E-mail to a friend

Prove protection

Published Tuesday 21 February 2006 at 10:55

Regarding your article about Christine Payne’s vision for the future (News, February 16, front page).

I share with others the welcome of the main thrust of her discussion presentation. It is rightfully within the remit of a general secretary to decide the most efficient way to restructure the Equity organisation in the hope of improving service to its members. Staff training is undoubtedly part of this.

My only concern is the emphasis on spending union resources on training for non-members as an incentive to join the union. I understand that the best drama schools now include training in the business of being a performer as well as the technical skills and practices of our profession. We rightfully have a form of student membership which takes care of this welcome. Others may wish to clarify if there is a real want of training for our existing variety members. I have always believed that walk-on work should be cast from fully experienced professional entertainers and performers, rather than amateurs from outside. Therefore what other need is there for training members that is not being met in the Equity-supported Actors Centres? In any event, why spend union resources on instructing amateurs who may not have enough talent to entitle enrolment in a quality drama school, never mind professionally qualify for union membership?

I share Barbara Hyslop’s concern that this council is becoming so obsessed with lowering professional standards in the - probably vain - hope of new revenue, it is losing sight of the need to concentrate on providing sufficient proof of the union’s protection and services to encourage existing members to remain despite subscription fee increases, never mind persuading resigned members to return.

Michael Earl

Equity Walk-On Councillor

Highgate Road

London

E-mail to a friend