I am a new union member but do not consider myself that experienced right now and I don't have representation to help me get bigger auditions. I've heard about financial core status and have recently tried to understand what exactly it means but am still a bit confused. I think that it would exclude me from voting for union representation but would allow me to pursue both union and non-union work while still remaining in the union. Is it worth it for me to declare myself financial core? Does it cost me more money? What would the benefits be?

http://more.showfax.com/bbs2/viewtopic.php?t=4619

http://bizparentz.org/thebizness/unionfinancialcore.html

From what I understand, it means you won't make a living as an actor, although Jon Voight is still working and he is Fi-core.

Here's my explainer--and 2 cents.
Maybe this is more information than you wanted but you should be sure to understand this issue if you are considering it.

5-18-06 Issue
CORE VALUES

Dear Jackie:

I am SAG, but am not working as much as I want. A friend of mine suggested I go “Fi-Core.” I am not really sure what that is, but he said if I went “Fi-Core” I could do both union and non-union work. I can’t believe that that ‘s true. If it is, why doesn’t everyone do it since there isn’t enough SAG work to go around.

Confused,
New York, NY

Dear Confused:

There isn’t enough acting work to go around, period. Whether you are Union, Non-Union, or Fi-Core, you are likely to be disappointed in the number of acting opportunities out there.

Fi-Core, which stands for Financial Core, is a status an actor can hold if he or she has qualified for but does not want to join SAG, AFTRA, AEA, or any other union. Some states, such as Texas and Florida, are “right to work” states, meaning that union membership is not required as a prerequisite for work of any kind. In a “right to work” state, a non-union actor can be cast in local SAG productions and never need join SAG. Membership is completely voluntary. Other states, such as California and New York, are “union states,” in which union membership is the norm. But employees of union jobs cannot actually be required to join a union. Because labor unions actively engage in democracy, endorsing candidates and donating millions of dollars to political campaigns, they cannot legally require membership. Doing so, the Supreme Court has said, would interfere with a person’s right to political freedom. Two Supreme Court cases are relevant here, Labor Board v. General Motors and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, and both can be viewed on the website “Find Law” at findlaw.com. Contrary to how it may seem, both are interesting reads. Here are the links:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=373&invol=734

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=...ase=/us/487/735.html


In brief, the Supreme Court has ruled that unions must offer workers the right to refuse union membership while retaining their right to work on union regulated jobs. The union can, however, require a non-union worker to pay an amount equal to the membership initiation fee and all dues related to collective bargaining. This financial requirement is referred to as "Financial Core.”

Here’s a specific example: After getting into SAG an actor is legally permitted to decline membership and take “Financial Core” status. This allows him or her to work on SAG projects without adhering to its rules, including Global Rule One which requires all SAG actors to work only on SAG projects. This actor will still be required to pay initiation fees and all dues related to collective bargaining and the like, an amount almost equal to full membership dues. Although the actor will receive any pension and health benefits he or she earns on SAG work, he or she does relinquish full membership – possibly forever. There are some selective cases in which “Fi-Core” actors are permitted to go back and join SAG, but each is looked at on an individual basis. You can’t “go financial core” for a project or two and then just switch back when it suits you. The “FiCore” actor also gives up his or her right to participate in any of SAG’s programs, such as casting director workshops and seminars, and is ineligible for any member services or elections. And of course, he or she foregoes all union protections when working non-union.

If despite all this, working both union and non sounds too good to be true, consider this: It might be. If actors begin going “Fi-Core” en masse, the protections our unions now provide will become null and void. Collective bargaining power rests, clearly, on the shoulders of the collection of people doing the bargaining. If too many actors shrug off their responsibility to the group, preferring instead to go it alone, the group will lose its strength and all of us will lose the ground we, as a collection of artists, have made.

I’m a big stickler for fairness – I know, I know, I’m in the wrong business – and it seems to me that Fi-Core is an inherently selfish position. The decent working environments and wages actors benefit from are due, not to the good will of producers, but to the dedication of our fellow actors and forebears who were willing to fight and make sacrifices to stand up for artists’ rights. Why should some actors be exempt from the rules, while others uphold them in order to better all of our chances at earning a decent wage or being fed or getting extra pay for overtime? Why should some actors get those benefits without paying the same costs?

I can think of maybe one good reason to go Fi-Core. Namely, you’re not an actor. Tiger Woods got in trouble for doing non-union work during the last commercial strike. Yes, he should have held the line with other SAG performers – that’s what he signed on for. But honestly, I wouldn’t take it too seriously if he decided the Guild wasn’t for him. Dave Thomas, the owner of Wendy’s, was Fi-Core, and that makes perfect sense. The man wasn’t an actor – he just wanted to sell hamburgers in any medium available.

For someone on a serious path to an acting career joining SAG, AFTRA and AEA is a rite of passage, a pivotal hurdle in the climb to financial and professional success. Many actors are anxious to give up non-union work as soon as they can, but some do so too soon. They have yet to learn the ropes, get anything on tape, or land representation. Still, they think simple union membership will be a ticket into the “good auditions,” the big time. How disappointed they must feel when they learn that it isn’t. This is why I continuously nag readers to hold off on joining the unions until they are ready. I have done my fair share of non-union work, back before I joined SAG of course. I even produced non-union stuff. I know the pay and privileges are not very good and there’s not much in the way of protection for actors. Still, non-union work is a great testing ground. You need to pay your dues before you…pay your dues.

Not everyone wants to play by the rules but not everyone wants to be their own advocate in the face of abuse, fight for reasonable working conditions, or negotiate their pay without any perimeters. To me, Fi-Core actors are a lot like those guys who drive in the right shoulder of the freeway during rush hour – the ones who think they are too important or too busy to face the traffic the rest of us are sitting in.

Don’t you just hate those guys?