Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unions, Florida Phil, Seattle Audition


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

Posted by economist on October 23, 2000 at 10:48:47:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unions, Florida Phil, Seattle Audition posted by MI on October 23, 2000 at 09:06:59:

That is only true if the purchaser of the service thinks that the lower priced performer is an adequate substitute for the more expensive one. The unique performers, the 'stars' of music, command substantial fees.

As the supply of really good musicians has increased faster than the demand, there is and will continue to be, downward pressure on the price of such talent.

Unions serve their members by restricting the supply -- either by restricting entry into the craft/guild or by striking, or better the threat of striking -- in order to obtain higher wages and benefits for the members.

A strike threat is credible only if the people being threatened believe (1) no substitute is available at a reasonalbe price and/or (2) they cannot do without the withheld service.

It seems to me that a striking orchestra in this economic evironment, especially one striking over job security issues (can you say 'tenure' rather than merit), is on very thin ice.

Few orchestras have such a brand name recognition that they will be seen as uniquely valuable and irreplacable -- sad to say. And, appeals to civic pride and consipuous consumption aside, the market for orchestra donations and tickets is hardly one in which most orchestras tickets are sold out and scalped like the World Series.

We could, and I often do, rail about the misguided taste of the public, but they're the consumer. When we play for any reason other than the pure love of music, we subject ourselves to the market.




Follow Ups: