Standing Corrected

  OK, so I didn't do my homework.  In my blog post, "The Issue of the Core," I discussed the subject of claiming financial core status with SAG, but I didn't research the origins of it.  By virtue of its title, I had always assumed it was intended for actors to have the opportunity to find work outside of their union if they found themselves in financial dire straits.  Mike Kraft pointed out, that's just wrong.  It was actually intended to give a SAG member the option to resign from their union in order to avoid paying for the political activities of the union.  Essentially the member could pay only the "financial core" amount of dues, which were not to be used for political purposes.

I looked into it.  In a 1963 Supreme Court ruling called NLRB v. GENERAL MOTORS. This ruling says,

“The burdens of membership upon which employment may be conditioned are expressly limited to the payment of initiation fees and monthly dues. It is permissible to condition employment upon membership, but membership, insofar as it has significance to employment rights, may in turn be conditioned only upon payment of fees and dues. “Membership” as a condition of employment is whittled down to its financial core.”


So, it was born out of a desire to have dues money used only for the purposes of collective bargaining activities, and not lobbying for legislation, etc.... and not so union actors could act in non-union projects.  The fact that they can do that, is in fact, a legal loop hole.


Ironically enough, while I wouldn't want to claim financial core status to do non-union work, I would appreciate having control over how my dues are used. Learning this information made me more interested in financial core than before.


The bottom line is, whatever a SAG member's intentions are for choosing fi-core status, it is in fact the legal right of every guild member to do so.  Knowing that, how ethical is it that when you go to SAG's website to learn about what it is, you are served this jargon: 


"Fi-Core/FPNM are viewed as scabs or anti-union by SAG members, directors, and writers..."    "IT MAY BE YOUR RIGHT, BUT IS IT RIGHT FOR YOU?  YOUR CAREER?  YOUR FAMILY?"


Wouldn't it be a more intelligent, and certainly more ethical approach to try to educate performers on what it is, what it means, and what it does, rather than try to scare or threaten them (and their family) out of something that is their legal right? 


I'm just sayin'... 

The Issue of The Core

  Over the years I've heard lots of arguments for and against going "financial core."  For anyone unfamiliar with the term, declaring financial core status as an actor means that a current SAG actor can work both SAG jobs and non-union jobs.  SAG calls it being a fee paying non-member.  The drawbacks?  You have to turn in your SAG card, you can't vote in SAG elections and lots of people argue that it weakens the Screen Actors Guild.  If SAG actors are wiling to work for non-union rates, why should producers and/or advertisers spend all the extra money to be a SAG project? 


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.