Finally – an intelligent comment

Imagine my surprise when someone posted a comment to this blog that wasn’t simply name calling. You can read it in full here, but I’ll quote from it at length before I respond:

Robert, I don't really understand why you think the current AFM policies towards the recording musicians are "insane" - perhaps you could elaborate?

For years, the RMA dictated AFM policy for electronic media, including film and TV scores. And for years, a lot of that work was driven out of the AFM by the RMA's insistance on back-end payment clauses in ALL film & TV recording contracts while the rest of the world evolved into a buyout business model for music recording. While the A-list studio RMA guys in LA did fine, a lot of other musicians suffered dearly, with more than a few quitting the AFM and moving to Seattle where non-AFM work is plentiful….

It seems clear that the RMA policies of the past, while clearly favoring top LA studio musicians, have resulted in net losses in terms of lost session work for a great many AFM players. And once a company goes to Seattle and is satisfied with the product, the ability of the AFM to sell them on ANY restrictions (ie anything short of a buyout) becomes exponentially more difficult.

My point about  the AFM’s behavior towards the RMA being crazy is far less about the issues at stake than the process. My perception (and I’m very far from alone in this amongst those local officers with no dog directly in this fight) is that this is no longer a war over issues, but rather simply over “who’s to be master.” That is crazy. It also virtually guarantees that the war will end badly for all concerned.

I don’t blame Tom Lee solely for this state of affairs. But, at the end of the day, he’s the president of a national union. He gets paid the big bucks to lead. He - and the IEB - have to be the grown-ups, even if no one else will be (and I don't think that's the case, by the way.) It’s his responsibility - more than anyone else’s - to hold this union together. And he’s failing. I think it’s fair to say that he’s choosing to fail by not taking the steps necessary to end the war.

I think there are two steps he needs to take do to that. The first is to agree, with the RMA, to try to find out some real verifiable facts about the labor market in this industry. Everyone makes sweeping assertions. Everyone has anecdotal evidence. It’s not good enough to convince anyone else that they’re wrong. If we’re going to have the kind of revolution in how musicians are paid for media work that Tom and the IEB are proposing (at least by their actions), then the people who now oppose that are going to have to be convinced that they’re wrong. All Tom is trying to do now is convince them that they’re going to lose. Given that the AFM desperately needs their money, this seems both unwise and unlikely to produce the docility that Tom and the IEB appear to want from them.

The other step is to take himself out of the picture. There are people in the AFM who could, if deputized by Tom and the IEB, make a damned good try at really fixing this problem. The smart thing for Tom to do would be to hand this mess over to one of them and then – quite properly and deservedly so – take the credit for having solved the problem. And he'll be given that credit.

Being president doesn’t mean solving everything singlehandedly. It does mean being responsible for things being solved. Tom will be a hero if he’s able to end this war peacefully and without a secession by the recording musicians. No one – except, unfortunately, Tom – will care that he did so by bringing in someone to do it for him.

While the argument certainly can be made that those doing the most work should have the most "say" in how AFM recording policy should go, we have to take a step back and look at why those with the most work actually have that work… Sure, talent is a big part of it, but there are far more talented musicians than there are jobs. In LA, the whims of a single contractor, who isn't even a musician, can easily make or break any recording musician's career - can you imagine having your entire livelihood hanging by a thread with a non-musician holding the scissors, ready to cut that thread and replace you with a younger or more compliant replacement with no notice, no recourse, no appeal, and no union action available to you to appeal that action? You're just "not called anymore" and your recording career can be over or seriously damaged just like that. And you wonder why so many of the comments that the COMMITTEE receives, not to mention the COMMITTEE itself have chosen to remain anonymous??

The AFM’s biggest single failing as a union – and not one the AFM can practically address outside of the symphonic field, where it’s already done so – is its structural inability to provide any kind of job security for musicians. The commenter is right – a union that provides decent compensation but no job security has not done its job. And, by not doing so, it virtually guarantees that employers will have too much say in the union’s affairs.

But I don’t see a way to fix that, whether in film scoring or freelance wedding gigs. As a local officer who does have job security in his day job, though, I can tell you that state of affairs is frustrating as hell.

Comments

Regarding job security, it is my understanding that the formation of the first LA guild allowed the film studios to dismantle their studio orchestras and their contracted musicians. If this is true, we can certainly learn from history.

[sessionman]

In Nashville , if you are pals with certain session leaders, and can play great, and play well with others, you get the calls. If you want to get hired you have to hang out and get noticed. Producers hire" leaders "they can trust to put a good recording team together. They just don't call them contractors here in Nashville. There have always been cliques in the recording world. You play ball or you don't get hired. A union can't control that.

Glad you enjoyed my comment, Robert, and I found your response enlightening and interesting.

As to how to deal with job security, the moment the AFM (at the RMA's request, according to one high-ranking musician who was around at the time) let LA's largest contractor become part of the AFM, you have the "perfect storm" that has created the utter absence of job security we now see in the LA recording scene. With the majority of major studio work falling to one contractor, and with that contractor on intimate terms with the RMA leadership not to mention being a member of the RMA and the AFM, there is no more arm's length negotiating, relationship, or business dealings between contractors (who function as agents for employers) and musicians (employees). This utterly defeats the entire job security angle of a union.

After all, the NLRB has consistently said that employers cannot unionize - it's exactly what prevents composers from unionizing, as they are seen as composers since they hire musicians for sessions. Contractors act as agents for an employer, which functionally makes them part of the employer. These people should NOT be part of the AFM, and the AFM should take significant steps to distance themselves from contractors so that arm's length negotiation for better workplace security and working conditions is possible.

This can be scoped to focus only on electronic recording projects since those projects and that marketplace have unique requirements, so casual musicians who are bandleaders can remain part of the AFM. Simply put, when you mix employers and employees in an employee labor union, it's asking for trouble, as Michael T. Moore has pointed out on multiple occasions over the years...