|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Articles
|
||
|
Articles |
Pay!Dateline: 21st March, 2004The labourer, the Bible tells us, is worthy of his hire, which I take to mean that people deserve to be paid for the work they do. This is the principle which underlies society as we know it. We also lean towards (although not consistently) the principle that the more complex the job and the longer the training, the higher the pay - which is why a brain surgeon (to quote the cliché) is paid more than a cleaner. We also have to take into account market forces: the rarer the skill, the higher the pay - good old supply and demand. There are other factors which have to be considered, too. Take the question of responsibility: the more responsible the job, the higher the pay - except that we tend to think of responsibility in terms of cash rather than people, so that if you are responsible for the smooth running of a profitable factory, then you are going to be paid more than a teacher who is responsible for the development of thousands of young minds throughout your career. We get round that manifest inconsistency by calling jobs like teaching vocations, a calling in which the satisfaction of doing a good job is its own reward, so that monetary considerations are of less importance. (Tell that to the Building Society!) What inspired this train of thought is a discussion currently going on in the SCOTS-NITS email discussion group about a theatre company which has been commissioned to do a Theatre in Education tour for primary schools and is advertising for actors but offering no pay (because it's a new company) but simply the experience of taking part (and something to be added to the CV). This happens a lot on theatre. Most shows which go to the Edinburgh Fringe are going to lose money and many (if not most) of the actors get nothing but expenses. That's fair enough, for the Edinburgh Fringe is a showcase and they know that everyone else in the company is in the same position, including the producer. However I have heard, in the last year or so, of a number of companies who have put on small-scale London fringe shows where the actors have not been paid ("It'll be good exposure for you and we may be able to pay you some expenses") but the technical crew have - because the techies won't work for free. You see, there aren't as many of them around as there are actors. Actors are not well paid - at least, not in theatre: TV and film are different - and the problems caused by low pay are compounded by the fact that, at any one time, over 85% are not working. They may be doing tele-sales or bartending or even, like a couple of actors I know, painting houses, but they are not working in theatre: they are most likely on the dole. To expect them to work for no pay (and sign off because they are not available for work) is exploitation, but the sad fact is many actors (and, in particlar, young actors) are so keen to get work that they are willing to devalue themselves by working for nothing. My own company is in the early stages of planning a production for the autumn and we're going to do it on a profit-share basis. We'll be on a box office split with the theatre and, once the box office returns are in and we get our split, we'll share the profits. If we get 60% houses for the four nights we're performing, we'll not quite get Equity money, but it won't be far off. But the thing is, everyone is in the same boat and the company all know that if we actually lose money (which is - thank goodness - highly unlikely), they won't make anything but I, as the company's director, will bear the loss. However they have all worked for the company in the past in productions which have been commissioned and have been paid the proper rate for the job. This one is a joint venture where we share most of the risks and all of the profit. The problem is that, although actors are very skilled, that skill is not recognised. We have just finished a commissioned piece and the client sat in on one of the rehearsals. His reaction was interesting - "I didn't realise how hard you people worked". Actors (and directors!) do work hard and have a unique combination of innate ability and training. Let's not undervalue ourselves! Articles Indices:
|
|
|
|