Equity to Protest Non-Union Touring Productions at Oct. 29 Times Square Rally

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 10/28/03 at 7:21pm

What's up with this? Is the union just being greedy? Why not give someone that isn't an Equity member a chance to become a star and when they do more productions, make them become a member?
Equity to Protest Non-Union Touring Productions at Oct. 29 Times Square Rally

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 10/28/03 at 7:23pm

And why are Bway stars also protesting? Shouldn't they be supportive?

[bestofbroadway]

Posted: 10/28/03 at 7:33pm

I'm sorry BwayTheater11, I would have to support this, for many reasons.
It says they are "to protest the proliferation of non-union touring productions which advertise themselves as being of BROADWAY QUALITY." I have seen a couple of non-union touring productions, most recently the touring productions of 42nd Street and The Music Man. Both were no where near "BROADWAY QUALITY." The Music Man Tour was horrific and 42nd Street was a mess. I am sorry but I will support anything to stop these mediocre productions. It's all about where the talent lies and I'm sorry but in both of those tours there was absolutely NO talent.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 10/28/03 at 7:37pm

Please understand the issues here before you lash out at Equity's legitimate gripe. I will add to this partial statement below, that the patrons that go to these shows are charged Broadway prices as well as kept in the dark about a show's status as union or non-union. From ushers to mgmt. they will play dumb about it.


“...Big League continues to bring non-Equity productions to major metropolitan theatrical hubs without providing fair wages and benefits to the actors and stage managers in those productions,” said Equity in a statement, “and repeated requests by Actors' Equity to negotiate a contract have been ignored.” The union is particularly irritated by Big League and other producing organizations’ practice of trumpeting such tours with phrases such as “Broadway Series” or “direct from Broadway..."

Non equity shows can sometimes be as equally as wonderful as Broadway, but they should not be presented as such. I met up with a friend touring in this Miss Saigon show a few weeks ago. Trust me, it's not Broadway standards working with them either. But he's thankful to pay his NY rent while he's looking for other work.

Everything is it's proper place for a proper fee.

Updated On: 10/28/03 at 07:37 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/28/03 at 10:05pm

Perhaps Equity should work at getting more color blind casting on Broadway. When that is fixed, then they can begin working on other productions.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/28/03 at 10:24pm

Non-equity tours of this sort are an injustice to the actors and to the audience.
Non-equity actors can work in regional productions to gain experience, joining when they are ready or offered the card. I earned all 50 points to earn my card, and not one week of it included a tour of any kind. There isn't any less of a chance for a non-Equity actor to "become a star", etc. if the tours are rightfully returned to Equity status.

=)

[WSS2]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 12:47am

Equity is loosing ground and they know it.

Perhaps we've heard of "free enterprise"? What gives Equity the right to tell others how to run their business? And "Broadway quality" is a registered trademark of whom? What gives them the right to say "you can't use this slogan"? Truth is..they have no right...they're just trying to make it look like they do.

And why? They're loosing jobs for their membership. They don't want to face the economic realities of producing threater today. Don't fool yourself about Equity being "concerned" about the treatment of non Equity actors. They could CARE less about them. Just look at the horrific managment of their supposed "EMC" program where theaters (that are Equity signed) can abuse the work of the "EMC"'s. Does Equity care? NO.

And do they care about their own members? Let's take a look at what Equity just did. With the ridiculous health benefit slashes they made to the people they "care" about, that has proved what this organization is really all about.

Also, they see the writing on the wall. With all these unions (Equity included) demanding high end pay, who exactly is going to pick uo the tab for all this? Equity is pricing itself right out of their own game. And they know it.

The majority of people who mare mad are the Equity actors who see jobs slipping away. But perhaps if their union negotiated and worked with these tours, maybe they'd be working.

Non Equity tours are here to stay folks. You can protest all you want. You can boycott all you want. But they will be here for years and years. One day Equity will realize that but, alas, too late.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 1:13am

I'm sorry WSS2, but so much of what you said is based in complete ignorance. I know that this has been a hot topic between you and I for a long time. I really wish I knew what exactly ticked you off so badly about Equity. Or, are you a producer of some kind that deeply resents the union? I ask these questions genuinely as I think it bears relevance to your vitriolic comments. Where do such anti-Equity views come from someone who is a member of a Broadway-lovers web site?---every single Broadway actor is Equity.
I think it is you who has to understand that Equity is here to stay. Why shouldn't performers have unions to protect them just like any working professionals?

And for the record: I was never once treated as anything but a professional during every week of my 50 points in various theatres. If you are trying to earn points at a theatre that treats you like crap---go to another theatre or city.
In addition: name an arts organization in this country that hasn't been hurt by the economy, thus affecting health benefits. If you actually read the information coming form Equity regarding the matter, you'd understand better.

Furthermore: the word is losing not loosing.

Updated On: 10/29/03 at 01:13 AM

[Here_I_Go_Again]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 2:06am

i thought 42nd street was an EQUITY tour... Am i wrong

[WSS2]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 2:35am

JRB:

I think you need a time out. Chill.

I am voicing my opinion of this subject. I have backed mine up with facts. Where are yours?

You go jumping down my throat for no reason at all. You claim my comments are ignorat, yet prove nothing with yours (who asked or cares about your EMC experience. So happy you had a good one). The you claim I'm someone that I'm not cause you don't like my opinions.

Grow up. If you don't like what someone posts, THEN MOVE ON.

[Horsey]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 2:38am

What about protesting James Brolin playing Ronald Reagan in a TV movie? Or, the predicted transit fare increase (again!)?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 2:43am

good grief--I wasn't jumping down your throat--just asking some questions. No, you didn't back up your information with facts. And, I responded to your post because it was filled with an incorrect representation of truth about Equity.

And, I honestly and sincerely wish I knew why you were so bitter about Equity.

(For those new to this debate between me and WSS2--it's practically the same comments thrown at each other as has been seen in previous threads.)

[Horsey]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 2:48am

"Why can't we all just get along?"

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 8:29am

I have to agree with WSS2. Equity has become a dues producing machine. Unions in America now only represent about 10% of the working population and that number is decreasing steadily. There was a time when unions were needed, but now they have become too greedy and mismanaged.

Updated On: 10/29/03 at 08:29 AM

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 9:09am

This particular grievence is NOT about the faults of Equity or Non- Equity! Or which is better or who's fair and unfair.

READ THE ARTICLE AGAIN, please. It's about "theaters bringing in touring productions falsely represented as "Broadway Series or Broadway Productions" paying the actors non-equity salary,and charging the patrons eqiuty ticket prices. It higlights some of the facets of non-equity conditions and the possibility of negotiating for a better contract to promote fairness.

I'm not trying to start a new battle in the old Equity vs Non-Equity war. Of course, this is an opinion free-for all. But in all due respect, when this subject is challanged, it usally brings out a rash of opinions. Some are qualified...others ?

Truthfully, unless you are an active member working under the guidlines of either side, views of this matter are purely your opinion based on what you've heard or think,or stories from others, rather than what you've experienced.

I'm not a member of either, as you may know, but I work with both union and non-union performers all the time. They've both got issues to work out. I don't sling mud because that accomplishes nothing. But I personally don't think anyone wins when deception and greed is the foundation of an organization.

Eventually, with a lot of blood, sweat and tears, perhaps they will come to terms. Peace!

Updated On: 10/29/03 at 09:09 AM

[WSS2]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 4:37pm

Inaccurate information, JRB?

At least I provide FACTUAL information. All you have done is attack my facts...nothing more. Where is your FACTUAL information in your post?

FACT #1 - Equity has increased the number of work weeks for Equity actors and increasing the co-pay. The 20 week program favors only a small handful of lucky Equity members who can work consecutive gigs. This is to the benefit of whom? What other union must you work a full amount of weeks to receive health coverage?

FACT #2- No company or organization owns the copyright to the statement "Broadway quality". Anyone and any theater can call their product that and claim it is so.

FACT #3 - What right does the union have to step in an tell ANOTHER busoiness how to run their business? Does McDonald's tell Wedny's they can't serve hamburgers because they do?

I have brought up legitimate points which, after all your bitching, you have yet to address. If you want to continue this discussion in the rational manner as I and others have, please address the FACTS. I don't need to deal with your fiction.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/29/03 at 10:27pm

Excepting "fact 1", those aren't facts--those are your opinions.
Equity isn't a for profit organization--how can you favor the money making producers over a union that is trying to make for better working conditions and wages. The average actor salary is $17,000 a year--which isn't crap! And using non-union performers is just as greedy and cheap as taking jobs away from Americans in factories just because the sweatshops overseas are cheaper. The conditions for non-union actors are TERRIBLE--low pay, crappy housing, no days off, load in of scenery, high medical premiums, etc etc etc. This drains a performer's emotions--and when that happens, they can't possibly give a great performance. Talent aside, non-union shows rarely stand up to the same level of quality that a union show provides--Broadway is unionized. Off-Broadway is unionized. The National Tours you mostly saw years ago were unionized. Much of what is out there is not--and audiences are not happy about it. They are fooled into paying the SAME ticket prices for the shows thinking they are getting Broadway level quality. They are not. Actor salaries are the smallest precentage in a show's budget--even when star salaries are factored in. What's the deal? BOTTOM LINE. Tours are to Broadway what Cable is to Film--free profits at the expense of actors. This is unacceptable. This is why there should not be non-union tours.

But, here are some quotes for your fact finding fancy:

The AFL-CIO has added the non-Equity road production of the musical “Miss Saigon” to its national boycott list at the request of the Actors’ Equity Association (AEA), the union representing 45,000 stage actors and stage managers in live productions.

A production of Big League Theatricals, Miss Saigon is the company’s second road show on the AFL-CIO boycott list. The road production of “The Music Man” went on the list in August 2001.

Actors’ Equity has mounted a national campaign under the slogan “Fair Wages All Stages” to publicize the growing problem of non-Equity road shows produced by Big League Theatricals and other companies. Equity President Patrick Quinn reports that Equity actors worked 21,000 weeks on tour over the past year, compared to some 44,000 weeks on tour five years ago. “There is a crisis on the road and Equity has taken steps to address it,” Quinn said. He noted that Big League Theatricals was charging similar ticket prices as Equity shows without similar wages and benefits. According to the union, producers believe that there is more money to be made on the road than on Broadway. Consequently, they are increasingly entering into licensing agreements with non-Equity producers to avoid contractual agreements for Equity shows. “Actors and stage managers in these non-Equity productions receive very small salaries and negligible per-diems and health insurance packages,” Quinn said.

Regarding the Equity health benefits (this is just a small portion of the information available at http://www.actorsequity.org :

Your dues to Equity do not in any way, shape, or form, go to health insurance. Health insurance is an amount paid weekly by your employer to the Equity-League Pension and Health Fund, which by law is a totally separate entity from the union.

"If we're losing so much money, why don't we buy cheaper insurance?"
The Trustees have already made the difficult decision to do so. On October 1st, we will switch from the Union Labor Life Insurance Company/Blue Cross/Beech Street combo, to complete medical and prescription drug coverage from CIGNA, which will save the fund $2 million dollars annually. This is a financial boon, but was a difficult decision because the Trustees recognized that some participants would have to change doctors because of the switch of insurance carriers. However, because CIGNA's PPO network is so large, it will contain many doctors who were also providers on the previous insurance plans.
"So then, if we're saving $2 million bucks, why did we have to increase our eligibility?"
Because $2 million dollars is only 1/8th of $16 million dollars, the present annual deficit, and that is how much we have to save to break even. To eliminate that current deficit, we had to find ways to save another $14 million dollars. To keep the Plan from collapse, increasing the eligibility was the only major option. And remember, these savings will not be immediate, but will take at least a year to have any meaningful effect on the deficit. Until that time, the red ink will continue to flow.

And from NYTIMES:

Actors Rally to Protest Non-Equity Road Shows
By JASON ZINOMAN

Published: October 30, 2003


even months after the Broadway musicians' strike, another battle is brewing between organized labor and theatrical producers.

Hundreds of members of Actors' Equity Association, the union for actors and stage managers, fired an opening salvo in a rally in Duffy Square yesterday, protesting the use of non-Equity touring companies. This is shaping up as the most contentious issue in coming negotiations between the union and producers. Their contract expires in June.

"Our union is being eroded," said Denis O'Hare, who won a Tony this year for his role in "Take Me Out." "Health benefits are hurt, and actors on the road are not getting a decent wage." The union says that pay in non-Equity touring companies can be as little as a third of that for Broadway actors. Mr. O'Hare said union members were "angry enough to go on strike" when their contract expires.

Equity has three goals, said Maria Somma, a union spokeswoman: to unionize non-Equity shows, "to encourage that future road shows are all Equity and to let the League of American Producers know that everyone in Equity is serious about the road issue."

Producers say that touring costs are so high that shows often aren't profitable for theaters, and many say that audiences don't notice the difference between Equity and non-Equity actors.

Daniel Sher, executive producer of Big League Theatricals, which is producing non-Equity tours of "Miss Saigon" and "The Music Man," said in a telephone interview that it was difficult for presenters to make their money back on an Equity show that wasn't a recent Broadway blockbuster like "Hairspray" or "Mamma Mia!"

"We just brought `Miss Saigon' to the Landmark Theater in Richmond, Va., for a week, and the theater lost $90,000," Mr. Sher said.

Some actors at the rally said they saw serious long-term effects from non-Equity productions. "This issue doesn't affect most New York actors, because we haven't been on the road in a while," said Hunter Foster, star of "Little Shop of Horrors." "But if the road keeps going non-Equity, who's to say that won't happen on Broadway?"

Among those at the rally were André De Shields, Tony Roberts and Kathleen Chalfant. Speakers included the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., John J. Sweeney; the president of the New York City Central Labor Council, Assemblyman Brian M. McLaughlin; and the actors Hugh Jackman and Sandy Duncan.

There was also a performance of "The Jobless Chronicles," a one-act musical revue produced by Actors' Equity that is touring the country to promote labor solidarity.

WSS2--please stick all this in your pipe and smoke it. =)

Updated On: 10/30/03 at 10:27 PM

[zoom]

Posted: 10/30/03 at 12:51am

jrb.........What a little snot you are...grow up! You go flying off the handle for no reason.

And you failed to still address the situation that was mentioned above with any real information. Why is Equity involved at all? Non Equity tours DO NOT EFFECT their membership at all. Well, of course it effects them when producers don't hire Equity for non Equity tours. But that's Equity's fault. Oh yeah...we're suppose to believe that you Equity folks are so "concerned" about non Equity's well being and safety. So nice to get your offical medical opinion that non Equity performers are "drained" by the non Equity experience and they can't give good performances. A friend on the Sussical tour just did five shows in three days...and HAD A BLAST! And your "factual" information came from where? Umm..yeah...just what I thought.

And who are you to tell us that non Equity conditions are terrible? Yet more sweeping non sense. I know at least 10 firends who have been on non Equity tours over the last five years and LOVE IT! Who are you to speak for these actors? If the conditions were so bad, why would we still have them? No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and saying "do this tour or else".

And who are you to say that audiences are "not happy" with the Non Equity tours? More nonsense. If audiences wern't happy, THEY WOULDN'T GO TO THEM. Yet these non Equity tours have been out for years and we still have them! Obviously SOMEONE is going and spending the money to keep them going.

Thanks Gothapc and WSS for bringing up valid points that our little Equity friend has yet to address.

JRB - In the future, please save your drama for the stage. Updated On: 10/30/03 at 12:51 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/30/03 at 1:00am

oh goodness--I hope Rob's system is detecting this--WSS2 pulled double, triple (who knows) identities on broadway.com last year. History does repeat itself (and WSS2 and zoom's comments are so similar as to back then).
I was actually paraphrasing Sandy Duncan's speech today (and the testimony of a performer from the non-Eq Music Man) in those comments not directly quoted. And after all I have heard from people--I do not believe your claims that your friends had such fab times.

It's absolutely Equity's business to govern stage managing and acting on the professional level--in the same way it is the Screen Actor's Guild's business to govern the film industry--in the same way that all Labor union's govern their particular fields. Workers deserve protection. Consumers deserve a quality product.

I am sooo (STILL!) curious why you are so anti-Equity! Can you answer that?

Updated On: 10/30/03 at 01:00 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/30/03 at 9:17am

WSS2's point is very well taken: Equity can't control slogans like "Direct from Broadway". They only have jurisdiction if the advertisement says "including Broadway cast members".

Equity is trying to overstep its bounds. If they are so interested in "actor's rights" then why isn't there more non-white actors working on Broadway?? Equity is failing the very people they are trying to protect.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/30/03 at 11:56am

Would you really want to pay Broadway prices to see a 24yo with only community theatre and school credits play Harold Hill? Dolly Levi? The Phantom? If so--then ok. You guys are attacking Equity when SAG is far more strict when it comes to film acting.

Equity does hugely support blind casting:

Equal Employment Department
The Equal Employment Department investigates allegations of discrimination against minorities, seniors, women, and Actors with disabilities and compiles statistics about non-traditional casting. The Department works with the Non-Traditional Casting Project to promote affirmative action in roles where race, ethnicity, gender, age, and the presence of a disability is not absolutely essential to the development of the play or character.
If an Actor has an allegation of discrimination, please contact the Equal Employment Department by phone or email. A full investigation will then be conducted. If warranted, an investigation will proceed to arbitration.

You can't blame Equity when the producers are not casting more non-traditional types.

[WSS2]

Posted: 10/30/03 at 12:07pm

The more you read JRB's comments, the more you fell sad for him.

Who would want to see a 24 year old with community theater credits play Harold Hill?

Who are you to pass judgement on somebody's talent? And what NATIONAL or BROADWAY work have you done? (and please spare us your little TUTS speach...I've worked there too honey and Broadway it aint).

There are many 24, 29 and 36 year olds who may have never done something that YOU would consider worthy of "talented" who have landed their first Broadway gig aft6er arriving in NY with only...gasp!.....community theater or (even worse) school theater credits!!! (WSS can see JRB already back pedaling)

You are in no position to judge another's talent. Just like you are i n no position to tell me that my freinds who are having a great tinbe on a non Equity tour are lying.

You are pathetic. Updated On: 10/30/03 at 12:07 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/30/03 at 12:14pm

We are discussing whether unions have a right to govern (and how much) over a particular field.

Is that the best you have--insults for me? lol I think my reputation on this board speaks for itself--and the quality, content, and tone of my posts vs your posts speaks loads.

(This post was in reference to WSS2's claim that my siting SAG was an example of how I am losing my mind--he has since revised his post to the above)

Updated On: 10/30/03 at 12:14 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/30/03 at 12:19pm

No back pedaling here--I stand by my statements. I have never attacked you personally (only the way you behave on this thread), and yet--that is ALL you can offer on this subject instead of debating the subject--personal insults. Surprise! This is exactly how you behaved on Broadway.com.

[WSS2]

Posted: 10/30/03 at 12:20pm

No..

we're addressing the fact that you are making false statments that have no basis in the truth on this board. Anyone here can plainly see this. And this is what your reputation stands for? Why am I not suprised.

But nice job at (the predicted) back pedaling. No insults...just the truth.

And the truth hurts..doesn't it?