Saturday, August 29, 2009
Producer’s Perspective fails to consider the other perspective
Backstage at BackstageJobs.com: "The Joyce Theatre in NYC recently had its stagehands ask to have IATSE Local One represent them. The stagehands, and Local One, are hoping that the Joyce Theatre management will work through the first step of the process in a fair manner. Specifically: if an independent third party, chosen by the theatre, determines that a majority of the stagehands have signed representation cards (as Local One claims), then the Joyce should voluntarily recognize the union as the bargaining agent for the stagehands. This would then pave the way to begin contract talks."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is definitely a type of article I have a feeling we are going to be seeing more of in the future. Stagehands and all others in the entertainment industry want job security right now (along with everyone else in the country). Although they had hopefully signed a contract with the Joyce Theater before working for it, the union will be able to provide for their workers in a way that the contract could not. If the management of the theater really needed to get rid of a few of their stagehands, they would find a loophole in the contract, whereas the union will not permit them to do such a thing. The union will be that protective third party, so that the stagehands don't need to directly worry themselves with their job well-being.
I sincerely hope the Joyce theater agrees to let the stagehands unionize. Clearly with the amount of work they do EVERY show, they deserve at least a little job security. And, why is it that it's completely fine for a producer to be in TWO unions, but according to said producer, it wouldn't be okay for stagehands to unionize? This just seems a little classist to me. And maybe I'm reading too much into that, but it does seem that way to me. No matter what the position is, EVERYONE should be allowed some job security, and the peace of mind a union might provide.
I really feel that all employees especially employees of such a demanding field as theatre should have a unions even if only to show that those in charge are willing to compromise and readily appreciate the work that people such as stagehands put into every show
At tone point in the article it says that budgets are not an issue. That is completely false and I can not believe anyone would say that about a house becoming union. Then to talk about the people employed... all of those people not in the union that worked there are now looking for jobs at another theater. Whom ever wrote this article need to re-examine what happens when some place goes union...
M. Cody,
When a existing house goes union, it does so based on the votes of the existing employees in the positions to be covered by the union contract. Once under the union contract, those employees are invited, usually as a group, to join the union. They are not required to join, and they do not lose their jobs if they don't join.
Those who do not wish to join are still required to pay a portion of the regular dues, as they are working under the terms of a contract negotiated and legally backed by the union representation.
There is no set "union contract" or "union rate" for any theatre or venue type. Each one is negotiated based on the needs of the particular employee group and the employer. Budgets are not an issue if the pay rate is not the problem. Sometimes the staff simply want an actual contract, instead of verbal agreements.
Again, if employees vote to join the union, they don't lose their jobs to existing union members.
I am a union member, and I worked for years in a non-union house that voted to join the union. We were all non-union at the time, and none of us were replaced, and no additional employees were added.
Post a Comment