or are they more like sub-contractors than straight-up employees? does that make a difference?
― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Thursday, 23 October 2003 20:50 (twenty-two years ago)
They/we are independent contractors. It'd be nice if labels gave health insurance (& I'd be surprised if the majors didn't include it in their bigger contracts), but smaller labels have a tough enough time as it is.
― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Thursday, 23 October 2003 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)
Everyone should have health insurance, so it's kind of moot.
― Dean Gulberry (deangulberry), Thursday, 23 October 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)
Yeah, I couldn't afford to give health insurance. I barely make my money back as it is. Health insurance for a band for one month would be equivalent to my quarterly budget, most likely.
― Xii (Xii), Thursday, 23 October 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)
What's funny is that labels probably only give insurance to musicians that can afford it. FWIW I looked into a comprehensive self-pay plan for my wife not too long ago and it was about $230 a month. That's a hell of a lot, but for some people that's a car payment.
― Mark (MarkR), Friday, 24 October 2003 01:19 (twenty-two years ago)
The musician's union should offer health insurance. (Maybe it does?)
― dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 24 October 2003 11:16 (twenty-two years ago)
Record companies should do this, and just offer to take it out of whatever they owe the band. On the other hand, it would be just like when athletes go to the team doctors; if Eminem breaks his leg, the record company will probably send him to some doctor who advises him that he should still tour in a wheelchair.
Plus, there's no way the label is paying for Elton John's weave.
― dleone (dleone), Friday, 24 October 2003 11:35 (twenty-two years ago)
they should certainly find a way to work with musicians to help make insurance available to them -- and if i'm not mistaken the major labels very recently announced some sort of plan to do something like that -- but the independent contractor thing does make it particularly hard for labels to just plain provide it for every musician and band they sign.
essentially, they'd end up having to provide insurance for people who they have no power to hire and fire (like, for example, that new keyboardist that matchbox twenty might want to add to the lineup, or that new singer the polyphonic spree was considering adding). assuming a standard health insurance plan is worth $3,000 a year (something of a wild guess on my part), it'd cost an extra $3,000 a year to sign the mountain goats, an extra $6,000 to sign the raveonettes, $15,000 to take on guided by voices, and god knows how much for broken social scene. where do you stop? do you insure only tim mcgraw, or do you insure his recording and touring bands? can you, the label, order nelly to drop a couple members of his crew 'cause you can't afford to carry them?
probably the best thing for labels to do would be to clean up their accounting methods and lower their own costs so they could pass more money on to musicians to find their own insurance.
― fact checking cuz, Friday, 24 October 2003 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)
Record companies should do this, and just offer to take it out of whatever they owe the band But bands owe record labels money, not the other way around.
Musicians don't get sick, anyway.
― Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 24 October 2003 19:24 (twenty-two years ago)