Posted by William Fowler on May 07, 1998 at 13:47:01:
In Reply to: Re: Financial Core - The Real Poop posted by Jack Shaw on May 04, 1998 at 13:02:25:
Jack, I want you to consider that Financial Core allows qualified, professional, former members to compete in the same markets as full dues paying members, but it also provides legitimate avenues of pursuit in non-union venues. Many union contract areas do not provide enough latitude to allow many smaller ad agencies and independent producers to adhere to contract stipulations. They simply don't do business in the manner prescribed by the unions, nor does the structure of many of these employers allow them to change the way they do business.
There are gray areas in many union contracts, such as IVR, VNR, RNR, museum tours, audio books, transcription, internet radio and direct response. Many of the smaller producers will not become signatories under any circumstances. Hence, Financial Core does not undercut union attempts to organize these areas or interfere with potential work for union talent.
Financial Core talent does pay dues based on work performed under union jurisdiction and are applied, in part, to the pension and health programs. So, Financial Core talent is not getting a free ride on the backs of union members. They are simply paying into the areas they have a right to participate in.
From the standpoint of employers, you have to understand ther math, Jack. If a union job offers up a scale fee of, say, $500, it will cost the employer approximately 45% more to meet the employer obligations of their contributions to Social Security, workmans compensation, state unemployment benefits, pension and health programs, etc.. This brings the cost of employing someone from $500 to $725. If a freelance, independent contractor wishes to negotiate his/her own deals, be responsible for invoicing and reporting and paying taxes on that income, it is his right, under Financial Core to do so.
Most of us in Financial Core do not work for peanuts or lower the standard for union members. We,for the mostpart, are trying to satisfy the producers needs, work within their limitations and budget restraints.
Experienced non-union talent will not give their work away. That is usually done by newcomers who are trying to make a name for themselves.
You wanted some examples of union contractual inequities.
1) Union scale for an industrial VO is currently $333 with a provision of $97.50 for each additional 1/2 hour, or $195 per hour. Why
should my work be devalued after the first hour? I believe in charging a flat fee based on the length and type of material to be recorded, with provisions for gross misrepresentation of time and/or length of material.
Oftentimes, my fees greatly exceed scale and I have no problem getting it.
You may ask, why then, doesn't the producer do it under union contract? They don't want the paperwork headache. Do you prepare your own taxes? Isn't that fun? Simplicity carries the day. All the middlemen and parasites increase costs. Why not eliminate them and still make a handsome wage?
2) AFTRA/SAG has aminimum eight week usage buyout for local market advertising. If a commercial or radio spot is only going to run for a weekend sale and the client is producing several different spots using the same VO performer for the same sale over the same weekend, it is patently unfair to the producer to charge a minimum eight week usage fee. The talent clearly benefits from additional session fees on spots that will, likely, run for one day before it is replaced by another on which he,the same talent, is used.
Many of my colleagues, some of whom are current and former union officers, agree with these and other contract inequities.
As far as Financial Core talent being removed from the union process, let me say this: While we can't vote or run for office we can still help to bring ideas and change contract language. It was I who first introduced the current contract provision in the industrial contract to eliminate full scale sessions for "re-do's" or "partial script". Full scale for pick-up lines was decidely unfair to producers. It is this kind of unfairness that leads producers to go non-union. I still have many friends and associates at SAG and AFTRA, and I continue to offer items that would improve contracts and employer relations. Improved contracts will only benefit members and FC talent as well.
So, I can't vote, attend meetings, run for office, or get union mailings. I have been involed in union negotiations at the highest level and know the frustrations and difficult task of creating contract language that will be a panacea for all things and all people. It is very probable that this inside exposure drove me to Financial Core. I have been effective in union contracts and will continue to do so. Whether Financial Core or not, any union that turns a blind eye to a good idea is only cutting it's foot off dispite its mouth.
Unfortunately, many ad agencies and producers ignore and abuse much of the contract language they have signed on to. Examples being: stealing VO auditions for demos and scratch tracks without paying the requisite fees, holding mandatory auditions for which something has already been cast, misrepresenting size and number of markets to save on residual payments.
There is the option to do a union job or a non-union job, but don't sign-on to union contracts, whether producer or talent, and proceed to undercut the contract like a thief in the night. Financial Core people do have standards and we happen to have a more savvy business accumen than the average union member or we wouldn't have chosen the route we have. Some may call it opportunism. I won't argue with that, but for some, it also makes good business sense. In the long run, Financial Core talent may well teach the entire industry better business practices.
OK Jack?