Unpaid Work: How did such an oxymoron become the norm?

The topic of unpaid and profit share work in the theatre is a widely discussed issue and a contentious one at that. We might all go into this profession starry eyed and willing to live on beans on toast for the next ten years, but realistically most people cannot afford to work for free long term. Those who can? I suppose if you have a substantial nest egg, generous parents and/or an incredibly flexible job then you may well be prepared to work for nix. However, as Rupert Goold pointed out recently in a talk for Sky Arts, unpaid internships and work tend to attract a long line of privileged individuals which in no way offers a variety of experiences and approaches to our Arts scene. Now as companies such as Cheek by Jowl and the Old Vic are forced to suspend their unpaid internship positions are we any closer to achieving some potential of financial stability in this profession?

Recently I was asked if I'd like to co-produce an Edinburgh 2012 show. I was told the existing company would need no financial input from me, just lots of hard work both during the festival and for the two weeks rehearsal process. I liked the play and was impressed by the company's good reviews for some exciting sounding past shows.

Enquiring a little further into what my actual duties would be it occurred to me that they were looking for not only a co-producer but also a PR and marketing assistant. But this is Fringe theatre and I'm used to the need for people to fill multiple roles within a theatre company. Discussing payment naturally led to the Profit Share scenario. Whilst this offers money on the basis that the company make any, generally an Edinburgh show rarely ends up in profit. Although not ideal it's a situation we're all familiar with and, for the most part, understand the need to accept while we're making our way in the profession. However, to be part of the profit share payment list, I would have to also stage manage the show for two shows a day for the entire month. Sigh. Ok. It was still ultimately a cheaper and more involved way to experience the Edinburgh Fringe. 

Finally, just as I was ready to sign my summer away I was asked to prepay the cost of accommodation and travel on the understanding it would be paid back if they made their money back which was apparently very likely. I replied and said that I would fulfil all the above criteria but, keeping in mind I had been told that no financial input was needed from me, I wanted confirmation that I would definitely receive my full accommodation and travel payment back. This couldn't be done, my belief in their confidence wavered and so I politely declined to get involved.

This interaction really worried me. Once upon a time people developed skills that they could be paid for. Nowadays we seem to be paying for the opportunity to work. As a producer one could argue that if I did my job and secured a transfer for the show I could potentially eventually make my money back. But what about the actors? It turns out they are all working on exactly the same deal. What if the show transfers and they're replaced? Their financial input and unpaid performance in the show will have facilitated this company's success rather than their own. I know for a fact that one actor cast in the show had to turn it down as they couldn't afford to front the cash needed. The role was recast. So it's not the best actor playing the role now, it's the richest one. Is this the way we want to see theatre going?  Or is this nothing more than a glorified amateur dramatics outing? I might work on a profit share basis when I produce my own work but I can assure you that I would never expect my actors to pay for their own accommodation or transport costs. If I can't raise that cash, then the show doesn't go ahead. That's a producer's job. Isn't it?