Kathleen O'Connell

10 minutes ago, balletforme said:

Right, my point entirely. You can't make decisions about dismissal based on the level at which "the organization at large would tolerate them."  That's bizarre.  You should know your policies, know what's legally permissible and do what you are going to do.  That's my point, get PR OUT OF THE ROOM. You can't treat employment decisions like you would a season campaign, offensive photo on a website, or a press release.  

This could be a decision made by legal but waffling usually is not a good legal move and that's proving to be the case now. Just makes the organization seem unclear about it's own rules. 

I agree that the company needs to look first to its policies and to its commitments under its agreement with AGMA, but testing its available options against legitimate employee concerns about the workplace isn't just PR. 

ETA by way of clarification: The company may have determined that its legally available options ranged from doing nothing, to sending a strongly worded letter, to what we used to cheerfully refer to in my workplace as "a come to Jesus meeting," to rehab, to demotion, to suspension, and finally, to firing. Before Waterbury's complaint was made public, company management might have believed (perhaps rightly) that a suspension was the most feasible sanction it could impose without sending the organization into a tailspin. Once the nature of the transgression was made public and its contours were more than just idle gossip, it may have decided the workplace would be sent into a tailspin if it didn't dismiss Ramasar and Catazaro. 

I don't know what the company's thinking was, and I certainly don't know what the right answer is without knowing more about who did what to whom.

20 minutes ago, Helene said:

😆

And, really, I didn't do this on purpose: I was going to wait until midnight PDT, but saw that there was a security patch in the release, and jumped on it.

Oh, I think we needed the break.

1 minute ago, Helene said:

It would also be a fine thing if unions defended employees against transgressive behavior by their fellow employees, as well as defending them against their employers.  And this criticism isn't specific to this situation, but is just a reminder of my experiences in my union days.

I suspect that it will be difficult for any union that believes its primary mission is to defend its members from the depredations of their employers to re-orient even a little bit of its focus towards workplaces made toxic by some of the very people it has been charged to protect. 

I remember one of my grad-school professors telling me way back in the 70s that we would get around to solving the problem of sexism once we'd solved the problem of capitalism. 

21 minutes ago, kbarber said:

I'm sure we all thought the NYCB issue had blown the board up!

😀💐

12 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Ramasar and Catazaro are able to defend themselves through their union.  The great thing about binding arbitration is that it limits the parties' financial exposure,  another plus for a strong union. 

Go union! It really is good that the dancers, musicians, and stagehands have one. It would be a fine thing if even more people had one.

15 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Al Franken resigned. 

After just about every Senator who is also a woman voted him off the island. I think it's safe to say he resigned under duress. I don't know if the requisite number of Senators would have voted for expulsion after an ethics probe, but he didn't have enough support within his own caucus to make it that far.

20 minutes ago, abatt said:

Firing of a dancer should not be based on feedback from other dancers.  Ramasar and Catazaro were working at NYCB for many years, and up until Saturday the company apparently never got negative feedback about them and continually renewed their contracts. Ramasar has been working there for about 18 years, and Catazaro for about 11.

We don't know — or at least I don't know — what kind of feedback the company may have gotten from its employees regarding any of its other employees prior to this event.

I agree that the decision to dismiss an employee shouldn't be a popularity contest, but the company would also be within its rights to take any employee concerns about the workplace into consideration when making such a decision.

The decision will be taken to arbitration per the company's agreement with AGMA in any event, which is a good thing. That's why the union is there.

Just now, Ilovegiselle said:

So Maria Kowroski commented on Amar's post  "😘❤️" kissy face emoji. 

If Maria supports her, how do we feel about Amar now?  she's the most senior ballerina and well respected at City Ballet.

I'm prepared to make my own assessment once all the facts are out, if they are ever out.

I respect Kowroski as an artist, but honestly, I need more than a few emoji from her in an IG comment to sort my thinking out on this one.

5 minutes ago, balletforme said:

Maybe I missed something but why are Ramasar and Catazaro, being fired after an initial decision was made for suspension? 

NYCB had 2 months with the evidence made available to them in June to determine if these two needed to be fired or not. They chose to suspend them but now, once the negative press is accelerating, they fire them?

Seems like a PR motivated thing to do. A panicked, "We've got to do something," move. 

What is new now that requires these two to be fired and not suspended as originally determined? 

It may be that they received feedback from dancers and other NYCB employees after the Waterbury's complaint was made public that either advocated for dismissal or indicated that dismissal would be tolerated by the organization at large. 

15 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Yes, that's precisely what I have - perhaps I explained it poorly.

The large window - the one you see on the right - is the most recent messages, and it is the only one that shows photos without a click.  Waterbury might have opened Finlay's computer and seen her image within that window immediately, horribly, without taking any action of her own.

However, if she performed "a quick scroll", that's technically undertaking an action that Finlay did not authorize when he agreed to let her check her own email on his machine. The same with clicking on any panels to the left. Even a "quick scroll" is a type of forensic search.

It is dead simple to save an ENTIRE Messages conversation to PDF and email it to someone. No need to scroll through the whole conversation — on a Mac you go to File >Print>Save as PDF. Save the PDF to the desktop. RIght click on the PDF's desktop icon, select Share, select Mail or Messages, send it to yourself, and you are done. The PDF it generates is of the entire conversation, beginning to end, irrespective of what may be showing on the screen.

Is it legal? Is it admissible? I have no idea. However, if I happened upon a text conversation featuring explicit photos of me taken without my permission, you best believe a PDF of that conversation would be winging its way through cyberspace to one of my own devices. The lawyers could come get me later if it came to that.

18 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Absolutely correct - but you (or she) would need to see the context in order to know these words were about her or the men's NYCB colleagues. Just seeing a few words and a name in the Apple system isn't enough to provide that context.  Without seeing a full statement or a specific name, the man could be talking about some other woman entirely and it would be none of her business.

I don't know what she saw, but my point is that the Apple system limits how much you see at one time - unless she "investigated" further.

Perhaps it depends on how one has the Messages app configured. On my Mac, I've got two Messages panels: the left hand panel does indeed show a list of the most recent messages I have received from each person I have texted with, including the first line or two of text. The right-hand panel is wider (and can be made wider still) and shows full texts and photos from a single conversation, which I can scroll through from beginning to end with a swipe or two on my trackpad. Note that a single conversation can go on for months, if not for years (I in fact have a two-years long conversation open on my Mac right now), all of it within easy reach with a quick scroll, with no need to dig around. I someone walked up to my Mac right now, they could scroll through whatever conversation I had open without having to do much of anything. 

1 hour ago, fondoffouettes said:

A snapshot of Ramasar’s supporters, from Harrison Ball’s Instagram.

Having been through several similar incidents during my career, I can promise NYCB that one of the hardest things they'll have to grapple with as an organization is the fallout from the very human urge to take sides. 

47 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

This seems correct, there was never any allegation that other individuals photos were shared without their knowledge, that is just the presumption based on the lawsuit. If this is the case, would those terminations (other than Mr. Finlay) be considered unjust? Perhaps this is why the union stated they seek to arbitrate the matter for the other's involved.

From the Par. 5 of the complaint [emphasis mine]:

Defendant CHASE FINLAY and/or agents, servants, employees, donors, principals of and/or others affiliated with defendant NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. shared sexual videos and images of plaintiff, ALEXANDRA WATERBURY, and other unknowing female victims, including other female Ballet members. Specifically, the sharing of these intimate, private, and nude images of women at defendant NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. occurred during work hours, on work premises and amongst its coworkers, agents, servants, employees, donors, principals and/or others affiliated with the Ballet. 

Obviously, this is Ms. Waterbury's allegation. We don't know if it is a fact.

ETA: I have assumed "unknowing" means shared without their knowledge or consent rather than being filmed on the sly.

As has been noted before, the legal complaint filed by Ms. Waterbury is rather sloppily drafted and difficult to parse. There are many references throughout to a NYCB Principal dancer who is not named, but who is alleged to have taken part in some of the more egregious activity described in the document: 

Mr. Finlay and another NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC., principal boasted that they were going to "double team" a religious female corps member at NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. and "leave her with no choice." Of course, Mr. Finlay wanted to video that too and wrote "that would be ultimate sex persuasion." (Par. 32)

Defendant CHASE FINLAY also repeatedly asked another NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. principal for explicit photographs of a female Ballet member which were shared by the Principal on demand. The two also engaged in a group chat with another male Ballet member who suggested the three men "...get like half a kilo [of cocaine] and pour it over the [female ballet members] and just violate them" to which defendant responded with two 'thumbs-up' emoticons. (Par. 55)

I'm curious as to whether NYCB knows who this dancer is, and if so, whether they've taken any action against him, and if so, what it was and why it hasn't been made public. And if not, why not. Perhaps Ms. Waterbury and her lawyers never revealed his name or perhaps the claims were unsubstantiated. The charges in Par. 55 are very similar to those attributed to the Donor in Par 27; perhaps it's bad drafting and separate incidents are being conflated. 

14 minutes ago, JuliaJ said:

I would think that the dancers are just as concerned about the company's public image as the company's directors and board members are. Whether or not some female dancers actually feel uncomfortable around Ramasar and Catazaro, nobody wants the company to be associated with accusations of rampant sexual misconduct. Cutting ties with the men named in Waterbury's case -- rightfully or not -- is obviously a PR move. 

It could be, although I think we have to admit that we're mostly just speculating here.

Regardless, as On Pointe has correctly stated, the provisions of the AGMA agreement are as relevant as what the dancers, individually and as a community, might believe is appropriate. The union is there for a very good reason, but sometimes it giveth and sometimes it taketh away. Human affairs are messy that way. 

9 hours ago, On Pointe said:

It's curious that some company employees are so distracted by the presence of Ramasar and Catazaro that they want them gone,  but apparently no one went to AGMA about the dangers of being partnered by an alcohol abuser,  or being obliged to work with an alleged rapist and domestic violence abuser - the one who,  according to Waterbury's complaint,  everybody knew about and talked about.

Has anyone who is in a position to know said that being "distracted by the presence of Ramasar and Catazaro" is the rationale for their dismissal? Or that being partnered by them is the issue?

Might it be that members of the company as well as other NYCB employees (rightly or wrongly) believe that Ramasar and Catazaro's behavior warrants sanction, both because it was wrong and to publicly demonstrate that it will no longer be tolerated? 

Because I don't know the specifics of the alleged infractions, I'm loathe to make a judgment as to whether or not the dismissals were warranted. If these men in fact shared explicit photos of NYCB employees without their knowledge and consent, I would consider it a firing offense, whether the sharing happened during work hours in the workplace or not. I'd also consider it a firing offense If these men made derogatory comments about NYCB employees based on their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, or disability, whether it happened during working hours in the workplace or not.

AGMA does have a procedure for reporting a hostile work environment, and they describe what kind of behavior might be deemed to create such an environment. The definition of "workplace" is narrow, however (see my emphasis below).

"Depending on the circumstances, and under AGMA contracts even if not in violation of a law, the following conduct may constitute discriminatory harassment based on an individual’s race, color, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, marital status, veteran status, or physical or mental disability: epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, jokes, or threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts, and/or written or graphic material that denigrates or shows hostility towards an individual or group that is circulated in the workplace or placed anywhere in the employer’s premises, such as on an employee’s desk or workspace, or on the employer’s equipment or bulletin boards."

I'm generally very wary of allowing employers to fire, suspend, demote, re-assign, or otherwise affect the employment of someone based on private behavior. But I'm equally uncomfortable with private behavior that doesn't stay private and thereby contributes to a hostile work environment. I'm willing to admit its a puzzle I haven't solved.

9 hours ago, Helene said:

Going back to the topic of the article for a moment, what I find most potentially problematic about the Met's new schedule is less that the orchestra players will lose a weekend day to spend with their families, but that the orchestra will be playing four performances in less than 48 hours, which goes unmentioned.  Maybe the second trombone and the alto sax doesn't play all night and in every opera, but, for most scores, the strings and the woodwinds are in for hours and hours in each performance.  There is rotation, but I wonder if they'll get to hire more musicians to be alleviate that schedule. It's not just the repetitive stress, but also the toll it takes on hearing, to be blasted from behind.  

This is a good point, although of course this exact situation happens now at NYCB — Friday evening, Saturday matinee, Saturday evening, and Sunday matinee. 

ETA: There are probably fewer playing hours involved at the ballet.

1 minute ago, zerbinetta said:

The Taylor company has canceled its Spring season and switched to the Fall due to the recent increase in inclement weather with its consequent negative impact on the box office. They will now be performing :

"The 2019 Paul Taylor American Modern Dance season at Lincoln Center will take place in the Fall of 2019: October 30 - November 17. " quoted from the Taylor website.

 

Ah ha! Thanks for the update re the PTDC NY season change, which I somehow missed. 

Well then, I think a regular March NYC ABT season would be a very fine thing!

In all seriousness, I'm inclined to cut young teens some slack when it comes to texting that's less discreet than prudence might otherwise dictate. I'm an old, but if being a teen now is anything like being a teen in the 60s and 70s, a bit of new-found independence, peer pressure, and the perceived necessity of fitting in can make you stupid. We can expect twenty-somethings to do better, and thirty-somethings have no excuse.

Just now, FPF said:

Also that "texting has engulfed young people's lives." As if they have no choice in the matter.

"A tsunami of sexts just up and engulfed me!"

4 minutes ago, FPF said:

One of the orchestra members also posted in support of Amar. "In all of my years in the orchestra (40), I have not had a passing acquaintance with a kinder, bigger hearted , talented dancer than Amar ! I have seen him countless times in his interactions with dancers in NY, Saratoga, Washington DC . The Orchestra members, staff, all of them really love this generous spirited person and supremely gifted dancer., All the people I have seen him around feel similarly. I feel he has been unjustly singled out because of the texting phenomena which has engulfed young peoples lives , and as a result is being made a scapegoat for the current "Salem" like atmosphere at work. We are not sure (in the orchestra) whether it is ok to hug our friends of the opposite sex, and this incident which I believe has been blown completely out of proportion and context, has now left a stain on us all . I hope AGMA does its job quickly and aquits Amar forthwith. Keep strong , you are still the king of NY to me !"

Ah, the old "I don't know if I can hug my colleagues anymore" plaint. I spent I don't know how many years as a professional woman dodging kisses from male peers who couldn't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that a handshake would do just fine. 

2 minutes ago, its the mom said:

I guess I feel differently, knowing some of the young girls at SAB.  As a parent, I would not want my daughter near any of them at this point.  

Oh, I quite agree that partnering may be an issue! I just wanted to point out that there are other issues as well. Men might be troubled by the behavior and women employees who aren't dancers — and therefore wouldn't be partnered — could as well. It's important to remember that not every dancer is a woman and that there are plenty of women working at NYCB who aren't dancers.

Just now, its the mom said:

It is a bit different.  The women of the company have to be partnered by those men.  Would you be comfortable with that if it were your daughter?  

I don't think partnering is necessarily the issue. I don't even think being a woman is the issue. If a company member knowingly shares explicit photos of another company member without consent, I think it is reasonable for anyone else in the company — man or woman — to believe that it is a violation of trust and community standards. 

6 minutes ago, Balletwannabe said:

Ok I see.  So they really have no obligation to promote anybody to fill a qouta... they could save some $ this way, I suppose.  

I don't know if this is still the case, but back in the day I believe a senior soloist might have earned nearly as much as some of the principals. I think Merrill Ashley may have been one of them - I'd have to pull her book "Dancing for Balanchine" off the shelf to confirm this, however.

ETA: That being said, the current AGMA agreement may be structured so as to limit a company's ability to cast principal roles with soloists and corps members as a tactic for keeping pay low. (And AGMA would be in the right here, of course.)

1 minute ago, Balletwannabe said:

Do they need to promote some men to principal ASAP or can the current soloists just fill in?  Wondering how this works with pay- if you can expect soloists to work in a principal role while still paying a soloist wage?

The list of NYCB soloists who have danced above their pay grade is long and distinguished. The current roster includes more than a few ...