A Union would Kill WWE

[Push R Truth]

Oh god the last time the WWE had The Union it was terrible. No more

[Crappler El 0 M]

I don't think a union would kill WWE, but I don't feel like arguing the point because it strays into politics.

[Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]]

Sorry, had to.

[FinalGwen]

Jan 1, 2015 10:14:13 GMT -5 Bob Schlapowitz said:

I often wonder how many of the people who cry out that "WWE needs a Wrestlers Union!" have ever actually been in a union before. To take a quote from Rocky Balboa, Unions ain't all sunshine and rainbows. In many ways, Unions have become exactly the same thing they were originally intended to protect against. I speak from experience when I say that if you think a Union has YOUR best interests at heart and would never f*** you over.......you're absolutely dreaming.

So, you've had a bad experience and are therefore going to extrapolate that to the entire broad concept of union activity (despite how differently many operate by trade and by country, and presumably a wrestler's one would be different still) to dismiss others' opinions? Isn't that a tad myopic?

[Boo!]

Unions aren't perfect but in general life, useful. Nobody has ever entered into a dispute with their employees and thought "Thank God it's just me vs their corporate machine and not a union providing legal advice/support"

If companies can have teams of lawyers, human resources and advisor's making sure that they get their way, I don't see what's objectionable to the employee having a bit of assistance. To be against unions in principle seems to be to want the deck stacked entirely in favour of the company in all matters.

[Reflecto]

Jan 1, 2015 10:38:27 GMT -5 The Dark Order Inferno said:

It would kill the WWE in much the same way the Screen Actors Guild killed Hollywood and various unions killed the NFL, NBA and so on and so forth, oh wait. What it would do is make it harder for the WWE to fire people based on Vince's whims or forget that talent exist, paying them to rot like Hawkins and Reks or forgetting they're signed at all like Armando Estrada.

The roster would stay the same size, but we'd see an end to people on the main roster being set up to fail and a huge reduction in speculative developmental signings, people hired based on look because it would cost more to keep them on the payroll. There would be a huge reduction in stupid table spots and workers being put into dangerous gimmick matches when they've just had surgery or have a long history of injuries that could be aggravated by the match. Talent would have the ability to say 'no' to certain things, hazardous matches or travelling in formal attire, which is the real reason Vince works so hard to prevent a union.

Even then, both of those things are also problems as well, simply because speculative signings for developmental is the whole reason to develop new stars. It's not like WWE will only sign really, really talented wrestlers and get rid of bodybuilders and models- it's just as much speculation to hire people like Adrian Neville or Sami Zayn as it is to sign people like (for example) Mojo Rawley or Carmella. This will be worse for people in a union as a result, because you'll always need some new blood on the roster to keep things fresh and get out the older, failed experiments- but if it's hard to fire people on whims like that, then you can't sweep out the failed experiments in favor of new talent who might be better because of how hard it is to fire them, even if you have good reasons to fire them (a person who gets their third Wellness Policy violation, for example, automatically gets fired- but if that person complains to the union about their firing, they could keep their job for it as well.)

A person like Hawkins, Reks, or Estrada would end up not being paid to rot, but best case they're still on TV, every week, regardless if anyone cares about them or still want to see them or not in favor of good NXT talent...and, given that unions work for the wrestlers to get the money and chances they need, and pro wrestling is a job and not just "a sport" or "entertainment"- there's equally the chance of the worst case, where the union would theoretically say "I don't care that he's not particularly over and no one cares about him- Curt Hawkins is the highest in seniority at this point in time in the lower card with seven years experience, so you WILL let him be the one to dethrone Brock Lesnar and be the WWE World Heavyweight Champion or you're in violation of the union regulations!"

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

Jan 1, 2015 9:35:24 GMT -5 Next Level was WRONG said:

If thats true then it deserves to die.

Real shit, let em' know.

[________ has left the building]

The reason why there isn't a union in pro wrestling is no one truly wants to give up their money and positions of power and influence. Contrary what we want to believe, at the end of the day; people are going to look out for their own interests and wallet. And unions generally have a problem of becoming as corrupt as the people they suppose to defend the workers from. An union won't kill WWE but it won't make things better. The moment someone calls for a strike, WWE like a ton of other companies will bring in scabs and picket breakers to work the show in the meantime and/or starve the strikers due to the lost of income. Who will eventually give in and surrender even more things in return. It happened to the NFL. Same for the MLB and NBA.

[Boo!]

A wrestlers union that covered:

Drug treatment/rehab entitlement
Necessitated minimum breaks per set period (3 days off in 5 inc travel or something)
Employment/contractual disputes

...IMO would be welcome and give the wrestlers some kind of support in times when unless they can afford an expensive lawyer and long legal battles, they've no choice but to roll over.

[Sephiroth]

I'm a member if a union-Screen Actors Guild.

[Reflecto]

Jan 1, 2015 11:33:49 GMT -5 Boo! said:

A wrestlers union that covered:

Drug treatment/rehab entitlement
Necessitated minimum breaks per set period (3 days off in 5 inc travel or something)
Employment/contractual disputes

...IMO would be welcome and give the wrestlers some kind of support in times when unless they can afford an expensive lawyer and long legal battles, they've no choice but to roll over.

This is the point- and this is also the big issue that no one mentions when people say "Wrestlers should form a union!"- rather than wrestlers unionizing themselves, the most natural union is for pro wrestlers to be allowed to join the Screen Actors Guild (which is a natural fit for a sports entertainer, and gives most of the benefits they need.) However, for years since WWF took hold and there was a chance- the Screen Actors Guild has said many times it doesn't want pro wrestlers (a reason that pro wrestlers will take any movie role you offer them, solely so that they can qualify for their SAG card.) This never really gets reported much (and only got any leeway when "The Wrestler" came out- and even then wasn't THAT big a story), but it is a big problem for the whole issue of unions.

[Boo!]

Jan 1, 2015 11:38:52 GMT -5 Reflecto said:

Jan 1, 2015 11:33:49 GMT -5 Boo! said:

A wrestlers union that covered:

Drug treatment/rehab entitlement
Necessitated minimum breaks per set period (3 days off in 5 inc travel or something)
Employment/contractual disputes

...IMO would be welcome and give the wrestlers some kind of support in times when unless they can afford an expensive lawyer and long legal battles, they've no choice but to roll over.

This is the point- and this is also the big issue that no one mentions when people say "Wrestlers should form a union!"- rather than wrestlers unionizing themselves, the most natural union is for pro wrestlers to be allowed to join the Screen Actors Guild (which is a natural fit for a sports entertainer, and gives most of the benefits they need.) However, for years since WWF took hold and there was a chance- the Screen Actors Guild has said many times it doesn't want pro wrestlers (a reason that pro wrestlers will take any movie role you offer them, solely so that they can qualify for their SAG card.) This never really gets reported much (and only got any leeway when "The Wrestler" came out- and even then wasn't THAT big a story), but it is a big problem for the whole issue of unions.

Joining an existing union with an established set-up and structure would of course be better than starting from scratch. They bandy themselves about as 'Hollywood/Disney/Movies' all the time so it would be a natural fit the SAG.

I'm surprised the federal government or individual states haven't stepped in to query the 'independent contractor' status of the wrestlers, which presumably as well as free WWE from employer entitlement and benefit obligation - it also bypasses a hell of a lot of state/federal tax too. Wouldn't shock me if someone somewhere decided to look at the nature of these contracts and how truly "independent" they are. 

Hasn't the Supreme Court recently ruled that FedEx incorrectly labelled employees as independent contractors in a move that could cost them an eye-full in backdated taxes? WWE seems ripe for those pickings.

[Jeff Mangum PI]

I'm not saying that a union would magically solve all of the problems, but it's garbage that WWE wants to push the whole "we're a legit company now guys, we're in the entertainment business!" garbage while still pulling this territory-era crap.

[Deleted]

Jan 1, 2015 11:31:18 GMT -5 ________ has left the building said:

The reason why there isn't a union in pro wrestling is no one truly wants to give up their money and positions of power and influence. Contrary what we want to believe, at the end of the day; people are going to look out for their own interests and wallet. And unions generally have a problem of becoming as corrupt as the people they suppose to defend the workers from. An union won't kill WWE but it won't make things better. The moment someone calls for a strike, WWE like a ton of other companies will bring in scabs and picket breakers to work the show in the meantime and/or starve the strikers due to the lost of income. Who will eventually give in and surrender even more things in return. It happened to the NFL. Same for the MLB and NBA.

I disagree with most of what you said but the first part, I absolutely agree with.

The main eventers and other people in power need to take a stand, and until they do, there won't be a union.

[Boo!]

The big issue for me is time off. If these guys on their salaries with hotel and travel expenses paid, catering provided etc, actually have an expense they paid themselves (heaven forbid!) such as health insurance then I'm not going to cry a river for them over it.

But maximum working hours including travel could be tremendously beneficial for their health and also the product. More time off, less gruelling tours but also necessitate the need to make the pool of dependable talent larger.

[Deleted]

Jan 1, 2015 11:31:18 GMT -5 ________ has left the building said:

The reason why there isn't a union in pro wrestling is no one truly wants to give up their money and positions of power and influence. Contrary what we want to believe, at the end of the day; people are going to look out for their own interests and wallet. And unions generally have a problem of becoming as corrupt as the people they suppose to defend the workers from. An union won't kill WWE but it won't make things better. The moment someone calls for a strike, WWE like a ton of other companies will bring in scabs and picket breakers to work the show in the meantime and/or starve the strikers due to the lost of income. Who will eventually give in and surrender even more things in return. It happened to the NFL. Same for the MLB and NBA.

In those sports leagues, the players association is the main reason the players receive 40-50% of the league's gross revenue. I believe WWE had $500 million in revenue in 2013 and I'd bet anything that nowhere close to $200 million went to the wrestlers.

[Dr. T is an alien]

As I have always maintained, a union will not work without the top guys getting involved and the top guys are not going to want to get involved because they lose out should a union take hold. The top talents get paid and more and more often get reduced schedules to account for health concerns (though, as CM Punk pointed out, not all do). You think Undertaker would risk anything to support a union? He already has everything he could want.

[Dr. T is an alien]

Jan 1, 2015 11:14:02 GMT -5 Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] said:

Sorry, had to.

To make a point in support of why a union would be needed, this picture is a little rare. It is a picture of a group of wrestlers from 15 years ago and only 25% of those in the picture is currently dead.

[BJ Sturgeon]

I read this as unicorn...

[Mayonnaise]

On the health insurance talk, WWE has required talent to have health insurance as a condition of employment for 2 years at least, I think it is a little longer though. I am not sure if they have a deal with a company to help out (doubt that honestly) or just leave it to the talent to find through the various marketplaces that have become law though.

Edit: Please do not misunderstand this as me saying how WWE is handling things like this is good, just trying to add some info that I remember to further the conversation.