Comparison of Black Musicians Union Locals - Research Paper Example

Comparison of Black Musicians Union Locals 208 and 648/669 Introduction Segregation on racial basis characterized several aspects of the American society for the larger part of history ending in the twentieth century. A common racial tension that contributed in many revolutionist campaigns was in the labor sector, with musicians taking a key role in the history. Segregated union locals permeated the practice of racial discrimination in to the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) for a long period of time even after distinct unions had been forced to form mergers by a myriad of factors1. Several union locals were established by musicians in a wave of labor and welfare representation from within the music industry. While unity became increasingly important for the unionists in as far as chatting the way forward for the welfare of musicians was concerned, it became more cumbersome to unify similar unionists in the wake of racial segregation. Battles on conflicting membership ideologies were fought which largely affected the realization of the unions’ objectives. The working musician increasingly faced new challenges occasioned by differences and transformations occurring within the social and economic settings. Employment opportunities and the general social acceptance of the musician were at the fate of racial orientation for the better part of the early twentieth century. Racism which spilt over to the political arena long before it did on to the labor arena was to affect the organization of several aspects of the American society. In this study, attempt is made to illustrate the mixed fortunes that the ordinary American musician got subjected to, with regard to the racial origin that one had. Chicago and San Francisco segregated union locals are highlighted with Local 208 and 648/669 being the center of interest. Differences Among the major and striking differences between the musician unions in both Chicago and San Francisco is the time of formation and activity. In San Francisco, music unions arrived earlier than in Chicago by a period of about fifteen years. This is illustrated by the inception of the major musical locals where for instance the first music union establishment in San Francisco happened in 1885 (Musicians Union Local 6). Since there were racial issues prohibiting the black musicians from participating in or running a music union, it was not until about four decades passed when the black musicians came on board. This happened in 1924 when the black San Francisco musicians formed their Local 648. On the other hand, Chicago black musicians got the green light to form their own music union in 1902, a year later than their white counterparts. The musical union that they formed was referred to as Local 208. Earlier in 1901, Chicago white musicians had formed the Local 10 with their segregation policy against the black musicians taking effect to over six decades. Form the time frame explanation above, it is clear that while music unions arrived late in Chicago, it apparently took a shorter period of time for racial representation than it did in San Francisco2. Campaigns against racial discrimination on the national and global arena must have facilitated the relative hustle free representation of black musicians in Chicago. Chicago had the first deliberate anti-discrimination legislation that took place in 1874, which points at the high success rate that any anti segregation campaign had. Five years prior to the establishment of the back led Local 10, there was a major ruling by the Supreme Court that made precedent to the effect that separate equal rights existed for any racial societal group3. While the first huddle of representation into a music union for both dominant races took substantial time in San Francisco, it took relatively longer for the distinct unions to merge. In San Francisco for instance, there was a long but spirited battle to allow black American musicians have representation to a union they could relate with without discrimination. Like stated earlier, since the first white musical union was established, it took the period form 1885 to 1924 without black musicians’ representation in a music union. Less vibrancy in anti-discrimination in San Francisco could be blamed for the delay when compared to Chicago. Mixed fortunes befell the two black musician unions where the Chicago local 10 retained its stature until merging time while San Francisco’s initial union, Local 648 had to be revoked and replaced by Local 669. The reason for the revocation and dissolution of Local 648’ charter was purely on territorial and supremacy battle which characterized its coexistence huddles in the hands of the white led Local 6. Before the reinstatement of the black musician union representation following revocation of Local 648’s charter, the black musicians were forced to submit to the rival Local 6 striking fury and discontent among the black musicians. Racial tensions that existed between these rival factions threatened the spirit of unionism which thrives in unity rather than division. Another difference in the black musician unions represented by the two groups can be outlined in the manner in which they got merged with their white musician counterpart unions. While San Francisco’s separate unions took longer to establish as distinct entities, when compared to those in Chicago, they on the other hand took relatively shorter to merge. This is because unlike the case of one year separation period from inception dates for the two racial unions in Chicago, the four decades apart for the same in San Francisco had little bearing in the merging of the two unions. Local 669 and Local 6 got merged in the year 1960, paving for way for developments that could change the history of unionism in the USA for good. It therefore dawned earlier to the San Franciscans that physical unity could act as a booster for unity of purpose than it did in Chicago. This is because the Chicago musical unions settled their racial differences and opted for a merger only in 1966, six years later. In Chicago, members of the black musicians union started to apply for membership into the white musicians’ union for better benefits when compared to the black union membership. Due to the poor membership base that the black union had, it became unbearable for them to operate on a diminishing membership and finally bowed in to merger pressure that had existed for some time. By the merging date, black musicians’ union (Local 208) had a membership base of slightly over the thousand membership base against the white musician’s union (Local 10) membership of over eleven thousand. Even if positive results anticipated in a merger resolution acted as a drive for calls of a merger, divisions within the black unions must have contributed to their loss of stance and bow top merger pressure. The other major difference in the music union locals is the impact of the development that was brought by mergers, variously referred to as amalgamations. While on one hand intended outcomes of the mergers were supposed to be unity and strength thereon, this proved to be an elusive target on the other hand. Black musician union locals envisioned a labor environment that would accord the more recognition and equitable benefits distribution. The American Federation of Musicians first condoned the members of Local 208 to join Local 10 so that they could enjoy the extra benefits that their union did not extend to their members. Apparently, they became members of both unions at some instance before the Federation revoked its decision to allow dual membership and used it as a powerful tool to force amalgamations. While this was later seen as a protracted plan by the Federation to inculcate the practice of discrimination, the move of the Federation to run back on its decision remains suspicious in the wake of the black musician extended struggle against discrimination. This is because long after the amalgamation of the unions in 1966, issues of discrimination were still reported long after. History records report that the racial discrimination practice got so intense at times such that restrictions were enforced to prohibit certain races, mainly the black musicians, from performing in certain areas4. Many union locals were established to facilitate campaigns of equity among the musicians from across the racial divide. Their endeavors towards this end appeared boosted by the promise brought by the amalgamation of various unions, until this proved evasive once again. San Francisco on the other hand could not be heard to boasting of real freedom from discrimination despite an earlier merger trend when compared to Chicago. This is because it was not until recently in February 2004 that the San Francisco branch made celebrations concerning victory over the underground racial issues that persisted long into the future of amalgamations. Evidently, the merger factor in the history of union locals had differential impact in the covered unions in that little post amalgamations emanated from Chicago when compared to San Francisco. Like observed before, anti-discrimination waves flowing vigorously in Chicago might have played an important role in quelling post amalgamation discrimination issues. Apparently, the California Fair Employment Practice Act which initially provided protection hope for the black musicians in work relations sooner became a toothless dog when the teething problem of racial discrimination appeared once again. In the worker union arena, Chicago rose to act as a haven of solace for major spirited unionists, offering a channel to air discontentment by recording major protest songs. Coincidentally, the Industrial Workers of the World movement was established in Chicago on the turn of the century. Chicago became the headquarters for unionism where radicals advocating for fair and equal treatment of workers by the American Federation of Labor met. A key tool for these unionists was music which was apparently recorded in Chicago paving way for the prolific recording industry with Chicago leading in the pack. In the wake of the Great Depression and Racial Discrimination, protest songs became increasingly useful in resenting the harsh conditions and recruiting more sympathizers. By 1961, Chicago was one of largest recording centers across America with several recording companies thriving, leading to accolades such as Grammy 365 choosing Chicago as a base due to its might. Similarities in the Histories of Black Musicians Unions in Chicago (Local 208) and San Francisco (Locals 648 and 669) Similarities in the black musicians unions in Chicago and San Francisco are in the racial segregation and mergers between the locals. Racial Segregation A striking similarity in the musicians unions in Chicago and San Francisco is the racial segregation. The blacks in regard to the union practices experienced exclusion and segregation. Other than segregation and exclusion, the lucky ones who were employed were given the worst jobs. The blacks seldom worked in the first class clubs or hotels. The radio stations also rarely gave an opportunity to work. The musician unions in Chicago and San Francisco show the intensity of racial segregation that the blacks experienced5. The Black Musicians Unions in Chicago (Local 208) Local 208 was the first black musician’s union organization in the United States and it was chartered in 1902. Segregation in Chicago prevented most of the black musicians from participating in unique performance opportunities such as in the classical music. The black musicians could not work in some parts of the city. In contrast, their white musicians counterparts could work anywhere in the city. In the 1950s and 1960s, Maurice Grice stated that there were limited chances for a black classical player. Even with the possibility of a merger between the Local 10 and Local 208 members, the opportunities for the black musicians were still limited. This is so because the opportunities would only benefit some of the black musicians like the jazz musicians and the black classical orchestras. The racial segregation was holding back the Chicago’s jazz players. The merger also experienced problems and it was often referred to as reverse discrimination by the Local 10 members. The white unions led by the white bosses were very adamant and they were against any form of integration with the blacks. Local 10 members consisted of the white musicians and the Local 208 belonged to the black musicians. The two existed as separate organizations. The white local was run by James C. Petrillo and being the boss, he rejected the offer to merge Local 208 members with the Local 10 members6. The Local 208 was also faced with segregation among its members. In 1963, a sharp division among the Local 208 members was witnessed when 100 of its members went to the Musicians Hall and joined the Local 10 members7. The Black Musicians Unions in San Francisco (Local 648 and 669) Racial segregation in San Francisco was very much evident after the formation of the Local 6. The African Americans were not allowed to join the Local 6. The Local 6 was left for the white musicians. The widespread racism could not allow the blacks to join the union. In 1924, a charter was granted by the AFM to the Negro musicians of San Francisco. The Negro musicians were allowed to do business as Local 648. Their headquarters was located in Oakland and they had similar jurisdictional boundaries as the Local 68. Like in Chicago, the black musicians could only play their music in the black neighborhoods such as in Western Addition. In the downtown of Van Ness, a few of the club owners hired black bands. Under a Local 648 contract, the Local 6 white band pressurized the club owners to hire them in 1934. In one of the clubs, the Local 6 musicians showed up and started playing in the presence of the black band. The Local 648 musicians filed a lawsuit against the Local 6. The lawsuit did not succeed. After losing the lawsuit, the Local 648 charter was revoked by the AFM after a complaint was raised by the Local 6. Having lost the charter, the black musicians union (Local 648) was placed under the stewardship of the Local 6. The black musicians were allowed to pay their membership dues and work dues but they could not possess any right. They were restricted in some of the Local 6 unions’ activities such as voting and benefits. They could not vote on job conditions matters or the wage scales. Death benefit participation was left for the whites. In 1943, the white locals were requested by the then AFM president James C. Petrillo to accept the black musicians as their equal members or he would grant the black musicians their own charter. The request was rejected by the Local 6 musicians and Local 669 was chartered in 1943. In the next fifteen years attempts were made to merge Local 6 and Local 669 but they all failed. Restrictions such as social interactions among the black musicians were imposed by the white locals. Due to limitations in social interactions, the black musicians found it desirable to organize their music activities independently. The blacks were barred from avenues such as bars, restaurants, hotels and other venues. Formation of Mergers Mergers between the white locals and the black musicians’ locals rose in attempt to bring equal opportunities and end racial segregation. In both San Francisco and Chicago, locals formed mergers. Some of these mergers were as a result of lawsuits filed in the courts and policy formulation by the state assemblies. Not all the mergers were well taken and they were faced with rejection by both the white and black musicians. The Merger between Local 10 and Local 208 In 1963, the Local 208 members merged with the Local 10 members. Close to 100 members of the Local 208 members went to the Musicians Hall to join the Local 10. The merger was to be strengthened by a committee called Chicago Musicians for Harmonious Integration. The move was not well taken by the Vice President of the Local 208 Charles Egar and he stated that he was not in the favor of the move. There were fears that the black musicians would be totally swallowed up by the white Local 10. The proponents of the merger saw the merger as an opportunity for the black musicians to land into high paying jobs and increase their lower quarterly dues rate from 4 dollars to 6 dollars. The merger also increased black classical orchestras although majority of them were community based. Jazz musicians and other musicians who played in the lounges and clubs also benefited from the merger. The merger did not take effect immediately because of the differences in opinions and values. The two locals (Local 10 and Local 208) finally merged in the year 1966, three years after the first attempt to merge the two. The merger did not end racial segregation as anticipated by the black musicians9. Despite the problems faced by the black musicians, a merger between the white locals and blacks could not be avoided. The Merger between Local 6 and Local 648 and 669 The mergers happened at different times. The first attempted merger was between Local 6 and Local 648. The second attempted merger was between Local 6 and Local 669. The failure of the merger between Local 6 and Local 648 led to the birth of Local 669. The merger between Local 6 and Local 648 can be traced back to 1934 when the Local 648 made a contract to hire white locals in the Van Ness downtown club. The Local 648 was placed under the stewardship of Local 6 following a lost lawsuit against the Local 6 and revocation of their charter by AFM. Under the stewardship of Local 6, the Local 648 members paid their work and membership dues but they were denied things such as voting rights on job condition matters and wage scales, and participation in death benefit. An effort to merge the two locals was met by rejection from the Local 6 members. The Local 6 refused to accept the black musicians as their equal members. Local 669 were chartered in 1943 after the failure of the Local 6 and Local 648 merge. Attempts to merge the black musicians and white locals did not end after the first merge failure. In nearly 15 years, several attempts were made to merge the Local 6 and Local 669. The attempts did not succeed. For the merger to succeed, it took the effort of the State of California. Fair Employment Practice Act was enacted in 1960 and this prompted the two locals to merge10. Works Cited Ayer, Julie. “Segregated Musician Union Locals, 1914-1974.” Polyphonic.org. Publication date February 13, 2007, accessed on January 6, 2011. http://www.polyphonic.org/article.php?id=108. Hayes, Bernie. The Death of Black Radio: The Story of America’s Black Radio Personalities. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse, 2005. Kevin Amos “History Overlooked…Black Music.” New Pittsburg Courier 95 no.13 (2004):B5 Miller, E. Leta, “Racial Segregation and the San Francisco Musicians’ Union, (1923-60).” Journal of the Society for American Music 1 no. 2 (2007):161-206 Walsh, Alex. “A Brief History of Local 6.” Musicians Union Local Six. Accessed on January 6, 2011. http://www.afm6.org/archive_Local6History.htm. Read More