Jai-After reading Bruce's post here and the one he put up at the Film Music Mag website I think the answer is crystal clear…no-the union does not want you. Maybe someday if you are so fortunate as to work on a network show-then hell yeah-they'll be glad to have you but for now-thanks but no thanks. I think if the union does get off the ground it will really benefit the small subset of composers who work on network TV and maybe some high profile cable-and that is to be commended. But the vast majority of working composers slugging it out on all the rest of cable TV and indie projects whose shows and projects aren't working under any AMPTP agreements won't benefit one lick. And as Bruce spells out-neither will game composers, library composers or commercial composers. So, not only do they not want you and others like you (young up and comers and students). They don't want me or the literally thousands like me. People who often make good wages and work everyday but not on the kinds of projects likely to be covered. So-to those of you wondering what this union thing is all about, I feel like you've got your answer. All you have to do is figure out which category you fall under and then it should be easy to figure out if this union thing is going to benefit you. Now-just because so many of us are not going to be included here does not mean the effort to unionize is not a valid one. Clearly-it will help some of us for now and maybe those of us in the on deck circles will eventually benefit as well-when we graduate to the bigger leagues I suppose. But I must say that the narrow, laser like focus on composers with ties to the AMPTP seems like such a lost opportunity to really be inclusive and forward thinking. Also, how many among us will economically justify spending $1500 to join and $960 a year just to be a union cheerleader-but not a benefactor? Again-another lost opportunity to be inclusive. What a shame.

In spite of appearing “somewhat confusing. . . ill-prepared. . . scatter-brained. . . misinformed. . . [although] moderately victorious,” I'll try to clarify some of the points that Jai Meghan brought up in an article that apparently resonated with many others, judging by the list of comments published subsequently.

In order to request recognition as a collective bargaining unit on behalf of composers, the Teamsters will be dealing with those production companies who come under the aegis of the AMPTP. This will, for the time being exclude game composers, commercial composers and composers of library music, not because the composers are inherently unworthy or unwanted, but because these groups have little or nothing to do with the AMPTP, an association of over 350 motion picture and television producers.

The “working composer” phrase should not be used or thought of as an epithet. The reason for looking into unionization has to do with composers who have a history of working for members of the AMPTP, but who have not been able to enjoy either individually or as a group the advantage of paid-for health and pension benefits that the AMPTP has provided via negotiation for every other person in the Hollywood creative community. The phrase “composers who have a history” is meant to refer to composers who are known to the producers associated with the AMPTP. There is nothing essentially pejorative either intended or implied in that classification. In that group are many composers, well-known and not so well-known, who will qualify in the initial membership drive by the Teamsters.

Jai thinks it's “laughable” and “not even possible” to determine how many composers are currently working. Perhaps he's right, if we include every composer who has ever put music to a film or video production, no matter how humble. But if we restrict our efforts to the members of the AMPTP, it's still a very difficult task, though not laughable or even impossible.

Jai writes that “they [the AMCL] circulate information that stands in contrast. Benefits only. . . wage minimums” and so forth. The AMCL has never circulated any such information, and an email, which Jai alludes to, was sent out to attest to that fact. Since the public meeting at the WGA Theater on April 19th, there has been only one stated goal for unionization: benefits only. The reason is because this has been found to be the one issue that has galvanized a majority of the composers and lyricists to whom the Committee has spoken. Some of these composers are well-known and some are not so well-known. They are not members of what JoelCiullabass referred subsequent to Jai's article as “the good-ol'-boys-club.” Such a statement is ridiculous. What would any member of the Organizing Committee gain by taking part in such silly association?

If there is confusion in the AMCL message, then no one has been paying attention to what was said at the April 19th meeting. The earlier statements about the possibilities in unionization from the initial meeting in November were seen to be a non-starter for many who were in attendance. Additionally, there was a great amount of fear in the community that if any unionization attempt set upon the course of anything other than benefits many composers and lyricists would find their jobs and futures at risk. As it stands at the present moment, we have literally hundreds of supporters for the AMCL position. Once again, in case you missed it, it's due to “benefits only.”

As for the “mysterious letters and reprints of emails sent by Steve Dayan to other professional film industry unions,” there has been only one letter to our knowledge that was ever sent as an email to anyone, and that was a private document that Steve sent to the WGA that contained some draft language for a specific request. It was not meant for publication or as any sort of a public statement, nor was it any sort of final document. It was a draft, a term acknowledged by the WGA. It was a position that the AMCL was considering, but eventually decided against, for the same reasons that the goal was eventually honed to be benefits only. Except for the confusion caused by someone leaking the letter to the press and then trying to bang the drum loudly in order to verify its authenticity, the letter, insofar as it has any relation to the AMCL's present goal of unionization for the purpose of obtaining benefits, is a non-issue.

Trying to convince some persons that the AMCL is no secret cabal reminds me of the old joke of trying to answer the question, “So when did you stop beating your wife?” It's a no-brainer to identify “the TRUE reason” for wanting to unionize composers and lyricists. Since the demise of the Composers and Lyricists Guild of America, composers and lyricists have not had the ability to collectively bargain for anything, much less benefits. We chose the Teamsters because they are powerful. They have clout. We understand that that makes some people nervous. But we see it as our best and possibly final opportunity for successful collective bargaining. As for the paranoia, there are to my knowledge “no mysterious letters to other industry unions popping up left and right.” Concerning the containment of “rogue groups,” good luck on that one.

Groucho's amusingly misanthropic comment about club membership does not apply here. We're working to make this “club” an organization in which membership will mean something by improving the lives of its members, otherwise there's no other reason to do it. When the time comes that unionization is achieved by joining the Teamsters, the AMCL will dissolve. We'll all be Teamsters. We'll all be “good ol' boys.”

If you have questions about any of the above, you're welcome to address them to info@theamcl-399.org.

Bruce Broughton

Excellent article, Jai!! So it looks like the “Lesser sort-of working” composers are going to have to create their own guild or union? I understand there point of view to extent, But it sound like to me they want to keep a standard, a “status quo” for the bigger budget films and leave the rest of the industry to their own devices! It is indeed, political BS to think that having a “Boys Club” will benefit all working composers. It looks like the just want to keep their piece of the pie.

If most of these “Working” composers,would have began their careers in this day and age. How many would be “Working” today? Hmm…….

I'm looking at this as an outsider (i.e. foreign) and wondering how the hell a closed-shop union for creative arts can work in any open society, or for that matter any where on earth. You're a brave man to stick your head above the parapet Jai and say your piece, but your arguments are compelling. The business is disparate and always evolving. I can see the worth in trying to fight for commercial rights for composers, but the sort of unionization you describe seems at odds with 21st century music and media business.

Hey! Bravo on this article! If we do the math…it's the administrators who are making all the $$$ in the unions. Just last week I met a professional violinist, recent transplant from New York to Los Angeles, who's been receiving death threats! Uhhh….composers unite! But let's not do it with a Union, I like pizza!

Everything I’ve been thinking and feeling is in this editorial. When you ask any of the committee members about these items they shrug and make grunting sounds. Would sure be nice if one of them would address these things here.

Thank you for this.