Yes, and I don't know how it might correlate with the ops position, but obviously in my situation, this thread would never happen because we're a four piece, so the leader would be fine taking a $100 cut in a $750 date. Without "permission."
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Renegotiated Pay
- Thread starter Egg250
- Start date
Yes, and I don't know how it might correlate with the ops position, but obviously in my situation, this thread would never happen because we're a four piece, so the leader would be fine taking a $100 cut in a $750 date. Without "permission."
During practice over the weekend, I found some additional details.
Sean was the "acting" entertainment director for the campground. The show was originally booked between him and the guitarist.
Debbie is the newly installed entertainment director and she has been doing this to all the bands booked by Sean. "If you do a good job we'll book you for next year". No one in the band is interested in playing here again.
My original assumption (which I did not include in the original post) was correct. New person in the job renegotiating (not honoring) deals made by their predecessor.
The band lineup change and name change was not an issue for Sean. Is not an issue for Debbie, she just wanted to change things around.
Sean was the "acting" entertainment director for the campground. The show was originally booked between him and the guitarist.
Debbie is the newly installed entertainment director and she has been doing this to all the bands booked by Sean. "If you do a good job we'll book you for next year". No one in the band is interested in playing here again.
My original assumption (which I did not include in the original post) was correct. New person in the job renegotiating (not honoring) deals made by their predecessor.
The band lineup change and name change was not an issue for Sean. Is not an issue for Debbie, she just wanted to change things around.
I have to back up a little bit from what I've posted in this thread so far.
Long story:
Back in the early 2000's I was playing acoustic guitar in a house gig two nighter. But the drummer, bass player and I had gotten 'recruited' by two singers to start an outside project band. It was a few covers but mostly originals written by one of the singers, who also played guitar. The other singer played piano. I played electric guitar. They were very talented and the bass player and drummer, who I played with in the house gig, were killer. We were pretty good. We got enough songs together to play a few local gigs, nothing to write home about but it was a cool band and I enjoyed it.
So then one of the singers, who had an entreprenurial spirit, somehow got us a gig at a hair products convention in Florida. The gig was leave Sunday morning, fly to Florida, play the gig, fly back, all in the same day. Great! We don't have to miss playing the house gig and I don't have to miss any work.
Then it changed.
Suddenly we had to leave on Friday, play Saturday, play Sunday, and fly back on Monday. This mean I would had to miss 3 days of work at my day job and two nights playing music. The singer accepted these new terms without consulting the band. Because of these changes I ended up pulling out of the project. They found another guitarist and played the gig, and from what I heard they did okay, but the band didn't stay together.
Last edited:
I don't know what agreement they have, it appears there is none. And the OP has repeatedly said it's not about the money, but about the principle of the venue changing the agreed-upon terms. If it's not about the money, and the person who landed the gig feels the need to renegotiate, what's the big deal? Outside of the issue of the venue changing the terms unfairly, which is a separate issue....
In other words, if I say it's not about the money, but I ALSO post several comments indicating I'm upset that my bandmate lowered my pay, um... it IS about the money.
But no. Ignore the money. It is a minor detail. Every post I've made reinforces my point about the principle of the matter, which is, the guitarist accepted a renegotiated deal without consulting anyone else. That is my issue with the guitarist.
My issue with the venue is the newly hired entertainment director, Debbie, is not respecting prior deals (see updated post #163). That is bad form on the venue. I sincerely hope they ask us back. I want to talk to Debbie, negotiate the deal and then decline because I don't trust the venue (her) to stick to it.
Yeah, I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. The money is not the issue. Someone speaking on my behalf about ANYTHING without speaking to me first when they haven't been given my green light to do so is the issue.
I want to say something here that I think is important. I observe in many different contexts that people, in general, have a very difficult time with the concept of appropriate boundaries. I observe this when I attempt to set them for myself and I observe this in conversations like this one. It is as if there's a certain subset of our society that has been taught that the only way you make it through life is to accept and welcome boundary violations and other bullying behavior under the guise of "teamwork" or otherwise going along to get along.
I don't really know that this is something I can fix, but it's worth pointing out that when people can't distinguish between money vs boundaries and principles of common respect, it's a problem. And it seems to be an almost epidemic problem these days with people believing they have the right to roll you over and that you don't have a right to object to this.
That ain't how my daddy taught me, but my daddy was scrappy AF and didn't take any crap from anyone. But I will tell you, therapists these days are making a very good living on this one.
Last edited:
Yep. This is the same scenario I described in post #59. Because of what I just described (epidemic inability to understand boundaries) it won't be addressed unless Debbie pulls the same level stuff those guys tried, which is to wait until after someone has played and then find an excuse to not pay their full rate. In the case I mentioned it was "regardless of what you were promised, the new owners won't pay a duo the same rate as a band" after the duo had played and filled the house. This got enough people riled up to ignite a social media firestorm and that made a difference.
She may or may not attempt to stoop to this level, but I surely wouldn't put it past her.
Here’s two true stories directly relevant to the principle which is the fundamental concern of the original poster.
A little while ago, a major internationally famous singer and band, with many chart hits under their belt, launched a worldwide tour.
Everything went smoothly for a while, but whilst they were in a relatively small country, the sound and road crew were suddenly called to a meeting.
They were told that henceforth, they would only be paid for days that were actually worked, contrary to pre-existing agreements. Travelling days, waiting days, odd days thrown up by delays, time taken to get to airports and hotels.
Everything that is a naturally occurring part of touring across countries and continents that takes time, they would no longer be paid for. Only set up days, breakdown days, and performance days would be paid.
Whilst it’s easy to claim that contracts existed and compensation could be sued for later. It appeared that the time this was dropped on everyone, is when they were relatively isolated physically and electronically by the nature of the situation, they were in. Cut off from their natural systems of support.
Effectively they were faced with a well-prepared fait acomplit, accompanied by persuasive reasons why they should accept the new contracts they were presented with. A somewhat smaller loaf than they expected, is better than no loaf whatever.
After all, they might want to work in the same industry on future tours. Did they really want to be blacklisted by kicking up a fuss? Better to accept the new deal.
All this with no time given to think and consider, the tour has to move on to the next venue!
True story number two.
A little while back, a nearby local factory had been taken over by a large corporation.
They made much needed investment, and the existing management and workforce reward that with resounding commercial success.
Commitments and agreements were made for career development for high flying managers who were given firm expectations regarding their future.
But the large corporation would regularly rotate management personnel, Plant Directors and the like. An incoming Plant Director threw out all the commitments and agreements their predecessors had made.
Initially this high-handed decision, grievously affected the future career paths of a large slew of highly successful managers who were well used to working together. But one of them was extremely well connected, and decided to act for the benefit of the group.
Elon Musk came here to speak.
He was head hunting, and after his talk and the question-and-answer session that followed, the whole group of them went to a local college, the Dean of which was a friend of Elon’s.
They all enjoyed a slap-up meal together, after which Elon offered them all well paid positions in his Space-X company. So, at the drop of a hat, the new Plant Director found over night that the entire staff of executive managers that effectively ran the huge factory, were leaving for new careers in America.
The Plant Director and the factory he was in charge of was left in utter chaos!
Here’s the talk that the managers attended.
Which includes the Dean whose college they enjoyed a meal together at and where they received the job offers.
Elon Musk - the Future of Energy & Transport - YouTube
It appears to me, the woman who has attempted to renegotiate the bands remuneration, has done so for one of two reasons.
Either the reduction has been attempted to increase profitability to the business, which as a new comer is effectively a feather in her cap, and might even involve a bonus to her personal remuneration.
Or, by renegotiating the fees already agreed with bands which are known to the venue owner, its possible that she could keep the difference herself if the owner is not closely involved with that part of the business.
Owners hire managers so they don’t have the bother of dealing with such matters.
Either way.
It is clear to me at least.
That rewarding such behaviour is the wrong thing to do.
The right thing to do, is to call time on it, making it crystal clear it won’t be tolerated.
A little while ago, a major internationally famous singer and band, with many chart hits under their belt, launched a worldwide tour.
Everything went smoothly for a while, but whilst they were in a relatively small country, the sound and road crew were suddenly called to a meeting.
They were told that henceforth, they would only be paid for days that were actually worked, contrary to pre-existing agreements. Travelling days, waiting days, odd days thrown up by delays, time taken to get to airports and hotels.
Everything that is a naturally occurring part of touring across countries and continents that takes time, they would no longer be paid for. Only set up days, breakdown days, and performance days would be paid.
Whilst it’s easy to claim that contracts existed and compensation could be sued for later. It appeared that the time this was dropped on everyone, is when they were relatively isolated physically and electronically by the nature of the situation, they were in. Cut off from their natural systems of support.
Effectively they were faced with a well-prepared fait acomplit, accompanied by persuasive reasons why they should accept the new contracts they were presented with. A somewhat smaller loaf than they expected, is better than no loaf whatever.
After all, they might want to work in the same industry on future tours. Did they really want to be blacklisted by kicking up a fuss? Better to accept the new deal.
All this with no time given to think and consider, the tour has to move on to the next venue!
True story number two.
A little while back, a nearby local factory had been taken over by a large corporation.
They made much needed investment, and the existing management and workforce reward that with resounding commercial success.
Commitments and agreements were made for career development for high flying managers who were given firm expectations regarding their future.
But the large corporation would regularly rotate management personnel, Plant Directors and the like. An incoming Plant Director threw out all the commitments and agreements their predecessors had made.
Initially this high-handed decision, grievously affected the future career paths of a large slew of highly successful managers who were well used to working together. But one of them was extremely well connected, and decided to act for the benefit of the group.
Elon Musk came here to speak.
He was head hunting, and after his talk and the question-and-answer session that followed, the whole group of them went to a local college, the Dean of which was a friend of Elon’s.
They all enjoyed a slap-up meal together, after which Elon offered them all well paid positions in his Space-X company. So, at the drop of a hat, the new Plant Director found over night that the entire staff of executive managers that effectively ran the huge factory, were leaving for new careers in America.
The Plant Director and the factory he was in charge of was left in utter chaos!
Here’s the talk that the managers attended.
Which includes the Dean whose college they enjoyed a meal together at and where they received the job offers.
Elon Musk - the Future of Energy & Transport - YouTube
It appears to me, the woman who has attempted to renegotiate the bands remuneration, has done so for one of two reasons.
Either the reduction has been attempted to increase profitability to the business, which as a new comer is effectively a feather in her cap, and might even involve a bonus to her personal remuneration.
Or, by renegotiating the fees already agreed with bands which are known to the venue owner, its possible that she could keep the difference herself if the owner is not closely involved with that part of the business.
Owners hire managers so they don’t have the bother of dealing with such matters.
Either way.
It is clear to me at least.
That rewarding such behaviour is the wrong thing to do.
The right thing to do, is to call time on it, making it crystal clear it won’t be tolerated.
Setting to the side that this was a band and the guitarist inappropriately negotiated for them….
Consider this scenario:
Homeowner says to a workman “Hey, I’ll pay you $750 for this work late next week.”, gets agreement.
Beginning of the week, homeowner calls up, says “Now I’m only paying $650. Take it or leave it.” I think everyone is in agreement that this was bad behavior, and the workman should refuse.
BUT… say the workman DOES take the rotten deal. This is the current state of things. For better or worse, they have a deal. One could argue that the homeowner’s breaking of the prior deal makes the workman breaking the new deal OK. I disagree. The workman should not stoop to the level of the dishonorable homeowner.
On the other hand, I’d want cash in advance from the now-discredited homeowner to avoid the “Pray I do not alter it further” scenario where the venue, um I mean homeowner refuses to pay the agreed lower amount.
Consider this scenario:
Homeowner says to a workman “Hey, I’ll pay you $750 for this work late next week.”, gets agreement.
Beginning of the week, homeowner calls up, says “Now I’m only paying $650. Take it or leave it.” I think everyone is in agreement that this was bad behavior, and the workman should refuse.
BUT… say the workman DOES take the rotten deal. This is the current state of things. For better or worse, they have a deal. One could argue that the homeowner’s breaking of the prior deal makes the workman breaking the new deal OK. I disagree. The workman should not stoop to the level of the dishonorable homeowner.
On the other hand, I’d want cash in advance from the now-discredited homeowner to avoid the “Pray I do not alter it further” scenario where the venue, um I mean homeowner refuses to pay the agreed lower amount.
The workman is one person. He isn't speaking for a group when he accepts the deal. I am not sure why everyone keeps pretending this isn't relevant.
If he has a crew, you had better believe he's going to pay his crew based on their regular rate, or risk losing them.
Nobody's saying that OPs band shouldn't play. We're saying this was not handled correctly. The guitarist doesn't have decision making authority in this situation. It's as simple as that. He made a decision anyway, and nobody has an obligation to be happy about it. He certainly won't learn anything if nobody expresses their unhappiness though.
Last edited:
Just so I'm understanding, assuming the workman had at least one employee, who agreed to work for a specific pay. The homeowner reduces the rate, workman agrees which causes the employee(s) to be paid less. Are you saying it is wrong for the employee(s) to refuse to work for the reduced wage?
Some people here have at least hinted I'm wrong or should even be fired for thinking the workman (guitarist) was in the wrong. I'm not laying that on you, but I don't understand people's acceptance of being wronged in the interest of being professional or, hopefully, get booked again and possibly be subject to being wronged again.
When it’s about the money it’s not JUST about the money.
For me, when I’m told pay is one thing and find out it’s something else, sure, I’m upset… I expected that $.
But deeper than that, I now know not to trust what you tell me that. That’ll a much bigger problem than the $$.
For me, when I’m told pay is one thing and find out it’s something else, sure, I’m upset… I expected that $.
But deeper than that, I now know not to trust what you tell me that. That’ll a much bigger problem than the $$.
LOTS of people said they shouldn't play or should play short. That's all I'm trying to express here--don't be jerks because the venue is shady in the extreme. (Not saying THIS band is jerks--they seem to be doing the right thing.) I sure would never take another gig here, though.
Yeah, the guitarist messed up. The band should deal with this appropriately. See my prior post on that. Completely agree that people are stepping out of bounds and they think it's completely fine as you pointed out in your post 167.
I totally get that. Your issue with the guitarist is that he spoke on your behalf, apparently without your blessing. It wouldn't matter whether it was about the pay, the date, or the dress code. He usurped your autonomy by having the audacity to presume to make arrangements that affected you, without consulting you first. Does that about cover it?
My only point was that, while you say it's not about the money, there are several posts of yours here which definitely suggest that you're upset over the lower pay. And that's okay! Nothing wrong with anything you've posted, it's just something that stuck out to me as inconsistent.
That said, I do truly understand your position. Over the years I've read many people here post that their leader doesn't have to consult them over booking dates... "just book me, you don't have to check and see if I'm available. If I didn't give you a black-out date, you know I'm good" And, I've seen leaders post that they won't work with people who demand they check in to make sure they're available... "might lose out on a gig if I can't commit on the spot!! All you have to do is give me black-out dates and it's all good." No. Both of those scenarios are unacceptable to me- no one is going to book me into a date without checking with me first. But as long as it's at least $100/man, you don't have to get my blessing on the pay.
Just two people with different views, and nothing wrong with either one...
That's why I was trying to separate the issues. Clearly if the workman had employees they expect and deserve their full pay. I would also expect any employee approached by the homeowner to say "Go talk to the boss." If it were me, I'd fire any employee that didn't do that.
A band isn't a boss/employee relationship in many cases though, so that's why I keep saying "band needs to handle this" instead of anything concrete. I think guitarist pays the extra $100 out of his share would be fair, along with a commitment to never negotiate without talking to the band first.
What if the guitarist is pocketing that extra $100 and just telling the band they're getting shorted?
