Should contractors be union members?

The Intelligent Anonymous Commenter (IAC)  has posted again; this time on the issue of contractors in the AFM:

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.

I don’t know the story behind the contractor in question joining the union. I can, however, speak with authority to the fact that there have been any number of non-musicians admitted to AFM locals over the years. It happened in my local about 10 years ago, when a staff member who was not a musician applied to join (at the time, I suspected that she wanted to run for office). I fought it, but (as I recall) the local was told it didn’t have much choice but to admit her, especially after a DFR was filed against the local (although it was subsequently dismissed).

What I don’t understand about IAC’s argument is why IAC thinks that having the contractor in the union would make a difference. Does she have more influence over which musicians are hired for films as an AFM member than she would have otherwise? For that’s the source of the real power that contractors have over musicians. I can understand that it might be in a contractor’s financial interest to be on AFM contracts, especially those that involve back-end payments. I don’t see how it gives the contractor more power over musicians than they already have, though.

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.

Not exactly. The NLRB does let supervisory personnel (and contractors would be such) unionize; it just doesn’t require employers to bargain with unions representing supervisory personnel. And there’s certainly no bar to management personnel belonging to unions. The limitations that exist are on the ability of unions to represent them in collective bargaining.

The real problem with employers in the AFM has been that, far too often, they’ve been officers of locals. That is fatally corrosive to the AFM’s ability to represent musicians who aren’t employers.

Comments

[Greg Drone]

"contractors (who function as agents for employers)"

Can someone please explain the above quotation? In all other trades the contractor is the employer. Brick layers work for masonry contractors, not home owners.

"I can attest to the value of contractors' input during caucus. Their knowledge of the management side of various media businesses complimented that of "sidemusicians." "

I am sure management takes advantage of their valuable insights about the union side of various issues as well!

Some contractors demand triple or quadruple scale! As agents of the employer, there is a clear and direct conflict of interest in contractors being members of the AFM. Consulting with them during negotiations is one thing, and that's fine. But having them intimately involved with all union issues... is that really best for all concerned?

[802fiddler]

As both an RMA rep and national RMA officer with over 15 years attendance at national contract negotiations, I can attest to the value of contractors' input during caucus. Their knowledge of the management side of various media businesses complimented that of "sidemusicians." Since they are paid double the sidemusican rates, their motivation to both protect and advance the contracts is fairly obvious.

Robert, as you so well state, the far bigger problem in the AFM is the conflict of interest generated when local presidents are also bandleader/contractors.