Almost all over the world, musicians are protected in their orchestral jobs by either musicians union or by workers union. Unfortunately or "fortunately", in some countries it does not work that way.
The way of being "protected" consist in unions negotiating the rights and obligations of the orchestra members with the orchestra government or management directors. Orchestras without these unions, the government or management set up rules for the orchestra members and many times these "rules" are changed in base of the management or government needs, or in some other cases by the conductors needs.
The reason of bringing up this topic is to reflect the fact if musicians having rights make orchestras better or worse or this is upon of the country or the society where the orchestra is base on.
What is the point of having musicians without rights or union rights? Does make this musicians to work harder so they will not get fired if they don't fulfill their bosses standards? Does the conductors or managements control the orchestras and musicians as their wish? Is this good? Do musicians in these cases feel part of the orchestra or working for some organization?
The fact is that the 95% of the first class world orchestras are "protected" by unions. But many orchestras members with rights they do not work hard enough and they are just lazy in their work and this make the orchestra to don't be as best as could be.
"Protection", is the word that I keep using, but, protecting from what?
It is clear that a democracy is the ideal way of function for many countries. Why some of these countries orchestras don't function in democracy?
It is clear that the reality of each orchestra is unique and there are so many unique cases. Anyway, I like to search the ideal way of having a thought about this.
I look forward reading what is your opinion on this if you have one.
Thank you,
Unai
No comments:
Post a Comment