Hacker News Reader

Comment by lsy | Hacker News Reader

It's important to remember that this is a statement made by one party to a dispute, not a neutral statement of facts. It's unclear whether any of the claims made in the statement are true, or whether this is an intentionally destructive response to hard bargaining by the musicians.

View on HN

Either way, they’re shutting down. That’s not really a bargaining tactic. It’s failure mode.

No it’s a bargaining tactic. We won’t work for a dismal wage. It makes a statement. This failure is worth a lot.

They filed chapter 7. It’s gone. Many symphonies around the US are struggling with money. If your income can’t pay the bills, you can’t operate. This isn’t the first one to shut down and it won’t be the last. Patronage is declining.

If your income can't pay the bill, then society as whole must think about it's useful to keep you alive or not.

There is another world outside the economical one.

It seems like society has done their thinking and made their decision

Yes, socialism which has succeeded in precisely zero instances.

At the end of the day, you eventually run out of other people’s money.

I look forward to hearing the argument that society should indefinitely bankroll large symphony orchestras at good salaries, but I am skeptical that it would actually convince people. It seems to me that outside of the very rich and the very old, the popularity of classical music has dramatically among audiences. "Think of the oboeists!" is not necessarily a winning campaign slogan. I mean it when I say that I hope this changes, but I don't see how it can unless classical musicians find a way to actually appeal to a broader segment of the public.

Attitudes about this vary a good bit depending on where you're at around the globe.

It will take a few of these to make the point and that’s okay. If the free market isn’t willing to pay a reasonable wage (which was already dismal at $36,000), then we just won’t have symphonies for now.

The vast majority of symphonies in the US aren't full time, like most performing artist jobs in the US. There are well more than 1,000 symphonies in the US and only something like a couple dozen that are full time; San Antonio was notable in that it was. The free market supports many symphonies that pay 4 digit "salaries" (often they're paid per-service) per year. But they're only working a few days per month. San Antonio was trying to cut back, but negotiation didn't work out. This wasn't a free market decision to disappear, it was a labor negotiations decision.

I thought it was "we won't pay you money we don't have" (also: ...for a passion project that many do for free, including likely most of the board members and volunteer staff).

The problem was that they did zero bargaining, pay kept getting cut until it wasn't paying enough to be worth doing anymore. They filled chapter 7, it's done.

You can see something similar with the "worker shortage". People don't want to do many jobs for what they're willing to pay. If workers had more leverage in bargaining, pay and benefits could rise to be worth doing.

Since they filed Chapter 7 I’m not sure what bargaining you seem to think they were in a position to do?

It just sounds as though the symphony isn’t economically viable anymore.

They weren't in a position to bargain since they'd already accepted repeated cuts and it's hard for a symphony to stay solvent when it doesn't have any musicians.

It looks like the musicians have started performing on their own. I hope that works out for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com