Re: Financial Core-The Real Poop-Answering Jack

Subject:

Comments:
: First off, I am very impressed with the intelligent dialogue that has resulted from the Financial Core article I had come across and posted here. : Both sides present strong arguments and place the ultimate decision in the hands of each of us as performers. : Jack, my reasons for going Financial Core were not to pre-empt prior efforts of fellow performers who stuck to their guns and built the union. : It was because I felt it was unethical for me to accept work in areas where budget considerations (such as those William pointed out )in the many new "markets" for our services, while under the thumb of Rule One. : Yes, I don't agree with the direction the unions have taken regarding this effective restraint of trade, but moreso, I want to play by the rules and accept work because it is my choice to do so, not to screw my fellow performers. : The fact is, when I do work AFTRA/SAG jobs (yes, I do, quite often), the employer is paying his/her H&R contribution: so I don't feel I am riding on the coattails of any other performers-- I am earning my way like every other member. : Where I choose to get off the plane is when growing, vital new markets are popping up and new avenues of performance opportunities present themselves, and the right thing to do is use Financial Core as the escape valve to legitimately (!) do this work. : I still pay my AFTRA/SAG dues (I opted to pay full dues, rather than the slightly reduced rate I am entitled to pay as financial core), my employers pay H&R contributions, and the work I do beyond the scope of the union isn't money earned at the expense of my : fellow union members. Why? Because this work wasn't going to come under the domain of the union's anyway: The producer wasn't going to go union (for whatever reasons) no matter what. : The point is: each performer has different needs and capabilities. Yes, the unions are generally more reasonable to deal with lately than before, but the structure of the unions today is no longer serving its membership as well as it could be. Case in point: Recently AFTRA : sent out a full color celebratory newsmagazine to each member in honor of it's golden anniversary. A nice gesture. How much did that cost to print and send almost 100,000 to the membership? Why wasn't that and other money invested in work and business generating opportunities : for the membership? : Why are the unions not re-organizing themselves to truly make it easier for producers to deal with them. : Simplify the process of hiring a union performer (i.e.-- act like a paymaster and send them one single bill for the services rendered, instead of multiple players getting in the way), : allow the performer to have a say in the scale rate they will accept for a given job once they are chosen to do the work in a non-signatory environment, and act as that talent's business manager. : It's a major paradigm shift for the unions to think this way, but it's what the production market wants, and doesn't know how to ask for it in a simplistic way. Make the scales sane! Why do we need to charge someoneoddball numbers like $359.95 for a session fee v/o tv spot? Is there some reason it can't be $350? $400? : It also cuts out the paymasters. Unless they become agents of the unions and expand the coverage that way (besides the headquarters offices, aren't all the locals concerned about workloads and budgets?) : Just some ideas, but until they start materializing in meaningful form to change the way union performers and the market meet, then Financial Core is the only dignified escape hatch left.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: