The deal had been opposed by many actors.
I think this article shows an interesting angle on labor unions and membership organizations, as well as the notions of trying to appease many stakeholders.
For context, Actor’s Equity is the union representing actors and stage managers in professional theater. In order to become a member, an actor has to work a set number of weeks (it had been 50 until a recent rule change made it 25) in an Equity theater/under equity contract before they can get their “card,”. Dues are often paid by the hiring theaters in the form of withholdings from paychecks, and actors are able to use Equity for health insurance, as well as setting pay rates, etc. For more details, check out this link: http://www.actorsequity.org/membership/howtojoin.asp
Worth noting, once an actor has their Equity card, it is very difficult to work under contract at a smaller, non-equity theater. Exemptions are frequently made for work in particularly small theaters, allowing actors to pursue smaller “passion,” projects, even if there was no pay. This move by Equity, ultimately had undone that option in California (the article covering the initial announcement, which is linked to in the body, is well worth the read, too).
What i find particularly interesting is the resistance actors had to this change. It begs a question of what is the “good,” work of the union? Obviously, the rule change ultimately resulted in more money in actors’ pockets, but I wonder how many productions weren’t able to happen due to budget constraints. I also find it interesting in the context that many of the smaller theaters that were effected likely were nonprofits as well...Are they hurting the industry they are a part of? Or, does the mission to support the cause of the actors trump any concerns about the economics of the sector?