Producers to LOCK OUT the Grinch- Page 3

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 7:49pm

"The producers of the GRINCH are going to court to get an injunction to be allowed into the theater and so it'll be up to a jugdge to decide whether the valid contract with the producers takes precedence over the expired contract situation with Jujamcyn."

It all boils down to what the contracts (or more appropriately, agreements) say. I would guess that the Agreement between Local 1 and the League would actually take precedence, since ultimately that is who the stagehands are working for, even though their pay is from the show itself. I can't imagine that there isn't a clause in the rental agreement between Jujamcyn and The Grinch regarding work stoppages. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[Steve2]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 7:50pm

"I'm sure people will draw their own conclusions. and we have. you are a league sock puppet. easy conclusion."

Wrong, local one.

[bk]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 7:51pm

You can keep saying it till the day you die, but it will not make it so - I'm just an observer in the passing parade - unlike you, who are clearly spouting only one side of the story and making both your union and you look, well, foolish. When you have to repeatedly resort to name-calling and bullying tactics with anyone who might present a different opinion or fact then you have lost before you've begun. I just look at the two points of view and try to balance them out. I think both sides, the Union and the League are behaving like little school children. And you, as a representative of your union on a public chatboard, should be ashamed of yourself for all the name-calling and bullying. I leave you to bask in your own bile.

From a press release issued by the Grinch producers:

The Producers of The Grinch have a special agreement, which was co-signed by both the Theatre and Local One and was crafted to contemplate the unique performance schedule that enables The Grinch to perform 12+ shows per week. The show is not affected by any of the discussions currently taking place with The League of American Theatres and Producers and Local one and there are no specific issues in dispute which would prevent The Grinch from continuing this engagement. The Grinch is the only show on Broadway that has a separate agreement with Local One and is not currently running. There are 8 other Broadway shows and The Grinch should be one of them.

James J. Claffey Jr., Local One President states "Because of the unique nature of this limited engagement, particularly its inability to extend beyonf the holiday season, Local One supports The Grinch in it efforts to open its doors to families. Our members are ready and willing to go back to work at the St. James Theatre."

What is clear here, is that Local One should never have struck the Grinch. I don't see how that can be disputed. NOW they do the about face, after a week.


Updated On: 11/19/07 at 07:51 PM

[bk]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 7:56pm

"I'm sure people will draw their own conclusions. and we have. you are a league sock puppet. easy conclusion."

"Wrong, local one."

I think he knows very well that he's wrong, but that won't stop him from saying it.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 7:59pm

I say a pox on both their houses for this one.

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 7:59pm

All I want is for all of this fighting to stop so that the board can go back to normal again. I for one don't think that bk is a sock puppet. I think none of the users on here are sock puppets except for perhaps ssfun. Or maybe I'm just being incredibly naive.


I have a somewhat different view. It's clear that not everyone in the union wanted to strike "Grinch". Only those on top did. I don't know why, but he just did. If someone could fill me in on why, I'd be able to form my opinions better. It's clear that not all of the Local One people are at fault, only those select few at the top. At the same time, there are some producers out there who genuinely care about the little guys, while some are just in it for the money.

This is no clear case of right and wrong. This situation would have been handled in no time if it weren't for the corrupt people in charge of both sides. At least that's the way I see it.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:02pm

"If someone could fill me in on why, I'd be able to form my opinions better."

It's a Jujamcyn house, and a member of the League. That's why.

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:06pm

That's true, but they had seperate contracts with them. I still think that striking "The Grinch" was unneccessary. I mean, I think that most of the union has good intentions, but some of their actions make me wonder at times. Not to say that the League doesn't make me wonder.

I'm so confused. . . I shouldn't be confused, but I am.

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:10pm

One more thing: if the League represents the producers, then how come the producers are also locked out? Is there something that I missed?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:12pm

The League doesn't represent every producer and, for example, The Grinch producers aren't members of The League.

[leko2]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:16pm

bk: Do you not read everything on a thread before you respond? The St. James theater was listed as a venue on the Unfair List. IATSE members are not allowed to work in buildings that are on that list regardless of any outside agreements they have, for example a special labor contract for that building. If a member works in that building they are subject to fines, suspension, or expulsion from the Alliance upon conviction. If being in Local One and working on Broadway can, allegedly, make me $150k a year why should I risk being expelled from that organization?

For those of you looking for an explanation I suggest reading page two about 6 posts down. There might just be a good explanation there. Updated On: 11/19/07 at 08:16 PM

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:17pm

Then they shouldn't have striked "Grinch"!


This is insanity. On the one hand, the stagehands shouldn't have picketed. On the other, the producers are being pigs to their fellow producers! And I heard that in the conference room that stagehand is apparently fighting against stagehand. What I want to know is why only the leader of Local One and the leader of the League are talking. This has to do with the people. Why don't they introduce the little guy, like the stagehand who has to strike or the producer who's show was affected, into the problem solving process. It's their problems, and the few shouldn't speak for the many.

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:20pm

But why was the St. James theatre on the Unfair List? To what I can tell, they are just innocent bystanders.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:29pm

"But why was the St. James theatre on the Unfair List?"

You're kidding, right. IT IS A JUJAMCYN HOUSE. JUJAMCYN IS IN THE LEAGUE AND AT THE NEGOTIATING TABLE. Any other inane questions you'd like to ask?

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:33pm

Please don't call my questions inane. I have never offended you and I'm trying to remain as unbiased as I can (although I admit that it is a bit hard to do with all the union supporters calling others names.).

Yes, I know that Jujamcyn is in the league, but they have a seperate contract with the St. James, from what I understand. So why boycott the Grinch?

That's all I want to know. I'm not joining one side or the other. I just want the facts.

[amasis]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 8:39pm

Taka, maybe you want to read a bit more slowly. Producers and Theatre Owners aren't interchangeable. The Grinch producers aren't members of the League. The owner of St. James, Jujamcyn, is.

Read Margo's post in the middle of page 2. Updated On: 11/19/07 at 08:39 PM

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:00pm

Yes, I have that problem of reading too quickly. Sorry guys. I guess I was under the impression that they were interchangable.

I just feel sorry for both sides involved. I wish that this whole thing would get sorted out. . .

[leko2]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:02pm

Taka, I thought I had explained this better and I'm sorry for any confusion which may have resulted because of it. Basicly, it would appear that the Grinch is in the middle of a battle between Local One, the International, and the League. Local One wanted to keep working at the St. James, the International told them not to, Local One gets the International to allow them to work in the building but the Jujamcyns said, "No, you can't work here." Now the Grinch is taking the Jujamcyns to court because they aren't fulfilling a contractual obligation they have with the Grinch. How it will end........ we'll find out in the morning.

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:05pm

Thanks, leko. :)

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:07pm

I think the show will lose out some in Court. These Theatres are well represented by Lawyers. Monetarily no but maybe the show will get re-opened.

I do hope though, that an injunction can be reached, to allow the show to go on. It will be a very interesting predicament for really both parties and maybe prove as a good example that both sides need to work together. Employ representation that are knowledgeable of the work being performed is essential to the health of these negotiations.

I was excited for the Disney guy. He knows his stuff but obviously he may not have the time to settle this big mess.

I can see if the Theatre the Grinch was at was originally excluded, it could cause a riff in the organization. Why should one Theatre group make money off of the strike while other don't . Isn't that what brought Nederlanders in the mix to begin with? You are either with us or against us? Think of what we can get if we win? I still say a payout went in Nederlanders favor to get them into the mix. They needed it since they are paying some of their workers in a Lock out.

Because of this how could the Union work for The Grinch without upsetting the other parties involved? Maybe they should have waited for the Jujamcyn to lock them out instead? It doesn't really matter. They were striking the Company so to exclude one when the League offered a united front seems still illogical.

I wonder if they can find any comparable representation from the League right now? Aren't they all in London taking in the shows? They will just beg for delays and usually you get them so nothing really can be solved I would think in time to save The Grinch other than an end to the strike itself.

What is sad is that The Grinch ended up in that Theatre to begin with. Something for them to think about in the future.

Where are the Corporate Raiders when you need them!

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:09pm

EXACTLY the right metaphor! Touche!

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:18pm

This whole thing has become incredibly disillusioning and all of a sudden, I don't know whether I want to be a part of this business.

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:27pm

Sorry to spam the topic, but Mattbrain, nice sig and avvie. I love South Park and Terrance and Phillip!

[Mamie]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:27pm

National Endowment for the Arts, “Age and Arts Participation, 1982-1997":

"On February 12, 1996 an article titled "As Patrons Age, Future of Arts is Uncertain" appeared in the New York Times (Miller 1996). It galvanised attention on the question of the aging of arts audiences in the United States.

In 1982, those under thirty years of age comprised 27.1 percent of the musical theater audience and by 1997 comprised just 16.2 percent of the audience. Over this same span of years, those over sixty rose from 16.4 percent to 22.7 percent of the musical theater audience.

In 1982 those under thirty years of age comprised 29.1 percent of the theater audience, and by 1997 young people comprised just 16.7 percent of the audience for theater. Over this same span of years, those over sixty rose from 15.5 percent to 22.8 percent of the theater audience."
----------------------------------------
Current Broadway shows with appeal for young audiences – Wicked, Mary Poppins, Legally Blonde, Hairspray, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Lion King, The Little Mermaid. Of these, ONLY Mary Poppins remains open.

The holiday season is the time when families come to New York and take their children to see these wonderful shows. A seed can be planted at this time that grows into a deep and lasting love for the theatre. Promises have been made and the excitement level has grown as their magic trip neared. Then FINALLY it gets here. A walk to the theater (holding tightly to mom’s hand) and they spot the big picture of Ariel/Grinch/Tracy….. and then they see the people marching and they find out that they won’t be allowed in. There won’t be a show. All that excitement, all that anticipation, and nothing. Did anyone see the children crying outside of The Little Mermaid? Or The Grinch?

What should have been a wonderful, exciting adventure has turned out to be a big lie. Disappointment and tears and wondering why they were being punished when they didn't do anything wrong. Parents can promise all they want, but the kids are never going to believe it again. Next year they’ll just stay home and go to the movies. They don’t shut those down.

The people – on ALL sides – are so myopic that they can’t see that they are cutting their own throats. Broadway is dying? It sure is. Of old age. And you’re making sure that it will never appeal to a new, young audience. Unless both sides are ready and willing to give – and to do so NOW – there’ll be no future.

Congratulations

[bk]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:39pm

"bk: Do you not read everything on a thread before you respond? The St. James theater was listed as a venue on the Unfair List. IATSE members are not allowed to work in buildings that are on that list regardless of any outside agreements they have, for example a special labor contract for that building. If a member works in that building they are subject to fines, suspension, or expulsion from the Alliance upon conviction. If being in Local One and working on Broadway can, allegedly, make me $150k a year why should I risk being expelled from that organization?

I do read everything carefully - yes, from both sides. So, if the St. James was on the Unfair List and IATSE is not allowed to work in buildings that are on that list regardless of any ourside agreements, then why did Local One do an about face and say that they COULD work the Grinch and take away the picket line? Either the theater is on the Unfair List or it isn't. You can't play both sides of the fence here. You state that even though there WAS an outside agreement that because the St. James is on the Unfair List that the show couldn't be worked. And now, suddenly, that seems not to be the case. Or am I missing something?