The Struggle for Canadian Independence

2011 was the year the Musicians' Rights Organization of Canada (MROC) and the Canadian Federation of Musicians (CFM) cleverly achieved independence from the AFM.

The journey towards independence began at Convention 2010, where the Lee Administration and the IEB, of which Ray Hair was a member, approved the move. The vote appeared to allow an independent MROC to administer a growing $30 million record royalty disbursement fund.

The newly elected Hair Administration had second thoughts in 2011, and it attempted unsuccessfully to alter the IEB vote creating MROC's independence. A lawsuit ensued, which was settled in favor of MROC's independence.

During this turbulent time, the Hair Administration alienated officers of the Toronto Musicians Association, who were sued individually by MROC. The settlement imposed a gag order on these officers, who received no help or communication from the Hair Administration.

The newly named Canadian Federation of Musicians (CFM) has the necessary understanding of its government grants and subsidies to benefit professional musicians and will operate independently of the AFM. Its work on cementing positive business relationships with all professional creative groups and organizations is part of a new business plan that should grow the 21st century Canadian music industry.

The world of electronic communication influences audiences demanding to see and hear live music throughout the world. Consolidated work between AFM and CFM to diminish and abolish visa impediments on musicians could create more work for American and Canadian musicians. For example, Sting's 2010-2011 American tour opened and closed in Canada, toured America through Portland, Oregon with the "London Orchestra," employing American, Canadian and British musicians.

The best is yet to come for all musicians.

AFM and MROC Reach Settlement

The recently formed Musicians' Rights Organization of Canada (MROC) had sued AFM for $3 million in damages for breach of contract and other charges.

AFM countersued for $1 million claiming misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

President Hair's persistent negotiations and extensive talks with the principals of MROC, plus AFM's immediate countersuit, established the necessary leverage to formulate the settlement, the terms of which are being reduced to formal agreement by attorneys for both sides.

President Hair did not flinch or waiver in the face of the suit, which may have resulted in a permanent split between AFM and its Canadian members. The leaders of MROC, Len Lytwyn and Bill Skolnick, also used good judgment in setting aside their initial reluctance to compromise.

Internal protracted lawsuits are expensive, destructive and lead to organizational breakdowns devastating to all members. The settlement was a wise move for all and a solid test of President Hair's leadership.

We will have more details on the substance of the suit, which stems from a situation created by former President Tom Lee, and the details of the settlement, in the coming weeks.

Wrong Again, "Committee"

Under the heading, "A GLIMMER OF BRAVERY," the "Committee for a More Responsible Local 47" writes:

"Ed Shamgochian suggested suing the RMA to get the legal fees back for the lawsuits the recording musicians filed."

RMA was not a plaintiff in the Parmeter and Rishik cases. I never suggested "suing the RMA."
 
AFM prevailed in the suits and could have filed a motion to assess attorney fees against the handful of Parmeter and Rishik plaintiffs. The Hair administration chose not to. I said they should have.

The "Committee" should retract its misleading comments for the sake of accuracy. However, this is unlikely since accuracy is of no importance to the "Committee."

For example, although Resolution 17 ("Save the MPTF") had nothing whatsoever to do with the RMA, the "Committee" advised a no vote merely because it was proposed by Ed Shamgochian, "RMA sympathizer."

So which is it, "Committee?" Am I with you or against you?

We can only hope that the "Committee" in its current form will fade away along with other relics of Tom Lee's war on RMA.

Letter to Dan Wakin

Today I wrote Dan Wakin, writer of two pieces in the New York Times on foreign "sweatshop" orchestras, with the following message.

Thank you for your pieces on foreign orchestras like the Moscow State Radio Symphony. I am the president of AFM Local 143 (Worcester, Mass.). I've seen firsthand that foreign "sweatshop tours" have displaced local musicians, and have written about it since 2007 on my blog, Sounds (afm143.org).

I want to highlight two points relevant to your recent pieces. First, though the AFM purports to denounce these foreign tours, it generates significant revenue by issuing "no-objection" letters and charging a fee. From 2004-2009, the AFM president's office has collected over $3.7 million in such fees, with nothing accruing to displaced musicians in places like Worcester. This revenue began in 2004 and continues to grow each year.

Second, I proposed a resolution at the 2010 AFM Convention to redirect a portion of these fees to the Music Performance Trust Fund (MPTF), to compensate local musicians displaced by foreign orchestras. As you probably know, MPTF was created in the 1940s to compensate live musicians for the displacement of recorded music. MPTF is in dire need of funding, and is set up specifically to fund local musicians playing live, admission-free concerts across the US and Canada. The AFM Convention refused to adopt this resolution, claiming that it could not do without the no-objection letter revenue.

The upshot is that the MPTF will likely be defunct very soon, promoters will continue to hire foreign "sweatshop" orchestras instead of professional local musicians, and the AFM, beyond lip service, has done nothing about it.

Best wishes,

Ed Shamgochian

Dan Wakin's pieces:

Orchestras on Tour: Names Strike a False Note, May 16, 2011.

Russian Orchestra Tour: From the Bus to the Stage, March 3, 2010.

What the President Left Out

In the April 2011 International Musician, President Ray Hair says that foreign orchestra "sweatshop tours degrade our profession."

This is the first time the issue of sweatshop tours has ever appeared in the IM. I first wrote about the issue in May 2007. It even made The New York Times before it made the IM — before the convention at which I proposed that we do something constructive about it.

Unfortunately, the President's piece is no more than lip service. The only action he proposes is "partnering with other US entertainment unions at the AFL-CIO’s Department of Professional Employees to examine the introduction of legislative options in the US Congress."

The President's message conveniently leaves out the $3.7 million the AFM President's Office collected from 2004-2009 in visa processing fees, much of it from the same sweatshop tours he denounces. This accidental and unjustified cash cow is jealously guarded by the AFM, which doesn't want members to know that without it, the union would be insolvent.

The President's message skirts the fact that foreign sweatshop tours displace AFM musicians. When I proposed that we offset this displacement by directing visa processing fees to the Music Performance Trust Fund — just like Petrillo did in the 1940s when recorded music was displacing live music — the union cried poverty.

But when AFM forfeits attorney fees of $379,000 to a handful of unsuccessful recording musician litigants, the members can afford it.

When AFM officers collect double salaries (one from their Local, one from the AFM), plus benefits and expenses, the members can afford it.

Members, most of whom get hardly anything from AFM, won't be able to afford it much longer. Without serious constructive action — far beyond this President's lip service — the AFM will continue its descent into ruin.