Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.

Labrug, Have to say I agree with you about Craig's beautiful explanation of the situation regarding the NMW article in Britain. I think I may have missed the finer points of the original article too! What this thread, along with several other recent threads, has raised though is the variety of opinions people have towards the MEAA. I am a proud MEAA member and have been since the day I got my very first extras job all those years ago. I find it unfortunate, and perplexing, that people have a somewhat derisive view of the MEAA and it's role in the Australian performing arts industry. I get the feeling that some people have an 'us and them' sort of regard towards the MEAA. As if the MEAA's only point of existence was to make people's lives hard and screw producers and companies for money in order to solely further the interests of performers. It's so not the case. Firstly, the union is comprised of people from the industry itself. Actors and non actors. It's not a militant actors collective out to put employers over a barrel. Fair contracts, equitable pay and conditions and protection of workplace rights are surely a basic requirement of any workplace, for everyone. The performing arts is a particularly difficult landscape to achieve this in due to the wide variety of media, work settings and personell. Rapidly changing technologies also necessitate constant review of what's a 'fair deal' for artists with regards to the distribution, screening and use of their work. The sheer volume and disparity of work and artists, as well as a rapidly evolving cultural landscape make it virtually impossible for any individual working in the arts to know what's a fair deal and to guarantee they are getting it. Thank goodness we have a proactive union who are championing our collective cause and making sure that everyone has a chance of negotiating and receiving what they are entitled to. I know that the MEAA is mainly regarded as an actor's concern. That's not the case. Perhaps there is this view because the majority advocacy that they provide is for actors. Actors are often the most vulnerable people in the whole scheme of things. You rarely hear of producers or companies having to take an actor to task over unfulfilled contractual requirements or failing to deliver a performance. You do more often hear of performers who have been left high and dry by producers who have done a midnight flit, companies who have folded and not paid wages or overseas producers trying to use Aussie talent at sweatshop wages. You do hear of performers not being paid their due residuals when their work is re-used years later. Or performers being threatened with the sack and their roles re-cast if they don't agree to non union contracts and conditions for their work. There are some unscrupulous agents who screw actors also on payments. The list and the examples go on. For all these reasons I will remain a proud and active MEAA member. I enjoy fair and resonable pay and conditions thanks to others who've come before me and taken a stand. It's worth it - and good on the British Equity for what they are currently trying to achieve for some performers being screwed over by unscrupulous companies. Tulipa.