Page images
PDF
EPUB

were deleterious effects of prehire agreements in other industries that prompted the NLRA to reflect that position.

I appreciate the testimony here today, but I have no further questions.

Chairman WILLIAMS. Thank you. Mr. Romero-Barcelo.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Well, on the question that the Chairman was asking, another question arose in my mind. When we get the new health care plan the President is proposing, the new health care plan, all employers will have to pay for the health insurance or part of the health insurance.

Now, who would be responsible for the payment of the health insurance; would it be the owner of the night club or the restaurant or whatever or the leader of the band?

Mr. MASSAGLI. Well, Congressman, let me address that this way. I don't think any of us, well, certainly on this side of the room, know what that bill will entail when it comes in, but health and welfare or insurance payments or pension payments are not automatic by virtue of employment. They are negotiated items that may or may not appear in a collective bargaining agreement should the parties to that agreement agree to make such contributions. So that is as the law stands today.

If the law were to say only those who are employees, I understand there is an exemption now that if you work employees less than 20 hours per week you don't call them employees for the purposes of having to make those contributions. What the new law will bring, who knows? But the situation is now, even a musician who would be working as a true employee, the health and welfare and the pension contribution are not obligatory. They are negotiated items. They are not subject to mandatory bargaining.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. The plans apparently are that the new law, it will be mandatory, at least a part of the health care payment, health insurance payment for all employers, even the small employers, they will have a smaller rate or whatever by law. They will have a cap, but every employer will be paying.

Who will be the employer in this case? Would it be the band leader or would it be the

Mr. MASSAGLI. Well, Congressman, I can't say, because, obviously, it cannot be for every person with whom that establishment engages for a service, because that would mean vendors as well. Vendors, those who deliver beer and the like, they would not be the employees of that establishment.

And if the band leader in this case, should this measure pass, if the band leader is an independent contractor, the band leader is still an independent contractor. Whether or not the new law or what is being proposed now would reach that far, I certainly cannot predict.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I was bringing it up because it is something you should probably be concerned with and should address that, because I don't think it would be in the best interest of the musicians or the group to have these individual owners of the places being responsible for paying because they might have problems with the payments; whereas only one person responsible to them, like the band leader that has to pay that, it would probably be better for the individual musicians.

I just bring that up as something that should be looked at because it is going to be that way.

Mr. MASSAGLI. Thank you.

Chairman WILLIAMS. Well, we thank each of you. This legislation, or legislation trying to approach this matter, is now a decade and a half old in the Congress. It is one thing to have legislation introduced, not passed, reintroduced, not passed, when the Congress has looked at the legislation and made a decision on the policy that the legislation is trying to reach. That is not the case with this legislation. In the House of Representatives, in 15 years, this is the second hearing that this legislation has had. This legislation languishes not because the Congress has made up its mind on it, but because of inattention.

The majority of the members of this subcommittee are going to end that inattention. Whether we will pass the legislation is another matter, but I can assure you, as Chair, we are finally, in the House, going to focus on this legislation the old-fashioned way: we are going to vote.

The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD M. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for calling this hearing today to discuss the Live Performing Artists Labor Relations Act.

The Live Performing Arts Labor Relations Amendments are designed to address the inequities in our Nation's labor laws. We must devise a method for allowing performing artists the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining.

As we know, the live performing art industry is characterized by short term employment. This situation does not lend itself to the traditional manner of negotiating employment practices.

Moreover, live performing artists may not have a continuous relationship with one particular employer. Due to their sporadic employment, they often accept positions under precarious conditions.

We see there is a need to give live performing artists the opportunity to express their views on working conditions and wages. We need to create a system by which we can accommodate the needs of performing artists, yet include the interests of establishment owners where they perform.

I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's panelists and I thank them for their participation.

[ocr errors]

1200 SEVENTEENTH SIREFT, NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20036-3097 2005391-5900 FAX. 202/59-2429

July 20, 1993

NATIONAL7
RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION

Honorable Pat Williams

Chairman

Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations

112 Cannon Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On behalf of the National Restaurant Association and the 720,000 places of business in
the foodservice industry, I would like to submit for the record our comments regarding
H.R. 226, the Live Performing Artists Labor Relations Act.

The National Restaurant Association opposes this legislation. If enacted, this measure
would change the status of live performing artists under the National Labor Relations
Act from independent contractors to employees. The foodservice industry is largely
composed of small businesses with approximately 72 percent of cating and drinking
establishments earning annual sales of less than $500,000. The average profit margin is
between 3 and 5 percent of gross sales. The costs in benefits and taxes associated with
hiring additional employees will likely lead many business owners to conclude recorded
music is preferable to live music or other entertainment because it is a better use of
their money. Thus, the people who will be hurt the most by this legislation will be the
live performers.

In addition, many employers will decide they do not desire to employ live performers
when their employment allows such performers to strike and/or picket in front of their
establishments if the employers do not agree to union terms. The profit margins in the
foodservice industry are too modest to allow such activities to occur. Strikes and
picketing can literally put a restaurant out of business. Again, this results in hurting the
live performers.

There is no clear reason for passing this legislation, and the Congress has wisely declined to pass it since it was first introduced ten years ago. The National Restaurant Association urges this Subcommittee to reject this bill, and to preserve the current law which has provided flexibility and fairness to both business owners and live performing artists.

[blocks in formation]

Statement of the
American Hotel & Motel Association.

to the

Labor-Management Relations Subcommittee of the

House Education and Labor Committee

for the

Hearing Held
July 21, 1993

on

H.R. 226

The Live Performing Arts Labor Relations Act

1201 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 289-3120 Fax: (202) 289-3185

« PreviousContinue »