Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Florida Philharmonic Orchestra Strike


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jay Bertolet on October 22, 2000 at 07:18:21:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Florida Philharmonic Orchestra Strike posted by Leland on October 22, 2000 at 01:27:28:

Exactly right Leland, we are pursuing that whole concept even now. Hopefully we can find a new group of board members who would be comprised of current board members who disagree with what the Governing Council has done as well as other former board members who have left the institution because they were disgusted with the way things are going. But the musicians who are committed to this orchestra and community would remain the same.

It is clear to us, after the events of the last few days, that the Governing Council wishes to destroy this orchestra. We really can't explain why other than because they simply want out of the situation without having to quit but it is obvious that they wish to obliterate what it has taken years to create. We made a proposal two days ago to the Governing Council that was so good for them, we knew that they would accept it or take a complete bath in the press. Currently, we have a proposal in front of the orchestra that comprises a 5 year wage package (already outlined in another post) and 16 concession to our current contract. We offered to accept 11 of their take backs and start the season now. We would play and talk, meaning that the season would begin now and we would continue negotiating the other 5 concessions for a couple of weeks. If we still couldn't reach agreement on those provisions, we would agree to put those items in front of an impartial arbiter selected by the American Arbitration Association who would then make a final and binding decision on each item in dispute. This proposal was rejected by the Governing Council. So draconian is their current offer that they are unwilling to even put the matter before an impartial third party! And I must point out that every one of the 5 items we haven't agreed upon has absolutely no financial impact on the institution whatsoever. That is to say, even if the arbiter were to decide in the musicians' favor on every one of the 5 concessions, it wouldn't cost the Governing Council one nickel more. Money is not the issue here, it is power and control. The Governing Council seeks more of it and is willing to put the entire institution in jeopardy to get it. If money were the issue, why would the Governing Council issue a statement yesterday rejecting our play and talk proposal and reiterating their threat that if we don't accept the complete proposal they have on the table now, they will actively begin the process of dissolving the institution. I would characterize that as vindictive in the extreme. This is not negotiation, by any stretch of the imagination.


Follow Ups: