Local one to start strike meetings 10/21

[winston89]

Posted: 10/13/07 at 8:00am

Accorrding to Playbill, there is a strike meeting planned for the local 1. They statd that the meeting does not mean that a strike is going to take place it is just to vote to see if they should strike an that they are going to use the time to have the workers think about what the strike could do to thier jobs.


http://www.playbill.com/news/article/111881.html



So, do you all think that there is going to be a strike.


If anything, this shoul show the producers that the stage hands want to play ball.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/13/07 at 8:14am

What do you mean by "play ball"?

[winston89]

Posted: 10/13/07 at 8:21am

sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I ment that these meetings would show the producerst that the uniion is very searous about the thought of a strike

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/13/07 at 8:31am

A strike will only hurt the industry and the relations between the two groups and put many people (in the theatre and others) out of work .
If they are so "serious" they should sit and talk and discuss how to end the conflict without a work stoppage.

[winston89]

Posted: 10/13/07 at 9:16pm

Yes, that may be true.

But you have to realize this. That as far as the producers are concerned they feel as if the union is not being mature about the situation. That they had given them more then a fair chance yet they aren't taking it.

If the producers want to continue making their money then they would be smart to do whatever the Union is demanding. The union is the one with leverage here. And that is they know that the producers cannot run any shows without them. All they are doing is using that to thier advantage. I think that this is a smart thing for them to do.

[JKlock]

Posted: 10/13/07 at 9:21pm

Wait, does this mean that all shows are safe to go on this week until the 21st? Or is it still a day by day issue..?

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 6:22am

You should be safe. Strikes are usually well publicized. They only happen as a last resort. They have been trying to talk things out, since July. It was the Producers who are provoking a strike by threatening a Lockout. That can come with only a days notice and is usually done abruptly. It is basically saying, we won't pay you until you agree to our demands, period. No negotiating under those terms. It is a bullying tactic.

Yet for the Union to give in means less job security, some will completely lose their jobs, while still others may find their work more dangerous since they are under staffed. These are very serious issues. The Union will only strike if they Producers refuse to be fair. It is quite clear that the Producers feel the Union workers cannot afford to be out of work so they are trying to take advantage of their situation. An earlier article stated that the Union will not strike over wages or benefits. They will only strike to save jobs and protect their working environment.

So if anyone is being mean to the industry, it seems it is the Producers for first saying it is their final offer, thus cutting off negotiations or fake threatening like they are, by threatening a Lockout. The Union is only trying to cover themselves. If they are to be Lockedout, they might as well be on Strike since either way they are not getting paid.

This is all a tactic for negotiating though. Many times it comes to this if you are in a competitive industry. We want them though to protect American jobs. Too many have gone overseas. I want to be safe when I attend a show. I also want my performers to be safe too. So I am sorry to hear it is coming to this part but I hope people will be more understanding of what they are trying to preserve. A decent way of life.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 9:19am

Tkt2ride: You have expressed the positions of the two sides well. I have a question: I have tickets for SPELLING BEE for the evening performance on October 21st, the day the Union will vote pro or con re. striking. If the union votes to strike or the producers decide to lock them out, will that be ON the 21st, or the next day?

[pab]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 9:38am

Gypsy9, the answer to your question is in the linked Playbill article in the first post of this thread:

"The Oct. 21 meeting will set off a ten-day strike authorization process, which I.A.T.S.E.'s constitution states is necessary in order to allow members enough time to consider the implications of a strike."

And by the way, I have tickets for the same performance.

Updated On: 10/14/07 at 09:38 AM

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 9:58am

If the strike vote is set to begin process 10/21, then barring a Lockout by the Producers the shows will be safe until at least 11/1 by process of the 10 day Strike Vote. By law Strike notice of 48 hours has to given to the Producers. 10 Days is more than enough time for notice and resolution and puts the Strike where it should be most effective - the holiday busy season.

Right now it's a game to see who blinks first.

But if a Strike vote is affirmative, then the scales are actually tipped to the Producers and sets the stage (no pun intended) for a Lockout , which can occur any time and without notice in most cases. A Lockout is actually preferential to the Producers because they can Lockout the bargaining Union, but all other non-bargaining Union members must report to work, unless that connected work is deemed unsafe; which is possible in this case. But Producers can also legally hire 'temporary laborers' to do the work required. Also, there's a misconception that the Producers will have to pay employees - not so. The Locked Out laborers can collect unemployment, unlike a Strike where no compensation of any sort is required. This is one of the reasons Lockout has become a more popular bargaining tool in recent years. While the employers Unemployment Rate may go up temporarily, there is no real out of pocket expense other then lost revenue, which again, in this case may be considerable, depending on what other Unions are effected and if temporary labor is used. The thing to remember about a Lockout is that 'non-bargaining' Union members are required to report to work and temporary labor can be used to avoid a complete work stoppage.

If a Strike is affirmed and executed - then the non-negotiating Unions can legally refuse to cross Picket Lines. But bare in mind - regarding a called and organized Strike that no salaries are 'required' to be paid - including to those Union members who are non-negotiating but refuse to cross the Picket Lines, although health benefits if in place must remain. It's also the reason once a Strike is executed that negotiations seem to move along and resolution is reached quickly. My experience is that Striking Union workers are not likely to allow their Non-Striking Union Brothers and Sisters to go without for too long because of their own grievences. They're simply not that selfish. Also, the Producers will then have a right to seek arbitration through an outside source. Again, my experience is that arbitration tends to favor management rather then labor, which is why it's rarely called for by the Union.

From what I'm reading, and only from what I'm reading; having been involved on both sides of the negotiation table for over 25 years; whether a Lockout or Strike, this dispute would favor the Producers. Although as is typical of situations like these, both sides will claim victory after the new contract is voted on and ratified. It's alot of chest pounding and bulls**t, which is why I retired from it. The only ones who ever seem to pay the price are the rank and file workers. I know that's an unpopular opinion and I base it solely on my own experience and not anyone elses. That said - I wish my Union Brothers and Sisters much luck.





Updated On: 10/14/07 at 09:58 AM

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 11:44am

I hope that answered your question, Gypsy 9. You are safe. I only hope it doesn't come to a strike. I know, it is never in the Unions favor to Strike, that is why it's a last resort. Several times our family was told we might have to strike but never have had to. We were lucky. You cannot however let Producers or any Company chip away too much or next time there won't be much left.

Sure they can hire temps but other Union Members don't have to cross a picket line. There is some, not much money available to help striking workers get by for awhile. It is just sad to see this happen now. I don't understand why arbitration isn't already being sought? Where is the Mayor? City Council? They have obviously already reached the point that they cannot settle this on their own.

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 12:54pm

T2R - Normally arbitration must be requested by one side or the other and there must be agreement by both sides that it is neccesary. Unfortunately that rarely occurs. It's too much like being the first to blink. A weakness that the other side can exploit.

The Mayor/City Council or governing body can only order arbitration for settlement once it effects the daily operations, finances, or livlihoods of the citizens in the municipality involved. In other words - until NYC starts to lose money on this deal - their hands are pretty much tied. However, if a Strike were to occur - I suspect you would see this happen quickly. It would only take a day or two for the economic impact of even a partial shut down on Broadway to be felt in NYC, so I would be inclined to think Bloomberg would step in quickly.

There is a law in place for arbitration known as:

Special Procedure for Refusal to Bargain - When a party refuses to bargain, an advisory award (arbitration) must be obtained before a strike can be held. But the sides in this case aren't refusing to bargain. They're just refusing to agree on terms.

But I; like yourself and others, will keep my fingers crossed that cooler heads and common sense prevail, and that a Lockout or Strike never comes to pass.

Edited for clarity.
Updated On: 10/14/07 at 12:54 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 1:13pm

"Sure they can hire temps but other Union Members don't have to cross a picket line."

They won't hire temps, and they NEVER have in the past. Where do you come up with this misinformation?

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 1:27pm

TheatreDiva - T2R isn't saying they WOULD hire temps, just that they COULD. That's a perfectly accurate statement.

The fact that they NEVER have in your Union Local may also be a perfectly accurate statement. I say may be only because I don't know the entire strike history of your Local, no offense is meant.

While the management is always reluctant to put 'scabs' in place (it's a sure fire way to destroy negotiations), it has happened.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 1:48pm

> a misconception that the Producers will have to pay employees -
> not so.

If there is a lockout, I believe it will be the position of Equity and AFM that their members must be paid if they report for work, and are at the theatre for the duration of the time that the show would be performing.

> The Locked Out laborers can collect unemployment,
> unlike a Strike
> where no compensation of any sort is required.

But benefits don't start (in NYS anyway) until 49 days of lockout. I'm not sure you're correct about unemployment not being paid during a strike...I've searched around for information about that in the past and found conflicting answers. At any rate, I'm sure both sides would agree 7 weeks of work stoppage would be painful for everyone involved.

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 2:37pm

Hi bugmenot-

Some things change under under the Laws of Lawful Lockout - the first is employers are not obligated to (and I guarantee will not) pay Locked Out employees. Unemployment eligibity rules can and have been relaxed in negotiatory situations and Locked Out employees are able to sign up for benefits within 7 to 10 days. Unlike a Lockout (basicaly a forced lay-off) it makes them eligible for benefits. A Strike, (basically employees refusing to do work available) would make them ineligible for Unemployment benefits.

To clarify - You are 100% correct in this regard - during Lockout - non-negotiationg Union workers who show up for work and are not able to do so as direct cause of the Management Lockout - are entitled to be paid.

In the case of an Organized Strike - those non-negotiating Union members who refuse to cross Picket Lines are considered to be 'refusing to do work available' but would be eligible for benefits after whatever amount of time mandated by the state - in this case the 7 weeks in which you refer. The reason they are eligible and the Strikers are not is because it's deamed a safety issue for these workers to cross Picket Lines established by Picketers.

I can't say that these rules absolutely apply here, but it is the basic protocol of Lockout and Strike, it may vary depending on circumstance.

The mitigating factor in this case is this - Is it considered a safety issue for any non-negotiating Union workers,; actors, musicians, etc to be working without the support of experienced Stagehands working the shows? The simple answer to me is yes. So, as I see it - A Lockout makes everyone fully eligible for monetary compensation and a Strike makes everyone EXCEPT the Strikers eligible for benefits.

I hope this clarifies and doesn't add to the confusion. Let's hope for the best everyone.

[Josh Freilich]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 8:47pm

While you all are hoping for the best, I'm expecting the worst.
And it will come. And it will last forever, since it never happened on Broadway with stagehands, so now Broadway should no longer have any new shows for some time.

It's time to be pessimistic, everybody.

[Neverandy]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 9:17pm

Let me tell you, I wouldn't try "defying Gravity" or standing onstage with a Chandelier plummeting towards me with an in-experienced operator at the controls. I can't imagine anyone else would.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 9:23pm

StageFan2 -

I agree with some of your points but I need to clarify a couple of things for the group...

1.) A lockout will not happen. It was likely floated by the producers as a bargaining tactic in hopes that the union would fold up its tent and agree to the terms that they wish to set in the new contract. When the union did NOT agree, producers backed away from their threats knowing that:

a.) locking out the union would cost them a pile of money not only in lost revenue but also in having to pay each and every theatre employee who is not part of the bargaining unit - actors, ushers, engineers, stage door, box office and other employees of the show who are not part of Local 1.

and

b.) Perhaps more importantly, the producers would lose the PR war by locking out the union. Sending home thousands of tourist children crying over not seeing their shows... being the responsible for the lost revenue in all other non-theatrical sectors such as hotels, restaurants etc. etc. This is not the picture that they are trying to paint.

2.) Regarding the suggestion that producers COULD hire temporary workers... this is not going to happen. You can't expect someone to walk into a theatre and be able to sit down at the controls of an automation console or sound board and do a show in a satisfactory and safe manner. If there is a lockout or strike there will be no theatre. Period.

3.) You say several times and in several ways that "this dispute" favors the producers... The producers are 'favored' in all things. They belong to the 'haves' rather than the 'have nots'. Producers took in $900,000,000 in 2007 at the box office. They are being driven to work in a limo and lunching at Cipriani's. They belong to country clubs and have summer homes or big pads in the city that could never be afforded by people who work backstage in the theatres on Broadway. In case people have been asleep in this country over the past 20 years (more than ever) there has been a concerted effort going on to reduce the strength of the middle class and working people and to strengthen the position of the wealthy. Period. This is simply another chapter.

- There is plenty of documentation indicating that the amount of money paid out in union compensation on a Broadway show is a small slice of the costs of running the show. Someone recently posted an excellent link to a NY Times article in 2002 on the subject so I won't go into this in detail.

- The cost of theatre tickets is rising dramatically. Worker's salaries are not. Has anyone heard the producers promise to pass on savings to the consumers by lowering ticket prices when they beat-down the stagehands? I think not...

- Has anyone heard producers say that the costs of producing is what is causing this so-called 80% failure rate on Broadway? This is major spin... how about the fact that these shows don't sell tickets because the public doesn't want to see them. Maybe they're not actually good! When was the last time you heard that a show was closing because it cost too much to load in?

Can you tell yet which side I'm on?

I agree StageFan2 that hopefully calmer heads will prevail and there will be an agreement which gives both sides something to feel good about. That is the purpose of collective bargaining. To come together and compromise. Fingers crossed.

[winston89]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 9:54pm

I do think that there will be a strike.

But, keep in mind that the meetings on the 21st are to start the discussion about if they should strike or not.


I do think that there will be a strike and soon too. But, I think that after it starts thenthe mayor's office will get involved. Because it is broadway we are talking about it should take nor more then a day or two tops for the strike to hurt the incom of the city.

I do agree that the lockout is not going to happen anymore. If anything happens it will be a strike. And I do think that after the 21st a strike will happen soon after.

It should be interesting to see how the union will take to the city getting involved.

[Jonna]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 10:23pm

I have read different answers to my question so I was wondering if someone could clear it up for me. On the 21st of October is when strike dicussions will begin. There is a 10 day period in which the discussions will last and a STRIKE cannot occur until 10 days after that, correct? Meaning if I have a show on the 26th of October and another on the 27th - I should be fine (as long as a LOCKOUT doesn't occur)

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 10:43pm

Thanks roadmixer - I'm not nor have I ever been involved with an entertainment Union, my experience is with UGA and AFL-CIO, so I speak in general terms with the understanding that there's bound to be differences. I don't know the details of the Producers/Stagehands dispute and definitely don't know monetary figures. I definitely know how it effects me as a fan. Your post was informative and your clarifications are much appreciated.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 10:59pm

Stagefan2: thank you for your response, that is easily one of the most intelligent posts I've ever seen on this board.

regarding the safety issue, I think you can assume Equity will classify all affected shows as "dangerous". I don't know the staging of "Bronx Tale" but offhand it's the only one I could possibly imagine would be 'safe' to perform.

a general clarification: there is only one "strike meeting" -- it is a special meeting of the union membership to ask the rank and file for authorization for a strike, which may then be called at any time by the union's leadership. The meeting will probably take less than an hour. I guarantee you you will read a headline "Local One votes to authorize strike" on the 21st. But authorizing one doesn't mean one will be called.

also, the "10 day" thing refers to the notice given to the members that a special meeting is being called. So the 10 day period expires -- rather than starts -- on the 21st.

And I have to tell you, I have never seen the rank and file membership as enraged as now. The threat of lockout, as well as repeated statements by Charlotte St. Martin and "unnamed producers" in the press about stagehands "doing nothing" and "feather bedding" has really made people ready to fight. It doesn't help much that we're in the middle of the fall load-in season when people are working 14 to 16 hour days and people keep telling us that we "do nothing".


Updated On: 10/14/07 at 10:59 PM

[roadmixer]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 11:25pm

Bugmenot - Well said! This is not the airline industry circa Sept. 12th 2001 where you can tell employees that their concessions are needed for the health of the industry. There has been a river of revenue flowing to the investors recently and a mere drip flowing to the workers for quite some time. Sure - it's easy to make a lot of money when you are working 80+ hours per week! It is not as if stagehands are demanding MORE as has been alluded to by numerous erroneous print and TV stories.

Often, the cost overages incurred by productions are the result of poor planning, bad design or lack of experience on the part of management but then it is easier to blame the union isn't it.

If the producers would ask the union, IN GOOD FAITH, to come to the table and contribute ideas then there might be progress. Instead, they had a pre-meditated agenda and will not listen. Not a good recipe for success sadly...

[bugmenot]

Posted: 10/14/07 at 11:40pm

> If the producers would ask the union, IN GOOD FAITH, to come to
> the table and contribute ideas then there might be progress.

This is sadly exactly right. Very often the house department heads and crew will make suggestions to help the production avoid a situation where they will needlessly incur additional costs -- labor or otherwise -- and their input is ignored. We all understand that lower costs are in everyone's best interests. The longer a show runs, the longer we can pay our bills. But time after time we see producers burn money during the production process like it's no big deal to work a full crew 8AM to midnight for a couple of weeks, including holidays and Sundays, and then they come to the contract negotiating table and cry poverty. My response: Quit pointing the finger at the union members for your inept production management. And when you work people into the ground, expect to pay for it. Overtime should be viewed as a deterrent and an incentive to plan ahead, not as a necessary cost of doing business.

Economics isn't my area of expertise, but from what I've read and been told, wage increases in the broadway contract are generally right around the rate of inflation.