[ssba]

A Reply to Twelve Angry Questions

On the future of L.A. theater

 
result-of-forest-fire-near-deckers
 
 
After an amiable discussion yesterday with Actors’ Equity’s Association National Communications Director Maria Somma on the actor/stage-manager union’s proposal for 99-Seat Theaters, Ms. Somma agreed to answer written questions related to topics raised in our chat.  Because the admittedly leading questions were not addressed specifically, addressed instead in a more general policy statement, her reply is below. The questions themselves now follow Equity’s statement.
 

Reply from Maria Somma, National Communications Director for Actors’ Equity Association:

 

Equity’s responsibility is to its members who are talented and dedicated stage actors and stage managers.  After an extensive process for AEA to hear what the members in LA had to say, it was clear there were strong views on all sides. We shared the findings of the survey with our members in the special Town Hall held last month: 71% of members surveyed said the Plan needs changes and 55% of those respondents said major changes are required.  A majority of members surveyed felt that the Plan benefits producers more than actors.  

 

In response to our outreach to the membership, we heard that members wanted to collaborate with each other on projects, which is why we’re proposing to institute a new LA Self-Produced Project Code.  We also heard that Equity members who were part of membership companies wanted to continue to collaborate within those companies.  We are proposing the LA Membership Company rule, which allows members who are already working with existing membership companies to continue to do so without an Equity contract.

 

To clarify about the dates regarding membership companies – If a membership company is in existence as of February 6, 2015; the membership company must submit a list of its members by April 1, 2015, and these members would be free to continue to work with the membership company without benefit of an Equity contract.  We are not governing Membership companies.  They can add or remove members of their company as they see fit.  We’ve created a membership rule, however, that allows current members of an already existing membership company to work without benefit of an Equity contract.  Equity members who wished to join those membership companies in the future are free to do so, of course, but they would need to be on an Equity contract,

 

There has been talk of “tiered” contracts based on the size of production budgets.  We consider an agreement which provides a salary of only minimum wage, but no health or pension contribution, to be the most minimal amount any production not under one of the 2 new internal membership rules should pay.  The new promulgated agreement can serve as an on-ramp to other Equity contracts that provide benefits and higher wage rates.

 

We recognize this is a major change for producers but we believe professional theaters should value all of their professional artists.  Producers should see fit to also value the labor of actors and stage managers by fairly compensating us for our training, our contribution to the production and our talent.

 

The main complaints we have heard from producers of 99-Seat theater over the years have been about the restrictions on the number of rehearsals and performances, and caps on ticket prices.  All those limitations would be gone under the new agreement proposed by Equity’s Council, which would be negotiated with producers and multi-employer bargaining groups and subject to further changes in the bargaining process.

 

The process for making substantial changes to the 99-Seat Theatre Plan is governed by the terms of a 1989 out-of-court settlement to a lawsuit brought against AEA by member actor-producers.  We are following those procedures.  The Settlement Agreement allows for an advisory referendum prior to Council acting on a change.  The complete Settlement Agreement is available for AEA members to read on the Member Portal of our website.  

 

This proposal is about Equity members; is responsive to Equity members; and in some circumstances moves them into paid work.  This is a first step in what will be Equity’s long term focus on theater in Los Angeles.  After 30 years of “volunteering,” Equity members will have the opportunity to be paid.

 

 The questions:
 
 
1) I heard that there’s a two-year cap on theaters working under either the L.A. Self-Produced Project code or the L.A. Company Membership Rule, i.e. that this code and rule will expire after two years. You said you could find no such wording in any of your documents, and neither can I. If that does exist, can you please let me know.

2) It appears that  under the New 99-Seat Theatre Agreement, that requires Equity actors/stage-managers to be paid at least minimum wage for rehearsals and performances, while employers pay into their Equity-contracted health coverage and retirement pensions, those actors may still leave any production at any time for better paying jobs of any kind — just as they can under the current 99-Seat Plan, for which they’re being paid token reimbursement stipends. So, hypothetically, let’s imagine the very realistic prospect of a producer into the third week of (very expensive, given the revenue potential in a 99-seat theater) rehearsals in what’s obviously a money-losing proposition,  going into previews and the leading actor says, thanks for the generous employment but I’m out of here. I just got a TV role, rehearsals start tomorrow. It appears that this is simply a gamble that theater producers must take under the New 99-Seat Plan, or they must double cast all of their actors-stage-managers at double the (at least) minimum-wage cost. Can Equity please explain how this plan bolsters employment or artistic opportunities for its membership.

3) Under the proposed Self-Produced Project Code and the L.A. Company Membership rule, do any of the actor health/safety protections of the current 99-Seat Plan exist?  Are there any restrictions for rehearsal times/lengths/durations and for the number of permitted performances or for ticket-price caps to ensure that the membership is not exploited by unethical/amoral producers — even if they also happen to be Equity members?

4) In the last two years, productions that premiered respectively at The Fountain Theatre, Theatre @ Boston Court and Rogue Machine (three companies that will be pressured to close or go non-Union under the New 99-Seat Plan) transferred to London’s West End or to Off-Broadway — the latter using U.S. Equity actors. How does compelling an untenable financial burden upon those 99-seat (or less) theaters, if they employ Equity actors, foster employment or artistic opportunities for the membership?

5) What is the purpose of, from April, 2015 (changed on Equity’s website from the Feb. 6 date in the mailed out docs), forbidding Equity actors from joining membership companies under the L.A. Membership Company Rule? Even without the rumored two-year expiration date, it would appear to serve the purpose of squeezing membership companies to death by attrition, to deny them the right to reinvigorate their companies with new Equity members and/or compel them to continue with new non-Union actors. Is that its intent?

6) How does denying 99-seat membership company opportunities to Equity members just arriving in L.A.  foster employment and artistic opportunities?

7) Does Equity foresee a flood of new mid-size/larger theaters to fill the void that will be left after the decimation of the smaller professional-standard theaters? 

8) Does Equity hold smaller theaters responsible for the dearth of mid-size/larger theaters in the region, or for the lack of employing local talent at those theaters?

9) Does Equity intend making the findings of last month’s survey public?

10) Why is the upcoming membership referendum non-binding (“advisory”)?

 
11) Have any of Equity’s sister unions (such as SAG) signed on to Equity’s proposal?

12) At the last Equity membership meeting, there was extended discussion on making actor-remuneration proportional to a show’s budget, in order to avoid the possibility of actors being exploited by producers, and to protect producers operating on modest budgets from being priced out of existence. Is there any inclusion of that idea in Equity’s new proposals? 

 

 

SR_logo1