AEA member. I cast for Coeurage Theatre Company. Tickets are pay-what-you-want. I would not have had the opportunity to work with this company without the current (though flawed) 99-seat code.
D
David Ott
11 years ago
Stop it.
J
Jack Laufer
11 years ago
Equity member
D
David Stifel
11 years ago
Equity Member
J
john pollono
11 years ago
Equity Member
J
Judy Nazemetz
11 years ago
AEA member
J
Joanna Strapp
11 years ago
9-Seat is not a contract... it is a "plan". A set of rules when NOT working under a contract. It is an opportunity, outside of a contract, to work on your craft so that when a paying contract comes along you are in good shape as an actor. An actor can only really work on his craft, in a practical way, when there is an audience present. That is what this "plan" allows and it was never established to be a paying gig. Five, eight, eleven dollars a show is not pay- what kind of professional would accept that as payment- it is a small show of good will from the producers... and was negotiated as such. Not one person on a 99-Seat show is paid what they are worth. But if some rare producer is abusing that plan and making good money and not sharing the profits with the actors-- well then Equity should pull its actors from any and all abusive situations and solve the problem, case by case. Not kill a plan that actually promotes growth of art. The 99-Seat plan allows members to get on stage and grow. Working under a contract, a totally different beast, is about getting union pay for union work. It is the commerce benefit of the plan. The union now wants to take away this artistic opportunities by making it about money. This "plan" was never about making money. Seems more a problem of a union not truly explaining its rules to its members. But mostly, right now, on the ground, it seems like a union that believes it is in charge of its members and not the other way around. (via Mike Lorre)
R
Ronald bunney
11 years ago
Actors already make a living off of their service jobs. This would destroy the technical pay for Los Angeles theater putting lighting and sound people out of work
M
maya m sherer
11 years ago
amen
A
Aviva Pressman
11 years ago
EMC, now debating if I should join...
E
Eliza james
11 years ago
Keep it open! Theatres employ not only actors but musicians, tech, directors, staff etc why would anyone want to take away that many jobs?
A
Alex Fernandez
11 years ago
Equity Member since 1991
M
McKerrin Kelly
11 years ago
Member Actors Equity Association 20+years
M
Marisa OBrien
11 years ago
Listen
M
Michelle Holmes
11 years ago
Member of Actors Equity Association
B
Barbara Ransom
11 years ago
I am a longtime member of SAG & AFTRA. Equity is failing its L.A. members. It's an outrage!.
S
Sabrina Lloyd
11 years ago
I am not a member of Equity, I am a director, I see no incentives in working with Equity actors under the proposed plan, they are to be paid like a regular employee but have the privileges of a volunteer to leave at will for better pay. This also will decimate a thriving, creative, laboratory environment that has been serving the international community with developing exciting new works that develop into lucrative projects, this proposal knee caps everyone and does nothing to preserve the safety of actors who often work under incredibly risky conditions, and now without oversight will be exposed to potential abuses that impact their health, well being, and long term careers. The small companies self produce, there is no outside entity making a profit, thus non-profit status. There is no way to pay all parties at the level you are seeking in most companies for this community service we all provide, many to undeserved neighborhoods and at ticket prices that low income people can afford. We do not want to be a city of minimal elitist theatre for tourists, we want to provide professional standards and safe environments and great art to people who will be left behind in this proposal. No one in this town wants this plan. NY benefits from having someplace else develop new works then bring them to you for profit. This seems like a poorly thought out proposal. I hope you can find a way to serve your membership better.
R
Richard Levinson
11 years ago
I have added many comments on facebook threads, and written directly to the members of the Equity Board, so I will try to be brief here. It is clear that AEA does not like the 99-seat plan and intends, regardless of the wishes of so many LA members, to do away with it in the false belief that this will magically produce more paying jobs, more enthusiastic audiences and more larger theaters. I have used the word delusional a number of times, but it is the accurate one. More important for me, as a non-Equity member who is part of the vast universe of associated artists in all skills who, either independently or through company membership, work together with actors to create new works and raise the level of artistry generally, the proposed plan is clearly designed to freeze and then strangle tax advantaged companies, so that they eventually will die of member attrition. Replacing this is permission for AEA members to create short-lived, ad hoc casts to do one-off productions at their own expense with no union protections and no source of funding, design support, technical support, front-of-house support, marketing support... none of the things that the nfp companies provide them (often for free, in non-dues-paying companies like the one to which I belong.). It is wrong, it is shortsighted and it borders on immoral. And it will, I predict, result in a wholesale dismantling of AEA in Los Angeles.
N
Nancy Owen
11 years ago
AEA member
M
Matt Richter
11 years ago
I am not an Equity member, nor am I even an actor. I am a lighting designer who, for the past 12 years has worked almost exclusively in 99 seat waiver theatre. It was under the auspices of the currently existing plan that I, along with so many other designers, directors and actors (both Equity and not) were able to hone our crafts. For almost 7 years, I made my living entirely by designing; it was simultaneously the most challenging and most rewarding time of my career thus far. I was able to be a part of productions by established playwrights, new works by unknowns, one offs, workshops…the whole gamut of production. If these new proposed rules take effect, I know without any hesitation that the opportunities that I was afforded will no longer exist for the next generation of artists. That is what we are discussing here. The planned extinction of small theatre in Los Angeles. The purposeful destruction of a segment of the Arts already struggling to hold onto its relevance. This is not hyperbole. Small theatre is the life blood of the performing Arts in Los Angeles. There are no large theatres taking the kinds of risks that you see on a regular basis at a Sacred Fools, or a Boston Court, or an Echo Theatre Company, or a Theatre of Note, or a Son of Semele; I could go on and on. And I should be able to continue boasting about the artistic merit of these companies because they should not have an expiration date placed on them by a Union acting against the will of its local members. Let’s not mince words: that is exactly what this is. So I encourage AEA to consider long and hard the needs and wants of their local members. Because the decisions made by this Union have far reaching effects that impact many more than just their represented members. I implore AEA to do the right thing: stand up for their members and protect small theatre in Los Angeles. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they cannot be in order for each other to survive.
AEA member. I cast for Coeurage Theatre Company. Tickets are pay-what-you-want. I would not have had the opportunity to work with this company without the current (though flawed) 99-seat code.
Stop it.
Equity member
Equity Member
Equity Member
AEA member
9-Seat is not a contract... it is a "plan". A set of rules when NOT working under a contract. It is an opportunity, outside of a contract, to work on your craft so that when a paying contract comes along you are in good shape as an actor. An actor can only really work on his craft, in a practical way, when there is an audience present. That is what this "plan" allows and it was never established to be a paying gig. Five, eight, eleven dollars a show is not pay- what kind of professional would accept that as payment- it is a small show of good will from the producers... and was negotiated as such. Not one person on a 99-Seat show is paid what they are worth. But if some rare producer is abusing that plan and making good money and not sharing the profits with the actors-- well then Equity should pull its actors from any and all abusive situations and solve the problem, case by case. Not kill a plan that actually promotes growth of art. The 99-Seat plan allows members to get on stage and grow. Working under a contract, a totally different beast, is about getting union pay for union work. It is the commerce benefit of the plan. The union now wants to take away this artistic opportunities by making it about money. This "plan" was never about making money. Seems more a problem of a union not truly explaining its rules to its members. But mostly, right now, on the ground, it seems like a union that believes it is in charge of its members and not the other way around. (via Mike Lorre)
Actors already make a living off of their service jobs. This would destroy the technical pay for Los Angeles theater putting lighting and sound people out of work
amen
EMC, now debating if I should join...
Keep it open! Theatres employ not only actors but musicians, tech, directors, staff etc why would anyone want to take away that many jobs?
Equity Member since 1991
Member Actors Equity Association 20+years
Listen
Member of Actors Equity Association
I am a longtime member of SAG & AFTRA. Equity is failing its L.A. members. It's an outrage!.
I am not a member of Equity, I am a director, I see no incentives in working with Equity actors under the proposed plan, they are to be paid like a regular employee but have the privileges of a volunteer to leave at will for better pay. This also will decimate a thriving, creative, laboratory environment that has been serving the international community with developing exciting new works that develop into lucrative projects, this proposal knee caps everyone and does nothing to preserve the safety of actors who often work under incredibly risky conditions, and now without oversight will be exposed to potential abuses that impact their health, well being, and long term careers. The small companies self produce, there is no outside entity making a profit, thus non-profit status. There is no way to pay all parties at the level you are seeking in most companies for this community service we all provide, many to undeserved neighborhoods and at ticket prices that low income people can afford. We do not want to be a city of minimal elitist theatre for tourists, we want to provide professional standards and safe environments and great art to people who will be left behind in this proposal. No one in this town wants this plan. NY benefits from having someplace else develop new works then bring them to you for profit. This seems like a poorly thought out proposal. I hope you can find a way to serve your membership better.
I have added many comments on facebook threads, and written directly to the members of the Equity Board, so I will try to be brief here. It is clear that AEA does not like the 99-seat plan and intends, regardless of the wishes of so many LA members, to do away with it in the false belief that this will magically produce more paying jobs, more enthusiastic audiences and more larger theaters. I have used the word delusional a number of times, but it is the accurate one. More important for me, as a non-Equity member who is part of the vast universe of associated artists in all skills who, either independently or through company membership, work together with actors to create new works and raise the level of artistry generally, the proposed plan is clearly designed to freeze and then strangle tax advantaged companies, so that they eventually will die of member attrition. Replacing this is permission for AEA members to create short-lived, ad hoc casts to do one-off productions at their own expense with no union protections and no source of funding, design support, technical support, front-of-house support, marketing support... none of the things that the nfp companies provide them (often for free, in non-dues-paying companies like the one to which I belong.). It is wrong, it is shortsighted and it borders on immoral. And it will, I predict, result in a wholesale dismantling of AEA in Los Angeles.
AEA member
I am not an Equity member, nor am I even an actor. I am a lighting designer who, for the past 12 years has worked almost exclusively in 99 seat waiver theatre. It was under the auspices of the currently existing plan that I, along with so many other designers, directors and actors (both Equity and not) were able to hone our crafts. For almost 7 years, I made my living entirely by designing; it was simultaneously the most challenging and most rewarding time of my career thus far. I was able to be a part of productions by established playwrights, new works by unknowns, one offs, workshops…the whole gamut of production. If these new proposed rules take effect, I know without any hesitation that the opportunities that I was afforded will no longer exist for the next generation of artists. That is what we are discussing here. The planned extinction of small theatre in Los Angeles. The purposeful destruction of a segment of the Arts already struggling to hold onto its relevance. This is not hyperbole. Small theatre is the life blood of the performing Arts in Los Angeles. There are no large theatres taking the kinds of risks that you see on a regular basis at a Sacred Fools, or a Boston Court, or an Echo Theatre Company, or a Theatre of Note, or a Son of Semele; I could go on and on. And I should be able to continue boasting about the artistic merit of these companies because they should not have an expiration date placed on them by a Union acting against the will of its local members. Let’s not mince words: that is exactly what this is. So I encourage AEA to consider long and hard the needs and wants of their local members. Because the decisions made by this Union have far reaching effects that impact many more than just their represented members. I implore AEA to do the right thing: stand up for their members and protect small theatre in Los Angeles. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they cannot be in order for each other to survive.