Metropolitan Opera to Lock Out Stagehands as Contract Talks Stall — Page 2

A.J. said: "itsjustmejonhotmailcom said: "KKeller6 said: "I believe that 260K figure included benefits, which can run up to 40% in some cases, not that I know any specifics about the Met contract. That being said, we should never be for pay cuts for regular, working class, middle class people. Even ones on the upper end. We should continue fighting for better wages for all in the middle class and others less fortunate."

The Met's head electrician makes $510k and the head carpenter $459k. I'm sure they are great at what they do. But they are not upper-middle class, they are literally in the top 1%."

How dare professionals who are at the top of their industry be paid accordingly!? GTFO of here.

These techniciansare responsible for industrial power breakouts, complex stage machinery, and rigging systems that suspend multiple tons of equipment in the air. In their roles, a simple mistake or miscalculation could kill multiple people.

They deserve every cent."

All I said was that contrary to AJ's post that they were upper middle class, those two employees are literally in the top 1% of earners in the US. In terms of the Met, I think everyone making that much should be taking a paycut until things get back to normal. So that the people making $50k a year don't have to.

this thread is getting along fine without me so I will just annotate a few things.

1. Actually, the stated salaries of the heads do NOT fall within the 1% even in literal terms much less when fully distributed.

2. The Met and Broadway are apples and oranges.

3. These people hold the precious institutional knowledge of the institution to any extent that exceeds even the chief executives. If Gelb takes a month off, the Met doesn't miss a beat. (Some might say it catches a few, but that's another matter.) If these folks do, the show doesn't go on. Is that healthy? Maybe not, but that too is a separate issue.

Had to respond.

Hogan, you’re actually WRONG, the heads DO fall w/in the 1% @ the Met AND in every Bway theatre. Ooooooh yes they do. They have their ways and completely abuse the system.

From hogan: “ These people hold the precious institutional knowledge of the institution to any extent that exceeds even the chief executives”
Whaaaaat?! What ru talking about?!? Clearly u have never worked on a Bway show.

unclevictor said: "Had to respond.

Hogan, you’re actually WRONG, the heads DO fall w/in the 1% @ the Met AND in every Bway theatre. Ooooooh yes they do. They have their ways and completely abuse the system.

From hogan: “ These people hold the precious institutional knowledge of the institution to any extent that exceeds even the chief executives”
Whaaaaat?! What ru talking about?!? Clearly u have never worked on a Bway show."

The threshold for the 1% is $538,926. As rehearsed above, the heads at the Met do not reach that number, even in the fully distributed compensation which is what those numbers (as opposed to the stat) are.

I guess what you think you know about my work history tells me all I need to know about the credibility of what you post here. Also, note that we are talking about the Met, not Broadway, so what you say is irrelevant in any event.

Nice try.

Wee Thomas2 said: "Kad said: "Wee Thomas2 said: "bwayobsessed said: "Let’s be real, stagehands are some of the only people working in theatre who get paid like professionals. They shouldn’t budge. Everyone else should be getting paid more. Pressure producers and the government to be generous. Not workers. Also whoever said stagehands just mop the floor is repulsive."

Assume you are ok paying higher prices and higher taxes then?"

Assume you are okay with workers being stiffed so you can save a few bucks?"

I did make the statement, you did. My inquiry to you is based on your specific quote that they should get paid more. I did not agree nor disagree, just pointed out that if you want that to happen, you need to be prepared to pay higher ticket prices and taxes.



So I ask again, are you ok with that?"

I didn’t make the statement, bwayobsessed did.

My response should make my position fairly clear. And the fact you raised the question at all should make your position fairly clear.

And it’s a silly question to ask. The increased cost to audience or taxpayers would not be massive; it would be single digit dollars.

---

Updated On: 12/10/20 at 09:30 AM

unclevictor said: "Eye roll. I don’t care about your work history, hogan. You’re still wrong. Beyond wrong!

And frogs fan, I don’t know where u get your info, but you’re wrong too!

Lots of misinformed people here!"

LOL gonna have to do better than that sweetie.

You’re wrong. U 2 are beyond misinformed.

Can’t explain... stagehand code of honor.

To many eyes and ears.

unclevictor said: "You’re wrong. U 2 are beyond misinformed.

Can’t explain... stagehand code of honor.

To many eyes and ears."

Are you in this thread ****ting on Local One backing their members, while you talk **** about their members, and then also saying "stagehand code of honor?" That really doesn't compute.

^^^ This.

I also wonder what unclevictor's agenda is, for their words are wildly inaccurate.

unclevictor said: "They’re not widely inaccurate.

No agenda here, loves.

Let’s agree to disagree!

Can’t we all just get along?? For the sake of bway!!!

Happy Hanukkah!"

Here's the thing: you can disagree about policy all you want, but you can't disagree about facts, at least not without providing a reasoned basis for not believing them. Are you questioning the work of economists who determine the 1% threshold? If not then you can't argue with my factual statements relating to the threshold. Making unsupported statements like "not widely [sic] inaccurate" do not provide a basis for intelligent discussion. We can all get along, but that requires an exercise of personal responsibility that you seem unwilling to entertain. (The "sake of bway" is not affected by anything that you say here, no matter what.) Season's Greetings.

What needs to be noted is that, when it comes to working as a stage hand at the Met, it’s a beast of a job. I remember a conversation I had during a smoke break while ushering at NYCB.

Two stage hands and I were having a casual conversation,
And I asked if they had worked other places as well. One mentioned that he did work at the Met, the other said there’s no way in hell he’d ever work there. Fact of the matter is they spend
more time working at the Met than they do with their own families. And, regardless of how much money they earn, there are some who don’t want to live like that. I don’t blame them From not to wanting to take Glebs pay cut suggestions. They give up a lot just to work there. Pay aside it’s an insult for theme to be willing to work there. And, I find that when articles and discussions like this people look more at numbers than what is at stake for the actual workers themselves