Nonunion union

This is not a union orchestra.  The master agreement has union style protocol, but in the end, it is not a union orchestra.  At a time when orchestras in America are struggling, with some people blaming unions and some blaming administration, it is interesting to be in a position to experience what an orchestra is like when there is no union.  This is certainly not the uncivil dictatorial style of orchestra that people fear if unions were to dissolve.  But still, it is a nonunion orchestra and sometimes we go overtime and no one says anything and sometimes the breaks are not paced according to the master agreement.

On a day with a scheduled double rehearsal, such as today, the master agreement stipulates that morning rehearsal is from 10:30am-1pm and afternoon rehearsal is from 2:15pm-4:30pm. At 1 pm Maestro Sado was still rehearsing and no one said anything.  And then he kept rehearsing and finished the piece around 1:10pm at which point he dismissed us for the day.  I'm not sure that any of the musicians were aware of this plan.

In a union orchestra we would have had to finish by 1pm to the clock's second hand.  Either this would mean that some things were not rehearsed as thoroughly, or that we would have stopped at 1pm, gone to lunch and then come back to finish for another 10-20 minutes.  I remember so many times in Madison that the clock ran out right before a cadence;  some people finished the piece, but the personnel manager was always yelling at them to stop for fear that the orchestra would have to pay overtime.

Trained in the expectations of a union orchestra and the understanding that a contract is a mutual agreement to which both sides should adhere, I'm a little confused about how I feel about such a lax and flexible practice.  In this situation, the contract says one thing, but reason and a little perseverance say another.  If you acquiesce to the group mentality, you are rewarded.  You belong among your peers and you get to have the afternoon off.  Cadences are concluded and the rehearsal is thorough and completed, albeit 10 minutes overtime.

Even harder for me to admit, however, was the fact that at about 5 minutes after the hour, I convinced myself that I must have been mistaken about the protocol for rehearsal time.  With the dissolution of my ego and my rights to my lunch break, I once again started to enjoy the work that we were doing and the group effort of learning the piece a little more thoroughly.  From 1:05pm-1:10pm, I just enjoyed the rehearsal, waiting for godot to relieve me and not really worrying about it.  And this once more made me think about the idea of learning as a group, of having a steady work ethic, of egoless perseverance, and how the right to my time off has been engrained in me from my culture.

Of course, a contract is a contract.  Our contract says that if there are going to be such changes in the daily schedule, the conductor should check with the rehearsal monitor who should notify the musicians.  So in this regard, the master agreement was breeched.  It's not that I necessarily mind going overtime.  I could rehearse longer if need be and on most days, I'd likely enjoy it.  But there are people (on some days myself included) who don't feel this way either because of injury or time obligations or any other reasons that are completely legitimate.  So how much right do we have to our own time and commitments and how much must we relinquish to the group?

I feel very American in even questioning this.  It feels wrong to me to admit that perhaps sometimes there is merit in setting aside one's personal rights and overlooking the contract for the sake of the art and for the group.  I can see this, but I can't bring myself to agree with it completely.  As I embrace the art of a tenacious work ethic and mental outlook during this time of overwhelming daily lessons, I respect its merits.  Everyday, I study Japanese.  And if I keep doing that, someday I will be able to understand it.  In the face of being tired and all the other excuses I can conjure to not study, I relinquish myself to myself for the greater good, for the long term goal.  But how does this work when there is a group of people and the decision is not so personal?  Where is the division between making a personal decision for oneself and making one for the sake of the group?  How different are these two things, and how should I feel about the "rights" not just of myself, but of my peers?  How can I speak for those who do not see these rights in the way I've been raised to see them?