Local 1's statement -- are they serious? — Page 3

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#51

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/11/07 at 9:53pm

It just seems a lot of people really don't understand some of what workers are being paid for. I have always agreed that some of the issues are open for negotiation.

If something goes wrong, especially during a show, it needs to be already fixed, so not only is the pressure on you but you better know how to fix it. The talent doesn't come from out of the sky and into your lap. It costs money and requires the right skills.

It is just like standing around, waiting to go on a stage. That is why I can't understand any Actor who cannot turn around and see this is just another part of the job.

As for what Unions can and can't do? These are Union Shows. The Union has the right to set it's own perimeters. If you want the right and are willing to pay for it, you too can either join an existing Union or make one of your own. It seems just silly for anyone to argue what right does an organized group of common people to protest their wages, working conditions and hours, when they have organized and created an atmosphere that is strictly governed by these principals?

It is the nature of the business. We are free in this Country to organize and assemble at will. We as common folks don't know all the issues at hand. No one has really released the contracts being fought over. All that matters is that this Union's contract is null and void. They have a right to ask for a new contract and to negotiate one in good faith. We have no control over that and until they do they can shut down and stop working when contracts expire. The fact that the other Unions are supporting this strike goes in favor of the Union. This was voted on and approved. Not just by the local one but by International. International has turned down other requests but not this one. So it has been looked over by many.

Again, if the League had not threatened to Lock out all Union Stagehands from their Theatres, a strike vote would never have happened. Sad that keeps getting buried when St. Martin issues stmts.. Along with her resume, so it seems. If someone threatened to lock you out of your job, I would hope you would organize, go to the press and cause as much of a stink as you can because it is just wrong. Not everyone wants to take a beating over and over again. Those of you whipping folks who enjoy being dumped on all the time and say it is just how it goes are part of the reasons wages are almost at a standstill and not matching up to currant economic increases. The majority of us are working under the normal standards based on cost of living increases.

These people have said they don't want to do that anymore. It is their right to strike. You may complain all you want but you do not have the right to tell people they cannot do something because you don't like it. It is their jobs and their battle.

This is more about what little job security you can muster in an industry such as this. We do argue over little issues when there really are more issues. Some are merely there to start a discussion. Both sides are notorious for initially asking for much more than they expect, this is why it always looks like both sides lose something. Usually, both sides do cave in some because they knew what they were asking was ridiculous to begin with. They just do that because that is the way the game is played. It is probably why that fly position ended up as it was. Meaning, the Union gave up something and the League gave them this in exchange. See? I hope so.

I wish no one ever had to strike. I wish both sides could figure this all out. These are the worse contracts around because this work is so complicated to manage well. Again though, had the League not said they would lock out their workers rather than negotiate, this all wouldn't be happening.

#52

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/11/07 at 10:08pm

All this pickering and moaning and pissinig is really making Broadway look really appealing to alot of those who have never been to a Broadway show.

Personally,
I adore theater and I have been lucky to be able to see hundreds of shows on Broadway but I think I am going to take my money to other places for a while... Maybe spend my hard earned wages at regional theaters, community playhouses and non profits --- to the people who do it for the love of the lights not the green in the wallet.

And this is not a anti-union stance-- I am sick of the whole arguing and fighting and he said she said crap that is being spewed from both sides.

I mean I work on Capitol HIll and have to deal with the politicians every day with this crap, now my passion (theater) has turned into a day in the Senate or Congress....

Remember... no one is unreplace-able.. .We are all dispendable.

"Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinion's starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don't see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often it's not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it's always there - fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, as far as I know none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge - they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I've got a sneaky feeling you'll find that love actually is all around."

#53

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/11/07 at 10:24pm

BK - An answer for you...

"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."

This 38% figure, as I understand it, was calculated to be an estimated average amount of reduction in wages going to Local One members if the producers get their new contract conditions in their entirety. The union has since indicated that it is all but impossible to calculate the expected losses in wages based on the convoluted nature of the League's proposed rules and that this is part of the problem. The long and the short of it is this...

1.) The things that you have read regarding piano moves are false. Sure... you COULD possibly make 4 hours for 5 minutes of work but that doesn't happen because producers know how to include piano moves in other calls to avoid this - as was stated on this board.

2.) The $150,000 year is also untrue for all but a select small percentage of people who have worked many, many hours in key positions and have made this much. If you were told that someone makes $2000/week you would say that they make at least $100K annually wouldn't you? For stagehands, the reality is that they may only get 30 weeks of that full pay in a year. Sometimes more, sometimes less.

3.) The concept of having a set number of people on staff for a show load-in stems from many factors... safety (enough people to be spotting a ladder, lifting heavy gear etc.), efficiency (you need a certain quantity of people available to do the work) and most importantly, continuity (having the same people available to the creative staff for the entire production period ensures that you aren't constantly catching people up to speed on what you're doing etc.). I have not worked a load-in in recent memory where the 'minimum' staff were the only people on site either. Typically, producers need MORE than this minimum to load the show in on average but they aren't mentioning that in the press are they?

4.) The idea behind the union's rules is NOT to cause the producers to pay more (by adding non-working people), they are not to cause undue stress on the industry or extra expense. These rules are to cause producers to have to schedule in a manner that is more humane for the workers. We don't WANT to work on the weekend or all night long so it costs more to work then. I can assure you that if there were no differences in cost, we would be working through the nights, 7 days a week so that producers could save money on theatre rentals and get the show up faster. If the new rules are accepted, we will face having a more sporadic and chaotic schedule than we face now. How would you like to come in to work Monday morning and be told at noon that you were no longer needed and that you would be sent home until Tuesday evening (without pay) and were expected to come back? That could happen under new load-in rules. How about coming in at 8am, being told to go to "lunch" at 11am and then "dinner" at 4pm? That could happen too.

It is a real shame that producers, who we work for and loyally support - because YES... we DO care about the product and not just ourselves as was stated on this board - feel the need to demonize the union in the press.

#54

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

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

Secret Merchandise revenue? Nine times out of ten an OUTSIDE company (not the producers) do the merchandising for a show, and only a percentage goes to the show (not a lot in the grand scheme of things).

Please.

#55

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 12:40am

Roadmixer, thank you for your response, but please understand I was specific in my initial post, and did not bring up 90% of the things you address in your post. I did bring up the 38% and your explanation is indeed convoluted as is the entire issue, at least as I see it. Again, no sides here, but it just seems like Local One or someone has come up with this 38% figure, and that it's trying to cover those costs in salary increases, which would, of course, save the producers nothing, and have Local One come out evenly - in other words, if that's what it is, it's a no-win situation for anyone.

#56

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 1:34am

Okay first off I am new to this board. But I am here now because I could no longer refrain from responding to comments I am reading. I love my job. And I want to keep doing it. That is the main issue at stake here. The Producer's are trying to convince everyone that we are hiring too many people. During the load-in we typically work 80 hour weeks. How can hiring less people improve this process? Shows are getting bigger, heavier, and much more complex. And to make things more difficult we are loading this 21st century technology into 19th century theatres. It requires more men to safely lift and install these larger scale productions. Now don't get me wrong, there are many times when there is not as much to do. But every person is needed and utilized in some way in order to safely install these productions.
As far as this asinine complaint about hiring a flyman even when there are no cues during a show. What the uneducated are unaware of is that even if there are no fly cues during a show that there is always a fly system above the actors. This must be safely inspected and maintained at all times. Also, often it is necessary for lighting to require maintenance during preset. The flyman is on hand to bring the lighting in so electricians can do necessary maintenance. What people don't seem to understand is what a collaborative effort the entire process is. Every department is there to support each other.
Why does everybody believe these #'s being thrown around? I am a union stagehand. I work very hard as many weeks a year as I am able to find work. I guarantee you I do not make anywhere near $150,00 a year. But since the Producer's have thrown out this number everyone assumes it is true.
Sorry about the long post. I could go on for hours.

#57

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 1:42am

UnionMade....welcome, and well said.

"God, I hope it's not a REAL emergency...I only brought one bottle of Vodka!" That's my Diva Dog, Sake in the picture.

#58

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 1:46am

80 hour weeks yeah. My last 2 weeks working, I think we worked 105 or 112 hour weeks. Trust me, I would rather be at home in bed.

And 99% of the set the carpenters brought in was built of steel because it's "cheaper than wood", they say. So instead of picking up 2x4's or 2x6's, the guys are picking up I-beams.

#59

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 1:53am

UnionMade,
Not all shows are getting bigger, and if I read it right, what the producers want is more flexibility, so that they can hire more people if needed and less people if they're just going to stand around. For a big show, it seems definite that they would hire the same amount they do now if not more. But if they don't need people, they should be given the right to give you advance notice that they will only need the electrics for 2 weeks although they'll need the carps for 4 weeks. They have said that they are willing to raise Local one's wages in exchange for this flexibility.

In regards to the Flyman: who currently inspects the fly space now? Couldn't this be a temporary position (an inspector comes in once every two months and gets paid $500 a visit)? Why do the producers need to hire someone every night?

I believe the $150,000 number is for union members who are employed year round by the production. I respect that you are a hard worker, and I think everyone on Broadway respects the skills you bring and that you should be fairly compensated for them. However, I think you should also be able to see that what the producers is just efficiency without sacrificing quality and safety. It just makes sense. Nobody benefits from this strike.

#60

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:28am

First, I am a theatregoer that used to work at a regional professional theatre under LORT B and D contracts. Just figured I had better say where I am coming from.

First off, I believe in the integrity and value of the stagehands. Their intrinsic value and hard earned knowledge can't be quantified in the same way that a teacher's value and know how are invaluable. They provide expert service and support.

What does bother me though is that a Local One representative compared the payment of stagehands when there is no work to the jobs of firemen who wait for fires. There is little to be compared here. Firemen work for the public good and are supported with tax payer dollars. They perform a service that many would agree requires them to ready and available. (Now, don't get me wrong, when I see reality shows and the like where firemen are sitting around eating filet mignon while I am eating macaroni and cheese, I am a bit urked.) The service and support of stagehands, while valuable and essential, is not the same. Yes, they provide safety skills and knowledge which we all now keeps theatregoers safe in their seats, but the comparison is odd and ill-fitting.

Secondly, One NYC StageHand brought up that one of the reasons for the desire of the League to reduce inactive salaries was that they were attempting to return investments sooner. I actually think, IMO, that this could help union stagehands. If the chance of a show's success is truly 20% as some suggest than seeking to return money to investors sooner could lead to a more attractice investment environment, thereby enticing more investors, thereby creating opportunities for more shows, thereby creating additional work for union stagehands. I think it might be better to think of having more shows in the pipeline than to try to assert that any show will last as long and provide income for workers like the big megamusicals of the early and late 90's. With rising costs for everything from steel and oil, producers have to be keen to returning investments and creating revenue. It is, after all, a business.

Thirdly, Mr Tuttle suggests that paying someone $500 to mop the floor once a day in addition to their hourly wages is appropriate. I beg to differ. Think of it this way, what if the union stagehands were salaried at the suggested yet not corroborated rate of $150k per year? They would still mop the floor and still work 80-112 hours/week, but would also be sure to go home when there is no work to be done. Then what sense does it make to pay someone additional money to do something that they could do as part of their normal work? Why would someone pay someone to sit around for 4 hours if only 2 hours of work is needed? I understand we all have to make a living, but it doesn't make sense. Maybe the union should consider flat rate wages for such periods of time. Base the amount on the higher end of labor and hours, that way they know exactly what to expect in terms of wages and the union stagehands are appropriately compensated and guaranteed a certain amount. Just postulating here, I know it will never happen, but it could work.

Fourthly, I think Tkt2Ride's suggestion that if people are unhappy they should start their own union is preposterous. That's like saying if you don't like your local cable company go start your own. The prevelance and pervasiveness of unions has significantly diminished over the past several decades, and the mitigating costs of founding a new union are far too high.

Fifthly, UnionMade suggests that having a flyman on hand to potentially bring in lights if in fact one of them needs to be fixed and that fly spaces need to be checked for safety daily is befuddling. What ever happened to cross training? Is there not someone else there who can fly in the lights if they need to be fixed? Do we need someone to be on hand everyday to ensure that the fly doesn't come tumbling down? Am I wrong here? Help me to understand if I have misunderstood.
Having a flyman there being paid to stare at the rafters in the off chance that a screw comes loose during performance is like saying that every aircraft should fly with a mechanic on board in case a screws flies off the plane in flight. The problem can be fixed when the show has "landed" and/or by someone who is likely to already be at the performance working the show.

Ok, I have said enough. I respect the stagehands but I also respect the fact that a producer does not want to pay for inactive salaries. If the union workers want to continue to be paid by the hour, then they have to deal with the consequences of hourly work. I am not saying that there should be no guarantee of wages and hours, but we have to be realistic about how much they are.

All of the above are solely IMO. If I am wrong about something or misunderstood something, please enlighten me. But for the love of God, please don't start berating my personal character because I expressed my opinions.

#61

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:53am

NDR, I am pretty much in agreement with you. If that is, in fact, the case with stagehands this should change. On t he other side of things, I think it is awful that the producers have this war chest that we, the theatergoers paid into. I suspect most producers have lucrative jobs/ventures outside of producing shows and really don't need this war chest money.

Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder

#62

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 11:44am

Amen brother. I agree with you because a lot of union members I know have a second job. I am just an extra employee in Dayton and I barely make enough to live and I have another theatre job and same thing. I think if you look at we have more then one job. Maybe not in theatre, more in resturants, just to let you know I support Local One.

#63

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 12:08pm

I just had to say one small thing that is making me very sad about this whole strike. That members of my union (AEA) will speak out against Local One. If you think that this just a few weeks of lost work due to greedy stage hands, then you are so very very wrong. We are next and it is very important that we stand strong and stand together. Because when the League turns its eyes to us these men and women will be by our side. So enjoy the strike kids, cause next summer it is going to happen all over again with Actors and Stage Managers. I mean how we can trust a League of Theaters that has openly compared Actors to nothing more then incidental works, no better then migrant labor that is easy to replace. I stand with you Local One as does the whole cast and stage management staff of Wicked!!!!!!

#64

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 3:42pm

Ok, there seems to be a lot of mudslinging here.

Where is this mythical statement from local one? Noone here once has posted a link to it or anything to substantially back up what they are saying.

And for everyone in a union that is complaining about how they don't get what IATSE members get, that is your union's fault. They negotiate a contract on your behalf. If you have a problem say something to them, not to a message board on the internet.

Does anyone here know the cost of living in New York City for a single person, a married couple, and a family of four? Please someone post it here and then decide if stagehands can live off of their salary or not.

Another common thing I see here is that people feel that stagehands should get another job if they don't think they make enough money. I am a union stagehand, I work at theaters, convention centers, arenas, hotels, casinos, schools, and other venues as a carpenter, electrician, property man, fly man, rigger, dresser, sound man, projectionist, and a party decorator just to name a few of things I do as a stagehand. I travel between Massachusetts and New Jersey doing these things just so that I cannot make enough to pay my rent, bills, and feed myself. In addition to being a stagehand, I work on boats, computers, web pages, building things, wiring houses, raking leaves, driving people around, and anything else that I can do to earn a little extra money. So yes, I have a second job and in fact I have a 45th job. I also pay for continuing education so that I can be fully qualified to do my job and use equipment that I need to effectively get the job done.

MrTuttle: Where did you see this $500 figure? Please show the rest of us your crystal ball.

Bobby Maler: How many LORT Theaters have IATSE crews? Maybe AEA should walk out of all the non-union ones until they hire a union crew? AEA has several different touring contracts, if a producer wishes to use them then so be it. I have been a local on a lot of AEA tours and meanwhile there crews are all non-union. If you want us to stop doing non-AEA tours then you guys need to stop doing non-IA tours. I will never forget the day I was backstage working on an out of town tryout of a show at a nonunion theater talking to an AEA stage manager about one of our friends he was on a yellow card and he said that our friend should not being doing the tour because it was not an AEA show. I said to him, "What are you talking about? This isn't an IATSE house so with your logic you shouldn't be working here either." And he said, "That doesn't matter, this is different." If I picked up the dictionary at the moment and looked up hypocrit I'm sure that I would have seen his face. By the way, stop speaking out against your union. AEA has publicly stated that they support the strike action and you therefore should support it as well or take a hike. Also check your constitution and by laws and see what it says about crossing a picket line and how it will affect your membership of that union. While I myself have some issues with some of the things being asked for and can see where the producers are coming from, I fully support Local One in their fight because I know they will support me in mine. They have good reasons to threaten a strike let alone strike, unlike all the actors I know that have threatened to not perform because the air conditioning was broken.

BwayJerry: You are right, it is illegal to air something on TV without a person's consent, which is why when people shoot street scenes and I am walking down the street I don't have a PA running after me with a consent form. And I don't follow you on how cutting the chorus from 4 to 2 isn't a necessity? It's pretty simple, if I'm producing a show and I only want to pay 2 chorus people then there are only going to be 2 chorus people. You can have 4, but I'm only paying for 2. I know you're thinking right now, "But keeping the crew at 4 is ok?" No, we can just replace everyone on the crew with automation and midi controller and have the musicians fire all the lighting, sound, carpentry cues. Better yet, we can just record a CD of the orchestra and have it timecoded and let the show be run that way, I'm sure that the actors always sing at the same tempo and never jump a lyric. This way all we need is a conductor and a stage manager at most. All you have to do is hit play when it's time for the music and things will just magicly work. Noone will notice the difference nor be there to stop scenery from running down the people on stage when they're in the wrong spot or behind because afterall, nothing ever goes wrong in live theater. As for non-union touring, look above. If AEA can send showso out with a non-union crew, why can't we? As for the "cry for help" to IATSE, from how you have it phrased that is between AEA and the International General Office. Local One does not exclusivley provide stagehand labor around the country.

I think I need to explain what IATSE is, what is going with this strike, and how IATSE striking with other unions works. IATSE stands for the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. This, unlike equity, is an alliance of hundreds of local unions that have banded together in mutual support of one another. They represent stagehands, projectionists, script supervisors, arena facility workers, and ticket takers to just name a few jobs covered by them. Right now, Theatrical Protective Union Local One, the local that covers stagehands in broadway theaters, is on strike. The president of IATSE, Tom Short, not the president of Local One, James Claffey Jr, has authorized the strike and directed all of it's members to support Local One and to strike with them in the event that they are presented with an official road call from Local One. If an IATSE member does not strike when presented with the offical road call, they are subject to immediate expulsion from IATSE. Now, if AEA or AFM were to go on strike, IATSE members cannot exercise a strike in support of affilate unless authorized to do so by the General Office. So if, for example, AEA or AFM went on strike and Local One said, "Everyone strike with the actors," without recieving authorization from the General Office, the IATSE members who do so are now partaking in an illegal strike action and are subject to fines, suspension, or expulsion from IATSE upon conviction. Furthermore Local One may also be fined and they face a possible suspension and/or revocation of it's charter. Keep that in mind the next time you say IATSE/Local One doesn't support us, everyone has protocols that they need to follow.

bk: I think the problem here is that 38% of the jobs are being taken away and the league feels that by giving a substantial wage increase to the 62% of people still being employed will compensate the 38% of people who now are making $0.00. I don't recall there ever being a room at a theater that has a sign on it, "Non-working Stagehands Report Here." The load-in of a show is organized chaos. One minute one department has nothing to do, the next there are 5 different crews from that department fighting for space with 5 other departments to try and get their job done. And then later on, 2 crews of guys are working while 3 others are waiting an hour for the truck to get into the dock area because some guy decided he could park his car in the way.

Tkt2Ride: Thanks for pointing out that the League threatened to Lockout Local One. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that back in October members of Local One didn't know if they would be allowed into the building to work let alone if they had a contract to work under. Also thanks for touching on what happens at a contract negotiation. In a good negotiation session, both sides go in asking for everything immaginable and then each side picks and chooses things to be cut in return for a concession from the other side.

Jrybka: It's the same thing in regional theaters, community playhouses, and nonprofits. A lot of them use unions, yes even community playhouses. And I resent that comment you made about not doing it "for the love of the lights but for the green in the wallet." I love what I do for a living, but I need to be able to support myself so I can continue to be living.

tourboi: Yes, the merchandising for a show is done by an outside company hired by the producers of the show who get a percentage of that sale. What you failed to mention is that a percentage of the sale also goes to the theater which they are selling the merchandise in. Please, learn a little bit about merchandising and then come back and talk about how theaters don't get anything from a show.

Bobby Maler: Your ignorance again is overwhelming, shows may not appear to be getting "bigger" but they are. By trying to keep construction costs down, scenery is now being built tougher and more durable which means that things are heavier. IE bugmenot's comment about having to move steel i-beams instead of wood. I myself can lift a 100 lbs bag of sand without too much of a problem. But when it comes to moving a 30 foot steel i-beam, you need at least 4 guys if not more. Who currently inspects the flyspace now? The flyman. Couldn't this be a temporary inspection? Well yes it could be, but a show in a theater is a temporary installation which required specialized construction and installation which needs to be checked daily to make sure that nothing that was temporarily installed is failing that day or about to fail. If something heavy is evenly distributed across five chains hanging from a grid and one of those five chains it up fails, the other four chains now are taking more weight than they are designed to do and any/all of them may fail due to an increased load which they may not be rated for. And heaven forbid there's a higher shock chains then they are rated for when one of them fails because that too could result in failure. As for guys being paid $150,000 a year round by the production, it is my understanding, and I'm sure some of the one guys here can confirm it, that the production does not pay employees on the Local One payroll! They are paid by the individual theaters that are being rented by the production. The only stage hands paid for by the production are the production people which are on a seperate contract that is not in dispute here.

NDR: My hometown has 10 paid firemen 2 in each of the 5 departments. The rest are all volunteers who pay dues to a fire company, pay for their own certifications, and run these companies. They put their lives on the line at no cost to me, why should every NYC firefighter get paid when only 10 guys in my hometown get paid? Also, as a theatergoer you are paying a company to provide you with entertainment. It doesn't matter to you if there is 1 stagehand or 1000 on the show, you just want to be entertained. Tkt2Ride is right, if you don't like your working conditions and know a bunch of other like minded people who don't like theirs then call the NLRB and say, "My coworkers and I want to form a union because we do not like our working conditions." At which point you will now have one voice instead of many, you will pay dues and assement on the work that the union has bargained for on your behalf and if there is a problem in the work place with your employer, the union will support you. As for cross training, many stagehands do know how to do other jobs in theater. Besides the fact that it is not the job of the electrician to run the fly rail, one of the underlying problems is that the fly rail in theaters are sometimes 70 feet off the ground. This means they have to spend 10 minutes now climbing up and down a ladder or some staircase just to to get to/from the fly rail only to go back to fix the problem that they found. Once they spend the necessary time trouble shooting and fixing the problem with the light, they now have to spend another 10 minutes climbing up/down a ladder to bring the lights back to their respective storage position. During all this though work has come to a halt on the stage because there is a lighting pipe blocking access to other parts of the stage and the scenery cannot be moved to it's proper postitions so that they can open the house in time to let the audience in which causes the curtain to go up late, which now causes the crew, the musicians, and the actors to go into overtime because they show exceeded the amount of time specified in their contracts. So the production has now paid a thousand dollars worth of overtime because they didn't want to pay one guy to be on site to deal with any unforseen problems that may occur. That seems like bad business to me. And yes, you do need someone on hand everyday to ensure the saftey of temporary rigging and scenery.

uncageg: I'll tell you what is worse than the producers using money from the general public to fund a war chest is using money from the tickets union members have purchased to fund a war chest. It sucks to be paying for something that can only hurt you.

And lastly fsuchris is right. It's sad to see so many people, who claim to be members of AEA, speaking out against a union that they work hand in hand with on a daily basis, let another AFL-CIO affiliated union. In the 121 year history of Local One, they had never called a strike until now regardless of their work conditions and contract negotiations, can AEA say the same?

#65

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 4:53pm

Thank you Leko, I appreciate it and how hard you have to work to make shows run smoothly.

Fourthly, I think Tkt2Ride's suggestion that if people are unhappy they should start their own union is preposterous. That's like saying if you don't like your local cable company go start your own. The prevelance and pervasiveness of unions has significantly diminished over the past several decades, and the mitigating costs of founding a new union are far too high.

No, that isn't a great example. Though many have done just that in California, we have at least three to choose from for Cable. I subscribe to none of them because they don't carry some of the stations I want to see. Until then, I rent Movies, go to Theatres or buy what I like in the Stores.

We do agree, it costs a lot of money to run a Union. We however disagree on how much of an influence they have in our everyday work environment. I feel it is worth the expense and have benefited from being a Union Member and my Families being Members. It is never, at least to me, a waste to organize and represent yourself as a group. When you do, your wages are higher, your hours are fair and your family has something to look forward to when you retire. It is nice to pay one fee to get your insurance, investments and employment contracts all covered with one or two monthly pmts. A lot more reasonable then paying three separate people to do the same thing.

So many Companies won't even hire you if you aren't in the Union. They know if you are a Union worker, your work was graded and you are better qualified for the job. Union workers tend to be more reliable and they come to you already with benefits they pay out of their own pockets. Not all workers who are Union have the best reputation but over all, if they are willing to do the work to become Union Members, just like a College Degree, it shows you are at least someone who is responsible enough to meet their minimum requirements and take care of your own benefits.

Again, laws can be and do change constantly with little or no notice. How many of you voted to torture prisoners from Iraq? I mean every Politician I know of cares a lot about what the Unions have to say because they are collectively a very big voting block across the Country. Take a closer look at Countries that have no Unions and then tell me how we don't need Unions anymore.

Maybe, you don't need a Union. Fair enough but please, don't try to tell people who know better that they do not have the right or need for organized representation in order to keep wages in line with inflation. We just don't agree. Luckily, our Country is big enough for both views. I personally hope to not see you in any Union Business or Show because of your total disdain for the organization. Or are you supporting the very thing you object to? If so, than, your words really are meaningless.

Unions are what have brought many people out of poverty into a good life. I will never kick or knock any organization that can accomplish that. I support them in every way that I can.

#66

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 5:03pm

And where is that? Because none of the teachers in my family are making money like that.....and they range from new in teaching to retired.....elementary.....middle and high school, located in New York and Pennsylvania.
It's a rediculous world we live in when baseball players and movie stars make millions of dollars a year and the people who are the foundation of society....teachers....police officers....firemen.....nurses can barely get by.
How many of us know people in those professions who work extra jobs to make ends meet? Nobody is saying that stagehands shouldn't make that $150,000 a year but please don't say teachers make that kind of money because in most cases they don't

#67

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 5:07pm

Leko....With all due respect, I don't think it is any worse that producers are using money from tickets union members purchase. I think it is wrong all the way around. None of US sees that money. And when they, the union members, buy the tickets, in my opinion, they become theatergoers. They are not at work, they are enjoying a show. I costs a lot for me to fly in from Denver, see shows and have a good time. So knowing this surcharge is in place ticks me off. I am already spending a lot.

Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder

#68

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 5:18pm

I guess what I continue to find odd is that Local One is clearly asking their members to come on to the theater chat boards to state their case - whether they're stating it well or not I leave to others - I do think the bombast thick from both sides, but, as I've said, I have seen no League person identifying themselves here and posting rhetoric. There seems to be a local one member to respond to every single post made by anyone, whether that anyone is in agreement or non-agreement, but I really don't see a lot of actual questions being answered in a straight-forward manner. Knowing that a goodly number of people who post on this board are in their teens, just what exactly is being gained by this onslaught of postings? And I think it's pretty clear that there are any number of AEA members who are not siding with Local One, just as there are many who are. It's not black-and-white.

#69

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 5:32pm

"I guess what I continue to find odd is that Local One is clearly asking their members to come on to the theater chat boards to state their case"

It may be true, or not. But, why can't the members be coming by their on volition? There are over 3 thousand members of Local One, my guess is if the Local was actually encouraging it's members to post here and on other boards, you'd be seeing a huge influx of new posters, not just the handful that have been posting. And just because someone doesn't state that they're from the League doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't.

"Just a Guy. Your feelings are touching. I am gladdened by the thought that you will one day wind up 6 feet under as we all do." - MrRoxy ------ "I do not suggest you walk out the door onto a New York street with your vulnerable child part exposed and not protected..." - Jason Bennett

Updated On: 11/12/07 at 05:32 PM

#70

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 5:48pm

"I guess what I continue to find odd is that Local One is clearly asking their members to come on to the theater chat boards to state their case".

What you don't understand is that not only did Local 1 not send us but we could probably get into some serious trouble for talking at all. I work in NYC under a different contract at a different theater so I'm not on strike but I hate to see my brothers and sisters attacked. Far too many people are just taking the line the producers are putting out as truth and some of us are trying to give our side of the story. If I see someone saying Local 1 stagehands average $150,000 I can't just sit back and let that go. The median is $67,000 plus benefits for full time Broadway employees.

I blame George Bush for all of this.......

#71

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 6:24pm

NDR-

On the four hour minimum. That is the law of the land. It is to protect workers from being called in, having to pay expenses to commute back to work when they should have or otherwise could have been scheduled to do the work. Whether you are a Union Company or not. I guess there might be a few exceptions but in California, again even if you work at McDonalds, you are required to pay or work that employee for four hours.

If you schedule someone to do that job for two hours, that is different than calling someone in to do the work on their day off.

That example is just proof of how important good management is. Things happen of course beyond anyone's control but this also explains why it is still cheaper to have someone on the clock in case something goes wrong than to have to haul their butts in to solve your technical worries.

#72

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 6:42pm

"What you don't understand is that not only did Local 1 not send us but we could probably get into some serious trouble for talking at all. I work in NYC under a different contract at a different theater so I'm not on strike but I hate to see my brothers and sisters attacked. Far too many people are just taking the line the producers are putting out as truth and some of us are trying to give our side of the story. If I see someone saying Local 1 stagehands average $150,000 I can't just sit back and let that go. The median is $67,000 plus benefits for full time Broadway employees."

I don't know that I buy that Local One isn't encouraging people to come on the chat boards, and there are indeed Local One people who've just registered to do so, both here and at All That Chat. It's all fine, but I will continue to find it odd that these boards are the battlefield. I will continue to say that I am not taking sides - I think both parties have points to make, but what you're basically saying is that the League's saying that stagehands average $150,000 is horse manure and we shouldn't buy it, but we SHOULD buy you saying that Local One's figure IS correct. I think the truth lies somewhere in between - on these boards there are no facts, just rhetoric from both parties.

#73

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 6:45pm

Apparently, the art of sarcasm is a dead one.

NDR - In now way would I ever think it was legit to pay someone $500 to mop the stage as well as pay them an hourly salary. But the Union insists that it must be done. For the benefit of mankind.

Leko2 - You want proof that the Union makes them pay $500 to mop the stage? You are obviously a union person. Look at the contract. I have. And notice the other ridiculous fees the Union wants.

Teachers, firemen, policemen...we don't need them!! As long as the props person is happy.

Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity last forever. Watch out BWW... HE'S BACK.

#74

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 7:01pm

"I don't know that I buy that Local One isn't encouraging people to come on the chat boards, and there are indeed Local One people who've just registered to do so, both here and at All That Chat. It's all fine, but I will continue to find it odd that these boards are the battlefield. I will continue to say that I am not taking sides - I think both parties have points to make, but what you're basically saying is that the League's saying that stagehands average $150,000 is horse manure and we shouldn't buy it, but we SHOULD buy you saying that Local One's figure IS correct."

Local One would be extremely displeased with any member posting on this board or any other, or speaking to the press.

As to the $150,000 median yearly? Absurd. Not even close. Do a handful of stagehands make that? Yes. But they work ridiculously long hours to do it. Not even a stagehand with a regular show working 52 weeks a year, six days a week, makes that. Not without taking on extra work.

#75

re: Local 1's statement -- are they serious?

Posted: 11/12/07 at 7:03pm

Honestly, I don't have much sympathy for the stagehands. Don't get me wrong, I have a great respect for how much work they put in and what it is they do, and how difficult it must be for them. However, I think in terms of what they're striking for, they don't have it so bad. One could argue that they deserve more money for whatever hardships they apparently endure so frequently that shutting down broadway is the obvious solution, but they're the ones who chose their jobs, and what they're asking for is a littl ebit ridiculous. Unfortunately, though, they have the producers by the, well, you know. But stagehands have it good and are asking for a little much. I'm not sure what offers local one was made during the talks, but whatever it was, if it was closer to what they wanted they should have taken it considering, again, they don't have it so bad to begin with, and it was by no means a good idea for this to happen.

Can, can I have it?

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95