Sunday, April 12, 2015

AEA Presidential Candidate LARRY CAHN responds to questionnaire

Thanks Larry! The response are too long to post in the comment section, I'll give each candidate their own space.

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?