#1
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.
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.
