All forms of theatre are important. Do not end the 99 seat plan.
H
Hope Alexander
11 years ago
If there weren't 99 Seat Theatre in L.A. there would be almost no theatre at all!! We, the members of the union, should be able to vote on this!!
A
Anna Douglas
11 years ago
Please don't destroy our theatre!!!
V
Victoria Hoffman
11 years ago
AEA is my parent union. I proudly joined just out of graduate school. This plan you propose is unworkable. You say members in existing companies can work without the benefit of a "contract," so no protections whatsoever. It is antithetical to everything that was expressed in that Town Hall meeting. The overwhelming consensus was to work under this plan, this agreement, but to adjust it. Payments can be determined by seating capacity and/or production budgets. To lump every single 99 or sub 99 seat theatre in the same boat is what we need to look at. This proposal, as proffered, is untenable. To promulgate with no discussion is NOT in the interests of the Los Angeles AEA community.
M
Martin Thompson
11 years ago
Equity member since 1976. This new "Promulgated 99 Seat Theatre Plan" is the exact opposite of what the members asked for at the recent membership meeting. We asked for minor changes, updates, and tweaks that would make the contract more relevant and practical. Equity's response was to ignore the membership and create a brand new contract which will destroy membership companies and make 99 seat theatre productions a thing of the past. I'm voting "No!" and I urge all of my fellow Equity members to do the same.
K
Kayla Page
11 years ago
We cannot stifle the creativity of this city anymore. This has to stop.
L
Linda Alznauer
11 years ago
I produced a play last year under the current Equity plan which I was very happy to do not to make a profit but for my own artistic satisfactio( which I got) and I am about ready to open in a show at my theater company (GroupRep in NoHo) under that plan. These opportunities need to continue. It is back to the '60s with the Battle Cry "Sign the Petition".
G
Geoffrey Wade
11 years ago
Member since 1977. This proposal will kill small theatre in LA. It is ill-conceived and does not answer the actual concerns voiced in the on-line survey and special membership meeting. Even the people at "Re-imagine LA Theatre" are against this proposal! Recognize that this is volunteer work, no more subject to minimum wage requirements than the directors' or designers' fees. There is a way to make payment to actors more fair, but it must be tied to the budgets of specific productions. This proposal MUST be completely re-thought. I vote NO.
D
Daniel
11 years ago
Of course we would love to be paid. That is not the issue. This is not a town that has strong support of theater. I make my living doing TV and film and have been blessed to some of the great parts in Chekov , Shakespeare, Williams and Shaw because of the 99 seat waiver plan. Please talk to actual actors who work in waiver theater and let them vote and decide what is right for them.
P
Paris Perrault
11 years ago
AEA member. We have worked far too hard to be able to act and produce in this town. Many of us sign our small checks back to our theater companies to keep the production cost down. The "producers" in 99-seat theatre are usually the company members. No one makes profit, we participate because the work is exciting and provides us with great opportunities. Killing the 99 seat plan will kill the 99 seat theaters, no one can afford a higher wage and we will not be able to support ensemble plays. Thus eliminating the great opportunities around town. I vote NO!
S
Steven Korbar
11 years ago
This is a bad, bad idea for LA theatre
J
Julia Fletcher
11 years ago
Equity member since 1974
A
Ashley Palmer
11 years ago
I am an equity member and I oppose this decision.
T
Tim Cummings
11 years ago
I don’t understand how we are being given the option to vote, but it won’t make any difference because the Council can override and make the decision. How is this a proactive, considerate move on the part of a union? These proposed fixes are not in tandem with the best of the suggestions that were offered at the meeting. Actors Equity? More like Actors Inequity.
A
Alexis Jones
11 years ago
I am not a union member (Equity, SAG-AFTRA) and do not plan to become one. I had the absolute pleasure of working at 99 seat theaters for years. I didn't do it for money (obviously), or to advance any acting career. i did it becuase I passion for acting and i should be able to express myself however i see fit. I do, however, have many friends that started at the 99 seat level and have been able to work upwards to larger venues and even join the union. They would not have had the careers they do if they weren't allowed to start where they did.
A
Abraham Tetenbaum
11 years ago
.
T
Thomas James O'Leary
11 years ago
I'm a long-time Equity member who has gotten paid the big bucks and the zero bucks, and all of those opportunities fed my soul! It sounds like the current proposal is unwise. Please keep the conversation going!
M
Mario Cruz
11 years ago
Do not let the arts die in any way, shape or form.
H
Heather Allyn
11 years ago
theatre company donor and choreographer, the is one of most misguided directives I have ever read. If Equity actually wants to serve its members it must stop this destructive plan.
I am an Equity member.
All forms of theatre are important. Do not end the 99 seat plan.
If there weren't 99 Seat Theatre in L.A. there would be almost no theatre at all!! We, the members of the union, should be able to vote on this!!
Please don't destroy our theatre!!!
AEA is my parent union. I proudly joined just out of graduate school. This plan you propose is unworkable. You say members in existing companies can work without the benefit of a "contract," so no protections whatsoever. It is antithetical to everything that was expressed in that Town Hall meeting. The overwhelming consensus was to work under this plan, this agreement, but to adjust it. Payments can be determined by seating capacity and/or production budgets. To lump every single 99 or sub 99 seat theatre in the same boat is what we need to look at. This proposal, as proffered, is untenable. To promulgate with no discussion is NOT in the interests of the Los Angeles AEA community.
Equity member since 1976. This new "Promulgated 99 Seat Theatre Plan" is the exact opposite of what the members asked for at the recent membership meeting. We asked for minor changes, updates, and tweaks that would make the contract more relevant and practical. Equity's response was to ignore the membership and create a brand new contract which will destroy membership companies and make 99 seat theatre productions a thing of the past. I'm voting "No!" and I urge all of my fellow Equity members to do the same.
We cannot stifle the creativity of this city anymore. This has to stop.
I produced a play last year under the current Equity plan which I was very happy to do not to make a profit but for my own artistic satisfactio( which I got) and I am about ready to open in a show at my theater company (GroupRep in NoHo) under that plan. These opportunities need to continue. It is back to the '60s with the Battle Cry "Sign the Petition".
Member since 1977. This proposal will kill small theatre in LA. It is ill-conceived and does not answer the actual concerns voiced in the on-line survey and special membership meeting. Even the people at "Re-imagine LA Theatre" are against this proposal! Recognize that this is volunteer work, no more subject to minimum wage requirements than the directors' or designers' fees. There is a way to make payment to actors more fair, but it must be tied to the budgets of specific productions. This proposal MUST be completely re-thought. I vote NO.
Of course we would love to be paid. That is not the issue. This is not a town that has strong support of theater. I make my living doing TV and film and have been blessed to some of the great parts in Chekov , Shakespeare, Williams and Shaw because of the 99 seat waiver plan. Please talk to actual actors who work in waiver theater and let them vote and decide what is right for them.
AEA member. We have worked far too hard to be able to act and produce in this town. Many of us sign our small checks back to our theater companies to keep the production cost down. The "producers" in 99-seat theatre are usually the company members. No one makes profit, we participate because the work is exciting and provides us with great opportunities. Killing the 99 seat plan will kill the 99 seat theaters, no one can afford a higher wage and we will not be able to support ensemble plays. Thus eliminating the great opportunities around town. I vote NO!
This is a bad, bad idea for LA theatre
Equity member since 1974
I am an equity member and I oppose this decision.
I don’t understand how we are being given the option to vote, but it won’t make any difference because the Council can override and make the decision. How is this a proactive, considerate move on the part of a union? These proposed fixes are not in tandem with the best of the suggestions that were offered at the meeting. Actors Equity? More like Actors Inequity.
I am not a union member (Equity, SAG-AFTRA) and do not plan to become one. I had the absolute pleasure of working at 99 seat theaters for years. I didn't do it for money (obviously), or to advance any acting career. i did it becuase I passion for acting and i should be able to express myself however i see fit. I do, however, have many friends that started at the 99 seat level and have been able to work upwards to larger venues and even join the union. They would not have had the careers they do if they weren't allowed to start where they did.
.
I'm a long-time Equity member who has gotten paid the big bucks and the zero bucks, and all of those opportunities fed my soul! It sounds like the current proposal is unwise. Please keep the conversation going!
Do not let the arts die in any way, shape or form.
theatre company donor and choreographer, the is one of most misguided directives I have ever read. If Equity actually wants to serve its members it must stop this destructive plan.