Wednesday, April 03, 2013
Stagehand union claims Stage AE hired out-of-state, not Pittsburgh-based members
TribLIVE: A labor union representing stagehands on Thursday accused operators of North Shore concert venue Stage AE of paying cash to hire out-of-state workers and refusing to employ its Pittsburgh-based members.
Members of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local No. 3 voiced their concerns during a meeting of the Pittsburgh Stadium Authority, which owns land between PNC Park and Heinz Field and oversaw the development of Stage AE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that to some extent the argument the Pittsburgh union is presenting is irrelevant, or at least thought into a bit too much. I can see their anger at not being hired, and having out of state people being hired, but the arguments they offer aren't really that strong. They said that Stage AE was built with Pittsburgh taxpayer money, so Pittsburgh workers should be hired to work in it. The stage is currently run by non-government officials, so they have no obligation to employ local residents. It's a company that has the right to choose to hire who they want. I definitely agree with the union members' argument against the other people being paid in cash. Cash can be a bit of a suspicious payment outside of the restaurant and personal service business. Unless the Pittsburgh unions specifically have a clause saying that only Pittsburgh union residents can be hired to work on shows in Pittsburgh (which I doubt they do) there isn't much of a legal based action that can be taken. Granted, it's unfair, but if there isn't a union clause, it can't be fought.
I see the logic behind both sides of this argument. The venue is not affiliated with the local government in any way, so the union really should not be complaining to them. Also, as the venue is run by a private company, they do indeed have the right to hire who they want. Coming from the side of the union, it is clearly in their best interest to unionize the labor at the concert venue. They have, however, picked the wrong place to voice their concerns. It is clear that the union is using this fairly prominent venue to further their presence in the city, which is a fine goal. However they are making far too much of a deal over it. It's not as if there already was a union contract in place with the venue that was broken. Honestly, I feel like this is something that should be worked out between the union and the venue. If the budget and need for union workers is there, unionization will ensue.
Plain and simple: IATSE does not have an agreement with Stage AE yet, and so union workers are not ENTITLED to work there yet. That's it. I don't see a whole ton of utility in going up and arguing the case if, by their own bylaws, the union is preventing itself from using the venue as a space for union workers.
At the same time, there may be an argument to be made against Stage AE (not from IATSE) about paying workers less than minimum wage. That needs to be curbed. First of all, it's illegal; second, it's unfair to in-town workers (union or not), and third, the reason for unions is to have qualified crews who know what they're doing in a venue - when you're hanging lights or doing intense rigging over performers' heads, I would want a union guy there over a non-union.
Post a Comment