I "went on strike" with Broadway...

[maliatkb8]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 4:58pm

My friend and I drove nearly 9 hours to NYC so she could see Hairspray and I could see Jersey Boys (my 3rd attempt to see JLY perform) and once we got there the strike started. It was such a bummer! But of course, we spent a lot of time outside of the theaters anyways with the stagehands and actors because that's what we were there for.

Everyone striking was really nice and I fully support them. The theaters want them to take a 38% job and wage cut and they've been without contract for months. That's not right, especially when Broadway is a billion dollar industry. Once again the wealthiest 1% gets more and more greedy. The theaters let this happen and considering it's the holiday season it's a bad move on their part.

At least I got to spend a lot of time talking to John Lloyd Young! I had met him once before and he remembered me... he's so nice. I feel so bad that he's not going to spend his last few weeks with Jersey Boys performing. I also got to hang out with Lance Bass (who is friends with my sister and I have met him before as well). He's such a sweetheart and I love him! So, I hung around with the cast and crew of both shows for several hours. Everyone seemed to be enjoying eachothers company, visiting with the people across the street. I hope this gets cleared up soon but some people said it could even last until christmas.

[BroadwayBound86]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:10pm

The theaters want them to take a 38% job and wage cut

They are not being asked to take a cut in pay. It's an increase, but with that they are asking for a 38% cut in jobs.
Updated On: 11/11/07 at 05:10 PM

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:10pm

I'm glad you got to meet John Lloyd Young. He's an amazingly talented performer and I wish you would have been able to see your show.

However, I am disappointed that you swallowed the 38% propaganda hook,line and sinker. That 38% job cut is not real. That is the inflated percentage of what they think will be taken away if producers only hire the people that they need. Under the current contract, producers have to hire more people and employ them for more hours even if there is no work for them to do. That is inefficient and no way to run a business. It's not that producers are taking jobs away, it's that some of those people aren't needed. For instance, light boards, which used to require three people to operate all the pulls and switches, now only needs one person due to computer technology. However, IATSE is still forcing producers to put three light board ops on the payroll. That is ridiculous!

The unions have been ridiculous and not willing to negotiate seriously, coming back with things in their final offer, for instance, that include mandating fly ops even if a show has no flying scenery! The producers had the choice of enforcing a lock out, darkening Broadway, or to move ahead without a contract in place. They producers have said all along that they are willing to negotiate a fair deal.

I support unions in general, and I am a union member, but I will not support such spoiled tantrums by IATSE which is ruining it for everyone else.

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:45pm

This might be a stupid question, but couldn't the producers just higher non-union people to work crew since the contracts have expeired?

[maliatkb8]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:20pm

It's interesting to hear the other side of the story, the non-union side, and appreciate the responses. I guess I just think that If theaters are bringing in Millions of dollars each week they can afford to share Big business in general gets more and more money each day while more and more union workers get layed off. If you have a billion dollar industry you can afford to give a lot more money back to those who need it and the shows would go on. Yes, the theaters were willing to work with the union workers, but they obviously were'nt willing to budge too much over the past few months thus causing the strike.

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:26pm

They could, but it wouldn't work. The other unions won't cross a picket line, so they'd be without actors, musicians, etc. It would also be very unsafe for the actors--regardless of what some people here say, a lot of the work the stagehands do is very specialized. No actor is going to risk his or her life by going onstage with flying scenery, pyrotechnics, trap doors, etc. manned by people who don't know what they're doing.
Updated On: 11/11/07 at 06:26 PM

[Switz78]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:44pm

do you know how much it costs to put up a show? It is not a million dollar industry as far as profits are concerned. There are many salaries that need to be paid as well as theater rental, rights to writers and composers a ton of overhead expenses occur each week.
Why isn't their just a min. like there is with Equity and screw the hourly stuff. And if IATSE is going to say that people need to be there for jobs that aren't required then let's do that thru out all the unions. The musician's should say that all sound effects in plays have to be made by live musicians and Equity should say that every musical has to have pit singers or seperate dancing and singing choruses. Hell let's just go crazy and require an understudy or swing for every 2 performers on the stage.

[One NYC StageHand]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:55pm

Bobby, Bobby. Read my blog for a discussion about the equipment in question.http://onenycstagehand.blogspot.com. The staffing requirement for that equipment is something the Producers already have.

If you don't care for the 38% number, pick a give back number that would be satisfactory to you. 35%, 30%, 25%. Bear in mind this will not reduce the cost to you, the theatre going public, a single penny. Nor will it keep shows open that you, the theatre going public, choose to stay away from.

The 16% wage increase is spread out over five years, so once again, in times of plenty on Broadway, wage increases will probably not keep up with inflation.

As for hiring more people than are needed, it's important to understand how a load-in is conducted. Bear in mind that this is primarily a one time cost and the staffing requirements vary according to the size of the show. The smaller the show, the smaller the crew. In my experience during a load-in is there almost always more than enough for everybody to do. If there is a slow down it comes from not having to many people but from a problem in the supply line as the show comes out of the shop. This does require planning on the part of the production team and this is where the real problem comes from. A lack of planning. Planning means the production needs to spend time and money in laying out the production before it loads in the stage door. Shows that come in from the road generally have these kinks worked out. Shows opening cold in NYC, don't. The flexibility that is claimed to be needed will result in a lack of preparation and a voiding of the Six P Rule of theatre. Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Productions.

Bear in mind this will not reduce the cost to you, the theatre going public, a single penny.

[winston89]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:10pm

One NYC stagehand is right,

The planning of how many people are needed to do a load in/load out is part of the production team. If the production team does not plan properly then why should the union take damage.


I was part of the Picket Line at the Majestic. Not only were tehy happy that a theatre goer was there. After being there I was being treated like one of the other guys going around exchanging jokes. It was at that moment that I realized one thing. These people are just trying to get food on the table. At the end of the daythat is what any worker is trying to do. And I guess you can say that by doing that then that makes the selfish. But, that is no different then any other person who is working. And very few people made noise out of anger when the taxi drivers went on strike I am supriedthat people want to do that for the local strike. I really feel for these guys. I plan to sto by the Majestic on monday during my lunch break if the striek is going on to see what is going on there.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:12pm

good for you winston!!

we really really appreciate any support we get!

you rock!!!

[Switz78]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 11:26pm

"The 16% wage increase is spread out over five years, so once again, in times of plenty on Broadway, wage increases will probably not keep up with inflation. "

How many jobs are keeping up with inflation. My company is in a wage freeze as was my mother's union job that she worked without a contract for over a year. And I still bet that's more than Equity will get in 7 months. Why not go to weekly contracts instead of hourly wages. Wouldn't that make everything easier.

[lawyerman]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 12:53am

I cant get over how manipulative the Union shills are.

I generally support Unions, I do, and I have little sympathy for those raking in millions of dollars from big broadway productions.

that said:
1. why are we pretending that every single show rakes in millions of dollars? the unions are trying to paint the producers as all Disney owning, Wicked running, Jersey Boys producing cash cows. Some are. But some are the producers who struggled to get Spring Awakening on stage and some are the ones who lost a fortune on Company or Grey Gardens... *those* producers are pretty popular around these boards, so why not focus on them- why should they invest money in struggling (in my opinion brilliant) shows, and be paying for flying prop mechanisms that no one is ever going to use?

2. why is it relevant that "we the viewing public" wont see a dime of the money saved? the union folks have been saying that on these boards every other paragraph. so what? is the idea that we, the viewing public, will think "gee, if i dont get the profit, i hope the stagehands can make ridiculous demands, just as long as the big bad producers dont get to save money!"

its so silly. the unions SHOULD negotiate a better contract. and i hope they hold the producers to the fire and get a great deal.

but a reasonable one. and the operative word up there is NEGOTIATE. refusing to allow the mayor to mediate, and hawking this crap about 38% pay cuts- which seems to be a blatant lie- is so unbecoming of unions in general.

[roadguy]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 6:02am

lawyerman,
No one is pretending every show rakes in millions. The fact that the show doesn't make millions, however, is not due to overpaid workers, it's due to bad scripts, boring shows, whatever. I still can't understand how all these shows are losing so much money, yet investers still throw money at them.. Smart investers/producers would only invest money where money can be made. Do i continue to buy stocks in companies that go bankrupt?? NOOOOO, why would producers do that?? You ask why they should invest money in struggling shows?? I don't know, I'm not the investor, ask them, they have the money. Your comment on flying prop mechanisms still baffles me. Are you saying that stagehands tell the producers what equipment to use in their shows?? WOW, if this is the case you have no idea how it works.

The reason why ticket prices are so important is because most of hard working america can't afford to see broadway shows. Might there be a connection between ticket prices and empty seats?? HELLO???? of course.. If i'm a tourist from Germany, and I go to NYC and want to see a broadway show, am I going to spend 100 bucks on a not so popular titled show I know nothing about or will I run to see Phantom, Lion King, Jersey Boys, Wicked?? THe problem is there aren't enough Phantoms, Lion Kings, Wickeds. It's sad that people don't take a leap and see a show they've never heard of, they might find out how great that show is.

"1. why are we pretending that every single show rakes in millions of dollars? the unions are trying to paint the producers as all Disney owning, Wicked running, Jersey Boys producing cash cows. Some are. But some are the producers who struggled to get Spring Awakening on stage and some are the ones who lost a fortune on Company or Grey Gardens... *those* producers are pretty popular around these boards, so why not focus on them- why should they invest money in struggling (in my opinion brilliant) shows, and be paying for flying prop mechanisms that no one is ever going to use?

2. why is it relevant that "we the viewing public" wont see a dime of the money saved? the union folks have been saying that on these boards every other paragraph. so what? is the idea that we, the viewing public, will think "gee, if i dont get the profit, i hope the stagehands can make ridiculous demands, just as long as the big bad producers dont get to save money!"

[lawyerman]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:17am

roadguy,

uhm, what?

First of all, shows doing poorly are NOT due to bad scripts or boring shows. Thats ridiculous. But thats also entirely irrelevant to what I was saying.

Im simply saying that the idea that the producers are raking in loads of cash and are hoarding it from the stagehands is a complete fantasy considering many shows DO NOT BREAK EVEN, or barely do. You didnt bother addressing this point at all. I am lost as to what you meant by saying that producers wont invest in shows that will go bankrupt... you dont understand why a producer would invest in a struggling/different/artsy show?
Are you serious? You dont know why someone would have invested in a Sondheim revival?? Are you faulting those that do? Do you understand that outrageous stagehand demands make it all the MORE expensive to stage "Company" making it harder for productions like that make it to the stage??

My comment on flying prop mechanisms isnt my own- I have read, in more than one place, that one example of union demands are that certain mechanisms would be required to be installed regardless of the type of show. So yes, I think the issue is that the stagehands ARE instructing the producers what equipment they have to use. If thats incorrect, thats fair- im not in any way involved in the theater so if I am wrong, someone please tell me. But it seems to me that YEAH, the stagehands ARE dictating to the producers what needs to be used in their show.

As for your rant about ticket prices- it sucks that they are high. I have NO LOVE for the producers.

But I still have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You want MORE wickeds and lion kings? I mean, I dont, but I still dont see that that has to do with anything re: the strike. I also dont follow your logic if youre saying you want more big touristy musicals, and then say its sad no one will take a leap on a new show. You really make absolutely NO sense to me, dude. Im just lost.

But, again, you completely failed to address what I was saying, which was that the cost of ticket prices, which sucks and is way inflated, has NOTHING TO DO WITH the stagehands. The strike is not an effort to save ticketholders some money- neither side has our wallets in the forefront of their minds. Its manipulative of the unions to pretend that somehow their demands will SAVE US money.

a sheer delusion.

[billynj]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:49am

stage hand are soo quick to say less cost will not mean cheaper ticket prices, maybe the top price will stay the same but more seats would be sold if theaters could be priced lower mid range tickets, based on cost. also how many smaller shows would try to open on broadway if they could at least afford the loadin ...lol

the unions give me mploymentthe money because you the public wont get any saving is not a valid argument for employment

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:21pm

"stage hand are soo quick to say less cost will not mean cheaper ticket prices, maybe the top price will stay the same but more seats would be sold if theaters could be priced lower mid range tickets, based on cost."

You are really stupid if you don't think the producers will raise ticket prices. How many time in the past three years have ticket prices gone up, yet salaries have stayed the same? I can count three NOTICEABLE increases.