They got some satisfaction.
This is what Iām driving at. They are the end of an associative line of connecting agency which, if they are (and I hesitate to add) properly responsible, then they will be proactive enough to take responsibility for fixing the mistake which happened on their watch.
āAre you dealing with reputable, responsible people,ā is not a consideration you get to delegate. Nor is ensuring your staff (the fucking stage hands, not some nebulous legal entity that you never (could) meet) are paid properly. You can probably, given the current state of tort law, get away with absolving yourself of that responsibility, but that doesnāt mean that your are not causally connected to the event by both ethics and thermodynamics.
The idea, though, that it would be considered āniceā but not also necessary, does kinds piss me off.
ETA: LOL who cares. Whatever, itās morally cogent.
2 Likes
Take a deep breath, man. Itās been less than a month since the show. Itās no fun for the folks who are owed money, but it looks like Big Whitey is going to cover its obligations.
Itās a contract thing, not a tort. Payment delays suck if youāre trying to get paid and stay afloat, but are common as dandelions. The Stones could have jumped in and paid, but in the event it would have been premature, and then another kerfuffle could come up about double pay, Big Whitey being let off the hook, etc.
Thereās no evidence here that the Stones donāt care if people working their shows donāt get paid, or that they treat them bad. Maybe they do, I donāt know. It seems to me like Jason got a little carried away with a sensational headline about something that appears to be getting resolved, and that the Stones may not even be aware of yet.
Yeah, it sucks when people with an attitude of entitlement walk all over people who provide them with essential services. Iām just not convinced that this is one of those times (as far as the band is concerned).
I only posted that pic to demonstrate that there is a relationship between the band and the people on stage which can sometimes be ignored or held at a distance. Like I said, itās a moral consideration and that aspect, at least, has little to do with law. Considering that aspect, wouldnāt non-payment be considered a damage to the little guy, or is that not how the establishment is leaning at the moment?
Tort law distorts the landscape outside even of categorisation, the envelope gets pushed so far.
Harumph. Nothing about someone with sticky fingers. Must be a record.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
