I've yet to read the comments myself, but we all appreciate Nick taking the time to respond. Many thanks!
Dear Allie, Colin et alia,
Both Larry and Kate have beaten
me to the punch on these questions, and they have carried off most of
the prizes and tipped hats for their articulate answers, but I am happy
to add a few points of my own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
It's a
misrepresentation to say SET-Agreement tours are beneath non-union
standards and here's why: the Short Engagement Touring Agreement
provides for work rules, travel rules, pension credits, health payments,
and other worker protections that are nowhere to be found in a
non-Equity job. Also, the SET Agreement and the Tiers of the Production
Contract provide for a back-end profit participation that in some cases
(Newsies, Les Miserables) brings the minimum salaries above Production
Contract minimum. That said, one of the difficult decisions in creating
these contracts, particularly the SET Agreement, was where to draw the
line on compensation . As Kate pointed out in one of her comments, $550
per week plus per diem may seem like an insult to a NYC member used to
making Production contract money but it may seem like a fabulous
opportunity to a member in Seattle or Chicago or Minneapolis.
And
Equity deserves a great deal of credit for seeing the handwriting on
the Touring wall and creating the Tiers, which have brought the vast
majority of the one-week touring market back into the Equity fold. And
given that it is the local presenters (with whom we have no bargaining
relationship and therefor no leverage) who determine the guarantee our
bargaining partner the producer will receive -- which determines what
level tier or SET agreement the contract is and therefore how much the
minimum will be, Equity deserves even more credit for coming up with a
strategy (telling subscribers and patrons to "ask if it's Equity") to
put some pressure on the presenters to choose the Equity tours marketed
by our bargaining partners rather than the cheaper non-Equity tours.
And
nobody is saying that Broadway equals brilliance (though I have seen
some fantastic work on Broadway this season.) The campaign is about the
quality of the contract -- union protections, benefits, work rules --
not the quality of the work.
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.
I refer you to the Preamble to the
AEA Constitution. "We hereby constitute ourselves a voluntary
Association to advance, promote, foster, and benefit all those connected
with the art of the theatre and particularly the profession of acting
and the conditions of persons engaged therein; to protect and secure the
rights of actors; to inform them as to their legal rights and remedies;
to advise and assist them in obtaining employment and proper
compensation therefor." That is our mission. I take it seriously.
Today
at the meet and greet for the play I am doing at the Long Wharf, I
buttonholed the theater's chairman of the board and talked to him about
board development and the need to find new board members and new sources
of funding as local banks and utilities are subsumed into megabanks and
conglomerates. I make it my personal mission to attempt to improve the
financial health of every theater organization I encounter. Why? Not
just because I love Theatre, but because a healthier theatre can hire
more actors and pay them more.
That's why I wish those who
cajoled the head of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and the Chair of
the California Assembly's "Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism &
Internet Media" committee and the Entertinment committee of the Valley
Industry & Commerce Association to issue statements opposing
Equity's efforts to change 99 Seat Theatre had instead used those
lobbying efforts to convince those worthies to create some laws and
regulations that would actually support Theater: rent subsidies,
allocation of sales tax dollars, etc. etc.
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?
Okay.
This question, if I understand it correctly, needs a six-month answer.
I will try to be succinct. The current Equity proposals have
frequently been described as "one size fits all," but there are three
separate categories: the Self-Produced option, the Membership Company
rule, and the 99 Seat Theatre Agreement, which is basically the current
Plan with wages for rehearsal and performance instead of just a stipend
for performance. In fact, the current 99 Seat Theatre Plan is actually
"one size fits all:" whether you are a hole-in-the-wall artist
collective or a well-established theatrical producing entity, you all
get to take advantage of the same sweetheart deal of no rehearsal pay,
modest performance stipends and up to 80 performances. That sweetheart
deal is very supportive of the member who has a hankering to put on a
show with some pals but serves as a powerful disincentive for an
established producer to use a theater of more than 99 seats or to put
actors on contract. The current Equity proposals are, in my opinion, an
improvement over the current 99 Seat Theatre Plan as they stand. But I
have heard lots and lots of suggestions for changing/improving the
Equity proposals, and I firmly believe that some of those will be
adopted next week in Council. Should significant changes be made to the
99 Seat Theatre Plan such that the Plan is no longer available to the
members, the union will be free to meet with producers, theatre
companies, producer-members, etc. directly rather than going through the
Review Committee. The union will then have the power to tweak, revise,
expand, improve the 99 Seat Theatre Agreement and the internal
membership rules.
I absolutely believe that the future of Theatre in LA will be better and brighter.
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
Phone
banks are a get-out-the-vote tool. Your elected leaders voted
overwhelmingly in favor of the current proposals, so those folks manning
the phone banks represented the union's position. (And let's drop
"anti-99" as well as "anti-union.")
As to the Blank Theatre, I
have no idea what their rent situation is, so I will accept their
disclaimer. Regarding their statement that the reason they have not
fulfilled their avowed (since 1990) intent to become a LORT theatre is
solely the 2008 recession and not the financial advantage of the 99 Seat
Theatre Plan, that seems disingenuous. Dozens and dozens of theatres
across the country have fought through the financial setbacks of
2008-2009 to come onto Equity contract.
As to the tone of
my fellow councillors, maybe the truly surprising part is how civil
they generally have been. There has been a lot of invective, outrage
and unbridled passion flowing into our e-mail inboxes. (We have also
received a number of calm, rational, and genteel notes asking me to vote
"No" and thanking me for my service.) Actors, perhaps by definition,
have easy access to their emotions; there have been lots of rude things
said on both sides.
For myself, I have always seen though the
language to the passion and commitment to LA Theatre and to a cherished
method of exercising one's craft. I have seen the fear and the anxiety
that those cherished opportunities would be destroyed. That is what I
have always responded to.
As to Mary McColl, I have spent four
years working by her side, and I tell you she is simply the best. You
want her in your foxhole. You want her on your negotiating team. You
want her as your Executive Director. Rather than being obfuscatory, she
is a remarkable straight-shooter. I back her all the way.
I am
not fond of the idea of promoting a Yes vote as a vote for "change in
general" because both the Vote Yes for Any Sort of Change and the Vote
No if you want Change But Not This Change have muddied the waters.
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?
The
check is far from blank. The shy, bashful LA County members have
managed to be surprisingly articulate and forthcoming in what they want
and don't want in a theatrical agreement and in their theatrical
opportunities. "Both coasts want change to the 99 Seat," you say.
Good, because I believe change is coming. It will reflect the survey of
the LA members, it will reflect the focus groups, it will reflect the
Town Hall Meeting and the Special Membership Meeting, it will reflect
the dozens and dozens of e-mails we have received. And no, members will
not get to vote on those specific changes -- just as members do not
currently get to vote on the HAT contract or the SPT contract.
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.)
Equity is not breaking federal Labor laws
because we are not the Employer. Although I agree with the Federal
government that employers should pay employees at least minimum wage,
the impetus for this change came from members who approached us last
year about their wish to be compensated for their work.
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?"
Equity has
solicited input from members and producer-members for months now. The
current 99 Seat Plan stipulation that Equity must deal only with the
Review Committee has limited Equity's ability to deal with and be
responsive to individual producer-members.
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??
I
think the union does indeed have an interest in protecting actors from
undervaluing their work. Al Pacino doesn't need to make money from his
stage work; not all actors are so fortunate. A young actor offered a
Broadway show might well be happy to do that show for $50 a week in
order to get the exposure; that would not be good for other actors.
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?
I am not currently
proposing any changes to the Showcase Code, but I think the time has
come to remove the top ticket price limitation.
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?
I
totally support members' rights (and councilors' rights) to express
disagreement, both as a free speech issue and because I find dialectic
to be an effective way to develop strong policy. I think "anti-union"
is a mistaken and unfortunate characterization. (I also disagree with
the locution "Pro-99" -- a distressing echo of "pro-life" -- as if
Equity leadership were "anti-99.") We are indeed all on the same side:
the side of Theater, the side of improving and increasind opportunities
for actors and stage managers. We just disagree about our methods.
Why, if at all, is the 99 seat/Showcase codes important to you?
As
I have consistently written (I refer you to my Equity News column
"Work, Art, and 'Work'"), I acknowledge the value of Theater as a source
of Creativity and Community and Career Opportunities, and in my own
life, those have frequently trumped Cash as a reason to do a particular
job.
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.
Sadly, I am sure that number
is zero. I assume that most 99 Seat Theatres are not-for-profits, and
by their very definition they do not (and legally cannot) make a profit.
Even more sadly, Theater in general does not make a profit. Box office
receipts usually cover only about 50% of a theater's expenses.
Theaters, even the big-name theaters, have to scrounge for donors and
patrons and grants and corporate support to make ends meet.
The theatre should never be just an employer. It’s not Starbucks. Where do you think the theatre fits in to today’s culture?
I
love Theater. I love seeing Theater, and I am a cheerleader and a
champion for the shows I see. I love doing Theater because it gives me
the chance to work on more interesting roles than the stuff I do on TV
and film and because when you do a play or a musical you become a family
and I love my theatrical families. (I refer you to my Equity News
column "Why I Do Theatre" and the piece on my Facebook candidacy page
"The Case for Analog Entertainment in a Digital World.")
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?
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?
It is the
"non-star members" for whom the union exists. In 1913, stars like Mary
Madden Fiske and Francis Wilson didn't need a union to achieve fair
treatment from employers. If members disagree with Council's decision
on 99 Seat Theatre -- whatever that decision may turn out to be (and I
truly have no more idea of what Council will decide than I do of who
will win the 2015 World Series) -- then I strongly suggest that members
continue to make their case to their elected officers and councilors
about how to improve Theatre in LA. Work from within to effect change.
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?
We actors
and stage managers exist simultaneously as artists and as
small-businesspeople. We all want to do good work -- Art when possible
-- and we all want to make some money doing it. I have never sat in
sludge (whatever that metaphor might mean) but sometimes I just want a
job and I'm not too fussy about the Art part. The union exists to
ensure that actors and stage managers get fair treatment and make some
money; the union doesn't enter into the subjective world of Art -- good
art vs. bad art vs. non-art.
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????
No one at Equity -- staff or councillors -- is
going to blackball anyone. (What would I blackball you from? The LORT
committee?) I agree that some people are afraid, but I certainly hope
they aren't afraid of the elected representatives and the staff that are
here to serve them. I think the fear is members' concern about the
possibility of losing valued opportunities to practice their craft. I
share that concern and as I work to create theatre that values actors, i
am also working to maintain if not increase opportunities for our
members.
1 comment:
http://losangeles.bitter-lemons.com/2015/04/16/the-sin-of-self-producing/#sthash.V8l9xI90.dpbs
Post a Comment