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

[Julian Vein]

On 01/01/14 18:20, Jeff Lichtman wrote:
>> 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,
I guess that was the answer I was expecting, although there is another, 
possible, explanation. It could be that many of the musicians, or at 
least the bandleaders, were opposed to the ban.

      Julian Vein