NYC Ballet Cuts Corps as Deficit Widens

[carbro]

Hey Miliosr,

I did a bit of nimble fingered detective work. The NYCB 2009 AGMA contracts are online and here are the figures.

A Level A Corps member (entry) gets $1015 per calendar month.

A Level D Corps member (8-9 yrs) gets $1895 per calendar month.

[etc.]

The figures are right, but per week, not per month. Yes, per week!

Miliosr, I don't know whether you're up to recalculating.

Don't forget the weeks that the dancers collect unemployment benefits. As mentioned earlier, the company assumes that the dancers will collect (to the tune of $405 per week) during their scheduled lay-offs.

[Simon G]

Hey Miliosr,

I did a bit of nimble fingered detective work. The NYCB 2009 AGMA contracts are online and here are the figures.

A Level A Corps member (entry) gets $1015 per calendar month.

A Level D Corps member (8-9 yrs) gets $1895 per calendar month.

[etc.]

The figures are right, but per week, not per month. Yes, per week!

Miliosr, I don't know whether you're up to recalculating.

Don't forget the weeks that the dancers collect unemployment benefits. As mentioned earlier, the company assumes that the dancers will collect (to the tune of $405 per week) during their scheduled lay-offs.

I should have realised that $12, 180 per year was low but I was judging that by UK standards! Still it's good that at least in one company dancers are paid a wage which allows them to live comfortably and even save. This would make NYCB corps dancers the best paid in the world and this is a good thing.

The problem for administration eager to cut costs comes I suppose when you get dancers who've reached the top tiers and have a good 10+ years left in their careers. The thought process that these people aren't going to progress to soloist/principal yet are still being paid a wage in that bracket - indeed more than a soloist or even new principal would get in the RB or any other top tier company - must have been a deciding factor in the sackings.

It must be horribly galling to realise that the life, committment and artistry you've brought and dedicated to a company is seen as expendable, that the consistent hard work night after night and the just financial reward it brings is secondary to a few figures in an end of year balance sheet - that a corps de ballet is something that has such little relevance that those who understand it best, the longterm corps are seen as replaceabl en masse by a glut of vey new, very green dancers who will be happy to be herded, underpaid and even more expendable as a company has no longterm commitment to an apprentice after the first year: at which point they can let them go.

I remember reading in Gelsey Kirkland's book about how even back in her day job opportunities for ex NYCB dancers were slim to none; to find yourself a young dancer your career terminated with no say in the matter is soul destroying - Again all I can say is well done to Flack for not going quietly into the night - I admire her so much for the stand she's taken.

[DeborahB]

Carbro is correct about the weekly salaries (and the dancers get paid for rehearsals too, albeit at a slightly lower rate).

Miliosr -- I hear you about dropping some of the principals who don't pull their weight. There are a couple of soloists that are also in this category. However, the principals and soloists are protected by a union; the corps members are not.

Ms. Flack was indeed brave for speaking out. But as a PR professional I'm worried (for her) that it could hurt her chances

for another job.

NYCB will be losing many beloved corps members at the end of the Saratoga season. So sad....

[Helene]

There are a couple of soloists that are also in this category.

Are they dancing? Back when I watched the company regularly, for some dancers, soloists was a springboard to principal status, and they performed often and in principal roles. For others, the promotion was to "Soloist Hell" -- never cast. Are these dancers never cast? Because that usually isn't up to them, and it's management's responsibility to see that they're used. It's not like Peter Martins is a new director and inherited a roster of people promoted by others.

Most of the criticism here about principals not carrying their weight has focused on two senior ballerinas who are cast often, not dancers like Allegra Kent, who was on the roster for several years without making any appearances, as was Francisco Moncion.

However, the principals and soloists are protected by a union; the corps members are not.

Please explain further, if you would. Are the limits to representation contractual by precedent, or by practice? Are there different criteria for hiring and firing corps members -- I would assume so for apprentices -- like before and after tenure, for teachers?

[DeborahB]

The soloists that I mentioned dance once or twice a season.

As for the unions -- soloists and principals can't be fired. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances (mostly having to do with

bad behavior), but the unions protect these folks (and will fight management when, and if, necessary).

Please understand -- I'm usually pro-union. However, there are always exceptions and, as we know, there are several union protected dancers (not just at NYCB either) that should/need to retire.

On the other hand, I was thrilled that one of my favorite dancers -- the wonderful Adrian Danchig-Waring -- was finally promoted to soloist. Now he's protected by the union.

As for corp members (not protected by unions) -- I'm afraid that many who are leaving are more senior.

Some are volunteering to leave and will be teaching at SAB (including one who we all love).

[Helene]

As for the unions -- soloists and principals can't be fired. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances (mostly having to do with

bad behavior), but the unions protect these folks (and will fight management when, and if, necessary).

Is that contractual, though? I mean specifically in the contract that there are different standards for firing a principal/soloist rather than for firing a corps member. (I assume that apprentices have few rights, apart from the salary.)

[DeborahB]

Is that contractual, though? I mean specifically in the contract that there are different standards for firing a principal/soloist rather than for firing a corps member. (I assume that apprentices have few rights, apart from the salary).

Corps members only have a one year contract. They can be let go at the end of the year with or w/o cause. Principals and soloists have a lifetime contact (doesn't need

to be renewed each year).

From what I know, it's nearly impossible to ever fire a principal/soloist (this includes things like so called "bad" behavior).

[Simon G]

Ms. Flack was indeed brave for speaking out. But as a PR professional I'm worried (for her) that it could hurt her chances

for another job.

Deborah,

I completely agree with you. This interview was very much a "calling it quits" with dance statement; at times it veered towards the personal though she was only reitierating a very common belief/opinion that Balanchine would never have chosen Martins and Martins' choreography is bottom drawer at best.

However, those who traditionally voice such opinions are critics, ballet goers & ex-Balanchine stars, coming from a corps dancer whose career was sidelined by Martins and has now been terminated full stop; it unfortunately could be perceived as vendetta. Though Flack makes no bones stating categorically how angry she is.

I have the feeling that if Flack had had her moment with Martins when she had the opportunity and really let her feelings be known this interview wouldn't have taken place in the form that it did. I completely sympathise with her anger at herself fo hugging him after he'd delivered the news. That "letting your assasin feel better" hug that is so so common in any unhappy ending is unbearably disingenuous.

I just hope that any future employer won't bring this interview up as a demonstration of disloyalty to an employer and that those who Flack might have angered with this interview will let it go and not be vindicitve in the future.

[DeborahB]

So much of all of this is company politics, Simon (as I'm sure you know). This happens in all jobs (arts and otherwise). Also

there are "favorites" in all companies. Without saying more than I should, this is why so many dancers whom we love

have left. But again, this happens everywhere.

I do admire Sophie a lot for what she did and said. Heck, if I was a company director I'd hire her just for being

honest! Plus she didn't cross the line (i.e. she didn't appear terribly angry, just disappointed).

[Helene]

Corps members only have a one year contract. They can be let go at the end of the year with or w/o cause. Principals and soloists have a lifetime contact (doesn't need

to be renewed each year).

Thank you -- I had no idea. I thought everyone's contract came up for renewal each year.

[miliosr]

Miliosr, I don't know whether you're up to recalculating.

I am up for anything, carbro!

Really, it's not that hard -- just multiply everything by 4 weeks:

Corps member D = $68,220

Apprentice A = $18,288

Difference = $49,932

This gets you into a murkier area. Even before you get to the differential between rehearsal salaries, you have a base salary difference of almost $50,000 in my hypothetical. Are the savings engendered by hiring apprentices (do we know how many have been hired?) so significant that they justified firing the senior corps dancers? Everyone will just have to decide that for himself or herself.

I still say that, since the corps dancers can be dismissed without cause (as DeborahB confirms), the best way to approach the situation would have been to explain the complicated nature of the situation (need to economize vs. need for new infusion of talent) to the affected dancers. Yes, it would have been unpleasant but you would have treated them like adults and professionals. As it is, management looks like it was trying to get through the firings without creating the kind of response that Miss Flack now wishes she had employed.

At the end of the day, I think ABT got the better of City Ballet in this situation. They took the hit together and, for all the detractors who decry ABT as a "polyglot" company, they look more like a unified company than City Ballet does.

[DeborahB]

At the end of the day, I think ABT got the better of City Ballet in this situation. They took the hit together and, for all the detractors who decry ABT as a "polyglot" company, they look more like a unified company than City Ballet does.

As everyone who reads my post on Ballet Talk knows, I live and breathe NYCB (although I also really like ABT and go

to many performances each season -- 6 this season so far). But you are so right about this statement above, Miliosr.

ABT's PR factor alone (again, my profession) -- for the way they handled this situation -- was brilliant. And more importantly they saved jobs!

[tutu]

At the end of the day, I think ABT got the better of City Ballet in this situation. They took the hit together and, for all the detractors who decry ABT as a "polyglot" company, they look more like a unified company than City Ballet does...

ABT's PR factor alone (again, my profession) -- for the way they handled this situation -- was brilliant. And more importantly they saved jobs!

I'm with you, DeborahB.

Flack: "...the company was given other options: pay cuts, a hiring freeze, but they didn’t want to do any of that. So [AGMA is] obviously upset with the situation too."

I'm certain that there's a procedure in place (at other companies with AGMA, at least, and of course at ABT with the IAA) wherein the dancers can vote through the union to allow their own pay freeze. If company administration was given such an option and opted for firings instead, that's, to say the least, very disheartening. If the dancers voted for their peers to be fired rather than to take a pay cut or freeze, that's also very disheartening, though I doubt that this is the case; AGMA would not likely be described as "upset" with action democratically decided through the union, and it's hard to believe that such action would be taken given the camaraderie that Flack describes in the interview. If the situation is so bad that with senior staff taking a 10% cut and union-authorized pay "adjustments," then NYCB's in a more stressful fiscal situation than they're letting on. If the possibility was never entertained, that's also very disappointing--a kind of passivity of the union in the face of crisis.

I (a self-admitted cynic) was not completely surprised to hear someone (finally!) say, "It seems like, in a way, he was just cleaning house of the people he didn’t like for whatever reason." As Flack said, "It kind of feels like they spun it the way they wanted to and it’s not very truthful."

Applause to Flack for her courage and insight.

[Simon G]

Deborah B

Do you know what happens when an AD decides that a soloist or principal has come to the end of the road and wants to terminate a contract in US companies? Can they actually do that?

I remember reading about Kevin McKenzie firing Ashley Tuttle after a Coppelia performance due to the decline in her technique - is that possible and what kind of compensation is that dancer due if it is so?

The thing is I can see how a golden handcuffs contract can be detrimental to a company. The POB springs to mind where the official retirement age of 42 allows a great deal of opportunity for corps dancers well past their technical hey day and window of opportunity for promotion to just basically languish for two decades in order to receive their pension.

If the corps is for anything it has to be constantly open for an influx of new talent.

[abatt]

I think that Flack came off as very angry in the interview, and it might come back to bite her in the a-s. I don't understand why she thinks the lay-offs were "hush hush". Peter Martins was correct in not publicly identifying the particular individuals whose contracts were not renewed based on privacy concerns. Moreover, employers have learned through the harsh lessons of protracted litigation that when terminating your employee, do not give a reason. From a legal standpoint, the less the employer says regarding the reason, the better. I found it fascinating and sad that Flack mentions that some of the corps regard City Ballet as a surrogate family and Peter Martins as a "father" figure. It's not surprising since the dancers frequently must leave their families and homes to study at SAB. Unfortunately, that situation sets up a dangerous situation in which corps member comes to place too much trust in an organization that is simply a business, like any other business. I also agree with those who posted above that finding new talent (apprentices) to bring up the ranks is essential to a prestigious and large company; new talent is their life blood. It is unrealistic for any long term corps member to think that the company should forego hiring apprentices in order to save the job of a corps member. In numerous industries (law, business, accounting) talented young people graduate from top schools every year, and the most prestigious firms vigorously recruit the best and the brightest graduates. At the same time, these companies gently (or not so gently) force out employees who the management has concluded are less than stellar and have no potential of further advancement. Also, even though this round of firings became very public because of its size, I believe that the NYCB management has forced people out before. For example, I recall reading an article a few years ago in the NY Times regarding the treatment of African Amercian ballet dancers, and former NYCB corps member Aesha Ash was interviewed. As I recall, she took some time off because of the death of her father. As she told it, Peter Martins essentially told her that she would not be advancing within the company and she should use this time as an opportunity to consider other options. Aesha left and went to a smaller company, and also did a guest stint with Morphoses. I suspect that over the years, numerous corps dancers have been quietly forced out like Aesha. Another point is that Ms. Flack seems to have ignored or been oblivious to warning signs, such as not being cast in featured roles over a long time period. I'm going to use former corps member Melissa Barak as an example of a great outcome. Melissa served in the corps many years, and apparently had little hope of promotion to soloist. She was a small fish in a big pond at NYCB. Instead of continuing to languish in the corps, she joined the Los Angeles Ballet,where she is now a principal dancing roles she NEVER would have danced at NYCB. She managed her career so that she became a big fish in a small pond. Others have done the same. Look at Sascha Radetsky at ABT. It was clear he was not going to be promoted to principal, so he moved to a smaller ballet company in Europe. This was at great personal sacrifice, since his wife Stella continues to be a soloist in NY at ABT. Corps members who are receiving warning signs should take stock of these examples.

[kfw]

I still say that, since the corps dancers can be dismissed without cause (as DeborahB confirms), the best way to approach the situation would have been to explain the complicated nature of the situation (need to economize vs. need for new infusion of talent) to the affected dancers.

That might have softened the blow, but surely the nature of the situation is perfectly obvious.

[Simon G]

Aesha Ash took some time off because of the death of her father. As she told it, Peter Martins essentially told her that she would not be advancing within the company and she should use this time as an opportunity to consider other options. Aesha left and went to a smaller company, and also did a guest stint with Morphoses.

Another point is that Ms. Flack seems to have ignored or been oblivious to warning signs, such as not being cast in featured roles over a long time period.

Sascha Radetsky at ABT. It was clear he was not going to be promoted to principal, so he moved to a smaller ballet company in Europe. This was at great personal sacrifice, since his wife Stella continues to be a soloist in NY at ABT. Corps members who are receiving warning signs should take stock of these examples.

I think the thing is here a question of the individual's response. I remember the Ash incident and you have to admit that for out and out cruelty this tops Flack's experience. To use someone's deep grief as an opportunity to blindside them is cold. Ash was also very critical of this in interview and the effect it had on her grieving process. But it was a private sacking one on one, Flack's was very much part of a public happening. As she said she didn't want to be faceless, just disappearin from the roster as if she never existed.

Flack did set up an appointment to speak with Martins to discuss her roles and if we take her on her word was offered the chance to learn new rep, dance new roles. Which never materialised then shortly after this she learned in the press of her termination. I don't think it's a question of why but how - and sadly the how in big organisation is cruel.

Radestsky actually made a much much better move, not down but up. Dutch National Ballet is a bigger company, with better facilities, much better repertory and far more performances, better contractual conditions etc In the world canon of companies it may not have as long established a name as ABT but it is still a highly regarded name and a much better job at every level of dancer. In as much as I'd rather see SFB than ABT any day of the week. There's a lesson there never trust in brand names.

[DeborahB]

Do you know what happens when an AD decides that a soloist or principal has come to the end of the road and wants to terminate a contract in US companies? Can they actually do that?

An AD can't do that (at least at NYCB, and, from what I know, ABT too).

It has to be some major breach: being arrested for a major crime etc.

[perky]

I find myself agreeing with Abatt on a lot of her points.

When a long time corp member is not getting featured roles, when she asks for more challenges and is basically ignored, that's the directors way of saying "maybe it's time for you to move on to somewhere else."

Would it be better for the director to have a sit down meeting with the corp dancer and spell it out in black and white? Yes, of course. Why don't they? I suspect because the director is not fond of confrontation, doesn't have the time or simply hopes that the dancer gets the various hints that have been sent their way, thereby saving him that uncomfortable talk. It is a rather cowardly way to go about it but definitely not unordinary.

These cuts might have something to do with trimming the budget, but I suspect that Martins is also using it as an excuse to cut what he considers dead weight in the corp. It's disingenuous of him but not really unexpected.

I do feel for Sophie Flack. The pain and confusion in her words regarding the situation and how it was handled are very real and heartbreaking. I think she should go to those choreographers she admires and she if she can get an audition with them. It sounds as if she is leaning toward more of a modern aesthetic anyway.

I did find it kind of interesting though that she considers the direction of NYCB to be stuck in the past and not hip or eclectic enough. One of the main criticisms of Martins is that he doesn't give the Balanchine legacy and repertory the same attention and care that he gives new choreography.

[DeborahB]

Regarding Aesha Ash (I adore her!): she was a corps member and thus had no clout.

It's a shame because I thought (and think) she was incredibly talented. I can't address "forcing" someone out in detail.

However, corps members know when their star is rising (or not).

Part of the problem is that so many of the corps members are so young and don't know how brutal business (and NYCB

and other companies are a business) can be. You are so right Abatt -- corps members should not be looking

at management as "family."

I was also dismayed (and again, I am a huge NYCB supporter), that Henry Seth never advanced.

He was one to watch after he graduated SAB.

Is it because Seth and Ash are African-American? God, I hope not!

When I saw Aesha Ash with Morphoses I literally swooned. She is gorgeous and should have been

in line to be a principal at NYCB.

Sorry for all the posts today!!

[abatt]

II did find it kind of interesting though that she considers the direction of NYCB to be stuck in the past and not hip or eclectic enough. One of the main criticisms of Martins is that he doesn't give the Balanchine legacy and repertory the same attention and care that he gives new choreography.

I too found it odd that Flack thinks that NYCB is stuck in the past. If she need a good example of being stuck in the past, she should look across the plaza at ABT. The only glimmer of possible salvation over at ABT is the fact that Ratmansky has now joined them. I think NYCB is at the forefront of developing new choreography among major US ballet companies. Granted, much of the new work isn't very good, but the effort is being made. NYCB was instrumental in developing the talents of Chris Wheeldon. Martins also helped to solidify the reputation of Ratmansky here in the U.S. NYCB has a very eclectic rep.

[miliosr]

These cuts might have something to do with trimming the budget, but I suspect that Martins is also using it as an excuse to cut what he considers dead weight in the corp. It's disingenuous of him but not really unexpected.

Bingo! A very real economic crunch presented an opportunity to clear out some dead wood in the forest so that the forest could regrow.

I did find it kind of interesting though that she considers the direction of NYCB to be stuck in the past and not hip or eclectic enough. One of the main criticisms of Martins is that he doesn't give the Balanchine legacy and repertory the same attention and care that he gives new choreography.

This is one area where I actually have some sympathy for Martins. He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. The new works aren't hip enough for the hipsters who love Cedar Lake but these same new works also alienate the hardcore Balanchine audience members who think they take up too much space in the rep.

[dirac]

I too found it odd that Flack thinks that NYCB is stuck in the past. If she need a good example of being stuck in the past, she should look across the plaza at ABT. The only glimmer of possible salvation over at ABT is the fact that Ratmansky has now joined them. I think NYCB is at the forefront of developing new choreography among major US ballet companies. Granted, much of the new work isn't very good, but the effort is being made. NYCB was instrumental in developing the talents of Chris Wheeldon. Martins also helped to solidify the reputation of Ratmansky here in the U.S. NYCB has a very eclectic rep.

As miliosr said, in this area Martins really is between a rock and a hard place. Flack’s criticisms seemed a bit confused, to say the least.

Moreover, employers have learned through the harsh lessons of protracted litigation that when terminating your employee, do not give a reason.

That is right. Despite what Flack seems to regard as heartless treatment, had she been working for Edward Villella, who runs a smaller organization, she would have been biting her nails for days while waiting for a letter in the mail. Thousands of people have been laid off from their jobs recently. Not only is it usually a brutally impersonal process but often as not, security guards are involved.

It also seems, as abatt observes, that the writing was already on the wall and Flack was unable or unwilling to read it. At least she’s young enough to put her life back together. Many are not so fortunate.

That said, it’s unusual and very interesting to read such a candid interview from any current or former dancer, from NYCB or any other company. It’s too bad the grapes are so obviously sour, from what appears to be a combination of anger and naivete, but I know several people who’ve been laid off recently and Flack’s emotions and tone are familiar.

[Simon G]

Dirac,

As you said, it's more about the overwhelming anger of being laid off than anything else. I'm sure at some point Flack will reread the interview and think "Jaysus, I should have maybe held back a bit here."

I do admire her cujones, as I said, and I think a lot was motivated by l'esprit de l'escalier". I get the feeling had she said what she wanted when she was being fired, as she explicitly states she regrets not doing, she'd have felt the catharsis this interview brought, or I hope brought her as I've no doubt that several bridges have been burnt.

I also do feel that perhaps this interview is what she needed to do to bring a conclusion to her dance career. From the tone it would seem that as far as she's concerned that's it and one thing I know from experience dance is so all consuming that there's no easy way to end it - you have to just slam the door shut and move on.

I also think tha Gia Kourlas might have been a bit more discreet and not so eager for sexy copy, though I know asking for morals from a journalist is slightly naive. I'm sure Kourlas knew that this was going to stir up a hornet's nest - she gave Flack all the rope she wanted.

And I do hope that the people who will get p.o'd by this will recognise Flack's anger and hurt and just take one for the team and not hold i against her longterm.

[Hans]

When a long time corp member is not getting featured roles, when she asks for more challenges and is basically ignored, that's the directors way of saying "maybe it's time for you to move on to somewhere else."

Would it be better for the director to have a sit down meeting with the corp dancer and spell it out in black and white? Yes, of course. Why don't they? I suspect because the director is not fond of confrontation, doesn't have the time or simply hopes that the dancer gets the various hints that have been sent their way, thereby saving him that uncomfortable talk. It is a rather cowardly way to go about it but definitely not unordinary.

Isn't he pretty much doing what Balanchine did? One hears that Balanchine never fired anyone, just stopped casting them and eventually they would go away. However, Martins' saying Sophie could learn featured roles and then not following through strikes me as lying to her face. It may avoid confrontation or saying something difficult, but when you are the AD, sometimes you have to say difficult things, such as "I don't see you advancing with us beyond where you are now." It's a responsibility that comes with the position. He said it to Aesha Ash, so why not Sophie? Because he wanted her to stick around as a lower-level corps member until he could hire some apprentices? Maybe that would fly in the 1970's when AD's were supposed to be considered semi-divine by the dancers, but these days people want the truth. I think Martins has been ignoring the world outside Lincoln Center for quite some time now, and while I can't really blame him, I think he does so at his peril.

Re: views of NYCB as stuck in the past, I think they have put themselves into that situation. The fact that Balanchine (and Robbins) were creating new, exciting, high-quality works was used as a reason to dance with NYCB for a very long time, and NYCB/SAB still promote themselves as being at the forefront of balletic innovation when they are not, and haven't been for over 10 years. To dancers who were born after Balanchine died and have watched NYCB dance the same repertoire for decades, with a sprinkling of new middle-of-the-road choreography that isn't really very good or interesting, NYCB would look staid. Don't get me wrong: I think NYCB should definitely dance Balanchine and Robbins, but pretending that they're the latest thing in ballet when they are really a Balanchine/Robbins museum (not a bad thing!) is not going to fool anyone, especially dancers who know people in other companies like Cedar Lake, go to see new work, &c. Based on the interview, it looks as if Sophie might fit in well at a place like PNB, with its emphasis on more modern choreography, but of course she also mentioned that she'd like to stay in New York. Whatever she decides, I wish her well.