Alec Baldwin

[BlueTiki]

Short answer:  Yes.

Why would an actor have the added responsibility of doing the job of someone hired specifically for that?

You raise a great point.  As an actor, he is merely an employee. His job is to follow direction(s) and deliver a performance.  An actor is not responsible for the hundreds of tasks and services that are listed in the credits of a film.  If that is your position, it's damned-near "bulletproof" and I then, would whole heartily . . .  and without hesitation . . . withdraw my previous statement and agree, with you.

Many employees (in any given vocation) never give a thought to anything beyond what is required to do their job and trust in those who are tasked -or- hired, to allow them to accomplish their duties.  A cashier, at a retail store, is not responsible for a price, incorrectly entered into their system.  Not her job.  A Postal Carrier delivering a parcel, to a specified and yet incorrect address?  Not his problem it was delivered to the unintended recipient.  You get my point without having to go on, and on, and on . . . 

But I have always seen you as a person of faith. . . . not in the religious sense . . .  but in one who doesn't readily "put their faith (or trust)", blindly or without question or examination . . . in any person, institution or event.  That was the basis for my response.

Baldwin was more than just a "hired-gun" actor.  And this was not his first rodeo.

He is also a member of a guild/union that exists expressly for the protection of actors from those who hire them.  They, like other unions, have rules to ensure that their members are not subjected unsafe or exploitive behaviors, by an employer . . . namely studios and producers.

You see where I'm going with this . . .