Author Topic: AEA Health Weeks  (Read 5715 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hbelden

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA
  • Experience: Professional
AEA Health Weeks
« on: Jul 14, 2009, 05:59 pm »
What's more important for the union to fight for, having a theatre pay health contributions for fewer contracts, or awarding the theatre more contracts without paying health contributions?

Some individual actors say that they don't get 20 health weeks anyway but want to be onstage if they can.  My response to that statement is that it won't make the health fund any stronger to let theatres avoid contributing. 

Also, why be a union member at all, if that's the case?  If there's no real difference in small-theatre contracts between being an AEA member and not, why would actors getting cast in small theatres choose to join AEA with its initiation fee and yearly dues?
--
Heath Belden

"I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." - Sondheim
--

MatthewShiner

  • Forum Moderators
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: Freelance Stage Manager; Faculty for UMKC
  • Experience: Professional
Re: AEA Health Weeks
« Reply #1 on: Jul 15, 2009, 12:09 pm »
Good question Heath.

I think the union should be fighting for BOTH - more contracts and paying health care weeks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anything posted here as in my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer - whomever they be at a given moment in time.

stancial

  • New to Town
  • **
  • Posts: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA, SAG, IBT
  • Experience: Professional
Re: AEA Health Weeks
« Reply #2 on: Jul 15, 2009, 05:01 pm »
hbelden, I think your response is absolutely correct.  Just because an individual actor doesn't aquire enough weeks to obtain insurance doesn't mean that those health payments are going to waste.  Our pool insurance system would collapse if we were to allow theatres to stop making those payments, and then everyone would be out of insurance.

I also counter that I've spoken with plenty of actors that would prefer to take a lower salary in order to get those health weeks.  It all depends on each individual's situation.

And Matthew is correct - Equity should and does fight for both.  However, it is understandably difficult to create the balance in these tough economic times.

hbelden

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA
  • Experience: Professional
Re: AEA Health Weeks
« Reply #3 on: Jul 17, 2009, 08:27 pm »
I should have been clearer in my original post.  In a negotiation context, should union committees be willing to give up health contributions in exchange for more union actors cast?

Take a hypothetical situation:  Theatre X wants to hire 10 AEA actors for 5 productions in their season.  However, Theatre X comes to AEA and says they've been cutting every area as much as they can, and that they would rather not use AEA actors at all than pay health contributions.  Is getting 10 AEA actors onstage, even if they're not earning weeks towards the 20 needed for coverage, more important than getting health contributions from Theatre X?

I'm just trying to take a pulse of opinions out there.  I don't know that my own opinion is mainstream in this regard.
--
Heath Belden

"I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." - Sondheim
--

MatthewShiner

  • Forum Moderators
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: Freelance Stage Manager; Faculty for UMKC
  • Experience: Professional
Re: AEA Health Weeks
« Reply #4 on: Jul 18, 2009, 03:13 pm »
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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anything posted here as in my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my employer - whomever they be at a given moment in time.

Scott (formerly Digga)

  • Permanent Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 230
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Scott Pomerico
  • Affiliations: Actors Equity Association, Stage Manager's Association, Alpha Psi Omega
  • Current Gig: TheaterWorks Hartford
  • Experience: Professional
Re: AEA Health Weeks
« Reply #5 on: Jul 18, 2009, 09:35 pm »
I'm going to agree with Matthew here.  Health Care in this country is expensive enough as it is and for those of us that work enough weeks to earn insurance - I don't want it going up.  I was upset enough when it went from being free with Dental included to having to pay for dental to having to pay for the insurance itself.  Even the number of weeks required to work has gone up.

And now, to cut the cost to the producers just to get a few more contracts on stage - I don't think it's worth it to the general pool.  I understand everyone is looking for work but you're looking to sacrifice the greater good for 1 person and I'd rather see it the other way around.  Sacrifice the contract to make sure everyone can keep the insurance they've earned.

VSM

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • http://www.vernonwillet.com
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: PSM - Laguna Playhouse
  • Experience: Professional
Re: AEA Health Weeks
« Reply #6 on: Jul 19, 2009, 11:57 am »
We, as Union Negotiating Committees, strive long and hard over this very issue.
Every single time.

We strive long and hard over every negotiating point.
Ask anyone who was on the most recent LORT Negotiating Team about the hours they kept.
All unpaid, all working for the greater good.

It is a great question.
It is my opinion that we have achieved much over the years.
If we hadn't, neither side would return and there would be no Union.

We keep striving for more contracts.
We keep striving to keep our members insured.
We keep praying for some kind of National Assistance with regard to Health Care.
I hope you do to...
Ordo ab chao

juliz1106

  • SM Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
  • Affiliations: AEA
  • Current Gig: TYA Stage Manager, Marriott Theatre Lincolnshire
  • Experience: Professional
Re: AEA Health Weeks
« Reply #7 on: Sep 13, 2009, 11:46 am »
I recently saw this issue affect actors very directly.

I worked with a theatre company for the first time who had their own code that did not require health contributions of any kind, because the requirements for rehearsal and performance were so very minimal, as was the pay.  The idea of this isn't unreasonable for most actors - they use this type of contract to fill the void between shows and still get to perform for a little bit of cash, for simple work (staged readings entirely).

The problem came because this code has been around for about 10 years now, so several actors have begun to work exclusively under this code, with this company.  That means that they incur no health weeks despite working about 20 weeks a year, and one of those actors was struck down with a heart attack and has had bypass surgery.  He is now struggling with health insurance costs because - despite being an AEA member in good standing, and technically working enough weeks a year - he is completely without health insurance, and will probably never recover financially as a result.

This is exactly what happens when a producer is allowed to make these concessions with Equity.  Though it's not unreasonable on its face, this code has allowed this theatre to create financial ruin for one of its own.

VSM

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 714
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • http://www.vernonwillet.com
  • Affiliations: AEA, SMA
  • Current Gig: PSM - Laguna Playhouse
  • Experience: Professional
Re: AEA Health Weeks
« Reply #8 on: Sep 13, 2009, 01:14 pm »
My heart goes out to the actor involved...
Here's hoping President Obama's plan becomes a reality.
Ordo ab chao