4 ms·

I can assure you that the majority of SAG actors are working service jobs, living hand to mouth. This isn't an example of the rich lording over the plebs, this

I can assure you that the majority of SAG actors are working service jobs, living hand to mouth. This isn't an example of the rich lording over the plebs, this is an example of a union doing right by its members.

knuththetruth 8y ago
Yeah. All tech workers could have similar benefits if they unionized en masse using a structure similar to that of actors.
- walshemj 8y ago
  And actually tech workers have a lot of similarities to those in entertainment (both front and back of house) larger numbers of nerodiverse members than the population at large for example. The Biggest tech union on the UK just merged with BECTU (the eqvielent of IATSE)
- charlieflowers 8y ago
  Ok, let's do it. healthcare premiums and coverage suck. i actually started googling how to join SAG.
- dizzystar 8y ago
  Getting into and maintaining SAG membership is very time consuming and expensive. You could work in the industry for years and never get in. Others get lucky and get in within a few months. A lot of people are SAG Eligible but can't afford the initial fees to get in. It's not like a standard union where you show up to work every day for months and you are in. Non-union basically do the exact same thing as union folk, but get paid less per hour. In contrast, there is a budget limit to how many SAG workers can be on set, so while your hourly is higher, the quantity of work you have is much lower. Most SAG members are background extras, who don't earn very much money, and can't work more if they wanted to. Definitely not the union you'd want to emulate. Film and TV actors are all temporary workers.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    Well, the good thing about unions, is they're democratically organized. So, tech workers should look at what works in SAG (performance based pay w/reasonable floors, great benefits), emulate that, and set aside the problems/barriers you describe.
wink 8y ago
When I compare that to German health insurance, it comes out to an income of ~1600 EUR per month before taxes, but you pay more of if you earn more. Quite an interesting concept though that their rates don't seem to up no matter if you just get by or make millions...
- gambiting 8y ago
  Same in UK - you pay a % of your salary above a certain level, so the more you earn the more you pay. But you are always covered for absolutely everything without co-pays, limits etc etc no matter whether you earn zero(and pay nothing towards it) or are a millionaire. Using it also doesn't affect how much you pay, it's just a flat % of your salary regardless of whether you are healthy or chronically ill.
  - vilmosi 8y ago
    If you're talking about national insurance, which is more or less fixed, then you are incorrect. The NHS is not funded by it. It's still payed by taxes but it's not a flat rate tax.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  Why should health insurance be progressive? I'd be willing to bet that healthcare costs scale sub-linearly with income, so why would a private insurer charge more to somebody who makes more money? In the case of a properly functioning public healthcare system, I totally buy and support it, though.
  - biggc 8y ago
    My complete guess would be that this is an intra-union agreement. The insurer could be charging a fixed rate per member with the union enforcing a progressive scheme.
  - wink 8y ago
    Good question, but I'm not opposed to this. I'd say the German health care system is mostly a good one, and I'm absolutely happy to pay a percentage of income. Sure, if they managed to have it running at a flat fee that doesn't disadvantage people with minimum wage jobs, I'd gladly pay less - although I think 10% is totally fair, especially when comparing it to the US system and people doing kickstarters for their cancer treatment...

knuththetruth 8y ago

Yeah. All tech workers could have similar benefits if they unionized en masse using a structure similar to that of actors.

walshemj 8y ago
And actually tech workers have a lot of similarities to those in entertainment (both front and back of house) larger numbers of nerodiverse members than the population at large for example. The Biggest tech union on the UK just merged with BECTU (the eqvielent of IATSE)
charlieflowers 8y ago
Ok, let's do it. healthcare premiums and coverage suck. i actually started googling how to join SAG.
dizzystar 8y ago
Getting into and maintaining SAG membership is very time consuming and expensive. You could work in the industry for years and never get in. Others get lucky and get in within a few months. A lot of people are SAG Eligible but can't afford the initial fees to get in. It's not like a standard union where you show up to work every day for months and you are in. Non-union basically do the exact same thing as union folk, but get paid less per hour. In contrast, there is a budget limit to how many SAG workers can be on set, so while your hourly is higher, the quantity of work you have is much lower. Most SAG members are background extras, who don't earn very much money, and can't work more if they wanted to. Definitely not the union you'd want to emulate. Film and TV actors are all temporary workers.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  Well, the good thing about unions, is they're democratically organized. So, tech workers should look at what works in SAG (performance based pay w/reasonable floors, great benefits), emulate that, and set aside the problems/barriers you describe.

wink 8y ago

When I compare that to German health insurance, it comes out to an income of ~1600 EUR per month before taxes, but you pay more of if you earn more. Quite an interesting concept though that their rates don't seem to up no matter if you just get by or make millions...

gambiting 8y ago
Same in UK - you pay a % of your salary above a certain level, so the more you earn the more you pay. But you are always covered for absolutely everything without co-pays, limits etc etc no matter whether you earn zero(and pay nothing towards it) or are a millionaire. Using it also doesn't affect how much you pay, it's just a flat % of your salary regardless of whether you are healthy or chronically ill.
- vilmosi 8y ago
  If you're talking about national insurance, which is more or less fixed, then you are incorrect. The NHS is not funded by it. It's still payed by taxes but it's not a flat rate tax.
InitialLastName 8y ago
Why should health insurance be progressive? I'd be willing to bet that healthcare costs scale sub-linearly with income, so why would a private insurer charge more to somebody who makes more money? In the case of a properly functioning public healthcare system, I totally buy and support it, though.
- biggc 8y ago
  My complete guess would be that this is an intra-union agreement. The insurer could be charging a fixed rate per member with the union enforcing a progressive scheme.
- wink 8y ago
  Good question, but I'm not opposed to this. I'd say the German health care system is mostly a good one, and I'm absolutely happy to pay a percentage of income. Sure, if they managed to have it running at a flat fee that doesn't disadvantage people with minimum wage jobs, I'd gladly pay less - although I think 10% is totally fair, especially when comparing it to the US system and people doing kickstarters for their cancer treatment...