Pirouette

2 hours ago, Jan McNulty said:

 

Previously did ballet students get paid for performances with companies?

 

The students used by BRB and NB for their June seasons had just over a week of performances each plus rehearsal time so definitely not longer than a year.

 

 

Yes, Direction_of_your_dreams said in their post above that students used to get paid when performing for the RB up until around 2015/16.  I don't know about the other companies.

It is correct that students on work experience or placements of less than one year are not automatically entitled to the minimum wage.  I trust that the period for which students are engaged with the company does not exceed that length of time. 

However, I disagree that already highly skilled ballet students should be deprived of a wage that they would have received in the past just because students of other subjects don't always receive one.  The dance world can do better than engaging in a race to the bottom which encourages exploitation.  We should be levelling up, not levelling down. 

The main point here, though, isn't that the students are unpaid, it's that in the scenario described above (if it is indeed the case) a service is being provided and paid for , but yet the people performing the service are apparently not receiving the money owed to them as it is being directed elsewhere. This is not the same situation as if the work was unpaid and no money changed hands. This is the point that I believe the posters above were making. 

57 minutes ago, Kate_N said:

 

But it did go to the students: presumably as a bursary fund to help those students from families without significant resources, to help pay for the expenses of auditions etc. 

 

So there's another way of looking at it: the RBS is trying to enable those less well-off to attend expensive auditions (ie travel, audition videos etc).

 

It's often bemoaned in this forum that children of less well-off families lose out because they can't be subbed for audition travel etc. So the RBS is trying to level the playing field a bit - isn't that a good thing?

Yes, the money did go to some students (if this is indeed what happened), but not to the students who had earned it.  I'm sure that none of us would be too impressed if our wages were deducted in their entirety at source and redistributed elsewhere?

Dancers - students or otherwise - have as much right to receive the wages they have earned as anyone else. 

I think that an audition fund is a wonderful idea that other schools should adopt, and the RBS should be applauded for that. But they could surely source the funds for this elsewhere? The school appears to benefit from a significant amount of philanthropy, as evidenced by the long list of sponsors on their website - far more than any of the other main vocational schools.

The wages earned by students are likely to be a drop in the ocean in comparison, and whilst the figures cited above may not sound like a lot of money in the bigger picture, they will mean a lot to the students who earned them. 

Just now, Peanut68 said:

The money went to the school NOT the students???? Outrageous!! So ticket buying public are yet again hood winked as to where their money is going....

Again I say, where is the transparent public auditing of schools & companies???

And why are people not shouting long & loud? Or is this a sign again of the long ingrained fear that anyone who speaks out will be cast out? Or rather.... never ever cast at all!!! 

Agree, Peanut68. An audition fund sounds like a wonderful idea that other schools could learn from, but..... surely not financed with other students' earnings??

Personally, I don't agree with the 'good enough' idea either. If they are performing corps de ballet roles in a professional production they should be paid, and if they weren't good enough they wouldn't be allowed on in the first place. After all, supernumeraries get paid and some of those filling in for corps roles will doing far more technical dancing than that. 

2 hours ago, Peony said:

An enormous amount of occupations are on the ‘shortage’ list though. The NHS is the biggest employer in Europe and doesn’t have to comply. It’s all about the best deal for employers not employees which I’m not saying I support. If you want to challenge it you will need some evidence though, which is where a strong union can help you. To become a sponsor the employer must have submitted evidence to show a shortage. Is that publically available? Perhaps the ones receiving public funding would have to divulge that information?

If it was all about the best deal for the employer, then I'm sure that all occupations would be on the list as no employer would want to lose out.   

As I said further up-thread, the NHS operates on a vast scale and has many vacancies it desperately needs to fill. I suspect that any  sufficiently qualified and suitable UK applicant who wanted a full time, year round contract in the NHS would be able to get one somewhere in the UK. As has been pointed out several times on this thread, there are not hundreds of positions for dancers with tens of applicants per post, there are around ten full company contract positions with hundreds of applicants for each post. The situation just isn't comparable.

I expect that those NHS positions will be removed from the Shortage Occupation List when the number of applicants increases to no longer necessitate their inclusion.  For the reasons explained above, I just don't have the same faith that this will happen for the young, vulnerable dancers that we are talking about here.  I challenge the government to listen to their plight and prove me wrong by taking action. 

54 minutes ago, Peony said:

I don’t really understand that, if you want to change something the way to convince people is with hard evidence. That goes for pretty much everything and all occupations, action through unions etc. I feel sure that any employer wanting to be a sponsor has to provide evidence of shortages. You’re challenging that, you need evidence. I don’t quite understand what protections you think apply to other professions? Do you mean professions as that term traditionally only applies to occupations that meet certain criteria including meeting the requirements of a professional body and are restricted titles- so yes that does provide more protection

The protections I am referring to are the right for UK nationals (and others who already possess the right to work in the UK) to be prioritised for job vacancies and to see those vacancies publicly advertised for 28 days in two places suitable for the job and industry in question.  Workers in all occupations benefit from this as standard, not just those considered professions in the narrower sense of the word. Employers can only hire an applicant on a Tier 2 visa once they can prove that these requirements have been met, thus the onus of proof falls firmly upon the employer. 

The data you ask for is not in the public domain, and may not even exist for those companies who do not advertise auditions. In the latter case, any data provided is unlikely to reflect the true picture, as, of course, fewer dancers will apply for vacancies if they don't know they exist in the first place! This puts dancers in an impossible position -  a catch 22. They are at a disadvantage when being considered, and at a disadvantage when proving that they are at a disadvantage when being considered. As I said above, in other UK occupations meeting the Tier 2 visa requirements is the default requirement and the burden of proving that lies with the employer, not the pool of candidates. 

59 minutes ago, Peony said:

The reference I found was £23800 in 2016 so I think those joining companies with equity contracts would be eligible without the shortage occupation scheme.

If you want to take this further I really do think that there needs to be figures and evidence attached to it for you to be heard. Crucially you will need to show that the reason companies are recruiting from abroad is for a reason other than that those dancers are more skilled and suitable and that UK dancers aren’t choosing to work abroad through preference. 

If you are correct and dancers joining those companies would be eligible without the scheme then there would be no problem removing dancers from the list. 

It is often presented as if inclusion on the Shortage Occupation List is the only way that dancers can be hired from abroad - this is incorrect. They can still be hired with a Tier 2 visa if the company is offering at least the minimum salary and has advertised the position to the resident labour market for the requisite amount of time. There will be a little more red tape, but only the same as every other company hiring overseas workers in the UK has to deal with. 

The majority of UK dancers who only possess UK nationality will find it very difficult to work in Europe or elsewhere post-brexit, as the Occupation Shortage List arrangement is not reciprocal. Local workers in those countries will have protections similar to those afforded to those seeking jobs in almost every other profession in the UK. 

'More skilled and suitable' isn't the criteria. The criteria for inclusion on the list is that the occupation must be 'in ‘shortage’, in that the demand for labour is higher than the supply.'  It isn't, as demonstrated by the number of UK candidates that turned up to the recent ENB auditions, as cited by GoldenLily17 above, and the much smaller number of full contracts that the companies have to fill each year. The Shortage Occupation List circumvents the need to prove that the overseas candidate the employer wishes to hire is 'more skilled and suitable'. They just need to be good enough, as after all, employers recruiting for occupations on the list must be desperate and struggling to find applicants! Clearly there are sufficient applicants who are good enough and already possess the right to work in the UK as the companies are happy to have those dancers perform in their corps de ballet as students and on short term contracts. They would not put them onstage if they weren't. 

It seems unfair to place the burden of proof on UK dancers, when for most other workers in the UK the opposite is the case. We are only asking for the same treatment and consideration that is given to every other profession in the UK as standard. 

21 minutes ago, Peony said:

Corps dancers at the Arts council funded companies (BRB, RB, Northern, Rambert, Scottish Ballet) will be on a high enough salary that they can come in to the country regardless and not all of the smaller companies are listed as sponsors for the shortage occupation scheme.

I'm not sure that this is true. The Shortage Occupation List does permit companies to offer a lower wage than the £25,600 minimum income requirement for a tier 2 visa (after all the years of training dancers have put in to get to this standard, this is not a good thing!) I believe most starting salaries for corps dancers in the major companies are lower than this. Inclusion on the shortage list lowers the minimum salary requirement to just £20,480.  

Most of the smaller companies pay wages lower than this, which leaves many dancers struggling to afford the cost of living without continued parental assistance.  Surely it is not ethical to leave UK dancers in a position where these are the only options open to them where they receive the same consideration that all other UK citizens can expect as standard? 

35 minutes ago, Peony said:

how many of those prefer to stay in the country even if dancing with a minor company?

In many cases this would require additional finances or parental support - wages are low. Many dancers simply aren't that fortunate. 

38 minutes ago, Peony said:

How many vacancies are there each year?

Around ten for male dancers and ten for female dancers, depending on the year. Often there are fewer than that. There are more than enough British dancers to fill those vacancies, alongside others who may have the right to work in the UK through Irish or dual nationality, Settled Status or Indefinite Leave to Remain. 

In addition to graduate dancers there will be experienced dancers changing companies after long or short term contracts with major ballet companies in Europe or elsewhere - many of which are just as good as our major companies. 

As well as allowing companies to offer a reduced wage, inclusion on the Shortage Occupation List also absolves employers of the requirement to advertise the position to the resident labour market for 28 days. Several of the major companies don't advertise for full contract positions, either for entry level corps positions or the higher ranks.  The Paris Opera Ballet is often accused of being a 'closed shop' - but to their credit - at least they hold an advertised audition every year. Don't British dancers also deserve to see positions advertised so they can have a fair shot at them at least? 

21 minutes ago, Goldenlily17 said:

Pay in ballet is terrible. Freelance short contracts will pay the Equity minimum, and right now some jobs paying as little as £350 per week.  Those lucky enough to get full contracts can expect around £20,000 at entry. So if you work this out as an hourly sum including performances, you might be doing a 13 hour day. That means corps de ballet dancers earn less that the people who clean the theatres in which they perform. Pretty shocking when you consider that they are the people audiences pay to see, and, more shocking when you look at company accounts and see the six figures sums being earned by artistic directors.
Not wishing to go too off topic, all of this proves just how vulnerable dancers are, how limited employment opportunities are, and how important it is for dancers’ voices to be heard by their MPs on a range of topics.

Agree with all of that. Just wanted to add that for women, the pointe shoe allowance can vary wildly, even on Equity contracts, let alone elsewhere. If the allowance of shoes provided isn't sufficient for your needs, that can also eat into a dancer's income. 

I have also heard of contracts being offered pre-covid for far less than £350 per week in some smaller companies. Shocking, really. Dancers have to eat! 

53 minutes ago, Peanut68 said:

I’d also be interested to know what enables a dancer (or actor) to join Equity? Back in my dark ages days, you had to have an ‘equity recognised’  contract for work at equity rates of pay....this discounted much of the first jobs many took (certainly in acting....think little touring companies & profit share that were all too commonly the work pitched for graduates offering no or minimal pay & pretty poor work conditions & no stability) I imagine that low pay/no pay is still rife in the arts; pitched as chances to get experience/to be seen/something on CV. It always struck me as ludicrous that only if you had enough jobs that  matched equity conditions could you join the union when surely any union should be there to protect the vulnerable, the naïve & the basically abused as let’s face it much of this type of work frankly was/is. I hope minimum wage etc has sorted some of these issues? But I doubt it....

You can join as a student or as a graduate member for two years, after which I believe you move automatically into full membership (please correct me if I'm wrong, this may have changed). This used to be from an accredited school (which covered most of the main ones) but the joining criteria look more generous now.  You can read them here: 

https://www.equity.org.uk/about/how-to-join/

All the major UK ballet companies, New Adventures, West End, the major Opera companies, and most other large productions tend to use Equity contracts. This is not the case in the smaller companies though - I think Ballet Cymru may be a notable positive exception here. There are other companies that historically paid a wage which didn't add up the national minimum wage when divided by the number of hours worked, let alone the Equity minimum wage! Unsure whether this is still the case. 

Broadway workers ran a successful campaign earlier this year to make it compulsory to include pay details for job adverts in certain major publications. If only this could happen for dancers too! Often dancers travel miles to attend auditions that they would never have bothered with had they been aware of the pay. It would certainly expose the truth of the situation and then something might be done about it.  

I still think that the current biggest problem lies with the second company/apprentice situation though. This is a relatively new phenomenon... Which brings me back to the original point - we need to write to MPs for fair access to jobs so that it doesn't proliferate further. 

57 minutes ago, Goldenlily17 said:

I agree. It is important that Equity has more members who are ballet and contemporary dancers. However, dancers really meed their own union.

Yes, a union focused on the specific needs of dancers would be ideal. 

19 minutes ago, NJH said:

 I think you do not understand how Equity works  

 certainly the impression get from my friends who are equity members due to deriving  a decent proprtion of their income from performing   are no where near as dismissive 

as with any trades union it;s the  members activity  that  supports the wider cause and  regardless  of how good the Officers and Representatives  are   without  members   a union is poor and  doesn;t have the   impact  through  weight of numbers  

( disclaimer here I am an Accredited Trades Union Rep  for a  non-affiliated Trade Union in the  Industry i derive most of  my income from ) 

I understand where both NJH and GoldenLily17 are coming from. 

There certainly aren't enough ballet dancers in Equity, that's for sure. I have done contracts where it transpired that only one or two out of a dozen or more dancers were members when the rep turned up to the meeting.

I think this situation is due to a combination of despondency, a (somewhat justified) fear of rocking the boat, and the fact that - up until brexit - many UK dancers have spent the majority of their working lives abroad. They may not feel that an occasional UK contract justifies the subs, after all, most dancers are not particularly well paid. 

I also think that the fairly high turnover due to the short career span makes dancers more vulnerable, as there will be fewer older and more experienced performers around to speak up about conditions or when something isn't right. This is in contrast to say, opera singers or musicians, who can carry on working until retirement age, and who - with the benefit of all that extra experience - are much more difficult to take advantage of. I think that might play a part in why their unions are stronger and more effective.

My personal experience is that Equity weren't very effective in negotiating pay disputes, which perhaps deters dancers from joining, but, as you say, how can they be effective if nobody joins?

I'd urge all dancers, professionals and students to join Equity and make your voices heard. 

29 minutes ago, rowan said:

There is a template in a link by the organisation OnedanceUK which may be of help:

https://www.onedanceuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Write-to-your-MP-template-message.docx

This is great, and covers many of the key points.

For those dancers personally affected by this (or whose children, friends or students have been affected), it would be good to include personal stories as well. MPs receive a lot of correspondence, and I've heard that the pieces which have the biggest impact are those that set the problem in a personal context. It is worth remembering too, that all correspondence with your MP is confidential. 

Both approaches are helpful and needed - if we can show *both* personal stories of those affected, *and* a high volume of concern from the wider public through use of this template, we are more likely to succeed. 

It was great this morning to wake up to the news that the government has agreed visa free touring for UK artists in 19 EU countries! 

The countries with agreements in place are Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.  

The government is now in negotiations with the remaining 8 EU countries, with the aim of reaching a similar agreement there. 

Whilst not perfect, this is a huge step forward and just goes to show what lobbying can achieve. The success is largely thanks to tireless campaigning from the Musicians Union on behalf of their members, and household names in the music industry stepping in and lending their voices to help those who are less well known. 

The question now is who will speak up for the interests of our dancers? Whilst this news will come as a welcome relief to companies, individual British dancers desperately need reciprocity to be reinstated with Europe for contracts too.

If some big names in the dance world could find the courage and compassion to speak up for our ballet dancers, this would go a long way. 

Just now, rowan said:

Ah, had that always been the case? I didn’t know that. Yes, I agree, most ballet dancers surely want a full-time contract, not a temporary one where they are freelance. 

Yes, past adverts have also been limited to those who already had the right to work in the UK (which included EU nationals as well whilst we were still members). I suspect the cost and bureaucracy of getting visas for so many dancers necessitates that. 

8 minutes ago, rowan said:

The latest temporary short-term contracts advertised by ENB actually did say you needed to have the right to live and work in the UK and they were unable to sponsor visas.

I believe that has always been the case for the Albert Hall contracts. The problem is that the freelance dancers who usually take those contracts rely on other short term contracts in Europe during the rest of the year to make this viable. Opportunities which have now been closed off to them. 

A short term contract once per year, whilst a wonderful opportunity in and of itself, is not sustainable on its own. Most dancers have bills to pay. 

1 hour ago, Peony said:

The shortage list includes all nhs including managers, scientists,  care sector, various types of engineers, IT, graphic design, actuaries and many more. It’s not a short list! There will certainly be many jobs on there that aren’t actually particularly difficult to recruit to. I’m not sure that it’s as simple as they can just come over here and work with no restrictions though. 

The NHS operates throughout the UK on a vast scale and has many roles it struggles to fill. As a previous poster said on the other post, in any one year there will only be around ten vacancies for male dancers and ten for female dancers available across the UK ballet companies.  Often it is even fewer than that.

The top ballet schools in the UK alone graduate enough dancers to fill those roles several times over.  To add to that, there will also be dancers moving from other companies, and experienced freelance dancers applying who have worked in several companies already.  

I really don't think this describes the kind of situation that the shortage list was created for. 

We see over and over again the suggestion that there should be fewer vocational schools producing fewer dancers.  Well, perhaps. But that argument renders the shortage point moot, doesn't it?

31 minutes ago, cotes du rhone ! said:

In our experience I think that all the upper schools can turn out students that are very talented classical ballet dancers but unlike RBS they don’t have the name behind them to get them into the audition room or the connections that RBS’s AD/ballet staff have with companies. A lot of students are out there job hunting on their own 😢 They can be just as good but won’t get considered or get that break because of the school on their cv. There is a huge world or difference between men and women too. Some may disagree but this is our experience. 

Agree with all of this. 

3 hours ago, Legseleven said:

I don’t know whether he previously attended RBS itself or whether he was an associate there - I have seen many references to attendance at RBS when in fact it is an RBS associate scheme rather than the actual school.

This is actually quite common, because after observing what happens at a number of auditions, dancers from other schools often form an impression (correctly or incorrectly) that the RBS name gets you into the room, or gets you offered a job.

Not endorsing this approach, just commenting on what I have seen. 

I have known ballet company ADs who are very strongly anti-smoking if that helps. They couldn't do much to stop it, but they made their feelings about it very clear indeed. It was viewed as not having a good enough attitude/commitment towards your body and your job. I have never seen it encouraged actually, although apparently that was the case several decades ago.

8 minutes ago, Weloveballet said:

Interestingly I have yet to see or hear of a child from the north of the UK get a place at WL hopefully I am wrong and there is a few out there but from social media this doesn’t appear to be the case. I’m sure it’s just coincidence as I know there was a lot from the north at the finals 

Historically there have been a lot (relatively speaking) from Yorkshire, but I don't know whether this is still the case.  

7 hours ago, danceparent said:

YBS is an outstanding summer school - fantastic faculty, serious training but huge amounts of fun too. The possibility of scholarships and generous bursaries also added to its appeal for us. My DC attended every summer since year 9 except one year when injured. They count their time at YBS as amongst the happiest and most positive experiences of their training years. 
The masterclasses in Prague are also exceptional but obviously for older students. 

Seconding this - Yorkshire Ballet Seminars is brilliant.  Many dancers still have many wonderful memories and friendships years later that were formed during those summers.  

Prague is good too, but very expensive.  

2 hours ago, Anna C said:

 

If you remember from ENB’s “Agony and Ecstasy” documentary a few years back, Equity did represent the dancers then as they sent a rep to be part of the pay review meeting.  In this article from 2011, a spokesperson for Equity said they don’t condone unpaid apprenticeships:  https://www.balletnews.co.uk/ballet-apprenticeships-what-you-need-to-know/

They don't condone work that is paid less than the Equity minimum either.  But over the years I have been made aware of a number of companies operating in the UK  paying dancers far less than the national minimum wage for the number of hours they worked, let alone the Equity minimum wage. And nothing ever seems to be done about it, which means that those who are prepared to and can afford to accept such conditions gain experience whilst others are priced out.  Whilst those who turn down such contracts tend to warn others, the dancers who accept them tend to keep the terms and conditions very quiet, presumably to preserve the reputation of the company.  Indeed, there is often a taboo about bringing the issue up.  I should add that as far as I am aware this problem has not occurred in any of the major companies, as they all use Equity contracts.  

No doubt these kind of practices and the reluctance of dancers to do anything about them has set a precedent/paved the way for the kind of unpaid or paid for apprenticeship schemes we are seeing now.  Whilst low pay (and occasionally no pay) was somewhat accepted when I graduated some time ago, thankfully actually paying to work post-graduation was still unthinkable.  It is really sad to see how far this has slipped.  

If all dancers joined Equity and raised these issues with them we might stand a chance of reversing these trends - surely a union is only as strong as its members.  

1 hour ago, Peanut68 said:

And it’s starting to replicate the shameful system of unpaid internships or when people pay to join Chambers in Law....bit Dickensian having to buy your way into a firm....money potentially talking its way ahead of talent yet again. Sigh.

Surely ballet companies could offer paid apprenticeship places under the government funded apprentice scheme? Why should job prospects in dance be so different to plumbing or accountancy? 

And there is a danger that training goes on & on. Also I am uncomfortable that it can become an income stream for companies (& limits the payroll costs). Where is Equity in all this? They seem to represent actors well & stamped out much of the unpaid work practises years ago. Are Dancer’s represented by Equity or another Union? If not, why not? 

Good question.  Dancers are represented by Equity, but in my personal experience whilst well meaning, it has not been particularly effective.  Experiences may well vary though depending on what company you are in, or whether you are freelance.  To be fair, I think that it's effectiveness may be limited in part by the (somewhat understandable) reluctance of many dancers to get involved and risk rocking the boat.  In addition to that, for every dancer that does speak up there will often be another one (or several) actively shooting them down again, so such initiatives to improve things often fail.  

By contrast, the Musicians Union seems to be excellent, both on campaigning and employment issues/contracts.  This situation seems to be mirrored in Germany -see the recent open letter by the dancers of Schwerin - which perhaps suggests that poor work rights/union representation may be a systemic problem in the dance world beyond just the UK.    

2 minutes ago, glowlight said:

Are they still advertising like this?  While we were in the EU it made sense because, generally, UK passports would have been considered EU passports from that point of view.  And EU citizens had the same rights to work in the UK as UK citizens.  

 

Yes, it's coming up a lot, more an issue for performers generally than for ballet specifically.  Many ballet ads are posted abroad and you have to travel to the company rather than them coming here to audition, but companies casting for actors and dancers for things like commercials, holiday parks, tours etc are used to being able to recruit here for EU based jobs without an issue. 

Whether they are unaware of the legal implications of doing this now, or are simply crossing their fingers hoping performers don't complain, I'm not sure. They should not have been making specifications on the basis of nationality before either, but if this was happening then they probably got away with it as there would have been far fewer people affected to complain about it.

What they should be doing is taking the issue up with the government rather than shifting the problem to performers by excluding them and carrying on as before.  But we can dream...