The debate "People being angry at the owner of the Rockettes for preforming for trump makes no sense" was started by
January 4, 2017, 1:55 pm.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 10 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff, KrotoR, WolfiesMom, dapollman, LeftoverEye70, smv2005 and 13 visitors agree.
shuhel_2005 and 2 visitors disagree.
Apparently it is elective, but there may be backlash against the dancers who elect not to perform.
that didn't really add anything to the discussion. your distrust of information has no bearing on this debate. we already know that they do not have the option of refusing. the owner has already said that.
the news will take anything they think will take people's interest
if they had such stipulations then I don't think this would ever have been an issue. they would simply have opted out and it wouldn't have made the news.
It also depends on their contracts. Without knowing the details, there could be stipulations that allow them to refuse to perform in certain circumstances. Not saying there are, but it's possible.
they aren't being asked to do anything that is not a part of their job. they are being asked to do exactly what they agreed to do, dance. that isn't an unfair business practice.
this could be lawful if it goes under unfair labor practice. idk if it does or not.
that only protects lawful strikers. striking because you are unwilling to do your job is not a lawful reason to strike so they could legally fire you for it.
actually u can't fire somone because their on strike. it's a law
of course they could go on strike. and they could just refuse to do it. and then the owner would be well within his rights to fire them. and the owner has said that any full time member of the Rockettes who doesn't perform will be fired.
how can we go on strike ten?
yeah they can say no.
grounds for termination? that is an optional restriction. one can be terminated at whim. so of course their refusal to work can lead to termination, but they have every right to refuse if they want to, as well as verbalizing their complaints. it's not like the worker will have any influence on the public backlash that will come anyway. I'm assuming that area didnt favor trump very much. they won't be fired and they know it.
workers don't have the right to refuse to do their jobs. if you have an objection to your job then find another job. you don't get to pick and choose which aspects of it you will do. if your employer wants to let you only do part of your job then that is up to them. but if your refuse to do your job that is grounds for termination.
as a worker one can say no, they are not slaves. especially if they have off says, and I'm sure they can make the objections argument. it's like forcing a newbie doctor who happens to be Christian to perform an abortion because the boss said so.
but that isn't really the point of this debate.
the law says that gay people are allowed to get married. her job was to issue marriage licenses. she was not performing the marriages she just had to issue the license, because that is her job. she refused to allow the licenses to be issued and was put in jail for 5 days for contempt of court after refusing a court order. She felt that her religious beliefs have her the right to violate the Constitution.
she officiated the marriages in the eyes of the state.
not God btw, so no excuse.
wait she was being forced by law to marry a gay couple?
it's even funnier that alot of the people saying that the Rockettes should have to preform are the same people that called Kim Davis a hero for refusing to do her job. She was the woman who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples despite being required to by law.
it is the exact same scenario. someone refusing to do their job because they are morally opposed to what they are being asked to do. If you're not willing to do your job then find another line of work.
I like reading the comments on news stories and the comments for this "story" are hilarious. people are going on rants about how the owner has no right to require his employees to preform. employees don't have the right to decide who they will and will not do their job for.
I don't think the owner made a good choice in deciding to book this event. it will likely damage his brand. but that doesn't give the dancers the option to refuse to do their job.