I
love getting paid for my work. I can’t deny that. Honestly, I don’t think that
anyone can. Given the option of being
compensated or not, I would venture to guess that 100% of people would rather earn
money for their contributions to any particular business than give up their
time and talents for free. Lately, this issue has become quite prevalent in the
theatrical community based on a possible ruling out of Los Angeles that would
drastically effect the operating procedures of small theatre companies.
Here’s
a brief overview.
For
decades, the Los Angeles arts scene has been full of small, 99 seat theaters.
These theaters have a reputation for producing new, boundary breaking works
that are sometimes considered too risky to mount in larger houses, but because of
the small house sizes and production budgets, the companies that use these
spaces can continue to innovate and grow despite their relative lack of financial
gain. One key factor that helps this process is something called the “99-Seat-Theatre-Plan”
which allows union actors to work in these houses for a small stipend as
opposed to their usual union wages. These stipends often range from $7-$15 per
performance with unpaid rehearsal hours and usually max out around $240 for the
run of a show.
The
new piece of legislation being brought forth by Actors’ Equity would require
all theaters to enforce a $9 minimum wage during rehearsals and performances
for their union members – effectively quadrupling the aforementioned budget
allowance. This week, Los Angeles Equity members will have the opportunity to
vote on this proposal, and as of now, both sides of the aisle are speaking
quite fervently in order to convince the fence sitters of their position.
And
honestly…I’m not sure where I stand.
Thus
far, my theatrical education has cost over six figures. Many of my professional
colleagues are in the same exact boat financially, and the idea of using that rather
expensive skillset to work for nothing doesn’t necessarily make sense to me. I
wouldn’t ask my accountant to do my taxes for free nor would I ask a graphic
designer to make me a logo out of their generosity. All of these chosen professions
have value, but artists as a whole seem to be more and more content to work for
free or next to nothing – thus potentially devaluing the importance and respect
that the craft deserves. If I’m running a company and one good actor will work
for free while another good actor demands a check, the answer seems apparent. The
books require me to save as much money as possible. The worry is this: if
enough actors, painters, musicians, and designers give in to this mindset,
there won’t be a reason to pay anyone anything, much less a living wage.
Because of all that, I could absolutely understand voting YES on this proposal.
However…
Many
of my friends in Chicago work at theaters where they are paid relatively low
stipends, if at all, but whenever I have seen these productions on my visits to
the city…the quality absolutely blows me away. The plays are bold and uncompromising,
and it is clear that every single person involved in the process undoubtedly
loves the product that they have created. In an industry where many bigger
houses are asking actors to do Fiddler for
the 42nd time, these small companies are beacons of creative
freedom, exploration, and innovation, and if they were all forced to quadruple
the money needed to operate at the same level…many of them wouldn’t last the
season. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and numerous other cities could
potentially be robbed of their most interesting companies, and we as a culture
could miss out on the opportunity to witness new works that multi-million
dollar theaters wouldn’t risk staging in a thousand years. And for all of those reasons, I could absolutely
understand voting NO on this proposal.
And
here we find the current impasse within the artistic community. Both sides have
extremely valid points, and regardless of this vote’s result, its impact will
be felt throughout the country. Do we want money or creative freedom? Clearly,
we want both, and occasionally, that is a very possible goal – I have been
lucky enough already to be involved in incredible shows that paid me well, but
I’m not foolish enough to think this commonplace in the industry.
I
love acting. I love creating characters, and I love collaborating with some of
the most intelligent and passionate people in the world, but I know that the
questions that this vote poses will follow me throughout the rest of my career.
Some of the most incredible processes I have ever been a part of have barely
covered my gas money while the occasional mind numbing commercial gig has paid
my rent in less than three hours. At twenty-three, I am also very aware that I
have so much more to learn about the industry into which I have inserted
myself, and luckily, I have attempted to surround myself with people that can
do just that.
Ultimately,
the vote in Los Angeles this week will make a bold statement about the actors
of California (and quite possibly, the nation), but regardless of the outcome,
there’s no job I’d rather have.