Thursday, November 29, 2007
Why Doesn't London Have Theater Strikes?
The New York Sun: "What's different in London? At least some stagehands there have more job security: As the assistant general secretary of the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union (the British stagehands' union), Willy Donaghy, explained, each West End theater is required to permanently employ at least four stagehands. They then hire additional stagehands for the load-in and run of a show."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It seems like the real difference is that London unions don't let problems go on long enough to require a strike, which is in everybody's best interests. The rules seem a little more reasonable, employing house technicians and such. The way union rules are established to is combat someone getting screwed in the past. Maybe the London producers just don't ask unreasonable things of the stagehands so they have never needed to make the rules that Local 1 has. But really, it's a different country and a different culture, not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
There seems to be too much cultural difference to really compare our stage hand unions to London's. I can see his point though, in suggesting we study more of London's methods since they seemed to have worked for several decades and whenever a strike does happen, it's so short there's no point in making any fuss about it. I feel like this article was a somewhat low blow towards the unions during a time of crisis.
I think the way London Theatres handle stagehands is a bit more practical then how it is done on Broadway. Not only is it good for the stagehands that they get more stable jobs, but that the theatre always has stagehands in employment. The stagehands on Broadway are out on the street after a shows run, which a very unpredictable thing. It just seems to me that stagehands just want a job that is not so unpredictable and that can one day leave you on the street without any notice.
Post a Comment