… you know I stay away from controversial subjects as much as possible. I just don’t like to go there. I hate confrontation. I hate arguing. And I really hate it when I anger someone else. So I’m going to let someone else bring up something that might bother some of you. I will admit, though, that I think we union members, along with the top dogs of the unions, may need to rethink things. (Uh-oh … please don’t send me hate mail! I did, after all, write may need to rethink things! I’m wishy-washy that way!)

Each union branch must assess local circumstances to choose its plan of action and its recommendations to its players.

Unions have served us well over the years, no doubt. However, it seems to me that the time has come to reassess the purpose of the union.

I read that, and much more, here.

But wait, there’s more!…

I just read a wonderful quote from the principal bassist of the Hartford Symphony Orchestra, where an agreement for a 2 year contract has been reached:

“In this time when people relentlessly pursue self-serving agendas and compromise is seen as a form of weakness, both management and labor have shown that the better way is to work together to secure a dynamic and solid future for all. However, our work is not done. The arts are under attack in our country. Our job will be to continue to show the public the necessity of keeping the arts in our lives. A thriving community includes the arts and educational opportunities.”

Read more here.


  1. I have always felt – even when I was chair of the Players’ Committee – that a negotiation that starts with a ‘List of Demands’ is already so polarized that even if you ‘win’ the negotiation, there is a guaranteed failure of productive discourse.

    There’s got to be a better better model for dialog than the one in use back when both sides of a labor dispute were brawling in the streets.

    It’s not that the list is unreasonable, it’s the approach, the presentation…

  2. Yep, I’m with you, Bob!