Potential Strike Update: Broadway House Staff Union Votes to 'Authorize a Strike'

[Rob]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 7:37pm

Click Here to Read Potential Strike Update: Broadway House Staff Union Votes to 'Authorize a Strike' Updated On: 12/15/09 at 07:37 PM

[EugLoven]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 7:48pm

100% behind them!

You CANNOT survive in New York City with $16/hr (take it from someone who has been there). Thank goodness they have health-care. I cant imagine how they do it if these men/women have families to support...

If its $1.50 pay-raise they call for, that is HARDLY something to bicker about. Help these people out!

Must be like mud slapped in these hard-workers faces each time the Broadway Grosses reports are released.
Updated On: 12/15/09 at 07:48 PM

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 8:45pm

If they're gonna duke it out over a $1.50 dollar pay raise, I'm not thinking that there needs to be a strike to work it out.

Nobody wants a repeat of the stagehands' strike. Especially not in this economy.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 8:46pm

God damn it...

[TreyKenyon]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 8:55pm

While the terms of their employment are certainly horrible and should be changed, I'm worried that this strike is only going to end up hurting the workers. Unlike the stagehands who offered a somewhat-unique skill that couldn't easily be replaced, these cleaners can be easily replaced (like the article mentions) and will likely have little to no effect on theatre owners. That said, I really hope they all can come to a fair agreement.

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 9:44pm

You CANNOT survive in New York City with $16/hr

Bull****. It's easy to do so if you simply live within your means. I wouldn't raise a family on that amount but a single adult can live on that quite comfortably.
(Please note that has nothing to do with my feeling on a strike, I am simply correcting that statement.)

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 10:17pm

Does anyone else think that there are probably thousands of out-of-work New Yorkers who would love to have a job paying $16/hr with health benefits?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 11:18pm

What's your point, TimesSquareRegular? There's also probably people who would do it for even less - does that mean they don't deserve a measly buck fifty raise? These are hard-working people, many if not most of whom are raising families.

It shouldn't really surprise me that some people view this only as possible inconvenience for them, as comments after the article indicate. This is about people's lives. I'm with EugLoven - give them the buck fifty and leave their healthcare alone.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 12/15/09 at 11:26pm

"Does anyone else think that there are probably thousands of out-of-work New Yorkers who would love to have a job paying $16/hr with health benefits? "

I live in New Jersey and would settle for a job that pays $16/hr.

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 12:04am

"What's your point, TimesSquareRegular?"

The point, ghostlight2, is that this is not the most sensible time for unskilled/semi-skilled workers to be complaining about a pay scale that would be seen as a blessing by so many unemployed.

(I'll assume that actually you were smart enough to understand that, but simply felt the need to be snarky.)

[JP2]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 12:19am

I grew up in NYC with a single mother raising four kids who made less that 16 an hour. It's called the working class.

[Eris0303]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 12:21am

I wouldn't turn my nose up at $16. At that pay rate my paycheck would be $1280 before all of the deductions. I wouldn't might making that at all.

I'm not against a pay raise though I have to agree this might be a poor time to go on strike.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 12:37am

Glad to be of service, then, TimesSquareRegular. All snarkiness aside, these workers didn't just decide to "complain" about their pay scale. They are in standard contract negotiations, their current contract ending Dec 31st. You think it would be more "sensible" for them not to ask for a very small pay raise and take cuts in their health care? They should wait years for the next contract negotiation to ask for a raise?

On another subject, errors from the article Rob linked to:

"Earlier today, Stephanie Gaskell of the New York Daily News reported that Broadway may be acing [sic] yet another stagehand strike, as a group of about 150 cleaning workers who tend to many of Broadway's houses - members of 32BJ SEIU - are threatening a strike if dissatisfied with their current contract negotiations".

She said nothing about Broadway facing a stagehand strike. SEIU is not "threatening" a strike. They've merely voted to authorize one. This is standard operating procedure. Also, according to Variety, it's 250 workers, not 150.


Gaskell's article Updated On: 12/16/09 at 12:37 AM

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 12:48am

I hope an agreement is reached Thursday. This is a terrible time to strike since the economy is so bad.

[Barney Stinson]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 1:17am

"Broadway is doing far better than anybody"? (from the article)

FALSE, and what a moronic thing to say. How many shows closed last January? How many are closing this January, or have already closed?

They are asking for almost a 10% raise - in THIS economy? When they arleady make $16 an hour + HC - for, as best I can tell - CLEANING?

Go into any large office in NYC, and see if the nightly cleaning staff is making $16 an hour and benefits.

We are talking about 150 non skilled laborers? Honestly, they could strike, and no one would even notice. No other unions are going to sympathy strike over 150 unskilled workers. Would likely be cheaper for the producers to hire replacement workers at a market rate with no HC. They won't strike, would make no sense - not that unions act logically.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 2:27am

Absolutely. Great points, Barney.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 2:45am

also, remember these workers dont work 9-5. they mostly work 7-11 or 1-5.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 2:47am

Chances are their real concern in their healthcare. By the sound of it, it seems as if management has put on the table a reduction their benefits....which results in a payloss to make up the difference.

However, if you don't go to the table with things you CAN give up ($1.50 payraise) you have nothing to negotiate with.

Good luck to them. (But does ANYONE really use ANY bathroom MATRONS anymore??)

[Radioactiveduck]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 4:14am

They want to strike because of $16 an hour!? That's MORE THAN DOUBLE minimum wage to throw away discarded playbills, empty trash cans, and vacuum the carpet once (sometimes twice) a day. I was an usher at a movie theater in California and had to clean up roughly a dozen theaters per shift as well as the 4 bathrooms and the lobby (several times each per shift), I got paid $6.75

Like Cape Twirl said...you can't raise a family on it, but it's no where near an unlivable wage.

[NotYourMemories]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 7:12am

"No other unions are going to sympathy strike over 150 unskilled workers."

This is the critical question. Does anyone know if Equity, 802 (musicians union) and IATSE would cross this picket line? There was a lot of talk about the importance of union solidarity during the Stagehand and 2003 Musician's strikes. Even one week of missed shows due to a work stoppage in early January would certainly be enough to close several shows.

The biggest problem the Theatre League would have if they tried to find replacements for these semi-skilled workers at this pay and benefits level would be crowd control.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 10:28am

People all across the country are not getting raises, and seeing their wages, benefits, etc, reduced. Yeah, it's $1.50 an hour, and I'm rather ambivalent about it, but things are tough all over.
Updated On: 12/16/09 at 10:28 AM

[mywonderwa11]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 10:49am

While, I can't help, but feel bad for the workers who have to support their family...what a horrible time to authorize a potential strike. I have to agree with TimesSquareRegular. These workers are easily replaceable and I wouldn't mind at ALL having a job that paid $16/hr plus provided healthcare. Of course, I am only supporting myself and those wages would allow me to live quite comfortably.

It's just bad timing. Bad, bad timing.

I just hope things get worked out in some manner. No one enjoys these types of situations. Broadway is going through enough struggle as it is with the economy and shows closing. Let's not enhance that struggle.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 11:04am

"'Broadway is doing far better than anybody'? (from the article)

FALSE, and what a moronic thing to say. How many shows closed last January? How many are closing this January, or have already closed?"

You're an idiot. You can't measure the financial health of Broadway based on the number of shows running. It is based on their profits. And Broadway is doing very well despite some of these shows (a few of which were always scheduled to close).

"They are asking for almost a 10% raise - in THIS economy? When they arleady make $16 an hour + HC - for, as best I can tell - CLEANING?"

It shouldn't matter what the economy is. They want to earn more money, who are you to say what they earn is more than enough.

"Go into any large office in NYC, and see if the nightly cleaning staff is making $16 an hour and benefits."

The ones who are here legally do. The illegal ones? Maybe not.

"We are talking about 150 non skilled laborers? Honestly, they could strike, and no one would even notice."

So because they are unskilled they shouldn't demand to keep their insurance benefits? Or they shouldn't ask for a very small, insignificant raise? Nonsense, and spoken like someone who has a well-paying job and could care less about others less fortunate than him.

"No other unions are going to sympathy strike over 150 unskilled workers."

You are probably right, and it goes to show the hypocrisy of those unions who demand solidarity when they try to get what they want and shun other unions when they need the help. Local 1 paid the members of the other Unions a small stipend (in other words, they bought their support) so that when those unions go on strike Local 1 can refuse to cooperate (and is notorious for doing so).

"Would likely be cheaper for the producers to hire replacement workers at a market rate with no HC.

The market rate for those workers is about $15-16/hour, so I don't know what your point is here, other than the relative ease in replacing those workers.

"They won't strike, would make no sense - not that unions act logically."

You obviously work for a company that exploits workers for profit (living rich off of other people's sweat). Look at ANY industry (outside the medical and legal professions). The managers, CEOs, VPs, etc. make millions or billions, yet the real work is done by low-earning workers, who shouldn't "just be happy to have a job." They should want and should demand a living wage. Those hamburgers don't make themselves, and the CEO certainly isn't out there working in any capacity that gets the product out there. Same on Broadway. The house manager sure isn't really doing much (other than filling out payroll and pointing out the garbage for them to clean up), yet he gets paid a lot more for doing a lot less. Do you really know what CEOs spend most of their day doing? I guarantee that most certainly don't deserve anything to close to what they actually get paid.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 11:07am

This sounds like a contract negotiation ploy. I wouldn't read too much into it.

[jrb]

Posted: 12/16/09 at 11:07am

Personally, I'm too ignorant of this subject to comment on whether or not a raise is warranted. However, I feel like Nasty is making a very valid point in citing the difference in hours between theatre workers and other full-time workers in the city.

People seem to be attacking this pay increase by using a faulty argument. These folks aren't working full 40-hour weeks, so one cannot compare their situation to others making $16 an hour.

A more solid argument would seem to be their lack of leverage. As is pointed out by several folks, this labor can be found easily and there are many individuals who would kill for a job in this econonimc climate. It's just not the best time to be fighting for something like this when you don't offer an irreplaceable service.

Anyone living in NYC knows that you CAN live off of $16 an hour if you're working a full 40-hour work week. I cannot imagine however, raising kids and working less than full-time on that sort of pay scale. I'm sure it can be done and IS done every day in the city but I can't begrudge anyone living on that kind of wage wanting and fighting for something more.