You know, I think it is a slippery slope.
We will hire 10 actors, with no health care contributions.
We will hire 15 actors, with no health care contributions and allowing us to pay 20% less then minimum.
We will hire 20 actors, with no health care contributions, pay 20% less, and allowing us to do 14 shows a week.
If the theater company can negotiate the contract, and the actors know ahead of time they will NOT be earning weeks - then maybe, maybe, I can see an argument there. But to be honest, the AEA Health Care system works because it is a pool, and if producers are hiring actors and not contributing into the health care system - then in the end it is going to drive up my cost.
I would rather them get a concession to pay less, and continue to make the health care contribution.
There is a cost in hiring in AEA actors, and if the producers think they can get the same work out of non-union actors without paying the cost, then maybe they should.
But at some point, there needs to be a line drawn and, as a union, we stand up for our rights and the those things we have fought for in our union.
So, on principal, given your argument - no, I don't think it's better to get the ten actors on stage without health care.
It's a slippery slope.