Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1987 - 8

acquired a good deal of experience in
a very difficult business who are trying to make working conditions better not only for themselves, but for
their successors.
Jack and I continued to keep in
touch on this question as I started
receiving responses to my survey.
Most of the respondents expressed an
interest in obtaining union affiliation. Only one felt that the existing
.Inion representation was adequate
for theatre sound designers-a member of IATSE Local 922. The group
was small, but vocal.
In April 19 6 I organized a panel to
discuss the organization of sound designers. Bob Shook spoke for USA Local 350 and Jack Shearing spoke for
IATSE Local 922; Tom Mardikes
from the Missouri Repertory Theatre and Michael Holton from the
Seattle Repertory Theatre also
spoke. One of the main results of the
discussion was the realization that
there were many conceptions as to
what a sound designer was. Largely it
seemed that what a sound designer
did on Broadway was different from
the typical practice of a regional or
university sound designer. Although
by no means mutUally exclusive,
Broadway-based sound designers
were doing a lot more sound reinforcement design while regional and
university sound designers seemed
to be more heavily involved in sound
score design. Jack Shearing recognized that this was an important difference that would need to be addressed by any union representing as
diverse a group of people as sound
designers. He called later to discuss
the possibility of establishing an affiliate membership for regional and
uni versi ty sou nd designers.
This was an interesting possibili ty,
but not one without its problems. A
second survey again revealed that regional and university sound designers felt a good deal of bias against
representation by IATSE. Most felt
that since USA represented other
members of the design team, it was
the logical union for sound designers.
However, the experience of the
Broadway designers was again similar to our experience: USA was reluctant to ,1Ct at that time. IATSE was
interested and offered several advantages to the Broadway designers.
Most of the group were already members of IATSE and typically worked
in houses under IATSE iurisdiction.
This arrangement would allow the
6

TD&T·

FALL 1987

members to handle sound equipment in theatres (unlike lighting designers I. The League of Professiona I
Theatres in New York was also willing to work with IATSE, which made
acceptance and standardization
easier.
In fact, the primary bias against
IATSE seemed to be that IATSE was a
union for stagehands. However, this
is simply not true. Besides stage employees, IATSE also represents film

HE LACK OF
ACCEPTANCE OF
SOUND DESIGN
AS A FOURTH
DEPARTMENT
ALONG WITH
SCENERY,
COSTUMES, AND
LIGHTS HAS MADE
WORKING
CONDITIONS
DIFFICULT
AND OFTEN
COMPROMISED
THE ESTHETICS

OF THE SOUND
DESIGN.

designers, makeup artists, and many
other artists and designers. With
65,000 members in 700 locals, it
dwarfs USA by comparison.
Some were concerned that affiliation with IATSE would prohibit
sound designers from working in
non-IATSE houses. Jack assured me
that this was neither true nor of interest to the union or the local. The
purpose of this union was to promote
sound design, not restrict it.
While some expressed reservations
abour IATSE, there were ,dso some
important comments made regarding USA membership, notably: "I

would
question whether USA
would be willing to accept sound design as a 'full partner' or whether it
would continue to be treated as a
'shunned stepchild.''' Given the opposition of some USA members to
crediting the sound designers in the
same size and type as the visual designers, this was not a wholly surprising comment.
Besides USA and IATSE, the second survey posed a third alternative - creating a separate union. The
response was very enthusiastic: "it
could
address sound designers'
specific needs le.g., a specific fee
structure to present to producers and
a certain amount of bargaining advantagel." The major reservation expressed was: "How strong would an
alliance of sound designers be if it
were OUt on its own~"
In April 19 7 a follow-up was held
at the USITT National Conference in
Minneapolis. Bob Shook and Jack
Shearing again addressed a room full
of sound designers. The news from
USA was disappointing: the union
was still reluctant to act. The minimum anticipated time before sound
designers could be accepted in the
union was estimated at four to five
years. The report from IATSE was
more promising: the local was actively seeking to start an 'Associate
Membership" for theatrical and
sound designers in regional and university theatre. The main advantages
of the associate membership were
that the union would essentially allow university and regional sound
designers to start their own organization. IATSE strongly supports local
autonomy in regard to contracts,
membership, and testing. At the
same time, it would allow this group
to utilize the resources of both the
Local and IATSE in general.
After lengthy discussion, the
group decided to pursue the affiliate
membership of IATSE Local 922. A
commi ttee has now been formed to
accomplish this. The members and
their addresses are:
Richard K. Thomas
G-59 Stewart Center
Purdue University
W Lafayette, [ J -+7907
13171 -+9-+-8150
Tony Tate
c/o Old Globe Theatre
PO Box 2 [71
San Diego, CA 92112
16191231-19-+]

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1987