The New Work Rules In Dispute In The Strike Talks- Page 4

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 10/27/07 at 12:46am

Gothampc-

A Union will not get you the job. That is your part. They will protect that job, certify you and offer you benefits that no Producer will ever hope to be able to continue on any long term basis.

I caught that bitterness in your posts. The Union isn't going to make you a better Actor, Singer or Musician. That has to come from within. Bad Producers will take the money and run. Good ones, get to make more shows come alive. Smart ones or shifty ones can still make good money, if they know how to funnel it well.

If you prefer to talk about the past, lets go back a little bit further in History shall we? Like when there were no Unions and workers were as young as eight or nine. How's about being replaced by a ten year old? Or a twenty year old? Even being forced to train your own replacement? That is so much fun. We still have that in parts of the World.

I think it is sad, when Americans get whiny about actually writing that check for their benefits verses those jobs where they give you nothing at all. Who doesn't pay for their benefits except for Executives? I paid for my benefits and had no one to go to bat for me when things in the workplace went haywire. Lucky for me, I can represent myself but that isn't the case for many of my co-workers. Even Union workers have lost their jobs to younger less qualified replacements. Before Unions, there was no collective bargaining.

You say, let the people decide. Great soundbite. Well I am one of those people and I say I want to see people working. I love the sound of a full band. I want to see good Musicians given the opportunity to share their talents with the rest of us. What is a Musical without good Music? So there, is my vote.

It really is nice to have someone in the Union who can put the time into investing and investigating what plans are best for me, rather then have to spend what little free time I had after working.
*****************************************************************
I have tried to explain why it seems people are just, "sitting around" to these people but they don't care. Again, if you want a job like that, go out and apply, test your luck! Then come back and brag about how you get paid for nothing. Obviously this person is jealous. People make him work for his money while the rest of us stand around and collect paychecks. Lucky us!

I bet there are times you get paid for just complaining? I don't have it on camera but I bet it can be fairly easy to obtain. No one gets paid for nothing but many get paid for being ready to respond. You really need to get out of the house more and discover what the rest of the World is doing. Not just sitting in your car, honking your horn and yelling out rude gestures.

I guess our poster too, who just hates seeing people doing nothing won't be bothered by our Fire Dept. pulling weeds on the side of the road when their House is on fire clear across town! Some services are not an ongoing task but very dangerious when they are required. I just want to see you pass the physical, than, prove that you can do their job, just as well as they can before you knock them too much.


I've got another question for you? Why don't you like making money? If Producers force a strike than no one, not Producers, not Investors, only Mel Brooks, Nederlanders and Non-Profits get paid. They really want you to start a strike. That means even their mediocre shows will rake in the money your Producer friends would have, if they learned how to talk and play fair.

Oh and let's go a little bit further into that "mop up job" for our friend here. Who calls for the job in the first place? Someone who doesn't want to do it. Most jobs, Union or not have this policy in place. A smart Manager will find something else that needs to be done as well. If anyone again, is standing around, look to the Manager and ask them why? The worker is only doing what they are being told to do.


The real issue here isn't about how much it costs to put on a show but why are so many of these shows failing to gain an audience, while some, like Jersey Boys, Lion King and Wicked are running figures through the roof? That is where the focus needs to be and I see all of this Union haggling to be a distraction from the real issue of why aren't people willing to pay a fortune and make these Producers rich like the rest?

Not everyone is cut out to be a Producer and not every show will go through the roof. The Union isn't the problem. The Problem far exceeds this petty issue for Broadway in general.

[TechEverlasting]

Posted: 10/27/07 at 11:59am

"I think all of this will be put to the test next summer when Godspell rolls in. Godspell doesn't need a 25 piece orchestra."

Under the current agreement there are no Broadway theaters with a minimum higher than 19. In general your arguments about feather bedding and walkers in Broadway pits would be relevant if this was 1977 but they are meaningless hyperbole now. As far as I can tell the Special Situations committee lets the producers do whatever they want and the orchestra minimums are now just symbolic guidelines. Noteable recent "special situations": The PIrate Queen, All Shook Up, Lennon, Jersey Boys, The Woman in White, Mary Poppins... I guess just about any Broadway show is "special" these days.

Do you really think Godspell is going to have to hire more musicians than they want to?
Local 802 Bway agreement

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/27/07 at 1:14pm

"In general your arguments about feather bedding and walkers in Broadway pits would be relevant if this was 1977 but they are meaningless hyperbole now."

You've missed the point. I bring that up to illustrate how unions in the past have not made the success of Broadway their first priority. The use of walkers was detrimental to smaller shows and to the creative process. It was unfair for producers to have to pay salaries to people who weren't even working.

And no, it wasn't just a 1970s issue. As late as 1995, the producers of "Tommy" were paying millions of dollars to workers who weren't doing any work. The situation has been rectified for the moment, but there will be other negotiations in the future and I think the unions should consider what's beneficial for the industry. Otherwise, we'll go back to the low production rate of the 1980s and you'll see other theaters like the Hellinger being lost to non-theater interests.

Updated On: 10/27/07 at 01:14 PM

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 10/27/07 at 5:48pm

Gothampc, again, things that happened 15 or 12 years ago are of no consequence to the current situation.

f you want to use past examples to illustrate the greed or nature of the two sides of the dispute, we can bring up plenty of horrible things done by the producers. How about the sale of the Hellinger? Or the demolition of the Morosco, Helen Hayes, et al? Or the way actors could be fired without just cause back during the original run of ACL? Or the way the ticket prices have jumped 100% since 1996, and yet salaries have only increased by 3-5% during the same time period? Or the way producers have constantly put actors at risk with various FX and raked stages over the years? We could go on. Were the producers acting in a way that was "beneficial to the entire industry" with any of that?

Neither side is completely innocent or blameless, but dredging up old ghosts does nothing to solve the current situation. The stagehands have been working since the summer without a contract, which, in my mind, demonstrates their good faith in trying to work something out. It's the producers who have walked away from the table here, which puts them at fault. You can't negotiate a contract when only one of the parties is willing to talk.
Updated On: 10/27/07 at 05:48 PM

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 10/27/07 at 7:45pm

All I can see come of this is a lot of unnecessary overtime. You cannot expect one person to do the job of two or three others. Poor staffing only hurts the attitude of your workers and increases safety hazards.

You under staff and when trouble comes up, then you have to call someone in and pay them overtime. Then your costs go through the roof and you are to blame. That is poor management.

Setting up the people who make your shows work is just poor character. Shows now require so much more because of the advanced technology and the belief that bigger is better. Again, all I see are Producers creating a loop hole to fire or layoff stagehands as an out for a failing Production. You save a lot more money cutting back on Management then you do on tech staff. I have yet to see anyone argue that point.

They are asking workers to do more work for less pay. If you fire someone and put their workload on someone who already has a job they are paid to do their wages should be raised. You save from that fired workers salary. It seems only fair that you raise the wages substantially of those you have placed this extra burden on. I wouldn't take on even more work if I wasn't offered compensation for it. I've turned down jobs because the money wasn't good enough and held out until they met at least my minimum wage for the work I was required to do. If you don't, they will keep piling it in your lap until you finally do leave them high and desperate.

That is where they will find themselves if they refuse to recognize what is legal and what is safe in regards to working environments. I don't see any concern at all over any of these arguments. Things are so bare right now as they are.

The Union has already agreed to cut back job requirements for work that isn't needed. What are the Producers offering in exchange for that kind of sacrifice?

Oh I checked. My Doctor makes at least $200.00 an hour. That is minimum and actually very reasonable. I remember paying my Obstetrician $100hr in 1981. So how's that for real money? If your Dr. makes less than that either you are getting a very good deal or they aren't popular where they work.

[don logan]

Posted: 10/28/07 at 1:52am

I want to know what Gotham does for a living. I'll bet dollars against ruples they are a producer.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 10/28/07 at 5:30am

I'm not sure about that don logan. He doesn't seem to know enough about the dispute to be really involved. I think he is just an investor who likes the Theatre. His points are so old and he doesn't seem to understand what most of the workers are really doing out there. Maybe upper Management? :) If not please pardon my pun Gothampc. I like many of the Managers I have met and worked with but overall, I'd say that I have been luckier than most.

It's those new shows coming in that will get hit hard if the Producers don't come back to the table. It will be all of their fault too. They could just milk this for another year if they so desired. They will do their best to push this to January and that is the window that the Union probably can't afford to lose. When they strike won't effect their basic wages, they get paid the same all year round. It will however hurt Producers whose shows are still struggling and need this Holiday rush.

It will hurt us patrons but it's just a show. Those who are struggling to support their families or are working hard just so they might have the opportunity to have one of their own are much more important right now. If the Producers care at all about themselves and those who "pad their pockets", (how's that for another slick term!), than they need to get their butts back into those chairs and get serious about making good on a contract. This way everyone has a Happy Holiday Season.

They may have the Media but we still have this, for now at least.

[Lynnespock2]

Posted: 10/28/07 at 8:41am

Regardless of what some people think, unions are necessary for many reasons. A strike would hurt many people, not just the two parties involved, but no one should have a contract enacted with a voice in that contract, union or not.

[don logan]

Posted: 10/28/07 at 11:40am

TK2: good point. Either upper management or the ghost of Reagan.