Cleveland musicians call in union
NewsFaculty at the Cleveland Institute of Music have voted 56-25 to join the American Federation of Musicians.
‘This is a historic vote and a signal to the world that CIM will remain one of the very finest conservatories in the nation, said faculty member Frank Rosenwein, principal oboe of the Cleveland Orchestra. ‘This vote will help to retain and sustain our world-class faculty, it will reassure students that we are a stable institution with their needs as our primary focus and it will provide a framework for stability for all institutional stakeholders, including the board, the administration, the faculty and the students.’
CIM said: ‘Certain steps now must be followed in a certain order and manner. CIM will fully abide by these requirements, including negotiating in good faith with the faculty’s union representatives.’
Earlier this year the faculty voted no-confidence in president Paul Hogle and Provost Scott Harrison.
Student numbers are down and morale is rock-bottom.
Hogle, Harrison and their allies ran a desperate campaign of intimidation and half-truths to stop the teachers voting to join a union.
Their defeat is irreversible.
Since this blog has become a sounding board for CIM opinions – with its clear, yet unexplained editorial bias against an institution with which it has no proximate connection – would it be possible for someone in a position of authority on the matter to explain, in detail, objectively and without ad hominem attacks, the following:
1. Why is was necessary for the faculty of a small, private conservatory to form a union?
2. Why this particular union was chosen, as opposed to others?
3. What are the principal aims of unionization for the near and long term vision of the school?
Respectfully, etc.
As the husband of a faculty member, you ought to declare an interest. Educate yourself in the history of maladministration.
Norman, respectfully, I speak for myself and my general point stands. I have read everything posted on this blog, and more, and it remains impossible to understand what is going on – to educate myself – because most of the information is non-specific, highly ad hominem in tone, and offers little by way of objective data analysis or room for rebuttal. My questions, above, are a genuine, non-partisan search for answers to legitimate concerns, since I have no idea – for better or worse – what the unionization process implies, or what this specific union relationship will offer. It reminds me of the Brexit vote, in which people were asked to vote for something without understanding what was really being offered on the back end, since the detailed negotiations only begin post-vote. But it is a serious matter for all involved, and I think serious answers ought to be forthcoming, so those involved in the future of the school can better understand how this will impact their lives and the lives of their students. Perhaps you could invite the leader(s) of the unionization effort to publish a statement outlining their broader vision.
It’s not my job to bore readers to tears. Simple fact: the faculty voted no confidence by a 9-1 margin in the administration. What does that tell an ‘interested party’?
the vote of no confidence did not include any participation of about half the faculty, so the margin mentioned is only half the story, literally. The reporting on the vote margin, to the extent it doesn’t include that additional perspective, is at least potentially misleading.
imagine the following scenario:
CIM, circa 2014: due to a multitude of deficiencies, the Higher Learning Commission puts the school on notice, an event which could have, were it not for the aggressive action of the school’s trustees, permanently shuttered CIM.
one of the key deficiencies? a lack of quantified, reliable, data-driven student outcomes, both while students and after graduation.
Enter Paul Hogle as the new CEO. What does he do as a first order of business? He institutes a systematic, HLC required method for assessing student and graduate outcomes.
Key findings over a multi-year period? Interestingly, two divergent views: one view, held by a very vocal part of the faculty, was that outcomes were fine, everyone move along, we are the mighty CIM, our students are fulfilled and happy. Another view, driven by quant measurements: a significant number of high profile faculty were not producing tier 1 and 2 graduates. In many cases these faculty were also members of the Cleveland Orchestra, both principals and section players.
So, having unhappy faculty members can occur for a variety of reasons. One reason could be that the management of an organization is just awful. OK
another reason, though, is that that management is shining a glaring light on suboptimal performance. No surprise, in that case, that people are unhappy. happens all the time in all kinds of organizations.
Mr. Lebrecht, surely you are enough of a man of the world to know that things are never so black and white. And, given your long experience with members of the artistic class, the hardest thing for a performer to hear is that he is not up to snuff. Especially if the deliverer of that assessment is a former trombone player. it’s offensive, even if true.
Thank you for this
Oh, Susan, bless your heart.
A question: Why is the Chair of the Board obsessively commenting on an internet page? Shouldn’t you be saving the school? Oh, wait…
Why are board members so angry at CIM faculty? (And assumably staff and students as well?) In the last CIM post on SD, one commenter said that the board could eat the faculty for lunch, like it was a competition. How appalling. If everyone has to lawyer up before conversations can take place something is wrong. If you hate the people that make up CIM then why are you on the board in the first place? Is it just about power? What did Paul promise you? Something fishy is going on for sure.
If you’re so incapable of understanding the unspoken implications of a top conservatory’s entire faculty voting no confidence in a school’s President, it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that you also can’t understand what they hope to signal by unionizing.
Isn’t it strange how this blog has a bias against the administration of CIM? What have they ever done to deserve that, even? Surely there isn’t years of evidence on said blog that indicates that trust and support in the administration by faculty has completely eroded after so many infractions on the part of said administration. It couldn’t exist: its the only way to justify such a confusion!
If you’re so worried about people calling your character into question on this forum, perhaps don’t engage in obtuse and bad faith supposition?
To answer your questions, just from being a part of the community and reading the same articles you are:
1.) The goal of every union is to take collective action for the best interest of its members. Clearly, from all of the reporting done about the Institute in the past few years, the administration of the Institute isn’t capable of making these decisions, so its employees must take collective action to preserve their own best interests, and the interests of the institution.
2.) The AFM is the largest union of instrumental musicians in the world, and a member of AFL-CIO (the largest US federation of unions). Now I learned this with a quick google search of my own because I was so interested in the details (something I’d suggest in the future), but being a part of a large union means that you have more resources to use to support your union causes. Really fascinating stuff!
3.) Your question is poorly conceived. Do you mean to question the value of unionization to the workforce? That should be clear, it will improve their compensation and working conditions.
Do you mean to question whether or not its good for the Institute for its faculty to be in a union? An equally incoherent implication – it’s always good in the long run for an institution to undergo unionization – and that’s a thoroughly documented fact. It might not be good for President Hogle, but don’t you think he’s made enough money dragging this beloved conservatory through the mud?
If it’s impossible for you to understand “what is going on”, you clearly aren’t as engaged in the goings on of this institution as you say you are. Either that, or there’s an implicit anti-union bias on your part overshadowing all this hemming and hawing about “needing answers to legitimate concerns”.
Why are you so concerned in the fine details of their plans post unionization in the first place? Are you attending this school? Are you attending the faculty concerts? Are you a member of the administration?
I have exactly the same questions.
To answer your question, look no further than the loss of our esteemed faculty members who taught, counselled and cared for our students for decades, along with the chaos and emotional turmoil our students lived through over the last year. No parent wants this hostile environment for their student. Something has to change.
Interested Party, we would happily answer your questions after Mark Jackobs is reinstated, after the Cavani Quartet is reinstated, after Mike Sachs is recruited back from Curtis, after faculty pay is reinstated to last year’s levels, and after the Institute stops hemorrhaging students.
IMHO the vote was a last-ditch effort to induce management to live up to their oft-repeated assertions that they trusted and respected the faculty. Management repeated endlessly that the faculty senate was the appropriate conduit for communications, clear and transparent, both ways. But yet: Cavani dismissed after years of good service on short notice (no “let’s celebrate them and then move on to give a new group a chance”) and with a non-compete clause (!)… a conductor hired over the objections of the committee management had itself convened – and then dissolved…. a conductor given a 5-year contract when all other faculty members are on 1-year contracts… members of the Board forbidden to talk to faculty “on advice of legal counsel”… Board Chair when asked (after the vote of no confidence) to finally let faculty views be heard says (paraphrased) “We don’t need to hear your views, the vote tells us all we need to know”… repeated pledges that the overriding goal is quality teaching of students (including being told that if a union exercised its right to strike that would hurt the students) and then driving away (there is debate over how much of each departure was management push versus faculty pull as it were) faculty members in the middle of semesters (could management not have waited until a term was finished?)… pay cuts to faculty (often disguised as “we’re not cutting your pay just your hours”) while some admin members received significant raises … dismissal or demotion of faculty members who were known to not be supporters of management (including admonitions that it was part of their job description to not debate management policies in public). IMHO after years of individual complaints, letters to the Board, the no confidence vote, it was just the last resort: I don’t think any faculty member was leaping at the chance to unionize. And it was never about money, in that pay was hardly ever mentioned: it was about using the union (and its grievance process) to force resumption of two-way communications. To support WORDS about trust with ACTIONS. To be given explanations (real explanations, not platitudes about difficult times, hard choices, pursuit of the mission, etc.) as to why crucial decisions were made. Unionization is a blunt instrument to use in this way, to be sure, but all the others had been tried, and tried, and failed.
1. Because the entire faculty of said conservatory is non-tenured, on yearly contracts, and because faculty were being unjustifiably fired, mid-semester, or else being forced to take massive pay cuts.
2. I assume because many of them are already members of AFM as performing musicians.
3. There are many goals, but I think it all comes down to showing the Hogle and the board the faculty is standing up and that this nonsense has to stop.
There was a small man named Paul Hogle;
Who dreamt of being a big music Mogul;
He voted for Trump;
Threw his career in the dump;
Oy vey! He’s no ‘Henry Fogel’.
There once was an orchestra principal,
who thought he was quite invincible.
But when his assessments came round,
came the wailing of hounds,
because he was simply indefensible.
doesn’t scan
Here’s an excerpt from Paul Hogle’s favorite leadership book “Tribes” by Seth Godin: When a CEO takes the spoils of royalty and starts acting like a selfish monarch, he’s no longer leading. He’s taking.
Paul really needs to think about that. We’re at this point because we’ve run out of options as he continues to take everything that was good and right about CIM away. He is no leader. He just hides in his ivory tower and collects his giant paychecks.
Anyone who thinks CIM’s administration or board puts the students’ best interests first is sorely misguided.