Just Wrought

Recovering playwright, once won a STRANGER Genius Award for theater. Now writing a bloated novel about… G-d help me! Theatre.

The Inalienable Happy Pursuit of the Living Wage

Written by

jefferyr

in

, , , , ,

This image has been floating around Face Book lately, accumulating plenty of “likes” on its way. 

Well, I don’t like it.  I actually kind of hate it.  I believe that once an artist ties his or her work in a one-to-one, all-or-nothing relationship with making a buck off it, the game is done, and the moneyed powers-that-be have won it all over again.  Nothing new or good or game-changing can come out of saying you’re only going to do your art if someone pays you a living wage for it. Instead, what you are really saying is that your creativity is simply one more commodity to be bought and sold in a market-driven society owned by folks who know a lot more about money, and a lot less about creativity, than you do.

One the other hand, I also hate the idea artists should shun the marketplace altogether. We should get paid,  as much as we possibly can in any given market. (So long as we are aware and comfortable with knowing that some markets will only offer us compensation that is utterly untranslatable into coin.)

Up until now I have not written about the “living wage” crisis in Seattle Theatre because I did not have a good new idea on how to frame it. Then I attended the October Seattle Theatre: What’s Next? Forum, and listened with growing excitement as actor/producer Peggy Gannon kicked off a heated round-robin discussion of the issue that was finally and brilliantly summed up by Annex Theatre’s Meaghan Darling.  Jim Jewell’s notes from the night describe it best:

Making a living and making art should not be mutually exclusive.

This last point came out of our earlier discussion, but was most eloquently encapsulated by Meaghan Darling, fairly paraphrased as, “Nobody owes me a living, but I want them to not prevent me from making a living.” Big House rehearsal schedules were particularly discussed here, as the now-standard 10-6 rehearsal day precludes keeping a day job, while the economics of theatre (and of course there is much debate here) can’t offer a sustainable salary for that work (and we lamented how many amazing actors have had to leave town or the profession). We all rallied around this idea, because it is very much in the spirit of Seattle Theatre: What’s Next as a whole – it is a statement that holds within it hope and offers compromise, which seem to me essential components of productive dialogue.

“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Despite the Tea-Bagging idiots who have co-opted their ideas and headgear, our Founding Fathers were no fools. No one can or should guarantee anyone happiness or a living wage. But when your systems—and this goes for unions and Big House administrations alike—stand in the way of the pursuit of making a decent buck from doing theatre, well, then the truth becomes self-evident, and independence must be declared.  If this be treason, let’s make the most of it!

Comments

39 responses to “The Inalienable Happy Pursuit of the Living Wage”

  1. Rik Deskin

    The Union in question here, Actors’ Equity Association is not preventing anyone from working under living wage jobs. The onus here is twofold: theater companies and producers need to be responsible for the professional theatre artists working for them and do everything in their power to raise the money to PAY them. Second: Actors, Playwrights, Directors, et al need to value what they bring to the creative table.
    AEA has many Contracts, Codes and Agreements that are flexible and enable a producer to hire Actors under many budget tiers.
    Respectfully,
    Rik Deskin
    SAG/AEA/AFTRA

    Reply
  2. Paul Mullin

    Thanks, Rik.
    Do you know where AEA stands on adjusting rehearsal schedules to make them more amenable to folks who have standing day jobs?
    It’s the nitty gritties like that that I think a lot of people are more interested in.

    Reply
  3. Jim Jewell

    I’m not sure the claim is that AEA is preventing living wage jobs. I’d be more likely to state it that AEA is not doing enough to work with administrations to create a relationship/situation in which artists can make a living and continue to make art.
    I’d go further and say artists are tilting at the wrong windmills and administrators have their heads firmly in the sand about the effect the system they administer has on the artists it supposedly serves (among other masters, of course).
    An MD making $100k+/yr ought to be able to figure out some way to offer jobs to actors that either 1) pay a living wage, or 2)make room for living wage day jobs. 1) may be impossible given the economics, though I’d argue hiring $50k/yr MD’s might be a step in the right direction, or the $100k/yr folks should be expected to be smart enough to figure out 2).

    Reply
  4. Louise Penberthy

    I’ll write my plays. I’ll submit them to theaters.
    But unless there’s a good reason for me not to, I’ll charge royalties.
    I do the work, they pay me what’s fair.

    Reply
  5. Scot Augustson

    Argh. I’m of six different conflicting minds on this.
    I’ve certainly taken my share of grant money and might work for peanuts but not for free these days (with a couple sentimental exceptions, I’m looking at you 14/48).
    But am I the only one who sometimes finds commissions to be joyless exercises?
    After writing for others for a while, when I go back to writing something I’m passionate about (but might hold slim chances of making much scratch)I feel alive and tingly. There are days when I swear I’m never going to take another dime for writing plays (Don’t tell my husband I said that unless you want me sleeping on your couch.)
    I’m not saying we shouldn’t keeping finding new creative ways of funding stuff, but I echo what Paul said it not being the whole ball of wax. (Mmm, wax)
    Seriously, let’s all remember why we started doing artsy stuff in the first place. (Which, I’m pretty sure, the only honest answer to that is to get laid.)

    Reply
  6. Paul Mullin

    Thanks, Louise.
    I generally agree, depending on the situation, the theatre and the play.
    But the model you are “submitting” to– and that word is more telling than most imagine, allows the theatre to be the gatekeeper between your play and its potential audience.
    What if, hypothetically, your play shared news from the community that you thought others in the community needed in order to participate fully in the democracy? Wouldn’t it be incumbent upon you then to produce it yourself and charge on a pay-what-you-can basis?
    When you make the theater institutions the ultimate and sole arbiters of what gets done, aren’t you doing your audience a disservice? Aren’t you cutting out of the process the very people you want to reach, and thus perhaps perpetrating the status quo?

    Reply
  7. Paul Mullin

    Scot, if I could guarantee a “getting laid” I’d forfeit all claims on a “living wage.”

    Reply
  8. Scot Augustson

    Amen.

    Reply
  9. Peggy Gannon

    I want to add (expand) on what another aspect of my point was that evening (and what my point continues to be) …
    Paying a weekly “living wage”* for a 8-10 week contract is NOT an actual living wage. It’s actually worse than a living wage, because if I take you up on your offer, I most likely need to quit my crappy day job** with no guarantee of sustainability (in fact, with the extreme likelihood of non-sustainability). And then where am I after 10 weeks? Especially in this shit economy.
    NYC has the stereotype of the actor/waiter; night jobs that free you up during the day for auditions. Seattle is not NYC. Seattle is a day-job town.
    *I hate hate HATE the phrase “living wage” as the meaningless piece of crap cliche that it is.
    **I actually don’t have a crappy day job; I have a great one. So it’s an even greater loss for me. (And you really kinda suck for forcing me to choose, Big Fancy Pants Theatre.

    Reply
  10. Louise Penberthy

    Well, Paul, I think I now know your perspective on the issue. 😉
    Theaters have their passions, the types of plays they’re burning to produce. I see my job, in part, as finding those theaters who will love my plays, and sending my plays to them. I explain to them how my play fits their mission and how their audiences will love it.
    If a theater wouldn’t like my play, I don’t bother.
    I admire you for producing your own plays. I haven’t done a full production yet, but I have done readings.
    If any playwright has a play that is important for any reason, and they want to produce it, I say go for it.

    Reply
  11. Scot Augustson

    Peggy, yes! And this is another reason why I wish mid sized theaters were economically more viable. I know of several cases at the Late Empty Space where they worked with day-job folks to make it work.

    Reply
  12. Peggy Gannon

    Ahhhhhhhhhh! I’VE GOT MORE TO SAY! But I am visiting Denver and need to go see my dear cousin’s 7-mo old baby now. I’m jumping back in later when I get back to the hotel. Keep it going until then!

    Reply
  13. Paul Mullin

    Louise,
    Thanks, and agreed. Over twenty-five years ago I read a piece of wisdom from David Henry Hwang re: finding plays willing to stage your plays. “If you can find it, found it.”

    Reply
  14. Scot Augustson

    Louise, Here’s a question for you:
    What if two theaters were vying for a script of yours (and for the sake of argument, only one can produce it)
    Theater A will pay you a nice chunk of money, but the production will be mediocre.
    Theater B will pay, maybe a tenth of what Theater A would but would produce the play beautifully.
    Which would you pick?
    (And I’ll admit, I don’t know how I would answer this.)

    Reply
  15. Mark Handley

    My issue continues to be the loss of the “middle class” of theater in Seattle. When I started getting plays produced, there were many theaters that paid almost “living wages” and produced a shit load of new work: Empty Space, The Group, Pioneer Square, Bath House, all gone–Now it is: Big and Fringe. And Big wants nothing to do with helping to create local artist’s work. I never had a play done by the Big Three (now Big Two) But I had plays done by all of the middle tier. And there was a hustle and bustle about the scene and there seemed to be great opportunity. (Ou sont les neiges d’antan? Do I smell a madelaine?) How do we regain this “middle class”? I don’t know, except perhaps by suppporting the Fringe and by the Fringe aspiring to be more. Take themselves more seriously, I mean.

    Reply
  16. COMTE

    A “living wage” is just that: a wage that will meet the minimal living expenses of the average person in a given geographic locale. It’s not a “crap cliche”, it’s an imperative for maintaining basic human dignity in a Capitalistic economic system. Nobody who wants to work, and is able to put in a 40 hour week should be denied the right to the basic human necessities of food, shelter, clothing, and medical attention because their employer refuses to provide the minimal level of compensation in exchange for their labor to meet those needs. Anything less than this is exploitation, and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.
    Peggy, I understand your point: for many artists in our industry, work is itinerant at-best. But, WHILE those artists are working in a situation where, by nature of circumstances, they do not have the opportunity or ability to perform another job concurrently, they deserve and should expect compensation that is commensurate with both their skill-level and the ability of the employer to pay.
    Choosing not to do that kind of work, because it is itinerant, or because one prefers the stability of another type of artistically less-satisfying job, is just that – a choice – one that individual artists make every day, but I think it’s a stretch to call it a “forced” one. There are artists who quite willing accept the sacrifice of relative stability that comes with such itinerant work, and if they’re successful at the professional level they are compensated – quite handsomely, I might add – for their sacrifice, as well they should be. You and I just happen to be people who aren’t willing to make the same choice they do, and I would no more begrudge them their decision, than I would hope they would mine for taking the safer, more stable, if unquestionably less soul-satisfying path I have chosen. But, nobody forced me to make it: I did that all by myself.

    Reply
  17. Rik Deskin

    Paul: AEA only sets the amount of rehearsal hours allowed weekly. It’s up to the theater to schedule when they happen. And no one should ever have to choose to lose money to do a show. That does not mean we don’t. I lose money every time I volunteer at my theater unless I’m under an AEA or IATSE contract. That’s because I’m working towards a better situation at my theater. But my tiny Umbrella Contract Theater or the Equity Member Projects that get produced are the bottom tier compared to the Seattle Rep’s LORT contract. And AEA’s minimums are that. An individual can negotiate for more. The theater company can pay over scale if they can afford it.

    Reply
  18. Louise Penberthy

    @Scot Ayeeee! A question of honor and morals!
    How much money are we talking about? 😉
    Seriously. That’s a good question. I like to think I would choose the theater that would do the better production.
    A good production in New York might do more for me than an excellent production in, say, Boise.
    But a mediocre production? I think a bit of my soul would die.
    Which would you choose?

    Reply
  19. Louise Penberthy

    @Mark Would you consider Seattle Shakes to be mid-tier? Granted, they only rarely do new plays (“Wittenberg” being an exception).
    How about Seattle Public? Or Village Theater?

    Reply
  20. Steven Gomez

    Louise raises an interesting question that I myself wonder about. Where concretely would we set the bar on ‘middle tier’ theatre? Let’s set some definite terms.

    Reply
  21. COMTE

    Louise, Seattle Shakes, along with Book-It, Taproot, Bellevue Civic, and New Century all operate under the Equity Small Professional Theatres (SPT) Agreement, the same agreement previously used by other “mid-tier” theatres (e.g. Empty Space, Group, Alice B, Bathhouse, et al). So, I would consider all of these to be in the mid-tier category as well.
    Village is several steps above that, operating under a Letter Of Agreement (LOA) to the Western Civic Light Opera (WCLO) Agreement, basically a modified version of the same agreement used by The 5th Avenue, so basically they fall somewhere between the mid-tier and the upper tier, albeit somewhat closer to the latter.
    And Mark, while I understand the impulse to wax nostalgic about the “good old days”, let’s not forget that those mid-tier companies you miss (and believe me, I miss some of them as well) didn’t collectively meet their demise in some sudden “mass extinction event”, but rather, their closures occurred over a span of some 16 years, beginning with PST in 1990 through to EST in 2006. People have this tendency to lump them together, as if they all closed at more-or-less the same time within the past few years. But, in theatrical time, even five years ago is not exactly “recent history”, let alone more than 20.

    Reply
  22. William Salyers

    Such a lively, intelligent discussion. Such a great community. I wish I could live there.
    But my job is in LA.

    Reply
  23. Louise Penberthy

    I only moved back here in 2001, so does someone know how many new plays Empty Space, The Group, Pioneer Square, Bath House, etc., did?
    Do they do more or fewer than Seattle Shakes, Taproot, Bellevue Civic, and New Century? Book-It is different in that they do adaptations, which I guess are all “new.”

    Reply
  24. COMTE

    Among the current crop of mid-tier theatres, Book-It has the best track record by far in terms of producing original works. Of the four productions that New Century has mounted, one, “On The Nature Of Dust” by Stephanie Timm, has been a world premier. And Taproot occasionally does world premiers, such as the Christmas show John Longenbaugh wrote for them last season, but that’s really about it in terms of new play production from any of those theatres.
    If you’re trying to compare the new crop against the old companies in terms of new play production, I would have to say, based on my experience, that while the older companies did produce original works, it wasn’t really more than one a year, if that (Empty Space being the notable exception, having done at least two, and often three new works per season). But, otherwise most of these companies’ seasons were comprised of previously produced works, although they certainly racked up an impressive list of West Coast and regional premiers.

    Reply
  25. Peggy Gannon

    (I culled the below from a comment I made over on the SLOG post discussion of this same issue. Not a straight-up cross-post, but a repeat. The Reader’s Digest version of the most appropriate points for this page’s discussion. For those of you following both, please smile and nod.)
    A living wage has to be annualized to be a meaningful guide in this discussion.
    I honestly appreciate that ACT paid me $400-500/week during the time they employed me as an actor. I understand and honor that the unions and the theatre’s administration made that possible in a historical context. But that is not the whole story. And administrations and the unions do a disservice by ending their narratives there and calling it a day.
    I dropped off the payroll after my contract, and ACT had no commitment or obligation to hire me ever again (even though I was AWESOME). Which is fine; don’t get distracted by that. They don’t owe me another acting job. BUT … to take that contract, I had to essentially give up my very reliable day job.
    And here’s the kernel of my point: They can’t sustain my living wage on an annualized basis, AND their contract employment standards (i.e. rehearsals from 10-6, Tue – Sun; and then performances on an evening schedule) essentially prevent me from making a living wage elsewhere in almost every industry.
    This model may have worked in the past, but now it’s broken. It’s nobody’s fault; it’s simply worn out and I’m not even sure exactly when or how it happened. But now that it’s become obvious, I think it’s irresponsible to persist in adhering to a system that is harmful to those who should be valued (more than simply monetarily).

    Reply
  26. Peggy Gannon

    There’s something I’d like to add/highlight, lest it gets lost … I have a high regard for theatre administrators as a group (and for most of them as individuals). I recognize that most of them are basically me.

    Reply
  27. Comte

    Peggy, this is a point I meant to bring up on the SLOG comments, but it basically boils down to: how is your proposal (which if I understand it correctly – and please correct me if I’m wrong here – would require theatres to pay performers, not only for the time they are actually employed, but at a rate that, when annualized over 52 weeks, regardless of how many weeks they actually work, would represent at least a basic “living wage” level of compensation for an entire year) is any MORE sustainable than the current model?
    You’re talking about compensating actors at an annual rate of at least $25,000 per annum, even if they’re only employed for say 20, or even 10 weeks. Breaking that down by the number of weeks in a typical show contract, and multiplying that times the number of performers cast in a season is going to run up to quite literally astronomical amounts of money in a very short time; amounts that no theatre, regardless of its size, budget and patron-base can possibly achieve, let alone sustain over the long-term, not without either tapping into some heretofore unknown vein of external funding, or else by raising ticket prices to a level that, frankly, would be unaffordable to all but the 1%.
    And this doesn’t take into account the logistical nightmare of trying to determine how much an actor should be paid: for example, what if the company has hired Actor A for his or her first contract of the year, but Actor B has already worked a contract, while Actor C has worked two contracts in the year? Is the theatre then responsible for paying Actor A more than B and C, because the latter two have (presumably) already received the equivalent of an annual living wage salary from their previous employer(s)? Or is it simply considered a “bump”, that is, additional compensation for their comparatively greater employability? And if so, how are they supposed to determine that amount, which regardless of all other considerations is still going to have to adhere to State Minimum Wage laws? So, is that the answer? Actors get paid the equivalent of a full-years living wage base salary for their first job and minimum wage for every job thereafter in a given calendar year? If I were a managing director working under those conditions, I sure as heck would discourage the hiring of any actor who hadn’t already been previously hired by another company that year, because, hey, then you’d only have to pay them minimum wage!
    Seriously, I just don’t see how this could possibly work to actually achieve the goal of paying actors an equivalent annual living-wage salary for essentially part-time employment, while at the same time fairly spreading the economic burden among the companies themselves; not without violating a whole host of federal and state labor laws, that is.

    Reply
  28. Peggy Gannon

    Dude, you’re high. Completely off-base. You couldn’t be off-er; you’re the off-est. My “proposal” is that if theatres can’t afford to pay an annualized living wage (and no duh they can’t) that they do their best to make it possible for one to do so elsewhere. They could consider flexible rehearsal hours & schedule based on cast conflicts, for instance.

    Reply
  29. Comte

    If you will recall Peggy, flexible rehearsal hours was PRECISELY one of the suggestions I proposed to Jim on the SLOG thread, who then summarily dismissed it due to some vague “harmful effects”, which he has yet to spell out. So, apparently your beef isn’t with me, but with him.

    Reply
  30. Paul Mullin

    Comte, I’m pretty sure Jim said nothing of the sort over at SLOG. But even if he had, that has nothing to do with the conversation happening here at Just Wrought. Let’s keep it germane, let’s keep it civil.
    Obviously, I like things lively here, but it is still my venue, and I adhere to an on-going obligation to keep the comments on point. Ad hominem attacks are not welcome. I will not shy from cutting someone’s mic if I feel like they have ceased to add meaning to the conversation.
    Thus warned, let’s continue.

    Reply
  31. Comte

    Paul, please refer to comments #22 & 23:
    http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comments?oid=10645346&category=slog

    Reply
  32. Jim Jewell

    Seriously, I have to wonder if you’re willfully misunderstanding just to have more things to argue about.
    Peggy clearly* was not proposing that actors be paid for a full year whenever they work. She was questioning the definition of “living wage,” and pointing out that it isn’t enough to look at it in terms of hourly or across a single contract, but needs to be based on annual earning potential.
    Look at traditional press operators in the 1990s, as the printing industry was undergoing a paradigm shift. They could still earn decent hourly wages, but there were fewer and fewer of those hours available, and therefore they couldn’t actually make a living.
    But, you illustrate a good point in your quibbling, which is that the issue confronting theatre can’t be addressed a la carte, can’t be looked at in isolation. Everyone involved in this discussion wants the best for theatre artists, but some of us believe “living wage” is the wrong goal, or the wrong way to describe the goal. A community and business in which artists can make art and a living will undoubtedly include discussion of wages and unions and administration and business model and a dozen other factors.
    (*I say “clearly” because the idea as you frame it would be stupid. This is what I mean by straw man, Chris – to blow a point made way beyond context and to absurd proportions and then attacking its absurdity. It’s not at all helpful.)

    Reply
  33. Jim Jewell

    Another example of willful misreading:
    My comment: “there are harmful effects of running rehearsals that way”
    “That way” being the way we currently do, on a schedule that precludes maintenance of a day job.
    Yes, Chris, I believe flexible rehearsal hours, and even further some recognition of the costs to actors of the current Seattle-LORT-standard schedule, are one piece of a needed paradigmatic shift.
    The fact you missed that, a focus of my comments, is but one factor what has led me to believe you are reading only deeply enough to argue, and why I am questioning your desire for dialogue.
    I respect your passion, but find you completely wrong-headed and argumentative in this context.

    Reply
  34. Comte

    Well, it was a little unclear there Jim; since you had already dismissed the “flexible rehearsal schedule” idea, I was under the impression some other proposal must be on the table, and that was the only other one I could derive from her comment.
    Now, if you would care to inform the rest of us exactly WHY my and Peggy’s suggestion is rife with “harmful effects”, I’m sure we’d all have your undivided attention…

    Reply
  35. Paul Mullin

    Wow. This is becoming painful. And worse, boring. Chris, let me assure you that Jim and Peggy are talking about the same thing and are on the SAME SIDE of that thing. Namely, putting some flexibility into the rehearsal schedules of big houses so someone can keep their unrelated day job.
    Since you weren’t in the room when this idea was first put forward, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your confusion is not willful.
    But now we’re clear right? Proceeding from here, let’s stay on THAT point. If it goes to references back to the SLOG or to your misunderstandings of what someone said based on your picayune parsing of what they said, it won’t stay up on this blog. Clear?
    Because, again, the snarky nitpicking is becoming boring. And that is something I will never allow this place to be.

    Reply
  36. Jim Jewell

    Your and Peggy’s suggestion – hilarious given that it is also my suggestion and yet you’ve been arguing vociferously with me.
    But, let me try again…
    “Harmful effects” refers to the current 10-6 rehearsal schedule and it’s prevention of maintenance of a reliable day job. The default reliance on this schedule is one of many things I’d like to see reconsidered. And, no, again, I don’t blame the union for that situation, but I suggested maybe it is one thing I’d like to see them lobby to change. Subtle and important difference.
    I’m really trying to listen to what you have to say, Chris, and just ask that you do the same.
    And, consider, too, how much further we could get if we approached the issues facing theatre holistically, with a willingness to drop presumptions and defensiveness, instead of single-issue quibbling.

    Reply
  37. Comte

    Jim, I appreciate that perhaps we’re both in need of toning down the rhetoric, so I’m going to endeaver to do so as well. But, I just want to make one thing clear: while Equity can certainly advocate for things like more flexible rehearsal hours, ultimately they have no authority to impose such a thing contractually, since it would be a direct intrusion into the employer’s legal right to set work schedules. This is always one of the challenges when negotiating contracts with groups of employers, rather than individually: while some might be sympathetic to certain terms & conditions, unless there is complete consensus among the entire group, it’s unlikely such provisions will ever be allowed into an agreement.
    Now, that doesn’t mean theatres CAN’T implement such a policy on their own, but doing so obviously is going to create its own set of challenges, and I presume, if I may, these are some of the “harms” to which you’ve referred previously: everything from dealing with directors, who ultimately are the ones with final say on what actor is called when; to the additional administrative overhead needed to keep staff on-site after-hours; to being respectful to actors who don’t depend on a day job and simply want their evenings free, etc., etc.
    That being said, I think it would be possible to wrest a bit more efficiency, a bit more overall flexibility out of the system, but realistically, you need a lot of buy-in from a lot of different constituencies, all of which have their own needs and wants – which all to often are going to be at-odds with each other. In the end, as in all such situations, everybody is going to have to compromise, and nobody is going to get as much as they want, or even need out of such an arrangement.
    I really wish I had a better answer as to how that might be accomplished, but IME at least, and making note of what I said at the end of the first paragraph above, theatre at the level we’re talking about here seldom easily lends itself to a concensus-based decision-making process.

    Reply
  38. Louise Penberthy

    Apropos of this, I just saw this blog post on Ken Davenport’s blog. He’s a Broadway producer.
    What do you think of a playwright paying a theater to produce his or her play? As an alternative to self producing.
    http://www.theproducersperspective.com/my_weblog/2011/11/self-producing-problem-try-our-new-and-improved-mini-enhancement.html

    Reply
  39. Jayden Bondurant

    Jayden Bondurant

    I value the post. Want more.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *