The AFM Observer

Some media history revisionism by the AFM

The Washington Times had a story a couple of weeks ago about orchestras and opera companies and new media. Nothing new to those of us who follow such matters, but I was struck by the following:

To cover its members, the musicians union negotiated two successive agreements as a section of the main contract. In 2000, the union signed a "Symphony, Opera, Ballet Audio-Visual Agreement."

But that was before the emergence of Facebook (2003), YouTube (2005) and other platforms. What was needed, said Ms. Newmark, was "really a new model" — hence the "Symphony, Opera, Ballet Integrated Media Agreement" that went into effect in 2009. The new deal has a life-span until 2013, but the agreement "covers numerous technologies and has built-in provisions to take advantage of new technology should it come to the fore."

Negotiating a new agreement, she said, "involved enormous work" — no doubt a euphemism for some heated wrangling, although nobody will say so — because of the bewildering range of new technology.

Media-savvy orchestra insiders will notice the omission of the words "Internet Agreement" from the discussion of new agreements in the article - not to mention the post-dating of the A/V agreement by about 25 years. Given the fear and loathing with which the Internet Agreement was viewed by some AFM staff (and the musicians of a few influential orchestras), that's not surprising. But, as someone involved in negotiating that agreement, I find it disturbing nonetheless.

The Internet Agreement truly was a landmark in our field. An article that appeared on the front page of the business section of the New York Times on June 13, 2000 gives a sense of just why it was so important. Whether it was successful or not is not something that will really be knowable for a while yet, although a fair number of orchestras used it during its lifetime. But many of its basic concepts have been incorporated into subsequent agreements, including the "Symphony, Opera, Ballet Integrated Media Agreement" - an "agreement,"  by the way, that was neither not a multi-employer collective bargaining agreement in the end nor really "went into effect" in 2009 or any other year. And those concepts were far different than those underlying previous media agreements. For AFM staff to imply that all the heavy lifting and new concepts waited until the discussions underlying the IMA is disingenuous.

Just sayin'.

(cross-posted from The AFM Observer)

The Jingle Negotiations - an analysis

The letter from Local 802 member David Finck that I posted earlier today made public some disturbing details about the RMA's allegations regarding the recent jingle negotiations (aka negotiations for a successor agreement to the TV and Radio Commercial Announcements Agreement):

I recently attended some of the caucuses that led up to the negotiations for the jingle agreement and was absolutely shocked by what l saw. These meetings were attended by people who run the production houses: the very people who hire us. Moreover, they were actually invited by President Tom Lee. One of these employers was even brought into Local 802 a week before the negotiations so that a membership card could be issued thereby allowing this person to attend the caucuses and be a voting member of our union. AF of M president Tom Lee and the IEB members that were in the caucus room ignored the protests raised by several of us. (Jingle houses get huge creative fees and are in business with multi-million dollar Madison Avenue advertising corporations ..... they are not in partnership with musicians.)

The Jingle Negotiations

Apparently some... interesting... appointments were made by Tom Lee to the union-side negotiating committee for the recent Commercial Agreement negotiations:

May 25, 2010

Dear Fellow Musician,

My name is David Finck. I am a musician and union member. I write to you because of a deep concern about a development at our union, the American Federation of Musicians.

Nothing to see here; move along please

An announcement that contains all of the good news and none of the bad:

From the Office of the AFM President
Dear Local Officer,
I am pleased to announce that at 3 am on Friday morning, November 6, after five rounds of negotiations over the course of nearly nine months, the Federation and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) reached a tentative agreement on new Theatrical and Television Motion Picture Agreements that will run through February 2013. The Agreements grant the Federation jurisdiction over productions made for New Media, significantly increase contribution rates into the Film Musicians Secondary Market Fund for traditional product exhibited in New Media, provide a new income stream when music is used in New Media other than in New Media productions, protect musicians’ health benefits at a time of increasing pressure on those benefits, and increase wages over the term of the Agreements. At the same time, we were able to resist successfully significant AMPTP efforts to undercut many longstanding protections contained in the Agreements. The details of the new Agreements will be sent to members eligible to vote in a ratification package within the coming weeks.

For the record, I've heard nothing at all about the contents of this settlement. But I can't believe that the AFM didn't make some concessions to get whatever improvements might exist in this agreement. And, given how thoroughly the representatives the the rank-and-file elected were marginalized in the run-up to this negotiation, and how thoroughly they've been demonized by Tom and the rest of the IEB, I wonder just how much input the boots on the ground had in the final result.

But no doubt all will be revealed in due course, warts and all. For, if there's one thing that even newbie negotiations quickly learn, there are always warts in a collective bargaining agreement.

Data vs mantra

I was recently pointed to the April 2008 report of the Film Musicians Secondary Market Fund. In it, Fund Administrator Dennis Dreith wrote the following:

Now that we have closed out the 2007-08 fiscal year (the Fund operates on a year that runs from April 1 through March 31) and are busy preparing for the annual distribution on July 1, this seems an appropriate time to report on the Fund’s activities throughout the past year, take a look at the health of the Fund, as well as to look to where we are headed.

This past year has certainly been interesting, and not one for the faint of heart.  …In the midst of all this, and despite yet another year of significant declines for the motion picture studios in the home video market (mostly DVD sales), the Fund ended its fiscal year with a record high of more than $82 million in contributions.

You are no doubt asking “How is this possible?” The answer is very simple: the number of pictures scored under the AFM motion picture agreement is steadily increasing. While we have seen a gradual decline in television employment, both in terms of the number of musicians employed and the number of AFM covered programs, employment under the motion picture agreement has been steadily on the rise for the past three years, especially for low-budget and independent films.  The increases to the Fund we are experiencing are due in large measure to the success in capturing these areas of production since the last round of bargaining between the AFM and the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers).  In fact, even though the film industry has been releasing fewer films overall annually during the last few years, the number of films scored under the AFM has increased: the number of new films from which first-time payments are coming into the Fund is at an all-time high.

The increase in the pictures scored under the motion picture agreement is also driven by the current weakness of the U.S. dollar. When considering the cost savings of the various low-budget agreements and the exchange rate, many Producers have concluded that the savings realized by scoring here in the U.S. under the AFM agreement offsets a substantial portion (and in some cases, 100%) of the entire payment obligation to the FMSMF.

In short, the Fund’s increase in revenues is being driven by a robust mix of low budget and independent films, big studio “tent-pole” projects, and dozens of foreign films that are actually “running away” from Europe and Australia to record here in the U.S.  This trend first became evident over the last two years, although its full effects are only now apparent...

I’m not going to claim that Dennis is a disinterested observer of the film scoring industry, although he is someone that I trust implicitly from having worked with him closely during my time as chair of ICSOM. On the contrary, he is an active participant in that industry, and makes his living running a large fund, the continued existence of which is dependent on film scoring CBAs not changing beyond recognition. But he is citing real facts and real figures. What are the people who claim that film work is leaving the AFM like rats leaving a sinking ship pointing to as evidence?

Do the figures that Dennis cites present a complete picture of the current state of the film scoring labor market? Probably not. But they’re a good start on forming such a complete picture. Those who propose to override the RMA as the group charged by the AFM's bylaws with representing recording musicians need to make their case citing data of similar verifiability. In fact, citing anything that might be remotely recognizable as data would be an improvement over the “everyone knows that AFM film work is drying up” mantra that seems to be the AFM's universal substitute for facts in this debate.

Facks? We don't need no steenking facks!

Every time there’s a new post on “The AFM in Trouble,” there erupts the same flame war between RMA-ites and Lee-niks in the "comments" section, pretty much regardless of the content of the actual post.

We’ll need a bigger place for orchestra meetings

THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47 included in its last email blast to AFM local officers the following thoughts on AFM ratification practice:

President Espinosa has taken up the mantle of RMA mouthpiece again. The majority of his column talks about how there should be only one video game agreement, and that those who do the sessions should be the ones to do the negotiations.
…

It’s not about the money – unless maybe it is

I’m a little late to this party, but there is a legal action brought against the AFM and Local 47 in Federal court by several Local 47 members regarding the collection of dues on work done under AFM videogame agreements:

Recording musicians David Parameter, Anatoly Rosinsky and Andrew Shulman allege that work dues collected from musicians by Local 47 and sent to the AFM should be returned to Local 47 for work done under one-off buyout recording agreements made available to video game companies by the AFM, citing an AFM by-law that states that work dues are due only for “negotiated agreements.” The musicians claim that the video game agreements were not negotiated and ratified by the membership, and therefore should not be subject to work dues.

The AFM in the Garden of Good and Evil

An anonymous commenter wrote, in response to my last post:

Is the AFM going to exist to primarily serve the RMA Elite, or is it going to exist to serve all members fairly and without prejudice towards those whose incomes are higher than the rest?

Is the AFM going to continue to tolerate a rival union created by current AFM members and elected officials, the PMG? What message does that send when Local 47 management openly tolerates this anti-AFM organization whose officers include a Local 47 hearing board member (and Local 47's webmaster)

How are the smaller locals going to get involved in the civil war between Espinosa/RMA/Local 47 and the AFM that is currently threatening to blow apart the AFM? And to what extent does this very public battle in fact drive prospective members away from the AFM?

A debate – finally

Something I hadn’t anticipated has developed in the comments section of “The next three years” – a real debate (or at least an intelligent explanation of the issues from both sides) on the future of AFM media agreements, especially with respect to buy-outs. It’s worth checking out.

I’d love to see it continue. It will help if new comments avoid the kind of name-calling that went on prior to the election. Some of the name-calling might be accurate, but it’s not going to change any minds at this point.