Update:
As you can tell by the comments, the opinion on this matter is not in my favor. From the supposed “logistical nightmare” the SSO would face if they had to process another 84 donations to claims of equivalence because the donation is coming from union funds. To emails suggesting that I don’t support the musicians, don’t love classical music and I am single handedly jeopardizing the fund’s success because I dared to point out inconsistencies. My opinion is not popular.
Let’s be clear. I still love the SSO. I still think the SSOPO musicians are fine people and fine artists who deserve to be compensated better than they are. And, I think the donation by the SSOPO is significant, laudable, and will raise significant money for the orchestra. It will be the catalyst for hiring a new executive director and music director. Oh, and to clear up another mis-perception. I am not frothing with anger over this. People who know me, know that I don’t really get angry.
Some of the exchanges over the weekend have reminded me of the arguments between Democrats and Republicans at the height of the Iraq War. You might remember at one point it was deemed unpatriotic to challenge the validity and the prosecution of the war. If leaders pointed out inconsistencies and challenged conventional wisdom they didn’t love America. So it goes in the world of classical music too, I guess.
Just to make sure I didn’t misunderstand how the musician’s contribution to the annual fund was described I went back and pulled up Janet Tu’s and David Brewster’s pieces on the contract resolution.
Brewster writes:
Two developments helped resolve the impasse. One was the suggestion, coming from the musicians, that they each chip in $2,010 to the current Annual Fund campaign of the Symphony — in effect a tax-deductible pay cut to go on top of the 5 percent cut for the remainder of this season.
Tu writes:
In addition, each of the 84 members of the musicians union will contribute $2,010 — for a total of $168,840 — to the Symphony’s Annual Fund.
I called a member of the negotiating team yesterday to set the record straight on why the fund wasn’t seeded the way our paper of record, David Brewster, and myself were told. Either we got it all wrong or the SSOPO came up with a different way to contribute to the fund. The person didn’t pick up the phone or return my call. Moreover, after I dashed off the original post I wasn’t expecting to write anything else on the matter. But, my mind has been churning ever since that I have a few more posts up my sleeve and a phone call to make to the SSO Annual Fund.
My opinion isn’t going to change on this matter. I don’t like how the fund was actually set up compared to how it was described. But, if I have written anything factually inaccurate, I will fix the record. And, if anyone from the SSOPO would like to pen a response with a byline, I will run it.
The original post follows the jump.
When the SSO musicians and management announced that a 2010 challenge fund would be set up — seeded with contributions from musicians — as a concession in the new contract I was delighted. The musicians maintained management was focused too much on containing costs and not enough on building the product — world class performances. Musicians believed, so we were told, that building the product was the way to grow private donations. The challenge fund seemed to put the musicians’ money where there mouth was.
Last week, the Seattle Symphony announced the fund in a press release, complete with a photo that had one of those giant checks and a bunch of smiling people in it, and the following:
“The musicians of the Seattle Symphony and Opera Players’ Organization (SSOPO) have kicked off the “2010 Challenge,” a community fundraising campaign with the goal of raising an additional $1 million for the Seattle Symphony’s Annual Fund. In a generous move, the musicians launched the campaign with a contribution of $168,840, representing a donation of $2,010 for each of the 84 musicians of the Orchestra.
“The musicians see this as an opportunity to take a leadership role in our future. As we celebrate our achievements with our Music Director, Gerard Schwarz, and look forward to new successes with our next Music Director, we offer this gift as a catalyst toward ever-greater artistic success. We invite our entire community to join us,” explained Timothy Hale, violist and chair of the SSOPO.
Following this major gift from the Orchestra, members of the Symphony’s Board of Directors began to make special contributions of $2,010 in an effort to raise another $168,840 in honor of the musicians. To further inspire Board giving, Symphony donors Becky and Jack Benaroya challenged the Board with a matching gift of up to $168,840, bringing the total in gifts and pledges to just over half a million dollars.
“The mission of our organization is to produce great art, and the musicians’ gift is a powerful statement of their commitment to that goal,” commented Board Chair Leslie Jackson Chihuly. “Our musicians are an inspiration not only to our Board, but to our entire community, and we hope that everyone will get involved in helping us to reach the $1 million mark, and beyond.”
Here is how the challenge fund was described at the end of January:
“The agreement includes an unprecedented up-front contribution by the musicians to the Seattle Symphony’s Annual Fund. In a new initiative named The 2010 Challenge, each of our 84 musicians will contribute $2,010
. This donation, totaling $168,840, from the musicians is intended to be a catalyst for the Seattle Symphony Board’s next phase of fundraising.”
I have underlined some key passages so you can see the subtle, but important differences in language.
You might be thinking, I know I was, what happened to the contributions from the musicians? Turns out the concession wasn’t being made by individual musicians but by the Seattle Symphony and Opera Players’ Organization. Individual musicians didn’t contribute directly to the challenge fund, but indirectly through their union dues. The union, in turn, wrote a check for $168,840. I hope this small fact simply got twisted around in the rush of activity after the sides reached an agreement and that it was always intended to be funded initially by the union.
If the fund meets its goals, $1 million in additional private donations will be raised. Not a small sum of money. If this happens, the musicians deserve the credit for bringing the idea forward.
Nevertheless, something about the union donating and not the individual members of the SSOPO strikes me as disingenuous and not keeping with the spirit of the fund. Board members should donate $2,010 of their own money to the fund, but musicians will let the union cover their contribution? The challenge fund was billed as a positive concession, a way for musicians to chip in during these tough economic times without harsher reductions in salary and benefits. In the end, musicians didn’t concede anything, but their union did.
Discover more from Gathering Note
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gathering Note 
The musician ARE the union. it’s not the AFL or such.
Is there any money in the union’s checkbook that didn’t come from the musicians? But I, too, read the original information as you did and thought ‘what a logistical nightmare’.
Union members are the union no matter if it is the SSOPO, AFL, Teamsters, or AFM. Just because the SSO musicians aren’t affiliated with a national union doesn’t somehow make their union more representative or purer. Every union supports the union’s operations with dues and other assessments. In that respect, money any union has is largely because of the members choosing to be a part of the union. Dues are often a condition of membership in a union.
Instead of collecting new money from musicians, they are drawing from money that was already paid as part of being in a union. Maybe the musicians were all assessed an extra $2010 for the purposes of this fund and one check was written to make the accounting cleaner. But, If this isn’t the case, then the musicians themselves, as individuals, haven’t given up anything they weren’t otherwise obligated to pay. Since its not a concession over what was already given up, the math works out pretty well for the individual musicians.
As I said, the donation is a good thing ultimately even if I am personally disappointed by the particulars.
Zach, the musicians did give this money to the management. This money is supposed to be used to help musicians in emergencies, legal battles, strikes.., and not to help management fundraise. You also make it sound like the musicians got a good contract, this is not true. The musicians took a pay cut, had increases in Health insurance payment, the orchestra size is now smaller then it was four years ago (this means that some musicians will have to work even more, for less pay). Who was the winner in all this?
Yes, yes, yes. I am sympathetic about the cuts to salary, health care, etc. BUT, the fund was also billed as a concession in the same way a salary cut and health care cut was a concession. It wasn’t described as a concession the union was making on your behalf. You can read the excerpts from the first press release and conclude that each musician was going to make a contribution. Hell, you can read my earlier post where I was excited at the thought of 84 musicians contributing into the challenge fund. That would have been a powerful statement. Even though the particulars of the contribution bothers me, and doesn’t have the same symbolic umph, the contribution is ultimately a good thing.
Zach, As a member of the SSO negotiating committee, I need to clarify some things for you. The musicians gave this money by voting to do so. No union did it for us nor did we ask any union to donate “on our behalf.” We the musicians chose to do this because we wanted the future of the SSO to be the brightest possible!
A brief point about musician contributions: when we at the Oregon Symphony vote to give money, or are asked to give money, the musicians will write checks to the union local and then the union local will cut on check for the total amount to the recipient. It’s not a case of using dues (this wouldn’t be permitted in the local union bylaws), but a way of collecting funds and disbursing them through a central source.
SSO musicians’ labor representation, IGSOBM, has a totally different structure than the AFM. This is a very important distinction – and why this was our money and we did challenge the SSO.
I find what the musicians did very impressive and generous considering the large concessions that they came away with in their latest contract. Why try to lessen the positive tone the musician are trying to set? A contribution like this is a courageous act and one that shows the management that they are willing to go forward with them and not against them. Mr. Carstensen’s article seems more like an attempt to slow down progress between two sides instead of concentrating on looking to a future of possibilities and a healthy organization that the city can be proud of.