 |
| Starving Artists on the stage of the MET. La boheme |
The battle, at least of words, continues in New York over proposed cuts of 26% to the salaries of the MET Orchestra and Chorus. But this time not between Orchestra and Gelb but the Orchestra V The New York Times.
Monday saw the NYT run an editorial titled,
The Real Drama at the Met: Labor (sic)
Talks Turn Bitter at Metropolitan Opera. In this, they have suggested that the present economic situation at the MET is unworkable. In general they seem to take their lead from Gelb's statements about the situation. They note:
"...both sides should compromise on real cuts. For the unions, this means accepting changes in benefits and work rules. Management will have to cut salaries and expenses just as rigorously."
They hey cite data that has previously been provided by Gelb in support of this arguement. This includes:
"...average earnings for the chorus and orchestra running about $200,000 a year."
"$85,000 in benefits"
"16 weeks off with pay".
However, the MET Orchestra has responded that these figures are neither accurate or reflective of reality (It should be noted that in the MET Orchestra's recent report they note a salary of around $164, 000 (
"Furthermore, the actual proposals with which we have been presented reflect a cut in our annual earnings of between $41,000 to $62,000 (25.2% to a worse-case scenario of 37.55%. See here). Their response is" below.
What do you think?
Statement from the Musicians of the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra Regarding Today’s
New York Times Editorial
|
NEW YORK, NY—Monday, June 23, 2014—The MET Orchestra
Musicians and Local 802, American Federation of Musicians, are deeply
concerned about the future of the Metropolitan Opera.
Regarding today's editorial in the New York Times, The MET Orchestra would like to clarify a few important points:
-
The Met musicians are paid a competitive contract, a yearly salary that
is commensurate with attracting and retaining the best players in the
world. The musicians in fact do not have 16 weeks of vacation. Their
guaranteed time off is equivalent to that of their peer orchestras (10
weeks), and is in part due to the recognition that they are at the
disposal of the Met to perform 6 days a week during the season.
Unutilized weeks are due to Peter Gelb's unpopular and
counter-productive decision to end the beloved weeks of free summer
concerts in New York City’s parks, which musicians still wish to play
(and besides being a wonderful amenity for New Yorkers and visitors are a
proven vehicle to expand the opera audience), as well as Gelb’s
termination of the practice of touring, which has been a part of the Met
season since its inception and also develops tourist audiences for the
Met
-
Peter Gelb insists on citing an average salary number for musicians that
has not been substantiated. The musicians and their legal team have
been asking for months for the Met to provide figures showing where they
are getting this average salary number, as well as the amount of stated
benefits, but the Met has not provided it. We do not know if the Met
provided proof to the Times, and we respectfully request that
any press covering these matters ask Gelb for documentation to support
this disputed figure. Furthermore, we ask that the press consider citing
the median salary for the musicians, as this would more accurately represent what most musicians at the Met are paid – if you can get the data from management!
-
It is true, as the New York Times states, that The Met cannot continue on its present fiscal course. However, it is relevant to note that over
Gelb's tenure the cost of musician labor has risen only modestly
(slightly above inflation), while the non-labor budget increased by 50% ($105 Million). As the musicians pointed out in their report to the Met Opera Board
the revivals of Peter Gelb's new productions, which have sold dismally,
are pulling revenues down. In fact, when other opera houses around the
world are thriving, there has been a 13% drop at the Met box office on
Peter Gelb’s watch.
-
Given that last year the Met reported a $2.8 Million dollar deficit why
does Gelb claim he needs $30 million in cuts (16%) to performers who are
already being paid less than musicians in several other U.S.
orchestras, in some cases in absolute dollars or, when calculating the
cost-of-living to compensation ratio, less than their counterparts at
most peer orchestras? Also, importantly, research conducted by the
Orchestra indicates that the
various cuts that Gelb has proposed actually constitute a reduction in
compensation much greater than 16%, but in fact would constitute a
25-37% reduction in compensation.
|
