Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.

Mike Raine said: >The push for theatres to adopt a NMW shows a bizarre and complete disregard for the concept and importance of a contract. I like how you have defined the elements of a contract, Mike. But I think the point that is most in contention is (2) 'It is of mutual benefit to the parties'. From other posts here it seems that people often enter into an agreement to put on a play when the benefits may not end up outweighing the consequences. Of course this is a highly subjective thing, because the principal benefit is the 'personal satisfaction' of being able to perform a role, which is a hard thing to put a value on other than weighing it against the consequences that usually DO have a monetary value (the amount you might eventually make, the expenses you incur along the way, and the loss of potential income had you spent your time elsewhere)...some of which, by the way, are also vague and conjectural. The party on the other side of the contract (whoever is producing this play) quite possibly also has 'personal satisfaction' as one of their benefits. But they will of necessity have a tighter grasp on the elements that can be valued: the money coming in and going out, the value of retaining their patronage, etc. Whether they actually make a profit or not is a separate issue, it's a risk everyone takes. But it's harder to establish that the benefits on both sides are indeed mutual. The other problematic clause is (5) "The nature of the transaction is specific." How specific? For many actors, the details can be as vague as 'You play this role, and we might give you something at the end if you're lucky." If you consider that specific enough (and obviously many do), then you can consider this a valid contract. However I think most of us would agree that this is NOT really an adequately specific transaction to be considered 'a contract' by your definition. Again, because of the vague nature and lure of 'personal satisfaction', transactions like this go on all the time. But as I feel they fail 2 of your 5 essential criteria, I consider they operate outside the definition of 'contracts'. Like you said, no one is forced to do these things. But I also take it from your argument that you advocate the concept of a fair contract (be it implicit or detailed). Equity's primary business IS to actively campaign for fair contracts. That is its function, which it conducts on behalf of members...but by indirect association achieves for all other actors, whether prospective members or not. Each time Equity manages to raise the standards of production to the level of a fair contract, this is of benefit to all performers, regardless of their membership affiliation. But whenever an actor agrees to work for lower or no pay or standards, it makes it impossible for the rest of us to achieve the fair compensation we expect. This is why we collectively become Equity. Equity shouldn't be seen as an organisation that gets members -it is actually US, the actors, trying to become an organisation. So I could, with equal passion, repeat your final paragraph to you with the roles reversed. I believe that actors who accept less-than-fair contracts are working in their own self-serving interests and are placing obstacles in front of actors who desire fair treatment, by closing down opportunities for employment, and by pricing them out...and I believe this is damaging theatre as a whole. Becoming an Equity member is not for everyone. If the cost of paying dues outweighs the benefit you receive in better pay, fairer conditions, and arbitration support, than obviously membership is not for you. But please don't let that stop you from ACTING like an Equity actor: if all the non-members who were offered any form of paid work would simply stand up for their right to a fair contract, adequate pay & conditions, and basic respect for our craft, then Equity would cease to be necessary and we would all be happier. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------