 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-23 12:48
"The average salary for musicians during the last year of the contract was $173,000."
If this is true, I personally would have difficulty being sympathetic towards the musicians. No doubt there's a lot more to the story.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-09-23 14:14
In San Antonio they were offered 1000 per week, for 25 weeks, per year. But, 173000 per years seems equally unrealistic, even in Chicago.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bradfordlloyd
Date: 2012-09-23 15:18
The news here in Chicago reports that it's about working more, and having to pay much more in healthcare costs.
All I know is that I'm a patron of the CSO and pay unbelievable prices for my season tickets. Still, there's seldom an empty seat in the house (at least for the dates when Muti conducts), and there's no shortage of money coming in....
It's a tough situation. I don't want my ticket prices increasing more, but I feel for the musicians. Heck, if a top flight orchestra like the CSO can't figure it out, we are moving into uncharted territory!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2012-09-23 15:20
I don't know any more about the CSO's salary structure than most anyone else here, but I do know that often news reporters don't look very far into the numbers they're given, usually by the management side of a contract dispute. Sometimes (often in teacher contract disputes, with which I have much more experience) the actual salary gets conflated with the value of fringe benefits - the employer's cost for employees' health insurance, the cost of paid vacation leave and paid sick time, etc., which can drive the total compensation up quite a bit higher than the actual salary paid out in the employees' paychecks (not to mention the difference between gross and net take-home salary). Also, especially in the case of an arts organization (as in sports), some employees negotiate individual salaries that are quite a bit over the minimum guaranteed in the contract. The premium salaries of principal and associate principal players can pull an "average" salary up, I suspect, considerably. A better figure to report would be the minimum guaranteed salary (paid to section players). But unless the reporter asks specifically for it or the players' committee volunteers it to the news media, you probably won't read that figure, which is certainly lower in this case than $173,000.
I'm sure the current basic CBA is available through the AFM website for any member who really wants to see it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2012-09-23 16:10
Most public school teacher's unions would be quite happy to settle for what Chicago's CSO is turning down.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2012-09-23 16:33
No public school teacher's union will ever be offered what the CSO musicians already have. My point (if my post is what you you're referring to) had only to do with the lack of depth in most news reporting of labor disputes, and wasn't meant to compare contracts in the arts and entertainment industry with those in public sector service areas.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-09-23 16:34
Actually, the base salary is not that hard to find, Carl. It's reported right here:
http://www.icsom.org/settlements/bulletins/chicago08rev.pdf
According to the most recent agreement, the minimum salary for Chicago musicians for 2011-2012 was $144,040. You are spot on in noting that individual agreements will make the average higher. For example, in 2010, the concertmaster had a base salary of a little over $421,000 and total reported compensation of just under $469,500. (This was more than the amount reported for Ricardo Muti and a higher base (though lower total) compensation than the orchestra's president. A number of other musicians topped $200,000. Also, there were significant amounts reported for benefits. IMO, it is entirely legitimate to include these amounts whose largest components tend to be pension contributions and health care premiums. I think the reported average is probably pretty accurate.
Also, while it is most useful to have both amounts, if you can only have one figure, I think the average total compensation may be more meaningful than the base salary. There are significant variations in the way orchestra contracts are structured, e.g., in the past Chicago tended to have somewhat lower base salaries than some other "Big-5" orchestras but more generous pension contributions. And who is better off. Someone with a base salary of $100,000 and no health care benefits or someone with a $95,000 salary and a comprehensive medical, dental and vision plan (with zero or very low deductible/copay costs)?
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2012-09-23 17:28
It certainly isn't just over pay. The threat of a strike has been looming for over a week.
I believe it was timed carefully because the orchestra didn't strike for the free concert for Chicago Friday evening, and they didn't strike a week earlier when it wouldn't have affected concerts.
I am going to see what Henry Fogel has to say on this Monday morning. He'll certainly have a well educated point of view on the matter.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2012-09-23 17:45
Well, we're probably picking at straws and in effect saying the same thing. The reporter (and others who cover contract negotiations in the news media) could, I think should, have identified that figure, assuming it's accurate, as average total compensation, not average salary and then I'd have no quarrel with it. The trouble is, people read that kind of statement and compare the "salary" to the salary they make at work. Most people don't fully consider the cost of fringes in their own compensation, either.
Though I'm not sure it's fair to skew the figures, whatever they include, by adding individually negotiated salaries that are in excess of the minimum and may include perks and fringes that aren't included in the basic agreement. The union isn't responsible for that, nor are the players who are covered by the minimum agreement and for whom the "average" compensation may be well beyond what they are negotiating for.
I just wanted to point out that what you read in news accounts doesn't always paint a complete picture.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2012-09-23 18:04
Being a PR practitioner as well as a clarinetist, I have a few comments to add to the above posts:
> Reporters like easy to understand numbers. One number, that includes total compensation, is a great number to use and is fair as far as I am concerned. Like someone above said, in this economy benefits are as important as salary and the escalating health care costs are a real ongoing issue. So I have no problem with the $173K number that is being used in the news. It makes things easy to understand for the general public.
> While we all acknowledge that these players are the best in the business, the general public will have a very hard time sympathizing with the musicians in this economy. But the real audience for the CSO players will be the board members who will ok the contract that is on the table and pledge to make good on the obligations through the CSO general manager. The average concert going public will not really be a factor in the process or the contract itself.
> Strikes are the only power labor has in a confrontation with management. While strikes in the world of profit making are different because it effects shareholders and workers, in the nonprofit world it really does not mean more than reputation management. For every day the musicians are out on strike, the orchestra management is actually saving money (even with foregone ticket sales). So the only real economic damage the labor will do is to their reputation and to the reputation of the institution.
I wish the CSO players all the luck in the world but it will be hard for them to defend to the concertgoers that cheer them on that they have legitimate grounds to strike in the scenario as it has been presented in the press to the Chicago community.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-09-23 20:31
Quote:
The news here in Chicago reports that it's about working more, and having to pay much more in healthcare costs.
That is the standard in many places these days. As a teacher, every new contract for as long as I can remember has had me paying more into my healthcare. I think that the cost of healthcare has pushed many organizations in this direction.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2012-09-25 00:19
Greg,
For what it is worth, the CSO Players Org has done a terrible job of communicating their position to the general public. Their lack of preparation in being media savvy is similar to taking an audition without having practiced the required excerpts.
Deb Rutter was on WGN during the 11am slot and did a very credible job of getting her point across. Steve Lester's interview on WLS later in the afternoon was adequate at best.
The fact that the general public has very little understanding of what goes into making a symphonic career even in good times is a huge hurdle to overcome.
But compounded by the weak economy and the fact that the working class in the USA is so beaten down, there is very little sympathy in the general public for a strike by musicians who make triple digit salaries. Read the threads that accompany the GOOGLE link that you have posted above.
I am sure that the strike will be resolved quickly and that both sides will meet to contain the damage given the tours coming up and the annual Gala.
But the damage to the institution will take a long time to overcome and marks a turning point in the history of the CSO.
In the past, the working person could relate to the struggles of the orchestral musician since they shared similar issues in terms of benefits, salary increases, and job security.
That has shifted (witness the Caterpillar strike in Joliet and what they settled for) and you can see the disconnect.
Sorry if I am being too honest.
Dileep
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
