Some of this is a matter of SAFETY! — Page 2

Finally, someone has the best answer to the whole situation! Thank you Boq101.. Each and every show should sit down and negotiate their own individual contract based on the REAL needs of the show. NOT what the unions dictate as their broad, across the boards rules. Obviuously other shows have already done that as they are exempt from this strike.

If the crew members are so concerned about safety, perhaps they would stop stepping out during shows to have drinks across the street, or smoking pot in the fly rails. Both occurences I have personally witnessed.

njluvs-If they did that then we would be going through this all the time and shows would take forever to open.

---

The drinkers and smokers you saw... were the the local one stage hands.. or the theatre's on-staff hands? Did you see their cards?

I sound shilly? Who am I shillng for? I am not a member of any union nor am even in NYC. I have, however, discussed the issues with a husband and wife who are involved as members of AEA and Local 1.

There are many other issues other than safety... but I am trying to point out that this is not all about money.. and how trying to save money can affect us as theatre audiences. Maybe to open the eyes of people who are selfishly sad they can't see the shows... and see people are standing up for something they may be able to relate to.

Quick Question: I've been on a broadway stage, but have never actually ventured backstage. Must all fire curtains be released from the flies on Broadway? Most theatres I have done shows in have a system where a person pulls a lever or breaks glass and punches a button to release it. It would seem counterintuitive to the safety of everyone involved to have it in the flies, unless there is someone up in the flies the entire time.

---

Those new phone booth adds, wouldn't exactly call them "innovative" Flaunt It.

I know there are a lot of actors on this board so as a Local One stagehand let me try to explain things as best I can. We could probably streamline crews a little bit without a hugely noticeable difference just like choruses could be smaller and orchestra's could be synthesized. Is that what everyone wants? Local one is trying to hold on to jobs that have existed for generations. Just because a piece of scenery is automated that doesn't mean you don't need anyone to run it and ensure its safe movement.
As far as the fire curtain goes it's not really an issue because the main sticking point is the load-in period not the run of the show. There are no audiences in the theater during the load-in and no need for a fire curtain.
Everyone should also know that the producers and their production people set the crew minimums for the load-in not Local 1. What they want is to be able to lay guys off without notice. They want guys to commit their time and turn down other work to do their load-in then be able to tell them to not come in tomorrow because they got more done today than they expected.
Everyone should also consider that the hourly rate for stagehands isn't incredibly high. When they report that someone is making $150,000/year that is someone that is picking up work wherever they can in addition to there 8 shows/week and probably working 70-80 hours. If a stagehand is doing 8 shows/week without picking up any extra work he isn't making anywhere near $150,000.
Who are you going to trust here the stagehands or the people that are charging as much as $500 in some cases for tickets to a show?

---

Updated On: 11/11/07 at 03:28 PM

Is it rude to say that this is alll JUST about money. I know that money is important. Hell I wish I made more money as I think my job deserves more... It is not about brain surgery and light boards... it is about the almighty dollar and who gets what. When money is a factor... it does not matter what situation you are in... life becomes so different. I just feel bad for all those people who have never seen a broadway show and what they must think about this whole situation. We bitch about the cost of a theater ticket and when money comies into play, the people who will lose out the most are the patrons who may now have to pay 300-500 a ticket to see a show since everyone wants more money.
I have been an actor, a singer, a stagehand and a patron and I say that although there are totally reasonable demands that should be met.. no one is thinking about the outcome. If you piss off the audience enough, they won't come... and then the strike will be a moot point anyway.

Just a my 7 1/2% Opinion....

---

My best guess is that the median annual salary for active Local One stagehands is somewhere around $65,000. Not wealthy by any NYC standards.
The $450.00 ticket is a reality not theatrics. The producers are in business to make money as they should be but I don't believe they need to increase their profits by taking money out of the pockets of their employees.
It's important that people understand that if there wasn't money to be made they wouldn't be producing musicals and plays. The producers are throwing up a little bit of a smokescreen here by only talking about the money they make during a show's NYC run. They make most of their money after the show closes in NY and goes on the road or becomes a film or starts making royalties from local theater productions.
The producers have played a good political game so far and if they convince the public that the stagehands are a bunch of drunks that get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars while doing nothing at work they will have succeeded. Keep in mind that Local One has never struck Broadway ever. That should tell you a little about what they are asking of us. I've been around a lot of labor negotiations in this business and they usually involve raise percentage and benefits. This one is about a massive give-back in jobs and quality of life. You don't know me from jack but I will tell you these are good men and women that are just trying to protect their way of life. No one is getting rich here.
I'm a Local One stagehand so obviously I'm biased but when I sat at our meeting yesterday before the strike and looked around the room I saw a bunch of Mom's and Dad's that are just trying to keep their jobs.

---

if producers dont make money, why is it the same people producing shows every year?
are they really bad business people or are they making alot of money?

If they are losing so much money why do they continue to produce? The answer is they aren't losing nearly as much as they lead you to believe. If a show makes it to Broadway it is obviously good enough to make money after it closes in NYC. I don't believe for a minute that they would keep doing it if they weren't making money.
We're not talking about people trying to scrape up enough money to pay their rent. If I were a producer and I kept losing money when I opened a show in NY I would find another line of work or another investment for my money. That doesn't happen so what does that tell you?

---

Thank you for the answer about salaries. I wish, though, that you'd address the issue about work rules governing load-in. What *are* the rules you are trying to preserve?

The producers set a minimum with their hired production "consultants" about how many people they need to load-in a show. This is their educated estimate going into a load-in. They hire people based on that number. Those people accept that work and commit themselves to that load-in. If other work comes along they will turn that work down because they are already committed to the specific load-in. If after three days the producers realize they have over-estimated they are stuck with that number until the "card is broken" or until the lighting is "focused". This is not always a hard and fast rule it has been changed in the past. They would like to be able to change that number as they see fit at any time if they have over estimated. The problem with that is now you are throwing people out of work that have committed to you. Unlike AEA actors we don't have personal contracts that guarantee us six months pay. The Union protection is the only thing we have to keep producers from changing their mind about hiring us and therefore laying us off without notice.
Think of it like a play hiring 12 actors only to cut 6 roles a week into rehearsals. Do the actors get paid for the rest of their contract?

---

Thanks, Mooo.

For a non-theatre person can you translate: "until the "card is broken" or until the lighting is "focused""?

In regards to the load-in, I've heard reference to other kinds of rules: about who's called in to work, when, for how many hours, who gets paid for overtime, etc. Are there rules that define these sorts of things? Somebody claimed on some board that if one person works overtime, everyone is paid for the overtime. Or if one person is called in, they all get paid. That sort of thing. Is any of this true? Is it false? Is it a distortion of something that is true? What is the truth about the work call sorts of rules?