Fixing the Call: Does the AFM Need a Fairer Hiring System for Freelance Musicians?

Katie A. Berglof
11 hours ago
12 min read

Musician waiting to be hired for a production

It often begins with an email or phone call that never comes.

A young musician, trained for years, waits to hear from the contractor who controls access to the pit, the recording studio, or the symphony hall. They may never hear back. Not because of their playing, but because of something else entirely: they are not on the right list, not in the right circle, or no longer in the right graces.

Last week, I read a fantastic essay by Joe LaRocca titled The Ultimate Guide for Ethical Pit Orchestra Hiring for Musicals. In it, LaRocca raised a question many working freelance musicians have quietly asked: why, in a field as structured and rule-bound as classical music, is union hiring mostly still governed by word of mouth?

The question matters because it exposes a paradox at the heart of the American Federation of Musicians (AFM). For over a century, AFM contracts have regulated rehearsal breaks, overtime pay, and pension contributions. In many ways, the AFM represents one of the most codified and legally structured corners of the arts. And yet, when it comes to how musicians actually get hired for jobs (i.e., subs, extras, Broadway pits, and recording sessions) the process remains opaque, dependent on private call lists, personal relationships, and the discretion of a handful of gatekeepers.

How can a union so meticulous about pension protection and intellectual property rights be so casual about who actually gets to work?

The Inheritance of Informality

To understand the persistence of word-of-mouth hiring, we have to look at history. The AFM was founded in 1896, at a time when musicians provided the soundtrack for everything from vaudeville shows to silent films. Unlike stagehands, longshoremen, or railroad workers, musicians rarely reported to centralized hiring halls. Instead, theaters and orchestras relied on trusted contractors or leaders who called their friends and colleagues for work.

By the mid-20th century, especially on Broadway and in Hollywood studios, these contractors became powerful figures. Their personal networks determined careers. They assured producers that the musicians they hired could sight-read difficult scores, blend into ensembles, and handle grueling schedules. The AFM, rather than challenging this informality, largely codified around it — protecting pay scales and working conditions but leaving hiring itself in the employer’s domain.

That legacy persists. In many locals today, the union regulates wages but does not manage the hiring lists. If you are not already on a contractor’s list, you may never even see an opportunity. If you fall off, there is often no appeal process.

When Networks Become Barriers

The informal culture of word-of-mouth hiring creates predictable problems, many of which Joe LaRocca has already covered in his essay:

Favoritism: Contractors often return to the same musicians, replicating existing demographics rather than opening doors for new players.
Bias: Women and musicians of color are frequently excluded from informal networks, even when they meet or exceed the skill level required.
Retaliation: Musicians who speak up about misconduct may find themselves quietly erased from call lists, with no due process.
Lack of Mobility: Younger players who are talented but not socially connected may spend years “waiting for a break” that never comes.

For an industry publicly wrestling with diversity, equity, and inclusion, the reliance on opaque lists is a glaring contradiction.

A Different Kind of Union

Contrast this with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), which represents stagehands, riggers, and designers. This is the union where I have the most direct experience, and I have seen firsthand how it handles ethical hiring.

In IATSE, each local runs its own dispatch center that oversees a hiring hall. Members are tested for skills, categorized, and required to update certifications. Jobs are posted on a digital board. Members bid on calls. Dispatchers assign work based on a balance of seniority, skill, and employer requests. Every decision leaves a documented trail.

The system has built-in flexibility. Employers and institutions can request specific union members for certain positions if they favor their work or trust their reliability. When this happens, the job posting lists those individuals as “requested.” Their initials appear in the call publication with a note: requested member — if unable to accept, the position will reopen to all members. This makes the process transparent, so everyone knows when a role is pre-requested and when it is open to bids.

IATSE also allows employers to bar individuals who have caused problems — but bans are not simply at the whim of a single employer. Any ban has to be reported to the union, investigated thoroughly, and confirmed with documented reasoning. The union weighs fairness, the worker’s past record, and due process before a ban is enacted. In other words, discipline is not arbitrary, and workers have protection against being blacklisted unfairly.

Closing days (i.e., the deadlines when calls are finalized) can be complex. Members sometimes drop gigs they accepted, encounter transportation issues, institutions realize they are short on staff, call times shift, or an extra rehearsal is added on. Dispatchers impressively juggle all of this, but they do so by the book, applying clear rules and leaving a digital trail. Even when members are frustrated, dispatch can show that every assignment followed established procedure.

The effect is transformative. No one’s career hinges solely on being friends with the right contractor. Newer members can see where they stand, improve their category through training, and eventually rotate into higher-level jobs. Veterans benefit too, since seniority is still respected in long-term assignments.

Although the IATSE regulation style applied to handling smaller groups may not make sense for every corner of the music world, it is still far better than having a lack of transparency. It is not flawless, but it is accountable. And compared to the murkiness of current freelance hiring practices, it feels almost revolutionary.

Why the AFM Never Built Dispatch Halls

Some readers may ask: if dispatch models are so effective, why doesn’t the AFM already use them? The answer lies in a mix of history, law, and strategy.

Early Experiments: The truth is, it tried — briefly. In the early 20th century, a few AFM locals experimented with hiring halls. But unlike stagehands or dockworkers, musicians were rarely dispatched as large crews. They were usually hired as small, hand-picked groups assembled by bandleaders or contractors. That leader-driven structure made dispatch harder to enforce, and employers resisted ceding hiring power.
Legal Complications: The problem was compounded by the courts. In American Federation of Musicians v. Carroll (1968), the Supreme Court examined whether AFM’s rules on how bandleaders hired sidemen violated antitrust law. The Court upheld the union’s right to regulate members — a win on paper. But the ruling also reinforced a thornier reality: the law treated bandleaders as “employers,” not simply as workers. That blurred line between employer and employee made a centralized dispatch hall risky, exposing the union to the fear of potential liability.
Shifting Industry Dynamics: By the late 20th century, steady engagements — radio orchestras, big bands, nightly theater pits were collapsing. Musicians became freelancers, moving gig to gig. Unlike IATSE stagehands tied to a venue for weeks or even months, AFM members increasingly worked in more fragmented, short-term settings. A permanent hiring hall no longer matched the reality of the work.
Digital and Independent Work: The rise of recording technology and self-promotion accelerated the shift. Musicians booked their own sessions, advertised online, and often bypassed the union entirely. Locals tried stopgaps (for example, Local 802’s “Musician Referral Service” in New York) but these directories produced only modest results. The AFM later launched AFM Entertainment, a national referral platform, but it functioned more like a matchmaking service than a true dispatch system.
Strategic Shift to Advocacy: By the 1980s and 1990s, AFM leadership consciously stepped back from controlling who got each gig. Historically, the union had been powerful enough to discipline members who took nonunion work, effectively policing careers. But that “gig cop” role bred resentment and fractured solidarity. The union repositioned itself around collective bargaining, pension protection, and later intellectual property rights.

Past Attempts at Reform

There have been moments when AFM locals attempted to experiment with more structured systems though:

The Broadway Lists (1970s): In New York, complaints about favoritism led Local 802 to create official rotation lists for certain shows. The idea was to guarantee subs a fair chance. But resistance from contractors and producers eventually watered the lists down.
Regional Orchestra Pools (1990s): Some smaller locals tried maintaining “call pools” where substitutes rotated to ensure fairness. These were unevenly applied and often collapsed once personnel managers reverted to informal networks.
Recording Sessions: The AFM’s recording agreements are among the most structured contracts in the arts, with detailed scale rules and health and pension contributions. But even here, who actually gets the call for a session is often decided privately, not through any union-managed process.
Cost and Complexity of Union Work: Hiring under AFM contracts can be expensive and bureaucratic, especially in recording. Producers and employers must navigate a maze of session scales, pay leaders at double scale, compensate for instrument cartage, and contribute to pension and health funds. The administrative load of these agreements often drives employers to hire contractors, who act as intermediaries — reinforcing the reliance on gatekeepers instead of union dispatch.

The Result: Today, the AFM is strongest once a musician is hired, ensuring fair pay, health contributions, and pensions. But the question of who actually gets the call (who gets access to the audition, the pit, or the session) remains largely untouched, still governed by private lists and personal networks.

Do AFM Freelancers need better hiring process

The Contradiction

On paper, the AFM’s reasons for abandoning hiring halls make sense: the industry is fragmented, freelance-heavy, and digital-first. However, compared to guilds like SAG-AFTRA or the Writers Guild, AFM has historically taken a lighter touch on member oversight. Actors, for example, who take nonunion work still risk losing their union membership, but AFM musicians can often play nonunion gigs without penalty. This flexibility has helped keep members, but it has also meant the union exerts less control over the full scope of a musician’s career.

The irony becomes clear: while in the 1950s, the union was indeed criticized for being too heavy-handed, policing musicians with threats of fines and expulsion if they worked outside union bylaws, today they are criticized for the complete opposite: for being too hands-off, leaving hiring up to contractors and networks that perpetuate bias. This is the contradiction musicians keep running into.

The question becomes, how can the union step back into this vacuum without repeating the heavy-handed tactics of the past?

Here is where lessons from IATSE and other dispatch-based unions matter. Dispatch systems prove that fairness in access can be structured, transparent, and enforceable without erasing flexibility. They show that unions can protect not only the value of work but also the distribution of work.

For AFM, the path forward does not have to mean resurrecting the full rigid hiring halls of the past. Instead, it can mean piloting new and reformed models that scale with today’s freelance reality (reforms that balance employer choice with union oversight, transparency, and due process).

Three Levels of Reform

Adopting an IATSE-style dispatch doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing leap. The AFM could experiment with incremental reforms that would dramatically improve fairness.

Level 1: Light Touch (Transparency First) Publish official sub and extra rosters. Track who is called and when. Build a skills registry so employers see more than just familiar names. Encourage employers to sign a “Fair Call” pledge committing to transparent hiring.
Level 2: Hybrid Model (Shared Control) Union manages the rotation list and enforces fair call order. Employers retain a limited number of requests. A digital call board posts open jobs. Removing a musician requires documented cause, verified by the union.
Level 3: Full Local Dispatch (IATSE-Style) Central rosters with skill categories and seniority, updated annually. Digital bidding system where members sign up for calls. Dispatchers assign work by rule, with exceptions logged transparently. Quarterly transparency reports share job distribution data.

Even Level 1 would create a culture shift. Levels 2 and 3 would demand contractual change but could transform fairness in the field.

Global Lessons and Other Creative Paths to Reform

Dispatch is one model, but it’s not the only way to build fairness into hiring. If AFM or any coalition of musicians wants to reimagine access to work, there are other creative reforms — and looking abroad offers both inspiration and cautionary tales as well.

The UK Example: Orchestra Provisions

In the UK, the Musicians’ Union not only negotiates minimum rates but also pushes for anti-discrimination provisions in freelance contracts. Reports like the Women and Equalities Committee’s Misogyny in Music (2024) and studies commissioned by Arts Council England have put pressure on orchestras to address not just pay scales, but who gets called in the first place. Some UK ensembles now publish gender and diversity breakdowns of their rosters, and public funders increasingly expect evidence of inclusive hiring practices.

At the same time, the UK model shows limits. Musicians still face informal “closed shop” networks, where contractors recycle the same freelancers, and whistleblowers risk blacklisting. But the culture of external oversight (with parliamentary committees, equity audits, and public reports) is something the AFM could learn from. U.S. orchestras rarely face this level of scrutiny unless lawsuits or scandals force it.

Possible Creative Paths Forward

Transparency by Default Imagine a digital “Fair Work Ledger” that tracks every call made by a contractor or personnel manager. Who was called, who was requested, who got the job, and how many times a season each musician was hired — all posted in anonymized, aggregate form. Similar to the UK’s diversity audits, this would spotlight patterns of favoritism or bias in real time.
Rotation Plus Mentorship Blend dispatch with mentorship. For every five calls given to a senior player, one must go to a junior or underrepresented musician. This would reduce the “glass ceiling” effect and give fresh talent a structured pathway into the field.
Community Service Credits Tie eligibility for prime calls to contributions like teaching, mentoring, or advocacy. Much like Arts Council England demands evidence of public engagement, orchestras could link hiring to community benefit.
Portable “Fair Call” Standards AFM could pioneer a certification adopted by contractors, festivals, and pits — signaling a commitment to transparent and equitable hiring.
External Oversight Borrowing from the UK, AFM could establish an ombuds program or ethics board to vet contested hiring decisions, adding credibility without leaving all power in contractors’ hands.
Public-Facing Accountability Require orchestras to publish updated rosters not just once a season but after every major cycle. Like the UK’s funding rules, this would place cultural pressure on institutions to prove they are hiring fairly.
Joe LaRocca has discussed different types of potential hiring models in his essay too: The Casting Model built for maximum flexibility, and the Resident Model providing consistency and a sense of company identity while still allowing for style-specific substitutions.

Taken together, these reforms (from incremental transparency to UK-style oversight) demonstrate that ethical hiring is possible. The real question is not whether the AFM could adopt similar measures, but whether it will choose to, and if musicians push for reform. Again, change cannot happen unless musicians who are members of the AFM advocate for it together. The cost of inaction is not theoretical though. It is lived every day by freelancers shut out of opportunities, by qualified musicians who never see their names called, and who watch opaque networks determine their future.

What’s at Stake

Critics may argue that music is different....that chemistry within sections and preferences make rigid rules impossible. But structure need not erase artistry. Transparency does not mean rigidity or policing; it means accountability.

If AFM does not eventually adapt to change, the risks are clear. Musicians may begin to organize outside the union, forming cooperatives or digital platforms that promise fairer access. Younger generations, raised in the gig economy, may bypass unions altogether one day.

The deeper issue is one of trust. Musicians devote their lives to fairness and precision in sound. Shouldn’t they expect the same fairness in how they are assigned work?

Other unions in the arts have proven that due process strengthens rather than weakens their industries. The AFM has the chance to lead, not follow; to set the standard for how creativity and accountability can coexist. What hangs in the balance is not just union policy, but the credibility of a profession that claims to prize merit while too often rewarding connections.

Note: I don't know all the ins and outs of the AFM since I have experience working for the union IATSE. Perhaps there are other ways they make hiring processes more fair and transparent that I am simply not aware of. Either way, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic—share your perspective in the comments. If this resonates, please follow both Harpsichords & Hot Sauce and Joe LaRocca on Substack. I’m migrating my H&HS journal to Substack for privacy and focus, while keeping my current site.

References

Local 802 AFM, “Can the Union Help You Get Gigs? Yes! A Look at 802’s Referral Service,” Allegro (May 2004), https://www.local802afm.org/allegro/articles/can-the-union-help-you-get-gigs-yes/.

Local 802 AFM, “Union Discipline: Should We Go Back to Being Gig Cops Even If We Still Have That Power?” Allegro (May 2011), https://www.local802afm.org/allegro/articles/union-discipline/.

Bobby Owsinski, “The Ins and Outs of Hiring a Union Player for a Session,” ProSoundWeb (July 20, 2015), https://www.prosoundweb.com/the-ins-and-outs-of-hiring-a-union-player-for-a-session/.

CultureSonar, “Music and the State of the Union,” CultureSonar (June 11, 2016), https://www.culturesonar.com/music-business-unions/.

Women and Equalities Committee, Misogyny in Music (Second Report of Session 2023–24), UK Parliament (Jan 30, 2024), https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmwomeq/129/report.html.

IATSE Local 470, “Hiring Hall Rules and Procedures,” https://www.ia470.com/h-hall.html.

IATSE Local 122, “Referral Hall Rules, Procedures and Requirements,” https://www.iatse122.org/resources/referral-hall-rules/.

IATSE Local 93, “Hiring Hall,” https://www.iatse93.org/hiring-hall.

IATSE Local 101, “Hiring Hall Referral & Work Rules,” https://iatse101.net/hiring-hall-referral-work-rules/.

IATSE Local 18, “Referral Hall Rules & Regulations,” https://iatse18.org/2025_6-10_IATSE%20Local%2018%20Referral%20Hall%20Rules%20Regulations_v3.0.pdf.

Musicians’ Union, “Orchestral Auditions – Creating a Transparent and Fair Recruitment Process,” Musicians’ Union (October 3, 2023), https://musiciansunion.org.uk/working-performing/orchestral-work/auditions.

Black Lives in Music, “BLiM’s Innovative 10-Point Plan Helps to Increase Diversity within UK Orchestras,” August 19, 2024, https://blim.org.uk/news/blims-innovative-10-point-plan-helps-to-increase-diversity-within-uk-orchestras/.

Association of British Orchestras, “Equity, Diversity and Inclusion,” ABO, https://abo.org.uk/what-we-do/championing/edi.

Black Lives in Music/MU/ABO, “Leading UK Orchestras & Choirs Commit To Plan Boosting Diverse Recruitment,” April 29, 2024, https://blim.org.uk/news/leading-uk-orchestras-choirs-commit-to-plan-boosting-diverse-recruitment/.

Arts Council England, “Fair and More Inclusive Classical Music Sector,” Arts Council England, https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/developing-creativity-and-culture/diversity/fair-and-more-inclusive-classical-music-sector. (c) 2025, Katie A. Berglof