Ok, my friends, I'm back with another blog about the ongoing fight with AEA over 99-seat theatre in Los Angeles. When last we met, I destroyed some propaganda from the leadership. Take a look at it, if you want to see me burning a bridge with vigor. It should appear to the right. I also took Kate Shindle to task for her open letter, and while she copped to the clarity of my argument that there is no "yes, but.." vote, and has since come around on the issue and has become the darling of the pro-99 movement, she hasn't responded to any of my questions since Should she become president of AEA, and I am offered an Equity contract, (as a former member) it would go before her to approve. So, you know...burning bridges left and right.
But it's fucking worth it.
I stand unafraid of this union. I stand very much unimpressed by their leadership. I stand in solidarity with my union friends who also stand to lose a lot by putting their names on every thing they write. We are fighting to save something special to us. And every one of us who is fighting this fight is doing so for very personal, artistic reasons. And we are all signing our names to what we write.
AEA continues to send out propaganda with half a dozen actors statements on why they are voting yes on this plan. For a vote that doesn't matter, they sure as hell are spending a lot of time and (member dues) rallying their members to support this terrible plan. This list includes mostly people who haven't done 99-seat theatre, or more disturbingly those who actually got their careers started here and don't believe others should have the same benefit (at least without being paid like the guy making french fries at Micky D's). The list includes a couple of one-person show artists (who were able to workshop those pieces in the very theatres they don't care about any longer), many musical theatre artists, who don't really have a dog in the fight but are towing the union line, and others who actually believe that they are doing the right thing...I guess.
One of them actually complained that working in 99-seat theatre was a problem because she couldn't afford child-care while she was working on a show. Which, as a father of two, believe me comes into play for me as well. Unfortunately the show in question was one that she was actually DIRECTING. Thus putting to rest the AEA talking point that everybody in 99-seat theatre is making a living wage except the actors, while simultaneously showing both her and those her spread her stories to be vulgar liars.
But at least they put their names on it. There is a group (I guess, it could just be one sorry soul) in N. Hollywood who tweets at everybody who takes a stand against this plan. Anonymously. They call anyone who is on our side: "Anti-union." I've even seen them calling certain politicians who have long histories supporting unions: "Union busters." They tweet at celebrities, trying to shame them with questions like: "Why don't you want actors to make money? Why are you anti-union? Don't you think actors deserved to be paid at all?" All nonsense. Jason Alexander called them trolls, and said he wouldn't talk to anonymous people. And I loved him even more for it. These people (or that one lonely fucker unable to make a cogent point) want to remain nameless, so I won't bother to share their twitter handle. Trust me, you're better off without it.
What really makes me mad though, is that one of their miniscule amount of followers is AEA itself. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by anything they do at this point. But giving validity to anonymous cyber-bullies seems beneath even them. But hey, any port in a storm. And since this proposal has been so thoroughly destroyed by everybody, I guess it's nice that they have that one pathetic tweeter shaming on their behalf.
And let me be clear: Nobody on our side is fighting to make no money. This is a ridiculous lie. And everybody who is saying it knows that they are lying. We all want more money for actors. To be clear, this isn't about that. It's about destroying a plan the union hates. That's what this whole thing is about.
Ok, I'm almost done with this blog. But before I go, I just want to say that I have been a working actor for more than 25 years. A working, paid actor. A professional. I knew what I was going to do with my life since I was a kid. And I wanted to be in the Union. Not because I was a pro-union guy (which I am) but because they are the gate-keepers. Sure there was a certain prestige to being a member, but mostly I just wanted access to auditions. Big auditions. I finally joined when I thought my career was taking a certain trajectory. The trajectory changed, and I found myself in financial trouble. So, in the end, I was a member of AEA for less than two years. (of my over than two decades of work). Short hand, they lied to me. They forced me out. I said the words "fi-core" (or is that one word?), and like that I was gone. I get it. I'm a pro-union guy.
But this union is a joke. I guess when 80% of your workforce is out of work, you try to make yourself relevant however you can. So instead of focusing on getting back the rehearsal weeks from Regional Theatre that have been nearly cut in half over the last decade, or making sure that the national tours of hit musicals are cast with Equity Actors, or insisting that AEA houses in Los Angeles cast local members, you go after the little guy. It's like the GOP attacking people on welfare, while ignoring corporations dodging taxes. It's shameful.
Though we are little, we are mighty. We are scrappy. We know how to organize. We will not back down. And we will put our name on it!
My name is Patrick Vest!
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
"Actor's Equity is listening." So they tell us in this letter. Let's just see, shall we? As always, my font (like my feelings) are bold.
A Letter to the Los Angeles Equity Membership
We hear the impassioned voices of actors and others attached to intimate theatre in Los Angeles.
Great! Then I'm sure you are hearing that we hate this proposal. We find it ill-advised, hasty, and insulting. You hear that we are open for change, but not this change. You must be hearing this, because we've been saying it over and over again.
Actors’ Equity has been on a listening campaign and although we have been accused of "not listening,"
How does one go on a listening campaign? Seriously, I really want to know. Now, I'm a classically trained actor, and I believe that listening is perhaps the most important thing one can do. But I can't imagine a campaign of listening. Because, to listen one needs a point of view. One doesn't just receive sounds in a vacuum and absorb it. To listen, you are trying to hear specific things. So, a listening campaign must be people hearing things from a point of view. Since AEA has repeatedly stated that their point of view is that 99 Seat Theatre is a nightmare to oversee, and that all actors must be paid minimum wage, I'm guessing that your listening campaign was heard by ears listening for things to defend this point of view.
we have spent the last 6 weeks, mostly silent,
With the excepting of phone banks soliciting yes votes, mass emails to equity members from celebrities not involved in the 99 seat community, and constant badgering by the vocal majority of members actually for this ridiculous plan,
trying to cut through the sound and fury to hear the concerns, suggestions, and ideas of all members so that Council can make a determination that is responsive to ALL sides of the debate.
If that were true, you would have tabled this mock vote and actually come to the bargaining table. If you were truly listening to ALL sides you would know that this isn't a fight about getting paid vs. not getting paid. You would know that there is nuance to this debate, which your proposal doesn't take into account. We are all for change! So, we are all on the same side. So why are you pushing this clumsy measure through?
Sadly, in this debate members have been shamed and intimidated for asking to be paid.
And other members have been shamed and intimidated for wanting to keep their artistic homes. See, this is what really listening means. I will admit that people have been shamed and intimidated on your side. You must do the same. This is a fight. And aside from the shame and intimidation being laid on our side, we are also being minimized as "hyperbolic non-professional hobbyists."
Union leadership has been vilified and humiliated in an effort to stop the union from speaking to its members.
Meanwhile union members aren't allowed access to also reach out to the entire union population with the other side of the story.
And all the while Council has kept their ears open, listening to the community, and the entire community has weighed in (members and non-members alike).
I think some members of the council have done so. I don't believe the author of this missive is one.
Now, in the lead up to what has been called a "pay your dues rally" but is in actuality a march and demonstration against your labor union, a vocal contingent of celebrity members and other proponents of the status quo have chosen to use historic civil rights photographs as their "logo," defacing them and claiming that Equity is "immoral" for seeking minimum wage payment for actors.
Hang on, I thought we were the ones who were emotional and hyperbolic. This is gross oversimplification and manipulative beyond words. And I am confused by your use of quotation marks. Is it a logo, or a "logo?" is it defacing them and claiming that Equity is immoral, or "immoral?" Seriously, WTF are you trying to say? I get that you are "outraged" (quotation marks indicate irony on a couple of levels), but are you really outraged?
Actors’ Equity has been in the forefront of social justice issues for all of its 102 year history.
Which is why we love you.
Leaders of Actors’ Equity MARCHED with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the sanitation workers strike, just before he was assassinated.
I tried to march with him after he was assassinated, but he just wasn't in to it.
The use of historic documents from this era to somehow argue that actors should not be paid for rehearsing and performing is appalling, to say the least.
Really? You can't see a correlation between a group of people who had no voice in what was happening to them to the civil rights movement? (See what I did there?)
These proponents of the status quo have cried "shame" on their union's efforts to provide minimum wage payments to its members.
Now you're starting to piss me off. If you were really listening (during this long listening campaign you've been on), you would know that we are for "change, just not this change." Jesus. We are staying on message (unlike you lot) because we actually believe what we say. And providing minimum wage payments to members was a convenient sound bite, but it's a disaster on your end. It's every bit as much of a token payment as a stipend is, but it involves labor laws, and governmental oversight. And it will be a tough position to come back from, if the council really believes that a yes vote is a "yes but" vote.
If there is shame in any of this, it is truly on those who would twist the truth and co-opt history in such a repellent way. The heroes of the civil rights movement stood side by side with unions; they did not march against fundamental rights and fair wages for working men and women.
Those unions stood up for their members. These are union members marching against a union that refuses to hear (despite such a concerted campaign of listening) the needs of their own members. And for you to set yourselves up as the heroes of this civil rights movement is disgusting. If you can't see a similarity between what we march for, and what generations of people in this country have marched for (to be heard by a power), then you are deaf.
We understand that there are members that disagree with the proposal that Council has put forward.
Wow. Well, that's a start.
The most vitriolic among the members/producer-members/producers have said that Equity will single-handedly kill/annihilate/destroy theatre in Los Angeles.
Let me take this apart. If the most vitriolic have said this, then it can be dismissed. Ok. So your point is rendered moot. But let's pick apart the point anyway for shits and giggles: There can be no denying that some theatres will close under this new plan. (For those who have given their lives to those theatres, I think it's safe to call that an annihilation). The "membership" clause of the agreement allows no new members or membership companies, which means that Equity is acting as an authority putting sanctions on membership companies which cannot be lifted. Sanctions exist for the sole reason to starve another of resources. Therefore these membership companies will also be "killed," very slowly over time. And I would also like to say that the heart of Los Angeles theatre exists in productions that challenge, excite, and transform both artist and audience. I'm not sure whether those in their ivory towers in New York believe this, but companies working under the 99 seat theatre agreement do this every night. (sure not every theatre, or every production, but the primary artistic/paradigm shifting theatre comes from these companies.) And let me be very careful here. It will still be possible to form new companies under these new rules, but they will be severely hampered by this. And the companies that now exist will eventually die out. Won't this, in a way destroy the heart of theatre in LA? I think it will. Many of us who are not in the least vitriolic (but simply reasonable) think it will in fact, kill/annihilate/and destroy the heart of theatre in Los Angeles.
They claim that we plan to violate their human rights by dictating how they "practice their art,"
Who said anything about taking away human rights? Are you once again talking about the most vitriolic? Well that's a strawman that has already been blown down. Very few people are equating this with the holocaust. So let's move on.
that the union intends to take away their freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice is another matter though. Can we not volunteer our time to art? Do we not have that choice? If I love paintings and make myself an expert in a particular genre and then offer my time at a museum as a docent to share that love, do I not have that choice? As an actor, do I not have the choice to take any role I want in a non-profit organization, every bit as much as a person donating his/her time to their church? You are in fact, trying to take away choice. Let's not just tie it to the most vitriolic amongst us.
Here is the clear truth. Actors’ Equity is a labor union. A labor union represents workers, professionals who have a vocation.
And those workers are telling you that you are not serving their interests in this case.
The proponents of the status quo
These mythical creatures who are saying everything should stay exactly as it is...not the current opposition who have said time and time again, "we want change, just not this change."
would have us believe that the acting they do is somehow purer than a mere vocation. It is like going to church/the gym/the playground/breathing.
Hold the phone. Is AEA only serving actors who see acting as a vocation? How many actors are there in the world who see acting as nothing more than a job? (And stage acting particularly?) I would imagine that your membership would be quite limited if it didn't encompass those who thought they weren't acting because it was a calling, or an artistic venture, or spiritual. Hell, if you are serving only those stage actors who believe they are going to make their living by working on stage in Los Angeles, your meetings can be held on my tiny porch.
We have attempted in our current proposals to be responsive even to this point of view with two separate internal membership rules. But as a labor union, we believe that those who work for a commercial enterprise, even a not-for-profit one, should be paid.
We agree. It's called a stipend.
Whether your stage work is vocational or avocational, whether you favor Equity's proposals or not, we should all decry those who equate a union attempting to value its members with infamous forces of bigotry and intolerance. This egregious behavior must be called out and should not be allowed to stand.
Pretty heavy handed talk for those who have power and are doing everything in said power to take away something that is beloved by thousand of Angelinos (actors and audiences alike). You don't get to be upset and outraged. You are the aggressors. Don't like 99 seat theatre? Don't do it. Don't like the way you are being treated? Don't fucking try to take away something that we love.
Actors’ Equity Association
Is this your name?
My name is Patrick Merck Vest! I don't hide behind an organization. Nor do I speak for one. I am fighting, not for my livelihood, but for my life.
A Letter to the Los Angeles Equity Membership
We hear the impassioned voices of actors and others attached to intimate theatre in Los Angeles.
Great! Then I'm sure you are hearing that we hate this proposal. We find it ill-advised, hasty, and insulting. You hear that we are open for change, but not this change. You must be hearing this, because we've been saying it over and over again.
Actors’ Equity has been on a listening campaign and although we have been accused of "not listening,"
How does one go on a listening campaign? Seriously, I really want to know. Now, I'm a classically trained actor, and I believe that listening is perhaps the most important thing one can do. But I can't imagine a campaign of listening. Because, to listen one needs a point of view. One doesn't just receive sounds in a vacuum and absorb it. To listen, you are trying to hear specific things. So, a listening campaign must be people hearing things from a point of view. Since AEA has repeatedly stated that their point of view is that 99 Seat Theatre is a nightmare to oversee, and that all actors must be paid minimum wage, I'm guessing that your listening campaign was heard by ears listening for things to defend this point of view.
we have spent the last 6 weeks, mostly silent,
With the excepting of phone banks soliciting yes votes, mass emails to equity members from celebrities not involved in the 99 seat community, and constant badgering by the vocal majority of members actually for this ridiculous plan,
trying to cut through the sound and fury to hear the concerns, suggestions, and ideas of all members so that Council can make a determination that is responsive to ALL sides of the debate.
If that were true, you would have tabled this mock vote and actually come to the bargaining table. If you were truly listening to ALL sides you would know that this isn't a fight about getting paid vs. not getting paid. You would know that there is nuance to this debate, which your proposal doesn't take into account. We are all for change! So, we are all on the same side. So why are you pushing this clumsy measure through?
Sadly, in this debate members have been shamed and intimidated for asking to be paid.
And other members have been shamed and intimidated for wanting to keep their artistic homes. See, this is what really listening means. I will admit that people have been shamed and intimidated on your side. You must do the same. This is a fight. And aside from the shame and intimidation being laid on our side, we are also being minimized as "hyperbolic non-professional hobbyists."
Union leadership has been vilified and humiliated in an effort to stop the union from speaking to its members.
Meanwhile union members aren't allowed access to also reach out to the entire union population with the other side of the story.
And all the while Council has kept their ears open, listening to the community, and the entire community has weighed in (members and non-members alike).
I think some members of the council have done so. I don't believe the author of this missive is one.
Now, in the lead up to what has been called a "pay your dues rally" but is in actuality a march and demonstration against your labor union, a vocal contingent of celebrity members and other proponents of the status quo have chosen to use historic civil rights photographs as their "logo," defacing them and claiming that Equity is "immoral" for seeking minimum wage payment for actors.
Hang on, I thought we were the ones who were emotional and hyperbolic. This is gross oversimplification and manipulative beyond words. And I am confused by your use of quotation marks. Is it a logo, or a "logo?" is it defacing them and claiming that Equity is immoral, or "immoral?" Seriously, WTF are you trying to say? I get that you are "outraged" (quotation marks indicate irony on a couple of levels), but are you really outraged?
Actors’ Equity has been in the forefront of social justice issues for all of its 102 year history.
Which is why we love you.
Leaders of Actors’ Equity MARCHED with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the sanitation workers strike, just before he was assassinated.
I tried to march with him after he was assassinated, but he just wasn't in to it.
The use of historic documents from this era to somehow argue that actors should not be paid for rehearsing and performing is appalling, to say the least.
Really? You can't see a correlation between a group of people who had no voice in what was happening to them to the civil rights movement? (See what I did there?)
These proponents of the status quo have cried "shame" on their union's efforts to provide minimum wage payments to its members.
Now you're starting to piss me off. If you were really listening (during this long listening campaign you've been on), you would know that we are for "change, just not this change." Jesus. We are staying on message (unlike you lot) because we actually believe what we say. And providing minimum wage payments to members was a convenient sound bite, but it's a disaster on your end. It's every bit as much of a token payment as a stipend is, but it involves labor laws, and governmental oversight. And it will be a tough position to come back from, if the council really believes that a yes vote is a "yes but" vote.
If there is shame in any of this, it is truly on those who would twist the truth and co-opt history in such a repellent way. The heroes of the civil rights movement stood side by side with unions; they did not march against fundamental rights and fair wages for working men and women.
Those unions stood up for their members. These are union members marching against a union that refuses to hear (despite such a concerted campaign of listening) the needs of their own members. And for you to set yourselves up as the heroes of this civil rights movement is disgusting. If you can't see a similarity between what we march for, and what generations of people in this country have marched for (to be heard by a power), then you are deaf.
We understand that there are members that disagree with the proposal that Council has put forward.
Wow. Well, that's a start.
The most vitriolic among the members/producer-members/producers have said that Equity will single-handedly kill/annihilate/destroy theatre in Los Angeles.
Let me take this apart. If the most vitriolic have said this, then it can be dismissed. Ok. So your point is rendered moot. But let's pick apart the point anyway for shits and giggles: There can be no denying that some theatres will close under this new plan. (For those who have given their lives to those theatres, I think it's safe to call that an annihilation). The "membership" clause of the agreement allows no new members or membership companies, which means that Equity is acting as an authority putting sanctions on membership companies which cannot be lifted. Sanctions exist for the sole reason to starve another of resources. Therefore these membership companies will also be "killed," very slowly over time. And I would also like to say that the heart of Los Angeles theatre exists in productions that challenge, excite, and transform both artist and audience. I'm not sure whether those in their ivory towers in New York believe this, but companies working under the 99 seat theatre agreement do this every night. (sure not every theatre, or every production, but the primary artistic/paradigm shifting theatre comes from these companies.) And let me be very careful here. It will still be possible to form new companies under these new rules, but they will be severely hampered by this. And the companies that now exist will eventually die out. Won't this, in a way destroy the heart of theatre in LA? I think it will. Many of us who are not in the least vitriolic (but simply reasonable) think it will in fact, kill/annihilate/and destroy the heart of theatre in Los Angeles.
They claim that we plan to violate their human rights by dictating how they "practice their art,"
Who said anything about taking away human rights? Are you once again talking about the most vitriolic? Well that's a strawman that has already been blown down. Very few people are equating this with the holocaust. So let's move on.
that the union intends to take away their freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice is another matter though. Can we not volunteer our time to art? Do we not have that choice? If I love paintings and make myself an expert in a particular genre and then offer my time at a museum as a docent to share that love, do I not have that choice? As an actor, do I not have the choice to take any role I want in a non-profit organization, every bit as much as a person donating his/her time to their church? You are in fact, trying to take away choice. Let's not just tie it to the most vitriolic amongst us.
Here is the clear truth. Actors’ Equity is a labor union. A labor union represents workers, professionals who have a vocation.
And those workers are telling you that you are not serving their interests in this case.
The proponents of the status quo
These mythical creatures who are saying everything should stay exactly as it is...not the current opposition who have said time and time again, "we want change, just not this change."
would have us believe that the acting they do is somehow purer than a mere vocation. It is like going to church/the gym/the playground/breathing.
Hold the phone. Is AEA only serving actors who see acting as a vocation? How many actors are there in the world who see acting as nothing more than a job? (And stage acting particularly?) I would imagine that your membership would be quite limited if it didn't encompass those who thought they weren't acting because it was a calling, or an artistic venture, or spiritual. Hell, if you are serving only those stage actors who believe they are going to make their living by working on stage in Los Angeles, your meetings can be held on my tiny porch.
We have attempted in our current proposals to be responsive even to this point of view with two separate internal membership rules. But as a labor union, we believe that those who work for a commercial enterprise, even a not-for-profit one, should be paid.
We agree. It's called a stipend.
Whether your stage work is vocational or avocational, whether you favor Equity's proposals or not, we should all decry those who equate a union attempting to value its members with infamous forces of bigotry and intolerance. This egregious behavior must be called out and should not be allowed to stand.
Pretty heavy handed talk for those who have power and are doing everything in said power to take away something that is beloved by thousand of Angelinos (actors and audiences alike). You don't get to be upset and outraged. You are the aggressors. Don't like 99 seat theatre? Don't do it. Don't like the way you are being treated? Don't fucking try to take away something that we love.
Actors’ Equity Association
Is this your name?
My name is Patrick Merck Vest! I don't hide behind an organization. Nor do I speak for one. I am fighting, not for my livelihood, but for my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)