The 750-member Local 8 at 5 p.m. on Wednesday will go on strike after the theater company allegedly terminated two stagehand members over the Labor Day weekend, according to a release issued Wednesday by the union.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Philadelphia stagehands union to strike against Walnut Street Theatre
The 750-member Local 8 at 5 p.m. on Wednesday will go on strike after the theater company allegedly terminated two stagehand members over the Labor Day weekend, according to a release issued Wednesday by the union.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Further reading about the incident, one stagehand was sent home to rest and feel better, only later he found out that he was fired because he failed to disclose a potentially dangerous condition. In this case he had aphasia. The other stagehand was told to go home when he requested a union representative in a meeting with the management. The theatre later explained that he was fired for abandoning his job. Although, we do not know the other side of the story. But based on the gathered information, it does look like the theatre's fault. I support Local 8 and hope that they win both the unfair labor practices charges with the NLRB and the charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to make a case. Reading that the Walnut Street Theatre has been known for arbitrary firing for a while, I also support the picketing and strike against the theater. However, going on the Local 8 facebook page made me wonder whether it is wise to encourage the members to bomb the rating on the theater's web page. It is not supported by the rules to threaten the theater. What they are encouraging the members to do online could potentially make them lose their cases.
So being from Philadelphia and having quite a few friends in local 8 I wish that issue gets resolved and resolved fast. Having this story come up in my Facebook feed the information that I have learn was that two unio members who had work in the industry for years have been fired for extremely sketchy reasons first one for wanting his representative with him in his meeting and the other because in of a preexisting medical issue that very rarely ever been a issue and when it had acted up rather continuing to work was released from the call to get better which the Walnut is trying to characterize as abandoning work. Honestly if any member of work call is having medical issues on a call that could end with harm to them or others I would rather the situation be approach with the up most caution for the safety of all involved. In short I and throughly disappointed in the Walnut Theater and send all of local 8 my support.
I finished reading this report wishing there was more information to be given. It is lacking many details and will be interesting to see how this concludes. It will end in the united union winning or causing the theatre to fall. Thus showing how bad management and pore communication skills can lead to the downfall of a theatre or at the very least major disruption in operations. I have found in my workings that the union is typically there to help and not out to cause problems they just want to get the job done and move onto the next or go home. If you work with them and support them then good things will happen. This also is nice to see the union properly banding together and all 700 plus striking the same place together.
There’s a lot going on here. The first issue I see is terminating an employee for a pre-existing condition. I know some about aphasia, but mostly from House,. It seems that Goddard’s aphasia was controlled or asymptomatic as he was working for some amount of time before being terminated. As a communication disorder, I can understand why Walnut Street Theater wouldn’t want him working for them. As we know, theaters can be dangerous places and communication is critical to safety. That being said, I’m sure that the theater could find a role for Goddard where is condition wouldn’t be an issue. The article doesn’t mention what DeGroot was being investigated for, but I’d be curious to know what it was. I might also bet that the theater is using some sort of trickery in language to say that it wasn’t an “investigatory interview” and the employee had no right to ask for a union rep. It will be interesting to see what comes of this, especially since I haven’t seen anything from the theater’s point of view.
Post a Comment