Yet another lawsuit has been filed against the AFM by musicians in Los Angeles. The most recent one was filed on January 15, 2009 by Rafael Rishik of Fareplay fame and two others (neither of whom appear to be named Phil Ayling, by the way).
This lawsuit is a class action brought over the issue of the dues that were voted into effect by the 2007 AFM Convention on special payments funds distributions to musicians. The core of the lawsuit are two claims. The first is that, as the work that generated the funds distribution was done prior to 2007, the new dues are retroactive. The second is that the dues are discriminatory:
37. New Section 32(f) was conceived and adopted by Defendant AFM with knowledge that the RMA membership lacked the voting power to defeat it.
38. New Section 32(f) is an assessment that was imposed on a discreet and small minority group within the membership by the large majority group, which exempted itself from it.
39. New Section 32(f) creates an annual assessment that is not "based on a percentage of the scale wages earned," at the time the work was performed, but on Fund distributions received at a later date, the right to which was already earned and paid for by the payment of Work Dues at the time the work was performed.
40. All work performed before September 15, 2007, was performed when "Work Dues" were a percentage of scale wages and not applicable to nor computed with respect to Fund distributions.
41. On its face, New Section 32(f) is a discriminatory assessment against the highest income members of Defendant AFM, a small minority of the AFM membership, and excludes from its scope the vast majority of members of Defendant AFM, as well as the vast majority of the subset of the members of Defendant AFM to whom Fund distributions are made.
42. To the extent that the adoption of New Section 32(f) by Defendant AFM is claimed by Defendant AFM to create "Work Dues," Defendant AFM attempts thereby to retroactively impose new "Work Dues" on work performed in the past, at a time when the New Section 32(f) did not exist, in violation of the Bylaws which did exist between Plaintiffs and the Class and Defendant AFM at the time the work was performed.
43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant AFM is discriminating in the application and/or collection of dues under New Section 32(f). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant AFM is not attempting to enforce New Section 32(f) against all persons to whom it supposedly applies.
To me, this doesn’t seem as strong a case as the one over work dues on promulgated agreements. That seemed like a slam-dunk: AFM bylaws require ratification of negotiated agreements, promulgated agreements aren’t subject to ratification, ergo promulgated agreements aren’t negotiated agreements under the AFM bylaws and aren’t subject to work dues. This, on the other hand, is dependent on proving that money received from the special payments funds is really a form of wages from the original work, which is less intuitively obvious. And of course the dues are “discriminatory” in that they are only paid by a small proportion of the AFM’s members; it doesn’t follow that they are necessarily discriminatory in any way that’s illegal.
But I’m not a lawyer, and I doubt that the lawsuit is intended as anything other than additional pressure on the AFM to do what the past 40 years of AFM history would suggest would be the solution now, which is to talk to the recording musicians and their representatives and address their concerns.
Maybe the IEB, after having spend some time in LA with rank-and-file recording musicians, will figure out that the RMA really is representing the views of its members and put some pressure of its own on Tom and Sam. Perhaps the fact that the IEB once again punted on de-conferencing the RMA is an encouraging sign.
The point here, whether or not a court should decide that the dues are unlawful, is that the “financial package” passed at the 2007 convention was the most punitive by-law ever imposed on AFM members. Spite and resentment are at the very root of this action. A “take their money by force and kick them” approach.
The results and laborious efforts of the financial committee was not only completely ignored, it was entirely invisible to the point that most of the delegates were not even aware that the committee ever met or that conclusions existed. The committee recommended an entirely different shared approach.
So instead, not only were federation dues permanently raised by .25% on most electronic media, and a whopping .85% on MP film, the 2% SPF and SMF taxes were voted in by all the people who are not subject to it, nor do they have a stake in that line of work.
It was punitive, calculated, and manipulated through the system with no input from the people who do the work. It is beyond imagination that the AFM delegates not only saw this as a viable solution, but most importantly that they would be so naive as to think that there would not be serious implications and repercussions to such an ill advised plan.
Now they reap what they sew: unrest, division, anger, upset, and financial consequences to all. Who pushed for this by-law? Tom and his Canadian friends, or “those who do not pay”.
Smart move Tom, very clever indeed.
And don’t forget to blame the RMA, which is so much more convenient than blaming yourself.
Posted by: Antony Cooke | February 04, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Until the Federation allows the working recording musicians to have input and some control of their business (of recording) more and more recording musicians will resort to civil disobedience. Recording musicians paid the last assessment on their special payments with the understanding that it would be a new era of cooperation between the AFof M and recording musicians. Unfortunately that was not the case. Instead Lee, Shaffner, Folio and the followers on the IEB began making promulgated , one off agreements that worked against the collective bargaining contracts that were in place. Anytime someone from the RMA raised a question about the rationality of these weak agreements , they were immediately labeled a troublemaker by Lee and his cronies.
In fact most of Lee's stump speeches at the last convention were based around attacking the "fortunate" recording musicians and their prohibitive contracts. Promises about new recording work in small towns across America , resonated with the delegates at the convention, as Lee spoke of getting rid of new use and back end. One can only imagine the discord that was struck with the musicians that had sacrificed all and moved to the towns that actually had the recording infrastructure. ( Ironically guys like Harold Bradley, who built one of the first recording studios, over forty years ago, missed the irony in Lee's fantasy vision of utopia)
What were recording musicians to do. Instead of the Federation reaching out to the working recording musicians and soliciting and accepting their input and help in making the decisions that impacted Recording Musicians livelihoods , Lee and his band of know it all's proceeded do as they pleased in regard to creating irresponsible agreements.Why wouldn't they want participation from the workers that understand the landscape? Instead they have marginalized them from the process.
Is it any wonder that recording musicians are working to protect themselves from their own union.
The sad irony of all of this is that Lee, Folio and the IEB know how simple it would be to fix this dysfunction. Most recording musicians I know, would support this union and gladly pay the Federation more money ,if they knew that they would have some control of their own business.
Conversely I'm not surprised the Recording Musicians don't want to give money to a Federation that attacks it's own successful workers.
Posted by: Sessionman | February 04, 2009 at 07:47 AM