#26
Posted: 6/2/04 at 2:10pm
Here's the conclusion:
CONCLUSION
Actors’ Equity Association is our representative when it comes to the negotiating and regulating of our contracts. This is understood and embraced by every member of our company. In the case of the concessions made to our contract, which were voted on and approved by our elected council, we feel that we have been misrepresented. If it is Equity’s duty to represent us, as well as to “inform” us, they have failed. We were not made completely aware of which final concessions
were under consideration and voted upon nor were we consulted with regard to how these concessions might affect us. Our fear is that this is only a microcosm of the future of touring and the Production Contract. There has been no specific mention of what is being discussed in the negotiations in regards to the touring issues and since our Union was willing to make sacrifices to the touring contract without consulting the actors that it directly affects and which have no impact on the Union’s financial bottom line, our concern is that the concessions made to our contract mirror the future of touring and the Production Contract as a whole.
We are willing to make concessions to ensure the longevity of the show, but it is objectionable, to lower the out-of-town living standards, which have been long established not only by AEA and Producers, but also by the government and the general business community.
We understand that the health plan is extremely important. However, when looking at the preamble of AEA’s constitution, Equity is called to “advance, promote, foster, and benefit” its members, including those in the 1st National Tour of Thoroughly Modern Millie, and the “conditions of persons engaged therein.” How can Equity claim that the actions regarding the concessions made to our contract reflect this statement? We ask that our suggestions be seriously considered and would appreciate an immediate reply.
CONCLUSION
Actors’ Equity Association is our representative when it comes to the negotiating and regulating of our contracts. This is understood and embraced by every member of our company. In the case of the concessions made to our contract, which were voted on and approved by our elected council, we feel that we have been misrepresented. If it is Equity’s duty to represent us, as well as to “inform” us, they have failed. We were not made completely aware of which final concessions
were under consideration and voted upon nor were we consulted with regard to how these concessions might affect us. Our fear is that this is only a microcosm of the future of touring and the Production Contract. There has been no specific mention of what is being discussed in the negotiations in regards to the touring issues and since our Union was willing to make sacrifices to the touring contract without consulting the actors that it directly affects and which have no impact on the Union’s financial bottom line, our concern is that the concessions made to our contract mirror the future of touring and the Production Contract as a whole.
We are willing to make concessions to ensure the longevity of the show, but it is objectionable, to lower the out-of-town living standards, which have been long established not only by AEA and Producers, but also by the government and the general business community.
We understand that the health plan is extremely important. However, when looking at the preamble of AEA’s constitution, Equity is called to “advance, promote, foster, and benefit” its members, including those in the 1st National Tour of Thoroughly Modern Millie, and the “conditions of persons engaged therein.” How can Equity claim that the actions regarding the concessions made to our contract reflect this statement? We ask that our suggestions be seriously considered and would appreciate an immediate reply.
Stop worrying about what I'm doing -- focus instead on what you're eating.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
