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.**
