Prepare to be outraged: Stagehands make a living wage!!!
400K isn't a "living wage". (I'm not begrudging a single penny of their salaries, btw.)
Of course, this article only focuses on the highest paid, not on the average stage hand. To compare how much is paid to all the stage hands vs all the actors is ridiculous. How many of each are there? Are those jobs even comparable? Why should the assumption be that the actors should be the higher paid?
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/18/03
dramamama,
it depends on how you view it. I am not taking a pro or anti- union stand in this statement and I won't argue about what is comparable because performing, being a stagehand or being a musician are very different trades, but I will point out that there ARE certain things - particularly in the Local 1 (stagehands) and Local 802 (musicians) union rules and agreements that have always made me thing "what the eff"... requirement for extra pay for certain things that should be a basic part of the job, attempts to keep staffing above needed levels and, for local 1 crew, minimum length of crew calls drive me bonkers.. and the arguments for those call time minimum are often laughable.
It's also a worthy read for another reason that it barely touches - theatres have a finite number of seats that can be sold each week. Every union negotiates independent of the others with producers / houses. This creates a cannibal effect where one union eats away at what can be shared with members of another union and all want increases... this also causes ballooning prices. I've long felt the union agreements should be negotiated in concert.
Videos