There's a merger going on between the ASO, the PSO, and the LVCO going on as most of you know by now.  This merger is beneficial financially to all the organizations.  

This is a place where we can share ideas and concerns.  It's important to be respectful of all sides of this issue.  Both management and musicians are in this together.  

Please keep in mind that email is a dangerous form of communication.  It's easy to misinterpret people even when intentions are honerable.  I know this from personal experience.  Please keep in mind the sensitivities of others when you post.

Any thoughts about the new proposed rehearsal schedule?

As a musician who also has a full time job, I can see a conflict with double rehearsals however often in my case it is possible to arrange rehearsals where the pianist is not needed.  (It's often easy to do without the pianist )

I'd be interested in knowing how many people can actually commit to both an afternoon and an evening rehearsal.


-Michael

Hi Michael, this is just a test reply.

I am not sure what the merger really means for any group. In fact, I am not sure if management knows either. Our first concern is for the musician's jobs. I would hate to see any musician perform less or simply lose the job.

That being said, I cannot see this "merger" happening without musicians losing services or an entire contract. My gut feeling is that the PA Sinfonia and the LVCO are tired of doing the soliciting for money and they possibly have great debt as well. I do not know anything about their financial situation, but it couldn't be great if they are considering a merger, right?

I heard another musician make the comment that it sounds like the LVCO and PA Sinfonia are merging for the sole purpose of becoming defunct together. This brings us to the next question. Why would the ASO be involved? What could they gain?

Well the obvious is that it has always been amazing to me how the Lehigh Valley can support these three classical groups so close in proximity to each other. So maybe the hope is that the supporters of the Sinfonia and LVCO will now support the ASO. I wouldn't necessarily bet the farm on that. It is possible, however, that the ASO ticket sales may go up because now the ASO would be the main orchestra in town.

I am hoping that this is not a way for the management of the Sinfonia and LVCO to save face by not actually calling it quits but instead say they are "merging". What it essentially does is put the musicians in a very difficult situation where there seems to be a chance that we could end up arguing amongst ourselves for work. I am reminded of the old saying "divide and conquor."

John DeVivo

There is little doubt the financials of all three organizations are troubled and this is the motivation for the merger.  As far as I can tell, the first step taken is to consolidate some of the common expenses such as brochures and advertising and office duties.  It's hard for me to believe this would be enough to solve all their financial difficulties.

I am guessing that the next step will be to consolidate performances which very well may mean fewer total number of performances.  How many performances can be supported by the local community is an interesting question which relates to business issues like how much of a market do we have.  

I am not sure anyone really knows yet much about the market for classical performances.  I'd love to see some analysis of that.

I sure would hate to see this issue coming between musicians.  The possibility of arguing might occur from the feeling of unfairness but how to fairly distribute whatever work remains after the merger might be a good topic for another thread.  This is a delicate issue which I haven't reflected on much yet.

There is the reality of fewer total number of performances which I think is eventually inevidable.  I think it might be possible to maximize the number of concerts by cutting costs elsewhere.  Having a better understanding of the break-down of expenses would make it easier to make a judgement on that.  Once enough people get involved in this thread we might be able to get a better view of that.  I believe ticket sales only account for 20-30 % of the revenue.

One expense I know we have is the expense of guest artists which is sometimes extremely high.  Why not have more local musicians perform as soloists?  It would help the financial side of performing and also help the musicians as well.  It would also bring a certain amount of pride to the local area rather than what seems to be an attitude often said to me that if artists are from elsewhere they are perceived as more accomplished.  

I see the following trade-offs:

Bad: Local musician's don't have the name recognition to draw people to concerts.
Good: Those musicians would not require the fee that bigger names do
(if ticket sales are only 30% of revenue, how much does this "draw" do for the bottom line?)

Bad: Status of the symphony depends in part on name recognition
Good:  An increase in pride of the local talent could benefit the community and the musician
(although I doubt many people in the community know of many of the artists we have coming in)  It will also help improve the "name recognition" of that artist at least locally.  

Bad: Local musicians who are not maintaining a solo career need a much larger lead time to commit to performing as a soloist than someone with an active solo-with-orchestra career.
Good: The experience will help the musician develop and improve and ultimately make for a better orchestra.  

Finally, I would like to shoot down the following myth.
Myth: Local musicians are not as good.  
I have played with many musicians in the area and in my opinion there are many who compare favorably with the soloists we have had.  This is not to say our soloists are not good. On the contrary. But several names of local musicians come to mind who are well qualified which I won't say simply because it would neglect those that I omitted.  

My guess (and hope) is that management will try to cut costs all across the board and there will be an attempt at a fair compromise when dealing with all the slices of the expense vs revenue pie.


-Michael

As someone who has played in all three orchestras, plus Bach, I'm following this situation with great interest.  What worries me the most is that, while collaborating in a number of ways may be financially beneficial and practical in these hard fund-raising times, the decision-makers - members of two of the boards - are not musicians and are not listening - at least not yet - to any musicians.  ASO and LVCO do not have "musician representatives" on their boards.  PSO has two - and I'm one of them.  

I wouldn't pretend to understand other professions or have the arrogance to make critical decisions affecting someone's employment without their input.  I consider it an outrage and a bad omen for our future here.    

As a longtime member of the PSO board, I volunteered to be on the "transition team" from the PSO which would discuss how a collaboration might happen with transition teams from the other boards. The PSO board was happy for me to be involved.  Unfortunately, the two presidents of the ASO and LVCO insisted that I not participate - and for quite bogus reasons - 1.  that there was a conflict of interest in having a musician participate and 2.  that this would create Union problems.  Both reasons were dismissed as bogus by the Union president and another knowledgable attorney.  In any case, the end result is that no musicians are in the current discussions.

So, the players are attempting to come to some conclusions about "what we want" for our future with the hope of presenting our wish lists to the people who insist that they should be making the decisions without our direct involvement.  Is anyone else upset about this?

I don't understand what is so threatening or undesirable about involving musicians in talks that directly affect our future.  To me it feels, as usual, as if we are being treated as irresponsible children who need others to make decisions on our behalf. Our exclusion from these talks is disrespectful and arrogant.

Debbie

It appears there is some issue with having musicians involved in this decision making.  

I have been on the artistic program committee for the ASO.  The reasoning was to have input from a member of the symphony.  So in some cases there seems to be desire for that kind of feedback.

However there is also some indication (this case in particular) that the musicians are not wanted as participants.  Treated like children is one way of looking at it.  Like factory workers is another.  This kind of attitude must be fought hard by the boards of all the organizations if they want good morale and decisions which are well thought out and embraced by everyone.

The talent of the musicians is the asset of these organizations.  More than other businesses, where there are non-personal assets such as intellectual property, a symphony is unique that way.  Steve Wogoman has constantly thanked the members at each concert and has shown many occasions of considering the musicians and treating them well.  This warmth from management is a breath of fresh air which I'd like to see more.  For me personally, being appreciated is so important.  

I do not see any more a conflict of interest to have musicians involved than there is for management to be involved.  Perhaps if someone could clarify that it would be useful.  Obviously there are no union issues since that was confirmed by the union president.

Hopefully we will get more people involved in this forum.  So far very few have shown much interest.  Sometimes I think I'm in a fantasy world where what I see as valuable and exciting is not embraced by others.  Maybe there are technical problems.  If so I hope people will contact me to let me know.  We'll see where this forum goes but we definately need more people to make it what I'd like it to be.

-Michael

In response to your last statement Michael, I think there are a lot of people looking at your forum. As of date the merger topic alone has been viewed 75 times. I know the 6 or 7 users of the forum haven't decided to look at it 10 times each. My thought is that maybe management is curious as to what the musicians think. This is something very good and I am sure your forum is a step forward in communication.

In regards to the discussion on having musicians input in the merger and any other decision for that matter, I agree that there seems to be a very "old school" style of management here in Allentown. With the exception of Steve who, as you say, is a breath of fresh air, I don't really feel like management wants my/our input on anything. If you simply look at the entire budget, you will see that the entire pay for musicians for an entire season is but a sliver of the pie. This alone should tell us where we stand. Unfortunately, Some people forget that without the musicians, no one else would have a job either.

I really think that Allentown is right smack dab in the middle of a crisis on many levels and issues. I feel a strong wedge between the management and musicians. I feel a strong wedge even between the musicians themselves and with what they want. On one hand you have musicians who have day jobs and look at Allentown as a community group with the pay as simply icing. On the other hand you have true freelance musicians who really depend on every gig they get and are simply not getting enough pay from this group and are always contemplating leaving. This split in the orchestra personnel really makes it difficult to negotiate for our committee.

I feel that ultimately you want the best group around and in order to keep attracting better musicians, you must be competitive in your pay. We are not. You also attain this through good communications with the board and management. It appears recent history shows their opinion on this at least with the merger.

Sorry if I went off on another tangent. Maybe this should be another thread. Oh well.

well, let's hope it just doesn't turn into a forum of 3 voices.

Adding the information sent by the Orchestra Committee:


Dear ASO Musician:

The Orchestra Committee and a representative of Local 45, have now had two meetings with representatives of the ASO in order to begin negotiations on a successor agreement to our current collective bargaining agreement.

We are disappointed to inform you that these “negotiations” have not started off very well.

During the first meeting, the only substantive issue that was discussed, which is related to our current agreement, is the matter of a prospective change in the rehearsal schedule. This change would add an afternoon rehearsal on the Friday of each subscription series, and eliminate the Tuesday evening rehearsal. This is a move by the ASO to save money on mileage compensation, which is a large budget item.

We have been conducting a phone poll to find out how many musicians would be able to accommodate such a schedule change. We have informed management that we are getting that information as quickly as we can, and will have it ready in time to respond to their suggestion and send out individual contracts.

At that first meeting, we also discussed the probability of offering hotel rooms (at no charge) to musicians traveling the greatest distances, and how that will relate to mileage compensation .

We were most disappointed in our second meeting with management, which occurred on Thursday, May 4th. Management counsel spent over an hour hypothesizing on the proposed merger between the ASO, LVCO and PA Sinfonia, what that merged organization “might” look like, and prodded the ASO Committee for suggestions on how symphonic and chamber work might be distributed between the musicians of all three organizations.

Management’s description of this new organization, yet unformed, was so nebulous and without substance, that the Committee repeatedly responded that in the absence of any cohesive plan, we could not possibly begin to put together a formula for who should play the services that “might” be offered by the new entity (whether this is three separate organizations or one new organization has apparently not yet been determined).

Perhaps the most salient point is that our purpose in meeting with management at all, as described in Steve Wogaman’s letter to you, dated April 20th, was to negotiate an agreement “for the new Collective Bargaining Agreement between the musicians and the management of the Allentown Symphony Orchestra.”

The Orchestra Committee and the Local did this in good faith, arriving at our first meeting on April 26th with a proposal containing 17 items for discussion. Our proposal was not discussed at all during that first meeting.

At the second meeting, we were once again bombarded with pie in the sky fantasy scenarios about what the new merged organization “might look like”, accompanied by forceful suggestions that a formula for disseminating work to the musicians of three orchestras be discussed.

* Note: this was what was presented to the ASO Committee on May 4th, however, the Proposal for Governance that was presented to the PSO is reportedly dated April 27th.

We repeatedly asked that our proposal be considered for discussion, since that was the purpose of the meeting. However, for more than one hour, management counsel remained rooted to the subject of the merged organization, what it might look like, and how the work of that group might be disseminated among the musicians of the ASO, LVCO and PSO.

Of the 17 items for discussion in the union proposal, four were housekeeping issues, four were listed simply for clarification or fleshing out of concepts, eight were proposals suggesting changes in contract language, and one was withdrawn by the union. The term of the Agreement is still not agreed upon, the Union asking for a three year agreement and management asking for a two year agreement (sometimes suggesting a one year term).

Of the ten proposed changes put forth by the Union (including a term of three years), two appear to be tentatively agreed to, seven were rejected, and one was withdrawn. Those committee members present feel that the overwhelmingly negative response to our proposals is at least somewhat due to the hostile environment created by insistence that the prospective plans to combine personnel be discussed in detail, and the Committee’s inability to do so in the absence of any substantive information.

As we explained to management during the last meeting, we are certainly willing to discuss the way in which any merger may affect the musicians of the ASO, as well as those who play in the LVCO and PSO. We do not wish to see any musician negatively impacted by whatever the boards of the three organizations decide. However, we simply cannot participate in a discussion based on what the new organization, if there is one, “might” look like. Naturally, we want to have a voice in meaningful and substantive discussions about this matter. When the merger occurs, if it occurs, we are more than happy to talk about it.

We are sincerely sorry to relay such a dismaying report to you regarding our first two meetings. We arrived at both meetings with a written proposal, which was totally ignored at the first meeting, and only begrudgingly addressed at the second after a discussion which was decidedly hostile at times.

While we are somewhat limited in what we can discuss in detail regarding the actual negotiating that took place, please feel free to call any committee member if you have questions or concerns about this report.

I'm glad for the frankness of this letter. It sounds to me like there is a serious disfunctional situation. Also hard for me to agree that a major portion of the ASO expense is in travel. I'd have to see figures to convince me of that.