boycotting non-equity tours.- Page 6
boycotting non-equity tours.
Broadway Legend Joined: 6/9/03
boycotting non-equity tours.#125
Posted: 6/10/04 at 12:44pm
If you read my posts carefully, you will notice that I use the words "sadly" and "unfortunatly" implying that I don't disagree with your ideals. But I am being realistic. Of course, in an ideal world Actors can work 24/7 in a community theatre and never have to worry about money. Also in that world Teachers are the highest paid professionals in the country and I should not have to worry about getting afordable healthcare.
boycotting non-equity tours.#126
Posted: 6/10/04 at 12:46pm
Well FINALLY the subtext rises to the surface. And, with that context of your subtext :), you have made a strong point--why are teachers paid crap?
Let's see if anyone else is brave enough to reveal their subtexts...
boycotting non-equity tours.#127
Posted: 6/10/04 at 12:53pm
Teachers aren't necessarily paid crap - my best friend is a teacher in a public school, makes more than I do and gets all that vacation time as well. However, relatively, they get paid crap as they are the real role models for our children, as opposed to pro athletes who are gajillionaires.
Sorry, am I getting off-topic? 
boycotting non-equity tours.#128
Posted: 6/10/04 at 1:26pm
Rathnait - Another comparison to your own job with mention that they make more than you and get benefits. Considering the average public school teacher's salary, it sounds like there are few jobs that make less than you. Public school teachers do get paid crap, relatively and necessarily.
And Rathnait, I did not drag you into anything that you did not already actively participate in. If you don't want to participate in the thread, then don't post. Was that your "last word" or are you "done now"?
"I never once said they shouldn't be paid well"
That's right, but you certainly implied it with your active comparisons of working actors salaries and benefits to your own and your inferences to "fun jobs" that you wish you could have, but you must work an office job to pay the bills. If you don't have an issue with the amount of salary and benefits a working actor makes, then why bring it up and why compare it to your own job?
I understood Sueleen's post the first time, but Rathnait just seems to be running around in circles without making any real sense.
boycotting non-equity tours.#129
Posted: 6/10/04 at 1:29pm
I'm tired of your baiting tactics, Matt. Do you know what public school teachers make? I don't make a bad salary for a single woman in the city. She just makes MORE. Not that that is good or bad - and certainly not what teachers DESERVE if we're going there - that's why I said RELATIVELY. It's crap RELATIVELY compared to what pro athletes make. But it's not minimum wage by any means.
And I didn't make "inferences," YOU did. Look it up.
boycotting non-equity tours.#130
Posted: 6/10/04 at 2:33pm
Read it again:
"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."
That is in inference that a fun job (specifically acting) and its steadiness of work is somehow inversely proportionate to its salary. Are you saying that if the work was more steady or less fun, then they would deserve higher salaries?
I did indeed make inferences of your statements. No more or less. That is what every one of my responses has been. I am no stranger to semantics.
And yes, I do know what public school teachers make. I have many friends who teach public school and was offered a job to teach public school and another to teach in a private school. I turned them both down.
"I don't make a bad salary for a single woman in the city. She just makes MORE."
And anything more than what you make is not crap? Is that what you are saying? Is your job the benchmark for crap?
Why do you keep using RELATIVELY in all caps like that. Obviously, I saw the word the first time since I used it as a reference in my last post. I agreed that teachers do get paid crap RELATIVELY to pro athletes, but then so do 90% of the jobs out there. Once again, you were somehow trying to prove your point by using extreme comparisons rather than relative comparisons, but slapping on the word RELATIVELY to make it seem like a valid comparison.
My posts are not "baiting tactics". They are logical replies to what your illogical posts that you claim I don't get. For someone who works so hard for a salary that may or may not be at the crap line and is "not that invested", you sure do have a lot of time to devote to this thread.
That is my last word.
I'm done now.
Or am I.....
Swing Joined: 6/11/04
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#131
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:03am
Friends and colleagues,
There has been a lot of discussion, some anger, and some misunderstanding regarding my “Open Letter to Theatregoers,” and I felt that, out of respect for all the fine folks who took the time to express their thoughts, I’d respond on a few points.
First, and most importantly, some felt that my letter came across as a put down of non-union talent, and I felt that was a very valid criticism, though it was never my intention to suggest anything of the sort. I have since revised the letter to more clearly reflect my true opinion, which is this: There are lots of extremely talented performers who aren’t in the union. I’ve worked with dozens of them. Many are personal friends. Union status doesn’t determine talent.
Now, let me be clear: I do think that if you took the entire group of Equity actors and the entire group of non-Equity actors, the first group would be the more accomplished overall. Because, until rather recently, Equity membership was the status to which all stage actors aspired.
But talent and accomplishment are far from the point. In fact, a number of the objections that were raised are far from the point. So, to further clarify the intent of my letter:
1) I’m not asking ticket buyers to support our cause, take sides or boycott anything. I am only informing and educating them on something that I feel (and they may agree) is false advertising. And that’s all. That’s my entire mission. This issue isn’t the public’s problem. They don’t need to know all the behind-the-scenes details. And they don’t need to take responsibility for the problems of professional actors. I just think they should know what they’re buying, and decide for themselves.
2) I am not putting down non-Equity theatre at all! Just non-Equity “Broadway” tours. Broadway shows are Equity shows. So, a non-Equity “Broadway” show is like synthetic “natural” food. There’s no such thing. However, there are plenty of smaller theatres where it’s perfectly appropriate to buy a ticket and see a non-union or partially non-union cast. There are lots of places for non-union actors to do wonderful work. A Broadway tour simply isn’t one of them.
3) I’m not interested in debating the various merits of my union. Nothing in my letter raises this debate. That’s someone else’s agenda. I’m just letting the folks who buy the tickets know what’s going on. If you hate the union, don’t join it.
4) I think those of you who have suggested restricting the use of “Broadway” terminology have hit the nail on the head. That’s the issue exactly. If non-union tours could be prohibited from using that one word, we might not have a problem at all. Unfortunately, the word “Broadway” doesn’t belong to anyone, and can’t be legally restricted. That’s why I’m trying to help educate the public.
5) Some have accused me of trying to take work away from non-union actors, or trying to shut down “the competition.” Now, honestly, folks. Take a deep breath. That accusation is pretty out there. I’m just telling the public what’s going on. They’ll decide what they want to do. I love actors, and I’d never try to take work from anyone. Besides, I can’t be in competition with non-union actors, because we’re not eligible for the same jobs.
Finally, I want to share this observation. As I read all the posts, it struck me that those who were the most hotheaded, and the unkindest, and had the worst spelling, also had the worst arguments. There’s no need to lash out at anyone. Cruelty and sarcasm do nothing to win people over to your opinion. They only create bad feelings. All of us who work in the theatre or love the theatre are a family. A crazy family, but a family nonetheless. I’d like to see us all be better to each other, and I’d like to see us use logic, reason and cool-headed debate to explore our differences. Don’t let the anonymity of the internet bring out the worst in you.
To sum up: The only point of writing my letter was this: Ticket buyers deserve to know that some so-called “Broadway” tours employ non-union actors. They’re all adults. They can decide for themselves whether or not this distinction is important to them. Now. Does ANYONE out there (other than producers) disagree with informing the public?
My revised letter is below.
Fraternally,
Michael Kostroff
AN OPEN LETTER TO THEATREGOERS EVERYWHERE
Dear fellow theatre lovers,
Professional theatre has a problem. And unfortunately, it affects you, the theatergoing public.
For decades, every actor on a Broadway stage (or in a touring company of a Broadway show) had to be a member of the stage actors union, the Actors Equity Association. And that made sense. Because Broadway shows are state-of-the-art, top-of-the-line productions. That's what you pay for when you see one of these shows - the very best of what theatre has to offer.
Often, actors would struggle for years, paying their dues, to get their Equity cards and join the ranks of the top-notch professionals. The idea was that not just anyone could be in a big Broadway show. You had to have achieved union status. That was the mark of the professional actor.
But in recent years, Broadway producers have figured out a way to save money by doing something rather alarming: They've started sending out tours of Broadway shows with entirely non-union casts!
Many of the performers you're currently seeing in so-called "Broadway" tours are young, inexperienced amateurs. For some of them, it's their first professional job – the start of their careers. They're not Broadway actors. In fact, they’re not eligible to be on Broadway, because they're not in the union yet.
Of course, the producers don't tell you, the ticket buyer, about any of this. They don't indicate it in any of the advertising. In fact, they often bill the show as "Direct from Broadway," "Broadway's Best," or "The Broadway Series." We in the stage actors union think that's false advertising. We think you're being cheated. You'll notice they haven't lowered their ticket prices.
But worse than that, we're concerned for the future of theatre. Theatre needs audiences. And the more audiences are disappointed with these so-called "Broadway" productions (by the way, they also scale down the scenery and eliminate crew positions), the more they'll go elsewhere for entertainment. If that happens, then everyone, including the non-union actors, will lose.
The last thing we union actors want is for an audience member to say "I saw a Broadway tour, and it really wasn't that good." At 80-100 bucks a seat, you deserve to see the very best possible stage entertainment. When you pay for a Broadway tour, you should get a Broadway tour. And if it’s not Equity, it’s not Broadway.
This is not to suggest that non-union actors are somehow less talented. Not at all. There are quite a number of extremely gifted performers who aren't members of Equity. In fact, there are lots of excellent musicians who don't belong to the musicians union, and plenty of brilliant writers who aren't in the Writer's Guild. But on Broadway, everyone on the crew, in the pit and on the stage is in a union. So, if someone is trying to sell you a ticket to a "Broadway" tour with a non-union cast, there's something fishy going on.
OK, that's the background on the situation. Here, in simple practical terms, is what you can do. And it's really not hard:
Before you buy a ticket to a touring show, call the theatre and ask whether or not the cast is Equity. If the actors are not Equity members, don’t buy tickets. If the person at the box office isn't sure, don’t buy tickets. And be sure to tell the theatre that you only see Equity Broadway tours.
It's as simple as that. You'll be doing us, yourselves, and the theatre an enormous favor. Our interest is in preserving Broadway's reputation and in preserving the dignity and elegance of our profession.
Oh, one more thing. We're trying to educate our public, so please pass this letter along.
As always, I want to take the opportunity to thank you for choosing live theatre. There's really nothing like it.
Michael Kostroff
Proud union member
(Currently touring in the all-Equity cast of Les Misérables)
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#132
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:09amDIE THREAD DIE!!!
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#133
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:10amOkay, dude. No one likes argument enders. Theres no need to be all mature and politically correct
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#134
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:11am
*stabs thread in the heart*
I CURSE YOU!!!!
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#135
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:13amSum, what really is your problem with all of this. Maybe if you explained where you fit in the equation, we'd all understand.
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#136
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:15ami dont see what is wrong with making the distinction, as a theater-goer, that is.
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#137
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:16amI thought this thread was buried and done. It is such a hateful bitter thread.
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#138
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:18amWell, you were one of the ones who was being hateful and bitter--I just want to know why. Why? Why? Why? If you can tell us, we might be able to see your point of view. Are you a producer? An actor? An audience member? Or were you involved with a non-Equity tour that was canceled? What's the buzz? Tell me what's a happening.
Updated On: 6/14/04 at 01:18 AM
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#139
Posted: 6/14/04 at 1:23am
mary oooooo that is good.
lol.
sorry- its late
Broadway Star Joined: 4/5/04
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#140
Posted: 6/16/04 at 12:32pm
BOTH the Oklahoma! Tour and the Cabaret tour SUCKED.
VERY disappointing. They are designed up to par but the talent used thus far has been sub-par to crap. I apologise for seeing them.
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#141
Posted: 6/16/04 at 2:36pmWHY SHOULD YOU WANT TO KNOW? Don't you mind about the non-Equity tours. Don't you try to think ahead! Think about Corine2 naked instead.
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#142
Posted: 6/16/04 at 3:37pm
Rational Reasoning:
I have no problem with informing the public, but I do have a problem with how they are informed and why. I see a couple of indescrepancies in your post and your letter.
"I’m not asking ticket buyers to support our cause, take sides or boycott anything."
But in your letter you say:
"Before you buy a ticket to a touring show, call the theatre and ask whether or not the cast is Equity. If the actors are not Equity members, don’t buy tickets. If the person at the box office isn't sure, don’t buy tickets. And be sure to tell the theatre that you only see Equity Broadway tours."
That is boycotting.
"I am not putting down non-Equity theatre at all! Just non-Equity “Broadway” tours [which happens to be non-Equity theatre]. Broadway shows are Equity shows. So, a non-Equity “Broadway” show is like synthetic “natural” food. There’s no such thing. However, there are plenty of smaller theatres where it’s perfectly appropriate to buy a ticket and see a non-union or partially non-union cast. There are lots of places for non-union actors to do wonderful work. A Broadway tour simply isn’t one of them."
Way to put them in their place. How about The King and I tour? It's Equity, but it's not based on the last revival which closed 7 years ago. Yet they use the word "Broadway"! Do regional Equity productions now have to use the word Broadway to describe their shows whether or not it is based on a current Broadway production because they are Equity? Or the Equity Off-Broadway tours that are listed in the Broadway series? While shows on Broadway are Equity, not every Equity show is a Broadway show, so the point is moot.
"And if it’s not Equity, it’s not Broadway."
And if it is Equity, it may not be Broadway. And it may not be good.
"Union status doesn’t determine talent."
ok....
"...to get their Equity cards and join the ranks of the top-notch professionals."
Untalented top-notch professionals???
"But on Broadway, everyone on the crew, in the pit and on the stage is in a union."
And a tour is not on Broadway. That is why it is a "tour".
"Many of the performers you're currently seeing in so-called "Broadway" tours are young, inexperienced amateurs. For some of them, it's their first professional job – the start of their careers."
The same could be said of the pop stars being stunt-cast in Broadway shows and given an Equity card to boost tickets sales, but Equity sure isn't trying to prevent that.
I can see your point about the use of the word "Broadway", but it has to go both ways. If non-union tours are forced not to use the word "Broadway", then ANY tour that is not the ACTUAL BROADWAY PRODUCTION should not use it either. Or if you REALLY want to be accurate, only shows that play on the actual street, Broadway, but even I think that is absurd. If you want to apply semantics, then you have to do so thoroughly.
I do think the people should be informed about the difference between a union tour and a non-union tour. I'm all for that. But it's the way people choose to inform them that bothers me.
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/19/04
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#143
Posted: 6/16/04 at 11:30pm
Maybe I don't get the difference in the Equity and Non-Equity. What is the criteria to be Equity?
Don't you just have to pay a ridiculous fee? And then you get special Eq auditions?
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#144
Posted: 6/16/04 at 11:56pmSum: Really mature answer. Sorta sums it up for me. Thanks.
Joined: 12/31/69
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#145
Posted: 6/17/04 at 1:40am
How about Equity just mandates an "Actors Equity Production" notice attached to titles of shows, then the people who care about the difference will notice when its missing. Surely you have control over who uses the name of your union.
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#146
Posted: 6/17/04 at 9:15amMillie42 - you've got to be kidding...you don't just pay a big fee and then get to audition for Equity shows - it just doesn't work like that. You have to either be offered an equity contract(based, hopefully, upon the talent you bring to the table) by the appropriate producer,(at which time you either pay the fee or, I belive, can have it taken out of your weekly pay while working on that contract...but don't quote me) or get the required points by working the appropriate number of weeks in houses that offer the Equity Membership Candidacy program (at least, thats how I got my card)its not a piece of cake. And, it makes you work for it,(a great thing, in my mind) getting a chance to work with professionals and watch and learn while doing - the best way possible.
Swing Joined: 6/11/04
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#147
Posted: 6/19/04 at 6:47pm
Hi, Matt
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry some of the things in my letter, and my response to earlier objections, troubled you. But I'm glad you agree with me on the basic point, that the public should be informed. As I keep trying to communicate, that's my only mission. I'm quite happy with the letter, and even happier with all the discussion that's come out of it.
I don't want to debate too many details here. My letter is already out and circulating, so any debate is purely academic. But you made a good point that I'd like to pick up on. I agree with you that the "King and I" tour you described should not be billed as a Broadway show, though it has an Equity cast. As far as I'm concerned, only touring versions of shows that actually appeared on Broadway (and I feel confident that you know I'm not just referring to the screet) should be called Broadway tours.
Now, you say that makes my point moot. But I think you're intelligent enough to see otherwise. My point still stands.
There are more than semantics involved, Matt. There's tradition, ethics, honesty and respect for the public. I feel that audiences deserve to know what they're seeing, and so I'll keep telling them, any way I can. And that's why I'm not really into hashing over the wording of a letter I've already sent.
Since you agree with me that the public should be informed, but you object to the way I've done it, I suggest you join me, and spread the word in a way that you feel is more appropriate.
Respectfully,
MK
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#148
Posted: 6/20/04 at 4:21pmRational brings up a valid point--when I was a young kid in Houston, I wanted the chance to see the Broadway version of a show when it came to town. It ISN'T fair to promote a show as if it is the Broadway version Equity or not. Should there be tours of musicals and plays that are not modeled after the Broadway original or a revival--of course! But, be honest.
THE LETTER WRITER RESPONDS:#149
Posted: 6/20/04 at 4:43pmwhat are the non-equity tours out there?? the only one i know of is miss saigon. thanks :)
Videos
