Advice- profit shear

Isn't it about time Gavin responded to some of these posts?

• 11 years ago
• 21

Hi all,

Here's an interesting article another actor sent me today :)
http://www.fringereview.co.uk/pageView.php?pagename=Fringe+Minimum+Wage+Debate

• 11 years ago
• 22

Brilliant ...thank you. I am biased as I have been screaming and ranting about the same points and notions from around about the same time this article was written (2009) Fact is: It was bad then....and I predicted it would get a whole lot worse ....it has!

The bottom line is this: We are the Union, or should be.....we are all our business too. Imagine if "we all" said enough is enough ....and stood firm at valuing our respective skills and self-worth.

Only "all of us" can make change happen. All this bull-doodarr and scaremongering quotes like "Fringe will collapse and die, hell will freeze over if fringe actors are paid something" That is the biggest, most worn out - unproven nonsense in the world. How come it pays in other countries like the states. We're not even asking for much....just something like the NMW. However, I personally believe the NMW argument is another done to death and bad deal to strive for. I'd want a bit more than NMW to rehearse and perform for a 4-6 week period on the fringe. No disrespect to those who do so...but I think we are worth more as hard working professional actors, than a shelf filler or a cleaner etc?

The only way to achieve proper payment is for Fringe venues, producers and cast to all work more closely and openly together on budget and pay scales/production costs. The show standard will have to be fierce, and competition tighter than ever perhaps....perhaps not all actors will simply get to act on the basis of being able and or prepared to undercut their colleagues, by working for zilch all the time. I think that is a good thing.

It's an excellent and well observed article, I hope you all read it and make comments.....however...actions speak louder than any words. It's soooo simple: If you allow yourself to sell yourself short, your business is sunk before it starts! It is about time we all thought about the wider picture and not just ourselves. If we don't start to collectively all take this more seriously....In another three years....we'll all be expected to "pay" to be in a TV role and or Fringe etc!!

Best to all.

• 11 years ago
• 23

Although this thread has now departed fairly drastically from the original question, it is worth pointing out, in relation to both of the last posts, that Equity is itself now strongly concurring with all the points made.

Many of the same issues were broached during the course of the No/Lo Pay Working Party, and guidelines have at least been drawn up in response that were (and this seems to me significant) passed by Council in their entirety. One reason that the guidelines passed relatively painlessly may be because those matters that concerned a direct implementation of policy (such as greater dissemination of information concerning member rights in relation to lo/no pay employment) were relatively non -contentious. Issues about which there was more heated disagreement were left relatively unresolved. But the overall approach at least appears to be shifting - and it is good to see that, although things probably have got worse in the marketplace since 2009, as Mark acknowledges, the counter-response has started to become less sterile during the period between then and now, too.

It is gratifying to recognise that the argument that Mark identifies - that fringe's 'right' to operate as a protected enclave in which there must be room for artistic experimentation, even at the expense of impoverishing performers - is starting to be seen for what it is: an argument that may have been valid forty years ago, but no longer suits a marketplace in which working in fringe becomes a regular occurrence for most jobbing actors. Indeed, it's even fair to say that the 'fringe shows' of the 1970's were much more fairly subsidised now than the majority are these days, because the Arts Council was more malleable, and so, if the 'for art's sake' theory even truly had validity in the 70's, is an open question. Equity has very little issue with the notion of placing considerably more pressure on subsidised companies that are found to be in breach of fair payment for actors - and the drive to lobby the Arts Council about this is mounting. With this said, most of the 'fringe' work we are referring to isn't subsidised, which is part of the problem of bringing it to account.

It is recognised that the thorniest problem, in this respect, is actually generated by graduate companies, which are often started in attempts to raise the profile of drama school graduates, and whose formation is actively encouraged within the drama schools. Many are chronically underfunded, and, in the sense that they exist to offer opportunities to trained actors who might otherwise find no work, and sometimes serve as motors of innovation, they serve an important function in the modern industry. Many remain reluctant to enforce some kind of draconian condemnation of 'profit share work' in totality (even if it were possible) because they are afraid that this will put a permanent end to the formation of graduate companies. What Equity seems to be doing currently, therefore, is drawing a narrow legal distinction between true 'partnerships/collaborations' etc. in which members do not necessarily make money, but no member is considered to lose money at another's expense, and other forms of production in which outside actors are sourced by a company, and should be entitled to treatment as contracted workers. The current drive towards getting more fringe companies impelled to institute open book accountability is also part of this initiative to draw greater distinctions between 'viable' and 'exploitative' companies, and is to be commended...though, at the end of the day, having the freedom to see a ledger doesn't pay your bills in itself.

In terms of legislation serving to better defend the actor, Mark ultimately hits the nail on the head by mentioning NMW. The issue here is, firstly, that as Equity has no absolute power to enforce contracts per se, often the best hope of pressurising fringe companies to pay is through recourse to NMW legislation. Equity would be prepared to pursue test cases about scenarios where entitlement to NMW was felt to be breached if actors were prepared to press them (most, of course, aren't - and many of those who might be so inclined rarely agree to work for profit share, in the first instance). Yet, at the same time, Equity do not pursue this line too strenuously for the other reason Mark raises: being confirmed payment of NMW is not as good as the offer of higher rates that can be negotiated by the union, and the fear remains, that if too much emphasis is placed on our entitlement to NMW, it will actually encourage cutting or capping of rates elsewhere. This is one reason why so little appears to go forward in this particular direction.

Beyond this, the 'solution' to the problem (in the sense that there may be one) almost certainly lies in the co-operative and fairer approaches of accountability that Mark also mentions. If, as seems likely, the lot of jobbing actors for the next few decades in the UK is liable to be bound up with necessary bouts of fringe theatre, then it is in everyone's interests to begin to take more responsibility for ensuring they are well informed about budgets and pay scales. Because of the reasons JD identifies, it is increasingly counter-productive to assume that jobbing actors can simply afford to pass on non or low paying work when they first start out, because there are so few alternate options available to them. It is also often hypocritical to make the assertion (for some, not all, actors) because the self-same actors worked themselves for little or no pay in order to get up the first rungs of the ladder when they too started out (provided they started out in the last decade or so - before that time, most actors were infinitely more liable to be able to source work that, at least, paid close to rate, for a variety of reasons). Certainly, it is much easier to advocate a boycotting of the no/low paying sector once you have established yourself enough to be able to consistently source paying work! From this perspective, it is not wholly reasonable to imagine that the curse of low and non paying work is liable to fade away overnight.

What is needed is individual effort from individual actors to seek to improve the fringe's reputation, and improve our pay conditions, and the attitudes with which we are treated. This may initially be no more than demanding that a fringe group you work with makes their accounts 'open' to all cast members, so you can see where the money has been being spent. It may be nothing more than making sure anyone you know of is warned against working for an exploitative company in advance if you have yourself performed with them. It may be paying attention to working only at fringe theatres where you believe the method of ticketing pricing, and so on, is ethical (i.e. you are not losing money massively because of box office cuts). It may be by making sure that you sign agreements or contracts (even the most basic) before you agree to perform, setting out exactly what you are owed and what is expected of you. In this sense, we have to learn to behave like our own watchdogs…and that, I suspect, is part of the message that Equity is currently trying to encourage. In the coming year, they will be enshrining this in a more determined campaign than has been seen in some time.

• 11 years ago
• 24