|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 30, 2008 20:27:25 GMT -5
McMahon: These people are actors, not wrestlers. SAG: Then they should be unionized. McMahon: No, they shouldn't. They're wrestlers, not actors. Government: Then you should pay taxes. McMahon: No, I shouldn't. This is acting, not wrestling. SAG: Then they should be unionized. McMahon: I thought we agreed that they're wrestlers, not actors... And so on and so forth, like a terrible version of Abbott and Costello. How absurdly arrogant. And how anyone can defend both sides of his argument (or, more accurately, both of his arguments, since they're self-contradicting) is beyond me. But then again, this is also the man who brought you: McMahon: You work for me! You have no freedom to work elsewhere. Wrestlers: Can we get health benefits, then? McMahon: No, I'm not your employer. You're independent contractors. Wrestlers: So, can we work for other companies as well? McMahon: No, you work for me. Wrestlers: How about some health benefits, then? McMahon: From who? Me? I'm not your employer! Holy Crap, you are to be commended. With a bit of sarcasm you managed to produce the best and most extensive argument I've ever seen against Vince's wishy-washy B.S. stance on what wrestlers really are. After reading this, a person would have to be kind of half retarded to side with Vince. He cannot have it both ways. One day, someone will force him to choose. I know you're not calling anyone "half-retarded", so I'm not coming down with the hammer here, but please, none of that, please? There are going to be people who don't agree, don't belittle them ahead of time. Anyway, I'm with Aronofsky. Unionize 'em.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,884
Member is Online
|
Post by Sephiroth on Dec 30, 2008 21:04:56 GMT -5
And you wildly overestimate it. Even extras with a single line will get in if they're in any kind of major production. I thought the requirement was that they had to have at least one line in a union production or something like that? I think it's an interesting concept, but there are so many other factors at play. First off, would SAG want to include wrestlers to health plans, where they risk jumping up the costs because wrestlers are sure losses to insurance companies? Would wrestlers even want to join? Since it would require, per bylaw, that they can only work on projects associated with SAG, they couldn't work anywhere that doesn't have that agreement, including WWE and any Indy's that would likely not make those arrangements. If they were to include wrestlers, would wrestling promotions suddenly be required to enter these negotiations? If yes, it could be a major strike against indy promotions, because if anyone is successful enough to enter WWE and become SAG, they can't accept bookings from most indy promotions, who likely wouldn't have an agreement since most indy performers probably couldnt' afford the dues and most indy promoters couldn't afford the benefits. If not, what's the point? They wouldn't be raking up salary in SAG productions, thus wouldn't be eligible for the benefits, if I understand the guild's rules right. Thus all that really happens would be the potential hit on the SAG's health plan since wrestlers would suddenly be eligible. The SAG has power that virtually no other union has, the kind that any other union would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for. Neither side may deem it in their best interest to join each other. That's why I don't think this is likely at all to happen. The wrestling industry just doesn't seem suited to the strict rules that SAG has. If wrestling was to join them, they'd probably have to write a set of rules specifically for it, which doesn't seem likely. As a member of SAG, I shall clear up the confusion: Currently, if you are cast in a SAG production and get a speaking part, so much as a single line, and are credited, then you automatically qualify for membership. However, you have to pay an entry fee and fill out legal forms. After that, you are charged your dues twice a year annually based on how much you have made through SAG that year. Otherwise, you have to gather the appropriate amount of SAG waivers, which was 3 the last time I checked. To do that, you have to work on a SAG sanctioned production for 3 days or more. Then they are required to give you a waiver. Once you have the appropriate amount, you qualify and have 6 months to join before you eligibility expires. If you are in SAG for a full year and work at least one union project in that time, you also qualify for membership in the other two major acting unions: AFTRA and Actors Equity. And that is that.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 30, 2008 21:19:50 GMT -5
I thought the requirement was that they had to have at least one line in a union production or something like that? I think it's an interesting concept, but there are so many other factors at play. First off, would SAG want to include wrestlers to health plans, where they risk jumping up the costs because wrestlers are sure losses to insurance companies? Would wrestlers even want to join? Since it would require, per bylaw, that they can only work on projects associated with SAG, they couldn't work anywhere that doesn't have that agreement, including WWE and any Indy's that would likely not make those arrangements. If they were to include wrestlers, would wrestling promotions suddenly be required to enter these negotiations? If yes, it could be a major strike against indy promotions, because if anyone is successful enough to enter WWE and become SAG, they can't accept bookings from most indy promotions, who likely wouldn't have an agreement since most indy performers probably couldnt' afford the dues and most indy promoters couldn't afford the benefits. If not, what's the point? They wouldn't be raking up salary in SAG productions, thus wouldn't be eligible for the benefits, if I understand the guild's rules right. Thus all that really happens would be the potential hit on the SAG's health plan since wrestlers would suddenly be eligible. The SAG has power that virtually no other union has, the kind that any other union would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for. Neither side may deem it in their best interest to join each other. That's why I don't think this is likely at all to happen. The wrestling industry just doesn't seem suited to the strict rules that SAG has. If wrestling was to join them, they'd probably have to write a set of rules specifically for it, which doesn't seem likely. As a member of SAG, I shall clear up the confusion: Currently, if you are cast in a SAG production and get a speaking part, so much as a single line, and are credited, then you automatically qualify for membership. However, you have to pay an entry fee and fill out legal forms. After that, you are charged your dues twice a year annually based on how much you have made through SAG that year. Otherwise, you have to gather the appropriate amount of SAG waivers, which was 3 the last time I checked. To do that, you have to work on a SAG sanctioned production for 3 days or more. Then they are required to give you a waiver. Once you have the appropriate amount, you qualify and have 6 months to join before you eligibility expires. If you are in SAG for a full year and work at least one union project in that time, you also qualify for membership in the other two major acting unions: AFTRA and Actors Equity. And that is that. Thanks for clearing that up, that was quite informative. As a member, do you think the rest of my questions about wrestlers being added hold water, or am I just making something of nothing?
|
|
|
Post by Kash Flagg on Dec 30, 2008 21:19:59 GMT -5
Joining SAG
A performer is eligible to join the Screen Actors Guild by meeting the criteria in any of the following three categories:
[edit] Principal performer
Any performer who works as a principal performer for a minimum of one day on a project (film, commercial, TV show, etc.) where the producer has signed a producer's agreement with SAG, and the performer has been paid at the appropriate SAG daily, three-day, or weekly rate is then considered "SAG-Eligible." A SAG-Eligible performer may continue performing in any number of both SAG or non-SAG productions for a period of 30 days, during which that SAG-Eligible performer is classified as a "Taft-Hartley." After the 30-day Taft-Hartley period has expired, the performer may not work on any further SAG productions until the performer joins the Guild by: paying the initiation fee, paying the first half-year minimum membership dues, and agreeing to abide by the Guild's rules and bylaws. The SAG-Eligible performer does not lose their eligibility to join the Guild should they choose not to join the Guild immediately at the expiration of their Taft-Hartley period. However if not part of a union it is difficult to get a speaking role that would comprise the Taft-Hartley law because the producer can be fined for allowing a non union actor to deliver a line.
[edit] Background performer
SAG productions require a minimum number of SAG members be employed as background performers before a producer is permitted to hire a non-union background performer in their production. For television productions, the minimum number of SAG background performers is 19, and for feature films, the minimum is 50. Often, due to the uniqueness of a role, or constraints on the numbers of available SAG performers or last-minute cancellations, those minimums are unable to be met. When this happens, producers are permitted to fill one or more of those union spots with non-union performers. The non-union performer chosen to fill the union spot is then issued a union extra voucher for the day, and that non-union performer is entitled to all the same benefits and pay that the union performer would have received under that voucher. After collecting three valid union vouchers for three separate days of work, a non-union performer then becomes SAG-Eligible. The SAG-Eligible background performer may continue working in non-union productions and is not required to join the Guild before performing in another SAG production as a background performer. According to the FAQ on the SAG website, this "three voucher rule" is in the process of being phased out.[5]
[edit] Member of an affiliated union
Members in good standing, for at least one year, of any of the other unions affiliated with the AAAA, and who have worked as a principal at least once in an area of the affiliated union's jurisdiction, and who have been paid for their work in that principal role, are eligible to join SAG. However, in late 2007, representatives of the political group which controls SAG threatened to change this rule, unless another of the AAAA unions, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), agreed to concessions to SAG. AFTRA rejected the demand, but the rule has not as of this writing been changed.
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Dec 30, 2008 22:07:41 GMT -5
Seriously, does anyone think Pro-wrestling is even on the same planet as Acting? Anywhere? They are not the same profession, by any means. Wrestling is a scripted fight, where the result of the match is predetermined. It may float in a grey area, but it is not acting. It's also not a sport because you can't gamble on the results.
Look, the decision to unionize is in the hands of 51% of the WWE workers. But I think the problem is, as it was said. The top guys would have to go with it, and they won't.
Does anyone know how pro-wrestlers are handled in other countries, namely Mexico and Japan?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 30, 2008 22:24:53 GMT -5
Seriously, does anyone think Pro-wrestling is even on the same planet as Acting? Anywhere? They are not the same profession, by any means. Wrestling is a scripted fight, where the result of the match is predetermined. It may float in a grey area, but it is not acting. It's also not a sport because you can't gamble on the results. Look, the decision to unionize is in the hands of 51% of the WWE workers. But I think the problem is, as it was said. The top guys would have to go with it, and they won't. Does anyone know how pro-wrestlers are handled in other countries, namely Mexico and Japan? As I said earlier, they don't just have to act, they have to do everything. And to say it's scripted is false. The majority of the time, the wrestler's either make it up as they go along, or remember what they tell each other. It's rarely scripted. And as far as gambling on the results, that's false as well, as I found out a few times, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 30, 2008 22:41:48 GMT -5
Seriously, does anyone think Pro-wrestling is even on the same planet as Acting? Anywhere? They are not the same profession, by any means. Wrestling is a scripted fight, where the result of the match is predetermined. It may float in a grey area, but it is not acting. It's also not a sport because you can't gamble on the results. Why? Because they are on the same planet. They're not the same thing, but to say there is no similarities in what gets a person in the SAG versus what a wrestler does is silly. If wrestling was all and only in-ring action, I would agree, but it's not. They don't just fake fight, they play parts, whether they be heroes or villains, monsters or allies. They're delivering lines to an audience, often both like and on film. The best promo men know every bit about how to deliver lines, how to interact with an audience and a camera. The best know every bit about timing. Then they perform the action, predetermined matches with various levels of scripting depending on the venue and level. Acting in a movie isn't the same as being a wrestler, but they aren't completely different, as you would suggest. Wrestlers play their roles, parts in the larger production they put on. They're the players in the performance, and while that's different from playing a part on Broadway or in Hollywood, it's still playing a part. It's not a sport because the results are predetermined.
|
|
|
Post by darthpipes on Dec 30, 2008 22:56:34 GMT -5
You know, he does sort of have a point since they ARE actors and all. Agreed. Especially considering that Vince has pushed the notion that they are "entertainers" for years. I read an article posted to the Kayfabe Memories message boards where there apparently was an attempt to make wrestlers part of SAG during the 1950s.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 31, 2008 2:19:45 GMT -5
Yeah, wrestling basically is acting in just about every way conceivable; promos, ring work, playing a role during a match, acting up towards a live crowd, etc.
Wrestlers are actors in the truest sense of the word, as well as being athletes, but they are NOT in an athletic competition, since it's predetermined.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,884
Member is Online
|
Post by Sephiroth on Dec 31, 2008 10:31:20 GMT -5
Thanks for clearing that up, that was quite informative. As a member, do you think the rest of my questions about wrestlers being added hold water, or am I just making something of nothing? In some ways, I actually do. Lest we forget, WWE does have its own film division that, as far as I know, operates as an indy operation and does not affiliate with SAG. I do think there is an acting element to wrestling. These guys are performers. And in many ways, I can sympathize with the up and coming wannabee wrestlers out there who are working for $25 bucks a night. We may sometimes find it obscene how much a guy like Triple H or Hulk Hogan has made off wrestling. But if it were not for them on top making the big bucks and making the big demands, the grunts on the bottom would be getting taken advantage of all the worse. It is the same for acting. I get sick of hearing about the antics of Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise as much as anyone else. But without them and without the union, the low rung actors like myself would be getting abused horribly. Wrestlers do one thing that most actors do not do on a regular basis-put their bodies at genuine risk. I have never broken a bone or gotten a concussion in front of a camera or on a stage. But yet actors are ensured health coverage and protection under the union. So yeah, wrestlers to deserve the same kind of treatment all the more for it. And there is a definite element of greed and ego in the reason promoters have fought against wrestlers getting unionized for so long. They would have to fork out money for health coverage and insurance plans. They would also lose so much of the power they hold over their promotions. And all the wrestlers, from the underneath jobbers to the main event dominators, would have to be guaranteed a certain salary. The ironic part is that while we are having this debate, SAG is actually trying hard to tighten up its regulations for entry. Pretty much there has been a rising problem with how many people are in the unions now-its actually getting hard to find non-union talent! So SAG has repeatedly upped its entry fee, which I believe hovers at around $2100 right now, and it i has discussed moving off the waiver system to some sort of point based system. Confusing, to say the least.
|
|