VO-BB - 20 YEARS OLD!

[melissa eX]

H&R is a whole different story. Half of the trustees are AFTRA members, the other half are industry people. And you're right Deebs, the funds are entirely separate from the Union. But the union, apparently, has no choice on the employer thing because of the anti-trust laws. The exclusion applies only to employees, not 1099 independent contractors. Can the unions set up an entity that will "hire" us ? I've asked that question a number of times and have been told no - because of that exclusion. The union itself I don't think can become a sig - though I'm not sure why. Too close maybe?

It IS byzantine. Which is why most people just say forget it. And it's why, if you work with a paymaster (Thanks Deebs for recommending a great one) you just handle it yourself, no need to interject a level of complication that's not necessary. JS noted in many cases the client doesn't even have to know. I can't think of any case in which the client would have to know. Also, a good paymaster knows far more about what you - as a union member - can do than the union staff members themselves. That's what they do and they do it every day. No just for us but they handle the payrolls of large production companies as well. Not everyone hiring union talent is an individual sig. Productions use paymasters to handle their payroll all the time.

And CC, you wouldn't have to give up being a sig. At least as the rules stand now. They're only concerned with people who set up signatory status just so they can pay themselves under it and contribute to H&R. If you can show you hire other union members you're legit and you just become another one of those members.

Being a vendor - with a Corp, LLc etc. has it's advantages, and not just as a union member. CC exemplified this perfectly. Large companies - and even not so large companies - LOVE working with vendors rather than independent contractors because there are fewer bureaucratic hoops to jump through.

Getting back to Dave's point. In right to work states non-union members can work both non-union and union jobs without having to join, so I'm not sure why Dave joined in the first place if he was going to go fi-core, since he's in a rtw state. Dave?

I'm wasn't aware of the boundary issue. JS makes an interesting point about where one is physically. I didn't know that. I do know I was told by someone years ago that a union member could not do a non-union job in a RTW state or for an employer based in a RTW state no matter where the member was.

Much as the unions, in their previous almost exclusive focus on on-camera talent, didn't wake up to the fact that VO was easily moving online until it was almost too late, I think no-one really knows what the fine legal points are here either - or how they will play out. Both those crafting laws in rtw states and the unions don't seem to be incorporating the fact that VO work takes place across all boundaries - so it seems - at least to me (and I'm not anywhere close to being an atty. in any way shape or form) that there's a huge grey area there that both sides would like to claim jurisdiction to. Using Dave as an example, why join if he's in a RTW state? If he did work for a production that required him to join, why was that required? Is it because the production company was from out of state? Does that trump the fact that Dave is a resident of a RTW state? Where was the job done? In Nevada or in a non-rtw state? What determines when those rulings get triggered? If a union member lives in a rtw state does that then give them the green light to work non-union there, in spite of what the union rules are? Just as a non-u person can work union? Do those rules apply when you're in one state and your client in another? Or in another country?
I'd love to know the answer to those questions but til now I think it's been - Who knows?

The only thing that HAS been determined is wages are lower in RTW states than in non-RTW states: From a 2011 Economic Policy Institute study:

[Deirdre]

[melissa eX]

I know. I've been trying to figure out a way it can be done. Presumptuous? Maybe, but I can't help thinking if we can come up with some way for it to be done, it can be presented in a way that would make it a no-brainer. A win-win. It would take an attitudinal shift - but I think that could be possible.

Am I too much of an optimist ? lol!

[Deirdre]

Well, things certainly need to be changed. And they need to be changed from the INSIDE, so thank god for people like you and Bob Bergen.
_________________
DBCooperVO.com
IMDB

[whalewtchr]

All this Union talk makes my head spin. The last union I was "forced" to join was IBEW. Radio/TV Talent belonging to an Engineer's Union. The Engineers would get what they needed and everyone else was kicked to the curb...ahh the good ol days.
_________________
jonahcummings

[Lee Gordon]

[COURVO]

[Philip Banks]

The entire situation is a nonsense and it puts Dave in the ridiculous position of having to do something he would prefer not to do. Option open to Dave and others - "The cake and eat it option". Does anyone really want to pay fees to a union so that they are able to say "I can proudly say I am ALMOST a member"? (Fi-Core) . Full union members appear to pay for everything the union does which in the case of VOs isn't very much at all. Why on earth would anyone want to be part of an organisation of amateurs set up to look after the needs of professionals?

H&R? Healthcare sysyem in a mess so that needs sorting and the other stuff can be covered by pro's simply charging properly. My minimum session fee takes into account my time, use, studio, death, taxes, pies, pension and holidays.

If you look at the British Actors Equity (my union) rules they state that if I am offered something in an American production I must not under cut a SAG member. Of course SAG officially recognise Equity ...No it doesn't. Well at least there is a reciprocal agreement so no SAG member will under cut ...Is there bollocks!!!

Union leaders in the UK and the USA ought to be made to read this http://www.tolpuddlemartyrs.org.uk/index.php?page=martyr-s-story

As for us union members who are VOs we simply need to acknowledge there are no injustices in our world of work we simply need to charge more.

[Deirdre]

Whereas we are allowed to maliciously create our own pension funds as we see fit, irrespective of employment (IRAs), we in the "land of the free" do not have any options of a similar nefarious nature regarding the medical "insurance" racket, and so we need need need to be part of an employement group, no matter how deplorable.

"Please include me in your group, even though I don't believe in your management or structure!"
_________________
DBCooperVO.com
IMDB

[Philip Banks]

The healthcare thing is RIDICULOUS, simply ridiculous. In the UK I am subjected to the nonsense of the over mismanaged NHS (National Health Service) but it seems to work. A few years ago it even worked for DeWitt.

[Bruce]

[jsgilbert]

SAG and AFTRA clamped down a few years back at fi-core actors a few years back, stating that as a "dues paying non-member", they could not actually use SAG or AFTRA or their logos on promotional materials, resumes, etc. The legal designation being that they are not union members (non-members).

Thus, technically if the script says "Union Only", it might seem that somebody who is fi-core would be looked at the same way as any non-union actor would.

I'm not certain if the recent increase in scripts indicating "union only" has to do with pressure (or solidarity) to try and explicitly prevent fi-core actors from having access to union scripts.

The above also can be a fuzzy way of trying to adhere to a non-enforced policy that requires due diligence to find an existing member of the performing arts union for the work before one looks at the available non-union pool. (Talk about cake and eat it too). Nobody would say BOO to Brad Byrd if he wanted to use 35 of his Pixar animators to do v.o. on their next animation. (as opposed to making sure there isn't somebody already in the union who could do the v.o.)

I recall a time when IATSE (stage hands union) didn't have enough people to do the work they needed done. No problem getting them to open a "temporary book" for a day, week or month. Nowadays, you'd have a bit of a challenge getting into IATSE, since they don't have sufficient work for their existing members.

It just seems do bizarre that the people recording us or filming us (as union members) have far greater protections that we as union members do.

As I've said 1,000 times, when 95% of your membership, who pays you dues, is making less than $10,000 per year, you clearly do not have a business model that works.
_________________
j.s. gilbert

js@jsgilbert.com
www.jsgilbert.com

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

[whalewtchr]

I thought long and hard about the union and Family Health benefits until I realized that booking 30k in AFTRA-covered income for 4 quarters doing audiobooks was not likely. Only 10k for individual but still.
_________________
jonahcummings