|
Post by Sero on Sept 15, 2010 21:25:32 GMT -5
Just repeating what everyone else has probably said: WWE's "independent contractors" aren't allowed to seek (wrestling) work elsewhere, are regulated in their activities outside of the company and can be punished internally for them(see Matt Hardy's twitter ramblings), are held to no-compete clauses after their release, and are expected to fulfill all the responsibilities of an employee with none of the benefits.
|
|
|
Post by nerdinitupagain on Sept 15, 2010 21:31:37 GMT -5
WWE had to have anticipated that political rivals to Linda would eventually bring up this issue. They are going to paint WWE as an evil corporation that the McMahons have used to make hundreds of millions of dollars and used the lives and well being of countless wrestlers to build their empire without regard until the last 5 years until the press had an outrage over it. Is it true? Maybe, maybe not.
However, I've never agreed with the idea the use of Independent Contractors in this situation since there's no reason other than financial reasons for the Employer in the situation with very little benefit to the Independent contractors. I'm glad, even if its motivated solely by Linda's campaign, to get this investigated finally.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,243
|
Post by Paul on Sept 15, 2010 21:41:32 GMT -5
This could wound the company badly but I don't think it's going to lead to the end of the WWE.
|
|
|
Post by jfpierce on Sept 16, 2010 1:05:06 GMT -5
I have absolutely no idea why anyone would think this would be great for the industry. Ensuring a better work environment for wrestlers by crippling the WWE is the most counterproductive thing I can think of. It's not so much biting the hand that feeds, as it is incapacitating it to the point where it may no longer be able to feed you at all. I don't believe this has any legs to it though. Why do you think it would cripple the WWE? Are no-compete clauses essential to the WWE's well-being? Will they go under without them? Is Vince McMahon such a terrible businessman that he needs less of a legal responsibility to his employees than every other business out there?
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Sept 16, 2010 1:15:50 GMT -5
You guys know this is what the talent works for, right? Like, it's been this way forever and they sign contracts knowing this is what they're gonna get themselves into.
Some of you guys act like they're being mistreated. It's the business. Get in or get out. They encourage you to get a degree before signing for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Sept 16, 2010 1:35:36 GMT -5
"They knew what they were signing when they signed the contract" doesn't make it morally right, nor is it a justified excuse under the law.
|
|
kuda
Trap-Jaw
Internet TOUGH GUY!
Posts: 301
|
Post by kuda on Sept 16, 2010 1:53:52 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just a cynic but if you give wrestlers an "off-season" they're just going to get into more trouble. Look how much trouble a lot of them get into while on the road. Now take those addictive personalities and get rid of them having commitments too? If someone is a drug abuser on the road, they won't just stop abusing drugs when they're off.
Also, look how many wrestlers will work through injuries in wrestling just because they don't want to lose their spot. They want to keep being pushed and be looked at as tough. If you take a wrestler and force him to have an off-season, it's going to be really hard for new people to be elevated. They might get over for a season, but as soon as they're off, they'll be forgotten about. When they come back, unless they were a main eventer, all of their heat will be gone.
You would also have wrestlers that would try their best to work full-year long simply because they would want to look favorable in the eyes of the top dogs so that they could get a push. You think Vince wouldn't push a full-season wrestler over one that takes the paid vacation?
The off-season idea is great if you're an optimist. Wrestlers have time to heal up and freshen up their characters. I'm not that optimistic. I would expect more overdoses, a more stagnant than ever main event scene, an undercard with zero heat, and even more backstage politics than we have now.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Sept 16, 2010 1:54:20 GMT -5
"They knew what they were signing when they signed the contract" doesn't make it morally right, nor is it a justified excuse under the law. Dunno what to say. I shouldn't have joined the conversation. We fundamentally disagree on this, thats all. A wrestling union would destroy the business. Plain and simple. So call me a traditionalist, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Sept 16, 2010 1:56:15 GMT -5
"They knew what they were signing when they signed the contract" doesn't make it morally right, nor is it a justified excuse under the law. Dunno what to say. I shouldn't have joined the conversation. We fundamentally disagree on this, thats all. A wrestling union would destroy the business. Plain and simple. So call me a traditionalist, I guess. You can't disagree that in the eyes of the law, it's not an acceptable excuse. Otherwise companies like Microsoft wouldn't have been busted for this very thing.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Sept 16, 2010 2:00:39 GMT -5
Dunno what to say. I shouldn't have joined the conversation. We fundamentally disagree on this, thats all. A wrestling union would destroy the business. Plain and simple. So call me a traditionalist, I guess. You can't disagree that in the eyes of the law, it's not an acceptable excuse. Otherwise companies like Microsoft wouldn't have been busted for this very thing. Totally confused now. How did Microsoft do the exact same thing as WWE?
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Sept 16, 2010 2:09:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Sept 16, 2010 2:15:28 GMT -5
A union will never happen. The business won't support it. There's no way to unionize pro wrestling without hamstringing it. For every good thing a union would do, five bad things would pop up in it's place.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Sept 16, 2010 2:21:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't think a union could ever happen. A lot of guys very clearly want one but there are so many high ranking people that are blatantly against it that it's just not possible, even if the positives were to outweigh the negatives. I think the very nature of the business prevents it from being unionized. But, hey, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Sept 16, 2010 2:33:31 GMT -5
I think you have to read the article first. :/ It clearly states that Microsoft's problem was that they were treating their signed ICs like REGULAR EMPLOYEES. Whereas the case here that people are making is that WWE isn't treating their ICs like employees. So they're completely different in every way.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Sept 16, 2010 7:55:37 GMT -5
When the WWE allows -all- workers (Not just the select few) that aren't on an announcers contract to work indie dates in their free time should they want to, dress how they like on the road, make personal appearances or use their likeness to make money for themselves, allows them to take holidays or skip overseas tours to let their body heal and allows them to pursue outside interests in other media without punishing them for it like they have the Divas, then they'd have a case for claiming they're independent contractors... Until then, they're going to keep being investigated until charges are finally brought as they make all the demands from wrestlers that you'd expect from employees but give none of the benefits.
Avoiding being prosecuted wouldn't require wrestlers to unionise, it just needs the 'E to loosen up their restrictions on talent a little, actually treat them like ICs, no more dress codes, options for time off without the threat of a depush for all who take it and so on.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Sept 16, 2010 8:18:53 GMT -5
Pandora's Box is about to be opened and the consequences are going to dire. And it is not going to just stop at WWE. The whole pro wrestling industry will come under fire and most don't have the money WWE has to weather the barrage. Overnight, most wrestling companies will close.
|
|
VersionOne
Team Rocket
Like a phoenix, Southpaw Shall Rise!
Posts: 893
|
Post by VersionOne on Sept 16, 2010 8:40:50 GMT -5
Pandora's Box is about to be opened and the consequences are going to dire. And it is not going to just stop at WWE. The whole pro wrestling industry will come under fire and most don't have the money WWE has to weather the barrage. Overnight, most wrestling companies will close. Isn't that a little over the top? What other company is this going to effect except WWE and maybe possibly TNA? Wrestlers who work on the indies are unquestionably independent contractors. I'm not totally sure about TNA but don't they act as agents when it comes to outside bookings for most their guys?
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Sept 16, 2010 9:06:59 GMT -5
Pandora's Box is about to be opened and the consequences are going to dire. And it is not going to just stop at WWE. The whole pro wrestling industry will come under fire and most don't have the money WWE has to weather the barrage. Overnight, most wrestling companies will close. Isn't that a little over the top? What other company is this going to effect except WWE and maybe possibly TNA? Wrestlers who work on the indies are unquestionably independent contractors. I'm not totally sure about TNA but don't they act as agents when it comes to outside bookings for most their guys? If WWE is found guilty of classifying wrestlers as independent contractors then the government could restart talks about industry regulation again. Sen. Waxman stopped the hearings only because he got a better job. Someone might decide to make it their platform to get head. And it is election season.
|
|
|
Post by jfpierce on Sept 16, 2010 9:45:18 GMT -5
I think you have to read the article first. :/ It clearly states that Microsoft's problem was that they were treating their signed ICs like REGULAR EMPLOYEES. Whereas the case here that people are making is that WWE isn't treating their ICs like employees. So they're completely different in every way. I think you're misunderstanding the complaint against the WWE. It really is the same as what Microsoft did. IC contracts are for freelancers, yet WWE's employees clearly don't have the same freedoms freelancers do.
|
|
randomranter
Dennis Stamp
When you grow up....... YOU'RE GONNA BE WROOOOOONG!!!!
Posts: 4,804
|
Post by randomranter on Sept 16, 2010 12:37:41 GMT -5
The off-season idea is great if you're an optimist. Wrestlers have time to heal up and freshen up their characters. I'm not that optimistic. I would expect more overdoses, a more stagnant than ever main event scene, an undercard with zero heat, and even more backstage politics than we have now. Go back to the 80's and early 90's, back when 90% of what you saw on television was little more than jobber matches and midcard matches from house shows. A wrestler could show up on Superstars or Wrestling challenge one week and not be seen again for a month. Champions showing up on TV? Outside of maybe a pre-taped promo or a skit on the Brother Love show or something, the champs actually being on TV were a rarity. The closest that you saw to Hulk Hogan actually wrestling on TV was Saturday Night's Main Event. Yet they still all maintained their heat. In fact, I think it would actually be better for the wrestlers if we went back in that direction because it would make their appearances feel a bit more special. And seeing the champ wrestle would actually become something worth paying for again.
|
|