Threaded Order Chronological Order
| The Public is laying off 19% of the staff | |
| Posted by: Ncassidine 10:50 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| via NYT | |
| Link | New York’s Public Theater Lays Off 19 Percent of Its Staff |
| reply to this message | |
| re: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff | |
| Posted by: AnObserver 10:07 am EDT 07/16/23 | |
| In reply to: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff - Ncassidine 10:50 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Including their DEI person? | |
| reply to this message |
| re: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 11:24 am EDT 07/16/23 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 11:13 am EDT 07/16/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff - AnObserver 10:07 am EDT 07/16/23 | |
|
|
|
| Probably not because DEI's mission is interwoven into The Public's own mission, unlike the entertainment companies in the article you posted lower down about the DEI staffers' mass exit in Hollywood. The main complaint of the black women who were interviewed who were leaving their posts is that the entertainment industry wasn't allowing them to work on long term changes and probably wanted only immediate cosmetic changes: Virtue Signaling rather than structural change. I'm posting another article below from Variety about the mass exit of black female executives which says this: Now that affirmative action in college admissions has been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, there are parallel concerns that companies may be emboldened to abandon hiring initiatives aimed at recruiting employees from underrepresented communities. That would be illegal or at least unethical? Tell that to Judge Clarence Thomas. There are a lot of crises going on in the world at the moment and the theater if it's a part of the world will reflect them. |
|
| Link | Black Women Executives Are Exiting Studio Leadership Posts and Hollywood’s Doing Nothing About It |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The Public is laying off 19% of the | |
| Posted by: AnObserver 10:08 pm EDT 07/16/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff - singleticket 11:13 am EDT 07/16/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's my understanding from a friend in LA that one of the reasons, not mentioned in the Variety article and other articles, DEI is closing up shop in Hollywood is because some powerful filmmakers (directors?) are tired of being told who they can cast and hire, and who they can't. (I realize Hollywood is shut down for now.) Will Broadway and other theater communities defy "We See You White American Theatre"? And read the recent NYT opinion piece by Black dancer Gabe Stone Shayer about what he calls "hollow" initiatives. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Public is laying off 19% of the | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 08:18 am EDT 07/17/23 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 08:17 am EDT 07/17/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The Public is laying off 19% of the - AnObserver 10:08 pm EDT 07/16/23 | |
|
|
|
| I only skimmed the Gabe Stone Shayer opinion piece when it came out. There's only so much grievance I can read in a week, even if I agree with it. As for the DEI exits in the entertainment industry, the takeaway for me was that the entertainment companies (even if they believe in the goals of DEI which is doubtful) are so focused on short term goals and profits that the implementation of anything long term is beyond them. The DEI staffers didn't want to be reduced to PR flacks telling lies about the anti-racist bona fides of their companies. But yes, it's possible some of those companies had powerful employees who were sick and tired of someone telling them they needed to think about racial parity in their next installment of the Marvel Universe. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| No nm | |
| Posted by: ryhog 11:09 pm EDT 07/16/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The Public is laying off 19% of the - AnObserver 10:08 pm EDT 07/16/23 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 11:25 am EDT 07/15/23 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 11:20 am EDT 07/15/23 | |
| In reply to: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff - Ncassidine 10:50 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| What's particularly upsetting along with the people who are losing their jobs are the cancellations of productions and festivals that were already in the works. At the Mark Taper Forum it was even worse in that the productions had already been announced with dates and schedules locked down. | |
| Link | ‘A crisis unlike any other’: famed LA theater cancels upcoming season amid financial woes |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff | |
| Posted by: dreamawakening 11:17 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff - Ncassidine 10:50 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| If only they had a monster hit transfer to Broadway that could provide them with constant revenue. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 11:47 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:46 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff - dreamawakening 11:17 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| in 2016, NYTimes reported that the Public would get 5%profit+1%adjgross which was around $2.5M/yr. That probably hasn't changed much since the grosses did drop from $2.5M to the $1.5-2 million range now but profits increased a bit once the production recouped. However, they are also producers of the several national tours (since each tour is a separate entity, i assume they have to fund each one separately in the millions range). Of course, those tours have all recouped and made lots of money over the years. But probably enough money to keep the staff if they really wanted to. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:25 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - dramedy 11:46 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| They spent a lot of that money on real estate, expanding their campus around Astor Place, and they haven't found even a modest commercial hit since "Hamilton" (unless I'm forgetting something?). It would be nice if Oskar acted like the Communist he thinks he is and cut his salary significantly, but that of course won't happen. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 12:39 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - Singapore/Fling 12:25 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| I don't know anything about Oskar Eustis' salary or management style in his office, but my Dad, before his retirement, used to run a local area office of a national non-profit youth organization. There was a point, early in his tenure in this particular office when, due to budget shortfalls, layoffs become necessary. I asked my Dad about why he laid off people, rather than just reducing all salaries by some amount to make up the difference. He told me that, if you lay people off, those people are unhappy and, as a manager, you have to live with that. But if he reduced salaries for all, EVERYONE would be unhappy (because who would ever think that they make too much money and could take a cut) and all those unhappy people would still be working in the office and there's a chance that their unhappiness with the salary cut would affect the way they do their job. And a segment of those people would start looking for a new job anyway. So he made the call to layoff some to preserve harmony in the office for those that remain. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:15 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - JereNYC 12:39 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| That makes sense, but unfortunately, everyone I’ve ever met who works at The Public is already quite miserable working there, so I think that boat sailed a while back (or to put it another way - everyone who was able to get new jobs has already done so). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:58 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - Singapore/Fling 02:15 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| I think it is a mistake to overgeneralize about how "everyone" feels, no matter where. I know people at most levels at the Public. Some are happy, some are not. That is true pretty much anywhere and has been since I was a wee lad. I do think it is a natural thing to feel some burnout and also some frustration after doing the same thing or something similar for a long time. Perhaps that is affecting you some, too. I also think we can overgeneralize about the "hit" mentality at some non-profits that you, for whatever reason, are feeling hard it seems. It is natural for an NFP theatre executive to be pleased to see the cash flow from hit shows because it lightens the other load that is a lot less fun to carry. Yes there are non-profits in the US that routinely produce garbage calculated to bring in some good bucks, but whatever ax it is you have to grind with Oskar, it does not seem reasonable to me to look at their product over the last decade and reach the conclusion that they are trolling for hits. Perhaps you can trace through what they have staged and explain your thesis. I mean yes Fat Ham made it to Broadway but no one thought it was going to set the world on fire. What did they produce that you think is money-grubbing garbage? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: oddone 04:03 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - Singapore/Fling 02:15 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Interesting. I haven't talked to too many people who worked there. Several years back I had a few different chances at working there that didn't pan out (I won't go into my suspicions here about why) and was bummed, but it sounds like maybe I dodged a bullet. The one woman I spoke with (one of the jobs was going to be replacing her) sounded like she had a great experience, but then I guess she wouldn't be warning a potential applicant off in that instance. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Also, reduced salary doesn't qualify for unemployment benefits | |
| Posted by: dramedy 01:09 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - JereNYC 12:39 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| a lay-off gives you those benefits while looking for a new job. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Is anyone reading the article? | |
| Posted by: oddone 12:37 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - Singapore/Fling 12:25 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Well, if you read the article... "Eustis, who is among the best-compensated artistic directors in the field, said he will cut his own pay by an unspecified amount — “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said — but that “nobody else would or should” have a salary reduction." Of course, you and he may have different definitions of "significant." The article also addresses how the royalties of Hamilton are helping out. It's almost as if people responding in this thread didn't read the article first. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Is anyone reading the article? | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:21 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: Is anyone reading the article? - oddone 12:37 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| You’re right, I skimmed it and missed that. Good, I’m glad that the Grand Comrade is putting his money where his mouth is. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| it is a NYTimes article probably with a paywall | |
| Posted by: dramedy 01:10 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: Is anyone reading the article? - oddone 12:37 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| so i did not read it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said | |
| Posted by: JAllenC3 12:35 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - Singapore/Fling 12:25 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| It's literally right in the story linked in the first post that he is taking a significant salary cut. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said | |
| Posted by: finally 01:20 pm EDT 07/15/23 | |
| In reply to: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said - JAllenC3 12:35 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Odd that it's not stated what that really means. There seems to have been an arms race among arts NFPs over the past decade to see how high they could push leadership pay. So, even a 50% cut is likely multiples more than most of the staff make. How about the leadership live on no more than $200K for a while and use the delta to help shore up the organization? Frankly, it's past time for many of them to go. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said | |
| Posted by: ryhog 03:58 pm EDT 07/15/23 | |
| In reply to: re: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said - finally 01:20 pm EDT 07/15/23 | |
|
|
|
| I feel like you are collapsing a lot of separate issues into one post. I don't think it is an "arms race." To me it is about paying senior leadership a wage that keeps them from straying, just as any entity would do for folks with the needed experience. The highest paid top persons in the large NFPs makes far less than comparable incomes of the top people on the for profit side. I can guarantee you that the differential is greater between a lead producer (who typically "manages" a relatively small operation) and their employees than that between an NFP artistic director/producer (who typically oversees a huge operation) and the NFPs rank and file. This does not mean that NFP staff are paid enough or that some AD types are not past their sell-by date, but those are separate battles. And every NFP's numbers are a matter of public record whereas no lead producer type has to open their books. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said | |
| Posted by: finally 12:53 pm EDT 07/16/23 | |
| In reply to: re: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said - ryhog 03:58 pm EDT 07/15/23 | |
|
|
|
| So what is his current salary? Almost $900K base salary for the 2021 tax year per the 990. Plus "other compensation" of $238K. So $1.1M cost to the organization each year. And how much is the "significant reduction" going to be? Seems like a basic question to answer. Of course, they're avoiding that because it will invite further criticism. The next highest paid person makes less than half that amount. How many staff jobs could be saved or programs not lost by resetting executive compensation? Paring low-level staff introduces that much more stress to the already-stretched staff that remains, leading to more exits of the ones they claim they want to retain. I've seen that in various situations over my career, and it has accelerated during this post-pandemic period. I don't think people quite understand the major shift that is happening within these organizations across the country with lots of very experienced people jumping ship and heading into other careers altogether, people who were deemed essential to keep in place during the pandemic, so they survived being culled during that period. I disagree with the basic premise that you *have* to pay these executives this much. The "arms race" I mention is exactly predicated on that notion: that if we don't overpay them, then someone else will. Has anyone said "no" to see what will really happen? If there are plenty of people who will take the low paying jobs for a career in the arts, why isn't it true for the leadership? Will Eustis be offered a comparable job at the same or higher salary if the board says he has to take a drastic pay cut or leave? Somehow I doubt it, considering that the organization he leads is failing. And of course you can look at their 990s and see that his increases year-to-year are substantial. In 2017, he was only a $650K cost to the organization. Somehow I also doubt that the rank and file were receiving such generous increases during the same time period. The idea that you need executives making over $1M to run these organizations is business-school talk; I would question the ones making half a million, too. There is another model that worked just fine for generations that involved administrators making generous but not egregious salaries. I believe the same thing applies to for-profit corporations as well, though that's not the subject at hand. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said | |
| Posted by: ryhog 05:26 pm EDT 07/16/23 | |
| In reply to: re: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said - finally 12:53 pm EDT 07/16/23 | |
|
|
|
| Obviously we disagree about some things, most of which cannot be proven in the short run. We have different philosophies and that's fine of course. I do wonder a few things about what we know and what we don't. Do we know specifically who has been cut? You say "already-stretched staff" but if they are significantly reducing programming, is that true? And do you know that any important-to-retain positions are being cut? Ironically, you talk of very experienced people jumping ship but you seem to leave the head guy out of the equation. I am not a big fan of Oskar, but he is the right fit for the Public; he gets it. And you also say they are "failing" which feels like a pot shot. They are doing something they don't want to do to avoid failure. And as much as I love George Wolfe, the place Oskar walked into when he took over was a sad mess. The Public has been transformed in many ways, and all for the better. You talk of another model by which I assume you mean the old one. The world of NY theatre is not the same as it was when I was a young lad. Finally, the idea Oskar can't make more money with a LOT less time, energy and aggravation is just not correct. The Public and Oskar does not equate with experiences "across the country." In his entire tenure at the Public he has not made as much as a bunch of directors of successful shows with long Broadway runs have made from a single show. As I said, you are entitled to your approach and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: You’re Right, I Misjudged Him | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:00 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: “I will be taking a significant reduction in salary,” he said - JAllenC3 12:35 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| That’s actually a very decent thing for him to do, and it’s a difficult time, so I shouldn’t have been catty. Thank you for calling me out. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: NoPeopleLike 12:30 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - Singapore/Fling 12:25 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| They're not supposed to be "finding" commercial hits. That's not the mission of a not-for-profit theater, although it may be a nice accident when it happens. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:37 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - NoPeopleLike 12:30 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, that is the mission of a non-profit in the 20th Century, it's just not readily acknowledged. Your comment leads me to believe you haven't actually worked at a non-profit, so you are able to have a rose-colored-glasses view of how they operate. For reference, I've worked at multiple non-profits in multiple cities/countries for the past decade. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: NoPeopleLike 12:53 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - Singapore/Fling 12:37 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| I've worked at enough NFPs to know that if that were the mission of a NFP, it would not be a tax-exempt organization in the view of the IRS. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 02:20 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - NoPeopleLike 12:53 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Again, not the stated mission, but having a “hit” - and as I’ve written on this site in the past, that idea can be measured in many ways, and sometimes the windfall is more about how the institution can then raise more money through contributed income rather than earned income - is what keeps most of these theaters functioning, and it’s why so many of them produce the work they do. Even Joe Papp readily acknowledged that after he produced “A Chorus Line”, he had to keep producing shows that could transfer and bring in continued revenue to support all of the other work at the theater; he somewhat shadily implied that this was why he was doing “Drood” in the Park, rather than Shakespeare. I always chuckled when Riedel went after Oskar for doing the same thing, implying that he was somehow betraying Papp, when if Riedel had simply read “Free for All”, he would know that the accusation was bogus. Were your NFPs theater companies? Things might work very differently in other fields. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton | |
| Posted by: NYCscribe 03:28 pm EDT 07/17/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - Singapore/Fling 02:20 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Joe Papp also famously didn't take a very high salary on principle. He'd be shocked and distressed by Oskar's salary. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 01:14 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 01:13 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Well, Public is not sole producer of Hamilton - NoPeopleLike 12:53 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| than earning money from hit. Shubert organization is a non-profit and they certainty aren't giving away free leases to commercial productions in their theaters. It's how they spend the money--and apparently buying strip malls in the mid-west is a legitimate use. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Shubert | |
| Posted by: swoozie 10:51 am EDT 07/17/23 | |
| In reply to: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money - dramedy 01:13 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Shubert Org gives away millions to non profit theaters each year throughout the country. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:39 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money - dramedy 01:13 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes it is, as long as it is consistent with an eleemosynary purpose. The Shuberts are a difficult example, however, because they are a unique structure: a for profit enterprise owned by a non-profit foundation. So what they do in business has no connection to a charitable purpose. The foundation, on the other hand, is the largest performing arts donor in the United States and just announced its current year boasts its largest ever grant total. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money | |
| Posted by: garyd 11:07 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money - ryhog 08:39 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Some people might, therefore, consider the Shubert structure to be Agathokakological? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money | |
| Posted by: ryhog 01:32 am EDT 07/15/23 | |
| In reply to: re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money - garyd 11:07 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| I can now join billhaven in saying my week is complete. This is a word I never knew, but I did almost figure it out thanks to my one semester of Greek many years ago. (I did not do well, Greek fared no better.) But the great achievement is that in the process I discovered "floccinaucinihilipilification" which means "the estimation of something as worthless." Now if anyone can figure out its formulation (without cheating), I will buy them an ice cream cone. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Touche! | |
| Posted by: garyd 08:36 am EDT 07/15/23 | |
| In reply to: re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money - ryhog 01:32 am EDT 07/15/23 | |
|
|
|
| x | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 09:01 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money - ryhog 08:39 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| I’ve been waiting for the day someone used eleemosynary in a sentence! My week is complete. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money | |
| Posted by: comedywest 11:30 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: re: isn't NFP status more about how you spend the money - Billhaven 09:01 pm EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| Other Fielding in Tom Jones, it's never come up in my experience. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff | |
| Posted by: twocents 10:53 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
| In reply to: The Public is laying off 19% of the staff - Ncassidine 10:50 am EDT 07/14/23 | |
|
|
|
| ESPN level. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.265027 seconds.