Fort Wayne Philharmonic on strike

[BrianJohnston]

Fort Wayne Philharmonic Musicians fight for a living wage.

[Posaunus]

So sorry to learn this, Brian. I know it's been a long struggle for you.

[TrryReynolds]

Best of luck with a quick and equitable resolution!

[BrianJohnston]

Here is the Management's recent press release. A more fair press release, but one containing a plethora of lies, and a relatively unfair deal for the musicians in terms of attendance policy.

https://fwphil.org/uploads/page/PR_1.5_ ... promo=3851

[Posaunus]

Brian,

What are the (2 or 3) major stumbling blocks that prevent an agreement?

[Bonearzt]

Sorry to hear Man!!!

Never ceases to astound me the BS that "management" foments against the very Musicians that make management relevant!!!!

It's managements JOB to provide adequate working conditions for the Orchestra!!
Or am I not thinking straight?

[BrianJohnston]

Brian,

What are the (2 or 3) major stumbling blocks that prevent an agreement?

1. They want to reduce some full time chairs to per-service after that current chair becomes empty
2. They want to eliminate some per-service positions to be hired with the rep
3. They are increasing our work weeks, yet giving us NO vacation weeks
4. attendance Policy requires 75% of all services/weeks (which many of us rely on sub-work from bigger orchestras to survive)

Those are the current issues, i'm sure there's more behind the scenes that I can share at our next meeting.

[BrianJohnston]

Day 80.

[blap73]

Not helpful I know, but I'm happy to have retired from IT where the constant theme was to outsource and off-shore the work. Management role is seen as cut costs all the time. Race to the bottom.

Quotes from the place I retired from (same senior leader said these...):
"IT is nothing special, we can train anybody for any role in a couple weeks."
And, after saying all remote work is terminated - everyone must be in-office (in another state) full time - which resulted in mass resignations: "These ungrateful people don't appreciate everything I've done for them."

People don't leave companies... they leave managers.

[Matt K]

Orchestras are a bit different than most places of work because management are not owners of the company. There's no "exit strategy" for an orchestra. The management are, themselves, musicians usually if I'm not mistaken? They are all probably salaried and have a role that are ostensibly to ensure that the organization is sustainable.

But my understanding is probably somewhat flawed because that model doesn't make much sense to me. Is the problem that the management isn't doing a good job of getting a sufficient number of donations or enough to maintain from ticket sales? So the musicians are essentially bargaining with management to get them to increase the revenue of the orchestra to pay for these things? And management is essentially saying they can't or won't, for whatever reason, increase the revenue of the orchestra? Or is there some kind of payout that the management gets if the musicians get that payout? (Perhaps some kind of fixed endowment?)

[JohnL]

The management are, themselves, musicians usually if I'm not mistaken?

Looking at the orchestra's website, it appears to have a fairly typical organizational structure. They've got a President/CEO who is professional orchestra administrator (masters in Arts Administration). She answers to a Board of Directors (which has an Executive Committee within it) that's made up of community leaders.

There are a couple staff positions (Librarian/Staff Arranger, Personnel Manager) held by orchestra members, but the rest are non-musicians.

[BGuttman]

The battle between musicians and board stems from the ability of the Board to manage to get more money in donations/sponsorships. Right now these are rather difficult to find. Lots of folks who used to donate have cut back for any of a number of reasons. In general, the Board is put in a very difficult position of trying to find more money either from donations or ticket sales. In many cases, you can't push ticket prices up too much; you lose audience.

If the ticket prices alone were to try to fund a major orchestra, the "cheap seats" would be in excess of $500. We haven't been able to fund an orchestra from ticket sales for over 100 years.

[Burgerbob]

The management are, themselves, musicians usually if I'm not mistaken?

This is very rarely the case.

[BGuttman]

The management are, themselves, musicians usually if I'm not mistaken?

This is very rarely the case.

Board members are musicians on the lowest level orchestras where there really is no significant money to deal with. The Board of my Orchestra is almost all musicians, with only a couple of exceptions. But we are a Community Orchestra (maybe semi-Pro since we used to pay a stipend to brass and woodwind musicians).

[GabrielRice]

The management are, themselves, musicians usually if I'm not mistaken?

This is very rarely the case.

Well, yes and no. Orchestra management is usually populated by people who have at least some musical background, and very often degrees in performance or education. Some of them have gone on to get additional degrees in arts management or business administration, but I have not seen any correlation of effectiveness with or without those degrees. Mostly they are not performing professionally at the same time - but that's not always the case either.

The issues Bruce describes are fundamentally correct, but it's never quite as simple as that. From what I've read, the Fort Wayne situation is certainly more complex, and one of the difficulties the musicians have with PR is that the issues that matter to them are nearly impossible to soundbyte.

[Posaunus]

Arts organizations (such as the Fort Wayne Philharmonic) - and other not-for-profit / charitable institutions - are caught between the proverbial "rock and a hard place." As Bruce noted, the donations and philanthropy that have for so long kept these entities afloat are much harder to come by lately. Depending on location, economies may be struggling, wealthy folks (who provide a lot of these funds) may have come against harder times or are moving to more favorable climes, or have identified other places to send their donations. (There's a lot of competition out there!)

Don't underestimate the residual effects of the Covid pandemic. I've been to some wonderful performances recently where the venues were far from filled - lots of folks are still avoiding large crowds. This means fewer ticket sales and fewer potential donors.

All this means less income, which results in the need to cut costs. In the case of an orchestra, it may be reasonable (or necessary) to reduce the number of full-time staff and musicians to meet the projected budget. For musicians, this may require moving some players from full-time salaried members to a "per-service" basis with no benefits, or scheduling less ambitious programs with fewer performers. As a former board member of an orchestra (and other non-profits), I've experienced facing these unpleasant decisions. It's agonizing, but perhaps essential to the organization's survival.

Other factors that may be at play:
• Politics - within the management (administrator & board of directors)
• Leadership. Is the administrator an effective leader?
• Mismanagement. Is the budget realistic? Is fund-raising effective? Is spending well-managed?
• Dissent (often seen when "volunteer" board members insist on promoting their views)
• Product quality. Does the orchestra present fine performances that their audience will pay to see?
• Relevance. Does the local audience want to see the kind of concerts / events that are presented?
• Culture. Is the local community supportive of the arts in general?
• Alienation. We are living in a divided / divisive society. Does that affect this situation?

Brian, I feel for you and your colleagues. We all hope this ends satisfactorily.

[Burgerbob]

This is very rarely the case.

Well, yes and no. Orchestra management is usually populated by people who have at least some musical background,

Yes, my bad- I'm only referring to the fact that most organizations above a certain size are not governed by the musicians OF the orchestra themselves. My wife is actually in the administration for a large orchestra with a master's in music performance.

[harrisonreed]

https://www.inputfortwayne.com/features ... -2023.aspx

Interesting, at least. Management with salaries of $185,000 is a bit excessive, but nowhere near the bloat of the "Big 5" and not something that you could cut to make a significant difference when spread over 44 people.

The situation in the arts certainly isn't going to get better any time soon. Like trying squeeze water out of a stone.

[BrianJohnston]

https://www.inputfortwayne.com/features ... -2023.aspx

Interesting, at least. Management with salaries of $185,000 is a bit excessive, but nowhere near the bloat of the "Big 5" and not something that you could cut to make a significant difference when spread over 44 people.

$185k in comparison to the base salary of $27k is actually the highest percentage difference in the country. This situation is especially frustrating when the organization is currently running on a $31 million endowment, and has already offered the musicians the money that "they" (we) asked for. It has come down to a negotiation for more control. Clearly the management wants to eventually downsize, and only have to manage a per-service or community orchestra while still maintaining their $185,000 salaries.

[Posaunus]

https://www.inputfortwayne.com/features ... -2023.aspx

Interesting, at least. Management with salaries of $185,000 is a bit excessive, but nowhere near the bloat of the "Big 5" and not something that you could cut to make a significant difference when spread over 44 people.

$185k in comparison to the base salary of $27k is actually the highest percentage difference in the country. This situation is especially frustrating when the organization is currently running on a $31 million endowment, and has already offered the musicians the money that "they" (we) asked for. It has come down to a negotiation for more control. Clearly the management wants to eventually downsize, and only have to manage a per-service or community orchestra while still maintaining their $185,000 salaries.

I just read the article linked by Harrison. It's pretty clear that each side is dug in, and not really listening to the other side.

In any case, no responsible board would sanction paying the Managing Director of a limited-season semi-pro "community orchestra" $185,000/year. (This is the kind of accusation that gets bandied about when there is no communication.) What is the charter of the orchestra, and is the board complying with the terms of the charter? (I expect the founding purpose was not to downsize and downgrade. )

Is arbitration by a neutral party possible?

[GabrielRice]

$185k in comparison to the base salary of $27k is actually the highest percentage difference in the country.

That has to be relative to a specific type of orchestra, yes? The ED of one of the orchestras I play in makes almost 160K, while nobody in the orchestra except the concertmaster makes more than about 8-9K from that job. His job includes running a community music school which is part of the same organization, to be fair.



The rest of your comment here is very important, and a lot of people don't understand; every contract is about much more than money, and the sticking points for your orchestra are difficult to communicate.

[BrianJohnston]

I expect the founding purpose was not to downsize and downgrade.

Actually it's exactly that. I've been dealing with this situation long enough to know that they have a long term plan to downgrade the orchestra, and many planned avenues to take to achieve it.

[harrisonreed]

https://www.inputfortwayne.com/features ... -2023.aspx

Interesting, at least. Management with salaries of $185,000 is a bit excessive, but nowhere near the bloat of the "Big 5" and not something that you could cut to make a significant difference when spread over 44 people.

$185k in comparison to the base salary of $27k is actually the highest percentage difference in the country. This situation is especially frustrating when the organization is currently running on a $31 million endowment, and has already offered the musicians the money that "they" (we) asked for. It has come down to a negotiation for more control. Clearly the management wants to eventually downsize, and only have to manage a per-service or community orchestra while still maintaining their $185,000 salaries.

First, Brian, it's a terrible situation. You put so much into this line of work, so much education and so much time spent improving your skills off the clock, that as a musician you should be pulling in a living wage.

I'm not in the business of orchestra music, but I don't think that statement about percentage difference is entirely correct. But I also think it's a matter of scale, and the crux of the issue is getting over a living wage to begin with. $185,000 is 6.8 times the base salary in your orchestra. In Chicago, for example, the conductor can pull in $3.5 million, which is over 11 times what the principal trombone makes, at least according to the numbers the orchestra released. So that is almost twice the percentage for difference of your orchestra, and that's not even the base salary. A far greater disparity.

The real issue here, in my mind, is not that your director is getting $185,000, which is a very modest salary for such a position (I don't actually know much about the Ft. Wayne Phil, maybe that's a bananas salary). It's that the orchestra is paying its musicians peanuts. The amount of skill, education, and dedication outside of your "work hours" to maintain your skills requires something closer to $80,000 for it to really make sense. Maybe $150,000 in the big cities. Otherwise the work doesn't really pay off.

In Chicago for example, the principal trombone shows up on a couple finance statements as earning $292,000. That is massively more than what you need to live a great life, anywhere in the USA. So even though their director pulled in $3.5 million, that's cool. Whatever.

In your orchestra, which is not even been paying living wages in the first place, there is only so much cutting the already extremely modest director's salary could possibly do. Dipping into the $26 million dollars of savings your orchestra has also could give a few nice years of salaries, and then it would be bankrupt. So that would be a mistake too.

I'm trying to see where you could make the positive changes the strike is seeking, but management needs to start by figuring out how to increase revenue and sponsorships. Now that I'm trying to look into it, it seems like there is no money to do it.

What is the strike proposing as a source to get the funds to make the changes that you guys clearly need?

[BrianJohnston]

$185k in comparison to the base salary of $27k is actually the highest percentage difference in the country. This situation is especially frustrating when the organization is currently running on a $31 million endowment, and has already offered the musicians the money that "they" (we) asked for. It has come down to a negotiation for more control. Clearly the management wants to eventually downsize, and only have to manage a per-service or community orchestra while still maintaining their $185,000 salaries.

First, Brian, it's a terrible situation. You put so much into this line of work, so much education and so much time spent improving your skills off the clock, that as a musician you should be pulling in a living wage.

I'm not in the business of orchestra music, but I don't think that statement about percentage difference is entirely correct. But I also think it's a matter of scale, and the crux of the issue is getting over a living wage to begin with. $185,000 is 6.8 times the base salary in your orchestra. In Chicago, for example, the conductor can pull in $3.5 million, which is over 11 times what the principal trombone makes, at least according to the numbers the orchestra released. So that is almost twice the percentage for difference of your orchestra, and that's not even the base salary. A far greater disparity.

The real issue here, in my mind, is not that your director is getting $185,000, which is a very modest salary for such a position (I don't actually know much about the Ft. Wayne Phil, maybe that's a bananas salary). It's that the orchestra is paying its musicians peanuts. The amount of skill, education, and dedication outside of your "work hours" to maintain your skills requires something closer to $80,000 for it to really make sense. Maybe $150,000 in the big cities. Otherwise the work doesn't really pay off.

In Chicago for example, the principal trombone shows up on a couple finance statements as earning $292,000. That is massively more than what you need to live a great life, anywhere in the USA. So even though their director pulled in $3.5 million, that's cool. Whatever.

In your orchestra, which is not even been paying living wages in the first place, there is only so much cutting the already extremely modest director's salary could possibly do. Dipping into the $26 million dollars of savings your orchestra has also could give a few nice years of salaries, and then it would be bankrupt. So that would be a mistake too.

I'm trying to see where you could make the positive changes the strike is seeking, but management needs to start by figuring out how to increase revenue and sponsorships. Now that I'm trying to look into it, it seems like there is no money to do it.

What is the strike proposing as a source to get the funds to make the changes that you guys clearly need?

Managing director, (not Music director) is making $185,000.

Again, it's no longer a financial issue, it's a power grab.

[BrianJohnston]

The strike has ended on March 7th, which lasted 89 days. Link to article with more information below:

https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/fort ... 30%20weeks.

[Posaunus]

that it's over

that it ever came to this.
Good luck Brian.