agma “likely” to strike nyco
The American Guild of Musical Artists said in a memo to members that “given the changes that George Steel wants to make in our contract, members are advised that the possibility of a strike against New York City Opera is likely.” At issue is what AGMA characterizes as Steel’s intention to eliminate guarantees of work for chorus and production staff. [via Bloomberg News]
Any AGMA members out there willing to forward a copy of the memo to lacieca@parterre.com?
La Cieca:
Ouch. I’m officially offended by your comment. I never said or implied what you suggest. I happen to agree with you that choruses spend a hell of a lot more time in rehearsal for any given production than an orchestra (who practically sightread the show in the Sitzprobe, and have no staging matters to worry about). And I know a bit about how opera houses work, having served as a chorus master myself.
I still think that the chorus should be paid for its time, but do not think that the rights of the chorus should be prioritized over the solvency of the house.
There must be a series of priorities. The first is the house. If the house can’t afford to do Aida, it should do Jakob Lenz.
There can either be a NYCO with or without a full time chorus, but unfortunately the converse does not hold true.
Now I’m bowing out of this discussion, because sentiments are running quite hot and I’ve obviously stepped into a topic where you have either a strong vested personal interest, or a deep politically motivated conviction that I do not share.
Cheers.
I’m afraid that Alto is wrong — it’s actually Orlando Opera that’s declaring bankruptcy, not Florida Grand — Orlando isn’t an AGMA house; its financial problems stemmed from mismanagement.
My mistake for confusing two companies that I in fact don’t know at all (relying on a nieces e-mail like a clueless gay uncle).
Not that it’s relevant to the on-going discussions about NYCO, but I feel compelled to respond to the postings by ‘Sanford’ since he or she is misinformed about the way in which SAG and the WGA are actually run, versus the way in which AGMA is run. That response, which follows, is based on actual knowledge, not websites, acquired over twenty six years of representing talent employees in the movie and television business, and dealing with SAG and the WGA on a regular basis.
All three unions have professional staffs, elected officers and governing bodies. The way it’s supposed to work is that the governing bodies come from, and reflect the interests of, the core membership, and establish policy; the professional staff implements those policies; and the elected national officers are working rank and file members who share common interests with the rest of the working rank-and-file membership. It actually works that way in AGMA: Our Board of Governors meets monthly, sets day-to-day policy and our national officers are rank and file singers, dancers and production staff, who regularly work in AGMA jurisdictions. The professional staff provides advice and counsel to those officers and leads contract negotiations, based on their extensive backgrounds in union matters, but does not set policy.
The way it really works at SAG, for example, is that the staffs run the union, much of the Board is comprised of out of work actors, and the elected national officers have nothing whatsoever in common with the rank and file working actor. Connie Stevens, Anne-Marie Johnson and David Hartley-Margolin haven’t worked in decades, Sam Freed’s primarily a stage actor, and Alan Rosenberg is so distant from the concerns of SAG’s members that he was just instructed that he is not permitted to speak for the union. The Board’s of SAG and WGA meet four times a year, usually for just one day. The vacuum caused by their lack of involvement in union affairs and their lack of a community of interest with working actors enables the professional staff the run the union the way it sees fit to run the union. At the WGA, if the officers had anything in common with the core membership, they never would have championed a strike, because the strike crushed the lower paid writers but had no effect at all on the handfulls of rich writers who lead that union. Entertainment union negotiations consist essentially of getting more money for members already making a lot of money. In AGMA, negotiations focus on the needs and interests of its core membership, and on defense of their contractual right.
Yes, most entertainment unions have similar mission statements. At AGMA we actually try to live out the true meaning of our mission.
To All, from an AGMA/NYCO shop member:
Alan Gordon’s letter:
Dear Members:
Many of you seem very confused about what’s going on with regard to NYCO
and with regard to the purpose of the bargaining unit meeting on May 18th.
First, the meeting on the 18th has two specific purposes and two purposes
only: 1) To bring members who work at NYCO up to date on what’s gone on
thus far and what various options are available to us; and 2) To let
members have an opportunity to ask questions and to voice their concerns.
That’s it. We do not plan on taking any votes about anything. Your
delegates and the members of the negotiating committee need to hear from
as many of you as have opinions and, thereafter, the negotiating committee
and AGMA staff will meet to discuss the best negotiating strategy and our
lawyers will plan the best legal strategy to accomplish their goals. As
Ive said before, NYCO employees who would like to serve on the negotiating
committee should e-mail NYCO Committee @ aol.com.
Members employed by NYCO will have an opportunity to vote in favor or, or
against, accepting any agreement that results from eventual negotiations
with NYCO and, if no agreement results, members employed by NYCO would
have an opportunity to vote for, or against, any possible job actions.
As to bringing you up to date and exploring options, it’s a very
complicated matter, and it’s not easy to lay out all of the options and
examine them next to each other because many options depend upon things
not in our control. I wont try to explain them all here, since that’s what
the meeting on the 18th is for, but I’ll try to simplistically state what
I think are the ultimate results of the three most likely options: 1) We
refuse to negotiate, litigate, prevail in whatever litigation happens and
NYCO is forced to comply with the terms of the current contract; 2) We
negotiate with NYCO early but after the orchestra and we reach some
agreement. If we should reach an agreement, it likely will not look
anything like the current contract, it will be for less work and limited
guarantees. Such a contract could be for one, two or three years and it
can be an entirely new contract or just a temporary interruption in the
current one. It’s likely we could maintain heath coverage, but it’s more
difficult to maintain paid family coverage. Members would then have a
chance to vote for or against accepting the contract. If a majority of
each part of the bargaining unit votes yes, the contract is ratified and,
assuming its then ratified by the Board of Governors, it’s a contract; 3)
We negotiate but don’t reach an agreement. In that event there are only
two further options: NYCO imposes its own contract and members agree to
work under it or members decide that they wont work under it and go on
strike.
Unless we refuse to negotiate and then succeed in litigation, there’s
virtually no chance that we can maintain our current contract. The way
Steel plans to operate next year, there’s simply not enough work to pay
for the provisions in the current contract. No matter how well we
negotiate or how tough and united we are, if we are able to reach an
agreement it’s very likely that working at NYCO, at least for the next few
years, would be a very part time job at best.
Thus, it seems likely that at some point in the next four or five months,
the NYCO bargaining unit might be faced with the ultimate decision that
often faces union members in the for-profit world: Is it better to accept
any work at any terms and conditions or is it better not to even if that
means the closure of the employer.
Anyway, this is a horribly difficult situation and AGMA’s job, and the
negotiating committee’s job, is to try to find a way in which to
accomplish whatever goals seem to reflect the desires of the majority.
Please keep in mind that you’re all on the same side, even though there
will be sharp differences of opinion about the various options depending
upon each individual’s needs and goals.
See you on the 18th.
Alan Gordon