
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.
Continue reading Union “challenged” by fund, not musicians