Local one to start strike meetings 10/21- Page 3

[Lynnespock2]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 12:55pm

I heard from someone that Local 1 doesn't need the approval of the parent union to authorize the strike vote, but not sure what it means to going on strike, if they do need it to call a strike.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 1:22pm

"Why would City Center be affected? Well they do use stagehands, don't they?"

The stagehands that are employed by City Centre are NOT WORKING FOR A BROADWAY HOUSE THAT IS OPERATED BY THE LEAGUE!!!! So why would they strike?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 1:59pm

http://onenycstagehand.blogspot.com/2007/10/reducing-odds.html

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 2:31pm

Fosse76, I thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. The reason I asked, is because I genuinely did not know.

[pab]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 2:45pm

Will Broadway Soon Go Dark?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 4:52pm

"On Oct. 16, the League said that portions of their final contract offer was going to be implemented beginning on Monday, Oct. 22."

I found that to be interesting, because I said in another post that the union may have no alternative but to strike. If the stagehands continue to work under the conditions of a new agreement without actually having signed one, they are technically agreeing to work under those terms and it would be a de facto acceptance of the League's offer.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 5:37pm

Fosse76 - Just curious... Why are you driving home this idea that there would be a 'de facto' acceptance of the contract just because the union chooses to go to work even if the producers implement their misguided ideas? Is there a precedence for this that you know about? Is there something in the labor laws? I don't know if you are correct on this assumption and was wondering if you might be able to site a case where this happened. The stagehands have had NO contract since July but continued to work anyway. Does this mean that they accept working without a contract at all?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 6:01pm

Below I refer to a term called mandatory subjects of bargaining, which are wages, hours, terms of hiring/firing, etc. which are required, under the law, to be negotiated by every employer/union.*
[*Edited for clarity]

Under the National Labor Relations Act, during the time a collective bargaining agreement is in effect, the employer may not change a working condition that is a mandatory subject of bargaining, without first bargaining with the union (29 U.S.C.A. § 158(d)). Even after the collective bargaining agreement expires, the employer must maintain the status quo, and may not unilaterally change mandatory subjects of bargaining, until the parties have reached an impasse (Louisiana Dock Co. v. NLRB, 909 F.2d 281 [7th Cir. 1990]).

Once the parties have reached an impasse, the employer may implement unilateral changes to mandatory bargaining subjects as long as it has previously proposed those changes to the union (NLRB v. Plainville Ready Mix Concrete Co., 44 F.3d 1320 [6th Cir. 1995]; NLRB v. Emsing's Supermarket, 872 F.2d 1279 [7th Cir. 1989]).

So essentially, a company can operate the business without a union contract. And as a matter of contract law, if you accept the terms and conditions I have set forth through acting, despite what a written agreement may say, then by rule of law we both have overruled any written agreement. For example: say I hire you to paint my apartment complex and agree to pay you monthly in writing and we both sign the contract. Well, say I decide to pay you weekly for the first month, contrary to the agreement. Then the second month I decide to go back to monthly. Well, since I technically started paying you weekly and you took and cashed the checks, we both have amended our agreement, and I would therefore be required to continue to pay you weekly.

Updated On: 10/18/07 at 06:01 PM

[roadmixer]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 6:46pm

Thank you Fosse. I hope that you are not correct...

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 8:25pm

Fosse - You're correct in your example with one exception. If you agree to pay monthly - decide to pay weekly - then want to go back to paying monthly - you're not "required" to continue paying weekly so long as both sides agree to revert to the previous agreement or any new terms set forth.

I had a situation in a Mid-western factory that's similar to the situation which may or may not occur on the 10/22 regarding the Producers implimenting portions of the refused contract.

Please bare with me as I use it as an example. I realize it's a bit off subject and a different circumstance.

Factory Management and our Union were at a stalemate. We weren't even talking. So the Factory Management decided to impliment portions of a refused final contract after we voted to authorize a Strike. They did in fact impliment changes, but they implimented terms on which we had already agreed and we went back to negotiating new terms on our impass articles.

The contract terms for the articles on which we continued to negotiate continued under the old contract terms until new terms could be worked out favorably for both parties. Even though we had no signed contract for use of the new terms, once the new contract was accepted - the Union and Management immediately adopted the new terms in their entirety.

As long as both parties agree to changes of terms - there is no "requirement" in place. That's not to say there won't be a Strike nor do I know what terms the Producers intend to impliment, but if the workers continue to work under the new terms, I can guarantee the final terms will be adopted in full by both parties.

I've read several linked articles regarding this, but must admit my ignorance regarding this particular work sector. I'm a theatre fan and supporter, but have never really worked in the field other then summer productions, community theatre, etc. I was also involved in both Management and Union Negotiations for over 25 years. My heart still lies with my Union Brothers and Sisters no matter what their respective field. So I'm pulling for all of you.

Perhaps you or someone posting here has read or heard if there has been any indication of which terms the Producers plan to impliment to force the negotiations forward? I'd be interested in knowing. Because it's those forced terms which will determine the next step for the Union.

[roadmixer]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 8:28pm

Check this out... A new twist


Crain's Story

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 8:34pm

The Nederlander Organization isn't involved in current negotiations so they can't go along with the League at this point. They have a current contract in place I believe, so legally they have no impact on this at all. That's my understanding of what I read. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.backstage.com/bso/news_reviews/nyc/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003660430
Updated On: 10/18/07 at 08:34 PM

[roadmixer]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 8:49pm

It should be interesting...

Updated On: 10/18/07 at 08:49 PM

[Jonna]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 10:08pm

I have tickets to see RENT at the Nederlander for Oct 27th, next Saturday. If the Nederlanders are not involved, will this mean I am still good to go next Saturday?

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 10:09pm

Yeah...I think we're at the point where it can only get more interesting. Keep your finger crossed and hope for the best.

[StageFan2]

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

Yes Jonna, you're good to go. Enjoy the show.

[wicked_beast4]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 10:37pm

I'm seeing Cyrano on November 4th. Will I be safe to see it??

[wicked_beast4]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 10:37pm

Sorry double post

Updated On: 10/18/07 at 10:37 PM

[bugmenot]

Posted: 10/18/07 at 11:51pm

> Perhaps you or someone posting here has read or heard
> if there has been any indication of which terms the
> Producers plan to impliment

I've been told the union has been told which terms are to be implemented, but the members have not yet been informed. I would assume they will be announced on Sunday. At this point, based on what I know first-hand and what I've been told by highly-placed persons, I think a strike is inescapable. And I lay all of the blame at the feet of Charlotte St. Martin and Bernie Plum. I think it's an open question as to how widespread the strike will be. I would like to think the shows in Nederlander theatres will not be affected. But I don't think that's guaranteed.

oh, and to whoever's writing the posts on http://onenycstagehand.blogspot.com/ : thank you, brother (or sister). You are writing the truth. I hope more people read it.


Updated On: 10/18/07 at 11:51 PM

[StageFan2]

Posted: 10/19/07 at 5:54am

Thank you for clarifying bugmenot and for the blog link. It's excellent reading for members directly affected as well as interested and concerned parties such as myself.

It does seem to me that this is looking more and more like a Strike situation. While I'm an outside party in this, it would seem to me that the League is simply being irresponsible and foolish. There's plenty of money being made on Broadway to support everyone very nicely if one of the principals (in this case the Producers) were not so hell bent on wanting 90% of the pie for themselves. It makes me sad that the League doesn't seem to be able to look past their own greed to support those who help to support them. Management...some things never change.

Good luck to all.

[pab]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 12:37am

". . . the union appears determined to stick to its own timetable, and it has typically been to the union’s advantage to have talks continue into the busy holiday season, when the potential damage of a strike to producers is greatest. The last two times the union was in negotiations with the league, which represents most of Broadway’s producers and theater owners, an agreement was reached in the last two weeks of November.

So for now the stagehands are planning to go to work next week under the imposed rules, Mr. Claffey said. But, he added, “we’re not going into December without a deal.”"
Specter of Dark Theaters Haunts Broadway

[pab]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 5:36pm

Local One Members Vote to Authorize Strike if Necessary

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 8:23pm

So here are the strike perimeters that were voted on. Even if International refuses to authorize a potential Strike, the Union may still stop working in protest to a forced contract. They seem to have made it clear that they rather sit at the table, throwing paper around than standing out in questionable weather holding up signs. The League has made more than a few misleading comments about what the Union is asking for.


https://www.variety.com/article/VR1117974451.html?categoryid=15&cs=1



Three resolutions were approved at the Local One meeting:

The first authorized a strike against the League if union leadership deemed it necessary.

The second authorized what a union statement called a "work stoppage" -- a semantic difference that looks like a safety provision in the face of rumors that the international leadership of umbrella union IATSE would not grant strike approval to the local.

The third measure earmarks $1 million of the union's general funds as aid for other unions affected by a Rialto work stoppage. (That sum is in addition to the approximately $4 million the union has set aside as its own shutdown fund.)

***************************************************************8


https://www.playbill.com/news/article/112084.html



"The Nederlander Organization has their own agreement with Local One, and therefore is not represented by the League in these negotiations. Before negotiations commenced, The Nederlander Organization requested that Local One negotiate with them and the League simultaneously as coordinated bargaining partners, but Local One rejected that request. Although the League has reached an impasse with Local One, Nederlander is not at an impasse. As a result, the Nederlander Organization cannot legally implement these terms at this time. Regardless, they are fully supportive of the League's effort and will remain so until a resolution is found."


If this is true than why is Nederlander holding back and the Union is singing it's praises? Read on if you like.


"Actors' Equity spokesperson Maria Somma released a statement Oct. 17 in response to the League's latest statement: "Actors' Equity Association is disappointed that the employers' League has chosen to unilaterally impose its final offer on the professional stagehands of Local One/IATSE. We fear that this provocative action will make it more difficult to achieve a timely settlement. We believe this crisis needs to be resolved at the bargaining table. We urge the League to agree to Local One's continued offer to return to that bargaining table."

This is clear enough to me and contradicts what the League is telling us.

"The announcement of the Oct. 21 meeting 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. If Local One were to strike, it would be the first in the union's 121-year history."

So again, this time period, includes both the vote and the response from the International Union. No official response has been authorized yet. Ten days leads us to Oct.31 but better to say Nov. 1st.

"The news about the Nederlanders — who operate the Brooks Atkinson, Gershwin, Lunt-Fontanne, Marquis, Minskoff, Nederlander, Neil Simon, Palace and Richard Rodgers theatres — was announced by Local One Oct. 18. In its press statement, the union said, "Herschel Waxman, Vice President of Labor Relations of the Nederlander Organization, Broadway's second largest theatre chain, today (October 1 informed James J. Claffey, Jr., President of the 121-year-old union that has never struck Broadway, that the Nederlander Organization will not be implementing new work rules on Monday. Mr. Waxman has been an observer in the talks between the union and the league because the Nederlander Organization has a [separate] contract with Local One."

In the same statement, union president Claffey, Jr. added, "Local One has always had a warm relationship with the Nederlander Organization, the Nederlander family and Mr. Waxman. The respect they have for their employees is returned a thousand fold from the stagehands they employ."

**************************************************************

Pab, that was a much clearer statement finally from Playbill. I was interested to see what really is going on with the Nederlander's contract. The League is saying one thing but the Corporation, it seems, is riding the fence and wiping it's brow that they managed to implement their own Contract.

Either way, I believe the statement that they will not be forcing any new regulation on the Union and the Union's response to it must mean, Nederlander, as part of the League, can join in this resolve now, risking I would think, breaking their currant contract to show unity with the League but has chosen not to.

This could also just be two parties just trying to look good on paper for the moment. All of this can change when their contract is in negotiations at a later date. I still though am amused at the Nederlander's business savvy through this process.


So my understanding of things now is.. The Union is willing to change some previous rules but not at a complete loss to their organization. Since these changes will affect people's employment, they are asking in exchange for better benefits, wages and compensations to make up for what they are willing to give up.


What is bugging me now is, are the changes the League plan on implementing, ones already agreed upon or are they ones that still have some grounds for an argument?


** I'm sorry to include all of these quotes but it is tiresome so many won't read the articles many have been kind enough to share with us.**

[localonecrew]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 8:40pm

1. nederlanders not so much as being savvy as actually been having their asses chewed off by Disney who does not want picketers in front of a marquee that has a disney logo on it.

2. (posted this in another thread)
"The 'featherbedding' practices of the past are simply no longer acceptable. Our position is clear: no work, no pay. . . "

this coming from a group of people who have no clue what we do. they actually made a comment about how they thought it made no difference whether you did the pre-hang or the spotting call first.

they also think that electricians work on a special "electrics grid" that differs from the regular theater grid.

these are things that they actually said. clueless to what we do and yet are so adamant about what we dont do.

They suffer from the idea that having money cures ignorance.

hence why we will prevail.

[Lori2]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 9:01pm

I'm still a little confused, its there a strike going on this week or no???