I find it interesting that Professor Benkert has not brought out
union horror experiences with the musicians' union.  Perhaps he is
not a member, but many of his colleagues are.  From the perspective
of positions held in theatre management, I've had my share of
frustrations with union musicians and their representatives. I've had
problems with the two unions for theatre artists with whom I've held
membership as well.  But, for the most part, I feel these unions have
protected the best interests of artists.  Far from creating an
environment in which mediocrity prevails, artists' unions have
provided a foundation for their members to succeed.  Clearly some
succeed spectacularly, others more modestly. (I thing it was George
Abbott who said that you can make "killing" in the theatre, you just
can't make a living.)

It is my observation that university faculty, though generally more
aware than artists of their value in the market place, share with
artists' the prioritization of the work over financial reward for
their efforts.  This idealistic (or naive) characteristic needs
protection from the unscrupulous producers and education-as-business
executives, legislators, and politically appointed higher ed.
commissions.  It is clear that university faculties have benefited
from union representation elsewhere.  We should at least consider
possible benefits that might accrue to us.

My experience with a teachers' union was  brief and uneventful, but
I'm sure that absurdities like those described by Prof. Benkert
exist.(I will refrain from accounting my youthful misadventures with
the Brotherhood of Teamsters.)  But if a faculty union represents us
as well as unions have represented the interests of artists, they
will ameliorate conditions for faculty and the university as a whole.

R Duffy
Theatre and Speech