Freedom of association isn’t just for the Rockettes

[Brian Peacock]

Why do you hate capitalism so much?!

Hate is a very negative, destructive emotion. Let's just say I'm disappointed by its behaviour sometimes.

[pErvinalia]

But it gives us all the freedum to go into massive amounts of debt to live, or die.

[Forty Two]

I support them all — the singers who refuse to sing for Trump, the fashion designers who refuse to design, the landlords who refuse to rent, the dancers who refuse to dance. No one should be forced to play a role in a celebration they want nothing to do with, or to hire themselves out to clients they would prefer not to serve.

continued... https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

....I support them all....except Christians who refuse to bake cakes for LGBTQ+ weddings....

What I don't get about the Rockettes is, sure, they have and should have every right to to refuse to perform. But, if the owner of the Rockettes group wants to have his troupe perform at a show, then he can have his troupe perform at a show. The individual members of the troupe may refuse, but their employer can fire them for refusing to work.

Like, if the owner of the Rockettes decided to contract with, say, the Estate of George Michael to perform at a funerary celebration part to commemorate George's life and philanthropy. Maybe a devout Muslim Rockette would object to playing for an openly gay man's event or something - whatever the reason might be -- do we "support her right to refuse" -- sure. Does the owner have the right to send his troupe there? Yes. If his employees refuse to perform their jobs, does he have the right to fire them? Of course.

You're presuming that the management owns the talent, but sure, if the management contracted the talent the management could fire them, but then they'd have to find replacements, and train them etc, and maintain a working relationship with the remainder of the workforce who might not take well to seeing their colleagues and friends treated badly. But perhaps the management simply respect the views of the talent about what, or where, or for whom they perform. Management isn't just about telling others what to do and how to do it. in fact, to my mind it has very little to do with that - it's about managing relationships, and all management problems are basically relationship problems.

All that is certainly true, but if someone in the group, say, in 2012, didn't want to perform at Obama's inauguration ceremony, would that be an sort of controlling factor?

I am fairly sure that there are lines of prospective Rockettes just waiting for the chance to be a Rockette, so I doubt finding talent is a problem. And, yes, management might choose to placate an angry group of dancers. But, at bottom, the management determines where the gigs are, and you can't have individual members of the group vetoing gigs because they don't like the person for whom they're asked to dance. Other dancers are just as likely to have other political views, and if Sally can veto the Trump inauguration, then the next time, Janey is going to say, hey, I shouldn't have to perform for the Clintons, or the Obamas or the Bidens or the Ryans or the Pences.

In the end, though, it's a private affair. My only issue is with the suggestion that a Rockette has some "right" to not dance at a given gig, and that there should be no risk of negative consequences to the dancer as a result. Sure she has the right not to dance. She's not a slave. But her employer has the right to fire her because she refuses to do her job, too. The employer may choose not to exercise that right, of course, which I think is what you pointed out.

[Forty Two]

Do the Rockettes have an "owner"?

Yes, they do, and there's no need for the scare quotes either. The dancers are employees, and have been since 1925. What's more, they are unionised. In 1967 they won a month-long strike for better working conditions, which was led by AGVA salaried officer Penny Singleton. (From the Wikipedia article.)

Well that's just fucking weird.

You'll be surprised if you discovered just how many entertainers are employees rather than equal partners in an act. I know one personally. He was a classmate at school, who went on to become the drummer for a band named Mental as Anything. One night before a concert the other band members insisted that he stop smoking tobacco backstage. During the concert he played the drums in a way that made things difficult for them. After the concert they fired him on the spot. Turned out that he was a salaried employee for 20 years. The band was owned by two of its five members.

I met up with the drummer a few years ago. When I had a bit of a whinge about my boss at that time, he replied "I know what you mean." I laughed, thinking he's doing OK, being a member of a successful band and stuff like that. He then explained his terms of engagement to me. Yes, his bosses were rather tight-fisted too.

It's very common. Bruce Springsteen, for example, employed the E Street Band. He was an autocrat. He didn't have to hold meetings.

Many bands will operate as employer-empoloyee, or often they will be partnerships, but partnerships aren't usually "equal" partnerships. There are different percentages of interests, resulting in one or a small number of partners having the power.

[Brian Peacock]

Perhaps the Rockettes would do it if their fee was tripled?

[Forty Two]

Looks like the employer just agreed to let the full-time Rockettes choose whether or not to participate - http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ke-it-or-n

They probably have plenty of performers willing to go, so they are letting the others have their way.