3 ms·

It seems to me like they are expressing shock that cities the size of San Antonio aren't willing to pay enough or for whatever reasons don't raise enough for a

by yakak 4y ago

It seems to me like they are expressing shock that cities the size of San Antonio aren't willing to pay enough or for whatever reasons don't raise enough for a symphony. There's not really an alternative, the suggestions of professional symphony players working for almost nothing or compromising their performances by not practicing are rather offensive. From a union of musicians perspective, I think they made the right choice. No symphony for San Antonio, no reason to return to the table. Maybe other cities will be a little more careful than they would have been with raising and using funds.

kareemsabri 4y ago
I didn't get the impression from the article the city administers the symphony or that the budget for the musicians comes out of public funds. They aren't expressing shock at the city, they're expressing shock at one or two comments on here that they deem morally disgusting. It's totally unnecessary (we can read) but pretty standard.
- yakak 4y ago
  It seems to me like you are inventing ridiculous interpretations. A city of a million can do whatever it likes with private and public fund raising to support it's art and sport choices. San Antonio wanted a professional symphony for 1/4 the rate by impoverishing the participants. They didn't come back to the table because they should find another job or a different city. The rebuke of the performers for not negotiating is right in the OP. It's not the performers fault that there's no workable solution for the cities level of interest in a symphony. If the symphony goes down in quality there will be even less money.
  - kareemsabri 4y ago
    I don't know why your first sentence is necessary. As I said, the San Antonio Symphony does not appear to be a public organization. Of course I could be wrong, I just read the article. Wikipedia appears to confirm my interpretation. Though even if it were a city can't do "whatever it wants" they still have budgets and stuff. But it isn't so your point is moot. I never said it was the performers fault. No idea what you're responding to.
    - yakak 4y ago
      A city has a government, a city is also the collection of people, organizations, etc that are interested in the success of the city. The point being argued was that someone is disappointed by comments in these threads and somehow their upset is inappropriate. Looking at the comments many of them back this management being disappointed that performers and their union destroyed this public good by not negotiating when offered lower compensation. The city as a whole is saying it can't afford a professional symphony and that's fine. That isn't the performers fault and they were protected from a downward spiral by having a union that didn't let them go into poverty either working for free to their no longer compensated standards or losing more and more funding through poorer quality while they worked other jobs. No one would accept the argument that IT workers are in the wrong if they refuse ever increasing pay cuts to stay in an environment that is no longer able to support them.
      - kareemsabri 4y ago
        I read all the comments that were posted prior to the morally outraged top-level comments before I replied. There are very few (maybe 1-2) blaming the musicians, expressing anti-union sentiments, or anything like that. And of course, the first few comments are rarely representative of the general sentiment of a discussion, which is why I said the morally outraged comment expressing disgust was not necessary. I also agree musicians should not have to work for $17,000 a year, or $34,000 a year. The morally disgusted comments at the tenor of the discussion were posted 8 and 9 hours ago, respectively. The sole comment posted prior to that, as far as I can tell, with anti-union sentiment was "If the musicians weren't unionized, wouldn't they all be better off right now since they'd still be employed?" which has a bunch of pushback in the replies immediately. So again, the point that the moral outrage at the HN crowd and their anti-union sentiment trying to force the musicians into poverty seems unnecessary. "many of them back this management being disappointed that performers and their union destroyed this public good by not negotiating when offered lower compensation" I don't see many. Feel free to share (posted before the morally outraged comments, of course).
        kareemsabri 4y ago

by yakak 4y ago

kareemsabri 4y ago

I didn't get the impression from the article the city administers the symphony or that the budget for the musicians comes out of public funds. They aren't expressing shock at the city, they're expressing shock at one or two comments on here that they deem morally disgusting. It's totally unnecessary (we can read) but pretty standard.

yakak 4y ago
It seems to me like you are inventing ridiculous interpretations. A city of a million can do whatever it likes with private and public fund raising to support it's art and sport choices. San Antonio wanted a professional symphony for 1/4 the rate by impoverishing the participants. They didn't come back to the table because they should find another job or a different city. The rebuke of the performers for not negotiating is right in the OP. It's not the performers fault that there's no workable solution for the cities level of interest in a symphony. If the symphony goes down in quality there will be even less money.
- kareemsabri 4y ago
  I don't know why your first sentence is necessary. As I said, the San Antonio Symphony does not appear to be a public organization. Of course I could be wrong, I just read the article. Wikipedia appears to confirm my interpretation. Though even if it were a city can't do "whatever it wants" they still have budgets and stuff. But it isn't so your point is moot. I never said it was the performers fault. No idea what you're responding to.
  - yakak 4y ago
    A city has a government, a city is also the collection of people, organizations, etc that are interested in the success of the city. The point being argued was that someone is disappointed by comments in these threads and somehow their upset is inappropriate. Looking at the comments many of them back this management being disappointed that performers and their union destroyed this public good by not negotiating when offered lower compensation. The city as a whole is saying it can't afford a professional symphony and that's fine. That isn't the performers fault and they were protected from a downward spiral by having a union that didn't let them go into poverty either working for free to their no longer compensated standards or losing more and more funding through poorer quality while they worked other jobs. No one would accept the argument that IT workers are in the wrong if they refuse ever increasing pay cuts to stay in an environment that is no longer able to support them.
    - kareemsabri 4y ago
      I read all the comments that were posted prior to the morally outraged top-level comments before I replied. There are very few (maybe 1-2) blaming the musicians, expressing anti-union sentiments, or anything like that. And of course, the first few comments are rarely representative of the general sentiment of a discussion, which is why I said the morally outraged comment expressing disgust was not necessary. I also agree musicians should not have to work for $17,000 a year, or $34,000 a year. The morally disgusted comments at the tenor of the discussion were posted 8 and 9 hours ago, respectively. The sole comment posted prior to that, as far as I can tell, with anti-union sentiment was "If the musicians weren't unionized, wouldn't they all be better off right now since they'd still be employed?" which has a bunch of pushback in the replies immediately. So again, the point that the moral outrage at the HN crowd and their anti-union sentiment trying to force the musicians into poverty seems unnecessary. "many of them back this management being disappointed that performers and their union destroyed this public good by not negotiating when offered lower compensation" I don't see many. Feel free to share (posted before the morally outraged comments, of course).
      - kareemsabri 4y ago