Thursday, April 23, 2015
Actors' Equity Implements $9 Minimum Wage For LA's Small Theaters
NPR: Less than a week after union members in LA overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to make small theaters pay their performers minimum wage, Actors' Equity decided to go ahead and implement it anyway. Many say the move could force many 99-seat theaters in LA to close.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
One of the biggest issues dividing our country at the current moment is minimum wage, not just for artists, but for everyday, working class people. It's biggest fighting point is that people who work 40 hours a week do not make a living wage despite their efforts. In the case of the 99-seat ruling, I think instituting this standard will improve the quality of life of these performers. When we discussed this situation briefly in class, I was shocked to hear that actors would willingly choose to make under minimum wage, despite the issue facing many Americans at hand. I understand that this new ruling may cause smaller theaters to close and while that does break my heart, it's more important to understand that even though these actors may be doing this as a side job, it still is a job and they deserve to be paid as such. Actor's Equity was put in place to protect the actors (and stage managers), and to willingly put yourself in a position where you are not being protected seems juvenile. Protect your art at all costs, even if it means your favorite little theater closes. It's your profession.
This issue is very interesting for the world of the performers because everywhere else everyone who read the book Nickeled and Dimed knows that it is impossible to live on the federal minimum wage; $7.25. By just seeing the title of the article I was behind the union for making the push to ensure the security of their workers because in reality that is what a union should do. But after reading the article I am not so sure where I stand because the unions other job is to be a voice for the members and by not listening shows there is a lack of trust on both sides. The idea that performers who are early in their career are willing to take any chance they get to preform in front of a live audience speaks wonders to the resilience they have and it’s a point that should be acknowledged. In reality small seat theaters tend to have the most intimate performances and often times tend to be the most affordable for people living on low budgets to enjoy the arts. By forcing small theater to pay their performers better drives them to adjust the price of the tickets limiting many of the population who have the desire to see but cant afford. Ultimately this chain of events may lead to the bankrupt of a lot of small theater limited performers in this union to be able to have a chance to show their art. So I would like to serious question this union if they thought through their decision and weighed the pros and cons of this decision.
So here’s the deal with minimum wage. In 1980, the federal minimum wage was $3.10 (it quickly rose to $3.35 the next year). In today’s dollars, that is equivalent to $8.83, more than a dollar and a half an hour more than the current federal minimum wage. Though the fact that we have failed as a nation to adjust the minimum wage with inflation has effected all facets of labour, it effects us in the arts particularly as our work isn’t valued as much as other fields. What Equity is trying to do is to make sure that the actors who play roles in these small LA theatres are able to perform as a means of income. It’s a profession, and you should pay professionals for the skills they possess. If you ask me, you should pay an actor an even larger amount than 17 cents more than my dad was making as a line cook when he was in high school.
Ugh, what AEA is doing makes absolutely no sense. Believe me, I'm all about people getting properly compensated for the work they are doing, but the fact of the matter is that actors and actresses are not performing in 99-seat theaters to get paid or MAKE A LIVING! They simply are no there for that reason. As somebody from LA who has talked to several performers that occasionally perform in 99-seat theaters and even smaller micro theaters, the overwhelming consensus I have heard is that the shows that go on in these venues purely exist as a vehicle for performers to hone their skills and continue practicing in front of a live audience. Any money they get for "practicing" is just a bonus!
What further confounds me is that this minimum wage will drive many of these micro theaters out of business and dramatically reduce the amount of "practice" opportunities that these performers can get! So AEA understands that this ruling will create significantly LESS work in this area, and they decided to go ahead anyways. This is unbelievably ridiculous and short-sighted.
Post a Comment