The Green Room - Employing actors at local theaters

	Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

The Green Room › Biz Talk › General Theatre Chat › Employing actors at local theaters

� Previous Topic | Next Topic �

Pages: 1

Send Topic

Print

Employing actors at local theaters (Read 1069 times)

Mar 30^th, 2009 at 12:01pm

No one important Offline
Scenery
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
SLC

Gender:
Posts: 47

So I'm looking for opinions on the widespread (nationally and locally) practice of hiring actors as independent contractors.

There are significant benefits to actors and corresponding costs to theaters when actors are hired as employees not independent contractors. The IRS and the US courts have often found that actors should be treated as employees for tax and benefit purposes. But most community theaters in Utah probably can't afford to hire actors as employees. Legally, these theaters should probably use volunteers without paying them, but could reimburse for expenses. It's probably not legal for most theaters to hire actors as independent contractors.

For me, the problem is that I think many actors would agree that getting paid as an independent contractor is better than not getting paid and trying to require theaters to employ actors would mean that many theaters would either have to only use volunteers or stop operating. So there's no real incentive for actors to try to change the situation.

Should theaters be required to follow the law and IRS regulations? Would local actors be better off if theaters did so? Should actors just leave things as they are to maintain their current pay?

What do you all think?

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 12:41pm

Beast Offline
Diva
Everywhere

Gender:
Posts: 1396

No one important wrote on Mar 30^th, 2009 at 12:01pm:

So I'm looking for opinions on the widespread (nationally and locally) practice of hiring actors as independent contractors.

There are significant benefits to actors and corresponding costs to theaters when actors are hired as employees not independent contractors. The IRS and the US courts have often found that actors should be treated as employees for tax and benefit purposes. But most community theaters in Utah probably can't afford to hire actors as employees. Legally, these theaters should probably use volunteers without paying them, but could reimburse for expenses. It's probably not legal for most theaters to hire actors as independent contractors.

For me, the problem is that I think many actors would agree that getting paid as an independent contractor is better than not getting paid and trying to require theaters to employ actors would mean that many theaters would either have to only use volunteers or stop operating. So there's no real incentive for actors to try to change the situation.

Should theaters be required to follow the law and IRS regulations? Would local actors be better off if theaters did so? Should actors just leave things as they are to maintain their current pay?

What do you all think? �

I think this question is long, wordy and not quite making too much sense (at least to me). Also, I think you have forgotten to take into account that most theaters have a "not-for-profit" status, which changes the employer-employee relationship in the eyes of the IRS.

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 12:59pm

No one important Offline
Scenery
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
SLC

Gender:
Posts: 47

Sorry for the wordiness and lack of clarity.

I have considered the nonprofit nature of the theaters though I didn't talk about it. The IRS has still often found that nonprofit theaters should treat actors as employees. But I'm just interested in opinions. Because the IRS could be wrong.

So let me ask a different question: Do you think theaters should always be able to hire actors as independent contractors?

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 1:06pm

mr. spiker Offline
All Access
a nest of sandworms
Eagle Mountain, UT

Gender:
Posts: 1133

Just moved this to a more appropriate forum. Local Theatres is more specific in nature, General Theater is ... well, general.

Anyways, I don't understand the IRS finding. Seems to me that an independent contractor is the correct way to handle actor employment. It's not permanent or even seasonal employment ... it is project-based. Seems like an idea situation for the user of the 1099.

But I'm no lawyer or HR person. I'd need to understand the logic behind the assertion that actors should be hired as employees.

http://www.fiftytwoplays.com

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 1:22pm

No one important Offline
Scenery
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
SLC

Gender:
Posts: 47

Sorry about the original misclassification. It was a general question about local theater.

So in general, when a hirer has the right to control the way that work is done and not just the result of the work, then the relationship created is an employer-employee relationship. Thus, for actors specifying the time and place of the work, what the performer does, the direction provided by the director or stage manager, the general understanding (or contractual requirement) that actors can't change the performance after it is set, etc. all suggest an employer-employee relationship. Additionally, when the hirer provides the facilities and other tools required to do the work, this also generally points to an employer-employee relationship. Since theaters provide the stage, often costumes, lighting, additional staff, music, scripts, etc, this suggests an employer-employee relationship.

However, as you point out, the duration or expected duration of the relationship is also a factor. That makes the situation more complicated for theaters and actors. The short-term, project-based nature of the work does suggest an independent contractor relationship.

The real question is whether the short-term, project-based nature of the relationship should carry more weight than the right to control the work that the theater possesses. Interestingly (to me anyway), in one case a voiceover actor who worked for a total of two hours was deemed an employee because of the right to control maintained by the producer. Similarly, the IRS has often weighed the right to control over the duration of the relationship and found actors to be employees in many situations.

But it is precisely the fact that actors have some of the characteristics of employees and some of independent contractors that makes the issue so complicated.

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 2:18pm

spiker Offline
All Access
I'm a fruitcake.
Salt Lake City, UT

Gender:
Posts: 5576

Interesting. I think the practicality of hiring actors as employees is problematic. Would they be employees without benefits? Or would you have to enroll, unenroll, and reenroll them in benefits each time you hire them for an 8-week gig? Or would they still get benefits through AEA? What if they're not AEA actors? If they would still get their benefits through AEA, then I have a hard time seeing how hiring them as employees would be a better situation than how they are hired now. For anybody.

"...there are more people alive now than have died in all of human history. �In other words, if everyone wanted to play Hamlet at once, they couldn't, because there aren't enough skulls!"

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 2:45pm

No one important Offline
Scenery
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
SLC

Gender:
Posts: 47

Theatres would face significant administrative and financial burdens if required by the law to hire actors as employees. But the choice of whether to grant benefits would remain with the theatre. But since most part-time employees don't receive benefits in any industry, it is hard to imagine theaters granting part-time actors benefits. Most actors who receive benefits, as far as I know, are AEA. But there are special benefit plans that exist for these types of unusual employment situations. I don't think AEA administers benefits for non-AEA employees.

Theaters would be required to pay payroll taxes and withhold taxes, generally they would be required to pay minimum wage and overtime, and they would have to contribute to unemployment insurance. This would have to be managed for every actor employed. Of course, all Equity houses, including the nonprofit ones, have to do this for the Equity actors they employ so it is doable. But, with the little I know about the Eqyptian's situation, it seems that is a demonstration of the costs of hiring actors as employees as required by Equity.

On a slightly different topic, the idea of independent contractors is that they operate a business by performing their trade or profession. Since it is commonly acknowledged that community theater actors perform for the love of performance and not the money, they can't be considered as operating a business. Thus, they should either be treated as volunteers or employees. But this would vary by individual actor, as I suspect there are some actors in the state who work as independent contractors for theaters and are actually trying to operate as a business. Nevertheless, if the theater controls the way the work is performed the IRS would likely find an employer-employee relationship.

The following is from an IRS training publication on the entertainment industry for auditors:

"The majority of entertainers and technicians are employees and will receive a Form W-2 with Federal income tax and FICA tax withheld. The extent of control a studio or production company has over an entertainer continues to be the determining factor in classifying an individual as either an employee or an independent contractor. �

Treas. Reg. section 31.3401(c)-1(b) states in part:
Generally, the relationship of employer and employee exists when the person for whom services are performed has the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services, not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to the details and means by which that result is accomplished. * * * "
�

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 2:56pm

The Professor Offline
All Access
Caution: This Sign May
Be Ambiguous.
Yonder

Gender:
Posts: 6288

Just in case anyone wants to go through the great sport of reading statutory language (and I know I do....), here are the relevant portions of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act:

U.C.A. �34A-2-103. Employers enumerated and defined � Regularly employed � Statutory employers.

(2) �As used in this Subsection (2):
(a) �Independent contractor� means any person engaged in the performance of any work for another who, while so engaged, is:
(i) independent of the employer in all that pertains to the execution of the work;
(ii) not subject to the routine rule or control of the employer;
      (iii) engaged only in the performance of a definite job or piece of work; and
      (iv) subordinate to the employer only in effecting a result in accordance with the employer�s design.

�Definite job� test.

The �definite job� test is not helpful unless it is taken in connection with other factors or limited to jobs such as are usually done by outside parties in pursuance of their independent callings, such as construction of buildings or some job not in the line of the employer�s business, but something which he finds necessary or desirable in the furtherance of his business. Parkinson v. Industrial Comm�n., 172 P.2d 136 (Utah 1946).

Employee and independent contractor.

Agent can be �employee� for limited purpose and �independent contractor� for other purposes. Christean v. Industrial Comm�n., 196 P.2d 502 (Utah 1948).

Subcontractor, who was both owner and employee of his business, was considered employee of general contractor for workers� compensation purposes where metal work done by subcontractor was part of process in general contractor�s business, and where general contractor had substantial right, under the arrangement, to control the subcontractor�s work. Pinter Constr. Co. v. Frisby, 678 P.2d 305 (Utah 1984).

Where, under the express terms of their agreement, a constructions company retrained and systematically exercised the right to direct the performance and execution of work of the subcontractor, to exercise its full discretion with respect to the work, to control which workmen were used, to fire subcontractor�s employees for any reason, to monitor the work on a daily basis, and to dictate the hours and days of work, the subcontractor acted as an employee, not an independent contractor. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 985 P.2d 243 (Utah 1999).

Independent contractor defined.

An independent contractor is one who is under contract to render service or do work for another according to his own method, means, and manner of doing the work and without being subject to the control, direction, or supervision of such other, except as to the result of the work or service. Stricker v. Industrial Comm�n., 188 P. 849 (Utah 1920).

Relationship of employer and employee.

Test of employment relationship is whether employer retains supervision and control of work to be performed, and this rule is not limited in its application to cases involving distinction between employee and independent contractor. Weber County-Ogden City Relief Comm. V. Industrial Comm�n., 71 P.2d 177 (Utah 1937)

Fundamental test of employer-employee relationship is right of control. Auerbach Co. v. Industrial Comm�n., 195 P.2d 245 (Utah 1948).

Where �independent contractor� had no choice of the terms of his truck lease, drove a truck owned by lessor, hauled only loads that had been approved by his supervisor, was not free to refuse a load, was obliged to travel a certain route, and operate a certain number of miles per month at a specified speed, there was reasonable basis for conclusion of the commission that plaintiff was an employee within the meaning of the workmen�s compensation statute. Harry L. Young & Sons v. Ashton, 538 P.2d 316 (Utah 1975).

U.C.A. �34A-2-104. �Employee,� �worker,� and �operative� defined.

(1) As used in this chapter and Chapter 3, Utah Occupational Disease Act, �employee,� �worker,� and �operative mean:

(b) each person in the service of an employer, as defined in Section 34A-2-103, who employs one or more workers or operatives regularly in the same business, or in about the same establishment:
(i) under any contract of hire;
   (A) express or implied; and
   (B) oral or written;
(ii) including aliens and minors, whether legally or illegally working for hire; and
      (iii) not including any person whose employment:
   (A) is causal; and
   (B) not in the usual course of the trade, business, or occupation of the employee�s employer.

Employee.

The statutory definition adds nothing to generally accepted definition of �employee,� who is defined as one who works for and under control of another for hire. Stricker v. Industrial Comm�n., 188 P. 849 (Utah 1920).

An employee is a person hired to work for wages as the employer may direct. Bingham City Corp. v. Industrial Comm�n., 243 P. 113 (Utah 1920).

Establishment of relationship.

Test of employer-employee relationship is right of control. Auerbach Co. v. Industrial Comm�n., 195 P.2d 245 (1948).

As I read the statutes and cases, although the duration of the job and the method of payment are factors, the key factor is control over the work.

My skills are as varied as they are impractical.

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 3:01pm

The Professor Offline
All Access
Caution: This Sign May
Be Ambiguous.
Yonder

Gender:
Posts: 6288

To me, it's more a question of liability than of benefits or payroll. If the actor is an independent contractor, the theater's liability is greatly reduced (remember, I work for attorneys who deal with workers' compensation issues all the time).

The problem is that courts will generally rule that paid actors are considered employees, because of the control issue.

My skills are as varied as they are impractical.

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 3:17pm

No one important Offline
Scenery
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
SLC

Gender:
Posts: 47

Thanks Professor. I do love reading statutory language.

I think one of the problems in this area, as pointed out by your first post, is that whether one is an employee or independent contractor depends on the law or regulation at issue. The IRS makes determinations for Federal tax purposes. The state makes determinations for worker's compensation. The courts and other agencies make determinations regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act. And they all use similar but distinct tests.

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 4:53pm

Tshep Offline
Ingenue
It made me feel sad, and
just a little bit dirty.
Beebe, Arkansas

Gender:
Posts: 723

Pay actors.... now why would we want to go and do that?

How 'bout we just whip them a bit less and add extra hardtack to their gruel ration.

They say, best men are moulded out of faults; &&And, for the most, become much more the better &&For being a little bad.

IP Logged

Reply #11 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 5:00pm

The Kaylee and the Ivy Offline
All Access
Come along, Pond.
Coeur de Coeurs

Gender:
Posts: 10942

Tshep wrote on Mar 30^th, 2009 at 4:53pm:

Pay actors.... now why would we want to go and do that?

How 'bout we just whip them a bit less and add extra hardtack to their gruel ration.

Hell, at this point, I'll take it. Grin

Grin

If we're going to die, let's die looking like a Peruvian folk band.

IP Logged

Reply #12 - Mar 30^th, 2009 at 7:43pm

spiker Offline
All Access
I'm a fruitcake.
Salt Lake City, UT

Gender:
Posts: 5576

If what it all boils down to is a theatre deciding whether they should be strictly legal and hire actors as "employees" or not pay them and consider them volunteers, I think they should know that if they work with only volunteers, their casting base will be greatly diminished. There are many, many actors out there (including locally) who will not work for free. Some non-equity actors included. If there isn't a whole lot of litigation happening over whether an actor is an Independent Contractor or an Employee, and I were running a theatre, I would pay my actors whatever I could by any means necessary.

"...there are more people alive now than have died in all of human history. �In other words, if everyone wanted to play Hamlet at once, they couldn't, because there aren't enough skulls!"

IP Logged

Reply #13 - Apr 12^th, 2009 at 6:46pm

Persistent Offline
All Access

Gender:
Posts: 3303

Quote:

On a slightly different topic, the idea of independent contractors is that they operate a business by performing their trade or profession. Since it is commonly acknowledged that community theater actors perform for the love of performance and not the money, they can't be considered as operating a business.

This may be off topic, but....why not? Can only people who love money more than performance be considered as operating a business? Just because an actor loves his low-paying job doesn't mean it's not a job.

Charity is kind...Doth not behave itself unseemly...is not easily provoked...and is not sleep deprived.

IP Logged

Reply #14 - Apr 12^th, 2009 at 11:23pm

Tshep Offline
Ingenue
It made me feel sad, and
just a little bit dirty.
Beebe, Arkansas

Gender:
Posts: 723

Persistent wrote on Apr 12^th, 2009 at 6:46pm:

Quote:

On a slightly different topic, the idea of independent contractors is that they operate a business by performing their trade or profession. Since it is commonly acknowledged that community theater actors perform for the love of performance and not the money, they can't be considered as operating a business.

This may be off topic, but....why not? �Can only people who love money more than performance be considered as operating a business? �Just because an actor loves his low-paying job doesn't mean it's not a job.

Um, sure.... whatever helps you sleep.

They say, best men are moulded out of faults; &&And, for the most, become much more the better &&For being a little bad.

IP Logged

Reply #15 - Apr 13^th, 2009 at 12:04am

spiker Offline
All Access
I'm a fruitcake.
Salt Lake City, UT

Gender:
Posts: 5576

Tshep wrote on Apr 12^th, 2009 at 11:23pm:

Persistent wrote on Apr 12^th, 2009 at 6:46pm:

Quote:

On a slightly different topic, the idea of independent contractors is that they operate a business by performing their trade or profession. Since it is commonly acknowledged that community theater actors perform for the love of performance and not the money, they can't be considered as operating a business.

This may be off topic, but....why not? �Can only people who love money more than performance be considered as operating a business? �Just because an actor loves his low-paying job doesn't mean it's not a job.

Um, sure.... whatever helps you sleep.

If an actor is paid AT ALL for their work, they are operating as a business. �They are being paid for providing a service to the theatre. �Whether or not they love what they do. �Even if they are only paid a small amount or only paid for one job a year and they do the rest for free. �If you get paid a stipend and taxes are not taken out, you should still report that income. �Since you don't have an "employer" you are your own business.

« Last Edit: Apr 13^th, 2009 at 12:53pm by spiker »

"...there are more people alive now than have died in all of human history. �In other words, if everyone wanted to play Hamlet at once, they couldn't, because there aren't enough skulls!"

IP Logged

Reply #16 - Apr 13^th, 2009 at 12:48pm

Toddy Offline
Diva
There's A Fairy Who Hides
In My Gaaaaaaarden!
Utah

Gender:
Posts: 4667

Spiker is right! HCTO mails out 1090's to all actors who make over $600 per year at the theater. 2 seasons ago I did 3 shows there and had to report it on my taxes as an independent contractor. It was simple and well some what painless. Wink

Wink

It just reduced my refund a bit. Back to the subject: if you make $600+ whether at one theater or a combination of theater's, you must report it to the IRS.

Crazy world, full of crazy contradictions like a child; first you drive me wild, and then you win my heart with your wicked art; one minute tender, gentle; then tempramental as a summer storm; just when I believe your heart's getting warmer. Your cold and your cruel, and I like a fool try to cope. Try to hang on to hope. Crazy world, everyday the same old roller coaster ride, but I've got my pride, I won't give in; even though I know I'll never win. Oh how I love this, crazy world! -- Henry Mancini

IP Logged

Reply #17 - May 6^th, 2009 at 12:42am

The Childrens Theatre Offline
Ensemble
You will be surprised.
Downtown Salt Lake City

Posts: 66

Toddy wrote on Apr 13^th, 2009 at 12:48pm:

Spiker is right! HCTO mails out 1090's to all actors who make over $600 per year at the theater. 2 seasons ago I did 3 shows there and had to report it on my taxes as an independent contractor. It was simple and well some what painless. Wink

Wink

It just reduced my refund a bit. Back to the subject: if you make $600+ whether at one theater or a combination of theater's, you must report it to the IRS.

Sorry to comment so late in the game.

Those theatre companies that are sending out 1099's are doing so at the risk of the State auditing them. It is a nation wide problem that has had companies near shutting down. We do reimbursement for expenses, however as we compensate actors more, we will start to make it difficult for an actor to turn in receipts for reimbursement.

I don't know how how other companies do it, I guess either they are poised with their lawyers ready or just are taking the risk. I have personally discussed the issue with the State and they are not to willing to bend although you can be granted and exception. Generally I've found that they go after new organizations or smaller ones.

I did point out to them that there are fairly large organizations (universities and such) that under the guidelines are violating the law. The State had no comment on that.

The best way for us to increase pay ( when we can) will be to keep the actor as a volunteer for a portion of the duration of their work, then pay as an employee for either rehearsals or the shows themselves. We'll just have to plan on the taxes and not only unemployment but the higher cost of Workman's Compensation. Ugh!

No great way out of this one, especially when battling the government. Pooh!

IP Logged

Reply #18 - May 6^th, 2009 at 8:50am

Rosie Poppins Offline
All Access
Still I'm incandescent
Salt Lake City

Gender:
Posts: 2623

The Childrens Theatre wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 12:42am:

Those theatre companies that are sending out 1099's are doing so at the risk of the State auditing them.

Why?

I've had several companies (not theatres) where I was hired as an independent contractor to do office/assisting work for a short time. Those companies (2 international/huge, 1 local/small) then sent me a 1099 and I was advised by a tax professional (love those lawyers) that because I was paid in this manner, I could operate my own 'business' and claim the expenses. All 3 amounts were over $600, and I always put them on my tax forms. Should the state be auditing those companies for my being paid via 1099? I didn't start out with the intention of operating a business, but I was just fine with accepting a 1099. I'm just saying, it doesn't happen in ONLY the theatre world...

(I do get it that no corporation would ever ask for volunteers or be allowed to pay someone .10 cents an hour to work. Please don't try to detract from this point with that separate, worthy argument. I just genuinely want to understand why paying someone 1099 merits audit in one realm of business and not another.)

Let me make one thing quite clear: I never explain anything.

IP Logged

Reply #19 - May 6^th, 2009 at 4:20pm

Nuff Sed Offline
Ensemble
They like me, they really
like me! Wait..... Nope!
WVC, UT

Gender:
Posts: 149

I pay numerous contractors and report via 1099 (electricians, mechanics, architects). And having been audited by the State (once in 9 years). �In my eyes, your talking minor degrees of separation from W-2 employee vs 1099. It seemed the main point to the audit was to confirm and document a �bottom line combined total $$$ and SSN's & FID#'s. �After completing the audit which was complete in less than 3 hours. The onus is on the contractor to report the income. Theatres with 12-40 member casts running 6-8 shows a season makes it a little more challenging.

Doing shows at Hale as a contractor I see the other side. It's not a huge benefit but when I filed I was able to (after consulting with my cpa/tax preparer) deduct, Make-up, additional costume pieces (undies, socks, etc.) and some mileage. (keep receipts and driving log)In the long run it was pretty easy and beneficial (to me) to have a 1099 instead of a W-2.

Talk to a tax person to get specific information.

Spank you very much.... � � �Nuff' Sed!

IP Logged

Reply #20 - May 6^th, 2009 at 10:38pm

The Childrens Theatre Offline
Ensemble
You will be surprised.
Downtown Salt Lake City

Posts: 66

Rosie Poppins wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 8:50am:

The Childrens Theatre wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 12:42am:

�
Those theatre companies that are sending out 1099's are doing so at the risk of the State auditing them.

Why?

I've had several companies (not theatres) where I was hired as an independent contractor to do office/assisting work for a short time. �Those companies (2 international/huge, 1 local/small) then sent me a 1099 and I was advised by a tax professional (love those lawyers) that because I was paid in this manner, I could operate my own 'business' and claim the expenses. All 3 amounts were over $600, and I always put them on my tax forms. Should the state be auditing those companies for my being paid via 1099? I didn't start out with the intention of operating a business, but I was just fine with accepting a 1099. �I'm just saying, it doesn't happen in ONLY the theatre world...

(I do get it that no corporation would ever ask for volunteers or be allowed to pay someone .10 cents an hour to work. �Please don't try to detract from this point with that separate, worthy argument. �I just genuinely want to understand why paying someone 1099 merits audit in one realm of business and not another.)

Midsize theater groups facing fines from state
By not classifying actors, others as employees, companies have avoided hefty salary payments, taxes

By REBEKAH DENN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Shakespeare won't be on the playbill when Kent Phillips finishes plans for his theater group's next season. Instead of a 15-player production of the Bard's "Richard II," he is looking into a two-man show by Noel Coward.

Phillips, interim director of the Tacoma Actors Guild and managing director of Bellevue Civic Theater, didn't pull his Shakespeare plans for artistic purposes. He was reacting to news that the state has been auditing other theater companies and fining them for paying actors honorariums and stipends rather than treating them as full-fledged employees.

The state says it is not cracking down on theaters or singling them out, but the artists say that makes no practical difference.

"I'd rather be safe than sorry," Phillips said. And dropping from a 15-person to a two-actor show in Tacoma, with a similar reduction in Bellevue, would cover his company's extra costs for the season if the entire industry must change how it pays for its art.

At least three theater companies in the region say they are facing fines from the state Employment Security Department. And dozens of others -- along with the broader arts community -- are worrying about what the change could mean.

"This is one that could have a real detrimental effect, not just in Seattle but across the state. And it might not just be theater companies, it might be all kinds of venues," said Gretchen Johnston, executive director of the Washington State Arts Alliance, a non-profit advocacy group that will start examining the issue at a meeting today.

"The implications are far beyond the theater community. It will cost everyone more," said Karen Zeller Lane, executive director of Theater Puget Sound, who said other theaters have faced audits as well. "You look at musicians. Dancers. Festivals. ... What about the church soloist?" she said.

Similar issues at symphony orchestras in Oregon over the past few years have caused music festivals to be canceled or cut back, according to the Statesman Journal in Salem.

At issue is the practice among small and midsize theaters to treat some actors, technicians and designers as independent contractors rather than as employees. Theater directors say paying a fixed payment or weekly stipend is a way to honor and at least slightly subsidize their creative work -- and provide a stepping stone to higher-paid Equity jobs -- without completely breaking the bank for community non-profits.

Now, they say, the state is telling them that workers should be classified as employees, meaning they should pay an hourly salary of at least minimum wage, plus contribute to the state's unemployment and workers' compensation funds.

"From an actor's standpoint, they're going to be more protected," said Lauri Watkins, managing director of Theater Schmeater.

But it could harm them as well.

Seattle has a long tradition of being a "theater town," but it has taken a hit over the past few years as community theaters have struggled to stay in business. The Empty Space Theater and ACT Theatre, for instance, threatened shutdowns recently before emergency fund-raising drives kept them afloat. Several smaller theaters have shut their doors for good.

With different employment rules, "in a worst-case scenario, you might eliminate 50 percent of the theaters in town," Watkins said.

Theater Schmeater currently pays actors $100 apiece for participating in a show, including rehearsal time, Watkins said -- not much, but at least a way to show they value what's being done. To reclassify actors as employees "would probably end up something like quintupling our budget."

To keep functioning, the solution instead for such small companies might be "to just classify everyone as a volunteer and not pay them at all. That doesn't serve anybody," she said.

Sharon Hitt, employment accounts manager for the state Employment Security Department, said yesterday that the theaters in question were audited randomly. "The fact that they are theaters bears no relevance to the process," she said, and as far as she

IP Logged

Reply #21 - May 7^th, 2009 at 1:14am

Rosie Poppins Offline
All Access
Still I'm incandescent
Salt Lake City

Gender:
Posts: 2623

I still don't see how that is different from the other corporations I worked with. �For example, the newspaper hires many many 'paperboys' and pays them using 1099/independent contractor status. �Like Nuff Sed said (nice), there are perks and benefits to being paid this way and the onus is on the individual taxpayer to report it correctly. �One can't argue that a theatre is ripe for audit when newspapers and other businesses (including other non-profit businesses) are hiring independent contractors to save on salaries, benefits, and HR costs, too. �I can think of many museums, national parks, small businesses, construction sites, landscaping companies, the list goes on... why are they not audited when the openly advertise for individuals who will be hired as independent contractors?

(This may be past the point of General Theater chatting. �I may need to move this to another section, but where? I'll leave it here for now, let's all see where it goes...)

Let me make one thing quite clear: I never explain anything.

IP Logged

Reply #22 - May 7^th, 2009 at 6:07pm

The Childrens Theatre Offline
Ensemble
You will be surprised.
Downtown Salt Lake City

Posts: 66

Rosie Poppins wrote on May 7^th, 2009 at 1:14am:

I still don't see how that is different from the other corporations I worked with. �For example, the newspaper hires many many 'paperboys' and pays them using 1099/independent contractor status. �Like Nuff Sed said (nice), there are perks and benefits to being paid this way and the onus is on the individual taxpayer to report it correctly. �One can't argue that a theatre is ripe for audit when newspapers and other businesses (including other non-profit businesses) are hiring independent contractors to save on salaries, benefits, and HR costs, too. �I can think of many museums, national parks, small businesses, construction sites, landscaping companies, the list goes on... why are they not audited when the openly advertise for individuals who will be hired as independent contractors?

(This may be past the point of General Theater chatting. �I may need to move this to another section, but where? I'll leave it here for now, let's all see where it goes...)

I agree completely with all the comments here. I understand the State trying to protect workers, however there should be enough freedom for small theatres to give actors compensation equivilent to what our budgets can afford.

IP Logged

Pages: 1

Send Topic

Print

� Previous Topic | Next Topic �

Top of this page

The Green Room » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge

Keep this site running!
You can donate to this site to help us meet the costs of keeping this service running for you. Click the button above and you can donate any amount you'd like. No amount is too small.
(Donation payments are made through PayPal to our parent company, Zen Cowboy Design)