I think that it’s fair to say that there are, in the orchestra world, a number of competing interests amongst the musicians. In an ideal world, we’d play pieces that were enjoyable to every one of us, not too terribly difficult to play while being challenging enough to be interesting, for a six-figure salary, and with a schedule that helped to prevent overuse injuries and fatigue.
Sounds simple, doesn’t it?
Every orchestra must balance the competing interests of those who are willing to do almost anything in the service of music, and those who have learned the hard way that some requests which are honored will result in fatigue and injury, and who also what to maintain a semblance of a normal life schedule – which is difficult to achieve since we, as entertainers, work when others by definition play.
Because of these competing needs, and because of the abuses of autocratic conductors in the earlier part of the 20th century, orchestras have evolved complicated collective bargaining agreements which try to keep injuries to a minimum by setting limits on how many services (rehearsals or concerts) can happen in a 7-day period, the length of each service, and when and how breaks must occur.
The problem is maintaining a balance between trying to accommodate the needs and desires of the artistic and management leadership while also trying to make sure that the pursuit of those needs and desires does not succeed to the peril of the orchestra’s musicians.
This all sounds well and good – and for the most part, it is. But there are gray areas – and as with any other set of potentially contentious issues – the gray areas are breeding grounds for conflict, both between the players and management and within the ranks of the players as well.
If you add to this volatile mix a situation where the pay of the orchestra has been lagging well behind that of other similarly situated orchestras, the battle lines become increasingly entrenched, as there is little in the way of dollars to be gained in contract negotiations, which leaves the working conditions and benefits to bear the brunt of the expectations of the orchestra’s players as to the negotiations’ outcome.
What does this have to do with anything? Not much – but it’s a look inside the dynamic of a complex arts organization which is fairly standard throughout the industry.
2 replies on “when interests collide”
Interesting comments. I wonder if pushing the limits of established work rules or guidelines is a result of 1) ignorance of the work rules, 2) a willfull ignorance of them or 3)part of a greater plan to drive change outside of the collective bargaining process. I know of one organization that has had a new leader basically micro manage long-time experienced department managers – even their conductors(!) – to the point of rendering these people as useless. It makes them feel that way, anyway. I hear some have even quit their jobs, it got so bad. Decades old personal work habits and behaviors are hard to change – and when combined with a lack of self awareness, checks and balances, and proper governance – well, a single force can wreak havoc when proper relationships and duties are not respected and valued in the workplace.
Good questions and comments! I think that it’s usually a mix of all three scenarios that you describe. The rules can be quite complex, and not everyone (even the players) catch everything all the time. At the OSO we have a schedule committee which works with management to try to alleviate many potential choke points before the schedule is finalized, which has helped a lot.