Negotiations

Disclaimer: In the ten years since I joined the Chattanooga Symphony and Opera, I have served several roles including three years as Orchestra Committee Chair, ROPA Delegate, and Negotiating Committee Chair for two negotiations. Most recently I have served as Orchestral Personnel Manager for the past four years. My views on this question are solely based upon my experiences within my own orchestra.

The collective bargaining agreement negotiation environment is the most effective tool professional orchestra musicians can use to influence the artistic and economic strategic direction for their respective organization. It is the closest to a level playing field between musicians and management that exists when negotiating issues that have a direct impact on their orchestras. If collective bargaining is seen by some as divisive and creating sides, then it is because there are sides. Managements and boards of directors want to present performances at the least possible cost and operate within a balanced budget, while musicians want fair wages and benefits for their work. The function of collective bargaining is to find an acceptable balance or compromise between all sides that provides fair compensation within a financially feasible budget, and similar solutions of compromise on other non-fiscal issues that are mandatory subjects of bargaining. The outcome of collective bargaining can influence artistic issues. It can provide a structured process for the auditioning and hiring of new musicians and also a process that deals with artistic dismissals when necessary. Collective bargaining can provide the foundation for growth through increases in wages, benefits, and the expansion of contract positions. Such growth can be valuable in attracting highly qualified candidates to auditions when openings occur. In my orchestra we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of audition applicants since we established fair travel compensation and retirement pension. If not for collective bargaining there would be no full-time orchestras in this country.

Often in negotiations in my orchestra, the collective bargaining process is viewed as an opportunity for dialogue and “board education”. This dialogue often continues after negotiations are completed with issues such as acoustics, strategic planning, marketing, and even endowment campaigns in the form of player/board committees. Such committees are strategic planning, artistic advisory, etc. But there is a shortcoming with the player/board committees that should be considered in this discussion. Often on such committees, the board representatives greatly out number the musicians. For example, an artistic committee might have 8-10 board members but only 2-3 musicians. These musicians may feel hesitant to speak their minds as the minority, or possibly be ignored when they do. Too often in my orchestra, players have taken part in player/board committees only to see their positions ignored or given lip service. While we often hear from the board members how happy they are to have us “contribute” to this process, many times their actions or decisions say otherwise.

There may also be questions about how musicians are picked for certain committees. Does an orchestra have the right to select the musicians who serve on such committees or does the management or board handpick musicians with whom they feel it may be easier to work? Token representation may make some musicians feel that they are important and valued by the board or management, but it may be management’s best tool to keep musicians happy and “in their place” or divide the musicians against themselves. Further, this venue can be a dangerous forum for management to try to enter into discussions on topics that are mandatory subjects of bargaining. Such topics are to be left to the negotiating table and not for management’s handpicked musicians to sort out.

Player/board committees serve a purpose and given the choice between participating on such committees or being shut out of the process, clearly musicians are best served by participating. But it is crucial to realize the limitations of such committees versus the power of an organized labor force that collective bargain provides.