Why are Non-Union tours so looked down upon ?- Page 2

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 7:23pm

I think a lot of people wouldn't realize what kind of touring they were seeing if they didn't already know. I mean, sure, you theater queens might, but to the average person it doesn't really matter. I live in an area of the South where we have our own "Broadway League" that has a season, but about 90% of the tours that come through are all Non-Equity. And I've seen most of them and didn't mind one bit about the technical aspects. Sure some of them - notable "Wonderful Town" were a little light on the set pieces - but for the most part it's not bad.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 7:41pm

I've seen plenty of non-Equity tours. I don't live in NYC or near any good theatre, so I take what I can get. Obviously, I prefer Equity tours, but it's either that or don't see the show ever. When the non-Equity tour of Miss Saigon came to my home state, I jumped at the chance to see it because otherwise I'd never get to see a live production of Miss Saigon.

Updated On: 5/2/13 at 07:41 PM

[WalkingInSpace3]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 7:55pm

Not to mention the fact that conditions (and pay) for actors on many non-equity tours are less than favorable. An acquaintance of mine is on tour with West Side Story, and while he's happy to have the job, he's quite unsatisfied with the way he and his cast mates are treated.

Updated On: 5/2/13 at 07:55 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 8:01pm

^^^

This.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 8:05pm

I'd also add the fact that many presenters market these shows in a way to imply that they are "direct from Broadway," even though that is not the case at all.

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 8:32pm

The non-equity tour of Hairspray, especially when it started out, was magic!

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 8:38pm

AEA, I think that's just clever marketing. "Direct from Broadway" can apply to a Non-union tour. "Catch Me If You Can" was direct from Broadway. The show closed, and the tour opened. It's not the same set, etc, but it's the same production: the same concept and music/staging. So in a way it is.

And as someone who has done a non-union tour, I don't think it's that awful. I just think Equity actors get spoiled, and so when you compare the two, it looks pretty abysmal, but it's not that bad. At the end of the day you're getting paid to work for 2 1/2 hrs a day and it's something you love to do.

[E.Davis]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 9:25pm

I saw the Non-Union tour of Hairspray and it was fantastic, I wish that I could say the same fore when the Non-Eq tour of Spamalot came through...What a train wreck.

As for me, I got my cards with 5 contracts in an Off-Broadway show, after I had those contracts from my five appearances I was able to buy into my card.

[broadway guy]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 9:36pm

"Not to mention the fact that conditions (and pay) for actors on many non-equity tours are less than favorable. An acquaintance of mine is on tour with West Side Story, and while he's happy to have the job, he's quite unsatisfied with the way he and his cast mates are treated."

Oooh details! How are they being treated?

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 9:49pm

It's moments like these that you wish Non-Equity Deputy still existed...

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 10:24pm

"And as someone who has done a non-union tour, I don't think it's that awful. I just think Equity actors get spoiled, and so when you compare the two, it looks pretty abysmal, but it's not that bad."

Not all non-Equity tours are the same. I'm glad your one non-Equity tour went well for you, but if it hadn't, you'd have little recourse. That is the point of Equity. I think it's a shame that you think Equity actors are "spoiled" for being treated well. The fact that you say a non-Equity tour isn't "that awful" or "that bad", sounds like it's not that good, either.

Equity is there to stand up for your rights. Better pay, safer work conditions, proper breaks - these things are not being spoiled.

[IronMan]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 10:28pm

I did a handful of Non-Equity tours for different companies in the 90s, and my experiences varied- one producer threatened to strand us in Mississippi when we objected to our salary/per diem being cut due to cancelled shows, but most were honest in their dealings.

One thing holds true, though: I was paid at least 2-3x what I would have made working in any non-union regional/dinner theater (or as a non-union performer in an Equity production). For me (and many others), the tours were a way to make money, get credits, see the country, and gain valuable experience.

Working with Broadway actors, I have found that those who have survived non-union touring conditions - doing one-nighters for 6 months (a different city every day) and playing theaters that ranged from better than Broadway to HS Cafetoriums (you had A, B, or C shows that depended on how big the stage was- sometimes things had to be cut because they just wouldn't fit)- those actors were the only ones able to easily adapt to any changes without bitching, because they knew how.

If any of you are thinking of doing a Non-Eq tour, my only advice is: GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING. Never trust anyone who says that though the contract says one thing, it will be different.

Updated On: 5/2/13 at 10:28 PM

[zamedy]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 10:52pm

I saw the Non-Equity cast of ROCK OF AGES last month and was BLOWN AWAY by the talent on the stage. WOW.

The non-Equity tour of HAIRSPRAY was incredible. Tremendous energy.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 10:54pm

"You can't be in Equity and perform in a non-union show."

Does this rule apply to community theater or have there been exceptions to this? I saw a community theater production of Wedding Singer, and I believe a couple of the cast members were Equity.

I know sometimes when bringing in actors from other countries, you need special permission from Equity, so I am not sure if there are similar procedures in place if an Equity actor, for whatever reason, has an interest in doing a non-Equity show.

[broadway guy]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 10:57pm

Wow i never realized actors hate doing non union touring shows. Thats really sad

[E.Davis]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 10:57pm

The rule apply's to everything. The only way an Equity member can perform in a Non-Union show is if they have written permission from equity and the waivers department. They also have to be listed on anything related to the show as their full Equity name and has to say "Appears courtesy of Actor's Equity Association" in the playbill. Waivers are typically given for educational theatre among other situations.

Updated On: 5/2/13 at 10:57 PM

[IronMan]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 11:03pm

I think that in every Non-Equity tour I did, there was at least one Equity performer who was scabbing (using a different name and hoping not to be found out by the union). Sometimes they were caught, and had the choice either to leave the show, or forfeit their Equity membership.

I personally hated them for doing that- if you've made the choice to join the union, then you have to accept that you're not going to get as much work.

[broadway guy]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 11:06pm

What shows were you in?

[Wynbish]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 11:08pm

This is an interesting thread

[broadway guy]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 11:14pm

"This is an interesting thread"

Thanks. I like it. Its Original and I'm pretty satisfied with it.

[Theatreboy49]

Posted: 5/2/13 at 11:52pm

"Wow i never realized actors hate doing non union touring shows. Thats really sad"

As a non union actor working regionally, I have to address this. I would love to tour. I think any actor would be thankful for the job. That said, there is still a right and wrong way to treat people. And if conditions are poor, then the actors have a right to be upset about it. That is the Union exists and is helpful. But, I would not say actors HATE doing non union tours. Actors like to be working.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 12:03am

" But, I would not say actors HATE doing non union tours. "

Actually, nobody in this thread has said that, except for the OP, who implies that someone has.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 12:09am

I just mean it wasn't "that bad" meaning we had a lot of one nighters and shows where we had no set and just the chairs/props. But it wasn't, like bad. It was just "ghetto" in that Non-Eq sense. But I like that kind of stuff. I like an adventure. We had a couple bad hotels but after complaining we were moved to better places. We played a casino and got our usual per diem, but the casino also gave us $400 just to spend in the casino on food/drinks, etc. So I mean it was a pretty great experience.

I just hate when people look down at Non-Equity stuff. We all have to get our legs somewhere, and this is a great option for people. It also provides theater in places that probably wouldn't get theater.

[John Adams]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 12:17am

I'm one who objects to non-Equity tours for a couple of reasons.
The first is ticket prices, the second is "stars".

Big Fish and Catch Me If You Can are both playing in Chicago this year. One show stars a Tony-winning actor, as well as additional actors whose credits include stage, film and television.

Most of the cast from the other show were most likely completing their final exams, or putting together their senior showcase at this same time last year.

And yet, ticket prices for both shows are nearly identical. The price difference is so negligible that it wouldn't even be enough to buy myself dinner, or 1/8 of a tank of gas.

As a consumer who's paying ~$100 for a ticket, part of what justifies my payment of that large sum is the "superficial" element of names and reputations on stage (read: "stars"). Besides the show itself, I'm also paying for the excitement of making a live, tangible connection with "fame".

I don't think that's overly selfish or unreasonable. Many folks are similarly disappointed when they arrive at a Broadway theater and unexpectedly find that an understudy is going on. Logically, we all know that understudies can be just as talented as the star, but we wanted the thrill of seeing the "star".

I hope you can understand that I'm not objecting to the quality of actors in a non-equity tour. It's just that (especially in Chicago), I can just as easily drive to Northwestern University to see exceptionally talented college kids perform in shows, BUT I pay a reasonable ticket price to do so. If it's the show itself I'm interested in, I'm happy to wait until any of the fantastic regional theaters or colleges obtain the rights - what's another year in the grand scheme of things?

Updated On: 5/3/13 at 12:17 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/3/13 at 12:22am

But how excited would you be if you saw the next Sutton Foster or Norber Leo Butz?

I understand that, totally. But I think you're just perpetuating this whole "celebrity" thing that everyone is so obsessed with. Big FIsh might just suck completely no matter who is involved. Same for Catch Me.