If you are a New Yorker, you may be familiar with the Showcase Code. This code (as opposed to a contract) is only for productions in New York City. The 99 Seat Plan (again - a code and not a contract) is for productions in Los Angeles and mirrors the Showcase Code in a number of significant ways, but the main similarity is that Actors and Stage Managers get little or no money.
Let's start with what most all of us agree on: the 99 Seat Plan is out of date and needs to change.
Unfortunately, there has been not so much dialogue, as sniping, much of it on Facebook and Twitter. Social media are useful when planning a family reunion, circulating a petition and the like - but debate? It's pretty impossible, and so normally even-headed participants in such discussions soon devolve into malcontents lobbing bombs at one another. We are all, no matter in which region or city one resides or whether Council member or rank-and-file, on the same side in terms of wanting to improve the lot of our members. I write this a couple of weeks after the Town Hall meeting on February 23 where members and union staff and Councillors met face-to-face. I was not there, but it was, by all reports, civil and useful. Encouraging.
First of all, what is the difference between a Contract and a Code? In simplest terms: a Contract is a legal agreement between two parties, which states duties and services expected of both parties and has a mechanism for resolving disputes. A Code, on the other hand, is suggested and less legally-binding. There are no grievance procedures if one of the parties does not deliver on the agreement. Much AEA staff time and money - our dues money - has been spent on trying to enforce the unenforceable.
There are the three main points of Council's proposal. And remember - this is a proposal, not an edict from the tsar. I am amazed at the number of members vilifying Council who have not even read the various materials provided on the AEA website, but have taken for gospel the précis provided to them second and third hand. It's somewhat dry reading, but we should all read it and understand it in order to have an informed debate. I will try to walk you through the proposal, below.
1) Members who want to self-produce on a per-show basis, would be able to use the Los Angeles Self-Produced Project Code. This means if a group of colleagues wish to produce a production of
HAMLET - they can, without an Equity contract.
2) The Los Angeles Membership Company Rule is the part of this proposal that most seem to take issue with. Essentially, the number of membership companies in LA are frozen, as are their constituent memberships. Company members would not have to be paid the California State minimum wage. Under this rule, it is conceivable that Hamlet could be working for nothing and Rosenkrantz would be getting a salary.
3) There would be a new promulgated 99-Seat Theatre Agreement that Producers could employ that would pay our members the California State minimum wage. This is an actual contract. It is a good start.
Many people have taken issue with the word "promulgated" This is a legal term for an agreement that the union crafts when there is no bargaining partner to negotiate with. AEA has several of these, including the Guest Artist agreement and Small Professional Theatre (SPT) contract. You will notice that on these documents there are no signatures at the bottom, like on the Production contract. There is not a bargaining unit of 99 Seat producers with which to negotiate. For this reason, Equity will come up with its own terms, looking out for the best interests of the membership.
The coming referendum will be advisory. Why is it an "advisory referendum"? Equity's Constitution and By Laws state that:
"The general management, direction and control of the affairs, funds and property of the Association and the determination of the relations and obligations of members to the Association, of the Association to members, of members to each other and of members to employers, except as expressly limited and/or controlled by this Constitution and By-Laws, shall be vested in the National Council."
That means that it would not be possible for a vote from Los Angeles members to accept or do away
with the proposal. But this also does not mean that the proposal is a fait accompli. After a non-binding referendum, the issue goes back to Council where it is debated and then voted on. Remember - Council works for you.
Me? I am completely in favor of the intent of the proposals. Practically, I like two out of the three items in the new package. I see problems with the membership company issue as it is proposed. Either new companies should be allowed to form in the future or there should be flexibility in existing companies future member rolls. Perhaps even established companies could, under certain circumstances, utilize the LASPPC (above). This tine of the fork is easily fixable. Of course, this is a proposal to be voted upon by Council for its members. If its members then decide that it is not working there can be a redress.
I have seen some excellent theatre in L.A., both by established companies and one-offs. I know of no one, Councillor or otherwise, who does not want it to continue. But for too long we have not valued ourselves as much as we deserve and many of those who produce us (I can not really say 'hire' us') have not either. What we are faced with is a leap of faith. If this goes through, we are saying that our work has value. Please note that I am not calling anyone's work 'crap,' or some such. I am talking about the life of the actor. I have found in my career that my worth is determined by me. The first time I tried to ask to be paid over minimum salary I was terrified and sure that I would never work again. I believe I asked for an extra $20 per week. It turns out that the producer in this instance didn't even pause when he accepted my counter-offer. The only thing stopping me from getting more was my asking for it. The 99 Seat dilemma is more than about minimum wage. It's about raising the floor for all actors and stage managers. As the economy continues to get stronger, arguably now is the strategic time to ask for a raise. Later this year, we will begin negotiations on our flagship contract - Production. It will sure help our position if we show a groundswell of demanding more. Even Wal-Mart gave its employees a raise recently.
To some, AEA Council is, at the least out of touch or at worst, on a power-mad crusade to destroy 99 Seat theatre. I am glad that there is passion - which is the currency we most work with and for - on both sides of the issue. At issue is the inherent value of the actor or stage manager. There is a bit of a "build it and they will come" aspect to the 99 Seat proposals. Yes, it is a risk. So was the Actors' Strike of 1919. Council is seeking to establish a floor, beneath one cannot grovel.
The contention of the ILove99s, as a cadre of theatre people have styled themselves, is that imposing this plan will kill theatre as it currently exists in Los Angeles. The target in the sights of Equity Council is the producer who has a business model whereby its existence depends on actors as volunteers. My take on it is that the proposals, if adopted, will most definitely change L.A. theatre. And for the good. Realistically, of course, some theaters will close. Other companies will change their business models and new companies will form. L.A. theatre will thrive.
Why do I have such a rosy view of the future? It has been borne out by experience. When the New York Musical Theatre Festival (NYMF) caused members to complain that this code was being abused by producers, Council formed a hybrid contract/code. It attempted to straddle developmental and contract work. Many thought it was the end of NYMF, but the number of productions in the Festival has grown each year and those seeking to work under this agreement have ballooned, as well. Equity has intervened in similar situations.
A friend of mine gives his experience thus:
"I remember working at a theatre that will remain unnamed. . . when we worked for free, they abused our hours, called spur-of-the-moment rehearsals, and played on our good graces to give them more and more time. . . as soon as we went AEA and started getting paid, the hours and responsibilities were revamped and they made damned sure we were out on time so they didn't have to pay OT. . . the mark of being paid, regardless of the stipend, gives us the rights and respect of professional artists. . . unfortunately the only recourse we have with theater management is through the wallet and their respect, not for us, but for the $. . ."
These are not as in the days of Sam & J.J. Schubert. Many of these companies are just being held together by duct tape and are not the monolithic entities of another era, getting rich on the backs of the actor (or stage manager). And that is precisely why there are the other two provisions in the 99 Seat proposal.
Many will say that as a New Yorker, I have no horse in this race. I disagree. I constantly have to deal with people thinking that because I am an actor that I don't really work for a living. I am not talking about civilians now, I mean from my fellow collaborators. There is a now infamous quote made during a major Equity contract negotiations where a long-time theatre producer was overheard to share indignantly with a colleague, "I hear actor are buying houses now!"
I will bow to the will of my Los Angeles brethren and sistern. I hope that they will take the leap. Change is frightening. Standing tall against strong opinion is daunting. The 3500 or so eligible members will tell the Council when the referendum results come in. I hope they vote "Yes."
