1516
Stage Management: Plays & Musicals / Re: TECH: Overheated actor
« on: Aug 04, 2009, 07:36 pm »
Although it might take a prescription, I have had O2 tanks backstage before.
News:
14 Jan 2021: Happy 21st birthday, SMNetwork! I replaced the old broken mobile theme. -K
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1517
Uploaded Forms / Re: Weekly
« on: Jul 25, 2009, 10:52 am »
Um, Weekly schedules?
I have never done any such thing in my 20 years of stage management . . . how/why/who I am baffled by this. Under what circumstances does one plan the week in advance in such detail?
I have never done any such thing in my 20 years of stage management . . . how/why/who I am baffled by this. Under what circumstances does one plan the week in advance in such detail?
1518
College and Graduate Studies / Re: Schools (undergrad)
« on: Jul 22, 2009, 02:45 pm »
i also recommend my long post http://smnetwork.org/forum/index.php/topic,3825.msg23315.html#msg23315
1519
College and Graduate Studies / Re: Schools (undergrad)
« on: Jul 22, 2009, 12:23 pm »
I would second the following opinion:
I have run across many, only one was worth their weight - and she was amazing - but on the flip side, I think she was amazing going into the program.
Quote
There is a certain stigma that comes with an NCSA degree. The facilities are certainly top notch, but there is a sentiment in the industry that NCSA people only know the "NCSA way". While no sweeping generalization is ever entirely accurate, I can say from my experience working with NCSA alum that this assumption is not entirely without merit. The few I've worked with seemed lost in the professional world, unable to adapt and ultimately didn't survive their first contract. I am sure that is not the case for all, but is certainly something to keep in mind.
I have run across many, only one was worth their weight - and she was amazing - but on the flip side, I think she was amazing going into the program.
1520
The Hardline / Re: AEA Question
« on: Jul 22, 2009, 05:30 am »
We had two SM's on contract, and 2 ASMs on contract - we were covered.
1521
The Hardline / AEA Question
« on: Jul 21, 2009, 02:15 pm »
FYI . . . I have already called my business rep on this, but I am interested in knowing if any other people have run across this situation, and their response. All of this is sort of hypothetical.
A show is required to have 2 AEA SMs on contract (SM, ASM)
ASM has a family emergency and goes away for four days, and is sub-ed out, not by an AEA ASM, but an a PA type.
Theatre wants to deduct four days pay, and use vacation time in it's place.
I think that's a foul, because there needs to be two AEA contracts going, Theatre thinks it is covered under the non-paid leave portion of the contract. I feel like they chose to save money by having a PA cover the track, as opposed to the hiring a emergency cover for a week-minimum. I don't think they can have it both ways.
Just wondering other people's thoughts . . . I already know the ruling, but would like to know if any other people have run across this in their career. I am desperately trying to find different ways of looking at this, as truly I see it as just keeping two people on contract per the minimums in the book and the theatre is looking at is as personal time away issue.
(This is a hypothetical argument, because, in this situation, there was another show running, and four SMs are on contract . . . so, the minimum number of contracts were being filled . . . but for the sake of this discussion, lets assume this show is running on it's own.)
A show is required to have 2 AEA SMs on contract (SM, ASM)
ASM has a family emergency and goes away for four days, and is sub-ed out, not by an AEA ASM, but an a PA type.
Theatre wants to deduct four days pay, and use vacation time in it's place.
I think that's a foul, because there needs to be two AEA contracts going, Theatre thinks it is covered under the non-paid leave portion of the contract. I feel like they chose to save money by having a PA cover the track, as opposed to the hiring a emergency cover for a week-minimum. I don't think they can have it both ways.
Just wondering other people's thoughts . . . I already know the ruling, but would like to know if any other people have run across this in their career. I am desperately trying to find different ways of looking at this, as truly I see it as just keeping two people on contract per the minimums in the book and the theatre is looking at is as personal time away issue.
(This is a hypothetical argument, because, in this situation, there was another show running, and four SMs are on contract . . . so, the minimum number of contracts were being filled . . . but for the sake of this discussion, lets assume this show is running on it's own.)
1522
Employment / Re: Workers' Comp
« on: Jul 18, 2009, 03:16 pm »
Really . . . I guess it depends on the insurance company.
I had an actor who was goofing around backstage (finally admitted it to the lawyers - we all knew what was going on), and the worker's comp was denied. It really depends on your state.
Anything involving drugs, booze, or goofing around can be denied - they may not be - but if you don't follow posted or announced safety rules, you may be putting yourself at risk in more ways then one.
Interesting side note, when I worked in California . . . a woman was hit by a car on her day off . . . and worker's comp paid for it . . . the ruling being that since the ONLY reason she was in California was for the job, worker's comp should cover it . . . now that was several years ago and laws change.
I had an actor who was goofing around backstage (finally admitted it to the lawyers - we all knew what was going on), and the worker's comp was denied. It really depends on your state.
Anything involving drugs, booze, or goofing around can be denied - they may not be - but if you don't follow posted or announced safety rules, you may be putting yourself at risk in more ways then one.
Interesting side note, when I worked in California . . . a woman was hit by a car on her day off . . . and worker's comp paid for it . . . the ruling being that since the ONLY reason she was in California was for the job, worker's comp should cover it . . . now that was several years ago and laws change.
1523
The Hardline / Re: AEA Health Weeks
« 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.
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.
1524
Employment / Re: Locations and Area Codes
« on: Jul 18, 2009, 03:06 pm »
You know, I stressed about this as a young stage manager as well . . . and to be honest, I don't think it matters. If you want to establish yourself as a SM in NYC . . . you can get a NYC area code, but to be honest . . . people now keep cell phone numbers for so long, the stigma of having an out-of-state area code doesn't matter. (And now, with cell phones, just because you have a 212 area code doesn't really mean you are in NYC). My partner has lived in DC for five years, and refuses to give up his Dallas number.
I do have a toll-free number from my freelance days - allows actors to call from any phone without a charge . . . and that's on my resume, but otherwise my local cell phone number is there.
I also have a 212 voice mail, that helps me establish a NYC presence, but to be honest, it hasn't really helped me at all.
I do have a toll-free number from my freelance days - allows actors to call from any phone without a charge . . . and that's on my resume, but otherwise my local cell phone number is there.
I also have a 212 voice mail, that helps me establish a NYC presence, but to be honest, it hasn't really helped me at all.
1525
Employment / Re: resume format
« on: Jul 17, 2009, 01:07 am »Quote
I also have a question myself.
I have a short run I am working on in August and I plan to be sending out my resume for stuff so I can get something lined up for after that. Should I include that gig? or leave it out until I have actually done it?
If you look at my resume, you will see that I include shows I am contracted for, but have not done . . . I denote the date.
1526
Employment / Re: Workers' Comp
« on: Jul 16, 2009, 07:05 pm »
If you are employed by a company, then your injuries should be covered by Work's Comp . . . check with the HR department, Company Management or Production Management. I don't know of any professional theater that does carry worker's comp.
Now, SMrose brings up an interesting point, about being an independent contractor - but most worker's comp covers ANY employee or volunteer that is hurt when do normal, typical things called for by their job. (Now, if you are screwing around, don't expect worker's comp to cover you.)
Now, SMrose brings up an interesting point, about being an independent contractor - but most worker's comp covers ANY employee or volunteer that is hurt when do normal, typical things called for by their job. (Now, if you are screwing around, don't expect worker's comp to cover you.)
1527
The Hardline / Re: AEA Health Weeks
« 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.
I think the union should be fighting for BOTH - more contracts and paying health care weeks.
1528
The Green Room / Re: Best reason from an actor for being late
« on: Jul 10, 2009, 12:01 am »
I have forgotten the "in jail" reasons . . . most of those are late at night.
I also had an actor who was narcoleptic - and would fall asleep in the afternoon before show calls.
I also had an actor who was narcoleptic - and would fall asleep in the afternoon before show calls.
1529
The Green Room / Re: Best reason from an actor for being late
« on: Jul 09, 2009, 05:09 pm »
"I am being questioned by the police due a murder next door."
and not for being late, but I did have an actor come to me to quit a show telling me he was on the run from the law. He was sort of flaky, so I thought he was just trying to get out.
A week later, a sherrif showed up.
and not for being late, but I did have an actor come to me to quit a show telling me he was on the run from the law. He was sort of flaky, so I thought he was just trying to get out.
A week later, a sherrif showed up.
1530
Stage Management: Plays & Musicals / Re: COMMUNICATION: What to include in a report vs when to send a private email
« on: Jul 02, 2009, 06:32 pm »
One of the great things about the ability to e-mail reports and send them out to everyone on the team is that everyone is up to speed about the issues involved in rehearsal or performance. Rarely does a not only affect one department, and who knows who cares about what color the sofa is. (Well, maybe the prop shop, scene shop, costume shop, lighting designer . . . see, everyone cares.) Also, it’s a great way to document the process.
If someone is getting bent out of shape by getting notes – they are perhaps NOT in the right business.
If your gut feeling is a note is going to cause some angst, then of course, keep it out of the report, but do document the note. For example, if you know changing the color of the sofa is going to cause some stress. You might want to put a note in the main report that there is discussion going on about the sofa. And then send a note to the scene shop and production management. (I think that you are always going to want to include a third party in the conversation . . . )
There may be issues (such as personnel issues) that may just be an issue between production management and yourself.
I find that with the medical situations or personal issues, I feel like just stating “so and so was out due to a personal health concern” is pretty much covers the need to put out someone was sick without me giving someone’s personal medical history.
If someone is getting bent out of shape by getting notes – they are perhaps NOT in the right business.
If your gut feeling is a note is going to cause some angst, then of course, keep it out of the report, but do document the note. For example, if you know changing the color of the sofa is going to cause some stress. You might want to put a note in the main report that there is discussion going on about the sofa. And then send a note to the scene shop and production management. (I think that you are always going to want to include a third party in the conversation . . . )
There may be issues (such as personnel issues) that may just be an issue between production management and yourself.
I find that with the medical situations or personal issues, I feel like just stating “so and so was out due to a personal health concern” is pretty much covers the need to put out someone was sick without me giving someone’s personal medical history.