Local 1's statement -- are they serious? — Page 5

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#101

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

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

Local1Crew:

I am going to stop badgering you. You are right to say that I do not know what you do for a job but I just personally feel that the ones who are going to hurt the most are the theater goers. That was my 1st and most important comment.

Again, I am not saying your job is not important... lord knows there have been plenty of people who have made me sound and look so much better when I am on stage because of their amazing talent... (you might be suprised to know I am an actor and singer)...
but if the theater world as a whole cannot come together to make this right, there will be no theater goers to come to the theaters.

And then all this will be in vain.

"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."

#102

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:33pm

Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.

#103

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:34pm

BobbyMaler,

IATSE never supported AEA?? REmember Baltimore about 5 years ago?? Remember Boston about 4 years ago?? I was on both tours that stopped working because AEA was upset.. No support?? Get a clue. It's people like you that "think they know it all" that get the general public believing in nonsense.. SO, if an electrician shouldnt' get paid for waiting for a carpenter to hang his chain motors then a AEA swing shouldn't get paid sitting in a theatre doing nothing waiting for an actor to get sick...

PROUD IATSE MEMBER

"But they (and all of us) should be treated with respect...and should not expect their salary to be CUT without something else being offered as compensation"

That is just plain wrong. I'm sorry, no offense, people, but please do your part and educate yourselves on this issue. Nobody is cutting salaries; Wages is not what this debate is about. The producers are simply looking to pay people for the work they do and not have to pay extra people to sit around and do nothing. If you were a business owner, would you tolerate paying an employee to sit around and do nothing? Currently, if producers need carpenters for 10 weeks, they have to hire electrics and props for 10 weeks as well, regardless of whether there is work for them to do. If they need electrics to work overtime, everyone has to get paid overtime as well. IATSE's final proposal included mandates that producers hire a Fly Person at every show, regardless of whether a show had scenery that needed to be flown in. Does that seem fair to you?

I am an Equity actor, and I urge all my union brothers and sisters NOT to support IATSE in this selfish tirades. They are ruining the credibility of unions for everyone. IATSE has never bothered to support Equity in their fight. If IATSE members had refused to work on non-union tours, there would now be more union tours and more Equity members working.

The producers seem to respect their skilled labor and unions in general. They recognize that Broadway unions are among the most skilled and talented labor in the world. $150,000 is on the low end of what stagehands make. The median is more like $200,000. I WISH I could make that much as an actor! They need to stop whining and do what is best for the entire industry.

#104

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:38pm

JasonF,
you also didn't put in the same hours making your 50k a year, plus you had summer vacation.. You might not know, but broadway doesn't take summer break, or christmas vacation.. Just because a broadway show is only 2-3 hours long doesn't mean that's the time we work. Stagehands are there sometimes 2 hours before the show starts, and some there hours after the show is over. So the next time you go to a broadway show and have dinner before the show, we are already at the theatre setting up the show for the night.. and when you go get a drink after the show we're still there closing up shop...

"working a show full time for a year,doing all of the extra work calls,and working an extra load in for 4 weeks, i made less than 90 grand."

Cry me a freaking river. I'm a teacher, been teaching for 6 years, I barely clear 50. WAH WAH WAH.

#105

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:39pm

"Working a show full time for a year,doing all of the extra work calls,and working an extra load in for 4 weeks, i made less than 90 grand."

Did I really read this?/ Am I dreaming? Bitching cause they made only $90,000 this year?

And that, my friends, is all we need to know.

At least our teachers make more than that. Yes sir. They educate the future, put in long hours and weekends, take work home, plus pay for student's supplies. They make over $100,00 a year. So why are we complaining?

:)

(smiley face for those who are not familiar with the use of sarcasm)

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

#106

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:40pm

"working a show full time for a year,doing all of the extra work calls,and working an extra load in for 4 weeks, i made less than 90 grand."

Cry me a freaking river. I'm a teacher, been teaching for 6 years, I barely clear 50. WAH WAH WAH.

i am not crying. you chose your profession just as i chose mine.
before everybody was yelling about the producers numbers of 150,000. now that i have lowered it by over 60k you are still yelling.

instead of bitching about how much i make, why not try to better your own salaries?

#107

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:43pm

roadguy~
I have to say that your comment about teachers is kind-a rude.
My sister is a teacher and she works summer schools and works on the weekends and pays for most of her suplies and she barely brings home 50,000.

#108

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:52pm

Jrybka,

Plain and simple.. If she's content with making 50k a year good for her.. Teachers are very important to our future. I have nothing but respect for them.. Local One Stagehands aren't content with what they are making.. The producers seem to think that any "joe" off the street can do the job.. This isn't the case and so they should be paid. Not sure what level your sister teaches in, but ex: if she's a gradeschool teacher she probably doesn't have the knowledge/certification to be a college prof. If she wants to make more than 50k a year, she needs to speak up the same way Local One is.

roadguy~
I have to say that your comment about teachers is kind-a rude.
My sister is a teacher and she works summer schools and works on the weekends and pays for most of her suplies and she barely brings home 50,000.

#109

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:53pm

$150K a year is survival salary in NY? Wow, and I thought my $18,000 to $25,000K a year was helping me survive. I am single, unmarried and have no children . . . yet, if I married one of my "class" or peers -- we make about $50,000 a year as dual income couple. We add a child, well, then we'd live in NY as a family for $50,000 a year.

Thus, to me, $150,000 sounds like luxury to me!

Don't get me wrong, I am supporting the strike as an Actor/Singer (I make my money doing office work, by the by).

Nevertheless, wow, when they go back to work . . . besides the fact I want to be on the stage making my $1,509 a week or more. While I am auditioning and working on getting on that Broadway stage -- I'd GLADLY do stage crew work (and have in semi-professional settings) for $150,000 a year. That would be amazing for me, like being a "rich person".

As some have stated -- I am a bit confused on what is going on. Do they want to hire more crew workers (I am here, ready to do that!)? Do they want more money? Do they want better working conditions? I am truly confused. Or is that they want to let go a lot of workers?

Love and Stage Lights, Angela Theresa

#110

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:57pm

roadguy,
My sister does wish she made more.
And we as a community should be doing more for the teachers in our world. They are some of the hardest working lowest paid people and yet we give our children to them and pin our futures to them.
I just think that 50,000 is way too little for a teacher.

#111

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:59pm

AngActing,

You say you make 18 to 25k a year, then you said you want to be back on stage making your $1509 a week.. That totals to over 72k with 4 weeks of vacation built in. (1509 x 48 weeks) Do you get paid for your rehearsals during a run of a show?? THen why shouldn't stagehands get paid for maintinence on the show?? WHy is this so hard for people to understand??

#112

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 9:59pm

It's insulting to have the stage hands think it's OK for teachers to make less.

I guess what teachers do pales in comparison to the life changing work of the stage hands.

It's so interesting that they are telling teachers that it's their fault they make less than their $90,000 and telling them to quit.

Wow. With logic like that, you can see that IATSE is concerned with the future.

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

Updated On: 11/12/07 at 09:59 PM

#113

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:06pm

Mr. Tuttle,

who said it was ok for teachers to make less than stagehands??
There are a lot of people who do jobs that get paid less than others.. Whats the difference between a hollywood actor and a Broadway actor?? I think getting in front of a house of 3k people is worse than behind a camera.. Yet Hollywood gets paid millions per movie.. Pro athletes... THe difference between a doctor in the US and a doctor in a 3 world country?? Your comment was not a response to what anyone had said and so far off topic...

It's insulting to have the stage hands think it's OK for teachers to make less.

#114

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:12pm

>> AngActing, You say you make 18 to 25k a year. . .

Yes, I do . . .so far.

>> then you said you want to be back on stage making your $1509
>> a week.

No, you don't understand, I haven't made it to Broadway yet! I know that is what they pay by reading "Backstage". I am still an "aspiring" Broadway actor/singer! My theatre experience is Off Off Broadway and community theatre and rep. I am NOT in AEA, yet. I am working on that now . . . but still haven't accomplished it. But, hey, thank you for the vote of enthusiasm about me wanting to "go back on stage" on Broadway! From your typing to God's ears that I can say that!!! Woo Hoo!

>> That totals to over 72k with 4 weeks of vacation built in.
>> (1509 x 48 weeks)

And what a pleasure it would be for me to make that kind of money! Yes, I want that! And to be paid anything to do what I love would be all the pleasure. In fact, if they'd put me on Broadway, as an Actor/Singer for $25,000 a year; I'D DO IT IT IN A NEW YORK MINUTE!!! I could be dirt poor and happy just being on Broadway (when it's on, that is).

>> Do you get paid for your rehearsals during a run of a show??

I think so . . . but am not sure. AEA requires this, right? Oh, I cannot wait to join; yet, I have to wait until I earn it.

>> THen why shouldn't stagehands get paid for maintinence on the
>> show?? WHy is this so hard for people to understand??

I am not in disagreement. You misunderstand. There's just so many posts about what it is they are striking for . . . and I am fully confused. Is it money? Or is it to have less crew members or more? From what I gather, some say it is NOT about salaries or pay . . . it's about having crew members who get paid to sit around and do nothing. Although, I do not know if that is true; or even if stage hands sit around and do nothing. I have been a Stage Manager (also Off Off Broadway and other theatre venues -- thus semi-professional, as I was paid) and no one was sitting around doing nothing.

It is just confusing exactly what is going on. And again, I support the stage crew! I think they should get what they need or want if it means I get to be in (at some point) and enjoy seeing Broadway shows!!!

Love and Stage Lights, Angela Theresa

#115

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

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

roadguy - I have no idea what your rambling post is about. Here's a secret (apparently to you, as well)..I agree with you.

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

#116

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:19pm

Here is the best quite of the evening (from the other board) made by a proud IATSE member:

"6 figures" the league gasps as if this were Mecca. 6 figures barely supports a family of 4 in the New York area.

And that's a wrap.

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

#117

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:31pm

"And have you not for years been paid to do exactly that? And will you not, when the dust is settled, still be paid to do that? "

To which localonecrew replied:

"No."

And with this one simple two-letter word you lose because you simply refuse to answer a simple question with an honest answer and "no" is not an honest answer, since you would, in fact, be paid for your services once this strike is settled (whichever way it goes, and I think it's becoming clear which way it's going to go and it's because of people like you using two-letter words like "no" when the answer is clearly "yes"). Your union, I'm afraid, should (but wouldn't be) ashamed of you making these disingenuous posts. You can shout to the heavens how the League is putting out misinformation and such, but with your simple two-letter answer of "no" you are equally as guilty. When this strike is settled (and it will be) and when you go back to work, you will STILL be making your good salary for doing your good job and no amount of you disingenuously saying "no" is going to change that. Whether you like the ultimate settlement or not (and, given the way these things go, both you and the League will compromise and you'll all say WE WON even though you haven't), you WILL be paid if you work. "No," I'm afraid, was the incorrect answer, but a sadly typical one. You simply cannot have an honest discourse - which is amusing since you continue to say the other side cannot do so. Frankly, both sides should stop with the public message board bull**** and go back to the table. Oh, that's right - can't go back until there's "respect." It's time for BOTH parties to show some respect, don't you think?

The word "aver" is a four-letter word - its meaning is simple. Look it up. Maybe it will help you understand my other point, which, even the teens on this site could probably comprehend.

Updated On: 11/12/07 at 10:31 PM

#118

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:32pm

AngActing,

I undertand you now. SOrry for the confusion. Not being a member of Local One I can't pin point exactly what the strike is concerning. It's the business of Local One. I'm a member of another IATSE local in the US. Basically, in my opinion and understanding, the producers feel that the pay given to Local One stagehands is causing shows to become failures. The producers feel they hire more stagehands than needed to setup and run shows. And producers feel they pay stagehands for "extras" that should be included in show call pay.

Basically it boils down to this. A.)stagehands work many weeks of 14+ hour days to setup a show. When a show goes into a broadway house, things are modified specifically for that show. Producers think a snap of a finger and 22 semi's of lighting/sound/scenery should be setup in a theatre. B.) when setting up a show for the first time, no one knows how many hands it takes to setup the show safely. Producers seem to think that stagehands sit around wasting away the day because we don't have lives and would rather sleep at the theatre all day. I for one, enjoy spending money that I work hard for doing other things i love to do, i don't wanna be in the theatre longer than i have to. C.)Producers feel that at last minute they can hold a rehearsal without paying extra for the time spent by the actors or crew. If we went without some form of compensation the producers would hold rehearsals 24/7.

Updated On: 11/12/07 at 10:32 PM

#119

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:36pm

I just listened to NY1 online live. The issue of the $150,000 salary came up. The guy from the union said, yes, it is possible that some stagehands can make that. he explained that some make it because the go to work in the morning to work on one show and the work until midnight on a second show. But not all stagehands make that money. He said that they make somewhere around 80 or 90 I think. I don't live there, but I know how much my friend pays for his studio apt. Twice what I pay for a spacious 600 plus feet one bedroom here in Denver. The cost of living is high there. I have no problem with a stagehand making that amount of money. But, as I have said before, I do have a problem if they are getting paid for work they don't do.

Just give the world Love. - S. Wonder

#120

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:41pm

It's so obvious, that people only see what they want to see in these threads:

The League says the stagehands make and average of $150,000 a year. Yet, a working stagehand comes here and refutes that, and people still go right back to the $150,000 a year figure. So, why bother asking the question if when you get the answer you simply ignore it?

Someone asks about Local One setting the number of workers on a load in. When that person is told it's not Local One who sets the numbers but the Production itself. It's ignored, why bother to ask the question if you don't want the answer.

Now the argument has turned to the worth of teachers over the worth of stage hands. As if either could be compared to the other. Get a grip folks, two different industries, two different sets of standards, two sets of pay scales. Teachers work in the public sector that's supported by tax dollars. If you feel that teachers are underpaid, then write your congressmen and ask them to increase your taxes so that they can be paid more.

Stage hands work in the private sector where profit is the driving force. And despite what the League would like everyone to believe, Broadway is a profitable enterprise. If it wasn't how would they be able to set aside $20million as a strike fund? $20 million is enough to easily produce several B'way shows, and yet they've put that aside to ride out a strike. How would they be able to entice investors if they couldn't show the potential for profit?

And stagehands are part of what generates the profits, it should be fairly obvious by now, that if the stagehands are not part of puzzle the "show doesn't go on". Judging their salary against someone else's makes about as much sense as judging the value of Aspirin vs. Iced Tea. Both are good at what they do, but I wouldn't take Aspirin to quench my thirst nor Iced Tea to relieve a headache. Like wise I wouldn't ask a Teachers to rig a fly, or a stagehand to teach an Algebra class. Apples and Oranges folks, nothing more, nothing less.

"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

#121

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:44pm

Stagehands get paid for work they don't do... I keep hearing this....

So, someone tell me the difference between, me waiting for another department to finish their project on stage so I can continue the project i was hired to do AND

an emergency room staff getting paid waiting for a patient to enter the emergency room at 2am

a police officer getting paid to drive around a city waiting for a crime to be commited

a fireman/woman playing darts in a firehouse, getting paid, waiting for a fire to break out

Because most people have NO CLUE what a load in of a show consists of, they have no idea how to comment on the statement made by the producers..

#122

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:46pm

JustAGuy,

Well said.....

#123

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:47pm

Roadguy is 100% correct on this. Most people have no idea what goes on at a real union load-in or strike. The rules are very strict and oftentime standing around is the fault of poor planning from those in charge, or is simply a result of circumstances...it's very easy for people to twist this whole thing into something against the stagehands when they really don't know what stagehands go through.

#124

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:50pm

"So, someone tell me the difference between, me waiting for another department to finish their project on stage so I can continue the project i was hired to do AND

an emergency room staff getting paid waiting for a patient to enter the emergency room at 2am

a police officer getting paid to drive around a city waiting for a crime to be commited

a fireman/woman playing darts in a firehouse, getting paid, waiting for a fire to break out"

Easy - those people save lives. You work for a SHOW.

And PLEASE do not compare the work you do to the amount of work a teacher does. You just sound foolish.

Hi, Shirley Temple Pudding.

#125

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

Posted: 11/12/07 at 10:52pm

jasonf - shut up.

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $71

Tickets From $95