Negotiations

Sorry I have disappeared. I returned last night from a trip to the west coast but I have been checking on the panel discussion from the road and would like to give a few points from my perspective. I am always amazed about the depth of the debate regarding IBB. With all the “interest” there never seems to be a “solution”. The proponents of IBB appear to believe that IBB replaces collective bargaining and try to show collective bargaining in a negative light. First the right to bargain collectively is a lawful right. It is designed to balance power between an employer and its employee’s. IBB is akin to a dialect within a language. It is a style of bargaining which can and should be incorporated from time to time in collective bargaining. It can also be used effectively in buying a car, reasoning with your children or spouse and other day to day negotiations. It does not and should not replace collective bargaining. IBB has been encouraged since the late 70’s early 80’s. You read the book back then “Getting to Yes”. We learned a lot of skills from that book. How to listen, how to analyze the problem, how to motivate the person you were bargaining with to agree to your “issue” and “needs”. The notion about it being easier to attract with honey rather than… The problem is, we still see situations where people do not understand how to listen, accept criticism or present a problem to be resolved. When we bargain we sometimes make a proposal which contains a solution to a problem. Other times it is more effective to just lay out the problem and attempt to convince the parties to embrace or agree that the problem exists and work mutually to find a solution. The best way to bargain is to be honest, to understand each other’s needs and to use common sense. I see too many negotiations where the employer and the musicians are both trying to intellectually out-wit the other with disastrous results. You can call your style of bargaining anything you want but whatever style you wish to use, if you allow it to divide your orchestra, your committee or your union, you are going to suffer greatly. The unfortunate side of the “IBB negotiations” as we have been seeing it in our industry for the past few years is the way in which it is used and the manner in which it is facilitated. When their is facilitation, the balance of power is shifted to the facilitator. When we sit “boy/girl, boy/girl” in the meetings, throw out the offensive proposals, jointly agree on the meeting notes and agree not to have individual caucus we divide ourselves. When we are divided we are weak. Remember the term collective does not necessary mean the inclusion of the employer but rather the various needs of the collective which is the bargaining unit (employee’s). I believe their is a place for facilitators and that is with the consultants. We will discuss that place later. We should never be embarrassed to demand to be paid what we are worth! But we must be able to recognize a fair wage increase and should not be disappointed when we receive a fair wage increase even though it will still not reflect what we are worth.

The collective bargaining process does not end when tentative agreement is reached. It is a living, breathing document that needs to be administered, interpreted, adjusted and sometime varied. This requires the same listening and communication skills as the bargaining sessions themselves. The AFM does have a mechanism in place to work with Locals and their committee’s subsequent to the negotiation but Local’s and committee’s have the responsibility to do the vast majority of the administration and enforcement. We at the SSD spend countless hours assisting Locals and committee’s with administration and enforcement.

We have some very good relationships and effective Employers and we have some that are lacking. We do have some inherent problems that we must address before an organization can succeed. First, why do executive directors who have a consistent track record of failure or of being jerks continue to be re-employed in other orchestra’s. I am not talking about “hard nose” managers, I am talking about those who are less than honest and do bad things to the institutions. Why do we place conductors on a pedestal. Its tough out there, but to make a few hundred thousand bucks and not be able to afford a house in the community or spend enough time in the community to have lunch with the donors because you have to jet off to another $20,000.00 guest conducting stint is wrong. The million dollar bonus babies are a discussion for another day. I especially like the orchestra’s with small budgets (a few million dollars) who pay their conductors $100,000.00 or maybe more and these conductors are so poor that they have to hold down other guest conducting jobs and they want to do all the services for a set within the same week (the week they breeze into town) and then reschedule them if they have a schedule conflict conducting another orchestra. But when a musician, who probably makes less than $4,000.00 annually from the same orchestra and must work in 4,5 or 6 orchestra’s to accumulate an annual salary of $25,000.00, requests a service off so they don’t loose an entire set with another orchestra (or their tenure) is viewed as being disrespectful or unprofessional. And this is really disgusting when the organizations schedule conflicts with other orchestra’s, who share their musicians, because the executive directors are so arrogant that they will not coordinate dates together to avoid conflicts.

Given the structure of our institutions’ sources of revenue we are beholden to corporations and donors. Their economic support can be conditioned with their demand to influence decisions. We must find ways to educate these donors. While their charity and volunteerism is appreciated we, as musicians, are not the direct recipients of their charity, but rather the direct recipient is their community which receives the culture. We musicians are the professionals that deliver the cultural and our demands to be paid an appropriate wage and work under conditions conducive to delivering this culture to their community should not be viewed as being ungrateful but as essential to its delivery at a high level. Nor should we be expected to volunteer to the level they do. I do not discourage good PR by musicians.

The musicians’ representation must reflect continuity and represent a cross section of the orchestra. We have, over the past twenty years, shown our thanks to our own volunteers in sometimes less than appreciative ways. Musician involvement in strategic planning should be done under the auspices of the Local and the committee. There are few exceptions when discussions do not include, or should not raise a flag, because of an impact upon the agreement or the musicians employment. We have witnessed too many times the “stars” amongst our own who believe they have the unfettered right and obligation to discuss the musicianship and job status of their colleagues. Regardless of the nature of the committee, artistic, touring, benefit, audition, etc., these committee’s all have responsibility to represent all the musicians and respect the agreement and its purpose. There is no place for the music police or the elitist within the collective.

Musicians are perfectionists who have spent most of their lives honing their skills. If all orchestra’s paid salaries in excess of $100,000.00, had annual budgets of $50,000,000.00 and we could all perform in one hall with the repertoire of our choice would we be satisfied? Would we strive for better? Is there anything wrong with that? Not necessarily! We just have to maintain our perspective and understand that the community and the civic environment in which we live and those who influence and control our structures may not have the same drive or perspective.

Musical integrity is measured by each of us in different ways. Regardless of our personal view we must understand how to balance reality and personal pride.