Religious discrimination in the theatre business?

[JDP]

Yes, kind of my point Ynot, they need to charge more for the tickets. But the technical crew don't seem to be seeing any of that... Everyone needs paying - and to be to be expecting people to work for little or below minimum wage isn't on, especially when the people at the 'top' are probably taking a % of the ticket income 3 years down the line, having not been personally involved with the show for 3 years..

 

I think those adds you read came from one place this guy and he has a reputation for being pretty flakey at the best of time - not paying crew proper money, expecting people to sleep on the warehouse floor, driving over-weight vans after working 30 hour days and suchlike. This would never happen with a proper corporate company who properly look after their staff, normally. You have picked probably the only exception to the industries I mentioned :)

 

EDIT, taken someones name out at their request.

[LeeStoddart]

The ad is now hidden so I can't comment on the specifics but...

 

To me it sounds discriminatory. And the whole argument of "fitting in" is bogus. You can't legally advertise for "black lesbian technicians" can you - even if you thought it would be difficult for me (a white, straight, male) to fit in with the company.

 

As to the whole question of this is voluntary -unpaid. This doesn't sound like amdram. I'm equally concerned about a) taking advantage of individuals - b) underpaying technicians for their skills c) how do the individuals pay their bills during the tour? I'm sure the technicians can't be claiming unemployment benefit (or what ever it is now called) because if they are doing a tour they are not available for work.

[Jivemaster]

Sadly it's OK to discriminate in favour of alien ethnic groups (esp by advertising in their language) but not OK to discriminate in favour of a UK group.

 

My local London Borough has retirement homes for afro-caribbeans and asian couples and asian solo women but no provision for UK born and bred.

[Rob_Beech]

This is unfortunately true, Jivemaster.

 

 

Unrelated to that but related to a post a bit earlier (but not much).

 

Isn't it amazing what utterly **** working conditions you are expected to deal with in the industry. Long hours, potentially unsafe working environment because of this. Of course, when you say poor rates of pay, that assumes you get it.

 

Reminder to self : Chase up that invoice.

[Modge]

I'd agree that the fitting in argument is legally an irrelevance frankly. There's no question (legally or to my mind, though others may disagree, morally) that the job should be open to anyone and that further more the best, not most devote, candidate should be given the job. Practicalities however intervene: some of us here have already established that (even disregarding the non-pay-rate, which I'll come to next) it's really not a job we'd choose to involve our selves in.

 

As to the pay discussion I've never really been keen on the idea of working for free. Certainly I work in this industry because I enjoy it and I've done charity work outside of this industry. What I don't think is right however is the way people are strongly encouraged to believe that doing lots of work for free they might eventually get paid work. Maybe It's because as a student (the obvious time to do work for free...) I couldn't afford to be with out a job (and thus as a second year turned down going to Edinburgh which would have paid rather less than it would have cost to live, despite some entirely non work related reasons wanting to go). I do there for have to ask: How do people who work for free eat? Or pay rent? Does said free work include free transport?

 

And yes Rob, people paying late sucks, I may need to pull out my debt chasing stick soon myself...

[Jivemaster]

Perhaps the need for a belief is necessary so that you will do the job for free, as clearly ststed in the post.

[w/robe]

JDP

 

While I know nothing about this company apart from what you have written you are not only accusing them of not being nice people to work for but also breaking the law. You may wish to edit your post or it may come back to bite you.

 

This sounds like I'm defending them but I really do have no connection with them at all, and you may well be right, but you can not always say on a public forum what you would say in the pub/crew room.

[Rob_Beech]

You're probably right there Mark, Damn shame though.

[Matt Riley]

These are not intended to specifically comment on the reasons given behind NGM's cited genuine occupational requirement for the Luv Esther tour, they are simply some justifications as to why some Christian organisations in some circumstances may desire to invoke a genuine occupational requirement

 

I'm a fairly thick skinned Christian. I've seen techs who are vehemently anti Christian working on Christian events. Their attitude was prejudiced against my faith, unprofessional, unpleasant and offensive even to me. I can imagine that some Christian groups might feel that allowing someone on team who might potentially be this way would undermine the entire vibe of the organisation. Speaking as a final year law student an individual like this would also be next to impossible to dismiss. So, the easiest (not necessarily right) way to avoid this potential lengthy litigation would be to open the job to Christians only.

 

When I'm working with worship bands as a live sound engineer, I know that I make quite a lot of creative decisions, both in production of content such as videos and stuff and also with decisions as to playing style, the length and vibe of their set etc. If I was not a Christian with a good understanding of which direction God wanted us to take a certain meeting or event, then I would be unable to fulfil this role effectively.

 

If you don't have a heart for effective, sincere, non manipulative evangelism, then making creative decisions on a theatre tour like this would be impossible. If you don't believe in JC as their Lord and Saviour and believe that this is a life changing, exciting, amazing, life wrecking experience that gives life an extra dimension, then you're not particularly well placed to be making creative decisions on a tour which is trying to show people that this is the case. This, of all the arguments I've put forth is the only one with a legal footing.

 

And then we get onto certain lifestyle choices of touring crew. So far this year, I've seen a very significant number of 'very awake' touring engineers come through my venue. I've also seen a number of borderline alcoholics, and to cap it all off, at one gig the 50 year old backline tech appeared to have picked up a very nervous and slightly scared looking (hopefully) 16 year old girl and be leading her back to the tour bus. This behaviour, while I wouldn't do it myself, is mostly not illegal, and is just the way some factions of the RnR touring world work. BUT I'm sure that you'll agree it has no place in a tour like this. Perhaps while it is not the perfect way of screening applicants, it is definitely the easiest (if not the right) way to hopefully weed out this reasonable sized group of people.

 

Also, from an EU/domestic law perspective, it is wrong to immediately equate discrimination on grounds of faith with discrimination with race, sexuality, gender, as they are dealt with by different legislation, and I'm sure that the religion regs will be interpreted in a far less harsh way by the courts, as it is not dealing with stuff that you have no choice over.

 

Finally, I want to encourage people to remember that perhaps a measure of sensitivity would be in order when discussing people's faith, especially given that a large number of technical staff in this industry, including some very highly respected and intelligent hire company directors, LDs, noise boys, acousticians, are, as someone put it "happy, clappy, evangelical Christians", and this is something people care an awful lot about and have come to an informed and mature decision on, so let this be a reminder to try not to quietly make any snide remarks to the ld sitting next to you, if, by chance you're sitting at FOH in one of the venues at 'newsurvivordaywinefestharvest' this summer.

 

Peace out,

 

Matt

[gareth]

So, the easiest (not necessarily right) way to avoid this potential lengthy litigation would be to open the job to Christians only.

Not at all. The easiest way to avoid this would be to select people for interview based on their technical prowess and ability, and to ask them whether working within a Christian organisation would be a confortable environment for them. Discrimination isn't the answer.

 

... decisions as to playing style, the length and vibe of their set etc. ... a good understanding of which direction God wanted us to take a certain meeting or event

I'm not being facetious here, but are you really trying to tell us that, as a Christian, you'd displease God if you got the set list or the tempo of a song wrong?!

 

If you don't have a heart for effective, sincere, non manipulative evangelism, then making creative decisions on a theatre tour like this would be impossible. If you don't believe in JC as their Lord and Saviour and believe that this is a life changing, exciting, amazing, life wrecking experience that gives life an extra dimension, then you're not particularly well placed to be making creative decisions on a tour which is trying to show people that this is the case. This, of all the arguments I've put forth is the only one with a legal footing.

And that footing seems to be, at best, tenuous. You don't need to have any creative input as a follow-spot operator - you do as the LD tells you.

 

And then we get onto certain lifestyle choices of touring crew. So far this year, I've seen a very significant number of 'very awake' touring engineers come through my venue. I've also seen a number of borderline alcoholics, and to cap it all off, at one gig the 50 year old backline tech appeared to have picked up a very nervous and slightly scared looking (hopefully) 16 year old girl and be leading her back to the tour bus. This behaviour, while I wouldn't do it myself, is mostly not illegal, and is just the way some factions of the RnR touring world work. BUT I'm sure that you'll agree it has no place in a tour like this. Perhaps while it is not the perfect way of screening applicants, it is definitely the easiest (if not the right) way to hopefully weed out this reasonable sized group of people.

You've put your finger on it there - it's not the right way to 'screen out' behaviour such as you describe. While no-one can deny that drug and alcohol use are sometimes to be found among all sectors of the entertainment business, they're no more acceptable on any other event just because it's not a religious one. In the 21st century, with our current awareness of health issues related to alcohol and drug use, as well as a heightened awareness of H&S issues and the detrimental effect that drink and drug consumption can have on the safety of the working environment, such behaviour has no place on any tour, not just this one.

 

Finally, I want to encourage people to remember that perhaps a measure of sensitivity would be in order when discussing people's faith

With the possible exception of one or two posts, I think this thread has handled the issue perfectly sensitively. The bottom line is that using religious belief as a criteria when selecting candidates for a job which is quite clearly not creative or pastoral in a Christian context, and does not involve any ambassadorial element or requirement to provide any spiritual guidance as part of the role, is wrong. And I think that's equally applicable whether the position is paid or not.

[themadhippy]

If you don't believe in JC as their Lord and Saviour

wots jermy clarkson got to do with things?

[Matt Riley]

So, the easiest (not necessarily right) way to avoid this potential lengthy litigation would be to open the job to Christians only.

Not at all. The easiest way to avoid this would be to select people for interview based on their technical prowess and ability, and to ask them whether working within a Christian organisation would be a confortable environment for them. Discrimination isn't the answer.

 

 

I'm sure that the above mentioned individuals were perfectly comfortable working in a Christian environment, they were just downright offensive.

 

... decisions as to playing style, the length and vibe of their set etc. ... a good understanding of which direction God wanted us to take a certain meeting or event

I'm not being facetious here, but are you really trying to tell us that, as a Christian, you'd displease God if you got the set list or the tempo of a song wrong?!

 

We're not talking about displeasing God here (and according to the Bible, since I'm saved I couldn't displease God if I tried!) We're talking about making creative decisions as to the production of events which have as, in my example, the worship of a tangible, real God as it's object, guided and equipped by the Holy Spirit to do so.

 

If you don't have a heart for effective, sincere, non manipulative evangelism, then making creative decisions on a theatre tour like this would be impossible. If you don't believe in JC as their Lord and Saviour and believe that this is a life changing, exciting, amazing, life wrecking experience that gives life an extra dimension, then you're not particularly well placed to be making creative decisions on a tour which is trying to show people that this is the case. This, of all the arguments I've put forth is the only one with a legal footing.

And that footing seems to be, at best, tenuous. You don't need to have any creative input as a follow-spot operator - you do as the LD tells you.

Perhaps not as a FS op, but I'm talking about people engaged in technical roles where they do.. IE noise boys, LDs etc.

 

And then we get onto certain lifestyle choices of touring crew. So far this year, I've seen a very significant number of 'very awake' touring engineers come through my venue. I've also seen a number of borderline alcoholics, and to cap it all off, at one gig the 50 year old backline tech appeared to have picked up a very nervous and slightly scared looking (hopefully) 16 year old girl and be leading her back to the tour bus. This behaviour, while I wouldn't do it myself, is mostly not illegal, and is just the way some factions of the RnR touring world work. BUT I'm sure that you'll agree it has no place in a tour like this. Perhaps while it is not the perfect way of screening applicants, it is definitely the easiest (if not the right) way to hopefully weed out this reasonable sized group of people.

You've put your finger on it there - it's not the right way to 'screen out' behaviour such as you describe. While no-one can deny that drug and alcohol use are sometimes to be found among all sectors of the entertainment business, they're no more acceptable on any other event just because it's not a religious one. In the 21st century, with our current awareness of health issues related to alcohol and drug use, as well as a heightened awareness of H&S issues and the detrimental effect that drink and drug consumption can have on the safety of the working environment, such behaviour has no place on any tour, not just this one.

I'm not talking about people being drunk or high on shift, it's more that any comprehensive school kid with half a brain cell sitting half a metre away from FOH can tell if someone likes a bit too much of certain substances, and that would totally undermine the values of the organisation they are representing and the message of the play.

Finally, I want to encourage people to remember that perhaps a measure of sensitivity would be in order when discussing people's faith

With the possible exception of one or two posts, I think this thread has handled the issue perfectly sensitively. The bottom line is that using religious belief as a criteria when selecting candidates for a job which is quite clearly not creative or pastoral in a Christian context, and does not involve any ambassadorial element or requirement to provide any spiritual guidance as part of the role, is wrong. And I think that's equally applicable whether the position is paid or not.

I'm not too sure that we disagree too much here really. In terms of FS ops, then I wouldn't have personally tried to claim that operational requirement, but if I'm not wrong didn't the ad actually talk about lots of different technical roles? That's what my comments were more directed at. WRT my last comments I was trying to provide a positive encouragement for people not to latch onto the rather negative stereotypes of Christians portrayed in certain branches of the media, I didn't mean to accuse anyone of actually being intolerant (and I agree with you that it has been pretty well handled). In terms of whether it is relevant being paid or not, since we're actually in EC land with this bit of legislation (I think) the caselaw has chosen to interpret 'employed' in a very wide way (see lawrie blum, kempf, steymann, and antonissen) when referring to the right to work (article 39 EC) and I wouldn't be surprised if the courts chose to adopt this wide definition with regards to this area, so you're probably right in this case.

 

M

[Ike]

I'm not talking about people being drunk or high on shift, it's more that any comprehensive school kid with half a brain cell sitting half a metre away from FOH can tell if someone likes a bit too much of certain substances, and that would totally undermine the values of the organisation they are representing and the message of the play.

Are you trying to suggest that nobody who identifies as Christian has ever had a substance abuse problem?

[Rob_Beech]

Why can't anyone who is happy to do a job, do a job, and anyone who doesn't want to do a job, not do it, then we can all get on with things.

 

Sorry, have I missed something?

[Ike]

I think you have, do you think it would be OK for a racist TM to put 'No Blacks, No Irish' on the bottom of a job advert because it would ruin the team spirit and they probably wouldn't enjoy working for him anyway?