EQUITY STRIKE

[Missy37]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 10:07am

Anyone have info at what time equity counsil is meeting to determine strike action?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 2:30pm

Interesting quote from the Backstage article....

"Equity came into negotiations at the beginning of April stressing its concern over nonunion tours taking jobs away from its members..."

Who said it wasn't about competition? Hmmmm.....

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 3:14pm

It's not competition. It's not like Coca Cola vs. Pepsi.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 4:01pm

And it's not like jobs were taken away from Equity actors. More jobs were simply offered to non-Equity that had been previously dominated by Equity.

[Dawg]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 6:27pm

Actually, they ARE taking jobs away from Equity members. you're just seeing the glass half-full, it's the same thing. Jobs that, several years ago, would only be offered to Equity actors are now being offered to Non-Eq.

[mominator]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 6:29pm

I just hope that this can be resolved soon.
B

Updated On: 6/30/04 at 06:29 PM

[Dolly_Levi]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 6:33pm

Oh no, not all this eq. vs. non-eq again...

[boborunstheshow]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 11:21pm

I have no sympathy. If they truely are the better actors, then they will have nothing to fear. Competition makes a better production.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 11:38pm

It's not about competition! It's about actor's fair rights and wages. I'm not going to go through this AGAIN with you guys.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 11:48pm

Do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Matt_G]

Posted: 6/30/04 at 11:59pm

Oh, dear God don't get him started again.

[Phantom2]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:07am

Oh look, a soap box!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:14am

And, I am telling you, I'm not going back [on that soapbox]!

Updated On: 7/1/04 at 12:14 AM

[Matt_G]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:15am

That's the best soap, I've ever had!

[Phantom2]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:33am

I'm an Ivory baby...

[boborunstheshow]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:33am

im not talking about wages. Im referring to "losing jobs" i dont know about the money issue. I do not sympathize for people trying to get around the fact that there are better people out there for the job

[Phantom2]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:37am

Where's that bar of soap?

[Dawg]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:42am

I cannot swear that all the Equity actors in the world are in fact, more talented performers than those not in the union. I will however say, that because of guidelines adhered to under Union jurisdiction shows, the actors are better taken care of and contributing to the belief that they deserve certain working and living conditions while working under such a contract. To work in a non-union environment simply states to producers that actors do not need to be treated with respect, dignity and some basic human conditions afforded to those in the union. There are exceptions to this rule. Several theatre companies which treat non-union actors wonderfully, but I can pretty much guarantee that if they are non-union, chances are they are not part of a health and pension plan.

So no matter what your stance, the truth of the matter is, a non-equity National tour is contributing to this misconception that acting is not a "real" career and actors do not indeed, deserve the same treatment as people in other careers.

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:53am

Yes indeed...a few people here need to have their mouths washed out with that soap. In particular, a little jerk who likes to use swear words in posting responses to other members. But fortunately, there is a great owner of this site who doesn't like that bull either. But if swearing to others for sharing their opinions makes them feel like big boys, then let's indulge their Equity fantasy!

And Bob and Matt: Don't bother with these folks. Just always remember, as THEY say (not matter how much they deny it): Equity is better and they deserve to get whatever they want!

Go Equity! Rah Rah!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:20am

oh, Mr. Tuttle--it just wouldn't be an Equity thread without your deeply wise comments.

Keep em comin'--they are very entertaining!

Cheers!

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 10:15am

there's that childish voice again - just screaming "I'm a non-equity performer who can't get a job to save my life"...poor bitter thing...lets all pray for him to get his equity card and see just how much easier it is to find work...LOL....

Posted: 7/1/04 at 10:25am

I have not learned enough to make a totally learned decision however I have heard from many that it is a catch 22 situation. In order to get an Equity Card you have to be in an Equity Show but in order to get an Equity show you have to have an Equity Card..... What is that all about?

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 10:36am

Jon - its much more complicated than that - if you look on line (maybe backstage on line or find an address for an equity website) you will find a detailed explanation of how a person can get their card.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 10:45am

Dawg - "Actually, they ARE taking jobs away from Equity members. you're just seeing the glass half-full, it's the same thing. Jobs that, several years ago, would only be offered to Equity actors are now being offered to Non-Eq."

Actually, that is not correct. Non-Equity tours have been around for decades. They are just playing in better houses now. And there are dar more Equity tours now than there used to be. So no, they are not taking anything away from Equity actors.

[amasis]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 11:23am

I've been lurking on these boards for quite a bit and have been following the whole discussion regarding Equity vs. non-equity tour. I have to say I don't quite get bobo's argument that "if they are truly better actors, they have nothing to fear" and "competitions make for better productions." Talent and/or skills don't protect anyone from exploitation. And that's what the union is there for. Unions in general exist to protect its members and help them collectively get negotiating power. As Dawg was saying in his post, being a union member protects the actors because it sets certain conditions: how much they have to get paid, the fact that they shouldn't be required to lug sets around, what kind of health benefits they receive, etc.

Talent is not really what it's about, and competition isn't really what it's about. It's not like Equity and non-Equity are two different companies fighting for market-share.

If a non-member, talented actor A get a lead role on Broadway, he/she would automatically be made Equity, and get the corresponding benefits, because Broadway production have to be Equity productions. However, if the same guy gets a lead role on a touring production, he won't necessarily be made Equity and get the benefits, because the producers aren't required to do that. It's not talent vs. no-talent. It's just in the 2nd scenario, the actor is more at the mercy of the producer. His position to negotiate isn't very strong, especially if he really wants the job. That's what I meant by talent not protecting them from being exploited. The thing is, the people making decisions on equity vs. non-equity are the producers. And in some cases, they are probably not making decisions based on talent or 'better people for the jobs', but on profit margins.