What value is Equity

I think the essential truth, Daniel, is that you are far from alone in your concerns about the profession, your day to day experience as an actor, and the feeling that many Equity stalwarts cannot easily relate to the conditions you are working under. My contention is that your attitude would, by and large, prove to be the attitude (give or take specific elements) of about 80% (if not more) of all those actors affiliated to this casting site alone. One has only to consider the perennial nature of the debates on these forums: why else are so many actors of the opinion that they get raw deals on film sets, that they are offered paltry rates for work, that their contributions as actors are taken for granted? Where you are perhaps unusual is in actually having chosen to become a member of Equity and so to take a more active part in attempting to question the situation. Because so many at the 'grass roots' level don't (allowing the notion that Equity 'can't relate' to become ever more a self-fulfilling prophecy), it makes it even easier for these concerns and issues to be dismissed as being of peripheral interest to the union.

Of course, the jobbing actors of the early 21st century UK are the inheritors of a complex process of deregulation - and, in that sense, David is totally right to say that things have been shifting for over 20 years and there is no going back. I know that the 'closed shop', from the memories of those who worked within it, had more than its share of iniquities, but, of course, it also placed a certain amount of limitation on the market: it kept the number of actor professionals pegged, kept most 'fringe' work to a minimum, ensured more coherent standardisation of rates, and made the Equity card difficult to obtain. As soon as this was lost, the floodgates of the profession opened, and, as all would agree, it is a development that has both benefitted and cursed us - it is simply fair to say that vast numbers of those who can call themselves actors now, and can actually be in with some chance of pursuing the profession, would have found it extremely difficult to win legitimation in days gone by, but, at the same time, these shifts have ensured that the marketplace has become flooded, there is no meaningful vetting of 'talent' in place, the casting directors have tended to close ranks, and rates of payment are cut across the board.

What is important to me about this process is, in truth, the numbers of those liable to be caught up in it: by definition, I would assume that, so long as the industry continues along its present path, there will always be more actors entering into the profession at this essentially 'disenfranchised' base level than will ever win medals at RADA and go on to take the lead in a BBC prime time series.

Yet Equity is still closely wedded to a model of the profession that is itself informed by 'closed shop' era thinking. This model presupposes that there is some kind of coherence available in an acting career, that the option of working for below rate is something that would naturally be scorned by any right thinking actor, that working on low budget films and fringe material is something that is of peripheral, rather than central, concern to a career and so on. It is hardly surprising that many of the Equity stalwarts are of these opinions, because the union certainly has many ageing representatives, and many of them came of age in the era of the 'closed shop' even if they do not universally regret its passing. Many, as you point out, Daniel, live in semi-retirement these days, on the basis of residuals and savings earned during the days when they worked on far more stringent contractual agreements than exist these days, and can afford to take a moral 'higher ground'.

Such suppositions do seem far removed from what most jobbing actors have to engage with day to day: it is worth remarking that if, in a three month period, your career track has been something along these lines - taking a part in two student films, a run of a small fringe theatre piece for nominal pay, a part in an Internet viral, a week's worth of corporate work, and three murder mysteries - most of those working at the 'grass roots' would concede that you had just had a fruitful three months, yet you may have been underpaid for every single piece of work, had to negotiate the terms yourself, and none of it would be work in arenas that Equity holds much regulatory control over, or, if truth be known, takes much interest in.

Equity will sometimes claim, fairly, that many of these unregulated arenas of work are 'no go' because they are simply not occupied by companies which would show interest in negotiating long term contracts in accordance with the union's terms, and without the power to enforce market standards, there is nothing that the union can do about this fact (they are not aided by the existence of highly transitory companies either). So, Equity will instead concentrate on those areas where it can conceivably make a difference: that is, generally brokering deals with the most high profile production companies, producing houses, broadcasters and so on. In this respect, it is perhaps foolish, for instance, to assume that Equity will ever be able to 'regulate' the fringe arena to any great extent, however much we might wish to campaign for something to be done.

Yet this is not to say that Equity would not gain strength as a union by taking into account more issues that concern the essentially deregulated nature of the contemporary market. The union has begun to make some inroads - many only quite recently - at the least matters like monitoring student film contracts, considering the position of lo/no pay work in theatre, redefining 'fringe' work from peripheral experimentalism to central concern, keeping a keener eye on online developments, trying to better regulate the practices of mid rank touring companies, corporate deals, lower scale theatre companies without fixed bases and so on, have taken on more importance in dispute. There is still a huge amount that needs to be done to convert discussion into practical actions, however.

It's partly for this reason that the restructuring of the committees may be of great importance: it could, theoretically, allow more 'new blood' to voice itself on the jobbing actors' behalf at the higher levels of union policy making. The risk here, perhaps, is that, given their tendencies towards seniority and long term activism, the vote gainers in elections may be more likely to be older members of the union - and who are more liable to perpetuate the concerns of the past. It has been a regrettable tendency in recent years that many of those who are more radical voices for change within Equity simply cannot amass the numbers of votes needed to win election. This just means that, yet again, it is really up to us, as a determined membership eager for change, to try and initiate it by exercising our votes when the time comes.

• 11 years ago
• 41

Much of what you say simply amounts to what many of the membership of recent years feels…the Union is still living in the "old days" Like I mentioned in my 1st post on this thread….it is changing thanks to the hard work of those who are living in the 21st century, and we should all be thanking them....as they give up a lot of time on our behalf.

I simply do not have the time, to attend weekly meetings and or if I am totally honest, nor do I want to make extra special time to talk about Equity fundamentals like Rule a1B….can we take out the word judgement, and re-write it to Consideration…etc etc.

Now I am willing to be educated here, and be told that does not happen at these branch meetings! Yes I also know that there are some lively debates, and also good speakers attend these meetings …and possibly I should get off my ass and attend. Lazy…no, let me be perfectly frank and honest about this.
From the Equity forum, which I do dip into now and again……I see the same old conversations endlessly discussing the same old thing. "Past rules and what we should be changing etc" and it often seems to go round and round in circles with the same few arguing with each other about "what rule means what" like the age old am-dram committee meetings….and that for me is a def turn off from getting overtly involved at branch union meetings…..and I bet….a fair amount of other actors too.

I hold my hand up and am willing to be told this is not the case. I also reiterate I completely support the need for being a Union member, and I carry out my career under Union guides and beliefs as far as not allowing myself to be exploited.

So in order to move the debate on a little, as I think many of us are all mostly agreed, one certainly should be a member: What really goes on at Equity branch meetings for those of us who are always told…if you do not attend, you are in some way undermining the union.

I know I am not the only one with the impression the meetings are packed out with the old stalwarts, still living and wanting the union to be as it was in the past ….when quite clearly, it must continue to modernise evolve for many reasons, including the removal of the closed shop.

I once raised- what I believed to be a very valid idea in grading actors CV's, and I thought it a good way around the closed shop removal ie: the watering down of the Unions membership if you will.

Maybe I will think it through some more and re-post it for a seperate discussion.

• 11 years ago
• 42

@ Lee - Thank you for a very informative response. I will be watching the space to see what develops. Surprised actors are under represented on certain committees. Hoping to see developments with regards to the film schools, unpaid work, and low pay rates many of us have to endure. Not to mention a better deal for all.

• 11 years ago
• 43

@Lee Great input again and @Mark too. I aagree with Mark about the Equity forum (I bet my post on the ageism/insurance still hasn't been answered) but forums like Unions are what members make them.
*****
As for entertainment Unions in the US being Mafia controlled. That would be perceived as an insult by the like of Theo Bikel or even that well known liberal Charlton Heston!
Even the Ship Scalers' & Painters Union which I joined was mainly made of of actors who didn't mind getting their hands dirty!

• 11 years ago
• 44

Just had answer from Claude Starling on the Equity forum!! Thanks Claude. It would appear the officers aren't interested. But on the other hand it's only been two months I notice.
I do thing it's absurd though that an unfit old looking 55 year old looking performer can get cast whereas a fit actor of 70+ is at a distinct diasadvantage purely on the basis of their having to sign discriminatory insurance forms.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/site/tv/production/independent_insurance_guide.pdf

• 11 years ago
• 45

Brought over from:

"Equity v ice skaters, boxers and tiddliwink champs"

at OP's request.

"Equity!!! would only take people who trained at a reputable Drama School "in the old days" or who had done enough weeks at a rep.co. These days one finds oneself alongside any old Tom Dick and Harriett with no training what so ever. I have limped thru with models,boxers,presenters and lesser known "soap stars" Is this right? No, stop amateurs joining our ranks. It is our money, we trained many years for it.
B.H.C.

[Some how we have to limit entry!!]

(Brian Croucher, 2012)

• 11 years ago
• 46

@Lee - I read your last contribution over again and in much depth and you have pretty much nailed the situations I have encountered throughout much of my career which I don't feel the Union addresses to be quite honest. I am surprised I am unusual in that I actually joined Equity in order to make my voice heard. I thought more people had done that.

If one was to look at my CCP CV, one would see that since 2010 until now I was very busy but the fact was that I did more paid work in 2010 than I did in either 2011 or 2012 but as you correctly pointed out most people looking at that would say I have been quite busy and indeed I was but most of the work I did over those past two years especially in theatre was unpaid so while I was busy working as an actor, very little was coming back to me in terms of financial renumeration. With the exception of a couple of commercials and one short film, most of what did, was not that well paid at all and worse was unpaid. As you say most people who seem to attend the Equity branch meetings have careers going back years so are semi-retired and have a residual income to fall back, given the deals they were on back in the day. The situation currently is far removed. The rates of pay have been slashed, there is no such thing as residual, royalties, call it what you will. You do a job then sometimes have to wait months to be paid, during which time, you are incurring bank charges so by the time you eventually get your money, it disappears in bank charges. We are not talking about thousands of pounds here but mere hundreds and in some cases a lot less. So one never really sees an income from acting. And this is the harsh realities that many stalwarts running the Union never see, experience and most likely never hear about or want to talk about.

Given all of the above, I would argue it is far better to be inside the Union, rather than outside of it. I have not being able to make my union fees so advised the Union as such and they have been most helpful in helping me to address the problem. But until more actors in my situation actually join the Union and express what you and I have both expressed, they really can't bitch about the state of industry if they refuse to stand up and be counted.

On another note, on those occasions when I attend my branch meetings. When it ends they retire to a nearby pub. I make my excuses and leave and in some cases telling them, I am not in a position to drink because I cannot afford to and that is the absolute truth. It is strange how poverty keeps this Thespian in good health and a high level of fitness because if I go to a casting, I either have to walk there or decline because I cannot get there. Also I have to eat sparingly for the most obvious of reasons. Yes, there are other types of work I can do and have done but these are strange economic times and the jobs I once did are no longer available to me. I should also note I am not entitled to state benefits of any kind. Still I am looking for work on both fronts but that is a reality that seldom gets mentioned in the Equity Journal or at branch meetings I wager because no one is interested in hearing it or bringing it up. It is never on any agenda I have ever read. All one can say is go figure.

• 11 years ago
• 47

POSTED BY BRIAN CROUCHER:
Equity!!! would only take people who trained at a reputable Drama School "in the old days" or who had done enough weeks at a rep.co. These days one finds oneself alongside any old Tom Dick and Harriett with no training what so ever. I have limped thru with models,boxers,presenters and lesser known "soap stars" Is this right? No, stop amateurs joining our ranks. It is our money, we trained many years for it.
B.H.C.

[Some how we have to limit entry!!]

...as posted by BRIAN CROUCHER

• 11 years ago
• 48

Before I became an actor I'd always been a trade-union member and ten years ago I chose an accredited course at drama school to make sure I received my Equity card on graduation. I believe trade unions are very important for the wellbeing of a profession.
This thread is the most interesting and thought-provoking I've read on CCP -- thanks to everyone who has posted.

• 11 years ago
• 49

I am not sure what Mr. Croucher is going on about. Maybe he thinks everyone can afford the tens of thousands it costs to go to do a reputable drama school. For my sins, I studied part-time in the evening, while holding down a full-time job and supporting a family as well. So someone needs to step off right now if they are insinuating something because it kind of illustrates what Lee was saying earlier about being people out of touch. I am actor operating in the 21st Century, not the 20th with a union closed shop and all that may of may not entailed. One has do what one must. It is a pity some will still choose to live in the past.

I assume the repeating of Mr. Croucher's quote was a way of pissing on my efforts over the past ten years.

• 11 years ago
• 50

I joined equity through the rep system in the way that Brian lists, I did not spend tens of thousands on training, so do not read his post the wrong way and put the wrong spin on it Daniel.
We get an actor of enormous experience on here an actor who could easily command the top fees for TV workshops etc if he so chose, someone whose advice would be invaluable, who has certainly earned a great deal of respect in a long and successful career.
I just throw up my hands in despair at you guys!

• 11 years ago
• 51

@Daniel Jude Gennis

There is nothing to be construed over the duplicate bring over from one thread to this of Brian Croucher's post.

I brought Brian's post over to this thread as I thought it on topic and didn't see the need to have two live threads on Equity running at the same time.

When I did post on this thread yesterday, my post wasn't immediately visible for some reason only CCP can answer; and I guess Mark felt the same I as regards having to similar threads and attempted to bring Brian's post over too. I did notice that Marks' post like mine was not immediately visible.

Best.

• 11 years ago
• 52

Seems like I took things the wrong way gentlemen. My apologies. There is much to be said for the traditional route into this business but not everyone can afford to go that route. What I will say is that there is more than one route into this business. I took the options available to me. It may not land me roles in BBC TV dramas but I have had the opportunity to work on major films with the likes of Penelope Cruz, perform Chekhov and Shakespeare on stage and new original work. Not bad thus far for someone who came to the party late in life. And somehow I managed to get an Equity and Spotlight Card into the bargain.

• 11 years ago
• 53