How Long Might The Strike Last?- Page 3

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:26pm

Moo, I'm sorry you think that I'm ignorant. NY1 just quoted stagehand's salaries as $150,000, so I must not be the only one. $200,000 was thrown about yesterday on All That Chat.

I responded really nicely to your statement in a previous thread. I really do think there is common ground here and that we on this board can discuss them rationally to get to the root of the problem.

What did you think about my solution about the producers being able to be flexible with how many they hire while paying hirer hourly wages and overtime charges as well as a penalty if they need more people than they initially contracted?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:31pm

If it goes another few weeks, those tourists who either have made plans to come to NY or those considering it may reconsider

The shows closing will be significant & if the producers lose a significant part of the holiday business, they may just say screw it & let it go into January when it is slow anyway

This strike will screw up Broadway in ways unaimaginable. I feel sorry for the people hurt by it & those who will lose their jobs. How long will it be before someone like this attacks some picketer ?

By the way, thanks for all your help Mr Bloomberg?

[colleen_lee]

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

For the love of God, when has ATC been a reputable source for anything?

You didn't think of inquiring about their sources before just accepting the number as truth?

[StageFan2]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:40pm

While I don't know about the 200K figure being exact, I do wonder what the actual salary, with benefits, would total. In my business for instance; and I can only go by my business, my average employee salary is $600 a week or $15 an hour. However, when I figure in their health benefits (which I pay), taxes (State & Federal payroll, SS), holiday pay, etc, the salaries end up being closer to $820 per week or about $20.50 an hour. This has always been the way we figured actual wage. There are many hidden costs to an employer which are never seen nor felt by an employee. We absorb a lot of cost before we make our profit, if indeed we are making a profit.

So, are the figures quoted by Margo the base salaries per position, or do they include the extras absorded by their employers and/or Producers?

Don't attack - it's just an honest question so I may understand better this part of the disagreement.

[Josh Freilich]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 10:17pm

Although me and my dad would really hate to see NY suffer economically, I'm prophesizing about it, saying it MIGHT. we might be in for a real slump.

[Josh Freilich]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 11:20pm

Okay, my pessimism has gone.

World War II lasted for 6 years, but that had 60 times more people involved in it than this, so this is NOTHING compared to World War II.

This, too, shall pass.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 12:39am

stagefan: it is extremely unlikely that the figures margo quoted include benefits. when was the last time you saw a salary quoted *including benefits*? there are tens of thousands of jobs posted on monster.com right now -- do you think any of them list the salary *inclusive* of benefits? it's just not done ... unless you have an ax to grind.

(i know ... i've done it.)

incidentally, your analysis of your own situation is incorrect in a couple of ways. first off, *your* federal, state, and social security come out of the $600 -- they're not on top of it. that's because they're not fringe benefits, they're taxes *you* pay out of your salary. next off, you forgot the SS taxes your employer pays (he pays the same amount you do -- in effect, you each pay half of the total) -- they are taxes, but employers routinely treat them as fringe benefits. third, i wonder whether youre actually paying 100% of the cost of your health insurance premiums, or whether youre employer is paying part and you are paying part. finally, do you get any other benefits -- 401k, retirement, life insurance? disability insurance (mandatory in several states). they're all part of the equation ...

like with most unions, i bet the benefits package for Local One is rich, but it's inherently misleading to quote salaries inclusive of benefits. period.

[pab]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 12:47am

"As expected, none of the members of the other Broadway unions crossed the picket lines: actors, musicians, wardrobe specialists, hair and makeup artists, ushers, treasurers, nor, to the slight inconvenience of reporters, the press agents.

It was a moot point for the most part, as producers have no plans of trying to run shows without stagehands.

But the other unions have their own contract negotiations looming, and they know the importance of keeping Local 1 on their side.

Just how long most of Broadway would remain dark was the big question.

“Yesterday it had a kind of tailgating atmosphere,” said the actor John Gallagher Jr., who was among the crowd outside the theater where “Spring Awakening” was supposed to be playing.

“Today everyone’s a little too stressed about some of the effects of this, thinking, ‘I’m not working, and I may have to do this all of the time.’”

Outside the Imperial Theater, the actors in the play “August: Osage County,” most of them from the Steppenwolf Theater Company in Chicago, meandered on the sidewalk. The show had been scheduled to open Nov. 20.

The show’s producers offered to fly the actors home until the situation was resolved, but that was not as easy it sounded. Many had sublet their places in Chicago and were on 30-day leases in New York.

“And I’ve got my dog here,” said the actress Rondi Reed."
Day 2 of Stagehands’ Strike, and a Chill Sets In

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 1:33am

Whatever2, the $150,000-200,000 figure is being used in every major news source. If you think it's misleading to include benefits, how much do you think benefits per union member cost producers? $2000? $5000? $10,000? Regardless, it doesn't shrink those numbers by that much. I have no doubt that they are the highest paid stage hands in the world. I only wish that as an actor I could make as much from theatre!

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 1:38am

> By the way, thanks for all your help Mr Bloomberg?

Bloomberg has been a perfect gentleman and professional in all of this. He recognizes that this is a dispute between private industry and private employees. He has offered ANY help the city can offer to help the sides come to an agreement, but recognizes that it's not his business to try to get involved if the sides don't want him to.

Honestly, I'd vote for him for president in a heartbeat.

re: why we haven't come to an agreement this time and it escalated to a strike: in the past the League engaged a lawyer named Alan Jaffe, and their spokesperson was Jed Bernstein. Now we have Bernie Plum and Charlotte St. Martin on their side. Golly, two new people, and suddenly we have a strike on our hands. Kind of makes you think, eh? And one of them seems to be in the papers with some new quote every day of the week.

re: picketers being attacked: I've heard some anecdotes about picketers being attacked (no big deal, people are disappointed and need to vent, fair enough) but the overwhelming response to picketers has been positive. When I've been standing on a line it has been maybe one in 50 people who express anything other than "we support you!". I'm not exaggerating. The people on the streets have been great, and we really appreciate it.

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 2:03am

well, I'm glad you've been able to create your own reality. Of course the people who say something to you are going to be supporters. Those who oppose you are not going to say it to your face. Most of the conversations I've had with fellow actors and theatre people say a different story. There are more than a few union actors angry that we are forced to stand with you when you havn't supported Equity in our fight to end non-union tours which you continue to profit from. Most of Public opinion is overwhelmingly AGAINST the union.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 2:07am

If I had my way, no, the IATSE would not be servicing ANY non-union show, nor would we be allowing reduced-rate contracts for our own members, the so-called "Light Pink" or "Family Attraction" contracts. But I am just a cog in the wheel. My opinion in this matter has no merit. Not only do I not have a voice at the table in that dispute, I don't even know where the table is.




Updated On: 11/12/07 at 02:07 AM

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 4:00am

This is the article Bobby posted to support his claims. It includes only statements from the infamous Ms. St. Martin. They claim it is based on "theatre managers" but report no other reliable source other than St. Martin and her already well publicized stmh.

So I am afraid that I see no real reliable source, unless you will post one for us Bobby please? Anyone? To back up this claim of $150-$200,000 claim. I believe there is a list of Sr. Engineers and CEO's who will be paying close attn. to news like this. I don't want Actors to have to strike but I hope they don't want to see technicians underpaid either.

If you get real good at Acting and have a lot of talent, you might get paid that much someday. How much is Roger Bart getting for performing the lead in YF? I mean, I know the cast of Friends were getting $1million an episode near the end of the run? $65,000 seems the avg. to me for what you call a House Electrician, not including overtime and benefits. Which can take you to $100,000 if you are lucky or unlucky to work for a very bad Manager.


http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest+News/Showbiz/STIStory_175921.html

The Straits Times is one of the region's oldest English-language daily newspapers. It is the flagship publication of the publicly-listed Singapore Press Holdings group.

NEW YORK - FACING the second day of a costly strike by Broadway stagehands, theatre managers accused the workers of making unreasonable demands and being highly paid at up to US$200,000 (S$289,000) per year.

Yeah right, dream on!,/>

[fengshuihellnyc]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 4:49am

I want $500 dollars extra to move a piano... Hell I'll do that once a day to get extra money. It takes less than on hour ( A GUESS) to move a piano. Shouldn't since they are a stage hand already be doing this for the pay they are already getting not getting a premium on top of their pay. IDIOTS (well maybe not so idiotic if you figure that their intentions are to rape the producers)

PS EVERYONE KEEPS TRYING TO COMPARE THE WRITERS STRIKE TO THIS ONE. THERE IS NO way these can be compared. The writers strike is about residuals and internet dvd sales. Things that they should be getting. The Stage hands strike is GREED based. They get well paid for a job which many people would dream of having and are using unfair devices in their contracts to stick it to and drain the producers. I AGREE EVERYONE has the right to make a living. Now realize that many producers will not produce shows because of the cost (AS THEY CANNOT MAKE MONEY) and these idiot on the picket lines are out of jobs. Jobs that they wont be getting paid for because they were greedy that they couldn't get the SuGAR TOPPED Extras that they feel they are so entitled to like that extra 500 for moving a PIANO.
FU@k!n& IDIOTS.

[fengshuihellnyc]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 4:56am

PERSONALLY I THING THAT MOST OF THE UNION WORKERS ARE LUCKY THEY AREN"T JUST A BUNCH OF JANITORS. They should praise whoever gave them thier first job

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 5:10am

Tkt2Ride, that's the first article of HUNDREDS that came up when I googled "stage hands $200,000". If it's not true, then IATSE needs to issue an official statement to all members of the press RIGHT NOW so they can retract it. They havn't. That leads me to believe it's true.

Fengshui, I agreed with much of what you said except the last post. Broadway has a lot of respect for these trained and skilled workers. They are not janitors. Individually, they are nice people, it's just that their union is bloated and prone to entitlement. Unfortunately in this case, the union's selfishness has cost all of us money, time, aggravation, public disapproval, and potentially, our jobs.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 6:08am

Bobby they already have. Pls read the articles BWW have put up for us. Just because the news shows up in International Newspapers doesn't make it so. They just pick up news from the NY Times. Please, you must check the sources. My Family, friends are trained and educated Engineers, this is why I know the figures are wrong. I even checked the NY want ads from Money Magazine, just for a ballpark figure of what they are paying top Engineers these days in New York. I know how much some CEO' make too.

I have great respect for Actors who work hard, as much as I do Stagehands, Producers the whole lot. I just realize there are more issues than what we see here. We have even had Engineers come here from the Local One to speak out. We do have propaganda from both sides. It is just any remarks made by St Martin are biased. Same can be said for some of what Chaffey says too. I just know that $65,000 is a lot closer and honest. Whenever anyone makes a general statement like St. Martin did and said "up to" that is the very highest and you better believe it includes whatever incentives, bonus' and keychains they ever gave to that one person who is getting that check.

I wish you luck in making more money but please, at least learn what it takes to become an Engineer before you knock them too much. There are always screw-ups but you have probably worked with Actors who can't find their way out of a paper bag either but they do try! It is complicated and the details are boring. Most here don't even want to know what goes on during a contract negotiation.

I am sure you and your friends are peeved to have to honor this strike. No one wants to lose a paycheck. Do you though really want to upset those who make sure and fight to keep you safe working on stage? Or do you want to find yourself in the dark, refunding tickets or your show closing because of an electrical problem or someone there can't fix your mic? It is a team effort. If you aren't playing with the team than you could get left out in the cold. Now especially is when you need to work with your friends and colleagues to get out the right information.

It will be the Stagehands Union who will be paying to help you out with what they can. If they lose too much, you can count on your losing just as much if not more when your turn to negotiate comes up next year. Are you going to be the guy the Stagehands look back at and say you were the one who spit in their face and called them greedy? At least ask the stagehands to give you an idea of what they are making. They can't tell you exactly, their bosses get upset when they do but they will give you an idea and it isn't anywhere near what the Boss is stating.

[StageFan2]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 8:07am

Whatever2 - Firstly, I've been a business owner for some years now and I can tell you from experience I and my fellow business owners have routinely figured wages with the inclusion of a benefits package, ie; insurance, vacations, holiday pay, sick pay and personal days. As for their retirement - I'm sorry , they have to take some responsibilty for themselves. Many employers will list in help wanted ads as a salary "up to X amount of dollars or potential earnings", this will sometimes mean with benes. I don't condone it by any means. It's misleading. But it is done - perhaps not in your employment circle so your not realizing this is understandable. My employees understand what I do and how I do it and are very happy working with me.

Secondly - I take offense to your questioning my paying full health benefits to my employees. I most certainly do - to the tune of $2300.00 a month for the 4 of them and myself. As for the taxes - I pay State and Federal Payroll Taxes which is a different tax from the individual tax that is deducted from their weekly salary. While I understand your not looking at this as a benefit to the employee - I still have to figure this into my wage scale as an expense. Workmans Comp and Disability are pretty good examples of having to figure cost into wage - women's rates are higher for an employer for both of these taxes. How many women are on my payroll will also raise the percentage I pay on Unemployment Insurance. If I can't absorb the added expense then I either have to pay women less or hire men to do the job (neither of which is fair BTW) - so salary does come into play. But these are just examples of the expenses that I referred to as those absorbed by business owners. We can argue back and forth (I don't want to, there's enough of that going on right now ) but it would be fruitless. I'm not complaining - it's just the cost of my doing business.

Business owners will always look at business differently from employees. As for having an axe to grind - I have none. I grew up in a Union family and was a member of a Union (UGW) for alot of years. But I disagreed so often with their stanze and treatment of their beloved 'rank and file' I left. Tried working for other people and didn't like that either. So I opened my own little business. I do well in my little neighborhood Mom and Pop shop. I'm happy and so are my fellow workers who, incidently are from the same neighborhood area.

Thanks too, for answering my question. I hope you can understand what I'm saying a bit better as well. If not - let's respectfully agree to disagree.

[miguelito]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 8:07am

everyone keeps saying that we shouldn't be using a salary number "with benefits", and then spewing a bunch of junk as though union employees are treated the same as Sarah Jones working at McDonald's.

Every union job, and every union employee should have the "with benefits" added to their salary, as there are things that employers pay to union employees that you and I will never see the like of. Having worked in payroll for over 15 years now, I would never look at a union employee and take their cash wages as "what they make". This holds true for any union. I'm not familiar with the stagehands union, and I'm not taking sides. I'm pointing out that a lot of people are making assumptions regarding what the producers are paying out as "benefits" without knowing the first thing about how a union shop works.

[don logan]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 8:08am

A stagehand told me yesterday that starting salary is $67,000 a year.

A musicians starting salary w/out doubles is 78,000, if they play EVERY single show (which no one I know of does)

An actors salary (not a star) is probably around 75,000

[StageFan2]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:31am

"A musicians starting salary w/out doubles"

What are doubles?

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:18am

stagefan: what i missed completely in your original post is that you are the EMPLOYER -- it honestly sounded to me like you were saying you were an employee making $600 a week, and blah, blah, blah ... i assume that in this light my response makes more sense, and does not offend.

i do understand that employers (management) view compensation differently than employees do, but i also do believe firmly that the common understanding of salary figures excludes benefits. we tried to play this game one year with our employees when we had to announce some benefit cuts ("but look at your total compensation") ... the response was ugly.

(people kept asking if they could give back the life insurance and keep the cash!!!)

[StageFan2]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 12:49pm

I understand Whatever2. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to insinuate you were intentionally being offensive. I apologize if it came off that way. One of the reasons I started paying for my employees health insurance fully is precisely what you alluded to in your post. I was, at one time payng only half of the cost, but found that the employees didn't want to pay half (sadly, with the rising costs, couldn't afford to really and I say that as their employer) or they just wanted me to give them the money and they would remain un-insured. It was counter-productive from a business standpoint. My decision to pay for it entirely was a benefit to me as well as them, I now find that with insurance coverage they're more apt to seek medical attention, get yearly physicals, and just generally take better care of themselves on a regular basis. A healthy employee makes for a better, more productive employee, and a productive employee makes for a happier me.

[whatever2]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 6:14pm

> Whatever2, the $150,000-200,000 figure is being used in every major news source. If you think it's misleading to include benefits, how much do you think benefits per union member cost producers? $2000? $5000? $10,000? Regardless, it doesn't shrink those numbers by that much.

sorry, bobby, i missed your comment earlier.

i suspect you have an ax to grind, but in case your question was in earnest, i'll take a second to respond, even though i'm "late".

actually, your math is way off, and the benefits probably "shrink the numbers" by a *great* deal. my company (a large multi-national in the private sector) budgets 30% for benefits, and has an actual experience in the 27% range. our experience is typical for the private sector (in fact, we've benchmarked ourselves, and we're a little cheap!). as you note, the Union has great benefits, so management is probably paying somewhere between 30% and 35% of base pay. your figures ($2000 to $10,000) arent even 10% of base pay in the range youve quoted, so they're impossibly low. i could easily believe that $150k figure is really only $100k (1/3 off) once the benefits component is removed.

i also believe margo channing pointed out somewhere in this thread some figures from the NYT that were much lower than the $150k - $200k you've been repeating, so im not sure i agree that the numbers you're using have been reported "everywhere".

> I have no doubt that they are the highest paid stage hands in the world.

of course they are ... they live in one of the most expensive cities in the world! :)

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/12/07 at 6:29pm

Here's my earlier post:

From the NY Times:

"Stagehands fall into four wage categories. The highest-paid, like head carpenters and electricians, currently earn a minimum of $1,600 a week on a running show; stagehands in the lowest-paid category make a minimum of around $1,225. With overtime, additional work assignments and certain premium payments, wages can end up being quite a bit higher."


I know those are minimums and some stagehands make more than those figures, but I'm sorry, even with overtime I can't see how those numbers would add up to anywhere near an average of $200,000/year. Heck, I know school teachers who make in the $1200-1600/week range. That's just a middle class income for NYC -- and that's only if you're working on a show for a full 52 week year which most wouldn't (only a small minority of stagehands, actors, musicians, et al are in the long-running hits and most are unemployed for many weeks of the year).

Not taking sides here, but PLEASE stop tossing around that $200,000 figure as if it's gospel, because obviously it's not.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/theater/11broadway.html?pagewanted=2&ref=nyregion