Unions, including entertainment unions, are made strong and effective for the members by virtue of one rule: they strictly discipline members who work for non-signatory producers. For example, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) rule is on several pages on the website–including a page for prospective members: Guild Rule One requires that no member shall work as an actor for any producer who is not signed to a Guild contract…it is YOUR obligation and responsibility to make certain that the producer wishing to employ you is a SAG Signatory. Always telephone the nearest Guild office to check a producer’s SAG status. Any performance for a non-signatory producer will subject you to disciplinary action by the Guild. Keep your Guild strong and protect your hard-earned wages, working conditions, pension and health benefits! DON’T VIOLATE RULE ONE!
According to the AGMA board member spoken to by phone, AGMA technically has Rule One also. “It would be difficult for a member to even find out this rule since it is not in the handbook sent to members. It is in their by-laws, but the by-laws are constantly being changed and if a member requests a copy, they may not be given the most current version.”
Several soloists mentioned this rule in their poll responses so they either heard about it somewhere or assume that AGMA has the same rules as other unions. CS obtained a copy of the handbook and could find no mention of the rule there or on AGMA’s website. A few singers wrote that they felt angry about being told about unnamed conduct rules only after they’d broken them–but there was no mention of these being specific Rule One violations.
SAG’s wording above makes it clear that this rule is the very keystone that keeps their union strong, protects wages, working conditions, pension and health benefits. Prospective members are even cautioned not to join the union until they have sufficient credits, experience and contacts to make their way working only with Guild signatories.
Why Rule One Is Not Enforced
So why doesn’t AGMA enforce or publicize this rule? One reason might be that enforcement would take manpower and AGMA only has 20 full-time staff members to work with 4,154 members.
Perhaps the union believes the majority of members would not support this rule. Why? Here is the Catch-22: Comparatively few singers have the luxury of singing only in AGMA houses because the majority of performing venues for singers are still not AGMA signatories. Including opera, oratorio, symphony and chorus, there are many more than 1,717 performing venues in the United States–out of which less than 90 are AGMA signatories with venues for singers. (See chart on pg. 12)
If Rule One were enforced with the current situation, AGMA members would technically no longer be able to sing at churches, for weddings and parties. Singers who would like to move out of their opera “caste” would have a hard time doing it, unless an AGMA company gave them that chance. For example, a comprimario singer at the Met who wanted to break out of small roles would not be allowed to sing a lead role and get a New York review at DiCapo Opera Theatre or anywhere else.
If Rule One were enforced with the current situation,
AGMA members would technically no longer be able to sing
at churches, for weddings and parties.
The answer of course would be to increase the number and range of signatories to include companies like DiCapo, orchestras, churches, etc. One poll respondent issued a call for AGMA to do just that. “The Local 802 in New York, has provided stringent guidelines for their members’ remuneration, which extends to the churches. The chagrin is extreme when singing at a wedding, which involves five to six pieces of solo song, a trumpeter arrives to play two pieces, and receives $150, while the singer can expect a mere $70!”
Perhaps the reason AGMA has not added more signatories and programs is due to lower revenue. An article written for AGMA’s 50th year celebration in 1986 stated that there were more than 6,000 members at the time; as of January 1999, AGMA listed 4,154.
AGMA might also be facing a problem common to some other
unions right now–waning union loyalty. In the article quoted above, AGMA wrote, “Performers seek AGMA out; they want to belong. When a new company is formed anywhere in the U.S., it is the
AGMA performers that insist that the company execute an agreement with AGMA. And they do because they know they have a better chance of getting quality people if they have signed with us.”
This kind of pride in the organization may have been true in 1986 but when singers talk amongst themselves, this is not what is heard.
One General Director who has chosen not to make his house an AGMA signatory responded to the CS Poll, “There is no benefit to a theater to be an AGMA house and quite frankly, I don’t need the headache. AGMA is a chorus union. When I need to hire a singer, I call the manager, not AGMA. The union requires the company to deduct two percent from singers’ salaries and send it on to the union, not a bookkeeping chore I want.”
If the company head doesn’t want to be a signatory, soloists don’t see a point in union membership, clearly the only faction who could bring the union to a house is the chorus and/or dancers. It would take a very strong, committed staff to go to each house and organize the choruses and stick with them through all it would take to force a house to become a union signatory. And with only 20 staff members and not a lot of resources, that is not likely.
Would Rule One Work for Singers?
Would classical singers vote to support Rule One when they are desperate for work? A respondent writes, “The real problem is that solo singers trying to start a career will sing just about anything for any amount of money anywhere. An EQUITY member will starve if he doesn’t get union pay but an opera singer will virtually sing for anything because every role begets another, if you’re good. As long as singers do that, the union is impotent.”
Are actors really different from singers? Like soloists, they are independent business entities putting together a variety of jobs to make a living. Do they make so much money that they don’t need to take non-union jobs? No. SAG reported that in 1996 more than 85 percent of SAG’s 90,000 members earned less than $5,000. Yet they do not go against Rule One.
Why not? The rule is reinforced three ways: Members are constantly reminded on the website and in union correspondence. They are also told over and over that if they want the benefits of union membership, they must obey Rule One. But it is unlikely that every performer would turn down the lure of extra pay and exposure simply for the good of the union as a whole. The real reason for obeying Rule One may boil down to one sentence: “Any performance for a non-signatory producer will subject you to disciplinary action by the Guild.” In other words, members who, for whatever reason including financial need, elect to work for a non-union producer, are disciplined.
Since exchange of information is a two-way street, our desire to answer the questions posed to us by singers regarding AGMA and other union questions has been made difficult.
