WORKING WITH SAG!!!!!!!!!!!!

D

Dleo

We are trying to work with SAG on the Ultra Low Budget contract as I write this.

They over charged us!!!!

They came up with a ridicluos SAG actor BOND amount.

We went to the SAGindie workshop, and checked our information very carefully all over the WEB. At the work shop and other WEBsites we found statements that there's a 40% bond for SAG Salaries, and to make sure you budgeted for it. We did budget for it, but that was not the correct amount. We tried to contact SAG about the BOND during the time we were writing the budget to make sure this was right, but nobody at SAG would answer this question. That left us no choice, we had to figure out the bond from other sources. So we went with the 40%. That was wrong! It's actually the entire amount you are paying your SAG actor's plus 10% -- plus 15.3% of entire cast Salary for pension and health.

So say your total budgeted salary is $5,000.

You would pay the $5,000
Plus 10% additioanl $500
Then pension and health $765

The total bond would be $6265 plus your actors Salaries which is 5,000 so your total budget should be $11,265 for actors.

SO DO NOT USE THIS 40% when figuring your budget.

SAG hit us with this two days before we were suppose to start shooting.

We would never have gone SAG route if we didn't go to the SAGindie workshop, which is basically selling the new low budget contract, and there information is very very wrong. Do not trust these workshops.
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
From the SAG website:

12. Financial Security
For the protection of professional performers, Producer shall post with the Guild a security deposit in an amount acceptable to the Guild. Such deposit shall be posted prior to the commencement of rehearsals, if any, or of photography.

So maybe you can pursued them to slacken the noose somewhat - especially as the outcome could be no shoot - no employment of theit members...

All the best, Jim.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've heard similar stories about SAG shenanigans. $35,000 is pretty low to try and deal with SAG; they say they want to work with the indies, but then they pull crap like that. I've worked with a few SAG actors, none of whom even wanted to bring the guild into it because they themselves were fed up with the BS. It's too bad.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jamster said:
From the SAG website:

12. Financial Security
For the protection of professional performers, Producer shall post with the Guild a security deposit in an amount acceptable to the Guild. Such deposit shall be posted prior to the commencement of rehearsals, if any, or of photography.

So maybe you can pursued them to slacken the noose somewhat - especially as the outcome could be no shoot - no employment of theit members...

All the best, Jim.
Click to expand...

We're trying, but they seem unwilling to budge. We have already said we won't be able to use SAG actors they seem to not care.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There's NO point in making a SAG movie UNLESS you are hiring someone with genuine box office draw. There's DROVES of good non-union actors out there. There's also droves of SAG actors who are willing to work on non-union films under alias names.

I can understand the needs of anyone working on a movie set but some of SAG's demands just scare filmmakers right off. With indie film profits going down the toilet why would anyone want to slave themselves to SAG's constraints?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For those of you who know anything about SAG and the good work they do, I think they don't do a bad job considering everything this group has to look after and do for it's clients.

It's a double-edged sword at times, and yes this story sucks, but I have an inside view and they actually do some good as well...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sorry you have had such a bad experience. I've used the SAGindie agreement
often and have never had a problem. But I have never gone to the workshops
and I have always made sure I understood everything before setting a shooting
date.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Done several ultra-lo SAG projects without a hitch. Heh, one was a mere 10K budget, too. Far less than yours, even.

Only complaint I have is the archaic & diabolical paperwork to deal with daily. 1940's-type ancient.

Sorry to hear you had trouble. :(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
Anyone here @ IT have experience with "financial core" work?
Click to expand...

I'm shooting with a "financial core" actor, next weekend. He does a lot of features, series and national spots (most recently the Capital One Vegas commercial), but he never passes up an indie shoot. The less secure actors usually don't do it, because they don't want to piss off the union, but this loophole (found by Jon Voight, I believe) allows actors to take non-union work because putting bread on the table comes first.

Mark Pirro (A POLISH VAMPIRE IN BURBANK, DEATHROW GAMESHOW, RECTUMA, etc.) is an L.A. based filmmaker who has been using financial core actors for many years.

You can get known actors for features, without it being SAG. A few years back, some of my buddies hired Gary Graham (ALIEN NATION) and Erin Gray (BUCK ROGERS) for their feature. They also had someone more high profile in mind, but he cost 100K per week.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hey Steve,

I see you have worked SAG for ultra low budget (10k). Our budget is also 10k.
Do you think I can have my other producer/director give you a call to discuss your experience with that. It should be a very quick conversation and any information we can get would be great. PM me and let me know. Tried to PM you and you're full.

thanks again Steve.
Rafael
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"There's NO point in making a SAG movie UNLESS you are hiring someone with genuine box office draw"

Yep. Unless I can put your name on the front of the box, and have it be worth sales dollars you are NOT going to work on my project under SAG rules.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Don't go SAG unless you can 1. afford it, 2. are using SAG actors that have serious skill and/or some kind of name. You should be able to find non-union actors that give you just as much (or even more) than what a SAG actor can bring to the table.

Why are YOU going SAG?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
2001 Productions said:
I've heard similar stories about SAG shenanigans. $35,000 is pretty low to try and deal with SAG; they say they want to work with the indies, but then they pull crap like that. I've worked with a few SAG actors, none of whom even wanted to bring the guild into it because they themselves were fed up with the BS. It's too bad.
Click to expand...
Sorry if this is too far OT, but, does SAG have any teeth? Do they punish "rogue actors" or anything? Sorry for the dumb question but I have no clue why anyone would involve SAG if they didn't have to.

Never mind, I should have read the thread first.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Instag8r said:
I would say don't use SAG. Don't get me started on unions.
Click to expand...

Unions are great in theory. Gives labor the organization they need to get leverage on capital and management. But in practice...

I read somewhere that unions have had the best success with labor pools that are hardassed and skilled. Like miners. They can go underground and work all day in dangerous conditions, so a bunch of lawyers in suits scare them about as much as a hangnail. The sort who will break heads, if you will.

Artists? Not so much. There's a glamour and prestige to being a successful artist - more job-seekers than jobs - so labor's willing to cut each other's throat and climb over the corpses to get a gig. If they wanted to be head-breakers, they wouldn't have chosen such a cushy job. OTOH, acting can be a lot more physical than graphic arts. :P

Now, don't get me started on government unions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Joe Citizen said:
Now, don't get me started on government unions.
Click to expand...

Okay, then I'll start. I'm getting real fed up with the bashing of so-called "government" unions (there is no such thing, but never mind).

Before I was hired into my current job as a college media specialist it was considered a supervisory position. To save money, the college reclassified the position before I was hired, which cut the pay by two-thirds. Since it was no longer "supervisory" I couldn't be expected to supervise anyone, so they also eliminated the entire staff, leaving one person (me) to serve the entire campus for a third of the salary.

Now, after working there for 23.5 years, they have eliminated my position altogether. They are simply going to tell the faculty that media services are no longer available. That, of course, isn't going to work for very long, so my duties will ultimately be bestowed onto the new person they just hired. So they'll be getting the same work from a beginning-wage employee.

All of this is perfectly acceptable, despite my being a member of a national educator's union. But it's okay, right? Since I'm a public employee it's okay for me to take it up the backside, because I'm just out there screwing the taxpayer anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
2001 Productions said:
Okay, then I'll start. I'm getting real fed up with the bashing of so-called "government" unions (there is no such thing, but never mind).

Before I was hired into my current job as a college media specialist it was considered a supervisory position. To save money, the college reclassified the position before I was hired, which cut the pay by two-thirds. Since it was no longer "supervisory" I couldn't be expected to supervise anyone, so they also eliminated the entire staff, leaving one person (me) to serve the entire campus for a third of the salary.

Now, after working there for 23.5 years, they have eliminated my position altogether. They are simply going to tell the faculty that media services are no longer available. That, of course, isn't going to work for very long, so my duties will ultimately be bestowed onto the new person they just hired. So they'll be getting the same work from a beginning-wage employee.

All of this is perfectly acceptable, despite my being a member of a national educator's union. But it's okay, right? Since I'm a public employee it's okay for me to take it up the backside, because I'm just out there screwing the taxpayer anyway.
Click to expand...

Er, yes, I think it's okay, you having to put up with what the vast majority of taxpayers have to put up with. I see no reason government employees should have it better than the private sector when they're on our dime.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top