Having worked with creative unions and, particularly, actors' unions, I can reveal a shocking thing: it's a contentious world. I know, this rates right up there with shocking news that, say, the Clintons are happy to take money from dictators or whoever is willing to write a check. Tomorrow, ballots go out on an advisory referendum that has roiled the ranks of Actors Equity.
The issue is straightforward: should there be a pay increase for actors performing in small, 99-seat theaters. Those theaters--similar to low-budget films--have always had a different, more accommodating contract with actors than the larger theaters.
Equity says:
Actors’ Equity Association, the actors' union headquartered in New York, recently put forth a proposed new contract that would guarantee better pay for performers at these tiny houses. The measure has been met with considerable opposition. But in a twist, much of the blowback to the pay hike is coming not from producers (though they are not happy about it either) but from the local members of Equity themselves.
L.A. has more than more fifty 99-seat membership companies. A significant portion of the city’s creative stage activity takes place inside these miniscule incubators. But no one’s getting rich doing it. Under the prevailing Equity code that governs the theatres, actors receive $7 to $15 a performance, and no pay at all for rehearsals. The new proposal would raise pay to the current California minimum wage of $9 an hour for performances. It would also ensure pay for rehearsals.
Explaining the thinking behind proposed raise, Equity’s executive director, Mary McColl said, “Some actors say to us, ‘I can’t even get to participate in what seems to be the largest part of L.A. theatre because I don’t make enough to pay my babysitter.’”[emphasis added]
You wouldn't be surprised to hear that the theater owners are not happy. But, the more interesting opposition has come from the ranks of actors who have been led by, among others, Frances Fisher who is quite the political activist. As Fisher
says:
One of the protest organizers, Frances Fisher, who served on SAG’s board for 10 years, told Deadline that the 99-seat waiver is akin to SAG’s low-budget agreement. Even that contract, however, pays more than minimum wage. “This is not the issue,” she said. “The 99-seat plan was never created to do that. We all want to be paid, but this is not the way to do it.”
The
opposition's views:
Why would actors oppose making more money?
We don’t oppose making more money. We oppose the union taking away our ability to practice our craft in a non-commercial setting. The bulk of the work available to actors in Los Angeles is in film and television, yet the city is home to more than 6,500 Equity members. Nonprofit intimate theaters are where we go to keep our skills sharp, and find creative fulfillment by doing work that is not available to us elsewhere.
Actors’ Equity is a labor union. Isn’t it their job to help members earn money?
Los Angeles’ small theaters are home to some of the most innovative and exciting work in the country. More than 70 productions have moved from small LA theaters to larger venues with paying Equity contracts, often bringing members of the original cast with them to Broadway and beyond. Many famous actors got their start in intimate LA theater. And countless more have developed their talent, built relationships which led to paid employment, and sustained themselves creatively by lending their talents to these theaters. The current AEA 99 Seat Plan has helped create thousands of contract jobs for AEA members.
When Equity actors choose to volunteer in small theaters, does it make it harder for other Equity actors to earn money?
No. No Equity actor in LA has ever lost a paying job because another Equity actor offered to do it for free. But if this new proposal passes, producers will be able to choose between casting an Equity actor for hundreds of dollars per week – or casting a non-Equity actor for free. Common sense tells us that doesn’t help Equity actors make money.
Has I Love 99 presented alternatives to Equity’s proposal?
Yes. While we have not been given an opportunity to formally present alternatives, many LA Equity members have offered Equity executives and National Councilors specific alternatives to the current proposal. This referendum vote however, is not a choice between many proposals. If you want a choice, you must VOTE NO!
It's interesting. In today's environment, given the debate over raising the minimum wage and inequality, the notion of being paid at least the state minimum wage should be a fairly straightforward idea. That said, you have actors opposing the raise as its currently proposed--not opposing a raise in principle--because it might encourage scabs and undermine a place for actors to hone their craft. This mirrors a bit the debate over writing for the web for free.
Thoughts?