More on the attacks on unions

[nmno]

I just...  flames on the side of my face...
I will admit, I am not smart/savvy/political enough to know what steps to take to combat this kind of rhetoric but I do want to ask, if unions are really the problem, then does that mean that your non-Equity tour, where your actors will be making at best 1/2 of production contract minimum, will have ticket prices that will reflect that...?  I think not.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4607481/broadway-battling-unions/
 

[loebtmc]

thank you for posting - and open to all suggestions of how the heck do we respond?

[On_Headset]

The whole argument hinges on people assuming that "unions" are a mystical, magical quantity which are effectively a monetary black hole: they suck in all of that money and do absolutely nothing with it.

Instead of, you know, paying people a living wage in exchange for their services.

I've found that, once you explain to people how it actually works (i.e: most actors are nowhere near overpaid [non-trivial numbers live at or below the poverty line, even on big-ticket shows], the unions are necessary to keep wages above starvation levels, etc.), people tend to calm down a little.

[VSM]

Wow.
Talk about one-sided information.
Seems grossly unfair of the studio to not have a rebuttal.

[MatthewShiner]

Well, we all have at times been frustrated by the limitations of unions.

At the same time, we understand the protections of unions.

Especially in a business so "un-traditional" as theater, having the protection of the unions sometimes is not only the difference between making a living wage or non-living wage, but can be a safe or dangerous working environment. 

[GalFriday]

Matthew, Especially when people who have such a clear understanding of the craft are making the decisions about what things should cost  .

Maybe they told him it would be $170,000 to put up those screens because they would have been ugly. I wonder how the people who bought non-obstructed view seats and discovered they were watching the show on video would have felt. 

Just sayin...


Very one sided....but it is Fox News.

[nick_tochelli]

politics (and Faux Business News) aside, is anyone really overly shocked that a producer is upset at the amount of money they have to pay for anything?

And let me rephrase that, is anyone shocked that a non-theater business man turned producer who didn't work their way through the business is upset that at the amount of money they have to pay for anything? Their entire purpose is to make a profit and anything that gets in the way of recouping their investment is not good.

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. Does AEA make life difficult to be a producer? Absolutely. Especially when you are a younger company just making your way into the union world. You go from paying smaller stipends to considerably larger stipends to weekly salaries. There's a lot more red tape you have to go through. But even then, if you become an AEA company (and thus start rubbing shoulders with the other 16 unions) you know what you're getting into. Ok, devil's advocate over.

I won't suppose what motivated this gentleman to invest in a Broadway production. It's great that he's investing in the industry and providing many of us the opportunity to be employed on Broadway. That being said...I would love to see where he gets his $170,000 number to hang two cameras, and two tv monitors. I'd also like to know how the ticket seller union is involved with that decision. After all, all 17 unions wanted a piece of this action according to him.

[MatthewShiner]

What’s interesting is that this particular producer is an outsider, among a group of outsider type producers producing a show that is jumping through some very odd hoops (an off-broadway to broadway transfer, a broadway hiatus, a broadway theatre transfer). 

His comment about the royalty pool for this show should be noted that the royalty pool for Rock of Ages is VERY tricky given it is a juke box musical with many, many different writers - and with songs that had huge lives with before they arrived on the stage.  The show was also put together in a way that didn’t really have a large commercial run in mind.

From an outside business perspective, I would have to agree with the producer, some of the union rules are very anti-business, anti-profit, and raise the cost of doing business - but from an outside perspective, he is stepping into a history of years of producers abusing casts and crews, unsafe working conditions, and various other situations that leads to the unions current positions. 

Do I personally believe the unions are too strong in some cases, and there are some silly costs, rates, minimums, etc, etc?  Yes.  I do think that unions, in some cases, may cross lines in driving up costs, that may shutter shows early, that may keep people out of jobs.  But, I firmly believe that unions are responsible for safe working environment, living wages and working atmosphere that is more positive for everyone involved.  Yes, there are hoops to jump through and expense, but it’s worth it in the end.  Should it cost $600.00 to type a message to project on the back wall?  No.  (Although I doubt it was a simple as typing a message on the back wall . . . ). 

I have a tremendous respect from producers who risk their money to pay people to do what they love; including my job.  There is a huge gamble in making money in commercial theatre, and there are a LOT of people trying to grab a slice - a lot of people who risking very little and doing nothing.  (And, like this producer, I am a new-comer to this whole commercial theater scene.) But, a the same time, the unions are trying to protect the livings wage and working conditions of their members, things the producers would cut to make more money on their return - because that’s not their concern.  When a producer has their sights set on ONE show and the run of ONE show, everything is disposable, including the workers - which is why unions representation is so important to our industry. 

[babens]

I'm also going to throw in my opinion that I strongly doubt that he, and other producers, would consider lowering ticket prices if they were able to pay smaller salaries.  Call me jaded, but the trend on the road with non-Equity tours does not point to that at all.  Those producers charge a guarantee to the local presenters that is perfectly in line with what Equity tours are charging, thus not allowing the local presenters to lower their ticket prices to match the fact that everyone on those tours is making far less, both in terms of salaries and benefits, than they would be if they were under a union contract.

[MatthewShiner]

No, that is true - if the cost of doing theatre went down, they would not reduce the cost of tickets - at least not the high ticket cost - that is set by something else entirely - supply and demand, etc.

Remember, producers put money into shows to make money, and that is why they charge what they charge - they are trying to make as much as money as they can why their show is still hot - before the show looses it’s luster. 

But, there are things that producers would be more likely to do if the cost was lost . . . keep a show running longer, hiring adequate crew, etc, etc.

[hbelden]

The producer must have come to the negotiating table and lost.  IATSE is very strong, especially in NYC, as we all know.  This is just him whining about losing negotiations.  What are the stats now - 10% of our country's labor force is unionized, and 60% of that is public sector workers?  Producers aren't used to having to negotiate with labor, they offer ridiculously low wages and say take it or leave it - in an unorganized environment and with unemployment being what it is, they'll easily get workers.  But when the workers band together in a union; say we won't negotiate unless you open your books to us; and win a fair price for skilled labor; then it's the union's fault the business isn't making as much money as they want to.

The guy in the video thought he knew better than hundreds of theatrical professionals, simply because he had money.  It's time this country understood where the real capital is - in the hands of its human labor.

[MatthewShiner]

But, what happens with the union wins an UNFAIR price, or over top compensation, or puts into place such a rigid rule . . . sometimes the inflexibility of the union is what is so frustrating to management, general management and the producers.  (Even stage management - come, I have four crew members right there, but because one of them is not LX, they can't unplug that rover . . . sssh - but that's the rules.) On the flip side, once I see the union try to be more flexible in trying to let union members work on smaller shows with less rules, you start to see the producers ask for more - there is just a lot of greed in the business world - and this is, after all, SHOW BUSINESS.


We have to admit, many of the things union fought for have become law, so one can argue that the for some, the purpose of the unions is over in some industries - but I don't think that is the case in theater - I think these is something oddly special about our industry - and it has a lot to do with lure of being onstage (how many young performers would perform on a Broadway for $100 a week if given the chance?  how many young stage managers would be an asm on Broadway for $200 a week?) - and the dangers of what we do - let's not forget what we do is a VERY dangerous occupation - it is.  Theater is a full time, contact sport.

In a nutshell, I think in huge broad generalizations, Producers have abused people in the past, unions fought back, and perhaps now they have crossed the line, and may have perhaps overcompensated - and there would be some room to give up some stuff to allow an atmosphere for shows to be more lucrative - but what is the incentive for the working man to give up the money so the suit can make more, right?

[hbelden]

Matthew,  I'll agree that unions are run by fallible people who may just as easily overreach as those on the other side of the table.  However, I'm not going to complain about any concession one of the seventeen Broadway unions has won from the League; I don't know the culture or history of those unions as well as I know AEA.  I just know that I have their back because I assume they have mine. 

It seems to me that whatever comes out of a negotiation IS fair because it was the result of talks between two entities of roughly equal power.  We can't be employed if they don't invest; they can't profit if we won't work for them.  The Fox guest was complaining about the cost of things because he decided he had a profit-making idea before he tallied up the union costs.  I'm assuming the projection-on-the-back-wall thing was a minimum-call situation; a four-hour call for two technicians, or some such thing.  If the producer had been smart enough to include that idea in the build of the show, it wouldn't have cost him a thing; complaining about minimum calls now (if that is what he's doing) is just petty, and evidence of him needing lessons in how to produce theatre.  Complaining about the cost of installing cameras and HD tvs to correct an obstructed view situation just shows that he had no concept of what a major overhaul like that would take.  It reminds me of the director saying to the sound engineer, "Why don't we just buy Bose speakers for the auditorium? They sound great in my living room!" "Well, when we do a show in your living room, we can use those speakers."  There's a complete lack of understanding of the difference between consumer electronics and professional electronics.

[On_Headset]

Part of it might also be, as a few people have remarked, that this guy is effectively a total outsider.

He might have been promised a turnkey investment: you put in $investment, and you'll get $profit, no questions asked, no risks taken, no surprises down the line. In-context, jukeboxes are some of the safest shows to produce: you already know that the songs are successful and popular, nobody has high expectations for the book, you don't need to procure an expensive headliner in order to attract an audience, the design can be standard rock-concert fare, the show itself will be uncontroversial and unchallenging (and thus extremely good at attracting the sort of audience which keeps an otherwise-unremarkable show running for months or years: busloads of red hat ladies, cruise ships full of pensioners, high school band trips by the dozen...), and despite the (comparatively) low cost of production, you can still charge standard capital-B Broadway ticket prices. Audiences will love it, the opinions of the critics don't matter a whole lot, and it's effectively a license to print money... right?

It's never quite that simple, but you certainly don't tell that to your prospective investors. (Not until they've signed the cheques, at least.)

[nmno]

And finally, 2 weeks later (and I'm sure several rounds with lawyers), a response from the Producers of Rock of Ages and IATSE/Local 1.

http://broadwayworld.com/article/ROCK_OF_AGES_Producers_IATSE_Release_Statement_About_Producer_Habib_20010101?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150157164139718_15758238_10150157170539718#f1671b774