Is this article true?

[The Day Off]

Posted: 5/3/17 at 6:48pm

Hello! Came across this article today and was wondering if anyone had more insight on this topic? Not very well educated on Equity's rules and I'd like to learn more. 

Thanks! (I'm on my cell phone and it won't let me link the page, so I'll just have to copy and paste. Hope you guys don't mind!)

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/actors-equity-union-discriminates-resident-aliens

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/3/17 at 6:51pm

I have no idea, but Odyssey is a glorified blog.  They are not reporters, they are not writers.  They are college students. 

[sarahmbaker2]

Posted: 5/17/17 at 1:39pm

Hey, I wrote this article.

You're absolutely right, I am an 18 year old upcoming sophomore in college and The Odyssey is my first writing gig where I'm being published regularly online.  It allows college students with no experience to write, and that can be dangerous but it can also be wonderful.

As you can see in the article, I back up every claim I make with a direct source from either the actual court case or the actors equity association official book of rules and regulations which can be found online, so just so you know everything I say is absolutely true and if you don't believe me you can check out the sources for yourself.

I did a lot of research for this article so it is important that to me that that fact is realized.

But please don't let the fact that this article is on The Odyssey distract you from the message I'm trying to get across.  I wrote this article because I live in New York and I work in Times Square with a girl who moved here from another country (I don't remember where) to become an actress a few years ago.  She has been featured on television and has been pretty successful, but because of equity's rules, as she is a non-resident alien she has been unable to work in professional live theatre because she can't be represented by equity and professional theatre companies in New York refuse to hire her.  I wrote this article to get that information out there so that hopefully, in an industry that represents people of all races, ethnicities, and ages fairly and without discrimination, or so I thought, problems like hers could be heard and dealt with.  And since I am an 18 year old college student, The Odyssey is the platform I chose to write on since of course I don't have access to the New York Times.

I appreciate your cautiousness in the information that you read, though.  I think that is very important and I would rather people do that than blindly accept what I or anyone else writes, however don't write out The Odyssey just because it's written by college students.  College students are the future of this country and I as well as many others work hard to ensure that voices will be heard that don't have the same platforms as we do.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 5/17/17 at 5:16pm

I think the article is misguided at best, particularly since it's denigrating AEA on a case it lost 36 years ago. AEA is a union, which is obligated to fight for employment for its members. It makes sense to require the producers to demonstrate that the are no unemployed Americans capable of performing the role, considering roughly 86% of the union's members are unemployed at any given time.

So I think it makes sense to require producers to demonstrate that they were unable to find American actors suitable for a particular role. I don't think it is unreasonable at all. Phantom wouldn't have closed if an American actress opened the show on Broadway instead of Sarah Brightman. Miss Saigon would have had exactly the same run it had without Lea Salonga having opened the show. Take a look at other threads around here. Talent is subjective.

[sarahmbaker2]

Posted: 5/17/17 at 5:56pm

If you read the rest of the article, you'd see that I began with information on that case to make the point that it's appalling some of the things that a union designed to represent the otherwise unrepresented, hardworking people in the live theatre industry said back then. I then continued to point out the unfair rules in its code that was published in 2015 and still represents its rules today that I think are unfair and that I see have affected people I know.  Whether or not you believe economically it's helpful, I think it's unfair and I believe that the most talented actors should get the roles, not the ones who happen to have won the lottery in being born in the United States.  Just wanted to get the information out there.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 5/17/17 at 6:01pm

With so many out-of-work, starving actors who have had training, is it hard to conceive that not one of them would be as good as their foreign counterparts or other actors in the running who happened to be a non-resident alien? 

That said, I do think you do bring up some good points about how undefined some of the terms are. Your friend who is considered a non-resident alien by Equity...does Equity only go by her legal status? In other words, is it the same as being a non-resident alien by the U.S. government aka someone with a visa but not permanent residency status? I also wonder if some of the current rules, outside the star ones or the ones in place to protect American Equity members, are procedures put in place that other businesses have to follow, such as getting government-approved work authorization papers if you're on a specific visa (like a student visa or a tourist visa) rather than a work visa.

Also, Equity's defense in the 1981 case of NRLB v. Actor's Equity, was pure lawyer speak, and actually was a pretty good argument to make, if previous case law didn't establish whether the NLRA applied only to American citizens. In the end, it did lead to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to state unequivocally that:

"Nothing in the terms or construction of the NLRA limits the meaning of the word "employees" to American citizens or permanent residents. The provisions in question here do not specify "American-citizen" employees as opposed to non-resident aliens. They merely proscribe discriminatory treatment of individuals or groups of employees who belong to unions, without regard to the employees' nationality or residence. For instance, Equity does not deny that Canadian citizens and resident aliens have rights as union members under the NLRA. It would be unthinkable to allow Equity to demand union membership and payment of dues by alien members performing in the United States while denying them rights associated with union membership."

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19811583644F2d939_11427/N.L.R.B.%20v.%20ACTORS'%20EQUITY%20ASS'N

Updated On: 5/17/17 at 06:01 PM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 5/17/17 at 6:39pm

Found what might possibly be a dated rulebook (because it still refers to USCIS as INS):

http://www.actorsequity.org/docs/rulebooks/Production_Rulebook_League_11-15.pdf

And a pamphlet on the website:

http://www.actorsequity.org/docs/about/AboutEquity_web.pdf

I basically ctrl + F "non-resident alien". So it looks like even before the production team applies to USCIS to get the government work authorization papers, they have to go through Equity first. The "unique services" part mirrors a lot of the U.S. government's language in its visa requirements.

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 8:59am

I personally know at least a dozen equity actors working today who were not born in this country, were not citizens of this country at birth, and some of whom still aren't even full citizens, but are working on the boards under equity using other routes. You'll see a couple of them on Broadway right now in chorus roles, no less.

I have complete empathy for anyone trying to work in this country as an immigrant. Our gov doesn't make it easy, but it is possible. Broadway thrives on immigrant labor. Costume shops, set shops...you name it - they also legally employ immigrants.

Your roommate should start a blog - or even a thread on this board - to communicate with other immigrants working in the theater so they can share their stories and help her get opportunities to work.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 9:16am

There is a great deal in this thread that misapprehends the issues. The case in question relates to the labor laws, not to the immigration laws (then or now). The article is naive in its mis-understanding of the interconnection. Nowhere in the western world can one show up and expect automatically to be on equal footing with residents.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 9:43am

The essay doesn't even attempt to discern why Equity may have these policies in place. I assure you, it's not to disempower immigrants.  

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/18/17 at 9:44am

ALL countries have laws and regulations about who can work; the union's job is not to make it easier to work for everyone, but to protect the rights of it's members.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 5/31/17 at 10:16pm

HogansHero said: "There is a great deal in this thread that misapprehends the issues. The case in question relates to the labor laws, not to the immigration laws (then or now). The article is naive in its mis-understanding of the interconnection. Nowhere in the western world can one show up and expect automatically to be on equal footing with residents.

 

"

I don't believe any of the discussion was about immigration law, but rather labor laws and practices and how they apply to employees and prospective employees of different legal statuses (citizens, permanent residents, non-resident aliens, etc.). That was one of the major legal issues of the NRLB v. Actor's Equity case and the main point of the article.

Updated On: 5/31/17 at 10:16 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 5/31/17 at 10:49pm

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "I don't believe any of the discussion was about immigration law, but rather labor laws and practices and how they apply to employees and prospective employees of different legal statuses (citizens, permanent residents, non-resident aliens, etc.). That was one of the major legal issues of the NRLB v. Actor's Equity case and the main point of the article"

which is why I said it misapprehended the issues.