<p>Before anyone leaps to condemn Local 1 for the strike, consider this. Local 1 worked without a contract from July until the strike began in the hope that an agreement could be reached through negotiations. It was not until the League of American Theaters and Producers announced that it intended to unilaterally impose portions of their proposal that a strike vote occurred and thereafter a strike. The unilaterally imposed terms resulted in a substantial cut in wages and jobs. The Nederlander Organization, in contrast, did not unilaterally impose changes in terms and conditions of employment, even though its contract was also expired, and therefore those theaters are not on strike. </p>
<p>Under federal labor law, an employer must declare that it is making a “final offer” and that negotiations are at an “impasse” before it can unilaterally impose its last offer. It is a tactic designed to “turn the screws” and up the ante in contract negotiations. While none of us are really privy to the details of the issues at the table and the specifics of each side’s proposals, what is clear is that it was the League that took action that in essence said “We don’t think that there is really anything left to negotiate, we are going to force our terms on you.” It was the League that put the stagehands backs to the wall by announcing that it was imposing changes in terms and conditions of employment that would result in job and wage cuts. And the League did so notwithstanding that Local 1 had demonstrated that it was willing to work without a contract. The strike occurred in response to the announcement that these unilateral changes would be made.</p>
<p>The controlling force at the League is the Shubert Organization, well known in the industry to be the 2 ton gorilla that pushes its weight around and to be very difficult and calculating in its labor relations policies. In questioning the timing of the strike and the impact on the industry, one must question why the League chose now to unilaterally impose changes with the very predictable response that this would evoke from Local 1. Was it because there was some compelling need - doubtful, since this is the most lucrative part of the year for the show industry. Or was it because the controlling powers at the League, the ones with the resources and assets to survive a strike this time of year, concluded that forcing a strike now would most effectively skew public reaction against those “greedy” stagehands, cause serious damage to business competitors not as well off and provide an opportunity to reshape labor relations for the future in the vision of the Shuberts of the industry. And if they can beat the stagehands now, who next, the musicians, the actors?</p>