Wedding Singer tour & AEA Flyer — Page 2

Tourboi is right about the per-diem price structure. I also agree with him that NETworks treated us, as a cast, very well in terms of hotels and experience.
I understand why a producer will choose to mount a show with a non-union cast when the show is going to play the "B" and "C" markets. This happens a lot when the equity tour has played all the "A" markets around the country and has reached a saturation point there. The show (Sets, costumes, etc) is usually sold to a company like NETworks or Troika and they send the show out Non-eq to smaller towns. The costs involved with an Equity Tour have been prohibitive in these markets. Equity knows this and hasn't made a big deal about these shows.
Those shows are mostly split weeks and one nighters, so, yes, there is much more travel involved.
TWS is much different. The travelling is going to be primarily by plane once a week. Also remember that the producer is saving by some estimates 1500 a person a week by using non-eq. An experimental contract would have been in the area of 5-700 a week for salary and a negotiated per-diem.
NETworks toured ANNIE under this experimental contract last year on a similar itinerary and made money. Why is TWS different?
I say again-I would understand if this show was playing exclusively in the smaller venues (Waco TX. York PA- Casper Wyoming-staples of the non-eq circuit). However this show is playing huge theaters in all the big markets. It isn't right.

---

Here is a link to the flyer:

http://actorsequity.org/NewsMedia/news2007/WordPDF/WeddingSinger.pdf

I think they are trying to get the cast to demand an Equity contract. Basically they want the cast to organize and designate Equity as the negotaiting representative with the producer.

AFM is doing the same things with the musicians. AEA did this with Big League's Tour of The Music Man a few years back. I can't remember if they were successful or not.

---

They aren't "sucking it up" because they are protecting their jurisdiction and the rights of their members-both present and future. I said before-they aren't trying to get these actors fired and replaced with Union ones-They are extending membership and its rights and benefits to them. Who suffers (besides the NETworks)if AEA is successful in its campaign? Not the Actors-they will get more pay and health insurance. Not the Audience-Ticket prices are already set.
This is about money-Plain and simple.

---

I'm confused by the "Equity pulling from small pool" comment.

I don't think there is a small pool of equity folks.
There were 120 men at a recent chorus call in the middle of summer stock season and 197 women at las friday's Mary Poppins Chorus Call, again during a time when in the past most AEA members have been out of town with work.
There are more members now than there have been in the past and fewer are giving up as quickly as they used to.