Yes, believe it or not, there is some nuance to this debate. While the "Broadway" moniker, when applied to Non-union touring shows is frustrating and somewhat misguided, it is only really part of the problem. The real focus of AEA's beef with these shows is basically a marketplace one. A non-union show like the current tour of Annie, which is produced by Troika, has been playing longer sit-down runs in larger markets. It is on a comparable schedule to the current union tour of Sound of Music. Coincidentally there was an overlap of the two tours-both playing the Los Angeles Metro area at the same time. The two shows, playing to arguably the same demographic in the same market, at the same time, provided a unique opportunity for AEA to mount a campaign to highlight the differences in the two productions from a Union/Labor standpoint. Removing the aforementioned "nuance" this all comes down to dollars and cents, of course. You basically have the public paying the same price for similar products. One costs more to make (the union production) and one costs less (the non-union one). The Union tour has actors who receive a higher wage, health and pension, and have more favorable working conditions (health and safety, regulated hours, regulated housing and transportation etc.). The Non-union actors, who honestly aren't being abused per se, are not afforded those same benefits. But with the same ticket price being paid by the consumer-the money flows to the producer as profits.
Now in my eyes that is a truly apples to apples comparison and in that situation, I believe that AEA has a valid argument. (Full disclosure: I'm a 10 year member of AEA and a working actor) In regards to Ragtime and other, lower tiered Non-union Tours (Producers, Joseph, etc.), the union, while not exaclty loving their existence, takes a somewhat softer stance. This is mostly because the financial structure and schedule (route/markets) that these tours have. The simple fact of the matter is that AEA doesn't really have a contract that would be workable for those tours because the venues aren't compatible (health and safety, dressing rooms etc), the schedule is too tight (travel time is too great between cities, shows scheduled too close together) and the ticket prices/promoter gurantees are such that AEA salary and per diem would be financially unsustainable. However, this hasn't stopped promoters and producers, in their marketing, from advertising these shows as "Broadway" shows. Personally I totally understand why they do it. It sells tickets to a somewhat non-savvy public.
On a somewhat side-note, but still germane to the original topic of this thread-I understand that this particular production of Ragtime features and orchestra of...wait for it....a grand total of 2 musicians. Yes, ladies and gentleman, one of the finest scores of the last 20 years is going to be played by 2 synthesizers. They don't include that in their advertising do they? Knowing that might help you to make an informed decision about both the price of your ticket but also the cost-cutting necessary to mount a touring musical production in this day and age. Food for thought, for sure.
