The Bloomberg article implies that this pay is outrageous, and simply due to the “clout” of IATSE Local One.  While having the union contract is certainly the main reason the stagehands are receiving that much money, the article ignores some basic facts, including some mentioned in the article itself.

First: They are working 80 hours per week, for multiple weeks.  Not just one really hard week.  LOTS of really hard weeks.  That is a lot of work, and they are earning the money for being there that whole time.

Second: Carnegie Hall management agreed to the contract that the stagehands have.  It is most likely unique to Carnegie Hall, as Carnegie Hall is a unique venue.

Third:  Bloomberg’s attempt to compare Carnegie Hall’s contract to Broadway contracts and working hours is like comparing a bank teller’s hours to Marine Special Forces.  With the possible exception of technical rehearsals, Broadway (and most other scripted, multiple performance shows) are highly scheduled.  Productions performing in the same venue day after day rarely even hit 40 hours in a given week.  One time performances, such as those usually performed at venues like Carnegie Hall, can require complete set-up, rehearsal, last minute changes, unknown performance durations, and then full tear-down.  A standard 8am to Midnight day (which is a decent average at most rental halls), is 16 hours, possibly minus a 1 hour lunch and a 1 hour dinner, unless something comes up (which for these type of performances, usually does). Just five 16 hour days is 80 hours, and most rental venues try to have something going on 6 days a week.  Carnegie Hall has 3 venues on site, which means that much more work to do for each stagehand each day.

Fourth: Cost to rent a space in Carnegie Hall does not include the labor.  That is billed separately. This means that while Carnegie Hall may be paying the stagehands, they are directly billing the tenant the cost of that labor.  Carnegie Hall loses no money from labor costs on rentals. This also means that, aside from the basic minimum, the tenant controls what, if any, overtime is incurred by the tenant’s own scheduling, planning, and whims. At most venues, most of the time, paying anything more than time-and-a-half is because the stagehands are being asked to do something they would rather not do, such as work more than 5 hours without a meal break, or work more than 10 hours in a day, or work after midnight or before 7am.  That type of pay requirement is usually put in a contract as an incentive for the employer NOT to ask the crew work that long or at that time.

Fifth: Reporters are not the most knowledgeable people, especially when it comes down to specialized fields.  (Just watch any reporter trying to analyze live video of any event at the moment it happens. It’s really fun when it’s a commuter or subway train incident, and the reporter doesn’t take public transit).  In this case, the props, lighting, and carpenters are regarded only as: “moving of objects that aren’t plugged in, such as a piano or music stands. An electrician handles objects that get plugged in, like microphones and amplifiers, while carpenters are involved in the construction and handling of scenery.” This simplification of the stagehands work only serves to make it appear that anyone can do it, and to further the article’s implication that the stagehands are far too overpaid.  (I could do the same by saying a surgeon’s job is to cut and sew tissue, and operate a small vacuum. True, but missing the important details of the job.) Especially egregious is the idea that stagehands making more than the management team is somehow wrong.  The stagehands are the ones there setting up, running, and tearing down each show, in three spaces (for 80 hours each week). The managers get to go home at 5pm if they want.

Sixth: It’s Carnegie Hall!  It’s not Dinkel Valley Junior High Auditorium (Go Aardvarks!).  When you are the top venue, charging top tier rental and ticket prices, you should expect that everyone who works for you will want a cut of that.  Plus, if you are paying that kind of money, you should expect, and get, the best stage professionals working for you.  Even Carnegie Hall’s executive director, Clive Gillinson, doesn’t see this as an issue: “I think we have a fantastic staff in every way.”

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

Bloomberg also has an article about the Joyce Theatre stagehands being “nabbed” by IATSE.  As if they were all kidnapped off the street one night by an unmarked van, instead of asking for the union to represent them, and voting to prove that they wanted that representation.  But Bloomberg seems to like the apples to orange paint comparisons:

“The powerful union struck Broadway in 2007 and negotiated a contract at Carnegie Hall that resulted in a props supervisor earning $530,044 last year.”

See that?  They try to equate the Broadway contract with the unrelated Carnegie Hall contract, while also trying to imply that financial ruin will almost certainly befall the poor Joyce Theatre now that there is an actual contract between the theatre and the stagehands.  This would be like saying that the CEO of McDonalds should never go to Morton’s Steakhouse, as the result could only be that McDonalds would drastically change their menu and raise the cost of a cheeseburger to $30.

Some have written before about the Joyce Theatre, asking why IATSE would care about a venue that is so small.  Since when did the number of seats change the skills needed to hang lights, attach rigging, build scenery, install sound equipment, or run a show?  Why shouldn’t they have the same piece of mind that stagehands doing the exact same work at larger theatres get from having a contract?  Sometimes it’s not about the money.  Sometimes, the “premium” is simply having the contract itself.

I’ve written about the unions and IATSE before.  I’m not always kind to management, or to the unions, depending on the issue of that moment.  But I don’t like fear-mongering, which is what Bloomberg seems to be doing in these cases.  I understand that Bloomberg is a business oriented publication, but that does not excuse misleading statements or shoddy journalism just to supposedly keep your readers happy.

In interest of full disclosure, I am a member of IATSE (though not Local One), I have never worked at Carnegie Hall, Joyce Theatre, or anywhere else in NYC.  I have never seen the Broadway or Carnegie Hall contracts, nor the Joyce Theatre one (which has not been written yet, anyway). I don’t even make a tenth of what the those top five stagehands make at Carnegie Hall, and I don’t know a single person who works at those venues.

What I do know, though, is how a performance is created and operated, how special events and concerts usually operate, and the fear that many people have of “the union.”  I had that fear myself, even up to the time I began working with my local to create a contract.  Starting out non-union and hearing all the myths and fear-mongering about IATSE is the main reason I write about IATSE issues on this blog: to clear up misconceptions, and to try and show fellow union members how certain actions may not be viewed in a positive light.

I seriously don’t care if you or your theatre want or don’t want to have a union contract. That is your choice.  Ideally, if every employer simply paid and treated their employees fairly, and had some type of written agreement as to what was expected of the employer and employee, then there would be no need for a third party to come in to represent either side.  If you feel you are being paid and treated fairly, then I don’t see the need for you to join the union.

But I also don’t see the reason that so many employers are so afraid of having a union contract with their stagehands.  A contract doesn’t just say that the employer must do X, Y, and Z.  It also says that the employees must do A, B, and C.  Both sides know what is expected of them.  If there are minimum hour requirements, then the employees know that they will make at least X dollars, and the employer knows, for a fact, the basic cost of  labor they need to budget for.  Instead of being a mystery figure, it can be a line item, one that can be counted on just like the cost of materials.  If there are work rules, then both sides know what can or cannot be done.  A contract makes the theatre more attractive to stage professionals, and therefore the theatre can be more picky about who they hire for open positions.

It astounds me that theatres that flout their Actors Equity affiliation (the actors union) will fight so vigorously to keep out IATSE.  These same theatres will proudly discuss their LORT membership, or League of Chicago Theatres membership, or affiliation with the local Chamber of Commerce.  What are these groups, if not unions for theatres and businesses?

Here are the most popular myths about IATSE that I hear:

“They will take over all the jobs, and the people who were there will be fired.”: No existing theatre can “go union” without a majority of the people in the positions the contract would cover voting for union representation.  No-one loses their job because the theatre gets a union contract.  What sense would it make for anyone to vote for union representation if they were just going to lose their job to an existing union member as a result?

“The theatre/vendor can’t afford union rates.”:  There is no set “union rate,” and there is no set “union contract.”  Every employer/venue is regarded differently, unless they ask for the same contract terms as other employer (such as the Broadway contract, and many hotel contracts).  A non-profit theatre with a $5 million budget is not going to be asked to pay the same wages as a $50 million for-profit theatre.  No-one wants any employer to go out of business from labor costs.  They just want the employees to get a fair wage in comparison to the money being spent and earned by the employer elsewhere.

“You will need a huge crew because of all the ridiculous rules.” This also falls under: every contract is different, according to the needs of the venue.  Most people are surprised to find the crew numbers rarely go up when a theatre gets a union contract.  Any work rules are set by the needs of the venue, guided by those who work there.

The union works for its members, not the members for “the union.”  The union exists to represent and protect its members.    It works for me, I don’t work for it.  The union deals with any pay or work rules issues so I am free to do my job.

For the stagehands, having a union contract means they have the legal and personal support of a group made up of fellow professional stagehands.  They don’t have to fight on their own to get an employer to pay them fairly, or on time, or follow basic labor laws.  It does not always mean a pay increase.  For many it simply means job security, in that they know that the employer will pay them at least X amount each day, and at least Y amount each year. It may mean that they know they won’t be forced to work 12 hour days without a break without being compensated for it, and that they have the legal support to demand that the work rules be followed. It may mean that you finally get health insurance and a retirement plan (either with the employer’s existing plans or through the union’s plans).

For the employer, it means only having to negotiate with the union representative, not 10 to 30 people individually, and not at random times as they are hired.  No juggling what you promised to whom, or how much, or remembering when so-and-so was told they would get a raise.  It is all there, black and white.  It means that you have a given set of rules and expectations, and can point to them if an employee is not doing their job.  The union wants to provide the best people.  If they have a member that isn’t doing the job, they want to know about it.

In the end, a contract is a promise. It’s a promise that you will be paid fairly, and in proportion to the income/budget of the employer, for the work you do.  It is a promise that those that have employed by the theatre for years, and work every single show, can’t have their job taken away because a new executive director wants to “trim the budget” during his or her first year. It is a promise that you will know the conditions under which you will work and what is expected of you in your job.

–These are my opinions, based on my 20+ years working behind-the-scenes.  They may not necessarily be the same as the official IATSE positions on these subjects.

As I said before, it doesn’t matter to me if you are union or non-union.  Heck, most of the jobs listed on BackstageJobs.com tend to be non-union jobs.  I’ve worked both, and had good and bad experiences with and without a contract.    Your opinions and decisions regarding union representation should be based on facts, not myths and fear.

Having a working sprinkler system prevented a electrical panel fire from spreading at the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center in Rapid City, SD.  Sprinklers quickly extinguished the fire in a stage lighting panel, containing the damage to the panel, and some water damage in the immediate area.

Chanhassen Dinner Theatres near Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN will continue operation after being sold to a local entrepreneur.

Frankenfield, 49, is a theater enthusiast who lives in Shorewood. He said in an interview Monday afternoon that he intends to continue running Chanhassen as a dinner theater.

“Absolutely,” he said. “Literally, we’re going to continue the schedule just as it’s been and continue operating it as it has been. We hope to bring in some more resources and make the thing better.”

Bucking the current trend of theatres closing, the new, and only, professional theatre company in Myrtle Beach, FL was showing off their soon-to-open space this past Saturday.  Atlantic Stage Theatre Company is set to open their first production, Proof, on November 4th.

Finally, sometimes you just have to make it ridiculously simple for your board operators to get it. From @NathanDoFrango.

Ken Davenport, a NYC producer of many Broadway and other shows, has a very interesting blog called Producer’s Perspective.  I include it from time to time in the “More News and Views” section on the right.  (Mr. Davenport was part of the team that recently lost their arbitration with Jeremy Piven, but that’s a whole other can of worms, or fish…)

Yesterday Mr. Davenport posted: “does this seem like the right time for a big and powerful union to try to organize a 472 seat theater, home to a modern dance company?”  His argument was essentially that the union would financially hurt the company, and implied that the union was trying to force its way in.  There are a few problems with this.

First, the stagehands approached the union.  Second, an existing staff at a non-union company cannot be forced to join the union just because the union would like to represent them.  The departments in question must have a majority of their employees sign cards authorizing the union to represent them.  If the majority don’t sign, then the union cannot represent them.  Third, there is no such thing as a “standard union contract.”  Each one is different, and tailored to each employer-employee situation.   Any large group of employers with the same contract agreed to have the same contract as their competitors.  By the same token, there is no such thing as a standard union wage.

This is about job security.  Seat numbers don’t matter.  Budget doesn’t matter.  What matters is keeping the employees happy.  Many non-union theatres do not have any sort of employment agreement with their stagehands, or other employees.  A contract merely gives a set of written expectations for both the employer and employee.  Job duties, pay expectations, approved means of settling disagreements between the two parties, expected dress, tools, working conditions, and anything else that either side would like specified.  Heck, the pay rates can be the same as they were without the contract, but at least now everyone knows what those rates will be.  I am always surprised at the fear so many theatres have of simply writing down and signing a set of terms that will govern the employment of each staff member.

Mr. Davenport may be a member of two unions, but it appears that his primary dealings with Local One as a for-profit producer may have clouded his ability to look at the Joyce Theatre situation from all sides.  In an uncertain economic environment, wouldn’t you want everyone to have some semblance of job security? Especially those who ensure the performance actually goes on every night?

Related (updated 6/29/09): Grand Rapids, MI Local 26 recently offered a wage freeze with its four largest non-profit employers, which was agreed to.

“Our members overwhelmingly wanted to try and help our ailing arts groups that we consider our family because really they are,” said David “Dansir” McCullough, president of Local 26 of IATSE.

Remember, a union works for its members, not the other way around.  This is a great example.