Facks? We don't need no steenking facks!

Every time there’s a new post on “The AFM in Trouble,” there erupts the same flame war between RMA-ites and Lee-niks in the "comments" section, pretty much regardless of the content of the actual post.

Here’s a representative sample:

Working musicians are tired of being told by the RMA that they must continue to sacrifice recording jobs in order to keep the RMA wallets fat with special payments.

Working musicians are tired of being told by the RMA that the rest of the world is wrong about buyouts and they, the RMA, are right.

Working musicians are tired of watching RMA leaders go to London and record buyouts while they sit at home not working because the RMA refuses to consider any buyout deals here.

Working musicians are tired of watching the recording musicians, aided and abetted by Local 47, attempt to sue the AFM into non-existence with the latest federal lawsuit.

Working musicians are tired of all of this. The first thing you have to realize is the the recording musicians are only one very small part of the world of "working musicians". To think that the RMA represents the world of "working musicians" is delusional and only buys into their "the world revolves around us" arrogance.

To which one response was:

Your description of members of a particular player conference as "elitist" sounds more like sour grapes than anything else. The fact remains that if the RMA represents the majority of recording musicians, what right does anyone have to stifle their opinions? If you are a recording musician, and disagree with the opinions as expressed by the conference, you'd be better served to join the ranks and express your alternate viewpoint rather than stand on the outside throwing rocks at it.

Under absolutely no circumstances should the cry of working musicians be dismissed or belittled because they are not in line with a philosophy held by an administration charged with the responsibility of representing and working for those very same musicians. Under no circumstances, should an entire local administration elected by majority vote to represent a particular body, be criticized to the extent as to recommend its dissolution. These are basic tenets of union democracy as we know them. We are a collective that needs to be governed by the working members that are the ultimate stakeholders in the future of our agreements and work. Otherwise, why have a union?

May I make a modest proposal?

The economics underlying the dispute between the RMA and the Lee Administration are themselves in dispute, in large part because no one has ever looked at them objectively. The RMA says that more work than ever is being done under agreements they support; Tom Lee and his supporters say that film and electronic game work is leaving the AFM in droves.

It seems that it ought to be possible to find someone competent to research the relevant markets and industries and give us all some guidance on how best to move forward. Such a project probably shouldn’t be undertaken by the RMA in isolation; nor, for that matter, by the IEB in isolation. The most critical step will be to find the right researcher, and by “right” I mean “credible with both sides.” But economists with familarity with labor markets are out there, possibly even available for hire at short notice to do interesting research projects (which, by the way, can then be published in academic journals and used to advance their university careers and get tenure and other goodies of interest to economists).

Good idea, Levine. When do we start?

Don’t be silly. Why would anyone want facts to interfere with the kind of food fight going on within the AFM?

Comments

[Tina Morrison]

Good idea, Levine. When do we start?

Best wishes,
Tina