Sunday, November 25, 2007
In Broadway Dispute, Both Sides Agree: It’s All About Fairness
New York Times: "But many labor relations experts say that the Broadway strike, like most other labor confrontations, is not so much about fairness, but about power: the relative power of the two sides. “We all like to cloak our economic interests in highfalutin’ principles,” said Joshua B. Freeman, a professor of labor history at the City University of New York Graduate Center and author of “Working-Class New York.” “But I really think this is about power. The Broadway houses have huge labor costs, and they’re pushing to reduce their costs, and the union is resisting.”"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Even though I should probably side with the stagehands I'm split on this one. Some of these things sound ridiculous for both sides. I think that becasue the two sides disagree on so many things that it will take a while for this problem to be resolved. It sounds like the producers want to get rid of whole aspects of the contract while the stagehands won't so it will be interesting to see how they compromise.
I still can't believe this is going on... We're about to really hop into the holiday season, and even though neither side seems to even remotely be able to look at the issues from a different point of view, I think that they should figure out their differences fast. Theatre quickly dying out to more accessible, cheaper forms of entertainment with the mainstream audience, and one of the few exceptions is Broadway. I don't think it will ever close down permenently, but I think if this strike goes on much longer, Bway could be in alotta trouble for the Holiday season.
I forgot an "is" after Theatre. Don't judge.
The two sides of this argument have some historical issues with each other. The union has all their rules in place because someone tried to screw them in the past. The producers are trying to change the rules because they feel they have been over paying for years. This has created an environment that is not good for negotiating.
Every article I have read has the union bashing the producers and the producers bashing the union. The producers say the union is featherbedding and the union says the producers are trying to take advantage of them. If the two sides of this conflict would only stop to look at the oppositions point of view than maybe the negotiations could go somewhere. I have read nothing about proposed compromises; both sides want all or nothing.
I foresee this strike heading into 2008.
Most of comments in this article are correct. But people are always on their position to think, to see the fact to get their own benefit. Some of work rules are really…. But the league can't take advantage of the stagehands, either. If the negotiation goes to the court, let the judge and the jury to mediate. Could it help?
I can see the argument that this is more a struggle of power rather than fairness. And with the Stagehands able to hold out, I don't think this is going to end any time soon. Unless the producers give in. Right now this is starting to damage the art of theatre in general. What will make audiences buy their tickets 6 months in advance any more if there is a chance of a strike? What happens then when ticket sales go down?
It doesn't seem greedy that local one wants a "give and take" compromise. If I was expecting to make 100,000 a year and I was told that, due to rule changes, I was now going to make 80,000 a year, I would be furious. The stagehands just want to maintain their standard of living, it's not like the are asking for a raise.
It's true that they should maintain their standard of living but it also doesn't seem fair that they should get paid to sit around and do nothing. No matter what, it's not going to be fair. At the end of the day, one side is going to feel like they lost out and the stagehands have more at stake than the producers. If it is such a small percentage of the money, the producers should probably just suck it up.
this article sounds biased. dont listen haha but shoot $56 an hour minimum to mop? hell i'll do it for half. but I mean thats not all they do and they definitely simplified the job descriptions of the employees.
It seems as though both sides of the table have very logical reasoning—but they’re both incredibly stubborn. Unions develop odd rules to counteract abuse their members have faced in the past. AEA contracts are similar with having odd contractual stipulations just to be sure a past wrong union members have faced. With a union as old as IATSE, there must be piles and piles of these rules that LATP is trying to weed out. These rules have become expensive and likely a few are outdated. However, due to the strength of the union, only compromises will be acceptable – they aren’t just going to turn away money. No one seems to want to meet in the middle on these issues—and while I don’t know how local 1 is managing without a salary—I don’t see the strike ending any time soon.
Everyone is fighting for the long term issues, which puts the Producers at the disadvantage because they are the ones who need to solve this issue the fastest. The Producers are trying to cut what they consider "feather-bedding." What they need is a system to weed out those certain individuals who aren't doing the work they are supposed to be doing. Instead they are trying to prevent this problem from ever surfacing. I would love to take sides with the Stagehands on this, but I have never actually been backstage for a Broadway show so I can't tell what is true versus what is false.
I agree that both sides are arguing for what they think is fair. However, since this is not a single issue battle I find that there is a lot more potential for compromise. No it is not right for theatres to keep stagehands late into the night after their one hour post- show period, and the 4 hour minimum is how many stagehands are garenteed some substantial pay for any little bits of time that are tacked on to their calls. But as far as load in is concerned. It really is a waste of money to be paying people who are doing nothing. in ways like this I think negotiations will reach an appropriate compromise.
i don't see this ending anytime soon, and if it does, i see and unhappy one. I agree with ryan in that what there seems to be is two very bitter sides that are not wanting to change paths but would rather just keep bumping heads. someone is going to lose and neither want to make a sacrifice.
Post a Comment