American Federation of Musicians

[Paul]

What's your position? Good? Bad?? Indifferent???

Tell us why, if you can, without getting slanderous or libelous.

What services would you like the AFM to provide that you currently don't get from them?

[Tarl]

I do not make my living with music but only play the occansional gig and mostly do it for a hobby. Because of that I am somewhat indifferent to the AFM. I am a member of another union at my day job and I do believe in the principles of unionisation and collective agreements. For a full time working musician it seems to be the way to go IMO.

[Milkman]

Indifferent.

Based on the material they sent to me there's nothing that the AFM can do for me that I'm not already doing for myself for free.


I was a member for maybe one or two years back in the early 80s and other than the fee, I really didn't detect any real impact. Of course, it really depends on what you do with music.


Generally speaking, I'm pretty opposed to unions. I prefer to bargain on my own.

[david henman]

...back when i lived in montreal and was part of a band called (all the young) dudes, we had to join the union, although i cannot recall why. perhaps because we played some US dates, or performed at venues like the montreal forum.

they were very eager to pick our pockets, but it seemed to us the benefits to us as working musicians were nil, zero and zip. they spent a lot of time visiting local bars to collect dues from deliquent musicians.

we attended a meeting one time, and a couple of our band members humiliated the top guys pretty badly. after the meeting, we handed over our dues, in cash, which they loudly announced they would be using to enjoy lunch at a local, upscale resto.

when they brought in their pension plan, i cancelled my membership.

i got the impression, at the time, that the af of m was from another time, when bands and singers hired local musicians, paid them based on a "scale" and handed them their charts. they really seeemd to be completely out of touch with the 60s. and the 70s. and the 80s. i wouldn't be at all suprised to discover that they are still way out of touch with the real world.

-dh

[Paul]

...back when i lived in montreal and was part of a band called (all the young) dudes, we had to join the union, although i cannot recall why. perhaps because we played some US dates, or performed at venues like the montreal forum.

they were very eager to pick our pockets, but it seemed to us the benefits to us as working musicians were nil, zero and zip. they spent a lot of time visiting local bars to collect dues from deliquent musicians.

we attended a meeting one time, and a couple of our band members humiliated the top guys pretty badly. after the meeting, we handed over our dues, in cash, which they loudly announced they would be using to enjoy lunch at a local, upscale resto.

when they brought in their pension plan, i cancelled my membership.

i got the impression, at the time, that the af of m was from another time, when bands and singers hired local musicians, paid them based on a "scale" and handed them their charts. they really seeemd to be completely out of touch with the 60s. and the 70s. and the 80s. i wouldn't be at all suprised to discover that they are still way out of touch with the real world.

-dh

Times have changed. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms eliminated the "closed shop" working conditions. As most of us (I suspect) on this board are not members, we don't require the AFM to play our every other saturday gigs. That doesn't mean that some on this board aren't missing out on some benefits.

The pension plan is a good defined benefit plan. Young players that can gig 8 to 12 nights a month, and make regular contributions starting when they are 20 years old will have a nice pension at the end. The downside to a defined benefit plan is there is frequently very little in the way of survivor benefits. I don't know what the survivor policy is for the AFM pension.

The Montreal local still has a reputation as a not-so-effective local. In fact they had not submitted the appropriate dues and paperwork to the International office in time, and required permission to be allowed to attend the International Convention last summer. They are the largest local in Canada, and they are constantly in chaos. Other locals do a better job.

I'm a member. Here is why:

1) I like that the contract, (if used), is guaranteed. If the purchaser defaults, the AFM will take up the fight on my behalf. I'm not a travelling musician, but it'd be a right PITA to have to return to distant communities to fight in small claims court every time a venue offered less money because it was a slow night. The contract also requires a minimum standards for safe working conditions for both musicians and equipment. I have refused to play because of unsafe electricity.

2) While the purpose of the AFM is not necessarily to find work for members, (do other Unions act as employment agencies?), there is a referral service, and for my type of work, (guitar/sax duo), I get wedding work a couple times a year. I pay work dues on MPF gigs and referral gigs. I don't mind that.

3) Again, I'm not a travelling musician, but if you want to get a P2 visa to play in the excited states or america, membership in the AFM makes it a lot easier to get that P2 visa as opposed to trying to work the system on your own.

4) The AFM no longer requires all musician in a group to be members. If I am the leader I am required to hire only members, but as a sideman I can work for anybody. The leader of that group can hire me as an individual. If it's on a contract, I have protections. If it's not, and the gig
goes south, too bad for me. As a sideman it's not my concern what the relationship between the leader and the other sidemen is.

5) The AFM has relationships with booking agents that agree to play by an agreed upon set of rules. That's a nice place to be. I'm working in a band with a goal to play casino/corporate work. We won't get that work without an agent, and the AFM gives us a list of agents to work with that we can trust.

Where I am in my music "career" right now, I get enough back in work that I would not get without membership that my dues are paid for. It's revenue positive for me.

The music business has changed dramatically, and like the traditional record companies, the AFM is finding it challenging to keep up and stay relevant. The AFM ain't perfect, but it is working to improve.

I don't doubt that your experience in Montreal left a bad taste, and from some of the stories I've heard over the years yours is far from the exception. I'm trying in my own little way to be a part of and help an organization that is changing and growing to meet the current challenges of todays music industry.

[Steeler]

I was a member when I started gigging in the 70s.
Back then you had to be to get booked in decent rooms.

I quit in 79 because I was stiffed for a two nighter, under a union contract.
The union did nothing to help, except publish the name of the venue (in fine print) on a "black list" displayed on their office bulliten board.

I wasn't happy with that level of support. I also didn't like the work dues you were required to pay to other locals when you had a gig in their area.

[Milkman]

1) I have refused to play because of unsafe electricity.

I have not. Instead I tied in direct with a 220 disconnect and played the gig.

2) there is a referral service, and for my type of work, (guitar/sax duo), I get wedding work a couple times a year. I pay work dues on MPF gigs and referral gigs. I don't mind that.

I get referrals often, both as a soundman and as a musician. No dues, no union.

3) Again, I'm not a travelling musician, but if you want to get a P2 visa to play in the excited states or america, membership in the AFM makes it a lot easier to get that P2 visa as opposed to trying to work the system on your own.

I can play in the US with no problems at all.

4) The AFM no longer requires all musician in a group to be members. If I am the leader I am required to hire only members, but as a sideman I can work for anybody.

See, this really bothers me. As a leader, you are handcuffed into hiring only union members, whether they're the best or most suitable players or not, yet on the other hand you can play for non union leaders. Hypocracy? Sure seems like it to me.



Sorry for the snips above, but I wanted to reply to specific elements of your statements.