harpergroup

NYCB Dancers Cut

102 posts in this topic

Maybe some generous NY Time blogger might be able to connect an unemployed dancer with a job interview.

If someone had a job lead and were interested in passing it on, they would not post it on a blog, or they'd get hundreds, if not thousands, of replies. They'd try to find a way to contact the dancer(s), most likely by sending an email to the author of a news article, since the NYT already published one of those.

The cost of "advice", in this case, is reading a suggestion to become a prostitute. How charming.

Share this post


Link to post

You get all kinds in blog comments sections and the source should always be considered. The query sure isn't in the best of taste, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Big newpaper blogs are a special kind of blog anyway, which I think is important. I don't know about the 'prostitution angle', but they are not like more personal blogs, even the good ones, like Paul Krugman's. There is never real interaction in a serious way, it is mostly just ranting or passing the time. I agree with most of what Helene said, though. But these BIG newspaper blogs just get so much unrelated comment (unlike small blogs where people know each other and interact, often for years) that they (the specific posts and threads, not the general blog itself) disappear in a day or two; they are never resuscitated and read after they've got a new post up. By now, I'm sure this one is worn out, isn't it? I used to post on Krugman's blog once in a while, but it's not becaues I wanted to discuss there, because you can't in a moderated blog where the comments are delayed; it was usually just to tell him what a good job he was doing, etc,. I don't see much value (and therefore probably not much harm in them, no matter how stupid or ill-thought-through the topic, because the remarks evaporate very quickly. BT is much more like more personal blogs, has many of their characterstics, but is the only online forum of any kind I've been able to stay with, strangely enough. Because the more personal, smaller blogs are almost always full of fighting and even psychosis sometimes. But I remember posting on that religion blog in the WaPo, it didn't matter a whit what you said, it was just like an old AOL chatroom.

Share this post


Link to post
I would have a hard time hearing "We can't afford to keep you" from a man who earned $686,000 according to 2007 public non-profit records.

And I agree that it was a horrific idea for the NY Times to ask for advice for these dancers.

I agree with with the first statement, particularly because the article said that the firings would save 1.2 million. That is less than two years of Martin's salary. I'm not commenting on Martins worth, just trying to highlight the relative numbers.

It was a terrible, embarrassingly terrible idea to ask for advise for the dancers. These are young, talented imaginative people who will ultimately be fine. There are many other unemployed people I'm more concerned about.

Because Martins didn't consult with the union to save jobs, my best guess is that he knew it was a good idea to cut costs and he took the opportunity to pare down the company. He got rid of dancers who he didn't find useful, he felt had grown stale and were going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post

Argh. I am so over the complaints about Martins' worth. At the end of the day, like him or not, HIS role in the company is essential. That of one individual dancer - any individual dancer - is not. His salary is NOT exorbitant within the framework of his responbilities. Bosses generally make much more than those who work under them.

As for the laid off dancers, nobody like to hear of the sadness and suffering of another. But as I've said before most of us are not regularly backstage at the NYCB. We don't know why these people were chosen for the cut. But in any profession, the first people who are let go in difficult financial times are the ones who are considered the least valuable to the organization. Perhaps some of these people demonstrated attitudes backstage. Perhaps individuals in this group exhibited a sense of entitlement that exceeded their actual contribution. Perhaps there were punctuality or attendance issues. Perhaps their progression as dancers had simply come to a standstill. I don't like to see young people's dreams crushed. But I also recognize that in this economy choices do not come easy. Perhaps laying off a group of dancers who may not have been adequately contributing to the company may have opened up opportunities for more deserving people. Perhaps this frees up funds for some much deserved promotions. Perhaps it will allow more promising apprentices to enter the company. I don't have the answers, but I think it goes deeper than simply saying "Shame on the NYCB".

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree about the blog. I think many of the NYTimes readers blogs have led to some wonderful discussions. One was when Frank McCourt recently passed away -- many of the readers posted on the blog, and a large number of them were former students. He had, after all, been a NYC schoolteacher for 30 years. It was amazing to me how the world saw him as this famous author, but most of the posters on the blog still saw him as their English teacher. A really poignant read (especially for me, a high school teacher). :D

Some columnists have had wonderful, lovely discussions on their blogs -- Nicholas Kristof, for example. And to the laid off dancers, one or two thougthless comments might not detract from words of sympathy or heartfelt advice.

Share this post


Link to post
But in any profession, the first people who are let go in difficult financial times are the ones who are considered the least valuable to the organization.

Humm..Arguable... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Argh. I am so over the complaints about Martins' worth. At the end of the day, like him or not, HIS role in the company is essential. That of one individual dancer - any individual dancer - is not. His salary is NOT exorbitant within the framework of his responbilities.

That in itself is arguable, since his salary is so much more than that earned by artistic directors with comparable responsibilities, regardless of how well or badly he does the job, and that is before his hundreds of thousands to run SAB, also considerably higher than those who run similar academies worldwide. He does not work in the private sector.

But as I've said before most of us are not regularly backstage at the NYCB. We don't know why these people were chosen for the cut. But in any profession, the first people who are let go in difficult financial times are the ones who are considered the least valuable to the organization.

A few other scenarios that do not follow this conclusion are: people who are laid off/not renewed because they become unaffordable rather than not valuable; people who are laid off because they are not useful to specific people in management; people who are laid off because they or their dependents develop medical conditions that affect the company's health insurance rates; people who are laid off because they are not sheep.

This isn't the first time that Martins has cleaned house by not renewing a chunk of the corps; it happens to coincide with one of the many financial crises that the company has had since its creation. NYCB made a deliberate decision to clean house again rather than saving money elsewhere to save jobs, as a number of other companies have.

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree about the blog. I think many of the NYTimes readers blogs have led to some wonderful discussions. One was when Frank McCourt recently passed away -- many of the readers posted on the blog, and a large number of them were former students. He had, after all, been a NYC schoolteacher for 30 years. It was amazing to me how the world saw him as this famous author, but most of the posters on the blog still saw him as their English teacher. A really poignant read (especially for me, a high school teacher). :D

Some columnists have had wonderful, lovely discussions on their blogs -- Nicholas Kristof, for example. And to the laid off dancers, one or two thougthless comments might not detract from words of sympathy or heartfelt advice.

Except in this case, I do agree with you about the NYT's blogs. In fact, I am a regular poster on both the ArtsBeat blog (I was out there defending Patti LuPone immediately!), and the Bats blog (huge Yankees fan. Going this afternoon). The posting about Frank McCourt ("Angela's Ashes" is a must read) from his former students had me in tears. However, this was a column that asked the public (most of whom have no idea what dancers have to go through to get where they are) to give advice to young, professional dancers. I read every comment and more than just a few were derisive, unflattering, thoughtless, crude (in more than one case) -- and these were directed at the dancers (!), not at NYCB. (That said, the first comment was about Career Transition for Dancers which is a fantastic organization. So many dancers, including former NYCB's, Stephen Hanna -- now the older "Billy" on Broadway, and ABT's Matt Murphy -- now with a thriving photography business, have made very nice transitions with their help).

I do think an ArtsBeat column that would allow people to vent about how sad, angry, disappointed, concerned, worried, annoyed, and perplexed

they are about the corps cuts would have been welcome, appropropriate, and interesting; it might have sparked a good discussion about the arts (and funding)in general. The NYT's story is officially coming out tomorrow -- perhaps the ArtsBeat blog will do a follow up story about NYCB (especially if they get a lot of comments about the Arts & Leisure piece).

Share this post


Link to post
This isn't the first time that Martins has cleaned house by not renewing a chunk of the corps; it happens to coincide with one of the many financial crises that the company has had since its creation. NYCB made a deliberate decision to clean house again rather than saving money elsewhere to save jobs, as a number of other companies have.

Good points.

On one level, this is a story about a ballet company, ballet dancers, the arts.

On another level, it's a story about "relative worth": some people are worth more than others, in economic terms; it costs a SO much money for an executive to live in New York City; etc.

On a third level, the NYCB is part of a much larger story about how Market Economics work in the U.S. today.

All three perspectives have been articulated on this thread so far. The way you define the situation determines what you think/feel about it and what should or should not be done.

I fall in with the third group.

About NYCB: This particular action was a conscious policy decision, as Helene says. It was not an act of God. Probably there was a hope that it would slip through and not be noticed. But it has been noticed. Better luck next time, NYCB.

The idea that managers feel bad making such decisions is neither here nor there. "This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you" has never been a particularly believable statement. Or relevant to anything.

About the larger context: Layoffs have become one of the first steps that are taken nowadays when a company faces economic difdficultlies. One reason is that they are actually relatively easy to carry out if contracts are written as they are in the world of ballet companies and, frankly, in most employment situations outside the major corporations and government agencies. They can be justified by statements like "We don't need you" -- which is actually the literal meaning of the British usage, "you're redundant." Try being one of the undocumented workers currently being rounded up for deportation in Arizona, Florida, etc. Once they were actually encouraged to come (a policy of "Don't ask; don't tell."). Now they're "no longer needed" -- "redundant."

We are living through a time in which unemployment (like the lack of health care insurance) is treated as an individual problem rather than a societal problem. "It's your bad luck." Or, worse: "Something is/was wrong with you." As someone who grew up in a very different climate-- the years following the depression, the New Deal and World War II -- this astonishes me. To those who grew up in the 80s or afterward, it probably seems quite natural.

Share this post


Link to post
That in itself is arguable, since his salary is so much more than that earned by artistic directors with comparable responsibilities, regardless of how well or badly he does the job, and that is before his hundreds of thousands to run SAB, also considerably higher than those who run similar academies worldwide. He does not work in the private sector.

Hasn't it also been discussed that the salaries of the dancers at NYCB are all significantly more than the dancers in other companies with comparable responsibilities? If we're looking at the whole, doesn't it stand to reason that if the dancers are among the best paid in the industry, that their administration is too? The question for me here isn't "is Martins making a greater amount than his peers". It's "is Martins making a disproportionate amount compared to his dancers." Is the percentage of Martins' salary to his dancers' salaries significantly greater than the percentage between artistic director and dancers in other major companies?

A few other scenarios that do not follow this conclusion are: people who are laid off/not renewed because they become unaffordable rather than not valuable; people who are laid off because they are not useful to specific people in management; people who are laid off because they or their dependents develop medical conditions that affect the company's health insurance rates; people who are laid off because they are not sheep.

All true and my initial statement was too narrow. However, I still stand to the larger point that my ill-phrased statement was making: most, if not all, of us do not have a big enough picture of what goes on backstage to know what made Martins decide to clean house rather than take another approach. Additionally, we have no idea what made him chose THIS group of dancers.

This isn't the first time that Martins has cleaned house by not renewing a chunk of the corps; it happens to coincide with one of the many financial crises that the company has had since its creation. NYCB made a deliberate decision to clean house again rather than saving money elsewhere to save jobs, as a number of other companies have.

I agree that it was a deliberate decision. My reasoning is simply that we do not know what the reasoning behind that deliberate decision was. Sometimes what is best for an individual or eleven is not what is best for the company. If these dancers' contracts were not renewed simply because they were disliked personally by management, then yes, shame on the NYCB. However, if these contracts were not renewed because these particular dancers were not contributing to the growth of the company, that is another story entirely. If they weren't renewed because the management felt that the money would be better spent making sure more deserving company members got could maintain their current salaries, that is also a valid approach. The cost of living in New York City is very high and I can understand a potential thought process that it may be better for 11 people to be cut from the roster than for dozens (of possibly harder working and greater contributing) to take a paycut that may make living here a financial strain.

Share this post


Link to post
Hasn't it also been discussed that the salaries of the dancers at NYCB are all significantly more than the dancers in other companies with comparable responsibilities? If we're looking at the whole, doesn't it stand to reason that if the dancers are among the best paid in the industry, that their administration is too? The question for me here isn't "is Martins making a greater amount than his peers". It's "is Martins making a disproportionate amount compared to his dancers." Is the percentage of Martins' salary to his dancers' salaries significantly greater than the percentage between artistic director and dancers in other major companies?

I would say, no, that is not the question in a time of financial crisis, especially when the amount is substantial. You had written earlier that Martins salary does not make him rich in NYC. Adding in the 300K he makes for heading SAB, even if, because of his high tax bracket and the Alternative Minimum Tax, the household is paying 50% in Federal, state, and city taxes on his salary, just on his salary alone, his take-home pay on 1 million would be over 40K/month, and that's not including Kistler's salary, which isn't public, or royalties, any investments which are taxed at a lower rate and other income sources, if any. (I don't know if she receives a salary for teaching; in a recent interview she said she was pretty much teaching full-time.) While that doesn't make one rich in NYC, and many mid-level people on Wall Street have made the same while helping to do substantial damage to the US economy, which Martins has not done, it makes them wealthy and more well off than 99% of the people who live in NYC. In addition, he's had a number of years of very high salary with the opportunity to accumulate substantial wealth during good times, while a corps member has had the opportunity to live comfortably, assuming no family to support without a second earner in the family.

Balanchine took no money when there was no money to be had.

The cost of living in New York City is very high and I can understand a potential thought process that it may be better for 11 people to be cut from the roster than for dozens (of possibly harder working and greater contributing) to take a paycut that may make living here a financial strain.

If ABT dancers make so much less, and are also subject to the same high costs of living, it doesn't hold that the financial strain of an overall pay or benefits cut by the best-paid dancers in the country will sink them. ABT managed to keep their roster by forgoing vacation pay (partially offset to the dancers by unemployment benefits, with possible cost to the company if their unemployment taxes go up as a result) and contributions to pension. Since Martins said the move would save 1.2M, or about 109K/dancer, the cost of benefits must be substantial: according to a recent NYT article, Flack, as a senior corps member, was making 70-80K/year. Even if her salary was average, this would mean 40-50K/year in benefits, payroll taxes, and pointe shoes (for the women); it is likely that her salary was on the high side, and the amount for average cost is even higher per dancer. While some costs are fixed or rising (payroll taxes, pointe shoes), there was additional room to negotiate on benefits in addition to the possibility of a pay cut to save jobs. (Pointe shoes for apprentices are a 1:1 wash, anyway.)

In the original article from February, Martins said "There were no plans to reduce the number of principals and soloists, and their salaries remain fixed by collective bargaining agreements". So were the benefits that ABT dancers agreed to give up.

All true and my initial statement was too narrow. However, I still stand to the larger point that my ill-phrased statement was making: most, if not all, of us do not have a big enough picture of what goes on backstage to know what made Martins decide to clean house rather than take another approach. Additionally, we have no idea what made him chose THIS group of dancers.

Hence the need to refute the argument that the reasons could be entirely an issue of the talent and work ethic of the 11 dancers.

Share this post


Link to post
That in itself is arguable, since his salary is so much more than that earned by artistic directors with comparable responsibilities, regardless of how well or badly he does the job, and that is before his hundreds of thousands to run SAB, also considerably higher than those who run similar academies worldwide. He does not work in the private sector.

Hasn't it also been discussed that the salaries of the dancers at NYCB are all significantly more than the dancers in other companies with comparable responsibilities? If we're looking at the whole, doesn't it stand to reason that if the dancers are among the best paid in the industry, that their administration is too? The question for me here isn't "is Martins making a greater amount than his peers". It's "is Martins making a disproportionate amount compared to his dancers."

Martins apparently made almost three times as much as a director last year than McKenzie did at ABT. Did NYCB dancers make that much more than their peers at ABT???

Share this post


Link to post
Martins apparently made almost three times as much as a director last year than McKenzie did at ABT. Did NYCB dancers make that much more than their peers at ABT???

At that ratio, it would make the salary of a senior corps member at ABT between 25-30K/year. The ABT contract is not up on the AGMA site.

Apollinaire Scherr wrote the following on her blog "Foot in Mouth":

...Martins is basically paying himself--with the NYCB Board's approval. And what's the worry on the part of the Board? That if he isn't paid like a king, he's going to work for the competition? See? Comparisons to directors outside the arts don't work. But if Martins is in fact thinking about it that way-- if the money's what's keeping him--let him go. These are bad values for a ballet company to be burdened with.

Share this post


Link to post
I would say, no, that is not the question in a time of financial crisis, especially when the amount is substantial. You had written earlier that Martins salary does not make him rich in NYC. Adding in the 300K he makes for heading SAB, even if, because of his high tax bracket and the Alternative Minimum Tax, the household is paying 50% in Federal, state, and city taxes on his salary, just on his salary alone, his take-home pay on 1 million would be over 40K/month, and that's not including Kistler's salary, which isn't public, or royalties, any investments which are taxed at a lower rate and other income sources, if any. (I don't know if she receives a salary for teaching; in a recent interview she said she was pretty much teaching full-time.) While that doesn't make one rich in NYC, and many mid-level people on Wall Street have made the same while helping to do substantial damage to the US economy, which Martins has not done, it makes them wealthy and more well off than 99% of the people who live in NYC. In addition, he's had a number of years of very high salary with the opportunity to accumulate substantial wealth during good times, while a corps member has had the opportunity to live comfortably, assuming no without a family to support without a second earner in the family.

I don't think that it's fair to factor in Kistler's salary here. It's irrelevant. I also think that if he's making 300K heading the SAB that needs to be looked at separately.

If ABT dancers make so much less, and are also subject to the same high costs of living, it doesn't hold that the financial strain of an overall pay or benefits cut by the best-paid dancers in the country will sink them.

But it is also not unreasonable to say, "We have a very large roster of corps members. Some of them pull their weight more than other. Why should those who go above and beyond have to take on an extra financial strain to keep some less valuable members here"?

Hence the need to refute the argument that the reasons were entirely an issue of the talent and work ethic of the 11 dancers.

That was never my argument. My argument is only, and always has been, that we do not know enough about what takes place backstage to determine if NYCB is acting unfairly. When an appealling group of fairly young people approach the press and talks about crushed dreams, it's completely natural to want to reach out to them - to assume that they are vicitims. We see these people onstage, but we have no idea of what energy they bring to the wings. We don't know them as people or as employees. Nobody who has been fired or laid off is going to say to the press, "You know. Truthfully, I was an awful gossip, I created a lot of negative energy backstage, and my dancing abilities, while strong, are not amongst the most noteworthy in this company ". But I think that it's naive to believe that there haven't been dancers - in the NYCB or elsewhere - who have not been laid off for similiar reasons.

I'm just saying that I can see more possible scenarios here than to assume that the NYCB is entirely in the wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
I would say, no, that is not the question in a time of financial crisis, especially when the amount is substantial. You had written earlier that Martins salary does not make him rich in NYC. Adding in the 300K he makes for heading SAB, even if, because of his high tax bracket and the Alternative Minimum Tax, the household is paying 50% in Federal, state, and city taxes on his salary, just on his salary alone, his take-home pay on 1 million would be over 40K/month, and that's not including Kistler's salary, which isn't public, or royalties, any investments which are taxed at a lower rate and other income sources, if any. (I don't know if she receives a salary for teaching; in a recent interview she said she was pretty much teaching full-time.) While that doesn't make one rich in NYC, and many mid-level people on Wall Street have made the same while helping to do substantial damage to the US economy, which Martins has not done, it makes them wealthy and more well off than 99% of the people who live in NYC. In addition, he's had a number of years of very high salary with the opportunity to accumulate substantial wealth during good times, while a corps member has had the opportunity to live comfortably, assuming no without a family to support without a second earner in the family.

I don't think that it's fair to factor in Kistler's salary here. It's irrelevant. I also think that if he's making 300K heading the SAB that needs to be looked at separately.

I think it's perfectly fair to look at the amount of money in a household when determining how much of a sacrifice to make to sustain a company in hard economic times, when other people's livelihoods are on the line, since one argument is that people have to support families on their salaries. Martins has made his: 10% of his NYCB salary; his salary is substantial by just about any standard.

It's also important in figuring out the tax bracket of a given household, which was one of my arguments.

My argument is only, and always has been, that we do not know enough about what takes place backstage to determine if NYCB is acting unfairly. When an appealling group of fairly young people approach the press and talks about crushed dreams, it's completely natural to want to reach out to them - to assume that they are vicitims. We see these people onstage, but we have no idea of what energy they bring to the wings. We don't know them as people or as employees. Nobody who has been fired or laid off is going to say to the press, "You know. Truthfully, I was an awful gossip, I created a lot of negative energy backstage, and my dancing abilities, while strong, are not amongst the most noteworthy in this company ". But I think that it's naive to believe that there haven't been dancers - in the NYCB or elsewhere - who have not been laid off for similiar reasons.

I'm just saying that I can see more possible scenarios here than to assume that the NYCB is entirely in the wrong.

When a company states that the reason it is laying of dancers is financial, the head of that company makes 700K -- substantially more than anyone else in a similar position in dance -- and that it decided to reduce headcount instead of more substantial pay cuts on the side of upper management or to negotiate a reduction of benefits, then it is perfectly reasonable to criticize this decision and conclude that the company was in the wrong, and that has nothing to do with "broken dreams" or attractive young people. If the company was hiding an employment agenda behind these layoffs -- got to get rid of all those gossipy corps members -- when, by contract, they could have dropped any one of these corps members all along by simply telling them "You no longer meet my needs" and the union could not have made a peep, that, in my opinion, is cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think that it's fair to factor in Kistler's salary here. It's irrelevant. I also think that if he's making 300K heading the SAB that needs to be looked at separately.

But it is also not unreasonable to say, "We have a very large roster of corps members. Some of them pull their weight more than other. Why should those who go above and beyond have to take on an extra financial strain to keep some less valuable members here"?

My argument is only, and always has been, that we do not know enough about what takes place backstage to determine if NYCB is acting unfairly. When an appealling group of fairly young people approach the press and talks about crushed dreams, it's completely natural to want to reach out to them - to assume that they are vicitims. We see these people onstage, but we have no idea of what energy they bring to the wings. We don't know them as people or as employees. Nobody who has been fired or laid off is going to say to the press, "You know. Truthfully, I was an awful gossip, I created a lot of negative energy backstage, and my dancing abilities, while strong, are not amongst the most noteworthy in this company ". But I think that it's naive to believe that there haven't been dancers - in the NYCB or elsewhere - who have not been laid off for similiar reasons.

I'm just saying that I can see more possible scenarios here than to assume that the NYCB is entirely in the wrong.

No one is argueing that internecine politics and backstage dramas take place and why the Sword of Damacles fell on those 11. The NY Times article however, was not a "pity party" but a reasoned and emotive look at a group of dancers whose lives are in turmoil due to the losing of their jobs. It's not an angry or vindictive piece and none of the dancers who spoke seem to be laying blame, nor are they claimng to be perfect or persecuted.

The Kistler issue is an important one, as she is a dancer who's long since past her best and whose performances are sporadic and often poor. Yet, because she is on a principal contract can't be "let go" and whose salary is incommensurate with the number and quality of performances.

This is a dance site and yes, perhaps the bias will be with the dancer rather than administration by the nature of the people who post here - and this is a good thing for this specific issue because blank press statemens from administration about firing of dancers is the stock in trade of companies wanting to make cuts; as several people have commented they're sure NYCB would prefer this issue to go quietly away and forums such as these keep that debate alive.

Nor is it just NYCB, one of the most egregious examples of this current firing policy is with the Cunningham company where three of his senior dancers were summararily dismissed with two months notice and the company administrator made a press release to the NY Times impugning their artistry. Three marvellous dancers who between them had devoted almost 40 years of their lives to Cunningham Foundation were rubbished. If you want to read a cooler interview than Sophie Flack's about the pain of dismissal than Holley Farmer's (of the Cunningham company) interview with Gia Kourlas in Time Out NY is a good bet.

Instead of questioning the discipline and commitment of these 11, six of whom are choosing to remain anonymous, why not question the huge sums paid to the principals, many of whom are well past their best, turning in mediocre performances and yet are tied with golden handcuffs to the company via their contracts?

No one is suggesting that these dancers are paragons of human virtue, but one thing about this site it's made up of people who love dancers and who know that those dancers are the most important factor, the lifeblood of companies and who would rather champion them and blanche at their expendibility than take a conservative hardline that bureaucracy and administration know best due to droite de seigneur.

Share this post


Link to post
Hasn't it also been discussed that the salaries of the dancers at NYCB are all significantly more than the dancers in other companies with comparable responsibilities? If we're looking at the whole, doesn't it stand to reason that if the dancers are among the best paid in the industry, that their administration is too? The question for me here isn't "is Martins making a greater amount than his peers". It's "is Martins making a disproportionate amount compared to his dancers." Is the percentage of Martins' salary to his dancers' salaries significantly greater than the percentage between artistic director and dancers in other major companies?

According to 2007 public tax records Damian Woetzel was the highest paid NYCB dancer at $178,000 (and the only dancer in the "Top 5"), the year that PM's salary ONLY as AD was listed at $686,000.

Whereas ABT's highest paid dancer in the same year was Julie Kent $174,528 (also in the "Top 5" were Paloma Herrera at $158,028 and Gillian Murphy at $156,273), and KevinM's salary was listed at $287,000.

I don't know about the rest of company salaries, but I'd say the amount Martins is making is disproportionate to his dancers.

Share this post


Link to post
Apollinaire Scherr wrote the following on her blog "Foot in Mouth":
...Martins is basically paying himself--with the NYCB Board's approval. And what's the worry on the part of the Board? That if he isn't paid like a king, he's going to work for the competition? See? Comparisons to directors outside the arts don't work. But if Martins is in fact thinking about it that way-- if the money's what's keeping him--let him go. These are bad values for a ballet company to be burdened with.

Amen. Peter Martins is in a pretty cozy situation.

Share this post


Link to post
The Kistler issue is an important one, as she is a dancer who's long since past her best and whose performances are sporadic and often poor. Yet, because she is on a principal contract can't be "let go" and whose salary is incommensurate with the number and quality of performances.

That is an entirely different Kistler issue. The debate over whether Kister should remain in the company has nothing to do with Helene's assessment that Martins thoughts should have been along the lines of "I make a lot of money. My wife makes an above average amount of money. Therefore bringing down the ax on someone who makes less money is bad form."

That is the equivalent of picking which corps members to cut based on which one of them has a trust fund or is married to a wealthy spouse.

If Martins was married to an attorney who was making a comparable amount of money as Kistler, his spouse's contribution would not be added to this particular equation. Just because he's married to someone whose salary can be roughly assumed, it does not make it a fair way to gauge the apporpriateness of his actions.

Instead of questioning the discipline and commitment of these 11, six of whom are choosing to remain anonymous, why not question the huge sums paid to the principals, many of whom are well past their best, turning in mediocre performances and yet are tied with golden handcuffs to the company via their contracts?

Who says that I don't? One can certainly think that there is a need for change in the way that contracts are handled for senior members of the company and still harbor the thought that there are *POSSIBLY* corps members whose contribution is questionable. I believe that it was DeborahB who explained that the Union affiliations involved make it all but impossible to release principles and soloists. So basically this is a completely different and irrelevant issue to the discussion at hand.

No one is suggesting that these dancers are paragons of human virtue, but one thing about this site it's made up of people who love dancers and who know that those dancers are the most important factor, the lifeblood of companies and who would rather champion them and blanche at their expendibility than take a conservative hardline that bureaucracy and administration know best due to droite de seigneur.

Not once did I take a conservative hardline that bureaucracy and administration always know best. I am saying that they don't always know worst and that we are not privvy to the smaller details that make up the bigger picture.

Furthmore, you're not the only ones saying that dancers are the lifeblood of companies. I, too, am championing them. I am just looking at things from a different perspective. If this decision means that there are almost 50 corps members that can concentrate on their dance without the stresses of financial strain, this is good for the company. If this decision means that at least one or two of the SEVERAL company members who are deserving of a promotion can move up, this is good for the company. If this decision means that promising apprentices can be brought in, that is good for the company. If this decision cleaned house of some *POSSIBLE* bad seeds, that is good for the company.

All I'm doing is looking at this from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
The Kistler issue is an important one, as she is a dancer who's long since past her best and whose performances are sporadic and often poor. Yet, because she is on a principal contract can't be "let go" and whose salary is incommensurate with the number and quality of performances.

That is an entirely different Kistler issue. The debate over whether Kister should remain in the company has nothing to do with Helene's assessment that Martins thoughts should have been along the lines of "I make a lot of money. My wife makes an above average amount of money. Therefore bringing down the ax on someone who makes less money is bad form."

I think it's definitely part of the issue. Rightly or wrongly, when the head of an organization has family members on the payroll, questions will always be raised (fairly or unfairly).

The problem of great artists, or principal dancers, who postpone retirement has been with us for awhile. It's just that usually it's thought of only as an artistic question, but when funds are tight, it can become a financial one as well. Not to mention that there are some heads of organizations who've volunteered to work for a markedly reduced salary (free, $1.00 a year). I'm not suggesting that's what someone SHOULD do, but I do think Simon and Helene (and others here) have raised some good points. As several people have noted, other companies have chosen different paths -- cutting administrative staff, furloughing dancers for a week. I'm sure none of these decisions have been taken lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
That if he isn't paid like a king, he's going to work for the competition?

$700 or 800K is being paid like a king? Martins could probably have taken a bigger cut in pay than he did. But I haven't seen any evidence presented here that would convince me that he or his wife are motivated by cupidity.

The debate over whether Kister should remain in the company has nothing to do with Helene's assessment that Martins thoughts should have been along the lines of "I make a lot of money. My wife makes an above average amount of money. Therefore bringing down the ax on someone who makes less money is bad form."

CEOs in general these days make too much money in proportion to the rank and file and some companies are often too quick to resort to layoffs, but I agree - no one could run a sizable organization based on such reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
I think it's definitely part of the issue. Rightly or wrongly, when the head of an organization has family members on the payroll, questions will always be raised (fairly or unfairly).

The problem of great artists, or principal dancers, who postpone retirement has been with us for awhile. It's just that usually it's thought of only as an artistic question, but when funds are tight, it can become a financial one as well.

Indeed. But when it's been pointed out that the retirement issue lies entirely on union regulations and is literally not the decision of the head of the organization, the fact that they are married becomes moot.

Additionally, Helene's point was not "Kistler is here past her prime." Her issue was "Martins is married to Kistler so that can be factored into his household income". The income of a person's spouse has nothing to do with whether or not their salary should be altered.

Not to mention that there are some heads of organizations who've volunteered to work for a markedly reduced salary (free, $1.00 a year). I'm not suggesting that's what someone SHOULD do, but I do think Simon and Helene (and others here) have raised some good points. As several people have noted, other companies have chosen different paths -- cutting administrative staff, furloughing dancers for a week. I'm sure none of these decisions have been taken lightly.

I'm not saying that Simon and Helene haven't brought up some good points. Nor do I fail to recognize that other companies have taken different paths. I'm not even saying that I think Martins definitely handled this in the best way possible. The only thing that I'm saying - and which I truly do not even see as a debatable point - is that very few (if any) of us have enough background knowledge to accuse him of making poor choices. As you have said *NONE* of these decisions have been taken lightly.

Share this post


Link to post

Beatrice,

The flip side of questioning the dancers in the way that you do with no basis in fact either reported or known, is that one could conjecture that perhaps the hidden politics are more sordid - that it's not the dancers who sinned against management but management against the dancers. Perhaps one or several of the dancers had been sexually propositioned by someone high up in administration, offered roles for favours, advancement for services rendered and when they refused marked their card permanently, set them up for dismissal. Perhaps someone on the board or a major donor has a beef with one of the dancers or their family etc etc etc

These theories are useless, dangerous, damaging and completely and utterly untrue - I would never seriously suggest them but equally hurtful is questioning those dancers work ethic, attitude and usefulness - the potential existence of "bad seeds". , rotting the barrel. We don't know anything, except the facts as presented.

Conjecture is endless, potentially libellous and ultimately worthless. And the dangerous thing about putting these theories and indeed the theories that you do forward is that they're not true, none of it's true unless proven to be a contributing factor or a given reason for termination of contract. And that's why when you do it gets me upset for sure, because it's calling into question the life commitment of a group of highly talented, dedicated individuals who are going through utter turmoil; and the statement that people who are of worth aren't fired is absolutley specious and proven wrong by the deluge of misery the world is experiencing as highly trained, dedicated and industrious people the world over are losing their jobs, not just in dance, but in all fields. Indeed, we should have heeded the advice to sack the useless years ago by trimming the fat from merchant banks.

I used Kistler as an example not because she's Martin's wife, but because I've seen her dance recently and she was the most obvious example for me of a dance establishment that's doing something wrong by presenting a dancer of such limited and diminished ability as their best. I could say this too of Yvonne Boree, Nilas Martins: or Albert Evans and Wendy Whelan who I saw dance seven years ago and loved and when I saw Evans and Whelan last year was saddened by the dimishment in their abilities.

One thing I'm glad about from the NY Times article is knowing that Max Van Der Sterre is one of the fired: glad that I know but sad that it's him. I saw him last year and even in the corps I have to say he stood out because he's the kind of dancer I love. You could see he has a very difficult body for dance, it's not a naturally flexible one, you could see that where some of his more physically gifted compatriots flew through the air with the greatest of ease, naturally, everything for him had been a challenge to achieve - that technique was something that had been hard to come by and his dancing reflected that in its intensity and the way in which he made technique work for him. I love dancers who buck the trend for hyper flexible, facile and technical who have that core of iron - those are the kind of dancers companies need, they're wonderful examples - and it's just a crying shame that his worth was held in such low regard.

Share this post


Link to post