Occasionally one runs across an article about goings-on at another orchestra that just makes you scratch your head. I hadn’t even had the chance to sip my tea this morning before this article about the Bellevue Philharmonic caught my eye. I’m damn glad I don’t have a bad dandruff problem because with the amount of scratching this one is going to produce I’d need a frontloader to unearth my way to the bathroom. This article is about as disturbing as it comes. What is striking (pardon the use of that word) is that the dispute between the orchestra and the musicians is not about money. In today’s wonderful economic times that is almost a welcome change. It’s also not about unionization, no matter how some are trying to spin it. Look deeper – this is about job security. This is like the American Revolution. If anyone tells you it was about taxes then they don’t know what they are talking about. The revolution was about representation. Simply put, the American colonists wanted the same representational rights as their English cousins.
In Bellevue we have this rather odd situation where the musicians – I would argue the core of any symphony orchestra but I may be way out on a limb here – have no job tenure. While this business is saddled with some of the most arcane and bizarre job security provisions anywhere, having NO job security makes NO sense. Right on their website the symphony claims thusly:
The orchestra became fully-professional in 1999, paying all musicians and employing full-time paid administrative staff.
If you’re a fully professional orchestra that would seem to imply that you would want some musical continuity. One could speculate that musical continuity comes from having the same musicians around, but again, I might be out on a limb. And come to think of it, how about fostering a little professional loyalty from your musicians? Wouldn’t you want that as well? Loyalty is, of course, a two way street, and if you expect people to commit to your organization then you have to commit to them. Then there’s the following statement from the ED:
“…(I) would like to see the musicians organized, but with so many things in the air, it’s a bad time for major changes in the way musician contracts are done.”
Well, that’s just too bad. With your actions you have effectively forced the musicians to take the step of unionizing, and you are no longer in control of the timing on that matter.
Let’s back up – even a cursory glance at the situation in Bellevue from a year ago would tell you that there were contractual areas that needed to be fixed. What would have happened if the orchestra management had taken an enlightened approach and said: “look, we need to streamline and modify some of these contractual arrangements, and it seems to us that one of the main holes here is job security. Why don’t we all work together to build a new model for the future that would be beneficial to the organization and to the musicians as well?” They might have come up with something that could have been a model for the rest of the business. Instead what is happening is that the Bellevue Philharmonic is going to descend into the US vs. THEM model that is so prevalent in our business, and is the cause of most of the problems that we face in the orchestra world.
The management of the Bellevue Phil reminds me a little too much of the soon-to-be-history-thank-all-the-Gods idiocy of the Bush administration. The attitude here is “we’re making changes and you just have to trust us, and if you’re not with us your against us.” Word of advice to them – that will work for a little while before a group of people (the musicians maybe?) come along and say: “Nope, we’re not going to let that happen, and if you think we don’t have the willpower to effect change, then Yes We Can!” And if I remember correctly Washington was a deeply blue state in the last election cycle.
Thank you for your article. I think you really hit the nail on the head about what the issue is with Bellevue. There used to be mutual trust between management and the musicians, but that has evaporated rather quickly over the past few months. The musicians mostly just want an agreement in place upon which all aprties can agree.
From paragraph 3 of the article:
“Bassist Bryce Van Parys says for the last decade, season-long contracts were generally renewed for everyone still playing at the end of the previous season.”
From paragraph 4:
“In a move that made most orchestra members furious, McCausland ignored the traditional way of renewing contracts.”
From paragraph 10:
“If anything, she [McCausland] says, she would like to see the musicians organized, but with so many things in the air, it’s a bad time for major changes in the way musician contracts are done.”
Any questions? Good. I didn’t think so.