General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOlbermann sues Current TV for $50 million.
http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/articles/2012/04/05/olbermann_sues_current_tv_for_50m_cites_glitches/?p1=Upbox_linksNo, not an Onion article.
Ugh.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)
Good bye, Keith.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Now that it's known what a spoiled jerkoff he is.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 6, 2012, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)In his response statement to Current's press release, he said he was going to sue. He's already a multi-millionaire. If Current settles this lawsuit with him, he'll be even richer. He doesn't need to work, except for self-gratification, public exposure, maybe ego, whatever.
Maybe he'll write books or something.
But getting canned twice from national TV pretty much ends your career.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)he won't give a crap if he's irrelevant.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Until he starts thinking he's the Greatest Weather Man Who Ever Lived...
Then he'll do traffic in Austin, Mobile, Nashville, or Tulsa.
Until he starts thinking he's the Greatest Traffic Man Who Ever Lived...
After that, I see him in some kind of earthquake prediction role. In Miami.
Until he starts thinking...
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)I have no doubt one of them will pick him up.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)No really. It isn't.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)no one is worth that - sports people, anchors, whoever.
it's obscene.
arthritisR_US
(7,288 posts)dotted line for it, so the obscene amount was ok by them.
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)I used to have respect for Olbermann.. but no more.
It seems to be all about him, him, him.
I'll give him props for pushing for Rachel to have her own show, though. She is ten times better than Keith in his best days, and she doesn't have an ego the size of China, either.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I'm not saying she's not smart -she is... very much, but her delivery is trite.
Not a big Rachel fan, here.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)a Lawt! 
she is probably the best there is in the field and is way more talented and better suited to her work than Keith was. but this is all opinion, just like yours is.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)maybe he`ll have a show in intertubes for those who think he`s relevant
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)you might as well go for "island in the South Pacific" money.
Sid
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)
richmwill
(1,326 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)i second that.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)From 1990:
"In an opinion issued here earlier in April, Federal District Judge Raymond J. Broderick ruled that Hyatt, a pioneer in low-cost legal clinics, had illegally removed the head of its Philadelphia office, Clarence B. Cain, after learning he had AIDS.
"By making ''absolutely no effort'' to accommodate Mr. Cain, Judge Broderick ruled, Hyatt had mounted a ''corrupt assault'' on his dignity. The firm's conduct, he said, ''was not merely inexcusably insensitive'' but ''so outrageous'' that punitive damages were warranted."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/13/us/law-bar-lawyer-with-aids-wins-legal-victory-gives-his-employer-some-unwelcome.html?src=pm
Interesting to see the folks who instantly side with Hyatt. Did you know this? Did you care to find out the contractual history of each party?
Personally, I side with Keith, just as I sided with Cain.
NYCGirl
(19,918 posts)Hyatt may have learned something since 1990. Olbermann, not so much.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Wow. Just wow. Let me ask you this, you declare that Keith has not learned, and proffer that Hyatt has, so where is your support for either contention? You offer none at all.
The Cain case was important in the early 90's. I'm sure most straights did not know or care at all. For me, it feels like yesterday.
NYCGirl
(19,918 posts)But I can't use it to justify Olbermann's prima donna behavior, like you do.
Have there been any other complaints against Hyatt in the time since 1990? Has Keith Olbermann shown a bad attitude and been relieved of his duties since 1990? Lots of times for the latter.
I was the biggest fan of Keith at one time. TiVoed COUNTDOWN every night, and saved his end-of-year shows on DVD, but I've lost any enthusiasm I had for him with his dickish behavior. Keith, just take your $10 million and go away.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I'm saying his actions are his own actions, and that many here are pointing at Keith's past, and since that is done fairness requires that we look at the pasts of the other parties, does it not?
You are saying that firing a man for getting sick and losing that case in a huge way is not as pertinent in a case where again a person was fired while under medical care. That is an interesting take on things.
It is for the court to say who is right and who is wrong and in what degree. If we are going to discuss with gasping wonder that Keith got fired more than once in a field where most people get fired, then we should also discuss past firings of those who fired Keith. If you can explain why one party's past history is meaningful and the other's history is not meaningful, feel free to do so. I'm not going to sit here and see a one sided argument made when Hyatt's legal history specific to wrongful termination is defended. If one party's past is pertinent, then so is the other's.
I do not accept your proposition that a few years passing mitigates the actions of those who discriminate in employment, nor that only one side's personal history is pertinent in this or any other employment dispute. Not at all. Hyatt's past got introduced in response to those who point at Keith and speak of his. It is a matter of record, and well known in some circles.
"Sure he wrongfully terminated a man for getting sick with AIDS at the height of the AIDS panic, that was a long time ago. That other guy got mad at Comcast last year."
That's an argument, of sorts. I do not agree with it, no matter how you word it.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)Pisces
(5,599 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)should be the question, no?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Current principals courted Olbermann while he was at MSNBC to come to its cable company. Olbermann, it was reported in the press, was not happy about the NBC merger with Comcast (which happens to also own 10% of Current and established the relationship as a major distributor of its stations into various marketplaces). Keith Olbermann feared Comcast would try to muzzle him, and consequently, he instructed his representative to enter into negotiations to end the contract with MSNBC. This went on for two years. Despite the fact one reads often here that Keith Olbermann was fired by MSNBC, the final points of agreement were reached by MSNBC and Olbermann representatives that last night Keith broadcasted Countdown on that network. He was not allowed to say goodbye to his viewers, and surprisingly enough, we saw that pattern repeated when Current terminated him. Truly surprising, right?
When this termination at Current happened, all of my gut instincts focused immediately on Joel Hyatt. I was familiar with his reputation, and additionally I have seen these moves repeatedly by a number of labor lawyers in Washington, D.C. The truth of the matter is none of this is surprising.
In a down economy, Current hired three new broadcasters (and/or radio personalities) who began working on the air the same week its most expensive talent was terminated. No question in my mind, that was a business decision with labor lawyer fingerprints. And always point to the dismissed party as the hostile party who brought it all on themselves. Brand them "disgruntled employees" to smear their reputations and to paint yourself as just the victim forced to dismiss them.
I do believe we will see Keith Olbermann on cable television again because he is super-intelligent, has a high sense of integrity, a loyal staff which has followed him to new places of work (despite what we have read to the contrary) and a dedication to his profession. Just my humble opinion....
Sam
Samantha
(9,314 posts)We get a lot of gut reactions on these threads, but it is nice to see someone actually post facts (with links no less) and think outside of the box.
Sam
jwirr
(39,215 posts)me it calls all of his dedication into question.
Well said!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)
burrowowl
(17,641 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Your career is over.
Bye
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Is this about some sort of a "don't hurt Al Gore" thing?
Do you have any opinion about the fact that Keith Olbermann is almost certainly barred from working in the industry for the balance of his contract? This is why it's called show BUSINESS!
Seriously, this is just how it works.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)Read the suit he filed. I love Keith and wanted to think that he was not the prima donna that the press has written about.
I read the papers filed and I think he has very legitimate gripes. Al Gore's partner, Hyatt, was the man that fired an employee that
had aids. This in itself does not make a case but it does go to the character of the person that got the most mentions in Olbermann's suit.
Kaleva
(36,312 posts)Or was it a case of an employee with AIDS fired for under preforming in his job?
Response to Kaleva (Reply #26)
pennylane100 This message was self-deleted by its author.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)In 1990, Hyatt Legal Services paid a $157,000 judgment for illegally firing an attorney in their Philadelphia offices, Clarence B. Cain, because of his AIDS diagnosis.[2] This case became the basis for the 1993 Tom Hanks film Philadelphia.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)This was part was even more bizzare;
While the host is critical of Gore -- at one point describing him and Hyatt as "dilettantes portraying entertainment industry executives" -- his complaint does not attack the former vice president in the same way as he does others. The case even airs Olbermann's dissatisfaction with the network's decision to hire Cenk Uygur, who created the talk show "The Young Turks."
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)His 5-year contract was for $50 million, but his stake in the channel's worth could mean as much as 50 more dollars.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"In an opinion issued here earlier in April, Federal District Judge Raymond J. Broderick ruled that Hyatt, a pioneer in low-cost legal clinics, had illegally removed the head of its Philadelphia office, Clarence B. Cain, after learning he had AIDS.
By making ''absolutely no effort'' to accommodate Mr. Cain, Judge Broderick ruled, Hyatt had mounted a ''corrupt assault'' on his dignity. The firm's conduct, he said, ''was not merely inexcusably insensitive'' but ''so outrageous'' that punitive damages were warranted."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/13/us/law-bar-lawyer-with-aids-wins-legal-victory-gives-his-employer-some-unwelcome.html?src=pm
Good luck defending that guy. Not surprised to see it, still, a hard row to hoe. Did you see Philadelphia starring Tom Hanks? Yeah....
grantcart
(53,061 posts)them against somebody named "Hyatt"?
The facts are that Olbermann is on his third flame out and is now making a total ass out of himself because of the patter of his own conduct.
Trying to make people who disagree with Olbermann's boorish behavior defend a 22 year old law suit is stupid on steroids, but good luck in you efforts.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Hyatt is one of three people party to this agreement, gc. Yet you claim his own actions and his past do not matter while the actions and the past of the other party does matter?
I'm sure that my opinion on Hyatt is strong due to the fact that I was fully aware of the Cain case while it was going on. To me, he has long defined the worst elements of the Straight Community. The case is infamous, and the actions of Hyatt and his firm notorious. And yet you do not see that pattern of conduct as important. Just Keith's. Why do you feel that Hyatt's history is not pertinent, while KO's is? I say each are important in understanding the dispute.
And of course, there is a contract. Last time Hyatt had a major contractual dispute with an employee, the case ended with Hyatt in disgrace.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/13/us/law-bar-lawyer-with-aids-wins-legal-victory-gives-his-employer-some-unwelcome.html?src=pm
Sorry the facts are in your way. Now you can return to gossiping.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)In a dispute between two parties 4 logical options are possibly true.
1) Both are right
2) Both are wrong
3) Olbermann is wrong and the other guy is right
4) Olbermann is right and the other guy is wrong.
You keep arguing on a premise that doesn't exist. You are stuck on either 3 or 4 are the only possible alternatives. I have no interest in the other guy.
In this case and in leaving MSNBC Olbermann is wrong. The reason we know this is that Rachel Maddow continues to thrive there and contribute to the common cause. Olbermann will not be on TV he will be huddled with his attorneys trying to get $ 50 million for work he will not have performed. He also will never get back to a big stage again.
Now you are arguing that the other guy has a bad history.
Not only are your arguments irrelevant to the present situation they in fact undermine your overall case. If this other guy is such a terrible person then you would have to agree that Olbermann was a fool, or also a terrible person to enter into a contract with him.
The facts clearly show that either a) both these guys are wrong or b) Olbermann is wrong and the other guy is right. For you to continue to argue that the other guys PAST is bad does nothing to support that OLBERMANN IS RIGHT in this instance, and if it is horrific as you suggest, the OLBERMANN WAS A FOOL TO CONTRACT WITH HIM IN THE FIRST CASE.
So this is not a case of either/or but a)both b)neither c)either/or or d)or/either.
If I were to concede all of your points about how terrible the other guy is (and since they aren't relevant I haven't bothered to waste my time) it has absolutely zero impact on whether or not Olbmerann has made an intelligent use of his talents.
In the end Olbermann's lawsuit will never see the light of day and there will be an out of court settlement, and if Olbermann did not fulfill all of the LETTER of the contract that settlement may be token.
The way that Olbermann has conducted himself has reduced him to a caricature of the self absorbed out of control super ego manic that he has shown in the past.
Six months from now Olbermann will not be on TV. He will not be giving inciteful comment. He will not have a reuglar audience.
And it will be his own damn fault, not some other guys', and those are the only facts that really matter in this discussion.
Irishonly
(3,344 posts)It's very simplistic but it goes there are two sides to every story and some where in the middle is the truth. The truth in the middle does not have to be a straight line.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)This not a very unusual circumstance at all in the labor law world or the entertainment business. It's just in the limelight because several of the entities are well known and Keith Olbermann is certainly a well known commentator. In the latter regard, he became just another target of a labor lawyer attorney whose patterns of behavior are prevalent in these types of controversies. I know this from my own experience having worked for and with many highly successful labor lawyer attorneys in Washington, D.C. and seeing this pattern often repeated. The target of such acts is nine times out of ten labeled a disgruntled employee whose reputation is often harmed, sometimes irrevocably, by the dismissal.
In this case, this was also a business decision in a down economy in which a struggling cable company fired its highest-cost human "asset" in exchange for three discount human resources -- once again also a prevalent event by struggling businesses in down economies.
My whole problem with so many of these discussions is that so few people bother to read the available facts but instead choose to smear the victim of these circumstances. A truly salient example in this particular case is the repetition of the allegation that Keith Olbermann has been fired by three or four networks, including MSNBC. Rachel Maddow herself confirmed on the air that HE QUIT.
Yes, he did sue Rupert Murdock for his dismissal as a sports broadcaster, but he was awarded something like a 27 million dollar settlement. That kind of suggests that Olbermann was not the responsible party (at least to me it does).
Sam
grantcart
(53,061 posts)"It's just in the limelight because several of the entities are well known and Keith Olbermann is certainly a well known commentator"
The observations that people are making have nothing to do with his contracts or the legal dispute but Olbermann's destruction of his own brand.
This is a progressive site where he should have a lot of cache but most people no longer have much sympathy for him.
Again I don't think that this will ever come close to the inside of a court room and i don't think that Olbermann is going to get much out of it.
What is fairly certain is that it will be years, if ever, that he will ever be offerred a $ 50 million contract.
It's sad but Olbmermann lives in a world where he is the only person that is always right and everyone else just doesn't get it.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)But some of the complaints listed are employment-type issues, such as non-approval of vacation days and absenteeism. It is very common today for people who used to be an employee to be an independent contractor. Joel Hyatt as an attorney has been involved in labor disputes and does seem to have the playbook down.
I don't think anything is certain in this case. I was reading some expert opinions on line the last few days and some say both sides have legitimate gripes; one said on the surface it looks Current could prevail but if all of the allegations asserted by Olbermann are proven, things could go the other way. I have not seen the literal contract both parties signed on line, but I do know Current had to give Olbermann a five-day notice of breach and an opportunity to correct before sending a termination letter. It has been implied, so I do don't know if it is indeed a fact, that no such notice was served before the termination letter was issued.
One things that does seem apparent is that this is an issue which could hurt all of the involved parties and that certainly is a shame.
I do think Olbermann will recover and be seen again on cable, and I think those of us who appreciate his one-of-a kind abilities will follow him there.
At this point, I have totally given up on these threads since the same untruths are repeated from thread to thread even after the facts have literally been pointed out. I am just going to wait for the outcome. My personal hope is that it is quietly settled between the two parties and everyone moves on to what the future holds for them.
Sam
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Apparently his employer thought he was a $50 million chandelier when they signed it.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)He was hired as 'talent'.
As talent you can be fired for among other things not meeting viewership, let alone not showing up for work.
This will never see the inside of a court.
In the end there will be no settlement or a token settlement and Olbermann will not be on TV and not be hired as a major talent again.
Maddow on the other hand will be making lots of money and have a very big platform.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)You certainly take the established management position in any employment contract dispute. You seem convinced that the employer wasn't in breach because you don't like the employee. That's not really the standard that will be used in court.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Really?
Name one other employment contract dispute that I have taken the 'established management position'.
Your use of language is very imprecise for a 'DefenseLawyer'.
When there is only one of a kind of something it would have to be considered particular to that situation and not an 'established management position'.
Using such a childishly pejorative term like "established management position" to charachterize Olbermann's attack on and lawsuit with Al Gore is absurd. Olbermann isn't fighting FOX he is fighting a cable news show that is trying to position itself as an even more progressive alternative to MSNBC.
But all of that is completely irrelevent to the main point of the OP which really has nothing to do with the legalities of the legal dispute.
The essential point is that through a series of poor thought out moves Olbermann has marginalized his position within his chosen industry and as a result significantly undermined his ability to be able to have an impact on the day to day discussion on daily political issues.
Rachel Maddow will spend the year having an impact causing campaigns and commentators to respond to her well thought out, well researched points of view. Olbermann will spend the year huddling with his lawyers trying to squeeze out his last big pay day from a medium that had he been able to maintain perspective and discipline his ego he would still be considered the pioneer and respected as the dean, now he will be remembered for his litigation than his last commentary.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Is that in this case, you certainly take the position that is taken by management in all such cases. That is, we should be able to fire the "talent" for any reason we see fit because , you know, it's our money and everything. I have no idea what position you have taken on anything else. Should I? Frankly you can take any position you want, but "I like Al Gore and I don't like Keith Olbermann" is not really a position that addresses any of the issues raised in the suit. Would you really take a different view of the situation if the network was Fox, simply because you don't like Fox, as you seem to suggest?
Sannum
(5,526 posts)This isn't being a "diva". This is what happens when companies abuse employees (yes, even those who make 10m a year) lie and cut corners in order to enhance their bottom line. From what I saw of the show, the on-air glitches and shoddy production facilities were beyond unacceptable per the terms of the contract he signed. Add to this his complaint about defamation of character - I guess it seems to be working based on the reaction here...I give him credit for sticking around for as long as he did.
Never thought I saw the day when DU would side with management over a labor dispute. Read part of the complaint. KO isn't bitching about the crust not being on his finger sandwiches. As someone who has recently been lied to, about and generally fucked over by an employer - I almost got PTSD while reading part of the complaint.
He is also being accused of "excessive absenses" while sick. Yeah - let's begrudge someone who is ill and force them to come to work or risk losing their job. If this can happen to someone with the public profile of Olbermann, it can happen to any one of us.
Think.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Sometimes DU can be as bad as Freeperville.
I remember when he spoke out against something President Obama did, and folks here were begging him to run for President. Now, they're bashing him for being upset that his employers didn't live up to their end of a deal.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
Greybnk48
(10,168 posts)It seems at times people just wait for someone to rip up, and the facts be damned. And sadly it's contagious, I've done it myself at least once, but won't anymore.
KO was promised things and they lied. Go get 'em Keith!
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Whatever this is, it definitely is not a labor dispute.
Keith is not considered 'labor' but 'talent'.
This disupute is not about pay, working conditions or anything in the universe of a labor dispute. Labor disputes are about pay or working conditions that apply to a class of people that all have the same job. This is a dispute about performance of a single contract related to an individual, and is by definition, not a labor dispute.
It is a contract dispute.
It also will never see the light of day because KO doesn't have a case, talent contracts are written so that they can be relieved for the thinnest of reasons, including ratings.
This is as much a labor dispute as O'Donnell being let go by Oprah.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)Hard for me to feel sympathy for someone with the ego, which is widely known that he has, of Keith's and a $50 million contract. I don't see this as emblematic of the work-a-day labor struggles.
Heck the name of Keith's company, "Olbermann Broadcasting EMPIRE" speaks volumes to me.
Sorry. I can't get too worked up over a fight between a bunch of 1%ers, even if they are progressives (or at least play one on TV).
LAGC
(5,330 posts)through their lucrative media contract deals can really relate to the struggles of the working-class.
They talk the good talk (most of the time), but don't really walk the walk that the rest of us do everyday, living paycheck to paycheck, not in gated communities.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)
Let's not forget that they had a brand new facility for Keith in New Jersey, but he HAD to be in NYC. Can't get a decent 20$ martini in New Jersey.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He and his company fired a man for getting sick with AIDS. A sample for you:
"By making ''absolutely no effort'' to accommodate Mr. Cain, Judge Broderick ruled, Hyatt had mounted a ''corrupt assault'' on his dignity. The firm's conduct, he said, ''was not merely inexcusably insensitive'' but ''so outrageous'' that punitive damages were warranted.
So there you go. I note I offer links, you offer gossip.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Maybe Joel has learned something in 20 years? Whens the last time Keith had problems with a network?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I note you did not offer any support for your opinion, and that you did not address your thoughts as to Hyatt's history. I don't think Hyatt has learned much, as here he is again in a huge dispute. The first one truncated his political career. His name was Mudd and still is in many circles. Al Gore is partner to Hyatt., which was Al's choice. I most certainly do not respect such a choice.
Just to repeat:
"By making ''absolutely no effort'' to accommodate Mr. Cain, Judge Broderick ruled, Hyatt had mounted a ''corrupt assault'' on his dignity. The firm's conduct, he said, ''was not merely By making ''absolutely no effort'' to accommodate Mr. Cain, Judge Broderick ruled, Hyatt had mounted a ''corrupt assault'' on his dignity. The firm's conduct, he said, ''was not merely inexcusably insensitive'' but ''so outrageous'' that punitive damages were warranted.''
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)Why won't anyone let the poor 10 million chandelier shine???
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)You have to sue the primary to get to the secondaries.
I'll edit to give an example: Two young girls were in a car wreck, the car hydro-planed when they weren't speeding and wrecked. They were wearing seat belts. The passenger's seat belt BROKE and she ended up hitting her head and snapping her neck, leaving her a quadriplegic. It wasn't the driver's fault. The accident wasn't all that bad, honestly. The issue was that no seat belt, anywhere, at any time, should snap. Yet, the young girl and her family had to sue that other young girl's family and insurance company JUST TO GET TO Honda. Honda made the defective seat belt.
Her family settled for $6 million, FWIW.
Snake Alchemist
(3,318 posts)
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)he's never allowed to fire anyone again ever?
'Cause that seems to be what you're saying.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is not more important than the history of the other. What I am saying is that when an employer has a history of losing litigated disputes with employees, particularly when the termination was so nasty as that one, and the judgement so specifically critical of the employer, in any further disputes with employees, the employer's history is important and informational, just as the history of the employee is. Do you really claim that the employer's history is not pertinent, yet the employee's is?
What I am saying is that when an employer has a history of improper terminations so horrific that they are made into feature films, that counts as much as Keith arguing with Comcast. At least. Most here are railing at Keith, as if Hyatt does not hold a history of his own. What I'm saying is that once an employer has fired a person wrongfully under such extreme circumstances, it is fair to consider that when the employer is yet again hauled into court for wrongful termination.
There is a contract. This is not a matter of gossip and opinion, it is a matter of contractual agreements.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)However, I think Keith is acting like a huge douche, and has been acting like a huge douche for years.
The fact that Hyatt fired a guy for having AIDS doesn't lessen the douchebaggery on Keith's part.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I think firing a person for getting sick is a serious wrong, and a judge agreed. It was a landmark decision.
Your contention seems to stand on the idea that Keith's actions count against him, Hyatt's do not. I say each holds his own actions.
And you are no more party to the contractual agreement than I am. So our opinion on the personalities is moot. Fact is, the actions of each can inform us. Hyatt has lost major wrongful termination cases in the worst way. And yes indeed, I do hold that against him. He did that. I am not aware of Keith doing anything that comes close to such crappy treatment of others. If you are, feel free to inform me of those actions.
So Hyatt is a lawyer, I'm sure his contract is airtight and just like in the Cain case, righteous and ethical and pure as the snow on a Christmas morn. Why worry? He's in the right, his history shouts that he is a man of honor, and he's a skilled attorney. So the court will decide, as it does in contract disputes and employment law. As it did in the Cain case.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)I'm not taking sides here, but he's not asking to be paid $50 million dollars for "20 days work".
otohara
(24,135 posts)They set had problems - oh my God! A brand new studio at a small network is bound to have some problems.
KO sat in the dark like a child.
Jennifer Granholm, Elliot Spitzer and TYT seem to be okay with this "public access cable channel" and their studios. I doubt we'll see either of them behave like KO over studio glitches.
Hey, I just realized in my OP - all the jobs KO has had and have been fired from.
My lawsuit against Clear Channel was real, I was treated like crap - The ADA law is great for access, a total failure for getting fired. I highly doubt KO was treated like crap. They reserve that for the peons who cater to the on-air-personalities and other VIP's.
What about his low ratings? Who's fault is that? I stopped watching, because many times I tuned in KO was not there. Even with my disability, I didn't miss as much work as KO. You know, because even with a disability, I knew missing too much work would land me out of a job. In the end, I was dumped for a younger, prettier, non-disabled gal with no experience.
Goodbye KO - you have burned your last bridge in the world of TeeVee.
We're siding with management when it was taken over by known corporatists (MSNBC)?
We're siding with management when it doesn't excuse sick leave and over-promises without delivering?
Wow.
AntiFascist
(12,792 posts)I wonder how underpaid the rest of the staff was/is, and if they despised Olbermann for his bloated contract.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Keith is not a 'laborer' for one thing. He is in show business with the big star on his door and a mirror he speaks to. It's like calling Brad Pitt a laborer.
If Keith was sick he would have doctor's notes - isn't that the way employees/employers deal with this - most peons have to. Sounds like he was just having a tantrum for attention by not showing up.
I do have to admit that I don't like the guy and it does influence how I understand this news.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)It's like watching your favorite people getting an ugly divorce.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)with such a petty, prima donna personality. What a waste. So long, Keith, it was good to know you though I am glad that I never had to work with or around you.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)He said in his release statement that he was going to sue.
And... if he's right, he deserves to.
At least he gets a day in court, unlike some people.
nadine_mn
(3,702 posts)to get more talent on the network... is that what a prima donna does?
I wish all the damn Keith bashers would get their damn facts straight before believing the worst of someone.
upi402
(16,854 posts)ty
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)...except he sued for $50 million. I was with junior high school girlfriends longer than he was with Current TV.
Beef? Understood.
Restitution? Understood.
$50 million?
Give me a full fucking break.
It's not as if he's lacking in microphones into which he can make his point. For the love of fuck, he was on Letterman 48 hours after he was fired.
I'm sorry.
Keith Olbermann did NOT do $50 million worth of work for Current TV...and by asking for $50 million, he's essentially demanding Current TV be put to death.
This high-ego shit bores the bag off of me...as do those who seem to think this is normal, acceptable behavior.
$50 million? Keith is (or wants to be) the 1%.
Kiss my whole entire ass.
Seriously, folks. This is a tidal wave of sad, sorry, unnecessary Fail.
Fact.
nadine_mn
(3,702 posts)Isn't for the work he did...it's for the future five years of revenue he would have received not only as host of Countdown but also as his stake in the company.
It's no different than any other contact in the entertainment industry. Current is not a nonprofit that Keith was doing charity work for...it is a business that contracted with Keith for five years for fifty million dollars.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Zax2me
(2,515 posts)Like watching a movie star fall prey to drug use.
Or a football star blowing out a knee.
In this case an extremely bright mind and voice numbed to the point of staring at himself in the mirror, drooling, over the perfection and magnificence that only fools could not see - and those that could bowed too infrequently.
His porno stash - exclusively asexual.
Humility the one word omitted from an otherwise complete vocabulary.
Typical NYC Lib
(182 posts)But he's coming across as a real whiner with this suit.
