FreewayPhilharmonic.org

[bzare]

I know it is easy to want some economic relief from the dues we pay to all the locals we belong to. The truth is that dues go towards paying the bills to keep the union viable. The union negotiates all those CBAs we work under. It is a thankless job but we (freelance musicians) rely on our union officials to negotiate the best wages and working conditions for us.
As a former president of Local 153, I can tell you that the South Bay has plenty of areas to focus on. Local 153 already covers Monterey County to Santa Clara County and up the other side of the bay to Castro Valley. I fear that combining the locals would strain the already existing resources and the needs of the South Bay musicians could be easily overlooked.
On a personal note, I am concerned that if Local 6 takes over Local 153 it isn't a far stretch to imagine San Francisco Symphony absorbing Symphony Silicon Valley. Last year, the SFS was given a grant, which was earmarked for developing their South Bay audience. They already play concerts in Cupertino at the Flint Center and last year they played a free concert in downtown San Jose. Call me paranoid but if one big orchestra provides all the classical music to the Bay Area there will be a lot of out of work musicians.

[darb]

ok, Beth, I'll take your point. I've often wondered what part the SFS runout concerts to Flint Center had in the demise of the San Jose Symphony... I'm sure they didn't help.

However, there's got to be a better way to do this. I pay $60/quarter to be in 153 so I can play in one orchestra. An orchestra, mind you, where 153 hasn't even managed to get a hard-and-fast minimum service guarantee into the contract, and the low brass have been quite severely f***ed this year, only being offered, what, two sets? It's not so much the requirement that I maintain my membership in 153 which offends me so, it's the ridiculous dues.

[darb]

From the Monterey CBA:

"8.2) SERVICE GUARANTEE
The ASSOCIATION agrees to employ an average of 65 players for a minimum of 50 orchestra services."

I call BS.

[acamphouse]

There is legitimate concern about SFS making forays into the South Bay. It's been going on for quite some time. I'm sure that it has negatively impacted San Jose institutions, not only in concert attendance, but perhaps more importantly from a development standpoint. IMO SFS will do what is in the institutions best interest regardless of who's "territory" they are in. Even if numbers of SFS performances in the South Bay could be limited, how do you stop the hemmorage of corporate and individual donations from the South Bay going north? Perhaps the AFM could negotiate some sort of a Sole Market Clause (like baseball) between orchestras (yea, right). OK, back on topic....

I like the idea of 153 merging with 6. Here are some of the reasons:
1) 153 dues are disproportionally high to the amount of work available. See Darby's post.
2) Someone correct me if I'm wrong, 153 does not collect work dues on casuals. This means that orchestra musicians pay all work dues. There needs to be equity.
3) Local 6 has a strike fund. When it comes down to it, this (striking) is the only real leverage a bargaining unit has. Of course, no one wants to strike, but the fund makes the leverage that much more real.
4) Stability.
5) Consistent representation at the bargaining table.

That's it for now.......hope more people speak up on this topic.

[darb]

Let us also remember that the SFS doesn't just go to the south bay. They also play with some regularity at the Mondavi Center at UC Davis. When I mentioned the new hall being built in Santa Rosa, one of their players said that he thought the SFS would likely perform there as well. Go figure.

The issue of the Big, Impressive, Well-Funded, Highly Esteemed full-time major symphony orchestra encroaching on other territories isn't limited to Symphony Silicon Valley. I think our response as players in regional orchestras should be to step up and rise to the challenge of having a major orchestra playing in our halls. Their presence means that we need to play better, and that our management needs to do more to bolster the strength of our organizations.

However, let's also remember that there's a practical limit to the out-of-town run-out concerts that the Big Orchestra is capable of.

for instance...

-----
15.2 Maximum Number of Run-Outs

One run-out in any work
week shall be permitted. Eight times per season, two run-outs
per week shall be permitted with only one run-out in such
weeks more than thirty-five miles from Davies Symphony Hall.
Twice per regular season Sunday run-outs to the Flint Center
shall be permitted.In up to two weeks per season,three run-outs
per week shall be permitted.Three-run-out weeks shall be four-
day weeks with no more than seven services including no more
than three concerts; only one run-out in such weeks may be
more than thirty-five miles from Davies Symphony Hall and the
day following the third run-out must be free of service and
travel.There shall be no more than one run-out in a five-concert
week.Two double run-outs (run-outs involving two services)
shall be permitted each year.
-----

And, of course, don't forget that they have to pay travel & per-diems whenever they do run-outs. They can NOT simply start playing in everyone's territory, and it doesn't make sense for them to do it when their concerts at home are so well attended. I'm also sure that if the players in that orchestra had to actually do a a three run-out week, or a run-out in a five concert week, they'd complain so loudly that the contract would look a little different after subsequent negotiations. The players just won't do it.

So, sure, they can interfere here and there, but I don't see that their presence is going to be damaging... I'm sure their ability to sell out Flint didn't help, while the SJS was, from what I've heard, struggling to sell even half the seats. However, we all know that the San Jose Symphony had plenty of other problems, and we can't go blaming the situation entirely on the Big Boys. Honestly, Symphony Silicon Valley seems to be healthier, if on a smaller budget. Again, I'm not a total authority on the subject of the demise of the San Jose Symphony, so if anyone else would like to help clarify that issue, I'd appreciate it.

Ok, there, I hijacked the thread already. Smooth move. The issue is that 153 dues suck and are quite unfair for a statistically significant group of people. So, how do we deal with it? I like the 6/292 model in Santa Rosa & Napa. Maybe someone who knows more about that can tell us how it came to be that local 6 people can play in those orchestras without joining 292. Bruce? Anybody?

[Bruce]

I don't know for sure why we don't have to be members of 292 to play in Napa and Santa Rosa, but I'm sure they get our work dues from those orchestras. Local 153 just charges too much for what they provide relative to other locals. Something needs to change IMHO.
_________________
Hope this website is useful to you!

[Meow]

Now that Local 6 is going to be offering health insurance, this debate should really heat up! The purpose of the union is to make possible what would not be possible for individuals, and this should be a benefit made available to as many people as possible. If Local 153 merges with Local 6, many more people could be eligible for coverage, and for me that outweighs many of the concerns about that move. I wonder, are there other benefits in these 2 locals which are not shared by the other?