ALD / ROH Spat

[Bryson]

I noticed something very interesting in the recent ALD e-mail that I get:

 

Dear Professional members

 

Rick Fisher is currently experiencing some difficulties in negotiating a fee for a Royal Opera production in the Linbury Theatre at the ROH for 2006. Please do not accept any contracts at the Linbury without consulting the ALD office first.

 

From: Mark Jonathan Professional Rep.

 

Interesting, no? Mr Fisher has decided to flex his Association muscle in regards to battering a better fee out of the ROH. What do people think about this? Do you think they'd issue such a blanket warning if it were one of the "lesser" members that was having trouble getting the cash they wanted? Do you think people would really turn down a ROH gig because Rick said so...?

 

To put this in perspective, it follows an article about the inequality of LDs pay to Scenic Designers pay.

 

I just thought it was a pretty interesting development.

[Ken Coker]

Dear Bryson

 

Actually, yes they would.

Rick, it should be pointed out, hasn't said anything as the email is from Mark J.

 

What is the point of your post? At the last ALD meeting I was at, PLASA this year, ther were all sorts of lighting designers from all sorts of backgrounds - me, Andy Purves, Jo Town, Simon Corder, Ally Grant to name a varied few - all of whom were sat there in their own time discussing a variety of issues that will have benefits, hopefully, for all lighting designers whether members of the ALD or not.

 

Some of us still believe in collective action - BECTU has saved my job on a few occasions; if you were to be treated hashly by your current employers and issued a similar warning I would indeed heed it. Would I turn down a job at the ROH because they were behaving like knobheads? Yes I would, and I can assure you I need the bread at the moment!

 

That's it.

Cheers

 

Ken

[bright spark]

Dear Professional members

 

Rick Fisher is currently experiencing some difficulties in negotiating a fee for a Royal Opera production in the Linbury Theatre at the ROH for 2006. Please do not accept any contracts at the Linbury without consulting the ALD office first.

 

From: Mark Jonathan Professional Rep.

 

Interesting, no? Mr Fisher has decided to flex his Association.......[snip]

 

I thought the whole point of send e-mails rather than posting things on a public forum was to keep issues private??

 

I am sure there is an ALD member on this forum, who if it was required and asked to by the ALD would make this public....

 

The point is the ALD hasn't and I certainly don't want my e-mails being posted on a public forum.....when its intended for one person (or a group of persons) only.

 

Personally I am not a member of the ALD, so I did not get this, but if you got it because you are, then is it not part of your membership agreement to keep issues like this strictly private between members (yes I know theres lots of them).

 

Surely all your are doing is making an issue public, so the people who are not members, but love something like this to pick and dig at get something to get their teeth into. Then these people will then keep on and on about it, and inflate the issue to levels that are totally un-necessary??

 

I haven't looked, but I doubt if this has been posted on their website, so does the fact its in an e-mail not tell you something??? Is publically posting 'private between members' issues like this not a membership violation??

 

£0.01

 

Not seen anything on ALD website, so this must be a PRIVATE members to know only issue???

[gareth]

I thought the whole point of send e-mails rather than posting things on a public forum was to keep issues private??

Get down off your high horse, Mr. Spark. Why have you got so worked up about this? Regardless of Bryson's reasons for posting it, I see no harm in that particular piece of information being placed in the public domain. The e-mail that Bryson quoted isn't a private, person-to-person communication - it's an 'electronic newsletter' from the ALD to its members.

 

I am sure there is an ALD member on this forum

There are many, myself included.

 

The point is the ALD hasn't and I certainly don't want my e-mails being posted on a public forum

Well, you've got no need to worry, then, have you? You are neither the sender nor the recipient of the e-mail that was quoted.

 

Personally I am not a member of the ALD, so I did not get this, but if you got it because you are, then is it not part of your membership agreement to keep issues like this strictly private between members.

No. I guess there might well be times when information shared among ALD professional members is best not 'spread around' - but I'm sure if that situation ever arose the Association would make it clear that they would prefer that the matter wasn't discussed in the public domain.

 

Surely all your are doing is making an issue public, so the people who are not members, but love something like this to pick and dig at get something to get their teeth into. Then these people will then keep on and on about it, and inflate the issue to levels that are totally un-necessary??

On the contrary - I think it's worth having something like this brought to the attention of those people who might well be asked to light a show in the Linbury but might not be ALD members (although I would imagine that most, if not all, LDs who are likely to be asked to light a show there with ROH as the producing management would be ALD members) are aware of the situation and can make a more informed decision as to the route they wish to follow.

 

I haven't looked, but I doubt if this has been posted on their website, so does the fact its in an e-mail not tell you something??? Is publically posting 'private between members' issues like this not a membership violation??

 

£0.01

 

Not seen anything on ALD website, so this must be a PRIVATE members to know only issue???

Yes, you're quite right in what you say earlier in your message - people who "keep on and on about {something}, and inflate the issue to levels that are totally un-necessary" are a bit of an annoyance. If you're really that angered by this, then why not just contact the ALD and let them know your concerns?

 

For what it's worth, I applaud the ALD for their current 'push' for producing managements to bring LDs' fees more on a par with those of other members of the creative team. If only other industry associations (mentioning no four-letter acronyms in particular) were as interested in representing the interests of their members ...

[Bryson]

Indeed. I very carefully inspected the e-mail (that was sent to every single ALD member) and it does not say that it is confidential. Also, I have never seen anything that says that all ALD correspondence is confidential.

 

I posted here because I thought it was interesting: It's the first time I've seen an Association try and stand up to a big player like this. I personally have my doubts about how successful it might be, but I thought it was a topic worthy of discussion. So my point of posting was: this is an interesting thing that is happening, I have an opinion, what is yours?

 

Unfortunately, it appears that some people would prefer to debate the legalities of repeating e-mails than the issues at hand.

[paulears]

This is proving to be a bit of an eye opener. I've spoken to both of the people named in the repeated mail - reading between the lines, they are pleased the issue is being actually talked about - but, and this is only my interpretation, they are pretty horrified that not everyone is supportive.

 

Let's be honest. Not that many people here make a living from lighting design. Those that do are not quite in the league of the Ricks and Marks of this world - I wish I was, but I'm not, and won't ever be! Others are simply interested people, others students.

 

A lot of people with an interest in lighting, not simply design - join the ALD. One of the things I've always noticed is that the ALD is a 'quiet' organisation. It rarely shouts, normally preferring to work behind the scenes to achieve it's aims. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time publicity has been given to an issue like this. Whatever you think, more people now know that this particular venue is shall we say, problematic, in terms of fees offered and paid.

 

I'm looking at it like this - if people at the top of the designer tree have problems like this, then no wonder I have trouble. I, like many others, I suspect, always assumed that at the premiere venues such issues didn't exist.

 

Holding some sort of list of venues involved in fees 'issues' can only help. The extra coverage this thread has generated can only help designers get the fees they need, and highlighting such issues can be of great assistance to those who follow on. After all, if designer A refuses the job and designer B accepts at a lower rate, where does that leave us all? Keeping these things private just assists the venues to keep rates low.

 

If anyone has any personal experience of trouble with fees, I'd appreciate the info as the reactions to this topic will make a good article in the ALD magazine, Focus.

 

I guess I should finish this post with a plug for people to actually join the ALD - if lighting is important to you then join - it's a little like belonging to a community - you can have an active part, or just sit back and watch others!

[gareth]

I'll echo Paul's 'plug' for the ALD - it's a really good organisation, well worth joining as an associate if you're interested in the art/craft of lighting for performance. And for those who earn at least a part of their living from lighting shows, professional membership is to be highly recommended. Take a look at the ALD website for more information, folks.

 

Re. Paul's point about designer B taking the low-paying show that designer A turned down .... I know it always seems to come back to the same issue, but my personal feeling is that as long as there are drama colleges turning out umpteen graduate 'lighting designers' every year, there's always going to be a "too many LDs, not enough shows" sort of situation, therefore there'll always be someone who's so desperate for some work that they'll do the gig for whatever the management are offering, no matter how paltry it might be. But at least the ALD have started to take the bull by the horns and look at ways of addressing the issue of LDs' fees in a way which may well end up having a positive effect. Personally speaking, I only make a small part of my living from lighting design (the majority of my income coming from production electrics and relights), but it affects us all in the long run so I'm behind them all the way.

[24seven]

I'm looking at it like this - if people at the top of the designer tree have problems like this, then no wonder I have trouble. I, like many others, I suspect, always assumed that at the premiere venues such issues didn't exist.

 

I am a member of ALD and in a funny way its a bit reasuring to see that even the top LD's Still have trouble with money like the rest of us.

 

I have yet to use any of the services that ALD provide but I feel sure that if I need it they would be there shouting my corner luckily so far I have not had much trouble with such things but I am sure I will one day as previously posted in this string there are lots of graduate LD's out there who will do the job for less money so I am sure my fee will be questioned one day .

 

 

Mark W-E

 

 

 

Mark W-E