Equity's refusal to uphold National Minimum Wage for Fring Theatre.

Location > Networking > Forum > Equity's refusal to uphold National Minimum Wage for Fring Theatre.

	Topic: Equity's refusal to uphold National Minimum Wage for Fring Theatre.
Posted : 13/01/10 / Views : 2853 / Replies : 39 /
Peter Dancer 3 posts last on: 22/12/11 send private reply	Hi. You may not be aware that Equity recently voted against enforcing national minimum wage on Fringe Theatre. Personally I think this is horrendous! Our union has basically said that it is ok for trained actors working in fringe/tours/short film etc to be exploited by having to work for free or on expenses, often with bad conditions. I find it surprising that even Equity is happy to see this happen. I recently wrote to Christine Payne about this and am awaiting a reply. (Postal strike probably not helping). However in the meantime I wanted to gauge other people's opinion of this, a kind of market research as it were, to enable me to back up my argument should they shoot me down in flames. I've been chatting to other actors I am currently working with and the general consensus of opinion is that they agree with me, just wondered if people on here felt likewise. Please feel free to rant and rave below. Thanks Pete.

[add comments | all topics]

1 2 3 Next Last

	Reply #1
Posted : 01/11/09
anonymous	I tried to post my experiences with this I think it is importnat news for actors (those who want to do more than guess the weight of the person above) but CCP bloked me from posting it...a long discussion by Mark Kempler on this subject has been going on - I am in touch with NMW HMRC ..over this very issue ..waiting for thier decision when I ws fired for asking for NMW-- it could be quite a precedent- I will tell you the outcome if CCP allow me to .it breaks no rules....

Reply #1

Posted : 01/11/09

anonymous

I tried to post my experiences with this I think it is importnat news for actors (those who want to do more than guess the weight of the person above) but CCP bloked me from posting it...a long discussion by Mark Kempler on this subject has been going on - I am in touch with NMW HMRC ..over this very issue ..waiting for thier decision when I ws fired for asking for NMW-- it could be quite a precedent- I will tell you the outcome if CCP allow me to .it breaks no rules....

	Reply #2
Posted : 01/11/09
anonymous	Basically dude Equity is a joke... I am in conversation with several p[arties right now about this and other issues.. in truth they are powerless and toothless.. they seem more interested in themselves than actually causing any action... I was not supported over a racist issue nor this NMW issue-- I had to fight it through my own laywer-- can anyone tell me the point of Equity ???

	Reply #3
Posted : 01/11/09
leeravitz 1543 posts last on: 18 hours send private reply	This is a difficult call. I have no personal wish to defend Equity's behaviour because I find the general attitudes of the Union exec to be out of touch, self important, and narrow minded in their approach towards the real issues affecting the vast majority of the population of working actors today (i.e. NOT the minority who are BBC regulars, invited into the West End and with burgeoning film careers). However, it is often pointed out by Equity supporters that the Union is, effectively, expressing the opinions of its membership and is not therefore some kind of monolithic entity that 'creates' policy that is then imposed on the acting industry as a whole. So, if this motion has been defeated, it has been defeated by vote of regular members (i.e. actors like yourself and myself) and Equity will justify it on the basis that this is the result that the membership have democratically supported. I ask myself, why would such a motion go down to defeat? My suspicion (if, indeed, all the details have been reported correctly) is that a large number of Equity members are still reluctant to sanction anything that allows fringe material a parity with more 'professional' theatrical work because they see this, in itself, as undervaluing the dignity of negotiating the Equity minimum. They may well worry that establishing a base line for NMW will set precedents and allow lessening of payment of the Equity minimum. There may be concerns over the legal ramifications of Equity's right/ability to police those who renege on payment (though Tim Gale does sterling work on investigating abuses of NMW payment on multiple projects, I have always gained the impression that he is a lone voice crying out concern in the wilderness - and I say this because I have corresponded with him in person). It seems a complicated issue. Given that I know nothing of the details of the argument from this current thread, I will have to see if there is more being discussed on the Equity website in itself, and see if I can make more sense of it. I am angry as any other actor that we cannot get some kind of standard of NMW adhered to throughout the lower reaches of the industry (and it is generally in the lower levels of the industry that actors are affected, although wage rates are being cut right, left and centre industry wide). Equity will always argue that votes are taken from the membership in caucus; that most of those who wish to benefit from Equity policy rarely have Equity membership nowadays, and rarely bother to make a vote felt on the debating floor; and that it is, therefore, irrelevant if non members and non active voters decry the decisions taken because their opinions are, by default, of no interest to the actual membership. I think there is a fair point in this - but I think it reinforces Equity exec in its own self-satisfaction, allowing it to assume that most of what I call the 'grass roots' concern is of no interest to it, because none of them are regular members of Equity. Of course, this is a brutal generalisation, but it has a real force. You will find most who beat the drum for Equity on this forum are mainly hoping to get more 'grass roots' blood into joining/supporting the Union in order to make their voices heard. The majority don't join. It is something of a Catch-22, but I suspect this vote mainly went down to defeat because the majority of actors who would have supported it were nowhere near the vote taking. The alternative to all this, naturally, is to write Equity off as a useless talking shop, and pursue one's own independent career, hoping to make wise financial decisions and continue to make profits regardless of Equity's say so (or otherwise). Increasingly many are finding that that is the way to carve some kind of career out of the industry these days. But even more continue to suffer because they continue to be denied access to better paying jobs, and yet are guaranteed no NMW for the work they can obtain. These problems are not simple ones, and I don't think they will be resolved simply.

Reply #3

Posted : 01/11/09

leeravitz
1543 posts
last on: 18 hours
send private reply

This is a difficult call. I have no personal wish to defend Equity's behaviour because I find the general attitudes of the Union exec to be out of touch, self important, and narrow minded in their approach towards the real issues affecting the vast majority of the population of working actors today (i.e. NOT the minority who are BBC regulars, invited into the West End and with burgeoning film careers). However, it is often pointed out by Equity supporters that the Union is, effectively, expressing the opinions of its membership and is not therefore some kind of monolithic entity that 'creates' policy that is then imposed on the acting industry as a whole. So, if this motion has been defeated, it has been defeated by vote of regular members (i.e. actors like yourself and myself) and Equity will justify it on the basis that this is the result that the membership have democratically supported. I ask myself, why would such a motion go down to defeat? My suspicion (if, indeed, all the details have been reported correctly) is that a large number of Equity members are still reluctant to sanction anything that allows fringe material a parity with more 'professional' theatrical work because they see this, in itself, as undervaluing the dignity of negotiating the Equity minimum. They may well worry that establishing a base line for NMW will set precedents and allow lessening of payment of the Equity minimum. There may be concerns over the legal ramifications of Equity's right/ability to police those who renege on payment (though Tim Gale does sterling work on investigating abuses of NMW payment on multiple projects, I have always gained the impression that he is a lone voice crying out concern in the wilderness - and I say this because I have corresponded with him in person). It seems a complicated issue. Given that I know nothing of the details of the argument from this current thread, I will have to see if there is more being discussed on the Equity website in itself, and see if I can make more sense of it.

I am angry as any other actor that we cannot get some kind of standard of NMW adhered to throughout the lower reaches of the industry (and it is generally in the lower levels of the industry that actors are affected, although wage rates are being cut right, left and centre industry wide). Equity will always argue that votes are taken from the membership in caucus; that most of those who wish to benefit from Equity policy rarely have Equity membership nowadays, and rarely bother to make a vote felt on the debating floor; and that it is, therefore, irrelevant if non members and non active voters decry the decisions taken because their opinions are, by default, of no interest to the actual membership. I think there is a fair point in this - but I think it reinforces Equity exec in its own self-satisfaction, allowing it to assume that most of what I call the 'grass roots' concern is of no interest to it, because none of them are regular members of Equity. Of course, this is a brutal generalisation, but it has a real force. You will find most who beat the drum *for* Equity on this forum are mainly hoping to get more 'grass roots' blood into joining/supporting the Union in order to make their voices heard. The majority don't join. It is something of a Catch-22, but I suspect this vote mainly went down to defeat because the majority of actors who would have supported it were nowhere near the vote taking.

The alternative to all this, naturally, is to write Equity off as a useless talking shop, and pursue one's own independent career, hoping to make wise financial decisions and continue to make profits regardless of Equity's say so (or otherwise). Increasingly many are finding that that *is* the way to carve some kind of career out of the industry these days. But even more continue to suffer because they continue to be denied access to better paying jobs, and yet are guaranteed no NMW for the work they *can* obtain.

These problems are not simple ones, and I don't think they will be resolved simply.

	Reply #4
Posted : 01/11/09
anonymous	I thought we were'nt meant to mention names butI communicated with that equity person in person too... and as I said..I was left to go via my own Laywer and do the work myself ..which I am doing ...Equity have been bl**dy useless on every occaision so far. Thats fact old bean !

	Reply #5
Posted : 02/11/09
leeravitz 1543 posts last on: 18 hours send private reply	Well, maybe and maybe not - it seems to depend on which names get mentioned, Splat! In fact, though, I didn't feel any qualms about making the reference because I was actually writing in support of that aspect of Equity's investigations, though that may not have been clear! My point was actually that Tim's work has always appeared valid to me, but that no-one else seems to support it from within the administration, to the extent that he doesn't even have any 'official' remit for what he has chosen to do in chasing NMW abuses; cases just appear to get referred to him by Equity when no else can suggest a solution, in the hope that logging enough of them will have some impact at some stage. I'm sorry to hear that Equity appear to have let you down personally, and frankly surprised that if you are prepared to take the matter into the courts (which is actually rare enough, I think) that there is no Equity backing supporting you, either financially or tacitly. Of course, I don't know any of the background of the matter itself (and appreciate you may be legally constrained from saying anything further about it!), so can't say much more than that. I would imagine that the Equity office finds it so hard to chase NMW (and similar non-Equity paid) abuses precisely because there are no formal legal rulings, delegated task forces, 'lo/no pay' commissions or whatever, actually in place. This appears to be a circular argument - and one reason that the recent vote probably went down to defeat - Equity has little hope of being able to police a completely 'free market', in which there will always be new players emerging, and which cannot possibly be brought to heel by the force of a Union which many sectors of the market refuse to recognise, and so, its simplest bet is to draw a line in the sand, declare that formal contracts start at such-and-such a rate, and anything below is to be considered illegitimate, and fight to protect those values. Enforcement of NMW, in a sense, may even be considered a non-Equity matter by many of the membership (or, at least, many of the membership who are well established and far from being forced to rely on it within the context of most jobs) because it is precisely a non - Equity based arrangement. Being paid NMW is, in a sense, a basic legal contract between the actor as individual, and the government, and the company concerned, rather than between the actor, the Union, and the company concerned, so, an argument can be made that Equity should NOT support NMW calls because they are not an Equity responsibility (which is, rather, to fight for Equity min to be upheld in all viable situations). 'Giving in' to NMW demands may be seen as either interference (in an arrangement that does not derive from Union initiatives) or as tacit capitulation, and for this reason, members are reluctant to support it. None of this changes the fact that what may look like sensible policy from the perspective of a small minority of highly Unionised actors is, in actuality, ensuring that the lives of the majority of working actors today are made harder, and increasingly alienated from the workings of the Union. But then, as most of these actors refuse to recognise the Union's validity in the first instance...the merry-go-round starts again. Anyway, all that might be irrelevant to the current argument, because you may be chasing unpaid Equity contract rates, Splat - I can't tell from what you've posted. And, if that's the case, then Equity's inability to help is terrible. To be frank, they do promise to help in cases where there are obvious infringements of actors' rights, and the contract was not formally drawn up under Equity guidelines either - but I suppose they can only be seen to offer advice, etc. Using things like the legal fund to assist in support of restitution campaigns over non-Equity agreements could, presumably, cause a stir, as it is technically siphoning money from the Union to help 'non Union' causes? And certainly, Equity would absolutely refuse to give any more than the most basic of aid to an actor who was not actually a paying member of the Union (that, at least, appears a sensible enough policy, as it is ultimately the subs etc. that provide whatever slush funds are available). All internal politics...

Reply #5

Posted : 02/11/09

leeravitz
1543 posts
last on: 18 hours
send private reply

Well, maybe and maybe not - it seems to depend on which names get mentioned, Splat! In fact, though, I didn't feel any qualms about making the reference because I was actually writing in support of that aspect of Equity's investigations, though that may not have been clear! My point was actually that Tim's work has always appeared valid to me, but that no-one else seems to support it from within the administration, to the extent that he doesn't even have any 'official' remit for what he has chosen to do in chasing NMW abuses; cases just appear to get referred to him by Equity when no else can suggest a solution, in the hope that logging enough of them will have some impact at some stage. I'm sorry to hear that Equity appear to have let you down personally, and frankly surprised that if you are prepared to take the matter into the courts (which is actually rare enough, I think) that there is no Equity backing supporting you, either financially or tacitly. Of course, I don't know any of the background of the matter itself (and appreciate you may be legally constrained from saying anything further about it!), so can't say much more than that. I would imagine that the Equity office finds it so hard to chase NMW (and similar non-Equity paid) abuses precisely because there are no formal legal rulings, delegated task forces, 'lo/no pay' commissions or whatever, actually in place.

This appears to be a circular argument - and one reason that the recent vote probably went down to defeat - Equity has little hope of being able to police a completely 'free market', in which there will always be new players emerging, and which cannot possibly be brought to heel by the force of a Union which many sectors of the market refuse to recognise, and so, its simplest bet is to draw a line in the sand, declare that formal contracts start at such-and-such a rate, and anything below is to be considered illegitimate, and fight to protect those values. Enforcement of NMW, in a sense, may even be considered a non-Equity matter by many of the membership (or, at least, many of the membership who are well established and far from being forced to rely on it within the context of most jobs) because it is precisely a non - Equity based arrangement. Being paid NMW is, in a sense, a basic legal contract between the actor as individual, and the *government*, and the company concerned, rather than between the actor, the Union, and the company concerned, so, an argument can be made that Equity should NOT support NMW calls because they are not an Equity responsibility (which is, rather, to fight for Equity min to be upheld in all viable situations). 'Giving in' to NMW demands may be seen as either interference (in an arrangement that does not derive from Union initiatives) or as tacit capitulation, and for this reason, members are reluctant to support it. None of this changes the fact that what may look like sensible policy from the perspective of a small minority of highly Unionised actors is, in actuality, ensuring that the lives of the majority of working actors today are made harder, and increasingly alienated from the workings of the Union. But then, as most of these actors refuse to recognise the Union's validity in the first instance...the merry-go-round starts again.

Anyway, all that might be irrelevant to the current argument, because you may be chasing unpaid Equity contract rates, Splat - I can't tell from what you've posted. And, if that's the case, then Equity's inability to help is terrible. To be frank, they do promise to help in cases where there are obvious infringements of actors' rights, and the contract was not formally drawn up under Equity guidelines either - but I suppose they can only be seen to offer advice, etc. Using things like the legal fund to assist in support of restitution campaigns over non-Equity agreements could, presumably, cause a stir, as it is technically siphoning money from the Union to help 'non Union' causes? And certainly, Equity would absolutely refuse to give any more than the most basic of aid to an actor who was not actually a paying member of the Union (that, at least, appears a sensible enough policy, as it is ultimately the subs etc. that provide whatever slush funds *are* available). All internal politics...

	Reply #6
Posted : 02/11/09
Jennifer Michaels 16 posts last on: 27/10/11 send private reply	Lee and Splat do seem to be much more informed on this issue than me but going back to Peter's point it seems to me that putting a NWM on fringe theatre would practically kill it. That in my opinion would be a huge blow to British theatre and would completely disable many emerging writers and companies. There simply isn't enough funding out there to allow most fringe productions to pay NMW- they don't sit around lighting cigars with 50 pound notes from the profit-share kitty whilst handing their starving actors a candle to light their freezing bedsits by! Please keep in mind that we may only get a small fee or expenses covered, but those producing the work will often make a loss and are fully aware of that from the start. So why do they do it? For love or money? Presuming that companies are honest with what money they are or are not offering, actors aren't being tricked to perform in fringe theatre. So why do they do it? For love or money? Actors! If you don't want to work for free or little money, then no one will force you to! I think that putting a NWM on fringe theatre will NOT open up more paid opportunities for actors, it will just mean that less theatre is created. I know it's far from ideal, I know it's rubbish that many fringe productions cannot pay us what our skill and effort is worth. But I believe that fringe often hails the future of where excellent theatre in this country is going, and if we lose that, then where are we going? Jen,x

Reply #6

Posted : 02/11/09

Jennifer Michaels
16 posts
last on: 27/10/11
send private reply

Lee and Splat do seem to be much more informed on this issue than me but going back to Peter's point it seems to me that putting a NWM on fringe theatre would practically kill it. That in my opinion would be a huge blow to British theatre and would completely disable many emerging writers and companies.

There simply isn't enough funding out there to allow most fringe productions to pay NMW- they don't sit around lighting cigars with 50 pound notes from the profit-share kitty whilst handing their starving actors a candle to light their freezing bedsits by! Please keep in mind that we may only get a small fee or expenses covered, but those producing the work will often make a loss and are fully aware of that from the start. So why do they do it? For love or money?

Presuming that companies are honest with what money they are or are not offering, actors aren't being tricked to perform in fringe theatre. So why do they do it? For love or money?

Actors! If you don't want to work for free or little money, then no one will force you to! I think that putting a NWM on fringe theatre will NOT open up more paid opportunities for actors, it will just mean that less theatre is created. I know it's far from ideal, I know it's rubbish that many fringe productions cannot pay us what our skill and effort is worth. But I believe that fringe often hails the future of where excellent theatre in this country is going, and if we lose that, then where are we going?

Jen,x

	Reply #7
Posted : 02/11/09
katekavs 178 posts last on: 10/01/12 send private reply	jennifer, I agree with you that this is the massive difficulty on imposing a NMW for fringe theatre, and, from Equity meetings I have been too, also seems to be the feeling of other members. (The active ones, so probably the ones whose opinion was heard when it came to a vote... Lee's point about a Catch 22 situation is sooooo important. If people don't put their thoughts out there, they are clearly not going to be considered!! If you have an opinion, make it known. A union is only as strong as its active members. Ok, rant over, but please see the thread about subsidised rep for more!) How much theatre do you think would make it to Edinburgh Fringe festival (for example) if every company had to front a minimum wage payment for every performer? How many new companies of fresh eager and innovative graduates would be able to start making and touring work? In effect a NMW on fringe theatre would become a form of financial censorship. I think that maybe there should be a way of tracking a company's income to ensure they are paying fairly , and certainly hitting minimum wage if they can afford to, but how should this be done? I also think that there are rather more commercial entertainment and TIE companies out there who are taking actors for a ride and need tougher legislation than fringe companies (who more often than not will pop into being for one season amongst a group of friends and then dissipate never to be seen or earn ay money again!) them's me thoughts for now anyhoo! xxx

Reply #7

Posted : 02/11/09

katekavs
178 posts
last on: 10/01/12
send private reply

jennifer, I agree with you that this is the massive difficulty on imposing a NMW for fringe theatre, and, from Equity meetings I have been too, also seems to be the feeling of other members.

(The active ones, so probably the ones whose opinion was heard when it came to a vote... Lee's point about a Catch 22 situation is sooooo important. If people don't put their thoughts out there, they are clearly not going to be considered!! If you have an opinion, make it known. A union is only as strong as its active members. Ok, rant over, but please see the thread about subsidised rep for more!)

How much theatre do you think would make it to Edinburgh Fringe festival (for example) if every company had to front a minimum wage payment for every performer? How many new companies of fresh eager and innovative graduates would be able to start making and touring work? In effect a NMW on fringe theatre would become a form of financial censorship.

I think that maybe there should be a way of tracking a company's income to ensure they are paying fairly , and certainly hitting minimum wage if they can afford to, but how should this be done? I also think that there are rather more commercial entertainment and TIE companies out there who are taking actors for a ride and need tougher legislation than fringe companies (who more often than not will pop into being for one season amongst a group of friends and then dissipate never to be seen or earn ay money again!)

them's me thoughts for now anyhoo!

xxx

	Reply #8
Posted : 03/11/09
anonymous	Jennifer as hv said b4 - it's not the genuine folks who try to put on a show all no paid and for percentage take-- its those who abuse that ideal -- and I was once heralded for trying to start a 'fringe theatre in Cardiff like that of the London fringe' ..how I got Arts Council backing and paid ALL actors and director proper equity rates-- in fact i fired the first director and paid the second from my fee (I made nothing ) !! So it can be done -- there's not much excuse really for those who seek to exploit loopholes for their gain -- that's the issue I think (just like those film production companies who do the same- invite people to work for nothing- no scale - no deal - and then make money off it- I think that;s the point -- and those who stand up against it are not 'ranters' they are intelligent people who see it for the truth of it !!!!! I have stood up before for the rights of those who genuinely want to put on no budget all in shows-- it's different - ithink that's what people are getting at !!

Reply #8

Posted : 03/11/09

anonymous

Jennifer as hv said b4 - it's not the genuine folks who try to put on a show all no paid and for percentage take-- its those who abuse that ideal -- and I was once heralded for trying to start a 'fringe theatre in Cardiff like that of the London fringe' ..how I got Arts Council backing and paid ALL actors and director proper equity rates-- in fact i fired the first director and paid the second from my fee (I made nothing ) !! So it can be done -- there's not much excuse really for those who seek to exploit loopholes for their gain -- that's the issue I think (just like those film production companies who do the same- invite people to work for nothing- no scale - no deal - and then make money off it- I think that;s the point -- and those who stand up against it are not 'ranters' they are intelligent people who see it for the truth of it !!!!! I have stood up before for the rights of those who genuinely want to put on no budget all in shows-- it's different - ithink that's what people are getting at !!

	Reply #9
Posted : 03/11/09
helengrady 167 posts last on: 05/02/12 send private reply	Genuine profit share arrangements, where everyone involved has an equal stake, are one thing. Amateur shows, where participants are in it for the fun and the creative challenge and have no expectation of a wage, are another. Companies which encourage actors to work for no pay, with theatre rental charges which mean there is no possibility of making a profit for the participants (or where any profit never reaches the participants) seriously undermine those companies who are trying to pay actors. It produces a skewed market place and in my opinion is very bad for the future of our profession and will not help us to in our effort to make a living. I don't believe this nourishes theatre at all - I think it's in danger of sucking the life out of it and exploits those who "just want to act" or "just want the chance to be seen". I am disappointed by Equity's stance on this. I understand why Equity does not wish to appear to be attacking Fringe theatre but unpaid Fringe does not need (and in my opinion, should not receive) Equity's defence or support. I am sure Fringe will continue to exist without it. I think Equity should be providing more guidance to those starting out, pointing out what to look out for when considering which path to take and whether acting for no pay is worth it for someone who considers themselves to be a professional actor. It might not have much effect, but at least Equity would be trying to look after the interests of actors. I have come to the conclusion that actors have to find out for themselves that working for no money (if this means lining someone else's pocket - even if that isn't with £50 notes) is a mug's game.

Reply #9

Posted : 03/11/09

helengrady
167 posts
last on: 05/02/12
send private reply

Genuine profit share arrangements, where everyone involved has an equal stake, are one thing. Amateur shows, where participants are in it for the fun and the creative challenge and have no expectation of a wage, are another. Companies which encourage actors to work for no pay, with theatre rental charges which mean there is no possibility of making a profit for the participants (or where any profit never reaches the participants) seriously undermine those companies who are trying to pay actors. It produces a skewed market place and in my opinion is very bad for the future of our profession and will not help us to in our effort to make a living. I don't believe this nourishes theatre at all - I think it's in danger of sucking the life out of it and exploits those who "just want to act" or "just want the chance to be seen".

I am disappointed by Equity's stance on this. I understand why Equity does not wish to appear to be attacking Fringe theatre but unpaid Fringe does not need (and in my opinion, should not receive) Equity's defence or support. I am sure Fringe will continue to exist without it.

I think Equity should be providing more guidance to those starting out, pointing out what to look out for when considering which path to take and whether acting for no pay is worth it for someone who considers themselves to be a professional actor. It might not have much effect, but at least Equity would be trying to look after the interests of actors.

I have come to the conclusion that actors have to find out for themselves that working for no money (if this means lining someone else's pocket - even if that isn't with £50 notes) is a mug's game.

	Reply #10
Posted : 03/11/09
helengrady 167 posts last on: 05/02/12 send private reply	I intended to include a view on Katekavs comment: "In effect a NMW on fringe theatre would become a form of financial censorship". So here it is! If I've understood the sentiment behind this correctly then I disagree with it fundamentally! If one is expected to work for nothing then this means that ONLY those who have some other means of support can do so. It means that actors have to work at something else to enable them to indulge in a hobby - so does this mean they are professional actors or amateur ones? Not paying actors for their work is the "financial censorship" - isn't it? Doesn't work for no pay suit the well-off better than the poverty stricken?

Reply #10

Posted : 03/11/09

helengrady
167 posts
last on: 05/02/12
send private reply

I intended to include a view on Katekavs comment: "In effect a NMW on fringe theatre would become a form of financial censorship".

So here it is!

If I've understood the sentiment behind this correctly then I disagree with it fundamentally! If one is expected to work for nothing then this means that ONLY those who have some other means of support can do so. It means that actors have to work at something else to enable them to indulge in a hobby - so does this mean they are professional actors or amateur ones?

Not paying actors for their work is the "financial censorship" - isn't it? Doesn't work for no pay suit the well-off better than the poverty stricken?

[add comments | all topics]

1 2 3 Next Last

Please note: Messages written in the forum do not represent the views of Casting Call Pro, nor have they been vetted by Casting Call Pro staff. If you read something which you believe to be offensive or defamatory, please contact us and we will take the appropriate action.