I read the three ways SAG lists to get into their union, however, I'm curious how some of the members on here got into SAG and what, if any, are your suggestions? For instance, do casting directors look to audition and hire only people who already are SAG?

I read in An Agent Tells All that the agent never signed anyone over 25 without a SAG card. I'm right on that age borderline and wondering if I'm going to have to have SAG to get theatrical rep or hired by a CD. I have a commerical rep who hasn't said a word to me about SAG but has been insistent about me getting a demo reel before he'll rep me theatrically, which I'm putting up this week. I would talk to my comm. agent about this, but I don't feel like he's very accessible. I need advice. Please help. I do have a full resume of theatre, student films and short films and feel like I'm ready to do union work.

As far as becoming Sag eligible is concerned you pretty much have to do whatever it takes, even if it is morally objectionable or shady. I got in as a stand-in; you might not be able to swing that. By definition, SAG jobs are supposed to go to SAG members. Any time someone is Taft-hartleyed the union could complain that there was already a union member that would have fit the role. It's a catch 22. So anytime a non-union person becomes eligible it was because of an impropriety or blind luck-sometimes both. You can't afford to wait for the blind luck. You've got to make it happen.

With that in mind, work all angles. Be aware of your type, and submit yourself to roles that might need your special skills. Try to get a U/5 on a soap; join AFTRA before you work it and in a year you'll be eligible. Network and become friends with people who could score you vouchers somehow. Not everyone delivers what is promised so be careful. If you come across an opportunity to pay someone off for vouchers, do it. If there were an apprenticeship program or a way to systematically earn your SAG card through points for classes, non-union work, etc. then I would advocate going that route. But there isn't so you just need to do whatever it takes, and not worry about stepping over people or doing it the "right" way.

Theoretically SAG is formulating new ways to get into the guild, by earning your way in as opposed to the corrupt voucher system. SO perhaps soon there will be clearer options.

For now, I would hold back on the morally objectionable idea and not worry about doing whatever it takes, as that scares me! I doubt LA Delight meant that how I took it, but, well, I have a dark mind.

The agent that wrote An Agent Tells All works at a prestigious company and has a top notch talent list. It makes perfect sense he wouldn't sign anyone over 25 not SAG. Not so with smaller, less prestigious (though many times hard working) agents. I was signed with a decent agent (twice actually) before I was SAG. The second time I was about 25, I think. I soon was Taft Hartleyed for a commercial booking. I never worried about being SAG or not, and I think that's the way to approach it.
You don't need to be SAG until you need to be SAG, and then it will become clear. Just because you are SAG does not mean this industry gets any easier or better, and Global Rule 1 means you will be giving up nonunion jobs (which can pay and many times are quite decent). You can submit to any and all jobs now, without SAG status, so work on booking jobs. SAG membership will come.

I stand by my statements because you can do everything right as a non-union actor and never get the chance to even audition for SAG work. SAG has talked about other ways in for years but it never happens, and I doubt it ever will-certainly not in the short term. That would be too complicated-and SAG members are already complaining that there is too much competition in their ranks for scant roles. They don't want another way in. I know people who've been doing extra work for 10 years and are still trying to get that third voucher, as well as someone who has been in big roles in 40 festival-quality indies, has years of theatre and class experience, and yet has no route to SAG-never even gets a SAG audition. Another person I know is not an actor at all, but some executive at a big corporation heard a shoddy youtube clip where she was singing and ended up not only Tafting her for a voiceover but also paying her SAG fees because she couldn't afford to.

I agree with putting off actually joining until absolutely necessary, as SAG-E is the best place to be, but you do need to be eligible somehow. And it requires the "rules" to be broken in some way-every person who has ever become eligible got it by taking a job away from a union member who should have got it. Principal work, extra work, whatever. Being SAG is no guarantee of getting work, but being n/u without eligibility is a reason you will never be seen in the first place-by agents, CDs, etc. It's just another barrier(a big one) in an industry where there are enough already. By becoming at least eligible you are more hireable. Do all of the things you need to do to grow as an actor-classes, student films, whatever-but when it comes to SAG don't necessarily trust that the industry will take care of you-because it often won't, as it is designed to keep you out.

I never implied the industry would take care of you, simply that a SAG card is not a magic ticket and certainly not something you should compromise your own values/morals for. LADelight is right that getting into SAG is always tricky and there are people that have a hard time of it. But many agents WILL see you without a SAG card. You have a right to audition for SAG projects without a SAG card, provided you can get them to see you (probably via an agent or manager). I am always confused by stories of people who can't get a union audition in ten years of work. I wonder what those actors are doing (or not doing) to get themselves seen, or whether they are merely not in demand as performers. Do I sound harsh? I don't mean to, but I am a realist. If ten years pass and no agent is willing to send an actor out to SAG auditions, that may say something about what that person has to offer.
LoveJoy, you are in LA, I see. I suggest checking out Actors Network (www.actors-network.com) for legit business help on these kinds of issues....

Wow. There's so much going on here that I don't know where to start.

First, I cannot imagine spending a decade of my life chasing after a union card. There is definitely something wrong with that picture. Obviously, I don't know the actors in question but I would have to guess that these people are either missing something in the talent department or they could be the unluckiest group of actors on the face of this planet. Either way, I hope they're never next to me when I'm at the table in Vegas.

"The industry is designed to keep you out." Yikes! That might be one of the most paranoid thoughts I've ever heard. Yes, I'm sure that since the days of Chaplin, the studio heads all got together and made long term plans to keep people out of their precious industry.

Pay someone for vouchers? Yeah, that's a good idea. There's nothing like that feeling of accomplishment that comes from doing absolutely nothing to earn a reward. Great plan!

You know what? There's way too much anger and resentment on this message board. I'm going back to my board. These nonsensical ravings are starting to bum me out...

When I said that the industry is designed to keep you out I was referring to SAG specifically-it most certainly is. SAG has a very vested interest in limiting new members. They voted to raise the initiation to over $2300 to join and will raise it again. This can be tough to pay working on a n/u salary. SAG also insists in its contracts that actors must be SAG members, and productions are levied a hefty fine if they taft-hartley actors. So they are encouraged to hire already-SAG performers whenever possible. It only follows that fewer n/u actors will even be auditioned in the first place. Some types get more SAG auditions as n/u than others-there are a lot of variables.
And the bottom line is, a lot of n/u actors can hit a wall with that work. They are ready to join the union yet are kept out due to the barriers-and it can have little to do with talent and more to do with access. Obtaining eligibility through nefarious means is a last resort-but in some situations I can't blame them. I know a lot of n/u actors who have put their time in legitimately and have gotten no "reward" for it. If SAG were more like ACTRA(The Canadian performer's union that has an apprenticeship program), things would be different. But SAG's doors-closed mentality invites corruption into the fold. So it's more "fulfilling" to have a friend who gets you a plum role, or being in the right place at the right time to get a prized voucher? It isn't about a sense of accomplishment-it's about moving forward in your career.

I think, if anything, SAG wants MORE members, for a very simple and crass reason: they need the money. I certainly don't think current members, in the main, want to keep many people out. If anything, many are a bit too eager to proclaim that SAG membership is the only way to be a professional actor, to discourage people from leaving the union and then.... try to make sure that most union members can't vote. Why? Because, as a practical matter, most members aren't making their living acting and many haven't even worked in recent years. Understandably, it can be frustrating for those who do live off their screen acting to feel their careers are hostage to what some frankly refer to as "wannabes". Less understandably, these are often the same people who will promote union membership as a necessity (when one would think if anything they would want a large part of current membership to simply bow out and leave the union to those who ARE working.)

The key I think - is this paranoid? - that quite simply SAG needs members. It needs their dues -a very large portion of which are paid, not by acting, but by day jobs.

So I think you're a bit misguided to think there's any conspiracy - beyond a reasonable attempt to have SOME selection process - to keep anyone out. But I also think you - like innumerable other non-union actors - have a very illusory idea of how your life will change if and when you get into the union.

Have you looked at the (dismaying) statistics on employment of SAG members? Have you talked to many people who ARE SAG?

As for any "feeling of accomplishment that comes" from joining the union, however you do it, I'm not sure what that would be based on. So many people I know who have qualified for the union did so by plain dumb luck (some of I've met weren't even actors at all; they were doing extra work to pick up some money.) And I would certainly agree that there are excellent actors who at the least have to wait far longer than less trained, less gifted actors who happened to have the right look, know someone in casting, etc. (One guy - I kid you not - got his three vouchers because he had the right car and used it as an extra.)

Right now, getting SAG membership has ZERO relationship to acting skills, or dedication to the craft.

Still, I don't recommend using illicit means to get vouchers, not least because - much like Nigerian spam that tries to lure you into "sharing" in stolen money, then ends up ripping YOU off - most schemes to do that are ways to play on your own willingness to cheat in order to cheat you. Also, if memory serves, a bunch of people got caught in a voucher scheme a few years ago and it wasn't pretty.

This said, if and when you DO get that third voucher, you can be pretty sure it won't be because of your years of training and working for applause in black box theaters. It'll be either connections or luck. Dumb luck.

I agree w/Jim almost entirely. Yes, it's kind of a weird thing with new SAG members-SAG needs the money they provide with the now absurd initiation fees because poor spending habits(among other things out of their control such as the srtike) has led to a SAG deficit, and yet at the same time decry too much competition for scant roles(leading to higher unemployment percentages for SAG actors). It's like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

And yes, becoming SAG-E has little to do with skill level and more with blind luck-which was my whole point. "Improving your craft" and "becoming SAG-E" are generally independent endeavors and should be treated as such. The voucher system is no "selection process"-it is a system ripe for abuse. Which is not the actor's fault. So the extra who does things honorably gets nothing while the girl who sleeps with 2nd AD gets vouchers? In my opinion, having a friend who gets you vouchers at the expense of a paid-up member who needs the work, or a big star using pull to get a family member taft-hartleyed is no more "legitimate" than outright paying off a CD or bribing a PA. Obviously, you need to protect yourself from scams.

By the way, I AM SAG already-had to join, in fact. And I have been working fairly steadily. Doing N/U work gets grating after awhile-little or no pay, promised copies never received, no work standards, etc. So in some cases you are better off taking the plunge.

quote:

Doing N/U work gets grating after awhile-little or no pay, promised copies never received, no work standards, etc. So in some cases you are better off taking the plunge.

This is the point where I'm at in my career. I've been back in "the biz" for two years and, in that time, have earned just over $1,000 on a non-union basis. I keep hearing that there are all these paid, non-union jobs out there, but I'm not seeing them, and sure as heck not GETTING them!

Would I have earned more as a union member? Maybe, and maybe not -- but the potential is certainly there.

But, boheme, you can still audition for union jobs as a nonunion person, assuming you have a rep who can get you into the audition...yes, I know that's a big assumption. After a while, the nonunion thing DOES get tiresome, but there is money there and many people give that up too easily.
And on the Taft Hartley thing being so cost prohibitive--not true. In most cases the fine is a tiny fraction of the budget. If they want to cast you, they'll T/H you. Your status won't keep you from booking 99% of the time. Now, not getting to audition, yeah, that one will be a problem....

quote:

Originally posted by Jackie:
But, boheme, you can still audition for union jobs as a nonunion person, assuming you have a rep who can get you into the audition...yes, I know that's a big assumption. After a while, the nonunion thing DOES get tiresome, but there is money there and many people give that up too easily.

Unless a breakdown specifically says "SAG only," I'll submit for just about anything. I've been called in for a couple of union auditions (which I didn't book ), and hopefully one of these days I'll book a union job -- but I still say that I'm not seeing much non-union work that pays anything more than pocket change .....

I hear you. The nonunion work I did was mostly commercials and it paid in the general $500 -$1000
per day range. This was a while back when I had no kids and no mortgage and that seemed great to me. Of course, I still see myself on the opening title sequence on a TLC show for which I got a whopping $500 and shot back in, umm, maybe 2001 or so?! What a rip off!

quote:

Originally posted by Jackie:
And on the Taft Hartley thing being so cost prohibitive--not true. In most cases the fine is a tiny fraction of the budget. If they want to cast you, they'll T/H you. Your status won't keep you from booking 99% of the time. Now, not getting to audition, yeah, that one will be a problem....

Whether the taft-hartley is an issue or not has largely to do with the size and importance of the role. No matter how much casting may love you for that one-line co-star role where you are on screen for one second, the part is not significant enough to justify a taft-hartley. And CDs are often told by production to not bring in anyone they would have to taft-hartley-unless the part is a very specific, rare type. As for the fine being a small fraction of budget-production companies can be very cheap, penny-pinching whenever possible. Think $500 or $1000 is not significant to a prod. co? Ask the poor extra who was screwed out of a meal penalty by a PA fudging the minutes on a voucher. So if the role is minor or insignificant enough it will go to the SAG actor over a n/u one.
I know someone who was called in to a major TV casting office for a preread. But once the interviewing assistant saw on her resume that she was non-union, she was told that someone in the office must have made a mistake because they never audition non-union actors, whether they are repped or not. And the meeting was over.

There are certainly many examples of people being T/Hd for various size roles on various projects just like the opposite examples you gave. In general, I think the T/H concern is overplayed. You are right that it can be a concern and I don't mean to belittle that. I just want to provide a perspective that might be less worrisome to someone in LoveJoy's position. Originally, though, my reaction to your post had all to do with your suggestions about "you pretty much have to do whatever it takes, even if it is morally objectionable or shady." That's what sparked this thread to go as far as it's gone....

Here's a T/H perspective other than mine:

http://more.showfax.com/columns/avoice/archives/000746.html