VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD!

COURVO · Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject: Financial Core Defined

All,

Came across this kick-butt explanation of Financial Core on the Yahooo VO Group... hope they don't mind that it gets reprinted here. It was posted by Don Hagen in Wash., DC -- I'm not sure if he's on this Board, and if he is, I hope HE doesn't mind...and if I'm breaking any rules, here, Deebs, please let me know....but this is something I'm sure not all of us understand. Here is the explanation:

-----------------------------------

Back Stage - The Working Actor
Core Values
May 17, 2006
By Jackie Apodaca

Dear Jackie:

I am SAG but am not working as much as I want to be. A friend of mine
suggested I go "fi-core." I am not really sure what that is, but he
said if I went fi-core, I could do union and nonunion work. I can't
believe that's true. If it is, why doesn't everyone do it, because
there isn't enough SAG work to go around?

--Confused, New York, N.Y.

Dear Confused:

There isn't enough acting work to go around, period. Whether you are
union, nonunion, or fi-core, you are likely to be disappointed in the
number of acting opportunities out there.

Fi-core, which stands for "financial core," is a status an actor can
hold if he or she has qualified for but does not want to join the
Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists, Actors' Equity Association, or any other union. Some states,
such as Texas and Florida, are right-to-work states, meaning that
union membership is not a prerequisite for work of any kind. In a
right-to-work state, a nonunion actor can be cast in local SAG
productions and never need to join SAG; membership is voluntary.
Other states, such as California and New York, are union states, in
which union membership is the norm. But employees of union jobs
cannot be required to join a union. Because labor unions actively
engage in democracy, endorsing candidates and donating millions of
dollars to political campaigns, they cannot legally require
membership. Doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court has said, would
interfere with a person's right to political freedom. Two Supreme
Court cases are relevant here, Labor Board v. General Motors and
Communications Workers v. Beck, and both can be viewed on the website
Findlaw.com. They are surprisingly interesting reads. Here are the
links:
laws.findlaw.com/us/373/734.html
laws.findlaw.com/us/487/735.html

In brief, the Supreme Court has ruled that unions must offer workers
the right to refuse union membership while retaining their right to
work on union-regulated jobs. The union can, however, require a
nonunion worker to pay an amount equal to the membership initiation
fee and all dues related to collective bargaining. This financial
requirement is referred to as "financial core."

Here's a specific example: After getting into SAG, an actor is
legally permitted to decline membership and take financial-core
status. This allows that actor to work on SAG projects without
adhering to its rules, including Global Rule One, which requires SAG
actors to work only on SAG projects. A fi-core actor will still be
required to pay initiation fees and all dues related to collective
bargaining and the like, an amount almost equal to full membership
dues. Although this "fee-paying nonmember" will receive any pension
and health benefits he or she earns on SAG work, the actor
relinquishes full membership and the right to designate him-or
herself as SAG-possibly forever. There are selective cases in which
fi-core actors were permitted to go back and join SAG, but each is
looked at on an individual basis. You can't "go financial core" for a
project or two and then switch back when it suits you. The fi-core
actor also gives up his or her right to participate in any of SAG's
programs, such as casting director workshops and seminars, and is
ineligible for member services or elections. And of course he or she
forgoes all union protections when working nonunion.

If, despite all this, being able to work union and nonunion sounds
too good to be true, consider this: It might be. If actors begin
going fi-core en masse, the protections our unions now provide will
become null and void. Collective bargaining power rests on the
shoulders of the collection of people doing the bargaining. If too
many actors shrug off their responsibility to the group, preferring
instead to go it alone, the group will lose its strength, and all of
us will lose the ground we, as a collection of artists, have made.

I'm a big stickler for fairness--I know, I know, I'm in the wrong
business-and it seems to me that fi-core is an inherently selfish
position. The decent work environments and wages actors benefit from
are due not to the good will of producers but to the dedication of
our fellow actors and forebears who were willing to fight and make
sacrifices to stand up for artists' rights. Why should some actors be
exempt from the rules while others uphold them to better all of our
chances at earning a decent wage or being fed or getting extra pay
for overtime? Why should some actors get those benefits without
paying the same costs?

I can think of maybe one good reason to go fi-core: You're not an
actor. Tiger Woods got in trouble for doing nonunion work during the
last commercial strike. Yes, he should have held the line with other
SAG performers--that's what he signed on for. But honestly, I
wouldn't take it too seriously if he decided the Guild wasn't for
him. The late Dave Thomas, the founder of Wendy's, was fi-core, and
that makes perfect sense. He wasn't an actor-he just wanted to sell
hamburgers in any medium available.

For someone on a serious path to an acting career, joining SAG,
AFTRA, and AEA is a rite of passage, a pivotal hurdle in the climb to
financial and professional success. Many actors are eager to give up
nonunion work as soon as they can, but some do so too soon-they have
yet to learn the ropes, get anything on tape, or land representation.
Still, they think union membership will be a ticket into the "good
auditions," the big time. How disappointed they must feel when they
learn that it isn't. This is why I continuously nag readers to hold
off on joining the unions until they are ready. I have done my fair
share of nonunion work, back before I joined SAG. I even produced
nonunion stuff. I know the pay and privileges are not very good, and
there's not much in the way of protection for actors. Still, nonunion
work is a great testing ground. You need to pay your dues before you…
pay your dues.

Not everyone wants to play by the rules, but not everyone wants to be
their own advocate in the face of abuse, fight for reasonable working
conditions, or negotiate their pay without any perimeters. To me, fi-
core actors are a lot like those guys who drive on the right shoulder
of the freeway during rush hour-the ones who think they are too
important or too busy to face the traffic the rest of us are sitting
in.

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

Charlie Channel · Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject:

DC, thanks for posting that info. It's the clearest and cleanest explanation I've read. I had heard parts but that article puts it all together.

As H. Hogan wrote, 'It's not if, but when!'

CC

DonDC · Guest

Dave,

I happened across your post and thought I'd reply. No problem in grabbing the quote regarding Financial Core from the Yahoo group and re-posting it here . . . though, as I look through it, I think I was probably quoting someone else.

What I'd like to clarify about Financial Core is that it is not really a type of AFTRA or SAG membership; it is non-membership. When one opts for Financial Core, he/she is actually giving up membership in the union. Yes, FiCore people pay a fee, but this is not the same as dues, which only members pay. Those electing FiCore are technically "fee-paying non-members."

I caution any AFTRA or SAG members who are considering this fee-paying, non-member status to think twice. In claiming it, you are saying that you'll work for two different rates . . . the normal rate (scale) and the discounted (sale) price. Once your clients understand this, guess which one they'll ask for on your next project!

Don Hagen
engaging voiceovers
www.donhagen.com

COURVO · Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject:

Thanks, Don....

After all these months, your new addendum adds even more clarity to your explanation.

Not bad for a first post!...thanks for being here.

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

Deirdre · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:00 am Post subject:

ConnieTerwilliger · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: Re: Financial Core Defined

TC · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:52 pm Post subject:

Here's something that I've wondered for a while now (and maybe some of you experienced union members can set me straight on this): Why wouldn't AFTRA institute some sort of tiered membership plan?

I'm thinking there would be a full membership that basically covers all that membership covers now, and then perhaps some sort of associate membership at a reduced rate that entitles members at that level to a defined subset of the union's resources and support -- e.g., legal advice, contract templates, suggested rates to charge from market to market, professional seminars and forums -- but not the full-out benefit package, and without the requirement of only taking on union work.

I would think that this could create a more-unified, better-educated community of voiceover artists in general, which would help all of us gain more leverage when trying to deal with, or avoid, unscrupulous clients. And I have to believe that a fair number of entities that hire only non-union talent but genuinely care about the quality of their productions would embrace the pool of AFTRA associates as a place to go to hire serious professionals at a rate that they can afford. And AFTRA would see a significant boost in membership.

I believe the Dramatists Guild works this way. If you're a playwright and you belong to the Guild, you don't have signatory theatres that you submit to, but if a theatre screws you, the Guild will go to bat for you and, through either legal means or just plain peer pressure within the theatre community, will find ways to make theatre managers treat playwrights fairly or get out of the business.

Feel free to poke holes in any of this. I'm just dreaming here, with practically no knowledge of AFTRA or its history. It just seems to me that AFTRA needs to find a way to bring more people into the fold but without short-changing the members who it helps most now, and that there are a lot of talented, hard-working voiceover artists who stand to benefit from some community-building (such as the type that happens all the time right here at the good ol' VO-BB ).

DonDC · Guest

A few quick comments:

First, to Deirdre: In suggesting that FiCore talent is working for two different rates, I was referring to different rates for a similar project in the same market.

Second, to Connie: Again, I didn't actually write the piece that Dave Courvoisier attributed to me. It was from "Backstage - The Working Actor," credited as such when I posted (or linked to it) on the Yahoo VO board. But I do agree with the sense of the article . . . that we all have to hang together!

Third, to TC: Interesting ideas. Although I belong to both unions, I can't speak on behalf of AFTRA or SAG. But I can't imagine either lifting the "requirement of only taking on union work." Once terms have been negotiated in a contract, it doesn't make sense for members to just walk away from these terms (in work covered by that contract) whenever they feel like it. Not much solidarity in that.

Thanks to all! Happy Valentine's Day!

Don

Deirdre · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject:

jasbart · Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject:

ConnieTerwilliger · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:13 am Post subject:

Pulling this old thread back to the top with a link to some detailed information about Financial Core status in Unions.

http://bizparentz.org/thebizness/unionfinancialcore.html
_________________
Playing for a living...
www.voiceover-talent.com
YouTube Channel: http://youtube.com/connieterwilliger

bobsouer · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:57 am Post subject:

Connie,

Great article. Thanks for posting this link.
_________________
Be well,
Bob Souer (just think of lemons)
The second nicest guy in voiceover.
+1-724-613-2749
ISDN, Source Connect, phone patch

bobbinbeamo · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:56 am Post subject:

In my view, it should be pointed out the original article Courvo posted here was obviously written by a member of SAG, thus the pro-union spin. Nice PR. Fact is, union membership everywhere is on the decline. The actor's unions are doing their best to stop the bleeding, but it's like trying to turn around the Titanic. The governance wheels of the unions grind so slowly, they are in so many respects behind the curve and can't keep up with reality, like new technology.
While I can agree with many facts provided here in this thread, the decision "to be or not to be" Fi-Core still boils down to an individual's choice. Yes, it is political. Hugely so. From inside union ranks, all the way to the Supreme Court.

Another fact that dismays ; many union members have been working under the table for YEARS,

Everyone has the choice to be union or not, and should not be criticized for that decision, nor be characterized as "not an actor", should that individual elect Fi-Core....not to be confused with a decision to be or remain "non-union".

Thanks for listening to me rant. Gotta work now.
_________________
Bobbin Beam
www.bobbinbeam.com
blog.bobbinbeam.com

glittlefield · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:11 am Post subject:

I'm a total outsider to unions, but every time I read the topic here, this song from 1983 keeps going through my head.
_________________
Greg Littlefield
VO-BB Member #59

ConnieTerwilliger · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject:

And here is the latest push from SAG on the Financial Core issue. Obviously just from the SAG POV, but it confirms DB's comments about the stance the unions are taking on Fi-core.

http://www.sag.org/getthefacts/ficore2.html
_________________
Playing for a living...
www.voiceover-talent.com
YouTube Channel: http://youtube.com/connieterwilliger