Some questions for the Local 1 guys on this board

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 11:54pm

I have a couple of questions for the Local 1 guys on this board. I'm asking from a place of wanting to understand your side of things because right now, I don't. There are plenty of nasty comments on other threads so if we could all keep this particular thread focused, civilized and informative, it would be greatly appreciated.

So you know where I'm coming from. I'm an AEA actor. I think your union is important as I feel it is the sole reason you have health care, safe working conditions, and a decent wage.

If any of the facts here are wrong, please let me know. There is so much closed door talk about what is true and what isn't, I tried to piece together an accurate picture.

So here are my questions:
1. According to this article-
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0DB1738F93BA35757C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Producers have to hire a 3 man crew to change a lightbulb, billable at $43/hour per stagehand. Is that true? Do you think that is ethical?

2. If 7 out of 10 shows lose money because they can't meet their weekly operating costs to recoup. From what I have read, one of the single biggest operating cost are the stagehand salaries (please correct that if it's wrong, but provide data). If IATSE starting salary were $78,000 per year (the same as AEA Production contract) as opposed to the current 6 figure salary (I tried to look up Local 1's starting salary, but couldn't find it so if anyone could post it so we have the facts, that would be great), wouldn't the significantly lower nut of the shows allow them a much better chance at staying open and provide longer employment for IATSE and actors and everyone else?

3. I know this question is going to sound insulting, but please know that I don't mean it to be. Yes, some stagehand positions are highly skilled (It would take a lot to teach someone to properly balance the sound of a show), but there are a lot of things (including pulling the fly ropes until the tape on the ropes line up, sweeping the stage, etc. that just don't seem like $120,000 (starting salary) a year jobs to me. I know lawyers who don't start with that salary. Actor's starting salary on Broadway is about $78,000 a year. Why do you feel that you should be paid near double what the actors are? I know this is a delicate question and of course it's gonna seem biased because I'm an actor, but the skillset of a Broadway actor is (usually) extremely high. It takes two weeks of rehearsal to get that very skilled worker into an existing show because of how complex learning the music, book, staging, and interaction of the cast on stage. I've repeatedly seen new stagehands pickup (or sub) a job and learn their task in a few hours. Why is that skillset entitled to so much more money than the actors?

4. With regard to paying people not to work, I keep reading the arguement about how there need to be enough stagehands (including the now infamous fly-rig guy) if something went drastically wrong with the show and the lights needed to come out of the flys. Why can't another stagehand lower the rig, fix it, then go back to his normal post? The reason I ask is because this is what actors do when other actors are out sick and both swings are on. We pick up cues, we change our stage patters and we make it work. Why aren't you as flexible as the actors in this regard?

The reason I ask these questions is that it affects all of us. It just seems that if Local One and the actors made the same amount and stagehands only got paid for the actual work they do, the nuts for the shows would be much lower and there would be many more shows that could remain open giving ALL OF US a lot more employment.

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 11:54 PM

[UnionMade]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:04am

Why does everyone still insist that stagehands all make a six figure salary? As we have stated many times this is not true. As our President stated in this Sunday's press conference, Heads of departments working 52 weeks a year earn $90,000/yr. The average wage of stagehands is below even this figure.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:17am

As a member of the Writer's Guild of America, I've noticed we have been getting "well reasoned" letters like this as well.

Almost all of them have been written by people who just recently joined the boards or blogs in question.

It's funny how the writers of these letters almost always seem to side with the producers.

Where's my salt?

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:20am

Despite who wrote the letters, why can't you guys just answer the questions?

[mauriposa]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:27am

Not all of these questions are malicious. A lot of people are just trying to understand what's going on. I've been on this site for two years, but since I'm not "in the business," I've definitely been at a loss to understand everything that has been going on lately.

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:29am

I wrote my post to get accurate information so I welcome you providing it. You said the average wage of stagehands is below that figure. AEA production contract salaries start at $1450 (times 52 weeks in a year, that is $75,400). So what is the starting weekly salary of a Local One member?

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:32am

re: allofmylife
I joined on 10/8 and, while that is pretty new, it was well before any of this strike stuff was going on so I obviously didn't sign up just to post on the side of the producers.

Why did you put "well reasoned" in quotes? I tried to ask my questions respectfully and from a place of wanting to hear their side to things.

[UnionMade]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:54am

Brian
1.The three man rule comes from the fact that whenever the theatre is needed all three heads of departments are required to be called. I would like to point out that this rule is not being challenged by the League in negotiations.
2.I believe the operating cost for stagehands falls in the realm of 8%. I am not positive as to the official starting salary as it changes from theatre to theatre, but the number I have access to seems to be $67,000/yr. I do not believe that this is the single greatest operating cost. But I do not have access to the other operating costs percentages. Although if "Boy George" can earn a weekly salary roughly equivalent to seven stagehands, I find it very unlikely that this is true. Not to mention that many of his expenses were covered(i.e. apartment, maid, transportation, etc.). And besides I do not believe that any stagehand has suggested that actors should make less money. We would love to see the entire working class earn fair contracts and safe working environments.
3. These two topics somewhat run together. But as far as your claim that a stagehand picks up his track in hours is untrue. It typically takes at least two performances of shadowing to learn a particular track. And often more would be beneficial, but this is all the contract allows. I have seen many stagehands come in for more shows to learn the track(with no pay) because they do not feel comfortable after two performances. And again this is not a negotiating point. The skillset in question comes during the load-in of a show. Where knowledge of construction and rigging are essential. Especially since scenery must often be modified, it is not an erector set that must just be assembled as the touring productions do.
4.I personally believe that this Flyman topic is a non-issue. Especially since this is something the union has agreed to give back in negotiations. Or a least agreed to evaluate the necessity on a per show basis. But to use your argument, why should an understudy get paid to sit around waiting until he is needed?
I hope I have answered some of your question well. And I appreciate your desire to get the information respectfully.

[COOOOLkid]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 1:02am

BrianS, it doesn't sound like you are willing to change your opinion and your position on the strike. To me, it sounds like you just want to complain and try to prove others that they are wrong and you are right...

[One NYC StageHand]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 1:15am

1.) The piece of equipment involved is a HighEnd DL-2 that uses a Whole Hog board. I describe it in my blog(http://onenycstagehand.blogspot.com/) on Nov. 2nd. A terrific piece of technology. This moving head lights, projects and videos all in the same unit. It's really terrific. When they came out, the Local gave the single operator to the producers because that's logically how this thing works. They have the rule, I don't know why it keeps getting dragged out.
2.) The base salary for a class d contract is around $1200 a week and is actually less than an AEA Chorus member. Labor is about 8% of the nut on a show. If we gave the League everything they asked for, not only would ticket prices not go down, the show would still suck and people would still stay away in droves. They don't pay to watch the scene changes.
3.)See answer 2.
4.) I don't know where you're reading about lights coming out of the flys. In an emergency we do pitch in and get the show going again. I've seen it countless times. If it's a major fix, you set a crew call for the correct department for the next day.
4a.) If there are people who can't work during a focus (you see it needs to be dark to focus) and people have to stop working in the house until focus is over, it does not mean that all activity in the theatre stops. Sound keeps getting run, props come in and get set up. Carpenters are usually building something in the alley. The fall off of activity in the evening is a rare occurance and usually happens because of preproduction bottle neck (they didn't do their homework).
Finally this is not about money. If it were, we would have come to a deal like we have for over a century. This is about ideology, not theatre. Read about Clear Channel's labor practices and you'll see what I mean. This is a well worn mo that they use, from the distortions in the press and denigrating of their workers to the arrogance in refusing to negotiate.

I hope this helps.

The (http://playgoer.blogspot.com") has a good take on things.

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 1:22am

Unionmade, thank you for answering and for the additional info.

COOOOLKID, that is absolutely not true. A few hours ago, when I thought that they were making $120k+/year (having read that in multiple articles on the issue), I was against them getting a raise. If they are only making $67k or so, then a raise seems absolutely reasonable. Not everyone on this board has an axe to grind.

I have an opinion based on what I know, but that is why I asked to hear from actual Local 1 people. There is so much filtered information in the media. I want to hear their point of view to be better informed because I know that I don't have both sides to the story.

I feel that the questions I posed were the ones that I keep hearing from articulate people (e.g. people who don't resort to name calling) who disagreed with the stagehands and I wanted to hear the stagehands perspective without it getting lost in the back and forth personal attacks.

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 01:22 AM

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 1:25am

CooolKid, I disagree. It sounds like Brian is asking some well reasoned questions here, trying to understand this puzzle as there is so much rhetoric here from both sides that it's hard to flesh out the real issues. It's only when we are able to see both sides clearly that we can come to reasoned solutions.

I posted a possible solution twice in a previous thread and none of the stagehands responded to it. Instead, they chose to respond to comments before and after mine. I think that's interesting.

I'll paste it here again including a snippet of the conversation I was responding to:

JustaGuy:"when the Production Manager calls them and tells them they have a load-in that will last two weeks and to clear there schedules for those weeks. So, if they do that means they can't accept other work for those weeks. Then they get to the load in and it's going faster than expected or they find that they don't need as many men as they originally planned for, then the League wants the option of just releasing those stagehands, no questions asked and without payment".

Me: That's a valid point, JustaGuy. As an actor, if I am contracted for a job for two weeks and filming wraps earlier, the production company will still pay me for the weeks stipulated in my contract. That is reasonable. I am sure an outside mediator would demand that, and the League would accept it. In fact, I bet you the opposite of what you described would happen. The production will say they need you for two weeks, and due to bad planning on their part, you will actually get more hours out of it than you had planned. THE SOLUTION SEEMS TO BE TO GIVE THE PRODUCERS THE FLEXIBILITY THEY WANT, BUT MAKE THEM PAY HIGHER FOR HOURLY WAGES AND OVERTIME PAY. In the end, I bet the stage hands would benefit from it.

That is stuff that can be easily negotiated at the table if both sides are truly willing to form a compromise. I suspect that Local One is holding out because they don't want to give the producers that flexibility at all. They don't want the producers to be able to say "we only need carps for 3 weeks and electrics for 2 weeks." The "lost jobs" (as the union calls it) in that scenario would be the one lost week of the electrics (currently, if carps are needed for a certain amount of time, everyone else must also be employed for the same amount of time). But it's really not a lost job at all. I think the producers should rightfully be able to pay people (as long as they are paying them well) for work done and not be forced to hire them if they are not needed.

This is very different from the writer's strike, where producers are hoarding profits from DVD and internet sales and not giving writers their fair due.

Can someone from the stage hands please comment to my post? It seems like the most rational solution to end this horrible strike and for everyone to get back to work. Currently, no one is benefiting from this strike, and the longer IATSE waits to get back to the negotiating table, the less they will be get out of it and the weaker ALL the unions will be because of this strike.

[Albin]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 8:49am

"If they are only making $67k or so, then a raise seems absolutely reasonable."

Only? Are you kidding me? I make half that and I can assure you I work alot harder than stagehands. Now I know that the cost of living in NYC is alot higher than little old Buffalo, but not 50% higher.

[BroadwayBound86]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 9:09am

"If they are only making $67k or so, then a raise seems absolutely reasonable."

Only? Are you kidding me? I make half that and I can assure you I work alot harder than stagehands. Now I know that the cost of living in NYC is alot higher than little old Buffalo, but not 50% higher.

Keep in mind that is only if they are working the full 52 weeks out of the year. For a stagehand that was working on let's say Pirate Queen, they maybe were working 3-4 months by the time they would load-in, rehealsals, previews, and the actual run.


They don't want the producers to be able to say "we only need carps for 3 weeks and electrics for 2 weeks." The "lost jobs" (as the union calls it) in that scenario would be the one lost week of the electrics (currently, if carps are needed for a certain amount of time, everyone else must also be employed for the same amount of time).

But if they were told up front they were only needed those two weeks they would be able to plan work elsewhere for the third week. It's not as if they were told they were needed for 3 weeks, and were dismissed after the second week. Those are two different situations. That's what I thought the issues were with.

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 09:09 AM

[UnionMade]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 9:23am

Bobby
The problem is that what the producers are asking for is the ability to evaluate the next day at the end of the day. They want be able to book us for three weeks and then at the end of each day tell us if we will be needed the following day. We have offered them much flexibility, but it is not enough for them. They have in no uncertain terms told our negotiating team that they want to INCREASE their profits. They aren't saying they are losing money and need to cover their losses, they are not saying they want to give more money to Equity or the other unions, and they are not saying they want to control the price of tickets. They have said that they want to "increase their profits". Which, by the way, is their right to attempt to achieve. But they are asking for too much. They are offering nothing in return.

[kasim]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 9:41am

Albin: "Only? Are you kidding me? I make half that and I can assure you I work alot harder than stagehands."

Working "hard" is kind of irrelevant. What is your job exactly? We are not a socialist society, everyone is paid on value of their job or what value they are to be replaced by someone else who can provide the same skill.

[Tir Na Nog]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:06am

"If they are only making $67k or so"

Only?

The average teacher in the United States makes around $47,000 a year.

Nurses average around $41,000

67k is enough.

[JRybka]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:11am

Okay so here is my question and I know there are people on here who do not like what I have to say about all this but I just want to know --

If you do 3-4 months with Pirate Queen (for example) why are you not allowed to work the rest of the months? I do believe that there are shows opening and closing all the time so logistically you could go from the closing of The Pirate Queen to another show. Is this not correct?

[JRybka]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:11am

Okay so here is my question and I know there are people on here who do not like what I have to say about all this but I just want to know --

If you do 3-4 months with Pirate Queen (for example) why are you not allowed to work the rest of the months? I do believe that there are shows opening and closing all the time so logistically you could go from the closing of The Pirate Queen to another show. Is this not correct?

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:12am

Just one additional bit of clarification: the 3-people thing (i.e. three departments being in) is not always in effect. For instance, a cast can rehearse in a theatre under worklights (which are always installed as part of the show's lighting package and are controllable by a stage manager or doorman) with NO stagehands in the building. They can come in all day and all night if they want to. If, however, they use show props during that rehearsal, at least one house prop person also has to come in. In certain circumstances (depends on the show's set) they may have to engage a carpenter.

Similarly, if some theatre maintenance needs to be done -- like changing some lightblubs -- only the necessary help needs to come in. So just one house electrician to change some bulbs, or one house carpenter to fix some doors.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:16am

> If you do 3-4 months with Pirate Queen (for example) why are you
> not allowed to work the rest of the months? I do believe that

you're allowed to work the rest of the months. But you might not be able to find a job elsewhere. There are other places we CAN work, like Lincoln Center, Radio City, TV studios, etc., but not all of those places have the ability to absorb all of the people tossed out of work at the same time. There might be one part-time opening per alternate venue, so if you are really unlucky, you wait around until another show comes into a broadway theatre where you might be able to get a slot on the crew. Sometimes that means waiting a few months.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:04pm

Albin, are rents in Buffalo running in the neighborhood of $2,400.00 a
month for a small one bedroom?

[MikeMagbaleta]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:29pm

I believe that they deserve a raise, which should be the simplest thing to discuss..... The stagehands perform a difficult job in making a production successful. Do you think that the actors and ensemble can handle moving props and do the lighting/sound themselves?

Nurses/doctors, stagehands, TV show writers, trash collectors I understand their jobs are vital and need to be taken care of. Stop the madness and accommodate them!

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:41pm

The things you guys are asking for seem reasonable so maybe a PR changed is needed. I read the flyer and read the papers and the producers seem to be winning the public relations battle.

Right now, the view seems to be that the stagehands shut down broadway, that load-ins cost $1.5 to $2 million (a huge part of a shows cost), and that stagehands are getting paid not to work.

All of that just looks really bad.

Regarding the "getting paid without working":
I agree that it's not fair to keep someone's schedule open for two weeks and then remove him after 8 days if he's not needed without compensation because he may have turned down other work to keep that two week period open. If you are willing to concede the point about guys getting paid when they aren't needed as UnionMade said, then that sounds fair.

So why do I keep reading about six figure salaries? Are the producers outright lying, or is there something that hasn't been mentioned on this thread? Because if the producers are lying, why wouldn't you go to the press with the discrepancy?

edit:
just read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/arts/14broadway.html?ex=1352782800&en=649bfa072d0fe743&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
so it appears that you are getting the right numbers into the press regarding salary.

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 12:41 PM

[billynj]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:47pm

its all about honor ...lol

its really all about sandbagging the public and the NY Times ratted on the 100k floor sweepers

you gotta hear this guy ... he should run for public office he is so full of BS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w69beIzPV1w