backstageWe’ve all had a rough time in the last few years; but cultural institutions have had it worse than they could have possibly imagined. With a business model that relies entirely on private donations to achieve fiscal viability, the challenge to make ends meet has never been greater. 

In all the stories I’ve read and all the conversations I’ve heard, most are still looking for ways to create income at the Met – either by creating new and better operas with interesting directors and top-flight artists or by increasing donations though increased outreach to interested audiences.

As Nina Munk recently wrote in Vanity Fair:

“Of course I worry about it,” said Gelb, on the subject of the Met’s finances. “But I don’t really know how else to proceed.… I don’t know any other way of ensuring a future for opera than what I am doing now.” In Gelb’s view, spending money is the only way to bring in money—that is, to sell more tickets and attract more donors. His strategy, in other words, is a high-stakes gamble. To cut back is as good as giving in. “The Met was retrenching before I took over,” he told me. “The way the Met was operating was reminding me of that scene in Around the World in 80 Days where they’re burning parts of the boat to keep the engine fired up, to keep it going. That’s a short-term solution, but it doesn’t provide long-term salvation.”

around1

But why, I ask, has no one been looking for ways to alter the other side of the balance sheet: expenses? Specifically, what about the vast sums of money spent on labor? With $213 million per year going directly to the people that make opera work, and $67 million for everything else, how can we expect the fiscal chaos to end?

Again from Ms. Munk’s article:

“Labor, tightly controlled by 16 powerful and uncompromising trade unions, is terrifyingly expensive, accounting for $213 million last year, more than three-quarters of the Met’s budget. Consider: members of the Met’s chorus make as much as $175,000 a year each—and that’s before benefits that include nine weeks of paid vacation, a defined-benefit pension plan, and health insurance underwritten entirely by the Met. For principal singers, the top fee is $16,000 a performance, which means that Renée Fleming, for example, received $128,000 for eight performances of Der Rosenkavalier this season.”

Now I’ve quoted Ms. Munk twice, but we know that her number for the chorus salary is like listing Peter Gelb’s salary as a “typical” salary at the Met; the top of any organization should receive very good compensation for very good work. But what she hinted at, unfortunately supported with dubious numbers, is that the unions are exacerbating the current economic crisis at the Met, and there she is correct.

First, let’s put that $213 million number in perspective (Note – the following numbers are all from the most recent analysis by Forbes). Last year the highest payroll for any NFL team was $136,536,261 by the Miami Dolphins. With total revenue of $242 million, the team managed to have an overall operating income of $26.6 million. That means that the Miami Dolphins spend in a year $215.4 million overall, just slightly more than the Met spends on labor.

This is the NFL operating on the same scale fiscally as the Met. As sad as it makes me to say it, opera is not going to make the kind of money that pro football does, and I guess that means it can’t spend as much as the Dolphins if they expect to make ends meet.

Today, the executives of Goldman Sachs were trotted in front of Congress to ask why lining their pockets was more important than the common good. Why are we not doing this for the leaders of the unions at the Met? Their demands, while mostly reasonable and entirely deserved, are putting the fiscal solvency of the world’s greatest opera house at risk so that they may make more money. It’s a bit of a no-win for the unions: get your cost of living increase and better benefits but put the Met in a perilous financial situation, or make personal sacrifice to ensure the continued success of the institution.

It is up to us as an audience to stand together and reach the unions. We aren’t fighting for the Met or against the unions, per se, but we are fighting for opera. Without fiscal stability there will always be a shadow cast on the Met – and let’s be honest, almost every other classical arts organization in the country – and while this shadow persists, opera cannot thrive.

Now I’m not advocating that those in the unions working at the Met need to live like paupers, but the salaries of those working for a non-profit institution can’t keep going up as the revenue goes down – they need to follow the same line. As the Met succeeds, their employees succeed, but when the Met has hard times, that needs to trickle down. Today is, sadly, the time for personal sacrifice in the name of art.

Let this also serve as a reminder to everyone that when we support the opera, we’re not just paying those $16,000 per night salaries for Fleming, Kaufmann and Florez; we’re paying the salaries of the carpenter, the prompter, the usher, the second trumpet and down the line.

Those performing with or working for the Met should count themselves among the lucky; with hopefully few exceptions, they like opera, and loving your job is something that no amount of compensation can equal.

Fair disclosure: I haven’t run an opera house or dealt with a union, ever. If there is something huge I’m missing, I would love to hear it!

[Photo:  LIFE]

Latest on Parterre

Comments