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

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

^^^

This.

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

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.

---

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

---

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

"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.

---

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

What shows were you in?

"This is an interesting thread"

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

" 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.

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