NWEGB concerns, notes and feedback to the FSWP discussion paper:
The unanimous consensus of the North West of England General Branch and its Committee is that the FSWP discussion paper/ proposals in their current form represent effective industrial, democratic and demographic (residential) representation - in reverse. It is felt that the paper has been effectively ‘dropped’ like a proverbial bombshell on a smaller percentage of the union than those the paper indicates vote on a regular basis; and done so with very little time to react to the proposals contained therein effectively and rationally – accompanied by some rather patronising and at times insulting attitudes towards any who have raised any criticisms against the proposals by those more closely linked to the paper.
In all meetings, attended by and reported on by NWEGB members there seems to be a conscious ‘steering’ towards embracing Option B; akin to a pre-War Covent Garden ‘Three Card Monty’ artist.
However, given the limited time allotted to present this feedback, an attempt will be made to be as concise as possible by clearly defining specific areas and raising questions therein:
1. Eligibility: While the idea of members eligibility to stand and serve within the industrial committees presented in the new structure, based on having worked within the past 3 years, has initially generally been received with more approval than the rest of the proposals, one has to consider that this in itself could prove to be a very dangerous precedent: In terms of defined employment – would candidates need to have been employed only on Equity contracts in an industry which generally uses them far less? What of inability to work due to illness, injury or disability – can one actually stand for the disabilities committee?; and, ultimately, what rights of union membership does this maintain or even ensure? All those members who faithfully pay their subs every year whose right to stand for election by their peers – withdrawn. They would become lesser members with fewer rights, surely? Why not then withdraw their right to vote too? Start to withdraw members’ rights and we face a withdrawal of members.
2. Equality, Diversity, Speciality and Area: It seems that while one’s gender, age, sexuality or ethnicity is respected due to the lottery of birth; ones place within the industry, ones chosen profession which validates the existence of the union, becomes homogenised. This flies in the face of equality and diversity.
(a) As such, a single Equalities Committee should be made available to represent ALL genders, ages, sexualities and ethnicities. Or, we truly evolve as a union and acknowledge that we do not actually need devolved equalities committees at all and embrace the entire membership in all its diversity.
(b) Industrially, which issues receive priority within these devolved industry committees – those of the majority electorate or the elected?
What guarantee of specialist representation within these devolved industry committees? Proportional representation with reserved seats for specific industrial sectors in which the possibility of a candidate with one (or no) vote is elected by default while a member with 500+ votes remains unelected – why stand at all, why not wait to be appointed or invited? If so, why not replace all committees with working parties and completely subvert the democratic process?
How about a Screen Committee comprised entirely of Walk-On artists? A Stage Committee with no West End representation – or ALL West End representation? Or all actors and no Stage Management, Directors or Designers? A Voice Committee that can’t balance the scales for proposed singer members whose time would be better spent on Stage or Variety Committees? etc., etc., etc.
(c) One potential solution, put forward at the Northern Area AGM on 29th February 2012 by David Corden, was that each industrial sector committee could be formed as, or modelled on, a mini-Council; with specific specialist seats and a ‘general list’, if applicable, as follows:
For example (ref: 29/02/12 DC-NA-AGM), a Stage Committee would have specific specialist seats for 1x Theatre Director, 1x Designer, 1x West End Stage Manager, 1x Rep/ Touring Stage Manager, 1x Independent/ Small-Scale Theatre Stage Manager, 1x West End Actor, 1x Rep/ Touring Actor, 1x Independent/ Small-Scale Theatre Actor, et al. A Screen Committee possibly comprising 1x TV Actor (Soap), 1x TV Actor (Drama), 1x TV Actor (Comedy), 1x Film Actor, 1x Director, 1x TV Commercials (On Screen), 1x TV Commercials (Voice), 1x ADR Artist – here, the Screen model starts to break down; should TV Commercials (Voice) and ADR be Voice?
Whilst a practicable working model could be found for Stage, there could be some very real confusion when approaching the diverse areas covered by recorded media; and a confusion that this Branch feels would not be solved, only amplified by the Screen & Media or Recorded Media models proposed under Options C & D, respectively.
(d) As such, it is felt that specialist representation, discussion and action pertinent to specific areas of specialised sectors of the industry by democratically elected members on behalf of their fellow members in those specialised fields should not only be maintained, but encouraged to grow, evolve and be given the time and space to become even more effective within the current model (Option A).
If not, it is felt that the equal rights of members representation pertinent to their sectors of work are being infringed; as is their right to specialised member-led co-ordinated representation, campaigning and activism pertinent to their wider geographical location.
NB: Concerns have also been expressed that while Nationalism is respected with regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, no provision has been made for England; and when mentioned, has been dismissed as being already represented by the rest of the union structure(s) – existing and proposed – which, unfortunately smacks of outdated Imperialism and inequality.
3. Working Parties vs. Committees: We are led to believe that these proposals will ensure more focussed, dynamic, task specific and effective action will take place by the formation of ad-hoc working parties. Whilst this practice already exists, some members have expressed concern regarding the eligibility (and regularity) of personnel appointed to some working parties and have raised questions about ‘cronyism’; and that the proposed Options B, C & D will see, even necessitate, a rise in these appointed working parties.
Appointed, as opposed to democratically elected. And what of the expenses incurred by working parties? Surely a comparative estimate costing should have been included in order to make a comprehensive comparison to the ‘cost’ of specialist and area committees? And while it is acknowledged that a working party can be convened to deal with a single industrial situation, how does one convene a working party to deal with geographical issues which span counties and industrial sectors?
Equity is a union and, as we are constantly reminding each other, “There is Strength in Unity”. The dissolution of the Area Committees would, we believe, especially in the case of the Northern Area, weaken the unity it has worked hard to build over the years; General Branches support of Variety issues in the region and vice-versa.
As such, it is strongly felt that Area Committees should remain; although there could be room for re-evaluation of how they are comprised in order to reflect the solution to the industrial model(s) proposed above (ref: 29/02/12 DC-NA-AGM) which, as pointed out, can work for certain types of committee.
4. Fulfilling the Remit: Ultimately, we are led to believe that the FSWP report began as an investigation into the union’s financial stability and not the redefinition and restructuring of democratic representation in the union, which we have been informed was “stumbled upon” during the 9 months of the working party’s task, although we are also informed that the working party only met on four occasions with, obvious, between meeting communications. After this undoubtedly hard work by dedicated union members, advised by staff, to produce such a comprehensive democratic restructuring proposal, where are the larger financial analyses? Did this serendipitous ‘stumbling’ warrant abandoning a thorough financial analysis of the entire union expenditure and comprehensive investigation into cutting costs across the board?
ie. Financial stability based on the ENTIRE union’s expenditure and expenses to include all members, staff, departments, property, production and general sundry running costs.
Any proposed cuts should start being investigated being made in areas of greatest expenditure first; as with any sensibly advised financial analysis when cutting down on the bills - from top to bottom. In the meantime, all members and staff within the existing structure should be encouraged to endeavour to economise more effectively when and where possible.
The latter could have been encouraged many months ago, as it became clear that certain income to the union was potentially under threat, eg. Educational and Armed Forces. Further to these threats, campaigns could have been launched to try to combat these cuts. However, one of the main problems that should be immediately addressed within this union is the lack of effective communication, flow of information to and engagement with the larger membership and, where possible, the public and fellow TUC member unions. In the case of the latter, we always support their causes, isn’t it about time to call in some favours?
Sadly, due to this ineffective communication, many members have expressed the opinion that the union is run more for the benefit of the staff as opposed to that of the members, without whom it would be an existential nonsense.
While this opinion is, undoubtedly, in itself a nonsense – it persists, is widely held and should be addressed. After all, it is difficult to convince some who spend an inordinate amount of time out of work, live hand to mouth, yet maintain their membership that the full-time employees who sometimes appear to be dictating to them really do have their best interests at heart,
To this end, we should seek to fully inform and engage the wider membership within the current structure and, cost effectively, seek their feedback to these proposals before taking any further action and fuel any conspiracy theories.
After this is attempted, perhaps a phased testing of some of the proposals could be put into effect in order to see how effective they can be in practice, eg. Industrially - the proposed structure of the Stage Committee, as above (ref: 29/02/12 DC-NA-AGM); Area – attempt implementation of similar proposals in a testing phase that encompasses the South of England to form a Southern Area Committee, in order to geographically reflect other area and National committees.
5. Conclusion: While the need for the financial stability of Equity is widely accepted and agreed upon, it should not be at the sacrifice of democracy and the further alienation of the membership at large. The FSWP proposals state a belief that this will engage the membership and encourage involvement and activity, but the NWEGB feels that it will, in practice, have the reverse effect. We are a unique union, we are a diverse union – not only by definition of industrial sectors (and crossovers of such) , but status of employment; Employed? Self-employed? Unemployed?
One thing that stands out is a lack of full understanding of what the union actually does (and can do) for the individual member; and this lies in reliable communication, information and transparency in all aspects of union business.
By request, this personal inclusion from Jamie Austin, SMC, NWEGB
“I am a member of Equity. I am a professional Stage Manager. I am a Union representative. I believe in consultation.
I am a Stage Manager and proud of it. I am not an actor or a director and have no desire to be either. But I acknowledge their importance otherwise I wouldn’t be in this business. I am a Stage Manager who has been elected to a Committee and I want those directors and actors to know that I am proud of that position and have a voice - to make the future of Stage Management stronger, more industrious, fairer, better paid, recognised and vital.
The Council did not vote unanimously to consider the FSWP proposals so we, asCommitteemembers and members of Equity,have a chance to change the issue under discussion.
Christine Payne said: “From the council meeting, there was significant support for fundamental change, but of course there were concerns about some of the detail and also a number of councillors who believed that there should be no change or the change was too radical.”
However, she believes change is necessary and hopes the next two months of consultation will “address members’ concerns”.
Where was the time for us, the members, to consider this? The FSWP had nine months to prepare their paper. Two months is too short for us to respond and is affront, to us, the members who pay our subscriptions and uphold the Union itself.”
Facebook circular (David Corden):