Author Topic: Unions. (Read 506 times)

miko2d · « **on:** March 11, 2003, 12:54:25 PM »

Broadway theaters are not working because of the strike. The theaters are losing millions every day, the local businesses are losing tens of millions every day, New York City is losing tax revenue and goodwill of the people who came to visit us despite all the hassles of air travel, traffic nightmares and terrorist threats.
That's what our city needs in the midst of a huge budget crisis.

The musicians believe that a Broadway musical must employ at least 24 orchestra players, not 15 as producers are willing to concede. They insist that they are only doing that to help the consumers, not to save redundant jobs.

According to them, it's not up to the creative team to decide how many musicians the show really needs, not up to the management to decide how much neat stuff the show can afford, not up to consumers to decide whether they want to pay less for a more affordable show but attend more of them (the current ticket is $70) - the musicians know best.

If they win, there will be fewer shows, fewer people attending them - especially among not so wealthy ones, fewer people employed in the business, fewer people employed in the hotel business, etc. If they lose, there will still be the damage done.

Once we send the entertainment and tourism industry packing following the financial industry rapidly relocating from New York, we will just declare the whole New York one huge welfare area. Maybe then nobody would care to bomb it.

miko

gofaster · « **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2003, 01:06:34 PM »

Prices are already through the roof.

And yet, the shows do a pretty good business.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were fewer musicals as a result.

midnight Target · « **Reply #2 on:** March 11, 2003, 02:20:10 PM »

Unions suck.

didn't used to, but they do now.

Wanker · « **Reply #3 on:** March 11, 2003, 02:37:58 PM »

The real issue is whether you want to experience live musicians accompanying the singers, or if you want to hear pre-recorded music in the background.

Speaking as a semi-pro musician and as a lover of music theater.... when I go to a live show, I want to see live performers. I don't want to hear canned music accompaning the singers. I also would never want to see the abolishment of the professional musician in the pit on Brodway or on any other musical theater district.

The double-standard in American life is too funny. Some of the people bemoaning musicians trying to make a living playing are the same people who think that there's nothing wrong with paying millions of dollars per year to athletic prima-donnas.

And don't even get me started on how much good unions have done for everyone in this country in the last 100 years. And no, I don't belong to a union. I don't have the time right now to post on the general topic of unions. Stay tuned.

miko2d · « **Reply #4 on:** March 11, 2003, 03:19:20 PM »

banana: The real issue is whether you want to experience live musicians accompanying the singers, or if you want to hear pre-recorded music in the background.

Speaking as a semi-pro musician and as a lover of music theater.... when I go to a live show, I want to see live performers.

So you make a choice and pay extra for live music. And some working mother who wants to take her 3 children to a show would pay $80 for four tickets to a show with recorder music but live performers rather than stay at home because she cannot afford $400.

I don't want to hear canned music accompaning the singers. I also would never want to see the abolishment of the professional musician in the pit on Brodway or on any other musical theater district.

So don't. Do not buy CDs, patronise live performances - nobody is taking that choice from you like you want to take from people too poor to afford a full-blown production.

The double-standard in American life is too funny. Some of the people bemoaning musicians trying to make a living playing are the same people who think that there's nothing wrong with paying millions of dollars per year to athletic prima-donnas.

Of course there is nothing wrong with it. I have not paid a cent to athletic primadonnas. I could though - because I have a choice. At least for now. I have to pay for worthless primadonnas in the teachers union.

It only seems a double stabdard to you because you believe everyone must act according to your tastes.

The fact that you want the luxury of live music does not mean others have to pay for it too or be deprived of any shows.

And don't even get me started on how much good unions have done for everyone in this country in the last 100 years.

Labor monopoly is the same as any other monopoly. By keeping prices higher, it limits the supply (of labor - denying jobs to people which are not cost-effective to hire at set rates). According to research, due to unions 15% of workers from the highest-paid occupations increased their income by about 5%. 85% of other workers lost money in wages because of that - plus consumers ended up with more expensive products, which is the same as lower real wages.

The money just got redistributed from lower-paid workers to highest-paid ones. It did not come from the profits of the companies, since union labor monopoly required and supported production monopoly - thus they just raised prices.

miko

gofaster · « **Reply #5 on:** March 11, 2003, 03:29:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
So you make a choice and pay extra for live music. And some working mother who wants to take her 3 children to a show would pay $80 for four tickets to a show with recorder music but live performers rather than stay at home because she cannot afford $400.

"Sesame Street Live" uses pre-recorded songs. So does "Barney and Friends On Stage". Those are more family-oriented presentations and are priced accordingly. I really don't see a working mother taking her 3 kids to a full stage production of "Phantom of the Opera" or "Cats" or "Oklahoma" or "South Pacific" or any of the other big-ticket musicals.

A true fan of the stage who can't afford tickets would volunteer as an usher and get free admission.

gofaster · « **Reply #6 on:** March 11, 2003, 03:37:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Of course there is nothing wrong with it. I have not paid a cent to athletic primadonnas. I could though - because I have a choice. At least for now. I have to pay for worthless primadonnas in the teachers union.

It only seems a double stabdard to you because you believe everyone must act according to your tastes.

The fact that you want the luxury of live music does not mean others have to pay for it too or be deprived of any shows.

Removing live music would deprive others of their right to enjoy the full show. Live music is part of the spectacle of a Broadway musical. Otherwise, its just kareoke with costumes. Any fan of the theatre can tell you that. That's why people are willing to lay out the kind of money that they do for a first-rate production of "Cats".

I don't pay money to athletic primadonnas either, except for auto races - those guys deserve their money. Football and hockey players deserve their cash too. Basketball and baseball players are a different story.

midnight Target · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2003, 03:41:51 PM »

Basketball players are the greatest all around athletes in the world.

narsus · « **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2003, 03:52:58 PM »

Lets go back a bit here if the creator of the musical says they need say 6 musicians to play at a performance, because that is the way they envisioned it.

It's like Mozart righting a piece for a quartet, but a full orchestra peformed it.

why should the union demand that 24 musicians should be playing?

See the problem.

BTW
I am a Cellist and violist for 14 years.

As far as athletics, they just get gobs of cash. NASCAR, WRC, F1 fan here.

Montezuma · « **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2003, 05:16:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by gofaster

A true fan of the stage who can't afford tickets would volunteer as an usher and get free admission.

Or maybe get his boyfriend to pay for him....

MrBill · « **Reply #10 on:** March 11, 2003, 05:56:42 PM »

Quote

Basketball players are the greatest all around athletes in the world.

Bull! jmo

No sport has had any athlete that became a successful boxer. Boxing, however, has had several athlete's become successful at other sports.

midnight Target · « **Reply #11 on:** March 11, 2003, 06:37:06 PM »

Quote

No sport has had any athlete that became a successful boxer.

Why the hell would you want to?

MrBill · « **Reply #12 on:** March 11, 2003, 09:06:20 PM »

hehehe, two that jump to mind are Wilt Chamberlain (quit when his sparing partners were kicking his ass), and Lawrence Taylor (after football he amassed a 1 and 4 record vs a bunch of tomatoes, getting stopped twice). I know there have been others but I would have to look them up.
To answer your question, "MONEY", No other sport pays as well per minute of competition as boxing.

Sorry bout the union thread boxing has no union.

davidpt40 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 11, 2003, 09:08:27 PM »

Don't need broadway, don't need actors. Local 89 here. Unions are corrupted and keeping raising prices. Lord grant me the serenity to accept the fact that gangsters still run the unions.

Hangtime · « **Reply #14 on:** March 11, 2003, 09:09:46 PM »

i'm for any union that pisses miko off.

SOLIDARITY!