Has been and is almost a miracle that the theatres, dance companies and orchestras of the National Institute of Scenic Arts and Music (Inaem) to raise the curtain every night. In the last few years, especially when artists, technicians and working staff, they did fit in the middle of a law kafkaesque and obsolete. The awareness of a need for change was urgent, so that now, nearly completed the work of the commission that has diagnosed the problems, you will raise the next week to José Guirao, minister of Culture, a proposal for the Government to give them a dowry of a specific law, more similar to the one that governs today in institutions such as the Museums of Prado and Reina Sofía or the National Library as a foundation, as that which manages the Royal Theatre.
it Will be a standard on which involved chasing a lot more flexibility and autonomy, the recognition of its peculiarity, that meets the demands of a job with different times to those considered to be normal or different ages of activity, according to be a musician, actor, dancer, or technician.
The bureau of labor began its meetings in July, led by Amaya de Miguel, director of the Inaem. After 10 sessions, in which have participated the 14 directors of units of the institute, trade unions, representatives of the technicians and actors from different sectors, the conclusion is clear: a law of its own and specific ends, they say in their conclusions, “with a model is exhausted.” In the absence of another call requested by the trade unions to clarify some points of the final proposal, the next week will look to Guirao their points of view.
from there, the Government will begin to prepare and file a bill that will leave behind the standard and the single convention that governs the Inaem for the last three decades, although they anticipate that part of that labor regime can remain in place.
The Inaem was created in 1985 by royal decree.
Manages all public companies of theatre, dance and music grouped into 14 units.
Have a budget of 154 million euros, and depends on the Ministry of Culture.
Participate boards of various festivals of music, dance and theatre.
The institute was born with a vocation 100% public and should be preserved in their most thus, according to the commission. An advantage to the time since the State had encouraged the creation and representation of public spectacles. But with the time was creating problems and impossible situations by the regulations too rigid. Obstacles that made very difficult the tours or favored a excessive centralism of the companies, without the rest of the State could enjoy of proposals created with the money of all.
The demands of the heads of units fell drowned out by cuts and deaf ears. They were subject to a perpetual control in recent years, arising from the control of public spending and the deficit. The paperwork and justifications for the hiring of a minimum service were a perpetual corset. The rigidities of union prevented tours or too many extra hours. A work that is based on the public exposure and in a variety of venues, he lost sense and caused a decline in presence and prestige in companies such as the National Dramatic Centre, the Classical Theatre, dance groups, such as the National Dance Company, National Ballet or the Orchestra, and National Choirs of Spain.
The ordeal has led the commission to a clear point of consensus on which to begin to build another framework, almost from scratch: “The legal nature of the current Inaem as an autonomous body, is not suitable for the fulfillment of its purposes and the development of their functions, in particular the promotion and dissemination of the performing arts and the music, because most of the problems stem directly from it.”
To that end, opt for this specific law, next to institutions such as the Prado, the Reina Sofia and the National Library, but out of a foundation such as the Teatro Real. In this aspect, you have left out several alternative formulas. According to the report, a public business entity, “would be invalidated because the Inaem cannot be financed mostly by income from the market”, ensures. With respect to the model foundation state, “the main objection refers to their patrimonial regime, as by the concurrence of the assets of the public sector with the private (even though the first have to be above 50%), distorts the public nature of the Inaem”. Also have been discarded by the trading company or the consortium, “because they are associations of administrative bodies that do not fit for specific purposes that are attributed to the Inaem, and the state agencies”.