File Cabinet > SMNetwork Archives

Too many sick days on Broadway.....

(1/3) > >>

loebtmc:
the producers are getting peeved and understudies are replacing in fulltime....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192009/entertainment/theater/west_side_substitutes_185329.htm

hbelden:
That article made me furious.  Here's the comment I left:

"What a trash article.  This is incredibly one-sided.  Where are comments from the union and the performers?  The union has been working for half a century to a) force the producer to hire understudies; b) add cover for life events like births, deaths, marriages; c) continue pay for an actor when through no fault of their own they miss a performance.  The industry wants to chew through performers as quickly as they can, but the cast is trying to maintain a lifetime career of EIGHT SHOWS A WEEK, SIX DAYS EVERY WEEK, not just get through this particular performance.  To all the commenting performers busy stabbing their colleagues in the back with comments like "the show must go on" or "what happened to professionalism": were you a triple-threat in your day?  Because triple-threat is the baseline minimum for even understudying on Broadway today.    Back off and support your union brothers and sisters!"

I'm still spitting nails about that piece.

nmno:
Okay, I will concede that the article was one sided and I know nothing about this particular situation other than what I've heard as gossip - however... 
I have experienced problems with this first hand. Let me start by saying that most of the people in my company are great, only call out if they need to or would suck it up and come perform if we really need them.  But I've also had actors who call out because they are hungover, because they hurt themselves doing a non-show related activity, because they strained their voice by not warming up, (not to mention: because they booked their flight too close to 1/2 hour and didn't allow a reasonable cushion, because they were out of town, because they were going to be late and it would be their 3rd offense and didn't want to be docked $75...)  Yes, you have sick days because people get sick and if you are sick you should stay home, get better, and not infect anyone else.  But you are also responsible for being proactive and taking care of yourself: eat well, get sleep, before performing WARM UP YOUR VOICE AND BODY. 
It seems like it's a problem with vets who are sort of over it and really should move onto another show, and young people who were given too much too fast and didn't learn/don't have the work ethic.  (Also part of the problem is producers who continue to hire these people.) I'll also say that when you know how much some of these people are making (some of the principles on my show literally make 2x what I make as ASM - and they're not even "above the title") it makes you want to shout "SHOW UP TO WORK!"

Tale goes that on Hairspray, Harvey Fierstein was annoyed at all the people calling out sick so he said that anyone using less than a certain number of sick days (I forget how many.  Less then him?) he would treat them to a fancy steak dinner. Even with the bribe and a cast of 32, it was a very intimate gathering.

KMC:
Naturally the performer has a tough job with unique demands compared to other lines of work; I don't think you'll find anyone on this site who will argue otherwise.  We're all understanding of that, we have to be.  The way I look at it though is fairly simple.  If I call out sick or miss work enough at my job enough where it's a problem, my boss is going to deal with it.  He might let me hear it in a meeting, try to whip me into shape, and if that doesn't work he may just replace me.  I don't see why it should be any different for a performer, especially on that calibre stage.  Quite simply if a producer is paying you to perform, they expect you to perform.  Of course there will be legitimate sick days, but when people start to abuse the system you've got to expect a reaction.

Heath - I appreciate your passion on the issue.  Admittedly I am somewhat removed from the subject matter as I haven't called a cue in three years now, but that may actually help ground the debate on my end.  You mention the union has been working for ages to put these protections in place, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with their necessity.  When people start to abuse what's in place to protect them though it's actually going to hurt the union's cause.  If producers see certain processes being abused, it's going to come up next time there's a contract negotiation.  Certain things may be curtailed or re-written to be more strict and prevent abuse (even if only perceived abuse) of the system.

hbelden:

--- Quote from: kmc307 on Aug 21, 2009, 08:50 am ---When people start to abuse what's in place to protect them though it's actually going to hurt the union's cause.  If producers see certain processes being abused, it's going to come up next time there's a contract negotiation.  Certain things may be curtailed or re-written to be more strict and prevent abuse (even if only perceived abuse) of the system.

--- End quote ---

That's completely true, and it's what motivated my visceral response to the article.  Most of my anger was directed at the newspaper, which told the story from the producer's point of view.  This is anti-labor propaganda, designed by corporate producers to weaken the union's negotiating position.  Is this abuse?  The newspaper would have us think so.  We are left with the impression that all those lazy actors just want a personal day, without any real investigation of what's causing all those outs.  What's the injury report on that show?  Did an epidemic of flu go through the cast?  Is any audience member aware that only one day off a week is so much less than they get at their day job?

My cool(er) response to the article, having slept on it, is that these Broadway producers needed to do their job in hiring understudies up to the task and paying for them to be rehearsed and put into the show.  It's not like there's a dearth of quality union performers who would take the job.

I think I read someone complaining about a swing going on as a different chorus role each performance in a week.  Well, that's the job of the swing.  If the job is too big for any one person, then the producer needs to hire more than one! 

As someone who's never worked on Broadway but hopes one day to get there, I don't think I'm going to accept at face value what the producer has to say about understudies or care one bit about audience members appalled at the number of inserts in their program.  When I do get to Broadway, I'll do my part to make it better.  When I stage manage shows now, I don't allow anyone's poor work ethic to affect the show, and I come down hard on people who think that the show they're on is beneath them.  I totally recognize the responsibility we all have to maintain the professionalism of our productions, and the necessity of discipline when appropriate.  But to see it splashed across the papers, to invite the public to weigh in on something they know nothing about, and to hear support for the producer's position from other union members... (*slams head against wall*)

There's too much anti-worker sentiment in this country for union members to be going around in public forums like the Post all "the show must go on" and "I went on with broken fingers in my day, what's wrong with these kids". 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page