Just the facts, ma'am

My New Year’s resolution may be to stop asking for things that aren’t going to happen. But it’s only December 28.

A commenter wrote:

…I did notice that you avoided the primary point of my post - the fact that so many US productions are recording non-AFM in Seattle, Eastern Europe, via Internet, etc. I think we all can (probably) agree that's one of the biggest problems that needs to be addressed by the AFM.

Obviously there are US productions doing these things. Except for the “via Internet” part, this is not news. The London Symphony Orchestra has been doing film work for decades, and the Seattle scene is close to 20 years old.

But is this such a problem for the AFM and its members that the proper response is a fundamental change in how musicians are paid for film work? The groups that are charged with representing those musicians within the AFM – the RMA and Local 47 in particular– don’t think so. Of course those musicians seem to be doing OK out of the present system, which colors their view. But that they’re doing OK is also a data point.

The labor economics of my industry – American symphony orchestras – has been the subject of intermittent study for decades. It’s a very different industry than film scoring, of course. Most important, in terms of this discussion, is that it’s not off-shorable and that it’s virtually 100% unionized. And the fact that the economics are understood does not prevent some bitter disputes breaking out amongst the rank-and-file over how to deal with management.

But we all know enough about the fundamentals not to spend our time arguing about whether orchestras could be profitable or whether cutting our pay in half would result in more orchestras or whether unionization is harmful to the orchestra industry, because we have all internalized the underlying economic realities of orchestras. (If you’re not in our industry, the answers are 1) orchestras have needed external subsidies for centuries; 2) demand for orchestras is not correlated with orchestra pay; and 3) even if orchestras weren’t unionized, they would still have to pay reasonable wages to get good players and would still need 100 musicians to do a Strauss tone poem.)

It seems to me that the resolution of the dispute between the film scoring community and the AFM (which, as another commenter has pointed out, is not a new one) would benefit greatly from the addition of some facts and analysis. There are lots of economists in academia; why not find one who specializes in labor economics and commission him/her to do a study on the subject? No doubt agreeing on the right person would itself be a challenging task; akin to finding a neutral arbitrator in a grievance arbitration. But we know how to do that; finding a reputable economist to do a high-profile study of this subject ought to be no harder.

And where's the downside? The RMA believes that the data from the film special payment fund prove that radical changes to the relevant CBAs are not necessary. The current AFM administration obviously believes the opposite, but have not cited any real data in support of that position.

I (along with many others, no doubt) am willing to entertain the notion that the RMA data is not the complete picture. But we're not going to accept that politically charged anecdotes – which is all we’ve gotten from the AFM to date – are even data points, much a meaningful representation of reality. Simply repeated "the sky is falling" is not data; at least not in the absence of large chunks of sky littering the landscape.

Maybe the AFM needs another player conference - we could call it "The Reality-based Musicians' Conference." Its sole function would be to cry "bullshit" whenever bullshit is presented as fact. Of course AFM conventions would need to be a lot longer than they are currently.

So how about it, IEB? We all have an interest in this union holding together. You’re the ones elected by us local officers to do so and paid for doing it out of our work dues and per capita. The rubber is about to hit the road in the most basic way. If the union-side negotiating committee walks into the upcoming negotiations with the industry without some agreement on fundamentals, the result is likely to be very bad indeed. In fact, that is the most likely triggering event for this whole thing to spin completely out of control.

And then who would pay for our trips to Vegas in July?

Comments

[downbeat]

Hi Robert -

I based my comment re: B-list and C-list musicians on the observation that it is low- and medium-income projects that tend to be outsourced more often than big-budget studio films that are typically the purview of the top A-list players.

You wrote, regarding the SF recording musicians' decision to dump the RMA which resulted in more work for them under Lee's new contracts, "Or perhaps the San Francisco musicians have done more damage to their co-workers in LA than they have done good for themselves." This is a matter of perspective and how you value the number of musicians working as compared to the value of special payments clauses. I contend that recording work, even without all the existing restrictive special payments clauses, is still good, union recording work. I realize that those who subscribe to the "special payments or die" mantra would disagree with me strongly.

You also tend to minimize the recording musicians' lawsuit - while it's only three recording musicians filing the suit, the money and contracts at issue in the suit could easily affect hundreds, if not thousands of musicians and sessions nationally. It's not just the moneys paid to these three musicians that are at issue in the suit - not by a long shot. The financial exposure to the AFM is significant from this single suit, and we now have the recording musicians threatening even more lawsuits against the AFM (through Fareplay). Do you really believe that is a legal environment that is conducive to negotiations? Come on, Robert...

[Mollie]

"Time to dump the lawyers and let the musicians settle things, in my opinion, before we reach the point of no return." -Downbeat

Only a sociopath would say such a thing. Only someone who wants to control the masses and have no questions asked would say such a thing.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! Don't allow people who want your work as an excellent cellist, violist, etc. make us think we can fight this out without good attorneys fighting for our rights who have absolutely NO desires of their own to take our jobs!

[Mollie]

"Time to dump the lawyers and let the musicians settle things, in my opinion, before we reach the point of no return." -Downbeat

In my opinion, only a sociopath would say such a thing. Only someone who wants to control the masses and have no questions asked would say such a thing.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! Don't allow people who want your work as an excellent cellist, violist, etc. make us think we can fight this out without good attorneys fighting for our rights who have absolutely NO desires of their own to take our jobs!

[theafmobserver]

Downbeat wrote:

"As another poster pointed out here a few months back, you really have to look at who the current system benefits, and who it hurts. The top-flight LA session guys are certainly benefiting from the residuals-based system to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year - there's no doubt about that. But while the rich in LA get richer with their fat special payments checks, the B-list and C-list guys are losing work fast to offshoring, Seattle, etc."

Let me repeat: assertions without facts are not data. Repeating an assertion doesn't turn it into data. I'm not saying you're wrong; you just haven't given me any reason to believe you're right.

"I think it's fairly clear that when left to only those who ARE working in the area now, they'll look after themselves primarily."

That's how unions work. The people working under CBAs are one the ones to negotiate and ratify them.

"The San Francisco area musicians dumped the RMA and embraced Lee's new contracts, and they're working much more than they used to. If that's any example, the idea that "one contract fits all" is perhaps mistaken."

Or perhaps the San Francisco musicians have done more damage to their co-workers in LA than they have done good for themselves.

Unions are often faced with a choice between maintaining compensation and job security for its working members and accepting poorer wages and job security in exchange for more people being employed. The nightmare scenario is known generically as "the race to the bottom." I sense that's what the recording musicians are most concerned about, and I think their concern may be well-founded, although in the absence of a better picture of the film scoring labor market, that's just a violist's opinion.

Downbeat goes on to write:

"..who can expect Lee to conduct proper negotiations with the recording musicians with at least one lawsuit in court and plans for more underway, financed by the Fareplay warchest?"

I don't have the right, as a member of the AFM, to expect the President to do the job he's paid to do and follow the bylaws and long-standing practices of the AFM simply because the AFM is being sued by a few members? Come on. If a member of my local orchestra sued the local and I went in and negotiated a lousy contract with the management to teach my members a lesson about suing the local, I doubt that the resulting duty of fair representation lawsuit would go well for me and my local.

[downbeat]

Excellent commentary, Robert. Taking things a step further, while the current residual-based film/TV scales have helped core RMA players in LA, how many more AFM musicians could do film/TV scoring if there was an additional buyout scale added?

As another poster pointed out here a few months back, you really have to look at who the current system benefits, and who it hurts. The top-flight LA session guys are certainly benefiting from the residuals-based system to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year - there's no doubt about that. But while the rich in LA get richer with their fat special payments checks, the B-list and C-list guys are losing work fast to offshoring, Seattle, etc. While some say that those who aren't working in this area don't "deserve" to have a say in how film/TV scoring union agreements are formed, I think it's fairly clear that when left to only those who ARE working in the area now, they'll look after themselves primarily. The San Francisco area musicians dumped the RMA and embraced Lee's new contracts, and they're working much more than they used to. If that's any example, the idea that "one contract fits all" is perhaps mistaken.

Let's open up the market to more people by creating policies that remove the impetus for production companies to fly half way around the world to record scores when they could be recorded right here under AFM agreements! There is so much work that could be recaptured here - and so many musicians who need that good, union work that pays benefits.

Speaking of data points, there is a critical one missing from all the data quote here in recent weeks: how much work for US productions is being lost to non-AFM recording? Without knowing this, the picture is very hazy and inaccurate. Sure, Dennis can say that AFM film work is "increasing", and I believe that is true - Dennis is a straight shooter. But is it an increase from 20% to 25% of the total scoring work? 50%-70%? Just "increasing" doesn't begin to tell the story. Your idea to hire an academic to study the area would go a long way, assuming it's done completely, to answer this critical question. Marketshare here is the issue, and we are nowhere close to knowing that number.

Your point about the upcoming negotiations is also an excellent one - but who can expect Lee to conduct proper negotiations with the recording musicians with at least one lawsuit in court and plans for more underway, financed by the Fareplay warchest? Without the AFM and its legacy agreements, the PMG and the recording musicians start at square one, from scratch, with the producers. If that didn't work, the threat of a musicians' strike would only push more work offshore, onto the Internet, and to Seattle, where they'd be popping the corks and laughing all the way to the bank.

Time to dump the lawyers and let the musicians settle things, in my opinion, before we reach the point of no return.