<p>
</p>
<p>No, not at all. Why would they suffer retribution and from whom? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is almost always, if not always, that the venue sets ticket prices, not the tour operators. Most non-Eq tours that I’ve seen have had lower prices than the Equity tours. That may not be the case in all cities but it has been my experience.</p>
<p>This idea of people choosing to not be equity is absurd. 90%+ of these people literally can not join the union. </p>
<p>The people on these Non Union tours are Non Union because AEA won’t let them join.</p>
<p>
I know people intimately (more than one) who have chosen not to join equity when offered cards. It is a real thing, with actual positive career ramifications for some young actors, at least in some markets. They all plan to join (and very much WANT to be union) after they have strengthened their resumes, but in the short term their agents can get them seen for everything.</p>
<p>Once again, there is no attempt by either of the unions to <em>prevent</em> qualified performers from joining. For the benefit of anyone who is or might be confused by the post above:</p>
<p>There are three pathways to Equity membership:</p>
<p>1) Employment under an Equity Contract</p>
<p>2) Prior membership in a performing arts sister union (Four A’s)
Applicants must be members of a sister union for at least one year, in good standing and must have worked as a performer under that union’s jurisdiction on a principal or “under-five” contract or at least three days of extra (“background”) work</p>
<p>3) Completion of 50 weeks as an Equity Membership Candidate (EMC)
This program permits actors and stage managers-in-training to credit theatrical work in an Equity theatre towards eventual membership in Equity. After securing a position at a participating theatre, you may register as a candidate. Eligibility under this program requires a total of 50 weeks of EMC work at participating theaters.</p>
<p>The hurdle to be cleared is gaining employment on an Equity contract or securing a membership candidacy. These are completely appropriate measures of the actor’s ability to succeed in the union marketplace. So it’s a bit odd to say AEA “won’t let them join”. The unions are happy to welcome new members who have a reasonable expectation of being able to compete for union work. The entity that determines whether an individual is qualified is the AEA signatory employer, not the union itself. The measure is one of employability, not talent. Talent is an ineffable thing for which there is no standardized measure. Employability is the criterion that matters to the unions. That is measured by, no surprise, gaining employment.</p>
<p>I just noticed a comment in a review about a major regional venue that is opting to drop tours alltogether. “… the remarkable initiative at that theater to nix those second-rate, nonunion, bus-and-truck tours and replace them with homegrown productions of family fare, anchored by first-rank local talent.” I wonder if this is a growing trend or an isolated case.</p>
<p>Very interesting @MomCares, I personally hope it is a trend. It looks like it would protect the actors a little better from being taken advantage of and provide more opportunities in mid-sized markets. </p>
<p>I would imagine that the Regional Venue is making that move to save money, too. “Local talent” is a nice word, but what is local to that theater? Is it New York/LA/Chicago? Is it Atlanta/Cleveland/New Orleans? Is it Portland/Boston? </p>
<p>I ask this in all seriousness, and I don’t mean it condescendingly - I mean it honestly, because I know a few in here are/have. How many of you have worked professionally as an actor/theatre practitioner? </p>
<p>As far as the argument about how easy/difficult it is to join Actors Equity - I realize there is no convincing many of you. The problem with CC is that many of you represent the Top 1% of young people in the field. If you can get into Michigan, CCM, CMU, etc - you will probably get many opportunities right out of Under Grad. </p>
<p>My issue is that there are many young students on here who won’t have those same opportunities and the road to Equity is TOUGH. This thread vilifies, in many ways, those young actors for “scabbing” and taking touring opportunities. </p>
<p>And vocal, I agree with your post - it is technically sound. However, what it lacks is the difficulty in gaining an Equity contract - heck, even being seen at an EPA or ECC is incredibly difficult. You most likely need to have an agent appointment to be seen as a Non-Eq, and you might only get seen for 5% of what an AEA member can be seen for at open calls.</p>
<p>EMC is a great way to go, but 50 points is a ton. (I would guess that even the most talented actors who don’t gain employment with a rep company spend at least two years accumulating them.) </p>
<p>I say this as someone who spent a few years as EMC, and a few years with AEA before dropping because my career path changed. I am also a member of SDC, so I am by no means Anti-Union.</p>
<p>If the prices charged by the regional venues scales appropriately to the talent its all good, right?</p>
<p>
This particular theatre is in one of the three large markets, but our local theatres in a much smaller market certainly mount productions that rival/surpass many of the truck tours that come through (and this is said as an audience member with no dog in the local fight AND as the mom of someone who may someday be thrilled to work on a truck tour).
Is mounting a full-scale local production from scratch actually cheaper than hosting a tour? I honestly don’t know, but it does at least feel more like “buying local”.<br>
For what it’s worth, I went to a top acting conservatory and worked proffessionally, but it was so long ago (switched careers) that I certainly don’t have current expertise beyond watching D’s experiences and choices from afar.</p>
<p>I should also restate that any opinions I express are my own and NOT D’s.</p>
<p>The OP was in response to a group of articles I’d read, not any effort to vilify nonunion actors (since I know and love many of them).</p>
<p>Each of us extrapolates from his own experience. If anyone is vilifying young actors, I’m totally missing that. Further, I would argue that “scabbing” is a term only appropriately applied to union members who work non-union jobs or who work during a strike. Non-union kids working non-union jobs are not scabbing by any stretch of the imagination and I can’t find any such allegation in the thread. In my opinion, those actors are working against their own best interests and the best interests of the larger community of actors because as long as skilled workers are available without a union contract, professional actors’ strength as a collective bargaining unit is weakened. Others here have shared their opinions that a period of non-union work is beneficial to a young performer and report that it has been sought by some they know. We simply have different points of view.</p>
<p>It is difficult to read tone on the internet, @TheaterHiringCo, but your description of your own frustrating experience makes it easier to understand that you’re not coming from an anti-union place. My own outlook comes from 32 years in AEA, 31 years in AFTRA and SAG, never working a straight/survival job while supporting a family of four in an absurdly expensive city and, yes, I fully recognize that I am very very very fortunate. Not alone in my good fortune, though. Among working actors, I know many like me who started work right out of college without an agent who continue to work and support a middle class life steadily into the years when our own children are making these choices. </p>
<p>
I suspect this may vary by market and even by gender and type of performer. Not to mention by the specific opportunities available at the time one graduates. We know kids, for example, who spent many years on tour steadily employed wearing green makeup or white button-up shirts, but their careers might have started very differently had those shows not been around when they graduated. </p>
<p>True, @MomCares, the road not taken remains unknown.</p>
<p>For the recent BFA grads I know, the toughest decision has been whether to join Equity the first time the opportunity arises. They’re thrilled to have worked in an Equity show right away, but worry that another such role might not come again soon. If they join Equity, then they can’t take a non-Eq job. That’s the real issue for these young folks, I think. There are some opportunities that they’ll be excluded from, just at the point in their careers when they need to get a variety of experiences–or just need a job. They all know of the grad who got an Equity card right away and then never worked again!</p>
<p>I wonder if there could be some way for recent grads to join Equity but also have a grace period, in which they could still do non-Eq work while they’re building up experience. Just thinking out loud here . . . </p>
<p>Although I understand your sentiment, either you are a member or you are not. Members do not work non-union jobs. I can’t think of an industry in which they would. Still, Young actors are often presented with the “friendly advice” (actually a thinly veiled threat) that they will “never work again” if they join the union. I would (and did) push back on that and ask, do you have actual personal knowledge of a skilled performer who has suffered that fate or are you merely repeating something that was repeated to you? Young performers’ eagerness to work is often exploited in this way to get them to work for less than they’re worth. Raul Esparza’s “How I got my AEA Card” story is worth reposting (forgive the repetition if you’ve read it) </p>
<p>"I had been working in Chicago for a year at Equity theatres under non-Equity contracts. Sometimes the roles were small, sometimes they were extraordinary. The kicker comes when Frank Galati, the great and generous artist, offers me a beautiful role at the Goodman Theatre in his adaptation of CRY, THE BELOVED COUNTRY. The role is not large, but it is important, and Frank inspired the very best in me.</p>
<p>It begins to bother me that I am working harder than many company members and earning far, far less because I am not Equity. As that show ends, I am offered a principal role in ZORBA by a theatre in Highland Park. A major role, not the star, not the lead, but one of the six major roles in the musical. Five of those roles were Equity contracts; I am offered $50 a week on a non-Equity contract. It won’t even cover gas money from downtown Chicago to the suburbs not to mention groceries or rent.</p>
<p>I have enough weeks under the Equity Membership Candidacy program, so I ask the theatre to offer me an Equity contract. They say NO. They ask, why would you want to join Equity? I say, so I never have to argue over $50 again. They say, you’re new in town. If you join Equity, you won’t work in Chicago very much. Think about it. I say, I’ll take my chances.</p>
<p>A few months later, the Goodman offers me another role in their lovely annual production of A CHRISTMAS CAROL. Here we go again: I say I want to join Equity. They say congratulations and welcome aboard. I took my chances, and all these years later, from the Goodman to Steppenwolf to Broadway, I’m glad I’ll never have to argue about gas money all by myself again. I’ll always have Equity behind me to ensure that I am treated with respect and dignity and never threatened for asking for what I am fundamentally worth. " </p>
<p>
This statement may be significant, though. In addition to being a type who was in high demand, he did spend (at least) a year working under non-equity contracts, establishing a strong resume and a reputation before taking his card. And that was many years ago, before so many well-trained performers were being cranked out of college programs annually.
It does seem that EMC offers some middle ground for young performers. D has only accepted contracts at Equity theatres since high school, but with only two exceptions the roles she was hired for have not been at production scale, but have instead provided her with EMC credits. As EMC, would you consider her to be a member or non-member? </p>
<p>Also - many young performers we know who are Equity do almost exclusively non-equity cabaret type work, so that also seems like another middle ground for many.
I do have actual personal knowledge of kids who have not gotten roles and were told that it was specifically because they are equity and the role needed to be filled with someone else as a result. I also personally know kids who have not found work since getting an equity card, often from a short summer contract. They are still too young to say they’ll never work again, but I do know kids who regret their choice to take cards when starting out.</p>
<p>As I’ve said before, both D and I are a VERY pro-union and she eagerly looks forward to taking her card next time it is offered - possibly when she finishes getting her 50 EMC points. It is also still entirely possible that she’ll some day regret having turned it down, and she would in no way pretend to know that her choice is right for everyone, or even to know what might have happened if she had instead taken it. Heck, for all we know she may already have been passed over for something she’s recently auditioned for because she didn’t take the card.</p>
<p>I think everyone just makes the best choices they can given their unique circumstance and whatever information/advice they have available.</p>
<p>You make some strong points! I was reacting to the “you’ll never work again” remark. I still remember being given exactly that friendly advice one year out of college. Believing that I could compete and insisting on becoming a member was the best decision I ever made. Mileage varies, of course.</p>
<p>“You’ll shoot your eye out!” :)</p>
<p>I do know that when I graduated with a theatre degree a hundred years ago there were not 600+ (?) freshly-minted MTs graduating into the market every year.</p>