Saturday, September 12, 2015
Fair Wages? Are Actor Unions Fairly Serving All Actors?
OnStage: There's been an alarming shift towards lower actor wages within the unions. And too many members of AEA and SAG have been complacent in letting their union reps negotiate less compensation in return for a producer's promise of expanded employment opportunities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Something to remember when reading this article is how people often tend to undervalue the craft of artists. Art is a service, or a commodity, just as anything else that is bought and sold. Why then, do people often not see it as a valuable commodity, especially when some art makes millions of dollars in profits? Why is it that art has the notion that if you chose to pursue it as a profession you’ll either have to get a day job or starve, especially where there are so many public figures that prove that this notion does not always hold true. Maybe it’s that people tend to wand the best thing that they can get, and usually this applies fairly well to utilitarian items. You don’t want to get something that will fail quickly if you can afford something that won’t, you want the item that best fills your need. But with art, the parameters for measuring this are much more ambiguous. So much in fact, that culture seems to disregard any option that isn’t mainstream, unless you’re a Rembrandt there is no point in painting.
I think that it’s very sad that union reps are allowing this slide, disenfranchising the actors they represent, especially on the promise of higher job availability. Actors, like any artists, have to work extremely hard for years to refine their craft, and so shortchanging them is to undermine the result of this hard work. If you need an actor, it’s not unlike needing a unique painting with a uniques set of qualities. It’s like needing a chair carved out of a single block of wood. The product you’re getting is something that took years to create, you should pay for it.
I think there is a stigma against actors that it's just singing and dancing. It's just reciting words, how hard can it be? But the general public doesn't understand that what they're seeing on stage, momentarily bedazzled by, and then forgetting about is accumulation of years of hard work, training, and long nights. The fact that now, even union reps seem to think this too. Of course anyone bring is going to negotiate a lower price. That's human nature. But it's up to union REPRESENTATIVES to REPRESENT their members and demand wages that will satisfy the actors livings.
This article is interesting in light of the 99-seat controversy in LA last year. While the article does a great job of arguing for artist wages to be increased, it only vaguely talks about the costs of putting on a production and the dangers that theatre faces in the modern age. Yes, of course actors ought to be paid more, as should designers, directors, dramaturgs, and anyone else passionate enough to spend their career contributing to the theatre. However, between production cost, space rental, maintenance, storage, and all of the miscellaneous costs that we are unaware of, there is a genuine need to find a way to cut costs.
The article doesn't do much to talk about non-profit companies, most of which are unable to pay their artists anywhere near a living wage, but who also are struggling to pay their artistic and managing directors who are working tirelessly to grow the company. The people at the top of these companies, non-profit or commercial, are not in it to con money from the artists. If they wanted money, they would get a corporate job and live stably. They're there because they love the arts that they are contributing to and want to see them be maintained with longevity. Of course, that does not universally apply, and windfalls in contracts may be a great place to consider when productions become a hit, but rather than focus on the contracts between artists and artist patrons, we should be focusing on ways to bring more big-money donors into our country's productions, or figure out some way to have government funding for the arts, or subsidize the cost of renting a space, or start focusing our theatrical energy in cheaper places that New York and LA.
One of my best friends and I have very different views on unions. He is very much against unions and I am on the fence, bordering on for unions. It is an issue that we often discuss with varied results. This article focuses on the cash value that actors are being paid. What isn’t mentioned in this article are any other benefits of union vs. non-union actors and contracts. For instance, what do union contracts offer in the way of insurance? And what about various pension plans, retirement benefits and sick/vacation policies? While these things may not be as important on a daily basis, I have learned that in the long run these can be more important than the amount of cash you are actually brining in. I think that we, as artists, do need to do more to ensure that we are compensated for the work we do. Then again, none of us got into the theater business to make money. Where do we find that balance among making a living, making art, and making money to ensure that our organizations can continue to create art?
Post a Comment