As usual, I have no wish to get involved in the set of accusations and counter-accusations that have started to dominate on this thread - it seems fairly apparent that the whole thing started out as a misguided attempt at humourously alluding to the situation that backfired.
That's by the by. To return to the original point of Aceman's thread: I don't think there is any need to question what you have experienced - I would, as a matter of course, assume that you have only posted to the forums about a situation *because* you've directly experienced it - and recently. If Equity told you that you had to be a member in order to reclaim your monies, then I'm willing to accept that's how the conversation went.
Quoting a reply like the one that said this story is 'cobblers' was unhelpful - but it's worth noting that Toni only posted this on someone else's behalf - John Webb's, who is a well known fixture on the Equity boards, but not, as far as I am aware, a member of this 'other site' (hence, Toni passing on the message). I don't know John personally, but from the many replies of his I have read, I know that he is considered to know Equity legal details chapter and verse, and that he *is* a man who holds very strong opinions. Does his reply stand as 'definitive' and mean that you can't possibly have had the conversation you lay claim to having? Of course not. John is referring to a formal, defined situation whereas you've experienced what sounds like a genuine miscommunication over the phone, and I can appreciate why the implication that you're talking nonsense has poisoned the situation. Moreover, I am not sure that John's reply actually bears any relation to the problem you have ACTUALLY encountered - so it may be another miscommunication.
At this point, though,I must admit, after having trawled the thread, to *myself* being a little confused as to what is at stake here, Aceman - am I taking the correct reading here?: from what you say, you are no longer a current Equity member. You contacted Equity in order to chase some residuals owing. Equity discovered you were not a paid member. They suggested that, as the residuals owing were, in fact, for a lesser amount than you would have paid in yearly subscription for membership, it was not in their interest to pursue winning back the pay for you? I can understand why that is frustrating, and operates regardless of the fact that you have been a long time Equity member of years' standing (and may well have contracted the initial job while you were an Equity member?). However, this would appear to have nothing to do with whether or not Equity *itself* retains residuals from the work of others if they are not paid members - which seemed to be what the post (or, least John Webb's response) was implying in the first instance - and would, let's face it, be an atrocious practice. So, I confess to confusion. Maybe the initial phone response was confused as well, and it would certainly pay to clarify all this.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you that Equity urgently needs to learn how to 'modernise' more thoroughly, and, as best it can, should be aiming to win back more authority in, say, the next decade, rather than continuing to exist in a post Thatcher limbo that has reduced it to the level of a glorified insurance claims office. It has been pointed out by wiser heads than me that the Musicians Union, BECTU etc. etc. all suffered similarly from serious emasculation in the late 80's/early 90's, but have found ways to win back meaningful ground over the last 20 years - whilst Equity seems, in effect, to have never got beyond the loss of the closed shop, and has come to seem less and less relevant as years have passed by.
Amongst other things, it urgently requires fresh blood from amongst the 'grassroots' who are going to recognise, campaign for, and strengthen collective, industry wide, response to the problems that truly beset the vast majority of actors working in the 'ordinary' sectors of the profession today. The principal problem Equity has in policing the areas that are of concern to the majority of 'jobbing actors' (aside from chronic underfunding) is that these interests are never well represented by Equity surrogates who tend to be of a different generation (and to whom the vicissitudes of working with student filmmakers, Internet viral promoters, profit share fringe companies, commercials companies that demand buyout as opposed to residuals and so on mean very little), and who are often conspicuously successful and well-positioned within their chosen industry (this again tends to ensure that they may never, since leaving drama school, have even had to *contemplate* the possibility of working on a low budget film in order to attain showreel material, to appear in a fringe show in order to obtain an agent etc.). Yet, working on such material is the daily experience of literally thousands of actors in the early 21st century - and Equity's previous attempts to 'hold the line' by advising all members to refuse to work on such projects in order to avoid generating 'legitimacy' for them obviously failed decades ago. There has to be a new dispensation; indeed, it's overdue in coming. But it will take serious new initiatives from within the union to make it happen. And, as we are forever reminded its 'our' union, I suspect those initiatives will have to come from us.
