# Theater Vs. Union assignment



## ferrari (Aug 25, 2012)

Hi Guys, a friend of mine is working on an ethnic show and she asked me if I could post her question here to get some professional opinions.

She is from the presenter side and she rented the theater. After reviewing the labor assignment, she found there were couple of people the show won't need due to religious reasons of the performance company, e.g. wardrobe. So she explained it to both the theater and the union as presenter. the union understood it well and agreed with the presenter, but the theater's stage manager insisted to have the presenter pay for it even if the wardrobe people do nothing during the show because they are bonded by the contract between the theater and the union. Now my friend is so confused that she never met such an issue before. Even if Union agreed, the theater still won't let it go. So her question is: is her requirement unreasonable or what she should do next to resolve it?

Thanks very much for your help!


----------



## josh88 (Aug 25, 2012)

I'm not sure something like that is a stage managers say, I would expect it to be a higher up business type, but if that's what the theatre is requiring for all their rentals I can see it. Even if the union agrees, but the theatre wants you to pay for it you have to either to with it, negotiate it out or find a different theatre. 


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## SteveB (Aug 25, 2012)

Presumably there was somebody higher up in the theater hierarchy that signed the contract with the presenter ?, other then the SM ?. General Manager type ?.

Maybe contact them directly to ascertain if the wardrobe person is fixed into the contract ?. Seems odd, especially as the union is willing to waive. 

My only other thought is if the presenter is having their own staff using theater facility equipment - I.E, washers, dryers, steamers, use of the costume shop area, etc... then it's reasonable for the theater to have their own representative present to make sure the facility is used correctly.  As example, we get events occasionally that travel with their own follow spot operators. We still provide a babysitter with those operators to make sure the equipment is used correctly. Ditto lighting console.


----------



## Footer (Aug 25, 2012)

If it is like most houses they make money on every person on the call. Also, if it was my place and wardrobe was coming in I would want one of my people on it no matter what... especially if there was a language barrier. Otherwise, I would spend half my day ensuring that my steamer is not getting destroyed and my washer is not being overloaded.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MPowers (Aug 25, 2012)

ferrari said:


> ....... After reviewing the labor assignment, she found there were couple of people the show won't need due to religious reasons of the performance company, e.g. wardrobe........



I'm curious, just what is the religious reason the wardrobe people are not needed?


----------



## ferrari (Aug 25, 2012)

THANKS GUYS SO MUCH FOR YOUR PROMPT SUPPORT.

As for the reasons why the wardrobe people are not needed, I am not quite sure. I have heard their costumes, props are costly and not easy to handle, so the performance company has prepared several big cases to transport the costumes to make sure they are not wrinkled. In my understanding, it seems like the actors and actresses just need a place to change consumes instead of having someone to take care of the wardrobe. Does it make sense?


----------



## SteveB (Aug 25, 2012)

MPowers said:


> I'm curious, just what is the religious reason the wardrobe people are not needed?



We do a lot of events with the Hassidic community of Brooklyn. They often request MALE only crews backstage, as the performers - being all men, do not want to interact with women for religious reasons. We also ignore this request as it's essentially in violation of any number of Federal and State laws, labor and otherwise, prohibiting discrimination in hiring based on sex.


----------



## MPowers (Aug 25, 2012)

SteveB said:


> ............We also ignore this request as it's essentially in violation of any number of Federal and State laws, labor and otherwise, prohibiting discrimination in hiring based on sex.



This is exactly what I was curious about. If the reason for the request is that ANY wardrobe personal would be unnecessary, then I can see the logic behind the request. However, the OP posted

> the show won't need due to religious reasons


 which leads me to think there might be some, if not many, issues with various discrimination regulations.


----------



## avkid (Aug 25, 2012)

SteveB said:


> We do a lot of events with the Hassidic community of Brooklyn.


 How many parking spots do they require for their mini vans?


----------



## SteveB (Aug 26, 2012)

It would be a complete hijack of the thread to get me started n how annoying these events are.


----------



## jstroming (Aug 26, 2012)

Haha AVkid that's funny.


----------



## museav (Sep 3, 2012)

It can be a very fine and ill defined line between discriminating against a group or individual and showing a group or individual preferential treatment that could also be argued to be a form of discrimination. Sometimes it is best to not open some closed doors and unless it could be deemed a discriminatory practice to start with then I can see the venue deciding it is in their best interest to not allow any deviations from published or previously applied practices.


----------



## Tex (Sep 9, 2012)

That is a tough decision, Brad. On one hand, not allowing women backstage might be considered gender discrimination. On the other, allowing women backstage might be considered religious discrimination. Which is better/worse?


----------



## museav (Sep 11, 2012)

Tex said:


> That is a tough decision, Brad. On one hand, not allowing women backstage might be considered gender discrimination. On the other, allowing women backstage might be considered religious discrimination. Which is better/worse?


I completely agree that it is often not at all clear cut. It also gets messy when it involves potentially conflicting rights or beliefs or at least what are perceived as conflicting rights or beliefs.

The point I was trying to make was simply that preferential as well as negative treatment based on race, religion, sex, age, etc. can be viewed as being discriminatory. In relation to the OP, it is apparently not clear how the established venue policy in question actually interferes with or violates any established religious beliefs or practices. If that is the case then I can see it potentially being better for the venue to not make any special concessions. I think the next step would be to clarify the specifics and see if there really is a rights issue involved and if there is, can some compromise then be found to satisfy both party's concerns?


----------

