|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Apr 27, 2019 17:12:55 GMT -5
Can they even extend his contract like that without his agreement? The legality of it is questionable because it's never been challenged, but they've been doing it for years
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Apr 27, 2019 17:23:21 GMT -5
Can they even extend his contract like that without his agreement? There's a clause in the contract that lets them recoup extra contract time if someone was out on injury, but to my knowledge it's only been used punitively; here with Harper, with Mysterio as I talked about earlier in the thread, and with Daniel Bryan during his forced retirement period. In that light, it comes off like a petty and insane clause meant only to try and keep people who they're afraid of losing because of 'reasons'
|
|
|
Post by Prince Petty on Apr 27, 2019 17:29:11 GMT -5
* Harper has nothing going on * Rowan has nothing with Bryan hurt * Smackdown tag division is nonexistent * Jeff's hurt and needs to drop the title Goddamn WWE, just put the tag belts on the Blungeon Brothers. Ave them kayfabe destroy the Hardyz. That's 4 birds with 1 stone! I guarantee that nothing that simple or sensible will have occurred to WWE's creative geniuses.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Apr 27, 2019 17:34:42 GMT -5
Don’t blindly sign a contact if you may not want to honor it in the future. Don't sign people you don't want to use to contracts where you won't let them go even when there's nothing for them to do, and be willing to pay them to sit at home on the couch just so someone else can't contract them. The idea you can't quit a job you're not doing is legitimately f***ing bonkers. They’re not signing the contracts against the person’s will. If you sign a contract for a certain length with certain terms then you need to live with the consequences of those terms. And he can quit, he just won’t get paid and can’t go wrestle for the term of the agreement.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 27, 2019 17:44:52 GMT -5
Don't sign people you don't want to use to contracts where you won't let them go even when there's nothing for them to do, and be willing to pay them to sit at home on the couch just so someone else can't contract them. The idea you can't quit a job you're not doing is legitimately f***ing bonkers. They’re not signing the contracts against the person’s will. If you sign a contract for a certain length with certain terms then you need to live with the consequences of those terms. And he can quit, he just won’t get paid and can’t go wrestle for the term of the agreement. Dude, that is simply not how contracts and labor relations work in the real world. The concept that there's a level playing field when it comes to the writing of contracts and then a full mutual understanding between management and labor is a lie that's been pushed for centuries now, and WWE contracts are particularly notable for how exploitative they are of people who are full-time employees in all but name and legal rights inherent therein. The whole "they knew what they were getting into" excuse rings so hollow against the entire history of labor issues since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Apr 27, 2019 17:45:54 GMT -5
Don't sign people you don't want to use to contracts where you won't let them go even when there's nothing for them to do, and be willing to pay them to sit at home on the couch just so someone else can't contract them. The idea you can't quit a job you're not doing is legitimately f***ing bonkers. They’re not signing the contracts against the person’s will. If you sign a contract for a certain length with certain terms then you need to live with the consequences of those terms. And he can quit, he just won’t get paid and can’t go wrestle for the term of the agreement. Clauses like that are pretty common in regular jobs too. My contract at work states I have to give an additional week's notice for every year of service (to a maximum of six weeks) with my employer being entitled to dock any noticed owed from my final paycheque should I not give full notice. Ditto if I take vacation time I haven't yet earned and then leave while my balance is in the red.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Apr 27, 2019 17:54:21 GMT -5
Don't sign people you don't want to use to contracts where you won't let them go even when there's nothing for them to do, and be willing to pay them to sit at home on the couch just so someone else can't contract them. The idea you can't quit a job you're not doing is legitimately f***ing bonkers. They’re not signing the contracts against the person’s will. If you sign a contract for a certain length with certain terms then you need to live with the consequences of those terms. And he can quit, he just won’t get paid and can’t go wrestle for the term of the agreement. That's cool, I honestly care about what's technically legal less than I care about any dog shit I accidentally step in. This is a billionaire making spite moves on someone he doesn't even want to employ and life is too short to be defending the actions of someone who acts like a Dickens villain on a basis of technicality.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Apr 27, 2019 17:56:33 GMT -5
They’re not signing the contracts against the person’s will. If you sign a contract for a certain length with certain terms then you need to live with the consequences of those terms. And he can quit, he just won’t get paid and can’t go wrestle for the term of the agreement. Dude, that is simply not how contracts and labor relations work in the real world. The concept that there's a level playing field when it comes to the writing of contracts and then a full mutual understanding between management and labor is a lie that's been pushed for centuries now, and WWE contracts are particularly notable for how exploitative they are of people who are full-time employees in all but name and legal rights inherent therein. The whole "they knew what they were getting into" excuse rings so hollow against the entire history of labor issues since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. I am very well-versed in labor relations and contract issues. If the contract term is unconscionable or downright unlawful, then sure it may not hold up in court, but the terms of an employment contract or an independent contractor agreement are presumed to be mutually agreed upon. But yes I do agree employers will many times have unequal bargaining power as compared to their employees/contractors.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Apr 27, 2019 17:58:21 GMT -5
They’re not signing the contracts against the person’s will. If you sign a contract for a certain length with certain terms then you need to live with the consequences of those terms. And he can quit, he just won’t get paid and can’t go wrestle for the term of the agreement. That's cool, I honestly care about what's technically legal less than I care about any dog shit I accidentally step in. This is a billionaire making spite moves on someone he doesn't even want to employ and life is too busy to be defending the actions of someone who acts like a Dickens villain on a basis of technicality. Not saying I agree with the extension of the contract, but I do agree with not just releasing people whenever they request it when they still have plenty of time on their deals.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Apr 27, 2019 18:04:35 GMT -5
They’re not signing the contracts against the person’s will. If you sign a contract for a certain length with certain terms then you need to live with the consequences of those terms. And he can quit, he just won’t get paid and can’t go wrestle for the term of the agreement. Dude, that is simply not how contracts and labor relations work in the real world. The concept that there's a level playing field when it comes to the writing of contracts and then a full mutual understanding between management and labor is a lie that's been pushed for centuries now, and WWE contracts are particularly notable for how exploitative they are of people who are full-time employees in all but name and legal rights inherent therein. The whole "they knew what they were getting into" excuse rings so hollow against the entire history of labor issues since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. If only there was some organized effort to allow wrestlers to collectively bargain fair terms.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 27, 2019 18:26:53 GMT -5
How crazy would it be if this was the catalyst for a big lawsuit that led to a union and/or the end of the bullshittery of WWE' s in name only independent contractor way of doing business .
It won't, but they absolutely deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by THE FVNKER on Apr 27, 2019 19:43:03 GMT -5
With things like this, and the litany of other qualms it seems like everyone else on here and multiple other forums has with WWE, I really dont understand why people keep tuning in each week and watching the PPV's. This promotion (as of recent years) is the most petty, homogenized and bland product in the history of the wrestling business. It's mind blowing.
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Apr 27, 2019 22:29:17 GMT -5
With things like this, and the litany of other qualms it seems like everyone else on here and multiple other forums has with WWE, I really dont understand why people keep tuning in each week and watching the PPV's. This promotion (as of recent years) is the most petty, homogenized and bland product in the history of the wrestling business. It's mind blowing. I think it's a kind of practical nostalgia. I dropped the WWE Network earlier this month, and haven't watched outside of the Network for years, but it still hurt a bit to drop the Network, because WWE has an iron-clad grip on the wrestling of my childhood. If I want to see the wrestling I grew up loving, I HAVE to go through WWE to see it legally, which sucks. That said, I'm still glad I cut that particular cord.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2019 13:39:27 GMT -5
Don’t blindly sign a contact if you may not want to honor it in the future. Don't sign people you don't want to use to contracts where you won't let them go even when there's nothing for them to do, and be willing to pay them to sit at home on the couch just so someone else can't contract them. The idea you can't quit a job you're not doing is legitimately f***ing bonkers. You know, I'm not so sure they don't intend to use him. Yeah, he hasn't been doing anything since being cleared, but until now he had been consistently featured on TV since his debut and was being heavily pushed in an unbeatable team with Rowan before he got hurt. They might see his ceiling as tag guy or goon, but I'm not so sure that they're keeping him just so he doesn't go elsewhere. The timing of the extension clearly seems like some kind of punishment and message to the rest of the locker room, but looking at his resume I do think they value him.
|
|
|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Apr 30, 2019 17:26:55 GMT -5
Dude, that is simply not how contracts and labor relations work in the real world. The concept that there's a level playing field when it comes to the writing of contracts and then a full mutual understanding between management and labor is a lie that's been pushed for centuries now, and WWE contracts are particularly notable for how exploitative they are of people who are full-time employees in all but name and legal rights inherent therein. The whole "they knew what they were getting into" excuse rings so hollow against the entire history of labor issues since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. I am very well-versed in labor relations and contract issues. If the contract term is unconscionable or downright unlawful, then sure it may not hold up in court, but the terms of an employment contract or an independent contractor agreement are presumed to be mutually agreed upon. But yes I do agree employers will many times have unequal bargaining power as compared to their employees/contractors. There is a less than zero chance that WWE's "independent contractor" contracts would hold up to a legitimate legal challenge, the problem is that no one with standing is willing to be blackballed
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,124
Member is Online
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Apr 30, 2019 17:38:19 GMT -5
I am very well-versed in labor relations and contract issues. If the contract term is unconscionable or downright unlawful, then sure it may not hold up in court, but the terms of an employment contract or an independent contractor agreement are presumed to be mutually agreed upon. But yes I do agree employers will many times have unequal bargaining power as compared to their employees/contractors. There is a less than zero chance that WWE's "independent contractor" contracts would hold up to a legitimate legal challenge, the problem is that no one with standing is willing to be blackballed That, and the courts are starting to shift back in the direction of judges who are less willing to f*** Vince than they had been just a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Apr 30, 2019 18:26:51 GMT -5
There is a less than zero chance that WWE's "independent contractor" contracts would hold up to a legitimate legal challenge, the problem is that no one with standing is willing to be blackballed That, and the courts are starting to shift back in the direction of judges who are less willing to f*** Vince than they had been just a few years ago. The standards of what an "independent contractor" is and isn't are established case law, they'd have to be incredibly lucky/"lucky" to find a judge that would overturn those standards now.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Apr 30, 2019 21:00:23 GMT -5
There is a less than zero chance that WWE's "independent contractor" contracts would hold up to a legitimate legal challenge, the problem is that no one with standing is willing to be blackballed That, and the courts are starting to shift back in the direction of judges who are less willing to f*** Vince than they had been just a few years ago. Depends on if the case would be in state or federal court, or which state, or which district and which circuit.
The problem is that WWE and McMahon have a LOT of money for a legal team and court costs. And the people likely to be plaintiffs can't afford the costs for a long legal challenge, much less a top notch legal team.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 30, 2019 21:41:52 GMT -5
That, and the courts are starting to shift back in the direction of judges who are less willing to f*** Vince than they had been just a few years ago. Depends on if the case would be in state or federal court, or which state, or which district and which circuit.
The problem is that WWE and McMahon have a LOT of money for a legal team and court costs. And the people likely to be plaintiffs can't afford the costs for a long legal challenge, much less a top notch legal team.
Plus a lot of the CT state judges are notoriously pro-WWE in their rulings, hence WWE usually working hard to ensure cases against them are tried in their backyard.
|
|
|
Post by slaughterama on Apr 30, 2019 22:27:47 GMT -5
If there were ever a time to challenge WWE's "independent contractor" deals, it may be now. Jim Ross recently did an interview on WFAN basically calling out WWE's practices in regards to those contracts, and saying something needed to change. He did defend WWE in saying that they took care of every worker that got hurt while under contract to them, but also pointed out the problems with them. As a former head of talent relations, he'd be a great witness to have in a suit against WWE.
|
|