As a preamble to
addressing each issue directly, I would like to state two things. First, we’ve all been asked not to respond
“like a politician,” which is a confusing request to me. Does this mean “don’t be diplomatic?” I don’t
work that way. Does it mean “say what
you think, regardless of the consequences?” Because I rarely, if ever, do that
in my own life, let alone when asking 50,000 members to elect me as their
advocate. I typically strive for a
balance between straight talk and consideration that there are lots of opinions
that differ from mine. So, that. Second, I don’t agree with the premises of
all of these questions. In some cases, I
strongly disagree; in a couple of cases, I would classify the questions as
outright combative. However, I’ve learned
(over a lot of years of tangling with communication on difficult or radioactive
topics) that it’s generally better to meet the questioner where they are,
rather than where you wish they were. So
in that spirit, here are my thoughts.
While Equity has done a promotional campaign “Ask if it’s
Equity/Ask if it’s really Broadway,” (As if Broadway equals brilliance!)
regarding the non-union tours, it’s equal to trying to plug the hole in the
boat after Equity allowed it to start sinking. On the same note, many union
actors/SMs claim the lowest tier Union tours are now beneath the non-union
standards. What are your comments?
1. Equity has heard a lot about
tiers. There was something of a member
revolt last year (largely young members, as it happens; the very actors and
stage managers who some assume would be thrilled to accept these contracts)
about the wages and especially about how the finances of the road have
changed. I attended the Town Hall that
these members successfully demanded, and it was packed. Given a sophisticated and intelligent
explanation of how touring itself has changed (guarantees, trucking costs, etc)
it seemed to me that most of those members left that room far more satisfied
than when they entered it. This tells me
two things: first, we have a lot of smart members who deserve nuanced
information. And second: if we don’t
deliver that information in ways that gives them credit for more than being
able to stand on line for orange juice commercial auditions (no offense, orange
juice; you are delicious), our members start to doubt the sincerity and
transparency of their own union. And
that helps absolutely no one.
I know that there are some who take these jobs just to get
health weeks. But also, there are
members around the country who are comparing these contracts to the
lower-paying contracts they are currently working, and who might actually
be enthusiastic about some of this work.
If you live in New York and your gold standard is the Production
Contract, then sure, the numbers are lower. But if you live in many other places I’ve
worked, and you could make your whole living on a tour--instead of working a
full-time day job and then rehearsing all night--you might welcome that. IMO, this speaks to a larger issue: when
everything is viewed through the lens of NYC, it does a disservice to many,
many other people. And fixes like online
EPA signups, which I’ve been talking about since I took office six years ago
(and is a conversation I know continued after I left office three years ago)
could make it much easier for members in other cities. I remember having an early-stage meeting with
Brian Myers Cooper and a (now former) staff member at AEA, in which we were
told that online signups would be disastrous.
And I walked out of the meeting thinking “well, not if you live in DC,
or Philly, or Boston, and you could actually get a reasonable appointment
instead of taking a 3 a.m. bus.”
Finally, one more
thing that will underline probably everything I say in this document: members must participate. In a matter of weeks, Equity will be asking
for thoughts about these exact contracts, so that the team has that information
and can use it in the upcoming negotiation of Production and Touring (including
SETA) later this year. If your biggest
beef with the Union is that you want better touring agreements, then for God’s
sake, participate in that discussion.
Because it enables your fellow members to walk into that room and have
more leverage on your behalf.
Though the Union was formed to protect its members, what, if
any, responsibility does the Union have in serving, nurturing, promoting the
theatre? Without IT, we’d all be jobless.
2. Well, sure. And AEA does engage in arts advocacy, some
lobbying and a fair amount of promotion of the arts in general, although our
Constitution prohibits the endorsement of political candidates. For the record: there is no part of me that
believes that AEA has any interest or investment in killing theater. Quite the contrary. And also for the record: as an actor, I have
been in a lot of rooms with a lot of producers who have told me that Equity was
trying to destroy them. And it was
usually because they had asked for a concession that they had not been
given. As a Councillor and then as an Officer,
I typically view minimum agreements as a baseline. If a producer wants to go below the minimum
(double the permitted unpaid layoff to accommodate a star’s touring schedule,
for example, or to revive a previously-produced Showcase before the rules allow
that to be done, for another), I have to think long and hard about that. And weigh the potential precedent we set by
allowing those things, and how those “exceptions” can quickly become a new
standard that everyone feels they can ask for, and that a committee then feels
compelled to grant. I wish everybody
would join a committee--even briefly, even as an observer--so that they
understand what a slippery slope this can be.
Equity exists to act
in service of its members. Ideally, that
includes the greater theatrical community as well. But I do not believe AEA works best as a
nanny state. I believe it works best
when we, as members, communicate as peers.
And again, the more educated our members become, and the more they
participate, the more likely we all are to be able to look at the big picture
together.
HOW do you think the change to the 99-seat plan, as it
currently exists, will help/hurt the LA Theatre and the theatre community as a
whole?
3. Well, I think it’s
a mess, for several reasons. First, I
believe that minimum wage is a fine thing to aspire to. But what theatre company on earth wouldn’t
need some time to adjust to such a significant budget change? Trying to roll it out immediately, if it does
pass, could be a disaster. And even if
the Union is okay with some attrition in the service of the minimum wage package,
this would mostly just do a fabulous job of reinforcing the “us vs them”
mentality that is so destructive.
Additionally, having
served on a few negotiating teams when I was a Councillor/Officer, the presence
of volunteer labor in one market has the power to erode contracts
elsewhere. It’s hard to sit across the
table from employers--in San Diego or San Francisco or even LA County--and
basically say “ignore what’s happening in Los Angeles; you need to pay actors
more” when those theatres are also
struggling to keep the lights on. There
are some very, very wealthy LORT theatres, to be sure. There are also many who have been surviving
on a wing and a prayer since the crash in 2008 dried up their credit
lines. So when members hear “it’s a
national union,” it doesn’t mean “your local issues don’t matter.” It means something closer to “we have to
examine how your local issues may affect SPT in Illinois or LOA in Florida, in
ways that you don’t intend and certainly would not wish upon those actors.” I understand that pro99 is fighting for their
community’s right to use their free time to create art. But this seemingly
local issue is just not that simple, when considered against the whole. And I should emphasize here that I do not
have any kind of vote here, as I’m neither a current Councillor/Officer nor an
LA County member. But that’s what
springs to mind for me.
Finally, the
communication has been dreadful. We’ve
got Councillors--who are not even authorized to speak on behalf of the
Union--unofficially trying to explain the situation on social media. We’ve got paid-up members who say that
they’re not getting referendum ballots.
Both “sides” (and again, I hate using that word, because we are
ostensibly on the same side) feel victimized and criticized and defensive,
which has created so much anger. And if
this was the only example of the negative consequences of poor communication
strategy, I could live with that. But
it’s not. There’s a blowup almost every
year, like clockwork. And I’m talking
“major national blowup”, not “tempest in a teapot”. Equity needs to recognize that despite its
intentions, there are plenty of members who apparently don’t understand what is
being said, and why.
What is your take on the methods Equity is using, including
the Anti-99 phone bank, to confuse its membership during the 99 Seat voting
process? (Matter of fact, this includes the lies in the phone bank towards
Blank Theatre, the tone of many of the councilors, McColl's use of double speak
and obfuscation, the incredibly insidious change in mid-stream saying yes means
you want change and after you vote yes THEN they'll change the proposals, it
goes on and on, and the behavior has seriously eroded the legitimacy of Equity
in this town. Examples here: http://losangeles.bitter-lemons.com/?s=actors+equity+99+seat&x=30&y=7#sthash.Nxu70Os7.dpbs
4. Okay, here’s where
these questions veer into the land of not-objective, but okay. I get it.
I can’t characterize all the tactics that Equity is reportedly using,
because--for example--I’ve asked for a transcript or a legal audio recording of
an offensive phone bank call and never received one. Deductive reasoning tells me that the Union
is probably advocating for its official position, which is understandable.
As for the Blank,
again, I’m only hearing what was actually said through a filter (full
disclosure: I did a show at the Blank several years ago, and have spoken to
Daniel Henning more than once about this whole 99-seat episode). Just for kicks, I went onto Guidestar and
checked out the Blank’s most recent 990, which is a good way of dispelling
misinformation...but I see that most of the figures regarding rent and other
expense specifics are blacked out.
That’s legal, of course, but I think that the Blank could shoot any
perjorative “theories” out of the sky if they made their numbers public without
requiring in-person inquiries. In the
same vein, why not post a copy of board minutes, or some other document,
reflecting a discussion about converting to contract? If they intended to move in that direction
before the 2008 crash sent their plans up in smoke, this would easily reinforce
their argument. It’s hard to argue with
a good-faith paper trail.
Finally, I’ve been on
record several times stating that the “YES vote means that you vaguely support
change, and pay no attention to the proposals behind the curtain” message is
preposterous. Some of this, I think, is
Council-speak for the process, particularly the timing of when changes to the
proposals are permitted, based on the terms of the settlement agreement. But for the many thousands of members who
don’t walk around with the Constitution, By-Laws, and Robert’s Rules of Order
in their pockets, it can certainly read as obfuscation. Which is why I favor more plain-English
communication between our Union and its members.
The LA 99 seat code ‘VOTE FOR A CHANGE” says it’s for any
change, whatever the change is will be decided later. While both coasts want change to the 99 Seat,
we don’t want to write a blank check that allows for someone to fill in the
blanks later. IF the proposed 99 change passes, WILL members get to vote on
those specific changes later?
5. I’m confused. “Vote For A Change?” If this refers to the
concept that members are not voting on specific proposals, but rather on the
general idea that change needs to happen (and I think that’s what’s being asked),
see above. As I understand it, the
advisory vote is to be taken into account by the Council during its debate in a
couple weeks, at which time the existing proposals can be revised. The settlement agreement, as I read it, does
not require a member vote on amendments.
But that would be a question for a labor lawyer, not an actor.
Why has it taken Equity 25 years to suddenly realize that they are "breaking federal labor
laws" in regard to the 99-seat code? Why didn't they bring this minimum
wage ‘issue’ up back in the 80's? (Respectfully, please don’t say, “We’re not
lawyers.” ANY Union has plenty of lawyers, and plenty of its members are
lawyers who say this is absolutely untrue.)
6. But see, I have to say that I’m not a lawyer. Because I’m not. I have good reading comprehension
skills...but there are things like case law and legal precedent that I have no
clue about. To the larger point, of
course, we actually don’t need to be lawyers--because our Union hires lawyers
for the express purpose of interpreting our contracts and the law. And regarding the labor law issue, there are
obviously federal laws, and state laws, both of which govern employment and
both of which must be complied with. To
assume that those laws haven’t
changed in 25 years is the real problem embedded in this question. So again: a labor lawyer would be able to
point to the exact moment at which attorneys for the Union believe that the
existing 99-seat plan--or any other agreement, code, or contract--became noncompliant
with state and/or federal law. And here,
again, is where I personally believe the Union could have communicated better;
as problematic as it may seem to have thousands of members trying to interpret
legislation, I would have nonetheless pushed Equity to cite the relevant
clause(s) or statute(s) right from the very beginning. When in doubt, choose transparency.
Why is Equity trying to quickly pass the 99 seat change
instead of sitting down with the members who have been making theatre to get
actual factual evidence on the business of theatre in L.A? Why not use the
resources and firsthand knowledge of the AEA actor-producers who have been
making great work for the last twenty five years?"
7. Everything that I
have read and discussed has indicated that AEA is closely following the terms
laid out in the original settlement agreement regarding any changes to the
99-seat plan. I would speculate that the
Union is adhering strictly to those guidelines in order to protect against
legal exposure. I do know, however, that
a number of Councillors have had private conversations and small meetings with
LA members that they characterize as very productive and informative...and the
Councillors are the ones who will decide what gets finalized. I know time is short, but if member-producers
would still like to speak personally to Councillors before April 21st, I
believe it’s very possible to make this happen.
Where do you stand on the statement, AEA needs to “protect”
actors from themselves? To the adult actors, that seems condescending. Pacino
has publicly says he does ‘shit’ movies so he can return to the poor paying
work that really matters. IF there are
sleazy small time producers, making big bucks – why don’t you stop then,
instead of everyone??
8. That’s a couple
different questions in one, so let me answer the easy one first. Any sleazy small-time producers exploiting
actors should absolutely be dealt with.
And if you personally know of any, contact me directly. I will protect your confidentiality, and if I
am not elected, I will pass your concerns onto an elected official who will
talk to you. And if it rises to the
level of being handed to staff--for what would actually constitute
enforcement--then we’ll go ahead with that to the best of everyone’s
ability. One caveat: as I understand it,
the current 99-seat plan is very, very difficult to enforce re: producers
because, technically, it is an agreement between AEA and its own members, not AEA and producers.
As to protecting
actors from ourselves, I’m of two minds.
The first is that there have been times, in hindsight, that I’m glad the
Union stepped in on my behalf. In one
instance, AEA did not allow me to sign a contract for my first major
(high-paying) role, because I had no idea that it contained an illegal clause
allowing the producers to renew me without my consent. I would have happily signed that and never
known the difference--but allowing that to stand could set precedent for other
actors. AEA went all the way to (successful) arbitration with that on my
behalf, while I was working under the other, legal, terms of the rider. And while the producers made veiled threats
to me personally and piled on the guilt, my Union had my back. Quite frankly, there have been times when I
would have worked neck-deep in quicksand because I loved the project so
much...but if I do that, others will also be expected to. So I’m glad that Equity sets a baseline for
professional actors and stage managers, because otherwise I would have given
away the farm on numerous occasions. And
when you’re in a Union, it’s important to recognize that you’re not just
talking about your own farm. All the
other farms are potentially affected as well.
HOWEVER. The line between “protecting me” and “telling
me what to do” is a pretty bold one. I
joined the Union--quite simply--to represent my professional interests. I pay dues in order to work under the
protection of AEA contracts. I expect
Equity to step in if the provisions we’ve bargained for, over the course of a
century, are being violated or disregarded.
This is not to say, however, that I have any interest in
Union-as-nanny-state. The question of
how much freedom we are willing to give up in the interest of security is certainly
a common one, and has different answers for different people. But that’s mine.
Oh, and obviously, Al
Pacino is a tremendous actor…but it’s hard for me to compare my career to his,
in terms of how we respectively make decisions.
The uproar to the 25 year old 99-seat plan has been
tremendous, and rightfully so. The NY version, The Showcase Code, is 33
years old. When established in 1982, the Showcase code clearly made no
exceptions for social media, the internet, diminishing rental space, etc. – It
also established the top ticket price at $15. JUST adjusted for inflation, that
is the equivalent of $36.49 in 2015 USD. The current top ticket price is $18 –
less than some Manhattan movie tickets. What changes do you propose for the
Showcase code?
9. I’ve had this
discussion several times, both publicly and privately, over the past few
weeks. My first thought is that it’s a
bit of a zero-sum game to conflate 99-seat and Showcase, unless one is trying
to gain NYC support for what’s going on in LA.
Which, I suppose, is fair game.
Here are the things I
like about Showcase: fewer performances before converting to contract, over a
shorter period of time. A true
“showcase” for actors to be seen, without the perception that it’s a real
run. My showcase work has been some of
my absolute favorite, and in at least one instance, provided me the opportunity
to do a role I almost certainly would not have been cast in otherwise. If it was Broadway, or even off-Broadway, it
would have gone to a TV or film star.
I absolutely,
positively agree that the ticket prices should be examined, and the inflation
argument is a compelling reason to do so (although based on the regularity of
this assertion, somebody out there goes to way nicer movie theatres than I
do). I would support the caps being removed
altogether. That said, I don’t know if
there are any existing proposed modifications to Showcase, because I’m not
currently a Councillor or Officer.
Sidebar: when I served on the off-off-Bway committee, which regulates
Showcase, I was surprised by how many concession requests we got to a pretty
straightforward set of rules.
Fundamentally, I don’t know that Showcase will ever be a moneymaker (nor
do I think there are many people who expect it to be), but I do believe that,
given the structure and guidelines as they currently exist, it has inherent
value. Frankly, I think it would have
solved a lot of problems if the existing Showcase code was the model for
beginning the revision of 99-seat. And
while we’re at it, let’s look at the Members Project Code so that we have some
parity and consistency across contracts, while still accounting for the
uniqueness of individual regions/liaison cities.
Several members of the AEA council have repeatedly referred
to Equity members who oppose the proposal as "anti-union" and
suggested if they don't support it, they should quit. Do you support a union
member's right to express disagreement about matters of policy? What are
Councilors' responsibilities regarding how they treat fellow union
members? Why, if at all, is the 99
seat/Showcase codes important to you?
10. I would like to be very, very clear on this
point. It is my firm belief that any one
of our members who chooses to participate is pro-Union. It is my even firmer belief that our Union is
well-served by members who continue to be involved when the issue they are most
passionate about is resolved. It’s easy
to get angry about one thing; I’ve done it.
What’s harder, in the midst of this crazy, cobbled-together business
model, is making time to attend a committee meeting once a month. But it is incredibly important, and that
participation directly affects our day-to-day lives as actors.
Also, there’s this
ridiculous idea that we all need to work toward consensus, all the time. And to this, I simply throw my hands up and
ask “WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!?!?” I mean, come
on. We are artists, every last one of us
(yes, stage managers, you too!)
Consensus is pleasant, but so much of our identity as artists is that
unique passion. I would argue that the
person who tells us to check our passion at the door is delusional. And more to the point, I don’t understand why
we’re supposed to tuck away the very thing that makes us artists when it’s time
to discuss the business of our art. We should argue. We should
fight for what we believe in. We
should also try very hard not to be flat-out assholes to each other. In that respect, a Union that looks quite a
lot like an exciting, collaborative rehearsal room--where there are rules of
the road, sure, but where we also aren’t afraid to have our say--is my ideal
version of Actors Equity.
As all theatres need to report final statistics, why can you
tell us what percentage of 99 seat/Showcase code theatres made a profit in
2014? This has to be an easy number to get – yet no one seems to know it.
11. Nope. I don’t have it. Maybe the current Councillors/Officers/Staff
have been studying those numbers. I know
that a lot of them have spent time examining tax returns. But let’s be real: “profit,” especially for a
nonprofit or not-for-profit entity, is an ambiguous and fluid thing. For example, if Theater X (a true
hypothetical; I’m just riffing here) operated under the 99-seat plan--which
obviously provides actors a stipend, but not a proper salary or benefits--and
showed zero profit for a particular calendar year, does that mean that Theater
X didn’t make any money? Okay, what if
Theater X paid 8 staff members? What
about 20 staff members? What about all
the designers and the musical director? What if it spent $50,000 renovating the
space? Obviously, the people who love
and work hard for Theater X would have reasons to be proud, and the attendance
might improve, and the shows might be great. But as long as any nonprofit
entity spends all the money it makes,
it will show no profit. So looking
simply at “profit,” instead of examining revenue vs expenses, does not reflect
the whole picture.
The theatre should never be just an employer. It’s not Starbucks. Where do you think the theatre fits into
today’s culture?
12. Lol. Is this a question? Okay:
-Of
course the theatre *should* never be just an employer; I would argue that it
*is* never just an employer. Especially
to us. But for me to make the argument
here about why theatre is more than simple commerce would be, IMHO, preaching
to the converted.
-Seriously, why the hate for
Starbucks? I kinda feel like there are
some people who like working for Starbucks.
Or making minimum wage at other jobs.
Or working purely on commission, with no salary, as I do in my day
job. This idea that “minimum wage” makes
being an actor equivalent to “all those jobs we don’t do” seems reductive to
me. And, frankly, a bit snobby. I spent time talking to a young flight
attendant the other day, and I’ll tell you what I told her: I could never, ever
in a million years do what she does. I
don’t have the patience or the customer service skills to handle people at any
stage of air travel, let alone with a smile on my face. I’m sure that there have been many times when
I’ve made a lot more money than she has...but I have an infinite amount of
respect for her and her coworkers. It’s
the same reason I respect people working at Starbucks; as simple as it may seem
to some, I could easily have stress dreams about trying to get the foam right
and make the caramel sauce look pretty while customers are barking at me. We all have different skills; it doesn’t have
to become a value judgment based on take-home pay.
-If there’s one thing I think we can agree
on above all else, it’s that theatre is an extremely important part of any
culture, regardless of the era. That
said, it’s also a business. Not commerce
at the expense of art, hopefully...but art that recognizes commerce as part of
survival. This is not new, of
course. I would love to see the day when
theaters don’t have to compromise on producing adventurous new work. But the truth is that, like everything else,
theatre lives in a land of supply and demand.
I’ve used this example before, but I think there will always be some
kind of tradeoff. If you want to do a
new play, you probably have to program Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams plays
(neither of which, for the record, is anything to be ashamed of). If you want to put up an exciting
undiscovered musical, then you may have to sell the hell out of the space with
“Hello, Dolly” so you can keep the lights on. Could we advocate for more
government support of the arts? Yes, and
Equity does. But will it fundamentally
change the short-term market, or will politicians go to the mat for arts
funding? I’m not counting on it. In fact, I think that we are better off not
to count on it, and then be pleasantly surprised when legislators do show up
for us.
Several members of council have repeatedly referred to Equity
members who oppose the proposal as"anti-union"
and suggested if they don't support it, they should quit. (Very Boss Fatt of
them!) Do you support a union member's
right to express disagreement about matters of policy? What are Councilors'
responsibilities regarding how they treat fellow union members? IF NO ONE is
running against them, what are our rights as members to remove them from
office?
13. See above for what
I think of the whole “anti-union” thing.
I can’t see myself ever advocating that members quit, although I respect
their decision if they really don’t feel they’re being represented, and paying
dues no longer seems like a good use of their money. And even if that’s the case, I would ask them
to try getting involved with a committee first.
There’s a low bar for involvement, and experiencing the process from the
inside is incredibly educational. And of
course members should express disagreement.
The most productive way to do that, in my opinion, is to be involved in shaping
the policy before it reaches fever
pitch. Because when everyone’s upset and
pissed off, nobody feels good about it.
Finally, there is a procedure here (http://actorsequity.org/docs/about/AEA_ConstitutionBylaws.pdf,
page 12) for removal of Councillors or Officers, but it’s very limited. Frankly, the easiest way to replace someone
is to step up and run against them.
Council seats come up every year, and Officers run every 3 years.
If the non-star members do make a mass exodus from Equity
after the 99 seat vote – and it is a reality on both coasts, what are your
thoughts. NO ONE wants to leave, but it may be the only choice that it left?
14. Well, if noone
wants to leave, then why cede the union to people you don’t agree with? I disagree that it’s a reality in New York,
at least as a mass exodus. There’s
simply enough Equity work in NYC to make membership worthwhile. In LA, my fervent hope is that however the
vote goes, the passion isn’t lost. It is
so easy for this exact kind of
engagement to simply flame out once a single issue is resolved. It is also easy for people to get discouraged
and throw in the towel. I understand and
respect every member’s right to make that choice. But we would just be so much better off if
some of those members decided to stay involved.
It’s hard to hear now, I think; I’m sure the LA membership is exhausted
and ready for the whole damn thing to be over.
But the people serving on Council don’t inherently have some mysterious
superior value as artists--they’re just the ones who made the choice to run,
and then show up to do the work. I think
most of them would actually tell you that, if you asked them. Oh, and by the way, I lost the first two
times I ran for Council. But I knew it
was something I wanted to be involved with, so I kept plugging. And now I’ve gone from committee member to
Councillor to Officer to Presidential candidate. It’s not that hard.
Harold Clurman, one of the greats of the American Theatre –
talked about artists versus the ‘employees’ sitting in sludge and just wanting
a job, or as he stated were “more
frequently known as an Actor Equity Member. How, if at all, has that changed in
60 years?
15. Couple things:
Harold Clurman was obviously an incredibly insightful man. I’ve always loved what he said about
theatre’s relationship to society, and I studied at Stella Adler (which totally
changed me as an actor) and am mesmerized by The Group. So: not objective. That said, I have to admit I don’t know this
exact quotation, and a quick google search did not provide it. If you can give me the exact quote, I’m happy
to comment. The wording here confuses me
a bit, or else I’d just take a stab at it. But also, Clurman was a director, so
his perspective was fundamentally different.
There are 150 times the companies that agree with us, cheer
us, and tell us, we are going to get blackballed as we asked for a better
Union! If we were anti-union, we would have left and saved ourselves the
hassle. What do you feel about this huge majority of people who are AFRAID of
their union????
16. I don’t understand
the first statement, so I can’t agree or disagree. As for the rest: I think that if you were
anti-union, you wouldn’t have bothered writing these questions. You would have saved about 120-ish bucks a
year and a lot of hassle. And as for
being afraid: just stop it.
Seriously. You are the union; all
of us are. So make the choice to be part
of the solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment