 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-12-23 16:46
Here's a new venture for the clarinet brain trust, but one that I thought should be made separate from WJK's thread on the AFM.
For reasons stated in mine and other posts in that thread, I and others find no advantage in joining the AFM. In fact, we could be subject to significant DISadvantages.
Although I work in the field full-time, I generally find my interests to be more aligned with part-timers and amateurs than with those of union members in my area. (there are almost none outside of the symphony orchestra)
Here are some features that I would like to see in either a local or national musicians' organization:
- Group Health Insurance
- Group Instrument Insurance
- Voluntary charitible funds
- Possible participation by amateur musicians
- National registry of lawyers & accountants with proven competence in the music industry
- National or local newspaper or magazine for the membership
- Political lobbying on behalf of musicians' issues
Here are some features that I'd like to avoid:
- Prohibitions on who you can and can't play with
- Prohibitions on unpaid charitable or church work
- Involvement in musicians' business dealings--other than to make members aware of disputes
- Booking.
- Political activism unrelated to our core purpose
Here are some features that I am undecided on:
- A legal fund or legal staff
- the equivalent of AFM's performance trust fund
- pension plan similar to that of Actors Equity
Organizations/features that I would imitate:
- Fraternal Order of Police - in crossing lines between different employers and levels of jurisdiction, and in developing meeting places and a charitable organization. (I would NOT imitate its emergence as a labor union)
- National Association of the Self-Employed - In helping individuals to get together to provide for their needs, and to lobby for favorable political conditions.
It may be that not all of this is practical. But I think that we have to look at what we really need as musicians, and what we don't really need--rather than trying to dictate an ideal that people can't or won't comply with.
Food for thought, anyway.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-12-23 18:11
I'm not really seeing the disadvantages to the AFM. I have been a member for longer than I care to admit, and work frequently with others who have been as well. By the book some of their policies look a little draconian, but I've never had a union cop come and bust me for playing a charity event for no pay. Philanthropy is tough to punish.
The power and main purposes of a labor union are collective bargaining and workers' rights. Most unions including the AFM also pick up retirement benefits under Taft-Hartley, and negotiate health and welfare services for the membership as well. Given the forces of nature at work in our business, I think they have done yeoman's work (see JJ Moses' posts on the Broadway negotiations for a great example).
How about trying to work with the system we have to improve it? Many locals have even been making a concerted (pardon the pun) effort to expand their appeal and attract semi-pro and serious amateur musicians to the ranks as well. Allow me to wax commie for a moment -- Power to the worker. If you want something -- speak up.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-12-23 18:23
msloss (and John Moses) --- come to DC and you'll understand why Allen Cole, myself and other residents of this area have less appreciation for the AFM than you New York-area residents. There's a huge difference, I think.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-12-23 19:00
It's the old supply and demand issue recast. Large areas of the country have "little" need for live music because they don't really care to pay the freight.
New York (with its "local" local and mighty 802, and super concentration of performance venues) will always have the demand. Ditto Los Angeles, Orlando, and (sort of) Chicago. But, move outside of those areas and the need drops off rapidly, since you have tons of people chasing very few jobs.
My grandfather came over here after The War To End All Wars and immediately joined the AFM. That was in 1919, and live music was everywhere, since recorded music was limited by the primitive methods at the time. Every hotel had an orchestra, every movie theater had a musical group of some kind, and "entertainment" at any venue automatically meant live music.
Then came the talkies, followed closely by decent musical recordings. Why should people be asked to pay more for live talent when you can have the same thing recorded on the film or played from a platter? The economic realities were overwhelmingly clear, and the AFM lost a third of its membership in a very short time.
Since that time, it's been a downhill slide. Perillo fought (and more or less won) the broadcast and recording battles, and the payments that resulted to the ten working musicians (who were mostly doing it full time) meant that there were fewer employed overall.
Even in "my day" we've had changes that resulted in membership drops. When I was a young buck, the Bally Corporation employed sizable groups (about thirty in Saint Louis) of musicians at the (then theirs) Six Flag Amusement Parks. Now the numbers are down to three or four per park. Art music orchestras (at the top end) are dying out, shows are using pre-recorded or computerized pits, and "venues" are tailoring their performance space for "groups" rather than larger bands.
(I have actually had to turn down jobs for my group due to the size of the venue. The client was willing to pay the price, but the ballroom in a more modern venue (hotel, country club), arranged for the "new norm" in music (the smaller, ten man tops group), just didn't have the space needed to fit us in.)
When people want live music, they will be willing to pay for it. Entertainment-wise, even the loud noise rock crowd will always choose a live act over pre-recorded FOR THE SAME PRICE. It's more "electrifying", for the want of a better word, and it's why DJs have to add all of the lights and effects to what they do to even come close.
But, if you ask people to pay a premium for live sound, and they'll vote with their wallets nine times out of ten. Only the high end charities and society weddings (in our market segment) understand that you get more from live than from canned. All the rest will say "Well, this group is half the price; why pay more?"
(And this is where I deliver my gripe about symphonic stuff. I enjoy wide swaths of the "art music" spectrum, but I will never again pay premium money to sit in an uncomfortable seat for the dubious pleasure of hearing an orchestra perform live. The price of two tickets and the accompanying aggravation (parking, etc.) can buy me twenty times the music on CDs that I can enjoy again and again.)
The union can't do too much about this other than settle for lower wages. Most of the membership of the AFM is "outside" of the symphonic and "full time" performance jobs (if what I've read is correct). The union has negotiated (and done so successfully) for those venues where "live" is deemed to be essential, but even there they have lost some ground (witness electronic pit orchestras in use here and there). For those areas where live is (for whatever reason) "optional", the union has had some success as well (i.e., the recording payment issue). But, for vast tracts of musical America, there's no point in fighting a battle 'cause the other side has already abandoned the field.
(Incidentally, I've been told that the Performance Fund is virtually tapped out going into this year. Has anyone else heard the same?)
All of the issues raised above are traditional union issue, except that the "field" of people sought to be included is far wider than a union would accept. A union, like any other organization, has to be made up of compromises, but the list above contains compromises on issues that make the purpose of a union superfluous. In effect, what is being suggested has all of the good of a union without any of the bad.
News flash: labor organizations have always been about helping the members, not the entire world. Asking the "union" to grease the ways for non-union members is like me asking my neighbor to cut my grass for me because I don't want to bother with the chore.
For those who want to play for recreational purposes, the opportunities will always be there. For those who wish to make a living (or part of a living, a far more realistic scenario), and who don't want to be bid down to the merest sliver of a wage, the union will be there as well.
Also, a comparison was made with Equity in a prior posting. I don't think that, for the most part, comparing stage performance with musical performance is an apt one. With the exception of "stage" performances of a band or orchestra, music is employed for its audio capabilities. Equity members have to physically be there and cannot be played off of a CD. Different pond, different set of fish.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-12-23 19:32
I'm actually a member of 746 in central New Jersey, not 802, and it is a shadow of its former self. A lot of forces have conspired to work against the AFM, including DJs, radio, etc. The biz has changed, but those CDs, radio programs, MP3s, etc. all have to come from musicians, and those musicians have the AFM there to be sure they are compensated fairly.
In the freelance world, the "employers" are always going to prefer non-union labor. No wage scale, no benefits, no work rules. As in any other industry, it creates a race to the bottom. Heck, we even see movie score recording being shipped overseas because it is cheaper. There is a large pool of musicians willing to work outside of the union, which weakens the AFM's ability to actually create value for the players. Those non-union workers frequently get screwed because nobody is there to see that they get paid, that the stage is safe, the gig is as long as booked, etc.
Basically, if you aren't getting value from your union, but you are looking for the kind of support it should be providing, you have to get involved and make it happen. A union is not a faceless "them" -- it is you, or of course not if you aren't active.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arthur
Date: 2004-12-23 21:50
Everything you have listed is already available for AFM members, except health insurance which went away shortly after the AIDS tradegy started (like most other health insurance policies associated with trade organizations). With the advent of managed care, attempts at starting a new health insurance program seem overwhelming, but it is on the adgenda. Eighty-five per cent of active AFM members are occasional club date musicians ( have day jobs). The pension plan is the best deal going for retirement if you file your contracts and pay in the per centage to get vested. The annual dues is tax deductable and minimal, cosidering the networking you can do ( one job will pay your dues). The AFM functions sort of like a club. Many are afraid of being a union ( AFL-CIO) member, but you have to remember that all organizations help everyone is that field, not just the ones that join the organizations.
As far as political support, all unions are going to have to rethink blindly supporting any political party that cannot help the union since the party is not in power or fosters policies that favor only a limited number of individuals. The real danger is that the Five per cent of musicians that make a good or exceptional living form an exclusive organization that shuts out the rest of us that make up the musician universe.
Just think how powerful the AFM would be if every band director and church musician was a member.
As far as the Trust Fund goes, the Federal Government decidies how much can be spent each year. The money for each union area is then portioned out depending upon how much was used the prior year, etc. That money goes to union and non-union musicians. Your local may have already spent its money for the year.
I encourage you to work in your local union. You will find your local open to change to foster success among all musicians.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-12-24 19:54
The number one change that the union needs is the one that keeps its doors effectively closed to new members who work in a framework outside the Union's paradigm. Most of us work in non-union situations that we don't want to abandon, and want access to non-union musicians that we know and trust. AFM has a lot of backpedaling to do before getting a widespread membership.
As a member of organized labor, it is a miserable failure for the average musician...which makes me think that some sort of professional association might provide some real benefits while not monkeying with how we do business.
My local is pretty much dominated by symphony musicians. Good musicians, but members of an unprofitable operation which requires a lot of governmental and charitable propping up. Given that I am already a full-time musician without their help, I would be reluctant to have them telling me how to run my business, let alone charging me dues for that dubious service.
There must be a way of banding together for mutual benefit without the kinds of dynamics that are at work in a labor union.
Allen Cole
Post Edited (2004-12-25 07:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-12-25 19:52
"There must be a way of banding together for mutual benefit without the kinds of dynamics that are at work in a labor union."
Not without forming another group of a similar purpose. Anything else is a social club, with some useful overtones but little else.
I don't remember all of my labor history that I've acquired over the years, but I know that most other crafts (i.e., bricklayers, plumbers, etc.) organized separately. As the movements matured, most AFL unions "balled" together with others, the better to offer combined force. (Hence, the Bricklayers and Allied Trades Union was made up of bricklayers, stone masons, tuckpointers and the like, all of who(m) once had their own unions).
And, most of these unions once were competitive with each other, but long ago learned that there was power in numbers. Hence the amalgamation over the years, a movement that is still continuing in most of the labor movement.
(The biggest union dispute I was ever party to was one between the Glass Bottle Workers Union (the "Gibbies") and the Flint Glass Workers Union (the "Flints") at a long gone glass bottle factory in Alton IL. I did an OSHA inspection there that levied the (quite large for the mid 1970's) fine amount of $36,000. Normally, we expected a company to faunch over a penalty that size, but it was not the case at this plant.)
(Instead, what drove the plant management over the top was that we were looking to require mold makers (who handled 100 pound blocks of steel used for the bottle molds, and who were "Flints" for some reason no one knew any longer) to wear protective footwear. The company went into full prevent defense mode on that one, relatively trivial violation, solely because if the Flints got them, then the Gibbies (who represented twenty times the number of employees in the plant and were the "big" union in the glassworker's world) would want them too. The personnel director/safety director was sensitive to this and tried like hell to prevent it from happening.)
(It turns out that the Gibbies and the Flints had been at each other's throats for about seventy years, and I was unfortunate enough to walk into the midst of it all. I didn't find out the reason for another ten years, and it just goes to show that there are many hidden agendas out there.)
My grandfather, who came to the AFM long after any such amalgamation may have occurred, told me that the theater musicians were once separate from the "others" in their own union. Just the ramblings of an old man, perhaps...the guy could play the clarinet, however...
For that matter, long ago, the American Federation of Labor unions (AFM is one) were accused of ignoring the plight of the "non-skilled" workers. The response was the formation of "industrial unions", groups that represented all workers in an industry rather than just those in a particular craft. From that strain, we got the "CIO unions" (Congress of Industrial Organizations) like the Steelworkers, the Autoworkers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers (gotta love a name like that), and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union.
For many years these groups (and the Mineworkers) were "outside" of the "real" union movement in the eyes of the AFL. They also represented a much more confrontational approach when dealing with management. After the great amalgamation of the period 1940-1960, they have more or less all become the same.
Long and short of it all, if you're not dependent on music for all of your livelihood, you probably won't see any good in a real union, even if you would like to have "some" of the benefits offered. Those who are so dependent appreciate it a bit more.
And, with the general trend in the area of labor law, unions are going to be a lot less effective before they gain in effectiveness again. Down here, the locals are pretty laissez-faire about the non-union work. The thug like tactics described by others I only saw once, and then only as a spectator (boyfriend of a non-union musician in Louisville in 1971. Then it was slashing tires, but the local police caught up with the overly enthusiastic business agent, so he paid the price for his zealotry.
I like the quote about the symphonic players being subsidized. Very true, unpleasant as it may appear.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
