The Latest News

By JAMES ADAMS
Monday, May 2, 2005 | Page R4- The Globe and Mail

The three founders of New York's Blue Man Group are in Canada's largest city today for a one-day media blitz to promote the forthcoming Canadian premiere of their internationally famous multimedia show.

The visit is coming at a crucial time in the troupe's history. It's scheduled to begin previews of its action-packed, paint-splashing, high-tech production at Toronto's Panasonic Theatre on June 7, for what the trio hopes will be a successful open-ended run similar to what Blue Man has already accomplished in Boston, Chicago, Berlin and elsewhere.

However, the founders -- Matt Goldman, Phil Stanton and Chris Wink -- and their partner, Clear Channel Entertainment Canada, have encountered stiff resistance from four major theatrical unions, each of which wants a collective agreement that would see most of the 70 on-stage and backstage Blue Man positions occupied by its members. The unions -- the Toronto Musicians' Association, Canadian Actors' Equity and two locals of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees -- have been trying to get deals since November, 2004, and to accomplish this they last month called for a boycott of the show by would-be ticket buyers.

So far no one's come to the bargaining table, and last week Matt Goldman was claiming Blue Man had "enough guys identified, hired and in training to do a show" in Toronto, including three non-Canadians who would play the bald, blue-faced, voiceless lead performers during the initial run. (Goldman also claimed that five of the six Canadian musicians hired to play behind the trio "are members of unions." If true, these artists could be severely penalized by the TMA as it has forbidden its members to take Blue Man jobs until a collective deal occurs.)

In the meantime, both the labour groups and Blue Man are "in the process of exchanging ideas," said Jim Biros, senior business representative with the TMA and the point person designated by all four unions to negotiate with Blue Man Group. He met with Blue Man representatives in Toronto for three hours last week, and on Friday, Blue Man issued a statement saying that it was "working toward an agreement, a show of good faith on both our parts, which would allow us to employ as many of Toronto's best and brightest as possible -- regardless of union affiliation."

Philosophical differences seem to underlie the dispute. With one modest exception, Blue Man Group has never been party to a collective agreement since it was formed in the late 1980s in New York's Greenwich Village, nor does it ever want to be. It thinks of itself as a "community" or "family" of artists, one that "strives daily to support and value the contributions of all 500 employees" in a manner that precludes them from being seen as simply "independent contractors or talent for hire." (The one collective agreement it had, for five years with IATSE technicians at the Luxor in Las Vegas, ends this fall when Blue Man moves into a purpose-built, non-union space at the Venetian for a seven-year run.)

In a recent interview from Blue Man's Manhattan offices, Goldman agreed that "there's an unbelievable need for unions in the world. That goes without saying. There's industrial exploitation everywhere . . . but that's not what's going on here."
Blue Man "pays more to" the three actors in blue face who front each performance (the initial Toronto run will be nine shows a week) "than what [CAE] requires." Moreover, the salaries and benefits "for the crew and the band are pretty similar" to what the TMA and IATSE deem acceptable. "It's not like we're coming in and undercutting everyone," Goldman said. "It's not like it's all motivated by greed. . . . It's not like we're taking advantage of poor young things."

In fact, five of the six actors who took on Blue Man roles in the early 1990s after Goldman, Wink and Stanton decided they no longer wanted to perform six days a week "are still working with us. We don't want to burn anyone out."

The unions say Blue Man's salaries, benefits and working conditions may be all that Goldman says, but they'd like to actually see the details. They also agree that a specialized show like Blue Man -- which doesn't have scripted dialogue or use a conventional stage, and has a shorter duration than, say, The Lion King -- requires "variances to our basic agreements," said Susan Wallace, CAE's executive director.

Goldman admitted he and his fellow New Yorkers "had no idea what we were walking into [in Toronto]. Call it naiveté or lack of research. But walk into it we did, and we did make commitments to Clear Channel that we feel we have to keep." (Through its subsidiary Theatre Management Group/Toronto Corp., Clear Channel bought the old New Yorker Theatre in downtown Toronto about two years ago, and agreed to convert it to a 700-seat space, the Panasonic, built to Blue Man's specifications, at a cost of more than $15-million. On Friday, Clear Channel's parent company in Houston, Tex., said it would be selling its live-entertainment division. )

Added Goldman: "I don't like this, 'When in Rome, do as the Romans.' I like, 'Vive la différence.' " He's convinced the unions and Blue Man "can live together." And even though Blue Man is no longer just three friends tinkering in a rundown New York apartment but, in fact, a $100-million-a-year enterprise, "there are parameters we won't deviate from. . . . We like what we've built. We don't want to give it up."

For the time being, all four Toronto unions are adopting "a one-for-all, all-for-one strategy," said Susan Wallace. But what if Blue Man decides it can reach a deal with, say, the actors or the musicians, or both, but not the IATSE locals (or vice versa)? No one's speaking out loud about that right now. Said Jim Biros last Friday: "I've made it quite clear to them . . . that from our perspective what we're looking at, at this point, is an agreement for all performers and workers."

© 2005 The Globe and Mail

The original article is located HERE