Reading further down in the article you cite - talking about this as a labor vs. management battle pushes a lot of people's buttons, but that's just an emotional side-show.

The Real Story: An organization had neither enough income to survive, nor good prospects of improving that situation. So it died.

Given the letter written by the board, I think it's fair to discuss. At the very least, the board is trying to save face by blaming the shutdown on "the union being unreasonable". That always makes me suspicious about the details being left out.

The nuances around went it died are also important. Could it have been saved with a different managerial approach? That's especially relevant for a cultural institution.

Call me old and cynical...but my read of the letter was "We are financially dead & headed to the Chapter 7 chop shop". Followed by all the required-by-social-conventions things they're supposed to say, regardless of truth.

From skimming a couple sources, it sounds like the Symphony had profound financial problems, going back decades. Prospective local donors & sponsors tend to have long memories of such things. A little local non-profit can't play corporate name games to escape from a bad reputation. Nor count on attracting the best of board members or managers.

I agree that the nuances, details, "could it have been saved?", local cultural institutions, etc. are important. But unless some long-term insider from the SAS pops up here on HN, I don't think we've any chance to find out. :(

Thanks for grabbing the numbers. I have a good friend who's in the union for my hometown's theater. Hearing his stories over the past few years have made me deeply suspicious of anything posted by management that boils down to "we're shutting down because the union is being unreasonable."

It's a completely different world than tech, and some of the managerial incompetence that's blamed on the union (and before it was formed, the lowest paid workers) is astounding.

> - Cut the number of full-time symphony musicians from 72 to 42.

So they want to change from a symphonic orchestra to a chamber one.

No, they want to be able to program music by Mozart without paying a Bass Clarinet player to do nothing.

Even if most symphony performances include 72 players, not all of them do, and it's not always the same 72.