Posted: 12/23/16 at 9:15am
I'm trying to understand why it's okay for an employer to force an employee to take part in a political event. Regardless of the profession, it seems like something that would have been thought of and safe gaurded against in a contract by now.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 9:17am
I'm as liberal as they come, but I totally understand the position of the union here. None of these Rockettes will be promoted by name, and thus they won't individually be "endorsing" Trump. This is no different than asking the staff at a restaurant to do their jobs when a VIP they may not like comes in to eat.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 9:17am
Scarywarhol said: "Yes, it is grotesque for a group of great woman performers to have to perform in celebration of a serial sexual abuser. "
This. BroadwayConcierge, your response is disgusting and makes you sound like a Trump voter. If you are, what are you doing here?
Posted: 12/23/16 at 9:37am
This. BroadwayConcierge, your response is disgusting and makes you sound like a Trump voter. If you are, what are you doing here?"
Trump supporters can love theater too. It is up to liberals and progressives to rise above their level and treat them with dignity even if they don't treat others that way.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 9:43am
At minimum the dancers should start withholding their union dues if they aren't already being automatically deducted from their paychecks.
The shop stewards should be able to file a grievance against MSG and there is no way a mediation could be resolved in less than a month, especially with the holidays imminent. It's unusual for the union to come out against labor preemptively like this. They are supposed to be on the side of the worker.
I'd love to get my hands on the CBA with MSG to see what recourse the union's constituents have here.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 10:07am
Since Citizens United, employers can legally require workers to participate in politics. Wouldn't it be awesome if the Rockettes were the ones to launch a lawsuit and overturn Citizens United?
THE AMERICAN PROSPECT: Employer Political Coercion: A Growing Threat
Posted: 12/23/16 at 10:26am
yankeefan7 said: ""For those claiming this is an "honor"...then why have so very many artists turned it down? "
It is an honor to perform for any POTUS, respect the office even if you dislike/hate the person. Just imagine if Hillary Clinton was elected and people turned down offer to play, 90% of this board would be calling these artists sexist. They are turning it down because of the abuse they would get if they accepted and don't want their careers effected. Congratulations Hollywood, you have done a great job of bullying. Before anybody wants to add that Trump is a bully I will just say "Two wrongs don't make a right".
"
If they chose not to perform at HER inauguration, they have that right. If one does not perceive it as an "honor" it simply is not.
You don't know the definition of bullying. Here from USLegal.com
Bullying is generally defined as an intentional act that causes harm to others, and may involve verbal harassment, verbal or non-verbal threats, physical assault, stalking, or other methods of coercion such as manipulation, blackmail, or extortion. It is aggressive behavior that intends to hurt, threaten or frighten another person. An imbalance of power between the aggressor and the victim is often involved. Bullying occurs in a variety of contexts, such as schools, workplaces, political or military settings, and others.
Not wanting to perform is NOT causing harm to anyone. Not wanting to perform in NOT a threat. Not wanting to perform is NOT a physical assault, coercion, stalking, manipulation, blackmail or extortion. It is NOT aggressive behavior. It doesn't intend to hurt, threaten or frighten another person. There is no imbalance of power from Hollywood. Regardless of WHY any performer doesn't want to appear, no one should be forced to do so.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 10:41am
AGVA is in a tough spot here. They need to preserve union jobs at one of their most high-profile employers- and they're not exactly a big and strong union (less than 3000 members... compare to 50k for AEA and well over 100k for SAG-AFTRA). That seems to be the gist of this email- AGVA can't easily authorize a work action against this contract. A union sanctioning its members breaking a contract can have consequences for further employment, whether it be loss of leverage in contract negotiations going forward or even risking losing the union work totally, to say nothing of its members who would be breaking their contracts. If AGVA says "sure, let's boycott," MSG can reasonably say, "Great, you're all fired, you've broken your contract and embarrassed us. We will not be renegotiating our contracts with you when they expire."
Without knowing the details of a Rockettes contract, I really can't speak specifically, but I'm not sure I see how this would violate a typical performance contract, which usually has language that stipulates the performers need to follow reasonable work directives (IE- they cannot be required to do anything that compromises the safety of the performer or others or violates other terms of the agreement). . I think you would have a very hard time at this moment arguing that performing at an inauguration breaks that- even Donald Trump's. No union performance contract I am aware of has a clause that lets performers opt out of their contractual duties for conscientious/political reasons (I think having such a clause invites a great deal of problems). I also think you could split hairs about what performing at an inauguration means; is it a a political endorsement of the incoming president? Or is it participation in a national tradition -the democratic handing off of power between presidents- that transcends specific politics? (It should be noted that the Rockettes have performed at inaugurations before, as well).
Regardless, I think much of the onus should be put on the employer, not AGVA.
Updated On: 12/23/16 at 10:41 AM
Posted: 12/23/16 at 10:42am
dramamama611 said: " Regardless of WHY any performer doesn't want to appear, no one should be forced to do so."
No one is going to force them to be there. Now there may be penalties for not performing as their contract requires, but they're free to not perform and risk being kicked out of the Rockettes. The problem is that it seems they want to be able to be in breach of contract while also not being penalized for being in breach of contract. It doesn't work that way.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 10:55am
Why does everyone keep suggesting that THEY don't want to....no one knows how many of them are concerned about this.
Yes, if you want to keep your job, you might be forced to do something. Which is also true of all us....doesn't mean we can't sympathize with those that may be uncomfortable about it.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 10:57am
At least one Rockette has expressed her opinion publicly, but, yes, I'm uncomfortable with speaking for them as a group. They and AGVA are in a lose/lose situation.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 11:04am
dramamama611 said: "Why does everyone keep suggesting that THEY don't want to....no one knows how many of them are concerned about this.
Yes, if you want to keep your job, you might be forced to do something. Which is also true of all us....doesn't mean we can't sympathize with those that may be uncomfortable about it.
"
Are the coming years just going to be filled with having to explain over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over why this situation is different?
Group of female performers. At risk of losing their jobs and being sued, required to perform in celebration of a serial sexual predator. Not normal. Never normal.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 11:21am
Interesting that this "winner" has to force performers to take part in the inauguration by finding artists who have no say over when and where they appear. Surely such a "winner" should be awash with other offers of support...
Posted: 12/23/16 at 11:27am
"I'm trying to understand why it's okay for an employer to force an employee to take part in a political event."
The Rockettes is a brand that contracts to perform at events other than Radio City. Not too hard to understand, as it's their prerogative to do so. I don't know if you're employed, but if you decide you don't want to do your job one day because you do't like what you're supposed to do, then your employer should have no problem with that?
Posted: 12/23/16 at 11:53am
MSG has spoken out and pretty much made this entire discussion a moot point:
" "For a Rockette to be considered for an event, they must voluntarily sign up and are never told they have to perform at a particular event, including the inaugural. It is always their choice. In fact, for the coming inauguration, we had more Rockettes request to participate than we have slots available. We eagerly await the inaugural celebrations."
In this article
Updated On: 12/23/16 at 11:53 AM
Posted: 12/23/16 at 11:56am
Well if that's the case thank goodness they're kinder to their employees than some people on this thread would be if they were in charge. Not sure why there have been conflicting reports though.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:00pm
aaaaaa15 said: "Well if that's the case thank goodness they're kinder to their employees than some people on this thread would be if they were in charge. Not sure why there have been conflicting reports though."
There were conflicting reports because the only source seemed to be an email from an AGVA employee that was sent to BWW- that seems was more in response to asking the union to take action against MSG for even agreeing to the performance at all (only the AGVA email was released, not the email that prompted it).
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:04pm
I do echo all the statements made about Trump and how he's all sorts of walking evil. But, I do feel that though there may be some memebers of the Rockettes that don't want to perform for Trump, they should suck it up and deal.
Let me give you some personal background. I am part of IATSE local 306 which is the ushers union. I also work at Hamilton, where, a couple of weeks before her fundraising performance, Hillary, Chelsea and Bill went to see the show. I had some coworkers who weren't so thrilled with her and were vocal about it when she was there that time. They didn't walk out of work or refuse to show up etc. They showed up and worked. Granted, I know that it's different that as an usher we get paid a certain amount per performance and if we can't make a performance for whatever reason we don't get paid said certain amount. Point I'm trying to make is that if it's part of your job it may require you at times to do things that you may have to even if you're none to thrilled to do it.
I know AGVA is a small union, and I don't know what kind of contract the Rockettes have with MSG, but I feel that since it is hard to get work as a dancer it may be for their benefit to just bite the bullet and just do it rather than loose their gig.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:25pm
I don't think you can compare ushering at Hamilton when Bill and Hillary show up to a televised inauguration that is seen all over the world.
Requirements for the troupe to perform may not be as rigid as some have mentioned. There are probably plenty of understudies who need the money to cover for those who are unable to perform or want to take the time off. There may also be a few performers who do not want to go through the background checks given artists tend to have colorful pasts. I know there have been required background checks for special events in the city and people were asked to grant permission if they wanted to work. Many local 306 ushers ran for the door.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:35pm
It is an honor to perform for any POTUS, respect the office even if you dislike/hate the person.
Do As We Say, Not As We Did - The Post-Obama Republican meme. I can't wait to see that on your new flag right under the so-not-an-elitist TRUMP logo.
They are turning it down because of the abuse they would get if they accepted and don't want their careers effected.
You can read their minds, but not correctly use "affected"?
Updated On: 12/23/16 at 12:35 PM
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:50pm
A lot of you are placing them in your own shoes (and minds) instead of the other way around. Regardless of your political leanings, you underestimate an individual's will to persist in their livelihood and succeed. These women will get to be on a highly televised national broadcast. Many performers will never get that chance. So if they want that opportunity, they will be there to do it. It is safe to say, most people do not strive for high ideals, let alone jeopardize themselves or their families for them. Most of us never will do such a thing, not until we are already pushed to the brink.
Learn to pick your battles and fight when it is meaningful. The coming times will need you to.
A dance performance? There are literally millions and millions of people on both sides of the fence who don't give a flip. And while I'd love to see some solidarity with this troupe against performing at the inauguration, until you show any real evidence anyone is being *forced* to do it (all but dragged on stage kicking and screaming), there really is nothing here.
Pick your battles and fight where it counts. You'll want to be out there organizing (or financially supporting where you can), not on this niche forum pontificating.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:54pm
"They are turning it down because of the abuse they would get if they accepted and don't want their careers affected."
I guess you did not read Andrea Bocelli's statement why he would not perform after saying yes. See below.
Bocelli said there was no way he’d take the gig . . . he was ‘getting too much heat’ and he said no.”
"You can read their minds, but not correctly use "affected"
Wow, I am not perfect and made a typo. When you become perfect let me know - lol
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:55pm
I'm so tired of people thinking that all people in certain industries all think the same way. Not everyone in the arts is a democrat, not all teachers are democrats, not all business people are republicans etc.
If you're an "opposite thinker" in any of those areas you are shouted down and vilified so much that you're forced to keep your thoughts hidden. Why do you think Trump won when almost every poll said opposite? The only place a lot of people felt comfortable sharing their true feelings was at the ballot box.
Please note that I did not vote for Mr. Trump. I do not agree with a lot of what he says or does. However, when people act like Bill Clinton was an angel towards women the hypocrisy of it all grates on me. Can you imagine if he were running in these times of social media and the internet? Pretty sure we would have heard some vile things from him as well.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:57pm
"It is up to liberals and progressives to rise above their level and treat them with dignity even if they don't treat others that way."
Very nice and maybe it should start with the jerk yelling at Ivanka Trump on airplane the other day.
Posted: 12/23/16 at 12:57pm
So this doesn't cover the "full-time" dancers. They still have no choice.
