[78-L] Sinatra and other singers and the 1942-1944 AFM ban

[Jeff Lichtman]

>Were the artists under some legal 
>obligation to the record companies to fulfill a contract before the 
>deadline? If not, then it seems it wasn't in the artists' interests to 
>do this. It would have defeated the purpose of the ban. Wouldn't they 
>have wanted the action to be have been felt immediately? If say, 
>coalminers vote to go on strike, they are unlikely to build up stocks 
>before doing so.
>
>      Julian Vein

This is true at a group level - the ban would have been more immediately effective if the record companies hadn't had a stockpile of new material. However, it was in the short-term selfish interest of each individual performer to get as much money in the bank before the ban went into effect. A strike requires a bunch of people to endure short-term individual hardship for the long-term good of everyone in the group. There is always the temptation to "cheat" - to let others in the group carry the burden. Unions have ways to prevent this when a strike is actually happening (bad things happen to scabs). But there is no enforcement mechanism before a strike is declared, so union members are freer to put their individual interests ahead of the group.


                       -        Jeff Lichtman
                                jeff at swazoo.com
                                Check out Swazoo Koolak Photography
                                    at http://swazoo.com/