Crazy rates of pay devaluing our industry?

[dynamo_ozz]

This job is paying £25 'per show' correct? So if the call time IN TOTAL from leaving your house to getting back to it was 4 hours, then it would work out at £6.25ph.

Wow! Do you get paid for your travelling time... Most of us don't, I'd be getting an extra hour and a half per day. OK, I'll give you that it may be different on tour, as in this particular case.

 

And further, some people do work for less than they could get elsewhere because they enjoy the job that they do. There is more to life than money! (Not agreeing with paying a pittance btw)

 

I have to disagree. Constant money problems will only make people enjoy the job less.

[LXbydesign]

This job is paying £25 'per show' correct? So if the call time IN TOTAL from leaving your house to getting back to it was 4 hours, then it would work out at £6.25ph.

Wow! Do you get paid for your travelling time... Most of us don't, I'd be getting an extra hour and a half per day. OK, I'll give you that it may be different on tour, as in this particular case.

 

And further, some people do work for less than they could get elsewhere because they enjoy the job that they do. There is more to life than money! (Not agreeing with paying a pittance btw)

 

I have to disagree. Constant money problems will only make people enjoy the job less.

 

Yes Andrew!!! I do!! If im doing freelance work then the fee takes into consideration of the time getting to and returning from the gig. Afer all, as you say its 1hour 30mins (in your case) of travelling time that coud of been spent doing something else!

[Andrew C]

I have to disagree. Constant money problems will only make people enjoy the job less.

Of course, but there IS a middle ground where you can enjoy a job, and earn what you need to enjoy the rest of your life. You might earn more managing a shop, but where is the job satisfaction in that?

[paulears]

Ref #28

 

IF you take photos then make sure you take Polaroids, and get them signed too. The reason being that digital pics are easily altered and I gather the courts do not accept them as evidence for this reason.

Then every scenes of crime technician would have a real problem. My Father in Law was a scenes of crime photographer from about 1950 to 1990, using real film and even then, because you could do clever things in the darkroom, the photo itself was only evidence if it had a proper providence that could be established. A photo proves nothing at all, without the photographer being attached to it to be examined. On many occasions, a defence barrister 'accused' him of tampering with the evidence. There'd be some cross examination and then the jury decided. He told me that only once was his evidence not accepted. That was because he'd written down the wrong date, and that messed it up!

[dynamo_ozz]

This job is paying £25 'per show' correct? So if the call time IN TOTAL from leaving your house to getting back to it was 4 hours, then it would work out at £6.25ph.

Wow! Do you get paid for your travelling time... Most of us don't, I'd be getting an extra hour and a half per day. OK, I'll give you that it may be different on tour, as in this particular case.

 

And further, some people do work for less than they could get elsewhere because they enjoy the job that they do. There is more to life than money! (Not agreeing with paying a pittance btw)

 

I have to disagree. Constant money problems will only make people enjoy the job less.

 

Yes Andrew!!! I do!! If im doing freelance work then the fee takes into consideration of the time getting to and returning from the gig. Afer all, as you say its 1hour 30mins (in your case) of travelling time that coud of been spent doing something else!

 

I have to say I also get paid extra if the job requires travel.

[ShootingStar]

As it was my job advert that started this discussion, I feel I need to respond to some of the issues raised.

 

Firstly, I would like to apologise for any offence caused by my advert. I know rates of pay are an issue for actors as well, with jobs often being advertised for free or profit share, so I guess I'm not too surprised that some people feel what I offer is unreasonable. I am, however, surprised at some of the assumptions that have been made about me.

 

I run a very small company. Our biggest tour throughout the year is the Christmas Pantomime. We are only entering our fourth year and still expanding our customer base. This year is our biggest tour so far, with 33 performances, so as you can see, we still have some way to go to rival the big companies in this field.

 

Many of the schools we have visited have fewer than 100 pupils, therefore their budget is very small, and as we receive no funding, apart from money my husband and I have put into the business, we have limited funds. I pay all the actors the same money I was offering here, the only person who gets a little bit more is the tour manager, but I think that is only to be expected as they have extra responsibility. I am the first to admit that I do not pay a lot, which is why I pay a show rate rather than a weekly rate. This way if we have a quiet week I am not out of pocket, and if we have a very busy week, I'm not ripping you off. I know I pay more per show than many other small scale touring companies who pay a set rate per week, then make you do 15 or more shows within that week.

 

Having toured professionally before setting the company up, I was aware of the demands of the job, therefore we have done everything we can to make the job as enjoyable and as rewarding as possible. We never ask the cast (or crew) to do something I wouldn't be prepared to do myself. I think the fact that every employee I've had has returned for a repeat contract, says that I am doing something right in that respect. We often get praised by the schools we visit on how professional we are, both in the get in's and the performances themselves.

 

 

Open post to the Kate woman...you should be ashamed to offer such low rates of pay. What do YOU get paid? ......... It is unlikely you can justify this nonsense so it really is pointless to try...I cannot conceive you will gain much support on this forum.

 

Suggest you should consider another career....clearly your skill at negotiating a decent wage for your co-workers is non existent. And you claim to be a member of Equity?

 

I have to say Ramdram, I'm afraid you did rather upset me with this comment of yours. You ask what I get paid? Last year the company and I made less than I paid anybody on the tour. This is because I do do this job for the love of it, to bring live theatre to young children who might not get the opportunity of seeing theatre otherwise, who's parents don't have enough money to take them to see a pantomime at Christmas. When I had my eldest child I was lucky enough that my husbands wage covered the bills, so most of the time I am a full time stay at home Mum, working on the shows when I get a quiet couple of hours. We do not have enough money to cover child care for me to act full time, nor do I wish to spend weeks or months away from my children on tour. Setting up the company enabled me to continue acting while looking after my children.

 

I notice as well, the bonus has caused some upset. Maybe bonus is the wrong word for the payment. When I first started, I was going to pay £100 for the rehearsal week. It was suggested to me to split it up, half for rehearsals, half for a bonus, to prevent people not turning up for work and treating my equipment badly. Other companies dock the last pay cheque if things are damaged, I didn't want to do that. I am not mean, I have paid the bonus to every person, every year, and generously so. One actress thought she'd lost hers because she had to take a week off sick, she still got it. The bonus isn't there to penalise accidents, accidents happen, as illnesses, that's fine and fair. It's to prevent carelessness, people deciding they don't feel like it that day and to prevent my equipment being badly treated.

 

A friend of mine, who has worked in the West End for many years, suggested this website to me. I had hoped that I would be able to find someone at the start of their career who might enjoy themselves on the tour, and benefit from the experience. Or someone who hadn't planned to be working overly at Christmas, but could perhaps do with the extra money. Or maybe even someone who does have a job, but it's only part time, so a few extra pounds may be handywsq. I would have negotiated, where possible, which shows were to be done. It hadn't occurred to me that someone who was used to getting £16k while working in the theatre would even glance at my ad, obviously I was wrong. The job would not be suitable for anyone at that stage in their career.

 

Obviously, I am looking in the wrong place here, and I apologise for any offence caused, I just wanted you to know that I'm not out to exploit actors and technicians and make a quick buck, I really do this because I enjoy theatre and hope to spread the enjoyment to young children, who will hopefully one day support our industry by paying to come and watch us.

[ramdram]

Ref #34 The signed Polaroid exercise was used by a bloke I knew when renting property for himself. Any damage was photographed by him during the Check In and he asked the Inventory Clerk to sign the back of it. He had had some probs getting his deposit back on occasion. The Polaroid was because the picture was straight out of the camera, in front of the IC.

 

Ref your relative, possibly because it was criminal proceedings and there was a need to establish continuity of evidence perhaps? Problems with getting your deposit back would be heard in the County Court and possibly in some instances the burden of proof is lower...suffice to say this bloke did not have any probs after taking photos of everything.

 

Ref#36 The problem is Kate folk need to support themselves, and, unless they have a private income, they need to earn "real" money. Adverts like yours can serve as a green light to some employers who believe it is acceptable to offer such low rewards.

 

You are a member of Equity and you are a perfect example of their view...and mine...that these practices do indeed devalue the industry and the folk who work in the industry.

 

The OP was discussing the derisory rates of pay and his concern that said rates of pay were devaluing the industry.

[themadhippy]

shotingstar whos responsible for paying the tax, NI and liabilaty insurance for the person employed for this role?

[LXbydesign]

Also, maybe if the advert had clearly stated that it would be highly suitable for part-time work for students training in technical theatre and / or as a suplement to other part-time work , this 'bad-feeling' could have been avoided.

 

The problem is Kate, as im sure your aware, that adverts like this appear on Stage Jobs PRO all the time - and while the intention might be bona vida , it does make a mockery of our industry. Again , it comes down to the 'doing it for the love' thing - which is all good and well , but im sure the mortgage man wouldnt be so compassionate if we missed a payment due to lack of funds!!!

[ShootingStar]

I accept your point that maybe I should have stipulated who the job was for. It just hadn't occurred to me people who are established in their careers would actually pay attention to the advert, though I'm sure this thread has helped that along. It is obviously not intended as a full time job, how could 15 shows be full time?

 

And no, I wasn't aware that Stage Jobs PRO advertised jobs like mine, I didn't know Stage Jobs PRO existed. I havn't had to hire a technician since starting the company and didn't have a clue where to start so took advice from a friend, obviously this was the wrong thing to do.

 

Re Themadhippy, everyone I employ is liable for their own tax and NI, but I provide the liability insurance.

[paulears]

That last statement, Kate, is the real problem, if you don't mind me saying so. I suspect very strongly that if you ever get an HMRC inspection, like I've had, I'd bet they would NOT consider what you are offering as anything other than employment.

 

By your expectation that you want genuine self-employed status people (the only way you can pay them in this way) means that you are NOT looking for people able to do the odd days. If somebody is really self-employed, it's their living, not beer money. People who have other income, who can afford to do it for love/fun/experience will not be self-employed people. You cannot offer jobs like this and simple 'bung them a few quid'. The production companies I'm familiar with, big and small all have pretty watertight contracts designed to circumvent the potential tax and NI problems. If you are doing this as a business, I can't see how you can do this. If the Revenue consider you've been doing it wrong, then you will have to pay the tax and the employers NI contribution.

 

As far as my own contacts with the HMRC go, the usual way to evidence self-employment, and the way I see it done is the person invoicing you in advance for the full season. If you get them to do each show as they come in, then this gets very close to the bit in the rule about setting hours of work. If you say be there at 9 am, you will be back by 5pm, then we're into 'fruit picker' territory, and employees.

 

What you are doing is quite worrying, really - not just on the devaluing of our industry subject. I'd be rather worried if I was you, if you've been doing this for a while - your potential tax and NI liability could be scary. I'd certainly talk this over with your accountant. Mine was quite clear on how I should manage this kind of thing. This year, I've been taking invoices from a genuine self-employed person, but the year before, the person working for me didn't fit the rules and I had to do PAYE for her - five or six weeks work, different days each week, maybe 30 or so shows in total? Sound familiar?

[ShootingStar]

People who work with me have to sign a contract stating they are self employed and liable for their own tax and NI contributions, and they do invoice me for the work they have done.

 

All actors and technicians that I have worked with, for other companies as well as my own, are jobbing professionals who regularly take on short contracts, and on a 10 show week, I pay a similar amount to some of the biggest national TIE style touring pantomime companies. The difference being that on a week where there are more than 10 shows, they paya significant amount less than I do. I appreciate that mortgages need to be paid, and if your mortgage is that high, then this isn't the job for you, but neither will any TIE tour be suitable.

 

However, I came on to this website to hopefully find a technician, not to cause offense, nor to have the insults that have been hurled at me further up this thread. I have requested that my advert be deleted, and I do not wish to have to explain myself further, especially when the happiness of my cast and crew is one of the most important aspects of my job.

 

Once again, I apologise for any offense I may have caused. This will be my final post.

[zonino]

People who work with me have to sign a contract stating they are self employed and liable for their own tax and NI contributions

 

afraid that will probably be classed as an unlawful clause and therefore be classed as void. If that was legal, the TV & Film industry would have a lot more self-employed people.

 

The rest of the contract would still stand, but as an employer YOU (not the employee) are liable for the PAYE and NI that you should have deducted.

 

 

and they do invoice me for the work they have done.

 

if HMRC think that it should have been a PAYE employer-employee engagement, it doesn't really matter. sorry.

 

 

seek the advice of an accountant. Preferably who knows the industry.

 

edit:

 

quick caluclation. it looks like you will have done about 100 shows by the end of this season, say thats 6 people a show @£25 each, thats a potential tax liability of £4,800 by my reckoning (20% for basic rate tax, + 12% for NI of £15k)

[LXbydesign]

Seems that what Paul said is right on the button and you seem to be avoiding comment about it or simply avoiding the subject. It was a very valid statement but you seem to have completly sidestepped the issue.

 

I also cannot belive that any tech or actor for that matter who works for your company are genuine full time self-employed - if thats what they are saying. If your paying 25 pounds a show and also 50 quid for a WEEKS WORK!!! - and your expecting someone with self-employed status to tax and NI deduct from that weekly total -your having a laugh surely? As for PLI, I have my own thanks!

[paulears]

That's sad, but at least now perhaps you understand the feelings of the industry towards enterprises that although worthy, DO impact on what we do. Especially now since people might spend 5 years in education to get a qualification that doesn't generate enough money to live.

 

Producers who pay Equity minimums are not in reality paying people lots of money. I would suggest that TIE is a business. The very schools you service are taking you because you are cheap, not because what you offer is educationally valid. If it was, then they'd pay you at a level where the word exploitation wasn't used.

 

The real cost to a school for losing a member of their teaching staff for a day and bringing in supply is many, many times what you're paying your people. The schools know exactly how much people cost. If the only way you can get work is by being so cheap you can pay paperboy pay, what does it actually say about the 'worth' of your product.

 

Sadly, Kate, you had the chance to justify how you're running your business - and I think the comments here show that the general opinion is that you are not helping drive up the status and standard of living of technical people in the industry. I wish we could convince you of our sincerity and how important we feel this issue is.

 

People have been talking about this topic privately and just for information, some people believe that jobs of this type should not be advertised here, for the reasons above, while others feel that maybe it should be a personal choice. I don't think we have consensus, but if, for example, you placed the ad in The Stage, I can almost guarantee a few people would be in there complaining straight away.

 

The National Minimum Wage exists for a reason, and getting around it is seen by many, as proof that something is wrong. I appreciate your business model doesn't allow for proper payment - but maybe that is what you should be looking at? If to break even, you need to work like this, maybe you need to consider how the industry perceive your business. There's a subtle irony in training people to work in an industry that then re-employs them to work for peanuts.

 

Last comment. In my pro panto last year, 7 of the 8 dancers, fresh out of college, couldn't understand why they got tax and NI deducted. All of them thought they were self-employed - the 8th dancer actually was, the others weren't. They would cheerfully have signed your contract, but liability for their status is yours, not theirs. The Revenue - using the IR35 rules - work on the premise that the employer is responsible, and it's up to you to prove you're not!

 

best wishes

Paul