boycotting non-equity tours. — Page 5

Sad news kids. AEA, affectionately known as "The Union," HAS failed. I am a member of that august union, as well as the director of a number of Non-Equity productions with top notch production values here in South Florida.

The union continues to act as thought there is LOTS of work for Union actors and that they can make all manner of demands, both reasonable and unreasonable, of the theatres that have Equity contracts. I've watched two, three, no four theatres drop their Equity contracts as a result of the escalating stupidity of the New York Equity offices and the field representatives whose mini-fiefdoms they've helped enshrine.

And here in South Florida, there are several theatres that have become "the underground railroad," allowing immensely talented actors to give up their cards and continue to work.

So, your urging to "boycott non-Equity tours" is not only foolhardy, but detrimental to the industry. Should you persuade people to do that, it would end in their being almost no theatre anywhere outside New York city.

And one is forced to wonder who much of this carping about Equity/non-Equity is just a case of the have-nots hurling missiles at the haves.

And bravo Bookmaven. Well said and very true.

---

Bookmaven, I belive we know each other. Something just "bit" me about you! Why the charade?

Pati b.

---

"Perhaps this was already addressed, but how does one find out if the show on tour is equity or not?"
http://www.actorsequity.org/TheatreNews/tour_list_0402.html

Rathnait - "As for deserving higher salaries due to the unsteadiness of the work? That's the nature of the beast people - if you choose to do the fun job, that's the tradeoff."

You forgot to mention the hard work that goes into performing these shows. The physical demands of performing are often quite higher than those of working in an office. Check out the chorus in 42nd Street or any of the cast of Movin' Out sometime. Yes, it is shorter days, but often with only one day off a week, no evenings or weekends free. Some of them get paid more than you and some people in your office get paid more than them. I worked in a producer's office for many years. Like performing, that is also a career choice you make.

I'm not a huge fan of Equity, but I do support living wages for actors on a national level. While performing may look like a "fun job", it is extremely difficult and most of the time both mentally and physically exhausting.

I don't begrudge you a thing, but some perspective is necessary.

---

Updated On: 6/9/04 at 01:12 PM

Any job is fun for the person who enjoys their work. Not every actor is thrilled with the role he/she gets or the show they are performing in, but they take it because the work is unsteady and they want to keep working, but that's completely beside the point.

You alluded that actors don't deserve higher salaries due to the unsteadiness of work because they chose a "fun job". It's a belittling statement that completely undermines the amount of work it takes for an actor to perform. Like somehow, they don't deserve a living wage, but you do because you have an office job and they have a "fun job". Work is work and the fact is, over 90% of the professional actors in this country make little to nothing and do work the "unfun jobs" IN ADDITION to performing because they love what they do. But they shouldn't have to.

"I would love to be singing for my supper - but since I need to pay my bills, I don't."

That's your own shoice. That's what I'm doing, too. And that's the choice I made.

"Believe me, I'd much rather the hard physical work of a tour, singing and dancing and acting and performing, than being in an office running around and emotionally stressed and doing mostly what is NOT fun to do. Most people on this board probably would. Most people, however, don't, because it's too hard to make a living at it."

Yet, if they were offered living wages for their profession, like with most jobs, it wouldn't be an issue. What about film actors? They have a stronger union, get paid higher wages, and work shorter periods than stage actors for doing a "fun job"? Or is it just the stage actors you're bitter about? If you would really prefer touring, then try it and decide whether or not they deserve equal salaries to your office job.

"listening to the Equity performers complain about their tough lots in life, getting paid (at their minimum salaries) 3 times what I was, and working a MUCH shorter day."

The same could be said of my boss. What's your point? Yes, it is an actor's choice to pursue a career in performing, yet this country seems to be more supportive of every field of entertainment except the stage. That is the problem that is trying to be corrected, but unsuccessfully. If you hate your job so much, don't take it out on the actors, get out and find something else, or pursue more education to better your position, but it's not their fault you don't get paid as much as them.

---

But you are implying that should anyone CHOOSE to perform for a living, they somehow don't deserve to earn a living doing so. Comparing performing in a community theatre to a Broadway show is like comparing reading a nighttime story to a child to lecturing a course in literature at Yale. Community theatre exists for those who choose to perform for fun. Broadway in particular is an entertainment business with much higher stakes involved.

You saw how insecure an actor's life was and chose not to pursue it. I pretty much did the same. There are others who choose that route specifically to earn a salary and get benefits doing what they love to do.

There are loads of jobs out there people consider "fun". Just because a job is "fun", it doesn't mean people should not be able to live off it. Generally, Equity actors work an average of 30-40 hours a week (including call-time through curtain call for 8 shows a week). That is exactly the amount of hours my company and every company I have worked for demands of their employees to receive vacation and benefits. In addition, actors also have calls for publicity, photo shoots, rehearsal calls for replacements and understudies, etc. So I'm not sure where you're coming from. For non-Broadway Equity actors, the pay scale is not the same. If the show only performs 4 times a week, they are not getting paid the same as Broadway performers. But like any other job, an actor's salary can also be based on experience and/or demand. If the producers want a star bad enough, they will pay what they wish. The same can be said of corporate America. As a matter of fact, it is much more common in office jobs than of professional actors.

"Many people across the country and all over the world have jobs that are mind-numbing and uncomfortable and physically exhausting and don't have any of that."

If you want to discuss the whole world, then I'll need more reseach on actors' unions on an international level. You're comparing apples to oranges there. But in this country, there are far more mind-numbing and uncomfortable and physically exhausting jobs with salaries and benefits and unions than what is available for people who work full-time "fun" jobs. So I'm still not clear why you don't think actors should deserve benefits and salaries. Is it because their job is more appealing, yet their odds of achieving it is miniscule?

I get paid "very well" for spending half my day posting messages on this board, but according to your logic, I somehow deserve more than professional actors simply because I'm in an office.

---

"no one was fighting for my rights and salary"

Obviously, you weren't either or you would have done something about it. That is how unions get started. The reason you don't get applause is because you don't work in a field that generates applause for its workers. Most people don't get applause but a great deal of them earn a hell of a lot more than stage actors. If you want applause, then perform on stage. If you want a better job, be persistent enough not to settle for something less. I won't go into my story, but it can be done.

"I just think that people in the union can fight for their own rights and salaries. It's their union, and their jobs."

Um, that's what they are doing. The issue is, they are trying to force people who chose not to be in the union to join or have their show shut down because they want to make decisions for others.

"It's their union, and their jobs. Why are we even arguing it? We have our own jobs and lives to deal with."

Then why are you so bent out of shape comparing their salaries and benefits to yours simply because they are being offered a living wage doing what they love? Applause is also the nature of the beast and has nothing to do with salary or benefits. Your argument is about as pointless as a Taco Bell tortilla fryer whining that she doesn't get as many benefits as an airline pilot.

---

If I missed your point, then you never stated it clearly. I simply reacted to what you had written. Including your previous "last word".

---

JRB - Thank you - very succinctly put. I keep checking back in to see how long this thread is gonna go and I am so glad I saw your last post - you hit the nail on the head!

---

Sadly, jrb, it is not a question of whether you "deserve" it or not. People NEED Doctors, they NEED Lawyers, they NEED to have their cars running properly, so they WILL pay what ever it takes to receive these services. People can argue that we NEED art, but when it comes right down to it people don't really have a NEED to see a Broadway play. So they will always pay the Doctors and Lawyers and Mechanics what they demand. Unfortunately, Actors just don't have that clout.

---

Yes, and the Basketball game slammed the **** out of the Tonys in the ratings.

---

Sueleen: While that may be correct, your arguing this to the bone comes off rather ironic--I thought you loved theatre? If so, why are you fighting the notion that an actor be paid well. Shouldn't you be pleased that people in theatre can make decent money---not as much as film, tv, music, and sports--but can earn a living?

I'm extremely baffled that I have to argue this with theatre lovers!

---

Updated On: 6/10/04 at 12:30 PM