Messages

1

Employment / Re: On the Back of Intern Labor

« on: Sep 30, 2011, 02:52 pm »

This is fascinating. 

In college, I chose to get credit for the paid work I did in theatre, but I actively stayed away from unpaid internships for this very reason.  It always felt wrong to me, but I'd never realized that there was a legal component required of internships.  I imagine most students don't realize this, and that's why they suffer through some very un-educational jobs.  Kudos to those interns for reading up on their rights and standing up for themselves.

The few times I've worked with interns I've asked specifically what they were hoping to get out of the internship so that we could find some educational value in their work.  I hope that this lawsuit will encourage companies do this properly in the future.

2

The Hardline / Re: AEA ASM?

« on: Sep 02, 2011, 09:59 am »

In this case I'm certain there wasn't a dedicated AEA ASM on this show - I went to the show to see actor friends of mine, and they made that very clear to me.  Also, there is a billing clause in AEA rulebooks that applies to all Equity members, not just actors appearing onstage.  Producers have the responsibility to list all members of the union in the program, and if I am not billed correctly, I will call the producers out on it.  While in this case I wouldn't surprised if an Actor/ASM was only billed as their acting role (because, that is their primary responsibility, let's not kid ourselves), I would be even more appalled if there were a stand-alone AEA ASM that was not billed in the program nor given a bio, while the EMC ASM was billed on the title page and given a bio.

3

The Hardline / Re: AEA ASM?

« on: Sep 01, 2011, 08:17 pm »

BayAreaSM: You're right, I am passionate about this.  And sadly, I don't seem to be eloquent enough on this issue to make my point very clear.  I am on the AEA Stage Management Committee in my area, and I intend to bring this subject up the next chance I get.  We have given too many concessions over the years which allow for theatres to get away with this, and it has to stop.
 
Part of the problem I'm seeing is that these theatres are not LORT, nor SPT, nor Production, nor any other big conglomeration of producers that work together with Equity to create meaningful negotiations.  Two of the companies that I've mentioned have their very own agreement with AEA - both of which I have read extensively and quoted - have plenty of money (they're both commercial), and yet they've each managed to individually negotiate away a rule that I personally think is very important, and instead give a huge responsibility to actors, only during performances, which I have seen (and not only from the audience), actively impair a production.

Let me give some background as to why this irks me so.  I began my career working almost exclusively in smaller non-profit theatres, who did nothing but dramas/comedies/non-musicals.  I rarely worked shows with a large enough cast to necessitate an ASM of any kind, never mind an Equity one.  So I ran lights and sound and set up all the props and mended costumes and whatnot, over and over again, for many years.  I loved that work, and still do, but I rarely had the chance to do a musical (or large-scale production) that would allow me to work with an ASM and use that clause in so many contracts.  And as a result, I haven't worked with an Equity ASM.  Ever.  And I haven't worked with even a qualified PA or non-Equity ASM since I first moved to this city, 8 or 9 years ago.  I've run the shows entirely on my own.

In the last few years I've begun working in the musical theatres in my area, as an SM or as run crew.  I've finally found myself in the land of large-scaled productions that warrant and could afford that Equity ASM - or even a nonEq PA who is eager to learn (I was that girl once, too!).  And yet, though I had worked in the contracts that have this provision for qualified SM assistance all these years, I again find myself without any assistance whatsoever.  Especially in rehearsals.  No PA.  No Equity ASM. No ASM of any kind (except, you know, in name only, or the Actor who is asked to move scenery during performance weeks and is given an extra weekly stipend, but doesn't otherwise assist me in any way).

I have had very few opportunities to be an ASM in my area, especially once I turned Equity.  I thought all these years that the field was too competitive - that there were too many qualified SM's and too few contracts to fill.  I mean, there are only so many places that do musical theatre in my area - and they all seem to have their AEA ASM's pretty well booked, because I never see those jobs posted.  Little did I know that they didn't post those jobs because there was actually no one doing them.

I have no qualms with smaller theatres negotiating for concessions because of hardships.  But this required AEA ASM provision always seemed a hallmark of our union's ability to negotiate in the interest of SM's.  And to see it ignored/abused so rampantly in the community that required this provision in the first place (musicals with large casts or a chorus) is beyond a shock to me.  To see Equity going along with it and negotiating away the aspects of the provision that support the stage manager, but only with individual producers, not with the larger grouping of producers like LORT, is frankly insulting.

And I disagree that an agreement with Equity and an individual producer is none of my business.  I am Equity, too.  Our union is its membership.  And as stage managers we should speak loudly so that our needs are heard, because, as so many have mentioned, we are not the majority of the union.  I'd bet that these contracts had this ASM provision gradually eroded away because there was no SM speaking out that an ASM was needed.  I know I can't be the only one who is seeing this systematic shift to allow producers concessions to eliminate AEA ASM's whenever possible.  Shows benefit from good stage management, and SM's need the work, too.

4

The Hardline / Re: AEA ASM?

« on: Sep 01, 2011, 03:48 pm »

I apologize in advance.  It seems I can't stop harping on the subject of ASM abuses.

But this past weekend I saw a show, at a large theatre that produces big musicals year-round.  It was a terrific show, with a large cast of almost 30 (half of which were Equity) complicated scene changes, and what looked like a challenging (fun) show to call.  As I was perusing the program, I noticed on the title page the listing of the Stage Manager, and EMC Assistant Stage Manager/Production Assistant.  No listing on that page or anywhere else for the Equity ASM, which I assumed would be required on this type of show.  Now, the Equity ASM may have been an Actor in the show, and just not billed in the program as such.  The EMC ASM/PA's bio indicated that this was her very first job, and that she was still in college.

I am simultaneously thrilled for the college student for her chance to work on such a challenging show, and  frustrated by the obvious abuse of the need for an Equity ASM.  After the fact, I double checked the rulebook, and it does allow for "an ASM who may act or understudy," but only "whenever the ASM’s performance duties do not reduce the ASM’s ability to effectively perform Stage Managerial functions." I am unsure how that would not be an issue in a show of this complexity and size.  From my perspective, the reason we got the provision(s) to require Equity ASM's on big musicals was to utilize the experience of qualified stage managers on complex productions, not to simply give actors a chance to make a bit more money each week by moving scenery.

This is the third large professional theatre I've encountered, each which produce nothing but musicals, operate under different contracts that all require an Equity ASM, and which work around that requirement some way or another.

Am I really alone in being appalled by producers' continued abuses of our needs for qualified Equity ASM's?  And our union's continued acceptance of these abuses?  Aren't we supposed to be doing this in the best interest of our membership?  How is it in the best interest of our membership to ask an Actor to do 2 jobs (act and ASM), instead of give one job to someone who is qualified (and also looking for work)?

I'm not under contract at any of these theatres, I'm just a union member watching this happen.  Do I have a right to say anything to Equity about this sort of thing, as I'm clearly not a member of a "company?"

<end of rant.>

5

The Hardline / Re: AEA MAternity Leave

« on: Sep 01, 2011, 12:21 pm »

Thanks for this.  I was looking for these statistics after hearing similar stories on the news.  Maternity leave (and paternity leave, general family leave, vacation time, etc.) are just not priorities to businesses in this country.  Just like universal healthcare - and the importance of all Americans having healthcare in any sense - has never been a priority to this country, so things like maternity leave have been left to individual companies to provide on their own.  There is no mandate for companies to provide these services, because our country doesn't encourage it.  And until that happens, the theatre industry, and unions in general, will have little power - in my humble opinion - to change things.

6

The Hardline / Re: AEA Application?

« on: Aug 23, 2011, 07:00 pm »

Wow.  There's an application/form to fill out now?  I simply joined the union (8 years ago) upon signing my first Equity contract, then waited for the info packet in the mail, along with my card, which assigned me my member number.  No one asked for my contact info, name, or anything of the sort, and the initiation fee withdrawal schedule was something I looked into myself because I was curious.  I did update all of my information online as soon as the website allowed me to do so (at least a year or so later as I recall), but all of that was stuff I initiated.  Glad to know Equity has become more streamlined since then (if still snail-mail slow:)).

So Bwoodbury, things don't seem really out of order at all; just old-fashioned.

7

The Hardline / Re: Understudies, and actors "calling out"

« on: Aug 08, 2011, 12:47 pm »

I guess the issue for the bulk of the cast is that there was a put-in scheduled, but instead of prioritizing the put-in for the understudy who would most likely be needed to perform that night (but who was not originally scheduled), the emergency scenario that had arisen was ignored.  The understudy who didn't need to perform that day was put-in first, which then pressured the sick A to perform when she wasn't well enough to do so (which in turn forced the entire cast to re-arrange the order of the first show so she could skip a song she hadn't enough voice to sing), and then it triggered a second emergency put-in for A's understudy so that she could be prepared to go on - during the 45 minute break between shows - and then perform in that evening's performance.  B's understudy was going in the following day, but because her put-in had been scheduled - even though it wasn't for a legitimate conflict - it was put before the needs of an ailing actor.  There is no reason that I can see that A's understudy couldn't have been put-in the day she was going to perform, once it became clear that an emergency put-in was needed for another actor.

And true, both A and B's understudies needed a put-in in order to be ready to perform.  But that is simply an Equity rule, that could have easily been followed had the emergency understudy been put-in first, and if there wasn't enough time for B's understudy to be put-in after the emergency, she shouldn't have been.  And no, B did not lie about her condition and say she needed vocal rest or actually "call out" of the performance the following day at all.  She in fact showed up at half hour, signed in, brought cocktails to drink after the show with the cast, and sat and watched the show in the house.  All while another understudy was performing in lieu of a sick actor, but without having had enough actual rehearsal time scheduled to have felt prepared for the role.

And I for one was shocked when I'd heard that the producers seemed to be okay with this idea.  It was enough of a surprise to me that they were unwilling to reschedule this understudy's performance day - to any other day in the run where another understudy was not performing - simply because she'd invited family to the show that night, and this was her only chance to perform.

8

The Hardline / Understudies, and actors "calling out"

« on: Aug 08, 2011, 12:13 am »

Background: I'm subbing for the PSM for a revue musical.  I'm doing about half of the shows each week while the PSM is in rep rehearsing another show (so I cover the matinees while he rehearses, and he does the evening shows).  I also subbed for a week for him while he was on vacation, so I've become fairly familiar with the cast and show at this point.  We have 2 understudies that cover the 5 principal roles, and attend every performance, to standby in case they're needed.

The other day I saw in a performance report that one of these covers was going on on a day I would be subbing (today), but only for the second of the two shows.  Her put-in was scheduled yesterday before the 2-show day (already a bit of a no-no).  Turns out that another cast member (let's call her "A") was sick yesterday, so the other cover (not the one originally scheduled), also had a put-in yesterday and ended up going on in the evening show.  Today I arrive and discover that both of these understudies will be going on ("A" is not better).  As far as I know from the PSM's notes, all is well and both are prepared and ready to go on - as one understudy was already scheduled to perform, and the other had one show already under her belt.

But once the cast begins to arrive, I start to hear another side of the story.  Apparently the scheduled understudy's performance today was just so she'd get the chance to go on.  The principal actor she'd be replacing (let's call her "B") did not have an excused conflict, she just planned to "call out" for that show so the understudy could get her feet wet in the role.  Sounds like a nice gesture, but it's not something I've run into before, and certainly not something condoned by producers.  In any case, it was something that did not absolutely HAVE to happen today, since it was just done out of the goodness of B's heart.

And that's when it gets icky.  Yesterday, A arrived for the scheduled put-in and said she didn't feel well enough to go on.  Instead of at that point canceling (or pushing back) the scheduled put-in so that A's understudy could prepare to go on instead, A was pressured to perform in the first show, B's understudy had her put-in, and an additional emergency put-in was scheduled for A's understudy between shows.  So on a 2-show day, the cast had not one but two put-n rehearsals, and the emergency replacement was not the priority.

Clearly, I was not the PSM in the situation yesterday, or I might have made a different call, but today I was, and several cast members wanted the issue rectified for today's performance.  As far as the cast was concerned (and I tend to agree with them on this), B's understudy - who was only scheduled to go on for fun, not for a legitimate conflict - should have been told that she couldn't perform today, so that A's understudy could go on - because A had a legitimate emergency (illness) that took her out of the show.  Instead, we had 3 original cast members, and 2 understudies playing our 5 principal roles.  And B actually watched the show from the house.  And apparently - all of this was done with the consent of the producers.  I found myself quite appalled that this was allowed, but couldn't find any rule that specifically prohibited it.

Is this kind of "calling out" of a show in order to allow an understudy to perform a typical practice?  And wouldn't an emergency situation - like an illness - trump this activity?

9

The Hardline / Re: AEA ASM?

« on: Apr 26, 2011, 06:42 pm »

I don't mean to come across as uninformed.  I do know the rulebook in question (specific to this theatre, of course), have read it backwards and forwards, and have seen nothing in it that suggests that this situation is in fact a violation.  From my reading it seems that having an ASM under an Equity contract is the primary rule, and that rule is not being broken.  The spirit of the rule may be being misused, but that does not make it a violation.

For me it is a matter of professional pride, that an Equity contract can be used as job security for someone who is not actually doing the job of an ASM.  I wanted to bring this issue up in this forum to see if any of my fellow SM's would feel the same way as I do about this, especially seeing Matthew's comment that this may be regular practice in other theatres in the country.

This thread started out asking the question as to whether Equity ASM's were necessary under certain contracts.  It seemed therefore a safe place to broach the question as to whether or not I can legitimately approach the union about my concerns that this clause is being used improperly.  It seems clear that if the ASM is employed on the show by title only, it negates what we fought for in getting this provision into the contracts.  But in contractual terms, is improperly using the ASM contract actually a violation?  To me it feels like it should be, but that it in fact, it is not.

I feel comfortable going to the union when there is a clear violation, but in this case, it seems more like my personal and professional distaste of this practice is overshadowing my objectivity. 

It is apparently difficult to bring the issue up as a hypothetical that doesn't result in answers like "call Equity," and "read the rulebook."  Some situations are just not that simple, and before I consider going to the union, I want to make sure I temper my frustration with fellow SMNet opinions about this.  I will not risk my job - which would absolutely happen if I went to Equity - without a bit more encouragement from people I trust.

10

The Hardline / Re: AEA ASM?

« on: Apr 25, 2011, 06:25 pm »

But the problem with all of that language is the word "OR."  The Stage Manager OR the Assistant Stage Manager.

Does that mean that although Equity requires an AEA ASM on musicals and with casts over 10, that the ASM really doesn't have to attend rehearsals or do any stage management work, as long as the Stage Manager does?  This is why I'm asking the question.  In the situation I've seen, the duties of stage manager are covered, but the Equity stage manager and whatever run crew is hired for the production - NOT the Equity ASM - are covering all of those duties.

I know we fought for the right to have qualified, Equity help in our field when we got this clause requiring an ASM.  Sure, shows can function without an Equity ASM, or with a decent PA or Actor ASM instead, and these shows clearly do.  But when an Equity ASM is required in the contract, and the theatre covers that responsibility to the bare minimum - by putting any old person (i.e. Box Office Manager) on an ASM contract without actually assigning them to legitimately act as the SM's Assistant - doesn't that go against the very essence of that clause?  Doesn't that feel like a violation to any of the other AEA SM's out there fighting for contracts (and health weeks!)?

And if this language is all we have - that there be an ASM on an Equity contract, and that either the SM or ASM are attending rehearsals and calling the show - is there really any violation at all?  Or am I only feeling jealousy toward my fellow Equity member who has learned to buck the system by earning a coveted contract and 52 health weeks a year but not actually doing any work?

11

The Hardline / Re: AEA ASM?

« on: Apr 25, 2011, 05:12 pm »

There are some theatres in this country - and I won't mention by name - but they have a staff member be the SM of record, often the Box Office Manager, and they have a non-AEA person really stage manage the show.  These type of theaters completely devalue the role of stage management.

This is the part that intrigues me.  While, yes, it does devalue the role of stage management, is it actually illegal?  These AEA agreements require an Equity SM and ASM, but does that mean these theatres can legitimately sign someone to a contract who does nothing even remotely related to stage management and still be completely within the bounds of their union obligations?

In this case I'm not talking about an Actor/ASM, or even a non-Eq PA in this role, but instead someone who does nothing related to the field of stage management - including attending rehearsals - but is nevertheless holding onto that coveted contract that could be given to a bonafide Equity Stage Manager.

This is not a hypothetical situation, I've seen it, on big musical productions, specifically in regard to the role of Equity ASM.  I won't name names, either, but I'm curious if this situation is the sort of thing that could/should be brought to union's attention, or in fact having someone - anyone - signed to both an SM and ASM Equity contract is enough to be a-OK with Equity.  In principal, it's infuriating, and feels like it MUST be illegal, but I somehow don't think it is.

12

Employment / Re: When is it OK to work for free?

« on: Aug 21, 2010, 02:32 pm »

I agree as well.  The abuse of the showcase contract (even just its existence) is the number one reason I chose to move to Chicago over NYC.  After working professionally in Boston for years and being abused as a stage manager there under Guest Artist and Special Appearance contracts - working as a non-Equity SM with enough Equity experience to manage a show with several Equity actors, and being paid a base stipend for the whole process because I was just EMC - moving to NYC made the most logical sense, but I saw the Showcase contract and ran from what I saw as certain abuse.  Of course, shortly after I left Boston, the NEAT contract was created, and many of those theatre companies that had abused me became bonafide AEA companies, but the Showcase contract is still alive and well, and clearly, it's doing exactly what I had feared.

As far as stipends in general being illegal, I wish that that were the case.  But most stage managers not under an AEA contract are independent contractors, and therefore not included under Wage Protections like Minimum Wage.  If they're not employees, they have no protections of any kind, including benefits and a guaranteed minimum wage.  And sadly, that's not at all illegal.

13

The Hardline / Re: SM Subcommittee forming

« on: Aug 09, 2010, 11:51 am »

Having participated in the first "speed-dating" event in Chicago, I can say it was a huge success, even though it wasn't necessarily about landing a job right away.

For a lot of us, it was about getting to put a face to the name, for both the SM's and Producers, and the chance to get a vibe from someone in a way that is intangible before an interview.  For many of us SM's, we'd been sending resumes to these theatres for years, and it was nice for us to see who was working at those theatres, what kind of positions may or may not be available soon, and to have face to face contact of some kind.  The theatre company where I'd been a resident had just folded, so I had plenty to talk to each producer about.  I even found that I had worked at some of those theatres before, and there were new people now staffing, and it was nice to introduce myself again.

It was also nice for the SM's, to see each other all together in an event like this, and spontaneously network amongst ourselves.  Even though the event didn't land any immediate work for me, I did get contacted months later by several companies when positions became open, and two of those companies have since hired me; one of them seasonally.  And I know that PM's are still using those "speed-dating" contacts as a sort of short list to hire people when in need.

I think it's a great idea for other areas to try - I know it can be successful.  Good luck!

14

Students and Novice Stage Managers / Re: Potential for issues with ASM

« on: Jun 03, 2010, 02:34 pm »

I agree wholeheartedly with Heath on this one. 

Starting out as a young stage manager, I would often end up as an ASM, and my skills would not be utilized fully.  As in - the older SM assumed I didn't know anything because of my age, and did most of my work for me.  I soon decided that that the *team* aspect of Stage Management team would be my goal - always.

Whenever I have an ASM, I try to encourage that person to ask questions, help wherever is appropriate, and have an open dialogue with me.  You never know what skills people will bring - even if that person has never done this before - they could have been sewing since they were five, or happen to have a background in furniture construction.  I *never* assume that my ASM is a subordinate position, because it isn't, and making someone feel subordinate never helps get things done.

I think that in your specific situation - where it's rumored that your ASM might have a chip on their shoulder about being ASM again - it might in fact be *most* helpful to view this as a team.  The posting you saw about working "under" someone shouldn't affect you - the ASM doesn't work under the SM, the two work together.  Approach your ASM as a team member, where each of you have different but *equally* crucial roles, and it will only help boost your ASM's confidence, and your own.  The best SM's work well with people, and if you can work well with this person, knowing there is a potential conflict, you've already gotten pretty far with learning what it is to be a Stage Manager.

15

The Hardline / Re: AEA Accident Report Vs. Workers Comp Forms

« on: Apr 30, 2010, 03:59 pm »

Does it seem strange to anyone else that the Deputy would be the only one to have access to an Accident Report (at least outside of NYC and LORT)?

It's assumed that the SM is the one with necessary paperwork for emergencies, and I haven't often seen my Deputies bringing their Deputy packets around with them in order to have that paperwork handy.