Stagehands Strike - what lies beneath?
The Stagehands began their strike today, closing down most of Broadway. I have to admit, I'm often a little befuddled by strikes. I get that people are upset that they can't see The Grinch as planned, and the whole industry is going to suffer economically from it (well, unless you're Young Frankenstein or the stamp play). But looking at this and the WGA strike, it seems like the public often experiences the effects of a strike usually without much understanding of why it's really happening.
I find myself wondering, "what's really being argued about here?" According to Playbill.com, the union hasn't released an official statement, but fliers are circulating that read, "We truly regret that there is no show. . . Broadway is a billion dollar a year industry and has never been more profitable than now. Cuts in our jobs and wages will never result in a cut in ticket prices to benefit the public, but only an increase in the profits for producers. Unlike the producers, we are not fighting for our second or third homes: we are fighting to keep the one that we have."
Meanwhile, the League released a statement that uses vague accusations of the union being irresponsible and unfeeling towards the industry and the impact of the strike, but the only thing they actually say about why this is happening is this: "Our goal is simple: To pay for workers we need and for work that is actually performed."
I think it's an interesting, unfortunate situation where the industry and the public are all involved in the repercussions of the strike, but it seems like people aren't really talking about the negotiations, or what the strike is really about. And it can be interesting to delve into the gossip about what's being negotiated (or not being negotiated), but that can get sticky pretty fast. Theatreforte posted about how dismaying it is to see CNN wondering "What were the stagehands thinking... going on strike during such a busy time of year for the Great White Way?"
Anybody out there in the thick of it? Care to shed some light?
Posts
3 comments:
The NY Stagehands local is very strong, and has a long history of favorable settlements for their "brothers". This has resulted in very mature contracts with generous manpower requirements and minimum calls.
On Broadway, senior stagehands are paid more than musicians (Local 802) or non-star actors (Actors Equity). SO they're usually among the best paid people on the show. This surprises most people.
Three years ago the League got burned at the negotiating table, and decided to build a war chest and press their case for work rule changes this time around.
Now while the League producers and theater owners are fairly wealthy folks, it is disingenuous for Local 1 to depict this as class warfare, since most of them probably clear over $120,000 annually, plus pension, annuity, and full health insurance.
So think up your own answer to the joke - "How many stagehands does it take to screw in a light bulb." But when the answer is "A head electrician, an assistant and two grips and a four hour minimum call" , it's only Local 1 who laughs (all the way to the bank...)
For a NY stagehand to make 120,000 a year they would have to work what, 80 hours a week. I guess it is possible, they work a minimum of 6 days a week, so 13 hours a day, 6 days a week. That is a lot of hours, a lot a light bulbs!
My guess they make a lot less than 120,000.
If it is true and I don't know that it is, is it wrong for a master carpenter, electrician, or technician to get paid more than a musician? Is one talent worth more than the other?
The producers are the ones making all the money. I read b'way profits were almost 1 billion last year and that didn't included merchandising!!! Why is it that the country believes that 10% of the people should get 90% of an industries profit and make 90% of the people share 10%. You can do a show without the producers, but you can't without actors or stagehands.
I know as an audience member I hope that that stagehand is a happy well paid, well rested guy or gal that moves all the scenery and catches those actors that fly over my head!
You can't walk off the street and do their jobs. But if
you got some money, you can be a producer!
I'm usually all for the little guy, but I am vehemently opposed to the stagehands point of view in this instance. There are all sorts of archaic rules that require stagehands that aren't actually necessary for a show. But the producers have to have a certain number regardless. They are just trying to stop paying people for NOT WORKING. There's no reason why a stagehand should be paid to be backstage to do no work- except for these old union rules. In addition, the producers are planning pay RAISES to offset the decrease in number of jobs available. This is a case in which the producers are not the bad guys.
Post a Comment