Why are Non-Union tours so looked down upon ?- Page 4

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 9:11am

Joan Jett is probably a member of one of the other unions so she could choose whether or not she wanted to join Equity.

It is not unusual for stars who see theatre as a one time only thing to choose not to join.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 9:33am

As I recall with the Joan Jett situation her managers never truly finished the negotiating of her contract (they were still negotiating terms even throughout her run in the show) and thus it was never filed with Equity, meaning that no, she never joined. However, her salary still would have been subject to the usual deduction of working dues (currently 2.5%, I don't know what it was back then), and the producers still would have been making health and pension payments in her behalf.

In regards to extras, LORT theatres outside of NYC, Chicago, and L.A. are allowed to employ non-Equity actors as extras. However, according to the LORT rulebook, A theatres (which include the Broadway LORT companies) in those three cities have to sign extras to an Equity contract at a pay scale of half of the minimum set forth for actors.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 9:57am

"Joan Jett is probably a member of one of the other unions so she could choose whether or not she wanted to join Equity.

It is not unusual for stars who see theatre as a one time only thing to choose not to join."

Can you think of any other examples?

[jacobtsf]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 10:00am

This is a link to the playbill vault page for Pygmalion. As you can see on pagw 3, three of the bystanders are not members of Equity.

http://www.playbillvault.com/Show/Detail/Whos_who/10373/2588/Pygmalion

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 10:06am

Thanks for the link, jacob.

Not being there I only speak based on what's in the rulebooks. Obviously there will be exceptions from time to time, as Equity (despite contrary belief) is usually willing to negotiate deals with producers, provided the producers are not asking for unreasonable terms.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 5:43pm

Thanks for your response, Yero.

I was thinking about something like CLEAVAGE, in the 1980s. It had been a big, non-union hit in Mississippi and was transferred in toto to the Playhouse Theatre. I'm not sure they ever had the cast join Equity. I know my union stage manager friend who worked on the show was hired as a "consultant" and no dues were paid for her.

And it did a bunch a previews before closing a week after opening, so nobody really had time to complain.

[broadway guy]

Posted: 5/4/13 at 6:12pm

Holy crap i can't believe this thread got 80 replies and the best part is all the replies stayed on topic!! cheers everyone!

Updated On: 5/4/13 at 06:12 PM

[JohnyBroadway]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 11:22am

How does the 5th avenue in Seattle work? As they recommend both equity and non equity performers to audition for their shows?

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 11:41am

Most regional theaters will see non-Equity actors, or at least encourage them to submit resumes. Under the LORT agreement, which I believe 5th Avenue operates under, they are allowed to cast a certain number of non-Equity actors based on a ratio determined by their LORT agreement. They may also offer a non-Equity actor an Equity contract and the chance to join the union.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 1:08pm

Can I offer a different observation as to the proliferation of non-Equity tours and why they are often looked down upon by the Union?

Once upon a yesterday, the Union had a stronghold on tours... this was partly because America, to a large extent, knew Broadway shows and LEGITIMATE Broadway stars from the radio and from regular TV appearances. They had national recognition and the shows in NYC ran for shorter spans, so the stars would then take the production on the road. The actors and stars were a notable factor that drew audiences to those touring houses. For many people, before the expansion of the regional theatre and community theatre movement, this was their real chance to see real theatre that wasn't summer stock.

Then we had the rise of the regional theatres, producing year round productions, some with impressive quality. The national audience no longer had to rely on tours to see PROFESSIONAL theatre. Soon, community theatre, long an American staple, was ballooning as well and audiences could see well known titles in their own backyard... for cheaper. Or stay at home and watch TV as they became more affordable and higher quality.

The rise of the Mega-Musical was a game changer. The American population had moved on from Idolizing the Broadway star. Pop culture had changed. Producers, such as Cameron Mackintosh, found a new hook - spectacle, chain-restaurant consistency and iconic logos.. the SHOW was now the star. The audience wasn't coming to see Merman or Brynner, they were coming to see the chandelier, the barricade, the tire.. at the same time, actors were no longer viewed as actors by producers.. they were now "track numbers", cogs in the wheel. That stings.

Over the years after this, the economics of tours changed. the Mega-Musicals with world recognition and bank accounts to match were sending out massive productions, identical to Broadway and audience expectations in the major markets rose and smaller producers had to struggle to meet those expectations. Audiences wanted to SEE their bucks on stage in scenery, costumes and effects. The mega-hits also began to book up theatres for longer periods and multiple return visits. There was a squeeze going on and other shows had to compete for fewer dates, shorter runs and hunt for new markets... the union, enjoying the land of milk and honey, was slow to compromise and re-evaluate what was happening, so producers took to non-union talent to experiment. The union was furious and launched a war to fight back.

Frankly, that war is still waging, even as the Union introduces new tiered contracts and SETA contracts to offer flexibility and opportunity. Unfortunately for the union, that slow response allowed producers to see that they could make serious money with the non-union market and take the productions to new venues that the union would not allow. Thus, the rise of the non-union tour.

IATSE has since negotiated contract with a few of the larger companies known for non-union tours, so now they tour as non-Equity with a full IATSE crew.

I do think the union continues to shoot themselves in the foot, often portraying tiered and SETA contracts as "lesser" and not just "different", so the producers can still have a hard time getting some actors to go on the road under those agreements, unless they are given star treatment. Funny enough, having had a few friends on SETA tours, I've grown to see the snobbishness as shortsighted arrogance. An actor will turn down a $800/week tour saying it's poor pay, but by taking advantage of per diem, let alone box office overages and the contractual pay bump when/if the tour recoups, that SETA contract leaves them better off than someone on Broadway in the same track.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 1:31pm

"I do think the union continues to shoot themselves in the foot, often portraying tiered and SETA contracts as "lesser" and not just "different", so the producers can still have a hard time getting some actors to go on the road under those agreements, unless they are given star treatment. Funny enough, having had a few friends on SETA tours, I've grown to see the snobbishness as shortsighted arrogance. An actor will turn down a $800/week tour saying it's poor pay, but by taking advantage of per diem, let alone box office overages and the contractual pay bump when/if the tour recoups, that SETA contract leaves them better off than someone on Broadway in the same track."

One minor point I would raise here is that a lot of the "lesser" view of the tiered and SETA tours comes from the actors and stage managers themselves. Equity, from what I have seen, has been quite proud of gaining some of those touring jobs back with the use of these contracts and has had a few meetings specifically to bring to light the fact that in order to rebuild the touring market to what the members want they basically have to start from the ground up and figure out how to make it work in the new market which has emerged on the road.

I've heard, at one of the touring meetings I attended, a member complain specifically about the per diem and how, after hotel costs were figured out of it, she was "expected to live on $40 a day." Again, this was $40 for food and miscellaneous expenses AFTER the hotel cost was calculated. Unfortunately there is a pervading belief, especially amongst those who toured with the shows like Phantom and Les Mis, that they should be able to live entirely on their per diem and completely bank their salary. They don't view per diem as their daily living expenses, but also covering their regular expenses, such as car payments, student loans, credit cards, clothing, entertainment, and everything else. While that's just one aspect of the attitude that ultimately cost Equity so many tours it's pervasive amongst the "old guard" and it is often those folks you hear complaining about how terrible these new touring contracts are, not the union itself.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I definitely believe there is a need for the non-union touring shows. Where I take issue is when first nationals of shows that were not terrible flops on Broadway, and would probably do (and ultimately did do) well on the road were sent out non-union. Shows such as the Stroman revival of The Music Man and the Trevor Nunn Oklahoma, not to mention the big old middle finger what's his face from The Brady Bunch gave the union by loudly proclaiming how he was dropping his membership to do the tour of The Sound of Music that Troika(?) sent out back around 2000 (which I feel was also one of the tours that really got Equity off their butts and realize that they needed to take serious action).

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 1:40pm

I agree completely... and I do admit to over-simplifying, for perhaps a bit.. but when I say "the union", I also include the union membership leadership... some of whom can be quite arrogant about it... I don't mean to say just Union LEADERSHIP. But what is the Union, if not its members? and yes.. how that person complains about living on $40 a day is BEYOND me, let alone having to *gasp* spend their OWN money to do what they want with their day when they are not working.

As much good as SETA for example can do, I think it IS asking a lot of crew and stage management to do week after week of one week stops with no advance crew or stage manager since that leaves them with no day off ever and should be recitified somewhere, somehow, but.. overall..

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 5/5/13 at 6:50pm

Thank you, AEA. I was about to say that few of us "look down" on non-union actors, we're just wary of non-union productions.

But I see that isn't necessarily true from your post on attitudes among union members.