 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: williamalex54
Date: 2013-09-30 21:22
Continuous updates on Minnesota Orchestra Situation.
http://blogs.mprnews.org/state-of-the-arts/2013/09/updates-minn-orchestra-musicians-to-speak-as-deadline-nears/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2013-10-01 22:24
Question, at what point are the musicians are going to give in to the circumstances? I think the board has made it clear that they are going to hold their position even if that means running the whole orchestra into the ground.
A year of the musicians and their supporters screaming has not compelled the board to change course. I'm not saying the board is right but it's the musicians and their families that are truly paying the cost by not getting paid or receiving benefits at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-10-01 23:03
JamesOrlandoGarcia wrote:
> Question, at what point are the musicians are going to give in
> to the circumstances?
Typically, as in most labor disputes, the union representing the workers (musicians) is more intractable than the individual workers would be, which is one reason for forming unions in the first place. The leadership feels a responsibility because their position as representatives of the players has usually won in an election - they feel they have a mandate from the players who elected them.
To get the union leadership to back up and accept things they said (promised the players?) when they were elected they would not accept, perhaps recanting their original mandate, sometimes means the leadership has to be forced by a rival group of candidates to put a new set of ideas to a general vote among the players. Union rank and file members, in my limited experience, are generally hesitant to "change horses midstream" and vote out a leadership cadre that has invested time, effort and a good deal of emotion in trying to defend them from management, even when their investment has had no beneficial result. There's always tomorrow, if they can just hold out today.
I don't know if this is the case among the Minnesota players, but it could slow the process considerably of "giv[ing] in to the circumstances."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-10-02 03:23
Karl -
The other side is that management is equally intransigent. You can't have a balanced negotiation -- two people on a see-saw -- if one side sits at the end and the other sits in the middle. The best (least bad) negotiated settlement is when both sides are unhappy but decide they can live with it.
{/begin political rant} It's like Obama trying to be the voice of reason, sitting in the middle, while a demented elephant trumpets like a gigantic fart machine and jumps up and down on the lunatic fringe right. {/end political rant}
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Williams
Date: 2013-10-02 04:15
"A year of the musicians and their supporters screaming has not compelled the board to change course. I'm not saying the board is right but it's the musicians and their families that are truly paying the cost by not getting paid or receiving benefits at all."
What pressure did the board feel to come to an agreement before the $52 million lobby renovation was complete?
"Typically, as in most labor disputes, the union representing the workers (musicians) is more intractable than the individual workers would be, which is one reason for forming unions in the first place."
Other than the President of the local (who sits in support of our decisions), the only union members at the table are all members of the orchestra, and the only union members who vote on the proposals are members of the orchestra. Burt Hara was on the "union" committee until he took the LA job. Tim Zavadil, Bass Clarinet, continues to chair the committee as he has since the spring of 2012. The negotiating committee meets with the orchestra every week. We were unanimous in rejecting first and final proposal that would have cut salaries from 30-50% in 2012, and a recent proposal that would have cut salaries each and every year ending at 25% in three years, before large annual health insurance increases. No orchestra with our size endowment and our financial health has ever ratified a contract like the one proposed by the MOA.
Yesterday as our committee came to the table with several proposals, the MOA listened to the proposals, caucused for an hour, returned the table, said no, offered no counter proposals, left the table, and within 5 minutes announced the cancellation of the Carnegie Hall dates this November.
Gregory Williams
Associate Principal and Eb Clarinet
Minnesota Orchestra
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2013-10-02 04:33
Ken's exactly right. The management initiated this "labor dispute" via lockout; their "offers" have been a bitter joke, revealing either ignorance about what sort of orchestral quality could be obtained by paying rock-bottom salaries, or contempt for musicians and the work they do, or perhaps both. The MO management has been a paragon of negotiating in bad faith, backtracking on commitments, reneging on implementing their own negotiator's recommendations when THEY brought the guy in, in the first place, and keeping completely secret the truth about the orchestra's financial condition.
They let Vanska go, they let the lucrative Carnegie Hall concerts dribble down the drain. They "own" the MO "franchise," but they seem to think the franchise exists apart from the musicians!
This is not a balanced situation; management's position is extreme, and the alleged necessity for it is completely impossible to verify since they adamantly refuse to open their books up to the public. Their rigidity makes a mockery of "negotiation." And people on this thread are suggesting the MUSICIANS capitulate?
I suspect management will hold out for as long as they can get away with it. They have nothing to lose, other than the prestige and quality of their orchestra, which they obviously care nothing about, and the confidence of their community that they are fit stewards of an artistic organization.
And if the people of Minneapolis/Minnesota are fine with ending up with a third or fourth-tier regional orchestra instead of a world-class outfit, and are willing to let this travesty run its course, maybe they deserve it. I don't think the MO musicians do, though. I'll respect them no matter what they decide, because they are certainly fighting the good fight, but there's no way this "labor dispute" is anything other than management vandalism.
Personally, I'd like to know what's in the MO account books that makes it so crucial to pay the orchestra peanuts, and that they don't want the public to see. And I'd like some candid insider information on what exactly the MO board plans on doing with the "franchise," if quality musicianship is so inconsequential to them? (Branson Missouri of the North, perhaps?)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-10-02 13:05
Karl, this is NOT a union decision. Orchestra's like them, the same as in Baltimore where I just retired after 50 years, have the final say when it comes to voting on a contract. The members vote and a majority rules. The union may give their strong opinion but if the musicans vote to accept it's a done deal. Don't forget, in most cities the dues and union tax paid by the musicians supports the majority of the unions expenses these days so the union is loosing a whole lot of money each week. Union contracts like their's are the only real income coming into the local unions today in many cities. If it weren't for the musicians union they would all be fired and replaced by now by far less experienced players for half the salary and little or no benifits.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2013-10-02 14:35
"This is not a balanced situation; management's position is extreme, and the alleged necessity for it is completely impossible to verify since they adamantly refuse to open their books up to the public."
I'm confused. I thought the orchestra was a 501(c)(3) organization required to file form 990s with the IRS. These forms contain balance sheets, income statements and a fair amount of other information about the financial activities of a nonprofit organization. These forms are public information. They are available from the public information office of the IRS. Also, as I understand it, tax-exempt organizations are required by law to provide copies of their form 990s for inspection by any member of the public who requests them.
What information do the musicians want to see in the "books" that they can't find in the form 990s?
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-10-02 19:46
Gregory Williams wrote:
>
> "Typically, as in most labor disputes, the union representing
> the workers (musicians) is more intractable than the individual
> workers would be, which is one reason for forming unions in the
> first place."
>
> Other than the President of the local (who sits in support of
> our decisions), the only union members at the table are all
> members of the orchestra, and the only union members who vote
> on the proposals are members of the orchestra.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that the negotiating committee was some other group of people than the players, only that as an elected representative group they have more strength to stand up to pressure from an intransigent (yes, Ken, the board is sticking inflexibly to its position - that's how prolonged labor disputes develop as each side gets dug into its positions) board than individual players negotiating individual contract terms would have.
My experience isn't so much with orchestra contract negotiations - all of my experience has been as a free-lancer or with limited-season orchestras in which no one was earning nearly their entire living. But as a teacher I have seen and been involved in a number of really ugly contract impasses. I'm assuming that the dynamics are similar.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill Patry
Date: 2013-10-02 21:30
I began my career as a labor lawyer, representing a local musician's union, which included the Houston Symphony. Other than paying my bills, the union left everything to the symphony musicians. I would not assume that the dynamics with a teacher's union are in any way similar to those of symphony musicians. All of my other union clients (steelworkers, longshoreman, oil workers) had a different dynamic, and that dynamic depended on the union's relationship with the employer and the union's relationship with the individual bargaining unit. The symphony contract was, moreover, quite different than any of the other union contracts; e.g., principal chairs had different terms and conditions, something not found say with oil workers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-10-02 22:18
DougR wrote:
> And if the people of Minneapolis/Minnesota are fine with ending
> up with a third or fourth-tier regional orchestra instead of a
> world-class outfit,
or no orchestra at all? How would the people of Minnesota react to the orchestra's folding entirely? (I don't live there - it isn't a rhetorical question).
At what point do the governing entities who have a stake in attracting tourism and business to the area get involved in this (or have they already)?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-10-02 22:48
Bill Patry wrote:
> ...Other
> than paying my bills, the union left everything to the symphony
> musicians. I would not assume that the dynamics with a
> teacher's union are in any way similar to those of symphony
> musicians.
Your experience with this interests me. It is true that there are far more employees in the bargaining unit of a typical school system than there are musicians in any symphony orchestra I know of. But teachers, at least under current Pennsylvania law (where my experience has been) have only a very limited right to strike and the school board has no right at all to lock them out. So in most cases over the past decade or two Pennsylvania teachers have continued working under extensions of the expired contract, while the school board can simply dig in without loss (the district I retired from just agreed on a new contract in May after a 5 year impasse). That's of course a hugely different situation from an orchestra that cancels its season week by week or month by month. Especially if they're a non-profit, the only parties to lose much of anything are the musicians and the interested public. I grant that's a major distinction.
My original point in response to James was only that sometimes after an impasse has gone on long enough, getting leadership even to call a vote, especially when there's no offer on the table and the only decision to be made is whether or not to capitulate, can be easier said than done. I am in no way suggesting that the union leadership in Minnesota has been in any way derelict.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-10-02 23:04
Ed Palanker wrote:
> Karl, this is NOT a union decision. Orchestra's like them, the
> same as in Baltimore where I just retired after 50 years, have
> the final say when it comes to voting on a contract. The
> members vote and a majority rules. The union may give their
> strong opinion but if the musicans vote to accept it's a done
> deal.
Ed, I think we're using the term "union" a little differently from each other - I was probably being sloppy. The negotiating, in any orchestral situation I've been involved with (again, not full-time orchestras), was done by a players' committee made up of players from the orchestra itself. I was myself the chairperson of the players' committee for a local orchestra that finally simply dissolved over the summer, so I understand that part of the process on a much less urgent life-and-death level. The members of the players' committee, whom I meant when I referred to union leadership, are the active bargaining agents. When I made my original comment, I was thinking of "union" as the payers' committee (which the AFM sanctions as its representative at the table), not the Local or even the AFM National office, neither of which would (or should) take over the negotiating process and ignore the orchestra's players.
Sorry if I wasn't (or maybe still am not) clear.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2013-10-03 00:49
Jack, you may be right about Form 990, and God knows I'm no expert on this stuff, but I've been all over the MO website and all I can find by way of financial reporting is a half-page summary in a fairly lengthy "Annual Report" document (that looks more like a travel brochure than an annual report; you'll find it HERE http://www.minnesotaorchestra.org/pdf/1011_yearinreview/); the 990 is indeed available via guidestar.org, but I'm not downloading it because I wouldn't know what the hell I'm looking at, in all honesty.
But IRS filings only tell part of the story, and a historical one at that. They don't say anything about an organization's projected budget, its artistic vision, its specific strategy for the future. A balance sheet can tell you that ticket revenue dropped in Year X; it can tell you that the orchestra played fewer concerts in Year X; it can't tell you WHY orchestra management decided on fewer concerts in Year X, or whether the resulting drop in revenue was planned for or just simple catastrophic stupidity.
Moreover, on the musicians' strike website I see this: "Management continues to refuse access to the basic financial documents needed for transparency. The Musicians have yet to see the 2013 budget, annual reports and annual contribution reports for the past 15 years, the 2014 budget and season, and the current total of all orchestra endowments." So, you may be right in theory about Form 990s; but in practice, either the musicians are lying, or management is indeed sitting on some relevant documents that should be made public.
Karl, your question "How would the people of Minnesota react to the orchestra's folding entirely?" is disturbingly pertinent. The Minnesota Orchestra has a bigger endowment to work off of than the Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or St. Louis orchestras, but some how MO management wants to third-tier the orchestra's quality. What're they going to do with all that money? "The Minnesota Kut-rate Klassical Orchestra, Special Guests Miley Cyrus and Cirque d'Soleil?" Bottom line, I don't think the Board even particularly likes classical music. I think they want to run away and join the circus ("Ugh! All this fund-raising for highbrow music, such work!! Bummer! Let's just live off the endowment, have canapes, and mingle with Miley!")
If anyone wants to look into/learn about questionable aspects of the MO management's conduct and claims, one could start here (exec summary: a nonprofit professional reviews the MO's form 990 and finds some odd anomalies; kind of weedy reading, but not prohibitively so).
http://songofthelark.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/what-we-know-about-minnesota-orchestras-finances-and-what-we-dont-part-i/
With that, I'll take my no doubt tiresome presence off the Board for now.
Oh, PS, and then I'll go: rather than behaving like whipped dogs, the MO musicians have planned a fall concert series, including an October concert featuring Emanuel Ax and Miley Cyru….oops, sorry, just Emanuel Ax. (There's a matching fund, too, if you want to kick in some bucks, as I did after having previously sent a donation to Mark, our sponsor, as I'm SURE all reading this have also done!!!)
Link: http://www.minnesotaorchestramusicians.org/fall-concert-series-announcement/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2013-10-03 03:12
This thread has been a fantastic resource for me. Thanks everyone.
Are there any theories as to what this last year has done to the MOA finances? Really stupid question, with all the money not paid out to the musicians in one whole season, could that be applied to fix whatever financial shortfall management thinks they are dealing with? I mean ticket sales don't entirely cover the budget of the orchestra. Cancel salaries and ticket revenue, what money is sitting in the coufers still?
Could MOA's position be so egregious because they don't want the musicians to come back, at least for a while?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2013-10-03 03:39
I know, I said I was going to go away, but in response to James Orlando Garcia's post, here's an excerpt from the Star-Trib, writing about the MO funding decision-making over the last four years:
"The board chose to cover operating deficits in 2009 and 2010 with major withdrawals from its investments. Then, in 2011 -- on the cusp of labor negotiations with musicians -- it "drew down" less money and declared a $2.9 million deficit."
At the same time, the orchestra cut concerts...paid out less money to (fewer) guest artists...thus aggravating the deficit via lost concert revenue. Hmm. Could the "deficit" and accompanying "crisis" have been artificially created? (Inquiring minds and all that...)
Link to the article:
http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/music/180782151.html?refer=y
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Williams
Date: 2013-10-03 06:06
Just one clarification...it is a Lockout not a strike.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114634897/Minute-Excerpts-from-the-Minnesota-Orchestra
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2013-10-03 06:32
"the 990 is indeed available via guidestar.org, but I'm not downloading it because I wouldn't know what the hell I'm looking at, in all honesty."
No reason why you should. On the other hand, you're not in the orchestra and not claiming that management won't make financial information available. The musicians should be downloading it (I hope they already have) and should be requesting the more current reports not yet available on Guidestar. Also, if they haven't already, they should be requesting the detailed audited financial reports and should hire their own accountant to evaluate the content and answer their questions about it.
"But IRS filings only tell part of the story, and a historical one at that."
True, but the 990 is not like the tax return you file each year. It includes considerably more information about the organization (e.g., as it turns out, Burt Hara's salary in the most recent year reported), including non-financial information.
"They don't say anything about an organization's ... artistic vision, its specific strategy for the future."
The orchestra has published a strategic plan that (admittedly) summarizes these points. There is a link in Mary's article. I think their vision and basic strategy are pretty clear. The musicians apparently don't believe them. Different maps.
"A balance sheet can tell you that ticket revenue dropped in Year X; it can tell you that the orchestra played fewer concerts in Year X; it can't tell you WHY orchestra management decided on fewer concerts in Year X ..."
Actually [small technical point, sorry] the balance sheet can't tell you any of this. Comparative income statements can tell you the amount by which revenues dropped but won't tell you the number of concerts. If you want to know how many concerts the orchestra performed, you probably need to look at their schedule. The balance sheet will tell you what assets the organization controlled and what liabilities it owed. And, in the case of this orchestra, the unrestricted fund balance, which is scary.
"... or whether the resulting drop in revenue was planned for or just simple catastrophic stupidity."
Or the result of the economy or of audience disaffection with programming or performance. But nobody can tell you that for sure, can they.
Per the musicians' strike website: "Management continues to refuse access to the basic financial documents needed for transparency. The Musicians have yet to see the 2013 budget, annual reports and annual contribution reports for the past 15 years, the 2014 budget and season, and the current total of all orchestra endowments."
Remember the song, "You Don't Always Get What You Want"? If I'm management, and the musicians are going ask for confidential information, they are going to have to explain to me why they need it, i.e., how it is relevant to their specific decision. Sorry, but "... to provide transparency" doesn't cut it. On the other hand, I think the information the musicians need is available, they just apparently don't know how to interpret it or don't believe it.
"So, you may be right in theory about Form 990s; but in practice, either the musicians are lying, or management is indeed sitting on some relevant documents that should be made public."
I think there is another interpretation. The musicians are not lying. But, to the extent management is withholding documents, those documents either are not relevant (e.g., old financial statements) or should not be made public (donor lists, budgets). The total endowment balance as of the end of the last fiscal year should be available, either from the 990s or the financial statements.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2013-10-04 15:36
Jack, thanks for the clarifications. Reading a major orchestra's financials isn't easy for lay people, but unfortunately it's necessary, in order to evaluate management claims of financial distress (rather than automatically accept them at face value).
It's an urgent issue of economic survival for the musicians, and an issue of trust (for the public) that management knows what it's doing, PARTICULARLY when musicians have amply held up their end of the bargain by working hard, and playing better than "well."
For orchestra management, the lockout is a "market reset." (lah-di-dah.) For the musicians, it's destruction of livelihood (lost wages, lost medical coverage, lost purpose). Again, it's a lockout, not a strike--and if the MO management is going to do that to a bunch of musicians who have held up THEIR end of the bargain, the management better be trustworthy, honest, and open. Their original 2009 decision for a "business reset" needs to stand up to scrutiny, for trust to be maintained. Consequent management decisions to manipulate reported deficits for PR purposes (see Gregory Williams' link, above) amply raises questions about their trustworthiness and good faith, as does management conduct regarding proposals for a joint audit, and their enlisting (and then firing) George Mitchell as a mediator.
All of which makes me wonder if publicly reported financials tell the real story, at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
