It's that time again, when musicians and administrations square off to determine how the balance sheets will be balanced for the next three to five years.

I've had a number of long conversations, both voice and email, with some fellow orchestral musicians about the nature of the contract negotiation process in American orchestras. There is little consensus on what might make the process work better, or even on what the problems are, if any. The following points do not constitute an argument for any single point of view, but rather are random thoughts that cross my mind when I read editorials and articles about "Big Five" orchestra contract negotiations. If you have any thoughts about my thoughts - contact me at osoviolist@yahoo.com.

I have been a member of the Oregon Symphony since 1995, and a member of the musician's union since 1991. I am a firm believer in the union's role to protect the interests of the musicians in what has traditionally been a powerless role against the whims of the previously all-powerful music director and their cronies in management. Obviously, times have changed in the last three or four decades. Music directors have much less power, and seemingly, much less interest in their orchestras - perhaps a reality of the globe-trotting guest conductor? Managements now exists much less to serve the whims of the music director and now are accountable to boards who want to see responsibly run organizations. The corporate mindset has increasingly made inroads on an idiosyncratic (to put it mildly) business model of the not-for-profit arts organization.

There is a famous survey about job satisfaction which, along with the statistic about marriage and getting struck by lightning, is one of the most quoted statistics out there. Namely, that our job satisfaction is one of the lowest in the industry, ranking below sanitation workers and just above prison guards. Orchestral musicians are highly trained, highly self-motivated, and highly-self critical people. When you combine those aspects within a job in which you have very little say in your work environment or how you play your instrument on which you spent all those years slaving away in a practice room, you have a recipe for dissatisfaction.

When articles or editorials talk about how "underpaid" members of one Big Five orchestra or another might be, often with no small helping of sarcasm, I would point the author (and reader) to think of the following factors:

By the time you are 30 years old, you have spent between 20 to 25 years studying privately. You have earned at least a bachelor's degree in a very specialized subject, and most likely at least one graduate degree or certificate. If you were a lawyer, you would have an average starting salary of around $80,000. If you are an orchestral musician, you would have an average starting salary of $40,000 if you were a member of one of the major ICSOM orchestras. Let's say that you spend a couple years in your entry-level position, and you compete for and win a position in one of the top orchestras in the country, like the Philadelphia Orchestra. You would earn somewhere around $100,000. Not bad. But had you worked in a law firm, accounting firm, or in the medical profession, where you had either earned a junior partnership or completed a residency in surgery or anesthesiology, you could be looking at a salary between three and five times that of the orchestral musician. And you income potential would have virtually no bounds as you opened your own practice, signed on partners, and do on. As an orchestral musician, you would be lucky over the course of your career to increase you compensation much above the level of inflation. Sure, some contracts would go up a good amount, but others would not, and the average would be close to the inflation rate.

More on this as time goes by - however, my orchestra will be negotiating a new contract this season, and I will not comment upon the proceedings in the forum once that process begins.