COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER<\/p>\n\n\n\n
*** Convention Edition \u2013 WELCOME TO YOUR CONVENTION IN VEGAS,\nAFM ***<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…Absolutely guaranteed anonymity\n– Former Musician’s Union officer<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…The one voice of reason in a\nsea of insanity – Nashville ‘first call’ scoring musician<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…Allows us to speak our minds\nwithout fear of reprisal – L.A. Symphonic musician<\/p>\n\n\n\n
…Reporting issues the Musicians\nUnion doesn’t dare to mention – National touring musician<\/p>\n\n\n\n
===================================<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I) ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION DISMISSED<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A short time ago, the entire administration of AFM Local 802\nof New York was voted out of office by their membership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now comes news that the administration of AFM\u2019s Philadelphia\nLocal 77 has had their administration voted out of office as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Seems change is in the wind, with members across the\nfederation fed up with the status quo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Who\u2019s next?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In another development showing the level of corruption at the AFM: After the former president of Local 802 was dismissed, the NOW former president of Local 77 (Philadelphia) was lobbying to gather the votes needed to allow the FORMER president of Local 802 to stay on the International Executive Board, even though he is no longer the president of any Local. Favoritism or cronyism? You decide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
====================================<\/p>\n\n\n\n
II) BUYOUT STREAMING CONTRACT? NOPE.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recently a recording entity in Los Angeles put an\nadvertisement on youtube announcing the availability of a \u201cBuyout\u201d Contract for\nstreaming services. Problem is, none of the ones we found is a buyout. It\ndoesn\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We\u2019ve looked at all the available streaming contracts and here is what we found:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022\u00a0Live Concert AVOD\/SVOD Internet Streaming Agreement<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Streaming of the performances beyond the initial six (6)\nmonth cycle shall require an additional aggregate payment of 7% of any future\ngross receipts for each subsequent six (6) month cycle, with 3.5% to be\nforwarded to the appropriate Local for distribution on a pro rata basis to all\nSide Musicians, Leaders, Contractors and Music Preparation Musicians\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(No buyout here\u2026.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Streaming of the performances beyond the initial six (6)\nmonth cycle shall require an additional aggregate payment of 6.6% of any future\ngross receipts for each subsequent six (6) month cycle, to be forwarded to the\nappropriate Local for distribution on a pro rata basis to all Side Musicians,\nLeaders, Contractors and Music Preparation Musicians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Or here\u2026.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Use of the performances for on-demand internet streaming for\nsecond and future cycles, shall require an additional aggregate payment of 6.6%\nof any future gross receipts for each subsequent six (6) month cycle, to be\ndistributed pro rata to all Side Musicians, Leaders, Contractors and Music\nPreparation Musicians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Or here\u2026.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If an original New\nMedia Production budgeted at more than $25,000 per minute (using the same cost\nelements as described in the third paragraph of Paragraph A above) or a\nDerivative New Media Production is initially released simultaneously on\nfree-to-the-consumer, advertiser-supported platforms and to consumer-pay\nplatforms (i.e.,\ndownload-to-rent, download-to-own or paid streaming), then Producer shall have a twenty-six (26)\nconsecutive week period of use on consumer-pay platforms, commencing with the\nfirst day of use on consumer-pay platforms, without the payment of residuals.\nIf the Producer uses the New Media Production on consumer-pay platforms beyond\nsuch twenty-six (26) consecutive week period, then Producer shall pay 1% of the\n\u201cProducer\u2019s gross,\u201d as that term is defined in Paragraph 9 of Side Letter 11\n(\u201cExhibition of Television Programs Transmitted Via New Media\u201d) realized from\nany subsequent license that includes use on consumer-pay platforms, which\n\u201cgross\u201d is attributable to use on consumer-pay platforms beyond the twenty-six\n(26) consecutive week period, measured from the first day of use on\nconsumer-pay platforms under the first license. Said amount shall be paid to\nthe Film Musicians Secondary Markets Fund on behalf of musicians employed on\nthe New Media Production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMeaning: first 26 weeks are free, then 1% of\ngross proceeds need to be paid to Film Musicians Secondary Markets Fund on\nbehalf of musicians employed on the New Media Production.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(No buyout after 26 weeks\u2026.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This means, in every case above someone (A company) has to\nsign an assumption agreement. If they are not already a signatory that\u2019s\nunlikely to happen, which means it\u2019ll go elsewhere or nonunion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whomever put out the youtube video should read the fine print.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
====================================<\/p>\n\n\n\n
III) MORE DEFLECTION FROM THE AFM<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Local 802 is trying to blame Trump\u2019s NLRB for the rise in members\ngoing Fi-Core. While we\u2019re no fan of Trump by any stretch, to blame Trump for\nthe rise is musicians choosing fi-core (A multi-year trend) is absurd and a pathetic\nattempt at deflection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Please read the article below yourself:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is how the Trump\nNLRB is targeting unions<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By encouraging union members to choose\n\u201cfinancial core\u201d status, the NLRB has taken a decidedly anti-union stance<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Volume 119, No.\n6June, 2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HARVEY\nMARS, ESQ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
HSMLABORLAW@HARVEYMARSATTORNEY.COM<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Out of all of the oxymorons that\nexist in the legal world, the phrase \u201cright to work\u201d has to be one of the\nworst. Those of us who are labor activists know that \u201cright to work\u201d really\nmeans \u201cright to work\u2026for less pay!\u201d The \u201cright to work\u201d doctrine gives workers\nthe opportunity to get a free ride on the backs of those who actually pay for\nthe union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are currently 26 \u201cright to\nwork\u201d states in the country and 24 states where \u201cright to work\u201d is not law. In\nthose states, Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act allows union\ncontracts to compel union membership as one of the conditions of being\nemployed. These provisions, known as union security clauses, greatly assist\nunions in both collecting dues and also preserving majority status in a\nworkplace. Without majority status, an employer doesn\u2019t have to recognize a\nunion as the collective bargaining agent of a group of workers. The union security\nclause also prevents \u201cfree riders\u201d \u2013 workers who desire to reap the benefits of\nthe union without financially supporting it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, as a result of several\nSupreme Court decisions, the requirement to join a union has been whittled down\nto what is commonly known as \u201cfinancial core\u201d,<\/p>\n\n\n\n status. Workers who are required in their\ncontract to join the union can request \u201cfinancial core\u201d status. When workers\nrequest this status, a union cannot charge them for services that are not part\nof \u201crepresentational functions,\u201d such as collective bargaining, grievance\nadjustment and contract administration services. What services a union can\ncharge a financial core member is often the subject of debate, and most unions\nhave appeal processes that permit members to challenge fees if they believe\nthey are not part and parcel of union representational functions. This\ncontroversial subject has now engaged the attention of the National Labor\nRelations Board.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In March, the NLRB decided that union\nlobbying costs are not a chargeable union expense. (The case was United Nurses\n& Allied Professionals [Kent Hospital] 367 NLRB No. 94 [March 1, 2019]). On\na technical level, the board wrote that lobbying is not the kind of activity\nthat is a necessary part of a union\u2019s statutory function as exclusive\nbargaining representative and thus falls outside the scope of permissible fees\nthat may be charged to financial core members. Even though lobbying efforts may\nimpact representational functions, the NLRB held that it is still too far removed\nfrom representational functions to be chargeable. Thus a private sector union\n(like Local 802) will have violated its duty of fair representation if it\ncharges lobbying costs to an objecting member. Additionally, any costs remotely\nrelated to lobbying efforts cannot be charged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This decision clearly hobbles a\nunion\u2019s effort to support beneficial legislation (such as national pension\nreform) by compelling it to front the costs for objecting members. To add\ninsult to injury, the NLRB\u2019s Office of General Counsel recently issued a\ndirective that completely shifts the burden when a financial core member wishes\nto challenge a reimbursable union expenditure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When presented with a charge they\nbelieve is improper, a financial core member has two choices: (1) proceed with\na challenge utilizing the union\u2019s internal procedure or (2) file an unfair\nlabor practice charge alleging breach of duty of fair representation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prior to the new directive, the NLRB\nrequired financial core members to first utilize the internal union process\nbefore filing an unfair labor practice charge. The new edict now permits unfair\nlabor practice charges to proceed independently of internal objections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, in a break from\nprecedent, the NLRB will no longer require financial core members who file ULPs\nto explain why they believe a particular expenditure is improper. When a ULP\nchallenging a union assessment is filed, the NLRB will now require the union to\nprovide a \u201cdetailed explanation of the union\u2019s chargeability decisions for each\nmajor category of expenses.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n With the burden now shifted, it is\nobvious that the NLRB has taken a decidedly anti-union stance. It is inevitable\nthat more objections will be lodged and more expenses will be deemed\nnon-chargeable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result of these NLRB decisions, it is now more important than ever that union members be educated regarding the benefits of full membership and how the NLRB is prompting the financial ruination of unions by encouraging financial core membership. An informed membership is a strong membership!<\/p>\n\n\n\n ——–<\/p>\n\n\n\n Good point above,.. so let\u2019s do the\nsame for Fi-Core:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Choosing Financial Core (Beck\nStatus):<\/p>\n\n\n\n HOWEVER\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is the phrase \u201cRight to Work\u201d\n(for less); but for more and more folks the phrase means \u201cRight to Work (AT\nALL).<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is particularly true of\nrecording. Anyone who has been or is a member interested in media recording\nknows this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n WHY ARE MUSICIANS GOING FI-CORE?<\/p>\n\n\n\n People are going fi-core because 90%\n(maybe more at this point) of the union recording work is gone. The only hope\nthey have of recording in a studio is on a non-union session, and don\u2019t kid\nyourself, all the so-called \u201cA\u201d listers do non-unions sessions as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n WHY IS IT GONE?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because you can record anywhere in\nthe world without paying a back end (Secondary Market Payments) EXCEPT with the\nAmerican Federation of Musicians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n People have finally reached a point\nwhere they are done playing by the AFM\u2019s rules because they have mortgages and\nbills to pay. Look at Seattle and Nashville. They are working hand over fist\nbecause the UNION work, the little that is left, is controlled by and funneled\nto perhaps .2 percent of AFM Members. Put simply, the rank and file need to\nwork and they will not get that work through the union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are even a few other locales in\nthe United States that have decided it\u2019s time to work and are doing what they\nhave to to get the work. Some of those entities are actually the ones bringing\nwork back from Eastern Europe for US musicians, not the union. In most cases\nit\u2019s work that would never be union in any case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s say you are a company or\nproduction house and need music for your production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Your choices are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n So let\u2019s be serious, if you have the choice of recording union here (more expensive, more hassle.) or recording in London cheaper with no strings, what are you going to do? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Save the platitudes, you know what you\u2019d do if it\u2019s your money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The main argument? Well they have to keep books open for the\nactors, director etc. Why not for musicians?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because there\u2019s only one Tom Hanks or Francis Ford Coppola, but there are world class musicians everywhere in the world. The AFM has simply priced themselves out of the market with strings you don\u2019t have anywhere else. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n THE PENSION?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The situation with the pension is\ngetting worse because more are drawing pension and fewer are contributing, because\nthe work isn\u2019t there. It\u2019s simple math.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You can read up on all the latest\npension news here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.musiciansforpensionsecurity.com\/news<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n HOW CAN WE BUILD THE PENSION BACK UP?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bring work back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n HOW DO WE GET WORK BACK?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Buyout contracts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n WHY DON\u2019T WE HAVE BUYOUT CONTRACTS<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because the AFM is allowing itself to\nbe influenced by a small special interest group to the detriment of 99+% of the\nother AFM Members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Until that influence is gone, nothing\nwill improve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As was said before, there are\nliterally DOZENS of places a company can record without harassment and\ndifficulties (and backend) throughout the world: London, France, Mexico,\nCanada, Macedonia, Prague and Bratislava to name only a few.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Everyone knows the problem, everyone\nknows how to fix the problem, but for some reason people are still afraid to\npoint to the Elephant in the Room. As long as the cowardice continues, the AFM\nwill continue to shed members, become even more of a paper tiger and eventually\ncease to exist in the recording world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The membership knows what to do. What will it take for them to do it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n =====================================<\/p>\n\n\n\n IV) MEMBER COMMENTS<\/p>\n\n\n\n Posting here so hopefully\nsomeone from the community will distribute my message: I recently was part of\nthe Lion King Orchestra. Although I was grateful for the call that came from a\ncontractor, Peter Rotter, who I don\u2019t regularly work for, the experience left\nme feeling marginalized. Just entering the room on the first day, I realized\nwhy I was hired. They needed a room full of black people. That\u2019s it. The other\ntimes Rotter has had a \u201cblack\u201d room is when its been for Spike Lee, Denzel Washington,\nDr. Dre, and whenever there\u2019s a black producer\/director in the booth he needs\nto prove something to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I have a degree from a\nprestigious institution, play among the highest caliber players in the world in\nmajor orchestras and ensembles, yet I was only called for the color of my skin.\nThroughout the services, I heard things from the very white employers like\n\u201cwow, this is a mixed group\u201d. And the photos that these self-important white\nconductor, composer, contractor and concertmaster proudly posted showing that\nthey hired us is nothing short of racist. I feel degraded by the whole\nexperience, and I know that speaking to so many of the other black players\nthere, that they shared in my horror.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You won\u2019t see me working\nfor PR again, not that he would ever call me for my qualifications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m speaking out to\nencourage others to share their experiences that they shared with me privately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ———————<\/p>\n\n\n\n hello editor!<\/p>\n\n\n\n Just in case the membership believes that members “in good standing” are “welcomed” to “observe” the weekly Board of Directors meetings at the Local.\u00a0\u00a0Pleased be advised….there was a final and farewell meeting of a Board member who has decided to move from California…the Local had a buffet delivered (trays of various items).\u00a0\u00a0Pres. Acosta suggested a “working lunch”.\u00a0\u00a0The “one” observer was not invited…only welcomed to “observe”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sigh…<\/p>\n\n\n\n ——————<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hello, It\u2019s rare with the NLRB\nto get one charge to stick let alone 14. The AFM\u2019s email that was sent to it\u2019s\nmembers\/musicians is a typical inaccurate AFM smoke screen. The NLRB is part of\nthe federal government and are well aware of their latest tactics\u2026it\u2019s now a\nserious matter. Also, there are other Federal Government agencies currently\ninvestigating the AFM. Tip of the iceberg\u2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let me know if you need\nanything from me or my legal team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n —————<\/p>\n\n\n\n From Larry Lippold<\/p>\n\n\n\n A good start. I thought\nTino was going to come after me when I asked whether we need some people on the\nPension board who knew something about investments at the TMA meeting a few\nmonths ago. Of course the Broadway musicians have a huge interest in the plan,\nas they are putting a huge percentage of their checks into the plan (I think it\nis 18%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Getting Tino\u2019s\npredecessor and Vince Trombetta off the board wouldn\u2019t hurt either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n —————–<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nTo My Fellow Members of the Musician Community:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nInteresting blog.
\nI\u2019m well versed on the original 19 NLRB charges brought against Hair and his\nthugs. The true definition of the 14 guilty charges is forthcoming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n