Forbes: Maybe the real question should be, why shouldn’t they? Carnegie Hall isn’t a branch of government. It’s a private non-profit largely supported by donor dollars from wealthy patrons. Sanford Weill, former CEO and chairman of Citigroup, is the organization’s chairman and donated a substantial sum to renovate its chamber music theater. The carpenters and electricians at Carnegie Hall do highly specialized work and log plenty of hours of overtime.
11 comments:
I think that the very first line of this article really sums it all up. The only way I could see being angry about the stagehands at Carnegie Hall making $400,000 a year was if you were angry about every person who makes this much. If the chief financial officer is making that much, why not the stagehands or carpenters? If anything, people should be angry about the artistic director's $1,113,571 salary. If this is a matter of a more reasonable distribution of wealth in this country, these are the salaries we should be concerned with. I think the fact that traditionally lower salaried positions are receiving these higher wages could set precedent and potentially change our attitudes and treatment towards workers in these kinds of jobs.
This article is really interesting. I think the author makes a fantastic point. These union workers in Local 1 are highly skilled in theatrical arts. It's a lot different than ordinary carpentry or electrician work. You couldn't take someone off of a construction site, throw them into a theater, and expect the situation to turn out the way you want it to. If that means that these union workers get paid a lot of money, so be it. If Carnegie Hall is willing to pay their employees that high of a salary in order to keep them there, then it's the company's decision, and who are we to judge? And like the article says, people don't have a problem with NFL players making that much money, so why should they care about how much a skilled union laborer is making in NYC?
I am so glad this was posted because I was having this conversation with someone about these stage hands. Someone was freaking out that these guys are making so much, but these stagehands, like it has been said before are not just carpenters and electricians pulled off the streets. These are really specialized and skilled guys. I am not surprised by this number, these guys are in high demand and Carnegie Hall really wants to keep them.
This is an interesting article but what makes it even better are the comments on it. Looking at the article first, it seems like there is a general dislike of unions in general and specifically IATSE especially on Broadway, but there author does a great job of getting more opinions on the subject who fairly defend it. Clearly a 400k salary is not even close to typical and if Carnegie Hall is willing to pay that, clearly the work the stagehands are doing is worth it. Especially if they are working on average 70 to 80 hours a week.
The comments are what make this article so interesting. The debate becomes very heated very quickly. There are a few stagehands who make very passionate points about the work that they do and how they do more than just push a piano around. Then there a few who argue that skill and experience, that the stagehands clearly have to be working there, shouldn't effect their pay. They argue that it's all about competition and since the union takes that element away, they are getting paid far more than they should.
Personally I think the stagehands definitely earn their salary. They are clearly the most experienced and skilled to be the ones working such a prestigious venue, and they work 70-80 hours a week, so clearly there is a ton of work for them to do. I think they deserve every penny they make.
I am really impressed with the quality of this article. It was presented very cleanly and made me think about different perspectives regarding this concept. Furthermore, I have a few comments on the subject as well. I don't understand why people are outraged because, obviously, these people aren't just stage hands. They're highly specialized labor, as the article points out. However, at times the author makes it seem like the stage hands are nothing more than normal labor, which they obviously are not. I would love to obtain even half the knowledge of one of these gentlemen, because they obviously contain a lot of knowledge that has come out of all the years of their experience.
I think that this article finally speaks in a way that sort of gives the stagehands the benefit of the doubt in the situation. I was reading an article online earlier this week that just enraged me. In this particular article the author was upset that stagehands were making so much. The author seemed so uneducated on the subject that it was almost funny to read what he had to say. One thing that struck me was that he seemed to think that any uneducated dummy could walk into Carnegie Hall and do what those top of the line stagehands could do in there. Meanwhile in reality these people are highly skilled and have years of experience in the field. Needless to say its good to read an article that gives the stagehands the benefit of the doubt in the situation.
This article has definitely stirred up quite a bit of debate and arguing, especially on the Forbes site where it was posted. It is always interesting to see the comments from individuals that literally have no clue as to what it takes to put a full scale production on stage. They just see the $400k salary and complain because their mediocre job that is "much harder" than "pushing a piano around" isn't getting them paid that much. What they fail to understand is that these people that are hired to work at Carnegie Hall are by no means average-joes. These people are MASTERS in their craft, having dedicated numerous years to their profession and honing it to a degree that will allow them to integrate themselves seamlessly to such a demanding environment like Carnegie Hall. These people deserve every penny that they are making.
The Wall Street Journal is upset about how much money someone is making? I'll try not to shed a tear. I don't think that particular institution has ever been especially fond of labor unions and their "strangleholds." Speaking of strangleholds, how about the one American corporations have had on average wages for the past 30 years or so? In an age where the disparity between the wealthy and everyone else is simply disgusting and getting more and more revolting every day, I'm not interested in what the WSJ has to say about a few unionized laborers gaming a system that is rigged against them in the first place.
I have really mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, $400,000 sounds like an exorbitant rate for what is highly skilled blue collar labor. I'm not knocking what they do, but seriously?! If we're looking at this through an economics lens and talking about salary as a measure of value to society, is this still fair? Is the stagehand who skillfully moves drums and marimbas around deserve the same pay as the CFO for the entire organization?!
Conversely, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Carnegie Hall if they can't manage to negotiate a better deal. I applaud Local 1 for driving such a hard bargain. That implies to me that the negotiators they hired are doing their job well.
It's a tough argument with more gray than black or white. I hope both sides will eventually come to an agreeable compromise.
I think its great that the stagehands are getting paid this much! Especially after having the education that im receiving right now i would almost expect (hopefully) to be making something around these numbers. also using the term "stagehand" is kind of making the electricians and shop workers seem like just people who help out backstage. Which is absolutely not what they are doing. I think this article makes a great point, the people are super good at what they do, why dont they deserve to get paid for it? As Simone says they have special skills that people other than just carnegie Hall want and im sure carnegie hall wants to keep them.
I agree with what many others have said: this article was really well written and makes a very good point. Stagehands are in fact specialized labor, despite what the general public may think. Part of the problem comes with the names we use: when someone who isn't involved in theatre hears "carpenter" or "electrician", they think of the person who comes to repair their kitchen cabinets, or who installs a new outlet in their living room. A theatre electrician and a theatre carpenter have very different skills, but because we use the same names as other labor markets, many people don't realize this.
Also, the articles about this dispute for the most part don't mention the hours that many Local 1 members have to work. It's not by any means a 9-5 job, and some 80-hour weeks working 6pm to 6am should be compensated much more than a normal 40-hour, 9-5 job.
Post a Comment