Fisking the ratifiers

I generally don't respond to campaign literature I post on the "candidate stuff" blog. Most of it is either content-free or consists of opinions. But the recent endorsement of Tom Lee by the so-called "recording ratifiers of New York" really deserves a detailed response.

There has been a long standing nonsensical practice in New York of allowing entrenched members of the RMA who lack the work history to ratify recording contracts to participate in contract negotiations, while simultaneously excluding AFM members who have the most experience in the field, and consequently, the most at stake in those negotiations. Tom Lee challenged this practice in recent contract negotiations for new Film, TV/Tape, and Commercial Announcement (Jingle) contracts. This “change” of policy has ruffled some feathers.

RMA is involved in national media negotiations because that's how the player conference system works. It's never been a requirement that people serving on AFM negotiating committees have to be eligible to ratify. Many Local officers would be barred from serving on any media negotiating committees if that were the case. In the symphonic world, it's not at all unusual for members of the ICSOM Media Committee, for example, to help to negotiate contracts to which one or more of their orchestras aren't signatories.

The "recording ratifiers'" argument would only make sense if one assumed that media agreements exist in complete isolation. But obviously they don't; what happens in one negotiation can have major impacts on negotiations for other agreements. The idea that the AFM should exclude representatives of RMA - which has long had official standing in the AFM as the rank-and-file group representing the interests of recording musicians under all the AFM media agreements - because the particular reps might be more expert in other agreements completely misses the reality that the media field is an ecosystem and not an archipelago of isolated agreements.

At the meetings that preceded the negotiations for the recent Jingle contract, bold initiatives were proposed by some of the AFM members who are the boots-on-the- ground participants in that industry. Strangely, the officers and RMA members that supposedly endorse “change” were uninterested in hearing these initiatives. Not surprisingly, politics trumped reason (as well as our lawyer’s opinion), and important ideas were resisted or ignored. This is all in spite of Tom Lee’s diligent efforts to include these important rank and file musicians from New York. The negotiations were thus selfishly hijacked and subsequently used as a forum to attack Tom Lee.

The "boots-on-the-ground participants in that industry" included by "Tom Lee's diligent efforts" were employers. The "boots-on-the-ground participants in that industry" were employers. TOM LEE'S "BOOTS-ON-THE-GROUND PARTICIPANTS IN THAT INDUSTRY" WERE EMPLOYERS, for Chrissakes! What part of "unions represent workers" don't these people understand?

There is growing evidence that a small but vocal group of malcontents made up of officers and RMA members from some of the larger locals would like to “change” the balance of power within the AFM in ways that would take away the smaller local's ability to override any initiatives made by larger locals working in collusion with each other.

The use of pejorative language ("malcontents," "collusion") is almost invariably a "tell" that the underlying argument is a weak one. What the "recording ratifiers" call "smaller local's (sic) ability to override any initiatives made by larger locals working in collusion with each other" is what people who believe in democracy might call "the tyranny of the minority."

There is simply no principled defense for a system in which a member of Local 802 has less voice in the election of AFM officers, or the passage of bylaws changes or dues increases, than do members of Local 8. The original Tea Partiers had a phrase that wonderfully described a system under which some people are taxed more than other people while having less voice in governance than those other people; they called it "taxation without representation." That's how the AFM works now.

There is little competition for work between the larger and smaller locals. Why then, is such “change” being proposed? It makes no sense. All locals will suffer if smaller locals are squeezed out of existence. How can the pension and health funds survive without contributions from a broad membership base?

Gosh; I thought the whole idea of the videogame agreements was to bring work to smaller locals against the wishes of the Elders of Zion RMA leadership trying to hog all the work for themselves. I must have missed something. And are there any small locals who contribute significantly to any AFM health funds - or even the pension fund?

Hundreds of New York recording musicians, like us, are qualified to vote on and ratify union contracts. Yet, neither our Local 802 officers nor delegates will be representing our point of view and interests at the convention. We have been made a silent majority in our own work environment, and we will have no vote in the coming elections.

Well, that's what happens when you lose local elections. The elected officers will generally represent the point of the view of the majority that elected them. (The "recording ratifiers" still get to vote to ratify their contracts, of course; no one's proposing to take that away from them.) And, if like many of the members of "recording ratifiers," you're also employers, you might want to rethink asking the union that represents your workers to represent your interests as well.

Comments

[John O'Connor]

Finno complains about the "ratifiers" proposal being resisted and ignored. These "ratifiers" who came to the AFM negotiations caucus were jingle house producers(including one non-member who hastily joined to be able to be part of the discussion) and presented their proposal, which created much lively discussion. Frankly, I saw it as a healthy debate. But no one was prevented or discouraged from talking (other than perhaps rank and file musicians who might have been wary about speaking out in front of a potential employer.) Indeed the president encouraged discussion and it was free flowing. In negotiation caucuses it is quite common for different ideas to be “resisted” by folks who believe they don’t make sense. That’s what happened. There was honest and frank debate of the new proposal and the proposal just never became viable. In fact there were many outside of Local 802 that questioned the proposal, including AFM counsel. One of the major arguments from the proponents of this proposal was that it would simplify the contract and that management would be more willing to bring work under union contract. On the first day of negotiations, counsel for management opened with remarks that included how happy management was with the current agreement because it was “simple” compared to the other contracts by which they are bound. The proposal was well considered and vetted. The fact is it just did not fly.

Negotiations were not “hijacked”, as the ratifiers' letter claims. That is simply absurd. Tom Lee, by his office, is in charge of negotiations. Local 802 officers and RMA members don’t have the authority to hijack national negotiations. They never have and they never will. Tom Lee has all the power and he has never shied away from using it. The fact is the proposal was ill-developed. AFM counsel was among those who suggested the proposal needed a lot more work and vetting.

Finno complains that the RMA and the larger locals want to change the balance of power. But it wasn't these parties that came up with a resolution to change the way decisions are made at the Federation conventions (It came from one delegate of a medium sized local.) The resolution, if passed, would indeed shift the balance of powers toward the larger locals. The reasoning being that the more members you have the more voting power you should have. There are arguments for both sides. But what is disingenuous about the letter is this proposal was not brought to the convention by anyone in Local 802 or the RMA. The letter claims that it was. The letter amounts to a purposeful ,or at the very least, neglectful untruth (in some circles known as a lie.) The leap of logic from this proposal to “All local will suffer if smaller locals are squeezed out of existence” is truly mind-boggling. The resolution, whether one agrees with it or not, has nothing to do with the existence of small locals. It has to do with their representational power at conventions.

The letter also exhibits a clear misunderstanding of how the AFM works. Many small locals have disappeared over the past few years, in large part due to President Lee’s neglect. But the survival, as the letter suggests, of the pension and health funds has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of small locals. If a local becomes unviable, it merges with, or its territory becomes part of a larger local. Any musicians represented by collective bargaining are still represented. They are merely represented by a local that is more capable of representing those musicians.

By the way, this continual debate about the small locals is a bit beside the point. The problem with the AFM is not whether or not the small locals will continue to exist. It is whether the union will continue to exist. If a small local is doing nothing to organize or represent musicians, why should we be defending that small local? If a larger structure can better serve and organize musicians, why would we not want a larger structure? The AFM's mission is not to serve the locals, it is to serve the musicians. If a small local is organizing and representing well, we should congratulate and emulate that small local. If not, we need to do what is necessary to benefit the musicians. That's what we're here for. That we allow locals of less than 50 members to keep their charters is really unbelievable.

[David Finck]

As far as I know; employers do not get to ratify contracts. EMPLOYEES do. That would be those of us who play on the occasional Tidy Bowl jingle....... for scale. Not the Jingle House owners who often get a $20,000.00 (or more) creative fee and then have the power to decide whether or not to use live musicians on the recording. Tom Lee and the AFM administration did everything they could to hurt us. It is shameful.

[David Finck]

'The Committee of Ratifiers'- is essentially a committee of employers with a different name. I have written this before but I believe it needs to be said again:

At the Super Bowl, players from one team are not invited into the huddle of the opposition. And let’s face it, even president Bush would have known better than to have invited the enemy to sit in on strategy meetings with General Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Wouldn't that be considered some form of treason?

There is no excuse for Tom Lee having done this to the musicians that he is paid to represent. It is an unforgivable act. And the fact that neither he nor anyone on the IEB (some of whom were there) has ever addressed it, speaks volumes. The letter from 'The Committee of Ratifiers', (signed by some of the very employers that attended the negotiation), is just a feeble attempt at justifying an incredibly anti-union, anti-musician action. WE ARE PAYING FOR THIS.