Photo credit: Scott Jarvie

In this issue, you’ll find a statement from the ICSOM Governing Board regarding individually negotiated agreements. This is a conversation we’ve been having for a long time, and it ties directly into the kind of culture change we’re trying to achieve in our orchestras.

We understand that some members may not immediately see the connection between these agreements and broader workplace culture. But we hope the statement and this column can provide some context and clarity that help make that link.

Let’s be clear: this is not about shaming anyone. Many of us—including me—have these agreements. Participating in a system that encourages them doesn’t mean you’ve done anything wrong. You’ve simply operated within the structure as it currently exists.

But we believe that structure is no longer serving us well.

As the Board has reflected on what real culture change requires, individually negotiated agreements kept coming up. They can foster inequity, secrecy, and unequal treatment—issues that go far beyond pay and touch on how power operates in our orchestras.

When we talk about addressing structural racism or inequality, the conversation often focuses on auditions and hiring. But those same forces show up in these agreements. We don’t talk enough about the implicit and explicit biases that can be baked into them. If we’re serious about equity, we have to examine every part of the system that contributes to unequal treatment.

There are also problems in the way these agreements affect accountability and discipline. Similar to what we see in professional sports, some musicians who are seen as “stars” aren’t held to the same standards of behavior as their colleagues. That kind of dynamic undermines trust and fairness—it damages the workplace culture we’re trying to build.

Transparency is another major concern. Principal players have the ability to vote on contracts that determine the pay and conditions of section musicians. Yet, section musicians rarely have any say in the benefits or working conditions negotiated by principals. These decisions shouldn’t be left to private deals between individuals and management. This imbalance isn’t just symbolic—it can materially affect the experience of other section members. 

“Equal pay for equal work” isn’t just a slogan. It’s a principle that most of us believe in, and these agreements can erode that principle. Two musicians doing the same job—one entering during a period of budget cuts, the other recruited during a boom—can end up with vastly different compensation for identical work. That’s not fair.

Of course, not every titled position must be compensated the same. Some roles do come with greater expectations, leadership, or responsibilities. But the orchestra—as a collective—should have a voice in shaping those decisions. If there’s a case to be made for additional compensation, let’s bring it to the orchestra through the waiver process. That way, we preserve flexibility but do it transparently and with input from the entire ensemble.

So, where do we begin? Like most organizing, it starts with a conversation. Ask a colleague if they’ve read the ICSOM statement. Talk about what fairness and transparency could look like in your orchestra. Think about what kind of workplace you want—and what steps it would take to get there.

Importantly, we need to do this before positions become vacant. If we wait until a spot opens up, we’re working against the clock, which rarely leads to the best outcome.

Some may worry that without these individual agreements, orchestras won’t be able to attract or retain top talent. But people already make career decisions based on compensation. What matters is how those decisions are made—individually, or collectively.

We also can’t ignore the fact that some musicians come into these roles without much leverage and end up underpaid. Collective input helps protect them, too. Fairness works in both directions.

Here’s the bottom line: individually negotiated agreements represent a deep power structure in our orchestras that deserves more scrutiny. We’re not saying there can’t be exceptions. We’re saying the process should be equitable, transparent, and accountable to the musicians it affects.

This won’t change overnight. It took many years to build the system we have now, and it will take time and commitment to create something better. But if we want healthier, more equitable workplaces for the next generation of musicians, we must be willing to make bold changes. This is one of them.