Jag, do you guys have Taft Hartley up there. Not many people know about it. It is the best way to go if you just start in the business to get the Union benefits without having to join. It s good for 30 days so you can work union without having to pay the dues. It is cool for people who know they are only going to work for a short time or on one show. I reccommended it to allot of my friends. I told my story on here somewhere how I got my SAG card. It was pretty neat and unusual. I was lucky
No Keith,
TaftHartley is a piece of American legislation. We're not (yet) obligated to apply US legislation this side of our border
but under Taft Hartley, you still have to pay the dues, ...but it's working dues as opposed to initiation dues.
Let's just say there is a lot of misunderstanding south of the border when it comes to Taft Hartley, and that misunderstanding can often work in the union's favour. Commonly and traditionally accepted practice may not always co-incide with the law. ie: Ontario legislation says a consumer has a 48 hr right of recision. Many stores put up a sign that says all sales final, and may even print it on your receipt. BFD. The law says otherwise. Just as in life, if you don't know your rights, it often proves difficult to demand their enforcement. The challenge is compounded when those required to enforce them, are even less aware of them than you are.
We do have a form of permitting that allows non-members to become members for a day or week if you will. It's a win/win situation actually. Our contracts stipulate that no member will be forced to work with a non-member or someone not holding a valid permit, ...but you can't force someone to join. So what we do is issue a permit (for which there is a fee that fluctuates according to job categories, and the length of engagement one is seeking the permit for). An applicant can re-apply for as many permits as required depending on the length of their engagement.
The permit confers upon the non-member all the rights & privileges afforded a member (except voting, extended health coverage, pension, or any of the other union "benefits" etc.) The fees for these permits go towards...
paying off the mortgage and recouping the legal fees of the protracted battle between national and the BC branch oops, ...I mean they go towards topping up the fraternal benefits, insurance coverage & retirement plans of members
Eventually the individual acquires 6 permits in residual attracting job categories, and can apply to the union for full membership, or they would remain non-union and continue to work in either jurisdiction. Most of us chose to work both sides of the fence, while keeping track of our credits. Because you had a time limit to get all 6, if the time ran out... the 1st credit would drop from the list of credits eligible to be used for acquiring membership. So people kept making sure their union credits were always rotating. As long as they maintained 6 eligible credits, there was no urgency to join the union and they could enjoy the best of both worlds. Because once you join the union, it wasn't like LA, you couldn't work non-union. That's Rule 1 in SAG, and the most important rule in any union. You can be Jeffrey Dahmer for all they care, ...but to be union and work non-union, ...or SCAB
...you might as well kiss your butt goodbye. Those credits btw are not necesarily determine by whether you got a roll credit at the end of a film or TV show. Those are basically "at producer's discretion". I'm talking about a signed contract with your name on it, designating the production, your role, your pay, conditions producer had agreed to, perks, etc., the intended usage, as well as the percentage of distributors gross you would receive, based on either a buy-out or an advance against gross etc. That's what constitutes a "credit" in the eyes of the union.
So the union said "to heck with this"... and they introduced the apprentice program. It stipulated that
future members could indicate their intention to join the ranks by becoming a union apprentice. This meant, after attaining their 1st eligible credit, they could pay $30, become an apprentice, and always be eligible for union rates whenever called out to work. In retrospect it was pretty stupid considering pay rates were always union rates. The only exception to that was the rate paid to background performers (extras). Only the 1st 30 got union rates, however many others got $5/hr. They still had to pay the permit fees tho. The apprentice program also made them eligible for opportunities afforded full members. BFD. They were always eligible to be seen by CD's. There was just always a perception that CDs wouldn't audition them because they weren't union. The fact is, there are only so many actors they are going to audition, and when you are up against someone with a proven track record, your chances are slim. However, in a business where perception is often more real than reality, ...what can you do? The end result was a massive influx of new members... mostly extras who wanted the union card so they could be guaranteed to make union wages everytime they worked. It's not unusual for a union extra to make over $300 / day, as opposed to $5/hr. It bites to be working right alongside someone else all day long, and come away with $50, knowing the guy beside you is making $300, They resented the "preference of engagement" clauses that said "preferences would be given to full members over permitees, but what alot of these guys who were essentially professional extras didn't understand is that for the producers, full members, were more valueable to them than the cash people, and that those preference clauses in the basic agreement for full members over permitees or apprentices were there at the producers request.
Bottom line, the program was reactionary (to ALOT of different things), poorly implemented and basically screwed the extras in the end.
Sad but true. Most professional non-union performer's ignored the apprentice program and continued to rotate their credits with an eye to the calendar... so the union then put a time limit on entry. If you were a non-union performer who purchased a permit for a role under ACTRA jurisdiction, a role that was eligible to be used as a credit towards meeting entry requirements into the union, ...you had 30 days in which to signal your intent to join the union (at some future date once all eligibility requirements for membership had been met) by becoming an apprentice, or you would forfeit the ability to use that credit towards fulfilling entry requirements, as well as all previously eligible credits that otherwise could have been used for membership, and be required to start from scratch, again competing for and acquiring 6 credits within ACTRA jurisdiction. {LOL} Even though you had a choice, it wasn't much of one. It was either join within 30 days, ...or become an apprentice within 30 days upon acquisition of your next credit, starting over building eligible credits from scratch, or, be forever ineligible to join. That was the bottom line, as well as the magic bullet. As long as someone had at least 6 fresh credits in rotation, they could hold off on becoming a member indefinately. The prospect of starting all over from scratch was something very few wanted to do. The acquisition of the union card is like the holy grail for actors, so needless to say, all the non-union talent working both sides of the fence poured into ACTRA, and non-union producers had no more non-union talent pool to choose from, and had no choice but to become signatory if they wanted access to talent. It did however provide a huge boost to union coffers and our membership ranks
Afterall,
we had a mortgage to burn and legal fees to recoup, the strength of a union is in it's numbers, no?
We also don't have Financial Core. We do, ...but it's not really structured the way it is in the US, and it sure as heck isn't publicized the way it is in the US, ...and even that's hush-hush. Because actors are not designated as "employees", but rather independant contractors, there is no "core" per sé, and to bar them from working because of a lack of membership in the union is illegal. It's restriction of trade and quite illegal. However, because ACTRA has exclusive jurisdiction over working conditions governing independantly produced English language media, they can come to agreement with the employers (the producers) governing the working conditions and environments that must be fulfilled and maintained for their members to work, including the requirement that none of their members would be required to work alongside any performers who was not either a member or permitee, ...and in the case of permitees, it is stipulated in the general agreement that the cost of permitting a non-member will be borne by the producer. So... in a nutshell, the performer is still core, and the union still gets it's money, either willingly by the non-member (depending on the category of engagement), or by the producer. In any event, bearing the cost of permitting is agreed to in advance by the production agreement. As well too, in order to not create a conflict of interest, producers are required to provide "equalization payments". If they have to pay out an addition 10% of gross wages to contribute to pension & retirement funds for full memebers, it might be advantageous for them to seek non members for whom there is no pension & retirement fund to contribute to. In addition, 3% was also deducted from performers cheques for insurance & retirement as well as working dues of 1.74% . So we have an agreement that nevertheless, those amounts would be deducted and forwarded to the union so as not to create a financial conflict of interest. For the longest time, those funds were automatically deducted & forwarded and it was up to the non-member to request those back, but most knew nothing about that and happily accepted the withholding of those percentages.
I remember once years ago, before I joined the union, I was in a bit of a cash bind. I needed some money otherwise I would be late on my rent. I was walking through the door with my drycleaning in tow, going through my mail which consisted of more bills than cheques. I had a cheque in front of me for $500 something, and I going over it to make sure it was completely accurate, in the deductions, and ironically the 3% deduction was exactly what I had paid to my dry cleaner 5 mins before walking in the door. I remember looking at the deduction and saying to myself... "{sigh} that could have covered my drycleaning." That's when it hit me. Needless to say, i went over ALL my records and started adding up all the 3% insurance & retirement deductions over the years, and called up AFBS, and applied for my refund. I more than covered the rent. Infact, I think my refund covered it for 2 months
. Shortly after that, Fraternal stipulated non-members had 30 days to apply for their 3% refunds. Thankfully, the union changed a bit of wording around before it got slammed by the Canadian Labour Congress. With the "equalization" payments, they're in the clear. Now, they can even keep the money rather than refunding it. Personally, I would have prefered they simply credit new members for previously accumulated deductions and apply them to insurance & retirement once someone actually acquires full membership, but it wasn't feasible. It would've at least allowed them to get extended health benefits, as well as prescription & dental coverage right off the bat upon gaining full membership, ...but instead, they have to start from scratch and work their way up til they are eligible for the various levels of coverage made available through fraternal.
