Daddy, what’s a fustercluck?

Fustercluck: noun; 1) a one-word Spoonerism; 2) a barely disguised euphemism for clusterfuck.

Clusterfuck: noun 1) A disastrous situation that results from the errors of several people or groups. (laborlawtalk.com): 2) what’s happening in St. Louis.

Every so often an ICSOM orchestra and its local union manage to get themselves into a Gordian knot of formidable dimensions; a veritable spaghetti bowl of intertwining power plays, bad advice, and misunderstandings. For such situations the word “clusterfuck” was invented, perfectly describing what drives such a tangled web to become un-tangleable. This year’s example is what’s going on in St. Louis.

But first a little history.

1. The musicians of the St. Louis Symphony stopped working on January 6, 2005, as a result of a breakdown in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between them and their management. Technically, of course, this was a strike by AFM Local 2-197 against the St. Louis Symphony Society; the CBA is between the Local and the SLSO Board, while the SLSO musicians are members of the Local and the SLSO management works for the Board.

2. The lead negotiator for the SLSO musicians (or, to be technical, the Local) was Len Leibowitz, who is the senior performing arts labor attorney in the known universe. Leibowitz is legal counsel for ICSOM, for the Symphonic Services Division of the AFM, and for Local 802 (New York City). In addition, he has negotiated countless orchestral CBAs around the country (as well as in Canada) and has worked for other performing artists’ unions as well. (Disclosure: as chairman of ICSOM from 1996-2002 I worked closely with Leibowitz on a wide range of issues and found his counsel invaluable.)

3. The circumstances of the work stoppage were confusing. The musicians claimed it was a lock-out by management, as they had expressed their willingness to continue working under the terms of the expired agreement (as they understood them). The management claimed it was a strike, as the musicians refused to continue working under what the management claimed were the terms of the expired agreement. Immediately after the work stoppage began, the Local filed unfair labor practice charges against the SLSO, charging that SLSO management had written a letter to the musicians in an attempt to bypass the negotiating committee.

4. The Local did not file the required notice with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the relevant state labor agency, informing them that the agreement was going to expire. Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act requires that notice be filed at least 60 days before the expiration of the contract. The consequences of striking before 60 days has elapsed since the filing of the so-called "8(d) notice" are potentially severe for the striking workers; the workers can be summarily terminated for engaging in a so-called “unprotected” strike. The consequences to the union itself, however, are much less clear.

5. While the 8(d) notice must be filed by or on behalf of the Local, AFM locals often entrust this job to the attorney or AFM negotiator who has been engaged to act as lead negotiator. Leibowitz told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that his failure to file was deliberate, and that the real-world consequences to the musicians were non-existent. It’s not clear from the printed record whether or not the Local, or the negotiating committee, knew or approved.

At this point the real fun began. Somewhere along the line the management filed charges against the Local, charging that the strike was illegal on account of the failure to file the 8(d) notice. On February 23, the NLRB informed the Local that they were going to rule in management’s favor. That quickly restarted negotiations, a settlement was reached, and the musicians returned to work – without being either terminated or replaced.

Protocol dictates that ICSOM orchestras file settlement bulletins with ICSOM, which are then disseminated to the field. The bulletin filed by the SLSO ICSOM delegate was highly critical of the Local:

On the evening of February 24, 2005, and without the presence of the orchestra's attorney Leonard Leibowitz (who was out of town and was not given an opportunity to come to St. Louis), Local 2-197 pressed for a settlement that was well below the orchestra‚s "bottom line" ($80,000 per year), due to pressure from an alleged threat of Federal fines for an "illegal strike", as well as losses from work dues income that pay the majority of expenses for the local.

The report went on to describe relations between the musicians and the Local as “at an all time low", and ended with the customary thanks to the members of the committee and to the negotiating attorney (Leibowitz) - but with no mention at all of the local officers, an omission virtually unprecedented in ICSOM history.

Then things got worse. In May, according to a story dated June 12 by Sarah Bryant Miller of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

… the local filed its charges against Leibowitz with the New York State Bar. In a widely circulated e-mail, sent on May 13, Leibowitz wrote to Gippo, "This is nothing short of outrageous!! There is, of course, no basis whatever for the charge, and merely represents a blatent (sic) attempt to harrass (sic) me and besmirch my reputation. I think the orchestra as a whole should rise up and demand that she withdraw these frivolous charges immediately." Gippo passed it along to members of the orchestra with an angry e-mail in which he characterized Smolik and the other local officers as "vipers" and said that he would no longer meet with them "because they don't represent our interests."

"There's no doubt that Jan is unhappy with me, no doubt at all," said Smolik, who also works as a free-lance trumpeter. As for the charges against Leibowitz, "there is an issue of confidentiality here, and nobody from our office here can talk to you. Whatever Lenny comes out with, he comes out with."

In early July, the St. Louis Symphony Musicians Council (the body the orchestra elects to represent them to management) responded by filing charges with the AFM against the three Local officers who had filed charges against Leibowitz. The basis of the Musicians Council's charges was that the officers filed the charges on behalf of the union without the authorization of the Local board. The AFM declined to process these charges, stating that the AFM bylaws did not allow them to hear the charges before all remedies in the Local’s bylaws had been exhausted. So the Musicians Council re-filed the charges against the three Local officers with the Local 2-197 board.

One of the key questions in this whole mess is whether or not the Local has a real case against Leibowitz. There’s no doubt that the musicians were theoretically at risk by engaging in an unprotected strike, in that management could have fired them and replaced them with other workers. But what other workers? And why would management have gone that route?

Orchestra strikes are unusual in several ways, but the most striking (no pun intended) is that the short-term economic impact on the employer is actually positive and not negative. Orchestra finances aren’t suffering during a strike; quite the reverse. The musicians aren’t getting paid (and, in the case of St. Louis, weren’t getting health insurance either), while the only negative economic impact on the management is the loss of single ticket sales and the cost of giving refunds to those patrons who ask for them. (The managers themselves continue to be paid and to receive benefits during the strike, of course, although it's not uncommon for some operations personnel to be laid off for the duration.)

Orchestras are non-profit institutions precisely because they lose money on every concert. The fewer concerts they do, they less money they lose – so long as they don’t have to pay their musicians. It’s no accident that orchestra strikes tend to go on for weeks and weeks; it takes that long for community pressure and long-term considerations (such as the need to start selling subscriptions for the following season) to accumulate to the point of getting management to start negotiating seriously.

So management was in no particular hurry to end this work stoppage. Nor was there the slightest chance that they would actually replace the SLSO musicians. Not only would that make no sense artistically or in terms of the orchestra’s place in the community, it would cause an all-out war with the AFM. The AFM is not a very strong union in some ways, but it has more than enough tools to make life just about impossible for any orchestra trying to fire all its musicians and replace them with scabs.

So, with the possible exception of the bad press, the impact on the musicians of the failure to file the 8(d) notice was negligible. But were there potential ramifications for the local? One attorney I talked to pointed out that, if the Local really believed they had a solid case, they would have filed a malpractice suit against Leibowitz and not merely ethics charges. I can’t find an instance of a union having to pay damages to an employer for an unprotected strike, although it’s clear that a union might be on the hook for a wild-cat strike (ie a strike while a contract is in force). It’s also clear from case law that the Local was not vulnerable to so-called "duty of fair representation" charges by the SLSO musicians for having put them at risk in any way. And, of course, economic damages, even if the Local were liable for them, are predicated on the work stoppage having had a negative financial impact on the employer – which it didn’t.

So why the charges by the Local officers? If they thought that Leibowitz had done a lousy job, why not a conversation with the orchestra about who they were planning to ask to negotiate their next contract? And why didn’t they get authorization from the Local board? Did they even have standing to file such charges as individuals?

The likely answers don’t cast the Local officers in a favorable light. Whether the charges were intended to deflect the discussion from the Local’s behavior in pressuring the musicians to accept an unpopular settlement, a power play intended to assert the Local’s primacy in negotiations, or simply vindictiveness, it seems that they were, at root, bogus. Whether or not the failure to file the 8(d) notice was a miscalculation, it’s hard to see how it was unethical on Leibowitz’s part. If the Local knew about the failure to file, then it was complicit in it. And, if it didn't know, it should have made it its business to find out before the orchestra went on strike.

Nonetheless, the action of the Local officers raises serious policy issues. After the right to ratify collective bargaining agreements, the prerogative held most valuable by ICSOM orchestra musicians in labor negotiations has been the right to pick their lead negotiator. This right has even become enshrined – although not explicitly so – in the AFM’s bylaws. For a Local to pursue what amounts to a vendetta against its orchestra’s chosen negotiator is a direct attack on that right. In the aftermath of these events it’s hard to imagine a productive conversation between the musicians and the Local in three years over who will serve as lead negotiator. And it’s hard to imagine the AFM being eager to break the resulting impasse. Local 2-197 is a large local. Large locals don’t get trusteed or their officers removed. And Smolik, as president of both the Local and the Theater Musicians Association, is not a negligible figure in AFM politics.

The only situation in recent AFM history comparable to what’s going on in St. Louis happened two decades ago in Seattle, where a determined group of orchestra musicians found themselves at permanent loggerheads with a stubborn and entrenched group of Local officers. While discussion of what happened there tends to focus on the recording issues, at the root of the dispute was a disagreement over the Local’s responsibilities to the orchestra musicians and vice versa. That dispute ended with the decertification of the AFM by the Seattle Symphony musicians and the formation of a rival union, which led to major changes within the AFM. While it seems unlikely that this dispute will end with the SLSO leaving the AFM, it’s not obvious how any happier ending will come about either.

That’s what a clusterfuck looks like in our business.

Comments

[Michael Troy Moore]

Who is censoring the AFM in Trouble and AFM AFMaHead Blogs?

posted on AFM in Trouble blog 8/9/2005 8:40 a.m. west coast time
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last night I signed on and came to this blog (AFM in Trouble) and there was a post who agreed with me and used my name, not sure who it was but it was not me who posted it? I signed on to this blog now and the post has been removed?

The posted agreed with me on something I said and bashed Ken Shirk, so whom ever removed it must have been Ken or a supporter of his.

If you censor blogs your blog is nothing more than a FRAUD.

If I keep seeing AFM BLOGS that are bias and one sided Censoring posts from other people I will, Create an AFM Freethinker Blog and it will never be censored.

And the "fascists" with in the AFM that keep trying to STOMP OUT free Speech will have no control over the AFM Freethinker Blog.

Fascist behavior is apparent in censoring the blogs, censorship is not a trade unionist principle.

The only way the AFM will have peace and growth is if all voices are heard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AFMaHead blog blocked me right after the convention for what ever reason, a post said get back to the Issues not the Local 12 thing.

I agreed and posted 2 issues Re: the 1978 disclaiming of Interests of ALL CLUB MUSICIANS within the AFM.

Why the AFM needs to organize.

The next post I went to put up I found I was blocked for AFMaHead.

Robert had been fair enough not to block me from this blog or the other one and that shows he is allowing vocies to be heard and Robert and I have disagreed on things before but he is not censoring me from the blog.

I have come to learn that others are blocks from other AFM blogs if they say something that is not cool with thoses running those blogs.

AFMaHead's blog mission statement says "Those who have been made to feel unwelcome in the AFM are welcome here" (or something to that effect)

AFMaHEAD is a fraud unless it opens back up and lives up to it's mission statement.

[Drew McManus]

What a great article and an equally great subsequent discussion. Having actually founded a 501(c)3 with the mission to raise money for gynecologic cancer research and treatment, I feel compelled to weigh in on this issue of “nonprofits earning a profit”.

This is a widely debated issue which tends to miss the point more often than not.

First: there’s more than one legal classification for nonprofits as recognized by the IRS. I won’t go into all of them now because it’s just too complicated, but you can visit the IRS web page to learn more on your own. But for the sake of discussion, we’ll use the nonprofit status most orchestras are organized under. In the eyes of the IRS, orchestras manufacture a product (or deliver a serve, your choice) which they deliver under the intent of contributing to the public good. This enables them to solicit and collect donations which are tax deductible for donors. As such , one of the qualifying aspects of being granted nonprofit status is that in order to fulfill the mission of serving the public good, the respective organization would not be able to accomplish this task without directly contributed support.

Second: Nonprofits can not be established or operate under the auspices of personal gain. This is to prevent nonprofits for distributing “excess revenue” in the form of dividends or returns in the same way publicly traded for profit companies operate. It also prevents the organization for behaving like a privately owned for profit institution which usually benefits a single individual through their consumption of excess revenue over expenses. That’s really what the term “profit” is referring to when you discuss nonprofit vs. for profit status.

Now, having framed that discussion orchestras operate very much like any government based service organization, such as the post office. The post office needs to cover the expense of fulfilling their mission (delivering mail on all federal or state owned post roads). As any one area expands in population the cost of delivering that service increases. Thus, the need for additional revenue.

What’s important to consider is that the term “profit” isn’t being confused with raising enough funds to cover expenses and expand the public good oriented service.

Orchestras are similar in that as they increase their services (play more concerts) they need to increase revenues in order to cover those expenses. Where they are different (and is one of the reasons they are classified as nonprofits) is that they can not cover the expenses of a concert through earned income alone (like the Post Office does). In all cases I’m aware of, the only way they can accomplish that task is to raise a sizeable portion of funds from private sources. Therefore, Robert’s original statement that “Orchestras are non-profit institutions precisely because they lose money on every concert.” is accurate from the standpoint that in order to fulfill their mission objectives, they must rely on contributed income from non earned income sources.

Whether or not you feel like debating the term “precisely” is a bit of a red herring to me because it’s the intent which counts more in this case. And frankly, taking the time to debate individual words is better left for contract negotiations. If I’m wrong in the way I interpreted Robert’s remarks, I’m sure he’ll correct me.

I’ll leave off with a bit of head-scratcher regarding the nonprofit status in orchestras. The IRS implemented a comprehensive survey or executive compensation among nonprofits last year because they became concerned that too many nonprofits were abusing the above mentioned issue of how nonprofits should not benefit a single individual through their consumption of excess revenue over expenses.

In particular, they singled out orchestra who pay their executive administrators (usually music directors) more than $1 million in annual compensation. The argument here goes is the expense of the salary a justifiable means to deliver the service which benefits the public or is the nonprofit abusing its status for the benefit of a few individuals by allowing them to earn exuberant annual compensation? Chicken or egg?

The IRS is still investigating…

Best,
Drew

[Brad Buckley]

MTM wrote:

"If I am wrong on this post please ignore it and pretend I am sitting here NAKED drinking a Beer."

That might be a more accurate picture than your post. Then again they might be equally accurate :)

[Brad Buckley]

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

" * Please be patient while I try to get this straight:
* 1) The orchestra (both management and musicians) are under pressure to fulfill their nonprofit mission to public satisfaction."

That's true of any orchestra dispute but don't lose sight of the fact that the musicians were receiving considerable support from the public as proved by the amount of money raised by benefit concerts and letters. Even the press was calling for the mayor to intervene to settle the dispute. (that's press support in St. Louis)

" 2) The NLRB informed the Local that they would rule in management's favor."

Correct

"3) Despite the impact of 1 & 2 above, the Musicians' Negotiating Committee, the Chair of ICSOM, and the "senior performing arts labor attorney in the known universe" are determined their planned strategy of not filing the 8D notice will ultimately pay off and that the musicians should stay the course."

Not really, the above named were looking for many ways to get the management back to the table and resume bargaining. The 8D was just one part. Also you might remember that the Orchesra/union also filed unfair labor charges against the management.

" 4) The Local VP disagrees and is forecasting further trouble when stating "as the orchestra goes, so goes the Local."

Among the list of reasons why an orchestra/union should settle a dispute, consideration of work dues revenue to the union should not be on the list since it appears that the union cares more for the work dues paid by the members than the opinion and long term welfare of the members.I thought that statement by the VP was very revealing of where his priority is.

" 5) After careful consideration of 1, 2 & 3 above, the musicians reject the recommendation of the committee only to heed to the advice of the VP and vote to accept a concession."

Nope! The Committee recommended that the orchestra accept managements last contract offer at the ratification meeting. Also you are wrong to assume that the orchestra voted to accept a concessionary contract. The salary before the dispute began was $74,000 a year. When the dispute began the managements offer was for a three year eight month contract that ended in the final year with a $73,600 a year salary. In other words the management was offering to pay us less after 3 years than what we were currently being paid. Thats a concesionary contract. The contract that the committee recommended was a contract that ended with a $76,000 yearly salary in the final year and $6500 in signing bonus money paid as $2500 the first year of the contract and $4000 the final year of the contract.

"THEN

6) The Committee, the labor attorney and the musicians, unhappy with the outcome of the vote, blame local officers for pressuring the musicians to concede to management."

Since the committee recommended the contract I don't see how they could be unhappy with the outcome of the vote and the labor attorney did not argue against accepting the contract at the ratification meeting. There were and are a substantial number of musicians who were unhappy but that was to be expected given the highly emotional state of the orchestra after 8 weeks of dispute.

"7) Local officers, unhappy at being the target of criticism, file a complaint with the NY Bar Assn. about the conduct of the labor attorney."

You can't make that assumption since the local officers refuse to explain to either the orchestra or the Local Board of Directors why they filed the ethical complaint.The issue here is Local officers operating without the consent of their members or their Board of Directors. The orchestra is very unhappy about that.

" Am I close? / Pete Vriesenga"

Afraid not Pete. / Brad Buckley

[Michael Troy Moore]

If I read Pete's post right and understand it, should this not be a "Failure to Represent" or a misrepresentation of some sort?

It sounds like what happen to the Sacramento Symphony in the mid 1990's and guess what Lenny was there then to!

I keep finding the same people are present every time something gets SCREWED UP IN THE AFM!

They are on the DOLE of the AFM and some locals, time to identify the pattern and Cease doing business with Lawyers and consultants if they are not producing results for the future of the Musicians Union.

Any other place of employment would have fired them if their track record was what it appears to be.

This Lenny guy wrote an article or made a statement a few years back that was in print in AFM Local 12's newsletter "The Central California Upbeat" which some members have called the "Dead Beat" or the "Beat Off"

What Lenny said if in fact he said it regarding a symphony and music teachers was so STUPID and misleading he should have been fired.

I wrote a letter to AFM Local 12 Secretary pointing out that the legal position Lenny took was WRONG and was not in fact the law but something that Lenny might have made up to justify his existence for billable hours.

If what I read about him is true and from what I seen of the mid 1990's Sacramento Symphony DISASTER, I have to ask why is the AFM still paying this guy for anything?

Lenny Lebo..... has not done good for AFM Local 12 symphony members so if this guy is dropping the ball else where in the US for AFM members you guys should look into his past with AFM Local 12.

If your interested let me know and I give your contact information to contact symphony members that were mad as hell after the Sacto Symphony went BUST!

If I am wrong on this post please ignore it and pretend I am sitting here NAKED drinking a Beer.

[Pete Vriesenga]

Please be patient while I try to get this straight:

1) The orchestra (both management and musicians) are under pressure to fulfill their nonprofit mission to public satisfaction.
2) The NLRB informed the Local that they would rule in management's favor.
3) Despite the impact of 1 & 2 above, the Musicians' Negotiating Committee, the Chair of ICSOM, and the "senior performing arts labor attorney in the known universe" are determined their planned strategy of not filing the 8D notice will ultimately pay off and that the musicians should stay the course.
4) The Local VP disagrees and is forecasting further trouble when stating "as the orchestra goes, so goes the Local."
5) After careful consideration of 1, 2 & 3 above, the musicians reject the recommendation of the committee only to heed to the advice of the VP and vote to accept a concession.

THEN

6) The Committee, the labor attorney and the musicians, unhappy with the outcome of the vote, blame local officers for pressuring the musicians to concede to management.
7) Local officers, unhappy at being the target of criticism, file a complaint with the NY Bar Assn. about the conduct of the labor attorney.

Am I close?

Pete Vriesenga

[Mike Allen]

Robert Levine writes:

"A core component to being a non-profit (at least in the arts world) is that the organization will take in less in earned income than it spends in generating that income."

With all due respect - the real core component of being a not for profit is having an educational or charitable mission. Something which is certainly not served by a workstoppage/lockout.

My point was this can't by why orchestras are non-profit. It just can't. There has to be a better why than because they lose money. And there certainly is a better how.

It is true that in order for an NFP to keep its NFP status there must be a balance between earned and unearned income and a demonstrated need for that unearned income. As far as the IRS is concerned, the key is what happens at the end of the year when the books are closed. When there is a surplus - that surplus can not be distributed as dividend, but rather must be either pumped back into the mission or somehow distributed to other non-profits with similar missions (the former almost always being the choice).

There isn't an honest NFP in the country that doesn't seek to balance its books or even generate a surplus every year. Generating too much surplus causes problems on the fundraising side of things, however.

Of course with upper management salaries being what they are (generally) and orchestras being the rather large, expensive, and inefficient machines that they are - there is usually only a small chance of a surplus. Orchestras, by their very nature spend well beyond their means.

I agree that once the stoppage has occured, most of the short term damage is done. But since a count of butts in the seats at some point becomes critical to the grantwriting process - there is additional damage as the days of work stoppage stack up.

[Robert Levine]

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

"Lenny Leibowitz was acting legal counsel AND lead negotiator who deliberately failed to file the 8(d) notice for strategic reasons. From all accounts Lenny's strategy backfired by forcing an unfavorable settlement by the musicians under pressure from the NLRB...So, why are the local officers getting the blame?"

Two reasons: they pressured the musicians into a settlement for reasons not having to do with the good of the musicians, and they then engaged in a vendetta against the orchestra's attorney for no very good reason that I can see.

Someone else wrote:

"Not filing the 8D triggered an illegal strike charge by the employer which triggered a potential expensive court case which triggered the panic button by the local which triggered using the leverage of the local labor council which triggered more pressure to make a deal."

The illegal strike charge might have triggered legal action had the orchestra not gone back to work. But the orchestra could have gone back to work without a deal. And what's the evidence that the legal action would be been "expensive" for the Local? There doesn't appear to be any basis for damages against the Local for this kind of strike.

Not filing the 8D triggered an illegal strike charge by the employer which triggered a potential expensive court case which triggered the panic button by the local which triggered using the leverage of the local labor council which triggered more pressure to make a deal.
The deal sucked so now everyone is blaming everyone else. Can you say three degrees of separation from the 8D stragetgy?

[Brad Buckley]

Not filing the 8D did not force the orchestra to go back to work. There were other factors like pressure from the Local union and labor council.
Many in the orchestra feel that they were deserted by their union when the chips were down. The Local Vice President announcing at the ratification meeting "as the orchestra goes, so goes the Local" (translation the orchestra has to go back to work because the Local is losing to much money) only reinforced that feeling. As for the 8d, the reality is that if you get a complaint about the 8D you say Oops and go back to work for 30 days and then go out on strike again. That plays hell with an employer and in our case it would have meant that we would have had thirty days salary and paid medical and threatened to strike again one week before a major New York concert with our new music director. The statement made by the union Vice President speaks to the ills of Local 2-197 much better than any criticism I can make. BTW The Committee and the union knew the 8D had not been filed in early January.

[Pete Vriesenga]

Am I missing something?

Lenny Leibowitz was acting legal counsel AND lead negotiator who deliberately failed to file the 8(d) notice for strategic reasons. From all accounts Lenny's strategy backfired by forcing an unfavorable settlement by the musicians under pressure from the NLRB.

So, why are the local officers getting the blame?

Local officers rarely receive credit when things go well, and quickly become the target when things go wrong. I guess that's why lawyers make the big bucks?

Pete Vriesenga

[Robert Levine]

MTM wrote:

"And non profits should not get special treatment when it come to screwing over their employees."

That wasn't my point. My point was that, because they lose money on everything for which they have to pay their musicians, they have less reason either to get the orchestra back to work immediately or to replace them with strikebreakers.

Mike Allen wrote:

"Is this "precisely" why orchestras are non-profit? If so, help us all...Work stoppages / lockouts also have an adverse affect on fundraising both short and long term - particularly in the corporate sector where companies are looking for public visibility through their partnerships with orchestras."

A core component to being a non-profit (at least in the arts world) is that the organization will take in less in earned income than it spends in generating that income. Hence the need for donations. It's true that work stoppages can have adverse effects on fund-raising, which is one reason that orchestras try to avoid them. But, once they start, much of that adverse impact has already happened, and stretching the strike out for a few weeks is more helpful than harmful to the bottom line. I think that's why orchestra strikes tend not to be short (ie, days).

Someone else wrote:

"so you don't see the strong possibility of being ordered (by a Federal Judge) back to work for a cooling off period as a loss of leverage? Notifying the Feds is the law."

A cooling off period could be a "loss of leverage"; it could also be a face-saving way of ending a strike that's gone on long enough. The musicians didn't have to settle in order to go back to work; they could have gone back to work under the imposed terms and struck again after the cooling-off period was over. They didn't. Personally I think they did the right thing. But I wasn't there, and it wasn't my job on the line.

I don't know whether or not the failure to file the 8(d) notice was a strategic mistake or not. What I do believe is that it was neither malpractice nor some kind of ethical violation, as the three Local officers are now claiming.

[Michael Troy Moore]

Non Profits don't make money?
that is a misconception,

Labor Union are non profits and many make money, churches are non profits and make money, fund raisers are non profits and make money.

This does not give any non profit (including labor unions or symphonies) a get out being an employer card to treat their employees any different that any other for profit business.

In 1993 a church called the Capitol Christian Center had a CBA with AFM Local 12 in Sacramento for the singing Christmas tree concert series. The music director Screwed up and purchase a new lighting system and spent part of the budget for the Labor Ie: musicians for the concert series.

This non profit did a most unchristian thing, they broke the CBA during the life of the CBA with a letter saying the Musicians were no longer needed.

No fault of the musicians, a blunder by mis management!

AFM Local 12 Secretary Benson would not allow a strike line at the church, he would not sue for the lost wages and the breach of contract, due to their NON PROFIT status.

The musicians lost because the EMPLOYER was given a get out being employer card from AFM Local 12 in 1993.

A failure to represent had happen.

I went into the church preparing for a strike line sat through one of the services and looked around and it dawned on me that this Church this non profit was really a corporation, a book store with the bible but also RUSH Limbaugh and Oliver North's books and other political books which we not of a Christian nature.

They had a k to 12 grade school which cost an arm and a leg to pay for, they did a ton of lobbing at the state capitol, they brought over a boat load of Russians and others to the Sacramento region and sponsor them until they became citizens and could VOTE for what they were told to vote for which was anti union politicians.

But still AFM Local 12 surrendered when we had clear legal high ground.

Because they were a non profit.

I do not really care who they bring to America for a better life or what right wing books they pimp as religion that is their right, I do not like that this corporation pretends to be fair and poor, it is misleading.

A few years back a young single parent divorced mother who had her little girl in the Same non profits Christian school, was working as a stripper at a local Sacramento strip club (Sacramento has 10 of them) when one of the church management came in to see the show, he was surprise to see her dancing at the club and tried to get her to dance for him, she did not. For what ever reason.

He Kicked her daughter out of the Christian school she was attending, it was on the news.

And she had a major lawsuit she could have filed against this, but because of their NONPROFIT STATUS she did not feeling it would not be right.

My point in this is they cannot make profits running a symphony they should get somebody else to run the symphony.

And non profits should not get special treatment when it come to screwing over their employees.

[Mike Allen]

"Orchestras are non-profit institutions precisely because they lose money on every concert."

Is this "precisely" why orchestras are non-profit? If so, help us all.

Work stoppages / lockouts also have an adverse affect on fundraising both short and long term - particularly in the corporate sector where companies are looking for public visibility through their partnerships with orchestras.

so you don't see the strong possibility of being ordered (by a Federal Judge) back to work for a cooling off period as a loss of leverage? Notifying the Feds is the law. This is not to blame either side of this clusterfuck. The reason this law came into being is to avoid rushing to strike/lock-out with the opportunity or possibilty of mediation.