Reading that
Washington Post article led me to ask more questions, and, I now realize I incorrectly stated the salary earned by cast members at the Ahmanson today the last time we discussed this. Sorry about that.
There are very few non-union actors who can make a living, let alone a life-long career at their profession.
I suppose it depends upon one's definition of "very few" --- I know a few, but would that be
very few?
The abuses before Unions were legendary
Well, there's a reason for that: The pre-union abuses were SO many years ago, no one alive can remember them, and so they're the stuff of legend.
Do you really think that Michael Eisner, one individual, should make more in salary and options in one year than the entire WGA pension fund for all its 8,000 members made the same year. It happened one year.
What does Eisner have to do with the price of tea in China?
Seriously, Charles, you continue to draw analogies to the struggles of the WGA as if these have something remotely to do with what's going on with Actors Equity today. Who, in the theatre business, is the equivalent of Eisner? And if Equity productions are so vastly superior to non-Equity, why don't ticket sales reflect this? I understand having pride in one's union, but, as the fair-sided
Washington Post article points out, some non-Equity productions are better than Equity productions and the public, it's reported, can't tell the difference.
Sure, it's a frustrating situation for Equity, this free enterprise system we live under. I'm not sympathetic, however, to their taking out their frustrations on New York theatregoers by striking Broadway.
