The Empire keeps digging

The joys of being a local officer include receiving combative emails from the AFM President:

From the Office of the AFM President (June 17, 2009)

Dear Local Officer,

As AFM President, I have long maintained that open communication on matters pertaining to musicians and the AFM is absolutely necessary for the health and success of our labor union.  That is why, after a careful reading of Local 8 (Milwaukee, WI) President Robert Levine’s two posts in his blog about the work dues case (Parmeter v. AFM), I am taking this opportunity to clarify the issues that he brought up in those posts.  For your convenience, I have attached the blog-posts and Judge Margaret Morrow's order granting the Federation's motion for summary judgment in Parmeter v. AFM.

Levine’s first post – The Empire Strikes Back at Aristotle (April 8, 2009) – began with the right disclaimer.  He acknowledged that as he is not a lawyer, “it [is] hard to evaluate [the Federation’s summary judgment] in terms of its strength as a legal argument.” In spite of that admission, he continued the post by mocking the Federation lawyers’ argument that the Federation’s 17 year unchallenged practice of collecting work dues on electronic media agreements that were not subject to ratification means something. Levine then proceeded with heavy sarcasm when he described their argument distinguishing between proposals (which are not subject to ratification and never have been) and agreements. Finally, he ridiculed them for arguing that just because an “AFM-negotiated Agreement” is subject to work dues under Article 9, Section 32(b), it isn’t automatically subject to ratification under Article 5, Section 33(a), asserting that the Federation has interpreted the words differently in the two sections.

Yet it was precisely those arguments on which the judge based her decision in favor of the AFM.  She specifically relied on the fact that the “AFM has uniformly applied Article 9 Section 32 to all of its locals and member musicians since January 1992, consistently requiring collection and remittance of work dues on specified types of musical employment.”  (page 39).  She disagreed with the claim that the Federation had interpreted the words “AFM-negotiated Agreements” differently in the two sections. (page 35).  She recognized that “membership ratification is not required for every CBA under the AFM Bylaws.” (page 35, footnote 119).  Finally, as to the centerpiece of plaintiffs’ law suit – their claim that the AFM’s lawyer’s letter to their lawyer regarding ratification of the Option 2 Videogame “promulgated agreement” was a conflicting interpretation of the words “AFM-negotiated Agreement” – she made plain her understanding (but apparently not Levine’s or the plaintiffs’ or their lawyer’s) that “so-called ‘promulgated’ agreements [like Option 2] were not, in fact, ‘negotiated’ until executed by one or more employers and thus fell outside of the scope of Article 5 Section 33.” (page 33).

After the judge proved the central point of Levine’s April 8 post – that as a non-lawyer Levine was probably not the best authority to evaluate legal arguments – he wrote a blog-post on May 21 titled “Cock-a-doodle-do” in which he took off after the AFM’s description in its letter to locals about the decision that the law suit “was a baseless case from the beginning” by pointing to the judge’s observation that the Federation’s interpretation of the Bylaw “was not patently unreasonable.”  But that is the legal standard against which the plaintiffs’ claims were to be judged and their lawyers knew it (or should have).  And because the AFM’s interpretation “was not patently unreasonable,” the plaintiffs’ case was doomed from the start; or, put another way, baseless.  Beyond that simple point, it is abundantly clear from the judge’s opinion that the Federation’s interpretation far surpasses that standard – it was rooted in the intent of the 1991 Convention delegates, the relationship between the Federation and its locals, common sense and the English language – although that was the only standard it had to meet to win the law suit.

Most people agree that the dispute between the RMA and the Federation can never be put to rest while law suits continue and critics behave irresponsibly by pouring fuel on the fire through the use of blog-posts that pander to our worst instincts rather than our best.  What is needed is responsible and thoughtful commentary for a change.  The members of our union will never benefit from those who seem to get their kicks from seeing others bloodied up.  Constructive dialogue that helps build the union – rather than attempts to demolish it – has always been a big part of what has pushed the AFM forward throughout history and I look forward to continuing that tradition with all those who make up our great organization. 

Sincerely,

Thomas F. Lee
President
AFM

Comments

[Antony Cooke]

Amazing. Tom Lee himself:

" Constructive dialogue that helps build the union – rather than attempts to demolish it – has always been a big part of what has pushed the AFM forward throughout history and I look forward to continuing that tradition with all those who make up our great organization."

He might try it sometime.