Back
To Articles
Overview
of the Work of the Investigative Task Force 1997-1998
Andrew
Brandt ITF Secretary and President, Regional Orchestra Players’
Association
(Used By Permission)
The
Creation of the ITF
The idea for an Investigative Task Force was first discussed during
the 1997 AFM Convention in Las Vegas, while members of the Players’
Conferences (who had been active in the Restructure Committee
formed a few months earlier) watched as virtually all the reform
legislation they were backing either went down to defeat or was
simply not brought forth to the floor of the Convention for a
direct vote. Robert Levine, Dennis Dreith and I agreed that there
was great need for further study on ways to improve the American
Federation of Musicians’ structure, make it more responsive
to members, and explore new ways of doing business.
Between the Convention and the various annual players’ meetings
in August, we agreed to submit proposals to all of our conferences
to create a task force to investigate the current structure and
business of the Federation and study ways of reorganizing and
restructuring our union. The series of meetings was financed by
the players’ conferences with the assistance of some of the
participating Locals. We also agreed to have a Unity Conference
in 1998, including ICSOM, OCSM, ROPA and the RMA. By the end of
1997, the Theater Musicians Association was given official conference
status in the AFM and it was invited to participate in both the
Task Force and the Unity Conference. Its officers accepted both
invitations.
Early in the development of the ITF, we agreed that we wanted
to have input from different segments of the AFM, not just the
players’ conferences. Bill Moriarity, president of Local
802 in New York City, was an obvious choice since he had been
advocating restructure of the Federation for several years. Richard
Totusek, Treasurer of Local 47 in Los Angeles, was also an obvious
choice for his encyclopedic knowledge of the AFM Bylaws, his experience
working closely with all four players’ conferences, and the
fact that he had chaired the committee which created the Roehl
Report. These people gathered with Robert Levine, Chairman of
ICSOM; Beverley Spotton, President of OCSM; Dennis Dreith, President
of the RMA; and Andrew Brandt, President of ROPA in our first
meetings in September, 1997.
At that meeting we considered a long list of potential additions
to the committee. Although all the names we considered would have
made worthwhile additions, we finally selected three more AFM
Local officers to invite to participate: Denise Westby, President
of Local 99 in Portland, Oregon, because of her knowledge of mid-sized
Locals, her interest in PR development for the AFM, and some of
the innovative programs her Local had implemented; Paul Sharpe,
President of Local 279 in London, Ontario, and Chairperson of
the AFM Southwest Region in Ontario, the only fully developed
regional structure within the AFM; and Jimmy Nixon, President
of Local 105 in Spokane, Washington, for his knowledge of the
problems of small, isolated Locals and because of his outspoken
representation of rock and other freelance musicians within the
Federation.
The TMA was eventually represented by its Vice-President, Art
Linsner, of Chicago. OCSM was represented by its 2nd Vice-President,
Jim Ewen. The Task Force was also generously assisted by legal
counsel Lennie Leibowitz who made available his font of wisdom
as advisor to ICSOM, the AFM, and the SSD, as well as his experience
with many orchestra negotiations and many other labor unions.
Meetings were designed to have five players’ conference representatives
and five Local officers, whenever possible.
Although formed by the players’ conferences, neither the
meetings nor the agendas were controlled by the PCC (the Players’
Conference Council, i.e. the leaders of all five conferences).
Richard Totusek was elected Chair of the Task Force with Andrew
Brandt as Secretary. All people present at our meetings participated
fully, explained their experiences, argued their points of view,
and were fully engaged in our work; they were all conscientious
participants.
One of the first things the Task Force needed to do before making
changes to the AFM was to learn how the AFM was currently organized
and to compare that to other unions. Also, various structures
proposed for our Federation in the past were revisited. We asked
questions: Why was the AFM structured the way it was when it started,
and what changes had it already made during its history? If we
were forming a brand new union of musicians for the United States
and Canada today, how would it look different?
A
Brief History of the AFM
It is worthwhile to look at the structure of the Federation and
the business of music-making in its early years. The AFM was formed
as a unifying structure for a large number of small and large
local unions in 1897. The music markets that these Locals served
were primarily public theaters and community bands. (The major
symphony orchestras were not unionized until several decades later.)
Most musicians lived and worked locally. Telephones were rare.
The phonograph and radio hadn’t been invented yet. Members
were more likely to travel by train or carriage rather than automobiles.
Communications between Locals were rare, each one working in isolation
from the others. Musicians banded together, organized themselves
in the various theaters, and set minimum scales for their work.
It is certainly from this era that the concept of “local
autonomy” was formed and formalized within the AFM Constitution
and Bylaws. Nevertheless, there must have been problems with competition
between Locals and a need for more communications and coordination
of policies or else they would not have formed a Federation in
the first place.
Change in the music markets of the U.S. and Canada was not long
in coming. The development of silent movies quickly created an
entirely new industry for hiring musicians. This market was just
as quickly killed with the creation of “talkies” in
the 1920s. The invention of the phonograph and the radio also
created new markets and new challenges for organizing musicians.
The rise of the network radio broadcast (and, much later, TV,
cable and satellite networks) and national and international recording
companies made it difficult for Locals to negotiate media contracts.
The corporations could simply shop around for a Local which would
give them the lowest rate, or even go to another country with
lower recording costs. It took all the considerable persuasive
and political power of James Caesar Petrillo, President of the
AFM in the 1940s and 50s, and two national strikes to get the
recording industry to finally sign national (and later international)
agreements. Similar battles were also fought with movie producers.
Petrillo also negotiated the creation of the Music Performance
Trust Funds, which eventually became the largest employer of live
music in North America. Petrillo also finished the organization
of all the major symphony orchestras in the U.S.
With all these changes, however, rank and file did not always
see improvements in wages and working conditions. Nor were they
directly represented in negotiations with employers. Not only
weren’t there rank and file participants in the major national
negotiations, they weren’t permitted to participate in local
orchestra negotiations and weren’t allowed to vote to ratify
(or turn down) those contracts when they were negotiated. A Local
officer, usually the President, would sit down with the head of
the orchestra’s board of directors, write a new 2 or 3 page
contract (perhaps with a convivial bottle of whiskey near by),
and presented the result to the orchestra members as a fait
accompli. Those who dared to object to the low wages or bad
working conditions were threatened with expulsion from the union.
In those days, before the Taft-Hartley Act, right-to-work laws,
and Duty of Fair Representation lawsuits, dismissal from the union
meant you couldn’t work in the music industry.
To make a long story short, there was a revolt of the recording
musicians in Los Angeles which created The Musicians Guild of
America. The revolt was the result of a long dispute between Petrillo,
who wanted to take recording industry money to use for live music
(via MPTF) and recording musicians who wanted the money used for
better wages and benefits. It took several years for them to be
brought back into the fold with the right to ratify contracts
and the creation of the Special Payments Fund.
In the symphony orchestra field, ICSOM was formed to fight for
the right to ratify contracts, have player participation in negotiations,
the ability to create orchestra committees, and a myriad of other
issues.
As late as the 1980s, relations between the leaders of the AFM
and the leaders of ICSOM and the RMA were often stormy and contentious.
In the meantime, the Organization of Canadian Symphony Musicians
eventually evolved out of ICSOM, and ROPA and, later, the TMA
were also formed. It wasn’t until the Roehl Report outlined
several proposals, approved by the AFM in the late 1980s, that
conference leaders had regular communications with the AFM International
Executive Board, and were allowed to directly offer legislation
and participate in debate at AFM Conventions. The Symphonic Services
Division was formed out of the old Symphony Department, and the
Electronic Media Service Division was formed from the old Recording
Department.
In some respects, the AFM is a much weaker participant in a much
more complicated legal world today than in the past. An agreement
between the AFM and the National Labor Relations Board in 1978
drastically limited the ability of the AFM to set scales and negotiate
with temporary employers, such as nightclubs, theaters, hotels
and casual employers. (The AFM also agreed to stop certain practices
that had resulted in many lawsuits against it.) Right-to-work
laws and court decisions circumscribed how AFM Locals recruited
members. Labor law continues to change and, often, restricts the
ability of all unions to organize, negotiate and strike (particularly
in the U.S., but also in Canada). Meanwhile recording companies
have become international conglomerates, digital recording technology
makes it even easier to steal musicians’ creative work, and
even the Internet makes it easier to pirate recordings which can
be broadcast over satellite networks to receivers all around the
world. On top of all this, AFM membership has been on a thirty-year
decline.
Even with all these changes, the AFM is organized basically the
same way that it was created 100 years ago. Would we create the
the same union if we were starting from scratch today? Probably
not. Today, recording contracts are negotiated with media conglomerates
on a national level. Symphony orchestras are often the only major
collective bargaining agreements negotiated locally and are also
the major source of regular full-time work in the Federation for
a single employer. Theater musicians are fighting to be re-recognized
in many theaters and touring companies. Concerts by community
bands, once the norm for unionized musicians, are now rare except
for those sponsored by the RIMPTF. In fact, some of our smaller
Locals would not exist except for the annual subsidy from the
RIMPTF to employ musicians.
So if even if we were to start our union over from scratch, there
is no consensus on how we would create a new union today. Possibly
there would be a national or international trade division for
recording musicians and one for symphonic services as well. Perhaps
other divisions for theater musicians and other work, too. Would
there be Locals? Possibly only in the major markets. We are not
creating a union from scratch, however, so our current vision
is limited to changes of the existing AFM Bylaws, the “Bylaws
of Reality”, and political realities of the next several
AFM Conventions and the current leadership.
Organize
or Die!
So what do we want the AFM to do? What should any union do? At
our first plenary meeting in February the ITF was assisted by
Don Spatz, an instructor from the Meany Center, who pointed out
that the primary functions of any union are: to represent workers
collectively, to bargain collectively, finalize contracts and
then administer them, to organize those who are not covered under
collective bargaining agreements, and to create an environment
which makes all those tasks possible. (It should be noted that
Mr. Spatz did not engage in stating what the AFM should be. Consistent
with the work of the Meany Center, he assiduously avoided telling
us or the AFM what to do.)
The ITF agreed that organizing for collective action is the primary
function of a union. (In fact, the AFL-CIO has made organizing
workers one of its top priorities.) To borrow terminology from
Star Trek, this is our Prime Directive. If we do not organize
musicians, negotiate collectively and administer contracts, we
are not a union. One of the problems that the AFM faces is that
many of its members working in nightclubs and for other temporary
employers in the U.S. are unable to bargaining collectively under
current law. The ITF feels that changing those laws must be one
of the AFM’s top priorities. If it takes a major legislative
effort to do so, then we should start preparing for it on a scale
unlike any we have ever engaged in in the past.
A priority for all Locals and all AFM members must be to find
the money and leadership to implement organizing and political
campaigns, funded by the Locals, any new regional structures,
and the International Federation. If a Local is not trying to
implement the Prime Directive—if it is not trying to organize
musicians and negotiate contracts—it is not being an effective
Local. Supplying members services, although necessary and desirable,
must take a back seat to this priority.
It is impossible for the ITF to emphasize the need for organizing
too much. We can summarize it in three simple words: ORGANIZE
OR DIE!, because if we do not organize workplaces, we shall
surely die as a union. It may be sooner or it may be later, but,
without a campaign to organize the unorganized and to negotiate
and administer contracts for the organized, we will cease to be
a union. This is the basic principal that all our other proposals
have to be measured against.
After reading an earlier draft of this report, Jim Ewen reminds
us of the distinct organizing problems and opportunities in Canada:
“The AFM represents musicians in two countries with similar
cultures, but these cultures are not so similar that we can presume
to represent our members adequately with a single approach, particularly
in regards to Labo(u)r Law. In the United States, the ‘union
shop’ is not legal in many states and the AFM has great difficulty
organizing many part-time or casual workers. This severely limits
those workers’ access to many of the common benefits of union
membership, including pension.
“In
Canada, however, the organization of part-time workers into bargaining
units is completely within the law, and the recently enacted Status
of the Artist Act has given to the AFM new (and up-to-now unexplored)
powers to represent performing artists in the workplace. The ITF
believes that the Canadian Office of the AFM now has the opportunity
to achieve sizable gains in status for performers in Canada which
are currently not possible to achieve in the present legal environment
in the U.S. While continuing to fight for the right to organize
U.S. members, the AFM, through its Canadian Office, must aggressively
push forward the benefits available to its Canadian members through
increased organizational operations. In other words, the AFM should
make maximum use of the distinct labo(u)r laws in both countries
to achieve our Prime Directive, that of organizing workers.”
As a corollary to this, the ITF wishes to emphasize that it feels
that all musicians in all music markets should be represented
by the AFM. In some respects, the AFM is several different unions
working in many different musical markets. Recording musicians
work primarily under contracts negotiated for the entire U.S.
and Canada, with some differences for specific national markets
(such as special agreements with the CBC in Canada and NPR and
PBS in the U.S.). These agreements cover recordings for CDs (the
Phono Agreement), for jingles, for motion pictures, for broadcast
networks, and other markets. Locals can also negotiate some local
recording rates, but the great bulk of work in this industry is
covered under international agreements.
Symphonic orchestras, however, are exclusively covered under local
CBA’s (except when they record under the international agreements
discussed above). Since the creation of ICSOM, OCSM and ROPA and
the resulting democratization of that work force, many of our
orchestra musicians have working conditions that are the envy
of many other musicians around the world, including year-round
employment, health benefits, pension plans, and general working
conditions. In contrast, touring and theater musicians work from
production to production, often not knowing whether or by whom
they will be employed from one year to the next. Many casual (for
lack of a better word) musicians don’t know whether they’ll
be employed from week to week. Because of the temporary nature
of their work, they have few benefits and the AFM is currently
impotent to negotiate with their employers (except in Canada).
For these musicians cash flow is a constant problem; even paying
union dues in January can be a problem.
We believe that no other union tries to represent employees in
so many diverse workplaces. Also, many of our members cross between
these diverse workplaces making recordings, playing under orchestra
CBAs, doing casual work, and travelling on tours.
As a result of this diversity of workplaces, the ITF has found
it difficult to find models of other unions that apply to all
of our workplaces. Other entertainment unions are much smaller
and more regionalized by marketplace. None of them tries to represent
members in all 50 states.
So should the AFM streamline and stop trying to represent all
musicians in all places with tiny local operations and deal exclusively
with international conglomerates and major employers? The ITF
has concluded that the AFM must continue to be a diverse organization
and represent musicians in all workplaces. This is not a casual
decision. In fact, the PCC is well aware that if the AFM ever
fell apart around them, the players’ conferences could be
the core of a new union to replace the ashes of the AFM. (We also
noted that in Australia, the symphonic musicians left their union
in frustration to join a larger entertainment union.) However,
we believe in the principles of unionism and would rather try
to save and improve the current organization. If we didn’t
believe that, we wouldn’t have formed this Task Force.
With such a diverse workforce, even defining what a “working
musician” is is difficult, let alone defining a “full-time
working musician.” Although a symphonic musician with a 52-week
annual contract and a salary is surely a full-time worker, what
is full-time employment for a rock musician, or a recording musician?
It often depends on the marketplace. In some markets, a band which
works on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays might be considered to
be full-time because that’s all the work that is available
in that market. Likewise, a symphonic player who doesn’t
work in the summer may be seasonally employed (unemployed part
of the year) but received paychecks year round. Is that full-time?
And how do we define an unemployed musician? What about the musician
who works a full-time non-musical job and freelances occasionally
on the weekend? Is somebody without work retired, seasonally employed,
or simply between jobs? With a large percentage of its membership
unemployed at any given time, is an unemployed musician a working
musician or retired? Salary is no guideline: some of our symphonic
musicians work a full-time job to earn less than some recording
musicians make as part-time freelancers. Many of our musicians
do a variety of jobs in different markets to scrape together a
living. The ITF was unable to find a single definition for the
“working musician.”
Even if we cannot define a working musician, however, we do recognize
that there are many inactive members in the Federation. Many of
them retired from the workplace. In many Locals, these inactive
musicians are a large majority of the members. These inactive
members may often determine the outcome of elections of officers
and of convention delegates who, in turn, vote on legislation
at the AFM Conventions and for the International Executive Board.
In the U.S. and Canada, few other unions can be said to be run
so much by inactive members. (This had been a problem for a time,
for example, with the Mineworkers union which had been run mostly
by its retired members before it reorganized.) Since our International
Executive Board members are elected at large during the Convention,
they represent no specific constituency. This creates problems
in governance.
The ITF proposes a means of addressing that at the International
level. However, at the Local level we believe that there should
be much greater use of the Inactive Life Membership. This, all
by itself, would make the AFM more democratic and more responsive
by allowing the union to more completely serve its working members.
All of us on the ITF recognize the hard work and sacrifices made
by those members who are now retired and/or inactive. (We hope
to be like them sometime.) However, the Prime Directive makes
it essential that the AFM work hard to represent its working musicians.
Encouraging our inactive members to continue their membership
in a less-expensive, inactive, non-voting membership should be
a priority.
Trade
Division
In all discussions about the restructuring of the Federation,
the concept of reorganizing our union into trade divisions, like
many other unions (such as the Teamsters), regularly comes up.
The AFM serves such a wide variety of workplaces that one possible
way to reorganize the union is around the various “trades”
or types of musical employment. In fact, the beginnings of trade
divisions are already in place with the Symphonic Services Division,
the Electronic Media Service Division, the Travel and Touring
Department, and theater workplaces (such as those represented
by the TMA).
In a true trade division structure, contracts would be negotiated
by the division. Locals might not be necessary. One problem of
instituting a trade division is that many musicians would have
to be represented by different divisions for different work (much
as they need to join several Locals, currently). There is sentiment
among some of the players’ conferences to further pursue
this concept, but it is obvious to the entire ITF this would be
adamantly opposed at AFM Conventions in the near future. Rather
than study the impossible, the committee decided not to propose
a formalized trade division.
This decision should not be seen as a repudiation of the current
AFM Divisions. In fact, the Task Force believes that these Divisions
need to be financed, supported and expanded in order to provide
new services. There is great need to expand the SSD and EMSD.
Also critical is the need to provide more services for organizing
and recruitment, public relations, political activity, touring
services and more, coordinated at the Federation level.
Regionalization/District
Councils
If not trade division, what? One of the topics that the ITF spent
a great deal of time discussing was the creation of some sort
of regional structure to assist Locals and to create efficiencies
through better management and consolidation of Local duties. In
previous studies of this nature, discussion usually centered on
having the Federation create regional offices which would have
jurisdiction over the Locals—a top-down structure where authority
would devolve from the Federation down to the regional office
to supervision of the Locals. This type of structure has been
viewed as anathema by most Local officers, however, and there
was never any serious attempt to implement this plan.
The ITF decided to look at other models of regionalization and
spent quite some time investigating the concept of a district
council, such as is found in many other unions. There are many
different implementations of district councils in the labor movement
but, in brief, a district council is a body which serves several
locals. Duties vary but, generally, locals consolidate certain
tasks to the district council. Officers are either elected directly
by the members of the constituent locals or there is a governing
body of local officers which hires or elects a manager who oversees
the functions of the district office. One of the chief attractions
of this approach is that, rather than being created in a top-down
fashion, the district council is run from the bottom up. Thus
members of locals have direct input in the selection of district
officers, and the office is designed to directly serve its locals
in a capacity determined by the locals.
The AFM Southwest Region in Ontario has, in effect, been operating
as a district council for the past several years. A separate report
about that Region by Paul Sharpe is enclosed in this report. The
ITF does not see this district council system being imposed throughout
the Federation. There are some Locals (such as Dallas/Ft. Worth)
which cover such a large geographical jurisdiction that they already
function as de facto district councils, but without subdivisions.
However, there are regions of the United States with clusters
of small Locals that could well benefit from the creation of a
district office to supply services to all the musicians in that
region.
Specifically, what services would a district council provide to
a Local? In one of our subcommittee meetings we created a preliminary
list of tasks that might be better handled at a district/regional
level:
1. MPTF administration
2. Organizing
3. Support for:
a. Negotiations
b. Contract administration
c. Legal services
4. Communications and public relations
5. Referral services
6. Training (for Local officers and staff as well as for members)
7. Group purchasing power
8. Facilitate standardization of Local scales within districts
There are, of course, other jobs (such as dues collection) that
Local officers of some districts might also find advantageous;
this list is not all-inclusive.
There are many types of implementations of district councils through
the labor movement, and our committee’s investigation is
far from exhaustive. We think this concept deserves further study
and would encourage Local officers to investigate whether they
could also benefit from this type of structure. It does not appear,
at this time, that any changes to the AFM Bylaws are required
to implement this type of project, so none are suggested herein.
To
DIDO or not to DIDO?
The question, of course, comes up on the means to finance the
AFM. Before coming to specific suggestions, the committee spent
considerable time discussing the philosophy of union finance:
What is a fair way to assess dues to finance the various Divisions
in the Federation? For the last couple of years, the PCC called
upon the AFM to implement the concept of “Dues In —
Dues Out” (DIDO—also “Dollar In — Dollar Out”).
This was based on the assumption that the AFM would fulfill the
promises made by the Blue Ribbon Committee. These promises were
largely based on the concept of increasing services to members
working under CBAs in exchange for collecting Federation work
dues from those members. The PCC proposed the direct allocation
of those work dues to the departments serving those members.
In other words, if we expanded the amount of dues coming into
the Federation from a particular segment, say, for example, symphony
musicians, that money should be used specifically to finance and
expand the SSD. Likewise, the Federation itself, at the past several
Conventions, has maintained that recording musicians need to pay
more in dues to maintain and improve operations of the EMSD. Even
at the Local level, it can be argued that our Federation works
in DIDO fashion. Each Local assesses its own dues (above Federation
annual and work dues) and then spends that money only in its own
jurisdiction.
DIDO creates an expectation that if one segment of the Federation
increases its financial contribution it should, therefore, expect
increased services back in the same proportion. Also, if one segment
demands more services, that segment needs to pay extra for them.
This philosophy, however, is diametrically opposed to one of the
basic tenets of unionism: that all members of a union make equal
sacrifice in order to support the entire union. If there is a
critical organizing campaign, negotiation, work stoppage or expensive
legal battle that affects one segment of our union, it should
be seen as a threat to the entire union because, if that one segment
loses its battle, then the entire union may be lost. It is the
same philosophy stated in the oft-repeated phrase, “An injury
to one is an injury to all.” If the AFM is to be a real union,
all the members of the AFM need to agree to finance it fairly.
In practice, this is not just an intellectual, philosophical debate.
It comes right down to the basics of what it means to be a union.
However, if we are to reject the concept of DIDO in one segment
of the Federation, such as SSD or EMSD funding, our committee
feels that we need to get rid of the concept of DIDO in all parts
of the Federation from the Local on up through the International
offices. This is not a simple goal. We cannot implement huge increases
in per capita payments for the Federation without massive losses
in membership in the AFM. Recording musicians, however, pay a
higher percentage in work dues than other segments of the Federation.
If we simply increased those Federation work dues assessed to
those already paying them, there would likely be a revolt in the
symphonic musicians, who feel they heavily subsidize other operations
of the Federation.
The solution is to create a fair Federation work dues assessment
on all our working members. The ITF feels that a much more equitable
distribution of the dues burden could be made. Currently many
Locals have different work dues rates for different markets, relying
on some musicians to subsidize the work of other. Some Locals
have even given up on collecting work dues from casual musicians.
We believe that all live performers in a Local should pay the
same work dues rate regardless of their workplace.
Failing standardization, no segment of a Local’s membership
should be allowed to impose a higher rate of dues on another specific
segment by numerically dominating a meeting. If a Local needs
to raise more money to provide required services to one segment,
say symphonic musicians, then all members of the Local should
share in at increased assessment. Likewise, symphonic musicians
should make the same sacrifice for others to, say, create an organizing
campaign for theaters or club musicians. In no case, however,
should it be legal for the casual musicians to impose work dues
only on symphony players, or vice versa. In the past year, at
least one Local has tried to impose this unfair type of assessment.
This must not be allowed to continue because it contains the seeds
that would ruin our union.
Eliminating the idea of DIDO within the Federation will take political
will. That will needs to be built because, at the present time,
it does not exist. A long-term education strategy needs to be
implemented by the AFM leadership to see that this can be done.
A specific example of the idea of DIDO occurred at the last AFM
Convention when it passed legislation saying that when the AFM
pursues a legal claim to recover money owed to its members, it
may deduct the collection costs from the amount of money collected
for its members. Previously, these costs were paid from general
dues. The ITF feels that this action needs to be reversed at the
next Convention.
Funding
the Federation
The Task Force spent time looking at financial reports of the
Federation and reviewed the administrative costs of running this
union. There is a good news—bad news report. The good news
is that we found no corruption or embezzlement of funds in the
Federation. Nobody is getting rich from this union. (The standing
inside joke has been that if there is corruption in the AFM it
is so incredibly inept that nobody’s making any money from
it.) The good news continues in that we found no money being funneled
into a waste pit of inefficiency or into a huge bureaucracy. The
bad news is that the Federation offices in Los Angeles, New York,
and Toronto are severely understaffed and underfunded for the
work they need to do. The Federation simply needs to provide more
services to its members, and that will cost more money.
There is a model for getting AFM members to increase their financial
participation in our union. The players’ conferences are
such a model. Musicians are not required to join the RMA, the
TMA, or the orchestra conferences, but they do and they pay a
considerable amount in dues to belong in these organizations.
Why? We believe it is because they feel that they get valuable
services for their money. The orchestra conferences sponsor annual
meetings with training seminars in the basics of unionism; all
the conferences increase communication between their members,
they provide representation for their members to both the Federation
and to their industries. They publish informative newsletters
and regularly mail bulletins on changes in their segment of the
industry. In addition, they do this largely with a volunteer corps—none
of the conferences pay their officers salaries or anything more
than expenses plus an occasional honorarium.
With this evidence in hand, it is apparent that AFM members will
pay more money to the Federation if the assessment is considered
fair and if the members feel that they will receive more services
for the money. In fact, we feel that fairness and new services
are the keys to any increase in Federation or Local dues. We also
believe that the means to increases are not in annual per-capita
assessment, but in fair and equitable assessments in work dues.
What is a fair and equitable assessment? It is one in which the
membership is convinced that the increased money will make their
union a better one for representing them in the workplace. It
is also one where all working members of the Federation participate,
not just those in a few workplaces.
The most obvious and considerable inefficiency we found in the
Federation is the cost of keeping our main international headquarters
in expensive offices located in New York City. We believe the
AFM’s offices should be located in another economically reasonable
centralized location that will reduce the cost of running the
Federation. Unfortunately, the cost of making such a move (both
the cost of moving its physical assets as well as moving its staff,
or hiring and training new staff) are very high. The assessments
made at the last Convention for beginning this process are but
a drop in the bucket towards this cost. The AFM’s been in
a Catch-22 for decades: It can’t afford to be where it is,
but the Conventions have never appropriated the amount of money
necessary to move it into a more economical location and offices.
Even if we do move its offices, the AFM does need to maintain
a regional (or branch office) presence in the major media cities,
New York and Los Angeles in particular. A strengthened Canadian
office is also needed to meet the needs and organizing opportunities
unique to Canada.
AFM-Wide
Cost Accounting
After examining the latest statements from the AFM Secretary-Treasurer’s
office and comparing them with earlier reports, it is apparent
that the quality of financial reporting at the Federation level
is greatly improved. Unfortunately, without access to somebody
inside a particular Local, it is impossible to get accurate information
about dues collection or expenditures in the various Locals or
to extrapolate national figures from that data. In our research
on the Federation it was impossible to answer such basic questions
as: “How much does the Federation (including its Locals)
collect in dues from all its members?” “What is spent
on organizing each year?” “What is the cost of collecting
dues in the Federation?” Each Local in the Federation has
a different accounting system and different system of collecting
dues, and there is no standardized accounting system for collecting
data (except for Federation per-capita and work dues collection).
The Task Force believes there needs to be a consistent accounting
system throughout the Federation with accurate reporting of financial
data to the Federation. We believe that the AFM can and should
provide such an accounting system to its Locals.
Education
and Training
The Task Force spent considerable time meeting with AFM President
Steve Young and discussing his recent reassignment of duties for
the five International Representatives. For the past decade or
so, the IR’s (as they are known) have functioned mainly as
auditors for the Federation, going from Local to Local to check
the books and see if they are following AFM Bylaws. In an initiative
just beginning to be implemented this year, the task of the IR’s
has been drastically changed. In brief, they are assigned to study
problem AFM Locals and make suggestions for changes and new services
for them to provide their members. This is supposed to be followed
by an intensive period of training for Local officers and a mobilization
of the Local’s members to meet these new goals. If the Local
is unable or unwilling to make the necessary changes and to improve
services, the IR’s have the authority to recommend to the
International Executive Board that the Local be merged with another
or its charter removed.
The ITF agrees with the concept of these changes. The problems
we foresee are ones of manpower and training. It is still not
clear to us who will train the trainers. This is a drastic change
in the duties of the International Representatives. We hope they
are not being thrown into the task without the training to teach
others how to do their job. The IR’s need proper instruction
on organizing and administrative techniques to accomplish their
mandate. Likewise, if the Federation now has only five IR’s
(it used to have around 12), is that enough to meet the workload
required of them? Training all field staff to assist in this task
might be useful. However, these other staff (for example, SSD
negotiators) are already overloaded and can hardly afford to spend
time in each Local doing additional training and organizing. It
is clear that many people in the players’ conferences as
well as Local officers will be watching this new initiative intensely.
Staff
Interviews
During our investigation, one of our tasks was to interview a
large number of the Federation’s staff in its major offices,
particularly in New York but also in Los Angeles and Toronto and
in the field. Our main report and conclusions based on these interviews
will be described in depth elsewhere in this report. These AFM
employees gave us many helpful and sincere responses. We were
also impressed with the quality of these personnel and with their
dedication to their job. The fact that they are quite underpaid
and are severely overworked is apparent. In spite of their workload,
these employees want more training to do their jobs better and
keep up with the changing laws governing the labor movement and
our industry.
Each department of the Federation is currently working on its
own with little coordination or inter-departmental communication
between them. We believe there needs to be a major initiative
to create a new cooperative administrative structure in the Federation
which encourages departments to work together and even, when needed,
create task forces with representatives of the different departments
so that specific projects could be coordinated, rather than have
departments working at cross purposes. The entire Task Force agrees
that many divisions and departments of the Federation need more
staff, not less.
Locals
In our mandate to study ideas of trade division and regionalization,
the Task Force also took a look at the AFM’s Locals to see
how they operate, collectively and individually. There are currently
288 Locals in the Federation. Although the Task Force agrees that
this number of Locals is probably not ideal, we were not able
to agree on an ideal number of Locals. While some committee members
have suggested that a small number of Locals (5 to 20) might be
sufficient to run the Federation, others believe that a local,
grass-roots presence is needed in every marketplace in the U.S.
and Canada. Also, AFM bylaws mandate that all areas of the United
States and Canada be served by the Federation. This is in contrast
with most other entertainment unions which maintain a presence
only in the major cities of the two countries.
The committee believes that each Local of the Federation should
be able to provide minimal services to its members. Those services
include organizing and recruiting, collective bargaining, administering
contracts and support for members. To do all this, a Local requires
staff and money. We believe there is a minimum budget required
to provide those services. Unfortunately, the Task Force is not
able to agree on what number of members is required to provide
enough income to fund those services. Even in some of our largest
Locals there is often only rudimentary organizing and provision
of legal and negotiation services for their members. Certainly
Locals with under 300 members will have extreme difficulty in
finding ways to fund services to its members.
Also, if the Federation is to be a union representing workers
throughout our two countries, we need to change the emphasis of
AFM governance from “local autonomy” to one of Local
and Federation cooperation. Locals are not franchises, awarded
to a specific city in perpetuity, in which the officers and members
do as much or as little as they want. Some Locals lose money,
others save a considerable amount. Unfortunately, the Locals that
are providing services to their members and organizing musicians
are often not the ones who are making money. We believe there
needs to be much greater cooperation among Locals and more cooperation
between Locals and the International office. Such cooperation
could lead to the formation of regional offices to support our
Locals which, in turn, may create a climate of incentives for
mergers of Locals.
Our
Officers and Leaders
One of the refrains that our committee heard over and over again
from staff and members of the AFM was some variation on the phrase:
“We desperately need three things: leadership, leadership,
leadership.” The Federation needs to find and train its leaders
for all levels of its organization, but most critically for its
Locals. The job of a Local officer is not an easy one. He or she
must be an administrator, an office manager, a recruiter, an organizer,
a negotiator, a conciliator, a cheerleader, a lawyer (or nearly
so), and a leader. In our Locals, these leaders almost always
come from the rank and file, and the music business is not one
which always trains its musicians in the business and administrative
tasks that a Local officer must do. Our largest Locals are fortunate
to have the financial resources to hire professionals to handle
many of these tasks. Usually these professionals come from the
rank and file. However, many in the Task Force believe that, in
some cases, a local should look outside the membership when it
comes to hiring organizers or other professionals. If we expect
musical employers to hire union musicians because they are the
best in our profession, isn’t it also consistent to hire
the best professionals from outside the music business when we
look for business managers and the like? This is not to say that
some musicians cannot do these jobs and do them well. However,
a trained specialist can sometimes learn the music business and
the Local’s needs faster than a musician can learn the skills
of office administration and the various other tasks called upon
him.
The need for competency and education for our Local officers,
in particular, is so great in our union that we believe there
needs to be a concerted effort to find new ways to educate our
officers. We strongly believe that Local officers should be required
to participate in annual training programs in basic union concepts,
e.g., labor law, contract administration and organizing. The AFM,
in turn, must exercise a leadership role in providing this training.
In fact, the failure of a Local officer to engage in such training
should be grounds for removal from office. We believe the most
effective way to provide such training is through the already
existing regional conferences, to which Locals are already required
to send delegates to on an annual basis. The Northwest Conference,
in particular, has been a leader in providing useful and meaningful
training for its participants. Although it is not perfect, the
Northwest Conference is an example that others would do well to
emulate. The Federation, in turn, can assist in finding effective
teachers for these sessions. Many of them may already exist in
its staff.
Local
Domination by Employers
There is another grave problem in the Locals of our Federation.
Too many of the boards of our Locals are dominated by employers
of musicians. The problem is so bad that, if other unions were
to emulate some of our Locals, you might find the equivalent of
the presidents of Ford or Chrysler on the Local boards of UAW
Locals; or airline executives running Locals of flight attendants.
Even if all the current AFM Bylaws were scrupulously followed,
and these board members were conscientious about recusing themselves
when there was a conflict of interest, you would still find problems
within many of our Local boards. There isn’t space in this
report to include all the reports of abuse and conflict of interest
that come to us, let alone the even greater potential for other
conflicts of interest that exist. A few Locals, in particular
Local 802 in New York City, have their own bylaws to prevent employers
from serving on their board. In fact, Local 802 goes so far that
anybody serving on their board cannot even become a leader of
a group (except a one-person act) during their tenure in office.
The Task Force does realize, though, that in many Locals, if you
remove all the leaders from participation, there would be nobody
left to run the Local.
There has been some recent progress in eliminating employer dominance.
In 1995, at the urging of the players’ conferences, the AFM
changed its bylaws to prohibit personnel managers from attending
membership meetings where their presence might intimidate discussions
by those members hired by the personnel manager.
We need to extend protection to all members of the Federation.
Specifically, people who serve on the executive board of a Local
should not be allowed to function as a personnel manager or contractor
of musical organizations (i.e. anybody who has control over hiring
and/or firing musicians). Neither should booking agents or anybody
who hires musicians on the direction of an employer.
Less clear, however, is the status of a “leader.” Most
AFM contracts require that there be a musician designated as leader
for that job (recording, casual, etc.) In many cases, this is
mainly a scale classification—the leader has no control over
the hiring or firing of musicians and does not set wages and working
conditions. Although Local 802 excludes these people from participation
in their Local’s Board of Directors, that restriction is
not practical in many AFM Locals.
The ITF believes that, in most Locals, leaders should be allowed
to serve in Local office only if they perform in their own groups
in mainly cooperative ensembles (flute duos, woodwind quintets
and rock groups come to mind). However, when a leader crosses
the line into becoming an employer who functions as a personnel
manager or regularly hires and fires musicians, we feel that person
should not serve on a Local board.
Conference
Representative Board
Earlier in this report we noted that, due to the system of electing
Federation officers by Local officers at the biennial convention,
there is no body at the highest level of the Federation that directly
represents the working members or any particular region of the
Federation (except the Vice President from Canada). Although the
International Executive Board is elected to represent all the
members of the Federation, they are accountable only to the delegates
of the Convention.
The ITF therefore proposes that the AFM create a new representative
body at the Federation level. This Conference Representative Board
(CRB) would consist of one representative elected by each of the
official player conferences (currently five). In addition, the
Federation would be divided into the same number of regions (Canada
would be one region with the U.S. divided into the other regions)
and an additional representative would be elected by the regional
conferences within each of those subdivisions. The number of player
conference representatives and regional conference representatives
would be balanced. Therefore, if the AFM were to create a sixth
player conference, then a sixth regional position would also be
created to serve on the CRB.
Although the IEB would remain the chief executive body of the
AFM, the CRB would provide a system of checks and balances (much
as you find in all the world’s major democratic bodies, such
as the Senate and House of Representatives in the U.S., or the
Houses of Parliament in Britain and elsewhere). Jurisdiction of
the CRB would be limited to approval of all budget items and decisions
affecting the departments which oversee Federation functions related
to the players’ conferences (the Symphonic Services Division,
the Electronic Media Service Division, the Travel and Touring
Departments, and Organizing and Recruiting). The CRB would take
over the duties of the Financial Oversight Committee created at
the last Convention. The CRB would NOT have jurisdiction to hear
cases brought before the IEB or replace other IEB functions. The
goal is to have each member of the CRB directly accountable to
his or her own constituency.
Conclusion
It is clear that if the players’ conferences had wanted to
make a quick and dirty study of the Federation and make just a
few clear, concise recommendations to our conferences, we could
easily have done so among ourselves. However, the Players’
Conference Council chose a more difficult task for our Task Force:
to bring together representatives of diverse factions of the Federation,
meet together for some half dozen meetings, bring in experts in
various aspects of unionism, interview AFM members and staffers,
study alternative structures found in other unions, and try to
bring all this information together in a report, all under rather
severe time constraints for this type of project. Coming to a
consensus on a wide variety of issues facing the Federation and
putting together this report was not easy. Our Task Force, in
many respects, was a microcosm of the Federation itself. In some
cases consensus was not possible. However, the members of the
Task Force continued to show respect for each other even when
these differences arose and continued to work together.
The major recommendations of the Task Force are given elsewhere
in this report. My (Andrew Brandt’s) job was to prepare a
summary of the Task Force’s activities and findings for the
year. I leave it to others to continue to discuss their particular
areas of expertise or interest in this report. Finally, let me
express my profound respect and gratitude to all the members of
the Task Force for a difficult job done professionally, with respect,
and with an abiding sense of obligation and duty towards creating
a better AFM to serve all our members.
Back
To Articles
