Video Game Voice Actors Now on Strike

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

kitarad

Not to diminish their claims but I wonder if they would like to tie their earnings to the success or failures of the games they are employed to voice act in. It makes sense to ask for a share in the profits but how about the failures. Some piecemeal payments are made because of the nature of investment and the risks the company takes but I sympathize with their claims too.

laserit

$900 for a 4hr voiceover session. Not a bad gig.

DMKano said:

Unions...... what a racket

I'm a small business owner of a non-union shop with 32 employees. If they ever voted for a union, I would close up shop and ride into the sunset

But unions are a necessary evil and I know more than a few companies that deserve them.   

Dakeru

On one hand I think that voice actors are extremely important and should fight for their rights.
On the other I find it shady that the union leaders did not even forward the offer.

Then again I do understand the wish to get shares of the total sales.
Burt Reynolds got rich that way in the 80s.

Theocritus

I wont miss them one iota....Other than a couple of single player games voice acting blows

SBFord

$900 for 4 hours is more than a huge portion of the population makes in a month. I'm sorry, but my heart doesn't bleed for them. And, honestly @Theocritus I totally agree that most games can do without voice acting altogether. I also agree with you, @kitarad, in that if they want a share of success, they should also share in failure. Seems fair to me.

Talonsin

The problem with business today is its focus on greed rather than fairness.  To be fair, if they want residuals based on the performance of the game they should also be willing to accept a reduced rate for games that dont sell well. 

Give them $400 per session and then residuals if the game sells over a certain number of copies.  This way if the game does not sell well, they get less pay and saves the studio some up front cost and if the game sells well, they would make more than the $900 currently being offered, BAM, fair to everyone.  Sadly, we are such a one-dimensional species that the majority of business leaders do not think this way.

cameltosis

Unions had a valid place in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when workers were seriously exploited and there weren't many / any laws the protect them. 

Now? I think unions have gone way past their expected mandate. 

I personally have never belonged to a union and never want to. Strike action is the biggest reason - I just don't think there is ever a valid reason to strike. There are plenty of laws in place to protect workers health, rights, fair wages etc. 


For these voice actors, as I understand it the pay is already quite good (if inconsistent), however, it is the working conditions that are poor. If they have to do a lot of shouting, it obviously puts a lot of strain on the voice and can cause physical harm, yet employers aren't always taking this into consideration in the same way that physical actors would get extra training / pay for that sort of work. 

Sovrath

SBFord said:

$900 for 4 hours is more than a huge portion of the population makes in a month. I'm sorry, but my heart doesn't bleed for them. And, honestly @Theocritus I totally agree that most games can do without voice acting altogether. I also agree with you, @kitarad, in that if they want a share of success, they should also share in failure. Seems fair to me.

That's actually not the way to look at it.

You are thinking like an hourly employee. When one does a job like this, a "gig" They are not working 40 hours per week for $900 every 4 hours.

Depending on their situation, that might be the only work they have that week. Or it could be one of two gigs. Or they might have several gigs and then suddenly no gigs for a bit.

When I was in college I made my living as a musician and received 150.00 for the first hour and $50.00 every subsequent hour (and I could have charged more but felt that because I was a student I should charge a bit less) and I wasn't living high on the hog as I still had to get gigs and make sure I had enough gigs so I could save some. Once January 1st rolled around the gigs would just die down until the spring.

SBFord

@Sovrath ;

Actually, I understand that really well. It's seasonal or occasional. I still believe, however, that success and failure need to be shared equally

Kyleran

Just relocate voice acting to the Disney/Universal Studio's complexes in Orlando, we are a right to work state, unions find it a hostile env.

Besides, I've never been impressed with the "quality" of voice acting, so we can probably do with some scab work. 

Billr00

cameltosis said:

Unions had a valid place in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when workers were seriously exploited and there weren't many / any laws the protect them. 

Now? I think unions have gone way past their expected mandate. 

I personally have never belonged to a union and never want to. Strike action is the biggest reason - I just don't think there is ever a valid reason to strike. There are plenty of laws in place to protect workers health, rights, fair wages etc. 


For these voice actors, as I understand it the pay is already quite good (if inconsistent), however, it is the working conditions that are poor. If they have to do a lot of shouting, it obviously puts a lot of strain on the voice and can cause physical harm, yet employers aren't always taking this into consideration in the same way that physical actors would get extra training / pay for that sort of work. 

I disagree .. what law is in place to insure that workers get fair wages? the only law I can think of that holds a company responsible for paying their employees fairly is the Minimum Wage laws .. and they are way way below the poverty level 

without unions do you think that corporations and companies would just not exploit their workers however they can? some might now .. but many many would .. when NAFTA passed look how many corporations moved to mexico just to escape from any kind of oversight or specifically to flee the cost of unionized workers and up their profit margins exploiting cheap desperate labor

come now don't blame the union .. yes there are plenty of "bad" union stories 

but I imagine we are all looking at  this story with a very skewed perspective of what is actually going on .. just saying .. I've been in contract negotiations as part of a union process and they aren't putting in front of their members because in a negotiation you don't run back to your members with any offer they throw at you .. the negotiations representatives keep negotiating until their is a resolution which meets the desires of the membership in the first place .. the members might have voted already and said we are not accepting anything shy of X or nothing that doesn't have this or that stipulation etc .. putting that bit about how they are refusing to put it in front of the members is just bullying tactics trying to pressure the union with a public news outlet 

wow .. this might be my longest post ever lol .. sorry for the text wall 

Scot

SBFord said:

@Sovrath ;

Actually, I understand that really well. It's seasonal or occasional. I still believe, however, that success and failure need to be shared equally

I don't agree about most games being able to do without voice acting, we have seen it becoming more and more prominent, that will say as a trend. But I do agree that they get enough, a 9% pay increase should be enough for anyone.

The work is sporadic, but it is not as if they can't do any other work.

Kyleran

cameltosis said:

Strike action is the biggest reason - I just don't think there is ever a valid reason to strike. There are plenty of laws in place to protect workers health, rights, fair wages etc. 
 

My wife works for a local county gov't office, and the Teamsters are currently trying to organize the workers in her shop.

Some of the shenanigans include the county ordering several cleaning chemicals without checking for harmful interaction, and when two were used together a number of employees  began bleeding profusely through the nose and had to leave for several days. (no compensation was offered for their distress outside of workman's comp medical payments)

There were several other dangerous situations including having workers alone when they really need a back-up for safety reasons, and it's pretty clear employers don't always have their employee's best interests at heart.

So Unions might still be a necessary evil, just not sure voice actors suffer in this manner.  This dispute appears to be largely financial for service where getting steady income might be challenging.

Sovrath

SBFord said:

@Sovrath ;

Actually, I understand that really well. It's seasonal or occasional. I still believe, however, that success and failure need to be shared equally

I'm not sure what that means but it seems that you are saying the voice actors should share in the failure of the game and the success?

Sometimes in acting the actors take a pay cut and share in the profits of the movie. I can see that being acceptable.

cbwriter

Why should a voice actor, who was hired to perform the script WRITTEN FOR THEM, have to share in the failure ?  They have nothing to do with the marketing, the selling, the art, the game design. That's like asking an office clerk to share in the failure of a company. Getting residuals IS sharing in the success and failure. If the game doesn't sell, they get no residuals, just like getting bonuses when the company does well.


And as to the pay: a voice actor may work every day for a week, or maybe a month then not get work for several weeks or months. They are asked to do almost the same work as a Hollywood actor except that they usually have to work DIRECTLY from the script, with no more than a rough storyboard to guide them, trying to get the right inflections that the director wants.


Also, they are usually considered INDEPENDANT CONTRACTORS. That means they are responsible for paying ALL their FICA and Social Security taxes along with the usual state, federal, and local taxes.  FICA/Social Security taxes are normally split between employer and employee, therefore they pay double what an 'employee' does.


In other words:  A normal employee pays about 7.7% of their pay for SS/FICA while an Independent Contractor pays 15.4 %. In ADDITION, they have to pay their estimated taxes quarterly.


They also have NO additional benefits like most normal employees do. That means they have to pay for their health insurance, etc., that most people have provided by their employers.

Laughing-man

SBFord said:

@Sovrath ;

Actually, I understand that really well. It's seasonal or occasional. I still believe, however, that success and failure need to be shared equally

Then every single part of the game would be paid that way.
Next you'd be paying graphic design artists based off individual game's successes.  What about assets you buy to use on your game, now they'll want a part of the pie if those assets went into a successful game.

The reason they get paid 900 bucks you already stated, they don't work every day, in fact they probably work rarely and have to do other jobs as well.  Not every voice actor gets paid 900 dollars for four hours, only the good ones, just like the good members of other professions. Example, a good lawyers will get paid far more than 900 for 4 hours, a good doctor as well, a singer on stage?  More than that.  Lady Gaga when she does a concert?  More than that.

So what about the voice actors do you guys think diminishes their right to their money?  They work hard to do their job, the ones who are getting paid that amount are clearly professionals who clearly must study their craft.  Professionals are entitled to being paid what their worth.

Sovrath

Scot said:

SBFord said:

@Sovrath ;

Actually, I understand that really well. It's seasonal or occasional. I still believe, however, that success and failure need to be shared equally

I don't agree about most games being able to do without voice acting, we have seen it becoming more and more prominent, that will say as a trend. But I do agree that they get enough, a 9% pay increase should be enough for anyone.

The work is sporadic, but it is not as if they can't do any other work.

True, they can do other work but part of this is that it's "skilled work" with people being better or worse.

I mean, if anyone could do it then a lot of people would be voice actors (or actors of any type). Obviously there are other considerations such as "breaking into the business" and "who you know" but not everyone can be a voice actor.

Heck, I CAN act and I wouldn't be able to be a voice actor as I don't have a great voice for most work. And you have to be conscious of where you breathe and how you breathe as that gets picked up. It's not just standing in front of a mic and saying stuff and collecting a paycheck. There's a lot of nitty gritty that goes with it. As well as takes upon takes upon takes which puts a strain on the voice after a while.

I'm a believer in the idea that skilled workers should get what they deserve which really is "what the market will bear".

Theocritus

THe problem with voice acting is that the game ends up being more like a movie and less like a video game... Really they try so hard to entertain us instead of trying to make a fun game....

Billr00

@cbwriter agreed entirely.. 

also don't voice actors usually work through some kind of agency setup .. where the agent is taking a cut as well?

Sovrath

Billr00 said:

@cbwriter agreed entirely.. 

also don't voice actors usually work through some kind of agency setup .. where the agent is taking a cut as well?

Yes, they do use agents though there are sites where people can submit their work and get jobs that way.

an agent can get up to 20% thought that is a bit high.

Billr00

Sovrath said:

Billr00 said:

@cbwriter agreed entirely.. 

also don't voice actors usually work through some kind of agency setup .. where the agent is taking a cut as well?

Yes, they do use agents though there are sites where people can submit their work and get jobs that way.

an agent can get up to 20% thought that is a bit high.

its all a business cost at that point though right? 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing ( i know this isnt the issue) just something else to consider when everyone is all like "how can those greedy pricks be wanting more than 900 bucks for 4 measely hours work" sort of thing 

I can understand their desire for a residual just don't think it could be a blanket thing .. perhaps if you had a famous voice actor they could contract individually and make a demand like that .. imagine being the voice actor for a major character in GTA V .. sold 60 mil copies for 60 bucks each .. cost approx 256 mil to make .. thats about 3 billion dollars or so .. that guy get paid one very miniscule lump sum and hit the bricks? 

video games are eclipsing movies, music, and books combined as the most successful form of entertainment and the actors who provide the "voices" are paid like extras in hollywood .. seems a bit off 

change is inevitable in my mind 

Vrika

blueturtle13 said:

One of the union's key demands in terms of wages were residual or back-end payments based on the number of units sold or number of subscribers. Instead, the Interactive Video Game Companies' offer appears to be based on absolute numbers.

Usually I support people trying to get fair wages, but in this case I really hope the voice actors lose. The situations where websites like Youtube and Twich may be allowed to stream the game, but not music in that game, are already bad enough. I hope the gaming industry takes no steps that could lead to voice actors getting similar rights for voices in games.

laserit

Billr00 said:

Sovrath said:

Billr00 said:

@cbwriter agreed entirely.. 

also don't voice actors usually work through some kind of agency setup .. where the agent is taking a cut as well?

Yes, they do use agents though there are sites where people can submit their work and get jobs that way.

an agent can get up to 20% thought that is a bit high.

its all a business cost at that point though right? 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing ( i know this isnt the issue) just something else to consider when everyone is all like "how can those greedy pricks be wanting more than 900 bucks for 4 measely hours work" sort of thing 

I can understand their desire for a residual just don't think it could be a blanket thing .. perhaps if you had a famous voice actor they could contract individually and make a demand like that .. imagine being the voice actor for a major character in GTA V .. sold 60 mil copies for 60 bucks each .. cost approx 256 mil to make .. thats about 3 billion dollars or so .. that guy get paid one very miniscule lump sum and hit the bricks? 

video games are eclipsing movies, music, and books combined as the most successful form of entertainment and the actors who provide the "voices" are paid like extras in hollywood .. seems a bit off 

change is inevitable in my mind 

Name me a famous video game voice actor that's not also a film actor.

Do you buy a game because of the voice actor cast?

Now I believe film actors are grossly overpaid and we pay way too much at the box office on account of it. But that's another discussion.  

laserit

Torval said:

cbwriter said:

Why should a voice actor, who was hired to perform the script WRITTEN FOR THEM, have to share in the failure ?  They have nothing to do with the marketing, the selling, the art, the game design. That's like asking an office clerk to share in the failure of a company. Getting residuals IS sharing in the success and failure. If the game doesn't sell, they get no residuals, just like getting bonuses when the company does well.

And as to the pay: a voice actor may work every day for a week, or maybe a month then not get work for several weeks or months. They are asked to do almost the same work as a Hollywood actor except that they usually have to work DIRECTLY from the script, with no more than a rough storyboard to guide them, trying to get the right inflections that the director wants.

Also, they are usually considered INDEPENDANT CONTRACTORS. That means they are responsible for paying ALL their FICA and Social Security taxes along with the usual state, federal, and local taxes.  FICA/Social Security taxes are normally split between employer and employee, therefore they pay double what an 'employee' does.

In other words:  A normal employee pays about 7.7% of their pay for SS/FICA while an Independent Contractor pays 15.4 %. In ADDITION, they have to pay their estimated taxes quarterly.

They also have NO additional benefits like most normal employees do. That means they have to pay for their health insurance, etc., that most people have provided by their employers.

A lot of industries work like that but don't charge $900 an hour. Contract jobs rarely earn residuals or profit sharing. Most actors in movies and TV shows don't earn residuals unless they're stars. They're asking for the ridiculous here.

You don't have to submit quarterly taxes as a contractor and depending on the contract you can have payments setup throughout the project as milestones complete. Being an independent contractor is a choice, not a victim situation where oppressed and marginalized demographics are fighting for equal rights and pay.

You can paint the pitiful victim story of struggling to work in the snow uphill both ways, but many (if not most) of us work here. Some of us even do or work for companies that live on contract work and understand first hand the challenges. No sympathy here for what they're asking.

Nothing unusual here with union negotiations 

Shoot for the moon.... and you know the rest

FrodoFragins

kitarad said:

Not to diminish their claims but I wonder if they would like to tie their earnings to the success or failures of the games they are employed to voice act in. It makes sense to ask for a share in the profits but how about the failures. Some piecemeal payments are made because of the nature of investment and the risks the company takes but I sympathize with their claims too.

  TV and movie actors aren't responsible for losses why should voice actors?  This is why they have a union.  Voice actors aren't responsible for failed games.

The people that need a  union are video game developers, but so many people want jobs in that field it's easier to replace striking devs.