Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« "That's a Dragon-Lookin' Wild Thing… | Currently Hanging »

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Theater / Economy Downs and Ups at the Seattle Rep

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:46 PM

In its effort to cut expenses, the Seattle Rep sat down with its production unions—locals 15, 488, and 887—six weeks ago to ask if they would re-open their contracts to discuss cuts. (The contract isn't up for renewal until next year.)

The pre-negotiation—pregotiation?—ended on Monday, without any material progress.

"They were under absolutely no obligation to open the contract," said the Rep's managing director Ben Moore. "I went into it with expectations that weren't particularly high. Still, I was hopeful and I'm disappointed."

Full-time Rep staffers have cut back their hours from 40 to 32 per week as part of a campaign to pull the theater's budget from $10 million to $6.4 million.

The Rep asked the union if their shops would do the same. They declined. (The Rep also asked for a wage freeze and a pension suspension, which the unions also declined.)

"We're only 17% of payroll for the next year, but we do the manual labor, put up the shows," said Andrew Willhelm, president of local 15 (the stagehands' union). "And we've already seen a reduction in labor: The Rep is bringing in some trucked-in shows instead of having them built here. As one of our shop carpenters said: 'Normally, we work at the Rep and have to find a summer job—now the Rep is our summer job.'"

Willhelm also said the Rep would probably cancel at least one show in its upcoming season, and that Noël Coward's Hay Fever—a show for nine actors, directed by Warner Shook—was in the dock.

The rumor that the Rep would cancel Hay Fever has been floating around for awhile. When asked whether it was true, Rep spokesperson Katie Jackman laughed grimly and said she couldn't comment.

Which sounds like a yes—she added that the Rep is in the middle of its subscription-renewal campaign. The implication being, I presume, that announcing schedule changes might spook subscribers.

On the plus side, Moore said, "business is pretty brisk." Single-ticket sales for Wishful Drinking (by Carrie Fisher) are the best in years. Breakin' Hearts and Takin' Names, another storytelling show by popular Minnesotan NPR commentator Kevin Kling (How? How? Why? Why? Why?), is also selling well.

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Unions foster ignorance, laziness, and entitlement. They had a time and place, but that was a century ago.

Posted by john cocktosin on April 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM

1)Does Warner Shook direct anything that WASN'T written in the 1930's? Was his mother frightened by a Jean Harlowe impersonator while pregnant with him?

2)The Rep should just change its name to "Storytime Theatre" and be done with it.

3)yes, yes, Unions are so, so, awful and responsible for everything bad in the corporate world--blah, blah, blah....

Posted by michael strangeways on April 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM

If people wanted to make money, they wouldn't be in theatre.

I mean, have you even seen the numbers on Broadway shows?

It makes slot machines look dignified.

Posted by Will in Seattle on April 15, 2009 at 2:10 PM

It should also be noted that union-represented staff positions have also been reduced to 32 hours per week, while Wardrobe staff positions (represented by IATSE Local 887) have been further reduced to 16 weeks employment per season, essentially limiting them to the runs of the shows themselves. So, it's a little disingenuous for Moore to imply (if he's the source for the employment numbers) that union members on the admin side aren't also taking a hit in hours/wages along with the rest of the administrative staff.

And yes, @1 I'm sure you'd much prefer to go back to the "good old days" of 10 hours a day, six days a week work weeks with no breaks, no health and pension benefits, no workplace safety regulations,no minimum wages, and no collective bargaining rights with your employer, because, really, all that crap is just a plot to turn Good, Benevolent Capitalism into Greedy, Godless Socialism anyway, so who needs it?

Posted by COMTE on April 15, 2009 at 2:28 PM

@3:

According to Playbill Magazine, Broadway took in about $937.5 mm for the 2007-2008 season (Which doesn't include grosses for Young Frankenstein BTW, since they never reported box office numbers during their run), and that factors in the 19 day stagehand's strike that occurred in November 2007. Had the strike not happened, analysts from The Broadway League (the industry organization representing for-profit B'way producers) estimated the annual take would most likely have exceeded the $1 B record box office from the previous year.

Paid attendance for the season was 12.27 million tickets sold, a drop of only 0.2 percent from the previous year. That compares pretty favorably with attendance figures for Major League Baseball for the 2008 season, which had a total of about 17.3 mm paid attendances.

So, I'd say the numbers are quite a bit better than the odds you'll get on even the most generous nickel slots at your local casino...

Posted by COMTE on April 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Brendan, your anti-union/anti-regional theatre bias is showing again....

Posted by fillerbunny on April 15, 2009 at 2:43 PM

I didn't know it was ever hiding.

Posted by Brendan Kiley on April 15, 2009 at 4:59 PM

So, you admit that any of your reporting/"criticism" should be ignored because you have an inherent bias? Wonderful!! I'll make sure people know and refuse to comment to you.

Posted by fillerbunny on April 15, 2009 at 6:30 PM

COMTE: Are you really comparing Broadway *for-profit* revenue numbers with Seattle *non-profit* revenue numbers? Seriously, get a clue.

The number of theatre subscribers has been steadily declining at all 3 major theatres in Seattle, as has attendance in general.

I'm glad that the producers of MAMMA MIA and WICKED are making hand over fist, but that's *not* the Seattle theatre scene.

I'm happy that the Rep's season has been so successful in terms of programming, but I don't think that it is translating into more assets. The Rep isn't trying to BE profitable -- almost 40% of its revenue comes from donations!!

Non-profit theatre is about "limiting the losses." I just wish more theatre-goers would remember that and make a donation when they buy their theatre tickets!

Posted by goodiegotit on April 16, 2009 at 7:15 AM

COMTE,
Workers represented by the unions mentioned in the article are not going to a 32 hour work week, re-read the article or get some actual inside information before trying to sound like you have it.

"Union members on the admin side"? What? Who?

"10 hours a day, six days a week, work weeks with no breaks, no workplace safety regulations, no minimum wages" That's a good list, misused, but good. It's a list of things that unions in history helped make laws about. Now there are laws, and those laws do a great job for millions of people in non-union work environments. Even the parts of your list I omitted are things millions of non-union workers don't have to worry about. But hey, if people want to spend a percentage of their wages and a fixed amount of their money each year on "protection" from evil theatre money mongers that's there prerogative, it's just a shame when that negatively impacts the ability to create the shows.

Posted by Tired on April 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM

@ 8. Be my guest. But if you're looking for reporting and criticism without "bias," you're outta luck.

Posted by Brendan Kiley on April 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM

John Please get your head screwed on right. Labor unions have protected the welfare of working class individuals. They have removed sweat shops, child labor exploitation, eliminated the company store monopoly, and have generally increased the level of stature and security in the work force.

So which of these things are ignorant. maybe your infinite wisdom in Unionism well shed some light in these dark recesses.

John Hereth IATSE 15

Posted by John Hereth on April 26, 2009 at 2:04 PM