THE STAGE HANDS ARE BULLIES- Page 5

[GladysBumps]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:13am

Maybe the answer is to bring in John Doyle to come up with another one of his amazingly innovative concepts where the actors not only play instruments, but perform the stage hands duties. Can you see Patti LuPone up there in them there flys?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:15am

Capital idea

Problem has been solved.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:22am

"First off... Regarding lighting rigs over the stage.. Most of the theatres I have worked in over the years the lighting rigs were on electric winches (due to their extreme weight). They never required a "specialist" to push the button and lower or raise them. This maybe different from theatre to theatre, but pretty consistent in the ones I worked in."

That may be true in the theatres you've worked in, but have you ever worked in a B'way house? It's simply not the case in most if not all of the current houses. Yes, a lighting truss may be occasionally rigged and winched but the majority of the on stage lighting is still hung from the battens.

"Next, on another thread someone FINALLY had the best solution to the problem. That each and every show should negotiate their own contract with the unions based on their ACTUAL needs, NOT base on the broad across the boards rules dictated by the unions. Obviously this is something that has been done already on a few shows as there are shows that are exempt from this strike."

Great idea in theory, but what happens when the producers and the union can not reach an agreement? Then that show either has to go non-union or it doesn't get produced. It would be much easier for the union to turn down a package that only affects a few of it's members as opposed to one that affects it's entire membership.

"Each and every show requires different things from the number of actors to musicians, and yes, stage hands."

And each show has a different number of stagehands working on them, now. No two shows have the same size crews, CHICAGO has a smaller crew than MAMA MIA and WICKED has a larger crew than XANADU.

[NJluvstheatre]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:34am

"Then that show either has to go non-union"..

Frankly, that's the best solution all-around. The Unions have gotten way too full of themselves.

[DoranC]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:37am

"And each show has a different number of stagehands working on them, now. No two shows have the same size crews, CHICAGO has a smaller crew than MAMA MIA and WICKED has a larger crew than XANADU."

But here's what I'm trying to understand. I understand that each show uses different numbers of stagehands. But the complaint I'm hearing from the producers (if I'm understanding correctly!?) is to do with--once you've decided that you need X number of maximum people to get the show loaded-in--the fact that ALL those people need to be paid all days. And all of them need to be paid for a set number of hours. Or something *like* that????!! That is the issue I am genuinely trying to understand. Okay, sure, a tiny drama is going to have different number of overall stagehands than a big musical (etc. etc.) But what ARE the rules about who (of the maximum needed crew) needs to be called in on any given day and for how long? Is THAT more the type of 'work rule' that the producers are complaining about?? I've heard claims that if one (pressumably of the maximum deemed needed??) works overtime, they all have to be paid overtime. Or, again, something like that. What's the truth in all this about those kind of rules?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:38am

That can be said about many of them

The UAW was really full of itself until recently when it had to face reality. Management, in the name of labor peace, gave things that were unstainable over time. Now the UAW'S ranks have been decimated & auto production in the US is a fraction of what it was.They had to give back or they would all be out of a job

The stagehands could look at this & learn. My guess is they will look at it & turn their heads & forget all about it.

Updated On: 11/11/07 at 09:38 AM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:40am

"Frankly, that's the best solution all-around. The Unions have gotten way too full of themselves."

There's nothing stopping them from doing it now. Nor has there ever been. But, for some reason the producers have continued to use those "way too full of themselves" union workers. I wonder why?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:48am

I guess they don't want violence around their theaters. Unions have been known to get a mite touchy when someone crosses their picket lines.Maybe the producers are afraid of vandalism & fear for the safety of those working in the theater and attending.

Many years ago Nathans had a big store in Times Square. They were having a labor dispute & had the requisite picket line around the store. A mother & her young son walk buy & the kid tells his mother he wants a frank. Now this kid getting a hot dog would bring down their union in flames. I guess they thought this as they hurled a flood of curse words at the mother & son as they went in .A few even spit.

Yeah unions really take the high road .

Updated On: 11/11/07 at 09:48 AM

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 10:04am

"Yeah unions really take the high road."

And management is always blameless, always takes the high road, and never, ever incites.

I don't know what planet you live on Roxy, but using examples of bad behavior from 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago, from a totally different industry with totally different workers is one of the worst "strawman arguments" I've ever seen.

If you want to talk about the behavior of Local One workers on the picket lines, then please do. Tell us all about their bad behavior the last time they struck. Oh wait, this is the first time they've struck in 120 years. So, I guess you don't have any "once upon a time" stories to tell about them.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 10:09am

I am from Earth. You on the other hand appear to be from the Bizarro world if you think the stagehands would not resort to violence to get what they want. They have already done economic violence so why not physical.

We will never agree on anything so use that as a staring point.Let them stay out 100 years for all I care. I am sorry for the innocent people hurt like those in restaurants. Once these people start losing their jobs, it will not be long before one of them flips & goes to a picket line ready to do physical damage.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 10:13am

"You on the other hand appear to be from the Bizarro world if you think the stagehands would not resort to violence to get what they want."

And you know this how? From your crystal ball, from your amazing soothsaying abilities, or perhaps just from the fantasy life you lead.

"Once these people start losing their jobs, it will not be long before one of them flips & goes to a picket line ready to do physical damage."

Which would not be the members of Local One getting violent, but someone else. You can't even follow your own logic, how do you expect anyone else to?

Updated On: 11/11/07 at 10:13 AM

[NJluvstheatre]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 11:12am

Quick story… Ok, maybe not quick, but here it goes.

As an Equity member several years ago, I did several Equity shows, tours, etc. However, there’s not always Equity work available (more and more theatres each year are dropping out of the Unions due to their high demands, costs, etc. meaning less Equity houses/work). So, not being able to find Equity work for a period of time I chose to do non-union acting gigs (Ooohhhh). Hey, I had to pay my bills, rent and eat..

So, this Union that was supposed to support me instead hunted me down and threatened me because I was trying to make a living. That’s when I started to realize that the unions are getting too “full of themselves” and becoming “bullies”.. Gee, I need to work, live and eat, but there’s not enough Union work because of the high union costs, so I do non-union work and get threatened. Nice “supportive” union. I believe it’s the same for all of them. Just one of the many reason’s I retired from a career in theatre.

Perhaps it is really time to consider a Non-Union Broadway. It means far less costs, perhaps more shows can “take a chance” in NY, more shows means more work, less productions costs would hopefully mean lower ticket prices which would mean more people could afford to see a show, etc. etc. etc…

[fengshuihellnyc]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 11:14am

Lynne Spock.... Truthfully a person who is from the any union doesn't have room to speak here right now. yes you have the right to state your opinion and I cannot stop you but you are the reason that this day and age (let me emphasis on age) that unions are NO LONGER NEEDED. You tell me to go to a library to read up on unions... That is not the issue. I know well enough about the union and unions past. THe thing is THE PAST is not what we're discussing here and if you read my post clearly it states "there was a time and place for the union" NO LONGER IS THIS TRUE. Unions EXTORT MONEY from Producers in an F-ed up Kniving way.

[Lynnespock2]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 11:40am

fengshulhellnyc - I have no "room to speak?" Whatever that means, it is because there is a union that I do not work in an unsafe environment. It is because of the union I have a pension that cannot be stolen like Enron. It is because of the union that I cannot be fired without due process. Unions are no longer needed? This is the time and this is the place for the union.

I work hard at my job and do not "extort" money from my employer.
Neither do the stage hands.

By the way, what is a "Kniving" way? Using a knife?

Justaguy? Educating this fengshulhellguynyc would like educating George Bush. IMPOSSIBLE!

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 11:48am

"So, this Union that was supposed to support me instead hunted me down and threatened me because I was trying to make a living. That’s when I started to realize that the unions are getting too “full of themselves” and becoming “bullies”.. Gee, I need to work, live and eat, but there’s not enough Union work because of the high union costs, so I do non-union work and get threatened. Nice “supportive” union. I believe it’s the same for all of them. Just one of the many reason’s I retired from a career in theatre."

You obviously joined the union without fully understanding it's rules. There have always been rules against working in non-union venues. It's stated very clearly. You chose to disobey those rules and you got caught. I'm sure the times that you worked under an Equity contract you appreciated the salary and the benefits. You seem to have wanted it both ways, work in a union and reap the benefits whenever you can, but if you can't then screw the rules. Sorry, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for you. No one forced you to join the Union in the first place, it was your decision.

Equity has never guaranteed you work. That's your responsibility. What they guarantee is a reasonable salary, safe and fair working conditions, contributions to Pension and Health funds and job protection. You as a member of the union are responsible for following it's rules.

There are many Equity members who take jobs other than non-union gigs to meet their financial obligations, because they know the rules and live by them. You chose not to and paid the price.

"Perhaps it is really time to consider a Non-Union Broadway. It means far less costs, perhaps more shows can “take a chance” in NY, more shows means more work, less productions costs would hopefully mean lower ticket prices which would mean more people could afford to see a show, etc. etc. etc… "

There is nothing stopping any producer from going non-union right now. All they have to do is find a non-union house and mount their production. It may not be on B'way, but there are non-union houses in NYC. I think it's a pipe dream to assume that lowering production cost are going to lower ticket prices, the producers charge what the market will bear. Afterall commercial theatre is all about making as much money as you can on your investment. And the easiest way to do that is with high ticket prices.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 11:55am

"Unions EXTORT MONEY from Producers in an F-ed up Kniving way."

There is no extortion involved. Producers sign contracts knowing full well what those contracts entail. Contracts are negotiated every 3 or 4 years. During the time between negotiations the contracts remain the same, no surprises, no "extortion" they're there in black and white...take it or leave it.

[don logan]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 12:12pm

I am a musician in a B'way show. (One of the ones that is dark because of the strike). If the unions were taken away from B'way, I would lose my job, because the producers would replace the orchestra with a "virtual orchestra" machine. So pardon me if I think the unions are a good thing. There are MANY problems with the musicians union, many. The biggest one being that they don't stand up to the producers enough.

Even if they didn't replace the orchestra with a machine, my pay would be cut probably in half and I they would cut off my benefits.

As for the current strike, I want to say to Local 1 what they said to us four years ago:

Keep it short.

[don logan]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 12:17pm

Just one more point:

Yes a lot of shows close, but a lot of shows also then go on the road, where they continue to earn income after the B'way run is over. So we don't really know how many shows recoup. Yes, a B'way show is a risky endeavor, but man if the producers want a sure bet they should go into hedge funds or make better musicals

[nygrl23]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:29pm

Without unions, a risky venture becomes even riskier.

[Mooo]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:51pm

If these Broadway shows are such a risky investment someone should tell the producers that a falling all over themselves to find a theater for their new projects. They are making money you can bet on that. Who do you think gets paid when you open that Samuel French script at your local theater to start rehearsals? It's a well known fact that Broadway producers start on Broadway to build a name so they can make huge profits with the road versions. There are some really ignorant people on here.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:50pm

have you noticed that most of the non-stagehand posts are from people who joined after 10/1 of this year?

makes you wonder who they work for.

[Switz78]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:01pm

"What they guarantee is a reasonable salary"


You're kidding with this right? Because they I sure as hell don't think $250 a week is a reasonable salary for an adult in the year 2007 who is living in NY. And that is the going Equity rate for a lot of theatres upstate.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:32pm

"You're kidding with this right? Because they I sure as hell don't think $250 a week is a reasonable salary for an adult in the year 2007 who is living in NY. And that is the going Equity rate for a lot of theatres upstate."

Try working non-equity and see what your salary would be.

Actually, you're right, of course $250 a week is not a reasonable or workable salary for anyone who's trying to make a living in the theatre. I don't know what theatre you're working for, or the size or it's budget. I'm assuming that the $250 per week, is the minimum and that you are able to negotiate. As far as I'm concerned the $250 is a starting point for negotiation not the ending point.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:34pm

why do those not making what they think is enough money strike out at those who are?
why not strive to improve their working conditions rather than try to pull everyone down to theirs?

[BroadwayBound86]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:53pm

If these Broadway shows are such a risky investment someone should tell the producers that a falling all over themselves to find a theater for their new projects.

Or to choose what they invest their money in wisely. Lestat/Pirate Queen anyone?