The COMMITTEE is CONFUSED

I was reassured to find, in the COMMITTEE’S latest email blast, their confusion about reality extends to more than superficial sloppiness about which blog is which:

CORRECTION: Our last mailing mentioned the AFM OBSERVER.  While there is a blog called the AFM Observer and it is  typically PRO-RMA and ANTI-AFM, we were actually referring  to a blog called AFM REALITY CHECK. We apologize for any confusion.

Don’t worry – you’re still confused. But this time the confusion runs deeper, and extends into concepts.

Am I anti-AFM because I think the policies of the current administration towards the RMA are insane? To me, that accusation is evidence of profound confusion about the different between an organization and its leadership. Was it anti-American to oppose the Iraq war? Are all the Israelis who oppose the occupation of the West Bank anti-Semitic?

Tom Lee and the rest of the IEB are not “the AFM.” They are its elected leadership. It’s really kind of sad that it’s necessary to state, in simple English, that to be against the policies of an elected leadership is not the same as being against the organization. The AFM, if it’s any one thing, is its members – and they voted neither for this IEB or its policies.

If I really was "anti-AFM" and wanted the AFM to fail, I'd be rooting for the current IEB. The AFM's worst enemies couldn't design a better strategy than simply to let the current conflict between the RMA and the IEB play out to its logical conclusion.

But there is more evidence of confusion later in the email. Rick Blanc, who the COMMITTEE features at every opportunity, writes:

…The Beck decision,  which has been discussed at length in the musical  community, was one in which the US Supreme Court  found the Communications Workers of America guilty  of a soft tyranny, i.e., the CWA was using over 70%  of compulsory dues to support political goals that Mr.  Beck opposed -- in violation of Mr. Beck's First Amendment protections… the AFM has decided to support the deceptively  named "Employee Free Choice Act," which is in fact  tyrannical in that it will legalize a form of coercion…

Is it possible to be “pro-AFM” and at the same time be for Beck and against the Employee Free Choice Act? Evidently the COMMITTEE sees no contradiction. The folks who get paid by the AFM to organize might beg to disagree.

Comments

[802fiddler]

Now that the COMMITTEE'S politics has been repudiated in Nashville and LA, perhaps R. Blanc, C. Fernandez et al should move on to Local 300 where the local president/bandleader/contractor is only too happy to publish their drivel.

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.

Now, finally, the AFM is starting to realize that the massive losses of union sessions and the entire industry of non-AFM recording locations that has now been created in large part due to the very RMA policies the AFM had followed for years was a disastrous mistake. 20 years ago Seattle had no real film/TV recording industry, now it's booming, along with all kinds of new players in that game, especially in Eastern Europe. Why would an American film company schlep all the way to some Eastern European country to record their score? Simple: they, along with the rest of the world, offer a buyout. Sure, they're saving some money on session fees, but they're also spending a lot in travel, equipment shipping, lodging, etc etc not to mention the uncertainties of international customs, etc.

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. The AFM's $50,000 fine threat against those going to Seattle, allegedly at the urging of the RMA, did no good for the AFM and only exposed the blatant hypocrisy of targeting one non-union locale while RMA leaders and top RMA members recorded buyout work in London. "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind here... I'll bet there's not a single LA orchestrator, including the current RMA-LA President, who hasn't done plenty of work in Seattle.

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, and why so many others have lost work or have been forced to give up their careers as recording musicians due to the exodus of work away from the AFM due to the lack of a competitive buyout contract with London, Seattle, etc. 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??

Seems to me, if the AFM really wanted to make a difference, or the RMA for that matter, we would see some workplace policies in place that would make the arbitrary dropping from employment of musicians be an action where a union member would have some sort of recourse through the union. But in LA, with the RMA/Local 47 and "the" major contractor in town on such intimate terms, there's hardly the arm's length relationship that any sort of union worker protection would need.