Ok… I want to run this by you guys and get your opinions. First some background… (this whole incident took place a year ago October 2005)
Our band had contracted a wedding gig from a fan to take place at a local hotel. We had been contracted 6 months prior to the engagement and I had periodic contact from the bride getting reassurance that we would still do the gig about every couple of months or so. (typical) Then as the wedding drew near I was in more frequent contact as we finalized all the details and such. This is all typical in the way these negotiations proceed. Because of this process I normally develop a rapport with these brides based on mutual trust.
Then a little less than two days before the event, (less than 48 hours,) one of my band mates, (who was actually a sub for this particular gig,) is driving to work and happens to hear on the radio that the hotel where the wedding will take place is one of six or so under boycott by local labor unions. We hadn’t heard anything about it on the news even though we had been aware of a strike a year or so earlier, but we had all thought that was long over. Little did any of us know that a boycott had been on-going since the strike.
Had a strike that suddenly came up and picket lines were formed around the hotel it would be a no-brainer and we would have cancelled, but a boycott was different and I knew little about how to respond in our situation. It seemed to me that if we were going to act on a boycott that had been in effect since before booking the wedding we wouldn’t have booked it in the first place. Finding out about it at the last minute seemed like the wrong time to take any action since it would have victimized the unsuspecting and innocent bride and left here with a gaping hole in her wedding. If we had found out about it when there was still a reasonable amount of time for the bride to find a replacement that would have been feasible, but I didn’t think we should punish the bride for our own ignorance of the boycott. The sub, who had agreed to do the gig with us, disagreed. I immediately began asking questions wondering if since not being employees of the hotel and instead being a private contractor to the bride might mean that we were exempt and could participate without betraying the union. This further enraged the sub who abruptly decided to back out of this gig, any other gig and never work with us again.
So what would you guys have done? Would you be willing to tell this bride whom for the past 6 months you had built a rapport of trust with that you were suddenly canceling out at the last minute leaving here high and dry? Is it unreasonable to investigate the situation and see where you stand as a private contractor regarding a boycott? Is it unreasonable to hope you can follow through with your obligations with a clear conscience? Or, in order to be PC, do you just coldly just swing the axe and say ‘screw the bride’?
My decision was to follow through with my promise and show up in good faith since there was no time for the bride to find a replacement. I did write to the head of the union and asked where we stood as private contractors and explained the situation. The head of the union wrote back and said she would prefer we pulled out, but that she was also sympathetic and understood the last minute bind we were put. She held the hotel, (and not us,) accountable for the situation. She added that it was people like us who are concerned enough to even bother finding out where we stood and how we could support their struggle that gave her reassurance they would prevail. Last week we found out they did just that as the hotel management finally met their demands and the boycott was ended.
I agree absolutely that the hotel management were to blame; you could bet that they hadn't informed the bride they had any labour problems. Also agree with you that the person you would have hurt by abiding by the boycott was the bride, not the management. I'm assuming that it was a general employement problem within the hotel, not something specifically for musicians.
As an MU member, there are many times when I play for pleasure, not for money. If I'm going to stand on my high horse about this I'll only hurt myself. If I depended on music alone for a living I might well have another opinion.
retired teamster here, but also veteran of many wedding gigs and bands who had to deal with subs who turned out to be " difficult" in one way or another and various sticky last minute surprises, ithink you did the right thing to honor your original commitment, and went the extra mile by doing what you could to sort it out. good man.
i'm a leftie wacko pinko. i lived in san francisco for seven years, during which time i was professionally employed in an activist, leftie career and also spent a little of my free time doing things like marching on the federal building while it was being barricaded.
and i think you ab-so-lutely did the right thing. as you point out, it was a boycott. moreover, it sounds as if the wedding party was ignorant of all this when they made their plans, and their agreement with you. i can imagine scenarios where a wrinkle or two in the circumstances might make it a different kettle of fish, but don't get any whiff of that here. sleep well, true believer.
The boycott is an Irish invention. If it'd been 1880 Phantom would have found his concertina and flute crammed where the sun don't shine. Blessed be evolution.
In early 2005, following labor/management strife and a lockout of striking workers, there was a union boycott of 14 San Francisco hotels and also involving hotels in Los Angeles, supported by Mayor Newsom of San Francisco and former President Clinton but "little did any of us know" says Phantom Button.
In hindsight we now are aware of the labor situation that existed, and as soon as we found out it became painfully clear, but at the time of the incident none of us were aware even though we consider ourselves to be quite liberal. I was singled out and chastised for not being aware of it on account of my political activism regarding the war and such, but my area of interest has always been US foreign policy and not local labor issues. I think everyone in the band, including the sub, shared responsibility for failing to know about the boycott. Believe me, if I would have known about it I wouldn't have booked the wedding to begin with. Like I said, we can’t punish the bride for our collective failure. Now we have a clause in our contract that specifically addresses this issue.
You did exactly the right thing.
I'm not sure what the boycott was about in the first place, it may well have been something trivial. That does'nt matter however, as the Hotel abbdicated it's responsibilities by not informing the wedding party, and indirectly yourselves, about the situation. They gambled on a walkout on the day! Imagine that for a disaster. By the way love your website, and your soundclips.............
I think you did exactly the right thing for all the right reasons, were socially responsible in contacting the union rep, and are well rid of the troublesome sub.
Re-read my original reply - what time of night was I posting that ?
What I MEANT to say in my second paragraph was that if I always stood on strict union rules re size of fee for any performance I'd have kept myself out of a lot of fun and good music.
There's a very funny black-and-white film about Captain Boycott and his exploits, full of terrible cod-irish accents - apparently, being on the point of ruin due to the effective nature of the boycott, he staked all his money on his prize horse; the crowd, seeing it was about to win, invaded the course and brought the race to a halt, thus ruining the captain.
Always honour a gig, particularly something like a wedding i reckon. It wasn't your fault you were improperly informed. Now if the bride and groom had been the ones decieving you that would have been a different matter.....but you did the right thing (particularly contacting the union rep!). I hope im never in a situation like that!!!
Jack, you did the right thing.
The people enjoyed their day. Your sub. can retreat to his Stalinist foxhole and the world will continue to turn with more happy people than if you had stood on your principles and their ceremony.
Backer wrote: " I'm not sure what the boycott was about in the first place, it may well have been something trivial."
Far from trivial... it was of extreme importance to the people working in the hotels otherwise they wouldn't have risked so much. I am behind their cause 100% and would have cancelled the gig if I knew about it when I should have. My beef with the sub was that none of us were aware of it before it was too late, and I shouldn't have been singled out and chastised the way I was. It seems like a poor excuse for trashing a friendship and resigning from ever doing gigs with us again.
As the band's manager I never imagined part of my responsibility was to be accountable for a situation we had no prior experience with. Yes I’m embarrassed and ashamed that it happened, but the sub should have known long before the gig too if it meant so much to them – the sub is equally guilty of neglect.
Now, after having this experience, we know better and it will never happen again. Unfortunately a friendship is now in shreds over it. Doesn't make much sense to me... what a waste.
As it happens, the word "boycott" has its origins in Irish history:
"The word boycott entered the English language during the Irish "Land War" and is derived from the name of Captain Charles Boycott, the estate agent of an absentee landlord, the Earl Erne, in County Mayo, Ireland who was subject to social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880..."
without a doubt you did the right thing. The employers and employees enter into a contract when they get together. I will pay you such and such and you do this and that. If you want more cash and benefits or want to do less work than what you agreed to in the signing of the contract, go somewhere else.
You, in effect, signed a contract with the bride. Just because others have trouble with honoring their contract doesn't mean you should breech yours.
PB, Why, after all these months, are you seeking our advice and/or approval? Isn't this water under the dam, or over the bridge, or spilt milk, or whatever?
Why do you think I'm seeking approval? I said in the first sentence that I want to run this by you guys and get your opinions. I was thinking about this when I recently found out the union had prevailed, and I thought it might be an interesting topic for discussion. Is this not an appropriate subject for discussion here? It seems to me that folks have opinions and may appreciate thinking about an issue like this before it might happen to them. Any harm in that?
PB, No harm in that at all, and I think it is appropriate for discussion. I was just wondering, since you are a regular contributor to this board, why there was a gap between the incident and your posting. But as you have pointed out, it was the recent union victory that jogged your memory, which answers my question. Thanks!
At the time there were too many personal issues with the sub to trot it out on a public board. At this point it IS water under the bridge and I feel perfectly comfortable to offer it up for public digestion in hopes that it might offer a chance for folks to think about the situation before it might come up for themselves. For our band this incident prompted us to add the following clause to our contract.
"This contract is null and void in the event of major unforeseen natural or man-made disaster, or serious illness. In the event of a labor dispute involving employees or contractors of the venue, Tipsy House reserves the right to terminate this contract at any time, and any deposits paid by client shall be promptly returned."
The part about "man-made disaster" is in response to 9-11 and all of the subsequent perceived terrorist threats that might interfere with our being able to carry out our obligations. I suppose that might make a good topic for another thread though... or maybe not
I definitely think you did all the right things, but I think, despite your new clause in your contract, you might still find yourself in the same position again, out of sympathy with the young couple. Hope it never happens to you again (or to any of us).
Actually, if it were in the contract before the last incident it would have been the bride's responsibility to make sure there were no labor on-going disputes at the venue where she hoped to have the wedding. The clause would likely prompt her to investigate it. If she didn't, and knowledge of a dispute surfaced later, we could simply point to the clause and apologize. I think the clause will also be helpful to the unions in any future labor disputes since the bride might pull out of their involvement with the venue at the start.
A Gig Quandary
A Gig Quandary
Ok… I want to run this by you guys and get your opinions. First some background… (this whole incident took place a year ago October 2005)
Our band had contracted a wedding gig from a fan to take place at a local hotel. We had been contracted 6 months prior to the engagement and I had periodic contact from the bride getting reassurance that we would still do the gig about every couple of months or so. (typical) Then as the wedding drew near I was in more frequent contact as we finalized all the details and such. This is all typical in the way these negotiations proceed. Because of this process I normally develop a rapport with these brides based on mutual trust.
Then a little less than two days before the event, (less than 48 hours,) one of my band mates, (who was actually a sub for this particular gig,) is driving to work and happens to hear on the radio that the hotel where the wedding will take place is one of six or so under boycott by local labor unions. We hadn’t heard anything about it on the news even though we had been aware of a strike a year or so earlier, but we had all thought that was long over. Little did any of us know that a boycott had been on-going since the strike.
Had a strike that suddenly came up and picket lines were formed around the hotel it would be a no-brainer and we would have cancelled, but a boycott was different and I knew little about how to respond in our situation. It seemed to me that if we were going to act on a boycott that had been in effect since before booking the wedding we wouldn’t have booked it in the first place. Finding out about it at the last minute seemed like the wrong time to take any action since it would have victimized the unsuspecting and innocent bride and left here with a gaping hole in her wedding. If we had found out about it when there was still a reasonable amount of time for the bride to find a replacement that would have been feasible, but I didn’t think we should punish the bride for our own ignorance of the boycott. The sub, who had agreed to do the gig with us, disagreed. I immediately began asking questions wondering if since not being employees of the hotel and instead being a private contractor to the bride might mean that we were exempt and could participate without betraying the union. This further enraged the sub who abruptly decided to back out of this gig, any other gig and never work with us again.
So what would you guys have done? Would you be willing to tell this bride whom for the past 6 months you had built a rapport of trust with that you were suddenly canceling out at the last minute leaving here high and dry? Is it unreasonable to investigate the situation and see where you stand as a private contractor regarding a boycott? Is it unreasonable to hope you can follow through with your obligations with a clear conscience? Or, in order to be PC, do you just coldly just swing the axe and say ‘screw the bride’?
My decision was to follow through with my promise and show up in good faith since there was no time for the bride to find a replacement. I did write to the head of the union and asked where we stood as private contractors and explained the situation. The head of the union wrote back and said she would prefer we pulled out, but that she was also sympathetic and understood the last minute bind we were put. She held the hotel, (and not us,) accountable for the situation. She added that it was people like us who are concerned enough to even bother finding out where we stood and how we could support their struggle that gave her reassurance they would prevail. Last week we found out they did just that as the hotel management finally met their demands and the boycott was ended.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: A Gig Quandary
I agree absolutely that the hotel management were to blame; you could bet that they hadn't informed the bride they had any labour problems. Also agree with you that the person you would have hurt by abiding by the boycott was the bride, not the management. I'm assuming that it was a general employement problem within the hotel, not something specifically for musicians.
As an MU member, there are many times when I play for pleasure, not for money. If I'm going to stand on my high horse about this I'll only hurt myself. If I depended on music alone for a living I might well have another opinion.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by Guernsey Pete
Re: A Gig Quandary
retired teamster here, but also veteran of many wedding gigs and bands who had to deal with subs who turned out to be " difficult" in one way or another and various sticky last minute surprises, ithink you did the right thing to honor your original commitment, and went the extra mile by doing what you could to sort it out. good man.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by Dont
Re: A Gig Quandary
I think you absolutely acted correctly in this situation. No, admirably. I also think you don't need that sub.
I have a feeling that a lot of good is going to come to back to you as a result of doing the right thing here.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by cathrynb
Re: A Gig Quandary
i'm a leftie wacko pinko. i lived in san francisco for seven years, during which time i was professionally employed in an activist, leftie career and also spent a little of my free time doing things like marching on the federal building while it was being barricaded.
and i think you ab-so-lutely did the right thing. as you point out, it was a boycott. moreover, it sounds as if the wedding party was ignorant of all this when they made their plans, and their agreement with you. i can imagine scenarios where a wrinkle or two in the circumstances might make it a different kettle of fish, but don't get any whiff of that here. sleep well, true believer.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by ceemonster
Re: A Gig Quandary
The boycott is an Irish invention. If it'd been 1880 Phantom would have found his concertina and flute crammed where the sun don't shine. Blessed be evolution.
In early 2005, following labor/management strife and a lockout of striking workers, there was a union boycott of 14 San Francisco hotels and also involving hotels in Los Angeles, supported by Mayor Newsom of San Francisco and former President Clinton but "little did any of us know" says Phantom Button.
The mythical power of the Internet fails again.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by joesmith
Re: A Gig Quandary
In hindsight we now are aware of the labor situation that existed, and as soon as we found out it became painfully clear, but at the time of the incident none of us were aware even though we consider ourselves to be quite liberal. I was singled out and chastised for not being aware of it on account of my political activism regarding the war and such, but my area of interest has always been US foreign policy and not local labor issues. I think everyone in the band, including the sub, shared responsibility for failing to know about the boycott. Believe me, if I would have known about it I wouldn't have booked the wedding to begin with. Like I said, we can’t punish the bride for our collective failure. Now we have a clause in our contract that specifically addresses this issue.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: A Gig Quandary
You did exactly the right thing.
I'm not sure what the boycott was about in the first place, it may well have been something trivial. That does'nt matter however, as the Hotel abbdicated it's responsibilities by not informing the wedding party, and indirectly yourselves, about the situation. They gambled on a walkout on the day! Imagine that for a disaster. By the way love your website, and your soundclips.............
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by Backer
Re: A Gig Quandary
I think you did exactly the right thing for all the right reasons, were socially responsible in contacting the union rep, and are well rid of the troublesome sub.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by Steve L
Re: A Gig Quandary
Re-read my original reply - what time of night was I posting that ?
What I MEANT to say in my second paragraph was that if I always stood on strict union rules re size of fee for any performance I'd have kept myself out of a lot of fun and good music.
There's a very funny black-and-white film about Captain Boycott and his exploits, full of terrible cod-irish accents - apparently, being on the point of ruin due to the effective nature of the boycott, he staked all his money on his prize horse; the crowd, seeing it was about to win, invaded the course and brought the race to a halt, thus ruining the captain.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by Guernsey Pete
Re: A Gig Quandary
Always honour a gig, particularly something like a wedding i reckon. It wasn't your fault you were improperly informed. Now if the bride and groom had been the ones decieving you that would have been a different matter.....but you did the right thing (particularly contacting the union rep!). I hope im never in a situation like that!!!
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by scottyboy
Re: A Gig Quandary
Jack, you did the right thing.
The people enjoyed their day. Your sub. can retreat to his Stalinist foxhole and the world will continue to turn with more happy people than if you had stood on your principles and their ceremony.
# Posted on November 11th 2006 by Geoff Pollitt
Re: A Gig Quandary
Backer wrote: " I'm not sure what the boycott was about in the first place, it may well have been something trivial."
Far from trivial... it was of extreme importance to the people working in the hotels otherwise they wouldn't have risked so much. I am behind their cause 100% and would have cancelled the gig if I knew about it when I should have. My beef with the sub was that none of us were aware of it before it was too late, and I shouldn't have been singled out and chastised the way I was. It seems like a poor excuse for trashing a friendship and resigning from ever doing gigs with us again.
As the band's manager I never imagined part of my responsibility was to be accountable for a situation we had no prior experience with. Yes I’m embarrassed and ashamed that it happened, but the sub should have known long before the gig too if it meant so much to them – the sub is equally guilty of neglect.
Now, after having this experience, we know better and it will never happen again. Unfortunately a friendship is now in shreds over it. Doesn't make much sense to me... what a waste.
# Posted on November 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: A Gig Quandary
Here's a picture of the would-be wedding wreckers and their description of the events.
http://labornotes.org/node/264
# Posted on November 12th 2006 by joesmith
Re: A Gig Quandary
Ah yes, Captain Boycott
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/453759/index.html
I really liked the film, though I am a big fan of Stewart Granger. He did all his own horse riding stunts you know.
# Posted on November 12th 2006 by llig leahcim
Re: A Gig Quandary
Interesting movie... I'm going to have to find it. Is this where the term "boycott" originated?
# Posted on November 12th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: A Gig Quandary
As it happens, the word "boycott" has its origins in Irish history:
"The word boycott entered the English language during the Irish "Land War" and is derived from the name of Captain Charles Boycott, the estate agent of an absentee landlord, the Earl Erne, in County Mayo, Ireland who was subject to social ostracism organized by the Irish Land League in 1880..."
The rest is interesting too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott
# Posted on November 12th 2006 by Keith Dubinsky
Re: A Gig Quandary
without a doubt you did the right thing. The employers and employees enter into a contract when they get together. I will pay you such and such and you do this and that. If you want more cash and benefits or want to do less work than what you agreed to in the signing of the contract, go somewhere else.
You, in effect, signed a contract with the bride. Just because others have trouble with honoring their contract doesn't mean you should breech yours.
# Posted on November 12th 2006 by feardearg
Re: A Gig Quandary
PB, Why, after all these months, are you seeking our advice and/or approval? Isn't this water under the dam, or over the bridge, or spilt milk, or whatever?
# Posted on November 13th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: A Gig Quandary
Why do you think I'm seeking approval? I said in the first sentence that I want to run this by you guys and get your opinions. I was thinking about this when I recently found out the union had prevailed, and I thought it might be an interesting topic for discussion. Is this not an appropriate subject for discussion here? It seems to me that folks have opinions and may appreciate thinking about an issue like this before it might happen to them. Any harm in that?
# Posted on November 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: A Gig Quandary
PB, No harm in that at all, and I think it is appropriate for discussion. I was just wondering, since you are a regular contributor to this board, why there was a gap between the incident and your posting. But as you have pointed out, it was the recent union victory that jogged your memory, which answers my question. Thanks!
# Posted on November 13th 2006 by AlBrown
Re: A Gig Quandary
At the time there were too many personal issues with the sub to trot it out on a public board. At this point it IS water under the bridge and I feel perfectly comfortable to offer it up for public digestion in hopes that it might offer a chance for folks to think about the situation before it might come up for themselves. For our band this incident prompted us to add the following clause to our contract.
"This contract is null and void in the event of major unforeseen natural or man-made disaster, or serious illness. In the event of a labor dispute involving employees or contractors of the venue, Tipsy House reserves the right to terminate this contract at any time, and any deposits paid by client shall be promptly returned."
The part about "man-made disaster" is in response to 9-11 and all of the subsequent perceived terrorist threats that might interfere with our being able to carry out our obligations. I suppose that might make a good topic for another thread though... or maybe not
# Posted on November 13th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: A Gig Quandary
I definitely think you did all the right things, but I think, despite your new clause in your contract, you might still find yourself in the same position again, out of sympathy with the young couple. Hope it never happens to you again (or to any of us).
# Posted on November 14th 2006 by benhall.1
Re: A Gig Quandary
Actually, if it were in the contract before the last incident it would have been the bride's responsibility to make sure there were no labor on-going disputes at the venue where she hoped to have the wedding. The clause would likely prompt her to investigate it. If she didn't, and knowledge of a dispute surfaced later, we could simply point to the clause and apologize. I think the clause will also be helpful to the unions in any future labor disputes since the bride might pull out of their involvement with the venue at the start.
# Posted on November 14th 2006 by Phantom Button