If you work with union talent you are likely aware that there is a potential strike on the horizon for the Screen Actors Guild this May.
Usually, AFTRA and SAG are joined at the hip, but things have become a little messy recently to say the least.
For those of you who aren't signatories, this may be of little consequence to you, but for those who are currently working exclusively, or somewhat exclusively, with union talent the question is very real.
Do union politics influence your hiring decisions?
Let us know by leaving a comment.
If there is anything to be said about the voice over landscape online, there is one major division that tends to separate voice actor from voice actor...
Where's The Fissure?
That chasm is whether a talent is a member of a union or is a freelance non-union professional.
While union and non-union talent can't see eye to eye, it's no secret that there are issues between the two major unions, and also within the unions themselves.
Do Union Politics Affect Your Hiring Decisions?
My question to you as someone who hires talent is:
Do you work with union or non-union talent and why?
Best wishes,
Stephanie
I only hire non-union talent, with the exception of a few on camera actors I have hired.
Non-Union is usually the choice for one simple reason. It's more affordable.
Non-Union talent usually work for themselves, so billing is easy. Secondly, there is no agency fee attached, increasing budget. And thirdly, non-union talent is always flexible to work with specific budgets.
Union talent is going to get paid a specific amount no matter what. Of course, there are benefits to union talent.
Most upper-tier talent are union members. So, if you need a specific talent, you must hire a union member.
Admittedly, it's harder to find good non-union talent. But, they are out there. And that's a good thing, since my clients need them.
"Non-Union talent usually work for themselves, so billing is easy"
I'm Union talent and any projects I get hired for through voices.com is directly through me - as are contracts and billing.
"Secondly, there is no agency fee attached, increasing budget."
Ditto as per the above - I pay nothing to my agent when booked directly by client through voices.com.
"And thirdly, non-union talent is always flexible to work with specific budgets."
Which may work for a client with a small budget - vs. clients with larger budgets who can afford not to spend time searching for talent
with the experience, skills and techniques they require (responding to the last post below:)
"Admittedly, it's harder to find good non-union talent."
Teri Clark Linden
Member AFTRA/SAG/AEA
I agree with Teri, above!
If my agents are not involved in the hire, my contract with them stipulates they do not get a fee, but even if they did, it would come out of MY PAY--which is usually base union rate anyway.
In this business, you USUALLY get what you pay for, and if an inferior finished product is OK with you-fair enough!
We professional (union-yes) actors have almost always some specialty training, and we have had to do a professional job to get the union card in the first place, so you usually won't be disappointed, or feel ripped-off by the price of our work...
Griffith Wm. Kadnier
Member SAG/AFTRA/AEA
I must agree, cost and freelancing is the way today. I know of even top actress and actors, Musicians ect. Are able now to do much of the footwork them self's, it is a new world now thanks to the internet. Even as an agency I see many of top 10's getting less pay and not to mention the larges motion pictures company's are now also going out side and hiring independents.
I see a new way of the world practice. Is it good?. Some seem to think so. Some think not. I think it's great, this gives more artists a chance to be discovered.
Sincerely,
Max Millionz