Just for Laughs assets were seized
What I find fascinating in this story about how, days before the Just for Laughs festival was cancelled, the company’s assets were seized, was because it had failed to pay someone who had been promised a job for life. In fact, they laid him off in 2019.
There’s more about this in the Radio‑Canada account, which clarifies that the promise was made by Gilbert Rozon.
Who gets guaranteed a job for life? Maybe tenure is like that for full professors, but a job for life from a comedy festival?
GC 23:02 on 2024-03-06 Permalink
That bit from the CBC also gave me pause when I read it earlier. I had hoped it would be clarified later in the article, but no… “equivalent to the wages he had lost since 2019 and his future expected earnings” sounds like he’s suing not just for the bit from 2019 until now, but also for the extra years to come. Did he consult some actuarials, for an estimate of how long he’d live, and do the calculations from that?
Blork 01:28 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
GC the article says it’s for wages owed from 2019 up until he hits retirement age (presumably 65).
GC 08:50 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
The CBC one? Maybe it was updated after I read it. Or maybe I missed that.
GC 08:51 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
Oh, it’s in the Radio-Canada one! I see. The English version was just lacking detail.
walkerp 09:28 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
There is a real lack of any details in the reporting on this story. I would like to better understand the economics behind this outcome. Is it just because of accumulating debts outweighing revenues during the pandemic? Mismanagement? I thought JFL was a big success last year.
Blork 10:40 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
Here’s me speculating again, but I don’t think it’s any secret that these big festivals and their associated publicly-funded organizations are rife with nepotism, graft, and indulgences. This “job for life” thing is a perfect example. Does anyone think that guy in the news is the only one who received such treatment?
So if you start from that as the basic “business” model then it should come as no surprise that they go bankrupt when $660,000 is yanked out of their coffers. I think one of the articles said they only had about $800k in assets before that, so this leaves them with not enough to operate the business. Hence the bankruptcy, the protection from creditors, and most likely the eventual return to success after the court basically dismisses their accounts-payable.
In the meantime, all those at the top of the organization live in big houses with well-paved driveways and have country chalets worth more than a Mile-End triplex. (In case you’re wondering where all the money went.)
Just speculating of course.
Joey 11:49 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
It’s more like the obligation to this guy, which had been abandoned by JFL after an ownership change, was just the first domino that started. The guy’s lawyer told him to pursue his money because of news articles saying JFL was broke. When he did, the other creditors, who have much larger dollars coming to them, read the writing on the wall and bankruptcy protection became inevitable. The idea that this one $600K obligation pushed them over the edge doesn’t add up.
Ephraim 12:44 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
Is this person completely unemployable? Should they not have seperated the compensation owed for those videos from the employment, in that, and I’m assuming, the man is employable in some manner.
GC 13:02 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
I have no doubt all sorts of shady things go on, Blork. I just don’t expect them all to play out in the courts. For example, if someone offered me a bribe and never delivered on it I wouldn’t go to the police to complain about it. I realize that’s an extreme example because I guess this contract-for-life was not illegal–just really unusual. The fact that they were ordered to pay by the courts suggests it was seen to have some merit, I suppose. I just have so many questions about it that were not answered in the CBC article
Blork 15:12 on 2024-03-07 Permalink
Ephraim, his employability is irrelevant. He was made a promise (job for life; or more specifically, a paycheck until retirement) and then JFL reneged on the offer after it was accepted. It’s as simple as that. They owe him, no matter how ridiculous or unusual the offer was.
GC, exactly to your point; the offer was unusual but not illegal. My point (in speculation) is that the offer was typical of the kind of largesse you see in the entertainment/festival business at large, and also here in Quebec — which is a bit irksome in Quebec given how much of it is public money.
GC 13:19 on 2024-03-08 Permalink
I definitely agree on the public money. If someone can negotiate a ridiculous contract in the private sector, well, good for them. I just don’t want my tax money going to one.
Mozai 11:30 on 2024-03-09 Permalink
“Job for life” =~ “emploi à vie”? If it was “employment for life” then it wasn’t “payment for life”: employment means putting to work and receiving compensation for that work. What were the terms of the employment contract? What work was he paid to do, how was the work verified, what were the initial payment promises, what was the termination criteria? If the JFL shuts down, then there is no place to contribute labour, so there’s no work to do.