The Fate of the Screen Actors Guild is Just Weeks Away

Ask any member of the Screen Actors Guild what his or her goal was in joining the famous guild of thespians and you will find an astonishing common thread embedded in each response: "To make a living as an actor."

In every career path of every individual in this great world there is a matter of choice. You may not be able to choose, for instance, who sits in the cubicle next to you, but you certainly may ask for a different seating assignment. Altogether, you may even look for a new job. But regardless of a person's particulars comes the matter of choice. Everyone who is an actor or actress chose to be, plain and simple. Just as some have chosen to be a doctor or a school teacher or a journalist or garbage man. No one forces anyone in this great country of the United States to take up any kind of living they don't wish to do.

Now, every career will come with it's own pros and cons .... pay and pay discrimination, benefits and rising costs of health care, promotions and increasing duties. There seems to be with no one job in particular a perfect career in which one may always have their cake and eat it, too. The only way to save oneself, it seems, from these conflicting feelings and dilemmas is to simply be unemployed,which is where 10% + of the population is headed towards, with or without their consent. So it would seem, then, that every person who earns a living and pays taxes from earning that living should have the right to ask for that new cubicle, a raise in pay, an equal contribution from employers to their 401K, right? Just not so, it seems, with actors.

Okay, so now you're grumbling and gnashing your teeth wondering why anyone would go so far as to compare an actor to the rest of the working world, right? I ask you to consider this much: Because they equally and as freely chose their living just as you did yourself. That's why.

Allow me to explain. At present, members of the Screen Actors Guild are facing a vote of a contract (namely the tv/theatrical contract which expired in 2008) which may forever change the face of not only television, but of the career title as a whole: Actor. The Screen Actors Guild was formed at a time when production in speakies - a.k.a. Motion Pictures was on the verge of becoming a very lucrative industry for a few men with loads of money at a time when the country was going through the Great Depression to make even more money at the expense of the people enslaved to them. A person could literally be forced to work as an actor or background actor for a 14 hour day for less money than most factory workers are earning in Mexico per hour these days, which quite frankly, ain't saying much. Often time performers were exhausted and their only "remedy" from the abuse was to be fired from their contracct. Consider that in just one year under the studio system in Hollywood, Cary Grant nearly burned himself out having to complete EIGHT FILMS in one 12 month period. Still, yes, he chose this living, but he was one of those who with the advent of United Artists looked to create better working conditions for people who were being abused by their employers.

Flash forward years later to present day. Most of the 110,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild do not make enough from their acting careers alone to pay the bills. In fact, less than 1% are "household names" which is another clever way of saying a star. Of those remaining 99%, the tv/theatrical guild contract sets down parameters for their wages and working conditions. The remaining 1% no longer utilize these contracts as they have lawyers, managers, and often their own production companies with their own stringent parameters laid out in writing and will not even so much as take a meeting with any producers or employer who cannot at least shill out the minimum of what they've asked for. They are, quite in fact, the EXCEPTION to the rule. In other words, why should they support the remaining 99%? The answer is quite simple: Because they used to be at one time one of those 99%. Had it not been for the Guild laying out contract terms, they too would have been or still would be forced to work in conditions not suitable for the average joe. But to ask them these days to speak out in favor of those on the bottom rungs is like asking Bernie Madoff to return investors money; ie: it ain't gonna happen.

So what is your idea of suitable? SAG's "sister" union - which has sold out it's actors at a basement bargain price to conglomerates, has in some cases, deemed it suitable for union background actors to earn $98 for 8 hours of work. Broken down into an hourly wage, that's $12.25 per hour. In some small towns that may be suitable pay. In cities like Los Angeles, California, where the average studio apartment costs at least $850 per month, $12.25 per hour is simply chump change. Especially since no hours of work are guaranteed. It then becomes an issue where only high school and college students and retirees can make do on these wages. But wait, there's more. Some of AFTRA's contracts would also like their prinicipals, who typically work longer hours - about 12-14 hour days to go without things like a lunch break. At least that what producers TRIED and failed to make them do. You see, AFTRA is a near bankrupt union with a heavy axe to grind. If they cannot earn enough monies through any kind of contracts, that is either from actors or dancers or you nightly news reporter, they will simply collapse and lose their pensions. When you owe as much to E.R.I.S.A. as they do, it seems you'll go to any length to find some money, even if that means allowing your actors to be raped, right??? YOU would do this wouldn't you? No? Well, AFTRA is. And now they want the Screen Actors Guild to do the same.

So, then AFTRA had the grand idea to make the working wages for the lowest on the totem pole appear palatable. They decided to give union extras a whopping $130 for 8 hours of work. That way one of the largest groups of the underemployed performers would think that the conglomerates had their best intentions in mind, right? Very untrue. What their contract and the newly proposed tv/theatrical contract will do is rape the actors in the middle. It's true. Their base rates will stay roughly the same, but no longer will actor be able to collect a reasonable paycheck in residuals from their contracts that once assured them they would. Now, in return they will receive about $25 per year. And how will this effect even people who do background? It means that the producers will be contributing far less money to the pension and health fund, which means now rates will go up and the average background actor AND the day player actor will no longer qualify for health care. It will also mean that the average actor or background actors income will need to DOUBLE in order to be able to become vested for even the smallest amount of money in their retirement. It means that those who are vested and collecting now will drain out the last of the SAG Pension fund as contributions will dwindle starting in about 3 weeks if the contract passes. You may say you do not understand the Pension and Health Fund. So how does that all work?

Well, you see in SAG, everything works on a "Robin Hood" type of system. All monies are pooled such that any performer in the upper echelon or the lower ranks who earns a certain amount per year for at least 10 years may become vested. In AFTRA the standards are such that virtually everyone, except people like Dan Rather or Ryan Seacrest or Victoria Principle, will never make enough neither to be insured nor to be vested for retirement. In other words, you could earn a decent amount of money through AFTRA for 10 years at $10,000.00 per year and they still will not give you one red cent when you retire. In other words, all of your earnings went to help Dan Rather to retire and not you, Joe Schmoe the background or day player actor. And they just raised their earning standards so that even for partial insurance, an actor must now make approximately $15,000.00 per year. Keep in mind, they will not disclose to you the disastrous results of doing this to actors nor to the general public. Because when you tune into your nightly news, it is delivered through AFTRA vested members called tv newsreporters and they want actors to be raped so that they will have something to kick back on when they're old and grey.

Now, most actors in the Screen Actors Guild have one, if not several, other jobs. But in order to maintain flexibility for auditions, many of which will not result in booking the job, those day jobs usually don't afford great pay or benefits. Imagine that the dream job you wish to do requires that you go on at least 200+ interviews per year with no prospect of even landing the job. That's the life of an actor. MOST cannot and do not ever quit their day jobs. They simply cannot afford to. But a few get lucky and go on to make a desent living as an actor. That was their goal in joining the union, yes, was to make a living as an actor, right? What happens when that actor can no longer afford to go to auditions? When that actor books a job but it no longer gets him through the days of underemployment? Who can afford to go on these auditions and maintain a living in the industry? Rich people, trust fund babies, high school students, and retirees. In the state of California, about 10-20% of the state's revenue if from the tv and film industry. And now they're asking everyone, not just the actors, to work for less. Who can afford to?

If the newest proposed contract for tv and film in SAG should pass, it literally will be the beginning of the end for all actors .... that is 99% of them. The rest of the 1% will enjoy sipping on their gold-rimmed martini glasses laughing while looking back on their salad days remembering what it was like trying to make a living as actor before the hit paydirt. Because who the heck needs SAG's pension monies when they can retire off their three to four 7.6 million dollar homes? Can't you do the same?