EQUITY STRIKE — Page 2

Nope. It is because the actors choose not to go Equity so they can get more work.

---

It is something that Equity need to figure out, though. Being in Equity might offer better working conditions for the actors, but unless they live in (or plan to move to) NYC or a couple other areas, it might also make it hard for them to get jobs. Most people in that situation, I imagine, would prefer keeping their work options open, even if it means accepting poorer conditions. Can't blame them for that.

of course he has no problem with it, he's working and he doesn't know better. If he had the choice between that tour, and one that provided health insurance and other benefits, as well as rules that would protect him, I think his choice would be clear.

Also--where you live has nothing to do with non-equity vs. equity touring contracts-I can easily say a good 90% if not more of these non eq tours are cast out of NYC, and I'm pretty sure if you ask many non-union actors on these tours where they call home, they'll tell you NYC.

It's true that other parts of the country are not saturated with work the way NYC is, and conditions are different for them and the norm is that you will work non-equity, simply because there is no equity work available.

Yes there is a great deal of non-equity work out there, but the main argument is that the Equity work out there is standardized by the union and the performers are protected under a contract that Producers are not going to give you if they don't have to.

"of course he has no problem with it, he's working and he doesn't know better"

LOL! He DOES know better. He has the Equity points to get his card, but preferred not to do it because he has no future plans of moving to NYC and the card most likely would not benefit him after the tour is finished. Some non-Eq tours are cast in NYC, but many of them have national auditions, or in the case of Miss Saigon, were based on a regional production that later went on tour.

"Yes there is a great deal of non-equity work out there"

About 75% more than Equity work outside of NYC.

"but the main argument is that the Equity work out there is standardized by the union and the performers are protected under a contract that Producers are not going to give you if they don't have to"

For which you have a much MUCH slimmer chance of getting the work, which in many cities, the leads are cast out of NYC. It simply isn't worth it.

As I've said numerous times before, if Equity were as expansive as SAG or AFTRA nationwide, then I could see the point, but the union really only benefits actors in NYC. As for national tours, if non-Eq actors should have the option to tour just like anyone else. It is not Equity-exclusive territory. If Equity is so "concerned" about non-Eq actors, they have a LOT more issues to contend with than a few non-Eq tours. How about the cruise lines that for the actors to do custodial work when they are not performing and cram them 4 to a cabin (I have many friends that did this only once)? What about the vast majority of actors getting practically nothing for the work they do professionally? Equity is doing NOTHING. How about campaigning to get more theatres to include Equity contracts. Nope. To say this is not about competition (and there is more than one form of competition besides Pepsi vs. Coke) is delusion. Equity is pissed off that non-Eq tours are invading their turf and are using semantics and "hertfelt concern" as their weapons of choice.

---

Be fair. Equity is also pissed that producers in the League are selling their right to the first Nationals of major productions to Non-Eq. companies.

Do I think there should be no non-eq. tours? Of course not (though the ones I've seen over the years have been less than stellar). Non-eq. tours actually serve a very valuable function. They give young actors a chance to cut their teeth in a (hopefully) professional setting (many friends have done non-eq. tours and had great times). The issue is with the League, not Troika (who has shown themselves open to working w/ Equity) or non-Equity actors, and their practices of sending out first Nationals as non-eq, which is a major shift from just a few years ago.

---

"Sorry, Mister Matt, but your wanting Equity to intervene in cruise ships and adding more theatres, but not tours is a double standard."

Actually, it's the opposite. I would understand fighting non-Eq tours if they were doing something else to broaden their scope nationally, but the non-Eq tours is their only concern regarding non-Eq actors nationally. THAT is the double-standard. The offer to make all non-Eq tours Equity on the spot - would that make the productions better? No. It would benefit the actors and cost the producers, but it would not suddenly change the talent in the show or the sets or costumes or orchestras or anything else. So why do they complain about the quality of non-Eq tours involved in the same season at the same venues (which, in some cases, they are superior to the Equity tours)? That is also a double-standard. If they were not concerned with the competition of non-Eq tours doing first national tours, then why are they choosing to do something about them specifically and not anything else?

"Any theatre can become Equity if it wants to--you make it sound like Equity doesn't allow it."

I didn't say that at all. I know it is up to the theatre, but Equity is doing nothing to try and get more theatres involved.

"A non-Equity tour of a current or recent Broadway production should only become non-Equity when it has played for years and begins to hit the small venues--like the Galveston house that I mentioned."

Sorry, but that sounds exactly like the elitist attitude I referred to in our previous discussion. In other words, you're saying the little people should not have the right to perform new material because only the Equity actors should have the right to perform it until it becomes old and tired and then you can throw the non-Eq folks a bone.

"If that's how you want to live, then, yes that's your choice."

Which was actually the point I made.

"If you want to state to producers that actors do not deserve to be treated with respect and standard rights, then stay non-union and continue fighting for nothing."

And that is not what I believe. I do believe stage actors deserve the respect and benefits of regular jobs, but if Equity is their only option, then they really don't have much of a chance unless they live in New York, which are the only actors that truly benefit from the union (and the only ones that Equity seems to take an interest in).

PS - I had a feeling the cruise ship thing might have something to do with the waters, but I wasn't sure.

---

I LOVE ROLLERCOASTERS! That is something we can agree on.

---

Ok...there are about 400 points being made and it's spiraling out of control!

WHO CARES ABOUT CRUISE SHIPS???

Had to get that off my chest. The thing I'm not understanding, Matt, is the offense you seem to be taking at Equity's demands. Look, traditionally, First Nationals have always gone out under Equity production contracts. Over the past few years, producers have tried to change that, selling their properties to non-eq companies which has resulted in fewer jobs for Equity members. Now the union is playing hardball, which is exactly what a union should be doing. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this. It's how unions work. The rest is rhetoric.

---

oh yea! Some cotton candy!!

---

I would also look at the demand for theatre in a city. Do you really think Houston has room for more theatre when so many theatres close--and those are just the non-Equity theatres. Equity theatre is a much larger gamble. The major theatres in Houston have enough trouble with their ticket sales and funding. Do you really think Houston can support more than it already (barely) does?

---

Updated On: 7/1/04 at 04:46 PM

They don't only focus on NYC--that is ridiculous! There are major offices in Chicago and LA and every major city has an office--or representation.

---

So sorry to disrupt the flow of the debate...but I'm pretty much freaking out. I'm new (obviously) and I apologize if this is a stupid question that I should know the answer to, but let's say one has non-refundable tickets to a show this weekend...and it's not at Roundabout, The Lincoln Center, etc. Will the show be closed? Or, at the very least, what are the chances of the strike occuring this weekend? Or is it anyone's guess? Someone help me, please. I will be very, very grateful.