The rockettes to perform at the Dons inauguration - Page 4

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:00pm

 

The villainess seems to be the AGVA "official" who sent out this ill-advised and hyper-political email to union members:

 

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:00pm

"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."

Very good point.

[Jallenc32]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:07pm

yankeefan7 said: ""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."

If I were there to witness it, or was friends with the person in question, I absolutely would have intervened and told him to knock it off.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:09pm

They are already in rehearsals!

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/springtime-for-hitler.gif

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:10pm

Very nice and maybe it should start with the jerk yelling at Ivanka Trump on airplane the other day.

 

That probably wasn't Ivanka. It was probably just another fake news story.

 

SNOPES CASTS DOUBT ON IVANKA FLYING JETBLUE COACH

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:11pm

[GreenSharpie]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:15pm

There's something very fishy about the MSG statement.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:20pm

yankeefan7 said: ""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."

Very good point."

 

In the words of our President Elect: WRONG.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:28pm

Wrong, exactly! They are Headlining the Inauguration. People will tune into see them. They will be on television worldwide. Restaurant staff are NOT headlining and not drawing public attention.

 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:29pm

For those saying the rockettes should be honored to be performing for the next POTUS, that's not how it works. The potus should be honored the rockettes are performing for him. 

The People shouldn't be honored to be in the presence of the president, the president should be honored to be in the presence of The People, especially The People who didn't vote for him-which is three million more than people who did. 

The President is not a god, it's an honor. 

Everything that we've seen trump do has shown his disrespect towards the office of the president, so why should the people respect him?

 

this was all over the place, but it basically sums up what I feel about trump. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:30pm

Our anger should be with MSG and the Union for forcing this performance, not for the performers themselves.

Yankeefan7 said:  "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."

That's an interesting point.  But I'm not sure I can fully agree with it.

Counterargument:  A meal is a meal.  An inauguration for many represents something quite different, a political celebration.  One can easily be in favor of a politician one fundamentally disagrees with having a meal wherever he or she'd like (or, to bring up another topical example, a member of that politician's family being on any airplane they choose to get on, and not to be stalked or aggressively harassed while onboard), including your own establishment, and yet be fundamentally opposed to any one being forced to perform at a celebration honoring a politician's installation in power.  

Moreover, there's a difference between a public accommodation or any of its employees refusing service to someone for political reasons and a performer or artist wanting some degree of control over their brands and reputations and to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and association by refusing to perform - not just for someone they might well be fundamentally opposed to, as some of the Hamilton cast doubtless did for Pence, for instance - but at a ceremony commemorating that politician's inauguration in power.

Would any significant part of the population accuse a restaurant's serving any particular politician with an approval of what that politician stands for?   I highly doubt it.
But, quite clearly, a great many equate the Rockettes appearance at Trump's inauguration as support for his presidency.  And, as you'll notice, no one has equated the Hamilton's cast performing for Pence as an approval of his politics. 

More importantly, the artist him or herself might well equate his or her performing at such an occasion to imply that kind of approval.

 There's a marked difference between doing one's job for the benefit of someone (serving him a mean, doing a public performance in which he is one member of an audience) and doing one's job in celebration and honor of someone's ascendancy into power.

And then there is the creative dimension to performing as well and how it impact this discussion.
Put it in the somewhat similar context of designers refusing to design Melania's inauguration gown.  I doubt any of them would feel the same reluctance to have Melania come into their shops and buy something off the rack.

Updated On: 12/23/16 at 01:30 PM

[blm2323]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:33pm

PalJoey said: "Very nice and maybe it should start with the jerk yelling at Ivanka Trump on airplane the other day.

 

That probably wasn't Ivanka. It was probably just another fake news story.

 

SNOPES CASTS DOUBT ON IVANKA FLYING JETBLUE COACH

 

"

Your link says nothing about casting doubt. It's pretty much been verified by reputable sources - USA Today, Washington Post, CNN. 

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:35pm

" it may be for their benefit to just bite the bullet and just do it rather than loose their gig."

"loose" their gig? It's "lose."

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:44pm

"hat probably wasn't Ivanka. It was probably just another fake news story."

I didn't think the woman in the video which aired on tv looked the slightest bit like Ivanka. Also, I heard a report on the incident that mentioned Ivanka being in full makeup. The woman in the video didn't have any noticeable makeup on.

[Odie2]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 1:57pm

CATSNYrevival said: "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.

 

"

It's done all the time. Unions collect dues from full time employee whether or not the employee agrees with their political beliefs even if he or she does not use the benefits they provide i.e. Healthcare, dental. The union boss can donate to who ever they want even if the employee is offended by their personal or political belief. The union can disagree with the employer but will be in breach of the collective bargening agreement but they'd likely be sued if they refuse to perform. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 2:05pm

Odie2 said: "CATSNYrevival said: "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.

 

"

"It's done all the time. Unions collect dues from full time employee whether or not the employee agrees with their political beliefs even if he or she does not use the benefits they provide i.e. Healthcare, dental. The union boss can donate to who ever they want even if the employee is offended by their personal or political belief. The union can disagree with the employer but will be in breach of the collective bargening agreement but they'd likely be sued if they refuse to perform."

Any time that full time employee takes a vacation day, or a sick day, or becomes disabled, or has an issue with a supervisor, or is facing disciplinary action, or challenges any decision regarding their employment, or gets a step increase, or is paid according to a union contract or bargained for scale, they are benefiting from hard work done by the Union serving their shop, plant, or other venue.

 

"

 

Updated On: 12/23/16 at 02:05 PM

[Odie2]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 2:11pm

henrikegerman said: "Odie2 said: "CATSNYrevival said: "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.

 

"

"It's done all the time. Unions collect dues from full time employee whether or not the employee agrees with their political beliefs even if he or she does not use the benefits they provide i.e. Healthcare, dental. The union boss can donate to who ever they want even if the employee is offended by their personal or political belief. The union can disagree with the employer but will be in breach of the collective bargening agreement but they'd likely be sued if they refuse to perform."

Any time that full time employee takes a vacation day, or a sick day, or becomes disabled, or has an issue with a supervisor, or is facing disciplinary action, or challenges any decision regarding their employment, or gets a step increase, or is paid according to a union contract or bargained for scale, they are benefiting from hard work done by the Union serving their shop, plant, or other venue.

 

"

 Agreed 

just pointing out that this issue is not as simple as it seems for the performers and the unions. There are hundreds of lawyers who specialize in collective bargaining  laws and feelings asides, brining this case to court risks the power of unions in all areas. 

 

"

 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 2:19pm

Sorry, Odie, misunderstood the crux of your point.

Still, might there be a real difference between being part of a union which takes positions or makes donations one is opposed to and being forced to perform in honor of an administration one is opposed to?

Many people have bosses who fund campaigns one might be opposed to with capital made on the sweat of their labor force.   At least with a union, one has a say - if one joins - in the causes and candidates that union supports; and in the union leadership itself ultimately making those decisions, at least in some cases (often such decisions are made by the membership as a whole).  

I doubt anyone holds a worker responsible or automatically politically associates a worker with the recipient of either their boss's or their union's political largesse.   I doubt for instance that anyone assumes that someone is a Trump supporter merely because they belong to a union that endorsed Trump.. the same holds no matter who the endorsed cause or candidate might be.

And there is generally not anywhere near the same direct nexus between the actual work done by employees and the policies or political entities their bosses and or unions might support - the labor almost always takes place in a separate environment from the political one - that exists when the actual work done is performed at a political ceremony or event.

Moreover, I believe it's illegal for either employers or unions (with some obvious political employment exceptions) to force or compel their employees/members to even attend political events, let alone for them to be a part of the entertainment.  

One might take the position that an inauguration is not a political event but a national and non-partisan one.   But a great many - perhaps most people, but who knows? - would disagree with that, maintaining that an inauguration is irreducibly a celebration of the ascendancy to power of the particular administration being installed. 

The mere fact of that disagreement renders an inauguration a highly politically charged event of profound ideological significance.

 

Updated On: 12/23/16 at 02:19 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 2:50pm

 

Your link says nothing about casting doubt. It's pretty much been verified by reputable sources - USA Today, Washington Post, CNN. 

 

No one has confirmed on the record that Ivanka and the kids were on that flight.

 

No one.

[Just Helpin!!]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 2:57pm

Broadway Concierge is Liza's Headband. 

[Odie2]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 3:36pm

henrikegerman said: "Sorry, Odie, misunderstood the crux of your point.

Still, might there be a real difference between being part of a union which takes positions or makes donations one is opposed to and being forced to perform in honor of an administration one is opposed to?

 



Many people have bosses who fund campaigns one might be opposed to with capital made on the sweat of their labor force.   At least with a union, one has a say - if one joins - in the causes and candidates that union supports; and in the union leadership itself ultimately making those decisions, at least in some cases (often such decisions are made by the membership as a whole).  

I doubt anyone holds a worker responsible or automatically politically associates a worker with the recipient of either their boss's or their union's political largesse.   I doubt for instance that anyone assumes that someone is a Trump supporter merely because they belong to a union that endorsed Trump.. the same holds no matter who the endorsed cause or candidate might be.

And there is generally not anywhere near the same direct nexus between the actual work done by employees and the policies or political entities their bosses and or unions might support - the labor almost always takes place in a separate environment from the political one - that exists when the actual work done is performed at a political ceremony or event.

Moreover, I believe it's illegal for either employers or unions (with some obvious political employment exceptions) to force or compel their employees/members to even attend political events, let alone for them to be a part of the entertainment.  

One might take the position that an inauguration is not a political event but a national and non-partisan one.   But a great many - perhaps most people, but who knows? - would disagree with that, maintaining that an inauguration is irreducibly a celebration of the ascendancy to power of the particular administration being installed. 

The mere fact of that disagreement renders an inauguration a highly politically charged event of profound ideological significance.

 

 

"

You make a lot of good points. Now that I think about it police officers are governed by a union and yet have a duty to work events they might not agree with like parades or even mayoral duty and even presidential duties. It's there job to protect no matter who is office. Same for teachers. They can be forced to teach a curriculum they adamantly disagree with. Interesting topic and I'm enjoying being able to have this exchange of ideas and information 

[blm2323]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 4:17pm

PalJoey said: " 

Your link says nothing about casting doubt. It's pretty much been verified by reputable sources - USA Today, Washington Post, CNN. 

 

No one has confirmed on the record that Ivanka and the kids were on that flight.

 

No one.

 

"

The point is your title of the link is not accurate to the headline/article you're linking it to. Snopes is not claiming it is false. 

 

[binau]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 4:18pm

Call_me_jorge said: "For those saying the rockettes should be honored to be performing for the next POTUS, that's not how it works. The potus should be honored the rockettes are performing for him. 

The People shouldn't be honored to be in the presence of the president, the president should be honored to be in the presence of The People, especially The People who didn't vote for him-which is three million more than people who did. 

The President is not a god, it's an honor. 

Everything that we've seen trump do has shown his disrespect towards the office of the president, so why should the people respect him?

 

this was all over the place, but it basically sums up what I feel about trump. 

 

"

I do like this post. Yes the president serves the people not the other way around. By the way they spoke I thought Hillary (and Bernie) really got this. Not sure if Trump did/does.

 

 

[MarkBearSF]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 4:26pm

PalJoey said: " 

Your link says nothing about casting doubt. It's pretty much been verified by reputable sources - USA Today, Washington Post, CNN. 

 No one has confirmed on the record that Ivanka and the kids were on that flight.
No one."

No one would confirm a passenger's name in any case. That's not what any airline would do. 
Other passengers have confirmed it. There were later photos broadcast of the family being driven to a private plane.

Sorry Pal.

Updated On: 12/23/16 at 04:26 PM

[blm2323]

Posted: 12/23/16 at 4:32pm

MarkBearSF said: "PalJoey said: " 

Your link says nothing about casting doubt. It's pretty much been verified by reputable sources - USA Today, Washington Post, CNN. 

 No one has confirmed on the record that Ivanka and the kids were on that flight.
No one."

No one would confirm a passenger's name in any case. That's not what any airline would do. 
Other passengers have confirmed it. There were later photos broadcast of the family being driven to a private plane.

Sorry Pal.

 

"

Here's one of many confirmations:  

It happened