Before I begin, let me preface these thoughts with a notification that I am a professional musician in the Washington DC area. I am a union member (but not by choice) and I am currently exhausted from a run-out concert that had me out until 1am last night and I am pumping myself up with caffeine in an effort to pull myself together for another performance tonight. In short, I am in the trenches too and not delivering this sermon from some lofty podium or living some elite life that is untouched by the economic realities of life as a classical musician.
Ok, here it goes.....I have never been able to wrap my mind around the concept of musicians having a "strike." To me it is the most self-destructive action any musician can ever undertake. I was going to school in Baltimore while the Baltimore Symphony strike was occurring in 1989-1990 and to this day I believe that they have never fully recovered from the damage that was done to the orchestra during that strike.
Let's just start with "economics 101."
Let's say a musician in an orchestra is making $100,000/year from their orchestra salary. If they go on strike for 6 months, they loose $50,000 worth of income. (Note, I understand they get union subsidies during this strike, but that is the same as receiving an insurance payout. Basically, you are just getting back what you have paid in over the years, so it is a break even proposition at best.) If the strike is not advocating a raise, but just a maintenance of salary, it will take 10 years for an individual musician to recoup the income that was lost over 6 months, if indeed it is ever recovered.
Meanwhile, the strike has also cost the orchestra dearly in terms of public relations, fund raising opportunities, corporate support, not to mention the rancor and ill will that is generated behind the scenes between board members, the administration and even within the ranks of the musicians themselves. In short, the strike just made it astronomically more difficult to achieve the very thing the musicians were demanding in the first place, namely long term economic security.
I've also never understood the attitude from musicians that generates the statement "They" won't give us more money (or whatever is being negotiated). Who is "they?" Could they be talking about the board members who have volunteered and usually pay a fee for the privilege of trying to support an important community institution? Remember that orchestras are not-for-profit endeavors. In other words, when the workers are denied a raise, the "extra" money that is left over, does not go into the pockets of stockholders. No one derives a benefit from not giving the musicians more money. I cannot believe that any board member wants to have their name associated with economic or artistic failure of the organization they are supporting. They are usually on the board because they are leaders in some segment of the for-profit world and understand the benefit of the institution to the community. These are people who are unfamiliar with failure and do not like that word associated with their name and reputation.
I don't think the "they" is the administration either. In the organizations that I work for, the administrative staff usually takes the first hit and suffers much earlier than the musicians. They lose jobs, take pay cuts, etc. before the musicians are ever asked to sacrifice. Since they are the first to go and the first to suffer, they have a vested interest in keeping the organization economically healthy. That is not to say that there is not sometimes incompetency in administration, but hopefully the board is vigilant and will address that issue.
I have much more to say on this subject and will continue to do so in the coming days, but since this is a blog and not a dissertation, I will stop here for now. I welcome feedback and dialogue on this topic as long as it doesn't result in name calling and personal insults. Let's keep it civil and useful.
