Why Aren't Some Shows Affected By The Strike?
Why Aren't Some Shows Affected By The Strike?
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#1Why Aren't Some Shows Affected By The Strike?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 3:03pm
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
CJR
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/14/03
#2re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 3:05pm
I answered this in another thread (and it's all over playbill.com and all over all the strike threads here) but I'll answer it here too.
The theatres with Broadway shows currently running during the strike are independently owned and have their own contracts with the union. Hence them being unaffected. The only way the strike would affect them is if IATSE informs everyone in the union to walk in a show of solidarity.
If in Heaven you don't excel, you can always party down in hell...
MargoChanning
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
#2re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 3:13pm
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.
rcrcr
Swing Joined: 1/14/07
#3re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 3:26pmOn this topic, it is extremely confusing as to why Grinch is being struck. Although renting a Jujamcyn theatre, the producers (who are not affiliated with the League) reportedly have an individually negotiated contract with Local 1 that is neither expired nor disputed. Changes to the disputed League contract would not affect any terms for the Grinch crew. Also, reportedly, the rule changes the League imposed on Local 1 in its theatres in October were not imposed in the St. James.
#4re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 3:28pmYeah, I don't understand why The Grinch is closed.
#5re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:38pmIf this is true then why would tours be affected?
9/18 - Brian Stokes Mitchell, Cincy Pop's
9/28 - Death Of A Salesman, Wright State
#6re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:41pmThe stage hands working tours could be asked to strike in solidarity.
#7re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:45pmThen shouldn't all show's be dark if it's for solidarity?
9/18 - Brian Stokes Mitchell, Cincy Pop's
9/28 - Death Of A Salesman, Wright State
CJR
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/14/03
#8re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:47pmIATSE has not asked everyone to strike in solidarity at this point and time.
If in Heaven you don't excel, you can always party down in hell...
MargoChanning
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
#9re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:53pm
It's only partially about solidarity. It's that a couple of the League members (namely the Shuberts and the Nederlanders) also own theaters in several cities around the country. Striking and shutting down their theaters in Chicago, Boston, LA, Philadelphia, Detroit, San Diego, Cincinnati and several other cities .... would serve hurt them even deeper financially and to put even more pressure on them to negotiate and bargain with the union for a new contract.
stockmanjr
Understudy Joined: 3/15/07
#10re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:55pmI thought that Nederlander still had a contract but they were locking out local one in solidarity?
MargoChanning
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
#11re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 4:58pmNope, the Nederlanders contract also expired back in July. While they initially were just going to be observers at the table (and didn't impose new work rules on the union without a contract like the others did), as things broke down and they decided to lock out, they're basically in the same position now as the Shuberts and Nederlanders.
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#12re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 5:09pm
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?
Toddlin2
Swing Joined: 7/5/07
#13re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 5:11pmRentboy--please learn how to spell. It's Affected not Effected.
MargoChanning
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
#14re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 5:25pm
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.
RentBoy86
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/15/05
#15re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 9:07pm
Oh, okay, Thanks Margo.
Toddlin2, chill out. First off, I spelled "effected" right, so it's not a spelling error, da.
#16re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 9:54pm
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.
MargoChanning
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
#17re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/13/07 at 10:14pm
Someone correct if I'm wrong, but the Nederlanders' agreement -- which was different from the one the Shuberts and Jujamcyn had with the union -- was also expired and needed to be renegotiated. They decided to let the other two members take the lead role in the talks, while they sat at the table as interested observers. They, however, didn't impose their own new work rules on the union like the others did, in hopes of being able to handle their own renegotiation with the union in good faith at some point. When talks broke down, the Nederlanders decided to lock out the union in a show of solidarity with the rest of the League. Since the Nederlanders didn't have a valid, unexpired contract with the union and they were siding with the League, the union decided to add the Nederlanders to their list of theaters to strike, since the Nederlanders situation with the union (no contract) was basically the same as it was with the other two.
If I have any of the above deatilas wrong, someone please correct me.
#18re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/14/07 at 4:57am
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.
MargoChanning
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/5/04
#19re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/14/07 at 10:11amI'm 99.9% sure the Nederlanders' agreement with the union is expired and they need to renegotiate a new agreement just The SHuberts and Jujamcyn do. The only differene was that the Nederlanders didn't do the hardball tactics that the others did by imposing their own new work rules on the union which led directly to the strike. Once the strike was called, though, all bets were off, the Nederlanders locked out the union in a show of solidarity and the union is now picketing their theaters as well because they need to force the Nederlanders along with the Shuberts and Jujamcyn back to the bargaining table in order to get a new agreement with all three.
#20re: Why Aren't Some Shows Effected By The Strke?
Posted: 11/14/07 at 2:51pm
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.
Videos