The Recording Musicians AFM lawsuit far bigger than previously thought, California Primary June 3rd, Trivia, Member Comments and more.
\n<\/p>\n
I. RECORDING MUSICIANS AFM LAWSUIT SCOPE FAR
\nBIGGER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT<\/p>\n
Why is the RMA pretending to try to mend fences with
\nthe AFM if their members are suing our parent organization?
\nHow many of the RMA rank and file actually know this
\nis going on?<\/p>\n
We have just received more court documents concerning
\nthe Lawsuit filed by three RMA Members (DAVID
\nPARMETER, ANATOLY ROSINSKY, ANDREW SHULMAN)
\ngoing after dues they claim are not due the FEDERATION.
\nIt\u201as not just about Video Games and wording hints at a
\nclass action suit, not just those three recording musicians.<\/p>\n
Here is a quote from:
\nCase 2:07-cv-07225-MMM-SS
\nDocument 53<\/p>\n
\u2211collecting certain union dues, known as \u201eFederation Work
\nDues,\u2030 in connection with the employment of Plaintiffs AND
\nSIMILARLY SITUATED MEMBERS of Defendant AFM and
\nDefendant Local 47\u2211<\/p>\n
——-<\/p>\n
IT\u201aS NOT JUST VIDEO GAMES<\/p>\n
In case you thought this was just about the buyout Video Game
\ncontracts, here is a list of the type of work they are stating
\nwere done under promulgated agreements, and are therefore
\nwanting the dues back.<\/p>\n
A) Video Game Agreement(s) (both as to \u201eOption 1 and Option 2\u2030)
\nEffective Start Date of November 2006;
\nB) Video Game Agreements(s) (Previously in effect through
\nNovember 2006 and also continuing with Special Letters of
\nAgreement for sometime thereafter);
\nC) Basic Cable Agreement(s);
\nD) Telethon Agreement(s);
\nE) Syndicated Radio (Non-symphonic) Agreement(s);
\nF) Cruise Ship Agreements(s)
\nG) Industrial Films Agreement(s);
\nH) Basic Television Film Agreements (Independent Producers)
\nI) Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreement (Independent Producers):
\nJ) Non-Standard Television Agreement(s) (Pay TV)
\nK) Motion Picture Documentary Agreement(s);
\nL) Festival Film Agreements
\nM) Parades, Spectaculars, Theme Park Agreements<\/p>\n
Note many of the situations mentioned above state \u0152independent\u201a
\nat the end. It seems about the only contracts they don\u201at want
\nthe money back for are those films done by the big studios,
\nwhich conveniently pay them the lion\u201as share of their royalties.<\/p>\n
Do you find this list as absurd as we do? Is any contract that
\nthe RMA didn\u201at control and\/or create themselves illegitimate?<\/p>\n
FULL FRONTAL ASSUALT<\/p>\n
This is a full out frontal assault on our AFM, a federation
\nthat has more often than not protected our rights as musicians
\nfor over 112 years, and because: 200-300 recording musicians
\nwant to keep their wallets fat on the back of a lost market for
\neveryone else; were not able to take over the Federation at the
\nlast convention; and because of the vendetta one or more RMA
\nadministration officials have for the current President, they are
\nready, willing and trying to damage the AFM for the other 70.000+
\nmembers.<\/p>\n
The actions of these rogue members endangers the very
\nexistence of the AFM and it\u201as coming to the time when all
\nof us: rank and file, live, casual, teaching, orchestral, and
\nyes, even recording musicians will have to join forces
\nto protect our federation from the scorched earth policy of
\nthese musicians.<\/p>\n
The Local 47 officers should either defend the Federation that
\nhas given them a living for so long and the musicians who pay
\ntheir salaries; or resign and go to work for those they\u201ave been
\ndoing the bidding of for years. At least that way those benefiting
\nfrom their real loyalties will be the ones paying them.<\/p>\n
ESPINOSA’S REVENGE?<\/p>\n
It’s also worth noting that because Local 47 has filed an “interpleading”,
\nthat action puts them in effect AGAINST the AFM. Note the following
\nheading that now appears on the Federal Lawsuit:<\/p>\n
PROFESSIONAL MUSICIANS LOCAL 47, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
\nMUSICIANS AFL-CIO
\nCounter\/Cross-Claimant<\/p>\n
VS.<\/p>\n
DAVID PARMETER, ANATOLY ROSINSKY, ANDREW SHULMAN,
\nAMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES
\nAND CANADA
\nCounter\/Cross-Defendants<\/p>\n
So not only are the recording musicians above trying to damage
\nor destroy the AFM in court, it’s clear that the board of Local 47
\nhas taken a position through the interpleading which is in
\neffect AGAINST the AFM. One can only wonder how much
\ndamage the administration of Local 47, represented by an attorney
\nwho as we previously reported is on the RMA ADVISORY BOARD
\nas well, is intent on causing the AFM while the Local 47 officers
\nbow to the recording musicians.<\/p>\n
At a very minimum, Local 47’s choice to interplead and withhold
\nwhat may be HUGE sums of royalties will cause the AFM financial
\nharm. President Espinosa had a choice: side with the AFM (his
\nemployer), or go against the AFM. We can only hope that his choice
\ndoesn’t have disastrous consequences for us all. In any case, it’s
\nclear President Espinosa certainly can say he got his revenge for
\nthe bitter loss he suffered last year at the convention election.<\/p>\n
BLYLAWS TO REMEMBER<\/p>\n
We also want to remind the whole federation of THESE Bylaws:<\/p>\n
ARTICLE 5 Section 22(a)<\/p>\n
The International President may suspend or remove from
\noffice any Local Officer for: neglect of duty; or for interference
\nwith or violation of any of the Bylaws or any Convention,
\nPresidential or IEB orders or directions or the purposes,
\nobjects, or affairs of the AFM.<\/p>\n
And also this one,\u2211<\/p>\n
ARTICLE 5 – Section 71<\/p>\n
Whenever the IEB has substantial reason to believe that
\na Local or the Local’s Officers or members, are (1) acting
\nin violation of the AFM Bylaws, (2) disobeying a lawful
\norder of the Convention, the IEB, or the International
\nPresident, (3) mismanaging the Local’s financial affairs
\nor otherwise conducting the affairs in a fiscally unsound
\nmanner, or (4) engaging in any activity or course of
\nconduct detrimental to the welfare or interests of the
\nAFM or the Local, the IEB may place the Local in
\nTrusteeship.<\/p>\n
—–<\/p>\n
If the Officers of Local 47 continue on their current
\ncourse, we believe the Federation must take off the
\ngloves and hold them accountable for the damage
\ntheir hopelessly incompatible loyalties have done
\nto our Local and the Federation. It is a disgrace that
\ncannot and must not be tolerated.<\/p>\n
=============<\/p>\n
II. CA PRIMARY, JUNE 3rd<\/p>\n
Please don\u201at forget to take part in the upcoming June 3rd
\nCalifornia primary! Your vote is important, don\u201at waste it!<\/p>\n
=============<\/p>\n
III. TRIVIA \u02c6 CHAT NOIR<\/p>\n
Established by artist Rodolphe Salis, Le Chat Noir (The Black
\nCat) was the first musical cabaret in France. It was named
\nafter a mythical French cat who mocked the platitudes of
\nthe bourgeoisie and opened its doors in 1881. The venue\u201as
\nearly success was due largely to the mixing of piano music
\nwith free verse and poetry, an activity that was prohibited
\nin France at the time. For many, Le Chat Noir encapsulated
\nthe tradition of mocking the establishment and its values
\nthrough its rowdy and often profane activities.<\/p>\n
=============<\/p>\n
IV. COMMENTS<\/p>\n
The comments below and elsewhere in the mailing
\nrepresent the uncensored views of the readers and
\nnot necessarily those of the COMMITTEE. In the faith
\nthat freedom of expression allows for the birth and
\nascendancy of the most beneficial ideas, all sentiments
\nexpressed are welcome, subject to the bounds of good
\ntaste and decorum. If you disagree with an opinion
\nexpressed by any contributor, we encourage you to
\nrebut it here.<\/p>\n
—————-<\/p>\n
I was at the membership meeting a couple of weeks
\nago. The recording musicians came to the meeting in
\nforce, voted, and vanished. You can say they took part
\nin the democratic process. Or you can say that they
\nshowed up to ensure their continued employment with
\nthe orchestra of the chosen. Either way they voted the
\nway they were told and now they own the officers of the
\nlocal. Between the campaign literature that the recording
\nmusicians were passing out at the door and the person
\nsitting behind me who said now who are we supposed
\nto vote for? – It couldn\u201at be more clear. The recording
\nmusicians have made a concerted effort over the years
\nto elect stooges who will do their bidding. Now they\u201ave
\ngot their wish.<\/p>\n
One member stood up and asked the Secretary Treasurer
\nfor a financial report. Leslie Lashinsky looked completely
\nshocked and said \u0152Oh things are fine and I love my job\u201a.
\nThe member asked again for a real report and was told
\n\u0152we\u201all have one for you next time.\u201a Another member asked
\nPresident Espinosa about the local\u201as budget. Espinosa
\nreferred him to the financial report published in the Overture.
\nA former officer stood up in the audience to explain that
\nthe financial report in the paper is last year\u201as balance sheet.
\nA budget is the planned spending for the future. A whole
\ndifferent animal. Why didn\u201at our officers know that? And
\nEspinosa always finds a way to brag that he is running a
\nmultimillion dollar corporation. Then VP Trombetta told
\nabout how he is going to remodel the auditorium at a
\ncost of up to half a million dollars. Hope it will turn out
\nbetter than the ‘soundproofed’ rehearsal rooms. Did they
\never ask the membership for approval, or even have
\ndiscussion of this spending? Is the recording studio in
\nthe auditorium going to be phased out the way they keep
\ntrying to do with the referral service? I\u201ave heard its\u201a going
\nto be moved to the basement. Great acoustics there. For
\nthe guys working on MIDI tracks maybe.<\/p>\n
The referral service committee threw a meeting for
\nmembers input and nobody came. They can\u201at
\nunderstand why, because it was advertised in the
\nOverture. And they had the nerve to give the members
\nattitude about it. Did you know about the meeting?
\nWould it have hurt to send an email blast for free to
\nthe membership like they do for their pet projects?
\nOf course that would give the referral service too much
\npublicity, so why not send an email to only the members
\nregistered in the referral service? Too easy. I think we
\nshould form a committee to study the committee. And
\nspend another $80,000 to build another referral service
\nwebsite that won\u201at work either. And stop members from
\ngetting jobs for another 4 years. Yeah that sounds reasonable.<\/p>\n
There\u201as a lot about our industry that\u201as done with a wink
\nand a nod that can\u201at be proven or traced. If your phone
\nstops ringing who do you complain to? I understand watching
\nyour back and keeping your job. But there was a judge who
\nsaid I don\u201at know what pornography is, but I know it when I
\nsee it. At the union there\u201as a whole lot of smut going on.
\nI see it.<\/p>\n
The members seated around me at the meeting sat there
\nin stunned silence at the ignorance and arrogance of our
\nelected officials.<\/p>\n
—————<\/p>\n
I don’t expect this or any union to work as my agent
\nand get me work. However, I don’t expect this or any
\nunion to prevent me from working. I do expect this union
\nto work with employers toward bringing as much work as
\npossible to union musicians. This may require adapting to
\ncurrent times and re-thinking how we do business.
\nConcessions will be necessary. No one wants to give up
\nperks they already have but by working less we already
\nare. When work diminishes completely there will be no
\nmore perks.<\/p>\n
Our administration needs to be thinking of our futures,
\nall of our futures. This is something we need to think
\nabout when the next contract negotiations come up. I
\nthink we should all have some input on this.<\/p>\n
—————<\/p>\n
Committee, I found this entry on the AFM Blog very
\nuseful for our present situation.<\/p>\n
So you don’t want to talk about the #1 issue (Buyouts)
\ntoday with the AFM? OK, fine, let’s talk about “feeling
\ncreepy”…

What you call “creepy” I call “evolution of a
\nunion” beyond the 1970s beliefs that buyouts are evil
\nto today’s realities that everywhere in the world offers
\na buyout for film work except for the AFM and it’s the
\n#1 reason work is leaving the AFM.

You seem to equate
\na discussion of a union evolving beyond dated business
\nmodels with “dissing basic union concepts” – unless
\nyou’re tied to the past with a ball and chain and want to
\nbase your future on trying to tie employers and everybody
\nelse to past, outdated business models with that same
\nball and chain, there’s no justification to clinging to 1970s
\nera business models like special payments contracts for all
\nfilms.

Beyond buyout issues is the reality that musicians today
\nfunction far more as independent businesspeople than they
\ndo as “employees”. With most musicians not qualifying for
\nAFM health insurance (and Local 47 dragging its heels about
\njoining other Californai locals that already offer HMO\/PPO
\ncoverage that is available to all, in another apparent prostration
\nto the RMA), musicians (including myself) have independent
\ninsurance policies (as in, self-employed). Musicians have to
\npay for our own advertising and promotion, our own instruments,
\nour own transportation, and our own education (lessons, etc),
\nmaking us for practical purposes much closer to being self-
\nemployed people than employees.

And no, I don’t want to have
\nanother go-around with MTM about what technically constitutes
\nan employee, since MTM isn’t an accountant or an attorney and
\nneither am I. We’re talking about a practical application of the
\nword here.

My point is that as a self-employed person, I’m much
\nmore interested in things like a referral service, marketing
\nassistance for my music\/albums\/etc, and things like that.
\nThese are areas where the union could really help me and
\npeople like me, vs. paternalistic treatment. But what does
\nLocal 47\/RMA do? Gut the referral service and fire the longtime
\nunion employee (Barbara Markay) who had been assisting many
\nmembers with marketing their own music\/CDs. 

The world isn’t
\nas simple as “labor” vs “business” any more. The lines are all
\nblurred now, as musicians function both as self-employed
\nbusinesspeople AND as employees of contractors. My point is
\nsimply that the AFM can evolve beyond the paternalistic role of
\nthe past and onto a more progressive partnering WITH members
\nto leverage the strength of the membership to create competitive
\ndeals in the marketplace and serve a number of other functions to
\nassist members with their careers. 

But that requires taking a step
\nbeyond the policies of the past and looking towards what works
\nfor the future, taking into account the now world marketplace for
\nrecorded music.

<\/p>\n
Not a Neocon<\/p>\n
————-<\/p>\n
Well, given that the SF musicians are now doing more video
\ngame work than LA musicians, according to Hal’s logic, the
\nSF musicians should be the ones making the rules for video
\ngame agreements!<\/p>\n
Who ever said the RMA represented all recording musicians?<\/p>\n
What about all the symphony musicians around the country
\nthat make
\nrecordings every year? They are all “recording musicians” too
\nand most have nothing to do with the RMA. I doubt they
\nwould support the RMA’s radical stance of “include special
\npayments or your can’t record your film score AFM”.<\/p>\n
————-<\/p>\n
Next time, fun with the auditor\u201as report!<\/p>\n
THE COMMITTEE FOR A MORE RESPONSIBLE LOCAL 47<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Recording Musicians AFM lawsuit far bigger than previously thought, California Primary June 3rd, Trivia, Member Comments and more.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-committee-newsletters"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.responsible47.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}