I've been hearing about this for a few months already. The contracts expired the day before I was to see Grease, so I was a bit worried. Of course, nothing has happened as of yet.

Remember that Riedel is a muckraker - yellow journalism at is finest.

Will a strike/lockout happen? I have my doubts. However, I had my doubts that there would be a musician strike a few years ago. The only shows unaffected were the plays and Cabaret, which played under a different contract. However, since this encompasses all NY theater, it looks like Broadway will be crippled if it does happen.

Last I heard we could hear a final yay or nay tonight.

Do the other artists, actors, musicians etc. still get paid if there is a lock out and they cannot perform?

MrE,
This time isn't it a little different? This is a "lockout" by the producers, NOT a strike by the stage hands. Therefore, I would think that the producers would be legally responsible for paying everyone else. I can't imagine the theatre owners would not ask for their rent, nor can i imagine the shows going on without stagehands. I don't think scabs would be capable of carrying out the shows, at least not for several weeks.

My understanding (and I certainly may be wrong here) is that a lockout is just that, the doors are locked and nobody can get into the building. Therefore the actors could not perform even if they wanted to. Since this lockout is an action by the producers and is not a voluntary action by the actors, the contracts between the producers and actors would be enforcable. Of course there may be some fine print in those contracts that make them null and void if a lockout is called but I can't imagine actors' equity allowing such contracts.

Dogsandbirds and MrE,
I absolutely believe you (you both always seem to have great inside information) but if there is a lawyer on this forum, I'd be curious as to how the producers can abrogate a contract with the actors and musicians. The only explanation I can come up with (as I said before) is that there may be a contingency in the contracts with the actors and musicians that allows the producers not to pay them in case of a lock out of other participants in the production (in this case the stage hands). If there is such a contingency, the lawyers working for actors' equity and the musicians union should be shot for allowing that contingency to be included.

-- Edited by singingdoc at 15:13, 2007-10-10

Should the lockout happen, could the performers choose to use their accumulated vacation time, on a day-by-day basis, in order to keep some pay coming in? 

MrE,
In my case the answer is a resounding yes. If my hospital "locked out" the nursing staff or housekeeping they would be unable to care for patients. The patients would have to be transferred to other hospitals and we hospital based doctors (who are employed by the hospital and are not independent contractors) would have no patients to take care of and the hospital would have no income. However, our contract with the hospital would still be in effect and the hospital would still have to pay us. The only way the hospital could avoid paying us is if they declared bankrupcy. At least in our case, the hospital has fairly deep pockets so I doubt that would happen. Maybe I should consider myself extremely lucky to be in the medical profession. I doubt a hospital would ever consider a lockout that would shut down that hospital .
Correct if I'm wrong, but I think, from a legal perspective, my situation in the scenerio given above would be very similar to that of the actors and musicians. Sorry for belaboring this point.

Ray,
You're not butting in at all. We all enjoy your input. Having said that you're undoubtedly correct, actors don't have as much clout as MDs; however, that lack of clout would have to be manifested in the contract entered into by both the actor and the producer. Even though I'm not a lawyer, the contract probably would have to state fairly specifically that the producers are not legally libel for payment of actors' salary in the case of the producers calling a "lockout" against another group of workers. Since I'm not privy to the specifics of these contracts, I honestly don't know whether or not such a clause exists. All I said earlier was that if such a clause exists, the lawyers representing actors' equity did not do the actors any favors when they negotiated the specifics of the general contract. Perhaps they couldn't negotiate a better contract because of the actors' lack of clout. I don't know.

I  am chiming in here because I'm not sure I even understand why the stagehands are going on strike. Do they have sufficent cause I.E. Lack of benefits, low pay etc. I am not denying that workers have the right to help themselves if they are truly not receiving what they are due. But can I tell you that I was involved in a one day strike several years ago. We as state workers couldn't do more because we worked for 24 hour facilities. It did us no real good. As I sit here today I can tell you that the facility I worked in closed.
I can also tell you that being without a good job and decent benefits changes your perspective considerably. I don't think my job is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I am so glad to have a job and a pay check. Again as I said if there is a legitimate reason for striking then by all means they should do what they feel they need to do. But I think we are far to ready to strike for more,more more and I don't know that we always need it. As far as the other folks getting paid if the stage hands strike. The fact is that if the others go out in sympathy with that union which it sounds like they will do then they will most likely not get paid. The striking union will usually provide strike pay but it is a mere pittance. I hope it doesn't last long or that it doesn't happen at all. That's my two cents.

It is tremendously complicated, to say the least.

Hate to put it this way, but would you get paid if you don't work?
Well if you work for the state of NJ you would. When they closed down the state ( for lack of a passed budget last year) for all but essential workers, the non-essential workers got off but got paid for the days they were off. The most ticked off group about that were, of course, the essential workers,

Sorry I was away for the day. Sound like a very interesting topic.

To answer many questions. Unless otherwise stated in the performers contracts. And the performers were NOT the ones picketing, they would be paid and paid in full. Regardless whether or not they actually performed any work doesn't really matter. Its not their fault. They were willing and able to perform. Thats all that is needed. Now, if it states otherwise in thier contracts (which I'm sure it doesn't). Likewise, if the show closes in Jan. of 2008, the performers (at least the leads) are contracted through early June of 2008, they would get paid for those months of not performing. Thats why they have contracts. Unless of course the show files bankrupcy, then thats why you belong to a union. Its actually quite simple.............well at least it is until some money-hungry people get into the picture. Then it can become ugly.

All-in-all, even though the performers are getting paid, it doesn't help their careers any. Because they are under contract for one show, they are unable to perform somewhere else unless authorized to do so. Which means they sit idle with nothing to do.

Just my 2 cents worth.

DogsandBirds, I did not receive my information for any specific source. It is what it is. I realize that many shows do close after a few weeks from opening, however, if any one specific performer in that show was contracted for a year, they would get paid for one year. UNLESS otherwise noted in their contracts. In this specific case. Besides, I believe you are comparing apples to oranges. If a show closes shortly after opening, its a financial disaster. A show closing for a period of time because of a strike is completely different.

It would be stated in a contract about a closing of a show from lack of interest. But probably not from a strike.

My 2 cents state that the performers did nothing wrong and that the breach of contract would be on the producers. They should still get paid.

And I completely agree, this would be a disaster to the Broadway community. May they reach a settlement!!!!

Shows won't close because of a strike per se. Shows would close because of poor ticket sales, made worse by the massive refunds of the strike.

The perfect example is 9/11. Shows didn't close because of 9/11, shows closed because of the lack of interest and poor ticket sales following 9/11.

In any case, once a show closes, unless noted as a "premature closure clause," the actors are not paid.

The only cast that I know of which has a PCC rider is Legally Blonde, who will be paid a sum of money if the show closes soon after the airing on MTV.

In general, actors are not paid the length of their contract if there's a strike, lockout, or if it closes. They may be given a small severance package, but that's it, as I've heard from friends in the biz.

-- Edited by MrE1111 at 16:53, 2007-10-11

Meeting Today

Thanks, Eris, for keeping us up on the News, such as it is.

No lock out...this weekend, at least.

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/111865.html

Broadway Stagehands Union Sets Date for Strike Authorization Vote

Oi vey! That article made my head hurt. But if I understand correctly the part that would directely affect Max and Laura and the Grease cast is the Actor's Equity part. I guess we just have to adopt a wait and see attitude and let the dust settle.

Mr.E,
Here I am being difficult again. Sorry! But, the last strike on broadway was the musicians' strike. Without music the shows could still continue using pre-recorded music. In that case it made sense for the actors and stagehands to go on strike to support the musicians. By doing so, they closed down production and cost the producers money. In the current situation, if the stagehands go on strike, all shows with the possible exception of one-man shows like A Bronx Tale would have to be closed for safety reasons, wether or not the actors and musicians showed up for work . I would think that the stagehands would be better off having the actors and musicians report for work, fulfill their end of the contract (even though the show couldn't go on for safety reasons) and have to be paid by the producers. Again, this assumes that the contracts that the actors and musicians signed do not have a clause in them releasing the producers from their obligation to pay the actors and musicians in the case of a strike by other workers.

MrE,
Thanks for the clarrification.