It was a turning point in labor in Seattle when the musicians at the Fifth Avenue Theater returned to the pit with most of the items on the wish list fulfilled after striking last February. With massive rank and file turnout in support of the strike, and with Ron Judd, chair of the King County Labor Council, heralding the effort as the "poster child of the labor movement," you'd think that the musicians were once again in a safe haven for job security, especially with the solidarity shown--they voted l8 to 0 to strike.

But a shoe dropped on August 5, when Frank Young, executive director of the 5th, sent a letter to all musicians announcing a new condition of employment; 5th Ave musicians would now be "urged" to submit to "blind auditions," meaning that all musicians (including non-employees) would re-audition late last August for the next season in November. The letter cited a need to increase the roster of musicians to take care of "increased work loads" and assorted other market driven reasons. Sounds innocuous, until you realize that it's tantamount to reapplying for your job.

An "unfair labor practice" was filed with the National Labor Relations Board in protest of the new policy. According to the charge, the 5th Ave is seeking to change the terms and conditions of employment in retaliation for the strike. Management also refuses to bargain with the union on the issue of auditions, even though it is required by law to do so.

Dmitri Iglitzin, attorney for the musicians handling the problem, cited other concerns. Auditions were open, meaning that a pool of strikebreakers could be developed to break the union at the end of the three-year contract. They could also be used to screen out strong union supporters. Indeed, the auditions are anonymous, but the "Questionnaire" that the musicians would fill out would give away their identity. Just match the job preference descriptions with the few of the 60 workers you want to get rid of. Or, chose sixty out of the l80 you receive, and the law of averages will dictate that about a third of the union supporters will be let go.

In response, musicians at the 5th all refused to re-audition. The Fifth has not yet scheduled new auditions, but the Labor Board has been slow in issuing an injunction barring management to stop the new policy and begin bargaining with the union.

Originally, the musicians struck over the refusal of management to bargain meaningfully on a new contract, so why not strike now? Because the "poster child of the labor movement" produced a contract that contains a "no strike clause," a staple of the modern collective bargaining agreement. The only way a contract can be effectively enforced is through the collective action of the workers; the clause removes this threat to management, leaving the destiny of the musicians up to the whims of the slow and heavily pro- management Labor Board. Theoretically, even if the board ruled favorably, management could appeal, tying the case up for years while the contract expires. Bingo! New potential scabs that don't have to be flown in from across the country to cross the picket line.

Why would a union sign a contract with a "no-strike" clause, especially after such a bitter fight to stay union? It's a question that should be asked about all union contracts, and a concept that should be eliminated from the bag of concessions that union business agents hand over.

And the musicians? It may be time for them to begin organizing early to fight against the next union busting effort that could happen at the 5th Ave in the year 2000, and to fight for the right to strike whenever their contract needs to be enforced. There is always the risky option of decertification, and choosing a different union, which would mean starting from scratch, should their current union refuse to fight for a contract with the "no-strike" clause removed. Either way, the fight at the Fifth Avenue continues, even though their supporters are not on the streets. No doubt they're fighting similar workplace battles of their own.

--John Persak