Actors Equity and the Battle for LA Theater

Actors Equity and the Battle for LA Theater
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

2016-03-27-1459105692-582611-AEA.jpg

The battle between Actors Equity and its members in Los Angeles has dragged on for over a year, despite behind-the-scenes negotiations to avoid a threatened lawsuit. And now ill-considered statements by AEA President Kate Shindle, along with upcoming union elections, have thrust the battle back into the public light.

To give a bit of background on this long-running dispute, forty years of blossoming creativity was put in jeopardy when Actors Equity launched a proposal that would essentially gut the small theater scene in Los Angeles. The proposal would prohibit Equity members -- who are often the producers, fundraisers, set painters and generally all-around volunteer laborers in the small theaters -- from working for less than a wage determined by the union. But who is supposed to pay that wage -- which would quickly bust the budget -- when it is the actors themselves who are supporting the company?

Despite an overwhelming vote by the LA membership opposing the proposal, Actors Equity insisted on forcing the plan on its members, which led to the threatened lawsuit and a protracted period of negotiations, which apparently have achieved very little in terms of tangible results, particularly in terms of the approach of Equity officials. However, the Los Angeles actors appear to have gained the upper hand, especially if President Shindle's remarks are any indication.

As in any negotiation, there is both an inside and an outside game, and Equity seems to be clueless as to the outside game, as their own president's talking points illustrate. Here's an example of Shindle's statements in the interview, referring to the decision by the union's Council to launch the proposal: "...one of the things that guided the Council - the idea that a mid-sized theater....could open at this point in Los Angeles when they had to compete with the 99-seat business model (which is much more cost-effective) is kind of preposterous."

This is a pretty weak argument on several counts. Perhaps most tenuous is the idea that a union's governing body should be guided by promoting a particular "business model." The role of a labor union - first and last - is to represent the interests of its members. It is certainly not supposed to be advocating for a particular set of business interests over its own members. In addition, the idea of a "business model" in the theater world is also suspect.

Outside of Broadway and the touring business (where, incidentally, Equity been accused of serious laxity), the "business model" for American theater rests on three legs - subscription audiences, government subsidies and philanthropy. Subscription audiences, which are dwindling, are available primarily for existing theaters in affluent urban areas, while government subsidies are determined as much by political considerations as artistic merit. And philanthropy - also diminishing - is dependent on the whims of the top 1%. Not exactly a viable business model.

What all of this reveals - despite a years-long struggle to alter their consciousness - is that the leadership of Actors Equity is mired in the past. American theater, led by the vitality and creativity of artists like those in Los Angeles, has become a burgeoning and bustling counterpoint to the domination of mass culture. Furthermore, artists are striking out on their own - moving past the old paradigm of labor-management strife into a more promising future of creative entrepreneurship. Old-time labor unions like Equity have to change their thinking if they want to not only survive, but have a positive voice in the future.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot