B.E.Trumble said...
I have to say something about the idea that many people will work for peanuts because they love the job -- whatever it may be. True enough. But loving a job and being good at it are two different things. And if enough people who love a job but who aren't outstanding at it work for peanuts, they push out rather more talented people who may need a higher wage to support a family, etc. But it isn't just about wages. The entire "do it on the cheap" theory ultimately leads to saving money across the board. So suddenly there's less money to buy the best hay or meat, less money for groom who aren't totally unqualified, less money for the vet. They used to tell the story of how Beatty never earned more than $100 a week on the Hagenbeck show, even when he was the single biggest name in circus. That wasn't because he loved his job. He'd signed a long term contract before he was a star. Once he was free to leave Hagenbeck he certainly didn't work cheap again. Labor has value, and experience counts for something. If I like horses should I shovel shit for less than I would get paid working at 7-11? If I do, the message I'm sending is that I'm not worth much, and neither is the next guy who mucks out stalls.
Posts
11 comments:
when i was 14, mr. beatty offered me some advice that i will never forget. i listened and it has guided me with every career choice i have made since then, even when it meant taking a chance on losing a job i really wanted: he said don't ever work cheap, because if you work cheap once, they will expect you to work cheap the rest of your life. and ben's right -- once he left hagenbeck wallace, beatty never worked cheap again.
too many people have expected people to work cheap and too many have worked cheap. i know of one instance in which a performer was offered the dream job -- center ring on ringling when it was really the greatest show on earth. but the money was less than could be made with other indoor shows, shrine dates, fairs, etc., so ringling lost an act that would have been a great addition to a great show.
there's a fine line in paying someone what they want vs what you can afford, but too often management has drawn the line too sharply, knowing that they can always get someone else cheaper, even if it means less quality.
The biggest problem our business has today is putting people in the seats. i think a strong performance that people will want to see could help. if they will pay the money they pay for cirque, why do they balk at paying a fraction for other shows? with cirque, they can see what they're paying for. we say there are no younger performers coming in to fill the void left when older performers retire. everyone could learn from cirque by recruiting young gymnasts and athletes to train for the show -- and paying them enough money to make it worth it. the show is what people pay to see. with stronger shows, they will pay more for tickets and also complain less about concessions, etc. look at the prices for concession items at movie theaters and theme parks.
Wade, I imagine one of the real historians can verify the Beatty wage from the early '30's. At least one writer -- McKinnon -- pegged Beatty's salary at $50 during those years, but I think the $100 that I've seen referred to elsewhere is a little more believable. Of course I'm sure there were "perks." I'm sure somebody else grabbed the check at the Stork Club in NYC. And I imagine he earned more for the filming of The Big Cage. My point is, if you fill seats, if you work hard, if you spin more floss than the other guy, what you are paid says something. And as you know, particularly when somebody has kids, there's a point where all the love or dedication in the world doesn't matter much when the twelve year old needs braces.
Henry,
Very valid points. But it is easier to blame it on the economy, gas prices, animal rights, etc. while not addressing that other industries deal with the same issues. If the public buys your product none of those intangibles have any affect.
There is an uproar over bringing foreign labor for "unskilled" positions in the American industries. Where was the uproar when the circus brought in foreign labor for the "skilled" positions. Bringing in an act like Ursula Bottcher when nothing comparable is available in the United States is justified. If Ursula and others with her bear skills are unemployed is it justified to bring me in with little or no bear knowledge to work the Polar Bear act, under the "false presence" of nobody available to present the act in that country, because I need a job and want to earn less then a citizen? Giving work vistas to the flying Cranes when nothing is comparable in this country, is different then having the rigging and bringing in individuals and making the act because they want a job and can live on less then a citizen in a sleeper.
If a person say's "I worked in the coal mines all my life, so my children didn't have to," is he revered as a lover of the coal industry? Or is the one who attempted to make it better for his children the lover of the coal industry?
I have presented this thought in the past. Using only the animal segment of the circus, at your leisure, how many folks from my generation have children continuing in the industry? When you conclude 3 or 4, don't forget we are talking hundreds in the past 50 years. Reference list's like the one posted with Jim Clubb animal trainers in that time frame. How many are still in the industry and how many are not. Why? There is no entertainment industry in history that can claim one or a few success's like Beatty? There are thousands of athletes in the million dollar range, not one. And all references are to what similar athletes made 50 years ago. Why do we reference the reverse, Henry?
Wade
Ben,
Mckinnon was already discredited on the "history channel" because he was nasty to Clyde.
Wade
WOW!!!
I mean WOW!!!
$500.00 a week in 1938
I know of at least two places today where starting wage as an animal trainer is $700.00 a week or less.
I am no economics major, but I thinks inflation over 70 years was more then 200 bucks a week,,,,LOL
Frank Buck had a couple bestselling book by '38 and two hugely successful films, as well as the animal park on Long Island. He was never a circus trainer/presenter, so he was signed strictly for his celebrity -- like Tom Mix. Those guys the shows were willing to pay. I imagine the $500 was just a piece of what Buck actually got...And probably never had to do anything beyond ride an elephant around the track and wave during Spec. Not bad work if you can get it.
Bugged me all day long. I should have stated the obvious. There's a difference between working for "love" and driving down wages, or coming in from Mexico and working on the cheap and driving down wages (because it's still better than what you'd earn at home) ...and working for less out of absolute economic necessity. With a long Recession looming I'm sure more than a few people would rightfully work for less if that got the show out or kept it on the road. The problem is working cheap when the producers have the money to pay fairly. That's when low wages are exploitative.
Interesting story in the news this week. H2B Visas are still a mess. Congress never raised cap nor extended returning worker exemption, so the same shortages will exist in 2009 as 2008. EXCEPT... The ski areas, which were woefully understaffed in '08 are fully staffed in '09. The economy is so bloody bad that they had no problem filling all of their slots with domestic workers -- who are glad for the work. My guess is that some shows will still hire every H2-B Visa worker they can get, claiming they can't fill the jobs with domestic workers... maybe because they only ran their ad in Circus Report. The problem is that if real unemployment heads for 10% rolling into town with a crew of workers on temporary visas could lead to the mother of all bad press/bad feelings. I could see an audience in Michigan wondering why any circus has so many visa workers filling jobs when even the Quicky Mart in Flint is laying people off.
Ben.
If a Frank Buck was worth this amount just as an "extra" kick in the late 30's what would a similar offering be worth today?
Taking a cut or less money if they salaries have been up to standard is an exceptable alternative to the industry dieing. Taking that cut when it has never reached the normal standard, will only keep it at it's present state if it does survive.
Wade
Wade, you're right about the danger of taking a cut in "bad times" because circus producers, or I should say "some" circus producers won't be real quick to raise salaries when business improves. In this particular recession what's scary is that aren't the usual town jobs to fall back on. There are no shortage of unemployed drivers and welders these days. Clearly Feld Entertainment doesn't have to worry about finding the money to take the show(s) on the road. But some other folks don't have those deep pockets and if it takes across the board cuts to pay Allied and make the opening dates I don't begrudge anybody for working for less rather than being unemployed. Clearly this is no excuse for successful Shrine Producers to cry poverty, but I'd cut some slack for some other people.
Hoxie paid me considerably more scratch than Ringling. Yours truly, Johnny.
Johnny,
And Ringling paid me considerably more scratch then anybody else.
Wade
Ben,
It seems to always be the circus or the worst case scenario. I also consider foot ball players, base ball players and Actors as professionals. Let's start at their pay scale without education being a factor and just use talent and skill.
Wade
Post a Comment