eager4equity

Apologies for delays in updating

2012-02-17T15:26:00.002-08:00

Please accept administrators' apologies for not updating but one admin has been abroad, another has been indisposed and others forgot the password ! ! !...so some unavoidable delays. However show contract finishes soon...up for auditions....but things winding down as no more extra rehearsals...so more time to update....
UPDATES WILL FOLLOW SHORTLY.
Thank you.

What are the criteria for new Equity Branches?

2011-12-27T14:59:00.000-08:00

For democracy to work properly the majority have to be involved - it cannot be democracy by default where the minority decide can it? It used to be that there was a minimum number of members required to start a new General Branch ideally between 80 - 100 members making such a request. The current Rep Con Council majority have lowered this requirement over the past few years. So a "backstage" question - how many members DO YOU think should be regarded as sufficient to request Council to agree to a form a new General Branch?
Please email any thoughts to:

daveeagerequity@yahoo.co.uk

You may like to consider this:
Apart from the additional cost to Equity, you and me, the more General Branches there are...the more representatives attend the Annual Representative Conference. If the General Branches are NOT representative of the members, then it means neither is the Annual Representative Conference. BUT the Annual Representative Conference has the power to over-rule the Council...the body which is directly elected by all members, regardless of whether you attend a local branch or not.
The move for more branches is a move to "ACTIVISTS ONLY WELCOME". Other members - just pay your subscriptions because the activists know best what is good for you !

Certification Officer or not?

2011-12-15T22:17:00.001-08:00

Following a report to the Council, at its December meeting, at which Gen Sec informed that Dave Eager had made a complaint to the Certification Officer about the rule change referendum which took place earlier this year....we asked Dave if the date 1st February for the hearing given to the Council was correct. Dave was not prepared to confirm this date....so is it "Certification Officer or not?" What is going on Dave? It has been confirmed that Madhav Sharma's complaint, arising from the referendum, is to be heard by the Certification Officer on the 31st January.

SIR JIMMY SAVILE OBE

2011-10-29T12:37:00.000-07:00

Jimmy has been one of Dave Eager's proposer's to the Equity Council since the time Dave first stood for election back in the 8o's. Dave's showbiz mentor and "Godfather" Jimmy's passing is the end of an era...drawing a line under the crazy hazy pop '60's years. As Dave says: "Gone to be with The Duchess.....and I bet she'll be there with her pyrex dishes for her son" !!!! R.I.P Jimmy - Happy memories live on.

MARZIEH VAFAMEHR

2011-10-28T18:48:00.000-07:00

UPDATE to earlier posting 18th October: "eager4equity" welcomes the news of the release of Marzieh Vafamehr

It has been reported that Iranian actress Marzieh Vafamehr has had her sentence reduced to three months and will not receive any form of corporal punishment. As Marzieh Vafamehr has already served four months in jail she has now been released.

TV CREDITS SURVEY

2011-10-28T18:38:00.000-07:00

Jean Rogers, the union’s vice-president, is behind Equity's latest effort to make sure performers are properly credited at the end of a programme in which they appear....building on Equity's "Stop the Credit Crunch" campaign.
To give your support, and express what you think about performers' credits being crunched at the end of programmes please complete the survey which may be found at:

THE CREDITS CRUNCH SURVEY

SAVE MARZIEH VAFAMEHR

2011-10-18T12:20:00.000-07:00

Australian Actors Equity has written to the Australian Ambassador of the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Babaei, and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kevin Rudd, expressing concern for Iranian actress Marzieh Vafamehr.
Marzieh has been sentenced to one year’s imprisonment & ninety lashes for her performance in the film "My Tehran For Sale". The film, produced in South Australia, was shot in the Iranian capital. It tells the story of a young actress whose stage work is banned by authorities.
The film, which premiered at the Adelaide Film Festival in 2009, was part of the official selection for the Toronto International Film Festival. The film was banned from broadcast & sale in Iran, but apparently some "under the counter" copies have been seen in the country which is what triggered Marzieh being charged by the authorities.
Equity UK is urging members to support a campaign on behalf of Marzieh Vafamehr. We respectfully urge you to consider Ms Marzieh current distressing situation, read all the information and sign the petition.
http://www.equityfoundation.org.au/newsbites/actors-equity-calls-for-the-release-of-marzieh-vafamehr.html
Many thanks - "eager4equity-equity-backstage"

WHERE IS THE INCREASE IN JOBS?

2011-10-16T16:50:00.000-07:00

Great play has recently been made about the fact that Equity membership numbers have increased. The membership figures are at an all time high. Wonderful some may say...but consider this....as membership numbers have increased by several thousand where have the NEW jobs come from? We have not seen any news in "The Stage", for example, that Government policies / funding has increased so as to create more jobs in our profession. Neither have we seen any significant growth in job opportunities in Film, TV, Variety and LE. In fact most members will tell you that searching for work has become harder. One might argue that numbers have increased because people already doing work have been persuaded to join Equity but others will equally argue that those who are newly joining are doing so at the expense of taking work from existing members. We wonder if the bar for joining Equity has not been lowered so low as to totally devalue the professional status of holding an Equity card. We also wonder if the percentage of members "out of work" has increased ! ! !

EQUITY GEN SEC - LOWEST VOTE TUC - UPDATED

2011-09-18T02:38:00.000-07:00

As soon as the October Equity Council Minutes are published we will be able to update the reasons for Equity's action at the TUC in this matter. Facts were put forward, as an opinion, of which we were not aware.

If memory serves us correctly, previously the Equity General Secretary has been elected in Group "C" to the General Council of the TUC (Trade Union Congress).
At this month's TUC out of 14 other unions, who put forward candidates, the Equity General Secretary came bottom of the poll.
If one considers that in the past few years Equity has adopted, in our opinion, a more old fashioned left-wing style in supporting right to work marches, altering its rules to include a "politically correct" equality rule, becoming focused on "organising" its members in preference to "servicing".....additionally sending representatives to assist trade unions in Ghana and Turkey...all when Equity is having to cut its costs because of financial considerations....OBVIOUSLY THIS HAS NOT IMPRESSED their fellow trade union "BROTHERS AND SISTERS".
This comes as no surprise, as amongst trade unions Equity stands out as unique - because at any one time 80%+ of our members are out of work !!!

STAND BY TO DEFEND OUR NON SECTARIAN - NON PARTY POLITICAL RULE.

CERTIFICATION OFFICE

2011-09-17T13:22:00.001-07:00

Following the Council accepting the report from the Appeals Committee, which upheld the decision of the Council to dismiss my complaint arising from the recent Rule Change referendum, The issue has now been referred to the Certification Officer. We believe that the Council process under Rule 29, in which the Council can drawn up its own regulations to determine a complaint brought against itself are unfair and flawed. Worthy in fact of being commended by any totalitarian regime ! ! ! The Appeals Committee report said basically that as the Council had followed the regulations they were not in breach of them. "Heads" Council wins - "Tails" the member loses !!!
At the end of the Appeals Committee hearing another complaint complaint was submitted arising from the referendum BUT this time under Rule 28. This was done BEFORE the results of the Appeal hearing were known. The Council is unable to determine the regulations under this rule...so it is fair for the member. BUT the Council is frustrated from responding to this rule !!! So much for Equity's new rule book eh?
Some, who are determined to be mischievous and misrepresent the true facts, are saying that this second complaint has only been brought because the first complaint at the Appeals Committee Hearing was not upheld. This is factually incorrect. The second complaint was submitted to Christine Payne - Equity General Secretary, BEFORE the results of the Appeal Hearing were known.
Bet your bottom dollar nobody will apologise for this misrepresentation of the facts...and also bet your bottom dollar they will continue to misrepresent them.

APPEALS COMMITTEE HEARING 2nd August

2011-07-31T18:18:00.000-07:00

Just finished preparing all my presentation for the Appeals Hearing concerning a complaint about Council / Equity being biased, sectarian and misusing Union Resources in the recent rule change referendum. The Appeals committee have to determine if Council were correct in dismissing my complaint.....well what else would you expect from a Council which had sent themselves up as "Judge and Jury" when they considered the issue. Equity Member Yvonne Joseph is accompanying me...we shall see eh?

MADHAV SHARMA - CERTIFICATION OFFICER

2011-07-07T10:53:00.000-07:00

Equity members, who have been following previous postings, will know of mine and others concerns about the recent rule change referendum. I have an appeal hearing taking place early next month, before Equity's Appeals Committee, to consider the Council's dismissal of our complaint.
Today I have been informed that Equity member Madhav Sharma, acting independently of any of my actions, has submitted a complaint about the conduct of the Rule Change Referendum directly to The Certification Officer. The point Madhav is focusing on appears to be different from our complaint. To say the least, it will be "interesting" to see what happens.

Time soon passes ?

2011-07-03T17:00:00.000-07:00

Well time soon passes since last posting. A Councillor has given notice of an appeal against the Council's decision to dismiss a complaint....so something should be heard within the next few days. However as far as we are concerned the Council, President and General Secretary are totally out of order. It cannot be correct that in a referendum, which is the final arbiter of a democratic process - individual one member one vote, that one side of an argument/question (in this case The Council) can use Union resources to promote their preference outside what has always been "custom and practice" that both sides have an equal opportunity as provided for under Rule 40. This allows for statements "for and against" to be circulated to all members with their referendum papers. Clearly members are free to campaign to gain support for their viewpoint BUT using THEIR OWN resources. The Council could have done this if they had wished...paid for it themselves. BUT to use Union Resources - paid for by members' subscriptions is a total NO NO in any democratic process. Council and others should hang their heads in shame...and we hope that eventually they will be big enough to admit that they have thwarted democracy and brought discredit to Equity, which has always been a bastion of fair play and equality for all....until NOW !

Council Meeting Tuesday 7th June

2011-06-02T15:52:00.000-07:00

It will be interesting to see what happens with "The Complaint" as there is a Council Meeting on Tuesday. So far nothing has been heard from the General Secretary who, when enquiring into a complaint, carries out such enquiries as she thinks fit. She then has to present a written report to the Council. Obviously as she has not contacted the complainant....she must consider she has enough information contained in the complaint, which was previously submitted and reported to the May meeting of the Equity Council. We do not believe that she does have sufficient information but "Who am we?" to think this....
It maybe that "they" are feeling so "cock-a-hoop" at winning the rule change referendum by what we, and others believe, was an unethical, unequal and unfair practice that "they" think "they" may now get away with "murder". Over to Agatha Christie...maybe it is no coincidence that "The Mousetrap" is playing at the back of Guild House at The St Martins Theatre !!!!

Equity Referendum - Is it fair ?

2011-04-20T23:03:00.000-07:00

Following the posting of two YouTube videos, concerns have been expressed to others about the fairness and the possible bias which has been shown in the current Equity Rule Change Referendum. Another YouTube video has been posted which explains this and also highlights the reasons for a formal complaint to Equity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rumoXwbIiaw

Your comments will be welcome.
HAPPY EASTER ONE AND ALL....

EQUITY FORUM POSTING

2011-04-17T15:38:00.000-07:00

Recently posted this reply to an Equity Member who regularly write on the Equity Forum and is campaigning for an "Approval" vote in the current rule change referendum:

Dear ----- Believe it or not I agree with you....but I come to a different solution. Equity MUST treat everyone equally and fairly...and I believe that this cannot be achieved by putting in place restrictions which may be considered to favour one group of members as distinct from another. History and more recent social experiences have shown this approach does not work. What does work is to ensure that positive focused campaigning to raise awareness on the equality of rights for everyone whatever their social, ethnic, religious, other beliefs or attributes and OUR (Equity's) BELIEF AND DETERMINATION that these rights should be fostered, maintained and preserved for everyone, all our members, equally and fairly without fear or favour. This is why I am voting DISAPPROVE and urge other members to vote DISAPPROVE as well.

HAS EQUITY BECOME SECTARIAN ?

2011-04-12T23:33:00.000-07:00

Does the current Equity Spring Journal which has devoted pages and comment to presenting only one side in the arguments, for and against, in the current Rule Change Referendum mean that Equity has become sectarian?

If one accepts an interpretation that "sectarian" means being devoted to or biased in favour of a group or cause, an ardent supporter of some person or activity AS DISTINCT FROM being free of any bias or unfair and unequal affiliation, then it is difficult not to conclude that the Equity Spring Journal is sectarian concerning the Rule Change Referendum?

NB Equity's first Rule 3.1.1 in its OBJECTS POWER AND DUTIES states that "Equity"
As a non-party political and NON-SECTARIAN UNION:

THE STAGE ARTICLE - REFERENDUM

2011-04-08T03:34:00.000-07:00

Matthew Hemley at The Stage has published an article in this week's edition about the current Equity Rule Change Referendum: THE STAGE ARTICLE

Where is the EQUITY FORUM?

2011-04-06T15:50:00.000-07:00

Whilst we only a very infrequently use the EQUITY ON-LINE DISCUSSION FORUM several members have told us that it is currently SWITCHED-OFF ! As there is a fundamental rule change referendum taking place, which seeks to restrict the rights of members to express their personal political and other beliefs both in their private and professional capacities and that Council have agreed to Internet campaigning is seems "unfortunate" to say the least that if the forum is turned off, and remains so for any length of time, it inculcates an idea that someone is restricting our members' rights to "freedom of expression" within Equity? It may perhaps be considered as being very helpful to the "activists" who traditionally vote (usually no more than 8% of the membership), especially as Council are actively supporting an "Approval" campaign. The forum could well have proved a viable and worthwhile way of members contacting other members to inform them of their views about the Rule Change Referendum. It begs the question as to why Councillors were not informed of the "switch-off" at Tuesday's Council Meeting 5th April. As the Council were not informed, does this give credence to a view that the switch off may be "convenient censorship" to assist an "Approval" campaign? We are NOT a happy bunnies having just learnt about this !

YOUTUBE VIDEOS - EQUITY RULE CHANGE REFERENDUM

2011-04-05T13:30:00.000-07:00

Links to YOUTUBE Postings

Long Version Disapproval video link:

Short Version Disapproval video link:

EXPLANATION:
Members should received soon after the 6th April the Spring edition of the Equity Journal - magazine.
Enclosed should be the referendum documents, statements for and against, voting paper and reply paid envelope.
We believe this rule change flies in the face of Equity's long held principles of being against censorship and campaigning for "freedom of expression". Anyone who supports democratic principles will no doubt question how Equity can even contemplate such a rule change which seeks to restrict members’ rights to express their views. We are opposed to this rule change and support a DISAPPROVAL vote. Unfortunately usually only some 8% of the 36,000 + membership vote so it is a case of "activists" rule. We are trying to raise awareness by making and posting two YouTube videos. we hope that anyone and everyone who believes in democratic principles will forward these links so we may get the message across to our membership as to what may happen to their ability to hold and express their personal political and other beliefs both in their private and professional capacities if they do not vote disapprove. I have produced the videos totally on my own. Thanks :-)

YOUTUBE RULE CHANGE REFERENDUM

2011-04-04T03:43:00.000-07:00

Just let all "friends" know and also no doubt those who disagree with our views...that a Councillor will be posting information to YOUTUBE links tomorrow. These are about the current Equity Rule Change Referendum which is seeking to restrict the rights of Equity members to hold and express their personal political and other beliefs in their private and professional capacities. We believe that this rule change is an affront of our long held cherished principles of being against any form of censorship and campaigning for "freedom of expression". Equity, in our opinion, is trying to implement its own interpretation of democracy as seen by the current Council majority. Unfortunately unless the members really get to know what is happening...the vote will be in favour of approval as usually less than 8% of our members vote. On this fundamental rule change the documents and voting papers are being sent enclosed with the Spring Equity Journal. Many members will not even realise what they are about....they have more important issues on their mind....like hoping the phone will ring offering them their next gig !

NO COMPLAINT MADE

2011-03-26T07:22:00.000-07:00

Following an exchange of emails between a Councillor and our General Secretary, the Councillor has brought to our attention an issue about which the rules and procedure are currently silent. It seems to us, given that the rule change referendum is due, to be unreasonable to make a complaint in such circumstances. The Councillor agrees with us. We understand that our General Secretary has invited the Councillor to discuss the "silent" part of the rules and procedure after the referendum and that they have accepted.

SUBMISSION TO PRESIDENT & GENERAL SECRETARY Possible reason for a complaint arising from upcoming rule change referendum UNFAIRLY SKEWED PROCESS.

2011-03-15T06:46:00.000-07:00

PLEASE NOTE - THIS POSTING IS FOR THE INFORMATION OF EQUITY MEMBERS - IT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN TOTAL OR IN PART OR QUOTED FROM WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED PERMISSION OF DAVE EAGER.
Dave may be contacted by emailing: daveeagerequity@yahoo.co.uk

This is a copy (slightly amended for clarity as some information is obvious to General Secretary and President but maybe not to others) of POSSIBLE BREACH OF RULE notice sent to our President: Malcolm Sinclair and our General Secretary : Christine Payne.

The proposed new rule's influence on the PRIVATE lives of members is the most important aspect. As I have previously expressed I have sympathy for the concerns of the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee but I do not believe that other options which may be available to address their concerns and the full implications of the upcoming rule change referendum have been properly considered. In fact the evidence points to the fact that MEMBERS' views have been IGNORED to an extent that our rules have been breached.

I believe that the Council, when an Annual Representative Conference expresses a view, has a principled duty to act on the same. At the 2007 ARC a motion from the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee proposed a rule change which, if passed, would have resulted in the need for a similar referendum to the one which is now about to be conducted. THE ARC VOTED TO REMOVE THE RELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE MINORITY ETHNIC MEMBERS' COMMITTEE MOTION. Vice President Jean Rogers is on record as saying that the removal of the original Equity rule would be a "disaster to democracy and civil liberties". There is therefore established ARC policy that when the Representatives last voted on the issue, regarding the PRIVATE lives of members, they voted to retain the current Equity rule. The current rule "acknowledges the right of individual members to hold and express their personal, political and other beliefs both in their PRIVATE and PROFESSIONAL capacities".

At the 2010 ARC the motion from the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee had a similar "raison d'etre" and owing to the heated and divisive debate and the fact that Christine gave legal advice against the motion, it was remitted to Council. However this was in the knowledge that COUNCIL OPPOSED THE MOTION. Two councillors were appointed by the Council to speak in OPPOSITION on behalf of the Council.

The next time the issue, as far as my research shows, was brought to the Council was at the LAST meeting of the OLD Council in July 2010. The reference to the remitted Minority Ethnic Members' Committee motion was contained in a report "ARC Motions 2010 - Reports on Actions - Officer and Senior Management Team" - Agenda Item 6. You will be aware being a report, and also being the last meeting of the Council, things tend not to be scrutinised as fully as possible. I note that the subsequent minutes of this meeting makes no reference to the overwhelming majority of motions, including the one from the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee. The minutes only refer to Motions 10, 25 and 32. However the President and General Secretary have a DUTY UNDER OUR RULES TO ACT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICIES AND DIRECTIONS OF THE COUNCIL. In order to comply with this, a recommendation on this motion, brought to the Council for endorsement MUST and MAY only be made on the basis that the Council opposed the ARC motion, in the knowledge that it was remitted and that when the ARC last voted on the issue they supported Council's policy of opposing. If the Officers and SMT recommendations were of a contrary view that I am of the opinion the Officers/SMT have a clear unequivocal duty to "flag this up". Otherwise how may we trust the Officer and SMT to act in accordance with Council policy and directions?

The is the basis of support for my contention that our membership; representatives, members and indeed councillors, have not been given a reasonable opportunity to consider the Council's "about face" on this matter.

A PARAGRAPH, ORGINALLY AT THIS POINT, HAS BEEN REMOVED ON THE 18th MARCH FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL 18TH MARCH FROM THE GENERAL SECRETARY

The comment following in ordinary bold type was added Wednesday evening at 23.30.
I accept that the above statement is only an opinion based on the facts, that are currently known to me, which I believe to be true. A similar consideration applies to all of this posting.

Without any "flagging up" by the Officers and SMT it follows that the advice from the Equity solicitors could and should only have been obtained on the basis THAT COUNCIL WAS AGAINST the objectives of the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee's ARC 2010 motion. The reasons for this should have been conveyed to the Equity solicitors, when seeking their advice. Subsequently such advice should have been presented in manner which supported Council's view and also, I believe, that of the 2007 ARC decision which supports the 2010 Council decision to oppose the motion.

I accept that the Council may, at any time, put to referendum any issue they wish provided in the case of a protected rule, as this rule is, the subject matter has been debated within the last two years at an ARC or open meetings of members. In this respect the current referendum is possibly valid. This though is debatable as it begs the question of the Council expressing a view to OPPOSE AT THE 2010 ARC and then within a few months doing an "about face" without proper fair discussion. I FERVENTLY BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE HAVE REACHED THIS POINT IS FLAWED AS IT IGNORES THE EXPRESSED VIEW OF ARC REPRESENTATIVES and Council ARC policy to a motion and furthermore has not allowed our membership to fully discuss this issue. SHOULD EQUITY CHANGE ITS RULES SO AS TO BE ABLE TO RESTRICT - ("ACT AS JUDGE AND JURY") - THE PRIVATE LIVES OF MEMBERS?

The process, resulting in the current situation, means that the referendum is UNFAIRLY SKEWED in favour of an approval vote.

A SENTENCE, ORIGINALLY AT THIS POINT, HAS BEEN REMOVED ON THE 18th MARCH FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF AN EMAIL 18th MARCH FROM THE GENERAL SECRETARY.

END OF SUBMISSION SENT TO THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL SECRETARY

Please note: If requested by the General Secretary or the President I will publish their response in this blogspot EAGER4EQUITY. It should also be noted that the current President Malcolm Sinclair was elected as President AFTER the July meeting referred to in the above submission.

Eager in Action

2011-03-12T14:59:00.000-08:00

Something completely different for this "eager4equity" blogspot....I have to show I have some fun...so here is link to my YMCA Fleetwood Spinning Sesssion videoed last Thursday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9s18l2ofv8

Hope it gives it gives you at least a chuckle......:-)

Enjoyable Convivial Blackpool Variety Branch

2011-03-02T15:29:00.000-08:00

Well attended Blackpool Variety Branch Meeting on Tuesday 1st March.
Held at Blackpool Cricket Club.
Interesting topics raised by guest speaker Anne Gaelan:

http://www.annegaelan.co.uk/

Anne raised concerns about Equity's attitude to protecting jobs for our members when
it comes to non professionals taking part in professional productions.

COUNCIL REPORT - AN INTERESTING INTERPRETATION?

2011-02-22T08:56:00.001-08:00

Having been informed of a discussion on the Equity Forum about the upcoming Rule Change Referendum apparently someone has mentioned "The Public Order" act as being relevant.
we wonder if those taking part in the debate are aware of the following.
The Equity Council report to members Nos: 6, 25th January 2011 states that:
"The Council agreed to a motion from the Minority Ethnic Members' Committee calling for action to persuade members to vote "yes" in the forthcoming rule-change referendum on Equity's equal opportunities rules"

We are firmly of the opinion that the proposed rule change goes way beyond any "equal opportunities" consideration and Council using such a description is misleading.
The proposal is to add after the current rule (new addition in bold italics);
CURRENT RULE 3.2.17
To acknowledge the right of individual members to hold and express their personal political and other beliefs both in their private and professional capacities as long as the expression of personal political and other beliefs or other conduct or activities relating to those beliefs do not cause a breach of 3.1.1.8 by unfairly discriminating against, harassing or victimising other persons because of their sex, race, ethnic or national origin, religion, colour, class, caring responsibilities, marital status, sexuality, disability, age, or other status or personal characteristic.

Equity Council summarising as "Equity's Equal Opportunities rules" we feel is, to say the least, somewhat of an understatement !
What do you think?

Equity Northern AGM - Thursday 17th February 2011

2011-02-18T18:47:00.000-08:00

YouTube video posted with pictures of the Northern Area AGM and a short tour of the Mechanics Institute in Manchester where the meeting was held. A very well attended, worthwhile and productive meeting. Young member Drew introduced an item about "ShowBiz Wrestlers" ... needing professional trade union representation. The meeting recalled days when we used to work on the same variety bills as wrestlers including; Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks. A motion was proposed to the Equity Council that they should consider extending the criteria for membership to this new generation of "ShowBiz style wrestling entertainment performer".
YouTube posting link:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpYtSVyz0zo

REFERENDUM - THE TRUTH WILL OUT

2011-02-15T14:12:00.000-08:00

Having spent my day at Equity Council Meeting, I believe that the truth is now out.
The upcoming rule change referendum is not primarily about showing support for our Ethnic Minority Members, I believe it is now confirmed that Equity activists are really using the opportunity to be able to change our rules so that they may CENSURE what our members do in their PRIVATE lives. OUTRAGEOUS - 1984 MIND CONTROL.
I support our Ethnic Members' concerns and what they are trying to achieve, but I feel that CENSORSHIP of what our members do in their PRIVATE lives is not what our Ethnic Minority Members originally intended...was it?
Their concerns and the process has been HI-JACKED by extremists.

"EQUITY TURNING THE TRADE UNION CLOCK BACK TO A TIME WHEN VICTORIAN LABOUR UNION DESPOTS RAISED THEIR HEADS - POLICING PERSONAL SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR".

Equity's dismissive email.

2011-02-15T00:44:00.000-08:00

Dismissive email from Equity's acting General Secretary in response to my "observations" concerning rule change proposal. It says that Equity is not in breach of any union rules. Begs answering any of my concerns directly and also ignores the "Unifying Solution". Of course Equity may always reply on the fact....and I believe that they have used this before...that, provided they have taken reasonable professional advice and the advice supports / advises the action Equity has taken...then even if eventually the legal advice is not able to be sustained, if challenged....Equity are protected in that they have acted in "good faith" based on the professional legal advice they have obtained. Great eh? In other words, as I see it, the person who has the most money may more easily get legal advice, (was it ever thus?).....but in this situation it is members' subscriptions being used to support the Council's view and any members with differing views must pay for their own legal advice. Obviously at a disadvantage unless these members, with differing views, have plenty of spare cash !!!!
Discrimination of a minority or what?

EXPLANATION AFTER TUESDAY'S EQUITY COUNCIL MEETING

2011-02-13T12:15:00.000-08:00

A member has contacted a Councillor about their "Unifying Solution" as posted immediately before this one. They have spotted what has been called my "deliberate" omission concerning a referendum being held in relation to it. Yes this member is correct...but an explanation as to why this was done iwill be given after Tuesday's Council Meeting. All will then become clear we hope :-)

YOUR PRIVATE LIFE - EQUITY WANTS TO RESTRICT IT !

2011-02-13T06:36:00.000-08:00

Published on behalf of Councillor (Variety and LE): Dave Eager

Equity Council has decided to ask you to support changing our rules
so that the right for you to hold your own private beliefs and act on
them will be restricted.
This is being done under the banner of supporting our Minority Ethnic
Committee. We believe that this is a case of political extremists high-jacking
what is a genuine concern by the Minority Ethnic Committee – a concern
which I share and support.

It seems obvious to me that Council have never had any real opportunity to discuss or debate alternative proposals to what was the ONLY option put forward by the Officers and the Senior Management Team. Nor have YOU, our general membership been given time to discuss, debate and consider alternatives.
There are alternatives and a Councillor has come up with one which, we believe, merits
consideration. It solves the principle concerns of the Minority Ethnic Committee.
It maintains are our current Equity Objects and it better ensures artistic freedom of expression. It is called a “Unifying Solution” as:

I BELIEVE THAT AN EFFORT TO UNITE OUR MEMBERS AROUND THIS ISSUE HAS OVERWHELMING MERIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF, NOT ONLY OUR MEMBERS, BUT ALSO OUR PROFESSION.

Appparently the reasoning for this was made in a nine page submission to the Officers and Acting General Secretary yesterday. It is also believed that it is better for our profession not to seek to exaggerate, what some consider an ethnic issue, publicly in this blog. It is NOT an ethnic issue in our view, as it has been hi-jacked into a political issue where the private rights of members will be restricted if the referendum is approved.The “Unifying Solution” shows a way forward together. There may well be other ways but the Council’s proposed: “ONLY” way is divisive and in our opinion so flawed it will suit those who wish to turn Equity into a political battle-field. The rush to promote it has also meant ordinary members, which are probably well over 95% of our membership (i.e. not activists), have never had any opportunity to discuss, put forward any options or consider the consequences. Not even Council have had time to do all of this. Yet they have decided to spend YOUR MONEY on promoting a campaign for an approval vote to their only option.

Unless things change:

TO VOTE APPROVE WILL PROVIDE EQUITY WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTRICT YOUR PRIVATE LIVES. IT ALSO POSES EXTREMELY QUESTIONABLE SITUATIONS CONCERNING ARTISTIC FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

PLEASE EQUITY COUNCIL RECONSIDER BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
SEEK TO UNITE OUR UNION - NOT TO DIVIDE IT.

I hope that Council may change its mind and see a unifying solution.
Time though is running.
If any members would like a copy of my submission, please email me and I will send you either a full or edited copy (depending on Council Confidentiality Rules) in the hope that you will also restrict circulation and discussion to within our Equity membership.

daveeagerequity@yahoo.co.uk

A UNIFYING SOLUTION

Do not propose any change to Rule 3.

Propose the following rule change referendum:
Add the following paragraphs to Rule 4

NEW RULE 4.6
Any applicant, or other persons, granted membership by the Council, agrees to use their best endeavours to uphold Equity’s Objects – Rule 3.1 viz: Rule 3.1.1 through to Rule 3.1.1.9

NEW RULE 4.7.
Any member who, in their professional capacity, chooses to actively oppose Equity’s Objects and in particular Rule 3.1.1.8, may have their membership terminated if a complaint made against them under Rule 28.2 is upheld by the Council.

RE-NUMBER THE SUBSEQUENT RULES IN 4 ACCORDINGLY

Such an approach I believe protects and enhances the rights of minorities and also finds merit in that it more greatly ensures artistic freedom of expression in our professional capacity especially when compared with Council's ONLY option ! There may well be other approaches to allay the concerns of The Minority Ethnic Committee...but has anyone been given a chance to discuss them?

I, FOR ONE, HAVE NOT !
YOU HAVE NOT !
IS THIS REAL DEMOCRACY IN ACTION?
NO WAY !!!!!

Morning Star Equity.

2011-02-09T04:50:00.001-08:00

Following these comments on FaceBook...I will be emailing Equity acting General Secretary Martin Brown within the next 48 hours...as soon as I can find time from busy schedule.

FACEBOOK POSTINGS WENESDAY MORNING 9th FEBRUARY 2011

Dave: Good morning all. I was up early at 8am. Have to write two articles and also "fire a broadside" at Equity (British Actors' Equity Association). As a UK Trade Union now dominated by political ideological grouping who appear to readily see "The Guardian" newspaper and radical left wing publications as their programme for action. I read the Daily Express and Daily Mail which take a more centre right view.

Ian James Seale: I'm surprised you think it's the Guardian Dave, more like the Morning Star. Political ideologies have not place in any association of the arts representing professionals - other than which may be incorporated within their work - and should not be driven left or right. Could anyone imagine the Law Society or the BMA being driven by its executive in such a way?

Dave: Peter Sissons' s (former BBC head news-reader) revelations about BBC and others. I agree with you...political ideologies should have NO place in professional arts/showbiz associations...but like it or not...Equity is without doubt now viewed, both in real and practical terms, as a fully fledged Trade Union....that it is prevented from fully supporting our fellow trade union "brothers and sisters" in other trade unions because of restrictions in our rules. The moves, since 1995, to politicise Equity as a left wing activist Trade Union have now nearly reached full fruition. I despair for our "professional" future within Equity.

Greetings from Spain - Ageism rules in Equity

2011-01-13T15:30:00.000-08:00

Greetings from Spain...for those who may be wondering where and what I am up to.. and those who have already emailed / facebooked to ask.....here is YouTube video link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yKLyaETcaA

I am also considering voicing my comments about ageism in Equity. Just as the BBC has been hoisted with its own petard...the same may easily apply to Equity and the current attitude of Council Members and SMT where the drive to encourage "young" members seemingly in preference to everything else, with any type of "minority" coming a close second or equal first, the rights of older members to feel valued, whose experience should be acknowledged, are condescendingly sidelined and sacrificed on the obsessive altar of diversity and ticking "all the boxes". If it was not for long-serving members there would be NO Equity. Equity would have never survived without the loyalty of long-serving professionals.

Roger Nott's opinion - Chris Rhyde as Vice Chair Board - National Theatre of Wales.

2011-01-03T09:45:00.000-08:00

Member Roger Nott (former Councillor and current "facebook" friend) has published this opinion on "facebook" asking for views. If you would like to let me know, I will pass them on to Roger. Cheers Dave.

Roger Nott 03 January 2011
Subject: Conflict of interest.
Am I the only one that regards the Union's senior officer for Wales Chris Ryde is wrong in allowing himself to serve as Vice Chairman of the Board of National Theatre Wales? He may be very good. He may serve our members well, that's not an issue. He has a conflict of interest. Three passed chairmen agree with me, The present chair doesn't, she having been a member for all of three years. However you cut it it is a conflict of interests. Please let me know your views. Roger x.

Happy Nerw Year 2011

2011-01-01T02:17:00.000-08:00

Hoping all fellow professionals have an enjoyable New Year and good fortune in 2011. We seek to help each other eh? Also hoping our Gen Sec Christine Payne soon recovers from her injuries sustained in a recent accident.

Out of reach :) - Best wishes to Christine

2010-12-24T00:11:00.000-08:00

Only just heard that Equity General Secretary Christine Payne has been in an accident and is currently hospitalised with injuries....so sending special best wishes and get well soon greetings to Christine. I have sent a card and hopefully Christine will be able to enjoy Christmas and see in the New Year with her family.
Meanwhile I am in the middle of nowhere with poor unpredictable Internet access until 6th January so please excuse delays in response to emails and postings.
Best wishes...May the PEACE of CHRISTMAS and a Happy New Year 2011 be with you, yours and all of us....we NEED it ! ! !

What Council Meeting ?

2010-12-15T00:22:00.000-08:00

Waiting for more news on last week's Council Meeting. However it looks like the "incident" of someone giving out "Workers Revolutionary Party" leaflets during the November Council meeting has been glossed over. Only a "polite" reminder not to give out such things. Given that the Council are proposing a rule change referendum which restricts members rights to free speech both in their professional and private life even if complaint is made by anybody - not an Equity member....it makes one wonder if some members of the Council and staff look at things with a short focus perspective. Apparently the new rule has been triggered by anger about the British National Party. Whilst this anger is understandable if one wishes to demonstrate fairness and equality a similar amount of anger should be directed at the opposite extreme the W.R.P. We shall see? I am now staying at:
http://www.berjayahotel.com/mahe/index.asp
where I have been assisting the Jarl Hljamarson Foundation.
Back in UK just before Christmas.

Variety Advisory Committee

2010-11-25T16:50:00.000-08:00

Well the meeting of the Variety Advisory Committee on Wednesday afternoon 24th November was a pleasant enough affair, but one must ask what did it actually achieve on behalf of our variety and light entertainment members?
Those attending appear to have accepted that the VAC no longer has any delegated executive authority from the Equity Council. I made a comment about the Equity Council apparently determining policy on issues that were exclusively within the professional variety and light entertainment field. I reminded the VAC that is was formed from the Executive of the Variety Artistes Federation on incorporation, which is why it had been provided with a member of staff known as "The Assistant Secretary - Variety". This was the only "Assistant Secretary" post within Equity and was directly responsible via the General Secretary, to ensure that decisions taken by the VAC were in line with Council policy and as a consequence, whilst subject to the endorsement of Council, may be actioned without any need for discussion at Council. It was also for this reason that the Assistant Secretary Variety attended Council Meetings. The restructuring of Equity staff and rules since 1994 has seen the Council majority and the SMT continue a policy of slowly neutering the ability of Variety and Light Entertainment members to determine their own future. My feelings following yesterday's VAC meeting is that it appears that those attending have acquiesced to this neutering by default. Typical old fashioned trade union way of this Council working....tell everyone you want to consult as long as "THEY" the Council tell YOU what to do...."We have consulted so !!!!! "

DO YOU THINK EQUITY’S GENERAL SECRETARY ACTED IN BREACH OF EQUITY’S RULES?

2010-11-21T17:14:00.000-08:00

What do you think is the primary purpose of Equity? This reason for this opening question is so you may focus on the issues in order to decide on the heading question.
Our rules say that the General Secretary may only act in accordance with the principles and policies laid down by the Council. These must also be in accordance with the Objects of Equity.
The Objects require Equity to:
a) promote, protect and further on a PROFESSIONAL basis the art of theatre, variety, circus, opera, dance, films, broadcasting and similar forms of entertainment.
B) promote, protect and further the artistic, economic, social and legal interest of it members in their PROFESSIONAL capacity.
c) maintain the PROFESSIONAL rights and liberties of its members individually and collectively.
Considering this....how come the General Secretary appears to believe that it is in our Professional Interests to take part in a TUC publicity stunt, pictured in the current Equity Journal page 19, holding up large green hands with other TUC types displaying “All together for Public Services”? She may be hoping that the left-wing Council will interpreted our rules to say that “All public Services” affect the professional life of our members. BUT...Council has not yet taken such a decision. I believe that if they were to take such a decision they would be stretching the interpretation of our rules, which are totally based on “professional” interests, too far. Council would itself be in breach of Equity’s Objects.
Some public service maybe but “ALL”? Our General Secretary Christine Payne, probably in with the emotion of things at the TUC, was swept along with the tide. I understand this....but our members’ professional interests MUST come first within Equity. This is why we pay our subs! Render unto Equity and its members what we pay for and leave other issues, not within our profession, to life outside of Equity.
So do you support my view that Christine Payne, General Secretary, taking part in the picture was acting outside Equity’s primary purpose?
Email: daveeagerequity@yahoo.co.uk

READY FOR A BLAST :)

2010-11-13T19:00:00.001-08:00

Well I am just toying if I should keep my powder dry or go for a blast following reading the latest Equity Journal. Thing is I was travelling and chatting with a showbiz colleague - not an actor but management side of things - on train from London....and you will never guess what? Over the years, just by reading The Stage, he had gathered that I was an "Equity Activist" but judging by the Stage reports he thought I was a left-wing activist as in "left of even the current left wing orientated Council majority". Just goes to show how newspapers can give the wrong impression eh? For the record I have been a card carrying member of the Conservative Party for years....but I have never brought my party politics into Equity....just a belief that we should be serving our members in the knowledge that they want help, support and services to assist in their PROFESSIONAL career and that we achieve this objective better, especially in our showbiz professional, by negotiation first and any confrontation somewhere way beyond the horizon - something of a last resort. Oh well...so now you know....and let us hope that The Stage starts to get across the correct impression. PLEASE LET ME KNOW...SHOULD I KEEP MY POWDER DRY OR GO FOR A BLAST ? daveeagerequity@yahoo.co.uk

Equity activists rule AOK

2010-11-10T15:28:00.000-08:00

Been receiving emails from Equity HQ inviting to meeting in London to discuss "organising/campaigns" - eventually Guild House sent email to everyone saying overlooked - no expenses for travel will be paid. Activists are expected to be volunteers who pay their own expenses. In a profession where 85% at anyone time are unemployed, peripatetically looking for work and even if in work could be miles away from home base - this "activists" outlook means the majority of those attending will have highly prioritised, somewhat personal agendas. The result - totally skewed information which other activists can present and manipulate for their own objectives. A typical outmoded trade union process which excludes and side-lines professional members. So much for the General Secretary's "Vision for the Future" - it is the old fashioned trade union past masquerading in guilded garb !

Equity Council Meeting Tuesday 2nd November

2010-11-05T17:07:00.000-07:00

WILL YOU BECOME AN EQUITY VICTIM IN 2011 ?

Full day meeting which did not finish until 6pm. Vice President David Cockayne took the chair in the absence of President Malcolm Sinclair , who was on tour. A report will appear shortly on the Equity website. David, first time acting as chair, I thought gave a spirited even handed display. Topics included approving the report from the Annual Representative Conference Working Party, which I thought came up with some good ideas which extend the opportunity for new ideas to be discussed at an ARC. Reports on, "Save out Theatre campaign", "The Hobbit", "Hallmark" and the BBC TV agreement were some of the other agenda items also discussed. I was concerned that given our financial position and also the general climate that the Council should wish to go ahead with a rule change which effectively qualifies and restricts the principle rule of a members' right to hold and express their views both in their private and professional capacities. This move is quite rightly prompted by a desire to thwart the activities of the BNP but in practice it will cost Equity several thousands of pounds to put it to referendum and even if passed will not achieve what the activists want. It will probably result in Equity being challenged the very first time they try to discipline a member because they have expressed a view, undertaken an action or conduct which others deem as have discriminated against, harassed or victimised "other persons". The list includes....sex, race, ethnic or national origin, religion, colour, class, caring responsibilities, martial status, sexuality, disability, age or other status or personal characteristics. This is Equity as a "Trade Union" trying to be a law maker and enforcing the same on our membership. I believe this is wrong and unacceptable. In a democratic society "The Law" - our democratic law rules supreme. Trade Unions may campaign to change the law BUT in a democracy they should never be allowed to be law enforcers. You may bet your bottom dollar that the first time a member becomes an "Equity Victim", if the rule change is passed in 2011, the only people who will benefit will be the solicitors and legal profession.

London Dickensian Morning

2010-11-01T04:26:00.000-07:00

Nice pleasant "Dickensian" morning here in London....Kensington shops are tempting so off with a small amount of ££££ to go window gazing before Variety & Light Entertainment Council meeting this afternoon.

Council Meeting Tuesday 2nd November

2010-10-29T17:50:00.000-07:00

Looks a pretty "non-event" but a potential for an interesting debate because of one particular motion. We shall see :)

Vote for pension trustee

2010-10-20T03:29:00.000-07:00

The Equity staff pension fund over the past years has meant some £3 million+ of members' money has been used to prop it up. The cry has been "blame the market" whereas the Council majority never saw the light to negotiate finishing the final salary pension scheme until much too late. The view that we have "the best staff in the world" and we have to look after them maybe be a creditable one...but at the end of the day without members' money there would be nothing to pay the staff...so MEMBERS COME FIRST. The Council are now asked to elect an Equity member to the trustees of the Staff Pension fund. The way the issue has evolved, in my opinion, does not inculcate good vibes. Maybe it is time for a complete clear-out of the Staff Pension fund trustees and advisers so as to start afresh?

Well hopefully back blogging

2010-10-19T14:16:00.000-07:00

These blogs along with Twitter, Facebook etc...take so much time that eventually one focuses on one and forgets the others. Anyhow now back after some time with EAGER4EQUITY.
Next Council Meeting is on the 2nd November...ask me if you want any direct info please :)

ELECTED TO EQUITY COUNCIL 2008 - 2010

2008-09-25T13:42:00.000-07:00

Dave has been elected as a Variety and Light Entertainment Councillor to the Council - "The Principal Executive Committee" of British Actors' Equity Association - The UK Trade Union for Entertainment professionals; July 2008 - July 210.
TO CONTACT DAVE BY EMAIL:

daveeagerequity@yahoo.co.uk

The next Equity Council Meeting is due to be held on Tuesday 30th September 2008

WHAT USE IS THE APPEALS COMMITTEE?

2007-11-23T08:20:00.000-08:00

The Appeals Committee is directly elected by the whole membership in a postal ballot.
If a member makes a complaint, the Council can reject the complaint and then the member may appeal for a ruling to the Appeals Committee. Even though, in recent experiences, The Appeals Committee have been very fair and even handed in hearing appeals - it then publishes a report...which the Council can then reject....judge and jury !
Should this be allowed as REAL EQUITY DEMOCRACY IN ACTION....in other words....no democracy?
The Council can amend, reject and publish whatever is seems to want...hence the question when a member complains about the actions of the Council being in breach of our rules:
WHAT USE IS THE APPEALS COMMITTEE?
Tony Robinson is the Chair of the Appeals Committee.....I wonder if the Appeals Committee are happy with their role?

JOHN WEBB "Leading light"

2007-03-29T19:57:00.000-07:00

Thanks John for postings and results.
It turns out that members contact me by email as "for some reason"
they do not wish to publish comments. As an "Audio Councillor" therefore
your are a "leading light" by publishing the results and using your name.
BUT

EQUITY'S EGYPTIAN REFERENDUM PROCESS

Equity has now perfected the way it emulates an "Egyptian Referendum"
Rule changes that not many understand, resulting in low polls which means
the Council, if they continue down the "Egyptian role model",`will soon be able to guarantee making their own rules....and our membership will sleepwalk into it !

EQUITY'S EGYPTIAN REFERENDUM PROCESS......

REFERENDUM RULE 24 - NO INTEREST ? NOT THE TRUTH ?

2007-02-01T20:03:00.000-08:00

ARE YOU WAITING FOR THE PHONE TO RING WITH YOUR NEXT BOOKING?

ARE YOU WORKING - ON TOUR - PERFORMING NOW?

Whatever your answer a Referendum on Rule 24 seems of little interest.

Surely it is no concern when it comes to you - me - Equity members getting jobs !

But that is a view the current Equity regime rely upon -

the disinterest of Equity members.

THE REFERENDUM ON RULE 24 IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS.

Please read the statements FOR and AGAINST.

Please USE YOUR VOTE.

The papers should soon arrive by post.

If a statement in favour relies on:

CUSTOM AND PRACTICE

then I believe this is

NOT THE TRUTH

PLEASE VOTE TO PROTECT YOUR INTERESTS

VOTE

AGAINST THE RULE CHANGE

VOTE

AGAINST

STAGE LETTER - JEREMY AUSTIN

2006-12-05T11:59:00.000-08:00

The letter, to which I referred earlier, regarding Jeremy's article has been published and is available to read additionally on The Stage website at:

http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/letters/feature.php/15113/one-sided-article

S.G.M. Reqisition - Finances - Appeals Committee - RUMOURS ?

2006-11-19T10:33:00.000-08:00

The Requisition for a Special General Meeting about the concern arising from the Equity Council proposing to change the way it presents the finances was turned down by the Equity Council and under the rules referred to The Appeals Committee. I predicted that the Appeals Committee would turn down the appeal….usually on the basis it would cost Equity too much money and matters could wait until the Annual Representative Conference. I have received a number of enquiries asking why I have not published the result as the Appeal was held last Wednesday. There are rumours doing the rounds as to what happened, but officially I believe that the Appeals Committee’s decision, and reasons if they so publish, have to be firstly presented to The Council, which presumably will be at their 5th December meeting. Only after this date will the decision/information be available to us ordinary Equity members.

CLIVE HURST - EQUITY - BECTU

2006-11-16T22:02:00.000-08:00

The joint statement by Equity - Bectu mentioned earlier in relation to Clive Hurst's tenacious efforts may be viewed on his web at

EQUITY - BECTU JOINT STATMENT

MICHAEL EARL - THE STAGE

2006-11-15T21:28:00.000-08:00

Equity Councillor Michael Earl hss had letter published in this week's STAGE concerning Jeremy Austin's article.

http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/letters/feature.php/14855/fight-for-union-aims

REQUISITION FOR S.G.M.

2006-11-13T09:05:00.000-08:00

VONNIE - MEMBERS - APPEALS COMMITTEE

Northern Area Equity Councillor Yvonne Joseph and other members on behalf of 70+ signatures are due to present their case requisitioning for an S.G.M. before the Appeals Committee this Wednesday 15th November. The Council turned down the requisition. It concerns the decision of the Council to change the way it shows Equity's finances in the accounts. The change makes nonsense of Action 2000 and the ease by which one can identify sources of Equity's income AND it is all being done without any consultation with the members.
To date can you recall when the Appeals Committee has failed to back the Council?
Is the Appeals Committee really independent?
Does the Appeals Committee and its procedure provide for a "fair hearing in a fair court"?

JEREMY AUSTIN - OVERCOMING CRISIS - EQUITY - THE STAGE

2006-11-13T01:13:00.000-08:00

Have you read Jeremy Austin's article "Overcoming Crisis"
in this week's Stage?

Maybe he has been "spin-doctored" ?

As the former News Editor of "The Stage" Jeremy had built up a reputation for writing well-researched and objectively fair pieces. This latest article though is biased in the extreme as he "explains what lessons can be learnt from the struggles at Guild House" apparently based on interviewing just one person ! His cavalier dismissal of truthful facts is astonishing especially to those who know that he must know the truth even though quite rightly Jeremy is entitled to his opinion. Maybe the passage of time has mellowed his enthusiasm for objective reporting or perhaps as a feature writer the same principles do not apply.

Do you think basing an article and opinions on the views of just one person is fair and objective reporting?

I know what I think and I written to The Editor of The Stage to tell him !

RULE 24 COUNCIL UNDEMOCRATIC

2006-11-09T12:51:00.000-08:00

Who cares about rules? Does it really matter?
Well my view is that if you ignore rules, whatever your reason, it is the first step on the slippery slow into anarchy. The Council has shown it is undemocratic by breaching this rule and failing to hold a vote of the members within a reasonable time.

THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE A REFERENDUM ON THIS ISSUE.....THE COST IS BEING BROUGHT ABOUT TOTALLY AT THE BEHEST OF THE COUNCIL.
The rules provide for this rule to be considered and changed by members at a members' meeting......a less expensive option which would provide a better opportunity for members to take part in discussion compared with a referendum.
PLEASE REMEMBER OUR RULES DO NOT REQUIRE A REFERENDUM ON THIS ISSUE.

Why a referendum? Why in December?
Is it because polls held over the winter - Xmas time usually result in a very low vote?
Is it because at a meeting of members the chances of the Council losing the vote would be greater?
WILL THE MEMBERSHIP SLEEP WALK INTO ANARCHY?
WILL YOU ALLOW IT?

The Equity Council have, in my opinion, displayed that their ideas - in a Blair-like fashion - are paramount and all other members' views are to be disregarded. No compromise. No middle ground. The Council majority also seem to believe that an "unelected" Senior Management Team comprising of members of staff should be given greater credence than the professional views of members. The Council, in my opinion, are abdicating their responsibilities on behalf of our members.

This is the real issue behind my concerns about Rule 24.
If you believe Equity should be demonstrably democratic and answerable to our membership the you MUST VOTE AGAINST the proposed changes to Rule 24.
THE ONLY REASON FOR THE RULE CHANGE IS BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WANT TO HAVE THREE ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARIES.

When Equity had over 43,000+ members we only had ONE Assistant General Secretary. Why with some 10,000 less members do we need THREE Assistant General Secretaries? The greater majority of organisations have ONE BOSS and ONE ASSISTANT BOSS....this is a proven management structure that has stood the test of time. We all want to know who is in charge of Equity when the General Secretary isn't available. We do not need a committee of Three Assistant General Secretaries or the additional salary and pension costs....look at our finances and membership income...we cannot justify the costs.

IF THE CHANGES TO RULE 24 ARE PASSED THEN THE COUNCIL CAN HAVE AS MANY ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARIES....AND THE ADDITIONAL SALARY IMPLICATIONS WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION AND WITHOUT CONSULTING YOU ! ! !
IN ALL OF EQUIITY'S HISTORY THE COUNCIL HAVE NEVER HAD THIS POWER. WHY NOW?

No doubt you agree that Equity currently has too many chiefs in Guild House and not enough soldiers in the field. If you vote against the changes to Rule 24 you ensure a better management structure, a Council who will remain on this issue, as they have been for years, directly answerable to YOU....no changes without YOUR permission....a better use of Equity's money and hopefully as a result MORE SOLDIERS in the field and less centralisation in Guild House.
PUT OUR PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS FIRST...VOTE AGAINST THE CHANGES TO RULE 24

and for the record.....AFTER HIS LONG SERVICE TO EQUITY AND GIVEN THE ELECTION RESULTS FOR THE GENERAL SECRETARY.....one must ask....WHY ISN'T ANDY PRODGER
THE ONE AND ONLY ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY....?????

WELL DONE CLIVE HURST

2006-11-09T12:46:00.000-08:00

Equity Councillor Clive Hurst elected in July has basically run a one man campaign, against the practice of agents charging up-front fees, with considerably success. Clive has recently advised that The Equity Council have now agreed on a joint statement about this issue with B.E.C.T.U.
Well done Clive for your tenacity of purpose.

Is Equity gambling with your money?

2006-08-31T01:00:00.000-07:00

A formal complaint has been sent to Harry Landis - Equity President
Background:
Some five months or so ago I raised the question of Equity having more than one "Assistant General Secretary". Equity said that there had been a "technical" breach of Rule 24 and I pointed out you could not have technical breaches of rules. At that time I made a formal complaint but held it on the back burner in order to give Equity an opportunity to rectify the situation. Whilst I personally believe an organisation operates efficiently both in terms of response and financial considerations by having "One Boss" and "One Assistant Boss", which is basically what Equity's Rule 24 requires, it would appear that the Council have now authorised THREE posts at a level of Assistant General Secretaries in clear breach of Rule 24. They hope that the membership will vote to change the rule to allow the Council to do this is,
The Council cocking a snoot at its requirement to abide by our rules. It is also gambling with Equity's finances, because if you decide that the "one boss - one assistant boss" is the better way to run Equity and therefore do not vote for a Rule Change, who recompenses Equity for the financial implications of having appointed three persons at a level of Assistant General Secretaries in breach of the rules?
The complaint is occasioned by the fact I have been waiting for our General Secretary to respond to an email about this matter. To date no reply has been received.

"Sound of Music" + "Is Equity gambling with its finances?"

2006-08-16T17:52:00.000-07:00

Following discussions with members I am hoping to post some comments soon concerning the BBC "reality" programme - "How do you solve a problem like Maria" and also on a completely different topic but one which concerns Equity and the way it conducts/looks after its finances with your money - the members' money.
I would have done this sooner but fortunately I have been gigging....including an enjoyable weekend at Royal Sandringham - Game and Country Show.

Equity President - Harry Landis

2006-08-02T16:35:00.000-07:00

"Cheers Harry"

Since failing to be re-elected to The Equity Council 2006 - 2008 by only seven votes, it has been heartening and a demonstration of unity amongst our profession that I received personal letters, cards and messages from members including Harry Landis - Equity President, Helen Lambert - Past Vice President, Councillors Sally Treble, Michael Earl, Alan Thompson, Barbara Hyslop, Brenda Marsh, Yvonne Joseph, Albert Moses and Roy Radford. Personal messages were also received from Stanley Baxter, Sir Jimmy Savile OBE, Bunny Lewis - Chairman VAC, Geremy Phillips and included a bottle of champagne from Doremy Vernon, chocolates and flowers from David and Jonathan. It was appreciated that some of the current and former Equity staff also got in contact. Thanks to everyone including friends not mentioned....as THEY know who I mean !

Blackpool Variety Branch

2006-08-01T14:42:00.000-07:00

Really enjoyable convivial Blackpool Variety Branch Meeting on Tuesday 1st August held at Oban Hotel - North Shore - Blackpool. Over twenty members attended and it was a fun informative lively discussion - a "family" atmosphere which is what "Variety" is all about. After the meeting some went out for lunch together and decided we MUST vote for Sarah Dukes in the upcoming Variety Advisory Committee elections.

Disenfranchised

2006-08-01T14:32:00.000-07:00

Thanks for the comment from "Disenfranchised" from Devon. The voting was the lowest perecentage ever with less 7% of the membership voting for the Council. Martin Brown's comments in The Stage are hardly helpful as it is The Council who must ask themselves the question "WHY?". Former Councillors including Nicky Diprose, who wasn't re-elected have been saying for years that "we" are failing to relate to our members.....but any ideas "we" have had have been cast aside by Equity "trade unionists". Professionalism and being motivated by our hearts, especially in Variety, seems to have been put on the back burner.

Equity members views

2006-07-29T17:43:00.000-07:00

Welcome to eager4equity which hopefully will provide an opportunity for UK Equity members to discuss issues of professional importance.

Add, discuss and air your views about our profession and lets all keep in touch.....