Who is REALLY affected by the strike? Oh, those POOR tourists! — Page 5

Marona, I agree with you. It's funny, I don't live in NY but I'm there so often that I don't really consider myself a tourist (although I guess technically I am).

Even I have noticed more and more of those obnoxious tourists who are rude, show no common courtesy to others, and seem to have no common sense whatsoever. I used to come into the city hours before my show started and just roam around...now with all of these obnoxious tourists, I literally get to the city an hour before the curtain rises...I come for the show and leave after.

Unfortunately I think rude obnoxious people with no common sense is becoming an epidemic in this day and age...can we please start thinking about people other than ourselves!?!?!? And while we're at it..."please", "thank you" and "excuse me" are not taboo...USE THEM!!! (and teach others to do the same)

This is the end of my rant...

When I read comments from people who say "they came from a long distance to only find there is nothing to see" makes me laugh. There are a lot of other shows that are still running. Go see something else. At the moment there isn't anything anyone can do. You will get your money back for the show you had originally wanted to see, but since you are in the city, you might as well see something else. You will probably be pleasantly surprise seeing something you wouldn't necessarily have thought of seeing.

It is funny seeing the photo of the bewildered tourists looking at the TKTS Board. There are countless of "off-Broadway" shows listed, but tourists shy away from them most of the time. Go see one of those shows, or suck it up and go see Shakespeare at Lincoln Center, that is bound to be just as stimulating if not more so than Legally Blonde or Jersey Boys.

I didn't get to see a show last night that I had purchased a ticket for, but I sucked it up and did something else. There are millions of other activities a tourist can do. Go for a walk in Central Park, go check out the Village, go to Zabaars. I know that people came a long way to see something but sometimes there are things you cannot control.

Before moving to NYC, I was visiting when the Musicians went on strike, closing down many shows. I was disappointed but it passed, and found other things to occupy my time. I went to a museum or to the top of the Empire State Building. It was fun.

---

Updated On: 11/11/07 at 08:11 AM

"New hospitals and schools are not built with tourist dollars. They are built with tax money, which I and other locals pay."

Tourists pay taxes to the city of NY. Anyone who has stayed in a hotel in NYC knows that. (I assume there is general sales tax in NYC as well, isn't there?) As for your jobs paying the taxes, the point I first made in this thread (in response to those who were making fun of Iowa) was that many of the jobs (theater workers, restaurant, hotels, taxis, etc.) effected by the strike wouldn't have existed in the first place without the tourists. The locals might be paying the income taxes, but tourists are paying the locals. Obviously not entirely, but for those working in the Theater District, significantly.

I agree with the basic premise made in the original post that the local media shouldn't have just talked to tourists, but--when you are talking about the theater industry--so much of it comes back to the tourists, doesn't it?

Greekmusicalfan...I don't CARE what tourist category people put me in...I KNOW that I am not one of those people MaronaDavies is talking about since I was raised to use manners and to treat others with common courtesy. I'm sorry that you are offended by MaronaDavies' comments...I on the other hand, am not.

I think people have forgotten that this is what is SUPPOSED to happen with a strike. It is supposed to suck for many many people and they are supposed to complain. That's all part of the proccess of getting the contract that the stagehands want (and deserve)

I certainly don't think the tourists are the only people who are affected by this or that they are most harshly affected and as much as I dislike many tourists too I still understand why they would be upset. Some didn't even know the show was cancelled until they actually arrived at the theater.

---

I could be wrong, but I don't think the union planned the strike around the 11:00 performance of "Grinch". I think it is awful that Charlotte St. Martin made that statement to make the union members look bad and that they have upset these children. Kids would have been affected by the strike no matter when it started. And I also think it stinks that they are not reporting on the people and businesses that will be affected by this. I don't know everything about this strike, (I am reading everything I can and even streaming NY1 online)but I think I know enough to say that both sides have "a point". But I have yet to see a union member being interviewed about the strike. I can't say I take sides on this because I am not in the industry or at the theaters where these stagehands work. But I will say that if there are stagehands that are on shows that are not needed or are getting paid for not being there for a full performance, than that should be looked into on a show to show basis. But it seems that whenever this contract that just expired was agreed to, the producers had to agree to it so they have let this happen. As far as the producers are concerned, I feel it is about money and how they can get more. Especially since Broadway is generating so much money. Just my random thoughts.

---

Sure some tourists were complaining, but I think most were more upset about the lack of notice about the strike. Many could have changed plans, etc, if they knew there would be no shows. How do we know that a majority of them haven't seen the city 100 times over or have no interest in seeing the other shows. Sure their tickets will be refunded, but who refunds their airfare and hotels? Personally it broke my heart yesterday to walk past The Little Mermaid and see crying children. Adults surely understand what a strike is, but how can you expect a child to? It's really tough to take a side when it comes to strikes because on the one hand you want to support those who are fighting to keep their financial well being but on the other hand you hate that their striking does it at other people's expense. Look at the WGA strike. NBC just fired the entire crew of The Office over it. 102 people are now out of a job with bills to pay due to others wanting better finanical stability and their fair cut. How can you possibly pick a side to support? It sucks all around. Actors, other crew, restaurant, tourist attractions, and audiences can all be hit financially due to a strike.

I figure some of you guys might get a kick out of some of the responses below this article: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/broadway-lockout-survival-guide/ and want to add your two sense.

---

"It's really tough to take a side when it comes to strikes because on the one hand you want to support those who are fighting to keep their financial well being but on the other hand you hate that their striking does it at other people's expense."

Strikes are a tactic of last resort. It's management refusal to bargain in good faith that forces them. The writers and stagehands would rather be working, too, but under fair conditions, which management refuses to maintain or establish. Others out of work are misdirecting their anger if they are blaming strikers, especially since they will most likely, in the long run, benefit from whatever the unions retain or gain in a settlement.

They are only misdirecting their anger if they agree with Local One. There are many people, some more informed than others, who do not agree with the strike nor in what Local One is asking for. Like any strike, other unions may join the picket line in support but it does not necessarily mean they fully back it. Of course publicly many may be for the strike simply to avoid awkwardness, etc once the strike is resolved but I don't fully believe some don't feel animosity towards their crew members. It's easy to blame everything on management but it does take two sides to get where we currently are.

From my understanding, while "cutting jobs" aren't they offering essentially a 20% pay increase over 5 years? And I truly do not see a problem with wanting to change how crew calls are done regarding load-in. If you were an employer, would you want to pay someone for a day of work if they were not needed? One of my dearest friends is a stagehand and there have been times where he didn't have to do a damn thing and he got a paycheck. I've also worked on shows where a few things needed to be moved backstage and we had to call a 4 hour crew call. It took all of 30 minutes but they had to be paid for 4 hours. Its these cases where I do not support the strike. If this is the biggest issue they are fighting, how do they not come across as greedy?

Are the stagehands at the theatres which are still open receiving a substantially better deal? If not, why are they still working?

I'm not sure. All I know is that they have a different contract.