Print
EmailSo far, the struggle over a new contract for Seattle Symphony musicians has been asymmetric warfare. Management has the big gun, New York lawyer/negotiator Ralph Craviso, who's been playing the heavy. The players, with not even a national union to help them, have been winning the media wars, peppering the arts press (what's left of it) with points and charts and old fashioned labor rhetoric.
We'll see the first results in these skirmishes on Sunday, when the union, the Seattle Symphony & Opera Players' Organization, votes on the management's "last and best" offer. From what I can tell, the players have become quite unified in their sense that they have been treated poorly and that a proposed 10 percent salary cut is unacceptable. If the offer is rejected by a wide margin, the fat may be in the fire.
Thursday, with the players conveniently occupied in a rehearsal, the Symphony's board president, Leslie Jackson Chihuly (Mrs. Dale), gamely tried to regain a little media momentum. But the press conference drew few reporters (two) and the Symphony took refuge in generalized protestations about how they loved classical music, the musicians, and were working hard to dig out of the present financial predicament. No real details about the crucial negotiations.
Earlier in the week, Chihuly sent a letter to the musicians, a copy of which I obtained, that goes into more detail. She confesses that the Symphony is "experiencing a severe financial crisis which threatens our viability as one of the city's most revered non-profit organizations. We are beyond the point in our financial situation where short-term, extraordinary solutions can be applied. Our current finances reflect the ineffectiveness of short-term, crisis-driven fundraising, combined with the negative impact of an extraordinarily challenging recession environment." She went on to mention "immediate cash-flow problems," and that while ticket sales remain solid (3.5 percent ahead of last season so far), "the larger gifts in the $2-$10 million range have not materialized from our efforts over the past 18 months."
At the press conference, Symphony leaders added a little detail to this disturbing picture. In the past year, staff has been cut by six positions, pensions frozen, salary increases suspended, and unpaid furloughs imposed on all staff. I asked if these pay cuts included Artistic Director Gerard Schwarz, but the question was dodged. The SSO has what Chihuly called a $4.5 million "structural deficit" (presumably the accumulated deficit) and President Tom Phillion said the current $4 million line of credit at Key Bank has been drawn down by $3.1 million. Further, the endowment drive was suspended in 2008, owing to the recession and the absence of a significant leadership gift. Yikes!
As for the contract offer, Chihuly's letter spelled out how, if the board met fundraising benchmarks in years 2-5 of the proposed new contract, it would share "up to 10 percent of the money raised with the orchestra," and if it exceeded revenue goals, "both contributed and earned," it "will share 25 percent of that incremental revenue with the orchestra by increasing base scale wages." Further, failure to return money to the union under these clauses by the end of year three will produce "the opportunity to reopen the contract."
The players immediately pounced all over the Chihuly letter. One particular rejoinder: "the period of time that the contract could be open would be limited and the SSOPO would be barred from engaging in a strike." The provision, said the union, "has absolutely no value to the SSOPO." (Management declined to comment on these points.)
Through all the rising clouds of distrust, I think I could perceive what the SSO was getting at. It needs a lifeboat, in the form of some major donors, and these unnamed donors are waiting to see if the Symphony can do the following in the coming three years: get out of debt, return to balanced budgets each year, secure a five-year labor agreement and peace, and find an exciting new conductor and an experienced executive director who can last more than a few years. If so, wallets will be opened, the endowment drive will resume, and a period of new artistic initiatives will excite the town.
Maybe so. But given the poor performance by Symphony management and board over the past 10 years, the SSO will have to provide more specifics to be believable in these promises.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, Jan 15, 12:07 a.m. Inappropriate
Again responding to Mr. Brewster, whom I so appreciate for his most successful efforts to provide cultural public space in Seattle, I am truly perplexed in my efforts to see a solution to this problem. Try as they may, the Seattle Symphony board seems to be masking considerable administrative problems and a lack of vision with some generalized rhetoric about quality, but at the same time failing to support their artistic product, the musicians. We listen to every concert from our seats in the founders tier and feel as if we know them all. Rather than talk about balanced budgets and various financial schemes, why not tell us about the music director search or the search for a successor to Josh Roman. Or even better, why not invite him as a soloist? Sorry for such a vague response, but I really think the answer lies in artistic excitement.
Posted Fri, Jan 15, 12:38 p.m. Inappropriate
As the clock ticks down to the SSO musicians' vote on Management's "last and best" proposal, I find myself calm in the eye of the storm.
"Last and best" is equivalent in this case to "first and worst," as Management has been uniquely intransigent at the bargaining table, even over items that would cost them nothing. My interpretation of this stance is that Management wants not only to diminish the Symphony's scope, but more to the point, to put the players in their place. We are the Seattle Symphony, Management and the Board are not, but they have lost sight of this.
Would that there could be a Town Hall meeting of the parties, before members of the public (read: concertgoers).Would that we could get a straight answer as to why Management and the SSO Board reject the tenets of Michael Kaiser, and the free help he offers through his associates. I believe that the rejection of Kaiser's principles, and the concomitant embrace of a policy proven to create disaster (cutting your way to health), is born from a very real fear: that Kaiser would call upon the Board to raise their individual donations to the SSO, and their commitment to raising more from the community. They have steadfastly maintained there is no way to increase the record low level of contributions, and therefore cost savings must be made on the backs of the musicians. To add insult to injury, they now offer "profit sharing" if they are suddenly able to raise the money they have been historically unable to raise, and in fact claim cannot be raised.
Management and the Symphony Board are only comfortable with the idea of a "world-class orchestra" if they can hold it permanently in the future.
I thank you for your continued objective and balanced reporting.
Posted Sat, Jan 16, 9:12 a.m. Inappropriate
Note: Michael Kaiser has revived four major arts organizations in dire straits: the Kansas City Ballet, the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, American Ballet Theatre, and London's Royal Opera House.
In his book "The Art of the Turnaround", he shares with readers his ten basic rules for bringing financially distressed arts organizations back to life and keeping them strong.
Kaiser is President of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
He has been dubbed, "the turnaround king".