Columns
No need perhaps for a poll to tell you that a majority of performers would applaud my colleague Mark Shenton’s recent call (The Stage, October 18 issue, building on his October 4 column) for actors to get tough with fringe venues and start demanding proper payment.
We all know that a line should be drawn somewhere in the work for a living versus work for experience debate – but where precisely?
An acquaintance of mine is off for a stint to New York, working at one Off-Broadway (or should that be Off-Off-Broadway?) venue. He’s doing so for no financial return and, before you assume it, no, he doesn’t have a trust fund or millionaire parents to subsidise him.
What he does have is the income saved from a paid position in his previous job at my old local venue, Watford Palace theatre.
My default position would be to say don’t swap paid for unpaid – but I’m talking from the perspective of a middle-aged mortgage payer with a family to support and a long history of being remunerated.
In my friend’s case, the issue is one of gaining necessary experience. If your interest is the American playwrighting tradition and working in script editing rather than front of house, there isn’t much option (unless perhaps you can tap one of the Kennedys for a contact).
Given this, I have to agree that in such circumstances I’d have felt his was the correct decision, not least because it’s come on the back of doing paid work in the more practical aspects of the business. On top of that, it’s for a finite period and with a clear goal in mind.
Let me now declare an interest: The Stage itself offers unpaid journalism placements in the editorial department. These are however for one week only and it is our intention that all participants receive the most thorough grounding in the business that we can provide within the allotted time.
At some point working for nothing is a rite of passage that almost no-one aiming to get into performance or media can avoid
Adult placements with appropriate training work on our newsdesk, school-aged ones may find themselves compiling and conducting short interviews mentored by our Show People editor Kevin Berry. Any placement subsequently commissioned to write something for us after this week receives at least our standard payment, regardless of age.
Many of the bylines you’ll see at the top of articles belong to freelance contributors who’ve been through this system. The ex-placement list includes too our Deputy Editor Alistair Smith (university), our En Pointe columnist and former Reviews Commissioner Katie Colombus (school) and the present Reviews Commissioner, Emma Harlen (school). So it certainly works.
In my day (believe me, I tried so hard to avoid that phrase) placements were non-existent. You worked in term time for one reason only: money.
By the time I began my journalism training, for every day in university I’d spent one variously painting several thousand yards of walls, worked in an asbestos factory, driven a forklift truck, been on endless production lines, done door to door sales (badly), office removals, been a rates clerk, done kitchen work, spent the better part of a year as a school caretaker at young Mr Miliband’s school, been a hospital porter and handled 10 corpses. What I had never done was set a foot into a professional newsroom.
I realised that at some point working for nothing is a rite of passage that almost no-one aiming to get into performance or media can avoid. So it’s worth thinking in advance, where do you draw your own line in the sand?
Jobs & Auditions
Comments 5 comments
Terrible advice from someone who clearly doesn’t understand National Minimum Wage legislation (even a week is not allowed given the terms you describe) and someone who doesn’t know about his own union’s victories in this arena. http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=2080
Wake up, you’re living in the past. We’ve all got rights and no one has to accept the status quo Mr Attwood presents.Report comment
I beg to differ on the terms: No fixed requirements, no compulsion, no contractual obligation on the placement to perform any task – in line with the requirements on voluntary work placements.
You cite the case of an intern, not a placement. In fact we have twice offered internships for longer periods (1-2months) – in both cases advertised not only at the NMW (as required) but with additional London weighting (which is not). Both again resulting in full time paid employment at a substantially higher rate.
And what precisely is the advice offered? That at some point a school student or undergrad might have to perform an unpaid work placement. Not advice but a simple statement of fact, as almost anyone aged 15-22 will know. And indeed any business in the UK routinely contacted by schools each year for June or July begging for placements.
One thing I did fail to spell out and should have done is that participants should be aware of what the law allows placement and internship providers to ask of them and what it specifically prevents them from doing. I do so now.Report comment
Apologise, agree you got it right although the confusion was brought about because the piece is titled Drawing the line on unpaid internships and we both know that the word internship is not recognised by the NMW legislation so perhaps unwise to mix the vocab.
We’ll just gloss over the NUJ NMW victory shall we?Report comment
My thanks Peter and a useful reminder to me to check my headers more thoroughly!Report comment
look like Sam west can be a self employed actor so where does he really stand on minimum wage see below
Actors, ballet dancers, opera singers, musicians and other performers/artists who appear live in the theatre, opera, ballet, or in clubs, or perform in film, video, radio or television productions may be engaged under either contracts for services (Schedule D) or contracts of employment.
There are a number of standard contracts commonly used to engage performers/artists in these industries. These contracts incorporate a comprehensive range of standard terms and are the result of negotiations between bodies representing engagers and performers/artists in the industry. They are often referred to by reference to the union which has negotiated on behalf of the performers, and accordingly there are a range of contracts known for example as standard Musicians Union contracts and standard Equity contracts. The British Actors’ Equity Association is the trade union which represents most performing artists other than musicians.
The unions have been able to secure a package of measures designed to protect their members such as:
•minimum rates of pay,
•overtime, bank holiday and Sunday premiums,
•agreed rates of touring and subsistence allowances,
•holiday pay,
•agreed disciplinary procedures.
Because these features are more commonly found in an employer/employee relationship, it is natural that an examination of the standard contractual terms may lead to the view that performers/artists so engaged are engaged under contracts of employment. And in the case of Fall v Hitchen [1972] 49TC433, it was held that a ballet dancer engaged under a standard contract was engaged under a contract of employment and that his pay fell within Schedule E.
However in 1993 two actors, Alec McCowen and Sam West appealed to the Special Commissioners, and successfully argued that their income from standard Equity theatre contracts did not fall within Schedule E. The decisions were given in public and accordingly they can be openly referred to, but they are not binding on other bodies of Commissioners. The Revenue did not pursue these cases to the High Court.
It is clear from these contrasting cases that the terms of the contract may not be decisive by themselves, and in the case of artistic workers, such as theatrical performers/artists, the way in which they generally carry on their profession also needs to be considered.
In Fall v Hitchen, Mr Hitchen was engaged for a minimum period of something like six months `to rehearse, understudy, play and dance as and where required by the Manager’. Both Mr West and Mr McCowen, however, were engaged to play a specific role in a specific play for the run of a play, or a shorter fixed period. And both Mr McCowen and Mr West had a variety of engagements in different media (film, television, radio and theatre), consecutively and sometimes concurrently.
The type of engagement undertaken by Mr McCowen and Mr West is now much more typical of the profession than that undertaken by Mr Hitchen in 1969. These days it is comparatively unusual for a performer/artist to be engaged to play parts as and when cast in a series of different plays or other productions. The typical performer/artist is likely to have a whole series of separate engagements in different media making up his professional working life, commonly interspersed with periods without paid work, between the end of one engagement and the commencement of another.
Other case law supports the view that, for theatrical performers/artists, independence from a particular regular paymaster may indicate that individual contracts are not contracts of employment, even though the prima facie view based on the particular terms of the particular engagement may suggest otherwise.
Accordingly, performer’s/artist’s earnings will be liable under Schedule D in many cases. The sort of engagement where an employment and PAYE may be appropriate, is more likely to be in circumstances where a performer/artist is engaged for a regular salary to perform in a series of different productions over a period of time, in such roles as may be from time to time stipulated by the engager, with a minimum period of notice before termination of the contract, as was Mr Hitchen in Fall v Hitchen. This would apply for example to permanent members of some orchestras and permanent members of an opera, ballet or theatre company. An employment and PAYE would apply in these cases regardless of the receipt by the performer/artist of other income correctly chargeable under Schedule D.
There is more information about the schedule of charge for particular types of work in the entertainment industry at ESM4100.Report comment