Tag Archives: vice president

Bruce Fife headshot
Officer Columns, Vice President

You Can Be Heard—NOW!

Every six months, or so, I am tasked with writing an article for the International Musician. More often than not, the impetus for the topic relates to something that I’m dealing with as president of Local 99 (Portland, OR). As I’ve stated before, it’s one of the true positive outcomes of our AFM structure, in that, as an officer of a local, I can bring the daily, real world issues directly to the international governing body, which can then lead to the change and growth required in these challenging times. 

Such is the case with this article. In recent months, Local 99 has seen a significant number of violations by employers in both our national agreements and some of our local agreements. In most of these cases, they are not circumstances that are being brought to my attention by musicians working under the agreements. They are violations that I have been able to ascertain, based on report forms, or research that uncovers new and/or false information.

Following the discovery of these contract violations, I locate and reach out to the musicians (not always so easy, as some may not be members yet), explain the circumstances, and with their help, work to rectify the situation. When successful, that usually means additional payments to the musicians in the form of wages, health care, and/or pension. In reaching out, I have been met with the full range of reactions: from “I don’t want to bother with this” to “let’s take them down,” and every level in between. In one recent case, the musician didn’t want to pursue a claim, then changed his mind, and we (the local and Federation) were able to procure almost $11,000 in wages and benefits for him.

As I ponder this situation, it naturally occurs to me that, if I’m the one catching these contract violations, covering dozens of contracts and completely different work locations, activities, and employers, this must be just a small percentage of what is really taking place. That leads me to question why the musicians working under these agreements, who often complain about not being able to make enough money, do not contact their local or the Federation about these contract violations.

There are two obvious reasons for this. The first is knowledge. If you don’t know the terms of the agreement you are working under, you don’t know how you are supposed to be treated or paid.

That is an easy fix. If it’s a national agreement, the terms are located on the AFM website for you to review. If you can’t find them on the site, contact your local and I’m sure they can help track them down. If it’s a local contract, ask for a copy, or talk with your local officer about the terms. Knowing and understanding the terms of the contract(s) you’re working under is a pretty easy way to determine if you’re being paid and treated properly.

The other reason is fear. Believe me, this is a big one and can be very difficult. You might think that, if you stand up for your right to be treated as required by the contract, which the signing company or organization has agreed to, you could be let go, not hired again, or disrespected in your music community, depending on the scope of the contract. Know that I, as a local officer, don’t want to see this happen to anyone. It is my job to deflect and take the heat away from musicians as we work through the issues. It should be noted in all these cases: the contract is between the union and the producer (employer). An individual musician does not have the authority to waive the terms of that agreement. Working together, though, we should be able to navigate the issues, protect your relationships, and get you the money you’re owed.   

Beyond the realm of these two examples, though, I’m sure there are other reasons why musicians don’t bring contract violations to the attention of their local officers. If we don’t know about something, we can’t work to resolve it. So I’m going to do something crazy here (at least it might prove to be). I would like to hear about all your reasons for not communicating with your local about contract violations, especially the wage violations that you have experienced. I encourage you to read and understand the contracts you are working under so you at least know if there are violations. You can email or snail mail me your story. Mail makes it easier to protect your anonymity, but whichever you choose, your identity will not be shared. I only ask that you identify the local you are a member of.

You can send your story to either bfife@afm99.org or to Bruce Fife, PO Box 42485, Portland, OR, 97242.

Know your value and stand up for your rights!

Vice President from Canada

Changing Workplaces Review Special Advisors’ Interim Report

The Ontario Government has released an interim report of the Changing Workplaces Review, which can be found at: https://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/about/pdf/cwr_interim.pdf.

This 312-page document contains a synopsis of submissions from various unions and organizations that pertain to areas of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and the Labour Relations Act (LRA) that may no longer be relevant in today’s workplace—specifically to workers in the audiovisual/media industry. Also contained are what the advisors consider to be options, based on those submissions and existing practice in other jurisdictions around the world.

As in all things involving government, this vast review may be nothing but a diversion pending the next election; or, it may be an opportunity to make positive change for musicians in how they are viewed and treated in the workforce and the remedies available to them in conflicts with employers.

For Canadian musicians, maintaining status as either independent or dependent contractors has huge tax advantages. Unfortunately, in most cases, this precludes the ability to capitalize on the benefits of being an employee. Certainly, a hybrid of the two is desirable, yet unlikely to ever materialize.

The CFM has taken the position that we will support some of the principles put forth by other arts organizations such as ACTRA, IATSE, and the DGC (some of whom do have employee status), but we must also think of what is best for working musicians. That, of course, is legislation that mirrors the federal Status of the Artist Act.

Here is the content of the submission to Queen’s Park from the CFM:

4.2.2 – Related and Joint Employer

Respectfully, the observations and possible solutions suggested in the review in determining the “true employer” or “related employer” does not address the shell game that exists within the media industry as it relates to musicians. As an example, let’s use a hypothetical film entitled Working Title, which is being produced by a member of the Canadian Media Producers’ Association (CMPA) for initial broadcast on Canadian TV or cable.

The independent producer generally retains the services of a composer under a personal services contract, whereby the composer agrees to deliver a finished original recording as underscore for Working Title. The composer writes the score, and may perform some or all of the parts on a digital workstation (synthesizer). Or, the composer may hire additional musicians—in some cases a full orchestra—to record an even more elaborate score.

Either way, the composer and the musicians would be covered under a CFM film agreement. These agreements contain language stipulating that the original score must remain synchronized to Working Title, and that the music cannot be extracted to be reused or repurposed for other programming, without adherence to the appropriate CFM agreement. But the independent producer is not the signatory (because they cannot be compelled to bargain with the CFM), and through their personal services contract with the composer, require the composer to be signatory and thus technically responsible for the recorded product.

Now it gets interesting. Let’s assume that the terms of the CFM agreement have not been adhered to, and the music for Working Title is now being used in a television spin-off programme. Who, then, is responsible for making the musicians (including the composer), whole? Is it the poor composer, who the independent producer insisted upon being the employer of the musicians? Is it the independent producer, who owns the intellectual property (copyright) on Working Title? Is it the broadcaster, who perhaps initially commissioned the film to be produced and subsequently lifted the music for their new TV show? Is it the (possible) US co-producer, who has invested heavily in the production as a silent partner? Is there any liability on the part of the Ontario government, which funded a significant part of the production through tax credits and grants?

There are many possible combinations of the above scenario, including multiple production companies, sometimes solely incorporated to payroll only Working Title, and then disappear upon completion of the production to avoid further liability, or any detectable connection with a “true” employer.

While the suggested solutions in 4.2.2, including rulings being made on a case-by-case basis, may address more simple relationships, there is no way they can address the above convoluted example. Interestingly, the above confusion is entirely avoided if the CFM negotiates a scale agreement with the independent producer.

The CFM, therefore, recommends introduction of provincial Status of the Artist legislation, with a collective bargaining component, as contemplated in 4.6.1—Broader-based Bargaining Structures, Option 9. In addition, we recommend that the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) govern the act, similar to how the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has assumed that responsibility formerly held by the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal (CAPPRT).

In addition, we recommend that any single producer who becomes part of a producer association and is bound by a scale or other agreement, be automatically bound by such agreement upon joining. Conversely, a producer should not be allowed to escape the terms of an agreement by withdrawing membership from the producer association.

Further, once a provincial Status of the Artist Act becomes law, any existing collective or scale agreement negotiated by any of the arts associations or unions, must be grandfathered to avoid any unforeseen negative impact.

5.2.1 – Definition of Employee

Musicians represented by the CFM have many different employment scenarios, ranging from clear “independent contractor” gigs (such as weddings or concert work), to “dependent contractor” situations (such as symphony orchestras and long-run theatrical work) to instances where they are employees by definition.

The CFM supports the notion that “dependent contractors” should be provided for in the ESA under Option 6. We also support the premise that, in the case of an employer attempting to avoid responsibilities under the ESA by classifying workers as self-employed, the burden of proof would be on the employer to make the case as to why they are not employees or dependent contractors, whichever the case may be.

5.2.2 – Who Is the Employer and Scope of Liability

The CFM is in support of Option 2: holding employers and/or contractors responsible for their contractors/subcontractors compliance with the ESA.

That said, determining who the players are, as explained in the Working Title example, would lead to unlimited confusion and long lines before the OLRB, in terms of proper application and remedy concerning employers of musicians. In terms of recorded work in audiovisual media, CFM recommends that the determination of who is the employer include the question of intellectual property. Simply, who ultimately owns the copyright on the product? That entity (if not the contractor or subcontractor) should clearly be looked to, especially in the case of obligations and liabilities in the future, or in the case where the copyright is assigned to yet another party.

In Conclusion

The CFM has no objection to the various amendments suggested by our counterparts in the entertainment/media industry in terms of amendments and clarifications to the ESA and LRA. However, we cannot stress enough that such measures fall short of what is required to regulate employment of musicians and remedy any situations that may arise perhaps years after the work is complete. We believe introduction of a provincial Status of the Artist Act is a solution that can only enhance the recommended changes and simplify the relationship between employers and musicians who are traditionally self-employed contractors.

As phase two, the CFM has Status of the Artist legislation written and ready to present.

Hopefully, they will accept our proposal to introduce this legislation, and can then compel individual employers or their associations (if empowered to negotiate) to bargain agreements for our musicians. It would be the right thing to do.

Fair Trade Music
Officer Columns, Vice President

Fair Trade Music and the Importance of Organizing Club Musician

Bruce Fife headshotby Bruce Fife, AFM International Vice-President and President of Local 99 (Portland, OR)

By the time you read this, the AFM Western Conference of Musicians will have taken place in Reno, Nevada. Local 76-493 (Seattle, WA) President Motter Snell is president of the conference this year, and has scheduled, as its centerpiece, a full day of discussions and training on organizing and Fair Trade Music.

As you should be aware from stories in the International Musician and elsewhere, Local 76-493 is well on its way to building a successful organizing campaign based on the foundation of Fair Trade Music, as created in Local 99 (Portland, OR). As with all successful campaigns, they were able to take our basic premise and continue to evolve and morph, moving it in directions that we never envisioned. I applaud the objectives and success they have achieved. It should be seen as a lesson and example for us all.

That said, one of the questions I still hear on a regular basis is: “Why are we working to organize these musicians, especially where there is no ability to create a collective bargaining agreement?” After all, they are not employees, but rather, independent contractors, and so, not subject to traditional labor law. I certainly understand why the question gets asked, but the simple answer is, it is a union’s job to represent the best interests of all workers in the workplace. And, one could argue that, had it not been for the court decision in the early ’80s, which determined that club musicians were independent contractors, we would still be organizing them just as we do orchestra, recording, and theater musicians. Just because we don’t have the same tools available to us, does not mean that we should not still do the work.

Let me highlight another reason for this to be a central campaign for the AFM. Clayton Christensen, author of the insightful book, Innovator’s Dilemma, focused on why big, successful companies fail or lose significant market share. The theory he presents is that often it was inferior products from small companies that caused the initial inroads to an industry that led to the eventual failure. Steel companies were not threatened by “mini mills” manufacturing rebar, as it was a low margin product, just as the auto industry was not initially threatened by that little Toyota Corona that first came into the country in the 1960s because Detroit built “real” cars. In both cases, because of this low level access, these “startups” got a foot in the door and were able to build up and out and eventually alter the course of each industry.

The same could be said of the music industry. The technology revolution allowed musicians to enter the game at a very low cost. Home recording became affordable, as well as promotion, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. It has challenged the major/minor label system. We are a part of that system, because we negotiate with labels on behalf of the musician employees, so it affects us as well. One could argue that, just as in the steel and auto industry, when the first transitions were taking place, the quality was also not as good. CDs, the standard, sounded better than MP3s, and a full-blown studio certainly had better finished audio quality than a home studio. But, people didn’t seem to care. Independence and do-it-yourself was more important than the quality. As time has moved on, those quality differences narrowed and home studios and MP3s have become commonplace or the de facto standard.

So what does this have to do with Fair Trade Music and organizing? Even if the business operates differently than it once did, we have to constantly analyze the marketplace and adapt to the realities that exist. We also have to make sure that, while we are reacting and adapting to the changes, we are working to maintain the standards (wages) that we have negotiated for over the years. That’s no easy feat.

Even with all the innovation and opportunities created, we are looking at a group of musicians that has never had to work harder to survive in this industry. The rules seem to change every time we turn around. That is why the very foundation of Fair Trade Music, as with all organizing, is to meet with the musicians, listen to their stories and challenges—the areas of the business that are not working for them. Then, as AFM President Ray Hair loves to say, “identify, articulate, and prioritize the issues and develop plans of action” that can move us forward. It starts on the ground with these ever more marginalized musicians because, even though the focus of Fair Trade Music is live club dates, these are the same people that can just as easily be, and are, marginalized with their recorded product.

We are not obligated to be subject to the precedent described in Clayton’s book. Others have successfully avoided the pitfalls. To do so, we need to not be held hostage by “the way it’s always been.” At every level, from the locals, to our Federation and player conferences, to the Federation itself, we need to be open to analyzing and evolving our approach to work with all types of musicians, at every step of their careers. That is how we will rebuild and become a more powerful representative body, a more powerful union!

Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

The Music Business—Machine or Eco-System?

My friend, Local 149 (Toronto, ON). Senior Business Rep Dan Broome has bad days and good days—in other words, he ranges from highly intelligent to genius. One of his theories is that music is an eco-system, which upon reflection, is accurate.

Theorizing that musicians and their product are the “roots” of the system, we can easily visualize what comprises the various branches and leaves. For instance, musicians require instruments. One branch would represent the manufacturers, the leaves are their employees, the transportation and distribution network, the music stores and sales team, related accessories, and repairs. That branch alone represents literally thousands of industry people.

Consider the recording studio branch. Aside from engineers, techs, and office staff, we have the folks that master the recording, manufacturers of recording gear, microphones, cabling, tape/memory, amps and all related products, distribution, and human resources. Again, this represents literally thousands of people that rely on musicians.

The broadcast industry is another huge branch. Hundreds of radio stations, web, and streaming sites, the DJs (both on-air and in private business), and the thousands of folks working in media depend on the musicians’ product. Advertisers and the products that depend on wide exposure are an extension of this industry.

The live music scene is a support mechanism for a myriad of offshoot businesses, from the companies that produce liquor and beer, tables, chairs, and other ancillary products to the bartenders, waitresses, cleaning staff, and taxis that rely on wobbly patrons looking for a safe lift home.

It’s easy now to extrapolate and project the billions of dollars generated annually in Canada by music and various tertiary industries that rely upon it. Why then is the average income of a musician in this country barely $15K? We need to examine what’s broken with the system.

The “fruit” growing from the branches represents the tremendous amount of money generated. The “farmers” are the recording labels, venue owners, streaming companies, festival promoters, etc. As in any interdependent society, some of the fruit should be left to feed the roots and reseed the industry, in other words, to share the profits with the source—the musicians. Failure to reinvest in any business leads inevitably to failure.

Unfortunately, the employers we deal with have a far different view of the music industry. I have often visualized an inept government, or charity, where billions of dollars are fed into one end of a giant machine, and out of a pipe at the other end drops a nickel for the public—or in this case, the musician. The employers, and their insatiable desire for ever-increasing profit margins, clearly operate similar to this machine model. Without a fair share of the profits going to the “roots,” the eco-system must inevitably die. Musicians seek other types of work to subsist, which then deteriorates their skills and the resulting product. Or, they make a career decision not to enter the industry at all, which also leads to system collapse.

Also unfortunate is the fact that more musicians will come along who are willing to work longer hours, for less money or free, further perpetuating the greedy ways of the employers. The obvious answer is collective action. When you record or perform live, always make sure you are paid what you are worth and never below scale or without a contract. That’s the only way to force employers to abandon the “machine” model and embrace their responsibility to help sustain music’s eco-system.

Liberal Government Repeals Bills

Unions throughout Canada are pleased that the federal government has tabled legislation to repeal controversial bills C-377 and C-525. These bills were designed to weaken unions by forcing redundant and unreasonable financial reporting, and by making it more difficult for Canadians in federally-regulated workplaces to join a union.

These bills were nothing more than an attempt to undermine unions’ ability to do important work like protecting jobs, promoting health and safety in the workplace, and advocating on behalf of all Canadian workers.

Bill C-377 was pushed through Parliament by the last government in June 2015, despite loud opposition from many different groups, including the NHL Players Association, Conservative and Liberal senators, constitutional experts, Canada’s privacy commissioner, the Canadian Bar Association, and the insurance and mutual fund industry. Minister Mihychuk should be commended for her leadership in repealing this legislation and restoring a balanced labour relations framework for federal workers.

Vice President from Canada

International Federation of Musicians: Lessons Learned from Musicians Unions from Around the World

Attending the executive committee meetings of the International Federation of Musicians (FIM) in Helsinki brought home the importance of having ongoing relations with the other musicians’ unions in the world. Too often we focus on problems that impact us directly and personally, which leads to isolated thinking, oblivious that others have or have had similar issues elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Officer Columns, Vice President

Disruptive Technologies — Our Time of Transformation

Bruce Fife headshotby Bruce Fife, AFM International Vice President and President of Local 99 (Portland, OR)

The old phrase, “may you live in interesting times” is often purported to be a blessing, when in fact, it is a curse, mistakenly attributed to be of ancient Chinese origins, though its origins are Western, 20th century. Whether it’s a blessing or a curse is of little consequence.

What is of consequence is the “times” we live in are moving forward at breakneck speed, with little consideration to the effect of disruptive technologies. I don’t know whether it’s possible to slow things down enough to consider the impact of implementation, but I believe it’s important to try.

The music biz was the canary in the coal mine. We were the first to really be impacted by the disruption caused by the technological revolution. Starting with Napster, it’s pretty much been one disruption after another. As you look at other industries, journalism was right on our tails, then retail, film, and TV, etc. All impacted to varying degrees by new technology.

Now the newest twist is the “sharing economy” of Uber, Airbnb, and Lyft. This is disruptive, because once again, the technology allows companies to play by a different set of rules.  Everyone is placed at the intersection of worker rights, consumer rights, consumer preferences, and big business. On one hand, for example, there is no obligation to have liability insurance nor to pay license fees or other types of taxes that cab companies and/or hotels are historically required to pay. In other words, they’re profiting by not playing the “game” the way years of experience have brought it together through knowledge that protects consumers and workers and with infrastructure that allows businesses to flourish.

I do get it—the convenience of tapping your phone and having a car show up quickly, or the adventure of staying in someone’s home with a view. But, if you were the cab driver who has had to follow a strict set of rules (laws or mandated regulations), which can now be ignored by Uber, or you live on a street where your neighbor rents out his home and now there are late night parties and strangers “moving in” who have little or no respect for your neighborhood, you might not think it’s such a good idea.

There is one other key consequence. The revenue generated is not going to the worker on the ground, but once again, appears to be flowing to the top. Uber has reportedly become a $50 billion company in just six years and the drivers are not getting an equitable share of that revenue. In fact, depending on which report you read, after adjusting for the overhead of their vehicles, they are making no more than current cabbies. That could change. Uber drivers have now won their first round in Federal Court in San Francisco relating to their misclassification as independent contractors. They are fighting to be classified as employees so that they are be able to receive gratuities (Uber informs customers that gratuities are included in the price) and recover maintenance costs. They are taking a stand.

The thing that bothers me most about all of this is that no one seems to be looking at the long-term consequences. Are we again, by not considering the long term, going to destroy more industries, at the cost of many more jobs for hard-working people? Are we going to destroy, as well, the infrastructure that has made this short-term growth possible, but that may not survive the disruption? I’m not against progress, but I believe we’re better served if we don’t blow up an industry, but rather, keep the best of it, while shedding the anachronistic parts of it.

The place I’m headed with this is wages. All of this disruption hits wages of workers harder than any other part of the industry. The response to these challenges seems to always be to lower our wages. That is certainly the easiest answer, but once you go down that road, it’s difficult to come back from it. Yes, it’s hard to see, and to stand up for the long game, but if we don’t, we just hand everything over to whomever is the current “man.” (Remember that little company, Google, and its slogan, “do no evil”? Now, it’s clearly “the man.”)

How did we get to the place where club owners are doing musicians a favor by letting them play in their clubs? How is it ok to give US tax credits to companies that then take the work overseas? How does it make sense that one musician is supposed to cover the clarinet, bass clarinet, flute, oboe, and English horn parts in the pit, just so they don’t have to hire more musicians? How bad does it have to be before people decide, okay, that’s enough, now it’s time to stand up and fight for what’s right.

Yes, I’m ranting, but I get tired of watching the “power” of the employer not challenged by the power of our numbers. It can’t be just your local or national officers who are ready to stand up for what’s right. You have to be part of that team. We do live in interesting times and I’d like to see us come through them better than we came into them. So far, it’s not looking so good.

We must focus our creative attention and power on those external forces around us that take advantage of our lack of engagement. We need to have the common sense to value our skills and talent, our work, and the music we create and offer. Yes, it’s scary, it’s challenging, but when we don’t stand up to power, they can take it all away from us. It’s human nature to do what they’re doing, but it should also be our nature to fight this “curse” of interesting times, and make sure we own and benefit from what we create.

Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

Copyright Extended and Anti-Union Bill C-377 Moves Forward

 

Prior to May of this year, the copyright on sound recordings in Canada extended 50 years after release. In a surprise move, the Harper government, without any public consultation or discussion, moved to extend protection to 70 years as part of the budget. Sadly, the change did not include authors and publishers, where copyright protects the song for the life of the author plus 50 years.

Continue reading →

Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

Canadian Boycott of Crown Cans

Members of United Steel Workers Local 9176 have been forced on strike for close to 18 months at Crown Holdings in Toronto, Ontario. Crown is one of the largest beverage and food can manufacturers in the world. Originally known as Crown, Cork & Seal, the company is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and operates approximately 149 factories in 41 countries. It is profitable (it doubled its profits in 2012) and boasted net sales of $8.7 billion in 2013.

Continue reading →

Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

99 Problems with the Music Industry

I’d like to continue building on last month’s report, and my dissection of the “new business model.” I recently ran across an article by Paul Resnicoff, entitled “99 Problems with the Music Industry,” and while written some months ago, it has an interesting perspective on the current state of affairs. One might argue that some of the points are from an older era, their relevance is still noteworthy. Here are some highlights:

Continue reading →

Officer Columns, Vice President from Canada

CFM, a Year-in-Review

The year 2014 has been a turbulent one for the Canadian Federation of Musicians (CFM).

However, to start on a positive, February saw the removal of rules about unionization votes from proposed Bill C-525. The deleted rules were completely biased against unions.

At a December 2013 general meeting of Local 406 (Montreal, PQ), a motion was passed to conduct a referendum to determine if the local should disaffiliate from the AFM. The local and the AFM struggled to find a solution for a shortfall in the local’s ability to pay its per capita dues. Balloting took place in June. The July IM announced that barely a simple majority of 46.6% of members surveyed voted against disaffiliation from the AFM. Now the local’s leadership has placed a motion before the courts to obtain a declaration that the 53% majority obtained in the consultation survey is sufficient to disaffiliate, in spite of the local bylaw requirements.

Continue reading →