Broadway to remain mostly dark for yet another week

College Majors Musical Theater Major
1

<p>Talks between Local One of IATSE (the stagehands' union) and the League of American Theatres and Producers, which resumed with such hope yesterday, have broken off again tonight, with no future meeting scheduled. As a result, the affected shows have been cancelled through Sunday, November 25. This is very sad as this week is one of the busiest for Broadway and the start of the very profitable holiday season. I know in past years some of our members here on CC have gone to the city during Thanksgiving week. I hope that those of you who may have planned it this year decide to go anyway and attend one of the remaining eight Broadway shows that are open, or one of the many offerings off-Broadway. </p>

<p>The</a> League of American Theaters and Producers, Inc.</p>

<p>Let's hope that the Local One negotiators decide to return to the table before irreparable damage is done, and before closing notices begin to appear. It may already be too late for some shows.</p>

2

<p>Oh my gosh! This is too sad...</p>

3

<p>I feel bad for Stephanie J. Block! She just came to Wicked and played a few shows and now the show is cancelled.</p>

4

<p>Forget Stephanie J. Block who probably had a crazy salary before the strike, I feel bad for all the actors with children who are trying to live on $450 a week. I feel bad for the actors in shows like RENT and The Drowsy Chaperone, neither of which were doing fantastically before the strike, and both of which probably stand a good chance of closing. I feel bad for all the people affected by the significant decrease in donations to BC/EFA. </p>

<p>This strike is disgusting, and I hope that Local One realizes soon the extent of the damage they are doing to the city's economy. This doesn't just affect the stagehands, actors, musicians, etc., it affects the restaurant owners and waiters in restaurants in the theatre district, it affects the people who usher and work in the box office and sell souveniers, it affects the actors' babysitters, for chrissake! Soon- very soon- it's going to start affecting hotels in the city, and it's just going to spread.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it's the producers who are going to cave before Local One does, and the stagehands- who are already the highest-paid in the country- are going to get bigger paychecks for doing less work.</p>

5

<p>I think that Stephanie will be fine. Both she and her new hubby have had successful theatre careers, with near-steady employment, for several years now. The actors are not yet receiving any compensation (unless something changed today), and there are many who are going to be in dire straits if this isn't resolved soon. The possibility of some shows posting closing notices is real.</p>

6

<p>I am so sad this is happening and wish they would get back to the tables to hash this out. I can't believe that so much time is lapsing between these conversations. I had tix to see Little Mermaid on Friday and am so disappointed. Had plans with 2 other families and theater son who is coming home for Thanksgiving break, was looking forward to it. Wish Mayor Bloomberg or someone would step in and try to mediate this quicker.</p>

7

<p>Before anyone leaps to condemn Local 1 for the strike, consider this. Local 1 worked without a contract from July until the strike began in the hope that an agreement could be reached through negotiations. It was not until the League of American Theaters and Producers announced that it intended to unilaterally impose portions of their proposal that a strike vote occurred and thereafter a strike. The unilaterally imposed terms resulted in a substantial cut in wages and jobs. The Nederlander Organization, in contrast, did not unilaterally impose changes in terms and conditions of employment, even though its contract was also expired, and therefore those theaters are not on strike. </p>

<p>Under federal labor law, an employer must declare that it is making a "final offer" and that negotiations are at an "impasse" before it can unilaterally impose its last offer. It is a tactic designed to "turn the screws" and up the ante in contract negotiations. While none of us are really privy to the details of the issues at the table and the specifics of each side's proposals, what is clear is that it was the League that took action that in essence said "We don't think that there is really anything left to negotiate, we are going to force our terms on you." It was the League that put the stagehands backs to the wall by announcing that it was imposing changes in terms and conditions of employment that would result in job and wage cuts. And the League did so notwithstanding that Local 1 had demonstrated that it was willing to work without a contract. The strike occurred in response to the announcement that these unilateral changes would be made.</p>

<p>The controlling force at the League is the Shubert Organization, well known in the industry to be the 2 ton gorilla that pushes its weight around and to be very difficult and calculating in its labor relations policies. In questioning the timing of the strike and the impact on the industry, one must question why the League chose now to unilaterally impose changes with the very predictable response that this would evoke from Local 1. Was it because there was some compelling need - doubtful, since this is the most lucrative part of the year for the show industry. Or was it because the controlling powers at the League, the ones with the resources and assets to survive a strike this time of year, concluded that forcing a strike now would most effectively skew public reaction against those "greedy" stagehands, cause serious damage to business competitors not as well off and provide an opportunity to reshape labor relations for the future in the vision of the Shuberts of the industry. And if they can beat the stagehands now, who next, the musicians, the actors?</p>

8

<p>Michael, all nine Nederlander theatres are also dark. The eight shows that are still running are either run by the non-profit sector or are in theatres which have separate contracts with Local One. The issues with Local One are long-entrenched requirements in the contract which the League is attempting to change. This is naturally going to be opposed but some compromise is necessary, which I don't think any reasonable person would deny. Having certain numbers of positions stipulated, whether or not that number is required for a particular show doesn't make sense, even to the stagehands I know. </p>

<p>There was real hope that the talks this weekend would be successful. Robert Johnson from Disney is a well-respected man, on both sides, and he was brought in from California to assist. It was close, but now a conflict between Thomas Short and James Claffey, within the union, is apparently preventing an almost-agreed upon settlement.</p>

<p>Audi, Mayor Bloomberg has twice offered his services, and twice been rebuffed by James Claffey. Regardless of who is more at fault, or who has the legal right to strike, this strike is a mistake, in my opinion. Although the leadership of the other unions may publicly be supportive, which is no big surprise, many AEA members are not happy with the situation, and given the opportunity, would not be standing with Local One.</p>

9

<p>Alwaysamom, the articles I read (apparently out of date?) indicated that the Nederlander Theaters were also under a separate contract and therefore not part of the strike. I am very familiar with "manning" requirements in collective bargaining agreements and have negotiated contracts in many industries where "old" manning rules had to be addressed. These are always tough issues to negotiate because anyway you cut it, changing manning rules results in people, often with families, out of work with no comparable replacement work available. Nobody (who does not have ulterior motives or another agenda) wants to see a strike in any industry. Everyone gets hurt. I just have to wonder what the real objective is when one side takes action which is not compelling and necessitous (here, unilaterally imposing a "final offer") and which very predictably will result in a work stoppage. If the unilateral imposition of the "final offer" had not occurred, odds are the parties would not find themselves in the position they are in. Imposing a "final offer" puts a Union's back against the wall and leaves little alternative but to strike.</p>

<p>As to the support of other unions, I am going to refrain from commenting too much lest I offend those who I don't desire to offend. I do a lot of collective bargaining representing certain segments of performers in the performing arts community and am also privy to the negotiations involving other segments of performers. Suffice it to state that many performing artist unions rely on the support of IATSE in their labor battles because of IATSE's reputation as an organization that practices tough trade unionism and without that support would not be as successful in the outcome of their negotiations.</p>

10

<p>alwaysamom, Actor's Equity has a "strike fund" and all actors employed in dark Broadway shows- stars and chorus members- are being paid $405 a week. However, this money won't last through the year.</p>

<p>Here are the issues/facts as I have been able to decipher them:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Local One has been contract-less since the end of July. There were talks and negotiations to attempts to form a contract, but nothing came to fruition.</p></li>
<li><p>On November 10, at 10 AM, the union decided to strike, without much of an official warning to the League (I say official warning because there had been speculation beforehand).</p></li>
<li><p>The theatres affected are the ones owned by the Schuberts and another producer entity, the name of which I can't recall. The Nederlander-owned theatres have locked the stagehands out in solidarity with the League. Additionally, the owners of the theatre in which THE GRINCH is playing (which is on a different contract b/c of a 12-15 performance/week schedule) have also locked the stagehands out.</p></li>
<li><p>The main issue with contract negotiations is "featherbedding". Local One wants a clause in their contract that allows for more stagehands than is necessary for load-in. The producers believe that this is ridiculous and refuse to allow an excess number of workers to be employed for work that can be done easily and safely by fewer people.</p></li>
<li><p>Additionally, there is an issue over whether the stagehands are salaried or paid hourly wages. For example, they want to say that if they finish their work in less than their three hour call, they can't be asked to sweep the stage, etc. The producers say that they should.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Obviously, not being closely connected with either party, my information may be (and probably is) biased and erroneous. But this is what I've been able to figure out from reading various news sources.</p>

<p>I'd really just like to know what the stagehands are getting for emergency relief money from the union, and what the union leaders are making while the strike is going on... I'd be willing to bet my little brother's college money that the s.hands are making nothing while the union leaders haven't cut back their own salaries at all.</p>

11

<p>Chellybelly, I'm aware of the strike fund. I have several family members (including a D) and countless friends who are members of AEA. :) As far as I know, and as of yesterday, no one was receiving any $$ from the AEA strike fund yet.</p>

<p>I have had mixed feelings on these contract negotiations, which have been ongoing for months, to the extent that I felt both sides needed to learn the meaning of the word compromise. After the events of the past weekend, it has become increasingly difficult to sympathize with the union's position. A family friend who is directly affected by the strike forwarded this latest statement from the League:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.livebroadway.com/editor_files/Open_letter_employees_11-20.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.livebroadway.com/editor_files/Open_letter_employees_11-20.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

12

<p>I haven't read all the details but I am sorry for everyone involved. It isn't the stars who concern me most, but the supporting actors....and all the other people in the city who make their living, or a part of it, off of Broadway work. Strikes affect so many more people down the "food chain". I hope they can resolve it fast. Hmmm between this and the writers strike in CA entertainment has certainly taken a hit.</p>

13

<p>Yes, changing work rules usually results in some people losing their jobs, as Michael says. However, very often strikes wind up costing everyone their jobs as businesses fold. I remember the newspaper strikes in the 70's and 80's, I believe. The unions thought they could get concessions by holding publishers' feet to the fire. What actually happened is that most of the smaller papers went out of business and everyone from those papers was out of work. It ended up being a lose-lose situation.</p>

<p>Something similar may happen here - the stronger shows will continue to play once the strike is over, but smaller, weaker shows that could have survived for a while will close, and new shows won't be mounted.</p>

<p>Looks like a lose-lose to me.</p>

14

<p>The Nederlander Org. is suing Local One for $35M.
Strike</a> Coverage: Nederlander Org Sues Local One for $35M (BroadwayWorld.com)</p>

15

<p>Chedva - I remember those newspaper strikes well, as well as the more recent ones in Detroit. I happen to represent 4 unions in the newspaper industry and have dealt with manning issues in numerous collective bargaining agreements over the years, including very difficult negotiations a year ago in which manning reductions were a major concern for both sides. In general, the genesis of manning issues flows from changes in technology. Manning rules which once made sense 20 years ago may not make sense today as advances in technology reduce the number of bodies required to perform particular jobs safely or effectively. These are never easy issues to resolve because of the very real hardship that job eliminations have on families, particularly where there is a paucity of comparable employment available elsewhere.</p>

<p>As to the lawsuit, I suspect that it is nothing more than a high visibility ploy designed to create publicity and force the union to commit resources to another "battlefront". I doubt that the suit has any real legal viability. Under well established federal law, which preempts state law, the right to strike is protected and a union can not be held liable for damages resulting from a strike during contract negotiations once the existing contract has expired. State courts don't even have jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. This was a tactic used by companies back in the 30's and has long since been ruled to be a violation of federal law. It certainly will not promote a sensible return to the bargaining table, is going to distract the parties' time, resources and energies, will harden positions and bodes ill for a resolution of this dispute in the near future.</p>

16

<p>AP
Doom and Gloom Plays Out on Broadway
Saturday November 24, 9:02 am ET
By Michael Kuchwara, AP Drama Writer<br>
Worst-Case Scenario Plays Out in Broadway Stagehands Strike As Impasse Reaches Third Week </p>

<p>NEW YORK (AP) -- It's a worst-case scenario that became a reality. As the Broadway stagehands strike enters its third week Saturday, there doesn't seem to be any way out of the thorny, seemingly intractable dispute that has shut down more than two dozen plays and musicals since Nov. 10.
Losses because of canceled performances are in the millions and climbing each day -- a disaster not only for producers and theater owners, but for everyone employed in the theater and for those whose businesses depend on curtains going up.</p>

<p>Both sides are hanging tough and have not talked for almost a week. The standoff has meant dark theaters during the Thanksgiving holiday, usually one of the year's best weeks for business.</p>

<p>Not this year. There was a weird disconnect in the Times Square area during the holiday. On Thanksgiving Eve, side streets were filled with lively, noisy crowds. They were in stark contrast to the silent pickets walking slowly in front of padlocked theaters that looked forlorn even with lighted marquees.</p>

<p>Local 1 of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees says it's willing to meet again with the League of American Theatres and Producers. But the league says it won't go back to the bargaining table unless the union is ready to make a deal.</p>

<p>And none is in sight.</p>

<p>A settlement was believed in the works last Sunday after a marathon weekend of negotiating. But the talks ended abruptly when the producers informed union president James J. Claffey Jr. that what the local had offered was not enough.</p>

<p>The complicated contract dispute has focused on how many stagehands are required to open a Broadway show and keep it running. That means moving scenery, lights, sound systems and props into the theater; installing the set and making sure it works; and keeping everything functioning well for the life of the production.</p>

<p>The producers want a flexible number; the union more specificity, including ample compensation for any concessions made.</p>

<p>Claffey, a second-generation stagehand, is a quiet, unfailingly polite man, but with a fierce commitment to his union, which has never in its more than 100-year history struck Broadway. At a somber union news conference on the Sunday after the strike first started, he spoke of the need for respect.</p>

<p>"We want respect at the table," he said. "If there's no respect, they will not see Local 1 at the table. The lack of respect is something we are not going to deal with."</p>

<p>On the league side of the table sits Bernard Plum of Proskauer Rose, a high-powered law firm with long experience in labor battles. Plum is a tough negotiator, too, something younger, more militant members of the league want in their confrontation with the union.</p>

<p>The talks, from all reports, have been businesslike, with only an occasional flaring of tempers. Yet both sides seem more adept at preparing for a strike than in negotiating their way out of one.</p>

<p>The producers set up a $20 million strike emergency fund, taking a couple cents out of each ticket sold over the last several years to pay for it. The money would help struck shows struggling with the costs of a shutdown.</p>

<p>The union, too, has its own fund -- benefits of more than $4.1 million for its members as well as another $1 million allotted for members of other unions affected by the walkout.</p>

<p>And if an agreement isn't reached before Christmas, both parties may end up using every penny.</p>

17

<p>Just got a call from a friend in NYC. A settlement has been reached and a news conference is scheduled to announce when shows will resume operation! :)</p>

18

<p>Great news!</p>

19

<p>That is wonderful news. I am really happy for everyone involved.</p>

20

<p>Great! Whew! Thanks for sharing it here so quickly.</p>