sockpuppet88 once again gives the game away:
They've kept that website active for a reason - I assume at a minimum, as a threat against the AFM and a reminder that the recording musicians have already put together their own competing organization that they can "activate" if the the AFM does not bow to their demands. Talk about negotiating at gunpoint!...
My point here is that the continued presence of the PMG represents the INTENTIONS of what certain group(s) of recording musicians are considering - namely, they've created their own guild to do what the AFM does now. And let's not forget respected composer Lennie Moore's statement in the International Musician:
"I have had exploratory discussions with PMG leaders Marc Sazer and Phil Ayling"
There’s something vaguely surreal about sp88 citing the IM as a reliable source on the PMG. Even if sp88 wasn’t Tom Lee, and didn’t have everything to do with how that article came out, the IM is not run by people who are trying to report the news objectively. To use the IM as an authority for information on the PMG is, at best, disingenuous.
For the record, Phil Ayling is not a “leader” of the PMG. Let’s call what the IM quoted, and what sp88 then cited, by its proper name. It’s a lie.
But that’s aside from the point I’m trying to make. Sp88 thinks that the PMG is an attempt to force the AFM to “negotiate at gunpoint.” I’m not fond of the phrase, because it implies that putting pressure on one’s negotiating partner is either illegal or immoral. But I had always assumed that part of the purpose of forming the PMG was to raise the possibility of a decertification. Obviously a decert would be possible even in the absence of something like the PMG, but it would be easier if the recording musicians had a ready-made alternative to the AFM should they vote to decertify.
So let’s assume that the purpose of the PMG was to put pressure on the AFM in their ongoing “negotiations.” and that the AFM felt that pressure. What’s wrong with that?
The functional definition of “negotiation” is that it’s a transaction between two or more parties who are trying to make a deal that is better than not making a deal. The key word is “better.” When negotiating to buy a car, “better” means that one party gets the car they want, and the other party gets cash, rather than both walk away with nothing.
Often, though, “better” means the avoidance of a great deal of pain. When my orchestra negotiated for a new labor agreement, “better” for the musicians meant “better than trying to win a strike in the worst economic climate in 50 years.” For our management, “better” meant “better than continued uncertainty about the opening of the new music director’s first season.” For both sides, “better” meant “better than risking the organization’s continued existence.”
Both sides were “negotiating at gunpoint.” Both sides could inflict a great deal of pain on the other side. That wasn’t because either side were bad people, or intended to punish the other side, or wanted to do anything but reach a deal. Both sides were “negotiating at gunpoint” because it’s human nature not to negotiate in the absence of pressure, or at least the possibility of pressure.
Because both sides could hurt the other side, and were composed of intelligent and rational people, both sides made significant concessions in order to reach a deal. That’s the way the world works. One might even say that it’s supposed to work that way.
It’s extremely telling that sockpuppet88 is so upset about that. It’s even more telling that he can’t figure out what’s obvious to pretty much everyone else, which is that the RMA tried negotiating with Tom without any real pressure for years, and it didn’t work.
The record is becoming very clear that Tom began to shut the RMA (as well as the other player conferences) out of their legitimate, and traditional, governance role as soon as he got elected in 2001 (with RMA’s support, I might add.) And then he got very upset that RMA complained about it. Now he’s furious that the recording musicians have brought something other than complaints to the negotiations.
I’m trying to imagine the reaction of my management in Milwaukee had the union complained that we were having to “negotiate at gunpoint” if they didn’t promise, at the beginning of negotiations, not to lock us out, or impose their final offer, if negotiations broke down. I think they would have looked at me with great concern and asked if I needed to take some sick leave in order to get better. I wouldn’t have blamed them. Essentially, we would have been asking them to promise, in advance, to give us whatever we wanted. In what universe is that a “negotiation”?
Tom complains about having to “negotiate at gunpoint.” His real complaint is having to negotiate at all.
A response to Antony's post of a couple days ago:
We live in contentious times -- for many reasons, ideological, circumstantial, political -- add yours. Not that contentious times are unusual historically but in the US we have enjoyed a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity for several decades. This has produced a situation in which people have taken a lot for granted, have had the luxury of holding and developing fantasy ideologies without consequence, and have become uneducated. At the same time we have a "ME" generation mentality in which narcissism and individual ambition seem to run unconstrained.