<p>I saw close-up this summer that the decision about when to take an Equity card is complicated for young actors these days. D has avoided the safety/labor problems by only taking contracts at Equity theaters so far, and though she needed to pass last time I suspect she will take her card the next time it is (hopefully) offered. It is not a simple career entry for most kids, I think, tours or no tours.</p>
<p>Yes, as @MomCares says, one way for young performers to protect themselves is to work in an Equity house, or to work in a situation where enough other performers are on an Equity contract that the producers have to apply the Equity protections to everyone. My D ha done that as a child performer and I have seen close up how important the Equity protections are. The economics of this business are not great, so producers may be tempted to push quite a bit without those protections in place.</p>
<p>It is also possible for non-union performers to be seen at EPAs and ECCs if time allows after Union and EMC members. There is more waiting around, and no guarantee, but it is possible. In addition, if you have an agent or manager they can submit you for AEA jobs, and the actors can be seen by appointment even if non-union. Casting directors can also call non-union actors in to audition for union shows. </p>
<p>Yes, @KatMT is on target. An actor who can truly compete within the professional marketplace will be seen one way or another. </p>
<p>Very correct @elsacc, in fact, even with union protections in place the SM and Equity Deputy must remain vigilant about enforcement. It is the natural impulse of the employer to “push” as you put it. Clearly defined boundaries and dedicated advocates often protect actors from themselves. Lisa Kudrow’s show beautifully, hysterically, and heartbreakingly depicts an actor endlessly undermined by her own desire to please. Valerie Cherish so wants not to lose her dignity and she struggles mightily against her own readiness to relax any and all limits in exchange for even the most remote shot at “success”. </p>
<p>I know that this is a tired discussion, but Actor’s Equity is one of the most archaic and poorly run unions. </p>
<p>I am a firm believer that any student who receives their BFA/MFA from a reputable university should be given an Equity card. The biggest issue with Non-Union work is that it is too easy to find Non-Union talent. I hire a few AEA actors and a plethora of Non-Eq. The talent level is equal for the most part. </p>
<p>This whole witch hunt against Non Union tours wouldn’t exist if Equity did two things:</p>
<p>1) Let all talented actors join the union.
2) Understood the changing economics of theatre and adjusted their contracts and rates accordingly. </p>
<p>As an actor or director I have RARELY encountered a huge variety in AEA vs. Non-Eq working conditions. The places I have noticed the worst conditions for Non-Eqs is at SPT houses (not even full Non Union places). Some SPTs have their apprentices (EMCs) mow the lawn, work the bar, rehearse and perform…its a nightmare. </p>
<p>Agree with @TheaterHiringCo!</p>
<p>Well put, Vocal1046.</p>
<p>I never get tired of this discussion! It’s critically important that young performers understand the importance of solidarity and refuse to give ground where their predecessors sacrificed to gain it. I agree that it will be great when the performers’ unions make strides in better organizing young performers just entering the market. It’s just plain foolish for workers who meet union standards to accept sub-standard contracts. The best thing for all skilled workers would be to demand their due in the form of fair wages and benefits and safe working conditions. </p>
<p>This outcome will not arise without education. Training programs need to include a history of the formation and evolution of our unions and clarify for actors starting out what the benefits of unionism are. Again, the value of collective bargaining is not just about salary. Pension and health contributions are crucial for an actor to build toward her own stability later in her career and her ability to provide for her spouse and children. It’s difficult for 20 year olds to think long term but it is our responsibility as parents to encourage them to have more perspective in order to see how important it is to have benefits and protections rather than working without them. As parents have been known to say “It’s all fun and games until somebody loses an eye.” Injuries and illness are quite real and quite unconcerned with the age of the actor who suffers them. A non-union worker is more at risk and less equipped with institutional support to manage adversity.</p>
<p>If no actor with expertise is willing to work without a union contract then AEA and SAG-AFTRA will both be stronger. It’s tricky, though, to tie “talented” to “graduating from a BFA/MFA program”. The two are not always one. The standard of the current system is employability and many would argue that finding employment is the best proof of an actor’s ability to compete in the marketplace. As far as lowering wages and benefits, that’s not a direction that any union or its members will ever want to take. There is a wide variety of contracts available under each union’s jurisdiction that make concessions for truly low budget projects, student films and the like. If there’s no money then a producer can qualify to use one of the ultra low-budget contracts but, too often, producers envision a more old fashioned system in which everybody gets paid and insured except the artists because, y’know, it’s not like a real job and the kids will do it just for the glory. That’s not a vision that membership shares. That’s certainly not what any of us would want for our children. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very accurate!</p>
<p>I agree that there are a wide variety of contracts, but Actor’s Equity doesn’t easily let professional theaters access those contracts. Do you know the hoops you have to jump through to become an SPT? Transition periods, First-9s, on and on. A theater wants to hire union actors and can’t because AEA makes it so difficult. </p>
<p>And where your argument about “Everybody gets paid and insured except the artists” goes terribly wrong is that artists get an incredibly generous portion of the pie at most theaters and tours. In professional sports, Athlete unions usually negotiate for a 50/50 split. In most theatres, artist salaries account for around 65% of the annual budget. </p>
<p>Look up TCG facts and you will be floored. Look up 990finders on your favorite theatres. The reason I went into teaching/administration is because the money just isn’t there for most actors. In most cases, it isn’t the producers, either.</p>
<p>If a lot of the tours that went out Non-Equity today had to go out under current Equity economics, they wouldn’t go out at all. Look at the Copa Cabana tour that just closed mid-tour.</p>
<p>I wonder how/if having so many film and TV stars “dabbling” in Broadway has altered the salary landscape. Am I correct in assuming that they earn far less on Broadway than by doing their usual screen work (but probably far more than regular AEA members) and, if so, that most of them view it as a labor of love? If so, maybe that weakens AEA by reinforcing the idea that actors are in it for love versus to earn a living, and particularly for tours where the film stars rarely (never) play?</p>
<p>I think one of D’s friends was advised by his agent to “get famous” in TV and film before pursuing his lifelong dream of being on Broadway, which appears to be working well for him so far.</p>
<p>It used to be that there were very distinct tiers of work and no actor would step “down” for fear of depressing his quote. Film stars, for example, would not do TV. TV people would not do commercials. And so on. Now celebrities do everything including books on tape, voice over, animation and the theater. One of the most noticeable impacts of the celebrity incursion into “lower status” areas has been to lower earnings in what was traditionally the middle class category. The actor who made a strong living doing Mercedes Benz VO, for example, has been supplanted by Jon Hamm. There is no longer a taint that accompanies moves to different tiers. The famous folk are all doing commercials now: Matt Damon, John Cusack, Julia Roberts, Matthew McC…Commercial work has always been one of the traditional income streams for actors working in the theater. That work is currently far less available. That’s a real impact. </p>
<p>Also, when celebrities work in the theater it is often a point of pride that they are working for scale or favored nations. It’s my impression that any outsized celebrity salaries are viewed by producers as an entirely different type of expense than wages and benefits to scale performers. I don’t imagine that the numbers slide in relation to one another any more than the price of Kobe beef influences the price of ground chuck.</p>
<p>(I did very briefly check out TCG’s figures for 2012, by the way. Table 20, Figure D, and Figure G all show Administrative payroll outstripping Artistic payroll. The trends also show that the distance between the two continues to grow greater. The 2012 average for TCG’s sample showed Administrative Payroll at 20% of budget and Artistic Payroll at 19%.These, of course, are the union houses. It seems quite plausible that in the non-union sphere where there are no minimums or benefits contributions, actors lag further behind.) </p>
<p>
I would think, though, that back in the olden days when the original Broadway stars used to go out on the national tours they brought a bit more clout (dare I say Star Power) to AEA in negotiating humane travel schedules and pay scales.</p>
<p>Wanted to jump in here and thank you all for sharing your knowledge of this subject. Its very informative and I’m grateful for it. My father, union strong for over 40 years, has already had conversations with my S about this from his prospective (which wasn’t in entertainment but values are the same). Carry on 
</p>
<p>Thanks @MTMajorCook! I have to thank my unions for my ability to live comfortably, support my family, and send my kids to college. I feel a deep responsibility to share that perspective with those starting out. Your S is fortunate to have a family legacy to draw upon for strength.</p>
<p>I am grateful my daughter is a member of Equity. It gives me comfort in knowing she is at least somewhat protected in this crazy business. Over the years I have heard many horror stories of non-union tours, from lousy housing to crazy travel schedules, and everything in between. But on the other hand AEA tours are closing and then a few months later the show opens again as non-union. As for “celebrity” casting, I don’t like it at all. The audience is coming for a celebrity and if that person doesn’t show up, for what ever reason, many people leave or boo the understudy, doesn’t matter how talented the person is. And then if the show looses the celebrity, the show usually closes too. </p>
<p>Many actors who are seen as ‘celebrities’ are actually experienced theatre actors who either started their careers in theatre or who have done theatre sporadically through their more lucrative tv/film work. This, in my opinion, is not stunt-casting. It isn’t the same as one prominent producing couple in NYC who routinely have stunt-cast famous Hollywood actors in one particular show on Broadway, some of whom have been fine but others who have not.</p>
<p>I’ve seen many shows through the years with more famous actors in them and have never once heard an audience boo an understudy. If the ‘celebrity’ is billed as such, audience members are free to request a refund if that person has called out that day. In our experience, that rarely happens. Most of this type of show is booked for a limited run only and thus, the show closing when the actor leaves is moot. The contract is only for the limited run of the show. </p>
<p>Just a comment about safety issues. Accidents resulting in injury can, and do, happen on union productions, too. The kids who suffered injuries on Spider Man; Idina Menzel’s injury in Wicked; Karen Olivo’s broken leg while in West Side Story, and Kristin Chenoweth’s serious head injury on the set of The Good Wife, come to mind. </p>
<p>And the unmentionable injury Penny is said to have suffered on tour with Mean Girls, for all the Submissions Only fans.</p>
<p>@vocal1046 - It was her HIP!! ;)</p>