Backstage: The American Guild of Musical Artists, which represents the San Francisco Ballet dancers, considers these talks—which are being conducted with a federal mediator—a touchstone for future negotiations. The sticking point between the parties is a cost-of-living increase. The ballet’s management, according to the union, wants wages frozen for at least the first year of the three-year deal on the table. The union says that’s unacceptable, given how expensive San Francisco is to live in.
6 comments:
I agree that the dancers should receive compensation proportional to the cost of living in San Francisco. Their high level of skill is what makes the San Francisco ballet so prominent, and that should be recognized. I disagree strongly with AGMA director Alan Gordon that the dancers are the product, and that the orchestra is irrelevant. I could not imagine going to see a ballet with music playing from a tape at an institution as renowned and respected as the San Francisco Ballet. To me, the orchestra is as instrumental (very punny...) to the quality of the performances as the dancers, and Gordon's disrespectful and inflammatory comment was clearly a huge faux-pas. I hope that this won't hinder the AGMA's ability to secure better pay for the dancers.
I agree with Camille, and the dancers are entitled to a livable wage, especially given that they work 42 weeks a year. But I do not agree with their approach "We want this because the orchestra has it" sounds childish and petty to me, even if it's true. “We don’t want you to give less to anybody, but we don’t care what you give them because we want more.” Thumbs up, Gordon. I don't think an argument founded on petty selfishness is going to be very productive. But there is a bigger issue here, and that is that these artists deserve to be compensated justly for their craft, and I would hate for that to get overlooked.
Theatre workers, and workers in general for that matter, should be compensated according to how much it costs to live in their area. Of course other factors such as rank, positions, etc. need to be taken into account as well, but it is absolutely fair to request a liveable wage. Dancing is a full time job for these individuals, and not paying them well is not something to be taken lightly. Both the artists and the musicians are an integral part of the experience. I hope this issue can be resolved so that the prominence and artistic integrity of the San Francisco ballet is not compromised and it continues to be a place where many dancers strive to work.
I agree with everything stated in the above comments. It is absolutely reasonable for the dancers of the San Francisco ballet to request higher wages to account for the extremely high cost of living in San Francisco. This is not a problem that is only present in San Francisco. In many cities, the cost of living is too high for someone who is living off of a wage earned in the arts. Artistic performances such as theatre and dance are very popular in large cities, but those same large cities are also extremely difficult to live in due to insane costs of living. The blatant selfishness of Alan Gordon is also astonishing. Yes, it is unfair that the ballet dancers are being underpaid. However, this does not mean that the musicians should be paid less. The ballet dancers may spend more time rehearsing in the actual theater. However, Gordon is at no position to judge who should be receiving more money. The bottom line is that all performers should be paid a fair amount based on the city they are living in.
I also agree that performers and practitioners should be paid according to the city they live in. It's unfair to hop dancers to a contract when they can't afford to live in the city their contract is held. I do think the dancers should be paid as much as the musicians, because while they are "the product" it is both musicians and dancers who make a ballet, or an authentic one at least. I also think some of the things said against the musicians were a little unfair. Yes, they work fewer weeks but they too have to make a living. In agreement with Jess, both parties need to be paid enough to make a living.
This article makes me stop and think. Whenever I tell people that I'm going into stage management, and their response is, "Oh you want to make money in theater." Just like this article makes me stop and think, the same thing happens when I receive this response. Although it my not be true for everyone, I like to believe that we are doing theater to share a story or message, and only a small part for the money. This being said we need to make money, so that we can live. To conclude, I think that any live performance would be nothing without performers, so they should be making equally as much as those on the technical end.
Post a Comment