Local 1's statement -- are they serious?- Page 2

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:28pm

> They need to stop whining and do what is best for the entire industry.

Do what's best for the industry? i.e. accept unilaterally imposed cuts and new working conditions from the producers, who, when they couldn't get the deal they wanted, petulantly walked away from the table and told us "hey, forget the negotiating thing, these are the new rules. You're going to follow THESE rules now."

And then when Equity's contract comes up, maybe they can impose a 9th performance in a week for no additional pay. Or maybe impose that they can film a performance for their own profit on DVD or MTV and not pay the actors anything. And then when 802's contract comes up, they can impose that all shows will use two synths, only, and no live instruments whatsoever, and while you're at it, record the cast recording for free, ok? And you ticket buyers, I guarantee you, ticket prices are going to continue to rise, not decline.

[Mooo]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:34pm

First of all I should say the author of this post is incredibly uninformed and should get a history lesson on Local 1's support for AEA.

As a Local One stagehand let me try to explain things as best I can. We could probably streamline crews a little bit without a hugely noticeable difference just like choruses could be smaller and orchestra's could be synthesized. Is that what everyone wants? Local one is trying to hold on to jobs that have existed for decades. Just because a piece of scenery is automated that doesn't mean you don't need anyone to run it and ensure its safe movement.

Everyone should know that the producers and their production people set the crew minimums for the load-in not Local 1. What they want is to be able to lay guys off without notice. They want guys to commit their time and turn down other work to do their load-in then be able to tell them to not come in tomorrow because they got more done today than they expected. Actors sign contracts that guarantee their pay but we don't have that luxury.

Everyone should also consider that the hourly rate for stagehands isn't incredibly high. When they report that someone is making $150,000/year that is someone that is picking up work wherever they can in addition to there 8 shows/week and probably working 70-80 hours. If a stagehand is doing 8 shows/week without picking up any extra work he isn't making anywhere near $150,000. I know hundreds of the Local 1 stagehands and I probably know 50 that make $150,000 or more and they never see their families. They work like I do night and day every day to try to give their kids a good life.

As far as the information that is coming out who are you going to trust here the stagehands or the people that are charging almost $500 in some cases for tickets to a show?

To see AEA actors attacking us on here really hurts but luckily I know from walking the line with AEA members yesterday that the Broadway performers support us 100%.

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:41pm

"Sorry, but I trust the union over safety issues more than I trust a producer who is trying to save a buck".

That sounds like it comes directly from the stagehands' propaganda. The fact of the matter is that producers have to pay worker's comp, and they are the ones who face litigation if someone gets hurt.
Every show I've ever worked, the producers know that paying a little bit more now is always better than paying potentially millions of dollars later should an accident occur.

You're spinning it. The reality is that Producers have no qualms with hiring four people to move a piano if that is what it takes. What they object to is having to pay those four people for four hours of work when it only took them a few minutes to move it. As a result, many stagehands add about $50,000 a year on top of their whopping salaries just from moving pianos or mopping floors.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:48pm

"The reality is that Producers have no qualms with hiring four people to move a piano if that is what it takes. What they object to is having to pay those four people for four hours of work when it only took them a few minutes to move it."

And that sounds like propaganda coming right out of the Producers Handbook. When was the last time you saw four stagehands moving a piano? It's usually moved by one house propman who's on call for a rehearsal anyway, or done in a continuity call after the performance. You're doing a bit of "spinning" yourself.

Updated On: 11/11/07 at 05:48 PM

[Mooo]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 5:53pm

If I'm called in to move a piano and there is no other work to perform do you think I should get paid by the minute. Please give me at least $4 so I can pay for the subway.

[MarkK]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:15pm

I'm not saying I agree with everything Local 1 stands for. But, I'm fascinated by all the union hate on this board. Unions are the reason we have Labor Laws and the protections that most of us take for granted in the workplace. We are rapidly approaching a corporatist state in the United States.

For some odd reason most of you are fighting for a group of people (The Theatre owners / producers) that do not represent your(middle-class or lower income) interests. Everyone seems to gobble up any sound-bite that they are fed from both sides of the arguement.

[Bobby Maler]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:15pm

Hi Mooo, I just read your response and want to thank you for that heartfelt statement. You articulated your statement well. I wish that the two sides weren't so contentious, then real negotiations would happen.

Because of the way you've stated your case, the solutions seem so clear to me. I wonder why they're not clear for everyone else.

1) "Everyone should know that the producers and their production people set the crew minimums for the load-in not Local 1. What they want is to be able to lay guys off without notice. They want guys to commit their time and turn down other work to do their load-in then be able to tell them to not come in tomorrow because they got more done today than they expected. Actors sign contracts that guarantee their pay but we don't have that luxury."

The solution here seems to be that production people should be able to set crew minimums for the load-in according to what they feel will be needed (what the producers want) and that Local One members be able to get compensated fairly for their work (what the union wants). The production should be able to say, "we'll need 10 electrics and 10 carps the first two weeks and only 8 carps the third week. For this flexibility, the producers should have to pay more per hour than they currently do now (that would address your main issue in the post, which is that the hourly wage is too low in your estimation), and if they find in that third week that they miscalculated and need more people or they need people to work overtime, then overtime pay should hurt the producers as much as possible. Possibly triple salary. Producers should also be penalized for dropping and then re-hiring union workers, like SAG currently has in their contracts.

2) "Local one is trying to hold on to jobs that have existed for decades. Just because a piece of scenery is automated that doesn't mean you don't need anyone to run it and ensure its safe movement".

I never said that you don't people to run it and make sure things are safe just because things are automated. But could you please explain to me why producers should be required to hire three light board ops when one will do (I've run light boards for plenty of shows)?

3) "The author of this post is incredibly uninformed and should get a history lesson on Local 1's support for AEA"

I'd love a history lesson. Please explain to me why IATSE members don't refuse to work on non-union tours.

Thanks again for the dialogue. Hopefully we can create something through these boards--the establishment of true common ground--that doesn't yet exist.

[Switz78]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:36pm

"And then when Equity's contract comes up, maybe they can impose a 9th performance in a week for no additional pay. Or maybe impose that they can film a performance for their own profit on DVD or MTV and not pay the actors anything. And then when 802's contract comes up, they can impose that all shows will use two synths, only, and no live instruments whatsoever, and while you're at it, record the cast recording for free, ok? And you ticket buyers, I guarantee you, ticket prices are going to continue to rise, not decline"

I'm sure that Equity will roll over and say ok we can do 9 shows with only a 10% increase in salary over the next 4 years and we'll take more for dues and pension and up the number of weeks to get insurance to 40. That should be no problem. Equity, unlike, IATSE or the Musicians union doesn't seem to represent it's members best interests and is known as the weakest union.

[BwayJerry]

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

Thank you Bobby, I agree. I would also love to hear a history of IATSE's ongoing support of AEA- heck, even a few examples would be nice.

And a note on the listing of all the things that could happen to other unions, proposed by bugmenot as well as moo...

First off, there are contracts that already exist which wouldn't allow for such things. And even if the producers were to jump in and say "It's now a 9-show week," or "We're taping this for MTV and you get nothing extra," there would be compensation and it would be illegal to air something on television without the person's written consent. This is where I feel unions made a big difference in the early part of the century, but the employment laws now in place, override many of the fights the unions now think they face.

Additionally, comparing streamlining a crew to 2 people from 4 to do a job they can reasonably and safely do, and cutting chorus parts from a show is like apples and oranges. One is an artistic choice and one is a choice of true necessity. No one has answered the question: why should people be paid for work that is not necessary? I know you can say that you know better what is necessary and what is not, but truly, are producers who are liable for everything that happens in the theater (and thus are taking a far larger risk than anyone) truly going to allow something unsafe to be going on? I am the first one to say that yes, producers are not always concerned with the art first and will gladly have an orchestra on tape if need be, which is why I wholeheartedly supported the musician's strike a few years ago, but this time, it's not about a producer challenging something artistic, it's a producer challenging dollars and cents...which is something they do know about.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:47pm

i have been a stagehand on bway for 20 years. i have worked on a show , full time, that ra for a full year. I have worked every show and every work call for a year. i have never made 150,000 dollars in a year.
their numbers are all lies.

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 6:48pm

"One is an artistic choice and one is a choice of true necessity. "

Yes but producers only care about bottom line... "it's a business"

[Mooo]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:37pm

Yesterday as I walked a picket line the president of AEA shook my hand as he did everyone in my line and said "we support you 100% and we will not cross your line". Does that sound like someone that doesn't think we would do the same for the actors?
I understand if the ticket buying public doesn't understand what this is all about and thinks we should just cave but I don't understand how an actor or musician could think that.
As far as artistic choices and the like. I went to see the new Les Miserables and promptly wrote Cameron Macintosh an e-mail where I expressed my dissapointment that the show had been trimmed down both in the number of actors and pit musicians. It's my favorite show in the world and I bought 4 tickets the day they went on sale. I didn't realize at the time that I was paying $100/each for tickets to see half the singers and half the orchestra. I thought it sounded terrible. My big lush musical sounded hollow to me.
I'm against smaller choruses and fewer musicians and I don't see how a theater with more sets, lights and sound gear crammed in it than ever before could need fewer stagehands.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 7:42pm

"I never said that you don't people to run it and make sure things are safe just because things are automated. But could you please explain to me why producers should be required to hire three light board ops when one will do (I've run light boards for plenty of shows)? "

THE ARENT!!!!! We gave this up years ago!!!

This is just more propaganda from the league.

i have personally run a lightboard, projection board, and sound cues, by myself! on a local one payrll!! in a bway, local one house!!!

anyone saying that this is still an issue is lying!!!!!

[bk]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 8:00pm

The oddest thing about all this is two local one members, full-time stagehands, working all these hours, have time to continuously come on this board and post. I'm not taking sides, but I have to tell you I haven't seen members of the league resorting to sending their members or cronies here.

The rhetoric is flying thick in all directions, don't you think? As it always does. And when it's settled, all parties will say they got what they want, when they haven't really, just as in the AFM strike of a few years ago. I've been on both sides of the table, union/management-wise - I'm a member of many unions and I believe in what they stand for. I've also been on the other side of the table, and none of it is black and white. Local One has said it is willing to give in on what is called the "featherbedding" issue - IF they receive enough salary raises to compenstate for the 38% loss in jobs. Where does the 38% come from? Is Local One admitting that there are 38% of its employees who are paid and then perhaps don't have to work because of some rule that requires producers to hire a certain number of employees, even though that number may not really be required to do the job? And isn't it just a bit foolish to demand pay hikes to cover that 38%, because then, in essence, the producers have gained nothing and the Union has lost nothing. Why negotiate at all?

Again, no sides here - I like producers, and I respect and admire hard-working stagehands, some of whom are good friends.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 8:03pm

Why bring good sense into the discussion?

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 8:04pm

"I'm not taking sides, but I have to tell you I haven't seen members of the league resorting to sending their members or cronies here."

You might want to take a closer read, paying particular attention to the dates some people joined this board, and then to their rhetoric. I believe there are League shills about.

Updated On: 11/11/07 at 08:04 PM

[bk]

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

"You might want to take a closer read, paying particular attention to the dates some people joined this board, and then to their rhetoric. There are indeed League shills about."

Not talking about shills, and I have been paying attention. I don't post blithely - and I'd guess that none of my questions will be answered, which is how it usually works, and, you know, I understand that. I'm talking about at least two or three local one members who have come out and said they are local one members, who post here constantly the local one line, and have been since this whole thing began - and I have yet to find anyone from the league who has said they're from the league, doing the same. I just see a lot of the usual suspects here making with the posts.

[One NYC StageHand]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 8:16pm

BK, it's a lot easier to post often when you've got time on your hands. When we work, we've busy and not able to post.

Bobby, Bobby, as a working actor you will understand that there are parallels in the Local One contract and the Broadway Equity contract. IIRC, actors are paid for rehearsal calls every week even if there isn't rehearsal. They are getting paid for doing nothing, are they not?

In the next contract when the Producers turn the PR machine against AEA, where will you be?

[One NYC StageHand]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 8:24pm

You know what? BK's right, this is getting tedious. This won't be settled here and I've got some precious free time that is better spent doing anything else than sitting in front of a computer. Talk among yourselves because I'm outta here.

[Mooo]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 8:26pm

bk - You're welcome to look at my history on this board to see if I just showed up.
I'm not a shill I'm simply trying to state the opinion of one Local One member. I do happen to be off today so I have some time to post. If you would rather not hear the real life experiences of members it shouldn't be too hard to avoid our posts.
If anyone wants to own up to being from the league as we have been up front about our affiliation I would love to debate them. Any takers?

[bk]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:14pm

Mooo, you're misunderstanding me - I didn't accuse you of shilling - you will not find that in any of my posts. Someone else said there was shilling going on by the League, and I responded by saying I wasn't talking about shilling at all - but that several Local One members had identified themselves and were stating THEIR position in every thread that has been started here, and that as far as I could tell not one League person had so identified him/herself to do the same.

And of course it's not going to be settled here, and of course the simple questions I asked in my post will remain unanswered - it is the way these things work.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:15pm

> producers were to jump in and say "It's now a 9-show week," or
> "We're taping this for MTV and you get nothing extra," there
> would be compensation and it would be illegal to air
> something on
> television without the person's written consent.

I'm afraid you missed my point. And I think a lot of people have missed the point about what happened during negotiations. The union and producers negotiated for a number of meetings (a dozen or more). At some point in that process (October 9th?) the producers decided to declare "impasse", i.e. they declared "there is no point in continuing to negotiate" -- despite the fact that Local One (at that time) was ready and willing to continue meeting. The producers walked away from the table. They then turned around an did what is called "unilateral implementation of terms and conditions" of their "last, best, and final offer" -- these are all labor law terms and tactical moves, you can google them.

It is not at all inconceivable to me that the Producers could come into contract talks with Equity with something like a 9th show in a week with no additional compensation as part of their Last/Best/Final and implement it on the actors after walking away from the table. Or they could do something similar to the musicians.

When they did it to us, most, if not all, of the rank and file members wanted to strike the next day. We did not. We tried to get them back to the table. They weren't interested. Some of them were in a feeding frenzy trying to figure out how to make these new rules work in their favor, shaving a few bucks here and there (and really pissing off the brothers & sisters in the process). When the parties went back to the table last week, it was ONLY because Tom Short, the president of the parent union of the local stagehands union, called the meeting. The producers didn't call US. We called THEM.

By the way, I'm not sure this sound-bite has made it to air unless you saw the live broadcast of the Local One news conference: last Thursday, Local One was sitting at the table waiting for the producers to come back to us with a response to Tom Short's last proposal. You know what the producers did? They put on their tuxes and went to the opening of Young Frankenstein instead of trying to work out a deal and avert the strike.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:21pm

as for my posting, you will see that it only occurs when either:

there are no scheduled for that time or i just got home from picketing.

the producer shills will never identify themselves as working for the producers. it would ruin what they are trying to accomplish.
i am a stagehand on bway and am happy to identify myself as such.

C'mon all you producer people who joined this board after 10/07.

IDENTIFY YOURSELVES!!

be honest!!

dont be afraid to say who you are, what you represent, and your opinions!

why the secrecy?

what is it that you are trying to hide?

you people must know that they are here! why wont they admit it?

think about it.

[BwayJerry]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:43pm

I'm not a producer at all. I'm a member of AEA who actually posts here under a different name, but didn't want to drag any preconceived notions with me in my discussions about the strike. Not to mention the fact that Equity reps are threatening AEA members if they don't support the strike.

More bullying which just goes to show you what we are "supporting"

Of course the head of AEA is going to say we are in solidarity with you...AEA is a pu**y union and will say whatever they need to gain acceptance and make friends.

No one has yet to answer my questions regarding the last time or the history of IATSE supporting AEA during negotiations. In fact, even when ASKED for help on the non-union touring matter, IATSE didn't return phone calls. It's ridiculous. And as an AEA member, and along with many of my "brothers on broadway," we do NOT support this selfish and greedy strike.

[Mooo]

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:52pm

BwayJerry - It sounds like your problem is with your own union. I'm happy with mine and happen to think they are doing exacty what is called for here to keep the producers from watering down our business so they can make a little more cash.