feed
NY Times covers the STREB nastiness...
It was ‘public’ before when Dance Insider covered it, but now that the Times is on the the story it’s really “public.” Here are my thoughts on this:
1. I’m not sure why this is anybody’s business but Terry and Elizabeth’s. Elizabeth has a for-profit company and decides that Terry doesn’t work there anymore. She is totally within her rights. She may have been a jerk about it, but c’est la vi. Is this really a question of Wrongful Dismissal or hurt feelings?
2. deeAnn is injured in the line of duty. No harm, no foul. Dancers get injured while dancing all the time. Sure, STREB’s dances are more dangerous, but she wasn’t hurt while doing something the company should have foreseen as dangerous. She was climbing up a ramp. STREB pays for her surgery since it’s work related. Fine. I’m assuming that the company does everything that it can to make performances safe. They could not have foreseen the fall from the ramp. They are at fault for nothing more than the worker’s compensation and benefits.
3. Terry takes it upon himself to raise money for deeAnn’s support while recovering. Fine, they’re friends; Terry’s a good friend.
4. Terry sends out an e-mail without consulting Elizabeth. Now we’re in trouble. It’s an easy mistake to make, we’re all a little reactionary when there is a crisis, but you can’t make that kind of information public without talking with the head of the company. He was probably under a contract with a nondisclosure clause and this information probably falls under that.
5. Elizabeth has every right to fire anyone she wants. New York is at ‘At-Will’ employment state. You can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. They only reason that should be given for the dismissal: Unsatisfactory work. Seems like thats what Elizabeth is saying true or not.
6. Do we really think that Elizabeth was angry that ‘people found out her shows are dangerous?’ Anyone who has seen a SLAMSHOW knows that it’s dangerous and that people will get hurt. Do we really think she was dumb enough to think that people wouldn’t find out about deeAnn? No, I don’t think that’s the issue. Everyone would have found out about deeAnn anyway. Elizabeth felt that Terry was insubordinate in releasing information and calling for a benefit without talking to her first.
7. I don’t think we should be taking sides in this. I think Terry did what it thought was best and Elizabeth didn’t like it. She can fire him if she likes. Asking if it’s ‘justified’ calls into question the standard used. I feel for Terry because it sucks to lose your job for doing what you think is the right thing, but I see Elizabeth’s point about insubordination.
Other coverage of this story:
Downtown Dancer
InfiniteBody
CounterCritic
It was ‘public’ before when Dance Insider covered it, but now that the Times is on the the story it’s really “public.” Here are my thoughts on this:
1. I’m not sure why this is anybody’s business but Terry and Elizabeth’s. Elizabeth has a for-profit company and decides that Terry doesn’t work there anymore. She is totally within her rights. She may have been a jerk about it, but c’est la vi. Is this really a question of Wrongful Dismissal or hurt feelings?
2. deeAnn is injured in the line of duty. No harm, no foul. Dancers get injured while dancing all the time. Sure, STREB’s dances are more dangerous, but she wasn’t hurt while doing something the company should have foreseen as dangerous. She was climbing up a ramp. STREB pays for her surgery since it’s work related. Fine. I’m assuming that the company does everything that it can to make performances safe. They could not have foreseen the fall from the ramp. They are at fault for nothing more than the worker’s compensation and benefits.
3. Terry takes it upon himself to raise money for deeAnn’s support while recovering. Fine, they’re friends; Terry’s a good friend.
4. Terry sends out an e-mail without consulting Elizabeth. Now we’re in trouble. It’s an easy mistake to make, we’re all a little reactionary when there is a crisis, but you can’t make that kind of information public without talking with the head of the company. He was probably under a contract with a nondisclosure clause and this information probably falls under that.
5. Elizabeth has every right to fire anyone she wants. New York is at ‘At-Will’ employment state. You can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. They only reason that should be given for the dismissal: Unsatisfactory work. Seems like thats what Elizabeth is saying true or not.
6. Do we really think that Elizabeth was angry that ‘people found out her shows are dangerous?’ Anyone who has seen a SLAMSHOW knows that it’s dangerous and that people will get hurt. Do we really think she was dumb enough to think that people wouldn’t find out about deeAnn? No, I don’t think that’s the issue. Everyone would have found out about deeAnn anyway. Elizabeth felt that Terry was insubordinate in releasing information and calling for a benefit without talking to her first.
7. I don’t think we should be taking sides in this. I think Terry did what it thought was best and Elizabeth didn’t like it. She can fire him if she likes. Asking if it’s ‘justified’ calls into question the standard used. I feel for Terry because it sucks to lose your job for doing what you think is the right thing, but I see Elizabeth’s point about insubordination.
Other coverage of this story:
Downtown Dancer
InfiniteBody
CounterCritic