So, I’ve got myself nominated and am now on the campaign trail to garner support, and indeed to just encourage people to vote.
Why stand? Broadly speaking, because I think it’s a way in which I can usefully help my community. I’ve been involved in running my local branch for a few years, and chairing it for the last two. Although it’s a very active branch, I’m also aware that I know a lot of people who don’t come along to meetings, so their views don’t get a look in. More broadly, they often don’t seem to get a look in on Equity’s overall agenda. So I thought it might be useful if I could speak for them.
Who are these people? Not those who have a high profile, a steady stream of work on Equity-approved contracts, or work with big, well-known companies. They have some work in fringe theatre or low-budget films, often having to work at the same time in another job. Developing a career and earning an income end up being quite separate, and demand twice as much time. Or they have a job that’s properly-paid, but lasts two or three months and they then have to revert to bar or temping work to keep them going until the next acting job. Some have taken control of their careers and put on their own shows, essentially becoming producers, but at the same time still regarding themselves primarily as performers.
That is, for many performers, ‘work’ is now a very mixed bag of rapidly-switching activities. Some fall within Equity’s scope, some don’t. Equity’s definition of ‘professional’ is essentially one of being paid for performing work. That puts a lot of fringe and low-budget work outside Equity’s purview, even though this is the reality of many people’s working lives.
This is not ‘case closed’: there is a choice. Equity does sterling work on agreements for major stage, film and TV employers, but how many members are directly served by these? This is not a rhetorical question: I would genuinely like to see figures on how many members are employed, for what period of time in a year, on agreed Equity contracts. For those who don’t benefit from these contracts (or those who might for two weeks, and don’t for fifty), I believe it’s important that Equity tunes in to the needs of those members in order that its services can serve the broadest membership.
This is happening, slowly. The low/no pay issue is coming onto the Equity agenda. Precisely where this leads is as yet unknown, but it is at least being picked up and discussed. We can’t afford to alienate members by ignoring areas where they might spend the bulk of their professional time. What follows from those discussions is anyone’s guess, but the most important thing is first to get them on the table, so members don’t feel their concerns are taboo, and will at least get a fair hearing.
Posts
2 comments:
The fringe isn't a homogeneous group, its a convenient label for disparate employers. For that's what we are here to judge whether or not this is work and whether or not we should be paid for it. But in the final reckoning we don't have that judgement the law does, a National Minimum Wage law that's been around some 10 years. For all the talk of professionalism and high quality work from this fringe group, they haven't been able to organise themselves either individually or collectively into addressing the matter or issuing their own guidelines or promoting it. Despite the numerous spats in The Stage there are still the same fringe theatre companies that have been going for 20 years not paying actors and making a loss, with the same Artistic Directors at the helm, it is more than astonishing how these Artistic Directors (and Ltd company directors – for that's what they are) working with 'sell out shows' are able to run company at a loss not pay actors and stage management yet are able to sustain their own livelihoods and directorship for 20 years.
Alyn's blog is unable to state the hundred of theatre company's that go on, or are willing to pay our rates – because they are very few. Yes there are many AD's who've gone on to join funded larger companies, they're alright Jack, but were they able to set up a theatre company that paid its actors initially? Why are we tolerating those who apply the same principles for 20 years – and are still running at a loss? Why support a business model that works for the director but not the actor? – so much for mutuality, cooperation, respect.
If you want to Equity bring test cases then there is an inevitability that it will influence the Fringe – its an incompatible perspective to say “yes I agree Equity should bring test cases, but not if they harm anyone who might be too small or too worthy.” Asking for test cases does deal with it, one can't partially deal with this issue. There are consequences in working for nothing, it affects others and it depresses rates of pay as well as sending out a message that one doesn't need to pay actors.
Unlike this blog unions do not exist to pontificate on the artistic merits of unpaid work, they exist in a pragmatic world. Thats what our council needs more pragmatic thinking on this subject and a willingness to confront the issue and its strategy head on. Vote Cannings, Corden, Nott and Starling for council!
Claude, this appears to be a copy and paste of your response to another topic. I realise you're standing on a single issue platform, but please try to relate your comments to the original topic.
I'm keen to have an open debate, so won't delete it, but I think it might serve your case better if you keep comments relevant.
Post a Comment