music and trade unions
TRANSCRIPT
MUSIC AND TRADE UNIONS – AN UNEASY ALLIANCE?
John Williamson
4th February 2016
INTRODUCTION . . .
• Today begins with a lot of questions – and then some attempts to find the answers.
INTRODUCTION . . .
• Question 1: What do you associate with trade unions?
• Industrial relations and negotiations?
• Collective bargaining?
• Strikes and disputes? Disruption?
• Workers’ rights?
• Services for workers?
• Campaigns on industrial issues?
INTRODUCTION . . .
• Question 2: Where does this fit with music?
• Question 3: Are musicians workers?
• Question 4: If they are, what type of worker are they?
INTRODUCTION . . .
• Questions 5, 6 and 7:
• What would happen if musicians went on strike today?
• Why would they go on strike ? http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk/clips/154153/metallica-joins-the-strike
• What has changed since 1893 – when the British and American musicians’ unions formed?
• We will now try to properly answer these questions – the answers are all interlinked!
STRUCTURE
• What are trade unions and when did musicians first organise in trade unions?
• Are musicians workers and if so what type?
• What has the Musicians’ Union (MU) done for musicians in the past?
• What does it do now?
• Conclusion & the answer to the why don’t musicians go on strike question?
TRADE UNIONS – A STARTING POINT
• “Trade unions are groups of employees who join together to maintain and improve their conditions of employment” (Unison) https://www.unison.org.uk/about/what-we-do/about-trade-unions/
• “An association of employees formed to improve their incomes and working conditions by collective bargaining with the employer or employer organisations” (Collins Dictionary)
ORGANISING MUSICIANS: WHERE DOES IT BEGIN?• Prior to 1893, musicians were organised to an extent, but not in
trade unions. Three reasons for this:• Nature of the workplace
• Employment law / trade union rights
• Professional snobbery
• But there was some evidence of growing attempts to organise in the latter part of the nineteenth century – Manchester / Birmingham in the 1870s.
• Strike of musicians (and stage hands) in 1886 at Her Majesty’s Theatre, London during production of Faust.
ORGANISING MUSICIANS: WHERE DOES IT BEGIN?
• Some examples of early musicians organisations – see Ehrlich (1985) and Loft (1950) for more:
• Fraternity of Minstrels at London (1350)
• The Brotherhood of the King’s Minstrels (1449)
• Fellowship of Minstrels and Freemen in London (1500)
• The Fund for the Support of Decayed Musicians (1738)
• The Worshipful Company of Musicians (1750) – becomes Royal Society of Musicians (1790)
• Society of Musicians (1882) becomes Incorporated Society of Musicians (1892)
• Musical Graduates’ Union (1893)
• (London) Orchestral Association (1893)
• Note – none of these were trade unions, served other purposes, notably to restrict access to the profession.
ORGANISING MUSICIANS: WORKPLACES• Prior to the nineteenth century, musicians worked in small
groups with jobs in the royal court, as town waits and sometime patronage from the rich.
• Industrialisation and population growth created more demand for musical entertainment and tuition – ‘while the UK’s population doubled between 1870 and 1930, the number of musicians increased sevenfold to around 50,000’ (Ehrlich 1985: 51)
• Growth in number of theatres and music halls with scratch orchestras. Employment was uncertain and often poorly paid, little bargaining power.
ORGANISING MUSICIANS: TRADE UNIONS AND THE LAW
• Trade Unions were illegal in the UK until 1825 under the provisions of the Combination Acts (1799, 1800)
• TUC (Trades Union Congress) forms in 1868 and Trade Union Act (1871), Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act (1875) lift some of the legal constraints on trade unions.
• ‘New unionism’ – growth of trade unionism generally not just general workers’ unions but also crafts and previously non-unionised labour.
• This was the context for musicians forming a trade union.
ORGANISING MUSICIANS: TO UNIONISE OR NOT?
• Amalgamated Musicians’ Union (AMU) formed by Joseph B Williams in 1893 – it became the Musicians’ Union in 1921.
• Initial aims to protect members from “amateurs, unscrupulous employers and ourselves” (Jempson 1993: 7)
• Strong in the north and among theatre musicians, less so in London – splits in profession depending on nature and place of employment.
• Early issues: foreign workers, competition from police/ military bands, localised disputes over pay and conditions.
ORGANISING MUSICIANS: TO UNIONISE OR NOT?
• Much opposition to the idea of a musicians’ union – from professional musicians – those that worked in conservatoires etc.
• Professional snobbery - and a desire to restrict access to the profession – prevented them from joining or supporting the AMU.
• Ehrlich characterises this as the difference as that between gentlemen and players.
ORGANISING MUSICIANS: TO UNIONISE OR NOT?• Several challenges to the notion of musicians as trade unionists.
• Orchestral Association: ‘for the protection of the best interests of orchestral musicians’ – but would not go on strike or admit amateurs – ‘a wholesome influence rather than a wholesale coercion’.
• Ebenezer Prout: (trade unions) ‘a system of organised tyranny’
• Thomas Southgate: ‘(AMU) ‘a strange collection of skilled an unskilled entities, and the most objectionable features of the Trades’ Union will be adopted, viz all are reduced to one level’.
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? • At the heart of these debates were how musicians worked and
how they saw themselves.
• Salaried musicians saw it as a profession and wanted to limit access to it by setting entry requirements – they thought musicians should have parity with accountants, laweyers, etc.
• BUT most working musicians by the late C.19th were technically and financially poor. They often worked in different jobs during the day and as musicians in theatres (and increasingly) cinemas at night.
• This group were most definitely workers and were those that most need a union / representation.
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS?
• The development and growth of musicians’ unions has been shaped by where musicians worked through the years and the nature of that employment. There are various ways of classifying this. . . by place of work, by who their employers are or by genre of music.
• So where have musicians worked since the 1890s? And what has changed ?
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? OR A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUSICAL WORK IN THE UK. . .• Theatres and Music Halls – from late C.19th
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? OR A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUSICAL WORK IN THE UK. . .
• Cinemas – from late C.19th – 1930s were the major employer of musicians.
• Some had large orchestras, all had some musicians to accompany silent films.
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? OR A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUSICAL WORK IN THE UK. . .
• Music for dancing – boom period from First World War – palais / ballrooms / hotels and restaurants.
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? OR A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUSICAL WORK IN THE UK. . .
• Orchestras and Broadcasting - LSO forms in 1904, BBC Symphony Orchestra (1930) – BBC becomes biggest employer if musicians in 1930s – good salaries and conditions.
• Orchestras used for live performances (which were broadcast) and studio recordings. Initially on radio and later on television.
• Combined there have been around 1500-2000 full time orchestral positions in the UK since the mid-1930s, the BBC has been responsible for 5-700 of those.
• BBC (and to a lesser extent other broadcasters) have also provided huge amount of work for non-salaried musicians making occasional appearances.
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? OR A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUSICAL WORK IN THE UK
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? OR A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUSICAL WORK IN THE UK. . .
• Recording – the advent of the recording industry and its growth from the 1930s creates a new type of musical worker that is focused on studio work rather than performing live.
• Prior to the late 1940s – all music was live, recording created a number of problems for the Musicians’ Union from this period onwards as recordings seen as a threat to traditional forms of musical work.
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? OR A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUSICAL WORK IN THE UK. . .
• By the 1950s / 1960s musical work changed with the proliferation of smaller musical ensembles both amateur and professional across different genres – jazz, folk, skiffle, and ultimately pop and rock groups.
• Venues appeared to accommodate these: folk, jazz and rock clubs – but these types of bands also played in existing cinemas, theatres, halls and pubs.
• In general terms, musical work shifted from being about large orchestras and ensembles to much smaller units and individualistic ways of working. This had implications!
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS?
• Many other places where musicians have (and do) worked over the years – e.g. shops, pubs, ice rinks, holiday camps, churches, parks, festivals etc. etc. but this is continually changing.
• The types of music and audience demands have shaped the places that musicians work and the need for / possibility of union organisation.
• Orchestras are more likely to have representatives / shop stewards than folk singers or rock bands.
• Union membership has historically been dominated by orchestral musicians though this has changed slowly.
• It remains easier to think of orchestral musicians or session players as workers than it does ‘stars’ – different ideas of what constitutes a musician and what constitutes a worker.
MUSICIANS AS WORKERS? THE EMPLOYERS
• Employers have changed too . . .
• When the AMU began negotiations were with individual theatre owners on a local basis, but music hall and theatres became parts of large chains (e.g. Stoll) that operated nationally.
• The BBC and the record companies were often large nation / international concerns and sometimes very difficult to negotiate with – e.g. Disney.
• Even the smaller employers have tended to group together for the purposes of negotiating – so it is not just workers who are organised, employers are too!
• Examples: Association of British Orchestras (ABO), UK Theatre, Society of London Theatres (SOLT) and British Phonographic Industry (BPI) all negotiate rates with the Union.
PAUSE FOR THOUGHT. . .
• The nature of musical work has changed in the last 120 years but so has he nature of musical employment.
• But working musicians themselves can still be classified in different ways. . .
• Williamson and Cloonan (2016) – musicians as workers but ‘particular sort of workers seeking paid employment in music’.
• Frith (2016): ‘some musicians are considered to be workers, others are not’.
• They can be viewed as professional, semi-professional and amateur musicians – or in permanent employment, seasonally employed and casually employed.
PAUSE FOR THOUGHT. . .
• All of these have implications as to whether the musicians join a trade union and . . .
• How the trade union represents its members.
PART 2: THE MUSICIANS’ UNION IN THE UK
• Membership of the Musicians’ Union in the UK has fluctuated in line with goings on in the music profession and wider economic issues and attitudes to trade unions.
• So – growth in the post WW1 years followed by collapse of membership between the Wars, growth from 1946-80, then period of (slow) decline.
• At its peak, MU membership was 41,000 in 1980.
PART 2: THE MUSICIANS’ UNION IN THE UK• It has declined in recent years to around 30,000 – but this has
been a slower decline than other trade unions.
• Total trade union membership in the UK has dropped from over 13 million in 1979 to 6.4 million (2014)
• Many reasons – but central are changing nature of workplaces, employment and trade union legislation which has considerably weakened their powers since 1979 (and election of Conservative government)
• This process has played out in the Musicians’ Union –as can be seen in its historical importance and changing contemporary operation.
PART 2: THE MUSICIANS’ UNION IN THE UK - HISTORY• The Union set out to protect members’ jobs and improve pay
and conditions and its historic importance can be seen in five main areas of musical life and industries, most notably:
• Orchestras
• The Recording Industry
• The Live Music Industry
• Broadcasting (and new technology more generally)
• Copyright
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: ORCHESTRAS
• Orchestras: MU has negotiated collectively on behalf of orchestral musicians, hugely strengthened by the existence for most of the period from the 1930s-1980s of a near 100% membership in the orchestras. Orchestras have a set place of work; workers see each other frequently and are better organised than most other (freelance) musicians.
• MU has agreements with employers’ organisations (OEA, ABO) as well as with BBC and individual orchestras.
• Orchestras and BBC have been the focal for point for any significant MU industrial action (e.g. 1980 strike)
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: ORCHESTRAS
• Perhaps the most significant achievement though has been the maintenance of British orchestras, which have frequently come under threat of closure – from the BBC and various reviews of public funding (e.g. proposed merger of BBC SSO and orchestra of Scottish Opera in 1992)
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: RECORDING
• During formative period of MU recording was of little interest – indeed ISM and record companies seemed more interested in securing compensation for recording musicians than the Union.
• This changed with setting up of Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) and the acceptance that musicians could get additional payments from the performance of their recordings (in public or broadcasts).
• 1946 agreement between MU and PPL imposed limits on the use of records in public and gave MU significant control.
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: RECORDING (1946 AND ALL THAT)
• It also was the basis of a lasting relationship between the Union and PPL that included:
• Financial relationship: PPL making ex-gratia payment direct to MU in respect of performance of all non-featured musicians on records.
• Lobbying relationship: MU and PPL lobby government to maintain the agreement between them prior to Copyright Act of 1956.
• Employment: agreement meant that use of records in public was tied to employment of musicians
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: RECORDING (1946 AND ALL THAT)
• Union and PPL had different motivations in coming to agreement but largely the Union and recording industry in the UK have worked together and without major conflicts.
• They also had a shared opponent in the broadcasters – again not always for the same reasons.
• Post-1989, industrial relations in the recording industry remained largely cordial and after end of 1946 agreement, MU and PPL continued to work closely together in Music Industry Forum, UK Music and in matters surrounding payment of performers.
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: LIVE MUSIC
• Union’s focus has always been predominantly on live music.
• Initially, its role was here was improving pay and conditions but also trying to protect its members from non-Union workers – e.g. amateurs, foreigners, police and military bands. .
• Lack of reciprocal agreements meant that by mid-1930s, MU had effective veto on entry of American musicians into the UK between 1935-55.
• Even when agreement with American Federation of Musicians (AFM) reached in 1955,MU retained tight control over the exchanges of British and American musicians.
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: LIVE MUSIC
• MU promoted live music using PPL money for four decades with its Keep Music Live campaign, funding for events, venues and organisations, institutions.
• Major patron of live music in UK between mid 1950s-1990s.
• With end of PPL funds in 1989, this diminished but Union emphasis still very much on the ‘live’ musician.
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: BROADCASTING
• MU was quick to see the potential of radio as an employer and less dismissive than theatre owners.
• MU had a mutually dependent relationship with the BBC.
• Union saw the BBC as a major source of work and members but also a threat when it came to use of records.
• The Union’s pressure resulted in ‘needletime’ : limits on the amount of recorded music that BBC could play across network imposed by PPL at behest of MU.
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: BROADCASTING
• The MU tied broadcasting of music to employment of musicians – although the quantities varied as MU fought to retain control over broadcasting of recorded music from range of challenges – including pirate radio, independent local radio and the differing attitudes to broadcasting of governments.
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: BROADCASTING
• The end of the BBC monopoly was not good for the Union: independent radio and television did not fully accept ‘obligations’ to employ musicians and were behind the moves to weaken the MU’s power in broadcasting between 1973-89.
• MU shaped what and how music was heard on BBC – e.g. miming on Top of the Pops, John Peel sessions, The Proms etc. etc.
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: COPYRIGHT
• Similar (and connected) pattern: MU initially not interested in copyright but this changes with formation of Performing Right Society (1914) and PPL (1934).
• Too few members involved in recording- push for additional rights for performers came much later – after record companies volunteered a payment this alerted Union to claim of rights and income.
• But from the 1950s, the MU worked with record companies in UK to pursue payments for performers, but also internationally.
WHY THE MU IS IMPORTANT: COPYRIGHT
This included significant lobbying for recognition of performers’ rights prior to 1956 Copyright Act and in the Rome Convention (1961). (see Williamson 2013)
• End of MU/PPL agreement made this more important and performers finally gained legal recognition in 1996.
• Generally, MU has followed record industry thinking on wider copyright issues – e.g. piracy and term extension.
THE MU NOW. . .
• Major turning points in 1980s/ early 1990s:• Trade Union legislation weakens Unions’ ability to disrupt.
• Monopolies and Mergers’ Commission (1988) ends the Union’s income from public performance (now goes straight to performers)
• Broadcasting Act (1990) ‘frees the airwaves’ and prevents any Union influence over how much recorded music is played.
• Like other trade unions, the MU had to restructure and now operates very differently from the period pre-1990.
THE MU NOW - CONTEXT
• McIlroy on “new unionism” under John Monks – “industrial relations and trade unions were no longer adversarial” (2009: 50)
• Bacon and Storey: by mid 1990s, trade unions relied “less on the collective context for Union activity and more on services that can be provided to individual members” (1996:56)
THE MU NOW. . .
• MU activities can now be loosely broken down into:• Service Provision: financial services (tax advice), insurance (public liability,
equipment, personal accident, car), legal advice contracts, health and safety advice.
• Lobbying and Campaigning: within TUC, Labour Party and music industries – e.g. copyright, Let It Beeb, Work Not Play, Live Music Act, etc. MU is a member of UK Music and now describes itself a ‘music industry organisation’.
• Some of it is older functions remain – notably collective bargaining and benevolence.
• Issues surrounding equalities have also become more important.
SOME CONCLUSIONS – THE STRIKE QUESTION
• All UK musicians strikes have been localised – no all out strikes.
• In USA, the recording strikes of the 1940s were hugely important.
• But power of musicians as a group of workers has always been limited. . .there is an oversupply of labour and they are providing a non-essential service.
• Last major strike was 1980 at BBC – disruption to Top of the Pops and The Proms forcing negotiation on closure of orchestras.
• Batstone (1988) notes union power is dependent on ‘centrality of group’ to a manufacturing process, a scarcity of labour and political power.
SOME CONCLUSIONS • Past – MU has been an integral part of musical life in UK since
its formation –it has survived and remains (relatively) strong.
• It has impacted hugely on lives of working musicians, the music industries and audiences.
• It has repeatedly adapted to the political climate of the times with some dexterity. Considerable achievements include protection of orchestras and performer’s right.
• Present – the Union has had to adapt in ways that not all members are comfortable with, yet has retained “ideology of liveness” and maintains good industrial relations with (most of) the major employers in the music industries.
SOME CONCLUSIONS
• Frith (2016): ‘may be workers, but they shouldn’t be!’
• Williamson and Cloonan (2016): ‘it is possible to imagine a future without the MU, but this would make the world an even more perilous place for working musicians’.
OTHER MU MATERIAL. . .
• http://www.muhistory.com - MU history website
• http://www.keepingmusiclive.co.uk - Keeping Music Live exhibition