Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.

There's a bit of a ruckus in the UK at the moment, due to Equity campaigning to force a national minimum wage for actors onto all fringe and profit share theatre productions. They argue any companies or performance groups who can't afford the thousands of pounds per week in wages most shows would require is to (a) magically source government funding and sponsorship, or (b) become amateur companies. More info here (assuming this link works better than the last one).

Without knowledge of how the 'Fringe' theatre scene operates in the UK I suppose it is difficult to fully comprehend how these NMW proposals may affect individuals or companies. Perhaps there is a greater level of patronage and profits for companies in the UK Fringe scene and maybe this wage proposal by Equity is intended to try and distribute some of those profits amongst the actors (as well as the people who are running the companies). I just don't know. However, on the surface, the idea that fringe work could be wiped out by this is pretty depressing. In Australia at least, there is a vast difference between the kind of work that amateur companies produce and the artistic MO of fringe and independant theatre. Co-ops and profit share endeavours are so important to retain. They help actors and directors to remain active within the industry and to strive and create beyond the boundaries of typical amateur work. Another tricky issue about amateur status with regards to fringe work is company structure and financial accountability. Many Fringe productions occur as one off collaborations between a group of people. All profits and liabilities are discharged at the end of the show and everyone walks away. True amateur status requires that no-one personally profits from a show. After bills are paid all profits are re-invested into the company to fund it's continuance. Fine if the company is an established, ongoing concern with a management committee, constitution, insurances and legal taxation status. Winding up an amatuer company and deciding on the disbursement of remaining properties and funds is fraught enough. Where would this leave Fringe performers who find themselves at the end of a run with money left over and, by 'amateur' definition, no right to keep it, but no ongoing company to leave it to? Let's just hope that our fellow performers in the UK come out of this one OK. I don't think our MEAA would propose anything quite as controversial or discouraging as this. Tulipa.

The push for theatres to adopt a NMW shows a bizarre and complete disregard for the concept and importance of a contract. Transactions between people (whether personal or business) involve contracts (which can be explicit, i.e. written contracts, or implicit, i.e. handshakes or engagement rings). A contract has a number of essential elements: 1 It is entered into by both parties voluntarily 2 It is of mutual benefit to the parties 3 Both parties are legally able to enter 4 The transaction does not involve a criminal act 5 The nature of the transaction is specific So long as these elements are met, there should be no obstacle to the transaction proceeding. This is the case when purchasing a house, a carton of milk, getting married or entering into a particular arrangement for the staging of a play (profit sharing or whatever). No-one is forced to do these things, and Equity has no business getting involved. In doing so, it is abrogating its function, which is to look after the interests of its members. Perhaps I'll rephrase: it is working in the interests of its existing members by placing obstacles in front of prospective members, either by closing down opportunities for exposure, or by pricing them out. It is self-serving, and in so doing, damaging theatre as a whole.

After ten years in the UK. The Fringe scene runs from tiny pub theatres who will put on shows that maybe earn the co op the princely sum of 2 pounds each to spaces like the Orange Tree in Richmond that pay Equity rates at all times. Yes it would be disastrous for the Fringe scene if the NMW was forced on all of these places. First of all many of the venues that are prepared to risk new work simply would move to tried and true favourites to get bums on seats. The process of moving up through the fringe in London does work. I saw it myself a number of times but then agents and managements actually go to shows in the UK. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Well-pointed Logos. Very valid points. Some of my experience. Having worked on the fringe circuit for a number of years, especially when you just get out of Drama School, you do make very, very little and the pubs charge ridiculous amounts of money per week. The Kings Head in Islington charges up to £2500 per week and strangely enough only seats 80. This may of changed. The Hen and Chickens pub in Highbury charge a thousand per week and seats 60. Most actors that are cast in a fringe show don't make anything and it costs you a lot of money with travelling expenses and so on. If you’re lucky and a fringe company has a budget or sponsor you may get a little bit of a travel allowance. The most I made in fringe at the end of the four-week run at the bull theatre in High Barnet, North London was £37.00. A lot of fringe theatre companies realise that it isn't profitable and rehearse at night allowing actors and crew to have day jobs. Some don't, some fringe companies expect you to rehearse full time, which is an extremely stressful when it comes to income. A Brief example of London expense. Rent (House share - small room - crap shower) £120p/w Council tax - £20p/w Travel - Zones 1 (£18pw) Zones 1&2 (£23.40) Zones 1-4 (£38.00pw) if you have a day job you may live in Zone 4. If you are lucky and have a decent amount of money you may live in Zone 1. Food - The Bread Line (£30p/w) Electricity meter - (£20p/w) this may vary due to the weather. Drama Studio Fees - £40 Annual Equity Fees - £100 Annual (May increase) You have to have done at least a 4 week professionally paid job to receive this wonderful card. The stage - £1.10 p/w Casting Call Pro – Fees apply Photos – Starting at £250 a session (Annual) Repro of photos - £60 (30 – 10x8) Head shots Administration costs – Postage/letters to send to agents and casting directors to come and see you at the pub - £100+ per production On going Acting classes – Voice/movement etc - £50 dependant per class Misc - £50p/w Total – Average Monthly living expenses as an Actor living in London - £1454.40 You can take off the Annual expenses. But you are looking at roughly £1000 a month. Average wage £7.34p/h. So when I made my £37 for my run at The Bull in Barnet I was over the moon that it covered the cost of postage. I then wrote to all the agents and casting directors thanking them for NOT coming to see me in my current season. It isn’t all-bad; London is a vibrant, exciting and frightening city. ‘It’s a hard knock life for us’ – All you have to keep saying to yourself is ‘I’m living the dream’ The fringe is definitely something I strongly advise you do. That is why most of us do it, for the exposure, you never know who is luring in that darkened damp cellar of the wondrous Victorian public house. If there are any actors heading to the northern hemisphere to pursue their dreams and ambitions – look at getting into promotional work, its flexible, well paid and you have a great time. Fringe On (Isn’t that a great title for a play) Leon (Make your next step the right step)

Hey Jeff, I know Penny, The Jermyn street is where I did my first gig out of Drama School. Penny has been running that theatre for over 15 years. Loads of well know faces have been through there. Well pointed out. People do get spotted. It's all timing. Leon (Make your next step the right step)

There are so many "so-called" Theatre Producers who will spin you a yarn about profit share...and it simply doesn't happen. Nobody knows where money goes... I did a play at the Greenwich Playhouse last year. 2 Weeks, the cast built the set out of some wine crates...minimal...costumes were our own, it was a small cast of three, all crew were volounteer/apprentice types who needed a pro gig on their resume as part of their tech (drama college)course. We were assured "something" at the end of it. We didn't even get expenses. "Working" as an actor sometimes means sacrificing your "Job", allbeit bar work or being an admin bitch... it still pays the bills. Working as an actor in this way COSTS YOU MONEY. Something needs to be done. People have families, bills, mortgages, just because we're actors as opposed to anything else shouldn't put us in this sort of position. After investing thousands and so much time in training and all aspects of our art, we're forced with a question... Career or money...it's simply not fair.

IF we're not getting paid...That should be made quite clear...before rehearsals even start! Not a suprise at the end of the run, when you can't afford to buy an aftershow-party pint!

My wife did 3 Shakespeares at once for Two Way Mirror in Camden who I believe no longer exist. It was winter and snowing and the dressing room was a tent in the back yard. It was frighteningly like the old Rep program, she rehearsed one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and performed the third at night. At the end of a couple of months she received about 15 pounds. Rebecca, I agree with what you say about getting paid but the situation is that it is close to impossible to make money without subsidy particularly on new work. I am (I hope) an honest co op producer who lays everything out up front and opens my books to anyone who wants to see them. Also I ask for no financial investment from my actors or crew. The risk is all mine. It is great experience particularly for recent graduates or otherwise emerging actors. The same for techies. Certainly there comes a time when you must however say "I will no longer work for free." This is your own choice. It's not so much that it is unfair for actors except in so far as the entire industry is a little unfair particularly at the begining of careers. Who ever we are (actors techies directors etc) we are asked to work unbelievable hours for wages that sound like the payments to sweat shop employees. But we still do it. At my age with my experience I still occasionally work for $18.00 an hour because I still can't afford to turn down paid work. I seem to have run out of things to say and am only getting angry. I shall leave. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

What annoys me IS Profit share...and how vague that term can be. If we're not getting anything we should know that. Not tricked into thinking we'll at least break even on travel expenses. I've just worked out that by doing that 2 week play+rehearsals+travel+the £20 a pop support from my friends and family, and not working in my "job", I LOST £1,500. Which equates to about $3,000. I keep hearing these stories from actor friends of mine. The same thing.

Rebecca Jo says, 'IF we're not getting paid...That should be made quite clear...before rehearsals even start'! Indeed these small theatre owners run their businesses in the style of Dickensian textile factories. In any other field when a wage is promised in exchange for labour, and the promise is not fulfilled, it constitutes a contractual breach of promise. If there's even a remote chance an actor would not get paid for his or her work this must be explicitly stated before any work including rehearsing commences.

Rebecca (and the Michael Jackson Walter), it's a two-way street. As much as the producers need to make it clear to the cast/crew what happens with the profits, it's important for the actors/crew to ASK and confirm said understanding. As a self-producer I make it a point of being clear to whoever I'm working with about what will happen with the profits; but NEVER have I been directly asked by the cast/crew to give specifics, outside of 'is it profit-share?'. Even though it's my responsibility to provide those specifics, it's up to the actors/crew to ensure they are comfortable enough with the information provided to make an informed consent to work on the show. If you're not being given enough info, or info to your satisfaction, then don't work on that show. This goes for any project where you are being asked to work on, and I've had situations where as the person being hired, I asked (and asked and asked) for reasonable information (ie. a written contract) and in the end turned down the job because I was unsatisfied with the lack of response. As Logos points out, being a producer is difficult, and quite often producers simply can't answer for the money beforehand. If we knew outright what kind of profit would be seen, then we'd be psychic. Additionally, many expenses can't be accounted for until after the show has finished, when venue hire costs are deducted, and so forth. You say that working profit-share as an actor costs money: but you as the actor are also not forking out the initial production costs. The producers are also losing money by doing the show in the first place. "People have families, bills, mortgages, just because we're actors as opposed to anything else shouldn't put us in this sort of position." Well, so do the producers. They also have these bills to pay, and yet they fork out the dough to produce shows anyway. They also shouldn't have to be in the position to pay their actors award rates at the expense of being able to pay their bills. That's not running a business, that's running a bankruptcy. (It's also good to remember that the people who put the money into the show are also the ones legally liable for any losses or inability to pay bills. The actors do not take on this liability, unless also putting in money to fund the show) Ultimately, I no longer work profit-share except with people I know and trust already - not because of the issues of not getting paid, but because of the over-reliance on ambiguous verbal agreements. People need to be clear in their discussions on both sides of the aisle. If the term profit-share is too vague for you, then make damn sure no one is vague the next time you work with them. I will add that in our country, if award rates were forced on small companies, about 90% of professional theatre would simply not exist. This runs through to other fields: playwrights would lose work and royalties and have a harder time getting into the writing industry (which is quite tough in Australia already); techies would lose work... in a country where most of our successful people are overseas because of lack of work here, we would really die culturally. For one, many small pro companies are made up of less than 5 people: award rates would simply kill their ability to produce anything original, let alone of high quality. Perhaps European countries can get away with it: government and private funding is ten times better. Even Asian countries could afford to do it - private funding is almost mandatory, when it's seen as a cultural responsibility. But here, when there's very little funding for anything other than national or internationally renown companies, our industry would simply sink under the weight of better rates. Puppets and patterns at Puppets in Melbourne

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>-/====\---------

My one bone of contention with what you say Craig is that the MEAA provides a template contract for co op productions. Which I use with the only variation being that I finance the production and do not require any member to make an investment. I do not believe that actors who work in my productions for a co op share in anyway block other actors from getting MEAA wages as my productions simply would not happen without a co op agreement. And I make no more money than any of the actors bearing in mind that it is my money that funds the production and i do not ask the members to donate towards any losses and I have exactly the same problems in not being able to do paid work during the production myself. After legitimate expenses are recouped I receive one share of the profit as do all members of the co op. PS I am a member of the ATEA branch of the MEAA Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Totally agree Rebecca. It isn't fair. Leon (Make your next step the right step)

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>-/====\---------

1/ I don't consider my productions to be amateur. 2/ I am assured that the nature of the contract I use makes my productions legally professional co ops at least as far as MEAA is concerned. I also don't at this point wish to discuss the nitty gritty of those contracts here. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

"As far as MEAA is concerned"....it's a little bit like the Police containment policy for brothels. They're technically illegal, but everyone realises they exist, and so they try to monitor and manage them as well as they can. Co-ops are the same. Technically, they don't exist under MEAA professional guidelines. The fact that there is now a recommended contract to use doesn't make them any more legitimate; it is simply a best-practise method of dealing with an existing situation. A production does not become professional until, amongst other things, it pays professional rates. If you don't consider your production amateur, it must fall into a gray area. I'm aware that MEAA has a contract template that they recommend for so-called 'theatrical co-ops'...I was on the Equity committee when then WA Secretary Peter Woodward put a lot of effort into creating the documents that were then submitted at a National level. So yes, if you are adhering to these, that is best industry practice under those circumstances. The problem occurs because even though he developed these to try and account for the type of business relationship in theatre that calls itself a co-op (recognising that they existed for members even though nothing in professional Equity contracts allowed for such dealings), in actual fact they are still not legally defined as a co-op (ie an entity owned and democratically controlled equally by its members). Usually these theatrical associations are not formally defined at all, and so by default the best broad legal definition most of them fall under is a 'partnership'. The problems occur not only in the arena of how any profits are divided among its members, but perhaps more importantly, who is liable for any debts and how liability insurance is accounted for. It was discovered that, even without any formal contract, if you were considered a partner in a co-op that suddenly incurred a massive debt, you and your assets could be seized to pay those debts, along with those of all the other partners...poor unsuspecting actors who simply wanted to play a role. So the question was no longer about whether you might not get paid for your efforts (which many were prepared to shrug off) but whether you might lose your house to pay for someone's bad debt or insurance liability (say if someone was critically injured during the run) - a far more sobering financial commitment! The argument I put forward earlier to Mike was in response to his stance of 'Let the buyer beware' when forming a (formal or informal) contract. But it really ought to be extended to 'Let the buyer be AWARE'...there are heaps of serious pitfalls you may unwittingly fall into, without even realising they exist. The British Equity crackdown is I'm sure, not JUST about wages - which, even if inadequate, are usually dealt with up front - but about CONDITIONS, which could potentially be a far more volatile and expensive situation. Good luck. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Of course the problem with profit share is that in 99% of cases the producer does not know whether there will be money at the end or not - or how much - since it's going to be down to how many people buy tickets to the show at the end of the day.

Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

It's been drawn to my attention that there may be a bit of confusion about what the actual issue is - in the article that started this thread, and then in my subsequent argument where I was supporting the Equity line. There's a significant difference between the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and the award rates that Equity consider its 'minimum' rates for professionals. Let it be stressed that the NMW is what the British article is all about. In Australia, the National Minimum Wage is currently $14.31 an hour. ($543.78 for a 38 hour week). Equity minimum is $865.86 for a class 1 performer, or $915.90 for class 2 (experienced). So even though it's (British) Equity, and yes they still advocate the higher rate for professional performance...that's NOT what the article is about. They're not cracking down on theatre groups who don't meet Equity Award standards, they're cracking down on fringe employers who pay below the National Minimum Wage - which is essentially illegal! And if these Fringe theatre groups can't even afford the NMW, all they need to do is admit to their amateur status...then they can do what they like with the paltry income they make, and if the actors are lucky they'll get their cab fare home...just like amateur groups everywhere. It's the employers who are basically ripping off their actors, trying to preserve all the business benefits of being considered 'professional', but using their 'Fringe' status as an excuse to not have to pay anyone...THAT'S who is being closed down by British Equity. And I still say, good on 'em. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

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.

Helen Brett I’ve been following this thread with great interest and I can see merit in most of the viewpoints expressed. It is virtually impossible to have a profitable production unless it is subsidised. Even then success is not guaranteed. So what do you do? Lie down and moan? Put all your energy into politicking and applying for grants? When you get knocked back, do you let yourself fall into the wasteful spiral of resentment and envy? Hang around waiting for Godot with a big purse? In the meantime let the creative drive wither to nothing? Or do you get up and do something for yourself? That is what a lot of people are doing - actors, writers, producers – in the theatrical grey area which is not quite amateur, not quite professional. Here in Perth, this area is often more hardworking and energetic than the funded theatre sector because it has to be in order to survive. Australians love a battler and this might be why independent theatre is often better supported by audiences, than the heavily subsidised theatre. I suspect that some of the difficulty Equity experiences in trying to deal with the grey area is that so much of it is generated from within, ie their own members coming together to create theatre which is never going to come near being able to provide even the national minimum wage for those involved. I speak as a writer/producer who, along with Gordon MacNish, runs Pocket Theatre, a writers’ theatre, in N Fremantle. Three writers are involved in each production, usually each delivering an original one act play. The actors, normally professional or semi professional, are engaged by the writers/directors. Neither Gordon nor I take any money whatsoever for the time we spend producing the show. Costs are kept to a minimum and after each production we study the accounts to see if there’s any cost we could shave off or eliminate next time. What is left after paying costs is divided in three and the writers in turn allocate an equal share to the actors to help towards their costs. We stress this is not a wage. We know that the cake will never be big enough to pay anything remotely like a wage to the actors or writers. Anyway it's more of a cup cake and, in a poor season, a cup cake that fails to rise. Thankfully our last season was a cup cake that did rise! Stalin allegedly said that imposing communism on Poland was like trying to put a saddle on a cow. He struggled and he succeeded for a time but it all came apart in 1989 after decades of being undermined from within. Equity is in a difficult situation, on the one hand aiming to achieve minimum rates for its members, on the other, knowing that there won’t be enough work for everyone at that wage. The punters only want to see so many shows and they only want to pay out so much money at the door.

All good points, Helen. There is always going to be a place for fringe companies like Pocket. As you say, it is largely the theatre practitioners themselves coming together to produce theatre, and should be viewed very differently to a producer who is exploiting his performers. With no pretense of being properly paid work, Pocket's status is clearly amateur (I use the word literally and in no way as a slur on the quality). And yet because you are truly amateur (ie: 'for the love of') you endeavor to give back as much as you can to the artists who participate. Not only that, it is a learning ground where risks can be taken in a supportive environment, and an avenue for up and coming writers, actors, and directors to hone their craft. All a valuable contribution to the industry. I participated in a Pocket show late last year, fully aware that was not likely to really earn me anything at all. I did it because of the challenge of learning a solo show in a very short amount of time, I was impressed with the quality of the original script, and I trusted the writer/director. It was a valuable learning experience for me as a performer, and as it turned out I came away with a few hundred dollars as some compensation. It is clear from your ticket prices, production costs, and advertising budget that this is a minimal-budget company. You cater to a patronage who enjoy those productions at those prices, and there is an avenue for learning that is not provided at any of the big training institutions: how to create a show out of virtually nothing! I have not ever had a problem with this sort of endeavor. I have no doubt the majority of you reading this website have worked in similar companies. Regardless of whether you earn and redistribute any money, (and regardless of how you choose to see yourself), you are basically amateur until you are capable of providing work-standard wages (ie professional). A basic good guideline would be: do you require your performers to rehearse/be available full-time during the day? If so, you need to be providing a minimum standard of guaranteed wages and conditions. If not, you are amateur, and your performers are free to maintain other jobs, which you work around. Like I pointed out, there is NO problem from an Equity standpoint with these types of companies. I think most people got scared of the report at the top of this thread through entirely misunderstanding it. (My guess is not many actually read it objectively (if at all), but simply responded to Grant's first post on the subject. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

In essence the article makes two critical points. 1 Fringe theatres should comply with NMW requirements or redefine themselves as 'amateur'. 2 Fringe theatres claim that (a) they can't afford to comply, and that they would have to fold if forced to, and (b)losing 'professional status' would rob them of the cachet that makes them a good vehicle for newcomer exposure. My reaction to the article was a result of my innate distrust and distate for government intervention in the lives of its citizens. For example, and to be quite clear, I do not support policies such as a National Minimum Wage (for acting or any other occupation). I have an intense antipathy to the pervasive language of unions, which promotes the idea that employers are avaricious, unscrupulous and deceitful exploiters of the industrious, honest workers. More importantly, I deplore the language of dependence and implied helplessness: that workers lack acumen, lack the strength to argue their own case, lack the ability to make their own decisions, that they are unable to act intelligently and rationaly on their own behalf, that they will suffer unless they have the guardian angel of a union to do this for them. I expect that my views will be the minority here, and will attract criticism. So be it.

I am quite uncomfortably part way in agreement with you. Unions exist to provide the strength to those of us who lack the exceptional skills to make them powerful on their own in negotiation with employers. Employers will pay as little as they can in most cases and will actively seek the semi skilled and average worker who will work for less. Unions give those people protection. I do however resent a Union telling me that I cannot enter open eyed into a contract to work for less for a specific project that would not happen if I demand full payment. I am not taking fully paid work from anyone because the work wouldn't happen if I demanded full payment. Nor do I feel it is fair to have to define my work as amateur in this case as this reduces the difference between amateur and professional to simply whether or not I get paid. Is that the only difference between an amateur and a professional? Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

'My reaction to the article was a result of my innate distrust and distate for government intervention...' Distate? What about Difederal? Of course, you realise that the government is usually NOT that interested or motivated to intervene AT ALL in the Arts? Which is why the actors form a lobby group called Equity, to try to GET them to intervene..? I suppose you make a fair point: when things are going well they don't make the news; you only hear about things that are going wrong...which is why it may seem to you that unions paint only a picture of unscrupulous employers. Obviously, this is NOT the case; in the vast majority of transactions the employer is decent and honest. But what do you do when you encounter the ones who AREN'T? And again, Equity is not an entity by itself...it consists of the ACTORS themselves who join together to solve problems they were unable to solve on an individual basis. This doesn't sound to me helpless, lacking ability, or unintelligent. It sounds pro-active, determined, self-valuing and rational. You have an interesting point of view, Mike. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

"Is that the only difference between an amateur and a professional?" Technically, I believe it is. Amateurs are unpaid. Professionals are paid. Connotations concerning such things as the quality of the work, acting, staging, or the commitment of the participants have grown up around those words but I would argue that they should not be taken for granted. I have seen and participated in amateur work which would "stand up on any stage in the world..." and conversely, I shudder to remember the standard of some professional productions with which I worked. It's true that 'professional' productions may have the sort of budget which should, in theory, enable them to meet a higher standard. Hence people use the word 'professional' as an adjective to connote a certain level of... say, 'professional behaviour' but nothing stops an amateur from behaving 'professionally'. He or she is still an amateur though, merely because they are unpaid. Regards, lollipop

Well I agree, the simplest way to come to an agreement on the two terms is to leave any value judgements of 'quality' out of the equation, as they are more often than not a matter of taste; it then becomes terribly simple to divide professional and amateur by means of their simple definition: Professionals get paid a professional rate. Amateurs do it for the love of it. But of course, even then the line can get blurry. An amateur might actually be paid something. If the amount really doesn't compare to what a professional rate should be (at bare minimum above the National minimum wage, and technically at the minimum rate specified by the industry Award standard), then they should still really be considered amateur until they break over that line...they are doing it 'more out of love than for money'. That's not to say that professionals don't also do what they do because they love it! In fact I'm pretty sure if the professional DIDN'T love what they do, they'd soon leave to find other work, because the rewards for effort, in the main, simply don't compare to other professions. So are they doing it 'more for money'...? And you haven't put the question into any time context. If someone is an amateur performer, and then does a single show that pays professionally, and then goes back to being an amateur performer, what is their status? I know of some who would claim to have entered into the ranks of professionals, although their track record would imply otherwise. There are also professionals who work as constantly as possible (I know one extremely well!) who nevertheless find themselves with gaps in their professional schedule, and due to their love of the craft, fill them by participating in amateur shows. Are they considered an amateur just for that month, or is that as ridiculous as ignoring the track record of the amateur in the above example? But is there conceivably a time when someone considered professional, in all senses of the word, loses that status? How do we judge when that has happened? Can they win it back? Are you only defined by your last gig? Is amateur/professional something that ought to be constantly reviewed? In my own case, I consider myself to BE a professional, although I am known to DO amateur or volunteer work. So now we've split the two into four...depending on whether we are defining the terms 'amateur' and 'professional' by the nature of the work itself, or by the nature of the worker. So that partly solves an amateur doing professional work and vice versa, although it probably confuses things at the same time! I justify calling myself a professional not simply because I am more often paid than not, but because when I commit to paid projects, I commit to a full working week which excludes me from taking on any other full time work (moonlighting notwithstanding). It therefore cannot be anything BUT my profession, and this is reflected in my tax returns. An amateur would no doubt have another primary income source, and participating in theatre would be akin to moonlighting, or a serious sideline hobby. But then I know of performers who act professionally, exclusively (i.e. when they act, they always get paid proper rates; they never do unpaid or amateur work). Yet they earn the majority of their income from something not at all arts related. They have remained in the industry long enough to be recognised as a professional performer, and when they enter into a contract, they commit to it as a full time job - but at the end of the year have spent more time at their other occupation. Does this contradict the final sentence of my previous paragraph? And there are some (sometimes controversial) cases where a production seems divided...some are paid full rates, while others 'volunteer'. There are honourable cases, where the production was essentially amateur but hired some professionals to provide skills, experience and mentoring to the rest. I have participated in projects like this, notably in universities or schools, but also in regional community theatres, where the visiting professional is paid as they should be (not necessarily to be a lead role), while the others participate as part of their learning process. I have heard of other cases however, which seem not dissimilar in structure, where only certain individuals get paid while the rest are considered 'volunteers'. The controversy occurred because to the general public these shows were presented as professional, with professional ticket prices. Yet the producer was able to make profits because the bulk of the cast and chorus weren't being paid, and felt exploited. So now we have yet another layer of meaning - the professionalism or amateur standing as applied to the integrity of the company or producer - as well as those terms applied to the individual production, and to the individual performer. Confusing, yes? Lollipop said that "professional productions may have the sort of budget which should...enable them to meet a higher standard". Yet a conundrum arises in the case of some well-supported amateur groups who find that from their success at earning or raising funds they can have quite lavish budgets and plenty of time to create quite stunning sets and costumes, and to afford to hire the best theatre venues...because they are not required to pay their volunteer labour. Professional companies, on the other hand, can find themselves forced to utilise minimal effects in second rate venues, with smaller casts...because of the overheads of paying professional rates to everyone throughout the rehearsal and performance periods. You can't judge standard by a budget...some have more money than sense, and some can astound you with their frugal innovation. It simply stresses what we said at the start - quality should not be considered part of the equation. Have I reached a conclusion? Perhaps only that it's more complicated than it seems! But I do hold the opinion that truly professional work must meet a certain level of criteria, which necessitates a level of elitism. This therefore defines the greater majority of work into the 'amateur' camp. I think there are groups who would have denied they were amateur, but really do not fall out of that basket. But remember, I am totally ignoring any discussion of artistic quality, so there is really no shame in accepting this amateur status. It's where the majority of work lies...and a lot of outstanding work too! Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------