I am all for improving the professional lives and compensation for theater workers. Unionizing a workforce of a company when most of the working capital does not come from what the theater sells, but from grants and foundations, isn't feasible. A corporation, a small bookstore even a restaurant has a self-producing and sustaining income stream, which we don't. And we have no reliable mandatory state funding like in Germany or Great Britain. There should be industry minimums that a board should have to agree to before agreeing to help support a theater. Living Wage should be part of the Mission/Vision of every theater, not an aspirational after thought, and should be posted with the rest of their Mission/Vision statement. If we can't pay a living wage, then there is something wrong with that theater's strategic plan; and if the theater can't afford that minimum, then it should not be included in a listing of professional theaters.
It's funny how unionization is never "feasible" until the union comes along and forces it to be so. Professional theatres already have to deal with large portions of their workforce being unionized; they somehow manage to find enough from grants and foundations to cover those expenses. Is there something in particular about front-of-house staff and administrators that makes them undeserving of union protection? Can a theatre do just fine without them?
It would be nice if putting something in a Mission Statement made it so. But... no. Relying on the honor system to solve systemic labor problems is what we've been doing, and it hasn't worked out so well. We need unions.
I would also push back on the idea of "most" of the working capital coming from grants. That's only true for some theater companies. They also have working capital through ticket sales, donations from individuals, investment income, and even royalty payments from productions of former world premieres the theater staged. IThe theater staff produce those funds from the grants via their labor, the same way restaurant workers and bookstore staff produce capital through their work cooking, waiting tables, selling books, and providing customer service. Grants don't fall from the sky like magic from foundation officers. It takes real work writing the grant applications, researching funding opportunities, arranging meetings between theater leadership and the granting organization, sending detailed reports of how funds were spent, and making sure the foundation officer gets invited to the opening night party that the development staff plans. The theater gains a reputation for artistic work that should be funded through the hard work of the marketing department in developing and "selling" the reputation of the theater and the work of the production and creative staff in producing that work. The front of house staff help build and retain an audience through their work making sure audience members HAVE a good experience at the theater. That means a theater can make the argument to a foundation, government, or corporation that their grant funding will have an impact on a large number of people. The labor of the theater staff produces that capital. As a former theater fundraiser, it's also about more than a living wage. Equity helps stage managers (even ones who aren't a part of the union) say clearly and definitely that laundry shouldn't be our job and that there has to be 12 hours between call times. A union for theater workers could help advocate for staff to have a voice in search processes for theater leadership and create policies that define what are reasonable expectations for theater staff (for instance, not having to pull all-nighters to get a season announcement out the door.)
I am not really disagreeing with anything you both have said. A union is one way to produce what you want living wage, humane working conditions, having the whole staff be part of the decision making and set work conditions. Another where a company makes company decisions democratically, not by fiat, or by weighted voted where the AD gets more votes than the admin. staff. I am agreeing that the work of theater is on all those parts in the office, backstage, front of stage, in the booth. It is very labor intensive. And yet, we can't charge the customer the amount needed to pay for our labor. That is what makes the system not feasible.
The very model of non-commercial, non-producer backed theater - really made popular in the 1960's - is broken. There is something fundamentally wrong with the non-commercial theater model in a purely capitalistic society. A business which can never set the price that will actually cover the cost to produce the product (a show) and must rely continuously at least partially on outside financial charitable support -- and there is no safety net for that-- will have a hard time guaranteeing some of the things a union will insist on. And I totally agree that having a board made up of entirely business people and few-to-no professional theater makers creates a divide that can only get bigger and bigger when the model gets threatened. The board model doesn't work for theater either because it is based on the old model of hierarchy and non-profit status laws, which requires there to be Executive Director responsible to the board, then management, then .... etc.
Theater is very labor intensive -- administratively and production wise -- and the higher the prices, the fewer people can go. The fewer the people who can go defeats the purpose of the theater. So much that has changed in our industry over the past two years, it seems like a good time to disrupt the the system. There are ideas of "company-run" theaters where everyone has a stake in the artistic plan and the business plan and the financial health.... and develops a strong enough relationship with its community that they too feel committed to the company and the work it produces. It keeps it small but real.
I am all for improving the professional lives and compensation for theater workers. Unionizing a workforce of a company when most of the working capital does not come from what the theater sells, but from grants and foundations, isn't feasible. A corporation, a small bookstore even a restaurant has a self-producing and sustaining income stream, which we don't. And we have no reliable mandatory state funding like in Germany or Great Britain. There should be industry minimums that a board should have to agree to before agreeing to help support a theater. Living Wage should be part of the Mission/Vision of every theater, not an aspirational after thought, and should be posted with the rest of their Mission/Vision statement. If we can't pay a living wage, then there is something wrong with that theater's strategic plan; and if the theater can't afford that minimum, then it should not be included in a listing of professional theaters.
It's funny how unionization is never "feasible" until the union comes along and forces it to be so. Professional theatres already have to deal with large portions of their workforce being unionized; they somehow manage to find enough from grants and foundations to cover those expenses. Is there something in particular about front-of-house staff and administrators that makes them undeserving of union protection? Can a theatre do just fine without them?
It would be nice if putting something in a Mission Statement made it so. But... no. Relying on the honor system to solve systemic labor problems is what we've been doing, and it hasn't worked out so well. We need unions.
I would also push back on the idea of "most" of the working capital coming from grants. That's only true for some theater companies. They also have working capital through ticket sales, donations from individuals, investment income, and even royalty payments from productions of former world premieres the theater staged. IThe theater staff produce those funds from the grants via their labor, the same way restaurant workers and bookstore staff produce capital through their work cooking, waiting tables, selling books, and providing customer service. Grants don't fall from the sky like magic from foundation officers. It takes real work writing the grant applications, researching funding opportunities, arranging meetings between theater leadership and the granting organization, sending detailed reports of how funds were spent, and making sure the foundation officer gets invited to the opening night party that the development staff plans. The theater gains a reputation for artistic work that should be funded through the hard work of the marketing department in developing and "selling" the reputation of the theater and the work of the production and creative staff in producing that work. The front of house staff help build and retain an audience through their work making sure audience members HAVE a good experience at the theater. That means a theater can make the argument to a foundation, government, or corporation that their grant funding will have an impact on a large number of people. The labor of the theater staff produces that capital. As a former theater fundraiser, it's also about more than a living wage. Equity helps stage managers (even ones who aren't a part of the union) say clearly and definitely that laundry shouldn't be our job and that there has to be 12 hours between call times. A union for theater workers could help advocate for staff to have a voice in search processes for theater leadership and create policies that define what are reasonable expectations for theater staff (for instance, not having to pull all-nighters to get a season announcement out the door.)
I am not really disagreeing with anything you both have said. A union is one way to produce what you want living wage, humane working conditions, having the whole staff be part of the decision making and set work conditions. Another where a company makes company decisions democratically, not by fiat, or by weighted voted where the AD gets more votes than the admin. staff. I am agreeing that the work of theater is on all those parts in the office, backstage, front of stage, in the booth. It is very labor intensive. And yet, we can't charge the customer the amount needed to pay for our labor. That is what makes the system not feasible.
The very model of non-commercial, non-producer backed theater - really made popular in the 1960's - is broken. There is something fundamentally wrong with the non-commercial theater model in a purely capitalistic society. A business which can never set the price that will actually cover the cost to produce the product (a show) and must rely continuously at least partially on outside financial charitable support -- and there is no safety net for that-- will have a hard time guaranteeing some of the things a union will insist on. And I totally agree that having a board made up of entirely business people and few-to-no professional theater makers creates a divide that can only get bigger and bigger when the model gets threatened. The board model doesn't work for theater either because it is based on the old model of hierarchy and non-profit status laws, which requires there to be Executive Director responsible to the board, then management, then .... etc.
Theater is very labor intensive -- administratively and production wise -- and the higher the prices, the fewer people can go. The fewer the people who can go defeats the purpose of the theater. So much that has changed in our industry over the past two years, it seems like a good time to disrupt the the system. There are ideas of "company-run" theaters where everyone has a stake in the artistic plan and the business plan and the financial health.... and develops a strong enough relationship with its community that they too feel committed to the company and the work it produces. It keeps it small but real.