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'...