Unemployment benefits; symphony orchestra performers. (HB1254)

If they paid their taxes they should get it just as equally as Del. Manoli Loupassi friends and family can.

Please consider these points:

1. While a musician is contracted during the orchestra season they are only paid for those months.

2. Professional musicians are highly trained, highly skilled at what they do and it is nearly impossible to find comparable work during the 14 weeks they are not under contract. Those who do find employment (summer music institutes or festivals) do not collect unemployment. The only ones who do are those who are not able to sustain themselves while not performing.

3. To reiterate how difficult it is to find work please consider that in the entire country there are 3 open positions for trombone right now. The amount of openings is similar for most sections of the orchestra.

4. Musicians are unlike teachers and other professionals who can find similar work in between contracts. Teachers can teach summer school or tutor. Musicians are trained to perform. Some musicians do teach lessons but that is not the nature of their employment with orchestras. They are hired to play and perform.

5. To pass this bill will undermine Virginia’s support of the arts. Artists hardly make a living wage especially if you factor in the amount of training and expensive equipment (instruments, instrument maintenance, etc.). To take this away from them says to our state that you do not value artists and you are willing to take benefits from them.

Unemployment insurance has been an essential component of part-time orchestra musicians' compensation across the US since the 1950s. Without it, there would be far fewer orchestras because musicians would have to find work in other fields.

This bill would prevent musicians who are laid off without pay due to a lack of work from filing for unemployment benefits, even while seeking employment in the "dark" periods when their regular employers cannot afford to keep them working.
Why would such proposed legislation target musicians and not other workers who are temporarily furloughed without pay when an employer cannot afford to retain them on a consistent basis?
Orchestra musicians are specifically targeted here, perhaps due to an erroneous assumption that symphonic work is, by its nature, seasonal employment.
It is not!
There are orchestras all over the country with seasons of 52 weeks.
Plenty of orchestras work through the summer months and throughout the year.

The value that these professional artists bring to their communities and to the state generally is not easily quantified.
The outreach of professional musicians into classrooms, churches, parks and other venues in addition to the concert stages is a huge part of the mission.
These artists embrace this as part of improving the quality of life and attracting businesses & private citizens to move to Virginia.

Attacking their ability to subsist is no way to balance a budget or serve the citizens of Virginia.

Virginia's orchestras already pay less than comparable ensembles in other states.
Virginia's financial support for our orchestras is well below par.

Being laid off from work is a considerable hardship for the musicians already.
To further target these artists is a travesty and should be stopped before it becomes law.

Again - this is NOT seasonal employment. Musicians here desire to work year-round and might better be able to do that with more state support.

Yet in opposing this bill, they are not asking for more state support - only to retain the meager support they currently have, including the same rights as other workers who are furloughed without pay when economic realities force their employers to take that unfortunate action.

If you pay the unemployment fund taxes you are entitled to collect when you are unemployed.

It seems very strange that this bill targets only one small segment of one industry.

According to the Wall Street Journal (4-7-2011), if the federal government had shut down for at least a week last spring, Virginia's federal workers would have been eligible for unemployment benefits.If furloughed federal workers qualify for benefits from losing 1 week of work, surely orchestra musicians should qualify when they are laid off for several months.

I am a musician, educator and author and well understand what might be perceived as a plight for my colleagues in Virginia. That being said, I also look at this issue from this angle:

In my home state of Iowa--as well as many others--teachers are not eligible to apply for unemployment benefits during the summer. Why? Plainly and simply they have not been laid off from their work and are more or less guaranteed employment in the next academic year. Is it right (or fair) to expect orchestral (or any other for that matter) musicians to be deemed "unemployed" during the "off-season." With that kind of logic, baseball players would be eligible from the end of the World Series (or earlier) until the start of spring training...

It is obvious that loupassi or anyone else who would support this bill is utterly clueless in understanding what it takes and what it means to be a professional orchestral musician. To give an idea, it is probably the only profession where you need to have the education and skill of a doctor but get paid less than a janitor,not to mention you must furnish your own equipment and it better be the best money can buy. You also have to beat out anywhere from 80-120 of the best players in the country in a 3 round ( prelim,finals,and semifinal) auditions that usually lasts about 4 days. Your 1st year in is your probationary year so you are constantly looking over your shoulder. Don't forget the countless hrs. You spend practicing every single day from age 6 onward until you die or retire that isif the orchestra doesn't fold. I belive in the old adage "everyone wants to be a musician but no one wants to respect or pay one". And may I say that very very few have what it takes to succeed in this bussiness. Society should take much better care of it's symphony orchestras. And if a city's board and management arenot looking out for their musician's, well shame on them. Shame on them! By the way don't forget that in the summer musicians are still working. Yes it takeshours everyday just to maintain. Mr Loupassi-Please don't compare us to drug addicts and baseball players. You are very ill informed.

@Brian: if a baseball player does not receive a paycheck during the off-season and he is unable to find employment despite seeking employment, why should he not be eligible for unemployment?

Not all professional athletes are the super-rich: Class A minor league baseball players aren't making millions--in fact they barely scrape by (though I think they are signed and paid for a 12-month contract with the off-season considered essentially paid vacation).

Shame on you for using the example of a baseball player, since you were simply pandering to people's misguided notions of the super-rich. Just like most articles about musicians pander to people's ideas of mega-millionaire top-40 headliners. The second oboe in a regional orchestra possibly makes less than a full-time stocker at the the supermarket. And the extra musician in the band when [insert your favorite top-40 star here] recorded that mega-hit might have only gone home with a few hundred bucks, just to go home and wait for the next phone call for another session gig.

I have been a freelance professional musician for 35 years. It's a great life. You get paid for the services you perform. You get to play music for money. It's a great joy. Those of you who wish to get paid for services you don't perform are ungrateful little self-entitled idiots. If you're going to be without work for a while, find other work during that period. If you don't like your job or the conditions that came with it or the pay or the conductor go do something else. There are lots of other excellent musicians out there who would love to have your gig,

I am opposed to this bill.

Musicians have the option to get paid over a full year rather than just the months they play during the season. Lots of musicians also have teaching gigs that they may not even claim. Some abuse this privilege which makes it bad for the ones who don't. The fact of the matter is it adds up for the orchestra that they play for and with orchestras facing deficits at the end of each season this could jeopardize the sustainability of the orchestra--meaning it could play a part in why the orchestra dies because of deficit. I am a lover of music and have been for quite some time but during this economy we have to think logically and remember that it's about the bigger picture. If passing this bill means it will keep the orchestra from dying in some regard, I say pass it because what's really more important, them getting paid over a short period or not having a job at all? My vote is to pass the bill because how can we be advocated for music in our community if we won't preserve the organizations that provide it. When the economy picks back up, may it can be reinstated but right now this is about preserving the lifeline of orchestral music across the country.

I, like James Moffitt, am opposed to this bill. Ask yourselves: who is really behind this bill? Is it someone from an orchestra management that doesn't want to pay into unemployment benefits any more in order to save money? One has to wonder why, as an earlier commenter says, one teeny group of workers is being singled out this way.

There is more to this story. I hope that an astute reporter will do some digging. Try digging near one of Virginia's orchestra managements first. See if there is any connection with Loupassi in the arts management field.

I am opposed to the bill. It's funny that one little segment of the population is being targeted in this way. I know that with this economy, we have to get the fiscal house in order. Cutting this from the state budget would be like cutting back on the one 10 cent gumball that you buy per month. This is a typical bill these days; I imagine Mr. Loupassi also believes that cutting funding to PBS would solve our national budget problems, it's similar logic.

As CRTP says above, the bill's sponser and even Robert the free-lance musician up above, don't understand, in my opinion, what it takes to be a professional musician or JUST how difficult it is to get one of these jobs. You can't just work as a clerk by day and play the horn by night and be a top rank musician. It doesn't work that way.

This bill is discriminatory singling out one type of seasonal worker. The bill would then need to extend to all types of workers wherein "dark weeks" of no work being offered such as pari-mutuel clerk that are between track seasons.

For Robert the free lancing musician....

How is a member of an orchestra that is laid off in the summer to get work, when you are playing all the free-lance gigs? And if an orchestra member takes one of your jobs, how do you feel about that?

And I am sure you are aware, Robert the free-lancing musician, that to win another job in another orchestra is as difficult as winning the Olympics. To hold a job in any orchestra is a feat. There may be 1-10 jobs a year in any instrument in the entire United States. In comparison, how many computer jobs are there in the US? Physicians? You get my point.

Not every state pays a 9 month salary over 12 months. It depends on state law. That would be an interesting study.

Symphonic musician is a job not a hobby or a for fun pass the time frolic. It requires
a life time of training. It's not like you can decide to become one after you finish your undergraduate college degree to pursue law or medicine. I'm not knocking those careers. The fact is, only a few, dedicated and highly motivated and skilled musicians are engaged by a professional orchestra at any level. These people have families, mortgages, student loans, etc: the same as anyone out there. I'm sure they would prefer to be working year round and have benefits and regular salaries rather than be paid seasonally. Why single them out to deny them the same opportunities avail. to any working person ?

Re. "There are lots of other excellent musicians out there who would love to have your gig."

I've been doing this a long time, too. There are many, many (maybe too many) good musicians; there is no surplus of excellence!

And to prattle about a "great life" in the freelance music biz bespeaks a child-like relationship with reality.

Further, this is clearly an involuntary, unpaid lay-off which is the precise point of unemployment insurance.

As a retired musician, I am definitely opposed to the
law that is being talked about in Virginia. Since the
republicans have taken over, Virginia has really gone to
the worst. Musicians are like all other working people. They deserve the same treatment as all the rest of the people do.

I oppose this bill.

I'm curious: do these musicians continue receiving health/dental insurance and/or other benefits during their summer break?

Also: at what point are they engaged for the subsequent season? Do they sign new contracts each year, and if so, when does that occur, before or after the end of the preceding season?

Anyone know? Just curious.

I oppose this discriminatory bill.

I agree with all of the above comments who are against this bill. I can only believe musicians are being singled out because of ignorance. I will surely have to review my voting as a repubican. I didn't know we had delegates who are so misinformed and ignorant of what top mucicians have to do. My son has worked all of his life to attain top education credentials and top playing ability by practicing hours a day. Summer vacation! Ha! He doesn't have time. He is busy practicing every day. To compare a musician to a baseball player or teacher is ludicrous. You will hear a sucking sound when Va. musicians leave Va. because Va. doesn't care about their unique talent and doesn't support them. Also did they accept less raises and other benefits to have this unemployment insurance? Also the orchestra plans the music well ahead and thinks nothing of calling or emailing the musicians in the OFF months to get their help. THEY apparently don't think they are not working. Thank You. This is a vote for NO.

Deliver me from Republican'ts...

support artists in every way possible. . . they have equal rights to this support!

I am a fulltime orchestra musician and I agree with the bill.
The orchestras should simply divide the annual salary in 12 parts. The practise of raising the salaries by tapping into unemployment is unethical and a flagrant abuse of unemployment benefits.

Please end this ridiculus abuse now!

If the symphonies could afford to pay musicians for 12 months, they would. Since they can't, the seasons are shorter and musicians are laid off for several weeks per year.

Just because musicians are laid off in a consistent, predictable way is no reason to create a law to prohibit them from claiming benefits. There is nothing unethical about claiming benefits when there is a lack of work. Musicians pay taxes like everyone else, and the symphonies pay unemployment insurance. All is fair.

Creativity in general has been under fire for many years. Although we live in a country that values artists (at least with lip service) we have not attained a status in society that most people take seriously. The problem as I see it is that our government legislators are ignorant about the process that professional musicians go through to get and maintain their jobs. So, Curtis(full time orchestra musician)...I have secured other work during off weeks and summers, and you know what? I can't play as well as I used to as a result! There was a time when all I did was to practice, and study my art for the best possible preparation and end result. That is much harder to do when you when you are driving a cab or teaching medical students as a practice patient. The ridiculous (note spelling)abuse is the abuse that our federal government puts us all through to make sure the taxes get paid on time to fund the war! Not to mention the tightened security that makes it a true hassle for a cellist or bassist to fly to auditions so that we can improve our situation!Tom, Amanda, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Curtis, what full time orchestra do you play for?

As an employed, tax paying citizen I am frankly outraged by this. Unemployment benefits should not be used to subsidize a particular group of people, no matter how noble their vocation. These musicians sign a contract in March/April that insures their engagement for the next season. This assurance allows them the luxury of twelve weeks off without the worrisome task of finding a new job to support them in the following year, all while continuing to enjoy their year round health benefits and insurance. The idea of them drawing unemployment benefits during that time while looking for these ellusive "summer festivals," is insulting to the countless Americans just trying to scrape together enough cash to feed themselves while working whatever jobs they can get. As with any family budget, you look at what you make for the year and you portion it out over the twelve months. If you are assured employment via contract, then you know you will make $X per year. You divide that by 12 and live off that per month.

It is sad that VA doesn't support its musicians through direct funding, but trying to "beat the system" in this way is disturbing. Even more disturbing is the fact that an organization's own executive director would publically humiliate and expose his own people like this. David Fisk's very public whistle-blowing on his own troops seems cold and heartless. It's little wonder the RSO is floundering.

"Even more disturbing is the fact that an organization's own executive director would publically humiliate and expose his own people like this. David Fisk's very public whistle-blowing on his own troops seems cold and heartless. It's little wonder the RSO is floundering."

Ditto on that!

The problems with this bill are that it focuses on only one group of employees. If you work in Colonial Williamsburg and your boss shuts your job down for a few months in the winter but you are one of his main employees that will be back in April, would you not be eligible for unemployment?

Can't have it both ways...

Read it like this...

"Provides that an individual is not eligible for unemployment benefits based on services consisting of being qualified for a yearly nine month employment in any field. The provision applies to weeks of unemployment commencing during periods between successive work seasons when there is a reasonable assurance that the individual will be hired in the ensuing season."

No way, right?

I would like to know how much the RSO would save in unemployment insurance premiums. The premiums would not go away, they would simply go down, maybe, after it was established their risk was lower. But as an employer they still are liable to pay unemployment for any employee who is fired or laid off in traditional circumstances. David Fisk is selling out his own employees for a dubious savings and indescribable rancor that he will never recover from. The RSO board should fire David Fisk immediately and introduce legislation that executive directors who treat their employees in such a callous manner are ineligible to collect unemployment benefits.

If we continue going in this direction, our society will deprive itself of one of the most enjoyable experiences in life. Reduce muscians to paupers and they will need seek alternate employment. Unemployment compensation provides talented muscians with the wherewith all to practice during the off seasons and prepare for the orchestra season. Keep unemployment compensation for your orchestra staff.

Toni Wheat

I agree with Devin, and though it is highly regrettable we do not support the arts more as a society, the fact remains that these unemployment benefits were never meant to enlarge an individual's regular, annual salary from a job. It is supposed to be a system whereby individuals who lose their job have a way of staying on their feet until they can find another. It is unfortunate if these musicians have become dependent in some way on a goverment handout to supplement their income, but that was their choice to use the system this way.

Society will never function at its best if individuals are rewarded for not contributing (working). Being paid not to work should only be a last resort and for a limited time, not an annual "wage" to be counted on to supplement a stable and recurring employment. Think about it; there is no incentive for these musicians to find work during the summer. They know their work will recommence in September. That takes away the pressure most people drawing unemployment feel to find a job.. or at the very least to find enough work to equal the benefit they get to do nothing.

Teachers and minor league athlethes are barred from abusing the system this way; no one group should be given a special privilege here. I feel deeply for the musicians and personally value all they bring culturally to enrich society, but a loophole in the unemployment system is not the right way to support the arts.

And on a side note...I'd be more than willing to write a personal check in support of the symphony musicians, but with this David Fisk character in charge, it's doubtful that money would be used to help the musicians at all.

The whole issue with this bill is really quite simple. First, it is patently clear that it was conceived by the executive director of the Richmond Symphony, likely in collusion with various others from both the Richmond group and the VA Symphony in Norfolk. This is just one in a long line of ploys to TAKE from the musicians in order to "appear" as though budget short falls, deficits, etc... are being dealt with, even if not actually MET. It's a story as old as time, come to the Workers and demand that they accept LESS rather than improve Marketing, broaden the Donor base... pare down office/administrative costs, etc...
While teachers work roughly a 10 month year, they have the option to have their salary paid over a 12 month period, not all musicians have this option and even if they do, this is merely stretching income to cover the off-season. Despite being severely underpaid, teachers are, especially as time passes and experience and salary increase... better paid than the musicians affected by this bill. The musicians in question have yearly contracts (whereas educators become tenured and their employment becomes ongoing)and as such, there is no guarantee from year to year that they will, indeed, be returning in the fall for a new season until that yearly contract is offered and signed. The off season, summer, IS a scheduled Layoff. In any other employment situation, factory work or other skilled labor, employees qualify for unemployment benefits during scheduled layoffs.
For most of these musicians, there is no other performance work within the communities in which they reside in the off season. The option of participating in, and being paid for, summer music festivals is not an option that is available or even feasible for some. Unemployment IS a fair option for these people who are scheduled for layoff during the approximately 3 months of the off season.
This is no different than any other situation in which a worker has been laid off or even terminated. What this is really about is yet another organization/corporation placing budget cuts, balance sheets and dollars above the well being and gainful, honest employment and benefits of people who are already seriously underpaid. This is also a sign of one more management/administration entity coming to those least able to give and asking that they give MORE... and mostly to compensate for poor choices, inaction and BAD marketing BY administration.
The musicians of these orchestras CREATE the "Product" (i.e.- the MUSIC) that is the REASON everyone else in these ogranizations (the RSO, the VA Symphony, et al...) even has a job to begin with. Without the musicians and the work they CREATE, there is NO Symphony. Not only should unemployment be available for the scheduled off-season layoffs of musicians, they should be BETTER PAID to begin with. It is PAST time for those who CREATE the work, CREATE the ART, to be compensated accordingly. And, for the administrations and management to realize that, not only do they work for the public...the audience...not only do they function to bring in MONEY.... they also work for the Artists, the Musicians who CREATE the Beauty that makes Everything possible.

I am appalled at the ignorance and narrow mindedness of the state of Virginia. The presence of a symphony orchestra in a community are are innumerable. Parents of young children and needless to say, ALL the citizens of this state should rise up in anger and indignation at the ignorance of the people who support this bill. We live 70 miles - plus a ferry boat ride from the Seattle symphony and still attend whenever possible. I am so thankful that I live in a state which gives great support to local small orchestras and chamber groups as well as the Symphony in Seattle.

At a quick glance of the Nonprofit Reports, it looks like the Seattle Symphony Management raises about $6.50 per person in the Seattle Metropolitan Area. Richmond Symphony Management seems to be having trouble keeping their fundraising at $3.4 dollars per person in the Richmond Metropolitan Area. Richmond has six fortune 500 companies here. That means there are at least CEOs that Mr. Fisk could ask for a small portion of their Christmas bonus to make their city a better place.

I oppose this bill.

I agree with all the nay opinions concerning this bill, especially the one's that say why should musicians be singled out to not receive benefits? We would all like to be working for 52 weeks and receiving the 'much higher than unemployment benefits' pay for those 52 weeks. When we are unemployed it is not because we prefer it, and we are just as unemployed as anyone else without a job.

how do you get musicians to complain?

give them a gig.

My fellow Americans,

This is a precedent we don't want to set. Forget that it's musicians- it could be janitors or astrophysicists. The fact is we don't want to set a precedent of targeting our nation's unemployment benefits. all for one one for all.

And this is especially relevant today with the US in its "Great Recession." and many many many Americans are currently unemployed with very bleak outlook.

Are you really unemployed if you know that you have a job waiting for you when the season starts back up? I think not. If a musician is so concerned with not having pay over the summer then take the option to divide your pay over a period of 12 months instead of being paid just over the duration of the season. It makes sense. No need to take extra money out of the organization's pocket that's on the verge of not being in around in a few years because of deficit. I don't think if the economy was in a good place this bill would even be considered because it wouldn't be a problem for the orchestra's to pay the money but in times like these we have to not only think of your own personal gain.

First, let's get some facts straight. In Richmond, the symphony has 36 full-time musicians who earn between $33-$44k. Not exactly rolling in dough this day in age. The other 36 players have part-time contracts, ranging from roughly $16k down to $4k ANNUALLY. The part-time musicians receive no health or pension benefits. These facts are easy enough to find, and a shame that the Times-Dispatch reporter didn't fact check before printing articles about the bill.

Those who support to the bill say that musicians need to extend their salary over the 12 months, and not abuse the unemployment system. So, you're suggesting that a musician who earns $15k per year, for example, who is paid per performance, should somehow budget that out for the year?

In fact, many of these musicians work multiple jobs, including teaching and playing in various regional orchestras. This helps to make close to a living wage. But much of that work dries up in the summer. These musicians are indeed "laid off" each year for 14 weeks. "Go out and get another job" is easier said than done, as you all should know.

I get the feeling that those who support the bill have probably never collected unemployment benefits. It is not a lavish bounty of cash. It is a minimal amount, but does help to make ends meet. (The benefit amount is determined by one's income in previous quarters.)

As others have wondered, why is this even a bill? Why are we debating legislature that affects a few dozen people in Richmond, and the same in Norfolk? It is sad that the RSO's director is so concerned with saving a buck that he's willing to undermine members of his own organization. (Not to mention VSO). Even if this passes, his company will still have to pay unemployemnt insurance, so what he Fisk really saving? He's certainly not saving face.

Correction: 32 part-time players. Sorry for the typo.

It would seem to me that most musicians are fully aware when they are hired by a seasonal that there will not be work during “dark” months…this is not the same as a lay off. Musicians at the RSO are entitled to insurance benefits during this “dark” period and if they are under contract, they are guaranteed return the next season. They are also eligible to receive their annual salary over a 12 month period if they choose. How is this the same as a typical “lay off”. I don’t see this as a target of musicians, but simply a way to sustain an organization (and musician’s jobs)!

Well everyone, take a hard look at 'Good Ol America'. When public officials have intelligence and culture, you can bet your country will thrive. Roosevelt gave jobs to the poor and education opportunities to everyone. The Kennedys worked tirelessly to build the arts and sciences. Here we go... but when things get tough we can count on Republicans who are most definitely anti-intellectual, to shred the values of everyone. They will shred on every level; education, all the arts and sciences, standing up for middle and lower classes... Why would anyone decide to pick on musicians or any other group of workers and professionals who work as much as they can and then are no longer working; who then try to make ends meet? It is a complete ignorance of the kinds of work people do or it is a vendetta. It is a huge disgrace and before this country shatters every orchestra, every playhouse, every hospital, every science lab... we better start pushing hard for new leaders. There is nothing to agree with in this bill. It is basically discrimination!!

Anne Pinsker

When there was a Theme Park with live music in my town, there were contracts for musicians, dancers, sound techs and all other sorts of service providers from about March through October. The rest of the year, the weather was too cold for the park to be open. In winter, lots of the employees got unemployment unless they were lucky enough to find another steady job.
So why should those who are laid off in the "slow" summer season not be eligible for what everyone else gets in a winter off-season?
And, yes, we all paid the tax to sustain the unemployment fund.

I love this:

> To reiterate how difficult it is to find work please consider that in the entire country there are 3 open positions for trombone right now. The amount of openings is similar for most sections of the orchestra.

So, the society is telling these people that their services are not in demand, yet, instead of doing something else, they are asking the society to pay them for doing nothing.

Imagine if I sold some product that was in demand by only three stores in America. I would not be making enough money to support myself. So, instead of offering some other products or looking for a different job, I would ask the rest of society to support my lifestyle.

Alexander: We are talking about people who have jobs. Not people who are trying to win jobs.

If the people have jobs, they must get paid for the service they are performing. If they are not performing any service and are not being paid, then they don't have jobs.

How is this different from my example? Imagine my job is "ice sculptor during New Year's Even". Well, the rest of the year, the park owners refuse to pay my salary. Because I am not providing them with any services. So, what's not fair about that?

I agree with you that the previous person's take is a little biased towards musicians. Also, My take is in agreement with you. I think they should expand this bill to everyone who has seasonal contracts, not just musicians. Submit that bill, I don't think it would pass.

Of course, the orchestra in Richmond that raises 1/2 the money of successful orchestras (and this is because of management, not the quality of the music) is at fault for creating an environment in the city where they bring musicians here FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY and put them in a position to put them on unemployment for the summer.

Apparently, the RSO pays INTO the unemployment insurance at a high rate because of this. The feeling on my side is that the Administration is selling their musicians out to the public who think they are whiny brats now because they can't figure out how to sustain something that they are charged with sustaining i.e. doing their job.

Why wouldn't they hold a meeting and say, "dear musicians, we have decided to change the way we handle the summer seasons and don't want to participate in the agreement we formerly struck with the union which provided for a few of you to take summer unemployment"

Instead, it's a back door deal and a BS quote in the press.

In principle, I am with you... in practice, it needs to be done without singling out 2 organizations in the state. The people who run those organizations should do their jobs to employ the people they recruit to Virginia.

In our field of music where there are only a few thousand making a meagre living, there has never been a guarantee we would have a job in season's beginning, let alone in these times where orchestras are folding left and right. Orchestra administrations are known to file bankruptcy and then reorganize with hundreds of other musicians ready to pounce on the job. If then, we are not allowed to collect what is our due, in which we pay, then we are not eligible for Unemployment in the long run. How unethical is that. If we musicians are excluded, then everyone should be excluded. Why don't we just do away with Unemployment all together if that is their objective. No one should be entitled to Uemployment with their logic.
The whole point of Unemployment is to make ends meet when an employer lays employees off for whatever reason. I think that goes for meagre waged minor leaguers and school teachers.
There is never a guarantee of work in this life.

It has been proven many times that every tax dollar spent in direct subsidies to performing arts organizations returns several dollars to the community. It has also been documented multiple times that a vibrant performing arts scene is one of the most effective recruiting inducements for companies looking for mid- & upper-level management, although, admittedly, in the current economy, this aspect might not seem as important. Given these facts, unemployment benefits during seasonal lay-off can be viewed as an indirect government subsidy, which will also return benefits to the community. I don't know the economic circumstances of anyone who has poted here in support of this bill, but for anyone to begrudge this small amout of additional money to those musicians trying to survive on so little income (while maintaining their playing skills, health, & instruments, in order to keep their jobs), especially if those who would deny such benefits are either much better paid than these musicians &/or without direct experience of just how hard it is to survive as an orchestral musician, would be somewhat similar to a business owner claiming that s/he succeeded "on my own, & I should get to keep everything I make,". Everyone benefits from the social safety net, infrastructure, public education, & the arts, & we should all support them.

This bill is more of the same conversation
of the wealthy business man to talk of taking
a small group of workers and forcing them to
be paid even less money. Perhaps the congressman
would like to pay for his own office, secretaries,
car, driver, plane flights, gas for his car, cell phone
Internet. You get the idea and take no pension
When he is VOTED out of office. Then we
the working America's can feel that we are on
equal footing. Saving unemployment moneys
from such a small group smells of something
else to me. Maybe the Management and the
Congressman are helping each other out with
this very exclusive bill. How much is the Manager
of the RSO making? He or she perhaps should
try to live on 33,000. A Year after taxes that is
not too much. Bad bill

From reading on, it seems that one of the key points of debate here is whether having consistent unpaid periods is a layoff.

I hear the argument that goes something like "well, the musicians expect this to happen, and they know they're coming back, so it's not a layoff".

I disagree. Being blind-sided and temporary conditions aren't prerequisites for a layoff. Many employers in all kinds of fields give their workers advance notice of a layoff, as well as give the workers a time upon which they'll be hired back. Not all layoffs are permanent actions that result in the worker finding a different job, and I don't see why the frequency of layoffs an employer enacts upon it's employees bears any factor on whether the laid-off workers are entitled to draw unemployment.

In fact, when you claim unemployment, the labor department asks you specifically, right off the bat, if you've been given a "return to work date" from your employer. I find it highly doubtful that their question is specifically for the small handful of musicians that collect in the summers. It would indicate that layoffs of predictable terms aren't quite as unheard of as some would like you to believe.

Do symphony musicians get laid off from their employers unusually often? In the state of Virginia, yes. Does that mean that what's happening in the functional sense isn't a layoff? No.

This is just another front in the Republican war on working people. First, it was school teachers and government workers, now it's some hapless musicians who are hardly getting rich. Find some low hanging fruit, in this case, those "greedy" and "lazy" classical musicians, and hold them up as the reason for all of the ills in society. In this case, the musicians are an easy target, because they are perceived as elitist, and the Teabag Neanderthals don't care much for that fancy music any way. The sad thing is, is that they will get their way, and the voters will continue to vote them in to office, even if they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

As far as I know there is not a single orchestra in europe that would not define a 35-40 week season as a full time year round job if the annual salary was $30 000 and up. The idea that you are not employed in the summer is semantics. By the orchestra members own logic, the concertmaster should be on unemployment close to half the year.

You will not find this practise even in the most socialist of european countries

Curtis:
1. What full-time orchestra are you with (as per your posting of two days ago)? Perhaps you could give us your last name.
2. Re your above comment: how much do you know about European orchestras. My guess is that it is not much.

I have held tenured posisions in 3 different european orchestras, so I am fairly well informed on the subject.
Feel free to give me a single example of this practise happening in germany, france, UK or scandinavia

According to the Richmond Symphony's Form 990 (available publicly) , David Fisk was paid over $112,000 in 2010.

According to Fisk, the RSO pays around $70k in unemployment insurance to the state.

So, let's reduce his salary to $33,000 (over the course of 40 weeks), and use the remaining $79K to cover that pesky unemployment insurance burden. That extra $9k will help cover the symphony when HE wants to collect unemployment in the summer. Or should Fisk be asked to go get another Executive Director position for 12 weeks out of the year?

Better yet, put that $79k into the endowment for a few years, and then work on making the Richmond Symphony players - who are full time, year round musicians - full time, year round employees.

Sounds pretty socialist.

This is OUTRAGEOUS! I stand in solidarity with my fellow music colleagues in Virginia on this issue! Like them, I too sometimes rely on UI Benefits during the "off-season" when there is little work for freelance musicians. We pay into UI on every paycheck, so I ask the question: Why shouldn't we be able to get some of those benefits back when we need it the most? I don't want to see this legislation passed, nor spread around the country. This is dangerous. Let's stop this NOW!!!

Well I am a musician who has been performing and paying taxes and earning money as a musician since the age of 15yrs old.
I have never not paid taxes.
When I have been in orchestras that take income out of my check from unemployment benefits I never used I never said...Hey give it back....If I did need it my employer had already paid into it so what is the beef?
I pay taxes just like all the suits. I own a house ....just like most of the suits. My credit is better than most of the suits...though I must jump through burning hoops for a loan.... I am treated like a second or third or fourth class citizen.....oh and I teach your children in a one hr music lesson more than they learn in a year in school about teaching themselves. I go in the back door at the opera house next to the trash cans and am lucky if I get a parking spot to unload. I pay taxes, I deserve the same benefits the suits get.

This is a ridiculous attempt to single out symphony orchestra performers. As a native Virginian and musician, I am appalled at this and hope that those who are able to will vote these idiots out of office when they can. This is a direct attack on the arts in Virginia. While there are many difficult situations around the country in the arts world, this does not have to become one of them. Musicians work hard. They provide a service to the communities they are a part of by enriching the lives of those who enjoy them. This includes your children (yes you, hypocritical appointed official) who enjoy their music lessons that YOU pay for. We deserve the same as anyone who pays taxes. Stop this outrageous legislation now!

Thank you musicmathmatician, Emily, Tom, Millie, Andy, Anne....but, y'know it's 2012. We don't have much longer to live anyway, so.....I'm just going to enjoy what I can while there is still time. Managers can and will do anything they want in this "right to work" state, unfortunately.

How obsurred! Board members in the pockets of politicians, calling in political favors to balance the budget. The Board and this politician should be ashamed! I wish I lived in Virginia to vote against this guy.