Broadway League Threatens Lawsuits Against Casting Directors

Ok so of course I knew about this and just finished reading that article...I 1110005557579575757% support the CD's and their goal to have their own union, have benefits, etc. and I DO NOT support what is in essence, bullying tactics by the League, I will always be on the side of the underdog because I'm also tired of the "powers that be" merely thinking that those underneath them are whining/crying sour grapes and should "work hard for what they get" and all the bull**** cliches that come with these fights...however, saying that these casting offices are not employees of the shows themselves because they're third party independent contractors in conjunction with the shows they cast is correct. So...what can be done to move forward in this fight? Make them actual employees of the show? Something else entirely? It's obvious that the film/TV world has made this work, therefore it's only right and fair that the world of theatre do the same. I'm just not sure what the most useful course of action would be since being a CD has only been thought of as career for maybe only the last few years. Even five years ago, this wasn't the case just yet so this is still a relatively newfangled notion. I'm just glad this viewpoint is changing, and rapidly at that.

I've been wondering that also, Kad. I don't know the details, but why don't the casting companies (eg Telsey & Co) offer benefits to their employees, like any other business? I'm not on anyone's side, just curious.

Updated On: 6/21/17 at 11:29 AM

Unfortunately, labor relations is always conducted in hyperbole. And some things are being twisted on both sides.

That said, the "model" you (Kad) refer to is that designers choreographers and directors are personally engaged, whereas presently casting directors are not. One hires a corporation, not a person. A director does not send someone else to cover for him or her at a rehearsal. And an assistant director is employed by the production, and gets benefits from the production.

I don't care which way this works out, but it does bug me that the CD's are looking for benefits for themselves but not for their employees many of whom get no benefits from their employers. This strikes me as disingenuous to the extreme and I think it is unfortunate that many of those knee jerk supporting the CDs are ignoring this issue.

@trp, yes IATSE seems like a better fit but it is up to the employees to choose their alignment. No one else has a say in the matter. Retaliation is illegal, but that presupposes that the CDs are employees which they are not currently, so in essence they are asking to be deemed employees. That is what the expedited proceeding the league is suggesting is about. (This is more complicated but I think that is a fair summary, though I am open to hearing why it is not.)

@Sue, yes the ATPAM precedent is the apt one, and is the inconsistency in the League's position although I suppose they can say it was a mistake and is not precedential.

Telsey + Co also has fairly demanding unpaid internships that they prefer to be full-time.

Which is actually very illegal! Anyway. Casting offices should give their employees benefits because they are employers. Just my two cents.

I know of at least one person who works for Telsey as an associate and gets benefits, so at least some employees do. Telsey is a little unusual among NY casting offices because they're so big and do so much film and TV on top of theatre, so what works for them doesn't necessarily work for Rubin or Binder or the others which are much smaller operations. Telsey handles way more shows than any other office and have a considerably larger staff than any of the others (as well as their own private audition studios). And every casting office uses interns, and they do a lot of work and the hours are indeed long. But they also learn in up-close detail exactly how the casting process works, which is something you can only learn by watching it unfold.

This battle isn't so much about the assistants and people who keep the office running, this is more about the person whose name is listed as the specific CD for a given show - they're not asking the producers to provide health insurance for all their employees, they're trying to get it for the point person on each project just as the other independent contractors get. It's a complicated situation, and the CDs have said that this is less about getting it for themselves as it is setting a precedent so that future CDs will have some protection starting earlier in their careers.

There's no clear easy solution, but the Broadway League threatening lawsuits is absolutely unreasonable and I can't imagine will help their side at all.

Any office that employs over the ACA threshold must cover anyone who works the required hours. The logic of having one person covered and no one else escapes me on several different levels. And currently the contract is with the agency not one person except in small unincorporated offices.

Regarding the "threats," this is just standard lawyer stuff, that is being standardly spun. As I said before, unfortunately, hyperbole is the name of the game in labor relations. Everything will fit into place once the NLRB rules, and that ruling has nothing to do with the "unreasonableness" of threats. (Meaning that, if the ruling is that the local is indeed a cartel and not a union of employees, then any damaging action taken is an actionable tort. If they are a union, then it is not and the threat may be out of line. I suspect the league is confident it will prevail on the merits.)

also @Yero, directors and designers are not independent contractors. Nothing has changed in decades. No union employee receives direct coverage from the producer. As AEA explains, contributions are made to the collectively bargained plans. Playwrights are not employees and are not in a union and do not receive benefits.

@Yero, directors and designers are not independent contractors.



An independent contractor is defined as someone paid on a 1099 instead of a W2. I have worked in finance, HR, and payroll for producers and professional theater companies for my entire career, and they have always been treated as independent contractors (no taxes deducted, no employer provided health insurance, they don't receive unemployment or workers comp benefits, and they own their work). While I was at one company, that actually caused a lot of problems for SDC because some of their directors claimed unemployment or workers comp and they were denied because they were not employees. I don't know how those issues were resolved, if they ever were.



The problem is that the theater industry predates tax law, so many of the job roles that exist in theater do not fit cleanly into one category or the other. But at the end of the day, legally, an employee is someone paid on a W2 and an independent contractor is someone paid on a 1099. If the government tells you no, that person is actually an employee, then you have to start paying them on a W2.



They don't receive insurance coverage directly from the producer, but the producer does make payments into their respective unions' health funds. For instance, the producers currently pay an initial fee of $2100 and a weekly payment of $220 into SDC's health fund for directors and choreographers and for their pension it's an initial payment of $2163 and a weekly payment of $215.



That is true, and part of why SDC had those issues I alluded to. Legally, they should not be a union and should not be providing health insurance. However, they are and they do, and they probably have been since before current tax laws.



It is very complicated, and part of what I spend most of my days dealing with. Frankly, I'm glad it is so complicated, or I wouldn't have a career!

@yero, sorry but you are wrong. The fact that you think you are right and that the NLRB, IRS and DOL are wrong tells us just about everything we need to know.