THE STRIKE 101 -- WHAT THEY ARE FIGHTING ABOUT

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 1:58pm

An excellent piece from the New York Times that sums up succintly what this strike is all about:



"The main attraction on Broadway this week continues to be the street theater of picketing stagehands. And from the way things look, it could be a long run.

So what are the two sides — Local 1 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, the most powerful of the Broadway unions, and the League of American Theaters and Producers, an industry trade group — actually fighting over?

First, the dramatis personae. The union is made up of about 3,000 stagehands, roughly 350 to 500 of whom work on Broadway building, installing and operating scenery and sound and lighting equipment.

The league is somewhat of a self-contradictory organization, made of producers and the theater owners to whom they pay rent. Producers, who provide the money for salaries, even though the owners are technically the employers, had grumbled for years that the owners had been too willing to sign labor contracts that were costly and inefficient.

But a younger generation of producers decided that the contract now up for renewal would be the one in which they pushed for big changes, and the theater owners are, this time, pushing with them. By taking a few cents out of each ticket over several years, the league amassed a $20 million fund in preparation for a strike like this one.

Now, a little about stagehands’ compensation. Stagehands are divided into four pay categories: the salaries in the top category, which includes head carpenters and electricians, are about $1,600 a week. Salaries in the lowest paid, and most populous category, which includes people who operate rigging, winches and traps, are about $1,200 a week.

Outside the standard eight-performance week, there are rehearsals, maintenance calls and opportunities for overtime. Since stagehands can work during the day on a load-in, the period when a show moves into a theater, and then on a running show at night, actual wages can end up quite a bit higher.

The load-in on a big show can last weeks and cost well over $1 million. Under the recently expired contract, the producer, in conjunction with the union, decided up front how many stagehands would be needed in the three departments: carpenters, electricians and property men (which is what they are called, though many women have those jobs).

So let’s say a producer has a big musical, and decides that on the busiest day, he will need 15 carpenters, 15 electricians and 5 property men. All 35 of them are required to be at the theater for the entire load-in, a holdover from the days when shows came into town and went up in just a few days.

These days, producers say there are often long periods when, for logistical reasons, only some of those stagehands can be working. When the scenery is brought in and the stage is crowded with carpenters, league members say, the electricians cannot get much work done.

The producers want to loosen the rules, so they can call only the stagehands they need on the days that they need them. In the talks, the union had been somewhat open to loosening this requirement, as long as the number of stagehands on any given day did not fall below a certain ceiling — a minimum the sides had been bargaining over.

The producers would also like to change a rule stipulating that if any stagehands are needed to work overtime during a load-in, all of them must stay. The union had proposed modifications to that rule in return for some rule changes in other areas.

Things are more complicated for a show that is up and running.

Some of the rules that the league had been eager to change are those governing what are known as “performance calls,” the three-to-four-hour periods during a performance when stagehands work.

During that time, they can do work pertaining only to that performance; any other duties, like sweeping the stage, require another one-hour call, even if there is enough time left in the performance call. If there is more than an hour’s extra work, the producers are required to pay for a four-hour shift.

Producers want more flexibility in the minimum amount of time stagehands can work at the theater and in what tasks the stagehands are allowed to perform during those periods. The union had been open to some flexibility on the minimum time periods, again, in exchange for other benefits.

But the two sides cannot even agree on what, exactly, the stagehands are being paid for.

The producers league argued that a three-hour performance call meant that stagehands should be available to work for three hours, whatever the work might be.

But the union argued that the stagehands were paid for the tasks of putting on a performance, not the time, and that the salary is based on what they are doing, even if it takes less than a full three hours to do it.

Both sides agreed that the changes would result in some loss of work for stagehands. James. J. Claffey Jr., the president of Local 1, has said repeatedly that the union would be open to rule changes but only in return for benefits of equal value.

The problem, though, is the “equal value” part. The union has said in news releases that the producers’ proposed changes would result in a 38 percent cut in work for the stagehands, but, as Mr. Claffey said in an interview last month, there really is no way to know exactly how much work would be lost under more flexible rules.

The league had offered a package of raises in return for these changes — raises that would change depending on the amount of flexibility the producers achieved — but the union did not consider them satisfactory compensation for what the league was asking.

Union officials also said that these rules were the result of years of bargaining, and that the league could not expect to rewrite the entire book, or even a large part of it, in one contract.

League officials said that the current contract was far out of line with industry practices in the rest of the country and that they would not sign another one with these provisions.

And so the show goes on. At least the one outside the theaters."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/14broadway.html

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 01:58 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:15pm

Thank you for posting that Margo. it helps explain things. It is all so confusing and I still don't think I quite know what "featherbedding" is.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:27pm

Thanks, Margo. This is very informative.

[avab802]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:29pm

Question: What about the ushers? Are they being paid by their union as well?

I know the people who are really SOL are the refreshment and merchandise staffs. One of my friends bartends at Broadway theaters and she's been basically out of work since the strike began.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:36pm

Excellent "Union Imbroglio For Dummies" article. Man, this thing is overwhelming.

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:42pm

uncageg: Featherbedding refers to when any union purposeful maintains inefficient work rules, so that more workers will be needed to do a particular job -- even if one or more of them wind up sitting in a chair nearby while the work is performed.

The most famous instance of featherbedding took place in the 1960's when railroad employers were required to employ union "firemen," to shovel coal on locomotives -- even after the advent of diesel trains which required none. In this case, producers are saying that Local 1 is requiring stagehands to be hired even when they are not needed or requiring 3 stagehands to be paid to do a job that could be done by 1.

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:48pm

Thank you. It is what I thought it was. Are they accused of this just during load-ins? It seems to me they are saying it is happening during a shows run also.

[dramarama2]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:58pm

NOW TIME FOR SOME UNION JARGON!

[paphillyguy]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:58pm

After reading this article and the many others I have read, I have to say that I full support the League on most of the points in this article.

As a business man, the current rule that union is work under is completely out of line. However, I do aggree that if I was the union there is no way I would want these rules changed. But the union must realize that these rule are archaic.
Updated On: 11/14/07 at 02:58 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 3:32pm

"After reading this article and the many others I have read, I have to say that I full support the League on most of the points in this article."

Then that just makes you ignorant. One argument floating about with the minimum call is that they would be paying someone $400 to move a piano, which is utterly ridiculous. First of all, MOST employers, even non-union, pay their employees for a minimum number of hours. This is to prevent employers from requiring their employees to commute to work and only pay them for a half-hour of work. If a producer calls a stagehand in to move a piano, and has t commute an hour each way, why should he only be comepensated for the ten minutes he is in the building? Should I have to interupt my time off to go into the office so that I can sign for a package?

Also, I understand why the union insists that they not be required to perform work that is not normal to that call. What is to stop the producer from continuously require them to do more and more work, which could add up to the detriment of the work they should be doing for the performance? Do you know how big a stage can be? You don't really think it only takes a few minutes to mop it, do you? My mother spent 15 minutes mopping the kitchen floor, and that isn't even a fraction the size of a broadway stage. When are they supposed to have time for that? It would have to be a separate call.

As for paying another four hour call after the performance call for overtime, it is to prevent the producers to repeatedly require the stage hands to stay. If they only require to pay in 15 minute increments (or even hourly) what will stop the producers from requiring the stagehands from having to stay EVERY night?

And as for minimums, how is the producer going to determine how many stagehands would be required to load in and out a set? Lets say it takes 6 electricians for one show...what would stop the producers from reducing that number to 4? Nothing, if they get the contract they want. What if it requires 6 carpenters? The producers think they can get away with 3. Who's going to stop them? Keep in mind that in almost every job there are dead periods of work. What will stop the producers from hiring 5 stagehands and telling them at noon that they are done for the day and not to come back until next week? They are paying for the stagehands' committment to be available. I once worked on a closing where I was paid to just sit there and wait for the client to come in and sign. Should I have not been paid, simply because I had to wait? I was at work, being available, yet I dodn't know when the signatory was arriving. Should I have only been paid for the five minutes that it took for him to come in and sign?

[paphillyguy]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 3:44pm

If I am considered ignorant because I disagree with you, then I guess I am.

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 3:46pm

The thing that is really bothering me is this war chest that the producers have. I really want to know what they plan to do with that money that they have been charging us for the past few years.

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 03:46 PM

[One NYC StageHand]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 3:51pm

"But a younger generation of producers decided that the contract now up for renewal would be the one in which they pushed for big changes, and the theater owners are, this time, pushing with them."

The largest of these "younger generation" producers happens to be Clear Channel and Robert Sillerman of SFX. Sillerman is the one who is refusing to post grosses for YF.

The bargaining pattern that we see in these negotiations is strikingly similar to the pattern that Clear Channel follows in their past when they want to break a union. It seems that this is what we're seeing here. The difference is that they have the League to be the front man for these tactics.

[pab]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 3:55pm

"In a joint news release, the Broadway producers’ league and the stagehands’ union, which has been on strike for five days, announced that they would meet for negotiations this weekend.

“Talks have been scheduled between Local One and The League of American Theaters and Producers beginning this weekend, at an undisclosed place and time,” the release read. “No interviews or comment from either organization will be issued until further notice.”

There was no information as to whether the decision to meet would mean an end to the strike."

Stagehands and Producers Plan Talks

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 3:55pm

"If I am considered ignorant because I disagree with you, then I guess I am."

You have absolutely no logical reason to support the producers. Every one of their arguments against the union has been staisfactorily refuted. Have you asked yourself why they established a "war fund" in advance against a union that has NEVER gone on strike in it 100-year history? YEARS BEFORE THE NEGOTIATIONS! Have you not wondered why they didn't negotiate with the union? You are aware, of course, that the League has not negotiated, but set what it wants and simply refused to negotiate with the union.

As for that "war fund" I am wondering if ticket holders can file a class-action lawsuit against the league...that was a fee added on top of the ticket price and not absorbed from any profit. Ticketholders had every right to know what that "fee" was for.

[uncageg]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:03pm

Fosse, that class action thing has been rolling around in my mind for the past few days. I have had a chance to be a part of 2 class action suits and declined. I really think that if I as a ticket buyer to theatre on Broadway were able to be a part of a class action suite against the League, I would. As I posted elsewhere, it reeks of greed. And they didn't mention it in their press conference. I read somewhere that they were using it for fixes or something? (Not sure if that's right. Can't remember where I read it)

[paphillyguy]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:09pm

Fosse76,

Your statement is how you see it, I disagree.

I am sorry if you feel that everyone must see things your way, but I don't. What i find illogical is that you can not understand that someone might not agree with you. I hope you don't lose too much sleep over the fact that I disagree but I do.

I disagree with a lot of the payment practices in the expired contract and I would never as a business man agree to them if I had to neogiate a new contract.

Have a nice day.
Updated On: 11/14/07 at 04:09 PM

[WonderRobbie]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:10pm

I like how they say “Talks have been scheduled between Local One and The League of American Theaters and Producers beginning this weekend, at an undisclosed place and time."

I guess it's safe to assume that the shows will be dark until Thanksgiving.

[paphillyguy]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:17pm

uncaged,

I have not had a chance to read up on all the strike war fund threads, so I was hoping you might be able to point me in the right direction.

Is there a place that proves or states that part the resortation fees were used for this purpose.

Because if this true, there is a hugh class action lawsuit there.
Updated On: 11/14/07 at 04:17 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:27pm

"I disagree with a lot of the payment practices in the expired contract and I would never as a business man agree to them if I had to neogiate a new contract."

What payment practices would those be? Paying stagehands for four hours when they are called away from home on their time off to change a light bulb? Should we insist that after making a 1-hour commute to the theatre, he change the light bulb, get paid for the ten minutes, and then drive an hour back home? I don't know of ANY employer who doesn't have a minimum pay period. The fact is we don't know what the union's counter-offer was, because the league won't publicize it and have refused to actually even negotiate. By the way, how much do you get paid? Perhaps you are overpaid. Do you work EVERY second of every minute of every hour you are scheduled to at your job?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:29pm

I honestly don't see how a class action suit would work here. And the League has emphatically denied that restoration fees were used to fund the war chest.

The only thing that you get from purchasing a ticket is a license to see the show in question -- a license that is revokable incidentally and presents no absolute guarantee of even seeing that show (as in the case, for example, of a strike or a show closing prior to the date you were to see that show). That license gives you absolutely no say whatsoever in how that money is used or distributed by the producer of that show. Buying a tickets gives you zero say on how that money is spent. If the producer wants to take his share of the proceeds from that ticket sale and donate it to George W. Bush or the Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party, or buy mink coats for his mistress or send it overseas to support Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, that is his 100% right and there's absolutely nothing you could do stop it and no court in the country would grant you a refund of your ticket price just because you don't like how your money was spent -- nothing in your ticket buying transaction gives you any power over where the money will go. Lord knows what kind of heinous political, personal and business ventures your ticket money already supports (and I would bet that solid chunk of all the money you've ever paid for theater tickets has ended up supporting causes you don't believe in).

You may not like that theatre owners and producers used a percentage of your ticket dollars to support a strike war chest, but that money is gone now, you can't get it back, and the only thing you could do to express your displeasure is write a letter or or create your own picket line in front of every theatre owner and producers' offices (since apparently they ALL were doing this) or perhaps boycott spending money on Broadway theatre in the future. It's up to you if this issue is important enough for you to deprive yourself of seeing anything on Broadway ever again.

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 04:29 PM

[mightydog]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:29pm

Did I miss something? I don't ever remember paying a surcharge or a union busting fee. Theatre restoration fees for the upkeep and renovation of the theatre, making theatres handicap accesable, installation of infrared hearing systems etc but not to finance a war against any union.

What the theatres and producers do with the box office receipts is their business. Just like the fees they pay to the credit card companies and city and state for sales taxes etc. I have no claim on that money either.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:30pm

"Is there a place that proves or states that part the resortation fees were used for this purpose."

I believe it's one of those "true" rumors, where everyone knows it's true without any proof. The only way to prove it completely is to file suit and subpoena the financial records of The Shubert Organization and Jujamcyn.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:33pm

paphillyguy- I understand as a businessman you agree with the Producers. Why wouldn't you want to get more for less? My question would be are you willing to pay more, in insurance and overtime to cover for these decreases? I don't see how you can't see that one of the real problems is overtime. That is a management problem that goes all the way to the top.

It has been repeatedly stated that the Union will negotiate but fairly. You cannot expect an employee to do the work of two people without being fairly compensated. We went through all the examples earlier so I am sure you don't really need them again.

I don't know the size of your business but for this business safety is a serious issue. The less safe your operation is the more at risk you are. Thus liability goes up and you run the risk of violating City standards of safety regulations. If you get sued your insurance skyrockets. If anyone dies you are out of business.

I just don't think you operate on the same scale that Broadway does so maybe it is more difficult for you to understand. If the Union is willing to negotiate why is the League not? You aren't going to win something for nothing, no matter how much you dream it will be so. You either want a reputation of offering quality goods or accept that people with big money won't shop at your store or business because your practices are cheap and sleazy.

We see a good majority of people here who can care less if the roof holds up as long as they get to see their show. Those people don't have any serious money. They don't understand or care about the business. The people with money, they pay more attention, at least most of them do. You cut back on quality eventually word gets out and with Broadway depending so much on it's reputation, I wonder if this is a price they really can afford to pay?

In a fair fight you take what you can get but you better offer enough to keep your business afloat. The League seems to be pushing too far. If they cannot or will not bargain, it will have a big effect on Broadway. I don't want to see it sink back to what it was before. If you cut back on the quality you will find the big talent looking elsewhere to work. If you are famous, you can work just about anywhere you want to. If they think you are cheap or a jerk, they will just work for someone they respect a whole lot more.

[mightydog]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:34pm

I guess it is the same type of true rumor as the accusation that Local 1 featherbeds? Give it a rest.