Vox Daily

This was a great article for me personally. I'm looking to go union as soon as I can get the enough of the union status work. There are so many independents that are happy to promise things and then when it comes time to sign an agreement they have changed that agreement to effectively shut you out from being paid. So, what is the union doing in the end is the real question. There are difficulties and questions on both sides. Ultimately, I feel it is still buyer beware.

Jacob RG Canon

Thanks Stephanie and Lani.

It's always good to have an insider's view on such a controversial topic.

One additional note about Fi-Core: in addition to not being able to vote, you also lose the right to hold office, and cannot attend some member events (although I never got a clear definition of *which* events)

FYI: The Fi-Core dues amount is supposed to be based on what it actually costs the union to negotiate and maintain the organization (the "Financial Core" of the total dues) vs. other expenses such as parties, promotion, etc. The reason that Fi-Core members still pay close to 100% is that SAG and Aftra have never opened their books to show exactly how much the "Financial Core" amount is. Someone will have to challenge them in court to have that happen, and that's very unlikely.

Another source of information for those interested is a small handbook for sale on the web from Mark McIntire. It is very detailed and gives an honest assesment from both sides of the Fi-Core issue, in my opinion.

Knowledge is Power - Arm Yourselves ;-)

Thanks Lani for a fabulous article - well written and well informed.

HOWEVER, I would like to point out a discrepancy in the Talent Agent paragraph - I am signed with a large agency that has stated flat out to me that in their eyes being Fi-Core was a bad decision and more importantly, they would NOT represent me if I were to go Fi-Core. There was no discussion on this issue.

It's a very difficult line to tread.

James

Steph:

Great article. Thanks for offering Lani the vine. Sorry I didn't get to meet her when I was in San Diego last week.

Another San Diego-based voice talent, Connie Terwilliger and I were corresponding on the voxmarketising blog about this very issue following a post I made on this topic in June (http://blog.audioconnell.com/?p=444)

Oddly, the way Lani wrote her piece, it almost makes sense to join the union (as Fi Core). Maybe the unions need to look at Fi Core as a possible savior for lagging membership.

To be continued, I suppose.

Best always,
- Peter

Hi Jacob, Joe, James and Peter,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and insights.

@ Jacob - It's nice to meet you Jacob. I'm glad that this article met your needs.

@ Joe - Thank you for giving an even more detailed definition of what it means to be financial core. That's very interesting and I'm sure some day those figures will be made public.

@ James - James, thank you for letting us know how your agent stands. I would imagine there are others of that persuasion too. Lani has a point though that it has become less and less of an issue for some agents for various reasons.

@ Peter - I'm reading your article right now. Thank you for including the link :) As always, it is a delight to read your opinions. I appreciate your forthright approach.

Does anyone else have something they'd like to say or share?

Best wishes,

Stephanie

@James: It is an "unfair labor practice" (ie. Illegal) for the agency to refuse representation solely on the basis of your choosing to go Fi-Core. In my opinion, they are inviting a law suit. Either way, I would not want to be represented by an agent with such a policy.

I have not run into that type of attitude in the industry thus far. It may be that I lack the experience, or am just lucky. The agents, casting directors, producers, etc. that I've spoken with about Fi-Core are all supportive of both sides of the issue.

Perfectly written and great cut through the BS facts. I am union, both SAG/AFTRA and have been for some 15 years or so.

I continually want to go FICORE, simply because the word union in Florida (a right to work state) is more detrimental. Clients don't want the hassle of dealing with residuals, units, pension and welfare, etc. So the majority of the work down here is going to all non-union talent. Conversely, the big agencies with the big work, will only go with union. The rub? All the big agencies with the big work hire the big guns or name actors in L.A. or NYC. So there is no big paying union work for the hard working voice guy not in those markets. At least that's been my experience.

Hi Lani & Stephanie,

Thank you Lani for sharing your wealth of information and to Stephanie for publishing it here. It is very informative and seems hard to come by. Kudos to you both!

Best,
Jeff
GelderHead.com

Stephanie, Lani, et al:

I hardly know where to begin. From the opening "Oil and Water" through Lani's piece, there are so many inaccuracies, half-truths and outright falsehoods, it is sure to leave a misleading stain on the issue. Rather than parse the entire article and rebut each point, I instead offer this article which I wrote on the subject. I encourage all to be fully informed when considering going Financial Core. I apologize for the article's length.
___________________________________________________________

To Anyone Considering Financial Core Status

Thinking About Financial Core?

It may be that you are agonizing over your decision to declare Financial Core. If so, I applaud the fact that you have at least given this issue some thought; it is not a decision to be made lightly. It may also be that you have not thought enough about it; in which case, you should think a little more; you may decide differently. I would like you to know more about Why Financial Core exists, what it will mean to the Union, and ultimately to you as a professional performer.

Basically, Financial Core means that a Union member may elect to pay (slightly) reduced dues to pay for the costs of negotiating and administering Union contracts, while resigning from the Union. Hence, a Financial Core performer is considered a “Dues Paying Non-Member,” an important distinction. Once a performer chooses this status, they are free to work on either Union or non-union jobs. However, if they wish to become members again, they must petition the local board, and if readmitted, pay the current initiation fee.

So far, it still doesn’t sound too bad. But some history is in order. The idea of Financial Core came about as a result of the ruling in a 1988 Supreme Court case, Communications Workers of America vs. Beck.

A Brief History of Financial Core

In 1989, Harry Beck, an AT&T employee, challenged compulsory union membership, objecting that he should not have to support the political aims of his Union with his dues, claiming it unjust that free people in a free country should be compelled to pay for political and social agendas that affront their deepest beliefs. The Court agreed with Beck, ruling that under a Union security clause, workers could only be required to pay dues and fees directly associated with the negotiation and administration of the labor contract.

So, once it was determined that Unions could not require workers to pay for other than core services, it was a logical step to the conclusion that those choosing this status were not actually “members” of the Union; They were dues-paying non-members. They could not vote in Union elections, participate in member functions, etc. And if they were not members, they could not be prevented from accepting non-union employment, subverting union standards throughout the industry. And that’s where the loophole opened. Did Mr. Beck and his attorneys intend this result? You decide. But be not deceived; as it pertains to our Union, it is nothing more than a legal loophole. If the original intent was to avoid supporting a political agenda he didn’t believe in, Mr. Beck (et al) ended up in a place far removed from such lofty ideals.

Finding the Truth in the Thicket

In reality, Financial Core is a cancer that is being promulgated by the multi-national corporations who would like nothing more than the complete eradication of the Unions. There are law firms, lobby groups and “actor’s support” groups dedicated to encouraging, aiding and abetting Union actors to go Financial Core, wrapping their dogma in the American flag, saying it is your right as an American to stand up to the “tyranny” of the Union.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. From the beginning, the lawsuit at the heart of Financial Core was designed to break a Union. It was intended to pit the workers who were protected by the Union against the Union, in effect severing the hand that was feeding them. It did not break the Union, but it weakened all Unions by allowing members to disavow their allegiance while still reaping the benefits of the wages and working conditions the Union had fought for on their behalf.

An Example of Financial Core at Work

When a performer elects financial core, they put themselves in a rather tenuous ethical position, to wit: Imagine you are a producer who hires a dues-paying non-member under a Union contract. You pay scale wages along with the requisite Health and Retirement benefits, as well as overtime when the shoot runs long. You pay the performer as an employee, with the necessary Social Security and Worker’s Comp benefits included. You are a good and honest signatory.

The next day, you discover this same performer is working for your competitor on a non-union job. They cut the day rate, didn’t charge for overtime and billed as an independent contractor. You feel taken advantage of—why should you pay more than your competition for the exact same services? You now have two choices; refuse to hire that performer again, or relinquish your signatory status and book non-union at the cut rate.

Or perhaps the dues-paying non-member worked for the non-signatory at a higher rate than Union scale, which is well and good for the performer and the rates in the market. However, this performer (who is receiving health and retirement benefits from the Union) has now received income from a production source within our jurisdiction without requiring that the producer contribute to the Health and Retirement Funds as required under the Union contract, thus diminishing the value of the funds for all members. On an individual basis, a small amount; but let the tide turn and watch the shore erode.

Either way, all performers suffer; the dues-paying non-member has just sucked blood out of the Union dog they’re riding on, weakening it. But at least they still have their morals. They didn’t support any political lobbying by the Union. (That was the reason they went financial core, right? It couldn’t have been just to undercut rates or work for non-signatories.)

Every Financial Core performer gives a producer one more reason not to be a signatory, and every signatory that falls by the wayside is another step down the evolutionary ladder to chaos in the market for your services. If everyone went financial core, ultimately the Union would cease to exist, and what would protect you then? If your non-signatory producer decides not to pay you your half-price day rate, what are you going to do, take him to court for your $150? If the Union were still there, they would go after your money. When you’re paying $600 a month in health insurance, how many days will you have to work to pay for it? When your competitor decides this is just a hobby, and is willing to do it for $75 a day, will you chase him down the rat hole for crumbs? The Union presence maintains stability and fairness in the market.

How We Are Different

Our work is fairly unique; we get paid for the use of our image, the sound of our voice, our ability to interpret and deliver a message. We are paid for the intrinsic value of the result of our labor, rather than the actual time it took to produce the result. What we do is not a product, nor is it a service. It is intellectual property, and that has real value. That’s why we receive residuals when the result of our work is used again, or in another market, or for another client. There is still value in the work itself long after it is performed, and that is one of the many reasons we have a Union to protect our work from exploitation.

Remember Why We Have a Union

The wages and working conditions that have been fought for over the years are not arbitrary. Scale wages are not gifts; they are not unreasonable amounts. They are based on a mutually agreed value for the services. The adversarial relationship between labor and management spelled out by the National Labor Relations Board has its purpose; fighting over what is fair and just takes thought, reason and time, and many loyal people are working on your behalf (for no pay) to secure these benefits for you. The wages in our market, Union and non-union, are driven solely by the efforts of Union activity.

Let’s Talk About You

If you work regularly as a professional performer, you are an example that others follow. When it is seen that you are going Financial Core, others will wonder why they shouldn’t as well, and soon the bricks fall from the wall one by one, until there is no wall standing anymore.

I would recommend that if your convictions are so strong that you simply cannot abide paying for Union activities outside of the “core” responsibilities to members, by all means go financial core. And once you are financial core, only accept Union work. That way, your conscience will be clear on both fronts; you will be true to your beliefs, while at the same time helping maintain the wages and working conditions that many have fought so hard for. You will save approximately 2% in dues, which you can then donate to your favorite cause.

But if you intend to go financial core for your own short-term gain, you are merely taking advantage of Mr. Beck’s loophole; you are subverting the Union, and no amount of rationalization will change the fact that you are riding on the back of the big dog while sucking the blood from it. And when the big dog dies, you’ll be left with the runts and mongrels.

The Struggle

It is an epic battle, and one that has been fought for hundreds of years—the worker versus the employer. Business has no conscience; it exists for the sole purpose of making money and increasing shareholder value. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that; I enjoy a nice return on my mutual funds as much as anybody, but paying the worker as little as possible has always been a goal of business, and there is something wrong with that; and you are helping them achieve that goal.

By caving in to the economic pressure of an anti-union effort rather than fighting for fairness in wages and working conditions, and working toward organizing and increasing Union work opportunities, you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy; those who would bring down the Union.

What You Can Do

Rather than going Financial Core, here are things you can do to maintain your true Union status and increase opportunities for all in this market:

When a prospective employer requests your services for a non-union role, inform them that you are in the Union and to do so would violate the agreement you have made with your Union. Tell them that it is important for all professional actors to be paid fairly for their work, and that the only way to maintain a stable base of professional performers is with adequate compensation.

In the case of non-broadcast work, let them know how easy it is to hire Union actors even if they are not a signatory, by employing the “OPO”, or One Production Only Letter of Adherence.

In the case of broadcast work, ask them to consider becoming a signatory, that they may have access to the tremendous base of quality Union performers.

If a potential broadcast employer declines signatory status, see if they are willing to go through another signatory (e.g., recording studio, production house, independent producer, advertiser, etc.) for purposes of this production.

Tell them that the cost of hiring a Union professional is a fraction of the total cost of their production budget, and that the actor has the greatest impact on how their production is received by the audience. Mediocre talent equals mediocre results.

At all times let producers know that hiring Union talent means good business for everyone, and the difference in cost is more than offset by the quality received.

Respect Yourself

Remember; as an actor, you are a communicator. You have abilities that the general public does not; not everyone can do what we do. And therein lies the benefit to the employers. You deserve to be compensated fairly for the value that the employer receives and very often profits from. If you do not demand fair compensation, (including proper working conditions and health & retirement benefits) how can you expect the employers to respect you as a professional?

The issue is not really about you, or any one person. It is about an entire class of people who find their only strength in numbers. Without a chorus of voices demanding fairness, the adversaries can only assume they are in the right, and will continue cutting wages and benefits until they reach the point where it becomes intolerable to the worker. They want to find that threshold and keep people as close to it as possible.

Make a choice; be Union or non-union. There is work for both. But if you choose financial core, be prepared for the results of your decision. It will not be looked on favorably by your Union peers.

This is not a joke. Financial Core will eat away at the Union until it ceases to exist, and they will have won. I implore you to reconsider your decision. The future of the Union and your livelihood depend on it.

Sincerely,

Mike Kraft
President, AFTRA Cleveland Local

Hi Mike,

Thank you for sharing your article with us. I appreciate hearing your feedback and opinion as someone who plays a significant role within AFTRA.

Does anyone have anything they would like to add or comment on regarding Mike's article?

Best wishes,

Stephanie

This is in response to Mr. Kraft, who obviously is pro union due to his position as President of AFTRA/Cleveland. With all due respect, I wish to reply to several of your comments. First of all, to intimate that anyone who is professional would even THINK of asking another client what they paid an actor for a completely different project is ludicrous. Just doesn't happen with professionals, and I've never heard of an actual instance of it happening at all. Feel free to correct me with specifics.

Now, to your comment about mediocre talent giving mediocre results. I have hired plenty of union talents that are really pathetic compared to many non-union talents. Where does union membership imply anything to do with actual talent? When I was a SAG/AFTRA union member for over 15 years, I actually had to remove the union listing under my name on my resume before any client would even approach me. What does that tell you about how the union is perceived by people wanting to hire us? They have always been a pain in the butt to deal with and have never made strides to make life easier, consolidate paperwork or understand different genres for individual needs. One time use agreements are not the answer. The union needs to be overall more USER FRIENDLY and accommodating to everyone.

Anyone can join AFTRA and if they are in good standing for a year, they can join SAG. Anyone can be an extra for 3 times in a SAG movie and get a SAG card. Again-no talent required. Anyone can luck out and get cast by a friend or family member in any union production and thus qualify for union membership--without one ounce of talent. Answer me this: Where does this guarantee of better talent come from? I wish there was a Bona Fide way of insuring that a majority of union members innately had talent, but there isn't. Too bad. How can that possibly change?

Your statement about the union going after your money holds some merit, but there are still concerns. The union has the right to penalize a client for every day past 13 days of the performance (correct me if I'm wrong) until the check is given to the performer. Some clients are choosing to take the penalty (which has a cap -again...please correct if I'm in error).... instead of paying on time. The union is quick to assess penalties for non-payment, but it's the middle man, and there's nothing obligating the union to pay the performer within "x-amount of days" of the union receiving the check is there? How easy is it for any union member to go after the union for payment? In fact, from experience, I can attest to being on hold or transferred between department after department at SAG/AFTRA LA because no one knew the answer to anything, and even the people I was transferred to at the union, called the other departments "clueless." Not a very well-run or efficient organization, is it? Ever tried to get an answer about fees or wages from your union office? Chances are, you may not get the same answer from 2 different departments, or you might be transferred to voicemail and left in limboland. Is this the wonderful powerful organization that's doing us such favors? They criticize their own people and can't even understand their own legal verbage. I spent several hours with SAG's lawyers trying to get answers and they said, "Who wrote this stuff? I'm sorry, we can't make sense out of this either." Lovely, isn't it?

I think it's time for an overhaul. Instead of claiming entitlement, let's look at specific issues, try to accommodate clients for varying needs and not make it so daunting as far as paperwork and hoops to jump through. Maybe we can work out something that doesn't pay by the voice and group a certain number of voices together if there are 1-2 lines per character. Many more game companies would agree to that.

I cast and directed an AFTRA game and I paid many "must join" talents double scale for the 6 voice rate so they could afford to join AFTRA. I gave them the choice to join as Fi-Core, because San Diego simply doesn't have enough union jobs to earn a living if VO is all you do. The checks came in for the talent at the AFTRA office and the talent was told, "Come and get your check if you want to join as union. We don't have the paperwork if you want to join as Fi-Core and it could take another week to get the paperwork in order." I phoned the union and asked where this "paperwork" was? They said, "New York." I asked why someone couldn't fax the paperwork the same day? I was given lame excuses that had no merit. I gave my talent the option to wait and join as Fi-Core or join as full union status if they wanted their checks that week. They all waited and are very happy they did.

To tell a client that it's advantageous to pay union rates under a one time agreement ---makes me ask again---"What is so advantageous about paying 60% on top of union scale to pay a payroll company all the witholding, state and federal taxes, H & R etc---if there is no prerequisite requiring union members to actually be more talented than non union members? I've tried for years to meet with union officials and change things for the better. When they tried to ask for residuals for games when the developers we work for don't even get residuals and they work full time for far less hourly than we get-------this is another example of unions pushing their weight around without giving individual consideration for every possible genre of work. "Pay by the voice," is the rule. Considering that many online multiplayer games may have 139 parts for a total of 140 lines (i.e. one line per part), it's economic disaster asking some small developer in Minsk to foot the bill for union scale when the game probably won't sell enough units to even pay for its development (without voices even being included inthe budget) The union should give a little to get more people on its side. Instead it still tries to use scare tactics or says you are undermining a worthy organization, when in actuality the organization itself admits it's understaffed, under-supported and disharmonious to its sister union.

Commercials are priced according to distribution, usage and marketplaces. Why not try and apply that toward games or cartoons? The problem with the union asking for bigger and bigger pieces of the pie is that it gives little consideration for individual developers' cost-basis, individual needs or actual sales. It's a known fact that a large percentage of games out there don't sell enough units to pay for the cost of development. Sometimes a publisher may make up losses by localizing in foreign languages, but that has nothing to do with us, who did the project in English.

I've seen the article stating that the majority of top selling video games were done UNION. Well, duh! Electronic Arts has the most money and is a union sig. Their games notoriously are top sellers because of the genre they're in. Sports Titles. Few other developers or publishers have kept their union sig status and that includes one of the top developers making the most money: Blizzard for World of Warcraft. Plus---Sega, Nintendo, Sony, Blizzard, Capcom, ---all are non-union. What does this tell you?

Super Smash Brothers Mario game sold more copies in the first week than almost any game to date. It was recorded non-union.

I know. I was there. Everyone was paid well and on time. Non union---no issues.

Everyone values residuals, which are a blessing, and the union claims to insure that it will be your watchdog, making sure you get what you deserve. That's wonderful indeed! However, games should not be classified in the same vein. Shelf life of most games is less than 6 months and again, many titles don't even sell 10,000 copies which is less than 1% of the cost of development.

Gamers don't care about voices, celebrities or as you wrote: the use of our image, the sound of our voice, our ability to interpret and deliver a message. We are paid for the intrinsic value of the result of our labor rather than the actual time it took to produce the result. What we do is not a product nor is it a service. It is intellectual property and that has real value.

Really? Time for a reality check. If you knew anything about the computer game industry (which I have served since 1992 and done over 450 titles)---you'd know that voices are the last hair of the tail that wags the dog. Gamers don't care much at all about voice acting. Game play is where it's at.

Bad scripts make for bad voices, no matter how good an actor is---on screen or for any genre. And what is this "intrinsic value" of which you speak? How do you figure that union wages pay for the result of our labor rather than the time it took to produce the result when interactive wages are based on "up to 4 hours or 3 voices" rate (just an example), whichever comes first?

Games are not noble prize winners as far as content or scripts. I've asked the editors of every game magazine out there what they think about celebrities doing voices for games and every one of them said they hate having to interview celebs.

They usually are not the best voice actors for games. They aren't gamers themselves, and the only reason they decided to do the job was because their kids thought it would be cool." That's a direct quote. Go tell that to marketing. The disparity between perceived value and real value persists whether it's for celebs or union talent. TALENT is the key point I'm trying to make. A union card has never guaranteed talent, and until it does, I feel this is all a bunch of rhetoric and strong arming, not benefiting anyone. I'm the first to love union pay... but I deal with the other side of the coin enough to know that it can't be afforded by so many game developers, that if we insisted on doing only union jobs, we would not only short change ourselves but also provide giants like EA the ability to monopolize the industry. Small developers fold, and there goes more job opportunities. You need to give a little to get a little. And the more we are flexible, the better we serve the union and everyone else out there.

The union doesn't tell anyone else that a talent is FiCore. It still gets its 14.3% H & R for every union job regardless of whether the talent is entitled to be able to purchase their union health insurance. FiCore members still support all the celebs and the handful of union members who actually make a living doing union work. The majority of members do not survive solely on union work at all. Can you honestly tell me you don't know of actual union members who do non-union work using pseudonyms? Which is worse? Being honest and FiCore, or cheating and getting away with non union work while being a "union member" using a fake name?

Okay, I thank you for taking the time to read this and apologize for the length.

All the best,
Lani

OK, this is another long one. Sorry.

Lani:

Thanks for your response. I understand that everyone has their own experiences that lead them to their opinions and decisions, and you obviously feel strongly about the issue. However, there is and will always be a “greater good” that comes from a strong union presence. Without it, all talk of “fairness” and “rights” for performers would be meaningless. Individual performers have zero power. It’s as simple as that. Say what you will, but business rarely has a conscience. And when it does, it’s usually as a result of someone holding a stick.

But I would like to go back and discuss each point of the original post, if I may.

As to the “Oil and Water” part of the post:

1.) AFTRA did not “talk up” the AMPTP and come out with “some kind of solution.” What we did was negotiate fairly and firmly and came out with a contract that both sides could live with, and was a good deal for our members. This was unanimously approved by the 31-member negotiating committee (all dual-card holders) and approved by the National Board by a margin of 99 to 8 and ratified by 62.4% of its members, many of them dual-card holders. This happened despite SAG’s well-funded efforts to defeat the contract.

2.) SAG is not AFTRA’s “parent union” in any way. We have always been separate unions, though we have negotiated our contracts jointly for the last 27 years. AFTRA suspended joint bargaining after many well-documented affronts and attacks by SAG to belittle, discredit and eliminate us from negotiations by instituting “block voting” on the SAG side, which would have had the effect of rendering our votes useless.

3.) SAG is not currently “embroiled in talks” with the AMPTP. On the contrary, The AMPTP has given SAG their “best, last and final” offer and walked away from negotiations, after SAG was unable to negotiate a contract over the course of 42 days of bargaining, whereas AFTRA negotiated a contract in 17 days.

4.) AFTRA does not have an election coming up this fall. We, as well as SAG, have contracts expiring that will be up for negotiations, most notably the Commercials Contract. SAG does have elections coming up, where perhaps certain members will be voted out as a result of their stance on the AFTRA contract issue.

5.) Indeed it would “be nice” if SAG and AFTRA could get along and merge. In the last merger vote years ago, 76% of AFTRA members and 58% of SAG members voted YES for a merger. However, a supermajority of 60% was needed in each union in order to pass. By my count, that means 134 of every 200 performers wanted the merger. It is only because of a small but powerful cadre of Hollywood performers’ efforts against merger that it failed.

6.) How this current situation between the unions equates to a great time to go Financial Core is beyond me. This current rift is indeed weakening the power of the unions. However, I believe that this too will level out. There are right-minded people on both sides (AFTRA and SAG) who want to bring these unions together for the benefit of ALL performers, not just Hollywood actors. Now more than ever, union performers need to stand strong and show true solidarity, not just jump the fence because it is convenient.

And now to your section of the post, Lani:

7.) The union does consider it’s members votes. They don’t always vote the way some would expect or like, but the union does indeed abide by the democratic process and do the bidding of its members. It doesn’t always jump to act on the opinions of its members, however.

8.) Yes, you can pay your dues and initiation fee and “join” as Fi-Core. Of course, it goes completely against the very idea and basic tenets of Financial Core, which is to not want to pay for the political activities of one’s union. Why would you want to join an organization only to protest its politics? Oh, wait…it would be for a narrow self-interest so you could do union and non-union jobs, rather than declaring one way or the other.

9.) SAG rightly objected to the large talent agents being in the production business, as that is an absolute conflict of interest. If I am the producer and the representative of the talent I want to employ, isn’t that rather like the old Firesign Theatre bit from “Don’t Crush that Dwarf?”:

“Gee Dad, I still don’t see how you can be my defense attorney and the People’s Prosecutor all at the same time!”
“Easy son. That way I can personally see that you’re persecuted to the full extent of the law!”
“That’s my Dad!”

The reason that many agents “have nothing against” Fi-Core is because they are not restricted in the amount of commission they can charge for non-union performances. However, many agents have a lot against Fi-Core, philosophically and legally. Though the IRS has not decided to crack down, all of those non-union performers working under 1099-MISC status are in violation of the IRS rules governing independent contractors, as are the agents and producers who pay them. The IRS has been very clear that actors are “employees,” not independent contractors.

10.) The clients that will know if you are Fi-Core are the ones who ASK for Fi-Core.

11.) Yes, old Chuck Heston was once a SAG prez and was the co-founder of the Financial Core Foundation, along with Mark McIntire, who filed a brief, amicus curiae (friend of the court,) in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case: COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA v. BECK, 1988, the basis of Financial Core, which I referred to in my earlier post. Rather than offering non-partisan counsel on the subject, Mr. McIntire was more than a little slanted in his opinions to the court. He also makes some income off the sale of his book on how to go Fi-Core.

As to why Mr. Heston would add his imprimatur to the cause, I can only assume that he believes in his statement, "Financial Core is an individual liberty issue protected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Mark McIntire best explains how individual union members have the right to shield their dues money from financing objectionable political activities."

If you agree with Mr. Heston, and the reason you are going Fi-Core is because you do not believe in financing SAG or AFTRA’s political activities, I am behind you 100%. That is, if you are currently a member. If, however, you are “joining as Fi-Core” merely so you can do union and non-union work, then you are subverting the true nature of Fi-Core and exercising its legal loophole for your own individual self-interest. For the full reason why C.H. went Fi-Core, investigate The Agony and the Ecstasy: Charlton Heston and the Screen Actors Guild/Journal of Policy History - Volume 17, Number 2, 2005, pp. 217-239 by Emily Raymond. I can assure you, it wasn’t so he could do non-union work.

(And personally, having Charlton Heston as your poster boy does not, in my mind, lend an air of legitimacy to a cause. )

12.) The “markup” is 10% for the agent, 14.5% for H&R and approximately 24% for taxes, state and Federal depending on your state and your tax bracket. So yes, there is a substantial increase (around 50%) in costs over the base pay. There are also another couple of points added if you go through an independent paymaster. However, if you are non-union, there is a markup of 20% from the agent, so the difference in markup between union and non-union is more like 30%. Still a lot of money for a producer, but from a talent standpoint, bear in mind that an agent typically charges 20% commission FROM THE TALENT in addition to an Agency Service Fee of 10 to 20% to the producer. And then the talent gets to pay ALL of the 15.3% self employment (Social Security) tax themselves. So as a talent, would I rather have that 35.3% coming out of the producer’s pocket or mine?

13.) You say: “Here's a rate not many people know exists: 1 voice/1 hour = $379.50.” If that’s a rate “not many people know exists” they’re not trying hard enough. It’s posted on AFTRA and SAG’s websites under “Contracts/Interactive.” I am not familiar with the half-day rate for straight to DVD cartoons you mention. But are you saying it’s a good thing (as a producer) or a bad thing (as a talent)? I can’t tell.
14.) Yes, if your local office is doing their job, they will try to convince you not to go Fi-Core, since so many people are ill-informed about it. They think it is something the union “offers” as a way to do non-union jobs. We like to educate them. And of course, once you go Fi-Core, you will have to appeal to your local board to be reinstated by paying the initiation fee, if you are permitted to. SAG has declared a “Once Fi-Core, always Fi-Core” stance. In other words, if you go Fi-Core, don’t expect them to let you back in at a later date if you change your mind. According to SAG:

“Individuals who make the choice to quit their union cannot expect to be allowed back in without the union asking some questions about why they quit and what sort of work they were doing.” Screen Actors Guild Director of Organizing Todd Amorde said. “Making the decision to resign affects not just the member who resigns, but our entire union membership and our collective ability to enforce existing contracts and to organize more SAG covered work. We are dedicated to creating more union work opportunities, and it takes a strong and involved membership to keep us in a position to do that.”

15.) I agree that the union can be a hindrance (Hey! I’m agreeing with you!) when it comes to non-local hires. Obviously we are talking about SAG, not AFTRA, which has no such rule. (And yes, I’m a 20-year SAG member as well.) The reason is that SAG is a guild, which is a protectorate, and AFTRA is an open union. Sort of like in the movie “Newsies” where the paperboys proclaim “We’re a union just by sayin’ so!” SAG likes to keep fences around their property. As far as VO goes, I see this as a major blunder. And yet, it’s usually just a formality for the producer to explain why “this unique voice is unavailable in my area.”

16.) As to San Diego being rolled into LA, that is certainly unfortunate. It distances the membership from their leaders and makes life more difficult in terms of being compensated for time and travel. And yet, do you have any protections from the same fate if you are non-union? And weren’t you the one who was railing against the extra costs that the union puts on the producer?

17.) In 27 years of being a union member, I have never been “blackballed” for having the union go after my money, which they have done on several occasions. As for complaints against an agent, I can see how that might upset them, depending on what the complaint is, and whether it was taken up with them personally first. But if it is a true grievance and you cannot get any satisfaction from the agent, who else will you turn to? And as for “getting an agent?” That’s not the union’s job.

18.) I said this in the previous post, but it bears repeating: Agents love Fi-Core because they make more money off of you.

19.) As to collecting unemployment, there is absolutely no way you can collect it from an employer after working for them in a studio for one hour, union or non. Doesn’t happen. Although the rules for unemployment benefits in California differ from other states, you still have to work a minimum amount within the “base period” of the previous five quarters. And of course, non-union independent contractors cannot file for unemployment at all.

20.) The “final question” of H&R? I get a statement twice a year showing what my expected retirement payments will be, based on the current and projected condition of the funds. At any time, you can call the Plan office and ask for a quote or a statement. I’ve never had a problem.

21.) And to the “lastly”: “How can you pay dues to NOT belong to something?” Perhaps you should have worded the question “Why?” instead of “How?” The WHY is because this thing that you are not a member of is still negotiating the contracts with the industry to set minimums in wages and working conditions that benefit YOU as a Fi-Core performer or a non-union performer. How do you think producers and agents come up with those figures, anyway?

AND FINALLY (Whew, thank goodness!)

I agree that being in the union is no guarantee of quality. There are excellent non-union performers and lousy union performers. That’s what auditions are for, to find the good ones. It is not the union’s job to set standards in acting, which of course, is highly subjective. But all of this is beside the point. The reason for the union, as I have already stated, is to provide strength in numbers to a group of people who have no strength individually. Actors will always be exploited if they have no representation.

The union should be more user-friendly, and make a true effort to ASSIST production rather than hindering it. Many high-placed union members are working to make this a reality.

Your suggestion to “accommodate clients for varying needs” is a good one, and one we have struggled with. The problem is that as soon as you do that, you make the contracts even more complex than they are, when what you wanted was a simpler contract. And in region-to region differences (which there are, through waivers) it can promote competition between locals, which is not in the performer’s best interests.

I have little experience in the interactive gaming business, and I see your point on the “one-liners.” Again, the intractability of SAG on many of these issues is one of the reasons why many producers go non-union or out of the country.

My comments about being paid for the result of our labor rather than the time spent in the studio are still true. Each industry is unique, but it is rather common for voices and on-camera pieces to be lifted and re-used in other productions. Happens all the time, and they make money off the new production, and that is intellectual property for which you should be compensated. If you say that doesn’t happen in the gaming industry, that’s great. However, the rates have to be based on something, and there should be a minimum based on your physical presence to perform the job, whether you come to a studio or sit in your pajamas at a home setup. Even though you are being paid for the USE, there is the chance your voice will not be used, and you should be compensated for your time and talent.

And as to which is worse, an honest Fi-Core or a lying union member who works “off the card?” Simple. A union member working off the card. That’s like cheating on your girlfriend who’s been working to pay your way through college. But an honest Fi-Core who is Fi-Core for the reason of objecting to his or her union’s political activities, and not just for their own financial gain is OK with me, as long as they’re not doing non-union work. That’s the definition of an “honest” Fi-Core. Otherwise, just be non-union and do non-union jobs for the smaller companies that cannot afford to pay for union talent.

If you read this far, thanks for your perseverance.

Sincerely,

Mike Kraft
President, AFTRA Cleveland Local

Hi Mike,

Thank you again for sharing your opinions and ideas.

I'd like to address the point you made about SAG not being AFTRA's parent union. I only used that term because I read it in a recent interview with AFTRA National VP Holter Graham found here ( http://someaudioguy.blogspot.com/2008/07/five-questions-for-aftra-national-vp.html ) .

Here is the excerpt I am referring to:

"In terms of the future, I would recommend that your readers take a good long look at how things have been going lately in our industry and in the Screen Actor's Guild, my parent union."

That is just the sentence that mentions SAG as being the parent union. To read it in its full context, please visit the link above.

An article was published suggesting that there would be an AFTRA re-run election and candidacy was being made public as well as some rallying for support hence the reference to the election. If I am wrong on dates, please correct me:

http://blogs.voices.com/voxdaily/2008/04/what_is_going_on_with_aftra_and_sag.html

It appears that there may be some miscommunication within the union as it relates to how individual representatives or members convey messaging which may or may not be providing an unjust image of the union and its objectives, activities and policy. I've experienced similar miscommunications when conducting physical interviews that were recorded on paper verbatim that I've had to take down off of this blog because I was requested to do so by AFTRA representatives who would not stand behind what was said in person.

While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, experiences and points of view, the fact is that there are many unclear messages being discussed with the public and members alike.

Does the union have an official press representative? I'd be interested in speaking with them for an interview for publication and have a number of questions I would like to readdress.

Thank you for reading this.

Best wishes,

Stephanie

I'm enjoying the dialogue and associate myself totally with Mike's explication of the philosophical underpinnings of financial core status. Just one quick note. One's "parent union" is the one joined first, so Holter was saying he joined SAG before he joined AFTRA. AFTRA is my parent union because I joined in 1969 and joined SAG in 1986. It is unfortunate that both SAG and AFTRA have been recently described as "Hollywood unions." They are both national unions, wanting a presence across the country in part to stanch the flow of "runaway production" from the main production centers. Many are advocating for international performers unions, and it is a laudable goal. Whether it is feasible as media production explodes exponentially is a big question. But I agree with Mike; either go fi-core for philosophical reasons and don't work non-union, or work non-union. It's ethically indefensible to work both sides of the fence, on the backs of those who hold the line on Rule One, just because you can. Make no mistake about it, those who support Financial Core status long for the demise of organized labor. Should they succeed, performers will fit into two categories: stars and part-timers who do it for the fun of it, perhaps for no pay at all. I first served on a committee to create a plan for merger in the early 1980's. In my opinion it was a no-brainer then and is crucial now. Not much time remains for the union performers labor movement to survive without it. You may rationalize that Fi-Core is a reasonable way to get more work, but scale will disappear unless performers join and support our unions. Then it will simply be a race to the bottom for all of us.

John Jessup
National Board Member, AFTRA
representing Kansas City

"Parent Union", as Holter Graham uses the term, refers to the fact that he joined SAG before AFTRA. I am also a dual card holder. Since I joined AFTRA first, AFTRA is my parent union. The term has nothing to do with each union's relationship to the other.

Stephanie:

Thanks for providing the forum. I just want to clear up what Holter said about SAG being his "parent union." When one is a member of more than one actor's unions, the union you joined first is considered your "parent union." It does not mean that that union fostered the others.

As for the "re-run election," that was from the LA AFTRA Board election from last year, due to errors in the mailing and processing of ballots. That re-run election was held in April of this year.

Hope this clears up any confusion. As to the official press rep? I'm not sure, but I'll find out and get back to you.

Thanks,

Mike Kraft

Hi John, Mark, and Mike,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and for your clarification of the term parent union. Thank you also for your feedback and explaining what was going on with the re-run election in LA.

I appreciate you taking the time to participate and am considering more coverage of union activity on this blog, however, I want to be sure that what I am presenting is accepted across the board and representative of official AFTRA and or SAG if the case may be, communications.

Is there a glossary of union jargon available that you know of that we can be referred to? I know that there are elements of the union lingo that I need to become more familiar.

As always, we do our best to present all angles and communicate openly, and I thank everyone who has made their voices heard (and those who are yet to be heard) on this topic.

Best wishes,

Stephanie

Stephanie, you referred to Holter's comment:

"In terms of the future, I would recommend that your readers take a good long look at how things have been going lately in our industry and in the Screen Actor's Guild, my parent union."

Holter is saying that SAG is HIS 'parent union,' not AFTRA's. AFTRA, however, is MY parent union, and I am also a SAG member.

Up until a few years ago, there was a policy in place where the first union you joined - within the 4As, I believe - was considered your "parent" union. That practice is no longer used, but those of us who have been members for decades tend to use that "parent union" language, because it was in effect at the time we joined.

Thank you everyone (you too Mr. Kraft) for sharing your thoughts and opinions. This will be my last reply, and please accept the tone of friendly camaraderie in which it was written.

In response to #7. If unions responding the the "democratic process" is like how the electoral college elects the President instead of the popular vote, I still take issue with that voting process.

#9. I believe agents had more issues than just the idea of being allowed to produce things. When you figure that many agents who don't rep million dollar-a-booking stars, may not make enough off their talent to stay in business (VO only), I'm happy to give them opportunities to make more money if it means them staying afloat--- giving me more work.

#10. I've never had any client ask for FiCore. They either offer union work or non-union.

#12. I have no problem paying my SS tax myself, and since most talent doesn't make 100% of their survival income on union wages, I suspect they have to deal with personal taxes anyway. I agree that it is very convenient to have all the taxes taken out already, but again--the client has had to pay more at the onset and may be also hit for an increase in their unemployment insurance rates if a large number of W-2 actors hired file unemployment claims after doing one job. And yes, I state this knowing you've had to establish a base period to collect unemployment, but after you do that, you can indeed collect for doing a union job within your allowable collection period.

#14. The story about having to appeal to your union to be let back in as full status ----well one or two years ago, I got a letter from the union saying they were granting amnesty or something and would let us rejoin without paying any penalty etc. Things change all the time.

#21. "..negotiating contracts...that benefit you..." This is a matter of opinion. Hopefully, striking or making demands that portray us actors as too costly or difficult to deal with, won't end up hurting everyone. There's a point that solidarity needs to combine with common sense instead of a mission statement that was highly successful and needed when unions first came about. Labor unions are almost as old as America itself. The first national labor unions gained strength in the 1820s. During this time, workers banded together to reduce the working day from a grueling 12 hours to a more manageable 10 hours. All these things are great, but when you enter the world of creativity and so many different variables and needs, no matter how it may complicate contracts, times have changed and contracts need to reflect what is no longer as simplistic.

And your statement:

"Actors will always be exploited if they have no representation."

Gee what a positive outlook you have. ;) Actors always have the right to negotiate, set their own standards and choose whether to work or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a large number of actors or voice artists find their own work--especially if they are relying on their acting careers to support them.

We are all adult enough to be able to fend for ourselves and hopefully provide good talent for a reasonable rate. I am grateful for agents or the union for any help. But, take into consideration, people on this site or others which offer casting opportunities directly to actors......

As far as I know, most of us aren't processing these jobs through agents or the union, and we have a choice which jobs we take, how much to charge etc.

The union is just like an agent in that they aren't supposed to actively seek jobs for talents. Therefore the talent either has to wait for a casting notice or audition, or take matters into their own hands and drum up business.

Hopefully we can all succeed and I do sincerely hope things work out to make the union a smooth running operation that benefits all parties involved.

Cheers,
Lani

Stephanie:

I understand the difficulty of parsing statements from individuals when it comes to understanding official AFTRA policy or activities. The discussions on your website with individual AFTRANS are just that: individual working union performers, with their own ideas and opinions, including my own.

If you need to clarify any points about AFTRA policy or would like to get the “straight dope” from our official representative on matters of dues paying non-members, or any of AFTRA’s objectives or activities, I would steer you to Christopher de Haan at cdehaan@aftra.com and arrange an interview.

And as for a glossary of union lingo, I don't know that one exists. But I would be happy to decipher anything at any time, to the best of my abilities. Just don't ask me to translate from Membership Firsters. That's a language I don't understand. ;^)

Again, thanks for providing the forum.

Sincerely,

Mike Kraft
President, Cleveland AFTRA Local

Thank you all for such an insightful and informative discussion regarding the Fi-Core issue. Mike Kraft, I would like to see your world-class article reprinted on line for anyone who has a question about Financial Core. (Perhaps pitch for a link on the AFTRA website...)

As a 20 year AFTRA member and new to the Los Angeles market- I've been surprised at the requests for non-union/ Fi-Core work. Have I been tempted to take these jobs- especially when I really needed the money and no one would ever find out? Actually- not so much.
Fi-Core was NEVER gonna be an option. Here’s just a few (phew) reasons:

Although I don't currently qualify for AFTRA’s Health Plan- for most of these years I did and may surely qualify again.

And my AFTRA retirement earnings continue to accrue. Yes, an actual retirement plan that is going to pay me a nice check every single month.

Plus I get the benefit of advertising in my local AFTRA Talent Guides
(printed versions and on-line).

I can attend free or low cost UNION only seminars, workshops, tradeshows, skills training.

I can be elected to serve on the Executive Board and attend monthly board meetings that focus on creating more work opportunities for our members. I can attend the mandatory cocktail meetings that usually follow.

I can be elected a Convention Delegate where I can witness and participate in a real democracy of elected officials and industry peers who are working together for the good of our 70,000 union brothers and sisters. I’ve had the honor of serving as a delegate for 5 conventions- and believe me, serving as a delegate is the education of a lifetime!

NONE of those MAJOR BENEFITS and UNION PERKS would exist in Fi-Core Land.

To me, the notion of FC feels like an unwanted house guest that eats your food, sleeps in your bed and refuses to bathe. A clingy, stinky, Slinky that can only slither in your shadow and eventually will slink (and sink) to the bottom.

HEY SLINKIES OUT THERE- LISTEN UP: It's better at the top of the stairs than the bottom rungs. Don't take that first step down with FC. Don't lower your standards or your industry status. Stand up for something bigger than just your ability to get around a loophole. A hole which will weaken your benefits, lower your rates, diminish our Solidarity and will ultimately make unhappy, low or no paid- hobbyists of us all.

“Hey Helene, you wanna do a voice-over for us? Uhh, we don’t have a budget but we’ll feed you some (cold) pizza in exchange for your time and talent.” Yep, that seems fair.

And in conclusion... no, I'm done.

Helene Weinberg
Heleneotl@aol.com
AFTRA
www.outtolunchevents.com
Hope to see you in Los Angeles at VOICE 08 in August!

Thanks Lani. It's been a fun and enlightening exchange. I too hope that things work out to make the union a smooth running operation. And as I like to say, I hope everybody makes lots of money all the time.

Good Luck, and stay away from Financial Core! It's bad mojo!

Sincerely,

Mike Kraft

Hi Everyone,

Thanks Mike for some really great responses to the difficult topic Lani has raised. Inasmuch as we’ve all been participating in this and other blog discussions on your website as individual working union performers, our views are just that: individual – though obviously shared. Experiences and opinions may vary, hence, the dynamic and evolving discussion in which we are engaged, but please understand: AFTRA’s policy regarding dues paying non-members does not vary and is, in fact, quite clear. If you’re still unclear on AFTRA’s policy re: dues paying non-members, or any of AFTRA’s objectives, activities, or policies for that matter, I suggest you simply contact Christopher de Haan at cdehaan@aftra.com and arrange an interview anytime. Your readers would appreciate it and I certainly appreciate this forum!

Thanks,

Denise

Hi Denise and Mike,

I appreciate hearing from you.

Last year, I did interview a group of AFTRA representatives in Las Vegas at VOICE 2007, an interview for which Chris de Haan was present and was able to answer questions along with a couple other union representatives.

I clearly identified myself as a member of the press and told them that I would be sharing the answers with my audience at VOX Daily who would be very interested in the answers, particularly those interested in joining the union.

My notes are quite meticulous and within a day of publishing the interview I was asked to remove certain items, first to remove the AFTRA logo (which was removed per their request) and later that day, it was requested that the entire interview be taken down and removed from our servers with no justifiable reason, which we adhered out of respect in an effort to build up goodwill.

If I were just interviewing Chris on his own, and not with the others present, perhaps I would have received straight answers that would have allowed the interview to stand on its own. I am willing to communicate with Chris for future inquiries.

Thanks for reassuring me that communications should go through Chris on public relations issues.

Best wishes,

Stephanie

Dear Friends,

Lani's letter is the first clear and honest discussion I have ever seen posted anywhere. Thank you for the facts ( speciallly that hourly rate!).

We all know that due to their respective histories and alliances, SAG and AFTRA will remain at odds, but the reality is that " New Media" is where the market is really expanding, and neither of those organizations has much influence or say in that area (although some "Webisodes" --like a recent one I was in for the Onion Network --are AFTRA jobs). Nevertheless, for talent that is focused on traditional commercial work, union membership should be given major consideration. AFTRA fi-core works for me now because most of my multilingual VO production is non-union, but it sure helps to keep up with the current rates.

Adela

First I'd like to thank Lani for her article. It was very informative.

I've been Taft-Hartley for both SAG and AFTRA for years, having won day player roles in projects in both unions' jurisdictions. I have held off joining the unions for a number of reasons.

The major reason is that there is no real incentive, in my opinion, to join. I knew there was a minimum dollar amount to be eligible for benefits but did not know it was as high as $15,000 and did not know that you had to pay premiums in addition to meeting that minimum. There just isn't enough union work in Chicago to guarantee that most actors will meet that minimum, let alone be able to live off of union work. Also, it doesn't seem that there is any effort by the unions to help their members secure work. Does SAG and/or AFTRA sponsor a job bank? What exactly do they do, other than negotiate the contracts, to help their members in between the coasts obtain enough work to not only meet those minimums but to live a half way decent life? Being able to put a roof over your head and eat are strong incentives to not join as a full member.

I also have to say that, as the daughter of a Teamster and a cousin of a union organizer who gave his life in the 1920s while fighting for workers' right, I am highly insulted and offended by the comment that anyone supporting Fi-Core is seeking the demise of the union. That is not the case. Rather, business as usual is no longer working for actors who are not in that 5% of union members who regularly make enough money to be eligible for the benefits. When SAG and AFTRA can increase that number to 85-90%, then we can talk.

I wanted to add one more thing regarding conflicts. I don't know how it's done in other areas, but in Chicago most agents seek limited buy-outs for non-union commercials. Product conflicts are as much of a concern for non-union work as union. This is done to protect the talent so they are in a position to book work in the future in the category. Just because something is non-union doesn't mean that the basic business rules are thrown by the wayside.

Look, whether to go Fi-Core or remain fully SAG is something I have been grappling with for a while. I was working a ton as a non-union actor in the Boston area. I joined SAG and my opportunities became a black hole. Can't land a union role if you don't audition, right? Unlike last year when I was audition a half-dozen times per month and scoring quite often, I have had three auditions this year. THREE! (with two callbacks). Can't make a living that way.

And with regard to the remark about eating someone else's food, Fi-Core members STILL pay union dues and pay a percent when getting union jobs. In areas where there isn't much work, Fi-Core should be a perfectly acceptable way for actors to get work, make a living AND support the union nation-wide. As someone wrote, when 85 percent of the union is making enough to qualify for benefits, then we'll talk.

After reading this, I'm pretty set on going Fi-core. To sum up this conversation, all I've seen from the union side is rhetoric and scare tactics. way to go. sounds like the same old b.s.

There are good (and bad) arguments on both sides of this issue. But there is a larger and far more insidious problem here: like it or not, there are simply too many talent competing for work now - particularly since the advent of the internet and home recording - for the VO shop to remain closed and exceptionally well paid. And it is completely unrealistic to think the unions can organize all the labor and all productions.

With more and more people competing for less space and fewer resources, the ugly reality is that every day your labor is worth less, and the things you need to live cost more, than they did the day before. And sooner or later, you gotta pay the Piper.

So, I offer you no solutions, but just this advice: regardless of which side of the union/fi-core fence you're on, be the best professional you can be. Be skilled, be relevant, and be versatile. If you are all those things, hopefully, you will continue to command a fair price for your work.

Thank you, and good luck.

JM

The unions, and I belong to SAG and AFTRA, just seem so unwilling to deal with member's situations outside of Hollywood and NYC. Those would be the unions that supposedly represent us. AFTRA and SAG brag that their pension funds are 100% funded--well yeah, because not more than 5% of the members ever collect! I'd be 100% funded too if I didn't have to pay my bills every month!