You get that mailer from “Unite for Strength” in regards to the upcoming elections?
I did, and I like it. It seems so simple and logical doesn’t it? One entity for actors = one united front in negotiations = one pool of earned income to qualify for health and pension = one set of dues.
But here’s the thing… there’s another group, “Membership First,” who formerly opposed a merger, but now support one.
See their site.
See my confusion? It seems that the primary difference is U4S wants a merger with everyone involved, while MF wants “actors only.” (Which imho is weird since SAG and some MF members may not be considered actors, right?)
So, I’d love to hear responses to better understand both sides, especially since it seems like we’re all on the same side… pretty much.
Questions to my guilds would be:
- Why “actors only?” Wouldn’t the union get more funding with everyone in LA paying dues, and wouldn’t the union have more negotiating power if even “reality stars” had to follow Rule #1?
- How would one define acting? Are you sure the talking heads at Fox News aren’t completely exaggerated characters who’s true job is to entertain? And don’t you give membership to background actors? Don’t get me wrong, some background actors are fabulous actors and people, but come on… many more are in desperate need of intensive therapy and medication (please send angry letters to your call-in services, background people).
- Is there any truth to the rumors that there’s some secret board of directors on both unions who REALLY make the decisions and have zero interest in merging because they’d loose all those awesome kickbacks they get from the peddlers of health insurance and investment plans?
So, everyone chime in and have your say people. Yes, even non-actors should speak up. Share and learn, right?