A Stitch in Haste

One should rarely if ever draw a conclusion having heard only one side of an argument.

Having said that:

We have the highest regard and respect for our stagehands. But, they are not, as the Union leadership characterizes them, the typical "little guys" as far as compensation is concerned. Their "average annual earnings," in salary and benefits, is more than $150,000, with many stagehands earning more than $200,000.

They are professionals and should be well paid, and will remain the best paid in this industry in the world. We simply don't want to be compelled to hire more workers than needed and pay them when there is no work for them to do.

For example:

--It takes a few minutes to move a piano, but we are forced to pay stagehands for four hours of work. As a result, over the course of a year, many stagehands add another $50,000 dollars to their six figure salaries from moving pianos or mopping floors.

--Head Electricians earn a six figure salary, but their contract only permits them to work a total of 80 minutes a week.

--A flyman making $160,000 annually in salary and benefits is required for all productions, even when there is no fly cue in the production and no flyman is needed.

--We are required to keep the same number of workers loading in a show as hired on day one for the entire load-in process regardless of how many workers are subsequently needed.

--We have offered a significant raise in wages, but the union says there will be a cut in wages. The only explanation is that this would be the result of fewer people being paid for not working.

Of course, Broadway theater owners are hardly noble Randian capitalists themselves. They enjoy privileged tax breaks at the expense of other New York businesses and residents. They have bought, from politicians and bureaucrats, restrictive zoning and land use rules in the Theater District to erect artificial (i.e., government-imposed) barriers to entry. They suckle at the teat of taxpayer-underwritten arts funding boondoggles. And all because, somehow, "art is different" (and, by corollary, because "Broadway is very different").

No one, meanwhile, dares suggest that maybe, just maybe, "show business" really is a "business" and should be treated as such.

---

Alright, here's the other side of the argument (such as it is):

Theatre owners and producers are demanding a 38% cut in our jobs and wages. They have built a $20 million fund to be used against us from the sale of theatre tickets to the public.

Broadway is a billion dollar a year industry and has never been more profitable than now.

Cuts in our jobs and wages will never result in a cut in ticket prices to benefit the public, but only an increase in the profits for producers.

Some hasty stitches:

--See the last bullet from the producers about the fictitious "38% cut."

--Of course, the theaters are required by law to refund, immediately, all ticket revenue from closed performances. As for the earned revenue from successfully performed shows, why should it matter what the producers use it for? And how much, I wonder, does the union have in its strike fund?

--Also, why should theatergoers care whether it will be ticket prices or profits that go up or down? The price is the price; if you find it acceptable, buy the ticket; if not, then don't. It is per se irrational (not to mention per se socialist) to forego a show, not because "the price is too high" but because "the profits are too high."

---

Meanwhile, Rolling Doughnut pens a critic's review of the Writers Guild strike.