TubeNet

please read and voice your support. the actions of this orchestra's management are illegal, immoral and nonsensical.

http://pasadenapopsmusicians.org/

the gist:
The Pasadena Pops Orchestra (Summer only) is merging with the Pasadena Symphony Orchestra (Fall thru Spring only) and dismissing the Pops personnel, dozens of whom are tenured musicians (including Doug Tornquist, who is hands down one of the best tubists I have ever heard). Many of those have served the orchestra for 20 years. So far Los Angeles Local 47 is doing nothing about it.

You many not like this, but if it's necessary to keep one or the other orchestra financially solvent, why not? Better to have a functioning orchestra than two bankrupt ones.

Happens all the time in the commercial world. Company A is bought/merges with Company B. Tons of employees who many have spent their entire careers (and many who may be just days short of vesting in the retirement plan) get the ax. The company retirement plan is raided and dumped.

This is certainly not good news, but what do you expect the union to do about it? I have to agree with Chuck G's take on this.

My first full-time playing job I had (I was only 17-18 at the time) was a band that was set up for the Bicentennial in 1975-76. We thought that job would last forever. Unfortunately, it lasted until just after Independence Day in 1976. I know the feeling. And these musicians are not being fired... they are having the rug pulled out from underneath them.

And I do agree with Chuck, too. It's better that we disband one group to keep any group around. It's better than the alternative.

TubaRay wrote:what do you expect the union to do about it?

Make them enforce the remainder of any contract that was negotiated in good faith (if, in fact, there was one; freelancers are outta luck, but that could happen any time... )

Chuck(G) wrote:You many not like this, but if it's necessary to keep one or the other orchestra financially solvent, why not? Better to have a functioning orchestra than two bankrupt ones.

neither orchestra is in financial trouble. the Pops has been improving steadily (musically and financially) for the last seven years under its current music director. if you read on the website, it would actually make better financial sense for the management of the two orchestras to merge while keeping the personnel of both groups. the Pops works on a lesser pay scale than the Symphony.

I understand that there are times when orchestras need to fold because of financial troubles. This is not one of those cases. It seems like a move to consolidate and simplify things for the management while breaking contract with the tenured musicians (I don't know the specifics of their contracts, but I have spoken with musicians who have said that what they are doing is illegal and against their written contract).

what do you expect the union to do about it?

I expect the union to stand up for the rights of these tenured musicians and at the very least require the management to spell out and defend their reasoning in discarding these musicians. The management has done nothing of the sort. They have simply said that the two orchestras are merging and the members of the Pasadena Symphony will be filling the seats year round.

-ck

And whoever said that the music business was nice, or fair? I have been in business for well over 30 years and I find that the music business, including academia and public schools, is a whole lot nastier than anything I have encountered in service or retail.
Good luck, Phil

Phil Dawson wrote:I have been in business for well over 30 years and I find that the music business, including academia and public schools, is a whole lot nastier than anything I have encountered in service or retail.
Good luck, Phil

Then you never spent much time in IT.

I hope that we have not heard the last on this situation from the local AFM chapter.

The previous responses indicate a lack of understanding about the need for the union. There is a long history of employee abuse and the only response available was formation of a union.

The two organizations mentioned are not altogether similar to two companies joining. These organization receive government funds and donations from patrons; the money donated by patrons is excluded from taxation; for these reasons they OWE some loyalty to the community (which includes the musicians they employ). I do wonder how many administrative positions will be lost?

As meager as it is, the contract under which the two organizations are functioning should be enforced, even if the union has to take it to court. Outside of that, they probably have the right to join forces.

If you can't understand that, you probably play for free or do a lot of 2 hour gigs for $25. I have too many friends who still depend on playing live music to sympathize with the boards running the orchestras. Intonation inspection pays better.
---
On the other hand, the AFM has rarely been adequate in the situations where I have been involved.

I've never heard a musical organization suggesting to a performer who's spent his entire working life in his area that he needs to "retrain" for something else in order to make a living. As a tuba player, how would you like to be told that you need to "retrain" for viola--naturally at a cut in pay. Happens all of the time in the real world.

I've never heard of a musician being threatened with firing if he doesn't train his overseas outsourced replacement.

Most IT positions nowadays have a "fire at will"clause. And unions are a rare exception.

I've wondered what a modern orchestra would be like if it was run the same way a lot of commercial operations are. Tenure? Ain't no such thing--you can get laid off a day before you're vested for retirement--or just because you've turned 50.

It's been said that today's new employee can expect to change careers around six times during his or her working life. How many orchestral musicians or university professors do that?

Chuck(G) wrote:I've wondered what a modern orchestra would be like if it was run the same way a lot of commercial operations are. Tenure? Ain't no such thing--you can get laid off a day before you're vested for retirement--or just because you've turned 50.

It's been said that today's new employee can expect to change careers around six times during his or her working life. How many orchestral musicians or university professors do that?

Actually, you can't get laid off just because your are 50. You can get laid off for just about any other reason (such as a general reduction in force), but laying someone off just because they reach an age above 40 would be a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. To prove it, of course, you'd have to show a pattern of employees being "laid off" as they turn 50 (not at all easy, of course). To justify it as a reduction in force, the employer would need to demonstrate that forces are actually being reduced without discrimination. Companies can terminate at will, but they still have to follow their own policies in their employee handbooks. They can't disguise termination for cause as a reduction in force just because they can't build the case for termination their own rules require.

In a case like this one, however, we are talking about a true reduction in force.

But Alex's point is a good one, too. These are charitable organizations and in return for tax status they do have a responsibility to the community. One of those responsibilities, though, is sound fiscal management. Another is community service. Those two have to be balanced. Whether or not the employees of the organization qualify as "community" is not at all obvious to me, however. It would if they were volunteers. There's no question that they need to abide by their contracts, of course.

Chuck is right about the multiple career changes, though. I'm currently on my sixth employer (or fifth if you don't count an acquisition), and I still have at least 10 years and more like 15 years to go. I was RIF'ed from one (a thinly disguised firing that I did not contest because leaving that situation was really a relief), but all other changes were motivated by career advancement. I can't really expect an employer to be more loyal to me than I'm prepared to be to them if I'm given a better offer.

Rick "11 years in his current position" Denney

Alex C wrote:These organization receive government funds and donations from patrons; the money donated by patrons is excluded from taxation; for these reasons they OWE some loyalty to the community (which includes the musicians they employ).

So, if a member of the orchestra wins an audition with the Boston Symphony, are you saying they should deciline the job and remain in Pasadena because they owe it to the community that has paid their salary all these years?

Alex C wrote:As meager as it is, the contract under which the two organizations are functioning should be enforced, even if the union has to take it to court.

If the contract is valid and binding, then it should be hjonored by both parties. If it is not honored, then it should go to court.

The union should fight the good fight for their members. All the dues should be for something. I am not a union man nor have I ever been. I can't say I've always liked grievances I've faced in the manufacturing sector, but as a company we've been forced to live up to our agreement. I feel bad for anyone who loses a job, but these musicians should be reaching out to their brothers (who are taking their jobs) for support. We certainly don't need condescending comments from Alexc, as if we all don't have time and talent invested in our way of life, and families to take care of. Additionally the management is keeping their mouth shut, so at this point we really don't know their side of the issue. In this case, as bad as I feel for these musicians, they have their union, and the justice system to rely on for the time being. Although I don't have any stats, there are probably a large number of union members in LA area to asist these folks.

Rick Denney wrote:Actually, you can't get laid off just because your are 50. You can get laid off for just about any other reason (such as a general reduction in force), but laying someone off just because they reach an age above 40 would be a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. To prove it, of course, you'd have to show a pattern of employees being "laid off" as they turn 50 (not at all easy, of course). To justify it as a reduction in force, the employer would need to demonstrate that forces are actually being reduced without discrimination.

Rick, I'm sure you've attended your share of EEO Act seminars, and multitudinous others. More than half the time, the experts who give them are asked to supply "workarounds" for the law, which they happily do.

I've been in seminars where one fellow got up and asked bluntly "How can we hire only Korean men?" The workshop presenter knew who paid his salary and happily furnished some suggestions.

Age discrimination is one of the hardest things to prove. An employer need only terminate your position--you become redundant and the employer is free to create a new position with a different title and recruit for it.

Bloke's got it right--you do the very best job you can and hope for the best.

Mark Heter wrote:Tenure is there to protect musicians from new conductors who "have a girlfriend", or "boyfriend". Tenured musicians can be dismissed, but not capriciously. I wonder if some of the anti-tenure posters here ever held down a real symphony chair themselves - Hmmm?

Good luck on the situation. There is a small troop of people on this website who flock to one individual's opinions and defend them like a gang. Don't let that lead you to believe that the majority of musicians here feel the need to desert our own and kick them to the streets.

Good luck with it all. Tough situation.

I was President of our local American Federation of Teachers Union at a small liberal arts college in the early 80's that went bankrupt.. I spent 6 years "negotiating" with the bankruptcy lawyers for the creditors in order to get the retirement and pension funds misappropriated by them in the bankruptcy.
We eventually got about 30% of what we should have gotten had the monies been in the proper accounts drawing tax-free interest.

If the LA AFM is not willing to go to the mat with the management then the tenured musicains are screwed.

I have to agree with the earlier sentiments expressed about the cutthroat nature of academics (I've was a college professor for 12 years), musicians unions (the local AFM's are notorious here in the Northeast) and IT (worked in IT for 10 years at a large insurance corporation). As Bloke said one can only do one's best - and keep the resume current (and keep the powder dry.)

I'm not sanguine about the fate of the "downsized" musicians.
Unions have been a dirty word since Regan first took office.
Bean-counters and lawyers usually prevail.

Unions are not all good or all bad.I believe they are responsible for manufacturing going under in the US.Look at the car or band instrument business.The global value of building a trumpet or car is not 40.oo per hour(if you figure all benefits and social security contributions).It is more like 10.00 per hour.However,we haven't turned down the raises or good insurance the teachers' union has gotten for my wife.Unfortunately,the overinflated wages and bennies the unions have gotten for their employees has led to the demise of the manufacturing sector in the US.Keep your skills current and marketable,be entrepreneurial,live on less than you make and save for a rainy day,marry rich(if possible).My unsolicited(as always) advice...

Mark wrote:

Alex C wrote:These organization receive government funds and donations from patrons; the money donated by patrons is excluded from taxation; for these reasons they OWE some loyalty to the community (which includes the musicians they employ).

So, if a member of the orchestra wins an audition with the Boston Symphony, are you saying they should deciline the job and remain in Pasadena because they owe it to the community that has paid their salary all these years?

You don't get it. It's the two orchestras that are getting tax exempt money from the community, not the musicians. The musicians are employees who work under a contract. If the contract said they can't take a better job except under specified conditions, then they have to abide by that or not sign a contract.

I don't understand the antagonistic attitude toward musicians who are losing their jobs.

I certainly have to agree with "MikeMason"(above). It may not be what we want to hear, but I believe it to be true.

WoodSheddin wrote: There is a small troop of people on this website who flock to one individual's opinions and defend them like a gang.

Guys, I know you worship the ground I walk on, but let's all take a step back for the time being.

In all seriousness, anyone I would flock to would have to know the difference between "effect" and "affect." Call me triskadecaphobic if you must.