#26
Posted: 1/5/07 at 12:01pm
Erin I see both sides of the issue because 1. I am a current member of Equity. and 2. I performed on Non-union tours for over 2 years of my early career.
Equity is bemoaning the fact that these tours were going into major markets that previously were reserved for the Union Tours. The shows were sandwiched in between the Phantom, Les Mis, Lion King, tours and were advertised as part of the "Broadway Series" in many of these markets. ( Iknow this because I was on 2 of these tours). Cameron Mackintosh's Oliver Tour (a non-union production co produced by NetWorks) in 03 openned for an extended run at the Kodak theater in LA, and charged in the neighborhood of 100 bucks a ticket. Equity isn't upset at Tours that stay out of the major markets. There is a place for shows that play the Bus and Truck circuit of Colleges and reional PACS. And suggesting that they support producers that are unwilling to even try to negotiate with them is at complete odds with the mission statement of the union.
Here is the problem and the reason why it is far from being solved. Non-Union producers are able to hire actors at a much lower cost thatn their Union counterparts. They are younger, need the experience, and aren't necessarily as concerned with health insurance issues yet. (I know there are exceptions to this so don't flame!) My Salary/perdiem package on my first non-union tour in 1999 was 300/375. The 375 went to pay for my (double occupancy,sometimes tripleto save cash!)hotel room and my food. No health insurance, no pension input. Just two months before my tour openned the tour was on an equity contract. The person in my track was making about 1275 in salary and about 600-700 in per diem, plus there was a healthand pension input by the producer to the tune of about 160 bucks a week. This is the same show-costumes, set, director, choreographer, etc. My non-union tour played the same venues and charged the same ticket prices as the equity tour had the year before. It was a no-brainer for the producer, the profit margin is ridiculously better going non-union. The production costs of an equity production on a full contract are very restrictive. In the 2004 negotiations, equity had to acknowledge this fact and make changes to the Production touring contract in an effort to find some kind of parity.
Now, Would I trade the opportunity to perform in a multi-million dollar production while seeing the U.S. and Canada on someone ele's dime. Not at 21. Now? Maybe but I probably would hold out for better money. Somehere in between these two extremes, I believe is the answer.
I will say though, that I would hold up both of my Non-union tours against the awful Broadway perfomance of RENT I saw last week.
Equity is bemoaning the fact that these tours were going into major markets that previously were reserved for the Union Tours. The shows were sandwiched in between the Phantom, Les Mis, Lion King, tours and were advertised as part of the "Broadway Series" in many of these markets. ( Iknow this because I was on 2 of these tours). Cameron Mackintosh's Oliver Tour (a non-union production co produced by NetWorks) in 03 openned for an extended run at the Kodak theater in LA, and charged in the neighborhood of 100 bucks a ticket. Equity isn't upset at Tours that stay out of the major markets. There is a place for shows that play the Bus and Truck circuit of Colleges and reional PACS. And suggesting that they support producers that are unwilling to even try to negotiate with them is at complete odds with the mission statement of the union.
Here is the problem and the reason why it is far from being solved. Non-Union producers are able to hire actors at a much lower cost thatn their Union counterparts. They are younger, need the experience, and aren't necessarily as concerned with health insurance issues yet. (I know there are exceptions to this so don't flame!) My Salary/perdiem package on my first non-union tour in 1999 was 300/375. The 375 went to pay for my (double occupancy,sometimes tripleto save cash!)hotel room and my food. No health insurance, no pension input. Just two months before my tour openned the tour was on an equity contract. The person in my track was making about 1275 in salary and about 600-700 in per diem, plus there was a healthand pension input by the producer to the tune of about 160 bucks a week. This is the same show-costumes, set, director, choreographer, etc. My non-union tour played the same venues and charged the same ticket prices as the equity tour had the year before. It was a no-brainer for the producer, the profit margin is ridiculously better going non-union. The production costs of an equity production on a full contract are very restrictive. In the 2004 negotiations, equity had to acknowledge this fact and make changes to the Production touring contract in an effort to find some kind of parity.
Now, Would I trade the opportunity to perform in a multi-million dollar production while seeing the U.S. and Canada on someone ele's dime. Not at 21. Now? Maybe but I probably would hold out for better money. Somehere in between these two extremes, I believe is the answer.
I will say though, that I would hold up both of my Non-union tours against the awful Broadway perfomance of RENT I saw last week.
Other than that, did you enjoy the play Mrs Lincoln?
