The Equity Waiver Plan, also known as the 99-Seat Theater Plan, was first introduced in 1972 by Edward Weston, the West Coast representative of Actors' Equity. [1] The plan was designed to provide more flexibility for small theaters in Los Angeles County, which had previously been restricted by the "workshop code." Under the workshop code, small theaters could not charge admission, run public productions for more than nine performances, or advertise. They also could not solicit or accept donations. The goal of the new plan was to free these theaters from such limitations, allowing them to thrive and grow creatively. This move was well received at the time, as it allowed smaller theaters to operate more freely and enabled actors to take part in productions without the heavy restrictions that had previously existed. [2]
The Equity Waiver Plan, as first proposed in 1972, allowed non-union actors (and union actors paid much less than scale) to perform at theaters with 99 seats or less. [3] It was originally intended to help small theaters in Los Angeles grow by allowing them to operate with less stringent union regulations. Under the 1970s-era plan, actors were paid between $5 and $14 per performance, depending on box office revenue. However, productions that ran more than 80 performances were required to transition to an Equity contract, which would pay actors more. [4] [2]
By 1976, when the plan came up for renewal, the Los Angeles County theater scene had dramatically changed. Small theaters were proliferating rapidly, and a rich creative environment had emerged. Critics like Sylvia Drake of the Los Angeles Times lauded the growth, noting that the flexibility given to theaters under the 99-Seat Theater Plan had sparked a "survival of the fittest" situation, where only the strongest theaters survived and artistic achievement flourished. [4]
By the mid-1980s, the number of waiver theaters in Los Angeles County had grown significantly, from 42 in 1980 to an estimated 130 by 1985. The plan contributed to this growth by enabling smaller theaters to become "midsize theaters" that could pay actors wages, leading to a rise in artistic achievement. [2] However, issues began to emerge. Complaints started to surface about the working conditions in some of these small theaters. Actors reported being asked to provide their own costumes, build sets, and even clean the theaters, all while working long hours with little or no pay. This led to concerns about exploitation and unsafe working conditions. [5] [2] [6] In response to these issues, Equity took action and began to focus on ensuring better protections for its members. [7] [8]
In 1986, a joint committee was formed by Equity to examine the concerns and propose changes. This committee included input from 165 waiver operators across Los Angeles County. In 1988, after much debate, a referendum was created with proposed changes, including reinstating some union regulation of small theaters. The proposed changes led to significant opposition from theater operators, who feared that the stricter regulations would put an end to small theater productions in the region. [9] [10] [11] Many actors were also opposed to the changes. [12]
Tensions escalated, and the Western Advisory Board of Actors Equity recommended approval of a new 99-Seat Theater Plan that would impose stronger union rules on small theaters. This sparked protests from members of the union, who threatened legal action. To resolve the conflict, the Associated Theaters of Los Angeles (ATLAS) proposed an alternative plan with different provisions, such as a pay scale and rehearsal limits that were more favorable to theater operators. [13] [14]
In January 1989, Equity and ATLAS reached a compromise. The new agreement required minimum payments for actors and placed restrictions on the length of theater runs, limiting them to 80 performances. For a time, this system remained largely unchanged, though tensions between Equity and small theater operators continued to simmer in the following decades. [15] [2]
In 2000, the union made changes to the plan so that the size of the theater, rather than weekly gross revenue, would determine actor payments for the first 12 weeks of a production. This was seen as a more consistent method for determining pay. [16] In 2014, Equity conducted a survey among its members and found that most believed the plan favored producers over actors, which set the stage for further discussions about its future. [17]
The debate over the 99-Seat Theater Plan resurfaced in the 2010s. [18] [19] [2] In 2015, Actors Equity mandated a $9 hourly minimum wage for actors working in Los Angeles theaters with fewer than 100 seats. This new policy was met with mixed reactions. [20] Although some actors and union members supported it as a necessary step toward ensuring fair compensation for performers, many theater operators feared that the wage increase would force them to close or reduce productions. The move was seen as a way to increase professionalism in the theater industry, but it also raised concerns that it could stunt creative expression by raising costs for small productions. This marked a new chapter in the ongoing evolution of the 99-Seat Theater Plan and underscored the ongoing tension between the artistic and financial needs of small theaters. [21] [17] [22] [23]
]