Why Aren't Some Shows Affected By The Strike?

This may have already been discuessed, but it's hard to sift through all the strike coverage, but why are some shows exempted from the strike? Like Xanadu, Spelling Bee, or Mary Poppins. And if Mary Poppins is because it's Disney, then are its other shows exempted too?

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 03:03 PM

And Disney doesn't own any theatres, so that has nothing to do with it -- in fact two of its shows are currently closed (Lion King and Little Mermaid). The New Amsterdam where Mary Poppins is playing is owned by the city and state of New York (that has a 99 year lease with Disney to run that theater) which has its own separate, still valid and unexpired agreement with the union. so there's no strike there. The other 7 still operating shows are also in theaters with unexpired valid contracts, including the four not-for-profit houses that operate under a valid LORT A contract with the union.

The 27 shows that are closed are in League -- Shubert, Nederlander or Jujamcyn -- Theaters who's agreement with the union expired back in July and a new agreement needs to be negotiated and agreed upon. When the League started imposing its own new contract terms and work rules on the union that the union hadn't agreed upon and hadn't negotiated for, the union walked away from the negotiating table, began this strike and until a new agreement can be arrived at, they will remain on strike.

---

Updated On: 11/13/07 at 03:13 PM

Yeah, I don't understand why The Grinch is closed.

---

The stage hands working tours could be asked to strike in solidarity.

IATSE has not asked everyone to strike in solidarity at this point and time.

---

I thought that Nederlander still had a contract but they were locking out local one in solidarity?

Oh that's confusing.

Thanks for explaining. Well good for those shows.

Why does the city/state own the New Amsterdam? Is it because it's considered historical property or something?

The city and state of New York took over the New Amsterdam and several other theaters on that block as part of the massive redevelopment of 42nd Street that started in the late 80s/early 90s. Prior to that, the New Amsterdam was one of several theaters that had fallen into disrepair and every property on the entire block between Broadway and 8th Ave. was in desperate need of many many millions on dollars in renovations. The city and state condemned several properties and, after a court battle, assumed ownership of them. It then leased several properties to companies who promised to refurbish and rebuild those properties in exhange for very deep tax breaks and benefits plus government grants, basically making it worth their while to invest in "the New 42nd Street."

So, while the city/state of New York actually owns the New Amsterdam (as well as a few others on the block), Disney (though its long term lease) is in charge of the day to day running of the theater.

---

We need an ask Margo column here.


Margo I have a question too. The Nederlanders released statements saying they had a separate agreement with Local One. This was different a situations that what the other League Members were facing with no binding contracts.

So is what the Nederlanders doing considered a Lock-out of Local One and the other two Unions rather than the case of Local One calling for solidarity from their members against the entire League? This has me very concerned and miffed if this is so.

Sorry, my other post was rather sloppy but I am still confused. It seems they obviously are not happy with each other. At one point it seemed like there was an agreement between the Union and Nederlanders because they both issued statements of support for each other.

Was this merely because Nederlanders was hoping to renegotiate completely on their own or did they already have something in writing stating they would solve their worries separately and then went back on their promise to do so? I thought they had already made attempts to settle the contract between them with some temporary arrangement. Then all of sudden, I read that Nederlanders sent the memo telling Local One that they should honor the League's proposal. Not really a threat but it suddenly felt like they had caved in to the pressure the other two Corporations were putting on them to band together with them.

It just feels like the only thing that was keeping the talks going is the fact that the Nederlanders were holding out or had a separate agreement already.

It means a lot to me whether Nederlanders locked out it's employee's or they were a victim of Local One's call to Strike? Knowing also how many Tours are out there and unfortunately we have a Nederlander's co-owned Theater in my City. I want this Strike to end swiftly. I much rather see an environment where both sides want to go back to work and sit at the table to solve this problem. I also want to know if someone really is playing the bully. If the Nederlanders had a separate agreement and led the Union to believe they would stay neutral but changed their mind at the last minute, probably with big chunks of money sliding across the table, I want to know who is playing fair and who isn't.

Thank you Margo for trying to answer this for me. It really does affect how I feel about the Nederlander Corporation. If they are behaving badly, we need to differentiate that fact now as the fight continues. I don't want to find I am supporting a Corporation that is shutting out it's employees when they had no reason to or other options available for them to use.

So it seems that really the only agreement that the Union and Nederlanders shared was that they would not impose the new work rules on the Union like the other two. I do understand they didn't have a new contract yet. So this forced the Union to have to picket Nederlanders as well since really they caved in and sided with the other two Companies.

Well, it doesn't seem like they really deserve any serious brownie points for their actions since in the end they sided with the League. They only had a flimsy agreement but too bad. They have a good many of the really successful shows under their belt.

I don't however see them as any worse or better than the others in this show of force. Thank you for the explanation. They had a lot of clout and I wish they would have held their ground. They were the key to preventing this strike. Too bad for everyone.