Messages

166

The Hardline / Re: Treating all actors as AEA in a showcase?

« on: Sep 01, 2009, 02:14 pm »

What's the point of joining a union and paying dues if non-union people get the same benefits?

Hard work now will make them appreciate their AEA card later, won't it?

I mean, are they being abused?  Or just working more?

This is a really good question, and it makes me consider my own perspectives.  I think things like doing scene changes, or taking one-line roles in Shakespeare that aren't cast until the first read-through (if even then), or even sweeping the stage in the absence of pa/asm, are things that could be "expected" of non-union cast.  Maybe I'm wrong about that.  I'd love to hear the discussion.

It seems to me that it's making a clear distinction between the two groups; "AEA actors are released, non-union cast we'll be here until midnight rehearsing the opening number" is the thing that really harms ensemble building, in my experience.

167

The Hardline / Re: Treating all actors as AEA in a showcase?

« on: Aug 30, 2009, 11:48 pm »

Are you yourself AEA, NomieRae? I can't recall...

Ultimately, the non-AEA actors don't have any protection.  That's what being non-AEA means.  The only power they have is to say no to the job.  If you yourself aren't union, then the producer has every right to get as much work out of each of you as each of you is willing to put up with.  I've seen it before, the intern company works an hour on the choreography of the final dance, after the rest of us have gone home for the night.  Creating the two-tier system really ruins any chance at ensemble play, and is a real morale-buster, [unless the AEA actors are extremely protective of the ensemble, like Kristi's example above] but short of leaving the job, there's nothing you can do to keep non-union actors from getting exploited.  What I would do in your shoes is to be as up front as possible with each of the non-union performers, in terms of the director's ideas of rehearsal, so that the people who don't want to put up with it just walk away from the job in plenty of time to get replacements cast.

If you yourself are union, then be very clear with the director that any rehearsal done with non-union actors will also be done without stage management.  Leave it up to the director to do the scheduling, reserve the rehearsal space, clear the rehearsal space, set up whatever props the non-union actors need, and clean up when they're done.  The ten-minute breaks you'll just have to ignore, but I would also ignore when one of the non-union actors then runs out of the rehearsal to go to the bathroom or get a drink of water.  Now that I've typed that advice, I see that it sounds a little passive-aggressive, but I think it's just a matter of being very clear about the protections union status offers you, given that the director wants to push the envelope and would rather work without any of the rules and is probably assuming that an SM will work harder than anyone else and just get exploited along with the non-union cast.

168

SMNetwork Archives / Re: Too many sick days on Broadway.....

« on: Aug 22, 2009, 03:11 pm »

Matthew,

I appreciate the reasoned response and calm thoughts about the issue.  I freely admit that I am uninformed about current Broadway culture and work ethics.  However, I'll never back down when I see a union being attacked.  Perhaps AEA should start considering its own responses to this problem, if it is as rampant as you say.

Perhaps someone who is on one of these big shows has something to contribute.  I remember when I shadowed "Lion King" in L.A. (and this was 6 or 7 years ago) I was shocked to hear how many outs they had on a regular basis.

Thanks,

169

SMNetwork Archives / Re: Too many sick days on Broadway.....

« on: Aug 21, 2009, 01:56 pm »

When people start to abuse what's in place to protect them though it's actually going to hurt the union's cause.  If producers see certain processes being abused, it's going to come up next time there's a contract negotiation.  Certain things may be curtailed or re-written to be more strict and prevent abuse (even if only perceived abuse) of the system.

That's completely true, and it's what motivated my visceral response to the article.  Most of my anger was directed at the newspaper, which told the story from the producer's point of view.  This is anti-labor propaganda, designed by corporate producers to weaken the union's negotiating position.  Is this abuse?  The newspaper would have us think so.  We are left with the impression that all those lazy actors just want a personal day, without any real investigation of what's causing all those outs.  What's the injury report on that show?  Did an epidemic of flu go through the cast?  Is any audience member aware that only one day off a week is so much less than they get at their day job?

My cool(er) response to the article, having slept on it, is that these Broadway producers needed to do their job in hiring understudies up to the task and paying for them to be rehearsed and put into the show.  It's not like there's a dearth of quality union performers who would take the job.

I think I read someone complaining about a swing going on as a different chorus role each performance in a week.  Well, that's the job of the swing.  If the job is too big for any one person, then the producer needs to hire more than one! 

As someone who's never worked on Broadway but hopes one day to get there, I don't think I'm going to accept at face value what the producer has to say about understudies or care one bit about audience members appalled at the number of inserts in their program.  When I do get to Broadway, I'll do my part to make it better.  When I stage manage shows now, I don't allow anyone's poor work ethic to affect the show, and I come down hard on people who think that the show they're on is beneath them.  I totally recognize the responsibility we all have to maintain the professionalism of our productions, and the necessity of discipline when appropriate.  But to see it splashed across the papers, to invite the public to weigh in on something they know nothing about, and to hear support for the producer's position from other union members... (*slams head against wall*)

There's too much anti-worker sentiment in this country for union members to be going around in public forums like the Post all "the show must go on" and "I went on with broken fingers in my day, what's wrong with these kids". 

170

SMNetwork Archives / Re: Too many sick days on Broadway.....

« on: Aug 20, 2009, 05:40 pm »

That article made me furious.  Here's the comment I left:

"What a trash article.  This is incredibly one-sided.  Where are comments from the union and the performers?  The union has been working for half a century to a) force the producer to hire understudies; b) add cover for life events like births, deaths, marriages; c) continue pay for an actor when through no fault of their own they miss a performance.  The industry wants to chew through performers as quickly as they can, but the cast is trying to maintain a lifetime career of EIGHT SHOWS A WEEK, SIX DAYS EVERY WEEK, not just get through this particular performance.  To all the commenting performers busy stabbing their colleagues in the back with comments like "the show must go on" or "what happened to professionalism": were you a triple-threat in your day?  Because triple-threat is the baseline minimum for even understudying on Broadway today.    Back off and support your union brothers and sisters!"

I'm still spitting nails about that piece.

171

The Hardline / Re: work hours report

« on: Aug 18, 2009, 01:03 am »

Um, hours worked may differ from the hours called. 

Sure, but again, why bother?  Especially if nobody is getting OT?

We have a deputy, but they only have to send in their reports in the event of a grievance or of OT. And the theatre says they have to report to AEA.  I'm wondering if something got lost in translation and it's their payroll service that needs this, not AEA.

172

The Hardline / work hours report

« on: Aug 17, 2009, 09:35 pm »

I haven't had to do this before.  My current theatre is telling me that they have to send in a report to AEA on each actor's work hours per week, so I have to tally up the hours and e-mail the totals to the admin asst each week.  Where did this need come from? When did AEA start asking for this, and why is it my job to figure it out?  Shouldn't the theatre track it from the Daily Calls that I send out every day?

It's not really a problem for me to do, I just am resistant to taking on any busywork, and it seems to me that unless we go into overtime, the time I take to do that is time that I could be doing something more useful.

173

Stage Management: Plays & Musicals / Re: TECH: Overheated actor

« on: Aug 04, 2009, 03:12 pm »

You might try placing icepacks in a neoprene back brace hidden under his costumes.  I've heard of some outdoor theatres that build ice pack pouches into their costumes at the low back.  Of, course, this might get in the way of a wireless mic belt if your show is mic'ed.

174

Stage Management: Plays & Musicals / PEOPLE: Performer is creator

« on: Aug 03, 2009, 06:23 pm »

I'm working on a workshop production.  The only performer is also one of the musicians/lyricists creating the show.  I haven't worked with anybody involved with the show before, though they have all worked together. I'm just sort of following the lead they set, not really paying attention to break times, etc.  I'm protecting the PA but otherwise just playing along.

Has anyone else been in this situation?  Anything I should watch out for?

Thanks,

175

The Hardline / Re: AEA Health Weeks

« 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.

176

The Hardline / 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?

177

The Hardline / Re: AEA Break Question

« on: Jul 05, 2009, 07:14 pm »

I once had an actor say we needed a break before the end of the session.  The situation was something like this:  Rehearsal had been scheduled from 2pm - 7pm, and we had taken a ten-minute break from 5:30 - 5:40.  The actor came over to me at 6:35 and said, "don't we have to take a five-minute break here?  There isn't time left for a ten-minute break."  I looked at him, puzzled, and said, "No, 7pm is the end of the day.  That's your break after 80 minutes of work."  He thought about that a little, then said okay.

Sometimes actors are weird.

178

Stage Management: Plays & Musicals / Re: COMMUNICATION: What to include in a report vs when to send a private email

« on: Jul 02, 2009, 07:06 pm »

I just got into trouble with a designer because I put notes in the report that he felt stepped on his toes - that I was changing his design without his permission. 

One day in rehearsal the shop gave us a mock-up couch that was the designed height.  Two of our actors with back issues said "We can't go down that far.  We'll hurt our lower backs if we sit down too hard because it's so low.  We need it to be two inches higher."  So, my note in the rehearsal report was something like "Thank you for the mock-up of the couch.  Due to back issues in the cast, please add two inches to the height of the couch."  Both the director and the designer really flipped out over that - apparently the research done showed them that the couch was exactly the right height and could not be changed in any way without disconnecting it from the period.  I said to the director, "But so-and-so can't sit on it when it's that low, it'll hurt her back." and the director's response is "Then I'll change the blocking so she never sits on the couch" despite the fact that we only had three sittables total in the show, and this one was DC.  At the very next break, the director got on her cell phone to the designer and was all like, I'm so sorry, I didn't see that note, we're not changing a thing of your design, your design is perfect, that note didn't come from me, etc., etc.

It didn't even occur to me - and I think I'm usually sensitive to this kind of thing - that two inches would make a difference.  Six inches, sure.  But two?  And of course, by the time we got through tech, the couch had been rebuilt four times because it was too flimsy for stage furniture and it ended up two inches higher.  But that all came from the director and designer, not from me.  I just wish that we could have built it right the first time... but that's a design decision, one that I'm not party to.

The moral of the story is, no matter how insignificant the issue, never surprise a designer in a rehearsal report.

179

Employment / Re: Forced to be stuck in a rut. Please help.

« on: Jul 01, 2009, 12:00 am »

Can I just ask a silly question? Why do you want to work for these people so badly if this is how they treat not only you, but what seems to be all of the people that work for them?!

My question exactly.  Work with people who want you and who are clear in their job descriptions.  If this theatre doesn't have payroll for two stage managers on one show, your upcoming meeting isn't going to change that.  If the stage manager thinks you're trying to horn in on her turf, this meeting isn't going to change that.  So before you go into it, know exactly what you're asking for and what your current job is worth to you.

180

Employment / Re: Forced to be stuck in a rut. Please help.

« on: Jun 30, 2009, 10:04 pm »

Wow, lots of stuff there, jerseySM.  Thanks for all the additional information. 

With regards to your 2., what gave you the impression that you had the SM position?  Was that job then given to a different person?

It's good that you know what you're doing.  I don't think that earlier commenters questioned that.  I think the advice was assuming that you were in the rehearsal hall and could see for yourself that something needed doing even if it wasn't your "job" so to speak.

Finally, it may not be an "interview" in the sense of responding to a job posting, but it clearly is an interview in the sense that you want a particular job, and you should comport yourself as such.

A couple other questions occur to me as I read your response.  Why is the meeting high-tension?  Why do you think you are going to be attacked?  Why might the stage manager think you are trying to take her job?  In short, do you want a position that already exists and is going to be filled by someone, or are you trying to create an ASM position for yourself that this theatre doesn't usually do?

What is the worst that can happen (and is the worst really all that bad)?