I think part of the issue with the SPT contract's wording is that SPT shows tend to run shorter, be produced on a smaller budget, and by companies who may not have the fiscal or human resources to cover an outage of up to 8 weeks. And although I think the wording might eventually end up in all contracts, I am sure the producers push back a bit. (Also, is an AEA ASM required on SPT?)
And yes, I think if a PRODUCER was on the hook for paying for leave, I would be very concerned that producers would, all things being equal, hire the man over the woman (unless they paid for all FMLA leave . . . ).
If we just talking about time off . . . and someone holding your position, I doubt many producers or general managers who balk at this (unless they were unhappy with your work), regardless of the specific wording of the contact.. But, the FMLA, which covers this, has specific limitations. Not all theatres, including SPT, have 50 full time employees - hell, some LORT Theatres don't have 50 employees - and few commercial shows may have 50 full time employees (Well, maybe the musicals . . . )
I don't know of anyone who was laid off of an AEA show contract because of pregnancy . . . I think maybe it's not a huge issues, because it's not an huge issues.
If we are talking about paid time off, I am unsure WHO would paid for this?
The employer who's contract you are currently on, that seems like a little bit of pregnancy roulette . . . if you work 6 weeks, here, 9 weeks there, 4 weeks there, and then start a 10 week contract, and there is where you take the time off, the forth theatre would need to pay for the leave? Seems awfully odd.
If we think the UNION should pay for it . . . I am unsure how that would work . . . I doubt ANY union pays this directly, it's always the employer - and that issue see the above. If it was the union, would there be a set amount they paid, based on your past weekly salary? BUT, I would argue THAT'S not the purpose of my union. Again, if you choose to be pregnant, then you should incur those costs. If I take time off from "Work" to have a surgery, I wouldn't expect my union to pay the salary I would have received - if the surgery was medical necessary or not. I would actually be against the union paying out direct benefits.
As pointed out, if a woman wants that pay, it would have to be a combination of paid time off and vacation, just like what a man who have to do if they had a medical issue or wanted to take off for FMLA. (Remember, even if a man is sick for a LEGITIMATE reason on a LORT contract, they can be released after two weeks . . .
(E)Should the illness of an Actor continue for two weeks or more after the Actor’s sick leave is exhausted, Equity shall, at the request of the Theatre, have full power to modify or terminate the Actor’s contract upon such terms as it may consider just, if it shall be satisfied that it will be necessary for the Theatre to employ a successor.)
We are just a different business.