Example A:
There are companies that habitually produce shows under an equity showcase code, because that’s what they can afford and still hire dues-paying members of Equity. Some of these theatres have the ability to scrape together enough money to produce a show under a larger contract, an SPT or some such agreement, and pay actors for rehearsals and performances as well as give them hours towards insurance, rather than putting up 3 small shows for which the actors are not paid. However, Equity says that in order to do that, the producing company must, after a period of time, only produce shows under larger contract that is already a stretch for them to cover.
Example B:
A certain very well known and prestigious theatre, which is an Equity theatre, wishes to host another smaller Equity theatre (which caters to an underserved demographic) operating under a showcase code (because it is what the small theatre can afford). Equity actors are hired, and paid a stipend to perform. Equity decides to tell both theatres that they cannot go forward with the project unless the smaller theatre can do it under a larger contract that they cannot afford.
In both instances, the short-term effect of Equity’s policies is that dues-paying actors are not working, resulting directly from the actions of their union. Of course, Equity will defend itself saying that it’s acting in the best interest of its members. In the first example, I can’t really see why Equity would put restrictions on theatres that want to pay Equity actors. Perhaps they are trying to ensure that future productions with such theatres, but there is no certainty, especially in Theatre, and to try to ensure it later rather than to let actors take advantage of a sure thing now is beyond reason. In the second example, Equity most likely does not want to see large theatres that are operating under larger contracts now, in this environment of fiscal cut-backs, begin to save money by producing shows under smaller contracts. However, the producing entity is the one paying for the contract, the larger one is giving space. And no matter what, these are all institutions that are working within the rules of the union, and the union should have no voice in any attempt to deny the production of piece that will pay its members.
These actions protect neither the producing theatres and institutions nor the actors. All these situations do is force theatres into situations that are financially prohibitive and keeps them from hiring and paying union actors. It undermines the autonomy of theatres and the rights of individual union members to work under conditions that they deem agreeable and are within the regulations of the union.
