Local 1's "Charity" Work- Page 2

[proptart101]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 12:16pm

Local One's contract does not allow for their members to work events for free, as I understand it. There is no situation where the Local will insist that its members keep the charity checks, and many of us sign them back over to the charity immediately after the event.

The local only insist that members be be for their work, as per the existing contract. What the individual member does with that pay is up to them.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 12:51pm

I often work benefits for free, and I also donate a sizable amount of money to charity every year. Those are both my choices. I would not agree with my union dictating that I be REQUIRED to work for free in support of a charity. There are charities out there I don't agree with the way they're run. They won't get my donations or services.

For what it's worth, Local One regularly gives a LOT of money to a LOT of different charities and non-profits, including the Actors Fund. I would assume they contribute to BC/EFA as well. And I know when I personally have asked them to sponsor somebody for a cancer walk, they responded with a donation that was about three times what I expected them to give.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 1:35pm

If every union did every benefit that was requested of them, there'd never be any time to earn a loving. We all have our pet causes - we have to pick & choose. If I had to say "yes" to everyone who asked me to volunteer -- even at my church -- I'd be exhausted & broke. Don't judge.

If the union has a contract that says its members get paid & it chooses to waive that pay, then it IS charity, regardless of what you personlly think.

[JamieMcG]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 1:46pm

Guys, I agree completely that there are local 1 members who are indeed very generous and willing to do charity work. My concerns were more with the fact that when I personally approached the local 1 reps at the spaces I was hoping to do events in, I was flatly told "No" and "They don't do that," when I asked about contacting people even inquiring about the possibility of their members volunteering their time or working for a cut-rate.

And on top of that, when it's far from a usual occurrence that the entire group would volunteer for an event (certainly never mandated by leadership, as even you've stated-it's up to the individual), why would they decide to suddenly do this in a big press release for this particular event?

Again, as I said, I know some amazing and wonderful local 1 guys who work their butts off and several who would do so for charity and I support unions as a whole, but this one action really left a sour taste in my mouth.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 1:58pm

Just out of curiosity, Jamie. How do you feel about the Nederlander organization not informing Local One about the event? And that Local One only found out about it when an organizer for the event called them.

It seems to me there are two sides to this situation. The Nederlanders and League could also have used this particular event as a lovely little publicity stunt to try and make the Local look like ogres because they shut down a charity event. Fortunately, for the charity, they called the Union and were able to hold the event despite the strike.

It seems a bit disingenuous to find fault with the Union for their actions, but to not also find fault with the Nederlanders in theirs, for not informing the Union of the event in the first place.

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 01:58 PM

[JamieMcG]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 2:11pm

Hey there,

I think the organizers did what they had to do. It's possible that the event was not the first thing on the mind of the League.

However, I'm having a little trouble figuring everything out because it would seem the League and the Union should have known about the event for quite a while before the event happened. So I think the organizers shouldn't have had to call anyone about it to beg that it be done.

I suppose if the organizers called the League and the League made you out to be ogres, there would probably be little chance they would be able to hold their event. If they also called the League and asked them to open the theatre for their event, they wouldn't really be able to do anything because the theatre was being struck. So either way, it would seem the smartest move for the organizers of the event to do would be to call the Union. Am I confused about anything here? I'm just trying to put my feet in the shoes of the organizers.

Again, I'm not picking sides here, I'm just saying the way things fell out, it would seem (and even you have to admit) that a full donation of the Union labor is VERY out of the ordinary. Why would the Union do that? It just makes me feel awkward about supporting people I would normally support fully. That's all I'm really saying. i'm not attacking anyone - I just have questions about their motivations. Could you estimate why they would make a move like that if it wasn't political?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 2:27pm

"Could you estimate why they would make a move like that if it wasn't political?"

No more than I could estimate why the Union wasn't informed of the benefit in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, the Union was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. And they chose to do what I feel is the lesser of two evils and allow the event to go on. They also stated in the press release about the event that they were not taking payment because: "Local One refuses to work under the expired collective bargaining agreement that we are exercising our legal rights against. We will work the event free of charge for the benefit of this Organization."

I guess I'm more cynical than you, because I don't find either party totally faultless in this particular case.

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 02:27 PM

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 7:10pm

Interesting that none of our Local 1 friends have bothered to comment on why their union does not have a stipulation in their contact to work charity events while Equity, Musicians Union, and others actually have taken the time and interest to include that in contracts.

I'm sure there are Local 1 members who work and then sign over their checks to charity. But all of them? Of course not. Yet all the members of Equity who donate their time to BC/EFA don't even have the opportunity of getting a paycheck to sign over. Why? Because they care and are more than willing to donate their time over and over again out of the kindness of their heart. They do it without even the possibility of financial gain, unlike Local 1.

If Local 1 was truly a member of the Broadway/theater community, years ago they would have added a stipulation in their contract that allows non-paid charity work. But have they done that act of charity? NO.

After that pompous statement by the Local 1 leader who "generously" took pickets off the line for last night's charity event, I think that says it all.

.

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 07:10 PM

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 7:13pm

Local 1 member quote of the day:

"If every union did every benefit that was requested of them, there'd never be any time to earn a loving.

Oh, I see. So I guess all those Broadway Equity performers who do charity event after event are plain stupid cause their generosity prevents them for earning a living.

You can't make stupid stuff like this up, folks!

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

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 7:36pm

"Oh, I see. So I guess all those Broadway Equity performers who do charity event after event are plain stupid cause their generosity prevents them for earning a living."

Not every performer who is asked to do a charity event for free does it. If you think that is the case you are very mistaken. There are charity events that some performers wouldn't support no matter what they were paid, and others that they would. To assume that every performer will do every charity event for free, or every charity event that they are asked to do, just tells me that you've never tried to organize a charity event and that you're talking out your A@@.

[roadguy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 7:43pm

JustAGuy,

I've responded to Mr Tuttle many times, and he just throws out quotes from random loose cells in his brain, claims he read it somewhere, lost the link to prove it, then bashes the comment to shreds...

Mr Tuttle,
do you feel powerful hiding behind a computer talking smack about people?? I'm sure there are meds for that.. Or at least your mom or dad should lower your online time, so you can learn to read. You twist everything you read to benefit your own uninformative comments. You see only what you want to see and you think someone is benefiting from it. Sorry to break it to you, you're not my hero. Need a tissue??

[amasis]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 8:20pm

I'm not part of any of this, I'm just digesting what I've been reading and trying to understand it.

Not every performer who is asked to do a charity event for free does it.

If I'm not mistaken, Jamie's point is that with Local1, the organizer doesn't even have the flexibility to ask, ie., he was told by the rep that he wasn't allowed to invite Local1 members to donate their time. Instead, the members have to be paid first, and *then* if some members choose to donate back the money, that would be up to them. Maybe it sounds like it comes to the same thing in the end, but doesn't it make a difference from the pov of planning and budgeting? Actors can decline to do a charity event for free, but at least Equity allows for the actors to be approached for it in the first place. At least that's what I got from reading it. Is this correct?

However, regarding the full donation of the Union labor for the latest event, I'm not sure they had much of a choice. It seems that it was between not allowing the event to happen (which would be a terrible decision), or going in and getting paid under the implementation of conditions they are striking against, or going in for free. To me, the last option seems to be the most reasonable.

[Mr. Tuttle]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 8:23pm

roadguy - I haven't responded to your rambling, incoherent posts as it would not be a fair exchange. Just one look at tour post and anyone can see.

JustAGuy - How sweet of our Local 1 friend to have to resort to profanity to make their point. Surprising? Unfortunately, no.

So you're telling me several performers at BC/EFA get paid? Really. Please give them a call tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be happy to enlighten your union thought process.

And since you desire to continue fighting a loosing battle, you still haven't answered the question that was originally proposed. We all want to know why Local 1 has not added to their contracts a stipulation that allows their members to work for free at charity events? As stated numerous times, other major Brodway/theater unions have this written in their member's contract. Yet...the only participating union that makes their members be paid for charity events is Local 1.

Your generic "some sign their paychecks over" is no argument. Why hasn't your "union that cares about the theater community" added that stipulation? It's quite simple and other unions have had it for years.

The answer is simple and we are all viewing Local 1's "care" and "concern" about the theatrical community in all these many threads.

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 08:23 PM

[roadguy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 8:33pm

Mr Tuttle,
How is asking you what your relationship to theatre concidered rambling?? I ask you how you're so in touch with BC/EFA that you know who does and doesn't contribute??

I prove points and you call it rambling.. Will you stop and prove some of your own comments??

LOcal One doesn't participate in BC/EFA?? PROVE IT
All broadway unions have articles in their contract telling employees to work for free for charity events except local one?? PROVE IT
When any tour i work on has an actors fund show do we the IATSE crew get paid extra for a 9th show that week?? PROVE IT

Sorry for rambling FACTS... stupid people just piss me off....

"roadguy - I haven't responded to your rambling, incoherent posts as it would not be a fair exchange. Just one look at tour post and anyone can see."

[roadguy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 8:59pm

Mr Tuttle,

you stupidity regarding this issue has been proven very clearly as you have not responded to very simple requests of proof pertaining to the comments you make on this board. you have claimed numerous statements, with absolutely no proof behind them. You make claims about a specific union's contract, yet you've never seen a contract from that respective union. You make claims about the issues at hand for Local One, yet you have no idea what those issues are. You make claims about issues the League has, yet you have no proof to back up their comments.

You know all there is about charity events, who get's paid who doesn't.. You know all about how much a union stagehand makes while working on Broadway.. You know that musicians don't get paid for charity work, even though musicians on this very board have stated they do.

Please sir, tell me why it is you know so much, but aren't part of the negotiations?? You seem to have all the answers. At least the answers that make you feel important in your own little mind.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 9:18pm

"So you're telling me several performers at BC/EFA get paid? Really. Please give them a call tomorrow. I'm sure they'll be happy to enlighten your union thought process."

Mr. Tuttle, either your reading comprehension is lacking, or you simple don't pay attention to what you read.

No where did I say that the performers who volunteer their services for BC/EFA events get paid. If you'll re-read my post, it says "Not every performer who is asked to do a charity event for free does it." As a matter of fact I don't believe I've mentioned BC/EFA in any of my post in this thread. That is simply a figment of your imagination. Even your post, which I quoted from and commented on had no reference to BC/EFA in it. If you want to make all your post BC/EFA specific then do so, and I will comment on them accordingly.

I know this might come as a surprise to you, but performers are asked to perform at events other than those that benefit BC/EFA. And not all performers are willing to do those other events for free. Does that clarify it for you?

[roadguy]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 9:25pm

JAG,

It's obviously useless.. Mr Tuttle makes a comment, with nothing to back up his statements and when we return comment, all he does is say I'm rambling or you're cussing.. It's very obvious to me that some people just hide behind computers, talk their nonsense and it makes them feel important.

Mr Tuttle,
STill waiting for answers to very easy questions and not personal attacks on how i ramble... zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 9:32pm

if a charity wants all its staff to work for free then they should solicit help from those willing to do so.
if there are specific workers they want who want to be paid for their work then the charity has the option to pay them or get someone who will do it for free.
the worker is not forcing him or herself on anyone.
it is the charities decision to pay or not pay for workers.

i have never forced someone to pay me for my work. they agree to do it.
the onus is on the charity , not the worker.
end of story.

[elphaba.scares.me]

Posted: 11/13/07 at 11:37pm

jamie, I usually agree with you, but I think you're off-base here.

I think it's fine to approach any union asking for a concession, and I think it's fine (if disappointing) for that union to say "sorry, we don't do that." especially if this conversation happens well in advance of the actual event.

however, in this case, you're dealing with a situation where, because of specific and highly unusual circumstances, an event where an organization had contracted local one members to perform a service was jeopardized.

I think it's only appropriate for the union to remove the picket line and perform the work for free, if they have such a problem with the proposed new work rules. everyone wins.

chillax, man. :)

[Chitty]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 1:10pm

Man..just reading these posts by roadguy and JustAGuy are enough to make anyone support the producers. Notice how when you are fighting a losing battle (as they are), you have to resort to name calling.

Interesting that none of them have even bothered to address that fact about WHY their union does not have the same charity clause in their contracts as does Equity. Simple...Equity cares about the community. Local 1 couldn't give a ****.

Just look at this union comment:


i have never forced someone to pay me for my work. they agree to do it

They agree because its in your contract. Duhhh! If you guys are so caring, why don't you have a clause in your contract?

Charity starts home. With Local 1, it begins with their pocketbook.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 1:23pm

FYI Chitty, I'm not a member of Local One, I'm a member of Equity. And I don't believe I called anyone a name. The closest I came was accusing someone of talking out their A@@. Which they were.

Let me ask you this Chitty, why should someone be forced to give their time for free, for a Charity that they may not support? I for one would never contribute my time or money to an organization like FOCUS ON THE FAMILY. But, if a charity or organization contracts to use a theatre for an event, the House Crew is included in that contract whether they wish to be or not. Should they be forced to contribute to a cause that they may not find worthy? You seem to be all about justice and doing the right thing. But, forcing someone to contribute to something whether they wish to or not, is not just or right. Several Local One members have said that they've signed back their paychecks when they found that the organization that they were working for was one that they felt worthy of contributing to. Why should free labor be mandatory for Charities. I'm guessing that most of those Charities have staff that are being paid. Do you have a problem with that as well?

By the way AFM also has a clause in their contract that they be paid as well.

[Rathnait62]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:20pm

"I'm guessing that most of those Charities have staff that are being paid."

Of course full time staff gets paid - that's their daily job. But they don't get paid extra for working the hours of the benefit(s).

All you have to do is look at the rosters of the benefits to see that there are lots and lots of performers who do it for free, all the time. Some of them are in something close to, if not every, Monday night during this busy benefit season.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:34pm

"Of course full time staff gets paid - that's their daily job. But they don't get paid extra for working the hours of the benefit(s)."

And I would say that stagehands working a benefit are doing their "day job" especially when they don't have a choice to work it or not.

"All you have to do is look at the rosters of the benefits to see that there are lots and lots of performers who do it for free, all the time. Some of them are in something close to, if not every, Monday night during this busy benefit season."

Did anyone ever say that there weren't lots and lots of performers who are willing to a work benefit for free? But there are also those performers who are not. And frankly, I don't see what the comparison is, when one is volunteering their services and the other is not.

Updated On: 11/14/07 at 02:34 PM

[JamieMcG]

Posted: 11/14/07 at 3:08pm

Oh, elphaba.scares.me, I'm plenty chillaxed. And I totally understand what you're saying. It was a very difficult/awkward situation for everyone involved. And someone had to improvise quickly.

Again, I support the union for making the decision they did with it, but it would seem like the press release and using the "saving the day" argument was politicizing the event and the children helped by the organization. That's really my only issue with it. And again, I'm chillaxed as can be, especially after a VERY fun 80s concert on Monday night. :)

[elphaba.scares.me]

Posted: 11/15/07 at 12:19am

gotcha.

and now, senor mcgonnigal, i think we should declare a moratorium on the word "chillax"...if only because, um, it sucks.



so bummed that i missed the show...
Updated On: 11/15/07 at 12:19 AM