Liability and the Musicians' Union - Value for money?

The following News item from Mart Rodger inevitably lead to questioning the services provided by the musician's Union, a question that was previously raised on this site back in 2003.

10/12/08 - "Hi Fred,  I presume all musicians know about the PAT Test (Portable Appliance Testing) which means if you don't have it there is a possibility you might be sent home from a gig. Local Authorities and The National Trust demand this certificate. Musicians will also know about the expensive Music License which applies to any venue using a combination of over a duo.  Wait for it... who has heard of the "Risk Assessment"? I understand that if musicians are performing outside gigs they are required to attend the place in advance where they will be playing and cover the "Risk Assessment" I was thinking about the early days in New Orleans when the bands were on the back on wagons and locked wheels for a "cutting" contest. If this was done today it would no doubt be stopped. I wonder what is going to be thrown at us all next. Before they ban jazz can I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Lots of gigs in 2009". - Mart  Rodger

12/12/08 - Rosie Harrison

I've heard of the risk assessment... as a music teacher I have to do them all the time if I'm taking children out of school to perform...!!!

12/12/08 - Joe Silmon

My idea, when I see all these funny rules, regulations and yet more additional tax-collection scams (like the 'congestion charge' and other forms of general interference with our formerly trouble-free existence), is to think how the perpetrators of these restrictions would feel, if we musicians, vocalists, entertainers, etc., refused to turn up - having been booked by them for the gig - for their nephew Bernie's barmitzvah, Auntie Flo's retirement party, or their daughter Grizzelda's wedding".

If any of us still feel inclined to keep playing Jazz, perhaps a move to another country - and Heaven knows not many foreign countries can have as many stupid music-related restrictions as Britain has right now under this very restrictive Labour government - then that would seem the right thing to do. 

Has anyone told you about the "Breathing Tax" yet, Fred? I'm sure that's next on the agenda in the "little huts" at Westminster. For my part I'm distinctly off-PAT.

12/12/08 - Jeff Lewis

"This is another bit of legislation where the risk is directly proportional to the amount of B*******t  flying about"

12/12/08 - Pete  Lay

I have to do a Risk Assessment when working at outdoor public venues - only paperwork, I have yet to have to make a visit. A PAT is only required if you use a separate lead to your amplifier ('kettle leads'), if it is 'all in one' it appears that is not a problem. As long as all power blocks and extensions are 'new' ones and have 'cut out' facility again no problem. So don't start panicking just yet - unless of course Northern councils have become more bureaucratic - if so God help us!   I don't know if it happens to the guys up North but I have been in 'new' venues (built in last ten years) and found that the buildings electrics are far from 'safe' with earthing being very poor. Where as soon as you turn on your equipment you get a buzz from the speakers, and gets louder when you hold the mic. I have brought this to the attention to quite a few, but when returning to these venues the problem is still there. Maybe we should ask to see the venues PAT certificate before we plug in! I also asked one council why we had to do the Risk Assessment when they were hiring us - they couldn't come up with an answer. It seems it is all one way traffic with musicians being the brunt of bureaucracy. What does the M. U. do to help - nothing all hot air and words and no action. Cheers and likewise Happy Christmas and dare I say it a prosperous new year - "

12/12/08 - Sue Parish

Re the current debate: Forgive me if your readers already know this, but if you join the Musician's Union you automatically get substantial public liability insurance and also some instrument insurance. They're also campaigning on licensing issues, particularly those affecting the smaller venues those where jazz bands tend to play, so it might be worth considering joining in order to support all our futures in live music. If you earn less than £15,000 from music a year then MU membership fees are £12 a month. Further info on their website:  http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/ 

It's certainly true that the fees went up massively a few years ago... They took out the bottom band of charges, which was appropriate for part-time musos who play non-lucrative gigs. I did think it was a bit steep at the time. But they have got their act together quite well since then, and I think the website, magazine and campaign stuff is quite useful. I also experimentally costed out public liability insurance from other companies via a quick web search yesterday, and it seems costs about as much as MU membership.....! 

14/12/08 - Chris Walker

I must take up the point made by my friend Pete Lay over the lack of action by the M. U. I assume that he is forgetting the £10,000,000 public liability insurance included with his membership fee. In addition to that there is instrument insurance cover (recently upgraded to the first £1,000) and the numerous other benefits of being a member of your industry's official body. There are, of course, some things that even the Union cannot control but as present chairman of the jazz section I can tell you that no-one has put in a direct request to us to take up the matter of which Pete is complaining. Any Union member can ask to be included in the jazz section where we have a quarterly newsletter and do take up issues of concern to all jazz musicians. I, for one, would not want (and could not afford) to be without the back up of my trade union and we are there to respond to any official approach from members. 

14/12/08 - Richard Knock

It is of course only sensible to have insurance, as there is unfortunately an element who always like to hold someone other than themselves responsible for anything that happens to them. I was an MU member (quite a keen one, always attended meetings and even went to a conference one year) until the abolition of the lowest rate. For my five piece band to obtain cover through the MU it would cost 5 x £144 per annum = £720. Thanks to some advice from Mart Rodger I now get cover for the band for just over a quarter of that, less than £200, and my instrument cover (3 trumpets, one clarinet and a double bass cost me £85 for worldwide cover. I was very sorry to leave the MU but when all's said and done just covering expenses is quite difficult at our level, and we just have to make the sums add up. I also did not like the centralisation move, it tends to encourage exclusion.

15/12/08 - Norman Gibson

As a retired planning engineer, having been involved in managing many contracts, I have seen a number of strange things occur along the way. Equipment mal-functions, trades people doing daft things, etc, etc. - fortunately none more serious than a couple of broken ankles! I can agree, therefore, that there is a need for some degree of cover to ensure that the listening public and the band personnel are safeguarded from any potential injury and/or claims.

As a relatively new 'promoter', of only three years, and one who, perhaps, has been so far taking it for granted that the bands, and the venues we use, have any necessary cover required in place! 

As electrical pieces of equipment, such as amplifiers, sound system mixers, etc., get humped about from gig to gig, with the inherent possibility of damage occurring, it would seem wise to have the periodic electrical checks (PATs) done! I understand these are relatively straightforward by a qualified electrician, and the certified labelling beneficial in the event of an investigative claim!

In the new year I propose preparing a general set of conditions basing how we approach , choose, accept bands and the provisions in place to take care to protect all concerned. In the same way as we have in the past voluntarily, and without request, made additional payment, above the agreed fee, to assist those band members who have a greater travel involvement, we may consider a set nominal amount towards the PAT and insurance element bands may find themselves saddled with!

Generally, fellow promoters we speak to, only put on the gigs in their dedication to the preservation of jazz. We need all to work together, be it bands helping each other with info on the best insurance deal around and promoters sharing tips on running gigs successfully and safely! In our early days we contacted a few jazz clubs for a little bit of advice and were surprised by the lack of any response, we therefore did it our own way - but vowed that we would never ever give any would-be jazz promoter a negative reply. By adopting this attitude we have made many friends.

Sorry this has turned out to be a bit of a tome, but there you are!

Nick Telfer - 16/12/08

All this Mickey Mouse about PAT and risk assessment. If anybody asks for this I suggest it should cost them £50-£100 extra. Anybody running an event should get their own cover, why should we pay. Russ, my banjo player is a qualified electrician and we always use leads with cutouts, in any case.

John Muskett - 19/12/08

Many of the germane points have been touched on by your correspondents. Yes, much modern legislation can seem pettifogging and restrictive, but it is mainly in response to present conditions and people's attitudes. Would we really like to go back to rickets, trains with filthy seats and tin baths in front of fires?

Yesterday I attended the funeral of a friend who died, aged 58, of mesothelioma, almost certainly brought on by prolonged working with asbestos. Present day Health and Safety legislation should prevent such occurrences in the future.

The testing and certification of electrical equipment, and the insurance for public liability seem very sensible to me. If things go wrong, WE want to be protected. Risk Assessment is not at all uncommon in educational and production establishments - so far we musicians have managed to escape, but if liability is being passed down the chain of command, we don't want to be left holding the baby. As has been pointed out, the MU provides Public Liability Insurance.

One of the problems that the MU faces is that it represents full-time committed professional players who hope to make a decent living out of music for forty, fifty or more years, AND the semi-pros who combine a hobby with a bit of money-making from it. It is hardly surprising that the union is biased towards the full-timers. Full-time/professional workers in other disciplines continually have to face modern legislation, insurance risks and the consequences of the blame culture; if working for an organisation they will be covered by their employers' liability and insurance systems; freelancers are expected to make their own arrangements.

If we semi-pros wish to play in the big boys' league, I think we have to be prepared to abide by the same regulations. In contrast with many other jobs, we don't even have to show academic or technical qualifications when getting work, nor are we expected to be in a professional institution, staff association or union. But what it really comes down to in the end is MONEY. If all gigs paid out a decent fee (in accordance with the MU rates, for example), there would be enough to account for assessment, liability and certification in addition to satisfying performers. But we are all of the opinion that if we quoted what we think we are worth, the work would dry up totally (and the DJs, karaoke operators, spoon benders and flame throwers would reign supreme). Having performed at a number of weddings in recent years and having been involved in the wedding preparations for three children, I note that ceilidh bands, string quartets, rock groups and show bands generally charge more than jazz groups, and that not infrequently more is spent on balloons and table decorations than on a band.

An argument for the union to do more at the semi-pro level is that grass root development should be encouraged (although many of us jazzers have produced only moderate growth over a long time; a keen gardener would probably have replaced us with more vigorous stock!). Perhaps if more of us joined the union and made our voices heard, the MU would do more for the semi-professional lower income earners. At present many MU members must be turning out regularly for fees considerably lower than the union rates. While the financial climate does not suggest that we should inflate our fees significantly, there are musicians taking function work for well under a generally accepted "going rate". I am not deeply envious of what others are paid, but become mildly irritated when I see the price the customer pays for a hospitality/entertainment package and realise how little of this comes the musicians' way. We should be looking to upping our quotes within reason.

What definitely is a shame is that local gigs with low (or no) entrance prices (and concomitantly small band fees) are threatened, because, although there may be no pretence of top professional level entertainment, all the "new" regulations with their associated extra effort and costs are likely to be enforced, resulting in musicians receiving reduced net reward I can't see a way round this.

The following items first appeared back in 2003,  it does seem to suggest that annual membership fees have risen by 69.4% in that time - FB

The Regional Secretary
Musicians’ Union
40 Canal Street
Manchester Ml 3WD
Feb 2003

Dear Bill,

Membership - Suggestion

As the main organiser of a small jazz group I have, for some time, been interested in joining the Musicians' Union both to obtain the cover for any eventuality and to give support to your organisation. Having recently obtained details from the local secretary, Harold Salisbury, I find myself in something of a dilemma: having to pay £85-00 per year for membership when the total remuneration the band members are likely to receive is only around £1000-00. In other words, we view our music making a “leisure/hobby” activity which for tax purposes is classed as being “no profit/no loss.” In other words, when all expenses are paid there is no financial gain.

I feel that there must be many similar bands in the area (see Fred Burnett’s excellent website (www.jazznorthwest.co.uk) who are in the same position. Individuals would, perhaps, be happy to pay a small sum each year to join your Union. May I suggest a payment of £10-00 per person or £50-00 per Band for, possibly, a reduced service. At present I believe both sides are losing out when we should really be providing mutual support.

Of course, I realise that there are a number of drawbacks but as a constructive gesture I intend to send a copy of this letter to Fred Burnett with the request that he considers the contents and decides whether it can be usefully added to his website as a stimulus to debate.

Yours sincerely           

Colin Mason           
The Pendle Jazzmen           

I was a member of the Musicians Union with the Stockport Branch but when they moved the control of the entire membership to London I resigned. I am totally against centralisation. During my time as a member of the MU I found them to be completely in-effective for semi-pro musicians.

Your £85 would be going towards "Congestion Charges" My advice is forget the MU.

Cheers Mart Rodger.

Addendum - The cutting contest is a particularly competitive variety of jazz tradition and arose out of early New Orleans jazz. In the first decade of the twentieth century, there were roughly thirty bands active in the Crescent City, and as a form of advertising, bands would routinely ride through the streets of Storyville on horse-drawn wagons promoting various events and products. When a chance meeting between two rival orchestras occurred, quite often a so-called "bucking contest" would ensue: The wagons were tied together by a rope to prevent escape, and each band would try to outplay the other in a contest of skill endurance, and, in these early days, volume.

Main Menu