I’ve been thinking about the most recent benefit reduction
and its possible effect on the AFM and particularly the AFM's relationship with symphonic musicians. (The
first conclusion I reached was, of course, that I was screwed, as my orchestra
is in the Fund, and that evidently I need to re-start my contributions to my
403(b) out of what's left of my salary after the last round of concessionary bargaining.)
As has been pointed out by Phil Ayling and others, symphonic
musicians have a different relationship with the AFM than do those musicians
whose contracts are negotiated and administered by the AFM national office. Put
simply, symphonic musicians haven't ever been much affected by anything the AFM does or fails to do.
“Much affected” is not the same as “not affected,” of
course. Symphonic musicians do receive value from the national office. The
International Musician is still the first stop when looking for an orchestra
job. The strike fund is a very useful tool in a labor dispute, although less
valuable in times, such as now, when a strike would likely be
counter-productive. SSD continues to provide valuable services, especially for
ROPA and OCSM orchestras. And national media agreements can be helpful to
orchestras doing media (although they have the potential to kill work as well,
especially when administered with a heavy hand and a negative mindset).
But, by and large, what happens at 1501 Broadway has had little
impact on the lives of the members of ICSOM orchestras. By far their most
important relationship is with their Local. The AFM president can ignore the
wishes of the symphonic player conferences regarding even the most important
decisions, and the average ICSOM musician, while agreeing that the AFM
president acted badly, will not get very excited about it.
Cutting pension benefits is different.
There were a lot of ICSOM orchestras (mine included) that came
into the Fund in the 1990s.
There were good reasons to switch from private plans into the Fund, which I
laid out in an article in Senza Sordino in 1996:
Put simply, the answer to this question ["what's in it for me?] is “$4.00 per month
per $100 contributed.” This looks like an astounding annual return of 48%. The
actual equivalent return on investment is harder to calculate, but is more on
the order of 9%, depending on the assumptions used. …Comparing this benefit
level to the benefit levels of a given orchestra’s plan is a job for a
professional actuary, not a part–time editor, but a number of orchestras have
had the calculations done for them and found the results put the AFM-EP Fund in
a very favorable light indeed.
In addition to the pension benefit, the AFM-EP Fund
provides some insurance benefits as well, notably disability and death benefits
if either event happens before a participant has retired and begins receiving
benefits.
There are some subtler benefits to participation in the AFM-EP
fund. One is security. Unlike some orchestra pension funds, the AFM-EP Fund is
both fully funded and not under the control of people who may be trying to
minimize an orchestra’s expenses… an orchestra and its management may decide
that fully funding the existing program, freezing it in place, and switching to
the AFM-EP could produce a significant improvement in the musicians’ pensions.
In this situation, the Fund will transfer vesting from the old plan to the AFM-EP,
which is to say that a musician fully vested under the old plan will
immediately be vested in the Fund…. it is clear that the AFM-EP is a program
that currently meets the needs of many ICSOM orchestras, and is worthy of
examination by any orchestra not completely happy with their current program.
Lots of ICSOM musicians have a good chunk of their
retirement earnings riding on the wisdom of those who run the AFM-EP Fund. They are probably beginning to feel as if they’ve been played for suckers.
Not only has the benefit multiplier been cut by nearly 80% from its peak in the
late 90s, but those musicians' ability to negotiate modifications with their managements in
how their pensions are funded has apparently been almost completely taken away by
the Fund trustees – and this, of course, with no symphonic management
representation on the Fund board at all, despite repeated calls by symphonic
musicians for their employers to be represented, and despite repeated
opportunities for that to happen.
Tom Lee wrote movingly in a recent IM of Norman Samnick’s
efforts on behalf of musicians as head of the employer trustees, and has spoken
often of his good relationship with the employer trustees. Neither seems to have
sufficient to achieve the elementary common-sense act of making sure that
symphonic employers have a place at the AFM-EPF table.
For all these reasons, I believe that this latest (but not
necessarily last) benefit reduction may be a game-changer. Rank-and-file
orchestra musicians may not care much about how the SSD Director was appointed,
or whether or not the AFM President is engaged in a deadly fight with LA
recording musicians about the rights of player conferences– even though they
should care about what happens to their union. But pretty much every musician
whose orchestra pays into the Fund is going to care about having their
retirement income slashed, not being given an in-depth and honest explanation
for why it happened – and being told to go pound rocks if they don’t like it. (Actually, the Fund has yet to inform participants of the benefit reduction, although Local officers were informed last week.)
I suspect that discussions are already under way in some
places to figure out if there’s an alternative to pounding rocks. Obviously
those orchestras not already in the Fund are more likely for the forseeable future to leave their pensions in a radioactive dumpsite rather than move into the Fund. Those orchestras already in the Fund will do whatever they can to
ensure that, should there ever be more money negotiated locally for pension, the
new money will not go to the Fund.
Would such efforts go as far as de-certification? I’ll bet
that some orchestras will consider it. The Fund is for AFM orchestras, after
all; what happens if an orchestra leaves the AFM (which is, of course,
something solely within the purview of that orchestra’s musicians, regardless
of the implications for management’s responsibilities to the Fund) to that
orchestra’s participation in the Fund? But I have no doubt that, at the very
least, this will lead to symphonic musicians caring far more than they ever
have about who’s running their union, appointing the union-side trustees of the
Fund, and managing the relationship with the employer-side trustees. The Fund
has just proven that such things really matter.
It would be ironic if this event eventually led to Tom Lee’s
downfall. Tom Lee has done many bad things as president, and his removal is
fully justified. But I suspect that the current plight of the Fund is the
result of many decisions made by many people over the years. No doubt a few of
those decisions were his. But, if the multiplier was unrealistically high in
the 90s, or if bad investment decisions were made, or if faulty actuarial
analyses were relied on, the current AFM president, while bearing some
responsibility simply by virtue of being president, can hardly be assigned all
the blame.
But that’s where most of the angered will be directed.
Recent Comments