Bargaining has begun! As I reported on the front page of the April 2025 issue of Allegro, the accompanists at the Hoff-Barthelson Music School in Scarsdale recently won union certification in the first Local 802 union representation victory since 2019.

Now negotiations have started in earnest. The bargaining unit includes all full time and regular part time accompanists. At the first bargaining session, Local 802 presented its initial proposals to the school — and management representatives seemed less than enthused. A management representative was even overheard exclaiming “this is ridiculous” shortly after the end of the negotiation session. I was not a party to this conversation but would not be surprised if it was somehow connected to Local 802’s proposals.

I’ve remarked previously that bargaining an initial contract — especially with an employer who has no other union employees (like Hoff-Barthelson) — is particularly difficult. The Economic Policy Institute studied union campaigns in 2018 and found that 63 percent of the unions who won first-time representation elections failed to achieve a collective bargaining agreement within the first year after winning the election.

Similarly, Bloomberg Law’s database has confirmed that the delay in achieving first-time contracts is increasing an alarming rate. Between 2020 and 2022, the mean time to contract ratification was over 500 days. (As a side note, it took roughly four years for Local 802 to achieve a contract with DCINY from start to finish.)

Why do workers win union campaigns but then fail to negotiate first contracts? Labor law, as presently constituted, favors employers who engage in tactics to frustrate the negotiation process. The union has one year for majority support to be legally presumed before a new representation petition (usually a decertification petition) can be filed. This means that the first year of negotiating a first contract is the most crucial. After that, delay saps employees’ solidarity and morale and demonstrates that the union may not be as powerful that the workers believe it is.

The labor movement has always fought for pro-worker legislation that would (for example) require management to sign a collective bargaining agreement within a reasonable time frame. Until we have a law like that, unions will continue to encounter this pernicious strategy of delays, a strategy we believe could be employed here at Hoff-Barthelson (but hopefully not).

Nonetheless, the accompanists are prepared and resolved to counter any delay tactics. These musicians are in it for the long haul…and so is Local 802.

Hoff-Barthelson is a nonprofit, similar to the nonprofit employers discussed in my article last month. Remember: paying musicians at competitive rates is completely in line with both the goal of music nonprofits as well as with IRS regulations guiding the operation of nonprofit companies.

It’s too soon to say whether or not Hoff-Barthelson will try saying at the table, “We can’t afford to pay you more because we’re a nonprofit.” (If they do, we know how to respond.) But at the first round, the employer’s chief spokesperson — who happens to be a labor attorney — confronted the bargaining unit members with his opinion that this negotiation was simply a “business deal” unrelated to the school’s mission to teach music to private students and unrelated to pedagogy. He made it clear that the school would make decisions on union proposals that best favored its business objectives. Further, he advised that any argument we make based upon best music education practices would not be successful in convincing Hoff-Barthelson that our proposals should be accepted.

This opinion seems contrary to what we have witnessed during our representation of accompanists employed by other employers. It is also contrary to what I have encountered when I have worked with accompanists during my recent musical education.

Let’s take a closer look at what management implied: that the accompanists are “just accompanists” and are not actually performing music pedagogy — and therefore shouldn’t be able to negotiate better terms and better working conditions over the pedagogical aspect of their work. But this is clearly not true. Most (if not all) accompanists collaborate with the musicians/students they are performing with. Coordinating phrasing, tempo, rhythm and dynamics are all essential components of successfully accompanying a student. There is no possible way to separate out how an accompanist works with a student from musical pedagogy. Our goal will be to demonstrate to Hoff-Barthelson that this is true.

Collective bargaining is, of course, a “business deal” in some respects. Profitability and sustainability are necessary factors to consider even for nonprofit employers. However, it is so much more than that, especially when it concerns music education. Hoff-Barthelson’s primary objective is to provide the best quality music education to its students. Accompanists’ terms and conditions of employment directly impact the quality of that education. Thus, Hoff-Barthelson should enthusiastically welcome Local 802’s proposals because they will in effect improve the music education of its students. I will keep you aware of any new developments with respect to this negotiation.

Remember, if you’re not earning the wages, benefits or respect that you deserve, contact Local 802 at www.local802afm.org/hotline. We have a great track record in helping musicians win union representation and fair contracts.