Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Orchestra Salaries


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

Posted by CM on May 10, 2003 at 09:14:08:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Orchestra Salaries posted by Rick Denney on May 10, 2003 at 01:15:28:


Frankly, the subject itself of the "thief" thread doesn't hold much interest to me...it's one of those threads that I might click on, read for a couple of minutes, and move on, because I'm not involved, nor do I know personally anyone who is involved. What touched a nerve with me was your knee-jerk reaction to the whole thing, and mention of lawsuits and damages. In today's society, incredible amounts of time and money are wasted on frivolous lawsuits like fat people suing McDonalds, people burning their mouths on a cup of coffee and suing, and my most recent personal favorite, families of undocumented immigrants from Mexico suing the US government because 14 people died of thirst while wandering in the desert during an illegal border crossing. The families contend that water stations should have been provided! You say, "I would have been guilty of slander had I maliciously stated (not accused) that a civilian had impersonated an officer when in fact he hadn't impersonated an officer." Your exact words were, "As it is written, it looks like a sick joke. It is an impersonation of an officer, to be sure. It is also actionable, meaning that the victim of this attack can sue and collect damages, even if you are a cop, unless you manage to convict him in court." More accusatory tone, and powerful statements (that turned out to be untrue), which is what I take issue with. You ask that I back off, and that's the last I'll mention of it. Anyway, your first reaction to my salary post was that you bet it's copyrighted material, and shouldn't be posted, going on to compare it to a copyrighted publication of The Institute of Transportation Engineers. It's not the comparison that bothered me, but the similar unwarranted accusatory tone I perceived.

Regarding the salary list, you say, "yes, I realize that it is base pay and not individual salaries. That wasn't my point. My point was that when everyone is focused on salaries, they are not focused on their job or their service." Perhaps a valid point, but what you originally said that bothered me was, "There's another matter: It isn't anyone else's business what an orchestral player (or any other employee) makes outside of his local (even in the union point of view). A newspaper columnist reported my salary publicly when I lived in San Antonio. The number was small and I was frankly embarassed. It may be public record, but it still wasn't right for him to publish it like that." That's a different point entirely, Rick. It's one I happen to agree with, but it doesn't apply to non-individual salary minimums. You go on to say, "But it is what they do, not how much they are or are not paid, that will win the support of the taxpayers from whom they seek that support." I would say "community" rather than "taxpayers", but we definitely agree here.

I choose to remain anonymous for my own reasons, and I'll stay that way as long as Sean allows it. I know that along with anonymity comes a lessened degree of credibility, and I can deal with that. I do think, however, that permitting anonymity allows (along with the obvious bs) a much livelier level of debate here, which is what keeps me coming back.

Concerned Musician


Follow Ups: