Actors' Equity To Expand Membership — Page 2

Broadway61004 said: "If this means that all the non-union houses are going to suddenly go Equity because they now have performers in their talent pool who are Equity, then this would be great. But we all know that is 100% the opposite of what is going to happen and that not a single new Equity job is going to be created because of this. So now, instead of having a union of 51,000+ members for around 19,000 union jobs throughout a fiscal year, keeping 60% of their members unemployed each year, there will be a union of quite realistically 100,000+ members for the same number of jobs, keeping 75% of their members unemployed each year. If that's progress, then I'm a wizard from Mars."

THANK YOU. Sometimes I feel like I’m taking crazy pills for thinking along these lines, but I know I’m not the only one. Opening the floodgates without creating available work does NOTHING except backfire.

Tapping23 said: "
that’s not true. Those regional productions have a number of equity spots they have to fill and then the rest can be non-equity. Normally the ensemble and smaller roles. They wont be able to do non-equity tours or regional shows that are not under AEA contracts

"

I think you’re all missing my point entirely, which is probably my own fault. Circa 2015, there was a huge influx to NYC of actors of all union statuses. Since then, auditions have been so crowded that the chances of being seen as a non-union performer at a call for a union production has become slim-to-none. Yes, these non-union/EMC spots exist, but they are generally not going to those auditioning in NYC who are not already EMC.

@The Distinctive Baritone, that would all be well and good if I weren’t an NYC native and already living here lol.

If you weren’t getting seen as a Non-Eq you were going to the wrong calls to begin with.

And yeah of course the “successful” actors don’t care. They aren’t going to EPAs and things so it doesn’t effect them. The union calls have already been crowded now with online signs up and so this audition season is gonna be a bust.


also, took a non/union gig in the city to get my EMC points while working a bartending gig on my off days and during the day just to survive, but now you can just pay some money and join. So I get it, it’s a business. But I can see why there’s some backlash.

Updated On: 7/21/21 at 01:01 PM

This is really just a cash grab by AEA. Think of the kids that will now skip college and think joining the union will be a fast pass to a career.

massofmen said: "AEA should start auditioning people to be in the union.
Every year there is a signup and you come in or send in a tape and the UNION decides who should join the union, not a regional theatre.
Then there is some sort of "level" of talent in the union.
Instead of someone going on a childrens tour playing a donkey and getting their union card at the end of that"

It's a labor union, not a repertory company. The only ability that matters is the ability to get work.

I think the hysteria on this thread and elsewhere is ludicrous- not to mention self-serving.

People could join AEA by three routes: EMC weeks (50 or 25), by securing just ONE union contract, or joining through membership of SAG-AFTRA, AGVA, AGMA, or GIAA. Why are folks acting like it was so discerning or elite?

Folks still have to prove they have worked professionally. This doesn't through open the gates to community theaters or drama clubs. And, no, kids aren't going to forego college to join the union (though, at current college tuition rates, it probably isn't a terrible idea if they're already getting work). There aren't scores of non-equity professional theater companies in this country. There are non-Eq tours, there are weird outliers like Sight & Sound in PA that do huge religious spectacle shows with insane schedules and will never unionize, and there are quite small professional companies in smaller cities like Buffalo that pay a stipend.

I think you would be hard-pressed to rationally argue that a person who did a single non-Eq tour shouldn't be able to join but a person who did a single Equity show in a small SPT should be, based on the merits of the work. But that's how it was.

As for this being a "cash grab"... dues are a union's ONLY income source. That's it. Unions are not profit making ventures. By law, they can't be. And AEA just lost a year and a half of income. Of course this will help fill their coffers- but it will also open access to the union. It can be both. You want AEA to do all the things? It needs money.

Updated On: 7/22/21 at 11:11 AM

And her salary is competitive with the executive directors of other unions, and is still below that of the lawyers hired by Broadway League to negotiate. This doesn't exist in a vacuum.

When Mary leaves next year, you want to cut that base salary? Then you lose qualified applicants who are looking for and expecting a similar rate. Or you screw over her successor. How will it look if her successor is a Black woman, making 1/3rd of what she made?

The members may be out of work, but AEA staff are still very much working.

Updated On: 7/22/21 at 11:40 AM

Everybody's so damn concerned about lack of job opportunities in this thread. The market will be too competitive, you say. "Too many actors, not enough jobs!" Alright, fine, here's an idea for ya then.

Even producers concede that, at this point, eight shows a week (on Broadway or anywhere else adhering to the traditional schedule -- national tours, etc.) is ridiculous in terms of maintaining energy levels and sustaining lengthy careers. Indeed, post-pandemic, many productions are returning, at least initially, with a reduced schedule. (Not by a hell of a lot, usually six as opposed to eight, but it is reduced.)

What if we could keep eight shows a week and maintain energy levels and create jobs? How, you ask? Well, a model exists: let's look at how we (are supposed to) handle child actors. Child roles on Broadway are often double cast, which means multiple children will share one role with an alternating performance schedule. That way, you adhere to child labor laws, you don't overwork the kid, etc. Well, don't adults deserve at least that consideration?

Let's take that youth principle and, in order to create jobs for hundreds of thousands of potentially unemployed performers, extend it to the entire adult cast of a show: for sake of example, we'll call them Team A and Team B. You split the eight-show week evenly between them, non-consecutively (one on, one off), four for Team A and four for Team B. Two-show days, one does the matinee, one does the evening. Understudies? That's easy; pluck from whichever team isn't on that night, give 'em the understudy bonus.

Rehearsal is just like the good old bad old days of the British import replicas hitting the road: the creative team goes room to room, everybody gets the same instructions. But, owing to the variable of each performer's uniqueness, how those instructions are transmitted to the audience through performance is different. Every actor still gets to be their unique creative self, and earn a wage doing so.

Is it any less costly? Likely not. But a lot of the long-runners can probably afford it.

HogansHero said: "who do you propose to pay for this?

also, right now producers are scared to death they won't find enough audience for shows coming back. Now you are going to up the ante?"

I am a producer, thank you very much, and a number of people are going to reap what they sow for this. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Legally, benefits have to be made equally to all workers on a contract type, which is why producers have to make contributions for all people working on AEA contracts in a production, regardless of whether or not they are all are planning on using AEA's insurance. The contributions go into a pooled trust that pays for everyone. It's an all or nothing system that is required by law.

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "Why are you acting like it's not the League I'd have to convince? Equity loves jobs, and they practically bend over backwards even to their detriment for them. (Witness: SETA, developmental labs -- the fact they even exist, not the most recent kerfuffle, etc.)"

Well... my original question was about the unlikelihood of convincing producers of your plan. My follow up was directed at what I see as the equal problem of convincing Equity. There are a host of contractual issues even if I were inclined to accept your assessment of AEA's agenda.

I applaud you for thinking outside the box. I just think that, on this one, you could use a little packing tape.