Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.

So, Logos, it sounds like you have both mutual agreement and specified conditions in your contracts. That doesn't sound to me to be a bone of contention. (Although if you are not requiring investment from the others who participate, you are not legally recognised as a co-operative partnership. There are legal implications of this which are beyond the scope of our current discussion, suffice it to say that the term 'co-op' is a peculiar one applied in error to many theatre productions, but which in actual fact does not mean anything in any binding sense.) Also, would you consider your productions to be classified as 'amateur' status (regardless of whether some small payments are actually made)? If so, you fall outside of the argument presented in the British article that began this topic. I am not so idealistic to imagine that there will ever be a time when the intangible 'personal satisfaction' factor does not outweigh most else in these transactions. I am myself currently in a production for which I turned down an Equity award-rate offer to participate in a more personally satisfying production at lesser rates. The lower offer does at least still meet National Minimum Wage requirements and has very specific contract terms. The producer had applied for full funding, and not receiving it, had the choice to either abandon the project or continue with lesser wages. In all other areas they are doing the right thing, and I support this, for the same arguments others have put forward that this is providing opportunities in the industry that would not otherwise exist. (To counter any accusations of hypocrisy, let me stress once again that they are satisfying the NMW.) My argument with Mike, and with anyone who would value our craft at less than a fair rate, centres around the notion that having a mutually agreeable 'contract' justifies having significantly substandard rates, or that this arrangement can be of any benefit to the industry. I was made aware just the other day of someone doing a commercial voice-over for 'mates rates'. The two parties were happy. The job got done with a wink and a nod, for far less than the standard industry rate. Next time this producer wants to record a similar job, they know who to go to for cheap labour...and the performer is satisfied because they know they'll be asked. But this is a professional, commercial producer, and this 'scab labour' is undercutting those of us in the industry who are trying to make a living from receiving proper respectful rates. Just because they both satisfy Mike's definition of a contract doesn't make it right. (Actually maybe it doesn't meet his definition, because of clause 3 "Both parties are legally able to enter"...technically, offering wages below the nationally fixed award is illegal.) Although this example is for commercial voice recording, it is typical of many other examples of live theatre performing. When actors accept jobs at substandard rates & conditions, it cannot but be damaging to the industry. That actor settled for a quick, small payment...but wouldn't it have been better if they'd retained their respect and helped maintain an industry standard where they should have and would have been given 5 or 6 times that much? I am not talking about amateur productions, done for art's sake. But neither is the article which started this topic, so those arguments should not enter into it. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------