On one forum an actor argued that the only reason anyone should ever go financial core is if they're a celebrity doing a project for charity that's non-union. That's just senseless. Pretty sure the term "financial core" wasn't coined with the intention of taking care of celebrities, but actually out-of-work actors who are having trouble finding employment and making a living in union jobs.
Couldn't one see it as simply a smart business decision? We spend so much money as actors to train for, market, and pursue our careers, wouldn't going fi-core mean more opportunities to get returns on your investment? And to actually spend more time and get more experience, acting?
Many would argue the "experience" factor should have been played out before you ever joined SAG. Again a weak argument in my opinion. If you've ever been a non-union actor in Los Angeles, it's hard to get an agent to look at you twice unless you're under 18. You can't get into the union without working union jobs and you can't get union jobs unless you'r in the union. You can't get an agent without credits and it's hard to get credits without an agent. Not a simple equation. Personally, I paid a calling service with connections to slide me into three days of SAG background work before I paid the nearly $1200 (at that time) to get my SAG card.
I'm not fi-core, nor am I considering it. But I certainly don't have a die-hard opinion against it. If you ask me what really weakens the union, the first thought that comes to mind is the Commercial Strike of 2000. What a disaster. Advertisers found during this time that there were plenty of non-union actors willing to work for lots less money, and plenty of them had the chops for the job, without question. Result? Once the strike was over, many of those advertisers never or seldom went back to using union actors. And the commercial residuals SAG fought so hard for? SAG commercials used to pay a big, fat flat rate for a commercial spot, not pay per play. Would have been nice for all those folks in that last decade that booked spots that never ran or ran once.
I asked an agent once what he thought about financial core and he said, "In my experience, for actors who go "fi-core," casting directors start to see them as a non-union actors and tend to put them out of the category for union jobs. And we don't want that." True. We don't want that.
Apart from the fact that Fi-Core ultimately brings down rates for everybody, the term was never "coined" for out-of-work actors who are having trouble finding employment. In fact, it was never intended for actors at all. It was the result of a member of the Communications Workers of America suing his union because he did not want any part of his dues money paying for his union's political activities. The court agreed, and allowed him (and all union members) to RESIGN from their union for political reasons, while still paying the FINANCIAL CORE obligation to the union for collective bargaining and enforcement of contracts. That is not why most actors do it. They merely take advantage of a legal loophole that was never intended for them. In the original case, it was NEVER about wanting to do non-union work. It was about wanting to continue working in a union shop but not pay for the political lobbying of the union.
ReplyDeleteFi-Core is a cancer not only on SAG and AFTRA, it will ultimately be detrimental to the income of non-union performers as well.
Mike K
Cleveland