Datebook: In July, the union Actors’ Equity Association surprised the theater industry, including many of its own members, with a new “Open Access” policy. Effective immediately, it said, any actor or stage manager who has been paid for any gig could join — no matter the theater company, no matter how meager the wage or honorarium.
4 comments:
I think it’s great that more people are going to be able to join Equity and that the gatekeeping power that theaters and producers have will be lessened. Obviously, theaters and producers still have a lot of power over what shows get performed and what actors get cast. Even if a surge of BIPOC actors and stage managers join Equity, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re more likely to get employed. If theaters only want to do White People plays with White People cast, there isn’t much being a member of Equity can do about that. That said, if Equity starts doing what most unions do and advocates for the employment of all its members by pushing theaters to find shows and roles for BIPOC members, then this has the potential to do a lot of good. This article does a great job of acknowledging the obstacles that Equity also imposes on its member, but I don’t think they should be blamed for asking theaters to pay their actors a living wage and treat them like employees (not independent contractors). It is always the business’s responsibility to ensure it does not have to underpay people just to break even.
It’s nice to see that Actors Equity is genuinely making some serious changes to the way the theater industry has been gate-kept and that’s really good to see. Making drastic changes is what is being called for and this definitely falls into that category. There are definitely some waves being created by it but those should work themselves out. The fact that it took up to a couple of years to become a full fledged member is really unfortunate because they provide really important services like contract negotiation, but more importantly, health insurance. Obviously you have to pay dues anyway to pay the insurance and the staff of the union. I’m curious about the initiation fee though. The article did specify that they have a program that spreads out the initial financial burden over a longer period of time, which is one solution. I hope other unions are able to start adopting strategies like this one.
When the Actors’ Equity Association created their new “Open Access” policy, where any actor or stage manager who has been paid for any gig could join, irregardless of theater company or wage or honorarium, they truly did open up access to many in the industry. With it easier to become a member of equity, more are able to leverage equity benefits and basic working rights. However, this change comes very, very late. Actors Equity spent a year hounding current members for dues amidst a pandemic, a financially challenging time for many performers due to a lack of an income stream. I hope Actors’ Equity will continue in this direction to make theatre more equitable and accessible and ultimately, while there are definitely more critiques to be made, this does set a more positive precedent for other equity associations to follow suit with other open access initiatives.
It’s reassuring to see the Actors’ Equity Association moving in the right direction to create a more accessible and equitable space. However, it’s obvious there is still a long way for it to go. This temporarily helps make AEA more accessible for newer actors and stage managers, but there is still a financial barrier with the initiation fee and paying dues. This also doesn’t guarantee opportunities for non-white actors and stage managers- there is nothing holding the industry to actually hire non-white actors. In order for the AEA to actually create a more diverse space, the Open Access Policy needs to be paired with other policies such as Black Theatre United’s New Deal For Broadway. As author Lily Janiak explains, creating a more accessible union isn’t sufficient, the union needs to do a better job supporting its members (e.g., their failure to adequately support its members during the pandemic).
Post a Comment