I Resigned from the Board and Committee Service Because I No Longer Believe SAG-AFTRA Is Fighting for the Journeyman Actor
Dear President Astin,
First, thank you for your service to our union. I recognize that leadership is often a thankless job, and I appreciate the time and energy it requires. I also believe that serving our members means being willing to have difficult conversations, particularly when the future of our union is at stake. I’m writing because I have serious concerns about SAG-AFTRA’s direction and its commitment to the working, middle-class actor. My hope is to make visible some of the barriers members continue to experience.
These concerns, in part, led to my resignation from the Board of Directors and my position as Committee Chair for our Atlanta Local. I could no longer justify giving my time to an organization that, in my view, has increasingly neglected the needs of the journeyman actor—the professional who has built a career through years of work, pays their dues, contributes to our industry, and depends on acting income to make a living.
As mentioned above, I’m not alone in these concerns. I’ve spoken with many members whose concerns mirror my own. When dedicated members begin to feel that their union no longer represents their interests, we have a problem that cannot be dismissed as mere dissatisfaction. We have a crisis of confidence. That should worry us.
Over the past several contract cycles, we’ve secured meaningful gains for background performers and series regulars. Those gains matter, but where are the comparable gains for the journeyman actor? Where is the meaningful progress for the working professional caught between the occasional performer who treats acting as a hobby and the high earners for whom insurance eligibility is not a constant source of anxiety? Give background talent a few extra dollars, and they’ll vote for the contract, as will a-listers who aren’t worried about meeting their needs, but those are only two segments of our union, so we need to focus on what I feel is the backbone of this organization, the journeyman actor. I celebrate those wins for our vulnerable background performers, but the rich cannot continue to get richer while the middle class continues to erode. That is not equity.
As we see elsewhere in this fiscal climate in America, middle class is being squeezed out. In our union, these are the actors who work consistently but not consistently enough, who can earn a respectable living in a good year but struggle to qualify for health insurance, and who increasingly question whether their union dues are buying them the representation they were promised.
A union cannot claim to represent the entire profession while allowing the middle of that profession to disappear.
Here are several areas where I believe meaningful reform is urgently needed.
1. Streaming Residuals: The “New Media” Excuse Has Expired
Streaming is no longer an emerging business model. It is a dominant distribution platform, and the companies operating these services are sophisticated, profitable businesses. Many offer ad-supported tiers while continuing to raise subscription prices.
Yet our residual structures have not adequately caught up with the reality of this marketplace.
While we have made some progress, I believe streaming residuals should move toward parity with network residuals. The economics of distribution have changed, but our members are still being asked to accept compensation structures that reflect an earlier era.
If streaming is now a central part of the entertainment business, our compensation must reflect that reality. We cannot continue treating a mature, profitable industry as if it were an experimental platform that deserves special consideration at the expense of performers.
2. The Dues Cap: Why Should the Highest Earners Get a Discount?
The current dues cap means that even the highest-paid members pay a maximum of approximately $15,570 annually in dues, regardless of how much more they earn beyond the cap.
Meanwhile, working actors struggle to reach the earnings threshold required to qualify for health insurance.
That disparity is difficult to justify.
A member earning millions of dollars a year should be able to contribute dues proportionate to their earnings, just as working actors contribute based on theirs. Asking the highest earners to continue contributing beyond the current cap is not an unreasonable burden. It is a reasonable expectation of solidarity.
Why should dues stop increasing for someone earning several million dollars while a journeyman actor struggles to meet the insurance threshold?
Removing or substantially raising the cap could generate additional revenue to help fund a more attainable health insurance earnings threshold. The details would require careful actuarial and financial analysis, but the principle is straightforward: those with the greatest capacity to contribute should help strengthen the system that protects all members.
Solidarity cannot simply be a slogan we invoke during contract negotiations. It must be reflected in how we structure our own union.
3. Health Insurance: Excellent Coverage Means Little If Members Cannot Qualify
Let me be clear: our health insurance benefits are fantastic. I value my coverage, and I recognize how important it is to preserve the quality of the plan.
The problem is access. If fewer than 15% of our members qualify, we have to ask ourselves whether the system is serving the broader membership as effectively as it should.
We need to pursue several reforms:
Renegotiate aggressively and regularly. Review premiums and plan costs annually, explore alternative providers when appropriate, and ensure we are getting the best possible value without unnecessarily sacrificing benefits.
Lower the earnings threshold. Explore using revenue from a higher or uncapped dues structure, along with a modest premium adjustment if necessary, to make eligibility attainable for more working actors.
Protect members facing circumstances beyond their control. Pregnant members, seniors, and members with disabilities should not be pushed out of coverage simply because their circumstances prevent them from meeting the same earnings threshold as everyone else. We need to explore more flexible eligibility and protection provisions for these members. Hell, our former president Ed Asner sued his own union on the basis of discrimatnation seniors were subject to by kicking them off of healthcare (roughly 8,000 were kicked off, which is unacceptable).
Protect coverage during strikes. A strike is one of the most powerful tools our union has, but it should not force members to choose between supporting their union and maintaining access to healthcare. We should establish a dedicated fund or other mechanism to help eligible members preserve coverage when a strike interrupts their income.
Health insurance should be a pillar of our union’s value, not a benefit that most members can only hope to qualify for.
4. Tiered Membership: Make Joining the Union a Path Forward, Not a Barrier
We need to rethink how performers enter and participate in our union.
I believe we should seriously explore a tiered membership structure—perhaps apprentice, junior, and senior levels—with different dues, requirements, and pathways for advancement. Such a system would need to be designed carefully to protect established members, preserve collective bargaining strength, and avoid creating a permanent underclass of workers.
At the entry level, however, we should consider allowing apprentices and junior members greater flexibility to work on nonunion projects, including reconsidering the application of Global Rule One to those tiers. Apprentice membership should not automatically create a must-join situation before a performer has had a realistic opportunity to establish a career.
The goal should be to create a more accessible path into the union, encourage participation, and give emerging performers a reason to build their careers with SAG-AFTRA rather than view membership as an obstacle.
As someone who served on the national Fi-Core committee, I know there is room for improvement in this area. We should be asking why members consider Fi-Core in the first place and what the union can do to address the underlying dissatisfaction.
We cannot expect loyalty from members who feel the union no longer serves their interests. And we certainly cannot afford to ignore the possibility that growing frustration among working actors will drive more members toward Fi-Core. I hate to see it, but after over a decade in this union, I’ve actually considered going FiCore myself (especially in a right-to-work state such as Georgia).
The answer to declining loyalty is not to demand more loyalty. It is to give members more reasons to believe in their union.
5. iActor: It’s Time to Fix It or Retire It
I’ll be blunt: iActor has been taking up space on my phone for years without being opened in over a decade.
That should tell us something.
In a marketplace with established platforms such as Actors Access and Casting Networks, our members deserve tools that are useful, competitive, and worth using. If iActor cannot deliver that, we should stop pouring resources into maintaining a product that fails to meet members’ needs.
Better yet, invest in making it a legitimate competitor—one that provides real value to performers, improves access to casting opportunities, and gives members a tangible reason to engage with a union-sponsored platform.
If we cannot make it relevant, we should have the courage to retire it and redirect those resources toward initiatives that actually serve our membership. Since iActor was introduced, if we had taken just $1 in dues from each member every year, we’d have a four-million dollar war chest, which is more than enough money to have created a world-class casting platform. With such a platform, we could bring casting directors into the fold and elimanate the need for other platforms. This would save union members a few hundred dollars a year and give us a value-added perk for our members. Why has this not been addressed? It has been brought to resolution multiple times and those have died on the vine. The union knows iActor is an issue, but has failed the members. And if the union was not aware of the issue, that highlights an even more serious problem. Are we afraid to piss off Gary Marsh with Breakdown Services or Red Bird Capital?
We should not maintain programs simply because they already exist. We should maintain them because they work.
6. Rebuild Member Confidence Before Apathy Becomes Irreversible
Our industry has changed dramatically over the past several years. Distribution models have shifted, production patterns have changed, and the economics of earning a living as an actor continue to evolve.
I do not believe our union has adapted quickly enough.
And the consequences go beyond any single contract, benefit, or technology platform. We are at risk of losing something far more important: the confidence of our own membership.
A union cannot thrive on dues payments alone. It needs members who believe their participation matters, who see tangible value in belonging, and who trust that their leadership understands the realities of their working lives.
When members become apathetic, when they stop attending meetings, stop volunteering, stop advocating, and eventually stop believing that the union can help them, that is not a membership problem. It is a leadership problem that demands attention.
I am not suggesting that any of these changes would be simple. They would require financial analysis, difficult negotiations, and a willingness to challenge existing assumptions. But leadership is not simply about maintaining the status quo or celebrating the gains we have already made. It is about recognizing when the current approach is no longer sufficient and having the courage to change course.
I want SAG-AFTRA to succeed. I want our union to remain strong, relevant, and capable of protecting performers for generations to come. That is precisely why I feel compelled to speak up.
But we cannot accomplish that by focusing exclusively on the members whose interests are easiest to identify, whose gains are easiest to measure, or whose careers are already secure.
We must also fight for the journeyman actor—the professional who shows up, does the work, pays their dues, and tries to build a sustainable life in this industry. Those members are not an afterthought. They are the backbone of our profession, and they deserve a union that treats them that way.
I hope you will take these concerns in the spirit in which they are offered: not as an attack on you personally, but as a candid appeal for a renewed commitment to the members who are increasingly feeling left behind.
If SAG-AFTRA is to remain relevant, it must evolve. If it is to remain strong, it must restore its members’ trust. And if it is to truly represent us all, it must prove that the journeyman actor still matters.
Thank you for your time and for considering these concerns. I’ll certainly be proposing a lot of these things in the next working & wages sessions.
In solidarity,
