Actors' Equity is changing their membership policies and I have questions

In what can only be described as a momentous change in professional theatre, the Actors’ Equity Association(AEA) announced sweeping adjustments to its membership policies that will now allow any professional actor or stage manager to join the union.

In an email sent to current members, union officials stated that as long as actors and stage managers can demonstrate they have worked professionally (i.e., received compensation) eligibility will extend for two years, with application and down payment of initiation fee and any applicable reinstatement fees required by May 1, 2023.

The union also announced other sweeping changes such as removing restrictions on membership for international stage managers and actors. Former members and former applicants to Equity membership can have previous initiation fee payments credited towards the amount owed for joining or rejoining. And all members will have three years to pay off their initiation fee.

In the past, actors and stage managers have not been able to join the union without having been employed by an AEA employer, acquiring points through the Equity Membership Candidate program, or by becoming a member of a sibling union.

Reaction to the news from current members has been mixed. I’ve seen a lot of support for it. I’ve seen a lot of opposition to it. But most of all, I’ve seen a lot of worthy questions being raised. I myself have a TON of questions. If you’ve been a longtime reader of this blog, you know that I have not been a “fan” of AEA. Yes, they have done good work. They’ve also failed a number of their members, especially those who aren’t cis-gendered, white, or without disabilities.

But having said that, I do believe there is a lot of good that can come out of this change. So let’s break it down in terms of what I think is good and what questions need answering.

The Good

I’ll be completely honest when I say that I think finding ways to allow more people to join the AEA, or any union, can be a good thing. A dramatic increase in membership will not only allow more access to benefits(health insurance, pension, and 401(k)) but also increase strength in the collective bargaining process. The union currently has approximately 51,000 members. If it increased 25-50% because of this change, if not more, then their voice at the table will be that much louder and can potentially force changes from producers that have been long-awaited.

For many, the process to become an Equity actor was arduous, to say the least. For an industry that employs less than 10% of its workforce, it was hard enough to be hired on a production that awarded points. That journey became all the tougher for people who, again, weren’t cis-gendered, white, or without disabilities.

So by removing that process, those folks and many others can join the union, adding to its diversity and numbers and will hopefully eliminate producers and creative teams using the excuse that they couldn’t hire diverse populations because they couldn’t find them. I’m also hopeful that this change may encourage producers to stage more work that includes these diverse populations.

This also could result in a dramatic increase in funding for the union. More members means more dues which means more people paying into the benefits which hopefully means costs will decrease. I wouldn’t call it a “cash grab” but it would be naive to think that a healthier financial position wasn’t something considered and it would be disingenuous for leadership to adamantly say it wasn’t. Given the state of the industry and the country as a whole, and with many members refusing to pay dues or leave the union entirely, I completely understand the need for an increase in funds. And without dramatically increasing dues for current members, this was the next best option. There’s no shame for the union to admit that.

I’m also thrilled for international performers and stage managers. I’ve written earlier that I felt that the restrictions placed on them made no sense and since no other entertainment union had them and no one could identify the reasoning for their existence, those restrictions were xenophobic in nature. They now will be paid and protected properly. So I’m glad those restrictions have been thrown out.

This may not solve all the issues when it comes to working as a union member, but it is a step in the right direction.

Questions

Let’s start off with the obvious, an increase in AEA membership doesn’t mean there are more jobs to go around. In fact, the case can be made that a policy change like this might even result in less work being available than before, especially at smaller theatres in smaller markets that had a tough enough time affording a couple of union contracts, to begin with. It’s not like a theatre that could afford to pay 1-2 union members can all of the sudden afford to pay 5-10, especially coming out of an industry shutdown.

I’m concerned that this may lead to more theatres dropping their union status, something that already started with the pandemic, which will eliminate union work opportunities and result in an increase in non-union work which these new members wouldn’t be allowed to audition/apply for. I wouldn't presume that AEA is going to make it cheaper for theatres to hire their members, so this is something that really needs to be considered.

Another concern I have is that I don’t foresee a dramatic increase in union contracts being available, More members with the same amount of contracts won’t help with accessibility and may only make things worse in terms of employability. So how will the union ensure an increase in contracts being available? I don’t think they can, so therein lies the issue.

And to be honest, when it comes to a potential increase of BIPOC, trans & genderqueer, and people with disabilities in the union, I’m concerned that their needs, claims, etc may not be handled the right way given that the union has a spotty history of handling previous needs and claims with this populations already.

So there are a lot of questions that need brutally honest answers. That means the communication from leadership has to dramatically improve. I’ve already seen some missteps with the rollout of this plan. AEA President Kate Shindle said in an interview with Backstage that “it may mean that auditions become ‘more crowded,’ but she believes that overall, more members are a good thing.”

There are a lot of potential issues with this plan than just more crowded audition rooms. I just hope leadership will take those concerns and questions more seriously than they have in the past.

In conclusion

Like I said before, I don’t think this solves all the issues of being a member of AEA. But I do think it’s a step in the right direction. And if those above questions and concerns are answered and solved? Then we’re really talking.

But a couple of words of warning. In the coming days, there are going to be a lot of different opinions about this change. Many will support it, many will oppose it. Based on the words used, not all the opposition is coming from a place of elitism or white supremacy. Don’t misunderstand, there will definitely be elitist and white supremacist takes on this. There are many out there who seemed to have thought AEA was a country club instead of a labor union. But I think it’s more important than ever for current AEA members to really listen to each other to hear worthy and substantial concerns. A larger union means nothing if it’s divided.

Finally, I’m glad to see that so many performers and stage managers who have been struggling for years to becoming union members will now have the opportunity to join. I’m also hoping that this leads to greater resources within membership such as an increase in mentorship programs and college residency opportunities.

So I’m hopeful. There is a lot of good that can come out of this as long as certain issues are ironed out and adjustments are being made. Being a professional working actor isn’t going to be any easier than it was, even before the pandemic. But this certainly means more voices will be heard at the table.