them, the betrayal she felt last summer when the
FC person who encouraged her to go FC (a good friend) scabbed with a
vengeance. In her mind, FC was one thing, but scabbing a different
story altogether.
HOWEVER, to compound the problem - she did a series of local TV spots
for a retailer in Chicago about five years ago (just after going FC).
The four spots have never stopped running - morning, noon and night;
spring, summer, winter and fall -- she is the "XXXX XXXXXXX Lady".
Likewise, she shot a big batch of footage (MOS) for another client
that has been on the air sporadically for about five years as well -
and this footage has also been sold and used by a whole bunch of
different stores in different cities and states. When she told me
that both jobs were "buyouts", I nearly croaked.
Although she cannot prove it, she feels that these two jobs - both of
them five years old and the ONLY significant "for air" oncamera work
she has ever done - have prevented her from getting a shot at any
significant union oncamera gig in Chicago (remember: many Class
A/Network spots are cast and shot here, as well as film and some TV).
I cannot argue the logic, because we must remember that the people who
cast and direct in a given market watch TV and listen to the radio,
too. They are consumers, too - people who, just like us, stay up late
watching an old movie and see the same crappy local spots we all see
and hear. It gets in their head - the image of those folks on spots
that air over and over and over again. (To make this more personal,
if I were not being well compensated for my Bally Total Fitness spots
under a union contract, I'd be in the same boat. They are running on
cable constantly, and I can take comfort in knowing that I am at least
being well paid for having my voice saturating the nation - and parts
of Canada - in that way. Imagine having that volume of exposure with
no additional payment. Likewise, I do union "promo" work (station
IDS, etc.), and a friend gave me great advice about it when I started
out. He said, "Never do promos in your home market, because it will
kill your commercial work. The creatives will get sick of your voice
if they hear it every night on their own local news." As it stands
right now, the only promo work I have on the air that is heard in
Chicago is NBC Nightly News. And that is worth the risk, believe
me.*)
Anyhow, after those spots went on the air, she saw her actual bookings
rapidly trickle down to only non-union industrials and non-union
voiceovers. After about a year, she wasn't even getting called in for
union AUDITIONS anymore. And this is a bright, pretty and very
talented woman. She's both over-exposed in this market and
(unfortunately) tagged as "non-union" by the CDs and agents.
And now, she's afraid of reinstating and turning her back on the only
thing she has left: a few regular non-union industrial and VO clients.
I understand her situation -- if she can't be sure those spots will
ever go off the air, how can she risk cutting off the only work she's
got left?
Carl, you may consider this to be "emotional" and purely anecdotal,
but I know the people I'm talking about. Some FCs really are just
marginally talented goofballs with little hope of really "making it"
as full-time actors, but some of them are terrific and viable people
who grasped too greedily at a quick fix, and now find themselves
perennial (if undeserved) fixtures at the Industry Kiddie Table. And
all because they took the advice of somebody who either didn't think
it through, or someone who was simply looking for company in the
depths of Hell.
Lisa
PS: *Why is it that no one in here ever discusses the actual work
they do? It might go a long way toward understanding who knows of
whence they speak and who is just blowin' smoke . . .and besides, I'd
love to know if I can catch someone from this forum in a film or on
TV, wouldn't you?
Risaroo
> Does Dave Thomas really even count? He's going to appear in his
commercials
> because no one else can claim to be him.
Thank you. See? These are the "big names" that get lauded by FC
proponents, and both of them have been FC less than a year.
Lisa
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
PS: I will compare pay stubs, resumes and quality of life issues with
anyone who is FC. If I had bailed and gone FC when the going got
rough, I would not be where I am today. You can think I'm being mean
or snotty or elitist, but all I am really saying is DON'T SELL OUT
WHEN IT GETS ROUGH. Hang in there or quit and do something else, but
don't whore yourself. It will never get any better once you take that
step backward!
Ok. Let's see them.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
<3B12A4BE...@hilarious.com>:
>question
>and Starmaker trashed it until a fly wouldn't light on it
You are a big fat liar. Why do you tell lies about me? I don't get it. I
can make you a STAR!
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>Well, speaking of ignorance, California is NOT a "right-to-work"
>state. I have no idea what would have made you think it was.
>
>As for pretending that you can have a significant career without
>belonging to SAG, I don't know in which universe, but not this one.
>
>
But it should be! Vote for me and I will do away with all th ecrooked
Unions and then you actors will thank me becasue i will get you dog food
commercials!
The Starmaker
Luca
<3B11CFAA...@hilarious.com>:
Something you would know quite a blt about, Not having a craeer.
Jules
Luca
Well, that happens here, too - but Chicago is leaning more and more
toward exculsivity every day. What the problem is, though, is that
given the WIDE chasm between union and non-union agents in this city
(on every level) - AND because many FCs don't bother to TELL their
franchised agent that they are FC - what happens is that a FC actor
can go ages "double dipping" with few people knowing about it.
(Because they often don't get cast or called in for as many union
gigs - for a variety of reasons - the franchised agents don't tend to
have them on their "primary radar", ya know?) Little things like
strikes tend to "out" them. Or my agent's favorite from a couple of
years ago: learning that an actor was FC by booking him on a union
industrial, and then losing the client and the commission six months
later because the FC started having the producer call him at home for
future bookings.
Needless to say, he rarely heard from that agent again.
RU482
>Does Dave Thomas really even count? He's going to appear in his
>commercials because no one else can claim to be him.
>
You don't count, that's all we know. That's all we care to know. Put your
dick back in your pants and go get a job
Risaroo
<LA...@LA.com> wrote in message
news:3b13c60a....@news.pacificnet.net...
> Because it's NOT inaccurate.
Your statement that an actor MUST be in SAG to have a career is
inaccurate. But I get your point - I, too, agree that the BEST and
most INTELLIGENT option is to join SAG, but those who espouse FC and
non-union work (if they are to be believed) will tell you that one not
necessarily join the union to have a wonderful career. ;-)
You and I may disagree with that thinking, but they will tell you -
AND FEDERAL LAW WILL BACK THEM UP - that no one MUST join the union in
order to work.
Is that splitting hairs? Perhaps. But the TRUTH is what it is. YOU
DO NOT HAVE TO JOIN THE UNION TO WORK, or according to Jack Rooney,
EVEN HAVE A SATISFYING AND SIGNIFICANT FILM CAREER.
I guess it all depends upon how you define "satisfying" and
"significant".
Hey, I keep begging people to bring me an example of someone who is
making it big outside of union membership, but no examples have been
forthcoming.
>
> Then why did she say it wa a right to work state. I mean it's not
> like her post was ambiguous.
She didn't say that, LA. She referred to "Right to Work STATES", and
not California. She knows CA is not RTW.
> Hmmmmm.... I did inform myself
In what way? If you have read the volumes of material on
right-to-work law in this country (as I have), you would know better.
The most accurate statement that can be made is as follows, and you've
never made it:
The vast majority of major feature films shot in the US are SAG. You
can opt not to join the union (as is your RIGHT) and maybe even still
get cast, but your best odds of having a big movie career are moving
to Los Angeles, getting a franchised agent, a good manager and working
only on SAG projects with all the protection they provide.
You've said the same thing over and over again, without acknowledging
that people do NOT have to join the union. That's the only bone I'm
pickin'.
>and I happen to be right
Well, kinda . . .but you're being too stubborn about your point
without explaining it fully (as I just did above)
and Opus (or
> whomever that nick really is) started insulting me...
Agreed. But even I am starting to see how you get under people's skin
sometimes.
Yeah, maybe
> when people think someone made an error they should stop throwing
> insults around and say something like "I believe you're wrong"... :)
I agree again. But you even got to me this time, and I've usually
been supportive! ;-)
Lisa
Risaroo
"The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> Ok. Let's see them.
What would you like to know, Horatio? Right now, I have spots on the
air for:
NBC Nightly News
Comfort Bath
OneADay Vitamins
Quotesmith.com
Bally Total Fitness
Boomerang Wireless
and about a dozen different banks, dot.coms, hospitals, insurance
companies and various other shit I can't remember off the top of my
head. My most recent appearance in a feature film is still running on
pay cable damn near every night ("Stir of Echoes"), and I write and
perform comedy with Annoyance Productions and perform at the
ImprovOlympic every Sunday night. Past stage credits include "Uncle
Vanya" (with Hal Holbrook), "Othello" with Delroy Lindo and more
regional theatre than you can shake a stick at.
I made over six figures last year, and that's considering I was out
of work and on strike for six months.
I own a two-flat in the city of Chicago, pay ridiculous taxes for the
privilege, drive an American car and am happily married to a very
funny stand-up comedian who works 40 weeks out of every year at clubs
all across the country. I have no pets, no children and I AM A
NATURAL BLONDE.
Please take this opportunity to go farg yourself.
Regards,
Lisa Lewis
SAG/AFTRA/AEA
Chicago
Risaroo
"Jules" <Lyth...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:Xns90B06919Ejerk...@210.118.50.40...
And as I said, the minute SAG/AFTRA or AEA starts spending dues money
on political causes that argument will have relevance. As it stands
today (and has for fifty-plus years), THEY DON'T.
Lisa
The Starmaker
> > A Cut and Paste Starmaker Producetion
> > The Starmaker
>
> Cut and Paste huh? The story of your credentials.
> At least you could have spell "Production" correctly. Sheesh!
Try to keep up, I didn't spell it, it was a cut and paste.
LA...@la.com
wrote:
>> >YES YOU CAN! It's called, "Right-to-Work States". Look it up and stop
>> >showing your ignorance.
>>
>> Well, speaking of ignorance, California is NOT a "right-to-work"
>> state. I have no idea what would have made you think it was.
>>
>I didn't even begin to infer that CA was.
You clearly did. If you didn't mean to, then it's good :)
>It is not, and I know that.
>I said, stateS, plural. You fail to recognize ALL of the others that
>allow a lot of us to have very prosperous careers outside of
>CA-central.
Hmmm, how many people have significant careers outsie of Califonia
(and possibly New York)?
>Just check out the stats for Atlanta and Miami sometime for
>non-union actors. Sheesh.
Anybody whose name I'd recognize? I didn't think so.
>
>
>> As for pretending that you can have a significant career without
>> belonging to SAG, I don't know in which universe, but not this one.
>>
>Keep living in your dreamworld and telling yourself that SAG is the only
>way to have a successful career,
It is. It's not a dreamworld. The dreamworld is pretending
otherwise.
>and if that makes you sleep at night,
>then fine, leave it alone. But stop pretending to know what the hell
>you are talking about, because in this instance, you clearly do not,
Saying that you don't have to be SAG to have a significant career is
LOL absurd.
>and
>I have told you that time and time again.
And that was absurd time and time again.
>If you can produce some
>credentials or research that shows you know what you are talking about,
Name any name actor who's not SAG. There you go.
>then fine, I will continue to debate you on this topic. But for god's
>sake, until you can, please stop spouting rhetoric that makes you look
>dumber and dumber.
It's saying thing like what you did that makes YOU look that way.
>I don't blame DQ for beating you up; you don't know
>how to debate a topic.
LOLROTF>
You really must be DQ.
DQ's definition of "knowing how to debate" = Opus' definition of
"knowing how to debate" = agreeing with DQ and Opus.
LOL
>
>It's this "LAGuy knows all even if it doesn't pertain to him" attitude
>that pisses a lot of people off in this group.
What "pisses off' you and DQ is that anyone would dare disagree wtih
you even when you make such statements as actors being able to have
significant careers outside of SAG.
The Starmaker
All I know is if it's good enough for Charlton Heston, (former President
of The Screen Actors Guild) it's good enough for *every* hard working
actor.
http://www.markmcintire.com/new_page_1.htm
The Starmaker
http://www.markmcintire.com/new_page_1.htm
Charlton Heston endorses it, and
it's your legal right to enact it.
Bill491
LA...@LA.com wrote:
> Then why did she say it wa a right to work state. I mean it's not
> like her post was ambiguous.
Why, LAGUY, does it take you THREE POSTS for your to hear the the message?
Opus never said that California was a right-to-work state. She lives in a
right-to-work state and knows the difference. And she is on the verge of
earning her first union card. And she will play by the rules, especially
Rule Number One.
Lisa made comments in a recent post that support what Opus and I am
saying.. Now I'm asserting the same thing.... I've known Opus (Carla) for
some years.... and she KNOWS which states are labor-friendly and which are
right-to- work. She NEVER suggested that California was a right to work
state.
So you've lost this argument, LAGUY. Suck it up. Get used to it.
I know you well, by now, and I also know that you will never, ever
apologize to Opus for your oversight, or your mis-statements. That's your
issue, your agenda. Continue to be nasty and contrary in these issues and
debates. Or maybe, just maybe listen and learn and then engage in a real
dialogue.
> Hmmmmm.... I did inform myself and I happen to be right and Opus (or
> whomever that nick really is) started insulting me... Yeah, maybe
> when people think someone made an error they should stop throwing
> insults around and say something like "I believe you're wrong"... :)
You're pretty thin-skinned, LAGUY. And you're also semi-clever at
disguising your insults, especially since you are an unknown qauntity. If
you want more credibility, then either make better arguments, or cite your
credentials.
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
de Valois
Risaroo wrote in message <9f0g2b$jsv$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>Carl, you may consider this to be "emotional" and purely anecdotal,
>but I know the people I'm talking about. Some FCs really are just
>marginally talented goofballs with little hope of really "making it"
>as full-time actors, but some of them are terrific and viable people
>who grasped too greedily at a quick fix, and now find themselves
>perennial (if undeserved) fixtures at the Industry Kiddie Table. And
>all because they took the advice of somebody who either didn't think
>it through, or someone who was simply looking for company in the
>depths of Hell.
>
Lisa, again, I'm not doubting the truth of your stories for one minute.
But let's look at the bigger picture: what percentage of union actors go FC?
How many of them do as poorly as those union actors who do not go FC, and
yet still can't get work? How many FC actors drop the business altogether,
versus what percentage of union actors that quit? What does the average FC
actor make each year versus what an average non-FC SAG member makes?
I'm not doubting your stories. I believe they are true. But I also believe
there's something more here than meets the eye. I'd prefer to understand the
situation in totality. For example, you related how one actor went FC and
was told he couldn't "work in this town again" because he was so tied to a
product. How do we know he would even have been considered if he hadn't had
that spot running endlessly for years and years?
In other words, when dealing with subjective evidence, one has to consider
all possibilities that can be ascribed to an individual state. Show me some
objective arguments.
Mind you, I'm not going and probably never would go, financial core. I'm
just curious as to the ultimate effect of that decision when others make it.
Never know when I might have to persuade someone else they shouldn't do it.
>
>PS: *Why is it that no one in here ever discusses the actual work
>they do? It might go a long way toward understanding who knows of
>whence they speak and who is just blowin' smoke . . .and besides, I'd
>love to know if I can catch someone from this forum in a film or on
>TV, wouldn't you?
>
Take a look around you, Lisa, at the trolls and denizens of
alt-religion.wicca who are trying to take over this group. Now answer that
question for yourself.
de Valois
--
Carl
So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
Risaroo wrote in message <9f0jfs$5fn$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
de Valois
<cross-posting headers trimmed>
--
Carl
So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
Risaroo wrote in message <9f0jca$da4$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
de Valois
>privilege, drive an American car and am happily married to a very
>funny stand-up comedian who works 40 weeks out of every year at clubs
>all across the country. I have no pets, no children and I AM A
>NATURAL BLONDE.
>
Y'know, I wasn't one bit jealous until I got to this last sentence...
de Valois
How wold one go about finding out if a SAG actor is FC, anyway? I doubt SAG
or the actor would be too quick to admit it.
de Valois
--
Carl
So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
The Starmaker wrote in message <3B13D7...@ix.netcom.com>...
Opus
> of The Screen Actors Guild) it's good enough for *every* hard working
> actor.
>
That's insulting to those of us who are actors and work hard, HECTOR.
How dare you pretend to know anything about our profession, you hack?
Opus
de Valois
expanded to include a.r.w and alt.politics.bush.
You're dealing with a bunch of cowards. You're better off ignoring them.
Starmie has agreed to the principles we all read about a few weeks back.
Take it from there, and put away your old ways of thinking about him.
--
Carl
So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
The Starmaker wrote in message ...
The Starmaker
> How dare you pretend to know anything about our profession, you hack?
What's wrong with "pretend"? You guys do that for a living. I do it for
free.
de Valois
--
Carl
So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
Opus wrote in message <3B13EB04...@hilarious.com>...
Opus
> >> >showing your ignorance.
> >>
> >> Well, speaking of ignorance, California is NOT a "right-to-work"
> >> state. I have no idea what would have made you think it was.
> >>
> >I didn't even begin to infer that CA was.
>
> You clearly did. If you didn't mean to, then it's good :)
>
no speaka English?
> Hmmm, how many people have significant careers outsie of Califonia
> (and possibly New York)?
Well here we go. I do not use the word "significant" to mean "I"m a
bloody star." It means they are working constantly and at least paying
their bills. BIG difference. Believe it or not, there is enough
non-union work in these areas to actually sustain people.
> Saying that you don't have to be SAG to have a significant career is
> LOL absurd.
>
It just makes me wonder WHY you do this in every debate set forth before
you here? You insult me by saying that I do not know what happens in
RTW states, in spite of the fact that I LIVE HERE! I have not insulted
your precious SAG one time in this. I don't sit here behind my keyboard
and claim to know how many California SAG people are actually stars, how
many are out of work and how many are barely keeping their heads above
water. Why? Because I do not live in California. Yet you consistently
insult and berate my assertions, without ever having set forth any
evidence to prove to the contrary. THAT is your ignorance showing.
You're not disagreeing with me, you are belittling me, saying that what
I've said is a bold-faced lie by telling me I have no idea what I'm
talking about and THAT is what makes me a bit peeved with you.
> Name any name actor who's not SAG. There you go.
>
Again, it does not automatically mean that anyone who makes a living
paying their bills and supporting their families, has a name for
themselves. But, I can understand your attitude considering where you
live. Hell, you're not even an actor, why in god's name should this be
another one of your banners that you've taken up?
> It's saying thing like what you did that makes YOU look that way.
>
Duhie, uh, ya, you rught. Oyie boyie, I'n so stoopit.
> You really must be DQ.
>
Then why aren't you worshipping me? (Hey DQ, he set it up, figured I
might as well play along.)
> DQ's definition of "knowing how to debate" = Opus' definition of
> "knowing how to debate" = agreeing with DQ and Opus.
>
No LAGuy, you said you don't read my posts half the time, so I wouldn't
expect you to know how I debate. But I do NOT have a problem with you
disagreeing with me, I never have. People disagree with me all the
time. IT'S FINE. What I do have a problem with, is you, asserting that
you know what you are talking about, when you clearly do not. I bet
you've never even been out of California.
> What "pisses off' you and DQ is that anyone would dare disagree wtih
> you even when you make such statements as actors being able to have
> significant careers outside of SAG.
>
Oh sweet cheeks, many who are more man than you have disagreed with me
very often, and they are a-still-a-livin. I do not have a problem with
someone disagreeing with me. You however, have a reading comprehension
problem, as I've had to repeatedly repeat myself with you, and you still
don't get it. And of your smiley emoticoneys do nothing but belie your
intense disdain for actors who are not a part of your precious union.
Look. I am not going to do this with you. You seem to feed upon it,
but I can do without this type of repartee just fine. My point in
engaging you to begin with, was to point out to you, Mr. "CA is the
center of the universe", that there are plenty of people who earn a
living outside of SAG. Not everyone is in the game to make a huge name
for themselves, and beweeve it orw not, they are fine and dandy and
zippy and happy.
Opus
evander
Action Committee. The lobby group to lobby the DGA's interests in
Washington. During the meeting, it's in the minutes, it's stated that PAC
was formed because unions are banned from contributing to political
activities. Therefore members should donate to PAC. The DGA just hired a guy
to lobby Wa. to try and help stop runaway production. His salary comes from
the PAC budget.
Risaroo <ris...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9f0jfs$5fn$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Risaroo
> http://www.markmcintire.com/new_page_1.htm
>
> All I know is if it's good enough for Charlton Heston, (former
President
> of The Screen Actors Guild) it's good enough for *every* hard
working
> actor.
Well, Heston might be on that loser's page, but he is no longer FC
himself in AFTRA (as far as I know) and NEVER went FC in SAG. Can you
say hypocrite, Moses?
ANYHOO . . .
And yes, everyone, by all means do as much as you possibly can to
emulate Charleton Heston . . .
sheesh!
Lisa
Risaroo
> This is also not Starmie. Note when you're replying the group
headers have
> expanded to include a.r.w and alt.politics.bush.
Got it. I didn't realize we were back in Trollville again.
And I apologized to SM in private email, but I'll do it here again:
Sorry, Harry. You don't have to go farg yourself.
Lisa
Opus
> http://www.markmcintire.com/new_page_1.htm
>
> All I know is if it's good enough for Charlton Heston, (former President
> of The Screen Actors Guild) it's good enough for *every* hard working
> actor.
>
> http://www.markmcintire.com/new_page_1.htm
>
> The Starmaker
>
> http://www.markmcintire.com/new_page_1.htm
>
> Charlton Heston endorses it, and
> it's your legal right to enact it.
>
Opus
de Valois
running around here. Bunch of talentless faggots, if you ask me.
--
Carl
So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
Risaroo wrote in message <9f0v7t$tmg$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
Opus
> >emulate Charleton Heston . . .
> >
>
>
Good one Carl. *LOL*
Opus
de Valois
>
>And yes, everyone, by all means do as much as you possibly can to
>emulate Charleton Heston . . .
>
Well, I know *I* often part the Red Sea...
--
Risaroo
>
> Lisa, again, I'm not doubting the truth of your stories for one
minute.
Well, you used the word "apocryphal" - which in my mind is equated
with "fictional" or "unsubstantiated".
>
> But let's look at the bigger picture: what percentage of union
actors go FC?
Admittedly, few.
> How many of them do as poorly as those union actors who do not go
FC, and
> yet still can't get work?
I do not know.
How many FC actors drop the business altogether,
> versus what percentage of union actors that quit?
Don't know.
What does the average FC
> actor make each year versus what an average non-FC SAG member makes?
Couldn't say. It would be interesting to know, and heck, perhaps it
might even strengthen their case if they could really demonstrate some
valid economic reason for potentially jeopardizing their option of
getting more union work.
I'd love to see the statistics on it, but again, that would depend
upon FCs coming forward and opening their books - something I would
never ask anyone to do. Honest.
>
> I'm not doubting your stories. I believe they are true. But I also
believe
> there's something more here than meets the eye. I'd prefer to
understand the
> situation in totality. For example, you related how one actor went
FC and
> was told he couldn't "work in this town again" because he was so
tied to a
> product.
He wasn't told he'd never "work in this town again" - but he did start
asking the CDs if they thought the awful spot was hurting him. One of
them said that she honestly thought so. But remember: this guy wasn't
her biggest booker to begin with -- she didn't go out of her way to
tell him or anything. For all we know, this guy was the third person
that day who asked her why he wasn't getting cast or called in that
much. I don't know - I wasn't there. But I know that he felt
severely limited after awhile, and that crappy thing being on the air
incessantly didn't help. If memory serves, he had been in the union
less than a year when he started fiddling around with this, and (in my
opinion) never really had the patience to let his career as a union
actor develop. He got greedy and needy.
>How do we know he would even have been considered if he hadn't had
> that spot running endlessly for years and years?
As I said, we don't. But what we DO know is that he sure as hell
didn't get properly compensated for the amount of time and ad nauseum
airings. He felt ripped off after the first year went by -- I'd have
been pissed after the first six months.
>
> In other words, when dealing with subjective evidence, one has to
consider
> all possibilities that can be ascribed to an individual state. Show
me some
> objective arguments.
Whaddaya want from me, Carl? ;-) He asked around and was told what
he was told. And I watched him go from someone I would see at
auditions frequently to someone I only saw once in a blue moon. That,
coupled with what he shared about his experience, is all I have to go
on.
This ENTIRE business is subjective, so who's EVER to know why someone
doesn't get cast or called in. This guy did the math and realized that
his short-sighted step back into the non-union world cost a lot more
than it netted him. But I can tell you this, from my own experience:
when I see people wrinkle their noses or roll their eyes at the words
Financial Core - and by "people", I mean franchised agents and casting
directors (as well as other actors), it tells me something about the
way people perceive it. Agents don't trust them, many casting
directors view them as strictly non-union (by and large) and after
last year most other actors assume that they are probably scabs to
boot. Whether or not that last assessment is fair or accurate does
not matter -- as you know, in show biz perception IS reality.
So, why anyone would saddle themselves with that is beyond me. I
understand that there are a few VO people who claim to do "well" as
FCs, but I have never seen evidence of anyone really breaking the bank
with it. (I read a post in another forum the other day regarding
non-union (or FC) VO rates for promos and I almost swallowed my
tongue. Appallingly low, and even the guy who posted it said "you
sure can't make a living" from it. Then why make it harder to improve
or maintain the union rate by lowballing your FC rates, Cheapo? Oh,
yes. So you can get your ego stroked and feel like a pro. Jeez. It
gets my goat.) But anway, I have NEVER seen evidence of anyone on the
oncamera side of things "getting a big break" or becoming a "name" or
a "star" thanks to working as a Financial Core actor.
We should also realize that in the smaller markets it is more rampant
than in the Big Three, and doing a lot more damage to the status of
professional performers in those areas. (And as Opus says, "not to
mention in the RTW states" - where you don't have to even bother.)
And that is what concerns me most - in a market like Pittsburgh (for
example), a SAG or AFTRA member used to be able to make a decent
living doing non-broadcast and the occasional regional/local
commercial or play. Making a living meant busting your ass and
working in two or three neighboring states, but it was possible. Now,
with FC running rampant -- thanks mostly to one agent in Steeltown who
is encouraging everyone to do it -- it puts the member in good
standing at a distinct disadvantage. When you've got tired radio
jocks trying to break into VO and working for nothing "just to get a
foot in the door" while their oldies morning show is still on the air
and paying their bills, and more and more non-broadcast work going the
way of the 'Net and CD-ROM (minus the human beings in the lab coats),
you've got an environment that starts to smell like "Every Man For
Himself". Usually, it is the newbies and the near-retirement crowd
that falls first. Those with (seemingly) the least to lose. What
care they - they're just starting out/not getting cast anymore! Which
is another thing that galls me -- the "I'm dragging you all down with
me" code of ethics.
And all I'm saying is that the greater number of FC sell-outs we have
masquerading as proud professionals, the weaker our collective
bargaining clout and the faster our contracts are eroded. What is
more, any good non-union agent will tell you that most non-union rates
are calculated at a percentage of union scale. Which is yet another
reason this behavior baffles me! It's like Chevy taking its truck
division to Mexico and putting thousands of middle-class,
beer-drinkin' American men out of work. WHO DO THEY THINK BUYS THEIR
DAMN TRUCKS? ;-)
>
> Mind you, I'm not going and probably never would go, financial core.
Good to know.
I'm
> just curious as to the ultimate effect of that decision when others
make it.
Keep chewing on it, Carl. And keep following the pattern to its
conclusion(s). You might see (as I have) just how destructive it can
be - not only to those of us who remain members in good standing, but
those who go Core themselves.
When unravelling a mystery, I always, ALWAYS ask myself: WHO BENEFITS
MOST FROM THIS IN THE LONG RUN? It answers a great many questions for
me.
> Never know when I might have to persuade someone else they shouldn't
do it.
Amen.
Lisa
Risaroo
> That wasn't Jules, either, Lisa.
>
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
LL
Risaroo
> P.S. Lisa, this isn't the real Starmaker. Better ignore this
jerkoff.
To be honest, Carl. I looked at the headers again, and I can't tell
the difference.
Sigh,
Lisa
'Net Dumb
de Valois
Risaroo wrote in message <9f12t8$g34$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
Nah. This jerk is just being marginally more clever than a sponge after more
than a year of trolling. Apparently, he asked his mommy for some help. Have
to dig way down in the headers. If you'd like, I'll e-mail you some of the
clues you need to look for.
de Valois
Risaroo wrote in message <9f12p5$duh$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>"de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
>news:0ORQ6.48314$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Lisa, again, I'm not doubting the truth of your stories for one
>minute.
>
>Well, you used the word "apocryphal" - which in my mind is equated
>with "fictional" or "unsubstantiated".
>
Unsubstantiated, I might give you. Apocryphal is usually meant as "could be
true, but needs back up".
>This ENTIRE business is subjective, so who's EVER to know why someone
>doesn't get cast or called in. This guy did the math and realized that
>his short-sighted step back into the non-union world cost a lot more
>than it netted him. But I can tell you this, from my own experience:
>when I see people wrinkle their noses or roll their eyes at the words
>Financial Core - and by "people", I mean franchised agents and casting
>directors (as well as other actors), it tells me something about the
>way people perceive it.
Yes, no doubt, and I tend to be among them. I feel if you're going to join a
union, then join it. If not, don't.
However, just because something is noxious doesn't mean people don't make
money at it. Here's why I say this: your stories point out one of the
hazards of FC. You lose some union protections.
But then again, these people *were* hired. And that's a possible reason why
FC may be correct for some people: it may actually increase their odds of
landing a job. That's not an easy admission, but face facts. How many union
actors ever see another paid job in their lives? So does it come down to
take the money and run?
> Agents don't trust them, many casting
>directors view them as strictly non-union (by and large) and after
>last year most other actors assume that they are probably scabs to
>boot. Whether or not that last assessment is fair or accurate does
>not matter -- as you know, in show biz perception IS reality.
Hm. I have to think about that one. Yes, a reputation is something that,
warranted or not, follows us around. However, I'd have to think hard on
whether a "scab" reputation necessarily is a bad thing, all around. Like you
have said, it really needs examination.
>When unravelling a mystery, I always, ALWAYS ask myself: WHO BENEFITS
>MOST FROM THIS IN THE LONG RUN? It answers a great many questions for
>me.
>
Well, the producers, naturally. And perhaps the few actors who might make a
living at it.
But then again, how many union folks...yadayadayada...we've argued that
before. No sense beating a dead horse.
Luca
<3B14013E...@hilarious.com>:
>No dear, it WAS.
WAS was not was was not was wasnot was wasNOT
You freaks are all screwy
We laff
TC
Sister Janey
<3B11CF38...@hilarious.com>:
>NICELY DONE. Now Bedwetter, shut the hell up hell.
>
>
Accept Jesus as your savior! You are in deep pain! The blessed lamb of the
living GOD will wash away the pain with his perfect blood.
Amen!
Sister Janey
The Starmaker
<3B13EB04...@hilarious.com>:
>How would YOU know what's good enough for *every* hard working actor?
>That's insulting to those of us who are actors and work hard, HECTOR.
>How dare you pretend to know anything about our profession, you hack?
>
>Opus
>
Carla? I hope you don't me asking but I am concerned. I am concerned for
your poor husband. Is he OK? I can't help but think he is not OK. He is
married to you. How is it possible to be married to you and survive? I hope
you don't mind me askin,it's an honest question.
The Starmaker
deValois
>Carla, that wasn't Starmie.
>
Carl that wasn't you. It was Carla.
Rhyanon
<Xns90B09CCCCLi...@210.118.50.40>:
>Accept Jesus as your savior! You are in deep pain! The blessed lamb of
>the living GOD will wash away the pain with his perfect blood.
>
>Amen!
>
>Sister Janey
>
What is with this beeyatch? Damn I am gone a week and no one is kicking
this wench's ass? What's the matter with you whikkens? Jesus!
The Starmaker
<3B140954...@hilarious.com>:
>Good one Carl. *LOL*
>
>Opus
Shut up Opus. The only reason you think you're an actress instead of a
hooker is cause you too damn fat and ugly to be a hooker.
The Starmaker
David M. Beach
totally ignore the
staremaker
db
The Starmaker
>
> I finally figured out the best way to enjoy this NG...and that is to
> totally ignore the
> staremaker
> db
But you set a very bad example.
I wish people would take their own advise, but I guess it's easier for
them to give advise than to follow their own.
LA...@la.com
wrote:
>"The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:3B12EB...@ix.netcom.com...
>> Actors Should demand "Paycheck Protection".
>
>
>which does not apply. First of all, it is totally up to an actor
>whether or not to have their INITIATION FEE deducted (usually only
>valid on films and AEA productions, where an actor receives a regular
>paycheck); "dues" can't be deducted because they are calculated twice
>a year and are based on previous earnings. It would be impossible to
>keep straight.
>
>Secondly, (as I have said 1,000 times) the performing unions do NOT
>donate to political campaigns.
I find that extremely surprising. Are you sure? Don't they at least
give money to the AFL-CIO for its political contributions?
>When and if they ever do, I would be
>willing to entertain someone's "Beck" objection.
>
>Lisa
>
>
LA...@la.com
<eva...@NOSPAMtelocity.com> wrote:
>I was just at the DGA annual meeting They gave a plug for P.A.C. Political
>Action Committee. The lobby group to lobby the DGA's interests in
>Washington. During the meeting, it's in the minutes, it's stated that PAC
>was formed because unions are banned from contributing to political
>activities.
Which given how the AFL-CIO "owned" Al gore, probably costing him the
presidency is quite a statement to make...
Drama Queen
truth as far as FC goes. It's a career killer.
de Valois wrote:
>
> An enjoyable post, Lisa, but don't you think engaging in this kind of
> rhetoric is inconducive to a serious discussion of the issue? All of us can
> come up with anecdotal evidence that this decision is a bad (or good...I'm
> sure Jack will refute this apocrypha), but let's talk facts, instead of
> emotion.
>
> --
> Carl
>
> So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
> Risaroo wrote in message <9ermok$kht$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >Settle in with a cocktail, you're gonna be here awhile . . .
> >
> >"The Starmaker" <hld...@ix.netcom.com> went crazy with the cut and
> >paste from somebody else's website and wrote:
> >
> >> Financial Core is one of the best-kept secrets in Hollywood,
> >
> >Hardly. A more accurate staement would be: " . . . one of the most
> >loathed practices . . ."
> >
> >
> >>A SAG/Financial Core member >
> >
> >does not exist. They are not members. They are just people who (like
> >anyone off the street) can be hired for a SAG job and receive all the
> >benefits thereof without honoring the rules of membership.
> >
> >may, for example, work on an
> >> independent film production that pays less than SAG scale, and he
> >may even
> >> accept deferred pay if he so chooses.
> >
> >He cannot, however, come to the union for support or arbitration when
> >he gets ripped off or over-exposed in the marketplace as a result of
> >working without a union contract.
> >
> >
> >This in no way limits the earnings potential of
> >> the actor --
> >
> >
> >unless they should happen to make a non-union commercial that never
> >goes off the air in their market, and prevents them from being cast in
> >anything else. Which happens to FCs all the time. Tripping over
> >dollars to make pennies.
> >
> > >In the case of financial core union members,
> >
> >Which do not exist. They are NOT members.
> >
> >
> >the union represents
> >> the member in matters of wages only, which is, of course,
> >
> >not the truth. The union represents ALL those persons who might work
> >on a union set in matters of not only wages, but working conditions,
> >reuse, residuals and pension, welfare and health/dental insurance.
> >What jerks we are for doing that, huh?
> >
> >>
> >> Here's a quick test to see how much you know about union membership.
> >> Answer the following questions True or False:
> >>
> >> 1.A union member cannot work on a non-union project
> >
> >True. A union MEMBER (FCs are not members) in good standing honors
> >Rule One.
> >
> >
> >> 2.All union members pay the same dues
> >
> >False. Dues are based on earnings.
> >
> >> 3.A union member cannot accept a job that pays less than the
> >union minimum
> >
> >True. But more than ever before, new contracts exist and are being
> >developed that allow low-budget and fledgling producers to make films
> >with deferred payment and so on.
> >
> >> 4.To work on a union project, you must join the union and
> >> abide by all union rules
> >
> >False. You can weasel your way out of this if you are too afraid to
> >put both feet in the water and be a pro. Go FC and do whatever you
> >want (more on this later) . . .
> >
> >> 5.A union member cannot be represented by a
> >> non-franchised agent
> >
> >True. Absolutely true. Again, FCs are NOT members, so they can be
> >repped by anyone they choose.
> >
> >> 6.If a union member accepts a non-union job, he will be
> >> expelled from the union
> >
> >Depends. They will be afforded a Trial Board hearing, under the rules
> >of the NLRB if they violate Rule One. They can be disciplined in many
> >different ways, depending on the infraction and the circumstances
> >surrounding it.
> >
> >> 7.Only franchised agents may submit talent for union
> >> productions
> >
> >False. How do you think people become eligible for union membership
> >in the first place? No one is BORN a union member, folks. Think it
> >through.
> >
> >>
> >> If you answered all seven questions "False," go to the head of the
> >> class.
> >
> >And keep getting your facts from the internet, your inspiration from
> >sitcoms, your nutritional advice from 7-11 and your news from the
> >Globe.
> >
> >>
> >> HOW TO GO FINANCIAL CORE
> >>
> >> If you decide that you want to go financial core, all you simply
> >have to do is
> >> this:
> >
> >1). Get real frustrated and look for someone else to blame for why
> >you aren't getting cast. Ignore any instinct that might involve
> >personal responsibility, your appearance and work ethic, a slow market
> >or anything that might require patience or improvement on your part.
> >
> >2). Approach a non-union agent on the sly and tell her that you are
> >"thinking about quitting the union", but by all means don't follow
> >through with it yet. Cheat first and see if it works before you do
> >anything "hasty" or "decisive".
> >
> >3). Go on a bunch of non-union auditions and "see if you get
> >anything". Let the CDs assume you must be FC, but if asked, avoid
> >answering directly. Leave SAG and AFTRA on your resume to create even
> >more confusion.
> >
> >4). Get cast in a non-union car commercial that promises to pay you
> >$1000 buy-out for two days work. Feel like you're worth something
> >again, and accept the job with glee. After all, it won't air in your
> >home market - no one will really find out, right?
> >
> >5). Show up for the shoot and hope that no one in the union or at
> >your franchised agency finds out. They haven't called you in a month,
> >anyhow. And don't quit the unions yet, either. What "they" don't
> >know won't hurt them - and besides, it's only one little job . . . why
> >make a decision you don't have to? Why be honest when nobody's
> >looking?
> >
> >6). Work two 16-hour days with poor equipment, and a piss-broke and
> >cranky producer whose brother-in-law is directing for the first time.
> >Do your own hair and makeup, purchase two new outfits and shoes (for
> >which you will not be reimbursed). Change clothes and apply your
> >makeup in your car. Get a half- hour for "lunch", but drive eight
> >miles to a Wendy's to buy your own. Get a dirty look for coming back
> >late the second day. Pee in a dixie cup or behind the building,
> >because the doors to the dealership are locked at night and they don't
> >trust the producer enough to give him a key so you can use the
> >bathrooms. Arrive home so tired the second night that you have to
> >call in sick to your survival job the next day.
> >
> >7). Get a phone call the following week, requesting that you also
> >provide voice-over for the job, that very afternoon. You are promised
> >an additional $200. Blow off another day's work and go to the
> >brother-in-law's suburban basement to record into his home Karaoke
> >system. Arrive at 3:30pm and then wait until 6:30pm to start because
> >the "engineer" had to drive his kids to swimming. Cancel a play
> >reading you were supposed to do that night at the last minute when you
> >realize you won't make it on time. Read the "script" in small
> >segments, as it is still being written as you record. Try and get
> >through it with no mistakes - not because you're a pro, but because
> >they have really bad (or no) editing equipment. Because the "studio"
> >is in the suburbs, it takes you over an hour to get home, and by then
> >it's midnight. Get a funny feeling in your stomach, and wonder if the
> >spot is really that cheesy, or if it's just your imagination. Be
> >somewhat glad that your mom will never see it.
> >
> >8). Wait one and one-half months to get paid. Then start to get
> >antsy. Ask the non-union agent where your money is. Their payment
> >person says, "Hmmm. You haven't been paid for that yet? That's
> >weird. Let me call them." A week later, call the agent back to
> >follow up when you haven't heard anything. Remain relaxed when the
> >agent tells you that no one at the production company is returning her
> >calls, and "Oh, yeah. By the way . . . I'm quitting to take a job at
> >XYZ (your franchised agency) next week." Act as though that's
> >exciting news. Buy her a gift you can't afford, and pray to God she
> >knows better than to mention your name over there.
> >
> >9). Wait another three weeks while the non-union agency hires and
> >trains the new talent payment person. Ask about your money. Get a
> >prompt reply this time: "Maybe you'd have better luck if you called
> >them yourself."
> >
> >10). Pick up the phone and call your buddy, the producer. "What?
> >You didn't get that check yet? I could swear I mailed it a long time
> >ago. Lemme get back to you."
> >
> >11). Wait two more weeks. Call the producer back. "We're sorry, the
> >number you have dialed . . ." Tell the head of the non-union agency
> >about the problem. She says, "Look, $500 isn't worth us taking him to
> >court over"-- $500? He owes you $1200! "Really? I have $500 for the
> >shoot, and oh, yeah - an extra $200 for the V/O. It's seven hundred.
> >Still--" Get irate! The former agent told you it was $1000 plus two!
> >"Well, she must have been mistaken or you heard her wrong. It says
> >$700 in the computer." Ask what you are supposed to do now. "Don't
> >worry, we'll keep trying to find him for you. I'm sorry, I have to
> >take this call. (smile) Might be a booking for YOU, ya know!" Try
> >not to punch her in the jaw.
> >
> >12). Get a call from XYZ, the franchised agent. They want to know
> >why this CD (the one you booked the cheapo spot for) won't see you for
> >an oncamera national Chevy audition. Something about you having done
> >a non-union used car commercial a couple of months ago. Whassup with
> >that? How could you have a conflict they don't know about - and
> >what's this about working non-union? Tell them you were "thinking
> >about" going Core and are about to finish the paperwork. Wait through
> >the pause. "Who booked you on this?" Oh, so-and-so non-union
> >agency -- heh, heh. Actually, it was where so-and-so used to work.
> >"Great. Well, thanks for not telling me. I looked like an ass with
> >the CD." Click.
> >
> >13). Transfer your feelings of embarrassment and shame into feelings
> >of anger and resentment at the wrong people. Since you cannot blame
> >the producers you hope to suck up to or the non-union agent you're
> >gonna need now, make sure all your feelings of bitterness and abuse
> >are heaped upon the franchised agent and your fellow union members.
> >Screw them! That agent never got you much, anyway! And those other
> >actors did nothing but steal your auditions and jobs, anyway! Vow to
> >throw in your lot with the non-union agent and go Financial Core.
> >
> >14). Fill out the paperwork and declare FC, but leave the union names
> >on your resume. After all, once upon a time, you earned the right to
> >call yourself a SAG actor! When asked at an audition by a non-union
> >producer if you are union, smile and simply say casually, "Oh, is THAT
> >still on there. I forgot to remove it, I guess." Continue to brag to
> >civilians and your family that you are a "professional" actor. When
> >they see the SAG Awards and compare you to Tom Hanks or Kevin Spacey,
> >say stupid things like, "Yup. That's my union, Aunt Dorothy. Me and
> >Tom and Kevin."
> >
> >15). Improve your relationship with the non-union agent and actually
> >start getting paid for jobs you do. Make upwards of five or even
> >seven thousand dollars in that first year as a FC. Feel so cool that
> >you forget to notice that you haven't had a union audition or job all
> >year.
> >
> >16). Express great joy when you are paid $5000 (all at one time and
> >with no pesky taxes taken out!) for a series of three non-union
> >furniture spots that will air locally. Enjoy the "celebrity" of being
> >"that guy on the sofa" for awhile. After the third year, ask the
> >non-union agent to "get you out of it", because the CDs are telling
> >you that it's hurting you. Don't be surprised when she laughs.
> >
> >16a). Contemplate filing for unemployment, but remember that a). you
> >still have a temp job and b). no one has paid into unemployment for
> >you in over three years. Take another day job to pay your back taxes
> >(which you forgot to set aside the first year) and to pay the
> >quarterlies you owe now. Wonder how much you had in your SAG pension
> >before you declared FC, and wonder how you are expected to have the
> >discipline to set up another retirement account when you're making so
> >little money.
> >
> >17). Redirect this new frustration right where it belongs: on the
> >unions, union actors (who have always held you back) and the
> >franchished agents who never call - even though you can LEGALLY do SAG
> >work. Ponder why you are only called in for things "with no budget"
> >anymore, and rightly assume that it's part of a vast union conspiracy
> >to keep talented people like you from working and making a living.
> >Wish you could land a "real" commercial with residuals, and plot the
> >demise of the furniture store that stole your career away.
> >
> >18). Act surprised when your mom calls, "Honey, is that YOU in the
> >car commercial on Channel Five?" Flip on the set. It's you alright,
> >from three years ago - but they've changed the name of the dealership
> >and hired a different voice - he's kind of imitating you, but that's
> >your spot, alright. And it's really poorly done - worse than the
> >furniture spot, even. Try not to choke when Mom says, "Boy! You must
> >be making a fortune!"
> >
> >19). Smile ironically when the furniture company pulls your spots off
> >the air because of the car commercial. Take it in stride when your
> >non-union agent says, "And to think. You never got paid for that!"
> >
> >20). After six months with few auditions and only one booking, sign
> >up for classes to get your Real Estate license. After all, at your
> >age, you really shouldn't be a temp anymore. Take comfort in knowing
> >that you had a full and enriching ACTING CAREER, unfettered by the
> >strong-arm tactics of the evil acting unions. You got every
> >opportunity, because you were unencumbered by union membership!!
> >
> >21). In years to come, try not to get too excited when you hear
> >rumors of another commercial strike. Remember, you've got condos to
> >sell, Freedom Fighter!
> >*******
> >
> >Moving on with Starmie's pilfered wisdom:
> >
> >
> >> So you have a tough decision to make. Do you want to vote for the
> >next
> >> SAG president or increase your opportunities to
> >
> >get a few low-paying jobs and potentially jeopardize your future?
> >
> >
> >>Tough decision. Sure, non union films mostly don't pay anywhere
> >near the SAG
> >> day rates, but you're playing Bingo with more cards now.
> >
> >And isn't that what an acting career really is, folks? Just a big old
> >BINGO GAME? Christ. Acting is a gamble, but it's more akin to
> >high-stakes poker than a slot machine or Bingo. I hate these
> >analogies.
> >
> >
> >The payoff may
> >> not be as big, but the payoff will be steady and the bonus is that
> >you can
> >> STILL take those high paying SAG gigs when they come along.
> >
> >And nothing inspires and excites agents, CDs and directors more than
> >someone who is willing to work for whatever they're willing to pay.
> >Or for free, with deferred payment that never comes.
> >
> >
> >You're not
> >> giving up much, you're just enhancing what you have.
> >
> >Yeah . . . okay. I'm always enhanced by throwing myself to the wolves
> >with no one to back me up.
> >
> >Many SAG actors
> >> have done it (it's just a well kept secret).
> >
> >Not really true at all. And it is only a "secret" for two reasons:
> >
> >1). Admittedly, the unions are loathe to discuss it;
> >
> >and
> >
> >2). Most FCs are too ashamed to admit that they have to take
> >non-union jobs in order to work. (Unlike our friend Jack Rooney, who
> >is honest and proud - which I do respect, to a degree).
> >
> >Here's where it gets ugly, folks (and most of you have heard it
> >before):
> >
> >IF AN ACTOR REALLY FEELS THAT THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS ARE BEING
> >HORRIBLY INFRINGED BY ORGANIZATIONS COMPRISED OF THEIR PEERS WHICH
> >EXIST TO PROTECT THEIR WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS, WHY DON'T THEY
> >HAVE THE BALLS TO LEAVE UNION JURISDICTION ALTOGETHER AND TOIL IN
> >THEIR OWN NON-UNION VINEYARD?!
> >
> >Stay far, far away from evil people like me, who - BECAUSE I REFUSE TO
> >UNDERSELL, UNDERCUT and UNDERVALUE OUR CONTRACTS - are keeping "scale"
> >where it is and helping to increase it in every negotiation! God
> >forbid any of my integrity or guts should rub off on them while they
> >work alongside me in the booth or on a shoot.
> >
> >If the unions (which are, by the way, comprised of nothing but ACTORS
> >just like them) are "keepin' 'em down", then I humbly submit that they
> >should stay the hell away from the health benefits good members help
> >provide, and the pensions and everything else!
> >
> >You don't want my peaches, don't shake my tree, ASSHOLE!
> >
> >Be in or be out -- just don't be a half-assed, chicken-shit nothing --
> >waiting for scraps to fall from the table of masters you resent and
> >fear. Have some balls! Have some faith in yourself! Get in there,
> >side by side and compete with the best - and if it doesn't work out .
> >. .
> >
> >(yeah, I'm gonna say it)
> >
> >go do COMMUNITY THEATRE, local waterbed commercials and play with your
> >ham radio! There are outlets for people who just want to dabble -
> >enjoy them! There is no shame in pursuing the craft on a
> >non-professional level -- but why so many wannabes feel the need to
> >drag the whole lot of us down with them for some pin money is beyond
> >me. Either respect yourself enough to stand up for what you are
> >worth, or accept that you might not have what it takes to work as a
> >full-time pro.
> >
> >Regards and Yes, I Mean Every Word of It,
> >
> >Lisa Lewis
> >SAG/AFTRA/AEA
> >Chicago, IL
> >
> >PS: I will compare pay stubs, resumes and quality of life issues with
> >anyone who is FC. If I had bailed and gone FC when the going got
> >rough, I would not be where I am today. You can think I'm being mean
> >or snotty or elitist, but all I am really saying is DON'T SELL OUT
> >WHEN IT GETS ROUGH. Hang in there or quit and do something else, but
> >don't whore yourself. It will never get any better once you take that
> >step backward!
> >
> >
> >
Drama Queen
>
> What would you like to know, Horatio? Right now, I have spots on the
> air for:
>
> NBC Nightly News
> Comfort Bath
> OneADay Vitamins
> Quotesmith.com
> Bally Total Fitness
> Boomerang Wireless
>
> and about a dozen different banks, dot.coms, hospitals, insurance
> companies and various other shit I can't remember off the top of my
> head. My most recent appearance in a feature film is still running on
> pay cable damn near every night ("Stir of Echoes"), and I write and
> perform comedy with Annoyance Productions and perform at the
> ImprovOlympic every Sunday night. Past stage credits include "Uncle
> Vanya" (with Hal Holbrook), "Othello" with Delroy Lindo and more
> regional theatre than you can shake a stick at.
>
> I made over six figures last year, and that's considering I was out
> of work and on strike for six months.
>
> I own a two-flat in the city of Chicago, pay ridiculous taxes for the
> privilege, drive an American car and am happily married to a very
> funny stand-up comedian who works 40 weeks out of every year at clubs
> all across the country. I have no pets, no children and I AM A
> NATURAL BLONDE.
>
> Please take this opportunity to go farg yourself.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lisa Lewis
> SAG/AFTRA/AEA
> Chicago
<great big shit-eating grin> YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!
Drama Queen
The Starmaker
>
> Carl, those were the FACTS, as painful as they seem, Lisa tells the God's honest
> truth as far as FC goes. It's a career killer.
I also told the God's honest truth as far as FC goes. It's a career
builder.
The Starmaker
Who's side is God on? The Union or the Law?
Drama Queen
evander wrote:
>
> I was just at the DGA annual meeting They gave a plug for P.A.C. Political
> Action Committee. The lobby group to lobby the DGA's interests in
> Washington. During the meeting, it's in the minutes, it's stated that PAC
> was formed because unions are banned from contributing to political
> activities. Therefore members should donate to PAC. The DGA just hired a guy
> to lobby Wa. to try and help stop runaway production. His salary comes from
> the PAC budget.
>
> Risaroo <ris...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:9f0jfs$5fn$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Drama Queen
>
> Drama Queen wrote:
>
> > > A Cut and Paste Starmaker Producetion
> > > The Starmaker
> >
> > Cut and Paste huh? The story of your credentials.
> > At least you could have spell "Production" correctly. Sheesh!
>
> Try to keep up, I didn't spell it, it was a cut and paste.
Oh my mistake. so sorry, carry on, ...NOT!
Drama Queen
>
> "de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
> news:STOQ6.18478$Rh7.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Does Dave Thomas really even count? He's going to appear in his
> commercials
> > because no one else can claim to be him.
>
> Thank you. See? These are the "big names" that get lauded by FC
> proponents, and both of them have been FC less than a year.
>
> Lisa
Wilford Brimley is an old $*^(^#@(^%% who couldn't BUY a job if his life depended
on it. As for Dave Thomas, he isn't even an actor. He's a BIG NAME because he's
the CEO of the "Wendy's" fast-food franchise. He will ALWAYS have a job in the
Wendy's commercials because he *IS* the client with the final decision on those
commercials.
Drama Queen
de Valois wrote:
>
> Carla, that wasn't Starmie.
>
> --
> Carl
>
> So long, Doug, and thanks for all the fish!
>
> Opus wrote in message <3B13EB04...@hilarious.com>...
> >> All I know is if it's good enough for Charlton Heston, (former President
> >> of The Screen Actors Guild) it's good enough for *every* hard working
> >> actor.
> >>
> >How would YOU know what's good enough for *every* hard working actor?
> >That's insulting to those of us who are actors and work hard, HECTOR.
> >How dare you pretend to know anything about our profession, you hack?
> >
> >Opus
> >
> >
> >
evander
Point of post was to say it's illegal for unions to contribute to political
activities, therefore, if one is trying to justify going FC because they
think their union is contributing to political activities, they don't. I
thought you stood against members going FC? I was eliminating a false
excuse. But if you really want all of the DGA members to go FC......
Drama Queen <drama...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B149200...@home.com...
Drama Queen
>
>
> Agreed. But even I am starting to see how you get under people's skin
> sometimes.
=8^0) starting? Comeon Lisa, I thought you were quicker than that.
I pegged this idiot for what he is 2 years ago. My instincts are GOOOOD!
>
> Yeah, maybe
> > when people think someone made an error they should stop throwing
> > insults around and say something like "I believe you're wrong"... :)
You mean like "LAGuy, I believe you're wrong, ...YOU FRIKKIN' TROLL! GO AWAY!"
You mean like that? <g>
>
> I agree again. But you even got to me this time, and I've usually
> been supportive! ;-)
>
> Lisa
Give it time, ...it'll happen again.
Drama Queen
>
> Dear la....
>
> LA...@LA.com wrote:
>
> > Then why did she say it wa a right to work state. I mean it's not
> > like her post was ambiguous.
>
> Why, LAGUY, does it take you THREE POSTS for your to hear the the message?
> Opus never said that California was a right-to-work state. She lives in a
> right-to-work state and knows the difference. And she is on the verge of
> earning her first union card. And she will play by the rules, especially
> Rule Number One.
>
> Lisa made comments in a recent post that support what Opus and I am
> saying.. Now I'm asserting the same thing.... I've known Opus (Carla) for
> some years.... and she KNOWS which states are labor-friendly and which are
> right-to- work. She NEVER suggested that California was a right to work
> state.
>
> So you've lost this argument, LAGUY. Suck it up. Get used to it.
>
> I know you well, by now, and I also know that you will never, ever
> apologize to Opus for your oversight, or your mis-statements. That's your
> issue, your agenda. Continue to be nasty and contrary in these issues and
> debates. Or maybe, just maybe listen and learn and then engage in a real
> dialogue.
>
> > Hmmmmm.... I did inform myself and I happen to be right and Opus (or
> > whomever that nick really is) started insulting me... Yeah, maybe
> > when people think someone made an error they should stop throwing
> > insults around and say something like "I believe you're wrong"... :)
>
> disguising your insults, especially since you are an unknown qauntity. If
> you want more credibility, then either make better arguments, or cite your
> credentials.
>
> Break a leg,
> Bill
=8^0) Oh, ...what is this? ...Yet another alias DQ? Now you're trying to pass
yourself off as a man in Colorado? Really, ...how far are you going to go with all
these aliases? <g> It's so very obvious you started posting here using the name
Bill, and then you starting posting here using the name Carla, and then years
later started using the name Drama Queen, all in preparation for the day when you
could insult a know nothing anally retentive pinhead from Los Angeles. Go on,
...admit it!
Opus
Kinda like with you and spelling. It's adviCe.
Opus
Drama Queen
>
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 10:23:30 GMT, Opus <opus...@bloomcounty.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >YES YOU CAN! It's called, "Right-to-Work States". Look it up and stop
> >> >showing your ignorance.
> >>
> >> Well, speaking of ignorance, California is NOT a "right-to-work"
> >> state. I have no idea what would have made you think it was.
> >>
> >I didn't even begin to infer that CA was.
>
> You clearly did. If you didn't mean to, then it's good :)
Actually she didn't.
>
> >It is not, and I know that.
> >I said, stateS, plural. You fail to recognize ALL of the others that
> >allow a lot of us to have very prosperous careers outside of
> >CA-central.
>
> Hmmm, how many people have significant careers outsie of Califonia
> (and possibly New York)?
Jackie Chan, Maury Chaykin, Roberto Benigni, Shirley Douglas, Catherine Zeta Jones
(both prior to *AND* after joining SAG), Antonio Banderas (both prior to *AND*
after joining SAG)
>
> >Just check out the stats for Atlanta and Miami sometime for
> >non-union actors. Sheesh.
>
> Anybody whose name I'd recognize? I didn't think so.
There's a difference between having a significant career and being a househould
name star in the top 3 percentile of earnings.
> >
> >
> >> As for pretending that you can have a significant career without
> >> belonging to SAG, I don't know in which universe, but not this one.
> >>
> >Keep living in your dreamworld and telling yourself that SAG is the only
> >way to have a successful career,
>
> It is. It's not a dreamworld. The dreamworld is pretending
> otherwise.
The dreamworld is thinking that the *WORLD* revolves around Los Angeles or even
the US of A. It doesn't. Wke-up LAGuy, ...there's a great big world out there
outside of the US borders. American studios have already discovered it. <g>
>
> >and if that makes you sleep at night,
> >then fine, leave it alone. But stop pretending to know what the hell
> >you are talking about, because in this instance, you clearly do not,
>
> Saying that you don't have to be SAG to have a significant career is
> LOL absurd.
>
> >and
> >I have told you that time and time again.
>
> And that was absurd time and time again.
>
> >If you can produce some
> >credentials or research that shows you know what you are talking about,
>
> Name any name actor who's not SAG. There you go.
Ever stopped to consider, the reason they are SAG is because they *ARE* names,
rather than the other way around? Mel Gibson didn't join SAG until *after* he
became a name, through the Mad Max films. Sarah Polley didn't join SAG until
*after* she came into demand.
>
> >then fine, I will continue to debate you on this topic. But for god's
> >sake, until you can, please stop spouting rhetoric that makes you look
> >dumber and dumber.
>
> It's saying thing like what you did that makes YOU look that way.
>
> >I don't blame DQ for beating you up; you don't know
> >how to debate a topic.
>
> LOLROTF>
>
> You really must be DQ.
>
> DQ's definition of "knowing how to debate" = Opus' definition of
> "knowing how to debate" = agreeing with DQ and Opus.
>
> LOL
>
> >
> >It's this "LAGuy knows all even if it doesn't pertain to him" attitude
> >that pisses a lot of people off in this group.
>
> What "pisses off' you and DQ is that anyone would dare disagree wtih
> you even when you make such statements as actors being able to have
> significant careers outside of SAG.
What pisses DQ off is arrogant, ignorant, little pin-heads like *YOU*.
Drama Queen
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 12:59:27 -0700, "evander"
> <eva...@NOSPAMtelocity.com> wrote:
>
> >I was just at the DGA annual meeting They gave a plug for P.A.C. Political
> >Action Committee. The lobby group to lobby the DGA's interests in
> >Washington. During the meeting, it's in the minutes, it's stated that PAC
> >was formed because unions are banned from contributing to political
> >activities.
>
> Which given how the AFL-CIO "owned" Al gore, probably costing him the
> presidency is quite a statement to make...
Oh Puleaze! Give me a royal break! Gore lost the presidency because the partisan
assholes who sat on the Supreme Court decided to hand it to their boy babybush!
End of story.
Drama Queen
>
> Ummm OKay?
>
> Point of post was to say it's illegal for unions to contribute to political
> activities, therefore, if one is trying to justify going FC because they
> think their union is contributing to political activities, they don't. I
> thought you stood against members going FC?
I stand against *actors* going financial core. It weakens my efforts as a full
unon member in good standing to increase and better wages and working conditions
for professional actors. As for DGA members, ...I don't give a shit about them.
They can erode their strength as much as they want, ...just as long as the
performer unions stay strong.
> I was eliminating a false
> excuse. But if you really want all of the DGA members to go FC......
I don't want anyone who would lobby against foreign location shoots in Canada to
have a big war chest. Nothing inconsistent about that. 8^)
de Valois
LAG, I'm afraid to say, has a point, even if his facts are wrong: it
shouldn't have come down to that court decision. He was VP under a President
that oversaw the greatest economic expansion in world history. He should
have won in a walk.
There are plenty of bigger reasons Gore lost than a simple 5-4 decision.
That it got to that point has myriad explanations.
--
Carl
Many are called. Few are hosed down. - CASalonen
de Valois
>Carl, those were the FACTS, as painful as they seem, Lisa tells the God's
honest
>truth as far as FC goes. It's a career killer.
>
Agreed they are probably the facts for that one case. I would like to see
the facts as a general rule.
de Valois
Drama Queen wrote in message <3B14A1AF...@home.com>...
>evander wrote:
>>
>> Ummm OKay?
>>
>> Point of post was to say it's illegal for unions to contribute to
political
>> activities, therefore, if one is trying to justify going FC because they
>> think their union is contributing to political activities, they don't. I
>> thought you stood against members going FC?
>
>I stand against *actors* going financial core. It weakens my efforts as a
full
>unon member in good standing to increase and better wages and working
conditions
>for professional actors. As for DGA members, ...I don't give a shit about
them.
>They can erode their strength as much as they want, ...just as long as the
>performer unions stay strong.
>
>
*AHEM*
Two words: tax credits.
We all stand together, or we all fall seperately.
de Valois
--
Carl
Many are called. Few are hosed down. - CASalonen
Drama Queen wrote in message <3B1497FB...@home.com>...
de Valois
>I finally figured out the best way to enjoy this NG...and that is to
>totally ignore the
>staremaker
>db
>
>
>
him. <g>