Actually the examples are not that different. I do an entirely different thing, using an entirely different set of skills, than the President of my company. And one can do the other--I'm not saying every single person can, but it's possible. I just watched a Netflix series where the lead actor was also the director and producer. He created a project for himself, hired himself, presumably paid himself a wage that satisfied him. In my example, I am not saying I could automatically do my President's exact job, but it is clear to me (with a heavy dose of my rather optimistic worldview and strong belief in my internal locus of control) that I could be in charge of the money that flowed to me by doing something that created that flow rather than being someone else'e employee. I just don't want to.
But that's all rather hair splitting. I just like to point out this angle for consideration when these things come up. Anytime there is a question about the fairness of compensation for unionized employees who get paid regardless of the show making a profit or not, and we know most don't, I think we have to remember that both sides have risks and rewards. Usually the producer is risking more, so his/her reward is greater. Happily, in the case of Hamilton, there has been an agreement about profit sharing for the actors. That sets a precedent that will likely buoy a future discussion, when a unicorn like Hamilton comes around again. But I don't think I favor a "law" across the board that automatically dictates profit sharing. |
