Klarinet Archive - Posting 000059.txt from 2008/11

From: Alexander Brash <brash@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] After Drucker
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:15:39 -0500

People seem confused about the debate of "fact as it is today" versus
"is this the way it should be?"

All I pointed out was that at one point, mandatory retirement was
considered an acceptable practice. As of 2002, I've found at least
one article that mentions that both Vienna and Berlin had mandatory
retirement at age 65. That's fairly recent. Those are both respected
institutions. I'd argue there seems to be enough support for the idea
to merit discussion.

And so far, I've not seen much cogent argument for why re-auditioning
orchestral players after, say, a 15 year contract, is a "bad" thing.
Likewise, I've seen no one give a cogent argument for why mandatory
retirement doesn't "make sense." Other than that it's personally
offensive to you, which frankly I don't care about. It's personally
offensive to many young musicians that there aren't such term limits
or retirement ages...so who is to say your sense of "offense" should
have more stature than theirs? The fact that "this is the way it is
right now" is not an argument.

I'm hoping for some intellectual debate here.

On Nov 8, 2008, at 7:08 PM, Matthew Lloyd wrote:

> European Law provides remedies against age discrimination. So the
> Berlin
> Philharmonic must have either changed their policies, or are
> prepared to
> face action in the courts... Penny also mentions ONE European
> Orchestra -
> there are rather more than that.
>
> Matthew Lloyd
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Brash wrote:
> So what this is saying, is that my previous posts were 100%
> completely correct in terms of facts. Mandatory retirement did once
> exist, and still does in some European orchestras. Therefore, I'd
> humbly submit that this is a legitimate idea which deserves
> discussion, and not ad hominem attacks on my naiveness? :)
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Penny Sprynet wrote:
>
>> The Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed in 1967. Most
>> orchestras did practice some form of mandatory retirement age
>> before then, though it was bent and molded to match their
>> preferences for a particular member most of the time. These were
>> internal decisions, and they had far less oversight at that time by
>> the AFM, who stepped in to enforce the ADEA in the early 1970s,
>> helping several people win cases against their former employers, so
>> today US orchestras no longer have such wording in their contracts.
>>
>> I understand that the Berlin Philharmonic still has a mandatory
>> retirement age of 65, which they believe keeps their orchestra
>> "young," but whether that improves it or not cannot be known. As
>> far as other orchestras in Europe, I don't know their specific
>> policies. On the other hand, in most countries in Europe your
>> retirement years are not so financially precarious as they are
>> likely to be here.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

------------------------------------------------------------------