Producers to LOCK OUT the Grinch- Page 4

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 9:59pm

BK,

the local did not want to picket the st. james because of the agreement with the grinch producers. Tom Short ordered that we do so.
Tom Short has now removed himself from the negotiations and the local therefore no longer felt an obligation to respect his wishes on the matter. the local then removed the picket from the st. james so that the grinch could do shows.
jujamcyn said no and and ordered a lockout.

[rcrcr]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 10:20pm

At this point, I think the most constructive thing that people here could do would be to contact Jujamcyn and politely and respectfully request that the St. James be unlocked.

[bk]

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

localonecrew, thank you for at least responding without name-calling. I have read the reports of Tom Short's ordering the St. James picket - I guess it seems weird to me that Mr. Claffey would just go along with it if he didn't agree with it, given that they seem to have a strained relationship at best.

And I am in complete agreement that the best of all possible worlds would be for the show to go on. It just depends on why Jujamcyn is taking the stand they took - as I posted, someone on another board posited that it was a legal stance, that in Jujamcyn's eyes the union breached their agreement and that the agreement therefore is not in force, and that if lawsuits were to be filed, Jujamcyn could take the position (rightly or wrongly) that it isn't their doing. I'm obviously not a lawyer and all that verbiage gives me a headache.

At the end of the day, it's a shame Local One struck the St. James and it's an equal shame that Jujamcyn won't open the doors. I think I've said it repeatedly - there are no good guys and bad guys - just guys who are fighting for the best they can get. That's what strikes are all about - but it's the heated, overwrought rhetoric from both sides that just gets so thick sometimes that you just want to vomit on the ground. It really does seem like high school. I sincerely hope that the next go-round at the tables goes better and yields a contract both sides can live with - I think it's clear that neither side will get exactly what they want.

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 11:34pm

I saw a photographer posing a mother and her young daughter in front of the St. James today. They were talking and laughing, and that got them in trouble. The photographer went "No smiling! Hug her, mom!" and snapped a picture. I'd like to think I'm wrong, but it looks like more propaganda.

[Taka]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 11:36pm

dancingthrulife, are you serious? That's just. . .wow. . .

[dancingthrulife04]

Posted: 11/19/07 at 11:40pm

I wish I was joking.

[leko2]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 12:24am

I'm pretty sure I'm not playing any sides of the fence here. I am explaining how the strike action here works according to the rules. I'm sorry if to you that means I'm playing two sides of a fence.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 12:31am

> I have read the reports of Tom Short's ordering the St. James
> picket - I guess it seems weird to me that Mr. Claffey would just
> go along with it if he didn't agree with it,

He didn't have a choice. the way the union works is the international president, Tom Short, has the ultimate power (and no, the members of Local One didn't elect him). Short also ordered us to implement the strike on Saturday morning. I am pretty sure Jim Claffey would have preferred to wait until at least Monday or Tuesday to give people some warning. We had to do as we were told.

[bk]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 1:26am

So, if he has that kind of power, why didn't he force the acceptance of the offered contract? I mean, either he has the power or he doesn't. Yes, the membership could eventually vote to not accept, but why would Claffey suddenly have enough power to say no to Short.

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 1:36am

> why didn't he force the acceptance of the offered contract?

That's something you'll have to ask him, I guess.

Maybe he knew it was a bad deal. Maybe he knew there was a chance the members of the local union would defy him and reject the contract. Maybe he was homesick for california. All just conjecture, of course.

Just to be 100% accurate: the union put the last offer on the table. The league then rejected it and walked out.

[leko2]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 1:41am

I don't recall anyone once saying that Tom Short had the power to force Local one to accept a proposed contract. All anyone here has said is that he determines who is an Unfair Employer and determines when the strike happens.

Here's how accepting the contract works: The negotiating committee meets with the League and hammers out a deal. Now, as you have so gracefully pointed out, the membership needs to vote on the contract before it can be accepted. And, assuming it's accepted by the membership, it then has to be sent to the International for final approval. Once the International approves it, then you're all set.

And that is how contract negotations work in a nut shell.

[bk]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 2:11am

a) I know how contract negotiations work, in a nutshell or otherwise. I was on the strike committee for a potential DGA strike a few years ago (the strike didn't happen, BTW, because the DGA and the producers sat down, didn't make with the rhetoric, and just did what needed to be done - and yes, there were compromises on both sides).

"Just to be 100% accurate: the union put the last offer on the table. The league then rejected it and walked out."

Just to be 100% accurate, I'm sure the League put an offer on the table, too, which was also rejected. Everyone's rejecting everything, that's the point. On a humorous note (Bb), I'd like to know where the League went when they walked out - it certainly wasn't out the door, because it's been widely reported everywhere that the first people out of the building were the Local Ones. :)

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 12:08pm

It really doesn't matter who walked out first. They didn't settle the agreement and we know, based on a statement from St. Martin, that they would not come back until Nov 25. That is rather definitive to me.

It still stands that Jujamcyn had an opportunity to show some Holiday spirit and make some money but they threw the idea out of the door. In disrespect for the Producers, Crew and Staff of The Grinch.

This could have been a turning point in negotiations. It could have lead to a cool down and draw them back to the old rules until they can settle the Unions issues but no. They just really don't even care about the show or it's audience.

I would like to think it wasn't just because of a contract but for the families who came all the way to NY to see a Christmas show. Unfortunately, I fear the Jujamcyn has a heart that is more then three sizes too small.

[Taka]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 12:17pm

I really hope that "The Grinch" wins in court. . .this may be a land mark case in Broadway history, for all we know.

[ken8631]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 12:18pm

Any status on the court effort?

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 1:33pm

I don't mean to get off topic either but Taka, thank you for the compliment. Would you like a monkey claw?

[Taka]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 1:46pm

Not now. Let's look for treasure instead!

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 1:49pm

I can't, Taka. i have to go to Iran to find my daughter!!!!!

[ken8631]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 3:22pm

No status update on this yet I assume?

[Anakela]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 4:26pm

ok lawyer types, can someone explain this to me re: the Grinch injunction filing:


Alison Brod, a spokeswoman for the producers of ``The Grinch,' declined to say which court will handle the injunction request.


What does that mean 'which court'? What are the choices?
Court Battle May Decide Whether `The Grinch' Steals Christmas

[Taka]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 4:29pm

Anakela, is that you in your avatar? If so, you look really pretty.

[Anakela]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 4:47pm

Anakela, is that you in your avatar? If so, you look really pretty.

Lol no, it is not- but thanks for that, though!

(ps- if this wasn't meant as a joke then the serious answer is that my avatar is Nikki Snelson from Legally Blonde)

[Taka]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 4:52pm

It wasn't meant as a joke. Too bad my family won't take me to New York to see a show anytime soon. . .not that it matters, anyways.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 4:52pm

Damn right they should go to court. The Local One was wrong for striking the show in the first place....this is just the icing on the cake. The Grinch should have been open since November 10th, no later. I am especially confuzzled with Jujamcyn's decision.

Updated On: 11/20/07 at 04:52 PM

[Anakela]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 4:54pm

Hey, Legally Blonde's all over tv this Thursday- NBC and MTV.


/ok, enough LB threadjacking- back to The Grinch.