Pay differences between technical jobs

[paulears]

Today we have two jobs on offer, one a technical assistant, the other a technical manager. Reading the jobs specs, the responsibility is quite heavy for the manager, and quite light for the assistant - add to this the experience required, and we have a job suitable for a newcomer with limited experience and and other requiring a fair few years under the belt.

 

The assistant is £350 a week, the manager - in the range £20-24K - both for about the same hours and including evening work (and the loan for transport season ticket!). So the benefit of staying in the industry in theatres is around forty quid a week. For forty quid, I'd rather have the assistant job and leave the responsibility and all the other pain in the bum stuff for somebody daft enough to do it.

 

Is it any wonder people don't want these kind of jobs - and prefer to work freelance, where responsiblity costs. Colleagues in the TV industry would want £40-50K for a job of this type, and balancing up the different industries our members work in - why is it theatre get away with such dreadful pay for senior posts. Assuming that in between these two 'levels' is a technician grade - this means a step up earns you what? half? so an extra twenty quid or so?

 

 

Reading the job descriptions the management position seems to make the job appear valued and essential, but then the pay? How do people in London afford a mortgage on this level of pay?

 

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant - but I hadn't realised the similarity in pay to that for junior jobs. Have I lost the plot?

[Guest lightnix]

You're not wrong, Paul - but it isn't confined to theatre. As I sit here in my comfy management position, earning way more than I did as a freelancer (even in a good year), I can't help but feel that the entire backstage end of the business is shockingly underpaid, compared to what it used to be and drastically failing to keep up with other industries when it comes to paying for skilled workers.

 

Sure - freelance rates are higher, but there are still some companies out there who seem to have a problem paying much more than they did a decade ago (i.e. £175-185 per day). If you accept the arguement, that the value of money roughly halves every ten years, then freelance rates should be around the £350 per day mark. I'm not aware of (m)any people charging more than about £225 per day for tech work - well under what it should be; especially when you consider the increased skill needed for the job and the huge rise in overheads - especially insurance premiums and (more recently) training courses.

 

There still seems to be this tired old mantra from many employers, that "everybody wants to work in showbiz and there's plenty more where you came from", if you have a problem with what's on offer. Then they complain about how hard it is to get "good" crew these days. Er... hello?

 

Still, at least the ads you posted had the decency to mention a salary - most backstage jobs never seem to do that. I suppose the idea that an applicant might want to know how much they're going to get paid, means that they're not going to do it "for the love" (*yaaaaawn*) and therefore have the "wrong sort of attitude" :)

 

My advice to anyone contemplating a career in showbiz these days, sounds just like it came from my parents. Either...

 

a) Get a proper job with decent pay, security and prospects and confine your showbiz dreams to the amdram world.

 

Or...

 

b) Study something else - possibly related, so that at least you have something to fall back on in later life, if you need it. E.g. if you want to work in lighting, get electrical qualifications - they'll help you make a much better living in the end, than a degree in Lighting Design or Stage Management.

 

Sorry if that's going OT

[indyld]

At the risk of turning this topic into a love in for grumpy old men, I agree with the sentiments expressed. The two points made that really strike a chord with me are:

 

1) The woeful increase in pay that goes with seriously increased responsibility. A few years ago I realised that, moneywise, the best deal is to be an experienced nobody - turn up and do as you're told. The "ladder" in the entertainment business only goes so far for most people and when you work out what your peak earning capacity is, you realise that you need to find something else for the long term.

 

2) The inevitability of doing "something else" afterwards (although I believe in living for the present). I suspect many of us have been planning our "retirement" for a while. As someone who has never done anything but work in the business, some non-industry qualifications would be handy.

 

BTW -A few years ago I was sitting in catering with a large lighting crew when the result of the 2012 bid came through. Nearly all of us said that we didn't want to work the Olympics gig and there was lots of big talk about how we would be "out of the business" by then. Well guys, 2012 is marching towards us - see you in Stratford

;-)

[Guest lightnix]

At the risk of turning this topic into a love in for grumpy old men...

:wub:

 

...The woeful increase in pay that goes with seriously increased responsibility...

On the other hand, that's as much the fault of The Crew as it is anyone else's IMO. If all these so-called "freelancers" are genuinely self-employed, then they should be telling the client what they will charge for the job - not just meekly accepting what's on offer - it's one of the key indicators of genuine self-employment for tax purposes IIRC.

 

To get back On Topic for a minute, though: I don't think the situation regarding pay differentials between skill levels is much better in Freelanceland, than it is in Theatre - in fact it can be worse. I remember how one of my old clients - a "proper" freelance LD, with his own rented office and a pretty good client list - eventually went back to teching; because the crew he was using were making more money out of doing that, than he was from designing :(

 

The simple fact is, that even if you are an amazingly gifted LD, able to command [insert fee here] from your clients, just for getting out of bed; there is far less work of that kind about and it's much more sensitive to market conditions / changes of management / fashion.

 

...the best deal is to be an experienced nobody...

That's an excellent way of putting it. Don't try to be the Hero who saves the gig at the eleventh hour, or someone who pulls rabbits out of hats for a living. Don't get any ideas about who you "are", or that your presence on a show "means" anything to anyone. Just be someone who can be relied on to quietly show up on time, put it up, make it work and look good; then take it all down again and f*ck off home until it's time for the next one. That way, you may get some regular work :ph34r:

 

The inevitability of doing "something else" afterwards (although I believe in living for the present). I suspect many of us have been planning our "retirement" for a while. As someone who has never done anything but work in the business, some non-industry qualifications would be handy.

Well... It might have have been an idea to have thought about my retirement a little bit, before I found myself undergoing a classic case of career burnout ;) Now that I'm back on track again, I'm saving as much I possibly can; in the hope that I'll be able to stop (or at least slow down a bit) at 60 - a mere 14 years away ;)

 

...I was sitting in catering with a large lighting crew when the result of the 2012 bid came through. Nearly all of us said that we didn't want to work the Olympics gig...

I took exactly the same view a long way ahead of the Millennium celebrations and made sure I was firmly on the Punter side of the fence (not to mention in another country) on the night. I'm sure the memories I now have of that historic occasion, are way better than the ones I'd have had if I'd worked on it :)

 

 

 

e2a... You don't get paid for the amount of kit you put up, either ;)

[Bryson]

Actually, it's worse than that....

 

Because as the TM, (TD, this side of the pond) you're probably expected by the management to be full time and no more. Whereas the technicians are pulling down overtime and get-outs etc....

 

So, in the end, I frequently get a lower paycheck than the techs do. Yes, they put in more hours. But not that many more....

 

 

Yes, I get to have a "life" of a sort - evenings and most weekends off etc etc. But it sure does grate when the crew earn more!

[indyld]

Lightnix

 

I'm not sure that day rates are set by cheapo imposters, but are set by market conditions. On the face of it, by punters, clients and production companies - the whole industry is cheap. You can hire tens of thousands of pounds worth of technically advanced kit for very little, considering the outlay and overheads.

 

Perhaps the economics of this is all down to punters and how much they are willing to spend going to a gig.

 

If I dig my heels in about day rates (I actually tend to be less flexible when it comes to ridiculous schedules and overnights), what happens? The phone stops ringing. Yes, some companies learn the error of their ways when the next gig goes wrong but many just draft in more idiots to graft their way through any self inflicted problems.

 

I don't believe that "we" freelancers have quite the power of our own destiny as you seem to suggest. And, as you mentioned day rates in your first post, I concur and am not in any danger of breaking through that "pay ceiling" any time soon - none of us are. Quite the reverse in fact. Budgets are going down and rates with them.

 

And after all that, let's not forget that being a freelancer is one of the better deals in the business IMO.

 

The people in the industry I admire for having really got themselves a "good job" are those who spent a little time at the sharp end before using their talents with relationships to become a Sales Director . They've all got nice houses etc and good on them. Not that many jobs around like that and many of us wouldn't really fit them anyway.

 

 

Incidentally, I also resolved not to work the Millenium celebrations (I never work NYE anyway) but back then there was no loose talk about "getting out" for good.

[Russ83]

OK, please stop depressing those of us who have 40+ years to go until we can even thinking about retirement (it will probably be abolished by the time we get there anyhow!) :D

Personally, I would love to have been involved with the sound/visuals in the millennium celebrations and tours like Riverdance etc.

 

Yes, some companies learn the error of their ways when the next gig goes wrong but many just draft in more idiots to graft their way through any self inflicted problems.

I'm young(ish) and keen to learn so when it comes to pay, if it is a job I'm interested in or a high profile job like the Olympics then I'd do it for very little. I'd be taking holiday or unpaid leave from my full-time job so as long as I could walk away with an extra, say £150 in my pocket per week after expenses I'd be more than happy as experience is worth more to me. I can see that this causes serious problems for others who have mortgages/family to pay for and are relying on these events as your only source of income as there is no way you can compete with us cheap 'idiots'. ;)

 

I'm guessing there are probably many others like myself who are doing this work as amateurs. As live music has become more popular in smaller venues the financial value of your 'proper' work is coming down heading towards our level. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions for a solution to this problem. I can't see all us amateurs just giving up and there is no way organisers can afford to pay all the techs their true value without effecting the ticket price drastically.

The idea of working up to career and then staying there for life seems to have disappeared now so most people just take what is there without questioning things like pay. When your circumstances change then you just find another job that fits.

 

Perhaps I should label this post "Observations with no direction..."

[gareth]

I'm young(ish) and keen to learn so when it comes to pay, if it is a job I'm interested in or a high profile job like the Olympics then I'd do it for very little. I'd be taking holiday or unpaid leave from my full-time job so as long as I could walk away with an extra, say £150 in my pocket per week after expenses I'd be more than happy as experience is worth more to me. I can see that this causes serious problems for others who have mortgages/family to pay for and are relying on these events as your only source of income as there is no way you can compete with us cheap 'idiots'.

Well, there are two ways of looking at it. On the one hand, people who are prepared to work on high profile events for paltry, or even no, pay are doing no favours for those people who earn their living from working on such events. On the other hand, you get what you pay for ... if whoever was doing the work was any good, and the work that they were doing had any real value or worth, they wouldn't have to be doing it for nothing because they'd be one of the ones doing it for a living ...

[JDP]

I am becoming increasingly annoyed with the whole money/budget/day rate in the industry. My standard day rate for touring is £250 per day, thats not because I am a greedy freelancer, but because I genuinly have bills to pay, not to mention 20+ years of experience. My regular companies pay this with no issues.

 

As Gareth points out, doing jobs for free or little money drag the industry down for everyone else. In a similar way to Lightnix points out, theres no presence of 'you' on site. Especially on a job like the Olympics, your be just another number on site, regardless of your skills, so if a company can get people to rig lights for £120 per day rather than £220 per day, there making even more money and getting the job done. The reality of it actually is that the chances are anyone working for under £150 per day are going to be pretty skill-less or useless, as decent freelancers will want good money. The people whos presence will matter on site are the crew chief, dimmer man and obviously the LD and Programmers. Thats it, simple.

 

I think I have mentioned here before, but things that REALLY get to me are people offering jobs in Central London or thereabouts (which cost at least £40 in C Charge, Parking, Petrol etc) and there offering £80 - £100 per day!!! How can ANYONE survive on this? NONE of the jobs I have seen here pay expenses either. Yet people are accepting jobs and carrying on like normal..

 

PLEASE, NOBODY can live on £350 per week or £80 per day. Why try? Grrr

[kerry davies]

Russ83 gives a perfect example of "...there's plenty more..." as Lightnix writes. The huge numbers of people entering the industry via FE/HE routes makes this inevitable, there ARE plenty more. It is, however, very sad when someone can accept that this vocational occupation is the same as any other work and that "the business" is just "any work that fits"!

 

What I find incredible about the theatre side of the business is that those in well-paid senior positions can offer such pitiful wages and use the mythical TOIL to avoid paying overtime. I get the Artsjobs newsletter just to keep in touch and it amazes me that about half the advertised jobs are unpaid and a good proportion of the rest, mainly technical jobs, are underpaid.

 

This morning I was talking to a PA company who have recently checked their old records and found that they are charging the same today as they were 10 years ago. They think that prices have been kept low by the sheer numbers of young people willing to work below real costs before going out of business. They believe that these people last only a short time but are almost instantly replaced by a new crop of short-term competitors whom organisers and promoters use while they can.

 

Anyway, I got the buspass this month and have decided to retire.....AGAIN! Wonder how long it will last this time?

[tonym]

I decided that I didn't want to work on the millennium then some one offered me £500 per day plus my daily rate to work on new years eve and new years day. That extra £1000 paid for a really good holiday that January.

 

Bring on the olympic's, anything that employs loads of people makes more work for me. If I don't get asked to work on the olympics I'll do the work that the people who do would have been doing.

 

Tony.

[Sarah Q]

The reality of it actually is that the chances are anyone working for under £150 per day are going to be pretty skill-less or useless, as decent freelancers will want good money. The people whos presence will matter on site are the crew chief, dimmer man and obviously the LD and Programmers. Thats it, simple.

 

As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed elsewhere in this thread, I feel the need to defend myself and others like me who charge less than £150 per day. I do this because, although I have great theatre based skills, I do not yet have the freelance experience or confidence to charge the higher rates.

 

I am not trying to undercut anyone, just charging what is fair for my freelance skills and experience.

[Badger_Mushroom]

Unionisation?

[PoppaDom]

PLEASE, NOBODY can live on £350 per week or £80 per day. Why try? Grrr

 

I have to quite strongly disagree with this statement. Debating whether £80 a day is enough (which I am sorry but for some people in some jobs I believe it is) is one thing but to say NOBODY can survive on £350 a week is totally false. Many can and do survive on this and less. Why try? Well with that attitude I suggest you back to bed! Should they have to? Well thats a different matter...

[Pete McCrea]

Working through £350/week takes you to £16800 a year. Assuming this is before tax, that's not too bad. The UK average in 2007 was £457. People can live on that. Think of the reams of people working at Tesco's on £12k a year.....

 

As for whether a Skilled and experience Technician or Engineer with responsibility should be on that? No. If I'd gone in to the Civil Engineering Industry I'd expect to be on around £30k after 4 years in the industry, and if I'd stuck with the railways probably more after the OT was in.

 

However with the people undercutting by using cheaper crew what can you do? In our case walk away and hope that they stuff the job up and that you can pick it up next year and do a good job at it, because you charge and pay for properly skilled crew and Techs.