#1
Posted: 11/13/07 at 11:54pm
I have a couple of questions for the Local 1 guys on this board. I'm asking from a place of wanting to understand your side of things because right now, I don't. There are plenty of nasty comments on other threads so if we could all keep this particular thread focused, civilized and informative, it would be greatly appreciated.
So you know where I'm coming from. I'm an AEA actor. I think your union is important as I feel it is the sole reason you have health care, safe working conditions, and a decent wage.
If any of the facts here are wrong, please let me know. There is so much closed door talk about what is true and what isn't, I tried to piece together an accurate picture.
So here are my questions:
1. According to this article-
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0DB1738F93BA35757C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Producers have to hire a 3 man crew to change a lightbulb, billable at $43/hour per stagehand. Is that true? Do you think that is ethical?
2. If 7 out of 10 shows lose money because they can't meet their weekly operating costs to recoup. From what I have read, one of the single biggest operating cost are the stagehand salaries (please correct that if it's wrong, but provide data). If IATSE starting salary were $78,000 per year (the same as AEA Production contract) as opposed to the current 6 figure salary (I tried to look up Local 1's starting salary, but couldn't find it so if anyone could post it so we have the facts, that would be great), wouldn't the significantly lower nut of the shows allow them a much better chance at staying open and provide longer employment for IATSE and actors and everyone else?
3. I know this question is going to sound insulting, but please know that I don't mean it to be. Yes, some stagehand positions are highly skilled (It would take a lot to teach someone to properly balance the sound of a show), but there are a lot of things (including pulling the fly ropes until the tape on the ropes line up, sweeping the stage, etc. that just don't seem like $120,000 (starting salary) a year jobs to me. I know lawyers who don't start with that salary. Actor's starting salary on Broadway is about $78,000 a year. Why do you feel that you should be paid near double what the actors are? I know this is a delicate question and of course it's gonna seem biased because I'm an actor, but the skillset of a Broadway actor is (usually) extremely high. It takes two weeks of rehearsal to get that very skilled worker into an existing show because of how complex learning the music, book, staging, and interaction of the cast on stage. I've repeatedly seen new stagehands pickup (or sub) a job and learn their task in a few hours. Why is that skillset entitled to so much more money than the actors?
4. With regard to paying people not to work, I keep reading the arguement about how there need to be enough stagehands (including the now infamous fly-rig guy) if something went drastically wrong with the show and the lights needed to come out of the flys. Why can't another stagehand lower the rig, fix it, then go back to his normal post? The reason I ask is because this is what actors do when other actors are out sick and both swings are on. We pick up cues, we change our stage patters and we make it work. Why aren't you as flexible as the actors in this regard?
The reason I ask these questions is that it affects all of us. It just seems that if Local One and the actors made the same amount and stagehands only got paid for the actual work they do, the nuts for the shows would be much lower and there would be many more shows that could remain open giving ALL OF US a lot more employment.
So you know where I'm coming from. I'm an AEA actor. I think your union is important as I feel it is the sole reason you have health care, safe working conditions, and a decent wage.
If any of the facts here are wrong, please let me know. There is so much closed door talk about what is true and what isn't, I tried to piece together an accurate picture.
So here are my questions:
1. According to this article-
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0DB1738F93BA35757C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Producers have to hire a 3 man crew to change a lightbulb, billable at $43/hour per stagehand. Is that true? Do you think that is ethical?
2. If 7 out of 10 shows lose money because they can't meet their weekly operating costs to recoup. From what I have read, one of the single biggest operating cost are the stagehand salaries (please correct that if it's wrong, but provide data). If IATSE starting salary were $78,000 per year (the same as AEA Production contract) as opposed to the current 6 figure salary (I tried to look up Local 1's starting salary, but couldn't find it so if anyone could post it so we have the facts, that would be great), wouldn't the significantly lower nut of the shows allow them a much better chance at staying open and provide longer employment for IATSE and actors and everyone else?
3. I know this question is going to sound insulting, but please know that I don't mean it to be. Yes, some stagehand positions are highly skilled (It would take a lot to teach someone to properly balance the sound of a show), but there are a lot of things (including pulling the fly ropes until the tape on the ropes line up, sweeping the stage, etc. that just don't seem like $120,000 (starting salary) a year jobs to me. I know lawyers who don't start with that salary. Actor's starting salary on Broadway is about $78,000 a year. Why do you feel that you should be paid near double what the actors are? I know this is a delicate question and of course it's gonna seem biased because I'm an actor, but the skillset of a Broadway actor is (usually) extremely high. It takes two weeks of rehearsal to get that very skilled worker into an existing show because of how complex learning the music, book, staging, and interaction of the cast on stage. I've repeatedly seen new stagehands pickup (or sub) a job and learn their task in a few hours. Why is that skillset entitled to so much more money than the actors?
4. With regard to paying people not to work, I keep reading the arguement about how there need to be enough stagehands (including the now infamous fly-rig guy) if something went drastically wrong with the show and the lights needed to come out of the flys. Why can't another stagehand lower the rig, fix it, then go back to his normal post? The reason I ask is because this is what actors do when other actors are out sick and both swings are on. We pick up cues, we change our stage patters and we make it work. Why aren't you as flexible as the actors in this regard?
The reason I ask these questions is that it affects all of us. It just seems that if Local One and the actors made the same amount and stagehands only got paid for the actual work they do, the nuts for the shows would be much lower and there would be many more shows that could remain open giving ALL OF US a lot more employment.
If the audience could do better, they'd be up here on stage and I'd be out there watching them. - Ethel Merman
Updated On: 11/13/07 at 11:54 PM
-- only the necessary help needs to come in. So just one house electrician to change some bulbs, or one house carpenter to fix some doors. 
