Dear Kate,
I didn't want to be accused of taking anything out of context, so I am responding within the letter you wrote. My words are in bold text.
An (extremely long) open letter to
our LA peeps. For your consideration, and all that.
Thank you so much for taking the
time to address this issue.
Well, I think it’s safe to say that
most of our members have heard more about the LA 99-seat code in the past few
weeks than in the rest of their lives combined.
That is a safe bet.
Those of us who have spent considerable hours, years, and indeed decades
working in 99 seat theatre are very grateful that the rest of you have spent a
couple of weeks getting up to speed.
I want to start by saying that I
think this is great. Those of us who spend time as Councillors or Officers at
Actors Equity (which I am currently not, but both of which I have been in the
past) are almost always trying to determine how to create passion and
participation among our membership.
Well, you may have hit the mother-lode. Trying to take something people care about
deeply from them will unite people like little else. So, that is indeed great.
It can be a thankless job--spending dozens,
hundreds, or even thousands of collective hours agonizing over the details of a
single contract or code, and often getting the most feedback when members are
unhappy with a piece of it. But hey, that’s the gig we sign up for, and the
rewards lie in trying to make things better for our 50,000-ish members.
We remain completely unclear about how taking work from the
thousands of actors in this city make things better. We don’t know how this will create more jobs,
more paying jobs, more contract jobs, bigger audiences, and indeed not decimate
the landscape of our community here. We
are also baffled by the union’s unwillingness to actually come to the table
with the “producers” (who are also actors, stage managers, and directors) to
find real solutions to the problems that the union finds so objectionable that
they are forcing this new proposal on us.
The new 99-seat proposal--which we
are constantly being reminded is simply a proposal—
We are not sure who is reminding you that this is a
proposal. For most of us it feels like a
command from on high.
has certainly riled up a significant
portion of our AEA colleagues.
And city councils, non-union professionals, businesses in
close proximity to theatres, audiences, people who work in theatres, students,
and countless others…
I think everyone expected that (a few years
ago, when I was Eastern Regional VP, I jokingly asked “so, aside from our
members burning the building to the ground, what would be the problem with
99-seat going away?”)
I’m sure this was hilarious.
You’ll pardon me if I don’t really find humor in it now. And I find it somewhat ironic that you (the
union) are the ones burning down our buildings.
And I’ve been studying the issue as
comprehensively as I can, because the hallmark of a successful negotiation is
that neither side gets everything it wants. Most of the time, the answer lies
somewhere in the middle. I believe this is the case here.
Great! Vote no, and
let’s all find a compromise! This is
great! A no vote means that this
“proposal” fails, but that we can all come to the table to find that sweet spot
where neither side gets everything it wants. A yes vote, on the other hand would mean that you get to be happy and we remain very unhappy.
I’ve had a lot of conversations in
the past couple weeks. Members, Councillors, Officers, candidates, producers,
directors, you name it.
The league of producers in LA? Local businesses around theatres in LA? These are a couple of things I’m naming with
which you haven’t conversed.
And I’ve been paying attention
to--and posting on--both the #pro99 Facebook group and the private, informal
public policy group frequented by many of our current and past elected leaders.
We now live in a world where you never have to spend time with people who
disagree with you--hell, we don’t even have to get our news anymore from people
who disagree with us. But it’s worth seeking out the whole spectrum of
opinions. It has been incredibly illuminating for a know-it-all like me; after
all, I did a 99-seat show once, so clearly I understand the landscape of L.A.
theatre, right? Right? (Is this thing on?)
I am a big fan of your self-deprecating humor. You are at the same time admitting that you
have no idea what you are talking about, while simultaneously saying you have
some (albeit the smallest amount) of experience in what you are talking
about. You are a good politician.
Of course not. But now I feel like I
know it well enough to offer my opinions. Okay, enough exposition.
Great. I’m not so
sure that you haven’t been offering opinions up to this point, but we’ll let
that go.
First, and probably least
controversial: the system has to change.
Has to? No. I don’t accept that as automatic. I will agree that we all think change is
necessary, but I can also see this current system continuing for another 30
years.
Even those most fervently in favor
of preserving the existing 99-seat code seem to have rallied around the “we
want change, but not this change” sentiment. Great. Next.
We do want change. We
are glad for the dialogue that this had provided to our community. But, although we all want change—just not
this change, those of us in this community would rather have no change than
this change. So slow your roll.
Second, the issue of minimum wage.
Minimum wage is not an unreasonable expectation, although I think the speed with
which AEA is trying to achieve it is highly problematic.
Great! So vote no,
and let’s set an actual time-table to make this a reality! If this is really the endgame, then let’s
take our time to lay out a plan to achieve minimum wage for actors here. Instead of demanding an immediate increase on
established (non-profit) theatres in LA of tens (to hundreds) of thousands of
dollars, let’s find a way to move towards this goal.
But it’s also surprising to me that
very few are pointing out the possible legal ramifications for a labor union
which enforces a code paying sub-minimum wage.
And this has suddenly become an issue because?
Labor law is a big issue. If 99-seat
existed in NYC instead of LA, there’s a very, very good chance that this
“volunteerism” would disqualify our members from collecting unemployment, even
if the stipend were eliminated altogether.
First of all, remember this moment later in this letter when
you say we can’t equate LA to New York or any other city. Secondly, unemployment benefits will subtract
any money made doing such things from the money received.
In the eyes of the Department of
Labor, being required to show up somewhere at a set time, for a set period of
time (yes, even if there’s an “out” for another job) does not qualify as
volunteering. One thing I haven’t done is attempt to become an expert on
California Labor Law (cue passionate responses in the comments section in
3...2...1...).
Great! You aren’t an
expert, so I will dismiss this last paragraph as folly instead of obfuscation.
But the notion that 99-seat theatre
equals volunteering is, in and of itself, shaky. It makes a great talking
point. That does not mean it’s legally supported.
It also doesn’t mean it’s not legally supported. I’m sure we’ll find out when we are
in court at the end of this mess. But,
as you have already stated, you don’t know.
So this statement is void of substance.
I’m betting that pretty much anybody can volunteer their talents to a
non-profit organization. As another person who is not an expert in California Law,
I will proffer this opinion: Non-profit
organizations are allowed to accept volunteers who can actually help them.
Third, the idea that Equity is not
listening, that Equity is trying to kill Los Angeles intimate theatre, that
Equity only cares about working dues, that the councillors and staff are
indifferent and/or evil and/or clinically insane, that Equity may rig the
referendum vote.
Kudos on the language here.
I notice you didn’t say that the idea that “Equity is trying to kill the
99-seat agreement.” Sure, Equity isn’t
trying to kill LA intimate theatre. That
would be an impossibility. But many of
us have no doubt that AEA is trying to destroy the 99 seat plan. Hell, it’s on the website. Ms. McColl made the blunder to admit as much
in that radio interview. Whether you are
listening or not, I can’t say. That
you are all clinically insane, I doubt.
I don’t believe that anybody in this situation is evil.
Imma let you finish,
Imma just getting warmed up…
but I’m also putting these together
in one paragraph because they are simply, empirically incorrect. I know, and
trust, and have spent a ton of time investigating, and actually believe--in a
way you may not, and that’s okay too--that there are a lot of people on both
sides trying to do the right thing here.
We don’t disagree with this.
Vote no, and let’s get to the table and make something that works.
You may passionately disagree with
our leadership.
Thanks. We do.
You may think that an effigy in NoHo
is a completely reasonable response to what’s happening.
WTF?
That is your right (do yourself a
favor and get a permit, okay?) You are trying to protect your way of life and
your opportunities for artistic expression, and in that context, hyperbole is
sometimes warranted.
See, I don’t think our message is hyperbolic. I think this is probably the most dismissive
statement that you’ve made. To label the
other side as ridiculous (hyperbolic) is terribly offensive.
But if you assume that the “other
side” (and I put it in quotes mostly because we are ostensibly on the same
side, and sometimes we forget that)is completely beyond salvation and won’t
respond to reasonable feedback, you do two things. First, you waste your time
trying to win a battle you have already defined as unwinnable. Second, you lose
the chance to connect with people who actually are paying attention to what
they’re hearing from you. Again, you don’t have to believe this, but I’m a
pretty thoughtful person, I know a lot of the players, and although they don’t
particularly enjoy some of the emails that have been coming in, every single
person I’ve talked to wants to weather the storm toward a productive end.
We haven’t forgot that.
There may be lots of rancor on both sides of this issue, but I assure
you we have spent as much time in pro-99 discussing being civil as we have any
other issue.
Okay. So what do we do?
To grossly oversimplify: If you are
in favor of the referendum, vote yes. And ask your friends to vote yes. If you
are against the referendum, vote no. And ask your friends to vote no.
I agree. That is a
gross oversimplification. I would like
to amend it. If you are for the
referendum as it is worded, vote yes and please explain how it will lead to
more union work. If you want change, but
in a more gradual way, or in a more subtle way than exists in this promulgated
plan, vote no. And tell all your friends
to vote no for the same reasons.
A side note: here’s the part where I
believe Equity has missed the mark completely. Completely. Like Peeta trying to
shoot a squirrel through the eye with Katniss’s bow. Over the past several
days, the messaging has morphed from “you’re voting on this proposal” to
“you’re voting for the basic idea that this code needs to evolve, and if we get
that support, we’ll fix the specifics later.” I mean, I think we could
generously call that disingenuous, and one of my biggest goals is to improve
the way Equity communicates. This is just a bad message.
And for this reason alone you should vote no!
And just so there’s no mistaking
what I believe to be true, I will state it plainly: assume you are voting yes
or no on exactly the plan that has been proposed. The vote is legally
non-binding--per the “waiver wars” settlement agreement--but if the Council
convenes in the wake of a “no” vote, I promise you that they will strongly
consider that. Remember: there is no “yes, but...” option on the ballot.
So this is what you “believe to be true?” You’ll forgive me if I don’t find that to be
a binding agreement. Also, is not the
same true of a no vote? Can’t a no also
be “no, but…” The bullies at AEA are on
record as saying they are going to wash their hands of the whole situation if
they are voted down.
Housekeeping time: should the
ballots be transparently tabulated? Of course.
Will they be?
Should the results be made public?
Lord, yes.
Will they be?
There is no excuse--and no
reasonable benefit to Equity--if the results are locked away somewhere. That
would cause more headaches than it alleviated.
This is a false premise.
If the whole point is to get rid of the 99 seat agreement, then what
would they care?
I expect that they will be made
public, as they should.
Your optimism is refreshing.
If I were in the room for a debate
on this issue, I would push AEA to meet with LA members in the (admittedly few)
days between the tabulation and the actual vote, once we have some hard data on
who supports this and who doesn’t.
Great! Let’s do
it. Hell, let’s table the vote until
this debate happens. That’s
possible. It’s not like the date of this
vote is set in stone, or the result is already determined…right? Right?
Right?
I also strongly support a slower
implementation schedule if the referendum does pass and Council votes it up.
So what I hear you saying is that you support a no vote, and
coming to the table with LA theatre artists to reach this common goal.
You don’t have to run a theatre
company to know that it’s practically impossible to make such significant
budgetary changes in a few weeks or a couple months.
This is the most sensible thing I’ve read from somebody in
favor of this change yet. And what it
says to me is, “thank you for this conversation, let’s sit at a table and find
common ground. Vote NO!”
I have no official vote in this
matter. I am neither a current Councillor or Officer nor an L.A.-area member.
All I can do is to tell you what I think. And what I think is this: be
passionate, but once in a while, take a breath. Stop worrying about the phone
banks.
Those phone banks filled by volunteers rallying AEA members
to vote yes?
Everyone is trying to make their
case, and until someone provides a really compelling, verifiable transcript
that demonstrates coercion or lies on those calls, I don’t think the phone
banks are such a big problem.
Ok. And since those
transcripts exist? What is your opinion
now?
Avoid anything that could be
construed as blacklisting; just as you expect your coworkers to respect your
opinion, they have the right to the same expectation.
Where did this come from?
Plus, this is not a grey area. AEA
can and probably will take action if the leadership has evidence that
blacklisting is happening.
Seriously, WTF?
Be cautious with the connection
between 99-seat and NYC showcase, because those are muddy waters. Sure, you
should absolutely solicit support from like-minded members who may not live in
your city. Sure, showcase (and, elsewhere in the country, MPC) is the code that
most resembles 99-seat. Sure, it’s tempting to equate the two, because there
are a lot of people who don’t want to see showcase go away (for the record, I
don’t want showcase to go away either, and eliminating it is nowhere on my
radar), and it's an easy way to mobilize support. But either L.A. is such a
unique town that it can’t be compared to any other market, or it’s not. “LA is
unique so we need this and btw NYC they’re coming for you next because we’re
the same!!” just doesn’t scan.
Remember earlier when I asked you to remember that you used
the argument that if LA actors were in NY that they would find it hard to get unemployment? We aren’t the ones using the NY showcase
code. In fact, I can speak for most of
my pro-99 friends when I say that we are only interested in them, as it relates
to this attack upon us. If indeed
minimum wage (which I hope you will admit is every bit as insignificant as a
stipend) is the new law of the AEA land that the showcase code is next. As are any number of contracts (guest artist,
TYA, and many others) which fall below that line. That aside, I refuse to being sucked into a
fight about minimum wage, since that has nothing to do with choice of the
individual employee. It was a very
clever thing Equity did there. Making
the dialogue about “who doesn’t deserve minimum wage.” But that ploy is nothing more than
grandstanding. How can you possibly bang
that drum when a majority of your workforce is unemployed. If you really cared about LA actors, why
allow the contract theatres in LA to hire New York actors? The bottom line is, you saw a chance and you
took it. It was a great move. Who possibly thinks a person is not worth the
minimum allowable wage as given by our government? But are we not allowed to give ourselves
freely to endeavors we love: Those of
art, philanthropy, spirituality? Can the
union really govern our attempts to become better artists? Is that their job?
Finally (finally, right?) no matter
how this turns out, don’t let this be the end of things.
Agreed. Vote no, and
let’s work for real change.
It’s one thing to agitate for a
month or two. It’s a different thing altogether to be part of the solution
before it reaches fever pitch. Equity needs you--our most excited, passionate,
vocal members right now--to participate. It is NOT. HARD. to join a committee.
And even if the new proposal is implemented, that doesn’t mean there’s no room
for adjustment. If you only get involved when you're angry, your anger will
eventually die down and you'll go back to your own life until the next
anger-inducing thing happens. But if you make the decision to join a committee,
most of which meet once or twice a month, then you have a say in these kinds of
things before you feel like they’re being foisted on you.
This is very good advice.
Because that’s where the panic comes
from, right? The belief that this is already a foregone conclusion?
Get rid of the “advisory” part of the vote, and we may buy
that.
I’m sure that there will be those
who pull this statement apart and perhaps quote it out of context.
I did indeed pull them apart, but I didn’t pull anything out
of context. The entire letter is here.
I can live with that. I can also
live with it if my honesty means I don’t get elected.
Actually, for your bravery and heart I hope you win. You may be on the wrong side of this issue,
but I believe that you are honest and artistic.
I don’t have the same skin in the
game as the other candidates, because I was not a part of crafting this
proposal and therefore don’t have to be equally accountable for it. And it
would be very easy to pander to you, to instagram a picture of me in an “I love
99” shirt, and get elected on the strength of your numbers.
Again, I will speak for everyone here when I say: We don’t want you to put on a shirt or carry
a sign. We want you to walk in our
shoes. 99 seat theatre is everything to
many of us. Sure we may do other things
to pay the rent. But if you were in our
shoes, you would know that there is a difference between a living and a life.
But that’s not how I work, and I’d
rather you know that up front. What I will say is this: if I were choosing
among three people I don’t know, I would probably pick the one who is
listening. And flexible. And wants to know what you have to say.
Kate, if you are listening and flexible and want to know what
we in LA have to say, we say VOTE NO! Let’s work this out together. Not as an edict.
-Kate-
p.s. YES, FINE, OKAY, you have more
followers than my campaign page. You win at life. Now stop making me feel bad
about it.
Many of us are following you now
because you seem reasonable. Will you
truly lead?
