The AFM Observer

Should orchestra musicians leave the AFM?

I don't think so; just wanted to make that clear upfront. But apparently some people do.

Drew McManus, a Chicago-based arts consultant who also writes a blog on the orchestra business, recently ran an online poll on the topic. The final results of the poll?

When the original poll results were published  on 6/4/2010 I mentioned that we would revisit the results if there are any significant changes or an unusually large spike in responses. As it turns out, both have come to pass. Since then, the poll produced just under 800 respondents and that surge shifted the response ratios quite a bit…

Since then, a large percentage of those new respondents displayed sentiments toward orchestra musicians separating from the AFM (American Federation of Musicians) and forming a new union or remaining only if they are granted substantially increased levels of self determination. The end result tipped the majority responses away from Orchestra musicians should REMAIN in the AFM and work within the existing system to bring about changes they want so as to have that option drop 15 points and fall from first to fourth place.

...Clearly, orchestra musicians and their representative conferences within the AFM are approaching a crossroad at the upcoming national convention. If you hear a loud crash coming from the Las Vegas area in a week or so, start checking out the AFM related blogs for details.

Online polls are entertaining. But, as polls, they tend to suffer from inherent methodological issues, chief amongst them that the respondees are 1) self-selected; and 2) not necessarily unique individuals. Thus the results can easily be stacked by someone from outside who is determined to do so.

I didn't take Drew's poll, so I can't testify about its robustness in the face of these two issues. I was, however, struck by the “unusually large spike in responses” which “shifted the response ratios quite a bit.” I wonder if someone from IGSOBM decided to play some head games with the AFM? Certainly the jump in positive responses to the question "should musicians leave the AFM for IGSOBM" might suggest so.

There's a deeper problem with any poll, however. Poll questions, especially about complicated policy issues, usually ask for simple answers and don't provide much context. The real answer that most orchestra musicians would give to a question like “do you think you and your colleagues should leave the AFM,” if given a realistic list of potential costs and benefits, would be “it depends.” In the absence of any consideration of the potential consequences of leaving, whether good or bad, the question just doesn't mean much. And thus neither do the answers.

There are ways of asking the question so that it would be meaningful. Those ways are called “representation elections” and “decertification elections.”  No doubt what happens in Vegas next week could play a role in the likelihood of those things happening. But, regardless of what happens, I don't expect to see a mad rush for the exits on the part of orchestra musicians.

What most orchestra musicians want most from their union is to be left alone to make their own decisions about collective bargaining. Most orchestra musicians already have that.  Absent that changing, what's the real incentive to leave? And is what happens in Vegas next week likely to change that?

ICSOM on the upcoming Convention

Bruce Ridge wrote the lead article for the most recent edition of Senza Sordino:

As I write this, I have begun my preparations for the 98th Convention of the American Federation of Musicians, to be held June 21-25 in Las Vegas. I will arrive with the hope that we will create a more unified union, but I will also arrive with trepidation that the atmosphere of internal fighting and negativity will persist.

I believe that the way things are is not the way things have to be. The way things are:

1.    A negative image of the future for the arts in America persists, despite evidence to the contrary that could be used to promote a future of growth.

2.    Negotiating committees in orchestras around the country are weary from the constant threats from their managements of bankruptcy and force majeure, situations that are, in many cases, the result of managerial decisions and not just the economic downturn. Musicians are fearful, and managements are emboldened by our compliance.

3.    Orchestral musicians turn to our union, a federation of locals, for support, but instead they are often met with political attacks and disregard. Musicians of all styles that would seek to band together are instead often torn apart by the politicization of our Federation and by a structure that seems to value discord over debate.

Acronym smackdown - SLC vs ICSOM

Did you know that there's a "Small Locals Committee"? I was in blessed ignorance of that fact until recently. It has a website on the AFM's GoPro site (copyright ©2010 American Federation of Musicians), although it doesn't have any formal standing in the AFM's bylaws. it claims to "represent all AFM members with 200 or fewer members." I'm not sure on what i that claim is based, though.

Anyway, the chair of the SLC, John Leite, has taken umbrage at an article in the December 2009 issue of Senza Sordino by Paul Gunther. In his response, Leite writes:

In Paul Gunther’s article, ICSOM December 2009:

“Voting rights are held not by individual union members like you and me, but rather by a small number of elected delegates from locals. The number of voting delegates, along with the number of votes assigned to each, is determined by the size of the local. Each local -- no matter how small -- is allocated at least one delegate with at least one vote.”

I guess that is not fair!! Or at least to the author of the December ‘09 issue of Senza Sordino.

He continues on: “Although structured with an eye toward fair representation, this can cause a lopsided voting system. Every small local - no matter how few members, and perhaps with no symphonic members at all - has a delegate with one or more votes. Yet larger locals may have only two or three delegates casting all their vote. For example, the Twin Cities Musicians Union (Local 30-73, Minneapolis and Saint Paul) with two ICSOM orchestras and one ROPA orchestra, and nearly 1,400 members, elects only three voting delegates.

Therefore a dozen small locals, each with 50-100 members, probably few to none of them symphonic, would aggregate four times as many voting delegates controlling all their votes.”

Members of Symphony Orchestras are not the only “Working Musicians” in the AFM. The RMA has “Working Musicians”, the TMA has “Working Musicians”, Small Local’s have “Working Musicians”, Freelance players are “Working Musicians”, in fact, all AFM locals contain what are called “Working Musicians”.

That simply means that we ALL contribute to the AFM coffers. Whether paying Work Dues or Per Capita, which by the way is the same for ALL Regular members throughout the AFM. There must be mutual respect amongst all AFM members for us all to survive.

All Delegates deserve to vote on all candidates, laws, resolutions or other changes in the bylaws. When the Delegates have made their decisions and the Convention is over, we must all abide by the voting members. If a group or an individual wants the bylaws to change, the ONLY place to do that is at the Convention not in the Courts, Newsletters, Emails, Letters or elsewhere. We all deserve to be represented regardless of the size of the local.

The "tell" to what this article is really about is Leite's use of the phrase "working musicians" (a phrase that Paul Gunther nowhere uses in his article, at least that I could find.) He uses it to claim, in essence, that ICSOM is an elitist organization that disregards the interests of the rest of the AFM - an argument that sounds strangely familiar to observers of the recording wars.

But Leite is stalking a straw man. Gunther's article is little more than a call for symphonic musicians to involve themselves in their locals and to work to ensure that their locals represent their interests better at conventions. It was hardly a call that all delegates don't "deserve to vote on all candidates, laws, resolutions or other changes in the bylaws."

And what's with "if a group or an individual wants the bylaws to change, the ONLY place to do that is at the Convention not in the Courts, Newsletters, Emails, Letters or elsewhere"? Obviously bylaws can only be changed at a convention. But in what system of union governance is advocating for such changes in a newsletter not kosher? The SLC seems oddly uncomfortable with some core concepts of union democracy - freedom of expression and asking elected officials to do things, for example.

I suspect that Leite was cued up by Tom Lee on this crusade. Pitting the small locals against the player conferences is one of the oldest gambits in the playbook for AFM presidents in trouble. If the Small Locals Committee wants to get involved in those wars, though, I suggest they get their own website; they really shouldn't be trashing an AFM players conference (which does, by the way, have official standing in the bylaws and IEB policy manual) on a website funded and copyrighted by the AFM.

Lies, Damned Lies, and the cOMMITTEe

Watching the AFM is always educational, but sometimes a bit comical as well. The cOMMITTEe's attempt to wade into the dispute between Tom Lee and the symphonic player conferences is as good, and as funny, an example of trying to re-write reality as anything one would find on The Daily Show:

At the conferences the RMA has done their best to turn the player conferences against the present AFM administration. They try to convince the player conference officers that the process is broken. The RMA contends that since President Lee didn’t pick the player conferences unanimous choice for SSD Director the process is broken. The fact is that Lee did pick someone on the list given to him by the player conferences. Lee didn’t have to pick anyone on the list but he did and the final decision on who is picked rests with him.

The surgery was successful, but...

I’ve been thinking about the most recent benefit reduction and its possible effect on the AFM and particularly the AFM's relationship with symphonic musicians. (The first conclusion I reached was, of course, that I was screwed, as my orchestra is in the Fund, and that evidently I need to re-start my contributions to my 403(b) out of what's left of my salary after the last round of concessionary bargaining.)

As has been pointed out by Phil Ayling and others, symphonic musicians have a different relationship with the AFM than do those musicians whose contracts are negotiated and administered by the AFM national office. Put simply, symphonic musicians haven't ever been much affected by anything the AFM does or fails to do.

“Much affected” is not the same as “not affected,” of course. Symphonic musicians do receive value from the national office. The International Musician is still the first stop when looking for an orchestra job. The strike fund is a very useful tool in a labor dispute, although less valuable in times, such as now, when a strike would likely be counter-productive. SSD continues to provide valuable services, especially for ROPA and OCSM orchestras. And national media agreements can be helpful to orchestras doing media (although they have the potential to kill work as well, especially when administered with a heavy hand and a negative mindset).

But, by and large, what happens at 1501 Broadway has had little impact on the lives of the members of ICSOM orchestras. By far their most important relationship is with their Local. The AFM president can ignore the wishes of the symphonic player conferences regarding even the most important decisions, and the average ICSOM musician, while agreeing that the AFM president acted badly, will not get very excited about it.

Cutting pension benefits is different.

There were a lot of ICSOM orchestras (mine included) that came into the Fund in the 1990s. There were good reasons to switch from private plans into the Fund, which I laid out in an article in Senza Sordino in 1996:

Put simply, the answer to this question ["what's in it for me?] is “$4.00 per month per $100 contributed.” This looks like an astounding annual return of 48%. The actual equivalent return on investment is harder to calculate, but is more on the order of 9%, depending on the assumptions used. …Comparing this benefit level to the benefit levels of a given orchestra’s plan is a job for a professional actuary, not a part–time editor, but a number of orchestras have had the calculations done for them and found the results put the AFM-EP Fund in a very favorable light indeed.

In addition to the pension benefit, the AFM-EP Fund provides some insurance benefits as well, notably disability and death benefits if either event happens before a participant has retired and begins receiving benefits.

There are some subtler benefits to participation in the AFM-EP fund. One is security. Unlike some orchestra pension funds, the AFM-EP Fund is both fully funded and not under the control of people who may be trying to minimize an orchestra’s expenses… an orchestra and its management may decide that fully funding the existing program, freezing it in place, and switching to the AFM-EP could produce a significant improvement in the musicians’ pensions. In this situation, the Fund will transfer vesting from the old plan to the AFM-EP, which is to say that a musician fully vested under the old plan will immediately be vested in the Fund…. it is clear that the AFM-EP is a program that currently meets the needs of many ICSOM orchestras, and is worthy of examination by any orchestra not completely happy with their current program.

Lots of ICSOM musicians have a good chunk of their retirement earnings riding on the wisdom of those who run the AFM-EP Fund. They are probably beginning to feel as if they’ve been played for suckers. Not only has the benefit multiplier been cut by nearly 80% from its peak in the late 90s, but those musicians' ability to negotiate modifications with their managements in how their pensions are funded has apparently been almost completely taken away by the Fund trustees – and this, of course, with no symphonic management representation on the Fund board at all, despite repeated calls by symphonic musicians for their employers to be represented, and despite repeated opportunities for that to happen.

Tom Lee wrote movingly in a recent IM of Norman Samnick’s efforts on behalf of musicians as head of the employer trustees, and has spoken often of his good relationship with the employer trustees. Neither seems to have sufficient to achieve the elementary common-sense act of making sure that symphonic employers have a place at the AFM-EPF table.

For all these reasons, I believe that this latest (but not necessarily last) benefit reduction may be a game-changer. Rank-and-file orchestra musicians may not care much about how the SSD Director was appointed, or whether or not the AFM President is engaged in a deadly fight with LA recording musicians about the rights of player conferences– even though they should care about what happens to their union. But pretty much every musician whose orchestra pays into the Fund is going to care about having their retirement income slashed, not being given an in-depth and honest explanation for why it happened – and being told to go pound rocks if they don’t like it. (Actually, the Fund has yet to inform participants of the benefit reduction, although Local officers were informed last week.)

I suspect that discussions are already under way in some places to figure out if there’s an alternative to pounding rocks. Obviously those orchestras not already in the Fund are more likely for the forseeable future to leave their pensions in a radioactive dumpsite rather than move into the Fund. Those orchestras already in the Fund will do whatever they can to ensure that, should there ever be more money negotiated locally for pension, the new money will not go to the Fund.

Would such efforts go as far as de-certification? I’ll bet that some orchestras will consider it. The Fund is for AFM orchestras, after all; what happens if an orchestra leaves the AFM (which is, of course, something solely within the purview of that orchestra’s musicians, regardless of the implications for management’s responsibilities to the Fund) to that orchestra’s participation in the Fund? But I have no doubt that, at the very least, this will lead to symphonic musicians caring far more than they ever have about who’s running their union, appointing the union-side trustees of the Fund, and managing the relationship with the employer-side trustees. The Fund has just proven that such things really matter.

It would be ironic if this event eventually led to Tom Lee’s downfall. Tom Lee has done many bad things as president, and his removal is fully justified. But I suspect that the current plight of the Fund is the result of many decisions made by many people over the years. No doubt a few of those decisions were his. But, if the multiplier was unrealistically high in the 90s, or if bad investment decisions were made, or if faulty actuarial analyses were relied on, the current AFM president, while bearing some responsibility simply by virtue of being president, can hardly be assigned all the blame.

But that’s where most of the angered will be directed.

 

 

What he said

CSOM Chairman Brudce Ridge's presentation to the IEB, the Players Conference Council, and the Local Conference Council on July 27, 2009:

It is a pleasure to be here with you all in Las Vegas. When we gathered here last summer, I spoke to you about ICSOM's commitment to unity within our union, and about the need for a change in the perception that the Federation does not serve the needs of musicians in America's symphony orchestras as fully and completely as support provided by those musicians to the Union would seem to call for. This year of difficulty for ICSOM orchestras has not alleviated the concern I expressed to you last summer.

You all know me well, and I'm certain that you know how much it pains me that at this meeting I must deliver a difficult message.

ICSOM goes public

I haven't written anything about the ICSOM conference for several reasons, including the desire to have some time off after helping to run it as assistant conference coordinator (although the heavy lifting was done by Tom Reel of the Virginia Symphony and ICSOM Secretary Laura Ross). But it was a very interesting conference, perhaps most so because of the markedly different tone ICSOM leadership took towards the AFM.

Both ICSOM Chairman Bruce Ridge and President Brian Rood came out swinging in their officers' reports on the first day, informing the delegates of multiple instances of disregard by AFM leadership of the symphonic players conferences and their input. Ridge said:

ICSOM was founded largely to achieve recognition from our union, and that struggle for recognition continues nearly 50 years later. In this time of crisis for orchestras in America, our musicians have never needed the support of the Federation more, and I am saddened to say that they have never had it less.

In this year of need, the position of director of the Symphonic Services Division was left unfilled for 10 months. In this year of need, as musicians faced heartbreaking decisions about reductions in their salaries and seasons, the Federation has stood largely silent. In this year of need, when the friendship of the symphonic players conferences led to unanimous recommendations that could have served to lead us to a new era of unity, those unanimous recommendations were dismissed.

Symphonic musicians keep this union alive. We provide financial support through 55% of the Federation work dues, but our voices are still too often ignored. While we will continue to offer a voice that can unify and not divide, that voice must not be denied by a Federation that would accept our money but reject our ideas.

When we extend our hand in friendship and unity, the leadership of the Federation must reach back. You cannot lead by dividing…by dividing, you can only retain power.

Brian Rood went into more detail:

...the SSD, long sought by ICSOM, continues to provide far fewer services and with less staff than the dues paid by ICSOM and ROPA musicians. I will say this again, Federation resources spent on SSD services and staffing continue to pale in comparison to the dues paid by symphonic orchestral musicians. Take current salaries, for example. In 2008, SSD staff salaries in both Canada and the US made up less than 10% of the total salaries paid to all AFM staff. In contrast, symphonic musicians contribute 55% of the total AFM work dues.

There was already significant discontent amongst the delegates regarding the AFM by that evening's meetings of delegates with their Governing Board members-at-large. That was heightened when details of Bruce's presentation were made known later in the week.

Looking ahead to next summer’s AFM Convention, symphonic musicians ask how the AFM will protect their jobs during the deepest recession of our lifetimes.

Will ICSOM and the other player conferences be treated throughout the Federation as friends and not foes?

Will future issues of our union paper, the International Musician, welcome or even acknowledge ICSOM instead of ignoring us while taking our orchestras’ advertising dollars?

This month’s IM, with August as the annual symphonic issue, scarcely mentions ICSOM, and then only as a distant reference. One was at the end of a four column piece on auditions. ICSOM pioneers, in fact, led the movement that resulted in the current code of ethical audition practices referenced in the article.

Another IM piece was devoted to the Strike Fund, which failed to acknowledge that ICSOM, ROPA and OCSM directly elect their rank-and-file Trustees, per AFM Bylaws.

Instead of using quotes from musician committee members in the column about the Charlotte Symphony’s financial struggles, management’s public relations director is quoted. Would it not be better for a union paper to solicit quotes from union members than management?

We all wish Stanley Drucker the very best as he steps away from the New York Philharmonic after such a legendary career. And yet, ROPA just celebrated their 25th anniversary this month. Did ROPA not deserve to be on the cover of the annual symphonic issue? Our ROPA colleagues comprise the largest player conference in the AFM, and as mentioned, the symphonic conferences together fund 55% of the total Federation work dues.

Why was ICSOM so notably excluded from the August IM symphonic issue?

On the final day the conference unanimously passed a resolution, sponsored by 13 delegates (of whom I was one):

WHEREAS, ICSOM Chairman Bruce Ridge made a presentation to the AFM International Executive Board, the Player Conferences Council, and the Local Conferences Council in July 2009; and

WHEREAS, A major focus of the presentation was the process by which AFM President Tom Lee hired a replacement for former SSD Director Laura Brownell; and
WHEREAS, The information in the presentation regarding that process was shared by Chairman Ridge with the delegates to the 2009 ICSOM Conference; and

WHEREAS, The delegates to the 2009 ICSOM Conference believe that the information about how the process was delayed and subverted and how the recommendations of the symphonic player conferences were disregarded is important for the members of ICSOM orchestras to know; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the delegates to the 2009 ICSOM Conference direct the Governing Board to make public Chairman Ridge's presentation to the International Executive Board in such a way as to ensure the widest possible dissemination to ICSOM orchestras and their AFM Locals.

It's hard to emphasize strongly enough just how unusual it is for ICSOM to make known its dissatisfaction with AFM leadership, and in particular the AFM president, this directly and this publicly. It is not exactly a declaration of war, but it's not far from that.

But then Tom Lee's handling of the SSD Director search process was pretty unusual too. I've written a little about it, but there is far more to the story than what I wrote, and it does no credit to Tom at all.

Next summer's AFM convention is likely to be a very interesting one.

Working with the AFM: a case study

The Sock suggests that the RMA try a different approach:

My suggestion: stop attacking the federation and start working WITH the federation and let's let both sides re-earn the trust of each other without the threat of ongoing lawsuits poisoning the relationship. I'll bet Tom Lee would be open to that, even after all the damage that's been caused by the lawsuits, warchest, PMG, etc. So if Tom Lee is open to this, would Phil Ayling and the RMA be as well? Time to de-escalate things and get back to the business of music.

Put aside, for the moment, the fact that Phil Ayling and the RMA spent years trying to work with Tom and the IEB before there were any lawsuits filed by anyone, and got buptkes for it.

No player conference has tried harder than has ICSOM to work with the AFM over the years. I know this from personal experience, having sat on the ICSOM Governing Board for nine years and having been a delegate for the past 7 years. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, all the symphonic conferences have tried hard to work with the AFM in a non-adversarial way, both before Tom was elected in 2001 and since. There’s been almost no public criticism of the AFM by the symphonic conferences, even when the conferences were unhappy about particular decisions.

So why did it take Tom 6 months to schedule interviews with applicants for SSD Director after Laura Brownell announced that she was leaving SSD ? Why did it take Tom another three months to actually hire someone after the interviews? And why didn’t Tom hire the person who was recommended unanimously by the heads of the symphonic player conferences?

This wasn’t just any “nine months,” by the way. This was a nine-month period that saw the fastest meltdown of orchestral finances in the history of the known universe. This was a period of unprecedented crisis in the symphonic world. And Tom left the position of SSD Director open for nine months.

So much for “working with the AFM.”

Not just the RMA

It’s not just the RMA that Tom’s having problems with, it seems.

ICSOM Governing Board Call – March 21, 2009

1.    SSD Director – Bruce had an extended discussion with Tom Lee about a variety of important topics, including where the hiring process stood. Tom has taken far too long, 9 months, during a  massive symphonic crisis, in his attempt to hire a new director.

ICSOM Governing Board Call – 4/11/09

1. SSD Director -  a.  There was a discussion about the serious concerns over the AFM President's miscommunication with the leadership of ICSOM regarding the appointment of a new SSD director.

The story I heard about how Tom Lee "miscommunicated" with the leadership of ICSOM shocked even me. But I haven't had a chance to verify it yet. There's another story floating around about the yet-unannounced appointment of an EMSD director that's pretty high on the "shocking" scale as well, but I haven't had a chance to verify that one either.

Interesting days.

Another Local officer's perspective

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.