I just read an article in the Chicago Tribune about actors receiving no payment for some performances. I’m not sure why it was written, except as acknowledgment that, well, actors receive no payment for some performances. Even for hit shows.

But why? “We can either pay you guys and not do a show — or not pay you and do a show,” said one producer in the article.

Here’s the thing: there are lots of performers. The competition forces them to undervalue themselves.

But that doesn’t mean that it’s ethical not to pay them. At least minimum wage. For rehearsal and performance time.

If that producer decides not to make money on a project, that’s his prerogative. But no pay to performers is abusive, unless he’s offering 40 acres and a mule after the run of the show.