The Strike May Get Worse- Page 2

[roadguy]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 9:37pm

BK and localonecrew,

That's exactly my point. After reading that letter and the letter to actors and SM's i thought the same thing BK. It seems almost made up. Someone has way to much time on their hands. The reason I spelled out those 3 topics a couple posts ago is because they MAKE NO SENSE WHAT SO EVER!! Hire 2 guys, no we'll only let you hire one of us, flymen that make 3k a week and paying a hand to mop more than what they are already complaining they are paying him. makes no sense..

"I will say that localonecrew's response makes total sense, and that the League's letter, while seemingly making specific points, doesn't make much sense at all. In fact, it makes me question if it really came from the League - it seems weird to me. Has anyone verified it? I mean, I suppose anyone could dummy up something like that. But if it did come from the League, it's really odd."

[bk]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 9:45pm

Agreed, roadguy - I reread it again and it's just utter nonsense and written poorly to boot.

[JimmyP2]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 9:57pm

I was confused about this part. Does anyone know what they mean in this part?


"We dropped the request that Carpentry Department employees could assist each other, which forces us to hire more people than we need."

[amasis]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:01pm

Has anyone verified it?

Not really. But livebroadway.com is their official website, is it not? And the links to those letters are posted on the home page.
So unless some hacker decided to have a go at them...

Some of those numbers really doesn't make sense. The other letter was more of an "emotional appeal" to actors. Like I said... PR campaign.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:29pm

i worked on a broadway show for 52 weeks. not including load-ins on other shows that i did, but including 4 hour maintenance calls i did on my regular show, i made exactly 78,032.39.


not nearly the 150,000-200,000 that they claim.

i was also on a higher rate than a regular guy.

i was also luckier than most bway stagehands in that i had a show to work for 52 weeks. alot did not.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:34pm

I think this sounds pretty reasonable.

Yeah, that's what the League wants you to think. As others have said, the League's PR spin on all of this is incredibly manipulative.

On the bright side, this is the first article they haven't mentioned the poor children sobbing because the Grinchy stagehands stole Christmas.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:35pm

Spin goes both ways

[Wilko]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:41pm

Two pieces of information would be really helpful for the public to put pressure on the grade-school mentalities on both sides to settle this nonsense:

1) The actual numbers of what the Local 1 stagehands' salaries are

2) The names of the hawkish producers/theater owners within the league that are instigating the bad will during negotiations.

Both sides deserve to have their feet held to the fire, since they're costing everyone in midtown Manhattan.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:43pm

God help us if they focus on the actual problems instead of just trying to make the other side look worse.

Updated On: 11/20/07 at 10:43 PM

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:43pm

i just posted my salary.

paul libin, kevin mccollom, richard frankel, alan wasser

libin seems to be the worst of the problems

[Mamie]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:48pm

I don't believe a d**n thing coming from either side.

I want to see someone from the Governor's office decide that this whole thing is truly costing the state X number of dollars each day and therefore they should (and must) step in to settle it. I'd like to see a judge issue a restraining order with the only 'facts' coming from an impartial independent arbiter.

[localonecrew]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 10:54pm

we dont fall under the taft-hartley act and cant be forced by the city to arbitration.

http://armadillojoenyc.livejournal.com/66770.html

[Josh Freilich]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 11:15pm

Now I'm confused as to whether the strike has a way of resolving itself or making itself worse.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 11:31pm

I'm just going to say this:

If this debate is truly about forming a fair contract, this *could* be over soon.

If this situation is ACTUALLY an attempt to weaken if not destroy the unions starting with Local 1 (the strongest Broadway union), this could very well last until the new year.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 11/20/07 at 11:40pm

Is there even really a reason that there IS a League? Negotiating contracts AND supposedly promoting Bway (isn't this inherently contradictory?)

[bk]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 12:05am

I sent that letter to a friend and his feeling is it's bogus and that someone did it as satire. Really, that's the only thing that would make sense, because it's completely inane.

[don logan]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 12:16am

I believe it could be from the league. I'm 802, and playing in a show that is closed right now because of the strike. We have a contract with the producers in regards to a recording of the show we did being broadcast a certain number of times in a certain period of time. If it's broadcast for longer than a month, we get a stipend. Well, we are coming up on it being longer than a month, and the producers are now saying they don't want to pay us, that there was a "typo" in the contract. This is the lamest excuse for breach of contract I've ever heard, and I believe there isn't much they wouldn't do to make a buck.

Also, their website is called livebroadway.com? Are you serious? This from the people who wanted to replace the musicians with a virtual orchestra(ie: glorified Ipod)? Man they have stones the size of grapefruit.

Updated On: 11/21/07 at 12:16 AM

[winston89]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 12:35am

I am willing to tip my hat to the league for making a very convcincing argument that the stagehands make more then they actually do. It is doing a good job for the average joe who doesn't know much of what is going on to see the numbers and wonder why there is even a strike in the first place.

Also, I do think that the numbers are made larger to make the whole thing seem much more dramatic then it actually is.

I wish that the city can intervine but unfortunatly they can't force anyone to do anything in the situation. The only reason why there was anyone involed from the city during the musicians strike a few years back was becaue both sides agreed to it. The stage hands respectfully declined bloomberg's help.

It does make me wonder if this is all part of the producers scheme to make broadway a priviate venture. First, they wanted to ditch the players in the pit for nothing more then music comming out of an Ipod. Now, the stage hands. I think the league might be onto something. And they are the ones with the damn money so no one can call thier bluff even if they tried and even if they wanted to.

[BrianS]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 12:49am

localonecrew, thank you for stating such private information. If that truly is what the vast majority of stagehands are making on 52 weeks of employment on Broadway then I would say $1500/week hardly sounds like you are gouging the producers.

I know the producers are saying that the other issue is flexibility so they aren't paying guys that they don't need, but in terms of actual salary, I can't imagine anyone saying that number is unreasonable.

I hope when this whole thing is over, all the facts and numbers come out so that anyone who made false statements take the negative PR hit they deserve for this mess.

[amasis]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 1:40am

I sent that letter to a friend and his feeling is it's bogus and that someone did it as satire. Really, that's the only thing that would make sense, because it's completely inane.

If that's true, then someone need to tell them because they need to be worried about 2 things:
1. Someone is posting false letters under their name
2. And posting them on their official website, which means it's being hacked into.

ETA: I think they're real. Both letters are linked from the home page, and have been on there for hours. If they haven't realized by now they're being hacked into, someone should be fired.

I thought the letter to actors were quite clever in the way it says to actors, "Your Equity leadership is lying to you, and if things go wrong next summer, it'll be their fault."




Updated On: 11/21/07 at 01:40 AM

[WickedForever2]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 4:34am

I really can't see the strike being the "death of Broadway" because there are still too many people out there who support. Could it cause a sort of depression in theatre enthusiasm/attendance? You bet. But just like any economic depression, Broadway will emerge "stronger" in the form of higher ticket prices I predict...

[roadguy]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 5:05am

Winston,
In regards to your comment i quoted below it makes sense. I friend of mine just sent me this link to an article that was very interesting. http://www.thewip.net/contributors/2007/11/on_the_line_stagehands_on_stri.html

Gives some information on who owns who and, to me, makes sense why things are playing out the way they are...


"It does make me wonder if this is all part of the producers scheme to make broadway a priviate venture."

[Bwayfan4]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 6:14am

After reading this thread, I have but one question that remains unanswered.

Localonecrew, in one of your posts you mentioned the idea of hiring a stagehand for load-ins, and rehearsals. I get it. Clearly you need someone for this.

But then you mentioned something along the lines of keeping he stagehand hired JUST for the sake of keeping him hired...because if he tried to go out and get another job he wouldn't be able to find one due to the fact that many shows are on a similar timeline.

Am I understanding you correctly? So are you saying that rather than letting a stagehand go, because he wouldn't be able to find another job, he should be kept on?

So basically this stagehand isn't really needed (as he has done his specific job already), but we'll keep him around for the heck of it? He can do some minor work, just so he's able to collect a paycheck?

In general, I am all for people making fair salaries and working in fair conditions and stiking when you feel that your voice is not being heard.

But, assuming I am understanding the situation correctly (and I may not have) the stagehand is being kept around (and paid) a job that's already complete? Who keeps employees around just because they know employee "X" would have a hard time finding another job? (so we'll try to use him to do "other things")

This sounds ridiculous, so I hope I am incorrect. Let the producers hire as many stagehands as NEEDED to safely load in / run the production. If the producers THOUGHT they needed 10 stagehands, but they really only needed that amount at the beginning of the production (rehearsals, etc.), and now they need 8, then the producers SHOULD be allowed to let those stagehands go.


Localonecrew, please feel free to correct any inaccuracies or misunderstandings in this post. I am trying to understand both sides of the story...

All in all I think BOTH parties need to realize that in order for Broadway to be up and running again, BOTH sides will have to learn to COMPROMISE!

[jordangirl]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 6:50am

Wilko ~ I think it's more than just the producers bringing ill will into this. Why shouldn't the unionizers have to bring good will as well?

Bwayfan4 ~ Based on some loads I've seen (granted from next door or across the street while I was hanging out with friends or waiting for friends), your assumption is exactly what I've observed. In several cases, there have been several (more than one or two) people standing around outside doing nothing but polluting the air of anyone around them with nasty smoking for MORE THAN AN HOUR. If stagehands "dinner breaks" are more than an hour, that is ABSURD.

And if local 1 is so convinced they can get their people work on television and film (as they've stated in terms of helping their people get work), why is it such a big deal that a NON-NEEDED PERSON on a stage show can't get work on tv or film...since those positions are apparently readily available?

[bugmenot]

Posted: 11/21/07 at 7:57am

If you are outside a theatre and see people hanging out during a load-in, there is a good chance they are the Teamsters (who are not stagehands), who are waiting there for trucks to load or unload. That's their job, and their only job. In the Post a few weeks ago there was an anecdote about Mel Brooks walking by the Grinch load-in and seeing "stagehands sitting in a truck doing nothing" -- trust me, those were the Teamsters.

I'm not saying "anyone you see standing in front of a theatre smoking is NOT a stagehand".

Bwayfan4: "Am I understanding you correctly? So are you saying that rather than letting a stagehand go, because he wouldn't be able to find another job, he should be kept on? "

I think he was looking at it (as I do) from the standpoint of a freelancer -- if I'm doing a load-in at a theatre and I think there's a chance I might get a job on the running crew for that show (we often don't know until tech rehearsals are well underway), I will turn down work on the next load-in in the hopes I will have a "full-time" job when the show starts running. If there is a chance that my position will be cut, I may ask to be allowed to go do the next load-in instead. It just adds one more level of uncertainty to the employment situation.