afmahead

Starting Over

June 24, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (265)

Member of 802 on Aug 12, 2006 9:10:42 PM:

Someone a while back asked" What's going on with Local 802."

I don't know because I'm not one of the insiders. All I know is the perception and you all can see it in the last group of entries.

The perception by the average member is that there is a huge politicial fight between 2 sides that we could care less about. Who will be the winner . . . . I don't know. Who will be the loser . . . . . . the members.

on Aug 12, 2006 9:03:41 PM:

Say what you will about Lennon, he is no Mark Jones!

on Aug 12, 2006 8:38:04 PM:

Somebody wrote " Wow, we did not know that!!"

Well, you would if you read Lennon's column in Allegro because it's word for word.

(Dave, don't make it so obvious)

on Aug 12, 2006 2:28:05 PM:

Wow, we did not know that!!

on Aug 12, 2006 1:59:24 PM:

Would you like to really know what's going on in Local 802?

Charges were filed against Bill Dennison and Jay Schaffner for what many of the members believe were their deliberate attempts to undermine the position of the Radio City Orchestra rank-and-file committee, elected Executive Board and chief negotiators during one of the most vicious corporate attacks Local 802 has ever sustained. Since then, these two non-musicians have launched a highly organized and calculated campaign of revenge to choke President Lennon in a dust cloud of allegations, and to make daily operations so difficult that members - not having time to assess and evaluate the situation - might conclude that there is a failure of leadership.

They are driven by their personal animus towards President Lennon and the singular goal of removing him from office prior to 802's December election.

on Aug 12, 2006 1:46:16 PM:

Oh no, another bold-faced spam by a Lennon troll

on Aug 12, 2006 1:44:16 PM:

Apparently the politics in Local 802 are getting interesting . . . .

"he did this, he didn't do that, facts, smears,right up there with Petrillo, etc."

I am not much for public political fighting, especially when we appear that the representation of our members has become secondary to our own politic egos.

Maybe a different forum should be used for this. Don't forget what we are here for.

on Aug 12, 2006 1:25:54 PM:

To the writer complaining about the Midori situation:

Your comments are based on bad information. In the future you should check your facts beforehand. Unless of course it is your intention to jump on the bandwagon with those who will stop at nothing to continue the smear campaign which has been launched against Local 802 President Lennon.

Get your dates straight. The contract was settled in March – not April.

Furthermore, legal counsel for Midori never contacted 802 to make a request to be removed from the Unfair List. Not four times – not once.

The main strike issue was getting pension for first year teachers. This was accomplished, and that’s what’s “par” for the Lennon administration.

Lastly, immediately after the settlement, on March 18, 2006, Local 802 President Lennon sent an email to AFM President Tom Lee requesting that the Midori & Friends Foundation be removed from the AFM International Unfair List. Lee replied to Lennon later that day with the quote “Consider it done.” This is all documented at Local 802.

“Just another David Lennon disaster story?”

NO – just another bold-faced lie to politically assassinate one of the strongest local presidents the AFM has ever had!

on Aug 12, 2006 10:55:39 AM:

-It is beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one and maybe two candidates for IEB used questionable funds to travel to conferences for campaigning purposes as far back as 2001.
-Recently the IEB "elected" a member who did not even run for office
-All IEB elections from 2001 on are flawed
-The current IEB does not represent the voice of the delegates.

on Aug 12, 2006 3:25:34 AM:

Plea Agreement

on Aug 11, 2006 9:59:05 PM:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
06-CR-

MARK R. JONES
Defendant

PLEA AGREEMENT

The defendant, MARK R. JONES, and the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York (hereinafter "the government") hereby enter into a plea agreement with the terms and conditions as set out below.

I. THE PLEA AND POSSIBLE SENTENCE

1. The defendant agrees to waive indictment and to plead guilty to a 1 count Information charging a violation of Title 29, United States Code, Section 501(c) (Embezzlement from a labor union), which carries a maximum possible sentence of a term of imprisonment of 5 years, a fine of $10,000, or both, a mandatory $100 special assessment and a term of supervised release of at least 2 years and up to 3 years. The defendant understands that the penalties set forth in this paragraph are the maximum penalties that can be imposed by the Court at sentencing.

2. The defendant understands and agrees that the Court must require restitution in the amount of no more than $6,738.17 to be paid to Musicians Local 92, Buffalo, New York and restitution in the amount of no more than $2,390.00 to be paid to New York State Conference of Musicians, Syracuse, New York, as part of the sentence pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines §5E1.1 and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3663A.

3. The defendant understands that, if it is determined that the defendant has violated any of the terms or conditions of supervised release, the defendant may be required to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release, up to 2 years, without credit for time previously served on supervised release. As a consequence, in the event the defendant is sentenced to the maximum term of incarceration, a prison term imposed for a violation of supervised release may result in the defendant serving a sentence of imprisonment longer than the statutory maximum set forth in paragraph 1 of this agreement.

II. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

4. The defendant understands that the Court must consider but is not bound by the Sentencing Guidelines (Sentencing Reform Act of 1984).

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

5. The defendant understands the nature of the offense set forth in paragraph 1 of this agreement and understands that if this case proceeded to trial, the government would be required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements of the crime:

a. That the defendant was an officer or employee of a labor organization;
b. That the funds taken were those which belonged to the labor organization; and
c. That the defendant did unlawfully embezzle, steal or unlawfully and willfully convert labor organization funds.
FACTUAL BASIS

6. The defendant and the government agree to the following facts, which form the basis for the entry of the plea of guilty including relevant conduct:

At all pertinent times, the defendant, MARK R. JONES, held the position of President and Secretary/Treasurer of the Musicians Local 92. Musicians Local 92 is a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 402(I) and (j).
At all pertinent times, the defendant, MARK R. JONES, was also Secretary-Treasurer of the New York State Conference of Musicians, a labor organization engaged in an industry affecting commerce, within the meaning of 29 U.S. C. Section 402 (I) and (j).
The defendant, MARK R. JONES also held the position of President with the Buffalo Council, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
Beginning on a date unknown, but no later than January 2002, and continuing until December 2005, the defendant, MARK R. JONES, embezzled, stole, and unlawfully converted to his own use $40,738.17 of union funds belonging to Musicians Local 92. In part, this was accomplished by writing checks on the Musicians Local 92 bank account payable to himself. He improperly used the signature stamp of the union Vice President to obtain the necessary second signature, and he falsified union records to disguise the true nature of these checks.
When asked to produce copies of the checks for a compliance audit in September 2005, JONES provided falsified copies of 5 checks to an investigator from the United States Department of Labor Office of Labor Management Standards. These checks, which were actually written to Jones, were altered to look like the checks were made payable to legitimate payees.
In addition to writing checks to himself, JONES also used the credit card paid by Musicians Local 92 to charge expenses were not union-related. In some cases, he subm
on Aug 11, 2006 9:54:03 PM:

To the writer complaining about the Midori situation:

Get your dates straight. The contract was settled in March – not April.

Furthermore, legal counsel for Midori never contacted 802 to make a request to be removed from the Unfair List. Not four times – not once.

The main strike issue was getting pension for first year teachers. This was accomplished, and that’s what’s “par” for the Lennon administration.

“Just another David Lennon disaster story?”

NO – just another bold-faced lie to politically assassinate one of the strongest local presidents the AFM has ever had!

on Aug 11, 2006 9:47:33 PM:

To the writer complaining about the Midori situation:

Get your dates straight. The contract was settled in March – not April.

Furthermore, legal counsel for Midori never contacted 802 to make a request to be removed from the Unfair List. Not four times – not once.

The main strike issue was getting pension for first year teachers. This was accomplished, and that’s what’s “par” for the Lennon administration.

“Just another David Lennon disaster story?”

NO – just another bold-faced lie to politically assassinate one of the strongest local presidents the AFM has ever had!

on Aug 10, 2006 8:04:47 PM:

So the Secretary Treasurer gave an very interesting speech at the ROPA conference about he did this and he did that and he is doing this and he is doing that I counted about 52 I, Me or my statements Wonder how successful he could be without the staff that does job?

on Aug 10, 2006 2:37:12 PM:

802 represents the music teachers of Midori and Friends. In January we could not reach a contract agreement so we went out on strike. In April we settled. The attorney for Midori and Friends has asked 802 4 times to remove them from the AFM Unfair list. It should have happened when we settled (although we didn’t get much of a contract, which is par for the Lennon Administration). 4 months latter the attorney for Midori and Friends is filing suit to get them removed. Just another Dave Lennon disaster story.

on Aug 10, 2006 10:25:14 AM:

Who will be V.P.

Another marionette with his strings firmly held by local 149.

on Aug 10, 2006 10:25:10 AM:

Who will be V.P.

Another marionette with his strings firmly held by local 149.

Oh, Canada? on Aug 10, 2006 10:08:18 AM:

What do you mean Bobby Herriot, Vice President of Canada?

Every time I saw the VP from Canada, he was saying "Johnny Walker Red." I thought that was his name.

on Aug 10, 2006 10:01:06 AM:

".....so who will be the next Canadian Vice President?"

Did it make any difference who was on the Orlop Deck of the Titanic?

on Aug 10, 2006 9:15:46 AM:

So Herriot is not running again according to his IM article so who will be the next Canadian Vice President? Will they travel as much as Herriot does?? Maybe it will be someone with a smaller scotch tab?!

802 Member on Aug 9, 2006 8:36:13 PM:

No, Lennon's not resigning. He'll probably stick it out to our election in December, although there's a lot of unhappy campers here and only getting worse, day by day.

There is a letter circulating to the Labor Dept. insisting that they take action on the misappropriation of union funds - and when I say the letter there must have been 50 pages with columns of signatures.

I'd like to put my name on this entry but the 802 atmosphere won't allow that. Lennon does have a history of punishing those against him. (At this point that's the majority of the union)

on Aug 8, 2006 7:51:10 PM:

so anyone know what is going on at 802? I heard Lennon isn't resigning so now what are they doing? and if he is on leave from his duties as an IEB member which I have been told happened at the last IEB meeting is he continuing to be paid? for how long? until the convention? seems unconscionable to me.

on Aug 8, 2006 7:36:02 PM:

Yes - - - - please look at www.afmlocal12.org and read everything.

Then you'll realize just how sick this man is that you have been amusing on the site. Mike Moore needs help but not from the AFM. He's a sick man.

The Picket Line ! on Aug 7, 2006 9:06:02 PM:

Members and Terminated Employees of AFM Local12 are on Strike against AFM Local 12's Headquarters in Sacramento!

The Picket Line will not come down!
until the Organized Crime within AFM Local 12 is removed!

AFM LOCAL 12 Members for reform Strike Force

www.afmlocal12.org

Pete Vriesenga on Aug 7, 2006 10:31:46 AM:

Thank you, Gordon, for the reminder of a legacy of Union struggles as depicted in "Whose side are you on." This ongoing fight to preserve human dignity has come before us and continues with vengeance today. It's unfortunate that so few AFM members have an understanding of labor history, which may explain our lack of "Union Pride" and the fact that many AFM members oppose associating themselves with a "Labor Union."

Whose side are we on when we sit back and watch as Broadcast Music, INC. offers restaurants and club owners more than TWICE the favorable deal when they hire DJs over musicians? Whose side are we on when a symphony orchestra with a $50 million budget can have a joint venture recording agreement, but a startup band with pocket change and a road-worn van must continue to swim with the sharks? How callous are we, to distance ourselves from the plight of working families while simultaneously climbing over each other to get into the pockets of the rich?

At a time of war, State and Federal tax dollars are used to send not one, not two, but three orchestras (Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, Dallas Symphony Orchestra and the New York Philharmonic) for a summer residency in Vail, CO, to satisfy the 'discriminating' tastes of one of the richest communities on the planet.

Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival
"So eager are people to chit chat that a public announcer has to urge people back to their seats at the end of intermission...As the big diamonds, perfect coiffures and body enhancements make clear, the festival draws many of Vail's elite permanent and seasonal residents. Unlike the classical connoisseurs who make annual pilgrimages to Aspen, much of the Bravo! audience consists of people looking for something entertaining to do. Though appreciative of the music, they are just as interested in having a night out and seeing and being seen."

The Denver Post, Sunday, August 6, 2006
Kyle MacMillan

on Aug 7, 2006 7:00:50 AM:

Michael get a lawyer and go away

Call me Crazy Now! on Aug 6, 2006 7:48:51 PM:

Dear Officers of AFM International Union, AFM Local 12 and all management personnel with the AFM,

I have been getting feedback from employers that I have sent resumes and that I have had interviews with that "The Musicians Union" is saying bad things and untrue statements about my employment with the AFM Local 12 & AFM International Task Force (A JOINT EMPLOYER) and is giving incorrect employment information and history to the potential employers, who are not hiring me based on that untrue information.

I would like to make you all aware that it is against the California Labor Code to misrepresent any current or former employee work history.

I demand the AFM International Union, AFM Local 12 "Cease and desist" from misrepresenting of my employment history immediately!

This has been ongoing since my Wrongful Termination.

Sincerely,

Michael Troy Moore

Wrongfully Terminated Director of Organizing/Business Representative of AFM Local 12 & AFM International Task Force.
Member AFM Local 12 Since 1993

on Aug 5, 2006 6:39:03 PM:

Gordon is ok. "Remembering" is a link to a video about violent labor struggles

on Aug 5, 2006 10:49:44 AM:

Remembering

Gordon Stump, Detroit Union Activist

Pete Vriesenga on Aug 5, 2006 6:18:30 AM:

Jimmybee wrote: "Have you heard anything about the Joint Venture Agreement from the last convention? Has it died the usual AFM death?"

Yesterday the NY Times reported the following story (link to complete story below) announcing the unveiling of our new joint venture agreement for symphony orchestras. Neither ICSOM or ROPA would even discuss, let alone endorse my joint venture recording resolution at the last convention. Many AFM leaders aggressively fought the concept.

Let me just say that I'm not surprised?

Orchestra Musicians Reach Agreement Over Control of Live Recordings
By DANIEL J. WAKIN
New York Times: August 4, 2006

The future of classical music recordings suddenly looks a little less bleak. Orchestra managers and musicians have reached an agreement that they say will make it easier to release recordings of live concerts, which will put money in the players’ pockets and help keep their artistic legacy before the public. The deal, to be announced Friday, drastically reduces upfront payments to musicians but gives them a share of future revenue, making it more cost-effective to produce recordings. It also gives the orchestras ownership of the recordings, which they can license to distributors for limited periods. In addition, the agreement strengthens the musicians’ role by giving them veto power over recording projects...

...Forty-eight orchestras have signed the agreement. These include heavyweights like the orchestras of New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; smaller-budget orchestras of strong artistic repute like those in St. Louis, Houston and Nashville; and regional orchestras like the Edmonton, Omaha and Modesto symphonies. Several opera houses are also included.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/arts/music/04agre.html?ex=1155355200&en;=f50b341d82da822e&ei;=5070&emc;=eta1

Pete Vriesenga on Aug 4, 2006 4:53:33 PM:

Jimmybee wrote: "I think the fees are low for what you get. No big surprise, as the Copyright rates are set by the US Congress."

The issue is not whether BMI is collecting too much or too little, but that BMI's rate structure openly discriminates against musicians. Congress has proven to be quite inept, but they generally try to avoid intentional efforts to favor machines over people. Congress has authority of oversight with ASCAP and BMI rates, but I can assure you that BMI's rate structure is the product of a vast bureaucracy.

"So why would any writer willingly take a short count on the money to make things easier for the AFM? You did say reduce the BMI rate for live music. The BMI logic is real simple to me and makes perfect sense."

Opting not to screw your musician colleagues is one reason to offer SAME rates for live music, or as you say "go easy on the AFM." Interestingly, a statement on BMI's website claims it "has a long tradition of honoring and supporting the creators of all genres of music, and those who bring that music to the public."

BMIs "honors" are appreciated, but I'd feel better if I could ride in the front of the bus without paying double or triple fare!

"I was unclear as to what you mean by “ Let's suppose for a moment that the AFM had the "legal right" to assess fees within the nightclub and restaurant environment.” Do you mean on the clubs or on the musicians? I was a nightclub musician when the AFM had control in clubs it was a living hell dealing with those bastards when they really could stop you from working. That’s why we lost as many members as we did. Is that what you want to return to? BMI clearly has the law on its side the AFM didn't."

The AFM's casual, club date dues policies of the 50s, 60s & 70s became a dues-collecting bureaucracy with intentional unfairness targeting traveling musicians. We are paying the price for this today as these examples of greed and discrimination eventually brought our little empire down, and with tougher laws and regulation that would keep it down. The purpose of my BMI/AFM analogy was take our bad memory one step further. What would this same period of AFM history look like if Congress gave us a green light?

In my wildest imaginations, I can't accept that the AFM would ever discriminate against one group of musicians to the degree BMI does today. At its deviant worst, the AFM would never overreach to the extent of issuing a "Dancing License" to clubs and restaurants. And, I expect that AFM convention delegates would all burn their union cards if the evening news ever reported that we were suing the Girl Scouts for singing songs around the campfire.

jimmybee on Aug 3, 2006 8:53:44 PM:

Hi Pete
Let me take another shot at this. I wouldn’t want you think I was running for cover. All your stunning logic aside of course ;-)
Thanks for the informative post on the BMI dues.
I think the fees are low for what you get. No big surprise, as the Copyright rates are set by the US Congress. You also didn’t mention that each contract with BMI is negotiable as to what the club is actual doing. Forgive me a few background explanations as I think the subject is a little more complicated than it seems. BMI & ASCAP are non-profit organizations that collect performance fees for their member publishing companies. A publishing company is a legal entity formed to collect royalties under the copyright law of the US. Performance fees are collected from radio stations as well as venues like nightclubs, arenas, etc. The Harry Fox Agency collects the mechanical royalties for those same companies. Mechanical royalties are the ones collected on CD’s, tapes, records (yes, they still make them) or any other mechanical device.
The big one for mechanicals is of course recording companies of any size. These are businesses and businesses representatives dealing with each other, not individuals, so they are not in any way democracies like a union. Any attempt at thinking of these companies as union like is problematic in my view. I think the AFM has enough bad karma on its own without the added burden of copyright law enforcement. The recording companies own the performance rights on the recordings. This is the other half of the copyright equation that is done as a Sound Recording Copyright. It allows for the manufacturing of recorded product. This is the copyright that illegal downloads violate as well as sampling, and where the money comes from for performance rights in countries where it exists. This is the copyright that companies generally refer to as protecting their intellectual property rights.
Under the AFM recording agreement a royalty artist is paid union scale. The payment is a recoupable expense by the recording companies and will be paid back by the artist before they are paid royalties for the recording. The musicians get pension on the recording as it is done under a union contract but at one session per song regardless of the hours spent in the studio. They will get new use if any, in all fairness. However, as a royalty artist under the new pension guidelines you may not make enough to qualify for the pension in a year even if the recording goes platinum. Like I said before bad karma. This is how the AFM does business. So why would any writer willingly take a short count on the money to make things easier for the AFM? You did say reduce the BMI rate for live music. The BMI logic is real simple to me and makes perfect sense. The larger the focus on the music, which live music is, the higher the rate. Think of it as a doubling scale. For me the real answer is the BMI payments may also be the only money the musicians make on the recording despite the AFM’s best efforts. Fortunately the Mechanicals have to be paid to the songwriters under US copyright law for the songs included on a CD regardless of the royalty contract.
I was unclear as to what you mean by “ Let's suppose for a moment that the AFM had the "legal right" to assess fees within the nightclub and restaurant environment.” Do you mean on the clubs or on the musicians? I was a nightclub musician when the AFM had control in clubs it was a living hell dealing with those bastards when they really could stop you from working. That’s why we lost as many members as we did. Is that what you want to return to? BMI clearly has the law on its side the AFM didn't.
Have you heard anything about the Joint Venture Agreement from the last convention? Has it died the usual AFM death?

Pete Vriesenga on Aug 3, 2006 1:20:28 PM:

Go to the following link for a copy of BMI's "Music License For Eating & Drinking Establishments."

http://www.bmi.com/licensing/forms/ede.pdf

At the top of page 3 in the agreement you will see BMI's "Live Music" rates where it states that an establishment that hires "Multiple Singers/Instrumentalists" for 5-7 nights per week will be assessed $4.80 per occupant per year.

Under the next category you will see BMI's "Recorded Music" rates where it states that an establishment can use Tapes, Records, Free-play Jukebox, DJs, VJs and CDs, all for only $2.30 per occupant per year.

As I mentioned earlier, BMI also charges for dancing, but I'm happy to report that BMI doesn't discriminate against musicians in this category. A dancing license cost $1.55 per occupant per year regardless if it's recorded or live music.

Pete Vriesenga on Aug 3, 2006 11:16:59 AM:

There I go again, proposing something with so much inherent logic that I've completely confused the pattern of discussion in the AFM blogosphere. I should know better?

I appreciate the indication of possible support from both Robert and Michael for the underlying framework of a casual, club date agreement. However, it seems my suggesting that BMI may be "overreaching" with its fee structure has everyone running for cover. As such you now leave me with no choice but to dig even deeper. Please know that I have no basis for the point I'm about to make...I'm only speculating.

Let's suppose for a moment that the AFM had the "legal right" to assess fees within the nightclub and restaurant environment. Our current frustration for lack of authority to organize this industry would suddenly come to an end. Overnight the AFM would become a protected bureaucracy where our majority focus is about collection. Concern for survival is no longer an issue, so networking and consensus-building within our own membership is now comfortably moved to the back burner.

With that thought in mind, and with the understanding that our absolute goal is to STRENGTHEN intellectual property rights, let's look again at BMI. I've never met a composer or songwriter who would support "additional" licensing fees just because a "live band" is performing their work. Is it possible that composers and songwriters are not actively engaged in setting BMI's policies?

Pam Anderson's is Tom Lee's ex on Aug 1, 2006 8:21:21 AM:

Jimmy Bee posted:

"The last club owner I talked told me he doesn't’ pay bands because he is a business man and the bands will all work for free but he will give them free beer"

That doesn't make him a business man, that makes him a exploiter of the Sonic Labor work forced, who is taking advantage of the "TOTAL LACK OF LABOR LAW!"

I have stated before that Musicians,bands and strippers/entertainers work under the of 19th century pre-civil war labor law, this just proves my point, the bands will work for free because that is the system that is in place, most in the AFM do not understand, because they have never had to work in this part of the industry under Pay To Play conditions.

Those bands would gladly accept wages for their work if it was offered or thy had the bargaining power to get it in writing.

But they do now have any power regardless of how many people they drag to a club.

We have talked before about the term the AFM made up "Causal-Club-Date-Musicians"

I have talked with other AFM officers and representatives about the term we all agree it is a derogatory, demeaning LABEL, that prevents club musicians from being "Recognized" as legitimate musicians in the work force , because of the term Casual.

Our own union labels us as "Inferior" and 2nd Class.

Here is an interesting bit of trivia I have discovered along the way trying to sort out this mess and get the club musicians more rights.

They work under the of 19th century pre-civil war labor law, but in order to understand why the term "Purchaser" was put on a AFM contract, instead of Employer or something else?

You must go back to 17th century labor laws.

Purchaser is not a correct term, the music is live and a service, there is nothing permanent left behind after the musician have left the stage.

If some one was the purchaser of something as real estate or a brand new BBQ, there would be something left behind.

There is nothing left behind after the show.

There is only the Sonic Labor of those who were on stage for a period of time.

The term purchaser first appears in history in exchange for labor or services within the SLAVE TRADE! (around the 17th century)

So who ever in the AFM and it's "infinite incompetence" came up with all of the various terms to label a 2nd class of musicians within the ranks of the membership such as "Casual" and "Purchaser" instead of "Employee" and "Employer" were the ones who put the "CHAINS OF SLAVERY" on the Club Musicians!

I was brought up to believe in American if you planned and worked hard you could be just about anything, The Musicians work for free because there is no one in the AFM willing to fight for them and they do not have a choice due to a lack of labor law.

I asked President Lee in the Frank Sinatra Suite at the Rivieria the night he was re-elected, if the AFM can't or won't represent this class of musicians "Where are they suppose to go?"

OK your President for the next 2 years your in power and can help 3 generations of club musicians, I asked him to publicly denounce Pay To Play even if he did nothing other than that, just say it is wrong somewhere in the press.

All I got back was a empty stare....

Nobody gives a shit about the the club musicians in the AFM leadership.

Michael Troy Moore

Pete Vriesenga on Aug 1, 2006 7:39:51 AM:

Jimmybee wrote: "The last club owner I talked told me he doesn’t’ pay bands because he is a business man and the bands will all work for free but he will give them free beer. So these are the guys you’re feeling sorry for? Do you feel that the price of liquor licenses costing thousands of more than a BMI licenses “penalizes investment in infrastructure”? I hope you realize many AFM members are BMI or ASCAP writers including me“ full disclosure” and many are losing a substantial portion their livelihood because of downloads and your seriously thinking of trying to get the AFM to negotiate a reduction in rate. Am I getting this right?"

My key points in raising this argument are:

1) Since their fees are tied to budget, BMI charges more when a nightclub or restaurant hires a live band play to play the same selection of music. Furthermore, licensing based on budget is yet another reason why nightclubs offer "free beer" as payment for live bands.

2) A substantial portion of music licensing fees go uncollected for lack of enforcement. I'm certainly not "feeling sorry" for club owners, which is why I have already suggested that musicians would be excellent partners in collection. However, this partnership is unlikely when the choice for "live music" triggers additional fees.

3) The AFM has a large stake in the intellectual property debate, but protection of recorded product is just one battle in an expanding intellectual property war. Musicians in many nations have won the battle for performer rights long ago, which likely happened because all stakeholders came together.

4) The AFM is and will continue to defend the interests of BMI and ASCAP because of the fundamental principle of property rights. It makes good sense for BMI and ASCAP to reciprocate and promote live music and defend the fundamental principle of performer rights. As you are, many AFM members are also BMI or ASCAP members and they believe strongly in securing and strengthening these mutual interests. Are they even aware that their current fee structure favors use of recorded music?

5) Assessments on infrastructure, i.e., stage, dancefloor, lighting, only discourage use of live music. On the other hand, a joint policy between the AFM and ASCAP/BMI (as currently exists with MPF) will lead to growth in the entertainment industry. If live music licensing is defined in an umbrella agreement (as currently exists with MPF), the AFM and all musicians who work under these agreements will immediately partner with ASCAP and BMI in our combined efforts to enforce music licensing.

6) For the first time since the late '70s, the AFM would have a work agreement that could apply to clubs and restaurants, which would cover pension and benefits in respectable establishments. Musicians who are playing for "free beer" will be found across the street at Joe's Bar & Grill, and likely in violation of "Joe's" music licensing agreement.

I'll be the first to get on the phone to rat him out!

jimmybee on Jul 31, 2006 9:15:05 PM:

Pete wrote-It makes perfect sense for music licensing fees to be based on actual seats or net revenue. But I was shocked to hear [directly from a BMI representative] that ancillary expenditures such as a dance floor, stage, lighting, and yes - a live band - all add to a combined "music licensing" assessment.

+That’s a strange statement considering the AFM invented the concept of doubling and new use. The idea as I understand it is that if you go to Red Lobster and music is playing over the speaker system that is one thing. But if you go to the House Of Blues were music is the reason you go there then that is some thing else and fees are based accordingly.

This is very overreaching and reminds of the day when the AFM assessed 10% dues on traveling bands...because they could?

+Again the musicians have never owed or paid the BMI fees. Unlike the AFM traveling fees.

The AFM is an obvious partner in defending intellectual property, but we are nowhere to be found in this debate when a substantial portion of this pie rightfully belongs to us.

+The AFM has never been a defender of intellectual property and you have not made that case here by casting BMI as the problem to live music. So what “substantial portion of the pie” do you think is rightfully yours. Without songwriters you and everyone that doesn’t write would be up on stage playing scales. In reality songwriters make pennies if anything, where you as a musician make dollars. If a BMI licenses cost a $1000 a year (I think that would be real high for the average club) and covered the number of songs that could conceivably be played in a year say 100,000 from all sources that would be a .01 per song. Of that the writer would get half of that penny and publishing company would get the other half.

Moreover, BMI's fee structure that currently penalizes investment in infrastructure is very bad business. If combined investments for infrastructure and use of live music raise revenues, ONLY THEN should BMI expect their rightful share for licensing. To assume otherwise is price gouging and is very damaging to our industry.

+The last club owner I talked told me he doesn’t’ pay bands because he is a business man and the bands will all work for free but he will give them free beer. So these are the guys you’re feeling sorry for? Do you feel that the price of liquor licenses costing thousands of more than a BMI licenses “penalizes investment in infrastructure”? I hope you realize many AFM members are BMI or ASCAP writers including me“ full disclosure” and many are losing a substantial portion their livelihood because of downloads and your seriously thinking of trying to get the AFM to negotiate a reduction in rate. Am I getting this right?

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 31, 2006 9:04:51 AM:

Jimmybee wrote: "BMI and ASCAP fees are based on the number of seats in a nightclub. As well as the number of TVs and if there are DJ’s and/or a band rather than the budget. If the club has a licenses. The licensing fee is never owed nor should ever be paid by the musicians. The club owners would love for the musicians to have to pay that fee so tread carefully."

It makes perfect sense for music licensing fees to be based on actual seats or net revenue. But I was shocked to hear [directly from a BMI representative] that ancillary expenditures such as a dance floor, stage, lighting, and yes - a live band - all add to a combined "music licensing" assessment. This is very overreaching and reminds of the day when the AFM assessed 10% dues on traveling bands...because they could?

We all agree that legal protections for music licensing and intellectual property rights should be enforced and strengthened, which will hopefully one day pave the way for "performer" rights as part of law. This can happen only if the AFM joins forces with licensing agencies and software creators, all of which have a large stake in defending intellectual property rights.

ASCAP, BMI, AFM, restaurants, nightclubs, etc., should all expect to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for their office software. Similarly, Microsoft should expect to pay royalties to ASCAP or BMI when they incorporate music into convention planning, or to the Harry Fox Agency for appropriate mechanical use.

As we protract this logic outward the rightful owner of a given form of intellectual property becomes obvious while the need for stakeholders to WORK TOGETHER becomes evident. The AFM is an obvious partner in defending intellectual property, but we are nowhere to be found in this debate when a substantial portion of this pie rightfully belongs to us. The addition of a stage, lighting or dancefloor in a nightclub has nothing at all to do with music licensing, but has everything to do with the business of live music and performance.

jimmybee on Jul 29, 2006 9:48:10 PM:

Hi Pete
BMI and ASCAP fees are based on the number of seats in a nightclub. As well as the number of TVs and if there are DJ’s and/or a band rather than the budget. If the club has a licenses. The licensing fee is never owed nor should ever be paid by the musicians. The club owners would love for the musicians to have to pay that fee so tread carefully. I think your assumptions about the fees and taxes may need more looking into before you start writing bylaws. I found if you call the agency’s they will tell you what you want to know because they get paid either way for live or record music. I think that the AFM should never be in the position of being viewed by anyone as a collection agent for copyright fees. That could be the mother of all disasters especially if the AFM wants to wet its beak. Keep in mind if you move this forward very few musicians want the union holding their wallet.
However, if you have a working model of a payroll service in your local, that does what you are suggesting and not make the local the employer and responsible of all taxes, would you share how it is working?

on Jul 29, 2006 5:21:24 PM:

Providing services that are only available to union members is part of the necessary and relevant concept. Miami & Newark NJ have looked at the liability insurance piece.

Did you know that in many states independent contractors must carry their own liability insurance by law? The freelance cash music business exists in a parallel legal universe.

Robert Levine on Jul 29, 2006 12:05:53 PM:

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

“I maintain that risk and liability have become an equal barrier to budget when it comes to final decisions about hiring live bands and ensembles. In addition to usual payroll benefits and pension, a one-stop payroll service would offer performance liability, which is a significant barrier for live music events. As with MPF, these payroll contracts would also cover music licensing through direct agreements between the AFM and licensing agencies…”

I think you should put this forward as a bylaw proposal next summer; I’d certainly consider signing on to it.

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 29, 2006 8:22:05 AM:

I maintain that risk and liability have become an equal barrier to budget when it comes to final decisions about hiring live bands and ensembles. In addition to usual payroll benefits and pension, a one-stop payroll service would offer performance liability, which is a significant barrier for live music events. As with MPF, these payroll contracts would also cover music licensing through direct agreements between the AFM and licensing agencies.

This area of music licensing is yet another example of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. The last I checked, BMI still assesses nightclubs and restaurants according to budget, so a live band playing the same selection of music will always result in a higher assessment. I don't have a definitive answer on this, but I also suspect that a given ballet company will pay more in combined licensing fees if they hire a live orchestra to perform Copland's Rodeo than they otherwise would if they simply play recordings. If direct negotiations between the AFM and licensing agencies resulted in agreements that "favored" live music, musicians would then become their partners in collection.

A strengthened partnership between the AFM, ASCAP, BMI, Harry Fox Agency, etc., to MARKET, PROMOTE AND BOOK live music under agreed licensing arrangements would inevitably result in higher net returns for composers and publishers. Collective marketing efforts through GoPro and our network of Locals could only increase and develop work opportunities. Most importantly, these opportunities would be coming from new sources with promotional and entertainment goals other than nickel and dimeing musicians over FICA payments.

Is Steven Segal a AFM Member? on Jul 28, 2006 2:29:15 PM:

"One of the problems - i.e. worker's comp, unemployment insurance, employer side Social Security, etc."

Problem? I beg your pardon... every other business and employer in the United States pay this for its workers why should the workers in the music industry get screwed out a life time of contributions?

If the minimum wage laws were expanded and enforced to cover club musicians, strippers and entertainer, the worker's comp, unemployment insurance, employer payments to Social Security based on hours worked would be able to be combined with the Musicians day job contributions and utilized over the life time of the musician.

There are as many as 500,000+ workers (musicians/dancers/entertainers) in the Untied States working with out the protections and contributions above, Employers are paying off their houses early based on not making the contributions on behalf of the workers in this class.

The 500,000+ number is from the US bureau of labor statistics.

It is a real number and might be higher that the government has been able to document.

The fact that members of the AFM are Employers that keep the Employee Vs. Independent Contractor issue at bay and off the table of real discussion is a conflict of interest and a restraint of trade and a form price/wage fixing.

But most musicians in and out of the union do not know what to do and think there is no way to change this.

W-2's should be being used more in the industry not 10-99's, this is wrong when they are employees, it is not an option under the law to let the bandleader, club or venue make the choice if their workers are going to be independent contractors or employees, it really comes down to the actual working conditions the worker/musicians work under and the employment relationships.

Not the fancy of the boss who doesn't want to pay the freight and legitimate costs of a group of employees. and it doesn't matter on length of employment if a worker is hired at a gas station and walks off the job in a few hours or only works a short time period, the employer can not say Screw it he was only here for a few hours send him a 10-99 form instead of a
wa-2!

It really goes back to the we are "Artists & Professionals" slogan in and outside the AFM.

If you do not drop the word LABOR into "Artists, Professionals & Labor" this whole attempt at a musicians union is only going to server the minority of employers in the membership who cheat on paying the employees by mislabeling them under their proper status as "Employees" under labor law.

I am really starting to see the "LAST" Pieces of the puzzle of opposition in the whole Federation and why positive changes have been so hard fought within the union, changes that would make us a stronger better labor union.

It really comes down to the employers who have the AFM working to do their bidding and do not want the changes because it will affect their bottom line.

It the money thing again!

A solution is to hunt down each and every employer in the Federation do a control test on their band members and if they are found to be an employer the AFM can legally expel them from the federation.

Then they can if they want go form an "Employer Association" and quit sneaking around in the dark running scams on the rest of the musicians in and out of the AFM.

If they want to fight gains for musicians then they should be forced out side of the AFM, if is as simple as that!

There is no way that the retail clerks union would allow any employer representatives from SAFEWAY, FOOD LION or any other employer to be a member of the union if they were in management of any company or business.

But this is what you have all over the AFM, it is unlawful even if they are ignorant of the law.

I found the first few weeks of 1993 when I was hired as Director of Organizing at AFM Local 12, that the board minutes which I read going back to 1966 showed that a majority of elected officers in Local 12 were Band Leaders and Employers, and they overwhelmingly voted down the C.O.L.A.'s and other increases for Sidemen in the local scales and keep the introduction of things that would help sidemen from making more from being considered and would year after year keep this locked up from happening.

This was done because the officers year and year were misusing their positions as union officials to control wages and benefits, that they would have to pay for as employers of the musicians they hired.

Like it or not it is the truth and it is criminal conspiracy and does constitute conclusion with the union and various employers operating in the Locals jurisdiction.

We are looking at 20 to 40 years of this crap in AFM Local 12 that they did not even try to hide in their record, or they hid it badly.

I never forget what was the Red Flag for me when I was hired,

on Jul 28, 2006 1:21:39 PM:

Any kind of payroll service national or otherwise is a great idea. One of the problems is the 20-30% additional employer/payroll cost, i.e. worker's comp, unemployment insurance, employer side Social Security, etc.

Some of the larger locals have this cost added on to scale but most locals do not. Where is this bump up in scale going to come from? The futures committee discussed having some national AFM guidelines. Then there is the addiction musicians have to cash and 1099s. Go figure!

Robert Levine on Jul 27, 2006 8:57:40 PM:

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

“We must enforce and strengthen the employer responsibility with large corporations, symphony orchestras and nightclubs, but in doing so we need to find a way to roll out the welcome mat for startups. I suggested that a national payroll service might alleviate some of this responsibility, and that such a service would only benefit the AFM by placing it in the money stream.

I’m not convinced that the issue of who’s the employer is as important as Pete thinks it is for purchasers (I’ve not heard it being a show-stopper for any contractors in Milwaukee). But the idea of a national payroll service is one worth exploring nonetheless. I had thought of it as being a way of getting pension for non-CBA folks, but the Fund seems to have solved that problem with the LS-1. And it would certainly be a necessary component of a national booking service, but as I recall the last Convention didn’t think much of that idea.

Ken Lay on Jul 27, 2006 8:44:21 PM:

I had met Mark Jones at the last convention, He was not a friend or foe but he did show me a certain amount of respect when we spoke.

I won't relish in the demise of Mark Jones, the crimes happen and are being sorted out and some justice is coming out of it.

Mark Jones is being held accountable and it is public and before the members as it should be, there should always be transparency in all Unions before the membership, it keeps the hand of temptation out of the cookie jar.

I do not know if Mark Jones did this out of desperation, greed or a combinations of both?

I did noticed that the Buffalo News Story said he only earned around $ 44,000 a year from more than 3 to 4 union positions, that works out to around $15.00 an hour on a 60 hour work week.

Retail Food Clerks and Meat Cutters I used to represent made more per hour than Mark Jones did holding all of those positions working for the musicians union.

Like him or not for what he did he was grossly under paid as a Labor Official.

Pay rates for his positions and experience level at other unions in the AFL-CIO are around $20.00 to $ 35.00 and up.

That is the fair market rate for a union representatives job in the union industry, when I left the UFCW my base pay was around $ 38.00+ based on a 40 hour work week.

If a union is going to attract talented and skilled representatives and officials, then the pay must reflect what the market rate is for the job.

The membership must hold them accountable for some kind of productivity level to justify those levels of pay and retain the people who get the job done for the members.

The AFM needs to enact a new system to prevent the way Mark Jones was able to shuffle and conceal the union funds that were taken and missing, if a better system of checks and balances were in place the RED FLAGS, BELLS and WHISTLES would have gone off long before Mark Jones could have gone past the $2,000 Maximum loan limit owed to a union by a member of officer.

A better system might have saved Mark Jones from himself and the union from losses and bad press of stealing in the public eye.

There should have been a trigger in 2003 and this should have not taken until 2006 to exposed and settle this.

It is a sad day for all of the AFM no matter if you like Mark Jones or not.

Let clean house were this is happening in all of the AFM before this happens again.

Time to get our Union house in order and get back to building a better union.

Michael Troy Moore

Hey Pete!
PS Ghost was me but for what ever reason my name did not get in the cut and paste.

given up on the AFM on Jul 27, 2006 6:18:18 PM:

I will relish in the demise of only one.

on Jul 27, 2006 5:21:02 PM:

must we relish in the demise of others?

on Jul 27, 2006 2:23:47 PM:

Mark Jones pleads guilty

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060727/1063419.asp

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 27, 2006 9:32:57 AM:

Ghost (surely that's you, Michael) wrote: "Arthur L. Barge, Jr., d/b/a TBT Agency case is interesting, maybe he was ignorant to the status of his employees but that does not change the fact, you start a business you hire a consultant or a lawyer to review your business plan to see if your operating within the law, if your business plan is not, then you change it or suffer the risk.

If you start taking more and more control of your sidemen, then you yourself by taking liberties have created an employer-employee relationship.

To many people in the music business start a business under capitalized and with out a plan and guess what the musicians and bands suffer to support the ego and profit of some incompetent."

That's exactly my point. Business minds operating in a capitalist economy in the pursuit of big bucks will readily "suffer the risk." However, the father of the bride, the fledgling bandleader, a startup orchestra and your local church are all wondering if "live music" is worth any added risk.

We must enforce and strengthen the employer responsibility with large corporations, symphony orchestras and nightclubs, but in doing so we need to find a way to roll out the welcome mat for startups. I suggested that a national payroll service might alleviate some of this responsibility, and that such a service would only benefit the AFM by placing it in the money stream.

I've always believed that the Music Performance Fund offers more for our collective interests as a payroll service than it does as a fund - especially now after many years of cuts. In addition to usual payroll services, MPF provides liability insurance and proper music licensing. It seems like we should give a serious look at reshaping this service to our collective benefit before it goes away.

Who Cares on Jul 25, 2006 6:13:58 PM:

"The band leaders in AFM Local 12 who are behind this independent contractor page placed over the wage scales page and financially benefit from this and the Illegal payroll service"

The main agricultural products of Senegal are peanuts, millet, corn, sorghum, rice and cotton.

The Ghost of Bill Rase? on Jul 25, 2006 10:35:32 AM:

Pete wrote:

"because substantial rights are immediately lost as an independent contractor"

While this maybe be true under the Nation Labor Relations Act or at least within in the act.

It is not true under The UN's Human Right Declaration, "EVERYONE" has a right join or form a union regardless of Employee/independent contractor or what ever status.

I find it interesting that people try to mislabel sidemen and musicians as "independent contractor -sub contractors" when in fact there is no written contract for services.

No 1099's.

Their employment relationship is under the table.

Arthur L. Barge, Jr., d/b/a TBT Agency case is interesting, maybe he was ignorant to the status of his employees but that does not change the fact, you start a business you hire a consultant or a lawyer to review your business plan to see if your operating within the law, if your business plan is not, then you change it or suffer the risk.

If you start taking more and more control of your sidemen, then you yourself by taking liberties have created an employer-employee relationship.

To many people in the music business start a business under capitalized and with out a plan and guess what the musicians and bands suffer to support the ego and profit of some incompetent.

In a 1994/1995 Local 12 news letter called the capitol musician the board minutes (they used to print the minutes) Joe Benson BRAGS about how they got a band leader named John Skinner off of years of unemployment insurance contributions and beat 19 sidemen who filed a EDD claim against band leader employer John Skinner of Citrus Heights, California.

It was a total conflict of interest to use David Rosenfeld the AFM Local 12 Lawyer against 19 members of the local in favor of 1 member who is an employer.

Then put it in print as if it was some kind of victory for working musicians represented by Local 12.

The only reason Skinner had the legal victory is he had the use of the local's lawyer and the 19 sidemen had no representation at the hearings.

A review of this band leaders business practices and interviews with his employee's suggests that he has taken even more steps since 1995 to create an employer-employee relationship.

The exercise of control, or even the appearance of control even if not use but the band leader could use makes for a employer employee relationship.

This was something I handle in court for the UFCW when I worked there who's in the bargaining unit and who is in management.

California has some really good laws that are in favor of the workers on this.

1 that clearly is on the move to establish the club is the employer is a California Labor Code
That states is you set up your equipment and instruments at a club, retail venues, and something is stolen or damaged, the club has to replace the items, once you place them there for your performance until you are loaded out of the club.

It even states that the CLUB will be considered the "EMPLOYER" for the purposes of the code.

It is a small labor code, just 1! but it invokes the magic word "EMPLOYER" for legal purposes.

Keep calling me CRAZY!

There are the employers, somebody some where is the employer, even if certain bands or musicians want to be "independent contractors" it doesn't matter what they want to call themselves for personal reasons, it is what are they under the law, determined by a control test and the actual way they are handle in business.

I protest that even if a few musicians in compared to the few who wish to be independent contractor should not shift the balance and be the rule of law and leave 500,000+ musicians without legal rights and status in the work place.

I will close this post by saying in January 2006 AFM Local 12 put as a cover sheet on its wages scales handout a page that is so screwed up and not legal, in short they are "Misleading" the membership in AFM Local 12 to get them to file as "independent contractors" instead of filing as employees for gigs.

Now this is just wrong this is counter productive towards saving the AFM as a labor union and is pro-management sweet heart deal for employer who use local 12 members who are trying to escape the risk of business and not pay SSI/F.I.C.A., unemployment insurance and workers compensation .

The band leaders in AFM Local 12 who are behind this independent contractor page placed over the wage scales page and financially benefit from this and the Illegal payroll service in local 12 are John Skinner and Stan Lunetta.

While the members of AFM Local 12 get screwed by their own local.

Somebody is the employer.......

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 25, 2006 8:04:17 AM:

Ken wrote: "I would answer that question with another question: Hypothetically, if collective bargaining was unlawful, but a union was still determined to effectively represent its members in the workplace, what should that union do?"

A very interesting question!

For starters, I strongly agree with an earlier comment that some musicians prefer to work as independent contractors, and will likely resent organized efforts to change their way of doing business. We have historically pressed for a legally defined empoyer/employee relationship because substantial rights are immediately lost as an independent contractor. But again we need to be honest as we analyze this messy, legal framework that we operate in. At best, this issue is a secondary concern for most musicians who primarily want more work and more money. This is a much larger concern for the AFM as our existing and potential representational authority seems lost unless there's an "employer" in our sights.

The AFM has been relatively successful at getting more money for our members because that's an easy and natural byproduct of collective action and collective power. So, let's shift our focus to a more specific and challenging goal: How can the AFM generate more work as both a public and member service?

I'm a union guy who gets a rush from backing abusive employers to the wall, and I have no doubt that the AFM has created more work by maintaining industry standards, transforming "exposure" gigs into paid work, publicly advocating for live music, etc. At the same time I would be a fool to think that the average musician or citizen believes any of this. A likely reality is that the average musician believes that the Union WAS very successful at getting more money, but in doing so created a cause and effect that resulted in LESS work. What can we do to correct this wrong and damaging misperception?

We have spent ample time discussing laws that are restrictive to our collective bargaining efforts, but we must also focus on laws that may be detrimental to an otherwise thriving industry of live music. For example, we need to look closely at the "independent contractor vs. employer" question and determine how this works for our interests, but more importantly we need to understand how it works against us?

A 1995 court ruling in Colorado got my attention because it left employers - more importantly "potential employers" - fearful that they may be similarly punished under the law if they hire musicians. This fear was largely unwarranted after close study of this case, but live music is a very fragile industry and we must understand that perception means everything.

The case was "Arthur L. Barge, Jr., d/b/a TBT Agency vs. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State of Colorado and The Division of Employment and Training." Barge was a vocalist and trumpet player who organized and led a band in 1987 called the "Big Chill." According to statements in the court record, the band consists of "seven to twelve musicians depending on the engagement. The band plays at dances, weddings, and other special events, and is occasionally engaged to perform at hotels, nightclubs, and other establishments."

Like every similar band that has ever played in public, Barge assumed that his bandmembers were independent contractors. To make a long story short, a disgruntled, former bandmember filed a claim against Barge for unemployment compensation. This started a chain reaction of inquires that ultimately led to a judgment against Barge in the Colorado Court of Appeals. As I recall, Barge was fined $30,000 in back payroll taxes.

If you read through this case study the verdict becomes somewhat justified, but John Q. Public will not be taking the time to read the case study. We're now saddled with the sad reality that this case scared the pee out of Colorado bandleaders, production companies, father's of the bride(?), and anyone else who is otherwise skeptical about accepting the obligation of "employer" for the sake of live music.

What position should we take on this issue? What mechanism can we build that will remove fear of liability for potential employers? Could a nationwide payroll service alleviate some of this problem, and at the same time help to place the AFM in a gatekeeper role?

If the AFM had a million plus members (AARP?) we would have much more control over incorrect perceptions buy utilizing an established network of organized communication and educational efforts. We would have more success at influencing public opinion and legislators because we're doing "something" (you tell me what that is?) that makes us look as though the world couldn't turn without us.

Ken Shirk on Jul 24, 2006 12:27:21 PM:

First, while I'm sure no one is laboring under an erroneous impression, let me state for the record that I am not a magician and that what we are attempting at Local 99 is not solely my brainchild. Our president, Bruce Fife, is supervising it, our board is thoroughly invested in it. If we have a good result, it will be because of broad support of our program. As we move through it, each good thing that manifests along the way will be shared with anyone who wants it, including the AFM organizing department.

Second, to the poster who suggested that our program here makes me a political threat to the current AFM leadership and that the leadership would therefore squelch it, all I can say - again - is that the AFM leadership is tangibly supporting our program, and it is not interfering with it.

Third, to the poster who invited me to share the deep dark secrets of the interior world of AFM leadership, I said all that there was to say at the last convention. There is nothing to add. The results of that convention were unambiguous and I accept them. Most of the rest of the story is a matter of record. I will say for the record here that as a former member of the IEB expense review committee, I never saw any expenditure by Tom Lee that went beyond the boundaries of AFM bylaws or IEB policy. Any re-drawing of those boundaries, which is really what that debate is now about, needs to be done by the IEB or convention action.

Fourth, what this Federation does in terms of organizing, education and staying abreast with musicians and the industry will be driven by what the convention requires of it. In 1991, the convention adopted a PCC resolution stating that the AFM would dedicate itself to organizing and recruitment, which led to the creation of the AFM Task Force on Organizing and Recruitment (the AFM's first-ever attempt at any kind of coordinated organizing). That led to the creation of the AFM Organizing and Education department in 1995, which gradually fell victim to politics and the budget knife. In 1999, the IEB proposed, and the convention approved, trading some bone-head "local reform" bylaws for meaningful ones that required locals to have an active, visible and physical presence in their markets. Those bylaws slid into an unused and unenforced state by 2002, and in 2005 the Futures Committee proposed, and the convention approved, changing this requirement to be merely a policy of "encouragement" to locals to be visible and viable.

The point is that any reform has to be supported by convention intention. Reform legislation has to be accompanied by a reform election, and vice versa. The last 20 years has proven that to be true. No leadership is going to make substantial revisions without popular support to do so, and no revisionist legislation will succeed without a leadership committed to it. In the last 23 years, I have not seen one convention willing to support both. Change is apparently too frightening. My board is appreciative that we are able to do what we believe in without having to mount a Federation religious campaign to do so.

on Jul 24, 2006 11:13:02 AM:

"Robert wrote: It’s natural for elected officers to want to get re-elected. That’s why we have elections; to keep them accountable."

For an officer to be held accountable, you must have an informed electorate.

on Jul 24, 2006 6:45:34 AM:

Looking for Leadership knows of what he/she speaks. My experience is that the delegates, especially those from the smaller locals, are very supportive of the AFM and its leadership. They tend to respect the AFM officer with the gavel and the mic on principle.

If AFM leadership recommended having conventions every three or four years as opposed to a major per-capita increase they would follow IMHO.

I do not believe the delegates are born with an anti-player, anti-players conference, anti-big city local animus. That is learned behavior and it is taught in this political process.

Looking for Leadership on Jul 23, 2006 9:19:49 PM:

Robert Levine wrote;

"If they don’t do what their constituents want, they’re apt to get voted out."

In our case, the constituents are the delegates, many of whom don't have clear ideas of what they want or expect from the Federation. Many are happy to get away to Las Vegas, have a good time, and catch up with old friends. For many of them, their "want" list may be a "don't want" list.

As I view the last Convention, the biggest hoops and hollers were heard when the motion to lengthen the time between Conventions was defeated. I don't think this is because most delegates are hungry to engage in the legislative potential that the Convention represents.

Robert also wrote;

"Just look at the fate of the recommendations of the Futures Committee"

Fate is a word of many meanings. I think the Futures Committee was destined for failure. The AFM President thwarted much of the Committee's work in process. He made the Committee revisit issues after they had been decided and sent internal documents out to Local Officers so he could shape resistance while the Committee was meeting.

Bredhoff and Kaiser dealt with Bill Moriarity in a most unprofessional way as they threw roadblocks in his way on behalf of the President. Even what was left was opposed by this President.

At the end of it all, I think that much of what the Committee wanted to do, or would have done had they been allowed, could have passed the Convention had the AFM leadership been OK with it.

While many delegates will think things through, many more are looking to others to tell them what to do with the big issues. Whispering beats down more things than substance. Many people are truly neutral.

It is natural for leadership to want to be re-elected. I just believe we are in a very bad way and that this President has made it much worse than it need be.

Robert Levine on Jul 23, 2006 7:59:39 PM:

Skeptical wrote:

“The AFM administration has clearly shown to everyone that their only interest is to keep there jobs. Any reasonable discussion of how to save the AFM has to include how to save the jobs of the primary officers or they won't be interested, and any plan would find a quick death.”

It’s natural for elected officers to want to get re-elected. That’s why we have elections; to keep them accountable. If they don’t do what their constituents want, they’re apt to get voted out.

The problem for many posters on this blog is that the changes that they want to see – many of which I agree need to happen – are not popular with many of the voting delegates. Just look at the fate of the recommendations of the Futures Committee. It seems that you want elected officers to do things that are likely to get them un-elected. Sometimes that’s leadership. But it’s not how most democratic organizations work.

“given up” wrote:

“No matter how much I hate to agree with MTM, there were plenty of good, progressive candidates at the last convention. It's just that Mr Lee has bought most of the delegates.”

There were a number of progressive candidates. Some of them were not good candidates, however, in terms of electability (and if a candidate is not electable, does it matter how progressive they are?) Not everyone billed as progressive really was. The opposition slate was a mix of good progressive candidates and one or two who were neither good nor progressive. There were obviously a lot of delegates who split their votes, and not because they were “bought” either. For many delegates, it became a question of which candidate to vote against.

Skeptical on Jul 23, 2006 5:34:26 PM:

The AFM administration has clearly shown to everyone that their only interest is to keep there jobs. Any reasonable discussion of how to save the AFM has to include how to save the jobs of the primary officers or they won't be interested, and any plan would find a quick death.

Any individuals who find a good plan for the AFM are immediately thought of as a political threat.

Ken Shirk has a program in his local to represent those that are not currently be represented. Does the AFM Administration see him as an innovative voice of the AFM. No ....the better he does, the more of a political threat he becomes.

How do you deal with that?

I know.......election independent and progressive leaders, bla, bla bla.

And those of you how believe that will happen, please go to http://www.swaplandinflorida.com.

given up on the AFM on Jul 23, 2006 3:41:29 PM:

Robert, I never said that travel is the reason for a shrinking AFM. Maybe I should have put my travel comment in a separate paragraph. As for your or anyone elses' ideals for this Union, the fact still is that none of it will happen with Mr Lee. His agenda is to stay in power at any expense. What he does is rarely "for the good of the Union."

Diogenes, maybe ethics was the wrong word. Not sure if morals is the correct one either. All I was trying to say is that Ken knows a lot of s**t and exposing inappropriate expenses for lady friends or $700 drinking tabs might be the item that starts the wall atipping. Most of the recent resignations or problems for officers have been for financial reason ie Sprague, Jones, Lennon. Let's get the man out of here.

No matter how much I hate to agree with MTM, there were plenty of good, progressive candidates at the last convention. It's just that Mr Lee has bought most of the delegates. And for those of you who are now going to object to the word bought, see my post of July, 16.

Diogenes on Jul 23, 2006 10:07:46 AM:

given up writes: "Ken, I'm sure in all your years with that dictator, you must have at least one morsel of information that could be used against him. Stop with you ethics and let us have it."

Ethics or more specifically the lack thereof is what has gotten us to this place. There are too many who take the easy way, rather than the high road, too many who forget the dues/ fees and other revenue they collect at locals, conferences and the national is for the betterment of musicians of all varieties and not the the personal piggy banks of the entity collecting it. The focus of the three groups mentioned and the individual members of this union should be what is best for the collective whole rather than the besmirchment, and personal attack that has been the method most often used the last dozen or so years.

Ken Shirk I am not always sure I agree with you but intelligence and honor seem to be two things you do carry with you Don't drop them now...

Jimmy Hoffa's Presonal Asst. on Jul 22, 2006 11:26:17 PM:

Robert wrote,

"There may be people in the AFM who have both workable answers and the ability to put them into effect. For the most part, though, they’re not running for national office. Until and unless that changes, getting the current officers “out of the picture” is going to fix nothing."

There were plenty of people running at the last convention and some of them would have been progressive if elected.

I ran for President for many reasons, one of them was that after meeting with Lee he would so nothing for the club musicians and that he though the whole Local 12 Corruption problem was in the past.

He would not clear my name for the lawsuit blame even though the money the Federation lost in the lawsuit was to keep Benson's felony status a secret, the Club who sued me , the local and the Federation was going to publicly expose Benson as a convicted child molester.

All Federation Officers in office at the time (1994-1997) we informed of this and the Club Blackmailed the Federation, and I was the scapegoat.

It is a simple as that.

I have great anger over this, but I am starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel, I ran against Lee, because I had no confidence in him as a leader and that he would not enforce the law or the bylaws.

I also ran because I see no organizing of my generation or the generations that are after mine, I find this as unacceptable.

After Florence Nelson screwed me on the delegate list send me the full list after most of the Delegates where already in Las Vegas, I knew that I could not win the election.

Florence did this because she support Ed Ward Running for President and view me running as an upstart.

So in Vegas I ran the Numbers, people who I met and spoke with for any length of time made up their own minds about what they had hear from me.

A former AFM International President even asked "Why are you not working for the AFM?, we could use you"

I told him to ask TOM LEE for that answer.

When I was asked to run for a IEB seat instead of President, I slept on it and the next day I thought if I run I am going to take some votes away from Tom or Ed, not enough for me to win but enough to tip the scales for one of them.

I though it over and said to myself as a IEB member I can bring ideas to the table, they an be ignored or put to use, I though with my Bull in China Shop mind set, that might be better for the AFM for the time being.

I was happy to seek IEB at the last minute because my mind when to work on how I could be an productive for the AFM, It was a long shot but I made the choice based on something else besides my anger.

I lost but it was nice to run and say my piece and everyone was singing the words to "Solidarity Forever" from the convention floor, I am told this was the first time this has happen ever in the AFM.

I was speaking to Brian O'connor when the singing started, I was moved by it. and said to myself, My mission at the convention is done now.

Many people ran for IEB with different ideas and back grounds, in a perfect world we would have 20 IEB members from every sector of the AFM Membership.

I wanted to be the first for my generation or Hard Rock/Metal Musicians.

Robert said,
"getting the current officers “out of the picture” is going to fix nothing."

No it will not fix a broken system, but it would create a new system.

Michael Troy Moore

Robert Levine on Jul 22, 2006 10:34:02 PM:

“given up” wrote:

“. In all of your discussions, the only thing that matters is that you will get none of your wishes or ideals from the current administration. Until Mr Lee is out of the picture, the wine, dine and travel at our expense administration will continue to bleed our funds.”

I don’t think that the reason the AFM is shrinking (which is itself merely a symptom and not the disease) is because the AFM spends too much on travel. There may be people in the AFM who have both workable answers and the ability to put them into effect. For the most part, though, they’re not running for national office. Until and unless that changes, getting the current officers “out of the picture” is going to fix nothing.

Ken Shirk wrote:

“I agree that Robert has accurately pinpointed how unions perceive and/or identify themselves. Unquestioningly relying upon the law for that self-identity is, however, the wearing of the blinders to which I was referring in my initial post. The Oxford definition of "union" is quite different from the one Robert offered: "...an act or instance of uniting; the state of being united; a whole resulting from the combination of parts or members." The definition of "labor union" is similarly broad…”

My point was not what a union should be. I certainly prefer the definition that Ken offers to the one the NLRA implicitly puts forward. My point, rather, is that the AFM, like any organization, is shaped by its environment and its history. Having watched the AFM bat away most attempts at substantive change, or even discussion of such, at 7 or 8 conventions, I have become very skeptical that the AFM has the ability to now start shaping its environment or to do anything other than what it’s done historically. And, to be fair, it’s very hard to do that in what is (as Ken has correctly pointed out in the past) a federation of locals rather than a federation of musicians, especially when the locals differ as profoundly in so many ways as do the locals of the AFM. The only change that we seem to be able to make, least at conventions, are changes that either affect no locals or changes that affect all locals equally. The first kind isn’t really change at all, and the second kind simply doesn’t exist.

Ken also wrote:

“The bottom line for me is that their union membership should get them paid better wherever they work. If that can be accomplished through a CBA, great. If a local can't get to a CBA for whatever reason, then go find another way to get them paid better. I don't know the magic answer; that's what we're trying to discover in Portland. Defining the problem, and then allowing for the possibility of alternative solutions is the first step.”

I think what you’re doing in Portland (at least to the extent I understand it) is admirable, as is the AFM’s support for it. I hope you’re able to come up with a model that other locals can use. If the AFM is going to change, it’s not going to change from the top down.

given up on the AFM on Jul 22, 2006 9:47:57 PM:

I love to see you guys waste so much time talking about contractors, service, organizing, relevance, value.... In all of your discussions, the only thing that matters is that you will get none of your wishes or ideals from the current administration. Until Mr Lee is out of the picture, the wine, dine and travel at our expense administration will continue to bleed our funds. Ken, I'm sure in all your years with that dictator, you must have at least one morsel of information that could be used against him. Stop with you ethics and let us have it.

Matt Plummer on Jul 22, 2006 9:12:57 PM:

Hello, and thanks for the thoughtful commentary.
On wrote:

A union must be necessary and relevant to its members and potential members...
1. Provide relevant services that are only available to members.
2. Provide services which are cheaper and better than what is available outside of the union.

I can't imagine a union providing services that are cheaper and better than what is available outside of the union. I also don't understand the purpose of an AARP-style organization that Robert proposes, since many already exist. Are we another professional organization competing for benefits in the trough, or are we a union?

As Ken Shirk said, "Labor unions are a creation of people." Although I have worked on projects to improve services to members (esp. freelance), I think those services are incidental. The point of a musicians' union is not to provide services, product discounts, or top-down advocacy. It is to give musicians control over their working conditions.

That's why I don't understand the CBA debate. If musicians collectively owned and ran a venue, does the lack of an employer eliminate the need for a union? No, they *would be* the union. Every problem that confronts a worker must be addressed, and most effectively through the activism of engaged rank-and-file musicians.

As a labor union, we have an obligation to represent musicians in every situation, whether we are legally permitted, extra-legally allowed, or prohibited from doing so. How else can we honor the sacrifices of those that built the labor movement?

on Jul 22, 2006 7:39:56 PM:

Steve Young taught the Freelance task force in Nashville that a union must be necessary and relevant to its members and potential members. Translate that into today's technological world:
1. Provide relevant services that are only available to members.
2. Provide services which are cheaper and better than what is available outside of the union.

There are work-around to the NLRA but they are seldom union-only concepts. Robert is correct about leader/contractors. The New York Court of Appeals declared them as the identifiable employer of AFM musicians. The AFM will not go there because many hold union office.

Ken Shirk on Jul 22, 2006 6:24:13 PM:

Robert Levine wrote:

"Mr. Samuel’s argument sounds a little to me like telling a symphony orchestra that it could increase its audience by doing documentaries. It’s true, but it’s also beside the point. For a symphony orchestra to do documentaries would involve such expense and such a range of internal changes that simply starting another organization to make documentaries would make lots more sense."

This is the "straw man" argument. Mr. Samuels proposed nothing so preposterous.

Robert also wrote:

"Similarly, the definition of “labor union” in this country, because of history and law, is basically “an organization that does CBA negotiation and administration.” To take that history and law (and, of course, the AFM’s own peculiar history and structure) and to try to convert the AFM into an organization that does what Mr. Samuels and Pete Vriesenga want it to do might be possible. But it’s not a very likely solution to the problem."

I agree that Robert has accurately pinpointed how unions perceive and/or identify themselves. Unquestioningly relying upon the law for that self-identity is, however, the wearing of the blinders to which I was referring in my initial post. The Oxford definition of "union" is quite different from the one Robert offered: "...an act or instance of uniting; the state of being united; a whole resulting from the combination of parts or members." The definition of "labor union" is similarly broad: "...an organized association of workers, often in a trade or profession, formed to protect and further their rights and interests." There is nothing in either of those definitions that includes the words "CBA negotiation and administration."

If we, as a union, continue to limit our self-identification to the narrow constraints of the NLRA framework, our organizational horizons will be similarly narrow, and our results will be narrow. That is not theory. This union's history since 1978 has proven it.

I agree with Michael that within that NLRA framework we practice discrimination by unquestioningly writing out a whole class of musicians from the umbrella of collective bargaining. I agree with Michael that the law should be to everybody's benefit, no matter what label we or they choose to affix to themselves. There are some realities, however, that require some beyond-the-horizon thinking. For instance, some musicians don't want to be employees. Some musicians aren't in town long enough to be organized and bargained for. The bottom line for me is that their union membership should get them paid better wherever they work. If that can be accomplished through a CBA, great. If a local can't get to a CBA for whatever reason, then go find another way to get them paid better. I don't know the magic answer; that's what we're trying to discover in Portland. Defining the problem, and then allowing for the possibility of alternative solutions is the first step.

The Lakota people have a saying: "If your horse is dead, then it's time to change horses." I heard a construction union rep once say to a group, "We can only make change in our organization when we change how we think."

Robert Levine on Jul 22, 2006 3:19:38 PM:

Roger Samuels wrote:

“To make a long story short, if the union wants to effectively represent its members, or “fit in” in the workplace, it will have to leave its “comfort area” and find out where it “fit in with the group.” It is time consuming and in the union’s case, expensive, but it is the group’s determination if the union “fits in…The union’s “comfort area” has been collective bargaining. But the fact is that for some members, the union must go out and find out where they “fit in.””

An historical note: until quite recently the AFM was neither very supportive or, or good at, collective bargaining. In essence, that’s what led to the formation of the player conferences. Unfortunately it wasn’t all that great at representing its non-CBA members either.

Mr. Samuel’s argument sounds a little to me like telling a symphony orchestra that it could increase its audience by doing documentaries. It’s true, but it’s also beside the point. For a symphony orchestra to do documentaries would involve such expense and such a range of internal changes that simply starting another organization to make documentaries would make lots more sense.

Similarly, the definition of “labor union” in this country, because of history and law, is basically “an organization that does CBA negotiation and administration.” To take that history and law (and, of course, the AFM’s own peculiar history and structure) and to try to convert the AFM into an organization that does what Mr. Samuels and Pete Vriesenga want it to do might be possible. But it’s not a very likely solution to the problem.

Can the AFM transform itself into an organization that can appeal to those hundreds of thousands of potential members in ways it can’t now? Color me skeptical. For one example, can the AFM reduce its dues to AARP-type levels? People are willing to pay $10 or $20 annually to be part of AARP, or the Sierra Club, because they believe in advocacy of those issues. But $100-200 per year? That’s a tough sell. But how can the AFM reduce dues to $10-20 annually and stay afloat?

on Jul 22, 2006 11:24:18 AM:

Vetran of American etc . . . I think you missed the point of Mr. Samuel's post.

What I understood from his post is the AFM has to go outside the box and find out HOW to represent its members and what the method and means of that RESPRESENTATION is. And whatever that REPRESENTATION is, it must be a block in the foundation of the professional musicians life.

Collective bargaining may not be the be-all and end-all of the union.

Who better than musicians could play "A Variation on a Theme by Petrillo."

Veteran of the American Labor Wars on Jul 22, 2006 1:57:27 AM:

Roger said:
"if collective bargaining was unlawful"

The Point I am trying to stress is under all of these laws you can not bar people/humans/workers for collective and or individual bargaining.

I wished that some of you would understand that this is a form of discrimination, restraint of trade and denying a CLASS of people all of the rights you can think of?

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Break it down to a Constitution issue if you wish, there was a time Labor was in Chains-Blacks/Chinese workers were in SLAVERY in the United States, Women could not Vote ect., Farm workers were not allowed Collective bargaining.

(I remember the US Constitution saying something about "Inalienable Rights" well the where are they for this CLASS ?)

All of those above took people who would not accept this 2nd class citizenship to force a change and have their rights recognized and enforced.

Musicians and Entertainers are the "Last in Line" even behind immigrant workers in having rights.

IF WE, pushed for a expansion of the Federal and State minimum wages laws to cover all Musicians and Entertainers no matter where they work in the United States, Pay To Play would be gone and their would be at least a Cover over the hole of the bottomless pit for their wages.

None would be forced to work for less that minimum, it would also harvest a new tax base from the underground economy which would make both the Right and Left Wing Suits in DC happy, DO the math over how much $$$ Musicians and Entertainers lose in FICA, SSI and unemployment benefits over a whole lifetime of Club gigs?

Those benefit contributions would make a huge difference when they retire when those funds are combined with the contributions from a Musicians Day Job.

Only cost a few dollars to the club owner which 5 to 10 people through the door would make up for at a club, and the impact this would have on the lives of contributions to Musicians and Entertainers would be great.

I know I am right on this, why should everyone else in the work force have Minimum wage protections except us?

I remember someone said nobody is forcing musicians to work? and I disagree, you get hired to play at a club for most club musicians you are STUCK with what the club demands or you do not work- PERIOD!

If you were truly an independence Contractor you would be able to negotiate on your own behalf on your compensation for working in the Club.

Unless your one of the 2 percent with bargaining power the club will REFUSE TO DISCUSS TERMS or EVEN A CONTRACT.

Your not a volunteer, your not an intern your a SLAVE TO THE CLUB in order to work, "Servitude" you go on when they say, they control your volume levels they tell you what you can and can not bring on the stage, they can STOP THE SHOW!

THEY KEEP THE COVER CHARGE!

I wrote in a song of mine,

"What the hell is the cover charge for? if the band doesn't get a piece of the door!"

The System is LOCKED UP! and they have total control of the work force.

UNFAIR!

Roger Samuels on Jul 21, 2006 11:36:38 AM:

Ken wrote: “I would answer that question with another question: Hypothetically, if collective bargaining was unlawful, but a union was still determined to effectively represent its members in the workplace, what should that union do?”

I keep getting invited to these parties with 30 to 40 people, very few of whom I know. I always found myself going to my comfort area; where I knew the people and I knew that the conversation would be on subjects that I knew about and would interest me. After a couple of years of this same procedure, I realized that these parties may not be boring, it may be how I interacted during the parties.

What I decided to do was to go to the next party, stay away from my comfort area, and approach groups that I knew nothing about and try to “fit in.” (but not force myself in). I struck out with some groups, but in other groups I not only “fit in”, but I add to the conversation and the group. These groups, who I previously did not know, would call me over, because I became “part of their functioning.”

To make a long story short, if the union wants to effectively represent its members, or “fit in” in the workplace, it will have to leave its “comfort area” and find out where it “fit in with the group.” It is time consuming and in the union’s case, expensive, but it is the group’s determination if the union “fits in.”

The union’s “comfort area” has been collective bargaining. But the fact is that for some members, the union must go out and find out where they “fit in.”

Robert Levine on Jul 21, 2006 11:03:08 AM:

Ken Shirk wrote:

“"If “on” is correct, however, and the freelance musicians Ken represents could be considered to be independent contractors, what can his newly-hired organizer legally do? I would answer that question with another question: Hypothetically, if collective bargaining was unlawful, but a union was still determined to effectively represent its members in the workplace, what should that union do?”

I don’t know the answer to either question, and would love to hear from those who have some ideas on the subject.

Just a Member on Jul 21, 2006 10:36:24 AM:

Please don't allow this comment to disrupt the flow of your conversation, but I would just like to comment how constructive this as well as other conversations have been.

For those of us who are simply members, it gives us a feeling that you guys are not just sitting back counting our dues payments. And maybe there isn't any visible results from anything that was discussed, but it gives me, and I am sure others, a sense that somethings happening.

I don't know if people don't trust the AFM blog or what, but for the person resposible for this blog, you have done a service to the AFM. And this blog seems to attract knowledgeable participants.

Thank you. . . And if it is possible, I'd like to find out more about Mr. Shirk's program.

Now . . . . . "On with the Show."

Ken Shirk on Jul 21, 2006 9:41:01 AM:

Robert Levine wrote:

"If “on” is correct, however, and the freelance musicians Ken represents could be considered to be independent contractors, what can his newly-hired organizer legally do?"

I would answer that question with another question: Hypothetically, if collective bargaining was unlawful, but a union was still determined to effectively represent its members in the workplace, what should that union do?

Robert Levine on Jul 20, 2006 9:55:48 PM:

Michael Moore wrote:

“I must insist that in every business environment somebody is the employer and somebody is labor.”

There’s an old saying that goes “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” I agree with you. The problem is that the government agencies responsible for making the final and legally binding rulings on the subject sometimes don’t.

“I do not like that when we split hairs on this issue that there seems to be a school of thought that seeks to put one class of laborers above another by stating their is no clear employer and these guys over here have a clear employment relationship therefore are worthy of a CBA and Representation.”

Please read what I’ve written more carefully. The question is not who’s “worthy” of a CBA. Claiming that this discussion is a form of class warfare within the AFM is neither accurate nor productive. The question is who the NLRB and the courts think are covered by the NRLA.

I’ve done a bit more research on the question of what unions can do for workers who are determined to be independent contractors. It’s a bit of a horror show. I’ve found two web pages on the subject that seem relevant to our situation: http://www.physiciansnews.com/discussion/smith.html and http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/1998/03_98/PractMgmt_0398.html.

I agree that the idea of musicians (especially side musicians and orchestra musicians) being considered “independent contractors” is a travesty. But it can happen nonetheless.

Was Norma Rae hottie? on Jul 20, 2006 5:13:30 PM:

I am glad this discussion is happening here and many voices are speaking about this, even the ones that try to shoot down my angle on organizing the unorganized and under represented.

Interested Viewer has so far put up the most non-bias post thus far on this topic.

I must insist that in every business environment somebody is the employer and somebody is labor.

There may be a few times that they are self employed, but that is really an old school reality of the clubs over 30 years ago.

I do not like that when we split hairs on this issue that there seems to be a school of thought that seeks to put one class of laborers above another by stating their is no clear employer and these guys over here have a clear employment relationship therefore are worthy of a CBA and Representation.

While the rest are not or beyond help and victims of the circumstances.

They are label this because a class of musicians considers themselves an elite by style of music made and performed and the rest are 3 cord bands.

Maybe those musicians are more skilled, trained and a have better recognition in society?

But to look down upon the ones you call Casual Club Date Musicians is wrong, and it is shooting yourself in the foot by not acknowledging them as Human beings with basic fundamental rights as equals in society.

The VIBE from people on this blog I get is very much like the vibe of Racism, like NO Blacks at my country club and if blacks are at country club they must used the back entrance and be caddies and not be allowed to golf.

It is the enforcement by the AFM,The United States Government, The lawyers, and the Whole Music Industry of a Second and Third Class Labor class in a artificial cast system.

"Interested Viewer" noted that some employers are going to windup being members of the AFM.

I have no doubt of that, but the majority of clubs and concert promoters are the employers, I have proved this several times by the control test and the AFM IGNORES THE FINDINGS!

I am told over and over again "they are not employees" "We can't represent them to club or casino, we (the AFM) do not have the right!"

This is absurd!

All musicians are people and Human Beings, and there is no disputing that, Human beings have rights under International Law, International treaties, Federal Law, State Law and in the end natural & common law.

And within those laws & treaties Human beings every man, woman and child are afforded the right to representation by "REPRESENTATIVES" of their own choosing.

If the musicians choose the AFM or any other labor union as their Collective and or individual bargaining agents, the representatives can approach whom ever is hiring those musicians for purposes of representation.

If those of you who say:
"We can't represent them to club or casino, we (the AFM) do not have the right!"

Then "Explain" to this BLOG how then can law firm, a band manager, a booking agent a record label or anyone else those musician choose as representing their interest are not running around saying we can't represent them?

There is nothing stopping the AFM from representing musicians to any employer, except a plan, PR and the moxie to moved forward and save the AFM.

They need a representation and we need them as members.

I remind you that the Farm Workers had this same problem 40 years ago and there was no labor board for the VFM to bring Farm Workers Cause to back then, Caesar Chavez and the radical Grape Boycott help bring about a "Agricultural Labor Board" and The AFM could do the same by pushing a campaign and showing the Government the fact that the Farm Workers the second to last work force in America to be brought out from under 19th Century Labor Law.

The Club Musicians and Club Entertainers are the LAST WORK FORCE LEFT BEHIND UNDER 19th CENTURY LABOR LAW IN THE UNITED STATES!

It is a crime against humankind.

Interested Viewer on Jul 20, 2006 12:23:49 PM:

This is a very interesting and informative discussion.

"Is the clubdate or casual musician an employee or an independent contractor?" The answer is neither.

The relationship is determined by the circumstances, not the individual or area of performance. When we group these performancers in the "independent contractor's" catagory we might be missing situations when they are employees.

It also happens that the employer maybe one of our members.

802 Member on Jul 20, 2006 12:00:43 PM:

The attached link is the single engagement used by Local 802. It might be helpful in your conversation.

http://www.local802afm.org/wage/pdf/single.pdf

Robert Levine on Jul 19, 2006 9:36:11 PM:

“on” wrote:

“Under the NLRB a union may not leverage, pressure, or use its influence to get an employer to the table if the workers are independent contractors.”

I’m not a labor lawyer. And obviously I have no idea whether or not “on” is a labor lawyer (although referencing the NLRB rather than the NLRA might be a clue). But I can’t find this particular exclusion using Google. And the NLRA wouldn’t bar the musicians from taking concerted action; it would simply mean that their actions weren’t protected under the NRLA. No one can force the musicians to provide services to the employer (at least that’s how I read the 14th Amendment). And certainly the 1st Amendment has to count for something here.

One of the confusing aspects of this discussion is that there are two potential barriers to organizing casual musicians; one is whether or not they are considered independent contractors, and the other is identifying the employer. As I understand the agreements the AFM reached with the NLRB, they speak to the issue of who the employer is – ie, the band leader or the hotel – rather than the legal status of the musicians hired. That would mean that the AFM can’t force the hotel to negotiate. It doesn’t mean the AFM can’t force the bandleader to negotiate – for whatever that might be worth.

If “on” is correct, however, and the freelance musicians Ken represents could be considered to be independent contractors, what can his newly-hired organizer legally do?

Ken Shirk on Jul 19, 2006 9:15:38 PM:

Robert Levine wrote:

"I didn’t read Ken’s post as implying that his local’s organizing efforts weren’t geared towards getting musicians under CBAs."

I'm happy to again report that you are both right. Pete correctly interpreted my remarks, but by the same token, our local is not wedded to one type of result to the exclusion of any other possible result.

My philosophy is to organize for strength in whatever way presents the least resistance. That may take us in the direction of a CBA, but it could also take us in a completely different direction, either of which is good if the result is a collective improvement for the musicians. We are not predetermining the type of outcome and will not do so unless and until the target musicians have identified the goal and result that they are willing to support.

This is new territory for us, and we are learning as we go.

on Jul 19, 2006 8:13:47 PM:

Under the NLRB a union may not leverage, pressure, or use its influence to
get an employer to the table if the workers are independent contractors.

Of course, an employer can voluntarily offer to bargain.

Robert Levine on Jul 19, 2006 7:47:56 PM:

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

“So it's only natural to wish the same for casual and freelance musicians, but I shudder at the thought that we are abandoning this majority because "they" can't be a part of a CBA concept. Ken makes an excellent case to remind us that a CBA is a legal framework - nothing more.”

I didn’t read Ken’s post as implying that his local’s organizing efforts weren’t geared towards getting musicians under CBAs. It’s my understanding that it’s possible and legal to have CBAs for workers that the NLRB might not consider eligible employees, although obviously it can be harder to get the employer to the table. For example, even if the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission ruled that the musicians of the Milwaukee Chamber Orchestra were independent contractors, that would not bar management from negotiating a CBA with Local 8 for them. My understanding is that such a ruling would simply not require them to negotiate with Local 8. But we could still bring pressure on the employer to negotiate with us.

But perhaps that’s not what Ken meant.

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 19, 2006 3:13:28 PM:

Over the last decade(s) we have all embraced collective bargaining as the best means to represent our members. This comes as no surprise as many of us are directly involved with this enviable process and all of the representative detail that a CBA brings to our symphonic and recording musicians. So it's only natural to wish the same for casual and freelance musicians, but I shudder at the thought that we are abandoning this majority because "they" can't be a part of a CBA concept. Ken makes an excellent case to remind us that a CBA is a legal framework - nothing more. Despite the beauty of the collective bargaining process and all that it offers the musician/employee, an objective look from the outside may conclude that the legal wrinkles that also come with this very legal process are not worth the cost.

One case in point is occurring as we speak (or write) in Denver. One of our members, who for purposes of this discussion shall be named "Mary," has been concertmaster of a local community orchestra for 16 years, and is one of the only members of the orchestra who is paid. The orchestra just hired a mental midget as executive director who, even though he admits Mary is a fine player, holds her accountable for the orchestra's inability to recruit [freebie] string players. On my advice, Mary protested the decision to the orchestra board, which then prompted a slanderous response from the executive director that was copied to the entire orchestra.

Mary and I responded as a tag team by sending an email to the whole orchestra, explaining how and why the new executive director is an irresponsible idiot. And though the orchestra is in great majority nonunion, my personal email to the musicians asked them to stand up in collective support for Mary. Within just a few hours, "dozens" of very strong letters of support came pouring in, pummeling management for their irresponsible actions. Unlike a long, drawn-out, closed-door grievance process, this action resembled the glory days of Labor when management feared the possibility of a worker uprising...as this was.

We must remember that musicians have considerable power that sets us apart from any other trade, which is the ability to connect directly with our audience and public. However, once we sign a collective bargaining agreement, we forfeit our power of public influence by agreeing to provisions of Taft-Hartley and the good and bad that comes with grievance and arbitration. A typical orchestra grievance (as above) that was resolved in just a few hours, and that generated great solidarity among the musicians, would be drawn out over many months under the confines of a CBA. By the time a decision is given, this process will have spent down the resources of the union and will be decided behind closed doors long after everyone has forgotten what the issue was.

Obviously we must be careful not to compromise any legal protections that we have, but let's be honest about the world and environment that we work in. The measure of a good Local is not necessarily its ability to influence the public, but often how much the Local is willing to spend in legal fees. Accept that collective power that workers won in the '30's is diluted, if not lost, but only if we agree to play in the legal box that is dealt to us. If I read him correctly, Ken is encouraging all of us to find ways to create our own framework that, with sufficient numbers, can be imposed on everyone else.

Pete Vriesenga

Robert Levine on Jul 19, 2006 6:33:58 AM:

Ken Shirk wrote:

“Our local hired a full-time organizer, who brings her experience from other unions and grassroots community organizing. Her primary focus is on non-NLRA-traditional musicians. Our organizing program is not cheap, and imposes certain economies in order to budget for it, but we do it willingly.”

I am filled with admiration for what you’re trying to do. I hope you’ll go into more detail about it at some point and in some forum.

AFM Local 12 Reform on Jul 18, 2006 10:32:34 PM:

Offical AFM Local 12 Reform Update

www.AFMLOCAL12.org

Results of Ballot Count for office of AFM Local 12 Vice President.

on Jul 18, 2006 8:06:22 PM:

Nice to see some discourse on issues relating to what we need to be doing in this union. Recently a discussion was had with an individual involved in the staff meeting held in Vegas, that was the subject of some discussion several weeks back (the dinner at the Venetian) What interested me most about the discussion was; it seems there was some sort of planned programme and the employees in attendance were asked their opinions about what works and doesn't work and there was a genuine attempt on the part of the staff to address the issues. It seems the results of the programme so overwhelmed certain individuals that the work done there has fallen into the abyss and whatever ideas there may have been will probably never be known. What a waste, methinks it may have had advanced this discussion or even the future of the AFM.....

Ken Shirk on Jul 18, 2006 1:08:42 PM:

Michael Moore wrote on Jul 16:

"For the rest that fall into a gray area as to whom
the employer is can be organized under not Labor
right but HUMAN RIGHTS."

and then wrote again on Jul 17, 2006 12:18:00 AM, to someone who disagreed with his premise of applying the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to musicians:

"I am glad that you were quick to answer my post,

"I would guess that this post answering my claim
is from 1 of 3 people with the AFM. Paula from
B &K; would be my first guess based on the verbatim,
then Ken Shirk as a 2nd guess."

Michael would be wrong on both counts. (1) The AFM would likely be unwilling to pay B&K; to write for blogs; (2) I agree with Michael.

Michael has mistaken my historical recitations of the intertwining of the AFM and the government's "application" of labor law as acquiescence. I believe that where an employer/employee relationship can be asserted, a local should use the NLRA to organize the musicians and secure a CBA for their benefit. I also believe that where an employer/employee relationship is difficult to prove, or may in fact not exist, a local should use a different kind of organizing than what the NLRA sets forth. Laws are supposed to help the people. If the law doesn't help the people, then we should work around it. World history is full of examples of people successfully organizing for something besides a CBA for their mutual benefit. We need be no different nor less effective.

The NLRA was enacted because Congress thought labor was too energetic about it. Then Taft-Hartley amendments were enacted because labor was still too effective at it. In 1978, to get its ass out of hot water, the AFM authored the script for affirmatively excluding two-thirds (WAG) of its members from the protections of the NLRA.

Labor unions are a creation of people, not the other way around. The problem in this country is that the people have allowed laws to warp their thinking about those creations, to the point that the people who run the unions now look to the NLRA, rather than to the craft members, to define what their unions are. For instance, since its 1982 revolution, I have admired Local 802's commitment to organizing musicians under CBAs as well as its commitment to social justice. By the same token, however, I've been mystified and dismayed by 802's insistent specializing solely on musicians who fit the NLRA-imposed straight-jacket. For any union to look away from members of the craft it represents only because those craft members don't fit the legal formula designed by some angry old men in 1947 and a couple of pasty-faced NLRB stooges in 1978, is an abdication of core mission.

The music industry of the 2000s is not the industry of the 1990s, is not the industry of the 1980s, is not the industry of the 1970s, etc., etc., etc. In each succeeding decade, it has moved farther and farther away from the template of the NLRA. For us, our choice is either to watch the craft we represent disappear beyond the edge of the horizon, or catch up with it and approach it with a new intention and new eyes, without the NLRA blinders that we so willingly wear today.

But it must always be about organizing. I agree with Robert Levine that there is little value for us as a labor union, and nothing really accomplished, simply by recruiting dues-paying bodies. I agree more strongly with Pete Vriesenga, however, that as long as members of the craft are separate from us, we - and they - are weaker; the interrelated goals should be more members = more union strength = more musician economic security.

Here at Local 99, with an executive board well-represented by our classical CBA musicians, we have determined that survival as a union and as a profession means broadening our reach in the industry beyond the NLRA limitations. Our local hired a full-time organizer, who brings her experience from other unions and grassroots community organizing. Her primary focus is on non-NLRA-traditional musicians. Our organizing program is not cheap, and imposes certain economies in order to budget for it, but we do it willingly. To quote the late Richard Totusek, we either do as a union what we are *supposed* to do and maybe fail, or REFUSE to do as we were meant and surely fail. Our board has chosen the former. We are grateful that our relationship with our CBA members, who finance a big, big chunk of the local's operation, permits the local to utilize resources in this way. And we are most appreciative that the AFM leadership has chosen to invest in the outcome of our local's organizing program.

Robert Levine on Jul 18, 2006 11:29:42 AM:

SJ Rankin wrote:

“I was at Eastman in Rochester, NY until 1992. Every year the AFM use to send two people from the New York Office for one day. One guy was with the Recording Dept. and the other was the Presidents Assistant who explained to us about the previous court cases and that the AFM is not ignoring freelance musicians. Every possible subject involving the professional musician was dicussed. In fact they spent about 8 hours one day each year discussing contracts, the AFM history, contracts, legal cases - - - everything. They said that they go to Julliard, MSM, Hartt, Curtis, etc. A few years ago I called the AFM to tell them how helpful their visits were and both individual had left the AFM….I don't see the AFM doing this anymore and if this is not done, the students only have rumors and third hand information to go by.”

Oddly enough, the Eastman School is itself now doing this education. They’ve started a website (www.polyphonic.org) that is providing continuing education for musicians (discloser: I’ve been doing some writing for the site.) The AFM has been involved in the design and implementation of the program, and in fact 2 of the first 5 video interviews have been with AFM staff.

Robert Levine on Jul 18, 2006 11:24:44 AM:

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

“Now, Robert, we should stop quarreling over such matters when there are bigger fish to fry than finding ways to defend a shrinking union. This debate will only give us reason to pretend there's nothing to concerned about as the AFM slips into irrelevancy.”

Au contraire, the reasons why the AFM is shrinking are very important to explore. If we don’t know why what’s happening is happening, how are we to know what to do about it?

I should make it clear that I’m not in favor of the AFM shrinking. I just don’t see any way that, absent pretty radical changes, the trend is going to be reversed.

Pete also wrote:

“Member data that I've seen, including the composition of the Denver Local, shows that the large majority of our members are freelance musicians. They generally ask for nothing and often receive nothing. They're accomplished professionals who perform and earn their livelihood from a wide variety of settings and their needs are as great or greater than our members who work under CBAs.”

Local 8 has four major categories of members. The first are those 90-100 members who work full-time under CBAs. Then there are a group (probably 50-100) that make a living from the music business, working partly under CBAs, partly freelance without a union contract, and partly by private teaching. There’s a group (perhaps 200) that make their living doing other things, but want to play professionally and do on occasion. Then there are 150 or so retirees, most of whom retain membership for the life insurance and/or their emotional connection to the business (a handful of these – say 20 or so – do so musical work as well).

The last two groups are not getting their money’s worth, in my opinion, in part because their dues are too high and in part because we can’t figure out what to do for them other than what we’re already doing.

Matt Plummer wrote:

“Last: I resent Robert Levine's implication that every member outside of the player conferences is "fraternal"… I also know many "creative" musicians who teach, write music, arrange music, and perform brilliantly; 100% of their lives is music. Yet, because their artistic choices have not lead them to commercial success, they are not likely be classified as full-time. Well, in my definition of full-time musician, these people count!!”

I was talking about the institution and not the membership. Institutionally, the AFM and its locals behave like two completely different types of organizations. Obviously musicians who work and want to be members should “count.” Until we can figure out what that means in practice, and structure the organization in such a way that we can deliver that for a dues structure that makes sense, we’re going to keep losing those folks.

I think there are two interesting models that the AFM should examine as possible future paths. The first is the Future of Music Coalition (http://www.futureofmusic.org/), which is primarily advocacy but also provides some services. The second is AARP; not because of its demographics, but because they’ve figured out a way to make membership very attractive and virtually free (annual dues of $12.50). Talk about effective advocacy…

Matt Plummer on Jul 18, 2006 10:35:32 AM:

S. J., I should mention that the Boston local DOES have a great program similar to the one you describe at my school.

S. J. Rankin on Jul 18, 2006 10:14:33 AM:

Matt's response reminded me of something that the AFM no longer does with Mucic Schools.

I was at Eastman in Rochester, NY until 1992. Every year the AFM use to send two people from the New York Office for one day. One guy was with the Recording Dept. and the other was the Presidents Assistant who explained to us about the previous court cases and that the AFM is not ignoring freelance musicians. Every possible subject involving the professional musician was dicussed. In fact they spent about 8 hours one day each year discussing contracts, the AFM history, contracts, legal cases - - - everything. They said that they go to Julliard, MSM, Hartt, Curtis, etc. A few years ago I called the AFM to tell them how helpful their visits were and both individual had left the AFM.

I don't see the AFM doing this anymore and if this is not done, the students only have rumors and third hand information to go by.

Does anyone know if the AFM will reinstituted this program?

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 18, 2006 9:00:11 AM:

Now, Robert, we should stop quarreling over such matters when there are bigger fish to fry than finding ways to defend a shrinking union. This debate will only give us reason to pretend there's nothing to concerned about as the AFM slips into irrelevancy.

Matt wrote: "Every statement I've heard about the composition of the AFM membership is worthless, lacking any data. Having said that, I'll be hypocritical and say that I know many full-time freelance musicians who are not represented by CBAs."

Member data that I've seen, including the composition of the Denver Local, shows that the large majority of our members are freelance musicians. They generally ask for nothing and often receive nothing. They're accomplished professionals who perform and earn their livelihood from a wide variety of settings and their needs are as great or greater than our members who work under CBAs.

There is no mandate or union security clause requiring they join the AFM, yet they routinely send in their annual dues because they...support the AFM? In return, too many of us have failed and mocked them.

Matt Plummer on Jul 18, 2006 1:39:35 AM:

As most people know by now, I'm a neophyte in the AFM. But currently as a grad student in a vibrant and dynamic music school (NEC) full of working musicians, I can tell you that most musicians here are very aware of the issues that affect their careers in the music industry, and there is substantive discussion around these issues on a regular basis. Whether people on the blog feel it is advisable (???) or possible for the AFM to take a leadership role in our industry, the musicians that I know are certainly interested in issues beyond their immediate workplace and economic concerns.

Most people I know haven't heard much about the union, or think of it as an organization to join when they are active in certain scenes, like theater work, orchestras, jingles, &c.; They don't think of it as method to affect change in their working conditions.

In the short term I don't blame AFM locals and officers, because their resources are slim and inherently in this structure they must service the CBAs. However, I am annoyed that conceptually (independent of any legal issues) the union has treated freelancers as independent agents that are competing with each other in a dog-eat-dog world. By our rhetoric we have basically endorsed employers as the most valid force in the music world and downplayed our potential for collective action. Isn't collective action the point of unions? With only a change in rhetoric we would be better off.

On a slightly different note, I've been in San Francisco for a couple weeks. I recently attended a tour of the 1934 San Francisco general strike with members of the ILWU. Not to reveal the depths of my ignorance, but from what I understand the ILWU (earlier actually the ILU) was organized in conditions of extreme scarcity of work, competition among workers, and corruption. If the ILWU had tried to protect only the few workers that were lucky enough (or corrupt enough) to be getting work from the employers, their union would never have been effective. Instead, they were willing to fight and die for the ability to organize the work themselves- distributing the work evenly amongst all *qualified* workers, even when it meant that each person worked less.

For the record, I'm not suggesting the conditions in our two industries are analogous!

Last: I resent Robert Levine's implication that every member outside of the player conferences is "fraternal". Every statement I've heard about the composition of the AFM membership is worthless, lacking any data. Having said that, I'll be hypocritical and say that I know many full-time freelance musicians who are not represented by CBAs. I also know many full-time musicians whose income is partly derived from private teaching, which probably would classify them as a part-time musician in the AFM. I also know many "creative" musicians who teach, write music, arrange music, and perform brilliantly; 100% of their lives is music. Yet, because their artistic choices have not lead them to commercial success, they are not likely be classified as full-time. Well, in my definition of full-time musician, these people count!!

Robert Levine on Jul 17, 2006 7:42:01 PM:

PS: The AFM was never able to pass the logical precursor of the Digital Performance Rights Act, which would have been the equivalent for conventional radio, even when it was far larger and theoretically more powerful than it is today. That’s why the US is the only major Western country without copyright for performers in most situations. Nor was the AFM able to make progress on its other primary initiative, Live-PALRA. In many ways, Pete’s DPRA example disproves his case, in that the AFM was finally able to get something through the Congress even with a much smaller membership.

Robert Levine on Jul 17, 2006 7:35:54 PM:

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

“It comes as no surprise that historical gains and wins of the AFM were generally issues that generate broad musician support, but now our influence is greatly diminished as a small minority. Would Congress pass the Digital Performance Rights Act (1995?) today with only 80,000 members, especially when knowing that the majority of recording musicians work outside the AFM? Would Congress allow a "minority" to become the gatekeeper for distribution of funds by setting up the AFM/AFTRA fund? Would Congress even bother to hear our testimony...today?

The Digital Performance Rights Act was passed largely because the RIAA was behind it. I was one of the musicians who were brought to DC by the RIAA (at the AFM’s suggestion) to lobby on behalf of it. I can assure you that the size of the AFM never came up in my discussions with those I lobbied (3 members of the House and one Senator). More important, I never would have gotten in the door without the RIAA’s support (and them paying for my trip). The AFM had neither the influence or the money to pull that off.

You’re right; 300,000 members behind an issue is better than 80,000. But the AFM was never able to mobilize more than a tiny fraction of its membership in support of any initiative.

I know I’m on the wrong side of conventional trade union theory, but then the AFM is hardly a conventional trade union. The AFM is essentially two or three small unions surrounded by a somewhat larger fraternal lodge.

on Jul 17, 2006 7:09:00 PM:

It is better to be smaller than larger. Why . . . because that's what is going to happen anyway, so why not convince ourselves that we are going in the right direction. Then we can be happy until the walls cave in.

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 17, 2006 4:56:43 PM:

Robert Levine wrote: "I don’t think there’s enough information to begin to prove or disprovethat the AFM “had substantially more power and authority” in pastyears, much less that it was due to member density. I wasn’t aroundduring the 60s, but it’s my impression that the AFM used member density mostly to maintain its membership numbers. To put it another way,member density allowed the AFM to enforce membership on musicianscoming into certain sectors of the industry, as they couldn’t workwithout being members."

No disputing that we're still paying the price for our policies of "Unity Through Punishment" as Ken Shirk has appropriately described. And there's no doubt that many musicians became AFM members only because they were given no choice, not to mention lack of reasons or logic as to why they should be members. Nonetheless, "325,000 members" sounds better and is better than 80,000, and can apply substantial leverage to any issue if there is a common cause.

It comes as no surprise that historical gains and wins of the AFM were generally issues that generate broad musician support, but now our influence is greatly diminished as a small minority. Would Congress pass the Digital Performance Rights Act (1995?) today with only 80,000 members, especially when knowing that the majority of recording musicians work outside the AFM? Would Congress allow a "minority" to become the gatekeeper for distribution of funds by setting up the AFM/AFTRA fund? Would Congress even bother to hear our testimony...today?

There are thousands of issues that ANY musician will support, unfortunately we have a very good track record of finding issues that force everyone to take sides. Who wouldn't support an orchestra strike, arts funding or live music in theater? Imagine the support and goodwill we could generate by promoting a national initiative to see that elementary and middle school music becomes established as part of the core school curriculum? A few years ago I presented this very subject to our 40-member executive board of the Colorado AFL-CIO. After fielding a few questions from representatives of the various trades, the Colorado AFL-CIO gave its "unanimous" support.

Let's be honest - Our biennial conventions do more to piss everyone off when this should be an event that encourages unity (or at least tries?). We can't even agree if our union should be larger or smaller, and I often wonder if the AFM would be stronger if we had no conventions at all?

At the very least, let's quickly agree to disagree at the close of our conventions; then get on to the issues that everyone else cares about.

Pete Vriesenga

Robert Levine on Jul 17, 2006 3:15:31 PM:

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

“The AFM had substantially more power and authority throughout the 60s & 70s because it had sufficient member density to influence the industry. This was the case even though the great majority of members never worked under a CBA.”

I don’t think there’s enough information to begin to prove or disprove that the AFM “had substantially more power and authority” in past years, much less that it was due to member density. I wasn’t around during the 60s, but it’s my impression that the AFM used member density mostly to maintain its membership numbers. To put it another way, member density allowed the AFM to enforce membership on musicians coming into certain sectors of the industry, as they couldn’t work without being members.

But what else did the AFM do with that union density? I did a history of Local 8 for our 100th anniversary, and the thing that most surprised me was how absent Local 8 was from the local labor movement. I could find literally not one reference to Local 8 in any local labor history, and that included periods when the membership of Local 8 was 4-5 times greater than it is now.

Pete also wrote:

“We may as well get used to the fact that the future of the AFM may largely depend on our "recruiting" efforts. I have no problem answering to a prospective member/freelancer when they ask if $149/year for annual dues is worth the cost. If they're willing to fill out an AFM membership application and support the mission of the AFM, that's enough for me.”

The problem is that it’s not enough for them.

on Jul 17, 2006 2:53:04 PM:

**"Do our remaining 80,000 members have more bargaining leverage now that 250,000 freelancers and part-timers are no longer getting in the way?
**"

The bargaining leverage for the core remains the same. We lost those member because the AFM did not have bargaining leverage for them.

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 17, 2006 1:34:08 PM:

Robert Levine wrote: "I see very little benefit to “recruiting” musicians whom the AFM cannot really represent as a labor union. Even when the AFM was 300,000 members strong rather than the current 70-80,000, it had precious little “influence in the music industry.”

802 Member wrote: "In Local 802, probably 80-90% of the organizable musicians are also organized. NY probably has the most local collective bargaining agreement in the AFM, but we also probably have the most non-union workin the AFM. 802 has the most effective orgainizing dept. in the AFM (or use to before the current administration). If it were possible to organize all musicians under one roof, 802 would have done it by now."

Michael Troy Moore wrote: "Local 802 might have a 15 to 25 percent Market Share in their Jurisdiction based on all musicians working there.

All of them are humans and have the right to join or form a union.

As I understand it Local 802 had approximately 30,000 members in 1960. This number has since dropped to less than 10,000, which parallels membership loss the AFM suffered during the same period of time. Is Local 802 leaner and meaner today without those 20,000 largely-irrelevant members? Do our remaining 80,000 members have more bargaining leverage now that 250,000 freelancers and part-timers are no longer getting in the way?

The AFM had substantially more power and authority throughout the 60s & 70s because it had sufficient member density to influence the industry. This was the case even though the great majority of members never worked under a CBA. Now the tables have turned. In many AFM Locals [and clubs everywhere] our members have become the minority with little or no ability to influence work that is now controlled by the nonunion majority.

Organizing is the lifeblood of most unions and it must become an elevated priority of the AFM, but we should also recognize that there are relatively few employers in our industry. We may as well get used to the fact that the future of the AFM may largely depend on our "recruiting" efforts. I have no problem answering to a prospective member/freelancer when they ask if $149/year for annual dues is worth the cost. If they're willing to fill out an AFM membership application and support the mission of the AFM, that's enough for me. We should openly welcome and thank them for joining in our cause, and we should be glad they're now on our side as we proceed into an unpredictable future.

Pete Vriesenga

on Jul 17, 2006 11:13:12 AM:

"Where no Man has Gone Before on Jul 17, 2006 10:22:16 AM:
An alternative to Mr. Moore's Approach:

I have discussed the matter of using the Human Rights Proclamation to enforce labor laws with Captain Kirk. He stated that during the Cardassian occupation of Bajor, the Bajorites took there labor issues with the Starfleet to the Court of the Harmanion Gallaxy, before
Sarmanin the Elder. He is not sure if they handle cases involving Club musician or cases involving humans."

We all know in that Century and with those people are handle by S.A.G. grievances boards of a adjustments with the employers of the Montion picture Galaxy.

Robert Levine on Jul 17, 2006 10:25:00 AM:

“ As per the case you cited concerning the Milwaukee Chamber Orchestra, it would be a hard sell with an organization that is gives specific instructions on the method of performing, determines when and where that work is to be performed, and especially working several services for one management, that there wasn’t a clear employer/employee relationship.”

Apparently it’s not such a hard sell. Let’s distinguish between what we want reality to be and what it really is. In the real world, here in Wisconsin, apparently it’s not that clear-cut to the state that per-service orchestra musicians are employees. And if they aren’t employees, how in the world will we make a case that club musicians are employees?

“Although the Milwaukee Chamber Orchestra issue many be dead now, I recommend you consult a good labor attorney for advice on future issues. I would highly recommend an attorney who’s “the best in the business.” The only problem is that he’s in New York and has the worst taste in ties (of course you probably know that already).”

It will come as news to many that there are competent labor attorneys in flyover land as well as on the coasts. I defer to no one in my admiration for Len Leibowitz, but Local 8’s legal counsel is first-class. Otherwise she wouldn’t be counsel to Local 8.

This is not the first case of its kind, by the way. The Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations recently ruled that the musicians of the Waterbury Symphony were independent contractors (www.ctdol.state.ct.us/csblr/decisions-pdf/2005/4095.pdf). It’s not pretty, but it happened. And apparently it’s not an anomaly.

Where no Man has Gone Before on Jul 17, 2006 10:22:16 AM:

An alternative to Mr. Moore's Approach:

on Jul 17, 2006 9:58:06 AM:

Robert:

The AFM represents members in many fields of music; with differing degrees of labor relationships between the person or organization who is paying the bills and the musicians. The strongest and most clear-cut relationship is that of the symphony orchestra. You do the labor for management who tells you how and when that labor will be done. There is no question but in the eyes of labor law, that relationship is that of “employer/employee.”

The problem concerning employee or independent contractor status in the AFM mainly concerns “club date” work. The origin of the problem is an NLRB decision that was overturned. In Puerto Rico Hotel Assn., supra, the Board found that hotels were the employers of club and lounge bands hired to perform in the hotels. So far, so good. But the Court of Appeals, in denying enforcement to the Board's Order, found that the band leaders were independent contractors and that the musicians were employees of the band leaders, not the hotels. (Hilton International Co. v. NLRB, supra at 321-322). That decision is the problem. Other cases followed, which cited this decision. That started club date musicians’ continuing search for an employer, which resembles Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First” sketch.

It should be noted that now-a-days, the first words out of a managements mouth is “independent contractor.” Even state labor boards who are usually ignorant of our business say “independent contractor.” It doesn’t make it true. As per the case you cited concerning the Milwaukee Chamber Orchestra, it would be a hard sell with an organization that is gives specific instructions on the method of performing, determines when and where that work is to be performed, and especially working several services for one management, that there wasn’t a clear employer/employee relationship.

Although the Milwaukee Chamber Orchestra issue many be dead now, I recommend you consult a good labor attorney for advice on future issues. I would highly recommend an attorney who’s “the best in the business.” The only problem is that he’s in New York and has the worst taste in ties (of course you probably know that already)

Elvis lip looks funny on Jul 17, 2006 9:45:37 AM:

To Robert,

Milwaukee Chamber Orchestra being insolvent would not be organizing even if the members of the M.C.O. are, simply a matter of economics, if the employer can't pay then there can not be a C.B.A. that would ever survive until it's expiration date.

Even if the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission deemed these musicians "independent contractors" there is no court or government that can take-away their status as "Human Beings" and "Citizens of their birth nation" and "Citizen of Earth"

So even if local courts ignore the Article 19 of the Human Rights Declaration, the parities oppressing the musicians or stopping the from Union Representation are.

Teeth or no teeth until these rights we put down on paper in 1948, Human Rights Violations were not always unlawful, by the fact there were not laws in place to protect Human Rights.

For shake of argument as to my claim this is valid way to protect, enforce and organize unions.

And I shall trend into a area where I might be "Un-hip" with Orchestras.

Many of these employers of symphonic musicians get grants and monies from various sources including the federal and state governments.

1) Many donors be it a corporations or Individuals would not want to give money if publicly the Orchestra management was in violations of Human Rights.

It would be a PR Nightmare and a embarrassment.

That a Local union could use to it's advantage.

2) Federal and State Governments giving money to a Orchestra, who management was violating Human Rights, could have its funds CUT-OFF or withheld until a dispute is resolved.

Forget going to the UN, slam them in the press with a new angle and cut off the funds.

I have found that management and employers do not care in any way shape or form as to the rights of the people employed under them.

The only time an employer or management settle with a union is economics question "will it cost them more to fight or settle with the union?"

If they think they can beat the union economically they will fight, if they know there is enough solidarity among the members they will settle and sign a contract they can afford.

That is why Union market share is so important at the bargaining table, when some one suggested that Local 802 had a 80 to 90 percent market share in a earlier post? I would state that Local 802 did not take into account all of it's jurisdiction and ALL MUSICIANS WORKING THERE!

You can not claim 80 to 90 percent market share when there are Markets that you have not tapped into or ever had a contract with.

Local 802 might have a 15 to 25 percent Market Share in their Jurisdiction based on all musicians working there.

All of them are humans and have the right to join or form a union.

Michael Troy Moore

Robert Levine on Jul 17, 2006 5:13:41 AM:

Michael Moore wrote:

“The fact of the matter is that all of you have been outside what goes on in the night club industry that you based your position on what was going on in the late 1970's and not in 1996 to 2006. You are "Tragically Un hip" to even give a professional opinion as to the current status on most club musicians in North America. When was the last time any of you were present or working in these clubs and able to conduct a control test to established who is an employee on the stage? Not even 1 of you!”

I will admit to not having been in such a club recently. However, the organizing campaign for the Milwaukee Chamber Orchestra that I alluded to in my last post was quite revealing in this respect.

When we filed a recognition petition with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission for recognition (based on the card count), management contested it on the basis that the musicians were independent contractors. Under Wisconsin law, their case was a plausible one. We chose to withdraw the petition, based on the fact that the orchestra was basically out of business (they hadn’t paid rent for a couple years, had been thrown out of their venue, and had no music director) and there seemed no point in risking a loss, which of course could have affected us in other areas. (An article on the subject can be found here: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=444513)

My point is that, if a plausible case can be made under Wisconsin law that per-service orchestra musicians are independent contractors, it’s going to be hard (at least here) to make the case that club musicians are employees. Unfortunately the WERC doesn’t appear to pay a lot of attention to international treaties.

Who? on Jul 17, 2006 12:18:00 AM:

I am glad that you were quick to answer my post,

I would guess that this post answering my claim is from 1 of 3 people with the AFM.
Paula from B &K; would be my first guess based on the verbatim, then Ken Shirk as a 2nd guess.

The fact of the matter is that all of you have been outside what goes on in the night club industry that you based your position on what was going on in the late 1970's and not in 1996 to 2006.

You are "Tragically Un hip" to even give a professional opinion as to the current status on most club musicians in North America.

When was the last time any of you were present or working in these clubs and able to conduct a control test to established who is an employee on the stage?

Not even 1 of you!

Mean while I have been there taking notes on just how greedy the club owners got after the AFM Disclaimed Interest 1978 to 1981, there may have been no employer/employee status around that time, but with the AFM out of the way in what was a bigger union busting victory than the BUSTING of PATCO Air Traffic Controllers in 1981, the club owners took liberties with the bands and musicians and made a clear employer/employee status by how they did business.

This was the same with the strip clubs and the Dancers.

The Lusty Lady on Kerny Street in San Francisco was organized by the SEIU in 1993 and is on their 3rd CBA.

I was asked by there organizers to go in and let them know what I thought the status of the Dancers so they can file for a election at NRLB Region 20.

Under the California Control Test

19 items were met to that showed they were employees.

Those Dancers work under the same conditions as most club musicians.

So why is the AFM not organizing the club Musicians.

As to you trying to shoot down the UN Human Rights angle in my last post?

I disagree with you and have made progress in this area, Marilyn O'rouke former general counsel of NRLB Region 20 in San Francisco is now working for the United Nations International Labor Organization in Europe and I have worked with her before on cases before at the NLRB.

I have letters back and forth from these organizations what should I do publish then to prove your post and position wrong?

"Every one has a right to a union"

It is a fundamental Human right!

The United States Government is in violation of musicians human rights by treating us as 2nd and 3rd Class Citizens.

Illegal aliens in the United States have more rights in the work place than Club Musicians working in the Club Industry.

How is this fair? I have stated before this is pre-civil war 19th Century Labor law (Or lack thereof)

Your defeatist position and lack of any creative options to get the job done proves your are behind the AFM's disclaiming interest of the Club Musicians, or you are just selfish to your class of musicians and could careless about the rest of the musicians or your just ignorant and in denial to what I have been able to get done under what I put in my post.

The rest of those hiding behind the AFM's position on the Employee/ Independent contractor status is a joke, a very bad joke that affect over 500,000+ working musicians each year in United States.

If any one calling themselves a trade unionist with in the AFM had any conscience and knew the facts of suffering of this class of working musicians they would push the AFM to reclaim interest in the club musician who sheer numbers alone would save the AFM and give a much needed dues to help support the AFM and it would give some relief to the RMA getting hammers for money from the International.

Sadly the hearts are harden with in the AFM and this solution will be ignored and it will be to late the AFM will fall into bankruptcy by 2009 and collapse.

A vacuum will be created and a Void will be filled with new Musicians Unions taking the AFM's place.

I will be sad that the message I bring even when I was less angry fell upon deaf ears and selfish hearts.

This timeline we are in right now is on track for the end of the AFM.

Change the direction of this time line and there may still be hope.

You still have 2 1/2 years to keep attacking, destroying new and good ideas to save to union.

That is what you are best at destroying hope. the opposite of what a Union is about and that is creating hope.

I used to work in a union hall I nick named the "Fortress of Hope" the name still stands even though I have moved on...

Billy S. on Jul 16, 2006 11:21:42 PM:

Thanks for including the article on Richard. He was a breath of fresh air in a smoggy AFM. Those of us at Local 47 and the RMA appreciated his work. A brilliant man, but with a very limited vocabulary. Every time you asked him why he got involved with some issue and why he spent so much time fighting for it, you got the same answer - - "Because it's right."

Richard fought the good fight. Rest in peace, Mr. Totusek.

on Jul 16, 2006 11:12:46 PM:

Concerning Mr. Moore's entry:

1. The International Court of Justice or World Court was created to settle international disputes submitted to it by States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies. (States meaning sovereignties) The Court totally lacks jurisdiction.

2. The 1948 declaration you sited is just that - a declaration, having no legal merit. The basis of international law is treaties and agreement between States, not UN proclamations. The only UN body that can make enforceable decisions is the Security Council. (I can see 3000 blue helmeted interational troops surrounding Joe's Bar.)

3. Employer-Employee issues are clearly US Labor Law and governed under Title 29 of the US Code.

4. The cases that generated the opinion that you question were heard in US District Court and there was no question about jurisdiction.

5. The problem is that the court decisions were that the musicians were independent contractors.

You need a real solution to the problem.

(Feel free to write a response calling attorneys every name in the book. We have seen your wrath before. But don't let this stop you - the Hague is beautiful this time of year.)

on Jul 16, 2006 9:12:40 PM:

Heard Lee flew cross country to go the funeral for Totusek seems odd to me anyone else think that was odd?

Robert Levine on Jul 16, 2006 6:24:40 PM:

(I was sent this by a colleague who summers in Spokane:)

Passed away June 29, 2006 in Las Vegas, NV. Richard Quam Totusek was born January 10, 1938 in Spokane, WA. He was the only child of Lidumil and Olga Totusek. He displayed musical abilities at a very early age becoming an exceeding accomplished pianist, conductor, vocal coach and accompanist. He graduated from Gonzaga University, summa cum laud, continuing his post graduate work at Georgetown University in Washington DC. A lifetime member of Professional Musicians Local 105, he served as President of the Local. In 1967 he bought out his partner in the Franchise of H&R; BLOCK in Spokane and Northern Idaho. He continued as owner until 1991. During those years he was involved in various civic and union activities. He served as Parliamentarian of the Spokane City Council as well as many other organizations. He was elected to the International Executive Board of the American Federation of Musicians. He served as a consultant on bylaws and contract negotiations throughout North America. In 1993, he moved to Hollywood, CA, where he served as Vice President and later Treasurer of Professional Musicians, Local 47 over a period of 8 years. He then retired to Las Vegas, NV, where he was Parliamentarian for the Musicians’ Union of Las Vegas, Local 369. He was preceded in death by his parents and youngest son Malcom. He is survived by his wife, Joan, and his three children Martin Totusek, Erika Olsen and Leif Totusek; eight stepchildren, Joseph, Willian, Daniel, Brian and Julie Pedone, Carolyn Kahler, Linda Borghese and Michele Larson; numerous grandchildren; and several cousins the Irby WA area. Burial will be held at the Bohemian Cemetery south of Odessa WA on July 8, 2006 at 11 AM. A memorial gathering will be held at the Suki Yahi Inn, 119 N. Bernard St., Spokane , WA on Sunday July 9th from 1-3 PM. Additional memorial services are being held including one at the Unitarian Church of Santa Monica, CA on July 16th at 1 PM. In lieu of flowers, donations may be sent to the Richard Q. Totusek Memorial Fund in care of the Professional Musician Local 105, 1912 N. Division St, LL105, and Spokane WA 99207. Richard dedicated his life to working for Union musicians and their causes. He will be missed and not forgotten.

Looking for Leadership on Jul 16, 2006 5:48:51 PM:

Robert Levine wrote;
"The next logical step is for the AFM to try to tap more deeply the only remaining reliable revenue source of meaningful size, which is symphonic work dues".

I congratulate Robert and anyone else who can use the word "logical" and AFM in the same sentence. Seriously, I believe Robert accurately identifies the problems.

It is worth noting that the 2005 Convention contained some temporary increases of electronic media work dues in certain areas. My guess is that the Federation would move to make those dues levels permanent or even increase them before trying to increase symphonic work dues. That alienates only a few locals (though large ones) and probably carries fewer political risks.

Hand Over Fist on Jul 16, 2006 5:42:14 PM:

I do like Roberts post, where he states "identifiable and organizable employers" I have already been able to demonstrate that concert and night club owners under current industry business practices are in fact employers.

(But the Powers That Be at the International Turn a DEAF EAR onmy reports and letters proving the above claims for the last 12 years.)

For the rest that fall into a gray area as to whom the employer is can be organized under not Labor right but HUMAN RIGHTS.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 19
of
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The key word is "EVERYONE" making do distinction between Employee, Independent Contractor, Indentured Servant,Volunteer or Slave.

The Nation Labor Relations Act violates this Human Rights Declaration and the Civil Rights act of 1964, in making a 2nd and 3rd class Citizen of Club Musicians who are called "Causal Club Date Musicians" which by calling this musicians "Causal" is a form of "Musical Style Racism" The AFM by using this term keeps them in a lower class.

I have found and proven in courts and in the streets that most clubs are the employers and when the NLRB and the US Government refuses to Rule as to the employment status.

Then it must be taken to International Courts under a human rights Violation to enforce all musicians rights to Union representation.

This is not a impossible mission, I have done it with little or no money and on my own.

So why can't the AFM International Union and it's local do this?

There is the issue of the 1979 and 1981 settlements that disclaimed Interest in this class of musicians and the AFM was BLACKMAIL into giving up on organizing.

So if they do not abandon that agreement and start going on the offensive and fighting for all musicians per the AFM's Mission Statement?

Then the AFM is Animal that is already DEAD and to stupid just to fall over and die.

I wish to credit Ned Guthrie who informed me and mailed me the documents of these agreement before he die.

He is the one who first told me to watch my back in the AFM.

Signed
M.T.Moore

802 Member on Jul 16, 2006 5:26:47 PM:

"I see very little benefit to “recruiting” musicians whom the AFM cannot really represent as a labor union."

Mr. Levine, you've hit the perverbial nail on the head. In Local 802, probably 80-90% of the organizable musicians are also organized. NY probably has the most local collective bargaining agreement in the AFM, but we also probably have the most non-union work in the AFM. 802 has the most effective orgainizing dept. in the AFM (or use to before the current administration). If it were possible to organize all musicians under one roof, 802 would have done it by now.

But 802 has done all right financially. Other locals have done all right financially and some have done poorly.

Of course the AFM will try to tap deeper into the recording and symphonic area. We've seen that already. But my fear that in its efforts to keep itself alive, the AFM may cripple a local such as 802 or Local 8 that is functioning. The head, in this case, is the weakest part of the body, but there seems to be a feeling that the head must be saved, at its current size and weight, at the expense of the body.

Is the lack of finances the problem or is it that the structure is killing us. We do need an international, but do we need one that is the financial focal point when locals hold and service most of the CBA's and the members.

(Just a side note for the "head" - stop buying new hats everyday. We can't afford it, Tom!)

Robert Levine on Jul 16, 2006 3:58:17 PM:

Pete Vriesenga wrote:

“The "Association vs. Union" debate always gets my attention, but my view of this is exactly opposite. A labor organization loses strength and credibility as a Union when their members assume that numbers don't matter. More power to them if they're successful as a small group of specialists, but this is a definition of a trade association - not a union. Trade associations are effective for lawyers and doctors only because laws of supply and demand work in their favor. A trade association would have limited influence in the music industry because there is an ample supply of qualified musicians...the film industry strike of 1980 demonstrated this…Like it or not our only option is to build credibility as a Union, which will gradually happen if we increase our membership.”

The problem that the AFM faces as a union is that it can’t increase its membership significantly by organizing. In Local 8, for example, we have organized most of the work being done for identifiable and organizable employers. What’s left is work that we’re trying to organize more out of a sense of moral obligation than strategy. For example, we’ve spent a lot of time and money organizing the Milwaukee Chamber Orchestra – a group that plays perhaps 20-30 services per year, already pays scale, and is composed mostly of members of the Milwaukee Symphony, which of course has been under union contract for 40 years. In terms of musicians, or services, or income, we’ve already organized around 90% of the work in Milwaukee that’s organizable.

Of course there are pockets of the industry which are organizable, at least in theory – Branson might represent the best example. But Branson wasn’t organizable in practice.

I see very little benefit to “recruiting” musicians whom the AFM cannot really represent as a labor union. Even when the AFM was 300,000 members strong rather than the current 70-80,000, it had precious little “influence in the music industry.”

So the AFM spirals downwards to the point where its revenues will not cover its basic costs, much less the costs of actually getting something done. The next logical step is for the AFM to try to tap more deeply the only remaining reliable revenue source of meaningful size, which is symphonic work dues. But why will symphonic musicians agree to paying even more to the AFM with no significant return to them, especially in the absence of meaningful representation in the AFM’s governance?

I’d love to be wrong about all this stuff.

on Jul 16, 2006 3:19:39 PM:

No money, fewer locals, fewer members, and the big winners are Lee and Gafford, a team that has been sucking the union dry for years. Lee up front, Gafford in the background.

on Jul 16, 2006 11:31:57 AM:

The locals paid per capita to the federation and a couple times a year the federation representative came to the local, helping with problems and giving suggestions on how to do things that they saw when they were there. This was in addition to several phone conversations. Every one of the representatives knew, because they all ran successful locals before joining the federation. There were people in the office you could pickup the phone and talk to. People who knew what they were doing.

The Lee method is through the baby in the pool and tell him to swim. If the baby will vote for him, he throws the baby a life preserver. When a big problem occurs in a local (a problem that the local representative would see before it became a problem), he sends someone from the office who doesn’t have a clue about running a local.

Why is cheating on per capita the biggest game in town? Because the locals feel they get nothing for it . . . . . and if you’re not on Lee’s A list, you don’t even get dinner and drinks.

At least give the illusion of caring about the locals.

given up on the AFM on Jul 16, 2006 10:54:56 AM:

It's not only that Lee Folio Herriot travel 24/7/52 on our dime, it's that they take hordes of people with them. They take their favorite staff everywhere and they have dozens of lackeys at every little get together. This politics by committee also costs us a fortune. Lee has dozens of committees. He appoints needed people to these committees and has committee meetings in LV, Chicago, DC, NY, Hawaii..... How do I get on one of these committees with the nice fringe benefits. All these things are on our dime and only empower Lee even more. Unless the Hair/Espinosa/Lennon proposal is adopted, we will be broke soon. Is that a bad thing?

on Jul 16, 2006 4:54:17 AM:

never is there ever a shortage of money for Lee Folio Herriot and friends to live it up on the road 52/24/7

on Jul 14, 2006 9:32:58 PM:

Around 1990, there was a plan discussed to use local members as local organizers supervised by the International field staff.

Then a financial crisis and that idea was scraped.

Ok, the field staff will assist local officers with organizing. Then the field staff was fired.

The problem is that the AFM administration has seen organizing as something that is done if you have extra money. They have no conception of the fact that organizing is the life-blood of the union.

Jimmy Petrillo's Prostate on Jul 14, 2006 10:07:38 AM:

The AFM under the current mind set will never grown Pete!

The AFM FIRED all of its Organizers ( local and International) that were hired in 1992 & 1993 by late 1995.

Right when things were starting to roll and new never before member were being brought into the AFM.

So how in the world will the AFM ever bring up it's numbers?

It is like a huge national car lot with no sales men on the floor, oh we have some fat closers hiding in the back room, but no one to meet and greet people on the sales floor.

I kept the list of the of the AFM's Organizing Task Force with all of the names and addresses of the local organizers I was able a few years ago to contact most of them.

They all told me they GOT SCREWED BY THE AFM!

Work agreements broken, non-payment of wages and expenses.

The AFM took a page from Wal-Marts Managers book.

Pete there is no democracy in just about any union right now, there never has been it is all a farce.

No Organizers, No Democracy, No Future!

Signed MICHAEL TROY MOORE

Pete Vriesenga on Jul 14, 2006 9:08:30 AM:

Billy S. wrote: "When the AFM disregarded representation in favor of numbers, it lost the credibility of a union. “Change” literally means doing something with the current structure. The current structure may be too flawed to change."

The "Association vs. Union" debate always gets my attention, but my view of this is exactly opposite. A labor organization loses strength and credibility as a Union when their members assume that numbers don't matter. More power to them if they're successful as a small group of specialists, but this is a deffinition of a trade association - not a union. Trade associations are effective for lawyers and doctors only because laws of supply and demand work in their favor. A trade association would have limited influence in the music industry because there is an ample supply of qualified musicians...the film industry strike of 1980 demonstrated this.

Like it or not our only option is to build credibility as a Union, which will gradually happen if we increase our membership. However, we will never increase our membership unless fundamental principles of democracy are in place. Moving closer to "one member - one vote" is a big one.

In Solidarity,
Pete Vriesenga

on Jul 12, 2006 12:31:56 AM:

"There are tens of thousands of professional (i.e. their mortgage payments are paid by their gigs) freelance musicians whose jobs are not covered by CBAs. I don't see that as *their* failing, and their belief in the union movement without immediate gains is a credit to them".

There is no evidence that most of those individuals actually making money by doing jobs not covered by CBA's are even AFM members. Neither is there proof that there is some great mass of musicians who have a belief in the union movement.

Guitar Player magazine has a circulation of three times the IM and reachs many more professional musicians. Only a handful of its readers are AFM members. The same is true for Bass Player magazine, Keyboard magazine etc.

The average age of our membership and our leadership is retired.We can't wish our way into relevance. Until the "special interest group" (i.e. our officers) is brought under control we will continue to go backwards.

Billy S.-Local 47 on Jul 11, 2006 9:10:56 PM:

“The RMA already separated from the AFM (in the '60s?) and eventually came back, clearly for not solely altruistic reasons.”

Actually the RMA wasn’t around when a group of LA musicians led by Cecil Reed formed the Musicians Guild of America. The agreement that the AFM made in the 1950’s caused tracks for TV productions to be made in Europe and LA Musicians were losing a lot of work. There were film reuse royalities but the AFM took those payments away from the recording musicians to create the MPTF. There was no pension or reuse payments and there was no such thing as contract ratification. When Cecil Reed, Local 47 VP, and a large group of studio musicians voiced objections to the taking of reuse payments and the lack of contract ratification, the AFM expelled them. The Musicians Guild of America became to bargaining agent for the major studios and the AFM was out. The AFM started negotiating with the Guild and after creating a new recording agreement, creating the Special Payments Fund and getting contract ratification, the musicians returned to the AFM and the AFM became the bargaining agent again.

The RMA didn’t separate from the AFM, a large group of LA musicians who attempted to work within the system were expelled. Eventually what they were trying to voice internally was given to them to come back. The never wanted to leave in the first place. They just wanted a voice. (Of course a voice in Petrillo's AFM wasn't possible.)

By the way, the RMA was a response to sweetheart deal of give-backs the AFM gave to Tuesday Productions jingle house in the early 1980’s.

But not to change the subject - Moving the voting strength to the large locals is a good start. And I am aware that there are many "gigging" musicians who do make a living in our business. But where does the AFM fit in their business? It seems that if the AFM wants these members, they are going to have to do better for them - pension, health,etc.

Matt Plummer on Jul 11, 2006 4:07:07 PM:

Hello all,
Nice to see some substantive discussion!

1. Based on the last convention, aren't we moving towards "one person, one vote"? And the closer we get, the more power the larger locals have to move the union to that goal.

2. The RMA already separated from the AFM (in the '60s?) and eventually came back, clearly for not solely altruistic reasons.

3. There are tens of thousands of professional (i.e. their mortgage payments are paid by their gigs) freelance musicians whose jobs are not covered by CBAs. I don't see that as *their* failing, and their belief in the union movement without immediate gains is a credit to them.

Billy S. - LA on Jul 11, 2006 11:47:15 AM:

The AFM is a fraternal organization that ceased being a labor union many years ago. It’s an Elks Club of which I have to be a member in order to work under national recording contracts. When the AFM disregarded representation in favor of numbers, it lost the credibility of a union. “Change” literally means doing something with the current structure. The current structure may be too flawed to change.

Why is money an issue with a labor union of 90,000 members? If only half of the members were working at any given time with a below average salary, the work dues would generate about $20 million for the International alone. But the AFM is not an organization of professional musicians. Maybe 10% of the membership, if that, are professional musicians; individuals that make their livelihood from performing music. It’s a fraternal organization of hobbyists. My mortgage payment is made with money I made in a studio.

Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate past AFM gains, especially when Special Payments check time comes, but many of us feel that the AFM only is concerned about professional musicians only if they need more money.

Change - - Maybe trade division would be appropriate. Maybe a separate organization for those working under collective bargaining agreements. The only thing I know is that those of us in the business should not be worried about what an AFM Convention is going to do to hurt us. . . and that’s the way it is now.

I realize that somethings I have said may be harsh, but I believe you wanted input from all sections of the AFM.

given up on the AFM on Jul 11, 2006 11:15:35 AM:

Tina, the "propped up" Locals doesn't refer to Locals West of the Mississippi. The propped up Locals are the ones in New England, New Jersey, Upstate NY, Lake Michigan area and places where there is really no need for 15 Locals to take care of 400 members. These Locals are given one vote for as few as 15 members. They provide little if any services and are kept afloat by incumbants that need their vote. They get put on committees, have big parties and get to go to Vegas each year. Let's just say that a candidate wanted to consolidate neighboring Locals with 50 or fewer members. This would be the fiscally responsible thing to do as well as the best way to leverage in bargaining with more members in the Local. However, the incumbant will tell all those Locals that the new candidate is trying to rid the AFM of small Locals and have the AFM run by the evil Large Locals. The new candidate has no chance because the incumbant has already bought off the propped up Locals while at the same time demonizing the new candidate and the player conferences. It's not that any one small Local can influence the election, it's that all the small Locals "propped up" by the incumbant add up to a significant number that does influence the election. Let's take a look at the new voting limits. The 3-4 Locals that are now affected by these limits are (I believe) NY, Chicago, Montreal and LA. NY and LA have almost 10,000 members each. The two smallest Locals have 15 members each. The two smallest Locals get one vote each and the two largest get 50 each. So 30 members get two votes and 20,000 members get 100 votes. If we did some different math and gave every 15 members one vote, LA and NY combined would get over 1,300 votes. You can see how this is disproportionate. I suggest you get a map and a List of Locals book. Go throught the book and take note of the number of members and how large their territory is as well as the number of similar Locals in their area. You'll notice that in the previously mentioned areas, there are tooooo many Locals with tooooo few members. West of the Mississippi, the territories are much larger. If you overlayed the New England territories over LA and gave each of those territories its own Local maybe then there might be democratic voting. Until there is one member, one vote, there will not be a democracy. You were a candidate at the last convention and you are asking about what changes people want. Right now the minimum number of members for a Local is 15, I challenge any candidate to support a minimum of just 40 or that neighboring Locals of 40 or less must merge. This would still allow for Locals of 40 or fewer if they didn't have a neighbor of 40 or fewer. Now if somebody were actually gutsy enough to put that by-law recommendation before the body, you'll have to take note of all of the Locals at the last convention with 30-39 members that somehow get their numbers up over 40. We don't need organizers to boost our membership, we just need sane by-laws. LOL

Tina Morrison on Jul 11, 2006 8:51:37 AM:

I have to take issue with the comment: “It would mean that locals which are propped up only for the purpose of voting the "right way" would cease to exist.” Small and mid-size locals have little – if any – influence on elections. According to the 2003 bylaws, it would take three 201 – 400 member sized locals or six locals with 200 members or less to equal one with 8,501 – 12,000 members. I don’t have the current bylaws with me right now but the larger locals were given more votes commensurate with their members at the last convention. (By the way, I voted for the change. More members – more votes.)

I am also the nutcase who came up with the resolution requiring delegates to vote a full ballot with the wild expectation that if everyone had to choose all the positions there would be a better chance of delegates holding elected officers accountable for their actions between conventions. Of course that was not only voted down, but also booed heartily! That’s okay. Democracy – I love it!

So now I have a question. I always hear people talk about change. What change? What is your vision of what the Union should be and how do we get there?

Best wishes
Tina

on Jul 10, 2006 1:58:32 PM:

Agreed but if no one steps up we have no choices to choose from unless of course we dared not to cast any ballots........................

on Jul 10, 2006 1:58:27 PM:

Agreed but if no one steps up we have no choices to choose from unless of course we dared not to cast any ballots........................

Looking for Leadership on Jul 10, 2006 1:22:21 PM:

Fairness,justice, et cetera would require democracy. It would mean that locals which are proped up only for the purpose of voting the "right way" would cease to exist. Even so,the remaining viable locals would need some reason to demand oversight and accountability from the Federation. Unless different people are elected, pro-active change will not occur.

on Jul 10, 2006 9:01:14 AM:

I long for a discussion of issues and real solutions for men and women of moral rectitude to step forward and lead this union back from the brink of disolution to REAL viability and REAL importance. While many of us may not take to change well. We MUST change or die trying!

on Jul 9, 2006 11:04:08 PM:

Hey Diogenes, are you longing for the days when Local 12 was the subject?

Diogenes on Jul 8, 2006 11:05:42 AM:

And the commentary here digs for new lows...........

on Jul 7, 2006 4:46:06 AM:

Well would you want to be home with Gafford?!!

on Jul 5, 2006 6:02:44 PM:

it looks like its okay with Lee and company for the union to get smaller and weaker as long as they can live it up on the road 24/7

on Jul 5, 2006 1:18:12 PM:

that is interesting and however it is local officers whom go out and get new members not the headquarters

on Jul 3, 2006 7:09:26 PM:

Richard once proposed that AFM officers' salaries be tied to membership. If our membership numbers increased by 5%, the officers would get a 5% raise. A 5% drop would mean a 5% pay cut. That would have quickly re-arranged the AFM's priorities.

on Jun 30, 2006 11:18:44 PM:

Totusek was the cream and a wonderful voice for the members, but as we see, in the AFM, the scum rises to the top.

on Jun 30, 2006 8:44:07 PM:

...........(This was when player conferences had no voice and were treated as groups the AFM had to put up with)......................

I hadn't realized that any of the player conferances with the exception of the RMA had a voice with sway in this organization

on Jun 30, 2006 8:04:37 PM:

Yes . . . . Richard Q. Totusek

A man who found excitement, drama and suspense in Robert’s Rules of Order. A man who single handedly kept Sanskrit alive. He gave the term “unique individual” a new meaning. A man who was hopelessly optimistic about the world, and the AFM.

I was lucky enough to be a friend. I remember a meeting that he attended. Although I don’t remember the specific subject, the group was discussing if “we could do something.” And there was Richard (I could never call him anything but Richard) with a strange look on his face. Mr. Optimistic looked confused. Then I realized we were speaking a foreign language to him. He never before thought in terms of “if something could be done.” Richard believed that anything could be done. The only question is “how it will be done.” And his optimism and energy was contageous.

There are certain memories of mine that define Richard Totusek. I remember a Convention is Las Vegas when Richard was on the IEB. He asked me to come to his room to discuss a plan he had for player conference participation in the AFM. (This was when player conferences had no voice and were treated as groups the AFM had to put up with.) I went up to Richard’s room with another individual who was concerned about the issue. Richard opened the door and asked us to come in. I sat down in a chair and Richard started telling us how player conferences had to function in the AFM. Then he handed us a plan that he said he put together in the last three days. There were 250 pages in the plan. I asked him “aren’t you running for re-election to the board,” and he said yes. I asked him about campaigning but what he needed to do was to finish the plan and see how it is received by the local officers. His re-election to the IEB was a secondary issue. That was Richard Totusek. Well, not quite. When I was sitting on the chair in his room I glanced in the open closet and there were 9 identical gray pin-stripped suits, 9 identical white shirts, and 3 pairs of identical shoes. Now that was Richard Totusek.

It is said that “the cream rises to the top.” That is not true with the AFM, and that’s our loss. Richard was the cream of this organization.

on Jun 30, 2006 6:38:31 PM:

Not to change the subject, but I realize that some of you might want to know - Richard Totusek died yesterday.

802 Member on Jun 30, 2006 6:33:25 PM:

"Maybe it's exactly because 802 hadn't clarified its policies that Daivd Lennon sees value in the Federation doing exactly that. I just wish the Federation President was as interested in being educated on this issue."

So now that you have bought into Lennon's excuses about the credit card, explain the checks!!!

"Clarify policies?" OK...New 802 Bylaw .....The President may not steal member's money. Does that clarify it for you?

Wait until the DOL comes back with their report.

Jack Daniels on Jun 30, 2006 4:26:41 AM:

Meanwhile, we should all rest easy that Tom Lee is buying Teresa Gafford a drink tonight at our expense. At least the liquor companies are getting something from this organization.

on Jun 29, 2006 3:43:26 PM:

" Hair and Espinosa should know that the Dept. of Labor and the U.S. Attorney General are investigating Lennon."

The way I understand it, 802 has been asked to cooperate in an inquiry of the DoL and AG. Has a target of an investigation been made? This inquiry was surely generated by the "Carey Report" that was submitted to the Dol. Did anybody actually read it? Apparently the Bard was right, it truly is a tangled web we weave.

Ray Hair on Jun 25, 2006 4:29:52 PM:

A bogger wrote, "Dave Lennon is one of the three who signed the request to investigate AFM staff expenses along with Ray Hair and Hal Espinosa"...

We did not request any investigation of AFM staff expenses. We did issue a report in late May that contained recommendations that, if enacted, will save our Union money. Go to http://theafmobserver.typepad.com/ to view our report in its entirety. The report was drafted, reviewed and approved by our committee before Hal and I were made aware of the latest issues involving David's expenses at Local 802.

At our June meeting, the IEB voted to refer the report to the office of the Secretary-Treasurer. I am sure the Board will deal promptly and decisively with the issues we presented.

on Jun 25, 2006 12:23:03 PM:

Maybe it's exactly because 802 hadn't clarified its policies that Daivd Lennon sees value in the Federation doing exactly that. I just wish the Federation President was as interested in being educated on this issue.

on Jun 25, 2006 7:16:26 AM:

Does anyone find it a bit bizarre that Dave Lennon is one of the three who signed the request to investigate AFM staff expenses along with Ray Hair and Hal Espinosa? Hair and Espinosa should know that the Dept. of Labor and the U.S. Attorney General are investigating Lennon.

Lennon has been asked to resign as President of Local 802 by his Executive Board. He allegedly charged well over $10,000 in personal expenses to the Local 802 credit card and cashed two checks, totaling more than $1,750 from the AFM, which were meant to reimburse 802. Granted, when confronted, he took months to reimburse the union, but is this the kind of veracity that we want to have in a union leader? He says, that he made a mistake, but how many "mistakes" did it take to charge $10,000 when he had been warned numerous times not to use the 802 credit card for personal expenses?

Lennon claims that this is all “politics”, but obviously, he was the one who made the illegal credit charges and cashed the checks from the AFM. He alone is responsible and can not blame anyone else.

No matter how much evidence is brought forth, some on the 802 EB keep bending over (backward?) for Lennon. Thankfully, the majority of the EB finally had the integrity to say enough is enough.

It is time to file charges and get rid of Lennon and those who blindly support him. Do Lennon and the Jack Gale gang have ANY personal integrity or concern for the future reputation of the membership of Local 802?

Robert Levine on Jun 24, 2006 1:09:10 PM:

on (?!) wrote:

"The Venetian is also a non union hotel for the hotel workers per UNITE-HERE."

It is non-union but it's not on the "do not patronize" list either. I don't know what the ethics are for union patronage of such facilities.

$5K for a dinnner does seem like a lot; I'm glad it went to feed mostly staff, though. Goes a tiny way towards making up the difference between what they get paid and what they ought to get paid.

on Jun 23, 2006 11:51:14 PM:

"$5000.00 for one meal? Seems like an exaggeration even for Lee bashers. Who was at this dinner? Why go all the way to the Bellagio? Something doesn't smell right about this story"

Does it smell any better because it was at the Venetian instead of the Bellagio?

on Jun 23, 2006 9:07:33 PM:

Divide $5,000 by 30 and everyone got a $166.66 dollar dinner per person - not too shabby for a union deep into debt after asking for more money at the 05 convention.

The Venetian is also a non union hotel for the hotel workers per UNITE-HERE. See this link http://www.unitehere.org/hotelguide/results.asp?property_name=&loc;_city=las+vegas&loc;_state=NV&loc;_country=&msa;_id=&orderby;=property_name&SUBMIT;=go&unionstatus;=u&andor;=AND

on Jun 23, 2006 8:28:03 PM:

OK, I get it. Venetian is where the non-union Blue Man Group relocated from the Luxor, and Lee dropped $5000.00 of our money in the place.

on Jun 22, 2006 7:18:00 PM:

The Vegas Venetian Dinner fed thirty people on October 14, 2005 as part of a staff meeting that Tom, Sam and Bobby called in Vegas. They flew the staff in to meet at the Riviera but feted themselves with their staff at the Venetian at a sit down dinner. It cost $5000.00 for sure.

Pro union on Jun 21, 2006 9:33:22 PM:

I thought the Venetian was non-union. What was Sam doing there? I can understand Lee because he doesn't care. Still, $5,000 seems really excessive for one dinner group.

on Jun 21, 2006 2:44:28 PM:

How many were at the Vegas Venetian dinner, and who were the elected officials in attendance?

on Jun 21, 2006 1:38:15 PM:

Sam says it was not at the Bellagio, it was at the Venetian; it was not during the last IEB meeting, it was during some kind of large staff meeting last year.

on Jun 20, 2006 8:27:44 PM:

$5000.00 for one meal? Seems like an exaggeration even for Lee bashers. Who was at this dinner? Why go all the way to the Bellagio? Something doesn't smell right about this story

diogenes on Jun 20, 2006 8:24:05 PM:

Whoa! boys and girls there are 2 possible solutions right under your noses either of which can promulgated into a resolution and then voted on as a bylaw:

A) IEB members and elected officers get a 50.00 a day per diem on the official days of a meeting excluding travel days so if a trip is 5 days and 3 of those are meeting days they would get 150.00. They can spend all of this in one day or over the meeting time but anything above this is out of pocket and nonreimbursable

B) eliminate the credit cards entirely and everyone will have to be reimbursed for their expenses. Which would then show on the LM2 Certainly would make for interesting LM2 reading how much these guys are really spending.

An opinion on some of the other matters under "discussion" here:

Should we really be paying for anyone's alcohol?

Are the AFM president and other staff so in demand that they know not their itineries 21-30 days in advance to book airlines?

I imagine if there were things to discuss at conferences(mine is particularly useless) we wouldn't need all the "filler" material from the NY/CDN office. Some evaluation of what a conference is and is supposed to do might help, then we could go back to the old system of board members being assigned. Or is this another way to control "message".

As to complaints about the President's assistant and all the why why why's It would appear that the current President unable to or has an inability to pick a suitable administrative type,he is on his third one -Manley, Fawaz and now Patterson - effectively what that position is, admistrative, someone to make sure Lee is where he is supposed to be with the right speech on the right day, respond to locals, try and prevent small fires from becoming catastrophes etc. Currently it is understood that Fawaz does Lee's writing and Patterson is the on the road groupie complaining about not getting a fair shake and being misunderstood. The fault is Lee's he has the wrong people in the wrong jobs and they seem to lack direction or initiative as a result.

As for Folio from what I have seen he seemed as surprised as anyone he got the gig and makes no excuses about the fact he is not long term. So complaining about when he files expense reports doesn't rock him because he has shortimer's disease. Fortunately, Folio has an Ass't Secretary who can do the job and word is the woman in accounting is pretty good too.

Ultimately people, the Federation is in our hands who will step up ???
It won't be me at my advanced age I don't have that kind of fight in me anymore

on Jun 20, 2006 1:44:04 PM:

The $5,000 Meal was at the Bellaggio during the IEB meeting in Las Vegas last week. The IEB report on excessive expenses doesn't seem to have modified Tom's behavior. If you have a conversation with Tom where he goes "Tsk" "Tsk" and sheds crocodile tears about David Lennon's repayments to 802 why don't you ask him about the AFM money he spent to buy Teresa Gafford tickets to the Grammys? or the $700 in AFM money he spent to buy new luggage for himself?

The attornies told him that was illegal and he had to pay it back. That doesn't seem to get so much publicity.

on Jun 20, 2006 11:43:16 AM:

Get over it! This President owns the IEB. He has also replaced the IR's with a series of part-time negotiators. These "negotiators" get $36,000 a year plus expenses and are all local Presidents. They accompany Tom to all regional conferences and events where their local is influential. These same negotiators will then come to the Conventions as Delegates to "impartially" vote and pass judgement on the actions of their benefactor. Get over it!
The AFM voted in suicide at the last Convention.

on Jun 20, 2006 8:42:48 AM:

I seem to remember that when Lee was ST he went after the then president for how much he traveled and the fact that his assistant traveled with him all the time. Seems that it is high time someone (The IEB?!!) eliminate the assistant's position give the administrative stuff to the secretary and have the heads of departments do their jobs and the President do his whatever that might be

on Jun 20, 2006 8:11:22 AM:

IX. Number of Staff Assigned to Meetings - “Entourage”

It is a currently held view among AFM officers, employees and local officers that an excessive number of staff are assigned to geographical conferences, workshops and regional meetings. While we are aware that the participants of such meetings often request the assignment of certain staff, we do not believe it is in the fiscal interest of the Federation to assign more staff to such meetings than necessary. We are aware that the entourage issue became the subject of a Convention resolution in 2001 when an excessive number of staff were assigned to conference meetings and were picking up dinner and drink tabs for meeting attendees. We do not have a specific recommendation for this topic at this time. We prefer instead to raise this matter as a discussion point to be taken up while this report in under review en bank.

We respectfully submit this report to the entire International Executive Board and do hereby request it be placed on the agenda for discussion at our June 2006 meeting.
___________________________
Ray Hair, Chairperson
___________________________
Hal Espinosa
___________________________
David Lennon

on Jun 20, 2006 7:36:23 AM:

IV. Meal Expenses

Over the past several years, AFM officers’ practice of evening dining with staff and with invited local officers has become more and more expensive, and in some cases has become unreasonable and excessive. As we noted in our report at the March 2006 IEB meeting, we reviewed a recent dinner receipt from the Vice-President from Canada that exceeded $700 for four individuals. As you are well aware, every officer has signed for expensive evening meals where staff, attorneys, employees and local officers were present and where the cost exceeded that of any routine evening dinner – such as you would incur when not on Federation business and on an expense account. These expensive evening meals have now become the rule rather than the exception and have led to expectations from local officers and employees that they will be wined and dined by AFM officers. We believe it is time for the AFM’s officers to set a more reasonable example in the expenditure of Federation funds for evening meals, particularly at a time when Federation finances are in the red and the delegates to the Convention may be asked to increase AFM revenue. We should show prudence and fiscal responsibility in the choice of restaurants. We recommend the IEB adopt a voluntary reasonable spending limit for evening meals per individual in the amount of $50.00, excluding tip, which should be a maximum of 20%, and excluding alcoholic beverage. Voluntary compliance would preclude either the necessity of proposing a strict policy for meal reimbursement, or the possibility that delegates to a Convention might propose a resolution to deal with the matter.

V. Alcoholic Beverage Expenses

We recognize that the consumption of alcoholic beverages is a matter of choice. Care and good judgment should be exercised when using Federation resources to become intoxicated. While we understand that a degree of recreation and entertainment expense may be incurred while carrying out the business of the Federation, we are nevertheless committed to promoting the wisest and most effective use of resources while traveling. We recommend that the IEB establish an alcohol reimbursement policy as follows: any consumption of alcohol beyond two dinner drinks shall be considered personal in nature and non-reimbursable.

VI. Timeliness of Filing Expense Reports

The committee has noted in two previous reports that it has been unable to review the expense reports or credit card statements of Secretary-Treasurer Folio because they were not submitted for examination. In order to provide for the timely and accurate reporting of expenses and to ensure compliance with Article 3 Section 8(t) of AFM bylaws, we recommend that the IEB address the timeliness of filing expense reports by establishing the following policy: All claims for reimbursement of expenses must be filed on the approved form and received by the Assistant Treasurer within thirty (30) days after completion of a trip or the date on which the expense was incurred. An additional thirty (30) days will be granted if the claimant has obtained an approved reasonable exception from the IEB Credit Card and Expense Report Committee. Any claim for expense reimbursement that does not comply with this policy will not be paid.

VII. Discontinuance of AFM Credit Cards

For the reasons well explained by Secretary-Treasurer Folio, the IEB at its January 2006 meeting decided to discontinue the use of company credit cards for all officers and employees. Since that practice was implemented in February 2006, we were advised that the President, Vice-President from Canada and Secretary-Treasurer have retained and have continued to use their credit cards. Despite the extensive travel that is required of those officers, we believe that a savings to the AFM will be achieved by an anticipated reduction in spending that would naturally occur if the officers were using their own credit for travel. Travel on personal cards would prompt timely claims for reimbursement. We recommend the subject officers discontinue the use of company cards.

VIII. Personal Use of AFM Credit Cards

This Committee is aware that the abuse of AFM credit cards by a previous AFM Secretary-Treasurer led to the Convention’s adoption of the bylaw that created this Committee. While the personal use of AFM cards by officers has been relatively infrequent, it has occurred. The instances of personal use were resolved by reimbursement, either voluntarily or after review and question by this Committee. As we have seen, untimely reporting and/or delayed reimbursement of personal expenses can lead to questions that may ultimately be the subject of government inquiry. We believe that the IEB’s policy of discontinuing the use of AFM credit cards will drastically reduce or eliminate any possibility of personal use of AFM credit.

IX. Number of Staff Assigned to Meetings - “Entourage”

It is a cur
on Jun 20, 2006 7:28:35 AM:

Report and Recommendations of the IEB Credit Card and Expense Report Committee
May 30, 2006

I. Background

This Committee is a subcommittee of the IEB constituted pursuant to Article 3 Section 8(t) of AFM Bylaws which states, “A subcommittee of the Executive Committee members shall, in advance of each quarterly IEB meeting, inspect and verify the expense reports And credit card statements of the President, Vice-President from Canada and Secretary-Treasurer. The subcommittee shall have the authority to receive whatever information or documentation it requires in this connection. The subcommittee shall be chosen annually by the Executive Committee members at the IEB’s second quarter meeting and shall report its findings to the full IEB.”

The Committee, in accordance with its report of March 30, 2006, herein presents its recommendations for the adoption of travel expense guidelines, not just for the three subject officials but also for all other AFM officers and employees. We feel these recommendations will improve fiscal policy in view of the most recent pattern of reporting and expenditures we reviewed. We believe they are necessary in light of the Federation’s current negative income position versus its expenditures.

II. Scope

Specifically in this report, we will deal with matters and make recommendations related to air travel, meal, and alcoholic beverage expenses, use of Federation credit for personal expenses, timeliness of expense reporting, the number of staff assigned to meetings, and the IEB’s recent decision to discontinue officers’ and employees’ use of AFM credit cards.

III. Air Travel Expenses

Traveling by air to AFM meetings, conferences, local meetings, special meetings, Federation negotiations, workshops, plus the more recent developments involving travel to regional meetings and FIM conferences, whether discretionary or by necessity has led to a substantial increase in expense since the retirement of President Massagli. Appearances by the President, Vice-President from Canada, and the Secretary-Treasurer at each conference, along with assigned staff appearances have replaced the practice of assigning an IEB member and the appropriate International Representative to geographical conference meetings. As a FIM official, the President is traveling more frequently outside the US and Canada at Federation expense. Appearances by officers and staff are a by-product of the new regional meetings that are being organized as an adjunct to regular state and geographical conference meetings. When the travel expenses for additional special meetings, workshops and appearances are viewed against the background of regularly scheduled travel to IEB, conference meetings and negotiating sessions, the rise in expenditures for air travel makes it a necessity that officers and staff book travel with enough advance notice that the lowest possible air fare is obtained. Since early 2005, the Committee has noted the President’s trend of purchasing air tickets a few days before travel, causing higher fares. To achieve the greatest savings, we recommend that the IEB adopt a policy requirement that all air travel be booked at least 21 days in advance except in an emergency that makes such advance booking impossible. In such an emergency, the expense report should contain a note explaining the nature of the emergency.

IV. Meal Expenses

Another $5000.00 dinner was the one last month that Tom Lee and Teresa Gafford attended, with Linda Patterson in tow, in DC to hang with Ted Kennedy. What did we get for that? Who benefitted?

$$$ on Jun 19, 2006 11:54:50 PM:

A million dollars in debt, and this union is nose diving...Tom just ran up a $5000 dollar dinner tab in Vegas! FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR DINNER!!?????? A MILLION DOLLARS IN RED INK??????!!!!!!!

on Jun 19, 2006 6:05:24 AM:

Interesting remark about a secret ballot. Most union bylaws do not allow secret ballots at board meetings so the makers of the motions and the voting can be published in the minutes and observed by the members.

on Jun 18, 2006 8:50:57 PM:

"Should not the IEB be allowed to vote for a replacement from a list of the next 2 or 3 candidates that actually ran for the IEB?"

They were allowed to do so, they chose to do otherwise.

Interestingly, the original IEB secet ballot vote was 5 to 3 to appoint Otis Ducker. Tom Lee cast a ballot in violation of the by-laws. After all the ruckus, the prospective minutes covering that IEB meeting had language inserted claiming that the IEB passed a motion asking Tom to vote.

At the recent meeting in Las Vegas it was pointed out that no such motion was ever made or passed. Several IEB members objected to the prospective minutes, so the minutes were changed again before they were adopted.

They will now show a 4 to 3 vote. History AFM style; invalidating a secret ballot that no longer exists. The action which actually took place will not be part of the legal record. Did Tom have to announce who he illegaly voted for or did the IEB just guess?

on Jun 18, 2006 5:17:24 AM:

If this is true then the slate that ran against Tom Lee has become quite a thing of the past. Living in a glass house is fine until bad judgement, a head in the stars and a bad deal sounds the call for "....open fire!"

Should not the IEB be allowed to vote for a replacement from a list of the next 2 or 3 candidates that actually ran for the IEB?

Concerned Member

Robert Levine on Jun 17, 2006 8:34:23 PM:

Gladiator wrote:

"According to several sources, Lennon was forced off the IEB last week by Tom Lee, who threatened to charge Lennon over his 802 credit card and expense issues unless he left...Lee’s push to get rid of Jones and Lennon, even though they haven’t been charged with any wrongdoing, may have to do with a report that Lee’s own credit cards and expenses were challenged, going back to before the last convention."

According to http://concernedmusicians.org/?q=resign, Lennon's resignation as president of Local 802 was requested by a majority of the 802 Executive Board, prior to the IEB meeting, over the issue of Lennon's having charged IEB expenses on the 802 credit card and then pocketing the reimbursement checks from the AFM. Obviously I don't know if this is what happened. But, if it is, it's not accurate to say that Lennon hadn't been "charged with any wrongdoing," regardless of whether or not he's guilty of anything beyond bad judgement.

I believe it is a matter of record that Mark Jones is (or was) being investigated by the Department of Labor.

None of this makes me at all happy; I voted for both these guys and am very sorry to see them leave and be replaced with folks that weren't elected, even putting aside that David is a fellow violist and that Mark Jones has been a friend ever since we were newbie delegates together at the 1993 AFM Convention. But it's hard for me to see their departures as a power grab by Tom Lee.

Gladiator on Jun 17, 2006 6:31:27 PM:

According to several sources, Lennon was forced off the IEB last week by Tom Lee, who threatened to charge Lennon over his 802 credit card and expense issues unless he left. Now two elected independent voices on the IEB have been silenced, the latest being from Local 802, the Mothership. Tom Lee got himself more votes on the board.

Lee’s push to get rid of Jones and Lennon, even though they haven’t been charged with any wrongdoing, may have to do with a report that Lee’s own credit cards and expenses were challenged, going back to before the last convention.

Apparently, rumor has it that Lee and his good ole boy and good ole girl network have lost control of themselves with their expenses – so much so that the “Watchdog” Committee, including Lennon, reportedly recommended the IEB cancel the credit cards of Lee, Folio and Herriot. I’ve heard that a Watchdog Committee report about their expenses was made at the June IEB meeting and may be in circulation but I haven’t seen a copy. If there is a committee report, I’d sure like to see it. Members deserve to know how their money is being used. There are some terrified staff that have seen it and say something should be done.

Meanwhile another rumor is that at the March IEB meeting in DC after Jones was silenced, Lee, Folio, Herriot, Parente, Big Linda, and Theresa Gafford went to the Willard Hotel and ate and drank $1,600.00 of our member’s money in food and booze in one night. If that’s true, then it looks like Lee’s power play to silence independent voices on the IEB and replace them with “yes men” may have more to do with covering his own credit card issues. No wonder they want more per capita.

Another rumor is that Lee will replace Lennon with Gafford.

How bad does it have to get before people wake up? Anybody have any suggestions? Does anybody care about the Union?

Curious George on Jun 14, 2006 5:14:42 PM:

It's very quite here! Has anybody heard anything about the IEB meeting in Legas last week?

on Jun 5, 2006 10:44:08 PM:

John Kivi withdraws. Does that mean you're playing with yourself again, Michael?

Sam I am not on May 23, 2006 4:38:30 PM:

FYI-member John Kivi Speaks on AFM Local 12 "Dot" Org

on May 21, 2006 7:12:29 PM:

he is a little man with a little mind and a little----- well can he do porno with a little----??

on May 17, 2006 7:51:25 AM:

Come on you guy's, your not remembering how important a person Mr. Moore is. Go ahead Michael, tell them how important you are......

L. G. on May 16, 2006 9:46:03 PM:

We here at the "Reform AFM Local 12 Committee", Save AFM Local 12@aol.com and www.AFMLocal12.org are talking about current 2006 nominations and election misconduct, not the nominations and election misconduct of 2004.

Those who support the current AFM Local 12 administration keep trying to change the subject and divert attention to NON-ISSUES.

Ignore the rumor mill and stick to official statements and facts.

Please Check www.AFMLOCAL12.org for official Local 12 reform statements and sign up for our news letter.

Robert Levine on May 16, 2006 12:01:20 PM:

"Maybe "supported" is a strong word, but what do you call it when the international creates the atmosphere and ignores legitimate election challanges, sending "a pal" of the Local 12 administration to investigate?"

If the "pal" was Ken Shirk, then I would call it an investigation run by the book, with a solid and defensible conclusion reached.

on May 16, 2006 8:28:01 AM:

Bravo!!

on May 16, 2006 7:56:37 AM:

That must be mr. moore writing again, trying to prove that he won his election in spite of the votes showing otherwise. word on the street is that the department of labor came to the same decision as the national did about mr. moore's election protest in local 12. I asked ken shirk last year what happened with your protest but he wouldn't tell me, saying it wasn't for him to give out that information. the national wouldn't tell me anything either. and if shirk is reading this blog, i guess he still isn't saying anything, which is too bad because that means we just have to filter all your one-line accusations innuendo and slander. i'm getting tired of porno-king moore using this blog to flog his dead horses. maybe the blog owner could filter out these postings about local 12 elections and joe benson and moores new career in porno films so that the people who want to discuss national problems aren't chased off by all his drivel? or maybe moore has been hired by tom lee to keep writing this crap in blogs in order to keep everyone off the important topics?

on May 15, 2006 7:30:05 PM:

>"Supported?" Give me a break.

Maybe "supported" is a strong word, but what do you call it when the international creates the atmosphere and ignores legitimate election challanges, sending "a pal" of the Local 12 administration to investigate?

Local 12 members should fight the misconduct, incompetence and unlawful behavior of the Officers of AFM Local 12.

Robert Levine on May 14, 2006 6:06:26 PM:

"It's good to see that something is being done about the corruption that has plagued Local 12 ever since Secretary Benson was in office...I know that most of the readers know about Benson but it should be known that his crimes were supported by the international AFM and the executive board at that time with members like Ken Shirk."

"Supported?" Give me a break.

on May 13, 2006 10:28:35 AM:

I am a Member of AFM Local 6 in San Francisco and I feel that all of us, members and non-members of AFM Local 12, must demand that the International start proceedings against the officers of AFM Local 12. The misconduct, incompetence and unlawful behavior of the Officers of AFM Local 12 must stop!

on May 13, 2006 10:10:59 AM:

It's good to see that something is being done about the corruption that has plagued Local 12 ever since Secretary Benson was in office.

I know that most of the readers know about Benson but it should be known that his crimes were supported by the international AFM and the executive board at that time with members like Ken Shirk.

I hope that all the members will support the efforts of the Save AFM Local 12 committee.

Save AFM Local 12 on May 11, 2006 2:23:56 PM:

Results from AFM Local 12 Nominations for Vice President:

1) John Kivi

2) Shelby Janes Board Member

3) Thomas Derthick

4) Michael Troy Moore-challenged Nominee

on May 11, 2006 6:30:08 AM:

since this is not "the official" AFM website anything can be left on it unless whomever runs this site removes it

DM Weintraub on May 10, 2006 5:50:18 PM:

Every so often I look at AFMAhead because it there is a lot of interesting discussion. I pulled up a link left there, "http://theslaveunion.com/index.html" and was shocked to see authorizations for another union. What's the story with that? As an AFM member I don't feel that supporting another representative helps the problems in our union.

on May 10, 2006 5:07:04 AM:

From the AFM Observer blog:

It never ceases to amaze me Mr. Moore how often you feel it necessary to remind us of your "impressive" credentials when it comes to labor matters. However, if you have disenfranchised the very people you supposedly want to help all the credentials in the world won't get you anywhere. Maybe one should consider a bit less diatribe and invective and a bit more positive action and result; then maybe we might consider anything you said as having some value and merit

Posted by: Diogenes | May 09, 2006 at 07:01 AM

on May 10, 2006 5:07:02 AM:

From the AFM Observer blog:

Posted by: Diogenes | May 09, 2006 at 07:01 AM

on May 9, 2006 11:52:58 PM:

http://theslaveunion.com/index.html

Save AFM Local 12 on May 9, 2006 9:48:50 PM:

www.AFMLOCAL12.org
"Save AFM Local 12 Reform Committee"

Dear AFM Local 12 Member,

As you may or may not know do to a almost total lack of proper communications from your Local 12 Representatives, there is a membership meeting and a nominations meeting at 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Thursday May 11th, 2006 at:

AFM Local 12 Central Headquarters
8175 Alpine, Suite G
Sacramento, California 95826-4726
&
AFM Local 12 South Office
2930 N. West
Fresno, California 93705

(AFM Local 12 North Offices for our members in the Chico/Redding area were shut down during the mergers in the late 1980's.)

We can not tell you how important it is to attend those meetings if you can, your Local 12 officers mock you in Board meetings and say you are all "Apathetic" and do not care about AFM Local 12, the musicians union and our collective future in the largest geographical local in the entire America Federation of Musicians.

They are about to do some really bad things to cover up their past mistakes and wrong doings.

We need you to be informed and take some action to hold them accountable.

Please take 2 minutes to read over The "Save Local 12" web site and keep in touch.

www.AFMLOCAL12.org

See the
Authorization & Petition to remove
AFM Local 12 Officers

SaveLocal12@aol.com & AFM Local12.org are for communicating within the membership of AFM Local 12 as part of the Save AFM Local 12 Reform Committee.

John P. Kivi & Michael Troy Moore
"Founders"

Thank you for your support in Saving AFM Local 12!

on May 8, 2006 11:34:42 AM:

Here's what Folio said last year in the article that was referenced below in a posting:

"We're really excited about this," said Folio, dressed in Comstock-era opera house attire and gripping a red dragon's-head cane.

His voice resonates from the stage to the very back row of seats, the acoustics of the auditorium making every sound appear to be emanating from a finely aged instrument.

"Harriet Beecher Stowe's (author of the novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin") father and husband both spoke on abolitionism here from this very stage in the 19th century," he says.

Folio has dedicated the rest of his life to seeing the opera house restored, and once inside, it's easy to see why.
-----------------------------------------
Is Sam still dedicating his life to the project or enjoying traveling to expensive places with Lee on the federation's nickle too much now?

on May 8, 2006 11:33:33 AM:

Here's what Folio said last year in the article that was referenced below in a posting:

"We're really excited about this," said Folio, dressed in Comstock-era opera house attire and gripping a red dragon's-head cane.

His voice resonates from the stage to the very back row of seats, the acoustics of the auditorium making every sound appear to be emanating from a finely aged instrument.

"Harriet Beecher Stowe's (author of the novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin") father and husband both spoke on abolitionism here from this very stage in the 19th century," he says.

on May 3, 2006 5:28:42 PM:

who whoever posted the thing about Folio Did you look at the date? April LAST YEAR

on May 3, 2006 5:14:46 PM:

seems Sam has a sideline: copy and paste the following into your browser:

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20050421/NEWS/104210060/0/FRONTPAGE

on Apr 27, 2006 4:13:14 PM:

what is his name?

Mikey More on Apr 27, 2006 8:37:34 AM:

Once again! I have danced where others fear the dance.

Mikey More on Apr 27, 2006 8:37:29 AM:

Once again! I have danced where others fear the dance.

on Apr 25, 2006 6:04:32 AM:

"Robert no slight to you intended but if a local only needs and extremely part time officer does that constitute a viable local or are things running so swimmingly you can be "extremely part time" how many locals out there are like this?"

A fair question. We pay for about 100 hours a month of staff and/or officer time. We've lost members over the past decade, as have most locals - but we're up to four CBAs (from 2 two years ago). As far as the CBA musicians go, I think we function pretty well, and we're working to do more referrals for the rest.

But whether we're "viable" or not, we seem to be all the union that our membership is willing to pay for.

on Apr 25, 2006 4:55:32 AM:

Robert no slight to you intended but if a local only needs and extremely part time officer does that constitute a viable local or are things running so swimmingly you can be "extremely part time" how many locals out there are like this?

Robert Levine on Apr 23, 2006 8:30:08 PM:

"The Department of Labor already has this. It is not libel because it is true. Man, for a local officer you are really out of the loop, Levine."

What "loop?" The loop of folks who spend all their time on the phone exchanging gossip? Even as as extremely part-time local officer, I've got better things to do.

"A reasonable person might well believe that the unknown parties who distributed and paid for the campaign materials containing your comments about Florence Nelson might have garnered 7 or 8 votes for Sam Folio. Enough to win a race with a fourteen vote spread."

Let's see; 200 copies of 3 pages each at $0.05 per page is... $30. How much did all the Frisbees and campaign buttons and mailings to delegates cost? And did any of it actually matter? Basically all the incumbents won except Florence, and if you believe that one local officer's view of her was what did her in, I'd like to know where you get what you smoke.

on Apr 23, 2006 6:59:45 PM:

The Department of Labor already has this. It is not libel because it is true. Man, for a local officer you are really out of the loop, Levine.

on Apr 23, 2006 6:53:59 PM:

Robert Levine said:
"Do you really think that what candidates spent last summer determined the results of the election"?

A reasonable person might well believe that the unknown parties who distributed and paid for the campaign materials containing your comments about Florence Nelson might have garnered 7 or 8 votes for Sam Folio. Enough to win a race with a fourteen vote spread.

Hard to believe that a little more money might not have helped Dennis Lynch either. His material didn't look nearly as slick as either Joe Parente's or David Lennon's.

Robert Levine on Apr 23, 2006 5:59:29 PM:

"Bob, I am not the DOL police. One of the candidates ran up $100,000 of "borrowed" debt by going to almost every local and players conference since 2001. How does one compete with that?"

And you're not going to tell us which candidate because of...? Libel laws, perhaps?

And don't call me "Bob."

on Apr 23, 2006 2:03:32 PM:

Bob, I am not the DOL police. One of the candidates ran up $100,000 of "borrowed" debt by going to almost every local and players conference since 2001. How does one compete with that?

I suggest you light up the pipe and mellow out.

Robert Levine on Apr 23, 2006 11:57:23 AM:

anonymous wrote:

"1. It is quite probable that one or more past and/or current IEB members used illegal campaign funds either taken or borrowed to win their elections. If true all the local and AFM elections involving these folks were tainted."

If you have evidence of this, the Department of Labor will be interested. If you don't, I suggest you pipe down. Do you really think that what candidates spent last summer determined the results of the election?

on Apr 22, 2006 12:09:56 PM:

Banned in Detroit

on Apr 19, 2006 1:01:48 PM:

NEWSFLASH!!!! A call made to the Exec to the Prez finds her out of the office AGAIN or is it STILL and another secretary or assistant whatever it is they are called what is that the third or fourth not bad in what 6months???????sheesh!

on Apr 18, 2006 4:44:29 PM:

FROM AFM IN TROUBLE

Anonymous said...
The losers, in order of placement, highest to lowest:

LOSERS?
jist the ones who did not win?

I think the entire AFM membership are the real losers of the last elections.

The International officers should be elected by the membership at large not the officers of locals who get a favor from International officers.

April 17, 2006 10:49 PM

Anonymous said...
I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we should have elections at large not by local officers who do not even have contact with most of the membership I suspect we would see a completely different animal thennnnnnnnnnnnnnn

April 18, 2006 7:54 AM

Anonymous said...
There were a few of the candidates who had this idead on their web pages, but those candidates face not getting votes because those local officers who get the favors would no longer be getting those favors and they would lose their vacations to Las Vegas every 2 years.

The length of holding International of should be 5 years like every other International Union in the North America, if it was longer than there would be less buying of votes until the 3rd or 4th year and something might get done.

How can any one elected get things done in a 2 year term?

A school board seat is longer.

There is not enough time so the beast of the machine just keeps feeding itself on the 2 year cycle.

The AFM is a SNAKE eating it's own tail.

and its young.....

April 18, 2006 8:12 AM

Anonymous said...
WE, the membership, are the biggest obstacle to this idea. Everyone is afraid that if we extend term of office to 5 years that we might get "stuck with a lemon" or and incompetent Wake up folks if the officer is truly incompetent we ALREADY have a mechanism for removing them past IEB officers have been removed, impeached or bullied into resigning. There are also actions like, dues strikes until things get changed etc.

however, for any change in this organization to occur, the members need to get some chops and stand up and be counted.

Time grows short before we are just plain out of business because we are running the crony club and not a union.

April 18, 2006 4:41 PM

on Apr 18, 2006 2:00:43 PM:

A comment and question:

1. It is quite probable that one or more past and/or current IEB members used illegal campaign funds either taken or borrowed to win their elections. If true all the local and AFM elections involving these folks were tainted.
2. When did the current 802 President join Local 802? These type of character issues usually emerge after a few decades of working as a performing artist.

question on Apr 14, 2006 1:07:10 PM:

not that i blame this on the current adminstration particularly, but why are we publishing press releases from employers on the AFM website?

on Apr 13, 2006 8:27:35 PM:

I notice in this month's IM on the bottom of page 4, there is a box that says, "Attention Members. The AFM is looking for member volunteers for a technology committee. The purpose will be to look...." Would anyone like to "volunteer" to play at my wedding? Would anyone like to "volunteer" to do the jobs that we pay people to do? Is it serving your Union or being exploited?

I have a feeling that this is just another committee that Tom will make everyone feel important and never follow through on any recommendations. He will however put a few more votes in his pocket because these bonehead volunteers will feel important. Even though the meetings will be "virtual," my guess is that they will get to go to at least one "live" meeting in Vegas, NY, DC, Toronto or Chicago. Of course this will be on our dime.

On page 5, Booby H says that More Canadian Officers should attend Leadership Seminars. Go ahead, travel more and spend more of our money. It's tough to keep up with Booby's travel tab.

on Apr 11, 2006 11:01:39 PM:

Interested in what is happening in 802?
Check out: http://www.concernedmusicians.org/

on Apr 11, 2006 8:33:28 PM:

Morris appointment unlikely, word around town is Herriot is not running again and Morris wants the VP-Canada spot rrumours abound about several others who want that job tooo

Looking for Leadership on Apr 10, 2006 8:08:18 PM:

Appointing Wayne Morris would be the slimey re-election thing to do.

on Apr 10, 2006 5:24:04 PM:

so if Lennon is forced to resign 802 and the IEB who will Tom and the tomettes appoint next.....Schoenburn? Gafford? (would he dare?) Girardi? who else is possible???????????

on Apr 10, 2006 2:57:11 PM:

Working musicians are the ones with 2nd class staus in this Union, not Canadians.

on Apr 10, 2006 2:30:04 PM:

Make a distinction between whether 802 broke any laws vs whether Lennon broke any laws. Cary's work appears to have been designed to protect the local, not Lennon. His recommendation to characterize Lennon's unpaid balances at the end of the years in question as "shortages" rather than "loans" puts the local in a better light and Lennon in a worse light. His theory appears to be that the local has not broken any laws if it did not loan an employee or officer money above the legal limit; whereas if the local discovered a "shortage" at year's end and tried to recover the money, then it is acting in harmony with its fiduciary responsibilities. When the amended LMs are filed with the answer changed to "yes" to the question, "Were any shortages discovered during the year?" the DoL will have some interest. I noticed that Cary's report assured the local board of its immunity if it reclassified the money as a "shortage." Cary did not discuss what kind of problem that would cause Lennon.

Robert Levine on Apr 10, 2006 10:28:41 AM:

Harvey Mars (or someone masquarading as him; it's hard to tell on this site) wrote:

"Justice Delayed and Denied claims that Lennon has "publishes [sic] a confidential report from a lawyer asserting that he didn't violated [sic] the law." This is a gross mischaracterization of the Cary report. As an individual intimately familar with the report and the circumstances by which outside counsel was retained I can say with all honestly that the report does not actually address the issue of whether David Lennon violated the law."

The first sentence of Part I: Introduction reads

"This firm was retained,pursuant to Executive Board authorization, as Special Counsel to conduct an investigation and to research thelegal issues that might be implicated. Cary Kane was charged with "review[ing] the legal issues concerning an allegation of a breach of fiduciary duty by Local President David Lennon, the interim actions taken by the Local in response to receiving the allegations, and to recommend actions, if warranted, that should now be taken by the Local."

If the report "does not actually address the issue of whether David Lennon violated the law," then the Local didn't get what it asked for and paid for, did it?

I agree that anyone who wants to discuss this report should first read it thoroughly. It is a very interesting and educational document.

Oh Canada on Apr 10, 2006 9:18:52 AM:

boy, that's a long sentence. I posted about the Canadian problem a while back. Off with their heads I say.

on Apr 9, 2006 9:29:36 PM:

there's a simple solution that solves at least 2 issues at once, Let the Canadian office and it's locals be their own union subject to the laws of Canada for forming unions which lets them be sovereign which is where we are headed anyway with the differences in laws, unionism, etc. maintain relationships because we obviously have things in common even if our countries treat them differently this elimanates the inherent 2nd class status of the Canadians and the multitude of bylaw exceptions that in one form or another say except the Canadian locals and removes about 100 votes from being in play at election time.

Harvey Mars on Apr 8, 2006 6:36:47 PM:

Justice Delayed and Denied claims that Lennon has "publishes [sic] a confidential report from a lawyer asserting that he didn't violated [sic] the law." This is a gross mischaracterization of the Cary report. As an individual intimately familar with the report and the circumstances by which outside counsel was retained I can say with all honestly that the report does not actually address the issue of whether David Lennon violated the law. See pp. 23-24. It simply details measures which the Union needed to take in order to remedy the situation and make sure it did not happen again. There is so much hyperbole being thrown around I just had to correct this impression, in the event readers of this blog do not actually read the report. Let me sugest that concerned individuals read the report and make there own conclusions.

Looking for Leadership on Apr 8, 2006 10:42:14 AM:

Anger is understandable. Most of the delegates never look at the union up-close. Tom's many years as a "cocktail pianist" have allowed him to perfect the "good buddy tip jar" approach to them. It's not just the constant politics on our dime, but it is the union itself which is truly paying the price and being sacrificied.

Angry on Apr 7, 2006 2:43:34 PM:

I am still outraged that 4 members of the IEB along with Tom Lee appointed - not elected like the federation's press release says - Otis Drucker instead of reaching out to the next highest vote getter from the convention. Why record the votes after the 1st 5 get the highest tally - it's meaningless. And what about the money the other candidates spent to campaign and all. The incumbant pres and vp from Canada used our unions funds traveling all over campaigning for two years up to the convention.

on Apr 5, 2006 5:31:15 AM:

There were real campaigns. They either lost or used someone elses money.

diogenes on Apr 4, 2006 9:33:03 PM:

We can all sit here and call for their heads, Lee, Lennon, Folio, IEB board members, for doing nothing, or doing something they weren't supposed to, or for forcing the staff to pay checks they should have paid themselves, BUT if none of us is willing to stand up from the peanut gallery and run a real campaign for office, we are as much to blame as the men "running" this organization. I must remain a voice from the peanut gallery; as a long standing member of the referenced "AARP group" However, I am an advocate for change but unfortunately I think the AFM enjoys itself too much by feeding on itself and will only change when enough of us "AARP" guys die off and there is no one paying in anymore. I suspect that day is quickly approaching.

on Apr 4, 2006 8:32:14 PM:

NO BOOZE! how would they get their nutrition!?

on Apr 3, 2006 10:14:42 PM:

The writing is on the wall for Lennon. If only he would see it.

on Apr 3, 2006 3:22:05 PM:

Trade Industry standard: $60 bucks a day for food and no booze when on union business.

on Apr 3, 2006 2:56:46 PM:

maybe the expense committee should widen it's review to include ALL the assistants to the president and secretary treasurer or at least the ones with significant travel, Patterson and Gabriel. As far as the quietly go the cards I think it was explained that everyone was giving up the cards and now I understand from the most recent meeting the 3 officers Lee, Folio, and Herriot are keeping their cards

Looking for Leadership on Apr 3, 2006 12:53:18 PM:

I don't think our excuse for a leader is doing much sweating really.

The AFM has been quietly collecting credit cards and encouraging IEB, staff etc. to pay bills themselves and apply to the AFM for reimbursement as appropriate.

What isn't reflected in IEB or AFM expenses reports is the frequency with which the AFM President has forced other staff or "good" IEB members who accompany him to pick-up a bar bill or dinner tab and claim the expense as their own. In this way Tom isn't attached as host to all his own extravagant perks and his monthly expenses never accurately reflect what he is actually spending.

Wasted Dues on Apr 2, 2006 9:48:16 PM:

Tom Lee should be sweating bullets about the legal opinion for Local 802. He used the AFMs credit card for personal use many times. Some of them are mentioned in the IEB credit card committtee reports. People in the know in the treasurer's office have seen Tom Lee do a lot worse than David Lennon has done. They both should resign.

on Apr 2, 2006 6:30:32 PM:

Need a line of credit? Try working at 802!

on Apr 2, 2006 10:10:17 AM:

Who thinks Tom should step down? He uses my dues money as it were his own.

on Apr 2, 2006 10:05:50 AM:

Who thinks that David Lennon should step down? Personally, I'm outraged. He used my dues money as though it was his own!!

Robert Levine on Apr 1, 2006 8:07:34 PM:

"I understand that Tom was so terrified that one of his stooges would vote the wrong way that he cast a ballot. In this manner he could create a tie if four people voted for Dennis. Then he could have invoked the by-law requiring him to break the tie he created."

I have no idea whether or not this is true; obviously I wasn't there and I haven't heard from anyone who was.

But if it is true it would seem to form the basis for some kind of legal action, if not a charge. First of all the president isn't supposed to vote except to break a tie. And obviously, if the president could vote in other cases, he/she wouldn't get to vote *again* to break the resulting tie without the bylaws explicitly so providing.

Presumably what actually happened will be reflected in the bylaws as approved by the IEB. Presumably, if there is a dispute over the minutes, we'll find out about that too.

on Apr 1, 2006 6:42:26 PM:

If there's a race card Tom will try to use to protect himself it's lame. Bennie Keys actually ran and is a real unionist and organizer with experience so obviously Tom doesn't want him around, but if not Dennis, Bennie would have been an honorable choice.

on Apr 1, 2006 4:49:29 PM:

There is a rumor going around that if Lee manages to get rid of Lennon because of the 802 problems he will try and have Gafford appointed. Will anyone besides Hair and Espinosa object to this???????

on Apr 1, 2006 4:15:55 PM:

The AFM and IEB use of "Robert's" is for the purpose of conducting meetings in a fair and efficient manner. Robert's" can be used as a basis for establishing procedure or process in an area where AFM by-laws are silent. "Robert's" does not prevail over by-law adopted by the delegates at Convention.

The President cannot unilaterly break a by-law, and then claim that breaking the by-law amends it, by creating precedent.

Unfortunately neither AFM by-laws nor "Robert's" prevent the President from being an ass. Not only was Dennis Lynch not allowed to finish Mark Jones' term, it looks like the delegates were dissed twice with one action.

I understand that Tom was so terrified that one of his stooges would vote the wrong way that he cast a ballot. In this manner he could create a tie if four people voted for Dennis. Then he could have invoked the by-law requiring him to break the tie he created.

I hope this doesn't become an intellectual discussion. People need to see the horror of what has happened. This Union is becoming a cult of power and ego.

Fraternally and in Solidarity

Robert Levine on Apr 1, 2006 3:45:29 PM:

from the AFM bylaws:

"Article 3, Section 4(c). At IEB meetings the International President shall vote only in the case of a tie vote."

Looks stronger to me than a "precedent."

on Apr 1, 2006 3:14:32 PM:

QUESTION: We have set a precedent that the president only casts a vote to break a tie. Our new president has informed us that according to Robert's, the president may vote on any issue at any time. Is this true?

ANSWER: What your new president said is quite correct, even if people are surprised by it.

5-3 or 4-3 - The outcome is the same.

Robert Levine on Apr 1, 2006 12:32:41 PM:

Sorry; forget to take credit for the previous post.

on Apr 1, 2006 12:29:31 PM:

"Without knowing if the post accredited to Dennis Lynch is both from him and accurate, I would leave it up to others to announce how they voted. However, I think that only seven people could have been voting at the IEB, as Mark Jones was no longer an Executive Officer at the time that this action was taken."

My bad; I had forgotten that the President doesn't get to vote except to break a tie. There would indeed have been only seven IEB members eligible to vote on the question.

It is disappointing that neither Sam, Bobby, Harold or Joe chose to do the right thing.

on Apr 1, 2006 12:20:04 PM:

Without knowing if the post accredited to Dennis Lynch is both from him and accurate, I would leave it up to others to announce how they voted. However, I think that only seven people could have been voting at the IEB, as Mark Jones was no longer an Executive Officer at the time that this action was taken.

Robert Levine on Apr 1, 2006 11:07:22 AM:

If it's true that Hal, Ray and David voted to appoint Dennis, then Sam voting with them wouldn't have changed the outcome; it would have been a 4-4 tie, no? A motion to appoint someone to the IEB would need a majority.

on Apr 1, 2006 10:23:57 AM:

What would Ottis do?

Looking for Leadership on Apr 1, 2006 8:35:52 AM:

Not appointing Dennis to the IEB demonstrates such disrespect and contempt for the membership.
Dennis ran for the IEB for all the right reasons and that makes him someone to be feared.

Sam Folio is such a disappointment. He will be putting together all the "spin" for the International Musician. What a betrayal.

on Mar 31, 2006 7:13:12 PM:

LEAPING LIZARDS BATMAN, the AFM managed to file the LM-2 report on time!! Actually it was several days early...............will wonders never cease!

on Mar 31, 2006 4:34:40 PM:

dennis lynch said...

I am disappointed that I will not be allowed to serve on the IEB, despite my placement in the '05 election. It appears that independent thought is not in the best interest of the current administration, nor are experience and knowledge.
My thanks to Hal, Ray, and David for their support of me in this choice of replacement for Mark Jones.
I would also post this in the Afmahead site, but it says that I "am not allowed to post".

on Mar 30, 2006 10:33:41 PM:

David Schoenbrun has his nose so far up Tom's ass he gets to taste Tom's food first. David is one of Tom's hired negotiators. No experience necessary to get one of these $30,000 per year jobs. You just need to vote the right way.

on Mar 30, 2006 10:33:39 PM:

on Mar 30, 2006 10:12:44 PM:

president bill moriarity, st ken shirk, vp from canada len lytwyn vp usa bob macgrew board members brad eggan, gordon stump, tina morrison, dennis lynch, david schoenburn

Looking for Leadership on Mar 30, 2006 12:54:24 PM:

Employees Skolnik and Morris scratch Tom's back on every important committee, including the Futures com. where Tom violated the Convention action and appointed them to officer slots.We do indeed have problems from the North.

Those two claim that they "speak for all of Canada"on every committee, at every conference and at every IEB appearance. Our per capita and work dues money was spent to buy them a conference hall in Las Vegas where they loudly, formally and illegally told the Canadian delegates exactly who to vote for.

They use all the Lee-speak about working musicians being special interest groups which must be stopped. Canada is held hostage by them,and that causes all of us to be held hostage by Tom Lee.

Tom is a horrible excuse for a leader, but if Canada went off on its own, we would be rid of Tom and Canadians would have to deal with their buffoons in order to survive. Maybe at least one country could find a leader and a union to inspire the other. Meanwhile we are being strangled by this international marriage.

That division isn't going to happen of course,and it would be divisive, but if Canada cleaned up its own Conference, the AFM would owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

on Mar 30, 2006 11:53:40 AM:

Don't blame Canada and all Canadian musicians for the actions of only two self-serving un-elected local officials. The divisiveness only feeds Mr. Lee and Co. Same languages, same music, same union, as far as I'm concerned. Painting all the Canadian musicians with the Morris/Skolnick brush masks the reality of the situation.

It is interesting, however, to see that the Lee-controlled IEB has re-defined the political landscape. Otis Ducker, a fine man, I'm sure, although I don't know him well, now part of the international leadership. Not a local officer, untested before the convention, chief shepherd of the diversity hype. Previous position: diversity consultant hired by Tom Lee. Previous position: employer consultant. Last gig played: ??. We can rest easy now, knowing that the number of presidentially-independent voices has been reduced by one.

Oh Canada on Mar 30, 2006 9:30:41 AM:

I notice that all of the posted slates have representatives from Canada. I say it is time to cut Canada loose. They are a drag on our Union both financially and stategically. They have their sweetheart deals and have disproportionate representation at negotiations, on committees, at the Convention and in Tom's pocket. Their membership from 2003-2004 has dropped 30% yet the US has only dropped 15%. Are we going to continue to prop up their 9000 members and give them more than they would ever dream of giving us? They are led by hired guns -yes, hired and not elected guns- Skolnick and Morris. Anyone who has seen these idiots bully Tom and the Lawyers because they "represent" Canada know what I mean. They are on every committee, at every negotiation, at every conference, at every party, at every IEB meeting.... This is because they have votes. They have fewer members than the Locals in NY and LA yet have more votes than those 2 Locals combined.

We all bemoan corporate America. We think they are fat cat greedy bastards. How did they get that way? Sure, part of it was on the backs of laborers but they also got lean. They cut out the fat of middle management. They identified what was profitable and important to their model and their needs. If our model is to have the same officers every election, then our Union is just fine. If our model is to effectively represent the people who work Union jobs, then our Union is deeply flawed. This Union/Tom undermines working musicians at every turn. Which Union do you want? I know that there will be comments about Union brotherhood and all those silly buzz words. Brotherhood is a two way street and I see only a one way road going North.

I know that these blogs have no effect on the AFM or what happens at the Convention. In fact, I don't even know why I bother to post. In the next few months, this space and others will be hot with pacman playing service/organizational Unionists. The truth of the matter is that in July '07, Tom will be re-elected and have an even friendlier Board. We can all look to the North and thank them. Tom is catering to them because they get him elected. F*** Canada!

Looking for Leadership on Mar 30, 2006 8:13:58 AM:

Tom can't feel shame about this; that's the way lustful people are.
People who were elected by 1 vote or 5 votes like Bobby Herriot, Sam Folio and Joe Parente, thought that others who ran for IEB and lost by similar amounts didn't warrant appointment consistent with Convention elction results. Now we have the President's personal suck-ass to guarantee secret meetings and secret votes.

shameless on Mar 30, 2006 7:11:03 AM:

So in the wake of Mark Jones resigning from the IEB, Tom has decided that going back to the next highest vote getter at the Convention isn't democratic enough. Instead, he has Otis Ducker installed as a new IEB toady.

on Mar 30, 2006 4:14:55 AM:

Pres: Moriarity
ST: Shirk
VP: Hair
VP Canada: ?
IEB: 1-Recording Rep, 1-US Symphony Rep, 1-CDN Symphony Rep, 1-Theater Rep, 1-Freelance Rep. IEB meetings to increase to six - No increase in IEB member's salary.

on Mar 29, 2006 11:16:17 AM:

President - ? Secretary-treasurer Shirk Vice President - Mats/chicago Canadian Jandrisch or morris the other to be a board member board tina morrison, schweitzer, souter, lennon and whichever canadian above wasn't the vice president

on Mar 29, 2006 7:58:35 AM:

Ottis Ducker-IEB- who needs an election

on Mar 28, 2006 6:52:22 PM:

On this site and the others we have had plenty of commentary about the lack of or the need for change in leadership of this organization. Assuming that everyone who is a member in Canada and the US is eligible for the leadership spots and that a leadership committed to the betterment of this union is the goal name a person to be:

the President

Secretary Treasurer

Vice President

Candian Vice President

and 5 board members.

Is there such a team?

Justice Delayed and Denied on Mar 27, 2006 11:23:56 PM:

I just read an e-mail from a Broadway musician Cenovia Cummins regarding David Lennon's credit card admissions. It seems no matter what this guy does he just doesn't get a fair shake. He discloses politically damaging information, publishes a confidential report from a lawyer asserting that he didn't violated the law, but still she claims "we should get rid of this creep." What more does she want.... his head on a stake??

Have we all fogotten the truly good things Lennon has done for the Union over the last two years. Do we all have such short memories that we will allow the last four months to overshadow everything else?

Wake up. Folks there is a political agenda at work here. People who have been overlooked and denied power want it and apparently will stop at nothing to get it.

Wonder how this credit card issue came up.... right on the heels of the withdrawn charges against Dennison and Schafner? It reaks to high hell.

A change in the politcal composition of this Union's leadership at a critical time before the Broadway negotiations will surely benefit no one. It will further disunity and play right into managements hands.

Don't be suckered by this political ploy. We must all think of what is best for our Union. Look at who the opposition is..... a bunch of non-muscians who were overlooked for leadership positions by the previous administration... and for good reason !

Justice Denied on Mar 27, 2006 2:23:13 PM:

Easy to clear up--hire an outside non-AFM, non-union related investigator. There's so much smoke I'd think the innocent would enjoy being publicly vindicated by an outside source.

Justice? on Mar 26, 2006 9:50:38 PM:

Another case of "Guilty until proved Innocent" type of AFM justice propigated by Tom Lee style leaks. This guy really likes to stir things up for people who have opposed him.

ugh on Mar 26, 2006 10:33:00 AM:

Mark Jones according to an "inside source" is about to be turned over to the legal folks at DOL for a variety of issues including double dipping forgery and other money things at central labor council, AFM and his own shell company. This is very disheartening news

afmahead

Where is our AFM headed?

Starting Over

Recent Comments

About

Jul	AUG	Sep
	13
2005	2006	2007