#1
Posted: 7/25/03 at 12:09pm
Dear Friends and Fellow Performers,
I'm sure we have all heard by now that AEA has increased it's
qualification requirements for health insurance by almost 70% - going
from 12 weeks to 20 weeks of work to qualify.
Additionally, they have changed providers, upped the co-pay, and
cut dental benefits.
What this means, is that those with really well paying and good,
long contracts - those working in long runs on Broadway, National
tours, bus-and-trucks - will have their already well paying incomes
supported by the regional theatre actor who can "only" manage almost 5
months worth a year.
Sounds just like SAG. And AFTRA.
What is going on?
We are members of what are arguably the most liberal unions in
the world. Our members are always on the forefront of demonstrations
to save forests, and whales, and help the poor, and advising us to send
money to any number of worthy causes. They are also out in front
politically, as they look with disdain on any politician that has a
friendly relationship with industry or appears to exploit the working
class.
Now, these same vocal and liberal members are keeping painfully
quiet on an issue that is very real and damaging to the rank and file
of their own union brothers and sisters. The issue is healthcare, and
the thousands of union members that pay into a system and get nothing
in return.
Why aren't they fighting this inequity with the same fervor and
vehemence and outraged righteousness they focus on defending the rain
forest?
The only conclusion one can come to, is that when push comes to
shove, they care only about themselves. The needs of the vast majority
of union members and their families who go without health care doesn't
even register on the radar of these rich performers.
The most deceitful and insidious part of this equation, is that,
these same actors are the beneficiaries of the monies paid into the
health coffers by those who will never see the benefits. It takes
thousands of hard working, struggling actors to insure that the rich
and successful actors get cheap health care.
We have actors - some that could afford to hire their own
physician full time - keeping silent because they demand we fall on our
swords so as not to inconvenience their lifestyles.
We have people working in the union offices, being paid by union
funds - your dues - to send you letters denying your benefits, while we
pay for their healthcare.
The argument we are all given when they dictate these horrifying
new edicts of decreased benefits, is the cost factor. Rates are
skyrocketing, and we can't afford to bolster up the lower earners.
Well.
There are solutions.
One is quite obvious.
Are you aware that there is a contribution CAP on the salary of
actors, and when that cap is reached, the producer does not have to pay
anymore into the union health and retirement benefit fund? For SAG,
that cap is $250,000. That means, for every actor you read about with
million and multimillion dollar contracts, the health benefits have
long ceased to be contributed. Where for example, 13% of the cap is
$32,500, for every million dollar contract, the union is giving up
almost $100,000 in lost contributions. Money that would go a long way
to pay for the health benefits of needy families.
Just think. Just one of the celestial beings in "Charlie's
Angels" could mean an additional $2,000,000 to the Health and Pension
Plan. Multiply that by every one of those huge actor contracts, and a
lot of people who work hard and make $10,000 a year could have decent
health care for their children.
Producers would never go for it? Withhold a few key actors and
see how fast they come around.
Another solution?
Send the actors health contributions back to them.
For the actor that made only $9,000 - having, through the year,
done a month worth of extra work , and appeared in a number of
industrial films - let them have their money back. Let them use it to
go toward purchasing their own health care since the union is not
helping at all.
Where does this all end?
With the recent rejection of merger, the current battles that
are being waged for which union will cover which work, and the
continuing disparity between what "stars" make and what the journeyman
actor makes, the unions are in serious trouble.
It isn't a stretch to see them actually disbanded or become
dispensable.
Only with solidarity and focus can it remain strong enough to
maintain as a force.
When lines are drawn and the poor see the rich getting richer as
they become poorer, it is analogous to nations that attempt to exist
the same way.
Eventually, they totter and fall.
Hopefully, we can start a dialog. Should you choose, please
send this to as many of your actor friends as you can. Let us see if
we can make some changes.
Michael Willis
I'm sure we have all heard by now that AEA has increased it's
qualification requirements for health insurance by almost 70% - going
from 12 weeks to 20 weeks of work to qualify.
Additionally, they have changed providers, upped the co-pay, and
cut dental benefits.
What this means, is that those with really well paying and good,
long contracts - those working in long runs on Broadway, National
tours, bus-and-trucks - will have their already well paying incomes
supported by the regional theatre actor who can "only" manage almost 5
months worth a year.
Sounds just like SAG. And AFTRA.
What is going on?
We are members of what are arguably the most liberal unions in
the world. Our members are always on the forefront of demonstrations
to save forests, and whales, and help the poor, and advising us to send
money to any number of worthy causes. They are also out in front
politically, as they look with disdain on any politician that has a
friendly relationship with industry or appears to exploit the working
class.
Now, these same vocal and liberal members are keeping painfully
quiet on an issue that is very real and damaging to the rank and file
of their own union brothers and sisters. The issue is healthcare, and
the thousands of union members that pay into a system and get nothing
in return.
Why aren't they fighting this inequity with the same fervor and
vehemence and outraged righteousness they focus on defending the rain
forest?
The only conclusion one can come to, is that when push comes to
shove, they care only about themselves. The needs of the vast majority
of union members and their families who go without health care doesn't
even register on the radar of these rich performers.
The most deceitful and insidious part of this equation, is that,
these same actors are the beneficiaries of the monies paid into the
health coffers by those who will never see the benefits. It takes
thousands of hard working, struggling actors to insure that the rich
and successful actors get cheap health care.
We have actors - some that could afford to hire their own
physician full time - keeping silent because they demand we fall on our
swords so as not to inconvenience their lifestyles.
We have people working in the union offices, being paid by union
funds - your dues - to send you letters denying your benefits, while we
pay for their healthcare.
The argument we are all given when they dictate these horrifying
new edicts of decreased benefits, is the cost factor. Rates are
skyrocketing, and we can't afford to bolster up the lower earners.
Well.
There are solutions.
One is quite obvious.
Are you aware that there is a contribution CAP on the salary of
actors, and when that cap is reached, the producer does not have to pay
anymore into the union health and retirement benefit fund? For SAG,
that cap is $250,000. That means, for every actor you read about with
million and multimillion dollar contracts, the health benefits have
long ceased to be contributed. Where for example, 13% of the cap is
$32,500, for every million dollar contract, the union is giving up
almost $100,000 in lost contributions. Money that would go a long way
to pay for the health benefits of needy families.
Just think. Just one of the celestial beings in "Charlie's
Angels" could mean an additional $2,000,000 to the Health and Pension
Plan. Multiply that by every one of those huge actor contracts, and a
lot of people who work hard and make $10,000 a year could have decent
health care for their children.
Producers would never go for it? Withhold a few key actors and
see how fast they come around.
Another solution?
Send the actors health contributions back to them.
For the actor that made only $9,000 - having, through the year,
done a month worth of extra work , and appeared in a number of
industrial films - let them have their money back. Let them use it to
go toward purchasing their own health care since the union is not
helping at all.
Where does this all end?
With the recent rejection of merger, the current battles that
are being waged for which union will cover which work, and the
continuing disparity between what "stars" make and what the journeyman
actor makes, the unions are in serious trouble.
It isn't a stretch to see them actually disbanded or become
dispensable.
Only with solidarity and focus can it remain strong enough to
maintain as a force.
When lines are drawn and the poor see the rich getting richer as
they become poorer, it is analogous to nations that attempt to exist
the same way.
Eventually, they totter and fall.
Hopefully, we can start a dialog. Should you choose, please
send this to as many of your actor friends as you can. Let us see if
we can make some changes.
Michael Willis
