Rehearsals resuming?- Page 2

[felixleiter]

Posted: 4/7/21 at 9:44am

HogansHero said: "@Fosse76Sorry but no.
1. Exemptions-no reason to ask why. If you are not vaccinated you cannot work. End of discussion. Again, the exemption is for mandates, not conditions of private employment. The question for you to ponder is: exempt from what? When you answer that accurately, you'll understand.

2. Lawsuits-sure. There are lawsuits about anything and everything but not meritorious ones. The law is clear. And you expect a conservative court to do something nice for employees? LOL. Consult a lawyer? Sure. There won't be a lot of billable time on that one.

3. Irrelevance-it's covered by insurance.

4. "Mandate" - wrong term in this context.

5. AEA-did you forget you said something about employers imposing the requirement unilaterally? AEA is requiring that employers condition employment on it.

6. "AEA isn't the only union on Broadway." Very true but how does that matter? First, do you seriously think any union will not require vaccinations? Second, even if they did not, there will be no show without actors. Except Blindness. Everyone in the building will be vaccinated or they won't be there.


"

I agree with almost all of this with just one clarification-

AEA isn't requiring vaccinations.   Currently there are 2 sets of guidelines for Producers wishing to restart work.  One is for a fully vaccinated company and the other is without a fully vaccinated company.  The employer can choose which protocols to plan for.  If you read both set of guidelines, obviously a fully vaccinated company provides a safer and easier pathway to getting back on stage,  but make no mistake-AEA is not requiring it.  

Also, I just want to state again (since people consistently misunderstand this)  According to the updated federal guidance provided by the EEOC, Employers in the United States have the absolute right to require vaccination as a condition of employment based on an employers responsibility to provide a safe workplace.   Exemptions exist, and the EEOC does encourage a nuanced approach, but don't believe some of the info that gets generated out of the ant-vaxx movement that erroneously states things about "emergency use authorizations" etc. etc.  As has been stated on this thread, of course lawsuits can be threatened, but the federal government's stance on this was well defined back in December so there is little chance that any of those suits would move past the filing stage based on merits.  

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/7/21 at 10:30am

HogansHero said: "@Fosse76Sorry but no.
1. Exemptions-no reason to ask why. If you are not vaccinated you cannot work. End of discussion. Again, the exemption is for mandates, not conditions of private employment. The question for you to ponder is: exempt from what? When you answer that accurately, you'll understand.

Wrong. It absolutely applies to individual employment. And employers may want to know why a(n) (potential) employee isn't vaccinated. So you are being argumentative for no reason. Employers can easily run afoul of discrimination laws when they refuse to hire someone with a medical condition, which obviously exists when someone cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. 

2. Lawsuits-sure. There are lawsuits about anything and everything but not meritorious ones. The law is clear. And you expect a conservative court to do something nice for employees? LOL. Consult a lawyer? Sure. There won't be a lot of billable time on that one.

I never said that a conservative Supreme Court would do something nice for employees. That's you unable to comprehend what you're reading. They can easily toss out the ability for employers to require vaccines. 

3. Irrelevance-it's covered by insurance.

​​​​​​Not sure what this is referencing. 

4. "Mandate" - wrong term in this context.

Except you are the one using the term mandate, you are so full of it you are now disputing yourself.

5. AEA-did you forget you said something about employers imposing the requirement unilaterally? AEA is requiring that employers condition employment on it.

Once again, I question your ability to read and comprehend. We are discussing an employers ability to require a vaccine and why I said it was complicated. You constantly ignore context in order to make your point.

6. "AEA isn't the only union on Broadway." Very true but how does that matter? First, do you seriously think any union will not require vaccinations? Second, even if they did not, there will be no show without actors. Except Blindness.

It matters because AEA doesn't get to dictate the terms for the other unions on Broadway. The point is that unless the other unions agree to vaccination (which I agree they will, unless there is something in their agreements that prohibits them or exempts certain members), an employer simply cannot require them. That's the law. It doesn't matter that there would be no show without the actors. 

And other unions being likely to agree (or themselves demand) with vaccination is irrelevant when talking about the reason that employers requiring vaccines maybe legal, but not uncomplicated.

Everyone in the building will be vaccinated or they won't be there."

We'll see. You constantly present yourself as the be-all, end-all of knowledge, when you simply are argumentative. I never once said that employers can't require vaccinations. I said it was complicated and outlined why. And you could probably do a Google search and find labor law experts say the same thing: requiring vaccinations is legal, but employers need to take into considerations the negative consequences of such a requirement. 

[Fosse76]

Posted: 4/7/21 at 10:44am

felixleiter said: "HogansHero said: "@Fosse76Sorry but no.
1. Exemptions-no reason to ask why. If you are not vaccinated you cannot work. End of discussion. Again, the exemption is for mandates, not conditions of private employment. The question for you to ponder is: exempt from what? When you answer that accurately, you'll understand.

2. Lawsuits-sure. There are lawsuits about anything and everything but not meritorious ones. The law is clear. And you expect a conservative court to do something nice for employees? LOL. Consult a lawyer? Sure. There won't be a lot of billable time on that one.

3. Irrelevance-it's covered by insurance.

4. "Mandate" - wrong term in this context.

5. AEA-did you forget you said something about employers imposing the requirement unilaterally? AEA is requiring that employers condition employment on it.

6. "AEA isn't the only union on Broadway." Very true but how does that matter? First, do you seriously think any union will not require vaccinations? Second, even if they did not, there will be no show without actors. Except Blindness. Everyone in the building will be vaccinated or they won't be there.


"

I agree with almost all of this with just one clarification-

AEA isn't requiring vaccinations. Currently there are 2 sets of guidelines for Producers wishing to restart work. One is for a fully vaccinated company and the other is without a fully vaccinated company. The employer can choose which protocols to plan for. If you read both set of guidelines, obviously a fully vaccinated company provides a safer and easier pathway to getting back on stage, but make no mistake-AEA is not requiring it.

Also, I just want to state again (since people consistently misunderstand this) According to the updated federal guidance provided by the EEOC, Employers in the United States have the absolute right to require vaccination as a condition of employment based on an employers responsibility to provide a safe workplace. Exemptions exist, and the EEOC does encourage a nuanced approach, but don't believe some of the info that gets generated out of the ant-vaxx movement that erroneously states things about "emergency use authorizations" etc. etc. As has been stated on this thread, of course lawsuits can be threatened, but the federal government's stance on this was well defined back in December so there is little chance that any of those suits would move past the filing stage based on merits."

Nothing he said was in context. His response is predicated on the false notion that I said employers cannot require vaccinations. I said it's complicated, and outlined several reasons why (ask yourself why the EEOC would suggest a "nuanced approach" otherwise). While I never outright stated that they could require them, it was implied in my response, and he's just being argumentative.

I don't think the anti-vaxxers as we know them will get much leverage this time; the anti-covid vaxxers are using personal freedom for their stance, as opposed to some false medical reasons.

And a government's stance is pretty irrelevant as to how far a lawsuit will go. I imagine most will be tossed, but don't forget that this all comes under state law (absent a national mandate to vaccinate, which under caselaw is constitutional), and questions of law aren't heard by juries, but decided by judges after a series of hearings. 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/7/21 at 11:05am

@Fosse, it is NOT complicated. If you keep saying it is, then who is arguing?

You acknowledge an employer can require vaccination. You have erected complications that I am saying don't exist. You seem to have made your mind up. Godspeed. 

 Regarding other unions: my point is simply that if AEA won't let its employees work in an unvaccinated environment, then the show will not go on. It doesn't matter if some other union hasn't signed on (although as I say I think it is a moot point).

@Felix are you saying that the updated protocols in effect through the end of June are one of two alternate options? Can you provide a source for that? Because it's not my understanding but maybe I missed something.

[felixleiter]

Posted: 4/7/21 at 12:59pm

https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/covid19-info/

 

So here is the link to the AEA information a producer would look at to begin to plan a production.  I'm not sure if this is reaadble by a non-member or not.

Keep in mind that this isn't specific to one particular agreement or contract (i.e. Broadway's Production contract) but more of an overview of what  AEA sees as the main safety protocols needed in place to safely get back to work nationwide.

I don't want to get into a discussion of the merits of these protocols in this thread(lord knows there's a LOT of discussion on that topic already) but if you click on any of the links on the page, ("indoor with an audience", "outdoor with an audience" etc) you will see that the protocols change with a fully vaccinated company vs a non-fully vaccinated company.  According to AEA there is a safe way to do this in both scenarios.   And clearly, AEA is NOT saying that the only work that can be approved is work done with a fully vaccinated company-THERE ARE OPTIONS.  A calculation based on many factors will be made by each individual producer as to what they will plan, and of course all of this is subject to negotiation and/or collective bargaining.  But make no mistake- In person union work has already taken place at theatres all over the country (including today) with casts that are not vaccinated. 

As for me-I'm expecting my  producer  to be expecting me to be vaccinated before I return to my job in the fall. 

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/7/21 at 1:23pm

@Felix. Thanks. The non-vaccinated option is in essence the previous protocols (testing, car service, screens, etc) that were a non-starter. I confess I didn't know they were still out there, but as a practical matter I think they are DOA, no? {At least in NYC. Maybe less so elsewhere?}

[felixleiter]

Posted: 4/7/21 at 2:11pm

Yes you are correct.  All Union work that has happened using the non-Vax protocols has been outside NYC.  I wouldn't say though that the non-vax rules are  a non-starter for Broadway-that has a lot more to do with capactiy limitations and the ability for a producer to make any money to pay a company (a point that you have also made).   And to be honest, and to your previous point as well,  the September timeframe that the League and the City presented would be outside the Vacinated company timeline anyway since that protocol ends in June.  

And to the original point of this thread-I don't believe that there are ANY Broadway shows rehearsing right now.   Stuff like that NEVER is a secret.  The positive vibe of it would be too good of a PR piece for the mulitude of interests involved for someone to not release the info even as a blind item, or rumor, and, at the risk of offending all of us who post here,  BWW is NOT where you will hear about it first.

 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 4/7/21 at 4:19pm

re non-starter, I think we are basically saying the same thing (that those protocols are not financially - probably logistically as well - feasible for Broadway). So it is theoretically possible but not otherwise.

re the expiration of the new protocol, my sense is that the expectation is that they will be able to relax them some by then. I think we will see the safety monitor provision relaxed, and some other safety related things, but I do not think they are going to scuttle the vaccination requirement until we have true herd immunity. 

Over half of Manhattan is 1st shot vaccinated already. Vaccinations may be an issue elsewhere, just as masks have been, but not here. As I said before (maybe not in this thread) we have to remember that AEA is a national union so things like covid protocols have to cover the least common denominator. 

And no there is nothing being rehearsed now. It is next to impossible to keep a put-in rehearsal under wraps (been there done that lol), much less a full production.  

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 4/8/21 at 3:37pm

I have a friend who would be working on one of the newer shows, and the person is currently not in New York. So I doubt shows are starting rehearsals right now. 

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 4/8/21 at 4:31pm

Depending on shows' reopening plans and the state of the pandemic, I say rehearsals could resume safely between mid-to-late summer and early fall. It will be different with each show though- there's obviously no one set date.