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.