At 07:47 PM 01/29/2005, Christopher Smith wrote: >You don't accept the right of a group who stands to get screwed royally >(musicians) by a large company to collectively negotiate fair wages and >working conditions??!!
No, that's not what I said. I'm not questioning the principle of unionization. I'm just saying that what the union calls "adequate", (i.e., scale) does not make for a universal definition of adequate. Some people will argue that union scale ought to be higher; others that it is higher than needed. I only meant that when you said that musicians were not paid adequately, it might have been more precise to say that they were not paid scale for their services.
>I am the first one to admit that musicians are >only TOO willing to accept inadequate wages and conditions, but their >willingness to be screwed does not make it right when some employer is >making big bucks off of them.
I agree with the second part of your statement, though again I think this points to an important difference between the world of Broadway mega-hits and the world of opera and dance. The first part of your statement I think depends on one's definition of adequate. And I don't think I want to delve further into that discussion right now. <g>
>He needs the keep the >band's interest at heart, but the client's needs (and his own need as a >leader to seal the deal) put him on the opposite side of the >negotiating table.
I hadn't thought of it quite this way, but I see your point. This is another way of stating the issue we brought up before: Is it better to have some employment at less than the wage you wanted, or no employment at all?
Aaron.
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
