IBJNews

Symphony musicians reject contract offer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra musicians and librarians unanimously rejected a new contract offer, suggesting they might not easily accept the same deep pay cuts seen at major orchestras around the country.

The musicians' union, Local 3 of the American Federation of Musicians, issued a brief statement Friday night, saying players and librarians had rejected management's final offer by a vote of 76 to zero. The 87-member orchestra has several vacancies, and other players were not in town for the vote. The union also represents two librarians.

Citing a confidentiality agreement, the union would offer no clue about what provisions of the offer prompted the rejection. “Typically if we take something to [the musicians], it's something we negotiators will endorse,” bargaining committee chairman Mike Borschel said. “This one we could not, so here we are.”

The last three-year contract, which expired Sept. 6, reflected a 2 percent or 3 percent increase in base pay, Borschel said. The final six months of the contract called for annualized base pay of $80,080.

Several major orchestras, including Minnesota, Philadelphia and Atlanta, have accepted or volunteered pay cuts in the past year. The Philadelphia Orchestra, where base pay is $124,000, volunteered to extend its current contract for a year and defer a 4.8-percent raise, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported in May. The agreement saved the orchestra $4 million.

Borschel said he believes the pay in Indianapolis would rank near the bottom among 52-week orchestras, even when compared to those that have cut salaries.

The only publicized cuts at the ISO were made in February from the administrative staff. The symphony cut eight employees, or 10 percent of non-musician employees, to shave $600,000 from the $29.5 million budget.

The ISO ended its 2008 fiscal year in the red and later saw its endowment drop to about $80 million. It has not yet reported the results of its most recent fiscal year, which ended Aug. 31.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT