EQUITY STRIKE- Page 2

[Dawg]

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

Actually, that is correct. Tours which normally would go to Equity actors, First Nationals including Oklahoma and Music Man, several years ago, would have been jobs that Equity actors would have held.

It has nothing to do with the talent of Equity vs. Non Equity, it has to do only with the fact that Non Equity performers are willing to accept worse conditions and lower pay, branding themselves as being WORTH worse conditions and lower pay.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 11:30am

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

[Dawg]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 11:37am

and thus, accept poorer working conditions FOR that work.

[amasis]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 11:50am

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.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 11:53am

Sure. Otherwise, their only choice is to move to NYC if they want to work and that is not feasible for every actor. The non-Equity tours give another option to those who don't wish to move to NYC and want more work. The conditions are not always terrible, as my friend in the Miss Saigon tour has pointed out to me. He knew the conditions of the contract and he wanted to do the tour. He has no problem with it.

[Dawg]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:03pm

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.

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:09pm

That's what I was thinking. Aren't most non-eq. tours cast out of NYC?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:48pm

"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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 12:59pm

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

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

Non-Equity tours sure as hell do not belong at Equity theatres or in union houses. Using Houston as an example:

Theatre Under The Stars is an Equity theatre that produces its shows in a union (referring to the crew) house. It has been presenting non-Equity tours.

Broadway in Houston has been presenting non-Equity tours in that same house. And, this isn't like the opera house in Galveston that has always hosted non-Equity tours. This is the company that we grew up with presenting the Broadway National Tours that made us fall in love with theatre and Broadway in the first place.

Broadway shows should not go out on tour as non-Equity directly. 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.

This is the way it had been done for years. This is what Equity is fighting to reinstate.

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:02pm

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.

[Dawg]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 1:10pm

I second that jrb...I feel it's an uphill battle with this one, but to add...

Equity cannot have jurisdiction over a cruise ship, since waters, by law, are international-not allowing for union jurisdiction.

Which brings me to the point I have been trying to make...If you want to do a cruise, if you want to do a non-eq tour, if you want to work ANYWHERE, it is your choice as to what conditions you accept. YOU sign the contract that says "menial labor included," YOU sign the contract that says "you are not going to get any kind of breaks," "you will do the show 17 times in a matter of 4 hours," "you will move the scenery, in addition to act and get paid less than an office temp receptionist, because we aren't required by the union to have any more respect for you than that."

If that's how you want to live, then, yes that's your choice. If you want to accept far less than what you're worth, again it's you choice. 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.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 2:59pm

"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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 3:04pm

I'm going to let Dawg and amasis continue this with you, Mister Matt, because this conversation just keeps going 'round and 'round.

I wanna go ride the roller coaster now!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 3:09pm

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

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 3:12pm

Yes, but which would you rather ride:

a roller coaster built and run by union workers

or

a roller coaster built and run by prison dudes doing community service?

LOL!

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 3:13pm

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.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 4:22pm

Yes, "traditionally" those tours have been Equity, but that does not mean the properties have to be exclusively Equity. Sure Equity is trying to protect their own, but they do so under the false pretense that they are trying to provide protection for all actors. What they fail to mention is that they are only really trying to protect the preexisting Equity actors, rather than expand their coverage. Had the tours not been sold to non-Eq companies, does it mean they would have been produced as Equity tours? No. Therefore, it did not actually mean fewer jobs for Equity actors, it just meant more jobs for non-Equity actors.

As I have said many times before, I want the same goals as Equity. I don't have a problem with their goals, just their practices. If they worked harder to protect the actors in the rest of the country, I would be much more willing to support them, but they don't. And if they were more nationally representative (like SAG or AFTRA), they would have hundreds of thousands more members, making it much more difficult for tours like these to get produced. Back when The Music Man was an issue, can you imagine how effective a picketing demonstration would have been had all the professional actors in Chicago been Equity rather than just 5% (and that's being optimistic)? But in big theatre cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, Seattle, Houston, Equity has proved that they are not concerned with them, so why should they be concerned about Equity?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 4:31pm

oh yea! Some cotton candy!!

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 4:41pm

I don't know if I agree with you about those other cities. Can their economies really support the sheer size of professional, Equity theatre that happens in NYC? Placing the brunt of that on Equity is really unfair. Could Equity do more outreach in these cities? Of course. But they must be met by governmental and private funds (and, indeed, infrastructures) to create that type of theatrical community.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 4:46pm

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

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:15pm

jrb - But haven't you noticed that the theatres that close are not the Equity theatres? Houston does have a habit of supporting their Equity theatres because they take them more seriously. The rest of the theatres have to struggle or become non-profit because they are not Equity, which to the outsider means they don't work as hard or they are regarded as amateur community theatres. When I left Houston, there were far too many theatres than actors. Auditions were pointless because everyone was already working on a show or committed to a show. Casting was a nightmare for many theatres. The closing of some theatres helped to regain the balance. I know for a fact that The Little Room Downstairs closing had nothing to do with ticket sales or funding or lack of support. Which was a shame. It could easily have become another Equity theatre in town. There was enough funding available for expansion. The theatre had quickly become fairly well-respected and the critics were incredibly supportive. It all boiled down to lack of business sense.

robbiej - Equity theatres are not about size. There are small Equity houses all over the country including NYC. Perhaps if Equity could make it a national issue, it could bring more attention to the existing professional theatres and their actors. How can Equity expect the country to take professional actors seriously when they only concentrate on those in NYC? If Equity truly wants to represent the professional actor, then they do have to take responsibility for their outreach.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:23pm

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.

[robbiej]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:24pm

Wait, Matt. I'm not completely unsure what you're saying. I'm very much aware of the network of small (and not so small) Equity houses that are all over the country. And I'm also perfectly aware that most actors could not possibly make a living based on the economics of those small theatres. I'm not sure what Equity could do to ensure that actors earn 'livable' wages at these theatres. I made $275 a week for my glorious off-Broadway debut. It was very glamorous.

When I was referring to size, I wasn't referring to the size of the actual theatres, but to the theatre communities. Can those cities handle the number of Equity houses of varying sizes that NYC can? Can their populations support the volume of theatre that happens in NYC? I truly don't know.

I don't know what Equities outreach is. I know they have regional offices all over this country. But I can guarantee you one thing. Those producing entities that are currently negotiating w/ Equity DO NOT want another city in this country to have a theatre scene like NYC. Then people won't come to this city to see their shows and the tours they send out (both Eq. and Non-Eq) would be much less profitable.

[Everything_Matters]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:32pm

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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/1/04 at 5:37pm

talks are resuming 7/6, so all shows through then are happening.

but, you would be able to get a refund should the strike have happened.