Thoughts to Resolve the Stagehands Strike

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 4:36pm

This thread is created in the interest of offering ideas to help resolve the strike.

The strike benefits no one. Everyone loses something from it while it is on. Union workers are missing paychecks, shows are losing revenue, patrons are missing shows, businesses in the theatre district are losing income, and so on.

As I see it, the reason there is a strike on is that both sides, Local 1 and the theatre owners and producers of the League, want to show they mean business or are serious about protecting their interests to the point of confrontation. Okay, we know this, but confrontations and wars can go on forever and nobody benefits until there is a resolution. So please let us get to the resolution sooner rather than later.

I am not informed enough about the content of the contracts involved to make a decision as to what is fair to both sides. I have attended a producer's group for several years and have heard bitterness expressed many, many times about the content of the stagehands contract and that it was a "sellout" in that the theatre owners made a contract with the stagehands that has been "shoved down the throats" of the producers who were not party to the negotiations or the contract. I don't recall any other union contract ever being brought up or mentioned with resentment, the stagehands contract is a thorn to producers. Theatre owners are tired of hearing the bitterness about this from producers and being blamed so they have realized they made a mistake before in leaving producers out of the deal when they are the ones who have to pick up the tab.

On the other hand, the stagehands raise an argument that there is plenty of money to pay a good salary from hit shows and that the reason so many shows are not returning investment is that the shows are not good. While I have seen good shows not return investment, there have been a lot of lousy shows, too, so there is merit in that argument. When I hear one side complain about $500 to mop a stage I do find myself thinking what if the stage has a trap door or some tricky equipment on or around it, do you really want someone who doesn't know what is going on with all the technicalities of that stage messing around on it? You could get a dumb cleaner who creates a hazardous condition.

So let's start the road back to show biz by saying both sides have some valid arguments. This time the producers are actively involved in the negotiations. It is important to remember that they were not included in the old contract negotiations, and nobody likes "taxation without representation."

That being said, there are ways to resolve this strike without one side cramming its leverage down the other side's throat. Both sides have leverage here and the producers have been bitter for years about this, but leverage and bitterness are not the best way to a resolution. Everyone has to work together in this industry, and a spirit of unity and cooperation is what we want to foster.

Here are your nomdeplume's suggestions for creating conditions to optimize the opportunity for timely resolution. Other ideas are welcome, and anyone is welcome to add positive ideas to foster a climate for resolution. I think the City of New York has a vested interest in helping to resolve this strike and can be of use to both sides as well.

nomdeplume suggests:

1. The Union reconsider and take up Bloomberg's offer to assist in resolving the strike in this way: tell the mayor that while the Union is not interested in having anyone from the City attend or try to participate in the negotiations, that you will accept an offer to use Gracie Mansion as a neutral location for negotiations.

2. City of New York--are you listening? Have coffee, beverages and food available 24 hours a day at Gracie Mansion and leave all sides alone, just make sure the creature comforts are taken care of.

3. Both Local and League sides should invite a professional mediator to the negotiations. First, just to listen. As time passes, to offer and outline ideas for achieving a resolution. A mediation is non-binding, but should not be overlooked as unhelpful for that reason. Kenneth Feinberg has a good firm that could probably offer a crack mediator, and NYC has lots of mediators, plenty serve on cases for the Federal Courts, very experienced. A mediator facilitates negotiations and achieving an agreement but does not make a decision.

4. Should the mediation not achieve the resolution, then both sides could choose a neutral arbitrator and engage in a non-binding arbitration. The arbitrator would render a neutral decision of what he or she thought was fair. Though not binding, it would give a neutral factfinder's decision. This allows each side to reevaluate their position and the likelihood of achieving goals without being bound.

5. Binding arbitration is an option. And there are alternatives like a arbitration that is binding unless appealed, which then is subject to new trial before a new factfinder.

6. In the meantime and while these negotiations are going on, everyone can and should be getting back to work immediately. What about the disparate contract terms versus new work rules? To the extent that the dollar difference amounts are calculable, like whether one would be paid 2 hours pay or 4 hours pay for a two-hour job, during the interim the League should put all disputed sums in the escrow account held by a neutral party, perhaps the mediator's firm could set that up, decision to eventually be made by a binding arbitration which shall occur annually until a new contract is agreed. To the extent that this is a disputed “excess job” that the League would say no individual is needed to perform (a disputed job for a load-in, for example) both sides should agree to a committee to decide the number of individuals needed, the committee to consist of one union representative, one league representative and one NYFD fire captain (who could be retired) who will be neutral but knowledgeable about safety issues.

Let us look forward to a quick resolve and everyone back to their shows ASAP.

[myManCape]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 4:39pm

I stopped reading once I got to this paragraph.

2. City of New York--are you listening? Have coffee, beverages and food available 24 hours a day at Gracie Mansion and leave all sides alone, just make sure the creature comforts are taken care of.

I think both sides can afford thier own lunch money.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 5:53pm

Use your head.

Having a neutral location and food provided is not about who can afford their lunch money. It's about creating an environment conducive to negotiations. No one needs to go out or order in for food. Everyone can focus on their job of reaching an agreement through negotiations.

Negativity isn't going to help this get resolved so I encourage everyone to seek ways to reach agreement through positive, creative thinking.

Thinking outside the box is what's needed, and both sides should be brainstorming ideas, not locking in to a negative mentality.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 6:41pm

Pistols at 10 paces.

[StageFan2]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 6:58pm

Strikers go back to work.

Producers pay them for the work they do.

Done.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 7:02pm

Have the stagehands go back to work under the requested modified work rules. If the play makes a profit, and recoups, the union gets 2% of the net profits distributed to investors, payable at the same time as paid to investors. How the union divides it among the working stagehands is up to them. This gives the producers the chance to "normalize" staffing, and the stagehands a chance to have a common interest with investors. No featherbedding since it means a longer wait for their 2%. The understanding will be, however, that the 2% (or 3% or whatever) is not to be renegotiated. It will simply become a standard term.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 7:03pm

Let us not have common sense enter the proceedings.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 7:06pm

Kind of puts a damper on the proceedings, doesn't it?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 7:07pm

Yeah it does.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 8:04pm

Good God, Nom, where were you with your brilliant and "outside the box" thinking three weeks ago? If someone had just thought of mediation or arbitration as a way to solve this mess kids could have seen The Grinch and had a happy holiday.
I predict once the powers that be read your post everything will be settled in a day or two. Bring on the coffee and donuts!

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 11/23/07 at 9:30pm

Actually, it's very possible for the strike to be resolved in a day or two if everyone would get their butts back to the negotiation table and be focused, open-minded and realistic.

Why should the City's help be refused? Take something from the City, use Gracie Mansion, the Mayor doesn't live there.

Keep the negotiations continuing. Use a mediator for what they are good at doing. Use arbitration for what it's worth.

Publicity-seeking and excess lawsuits are a waste of time and money. Time and money have value and should not be wasted.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 1:23am

Bloomberg? Are you kidding? You think he gives a s***t about the middle class?

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 2:42am

Yes, actually I do think Bloomberg cares about the middle class and also about the arts. And I can give you some examples of things he has done to support both. Rather than take a confrontational approach toward the City unions as did his predecessor Giuliani, Bloomberg like a good businessman saw to it that all the contracts were quietly renegotiated for longer terms of three years, thus avoiding the hassle and time consumption of renegotiating every year, and his administration was on top of beginning negotiations early, not leaving it for last minute. Bloomberg has been a huge supporter of the arts and many small theatre companies (particularly after 9-11 when they were desperate for money) and his donations were generally listed as "Anonymous."

However, you will note in my suggestions I am assuming that due to Local One's initial decline of the Mayor's offer to help that the Union does not want him or a City representative to be personally involved in the negotiations. While that is fine it does not mean the Union has to reject the offer of assistance from the City--it's the Broadway stagehands' City, too. Gracie Mansion now has a history of being a place where strikes have been resolved. It is a good neutral meeting place and it is a small concession to make that doesn't cost the Union anything, to go there to negotiate.

[TheFriarsDruggist]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 7:25am

Get Michael Clarke Duncan to mediate.

By mediate, I mean stand outside the door, and if anyone attempts to leave without settling this gotdamn thing, he throat-punches them, drags 'em back inside, and sits their ass back down.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 7:43am

Put them in a theater & make them watch performance after performance of Moose Murders until they cry for mercy.

[billynj]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 9:33am

I am sure the weather, and the other 75,000 union card holders affected by the action is helping get them back to the table, a little quicker.The free coffee and dough nuts must be getting very old.

Lets hope both sides consider they are killing a form of entertainment.The consumer has much to choose from these days.

[Mooo]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 2:20pm

In regard to the 2% solution:

I am a stagehand not an investor. After all I've heard on these message boards about how risky investing in Broadway is why in the world would I want to risk my families well being. I did not get into this business to be a speculator. It's strange how many people care about the large corporations (Clear Channel Ent.), the trust fund babies, and the Wall Street suits looking to spend their $30 Mil. bonuses.
As I've said before if it's such a bad investment that they need to squeeze the unions why are so many people lining up to invest in these shows. They are making money you can be assured of that. If they aren't they are using this for tax purposes. Either way don't cry for the producers and investors.

[NJluvstheatre]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 4:19pm

My thought is that the Producers and Theatre Owners should negotiate each contract individually for each show prior to mounthing that production. Much like Young Frankenstein, Mary Popins, etc. Just make it part of mounting a show on Broadway. This way if the Producers and Stagehands can't reach an agreement in the beginning, the show never opens and no one looses any money (other than the stage hands who don't get any work because the show doesn't open)..

Next, as far as investors go, has anyone noticed that more and more shows are produced by big corporations like Clear Channel, etc. Why is this? Because they are the only ones who can afford the ridiculous amount of money it costs to mount a show on Broadway. Indidvidual investors are hard to come by anymore...

Either negotiate each show contract individually or do away with the Union..

[Mooo]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 7:03pm

"Next, as far as investors go, has anyone noticed that more and more shows are produced by big corporations like Clear Channel, etc. Why is this? Because they are the only ones who can afford the ridiculous amount of money it costs to mount a show on Broadway. Indidvidual investors are hard to come by anymore... "

They are only getting into this market because there is money to be made. Clear Channel is a large corporation that realizes the potential cash involved with these shows. They certainly aren't doing it so we can all see new and exciting works. Disney got into it so they could cross market their products. All of those great Disney cartoons get even more popular through buzz generated on the Great White Way.

[bardolator]

Posted: 11/24/07 at 8:56pm

"Either negotiate each show contract individually or do away with the Union.."

If you negotiate each show contract individually, you basically ARE doing away with the union. I'm a teacher, and to me it just makes sense that, in my district at least, teachers with the same level of education and experience are paid the same. I can only imagine the mess if shows negotiated individually!

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for tomorrow.

[leko2]

Posted: 11/25/07 at 11:17am

I have a thought and mind you it's a shot in the dark but, how about the people who are negotiating the contract negotiate it and those who aren't keep their mouths shut?

I know this might be a little unrealistic, but I'm just throwing it out there.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 11/25/07 at 1:00pm

I'm sure, leko2, you don't really mean that if you think about it because if everyone had to "keep their mouths shut" we would be living in a facist society rather than a democracy, which supports the airing of all views in the hopes of distilling and discerning the best ideas from the aggregate.

Obviously if this has come to the point of strike, there is a need for more ideas.

This is not really the renegotiation of a contract since the producers were left out of the old contract, it is the creation of an entirely new contract with different parties. I wonder when the negotiations began for this? Six months ahead would have been good practical planning on both sides to use some business acumen.