Screen Guilds Magazine (November 1935)

The Editor of New Theatre Replies * * * * Editor’s Note : The following is a re¬ ply by Herbert Kline, Editor of the New Theatre, to the Hallie Flanagan letter which appears on the opposite page. While these two articles are reprinted here with the permission of The New Theatre magazine, they do not neces¬ sarily represent the views of the Screen Actors’ Guild, The Screen Writers’ Guild or The Screen Guilds’ Magazine. They are published here merely because they are timely and informative. Dear Mrs. Flanagan: First, let me thank yon for yonr prompt and friendly answer. The plans yon outline for the Federal Theatre Project are of vital concern to New Theatre. We see in the theatre proj¬ ect a welcome although shamefully be¬ lated effort to alleviate the distressing conditions prevailing among unem¬ ployed theatre workers. We see, also, an opportunity for the advancement of the drama throughout America as a medium for entertainment and educa¬ tion which will be within the reach even of the lowest paid sectors of our popu¬ lation. We have no fear, since the ap¬ pointments of such progressive talents as Frederic McConnell, Gilmor Brown, Elmer Rice, John McKee, and Profes¬ sors Koch and Mabie, among others, that the project will be used as was the New York PWA under Colonel Boothe to further pro-war propaganda. Although you and your associates have our belief, interests and support in terms of art, ability and sincerity, in terms of the economics of 1935, there are several problems that we would like to bring to your attention. First, there is the problem that you alone cannot settle—what kind of relief and how much? We believe that the sliding relief scales of the WPA are shamefully inadequate, that the Ameri¬ can people who have created this coun¬ try’s wealth deserve better than a vir¬ tual starvation wage when they are forced to go on relief through no fault of their own. We ask with Alfred Kreymborg, “What has become of all your gold, America V’ We believe in and support the efforts of all relief workers to gain more adequate relief. Furthermore, we support the stand of the unions that prevailing wages should be paid to all relief workers. For we fear that the relief projects will prove a menace to wage standards that the unions throughout American industry have established after long years of struggle. That the progressive elements in the stage unions are conscious of this was evidenced by the large turnout for an emergency meeting called by the Actors Forum group of Equity on October 17 to discuss the drama project and to call for a special meeting of Equity on the subject. At the emergency meeting, which was addressed by three council members, George Heller, Philip Loeb and Alfred Van Dekker, three poinits were stressed: 1. The supervision of any project by the New York theatre operators was ob¬ jected to on the grounds that the drama project is intended for indigent actors in need of relief, and that the project gave the operators an oppor¬ tunity for practically free tryouts at relief wages thereby excluding the pro¬ fessional actor from one of his main sources of income. 2. The fear was expressed that WPA entertainment at 25c to 50c a ticket in Manhattan and in the theatrical dis¬ tricts of Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, etc., where the commercial theatres still charge an average of $1.10 to $3.30 a seat, would have a tendency to depress wages to the Equity mini- mums in order to meet WPA competi¬ tion, and, ultimately, might break down prevailing standards for all theatre workers. 3. Finally, as was stated by Philip Loeb, the very existence of Equity and other stage unions is threatened by the creation of a government organized, non-union army of professional and amateur stage workers on relief, who might very easily be taken over, after the project is discontinued, by private managers at wages below prevailing union standards. The meeting decided to send a resolu¬ tion to Washington favoring: 1. Equity representation on theatri¬ cal projects. 2. No supervision of theatre projects by private producers or by League of New York Theatres. 3. Prevailing union wage rate on projects ($5 a performance). 4. Special classification to be made in Equity for all people in theatre project. 5. Joint action with other affiliated theatre unions on all problems re¬ lating to theatrical relief projects. 6. Organization of committee to study new projects sponsored by Actors Equity Association. 7. Equity members to get priority on theatrical projects. The stage workers have had to fight hard for their prevailing standards. Everyone familiar with the abominable conditions that prevailed throughout the entire industry before the workers got together in their great victorious strike of 1919 realizes that the stage unions must be guarded against factors that tend to weaken them. The resolu¬ tion cited above presents, we believe, some valid objections to the present WPA set-up. We, who represent labor in the theatre in our creative work, are as eager as you are to see the drama project get under way at once. But the trade-union questions brought up by these Equity actors must be faced now before the project actually gets under way. As soon as these questions are settled, the stage unions and all other labor forces in the theatre will be able to cooperate to the fullest extent in carrying out the splendid plans you have outlined for the drama project. Sincerely yours, Herbert Kline, Editor, New Theatre November, 1935 7 9