These are questions proposed to the AEA Presidential Candidates! They don't need to respond - as we're clearly no one to them. Combined with out brother sites, we do have 4000+ members, so we have some reach.
Dear Kate, Larry and Nick -
15 (?)… (Poorly Counted) Questions for the Actors Equity Presidential Candidates
These questions are to open the dialogue between candidates
and the members that elect them. All 3 Candidates are being sent the same
questions – whether you answer is up to you. We ask one thing – if you DO reply, answer the
questions directly – don’t dodge them and give us politically vague, run around
answers. We NEED to know where you stand. I think we’d all tip our hat for an
articulate answer that we don’t agree with, than an indecisive one. Respectfully, TheatREhab, The ReGroup Theatre,
Allie Mulholland and LA Bitter Lemons
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
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.
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?
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
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?
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.)
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?"
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??
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?
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?
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.
The theatre should never be just an employer. It’s not
Starbucks. Where do you think the
theatre fits in to today’s culture?
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?
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?
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????
---------As the comments section doesn't allow for long replies ---- We're including Larry Cahn's reply below. Thanks for taking the time to reply!----------------
1.
On Ask if it’s Equity. I think the analogy to plugging a hole in
the boat after
“Equity allowed it to start sinking” is a bit unfair. In the late ‘90s,
Equity started losing many of its first
national tours. Many shows were
going straight to non-union tours from Broadway. This became a strike
issue – and in July 2004 Council met to
vote for a strike (we had already gotten member approval of such a
move). Just before the vote, the League caved,
and agreed to hammer out an agreement that would keep most tours union.
This resulted in the tiered tours, and,
yes, the SETA contract. All of
these agreements require salary bumps when certain box office results
are
reported (so that tours like Newsies, while on a tier, are actually
paying
above Production minimum). Are
these agreements good enough? Of
course not. The first priority was
to get the road back, and that was accomplished. Now, through
negotiation, we work diligently to improve the
contracts as they stand. Still,
too many shows are going out non-union, and Equity is fighting, as we
did in
’04, to bring them into the Equity fold.
The Ask if it’s Equity campaign is an audience education tool, which we
hope will aid in that effort. I
know that there has been some uproar about Bullets Over Broadway.
NETworks came to us with a demand for salary concessions on this tour
that would reduce Actor compensation BELOW the lowest rate on the Short
Engagement Touring Agreement, and we did not agree that was appropriate,
especially because Equity members have made it very clear that they do
not want
any further reductions on touring rates beyond those negotiated with the
Broadway League for both the Production Contract and the SET Agreement.
So we said no. I would agree that the Union has a
great responsibility to nurture and promote theatre. That is what we
do, AFTER we serve our members by establishing
a living wage and safe and proper working conditions. Our entire
history, including our recent history, is replete
with examples, many shared yesterday at the Membership meeting, of
Equity
nurturing small companies and bringing them to contract.
2.
The 99-seat plan, as it currently exists, does
nothing to promote well-paying theatre in Los Angeles. It is, in my opinion, an anti-incentive
to that. I do not believe the AEA
proposal, as stated, will be what eventually comes out of this process. But what does come out will, hopefully,
create an atmosphere where both theatres and actors can thrive and grow.
3.
I am not in LA at the moment. I don’t know what’s being said on the
phone banks, and so I can’t comment.
And I think the tone of your question is unnecessary. Considering you signed your post,
“Respectfully,” I think the accusations you make here are out of place. For example, I have, myself, been
accused of smearing The Blank Theatre.
I like the Blank. A
lot. I’ve worked there. That said, there are two things I have
said, and will attest to affirmatively if necessary about the Blank. Six or seven years ago, I worked for
the Blank, doing one of the shows in the Young Playwrights Festival (one of the
truly great things the Blank does).
I was paid $9 a show. When
the cast was paid, it was strongly suggested that we consider kicking back that
payment to the theatre, as a donation (as if our training, talent,
uncompensated rehearsal hours and grossly undercompensated performance hours
were not donation enough). That
is, in my opinion, a heinous practice.
Second, before each show, the artistic director of the theatre gave a
curtain speech – the norm for non-profit theatres. In his speech, though, he stated each time that the Blank
wanted to establish a 400-seat LORT theatre for Hollywood. I asked a staffer how long that was
going on, and I was told, from the beginning. This is what I personally witnessed. Other than that, I have expressed only
a personal opinion that The Blank has the wherewithal to pay its actors
something above $9 a show. I
continue to believe that.
4.
I realize that you don’t want to write a blank
check to AEA to change 99-seat as it sees fit. The fact is, you don’t
have to. Equity already has that check. AEA has always been able to do
what it wants with 99-seat as
long as it followed the procedures prescribed in the Settlement
Agreement. Will members get to vote on the changes
that are made? Probably not. I can envision a way that could happen
– but that’s not really what you want.
What you want is input into the decision before hand. I get that. I
agree with you, as a matter of fact. Again, I don’t speak for anyone
but
myself, but as a Councilor, I’d like nothing better than to sit down
with
99-seat producers and Membership companies and hammer out something that
works
for all of us. Please understand
that the Settlement Agreement – which has the force of law – prohibits
us from
doing that. We have to follow the
procedures we’re following whether we like them or not. The good news
is, once Equity changes
the plan, then the plan doesn’t exist, and the Settlement Agreement is
no
longer and force, and those across-the-table conversations/negotiations
can
actually occur. And since I am
highly confident that no matter what changes are made, there will be a
considerable amount of time given before the changes are implemented,
there
will be time to do just that.
5.
It hasn’t taken 25 years. Equity is not proposing changes because
of federal labor laws. It’s
actually the theatre’s responsibility to follow those laws. Any agreement between producer and
union presumes that nothing will be done under said agreement that is
illegal. Equity is doing this now
because, believe it or not, many of our LA members have asked us to.
6.
The statement regarding protecting actors from
themselves was taken out of context.
You know this, Allie, because I made the statement. By "protecting actors from
themselves," clearly I meant that actors are one of the most exploited
working forces in history. We love what we do - we NEED what we do.
We're willing to do anything for the chance to do it. That leaves us
vulnerable, because we'll take nothing for that chance. And Equity steps
in and says to the producer - nope - you have to pay a living wage to this
person. I beg you not to blow that comment out of proportion. ALL
unions were formed, in part, to protect workers from themselves - workers who
would go out of their way to please employers, beyond their actual job
functions. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.
7.
If
I had my druthers, both LA and New York would have the same Showcase Code. I don’t know if it’s possible, but I
would like that. I would like to
see the limit on ticket prices eliminated. I would like to see a situation where larger theatres with
relatively large yearly budgets would pay its actors from first rehearsals, and
smaller theatres would begin to pay actors for performances beyond a certain
number.
8.
Of
course
I support a union member’s right to express disagreement. I have
always championed that. In fact, that’s how most of us got on
Council in the first place.
Interesting about your reference to the suggestion to quit. I won’t
speak for the Councilor who
sent out that hashtag. I will say
this – the amount of vitriol, the hate-filled emails we on the Council
have had
to endure over the past two months, is sometimes overwhelming. It is
truly difficult for those of us
who have been serving membership on Council, often to the detriment of
our own
careers, to have to read this day after day after day. So I will not
judge what was a
knee-jerk lashing out at one particularly hate-spewing communication.
Interesting that so many remember the
hashtag, but no one acknowledges the almost immediate apology for it
that
followed. Can we agree that no
matter what happens on April 21, we’re all going to have get past this
and try
to heal? Why don’t we start here.
As for how Councilors should treat fellow union members – this is how I
do it. You ask, I answer. You have a grievance, I acknowledge it
and try to fix it. You send me
hate-filled personal email based on no knowledge of who I am whatsoever,
I tend
to tune you out. 99-seat and
Showcase have always been important to me. I utilized Showcase in the
‘70s to try to get seen by people
who could help me get paying work.
I utilized it to help others get their written work fleshed out and
seen. I did not get paid – and I
was fine with that. But nobody
else in the enterprise got paid either.
We were truly all in it together.
Which made it all the more exciting and fulfilling.
9.
I
can probably answer as to how many 99-seat or Showcase theatres made a
profit
in 2014. The answer is probably
zero. They’re almost all
501(C)(3)s. They are prohibited
from reporting profit. But that
doesn’t mean they’re not making money.
It means they have to spend all the money they take in. Which they do,
partly in philanthropic
endeavors, to be sure. But also in
salaries to staff, both management and artistic. My position,
throughout all of this, has been simple. There are people in the
99-seat
community that are making their living doing it, be they producers,
artistic
directors, managing directors, development directors, what have you.
Not everyone, to be sure. Not every theatre, to be sure. It’s very
hard to answer briefly when
there’s such large disparity. But
– general rule - Pay your staff?
Pay your directors? Pay your designers? Then find a way to pay your
actors.
10.
Of
course a theatre is not just an employer.
But, as I’ve told Allie multiple times, AEA is a labor union. It cannot care about the quality of the
theatre, or its effect on the culture of the community. As individual actors, certainly each
Councilor cares deeply about that.
But as a body, the Council cannot do that.
11.
I
don’t know anyone who has called those who oppose the change
anti-union. I certainly haven’t. And let’s not go over the suggestion
to
quit again, please. Again, I
champion any member’s right and determination to protest decisions they
disagree with. Always have. Again, it’s how most of us got on
Council to begin with. I know and
have served with all of the people who are running unopposed. They are
all terrific people – they
have served, and will continue to serve, the membership brilliantly.
You can be mad at them for something
they said, either in the heat of the moment or deliberately. But I can
state clearly that I, as a
working actor, am very glad they are there for me. And once the dust
settles, and when we’re all objective
again, I’m sure you’ll feel the same.
But if you wanted them gone, you should have run against them. They
will be elected by the membership
– and you have no recourse that I know of to go against the will of that
membership.
12.
I
truly doubt there will be a mass exodus from the union. It would be such a mistake. To give up membership in Equity for the
rest of your lives because you’re upset over one decision that you’re
pre-judging? I’m not the president
of the union – but if I get that honor, what happens on April 21 will be
discussed, fairly implemented, and the union will open its doors and its ears
to better, more equitable ideas.
To even discuss leaving the union is so premature, and would be so
unfortunate for those who choose to do so who will never be let back in.
13.
Harold
Clurman died in 1980. He was a
director, not an actor. To refer
to an Equity member as sitting in sludge and just wanting a job is so
insulting. He was a theatre god –
but he was wrong on this. (And I
certainly forgive the slight.) But 85% of us are out of work at any one
time. Sometimes we do, indeed,
just want a job. There are so few
of them, and so many of us. Which
is why the union works so hard to find more and more of them. Why we think that theatres that CAN pay
actors, SHOULD pay actors.
14.
Hyperbole
aside
– if anyone is “afraid” of the union, they should work to change it.
Elect new leadership. Get more involved – not just by
emailing and name-calling. Get on
committees. Run for Council. Become the change you want. Some are
doing that this year. I think it’s great. As for the rest of you, what
are you
waiting for?
No comments:
Post a Comment