According to Ravishing Light:

I don't quite see how this is "blinking" on the part of the Blue Man Group, having taken out a full-page ad in the Globe & Mail this past Saturday, defending the use of non-union labour in their Toronto production.

I've never found the Blue Man Group particularly compelling - their presence in the running gags of Arrested Development aside - but if I was in Toronto and had the opportunity, I'd buy a ticket purely because they're showing some backbone in standing up against union goons, concerned only with their own sinecures and claims of entitlement. If the fact that the cost of union dues isn't necessarily being passed on to the end consumer means tickets might be a few dollars cheaper, that's a bonus.

Suzy Conn of Blogway Baby notes - pretty glibly, I think - "Methinks they've left out a few important details, which is the answer to the question: 'Why they can't use Equity members?'" I would suggest there's a fairly straightforward reason for the BMG's actions spelled out in the third paragraph of their open letter

...

If union members are individually best qualified for a job, great; if not, they'll hire non-union technicians and support staff. Union labour is not sacred; membership is often not to an individual's benefit, nor is the lack of union membership a guarantee of poor treatment. The one union job I've had, I was paid (and treated) worse than when working for Wal-Mart. I can understand precisely where the Blue Man Group is coming from: they're railing against the supposition that there's something inherently immoral or shameful about refusing to submit to the demands of those soak-the-rich socialists who tend to rise to union leadership positions, no matter the trade. Good on 'em.

OK, even though I'm over my eyeballs with stuff this week, I'm compelled to respond.

And if you think that you're the first person to call me glib, you'll have to get in line, honey.

First of all, since you obviously don't know anything about the structure of this business and unions, I can totally understand where you might be misled in your musings.

First of all, employers don't pay union dues. Union members pay union dues. Employers pay salaries. And I'm sure you didn't really mean that getting employers to pass on the savings of cheap labor to the customer (for example, say, our enjoyment of cheap clothes made by 10-year olds in Third World countries) is always inherently a good thing. Convenient, practical, and a reality, perhaps, but certainly nothing I would take a righteous stand on.

But that assumes that Equity scale is a lot of money, which it isn't. I made more right out of college picking my nose as a brand assistant at Procter & Gamble than most Equity performers do after 25 years in the business!

There is an imbalance of power in the entertainment business. What other business can you be equally skilled as another potential employee and lose the job because you're not pretty enough, or if they don't like the sound of your voice, or if you just don't "look right"? And it's perfectly legal! What about the extras in a film who are not union and are treated like cattle and work in horrible conditions?

I understand producers are under time and budget pressures, but checks and balances need to keep the situation from spiralling out of control.

Working conditions are often the issue, not salary, and in the heat of a production it is easy to let standards drop until they become dangerous. For example, during All Shook Up in the Chicago tryouts, the catwalks and bridges the cast had to dance across in high heels were too slanted to be safe. Without a union, the actors have no representation and could break an ankle (or worse) and then they are out of a job, perhaps forever.

I guess you could make the argument that if you don't like the conditions, find another line of work. But performers give their all and love what they do, and if they stopped acting we would all suffer in the long run.

Acting gigs can be few and far between and there isn't any "seniority" system in Equity.

As for the quality issue, it is my experience and the experience of others in the business who work with actors, that generally speaking, you get higher quality with Equity members. These are people who are committed to a career in the business, hone their skills on a regular basis and make the sacrifices necessary to stay in the business their whole careers.

In New York, Equity even makes allowances for struggling writers like myself by allowing me to pay actors showcase rates, which amounts to paying subway fare. Metropass and greed don't really belong in the same sentence. I want to use Equity actors because I know I will learn from them as well as gettting a great performance.

Unions can be a pain in the ass, and management can be a pain in the ass. But shouldn't it at least be a fair fight?

Technorati tags: Broadway Music Movie Musicals Musicals Blog Blogs Theater Theatre Entertainment