Chances of a Strike?- Page 6

[Ensemble17607421422]

Posted: 10/22/25 at 2:12pm

Yes, it is possible that a musicians' strike could affect "Oh, Mary!", but it is not guaranteed, depending on the type of contract and the musical structure of the production.

Mini Militia App Lock

Updated On: 11/17/25 at 02:12 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 10/22/25 at 11:28pm

It made the opening segment of our local NBC station here in Denver. Of course they didn't have any current footage so they showed the marquees and theaters for "Jagged Little Pill", "Take Me Out" and "Phantom...".  My inner theatre nerd's head exploded and wanted to e-mail them to let them know those shows are long gone!  I didn't. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 1:43am

MemorableUserName said: "The poster was conveying a direct quote from the union that was covered as a news item by Playbill.com, BroadwayWorld, and others. It would seem your objection is with the union's statement, since the poster wasn't suggesting anything and was simply quoting.

Public statements by union presidents in a situation such as this have to be read with a grain of salt. They are negotiation PR. I don't fault a union spokesperson for saying it, but the poster is giving it more weight than it is entitled to. If the union wants to strike "immediately," [here meaning Thursday or maybe Friday] there is nothing stopping them. They have been without a contract for quite a while now, and they could have begun a strike "immediately" quite a while back. What's missing from the understanding is that strikes are not anyone's goal. If there is a flicker of hope it can be avoided (especially now that political pressure has been added to the mix with some force), immediacy will live on for another day. 
 

 

[binau]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 3:29am

Is there anything that can be done about the landlords or rent? In New York this is prime real estate so if the producers won’t pay the fees they could easily just close down the theatres and redevelop into something that will make this money or more money. I guess this is an example of capitalism gone wrong. 

If one of the main issues is indeed rent/land lords you would hope the theatre owners respect the art form enough to realise that unless someone can stop taking so much money the art form will die. And then no one will have money. 

Is this just greed? 

Mezzo referred to wasted spend and roles. Who? If the costs are about to increase yet again and I can see the moral reason why they should we need other group to offset this cost for the financial health of this art form. There is no more money going around for most shows. 

[dan94]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 7:08am

binau said: "Is there anything that can be done about the landlords or rent? In New York this is prime real estate so if the producers won’t pay the fees they could easily just close down the theatres and redevelop into something that will make this money or more money."

This is not a thing. The Broadway houses are practically all historically landmarked. They cannot undergo any renovations without approval from the city, and they certainly would not receive approval to be turned into an entirely different business. Any other business venture in those buildings would need to utilize the exact same setup and layout as they currently have.

[malcs98]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 7:11am

BREAKING NEWS: LOCAL 802 & Broadway League Announce Tenative Agreement at 4:30am EST

[Tenor8674]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 7:26am

Just was going to share the great news; I can see CHESS this weekend!

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 7:49am

Times article with some details.

The tentative deal still has to be approved by membership, but the rank and file rarely if ever go against deals struck in negotiation.

[MezzA101]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 8:49am

ghostlight2 said: "Times article with some details.

The tentative deal still has to be approved by membership, but the rank and file rarely if ever go against deals struck in negotiation."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/theater/broadway-strike-union-deal.html?unlocked_article_code=1.vk8.J9Q8.USzvZ8NOiqWv&smid=nytcore-android-share 

[inception]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 9:17am

Was just reading the email the Broadway Journal sent out early this morning covering what is in the new deal with Equity and this jumped out to me as bad for audiences.  Looks like green washing of a way for producers to hide from unsuspecting customers  when leads are out in order to avoid giving refunds.

"Equity said it defeated a proposal by the League — which represents theater owners and producers — to allow a fully digital Playbill at performances. The union did agree to give producers the ability to use a QR code in a Playbill to announce cast changes, and productions will no longer be required, under certain conditions, to stuff paper in Playbills about casting. “This change, while requested by producers, is supported by many in the Broadway community more broadly (such as the Broadway Green Alliance),” according to the union summary. “It will be a step towards reduced paper use and making our industry greener.”"

Updated On: 10/23/25 at 09:17 AM

[MysteriousLady]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 9:40am

HogansHero said: "MemorableUserName said: "The poster was conveying a direct quote from the union that was covered as a news item by Playbill.com, BroadwayWorld, and others. It would seem your objection is with the union's statement, since the poster wasn't suggesting anything and was simply quoting.

Public statements by union presidents in a situation such as this have to be read with a grain of salt. They are negotiation PR. I don't fault a union spokesperson for saying it, but the poster is giving it more weight than it is entitled to. If the union wants to strike "immediately," [here meaning Thursday or maybe Friday] there is nothing stopping them. They have been without a contract for quite a while now, and they could have begun a strike "immediately" quite a while back. What's missing from the understanding is that strikes are not anyone's goal. If there is a flicker of hope it can be avoided (especially now that political pressure has been added to the mix with some force), immediacy will live on for another day.


"

That's a big word salad to avoid saying "I was wrong, and didn't know the poster was merely quoting." But if course the ever smug and condescending Hogan won't do that. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 2:48pm

MysteriousLady said: "That's a big word salad to avoid saying "I was wrong, and didn't know the poster was merely quoting." But if course the ever smug and condescending Hogan won't do that."

I don't know when or how I might have stepped on your toe, but you obviously were more interested in insulting me than reading what I wrote. It is correct I had not read the article, but you miss my point. The union spokesman was doing what one does in his situation but the poster was accepting that as something more than bluster in the middle of a negotiation. It wasn't. By not providing that context, the post was misleading and that's what I was correcting. I wasn't wrong and when I am I say so, as you can find out by researching if you want.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 3:04pm

Congrats to both unions for pushing hard for what they want and for getting it done!

Let's give those actors and musicians a big, big hand if you happen to be seeing a Broadway musical tonight or in the near future.

[binau]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 3:09pm

dan94 said: "binau said: "Is there anything that can be done about the landlords or rent? In New York this is prime real estate so if the producers won’t pay the fees they could easily just close down the theatres and redevelop into something that will make this money or more money."

This is not a thing. The Broadway houses are practically all historically landmarked. They cannot undergo any renovations without approval from the city, and they certainly would not receive approval to be turned into an entirely different business. Any other business venture in those buildings would need to utilize the exact same setup and layout as they currently have."

That is interesting. I guess it will never happen without some kind of coordination but it's almost like the Producers need to go on 'strike' and as shows start closing refuse to mount any more shows until the rent comes down, keeping theatres dark. If the theatre owners can't use the spaces for other purposes they will have no choice to bend. I'm sure in reality this is completely impractical and there a million reasons why it'd never work, but there would be something deeply hilarious and ironic to me if the Producers all gave Jeffrey Seller a chorus of "RENT" in Times Square.

[trpguyy]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 7:58pm

I'd just like to point out that the new proposed Equity contract reflects an increased cost of approximately $104 per week per Equity employee. If a show has a cast of 30 and grosses $800,000, the increased cost would be 0.4% of the weekly gross. 
And the Equity members get scheduled raises which are lower than the actual rate of inflation and the rate of rising ticket prices. This seems like a bigger win for the League than for Equity.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 9:36pm

trpguyy said: "I'd just like to point out that the new proposed Equity contract reflects an increased cost of approximately $104 per week per Equity employee. If a show has a cast of 30 and grosses $800,000, the increased cost would be 0.4% of the weekly gross.
And the Equity members get scheduled raises which are lower thanthe actual rateof inflation and the rateof rising ticket prices. This seems like a bigger win for the League than forEquity."

Could you share the math on how you got to $104? 

[trpguyy]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 10:03pm

Sure. From BWW’s article:

”the agreement would raise Broadway’s weekly minimum actor salary from $2,638 to $2,717…”

 

$79

“Producer contributions to the Equity Health Fund would increase from $150 to $175 per week per employee, with an additional $25 added each year. ”


$25 + $79 = $104

 

I failed to account for swings and those with multiple understudy assignments getting 6% raises. So let’s do some generous rounding and say it’ll cost, on average $150 per week per company member?
 

I could be wrong here, I don’t work on this contract,  but I believe these are minimum conditions and don’t necessarily apply to those making more than minimum. Ex: a star making $6k/week isn’t guaranteed a 3% raise. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong.

 

And the marginal cost of more access to PT is mostly negated by the savings in paper and ink for stuffers. 

 
Not that anyone asked, but I would vote against ratifying this contract. The scheduled raises lagging behind actual cost of living increases is not acceptable, in my opinion. 

 

Updated On: 10/23/25 at 10:03 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 11:29pm

Thanks. I was thrown off by what you meant by "per Equity employee" but I am ok with it now, subject to a few actual or potential nitpicks. Regarding who gets what, you are only wrong at the margins. An actor who gets extra contractual pay (for covering other roles, performing those roles, performing other assigned duties, etc) would get the raise. Also, it is not uncommon for someone making more than the minimum (and that can be many people) to have a provision in the contract rider giving them the same or a proportionate raise). The former certainly is within the scope of your rounding, the latter may not be. A couple of other nitpicks: a "star" today is likely making considerably more than the amount you suggest, and a show with that many actors (plus, at that size cast, likely an orchestra as well) grossing $800k is going to be a big ol' financial flop. Which brings me to another point: most shows are not doing well, and the contract on the table has to look at the viability of shows other than the ones that have beaten the odds.

I don't have a dog in this race, and I'm not sure I have enough of a basis to judge where the fairness balance lies. But also remember that the additional cost of each employee beyond pay and health insurance can be (based on old numbers) close to half again as much more, and each cast member also represents a cost for other folks, usually in other unions, who also want fair pay. I am not particularly on the League's side in this, but closed shows may save producers money but they don't earn actors (or the rest of the company) a nickel. My point being that I am not questioning your take, but these things are complicated which is why they usually get resolved in the middle of the night, as both of these did.

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 10/23/25 at 11:52pm

As someone who works front of house, THRILLED that paper inserts are going away, they are a huge waste of paper and also our time

[Kad]

Posted: 10/24/25 at 11:25am

Equity's primary focus in these negotiations wasn't wages, though- it was benefits and scheduling. AEA won their demand for on-request physical therapy even when a show doesn't already provide it, closing the scheduling loophole that allowed for 2 weeks of continuous performance with no day off and replacing it with a system that allows for the accrual of paid personal days (a first), allowing SMs to request additional staffing if needed, and increasing the Equity League contribution (way overdue, as the Production contract's rate was below many other contracts). All those things add up to a greater expense to the League than any wage bump. The Production contract is already well-compensated, but that compensation is undercut by the temporary nature of most of the work- but I don't really see how one can mitigate that without massive repercussion. 

Updated On: 10/24/25 at 11:25 AM