When Actors’ Equity Association and the League of Resident Theatres resume talks this June, each side will be struggling to avoid the collision course which landed last spring’s meeting in a deadlock. After unusually tense bargaining sessions aimed at reconciling a series of new LORT proposals, the two parties could only arrive at a 14-month extension of their existing contract.

The extension compromise followed a LORT walkout, as the group left the table unable to consent to a cluster of demands set forth by Equity as a precondition to further negotiations. The LORT proposals under Equity fire—as they currently stand—focus on three major issues:

• Increased flexibility in casting non-professionals in incidental roles.
• The ability of LORT contracted actors to participate in extra-rehearsal training (i.e., vocal, movement) and “creative experiences” (i.e., in-house developmental projects).
• A limited use of non-resident aliens in LORT productions which would not be at odds with employment of Equity actors.

The tensions which impeded resolution of these and other issues were palpably communicated in public statements issued earlier this winter by officials of each organization. In a December letter sent to Equity members currently or recently connected with LORT productions, LORT president Sara O’Connor clarified the organization’s central concerns:

“Our theatres desire to increase their ability to select plays without being saddled with a definition of extras under which extras are little more than human scenery, or being hampered by brief appearances in a play of characters merely incidental to the action, but which cannot be accommodated within the normal Equity/non Equity ration.” LORT hoped that the relaxing of rules defining extras would encourage greater freedom in play selection, as large-cast plays are often avoided due to salary demands.

She went on to stress “the right to offer training and other creative experiences to actors during the time they are at our theatres…If we are to grow as artistic institutions, research must be possible.” She ensured that such activities would “all take place within the regularly scheduled day. All existing rules on hours, breaks, etc. would remain in effect.”

O’Connor closed with a pointed response to Equity’s stance. “Equity’s characterization of LORT’s intentions as a desire to use non-professionals rather than Equity members is an insult to the professionalism of LORT theatres and a denial of the very reason we were created and struggle to survive. A LORT theatre will always employ as many Equity actors as it is able.”

O’Connor’s letter was in large part an attempt to balance an Equity assessment which was printed in the November issue of Equity News. Equity’s position—assertively detailed by executive secretary Alan Eisenberg—prefaced a questionnaire asking Equity members to rank LORT’s demands in importance and acceptability by use of a numbered scale. Eisenberg listed Equity’s goals as follows:

• to increase the compensation of members;
• to increase the employment of members;
• to reduce members’ working hours;
• to revamp the current method of categorizing the theatres.

Addressing LORT’s non-pro demand, Eisenberg decried LORT’s intentions “to further assist themselves in populating their stages without the encumbrance of so many Equity salaries.” He noted that Equity’s primary anxiety regarding the non-pro issue is LORT’s reluctance to guarantee that Equity employment would not decrease in the process of increasing non-pro extras.

Eisenberg also interpreted the extra-rehearsal training clause as a move which would necessarily increase rehearsal time. O’Connor’s rebuttal objected to this reading of LORT’s demand, as well as other issues vocalized by Eisenberg, which she felt were either misreadings of LORT’s demands or rehashing of demands that were dropped early in the negotiating process (i.e., the unlimited use of non-resident aliens, eliminating Equity stage managers).

One more important and prickly issue hampering a settlement has been in the realm of non-traditional casting. At last spring’s meetings, Equity pressed LORT for cooperation in “equal opportunity employment for ethnic minorities.” O’Connor explained that LORT was in total sympathy with those desires, but “could not accept, either philosophically or legally, the quotas requested.”

While the recent divisiveness between Equity and LORT may be attributable to these various issues, they may only cover a deeper, less identifiable rift. In his Equity statement, Eisenberg suggested: “How much of this [hostility] is related to the general anti-union tenor of the times and the current Administration would be impossible to judge. Clearly, however, in the current national labor climate, the union is perceived as a major obstacle to the economic relief producers demand.”

O’Connor also locates an underlying clash of basic goals. “This may have been coming for a long time. For a great many years Equity made strong proposals for wages and hours and to clean up what they felt were certain abuses. And LORT theatres are concerned with their financial well-being. Money has been a big issue. But for the 18-year life of the contract, LORT has tried steadily to adjust the mode of working that is reflective of our artistic needs. For the first time, LORT has gone on the attack concerning basic premises that have to do with artistic choices and a general thrust that diverges from Equity. The unions are having a hard time dealing with that. Our basic ways of looking at the world are in conflict. It’s very tough. I am confident, though, that we will reach a point of compromise.”