Bruce Schultz posted this on orchestra-l, and I asked (and received) his permission to post it here.
There will be many who have attended AFM conventions for years who may disagree, but I'll give my impression. I do not relish getting into this because there are good people who I consider to be friends reading [orchestra-l] who will feel that they're being disrespected. That is not my intention, but I will have to call the issues as I see them.
The story of the decline of the AFM is a long, sad story. The divisions of the AFM, including the player conferences, play their own role, but the role that hostility between full-time and part-time musician plays is insignificant. There are major divisions within the AFM, to be sure. The player conferences have played their role in perpetuating some of those divisions, but the idea that most part-time musicians are hostile to the interests of full-time musicians is nonsense. The real problem is much more insidious.
The use of "wedge issues" to gain political power has worked well. The recent shift in power back to the Democrats shows that in U.S. national politics this tactic has at least experienced a setback. If this is so, the results of the past three wedge-issue driven AFM elections shows that the AFM is far behind the curve.
There is real hostility towards the player conferences at the convention, but it is not the product of part-timer vs. full-timer hostility. It is a local officer vs. AFM issue, and only incidentally a player conference issue. The player conference role in sustaining the divisions in the AFM has been made worse by the lack of political sensitivity and acumen the player conference delegates have shown at the convention. I will explain what I mean in more detail later.
The typical script at a convention consists of the player conferences offering resolutions regarding issues such as one member, one vote, and the involvement of contractors in local union governance, that, while principled, are known to be hot-button issues with a great many delegates, especially those from Canada. Some delegates and local officers in their turn offer resolutions that attempt to reinforce the old AFM principle of "local autonomy," not especially caring that many of those issues are hot-button issues with player conferences. I'm reminded of the delegate who is Secretary/Treasurer of a ROPA local wanting to get rid of the requirement that her local pay for a delegate to attend the annual ROPA Conference. Again, none of these issues have anything at all to do with full-time vs. part-time status. They have to do with who is calling the shots and how it can all be paid for.
More specifically, the proposal to expand the definition of "Symphonic Orchestra" in the AFM bylaws to collect federation work dues from more part-time orchestras was resisted by a broad spectrum of locals, notably including Local 802 and Local 47, who pointed out that if they had to start paying federation work dues on the many smaller orchestras that would be brought into the definition, it would cost those locals many thousands of dollars. This issue wasn't about wedge politics, it was about self-preservation in the struggle to maintain funding in the face of the AFM's aging and declining membership. The next untapped funding source were the recording musicians' secondary payments funds. The rest, as they say, is history.
At my first AFM convention in 1989, the player conferences were granted official status at the convention, and the door was opened to more effective work with the local delegates on issues of concern to the symphonic and recording musicians. The way the conferences have always preferred to work was to attend committee hearings, address their concerns and arguments to the committees, then speak at the microphones on the convention floor. The real work at the convention isn't done that way any more than Congress enacts legislation based on floor debates.
Perhaps it is because of the structural problem of misidentified constituencies. Tim Shea said it best when, at the Unity Conference back in the 1990s, he told the player conference delegates that the Federation Officers' constituencies at the convention were the delegates, not the rank-and-file members. I remember delegates being angry with Tim because he said that, but he was speaking the truth.
Every election since then has demonstrated that principle. The political divisions and the very conversation we are having is a product of that arrangement. With few exceptions, the candidates for AFM office who best present themselves as the protector of local officer interests win elections. Too often, quietly portraying the player conferences and their constituencies as threats to local officers has been an effective campaign tactic. The player conference leaders themselves, unfortunately, have not focused on that problem. Please note that these are not full-time vs. part-time issues, We see these issues in large locals, small locals, and medium locals.
At the Unity Conference I tried to convince some delegates that driving wedges between full-time and part-time musicians would be self-defeating. Disrespecting part-time musicians in one's own community is a wonderful way of putting resentment in the bank, ready to be withdrawn by the full-timers' opponents, including management, at any time the full-time musicians need the support of the larger community of musicians.
At the time there seemed to be an attitude on the part of many ICSOM delegates that their artistic superiority would offset any attempt by the part-timers to replace them. The musicians of the Oklahoma Symphony learned the limits of that kind of protection as early as the late 1980s when their management shut down their orchestra and formed the new, per-service Oklahoma City Philharmonic. Having learned that non-union replacement workers could not be found in our industry, managements in several cities discovered a way to replace AFM members with other AFM members -- shut down one orchestra, start another.
Lessons learned from their experience was slow to catch on elsewhere. In the late 1980s I was worried about the implications the Kansas City and Oklahoma City model would have for my own orchestra in Tulsa. Marty Emerson turned a deaf ear to my pleas in Nashville in 1989 and surrendered in the AFM's dispute over whether the new Oklahoma City orchestra was an alter ego of the Oklahoma Symphony. It took time, but in 2002, the full-time Tulsa Philharmonic ceased operations, to be replaced four years later by the entirely per-service Tulsa Symphony Orchestra. AFM member replaces AFM member, sometimes being the same musician.
But we are still seeing the seething anger in south Florida, brought on by the predatory behavior of the Cleveland Orchestra. As with the AFM overall, a way was found to pit musician against musician in the pursuit of scarce revenues. This time, though, it was full-time musician vs. full-time musician.
So the issue is emphatically not one of full-time vs. part-time. It is the willingness of musicians and their representatives to indulge in the toxic practice of wedge politics in pursuit of declining revenues and political power. By attempting to argue that the division is one between full-timers and part-timers, the advocates for this idea perpetuate the real problem and attempt to paper over their own destructive role in it.
Then I watch the back-and-forth action between President Lee and the RMA leadership and wonder if anyone can avoid being reactive. He said this, they said that. Doesn't anyone have work to do? When this kind of effort is expended fighting among ourselves, it makes me very pessimistic. And no, I am not indulging in the sort of false equivalency the national media are guilty of. I see the differences. I'm just not certain they matter now.
I add the following so that those who don't know me can understand my perspective.
Bruce Schultz
President, Local 94, Tulsa
Member AFM Law Committee 1995-present
Former ROPA VP
Former Principal horn, Tulsa Philharmonic
Current Principal horn, Tulsa Symphony, Tulsa Opera.
The use of "wedge issues" to gain political power has worked well. The recent shift in power back to the Democrats shows that in U.S. national politics this tactic has at least experienced a setback. If this is so, the results of the past three wedge-issue driven AFM elections shows that the AFM is far behind the curve.
There is real hostility towards the player conferences at the convention, but it is not the product of part-timer vs. full-timer hostility. It is a local officer vs. AFM issue, and only incidentally a player conference issue. The player conference role in sustaining the divisions in the AFM has been made worse by the lack of political sensitivity and acumen the player conference delegates have shown at the convention. I will explain what I mean in more detail later.
The typical script at a convention consists of the player conferences offering resolutions regarding issues such as one member, one vote, and the involvement of contractors in local union governance, that, while principled, are known to be hot-button issues with a great many delegates, especially those from Canada. Some delegates and local officers in their turn offer resolutions that attempt to reinforce the old AFM principle of "local autonomy," not especially caring that many of those issues are hot-button issues with player conferences. I'm reminded of the delegate who is Secretary/Treasurer of a ROPA local wanting to get rid of the requirement that her local pay for a delegate to attend the annual ROPA Conference. Again, none of these issues have anything at all to do with full-time vs. part-time status. They have to do with who is calling the shots and how it can all be paid for.
More specifically, the proposal to expand the definition of "Symphonic Orchestra" in the AFM bylaws to collect federation work dues from more part-time orchestras was resisted by a broad spectrum of locals, notably including Local 802 and Local 47, who pointed out that if they had to start paying federation work dues on the many smaller orchestras that would be brought into the definition, it would cost those locals many thousands of dollars. This issue wasn't about wedge politics, it was about self-preservation in the struggle to maintain funding in the face of the AFM's aging and declining membership. The next untapped funding source were the recording musicians' secondary payments funds. The rest, as they say, is history.
At my first AFM convention in 1989, the player conferences were granted official status at the convention, and the door was opened to more effective work with the local delegates on issues of concern to the symphonic and recording musicians. The way the conferences have always preferred to work was to attend committee hearings, address their concerns and arguments to the committees, then speak at the microphones on the convention floor. The real work at the convention isn't done that way any more than Congress enacts legislation based on floor debates.
Perhaps it is because of the structural problem of misidentified constituencies. Tim Shea said it best when, at the Unity Conference back in the 1990s, he told the player conference delegates that the Federation Officers' constituencies at the convention were the delegates, not the rank-and-file members. I remember delegates being angry with Tim because he said that, but he was speaking the truth.
Every election since then has demonstrated that principle. The political divisions and the very conversation we are having is a product of that arrangement. With few exceptions, the candidates for AFM office who best present themselves as the protector of local officer interests win elections. Too often, quietly portraying the player conferences and their constituencies as threats to local officers has been an effective campaign tactic. The player conference leaders themselves, unfortunately, have not focused on that problem. Please note that these are not full-time vs. part-time issues, We see these issues in large locals, small locals, and medium locals.
At the Unity Conference I tried to convince some delegates that driving wedges between full-time and part-time musicians would be self-defeating. Disrespecting part-time musicians in one's own community is a wonderful way of putting resentment in the bank, ready to be withdrawn by the full-timers' opponents, including management, at any time the full-time musicians need the support of the larger community of musicians.
At the time there seemed to be an attitude on the part of many ICSOM delegates that their artistic superiority would offset any attempt by the part-timers to replace them. The musicians of the Oklahoma Symphony learned the limits of that kind of protection as early as the late 1980s when their management shut down their orchestra and formed the new, per-service Oklahoma City Philharmonic. Having learned that non-union replacement workers could not be found in our industry, managements in several cities discovered a way to replace AFM members with other AFM members -- shut down one orchestra, start another.
Lessons learned from their experience was slow to catch on elsewhere. In the late 1980s I was worried about the implications the Kansas City and Oklahoma City model would have for my own orchestra in Tulsa. Marty Emerson turned a deaf ear to my pleas in Nashville in 1989 and surrendered in the AFM's dispute over whether the new Oklahoma City orchestra was an alter ego of the Oklahoma Symphony. It took time, but in 2002, the full-time Tulsa Philharmonic ceased operations, to be replaced four years later by the entirely per-service Tulsa Symphony Orchestra. AFM member replaces AFM member, sometimes being the same musician.
But we are still seeing the seething anger in south Florida, brought on by the predatory behavior of the Cleveland Orchestra. As with the AFM overall, a way was found to pit musician against musician in the pursuit of scarce revenues. This time, though, it was full-time musician vs. full-time musician.
So the issue is emphatically not one of full-time vs. part-time. It is the willingness of musicians and their representatives to indulge in the toxic practice of wedge politics in pursuit of declining revenues and political power. By attempting to argue that the division is one between full-timers and part-timers, the advocates for this idea perpetuate the real problem and attempt to paper over their own destructive role in it.
Then I watch the back-and-forth action between President Lee and the RMA leadership and wonder if anyone can avoid being reactive. He said this, they said that. Doesn't anyone have work to do? When this kind of effort is expended fighting among ourselves, it makes me very pessimistic. And no, I am not indulging in the sort of false equivalency the national media are guilty of. I see the differences. I'm just not certain they matter now.
I add the following so that those who don't know me can understand my perspective.
Bruce Schultz
President, Local 94, Tulsa
Member AFM Law Committee 1995-present
Former ROPA VP
Former Principal horn, Tulsa Philharmonic
Current Principal horn, Tulsa Symphony, Tulsa Opera.
From Blanc:
"Do you think one person one vote is realistic, i.e., has a real chance of implementation?"
Probably not. The AFM will likely implode from it own weight, helped along by the ignorance and ego of its IEB plus turf-protection by the small locals.
Posted by: michael | May 18, 2009 at 12:27 AM
"Of course, he doesn't agree nor did I expect him to. Obviously, he is aligned with the AFM's current power structure where small locals dominate."
It seems to me the question wasn't what I think, it was what realistic remedy would you propose to remedy the problem as YOU see it. Do you think one person one vote is realistic, i.e., has a real chance of implementation? And if not what do you propose?
Posted by: Rick Blanc | May 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM
From R. Blanc:
"I don't think I agree with the underlying premise, that the voting system is flawed or that it shoould be one person one vote."
Of course, he doesn't agree nor did I expect him to. Obviously, he is aligned with the AFM's current power structure where small locals dominate.
Posted by: michael | May 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM
"Leaving out all the stuff about "market forces," RMA, etc. - you tell me."
I don't think I agree with the underlying premise, that the voting system is flawed or that it shoould be one person one vote. It's your issue. I'm just wondering how you would solve -- within the realm of real possibilities not ideal ones.
Posted by: Rick Blanc | May 14, 2009 at 03:41 PM
From R. Blanc:
"Ok, and what would you propose as a remedy? And I mean a realistic remedy that may actually have a chance at implementation."
Leaving out all the stuff about "market forces," RMA, etc. - you tell me.
Posted by: michael | May 14, 2009 at 02:53 PM
"For me, this is the MAIN AFM issue. The "little fiefdoms" are very apparent among the small locals whose presidents come to the AFM convention (on our dime) and do their damndest to maintain the status quo. To them, the dreaded word "regionalization" is the kiss of death. Until this structural issue is resolved, the AFM will remain a hobbyists' club that doesn't begin to take care of the full-time musician to the degree that it should."
Ok, and what would you propose as a remedy? And I mean a realistic remedy that may actually have a chance at implementation.
Posted by: Rick Blanc | May 14, 2009 at 02:25 PM
From R. Blanc:
"The feeling today among many musicians in their little fiefdoms of being the center of the universe is an attitude that belongs to the Middle Ages."
"Ok, and if so how specifically? Aside from your voting issue."
For me, this is the MAIN AFM issue. The "little fiefdoms" are very apparent among the small locals whose presidents come to the AFM convention (on our dime) and do their damndest to maintain the status quo. To them, the dreaded word "regionalization" is the kiss of death. Until this structural issue is resolved, the AFM will remain a hobbyists' club that doesn't begin to take care of the full-time musician to the degree that it should.
Posted by: michael | May 14, 2009 at 12:11 PM
I once wrote that unions may be anachronistic. I would like to clarify that; it's not that union-ism is in-and-of itself anachronistic, it is that attitudes among union-ists are anachronistic.
We cannot progress into the past, only into the future. We can't keep fighting the wars of yesterday. Entrenched antipathy toward capital and capital markets as well as other artifacts of the past may have made sense at one time. Not today.
Keys88 has shown an understanding of this -- an understanding of markets, market economics and capital formation. He is one of the few on this blog. It would behoove us all to be less reactionary and backward-looking. That would be good for unionism. The alternative is that unionism, as practiced, will indeed become anachronistic -- more than it already is.
In the past a union's ultimate power derived from its ability to shut down an enterprise. That hardly exists anymore in the music biz -- maybe with the exceptions of a couple recent Broadway contracts.
Those of you committed to unionism consider this: future viability will depend on better understanding of and better accommodation with capital. Being anti-capital/Marxist may bring short-term gain but no lasting benefit. A union that doesn't produce tangible benefit to the marketplace will merely been seen to be the parasite it is. There are unions (mostly public sector) in our midst today that depend on the instrumentalities of government to insure their longevity. I think that is the wrong way to go, and an even poorer strategy in the private sector. It breeds justifiable resentment not to mention being bad for society -- unless you are a Marxist and see the world through that distorted lens.
The union of the future will have to deal realistically and creatively with real markets. Real world markets, both national and international. The feeling today among many musicians in their little fiefdoms of being the center of the universe is an attitude that belongs to the Middle Ages.
Posted by: Rick Blanc | May 14, 2009 at 08:52 AM
"As they say in a court of law, "asked and answered.""
Ok, and if so how specifically? Aside from your voting issue. Let's assume for the sake of discussion there is more than one issue.
Posted by: Rick Blanc | May 12, 2009 at 08:09 PM
From Blanc:
The question is first, is the AFM political process flawed and if so how specifically?
As they say in a court of law, "asked and answered."
Posted by: michael | May 12, 2009 at 07:36 PM
This is an interesting piece of writing. So there are politics in the AFM. The question is first, is the AFM political process flawed and if so how specifically? And then what would specific realistic remedies be?
Posted by: Rick Blanc | May 12, 2009 at 05:11 PM
Bravo to Bruce. This post articulates an issue that I am intimately familiar with and is spot-on. Thanks for posting this and making it available on your blog.
Posted by: horndog | May 12, 2009 at 04:35 PM