« On the enforcement of bylaws | Main | AFM local opposes employee status for musicians? »

March 29, 2009

Comments

This for Robert Levine.....With Ron Bauers no longer with us, who is the expert on orchestra accounting?

Of course unions can be a force for good, as long as the corruption can be held in check.

In the case of Local 47, unfortunately, the corruption by selfish and greedy people has reduced it's effectiveness for the rank and file to almost nil.

Cases in point
Our president is paid %90,000 plus benefits, but shows up only 4 days a week because he teaches privately on Wednesday's. He had this same practice during his years as VP. Teaching privately when he should be and is paid to be on our dime.

We have a Secretary paid $75,000 plus benefits, who still insists on taking playing jobs within the jursidiction. Our bylaws do not allow officers (who are paid a generous salary) to perform in the jurisdiction except in special cases (I.E. funerals or jazz band reunions). The potential for influence peddling and favoratism is too great. Our secretary, aided and abetted by our RMA soaked board, has given her permission thus far to do as many gigs as she can handle, taking jobs away from other fully capable Local 47 members. The largest Local in the federation is paying an at best part-time secretary a full time salary. That she is willing to step on the necks of her fellow Local 47 members, who pay her salary, and take these jobs (Double-Dipping to say the least) is reprehensible.

But since she kisses the butt of the RMA in her columns, the packed board thus far has put aside any sort of conscience and allowed her to gig away!

This is what I would call ground floor corruption. But, since she and the president are "RMA-FRIENDLY", no doubt the koolaide drinkers on here will make excuses,...

Just watch.

Force is a word. It can be used in different ways, in different contexts and can be applied in different degrees. Language can be nuanced. What does that have to do with my understanding of living in society? But you go ahead and reach. If I were your neighbor I'm sure I would consider you a pain in the ass also. You and I won't agree on anything if we dialog for 100 years. Meanwhile my confidence in the future of the AFM is evaporating as I consider that you and your ilk are the face of future leadership.

If you remember this dialog started with your categorical statement that there is no forced unionism in Washington or anywhere else. But you didn't mean there is no forced unionism, you meant there is no de jure forced unionism. I made the point that, as distinct from de jure, there is de facto forced unionism. That type of forced unionism is apparently ok with you as your response was that is the way it is in society and I should grow up.

"Forced unionism" is a phrse used by proponents of right-to-work. It means that, in an enforceable CBA, union membership could be required as a condition of employment (or of hiring, if closed shops weren't illegal).

We don't have forced unionism in this country. Your objection is not to forced unionism; your objection is to the idea that your actions might have consequences you don't like.

Example: there is not a municipal law where I live (that I know about, at least) that mandates I mow my lawn so it doesn't look shaggy. But, if I don't, at least one neighbor of mine will make himself very unpleasant. So I do.

Is that "forced mow-ism?" I'd call it a consequence of living in a community; or at least in my community. I'm free to move, of course - but I like my house, so I put up with some things I don't like, including pain-in-the-ass neighbors.

It sounds to me like you want to reject the union and be insulated from any consequences thereof. To me, that sounds like you haven't come to grips with some very basic facts about living amongst other humans. And the most basic fact of all is: actions have consequences. Most of them are not a result of govermment fiat.

By the way, I do know of at least one case where a musician has gone Beck and remained employed, and I'm sure there are others. It is unusual. But it's not because it's hard to do; it's not.

It is not a silly question. And it can be answered in a serious way. The answer, in my opinion, is yes and no depending on what is going on -- exactly as I said.

If you remember this dialog started with your categorical statement that there is no forced unionism in Washington or anywhere else. But you didn't mean there is no forced unionism, you meant there is no de jure forced unionism. I made the point that, as distinct from de jure, there is de facto forced unionism. That type of forced unionism is apparently ok with you as your response was that is the way it is in society and I should grow up. I reject that notion and I reject your reflexive dismissal of the topic. But I am not surprised.

The comments to this entry are closed.