Saturday, October 06, 2007
The Shows Must Go On: Union Leaders Yield on Old Broadway Rules
Bloomberg.com: Muse: "The turnaround on Thursday by Local 1 came at the end of a tense day of negotiations, the two people said, when the union side apparently recognized that this time, the producers were willing to face a shutdown rather than extend the status quo."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
While I was reading very top of this article, the idea about raising hourly rate on the reasonable number of workers suddenly came into my mind. And it did say so at the following paragraph. I have once estimated IATS budget for PM1 class. The final amount did surprise me. It was so high! I had tried to cut some number. So I called one of department's crew for load-in later than other departments and dismissed some crew when they really had nothing to do at that period of time. Of course, I was wrong! I couldn’t release people during the process of load in. And I lost some grade. On a position of management, the number of the crew's wage is like nightmare. However, I do hope stagehand can make more money. After all, their job is not easy. So, at this point, I'll recommend Local 1 proposes the bonus deal that the producers should pay to Union or crews in case of the success of production.
I'm glad to see that there was a compromise and that the season wont be shut down. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm wondering what the financial difference is for increasing wages but hiring only what the shows need.
I have to agree with Yi-Lin's last point, where producers would include a bonus depending on the success of the show. This seems like a very productive motivation.
I also agree with Candace and Yi-Lin about a bonus. If the producers are making the big bucks on a show like Wicked, why not have it trickle down a little bit?
I also see both sides of the coin. However, as a union member I would appreciate that if i showed up at a call it would be to work. I hate that feeling of being totally useless on a call. (being told to foot a ladder for an hour or clean the tool cart 5 times)
In addition, the higher hourly rate would still mean that only skilled workers would be hired. Besides, even with smaller calls you would think the high work standard would still be necessary.
Higher pay but fewer workers does seem like a good improvement for both sides of the argument. However I really don't know all that much about how competitive a job market for being a stagehand is. I would love a pay increase, and to not be standing around doing nothing. But I would rather be standing around footing a ladder for an hour than being unemployed.
Neither producers nor stagehands would benefit from a show royalty. First of all, tracking it would be a nightmare - on any given load-in, crews rotate constantly. You might have one person who does the whole thing, beginning to end, another who just turns up for one day - or part of one, and another who only worked Wednesdays and Saturdays. Just keeping track of it all would be a nightmare. Then they would resent any kind of ongoing royalty - which contributes to their running expenses - and would know from the outset that it would only go up over time.
As for the stagehands, it doesn't work for us either. If a show is a loser, the crew is usually the first to know. We're a brutal judge of quality. Who would stick around on a show they knew was crap if they could look for a bonus elsewhere?
Higher pay does not mean more skilled workers. Read up on how Local One does their calls and see if you can figure out why. :)
Post a Comment