Given the mountain of negative publicity surrounding contentious labor negotiations at nonprofit performing arts organizations, it would seem that effort to avoid conflict within a broader volatile environment would be paramount for all parities. Nonetheless, The Metropolitan Opera (The MET) negotiations with three of its larger labor unions (orchestra musicians, singers, and stage crew) seems to be pursuing a different course.
The New York Times published an article on 4/7/2014 by Michael Cooper that presents a number of employer-centric initial talking points along with excerpts from heated email exchanges between The MET’s general manager and the president of the American Guild of Musical Artists and management (the union representing singers).
Given the degree of animosity presented in those exchanges, it appears as though stepping back from the precipice of a debilitating and ugly public labor dispute is an increasingly unlikely prospect.
At the same time, there have been instances of institutions which have done exactly that such as the Nashville Symphony. For the time being, let’s hope The Met opts for that road less traveled.
Related Posts
-
Just because the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between an orchestra and its musicians expires doesn’t mean the organization necessarily comes to a screeching halt.…
-
In the wake of yesterday’s post about orchestras with expired agreements, we’re going to play it cool today while we wait for a few…
-
There isn't much that will distract me from blogging but adopting a 12-week old kitten is decidedly one of those exceptions to the rule.…
Drew, you seem to be implying that blame for the animosity should be shared equally, but – at least, based on the evidence presented in the NY Times article we’re talking about here – I don’t think that’s true.
One may or may not take Peter Gelb’s side in the issues around negotiations, but the only actual hostility he displayed (in this article) was in response to an email from Alan Gordon containing a barely-veiled threat. Gordon’s message looked very inappropriate to these eyes, and it’s hard to blame Gelb for telling him he should reconsider it.
It looks to me as if the hostility so far is all coming from Gordon. (Again, this is based on the NYT’s reporting; if you know Gelb to have said or written equally hostile things to Gordon or AGMA that didn’t get into the Times, share it with us.)
I remember that Gordon behaved similarly in the lead-up to NY City Opera’s collapse. Fighting for the best interests of his union members is fine – it’s his job – but he seems given to an antagonistic tone that’s unlikely to motivate anyone to cooperate with him.)
(I don’t suppose he’s from Philadelphia, is he?)