Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
|
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
i know this to be true also as my friend was one of the dancers stranded in london and then sent home whilst still under contract -- so couldnt work any other shows...shame, Sat, Feb 10 2007, 22:21:26 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Yes I do. As with any employment the employee has an option to take out personal insurance cover, it isn't up to the employer to provide forms. It might cost, but in this situation it appears that it would have been justified. In addition it should be noted that employment law applies to this job just as any other so the addendum is not legally binding or enforceable. In such a situation there would be a case for constructive dismissal, and a lawyer would be happy to take on a big company. You seem to think these "kids" are different to the "kids" in normal jobs with unjust bosses. They either accept the situation or challenge, to each his own. owever, I do think it is diabolical that MF's company have behaved this way, and the dancers should combine to start a legal challenge, so that no individual can be made the scapegoat -- speak to an employment lawyer, Sun, Feb 11 2007, 12:10:55 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
You miss the point, so I'll make it simple for you ... under the terms of their "contract" they remain employed, but the dancer doesn't get any pay. With me so far? As a direct consequence, insurance policies are not applicable, as it is only in the case of sickness, redundancy, or loss of job that any payout would be made. Still with me? As regards collective bargaining or a group lawsuit, each and every dancer is an individual, and at appropriate times they are brought into rooms, separately, told to tear up existing contracts, and sign new ones, or they are out of work! Still with me? It is clearly a corporation bullying individuals but to "kids" or whatever else you want to call them, the majority have never worked before and therefore what was said before still applies. -- If only you really understood., Sun, Feb 11 2007, 19:52:26 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
How patronising you are. Yes I understood fully. However, you do not understand what I said. There is always the option of insurance, you just have to approach a specialist broker, who works in the particular field (ANYTHING can be insured against for a price - eg rain on your wedding day) If they have signed a contract that keeps them "employed" but agrees to no wages then that agreement is illegal and therefore they are at liberty to just walk away and join another show. However if being in this show is more important to them than working with an honest employer then they have no-one but themselves to blame. I called them kids because the previous post did. If you really believe they are kids then the parents should ensure they are protected, just as they would if they got an office or factory job and were mistreated. They are not individuals they are employees so can do something. speak to the performers union (Equity) -- stop patronising too, Sun, Feb 11 2007, 20:32:36 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It is very unlikely that any of these dancers are members of Equity as most of them will not have had previous employment to qualify them to be a member. As for the insurance thing, how many people insure their own job? -- A retired proffesional dancer, Mon, Feb 12 2007, 8:53:00 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I didn't say it was common, just possible, and if people are agreeing to dodgy contracts they need to take steps to protect themselves. Although they are not likely to be in Equity yet I think you would find they would help as this is the sort of thing they exist for. They would probably expect dancers to join them though -- shouldn't be necessary tho', Mon, Feb 12 2007, 9:13:33 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You only get help from Equity if you are a member. Also if you are in a show with the most well known dancer/producer in ID show buisness then why would you think you would need insurance ? Thats what understudies are for. -- Retired proffesional dancer, Mon, Feb 12 2007, 15:39:38 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
some people work for the most well known companies or businesses in the World, they still take out personal insurance just in case. -- rose coloured glasses, Mon, Feb 12 2007, 20:15:19 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Unfortunately you are well adrift of reality. In this part of the world there are standard employment protection policies for sale, none of which would cover the circumstances where they remain 'technically' in employment. Your second point vis-a-vis the forms relate to forms confirming they are no longer employed, and not insurance forms as you [Mis]interpreted. They need these forms along with relevant P45 equivilents to claim under the terms of applicable poilicies. Apologies about supposedly patronising you, but in the end you still don't understand! They are employed by a UK registered company and UK laws apply, so having a custom made 'insurance policy' would not be accepted.. -- ooops, Tue, Feb 13 2007, 22:58:35 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm sorry but I am in the insurance game, and can assure that a Lloyds underwriter can insure you against your contract being suspended in this way. They are not unemployed, (hence ASU policies not valid) but rather in suspension. I would assume it is fairly common with the shows, so might already be an "off the shelf" product, but if not an underwriter would cover the risk. So I am not, as you quaintly put it, adrift from reality, Why can you not respond without being insulting? We have differing views, but that doesn't mean you are automatically right. -- play nice, Wed, Feb 14 2007, 20:42:59 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
So how many young dancers just starting out on their first job would realisticly be able to afford this sort of insurance policy -- Dancers being not well paid anyway, Wed, Feb 14 2007, 21:00:31 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Now that we understand that you are supposedly in the know then please tell these dancers what policies are available to them and what brokers are providing them. While everyone else working in the insurance game, including brokers, are saying their is no such coverage available, and therefore they don't know what you do, tell who is selling these "new" products! -- "ooops i did it again!", Thu, Feb 15 2007, 0:53:58 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Just to weigh into this .. can I ask a question that may or may not clarify things for me..being in Australia does mean we have different laws so I might not have it right anyway. If the dancer is not getting paid because the show is not playing, but they are not free to find alternate employ during this 'standdown period' does that mean that they are getting a percentage of the show takings? I mean that either they are on wages (weekly pay for work) or salary (weekly pay regardless of hours) or commission based (so they get paid only if they perform) or do they have annual leave etc to draw upon which would also be paid (or is that only in Aus?).. I get the whole insurance thing, just can't understand why they are not getting paid just because MF is off sick?..whatever happened to 'the show must go on'? -- Lee in Darwin, Thu, Feb 15 2007, 6:31:08 [1]
In Australia we have 'workplace agreements' which some more unscrupulous employers tried to use to stiff the individual ... thats where Industrial Relations lawyers have come into their own... however, there still remains the onus on the person signing the contract to make sure it is above board etc...whats the latin saying for 'buyer beware'??
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I thought I made it clear that you need to ask a Lloyds Underwriter to write a policy. Lloyds of London are listed. Try contacting them -- enough, Thu, Feb 15 2007, 21:05:38 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
insurance is not my question..that is something that personally I feel everyone should have anyway... you insure your house & contents, your car etc why not insure your income too, so for me that is a no brainer anyway. I just can't understand what sort of pay schedule these dancers are on. I am sure that whichever way you look at it they are not as aware of their circumstances as we would all hope, however, they did sign a contract and they should have been aware of what that contract meant. If they didn't understand it they should have had a lawyer or someone read it for them before they signed it. Most countries as far as I am aware would have a free legal service of some sort that probably would have loved to have had a look at the contract before they signed. Even university / college law professors would look at it for them. Whilst I feel very sorry for the dancers involved, surely all of them can't have mis-understood the possibility of no show = no pay? -- Lee in Darwin, Fri, Feb 16 2007, 0:25:06 [1]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]