Looks like Sam will be dealing with jetlag as he and the Orchestra begin their week across the pond; I’m coping with my own jetlag, having returned from a two-week visit to my mother in Hawaii this past weekend. Easing myself back into the working-from-home drill that takes up much of my summer (a lot of the planning/producing/arranging for concerts in the upcoming season takes place in the summer months), I’ve been catching up with industry news as well, including the continuing crisis at the Detroit Symphony.
The DSO contract expires on midnight Sunday, and last-minute bargaining talks are scheduled for Friday, although given the hard line that both sides have taken, hope for agreement seems slim. This particular article (and most I have read) focus on the DSO management’s “Proposal A” (which would reduce salaries by 28%, withdraw from the American Federation of Musicians’ pension plan and alter work rules by making certain non-performing duties part of the job) and the musician’s counterproposal (a 22% pay reduction, continuing with the AFM plan and a joint musicians’ committee/executive board job performance review of orchestra management.)
Neither paycut is a pretty scenario, but at least both parties seem to agree on the point that player salaries need to be dramatically altered. There’s been chatter about the proposed changing of work rules to include non-performing elements (such as teaching); musicians are concerned that shifting the focus away from pure performance, even for a relatively brief period (it’s capped at 3 weeks per musician per season) dilutes the musical product of the ensemble.
While there’s an element of truth, doesn’t it seem to be more about perspective than anything? After all, those most strongly voicing their opposition are established players. These days, conservatory graduates are as likely to receive some training in teaching, public speaking and scripting and producing educational concerts as they are to take lessons and orchestral repertoire class. The expectations of a young musician entering the job market is markedly different from those of past generations; what might seem extraneous to older career musicians is a presumed given for many just entering the profession.
But what really interests me about the ongoing conflict is the relative silence about “Proposal B”. Here it is, as outlined by the Detroit Free Press:
Management Proposal B (comes into play if players don’t accept some form of proposal A by Saturday)
• Replace 52-week structure with 36 guaranteed weeks (including three paid vacation weeks). Optional work offered beyond 33 weeks paid at incremental rate based on revenue generated by the work.
• Salary: $70,200 (year one); $72,000 (year two); $73,800 (year three). New hires paid $63,000, rising to $66,600 in year three.
• Pension similar to proposal A.
• Eliminate seniority pay and tenure. Implement comprehensive performance review.
Now, wait a second. This proposal would essentially reduce the actual season by a huge percentage, and if additional pay is based on “revenue generated by the work”, it would never assure any set amount. And then look at the last point: eliminating tenure and seniority pay. This is huge. Essentially, Proposal B completely takes away what a full-time orchestra employment represents; assured pay and job security. Why aren’t more people talking about this?
Perhaps the very existence (or threat) of Plan B is meant to bully the musicians’ committee into agreeing to some form of Plan A. But what if bargaining comes apart and all that’s left on the table is Plan B? It would utterly change the landscape of our profession – it represents a completely altered model of what constitutes an orchestra – and it would set precedence for other ensembles in similar situations to do the same.
But then, here’s the painful question: if Plan B is sustainable from a practical financial point of view, is that such a bad thing?
“Perhaps Plan B is meant to bully the musicians”…? It seems pretty obvious that bullying is exactly what Plan B is designed for.
And that’s the central problem here, as far as I’m concerned. There’s no doubt the DSO’s in a level of trouble unique to their beleaguered city. The musicians’ willingness to forgo nearly 25% of their annual pay testifies to that. But it’s one thing to ask for massive paycuts. It’s another to demand a massive, untested overhaul of the orchestral model. And it’s yet another to demand both of the above, and that musicians hired solely to perform suddenly morph into highly qualified teachers, salesmen, community liaisons, and God knows what else, while at the same time threatening to remove their tenure protection.
I’m not saying there aren’t some good ideas hiding in Plan A. But Plan B is transparently a scare tactic, and probably an even more unsustainable model in the long run.
I agree with the scare tactic bit, and the notion that such a drastic overhaul (particularly removing tenure protection) might be too much at once. The proposed extra-musical requirements, however, seem a reasonable development to me, and, as I said, current conservatory students are being trained to do all those other things. Opposition to adding these elements to the job description, anecdotally, is from older players. Which then begs the question, do we then have to wait until these players retire until we implement this kind of sea change? Another case, I fear, of what would be too little, too late.