Rolling Stones' stage hands can't get no remuneration


#1

[Read the post]


#2

I think you mean “remuneration”. “Although “remuneration” looks as if it might mean “repayment” it usually means simply “payment.” In speech it is often confused with “renumeration,” which would mean re-counting (counting again).” from https://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/remuneration.html


#3

they had to count the money again when it went negative.


#4

Unfortunately, it left them innumerate. So they couldn’t count it again. . .


#5

Fixed.


#6

Thank you.


#7

I know it’s a standard bank practice, but it still seems like a terrible thing to do. “Hey, someone committed a crime against you. Our response is going to be to hit you again because it’s easier than going after them.”


#8

The lede is very misleading. The “Stones” did not bounce checks to anyone; one of the promoters did.


#9

Did they get their shirts though?


#10

BoingBoing with a misleading headline? My innocence has been shattered!


#11

As long as we’re copyediting the headline, I’m pretty sure “Rolling Stones” should be plural, with the apostrophe after the s.


#12

Yeah, so, the stones bounced these checks just as much as Boing Boing would be bouncing checks if their ISP hired a subcontractor who bounced checks to employees. Good to know Boing Boing is keeping up the job of making people think critically about everything they read.


#13

Don’t bands pay for everything that requires some monetary outlay for the purpose of performing or promotion? If the money is coming out of their pockets then they are responsible for the mishandling of associated services. Diffusion of responsibility is as bunk for bands as it is for corporations.


#14

Except this is not diffusion of responsibility. It’s a very sensible way to put on a really big event that happens in a dozen different locations on successive dates.

Or did you really expect Mick Jagger to sit down the morning after every concert and make out several hundred checks?


#15

A lot of times, groups will hire a local production company to handle certain aspects of their show. That company will either do the work directly or sub it out.
That’s what’s happening here. The riggers and everyone else whose checks bounced worked for Big Whitey Productions. BW was paid by the Stones’ promoters but didn’t pass the cash on to the workers, because their accounts are frozen. That’s not the Stones’ problem.


#16

The Stones may be ultimately responsible, maybe not. But it’s just like if you hired a contractor to fix up your house, paid him, and he stiffs the electrician. You owe the electrician, but it’s not like you did anything wrong.


#17

Gawrsh guys I didn’t expect Mick to take on all those jobs himself, do you think he could?

Does not abrogate responsibility.


#18

Depends how the thing was contracted. Could be that the concert promoter is the responsible party, who pays the band, the venue, the contractors, etc. There’s not enough information here to tell. If that’s the case, the Stones could be nice about it, and help the roadies get paid, but might not have any responsibility to do so.


#19

This concept of responsibility-along-the-entire-chain is a nice feel-good fiction but in the reality it just does not work.


#20

The chain of distribution liability is alive and well in California law.