|
Post by hossfan on Jan 1, 2015 12:21:14 GMT -5
Are there wrestling unions in the indies or or other countries? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 12:23:19 GMT -5
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. The main eventers could take a stand but they got a lot less to lose than the lower tier folks. Look what happened when the NBA had a strike. The top names went along with the players union's decision to go on a strike. But the people on the lower end of the pay scale saw their money stop and had to take jobs at grocery stores and move back home with their parents. People who spent money like water and had other expenses (mortgage, taxes, child support) soon found themselves in dire straits. Folks like Lebron James were financially secured enough to ride out the strike but the others not so lucky wanted it to end. The NBA owners just sat back and waited for the players to break because union only pays so much a week during a strike and they know money eventually trumps principles. So the union gave in and made concessions to the owners who gained more power. You don't need the big names to form an union but tell someone who is making scale to give up some of their money and decision making to people who will fold the moment it effects their bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 1, 2015 12:24:09 GMT -5
One thing I do hear is that guys are in WWE and they make a killing. Listening to recent podcasts with guys who get info from WWE people, the big thing is ever since the network came into place, pay offs have gone way down, and guys like the Usos are getting $500 a night for their house show appearances.
I think that's why CM Punk and Alberto Del Rio leaving was the most impactful thing to happen to WWE in quite some time, because they were definitely under appreciated, like most guys on their roster, and now you have UFC signing Punk and Alberto Del Rio pretty much working for everybody under the sun. So I think this might be the first time since WCW was around that you have a healthy wrestling industry to go to that's not WWE.
In regards to a union, it would have worked better back when Jesse Ventura wanted to do it, as you had so many places to work. It might be tougher nowadays, but I guess that's if you were to want a union for pro wrestlers in general, and not just in WWE.
I guess I'm going to be biased considering I was a job steward for my union at my work place. The positives for the wrestlers would be incredible. They would be able to get their rightful cut of the money they are earning for the company. Especially the NXT guys. Indy wrestlers basically take a pay cut to try to make more money in the future, so they can even leave with a bigger name and make money like Punk, Del Rio and even AJ Styles.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,355
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 1, 2015 12:42:03 GMT -5
Of course, several guys in the WWE and in their wheelhouse ARE in in a union. Rock, Foley, Austin, Orton, Show, Miz, HHH, and a few others have, or should qualify for, SAG membership. In the past, some have tried to argue that all wrestlers who wind up on TV should qualify for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 12:44:58 GMT -5
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. The main eventers could take a stand but they got a lot less to lose than the lower tier folks. Look what happened when the NBA had a strike. The top names went along with the players union's decision to go on a strike. But the people on the lower end of the pay scale saw their money stop and had to take jobs at grocery stores and move back home with their parents. People who spent money like water and had other expenses (mortgage, taxes, child support) soon found themselves in dire straits. Folks like Lebron James were financially secured enough to ride out the strike but the others not so lucky wanted it to end. The NBA owners just sat back and waited for the players to break because union only pays so much a week during a strike and they know money eventually trumps principles. So the union gave in and made concessions to the owners who gained more power. You don't need the big names to form an union but tell someone who is making scale to give up some of their money and decision making to people who will fold the moment it effects their bottom line. The NBA and its network of owners is significantly more powerful than Vince and his extremely limited stable of allies. WWE will crack much more reliably because Vince and company hate taking risks, and the company threatening to collapse in on itself if demands aren't met is an awfully big risk. The NBA's leadership could wait out years worth of a strike, because they make their money off of other things. If Vince had to deal with a striking roster, he'd have nowhere to go; nothing to fall back on.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Jan 1, 2015 12:48:19 GMT -5
Businesses also claim that things like providing a living wage, universal health care, or paying taxes will be the end of their company, and it almost never is. WWE is having financial troubles right now because they went in on a very risky venture and it did not meet their incredibly lofty standards, not because they're a small business struggling to turn a meager profit. They made a mistake and it burned them, but that doesn't mean they should be off the hook for taking care of their employees. Unions aren't only about trying to get fatter paychecks either, and judging by some of the shit Punk said about his health I'd say they need some kind of central, unified front to stick up for them.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 12:52:54 GMT -5
The main eventers could take a stand but they got a lot less to lose than the lower tier folks. Look what happened when the NBA had a strike. The top names went along with the players union's decision to go on a strike. But the people on the lower end of the pay scale saw their money stop and had to take jobs at grocery stores and move back home with their parents. People who spent money like water and had other expenses (mortgage, taxes, child support) soon found themselves in dire straits. Folks like Lebron James were financially secured enough to ride out the strike but the others not so lucky wanted it to end. The NBA owners just sat back and waited for the players to break because union only pays so much a week during a strike and they know money eventually trumps principles. So the union gave in and made concessions to the owners who gained more power. You don't need the big names to form an union but tell someone who is making scale to give up some of their money and decision making to people who will fold the moment it effects their bottom line. The NBA and its network of owners is significantly more powerful than Vince and his extremely limited stable of allies. WWE will crack much more reliably because Vince and company hate taking risks, and the company threatening to collapse in on itself if demands aren't met is an awfully big risk. The NBA's leadership could wait out years worth of a strike, because they make their money off of other things. If Vince had to deal with a striking roster, he'd have nowhere to go; nothing to fall back on. I'm quite sure WWE would just call up folks from NXT to work the main shows and bring in former names to fill out the card. The regular wrestlers got more to lose than WWE. The brand sells itself. Only a handful of folks are above WWE and don't need the company.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 12:54:15 GMT -5
Are there wrestling unions in the indies or or other countries? If not, why not? No and because no one wants to give up money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 13:33:29 GMT -5
Now I'm thinking about what sorts of scabs WWE would bring in if there was a union and wrestlers went on strike.
"Be sure to tune in for wrestlemania for just 9.99! Can Gunner achieve his boyhood dream and win the title from Jack Evans?"
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2015 13:39:28 GMT -5
Now I'm thinking about what sorts of scabs WWE would bring in if there was a union and wrestlers went on strike. "Be sure to tune in for wrestlemania for just 9.99! Can Brian Myers achieve his boyhood dream and win the title from Roderick Strong?" Fixed for my preference.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 1, 2015 13:42:28 GMT -5
What's scummy is that one way or another WWE does everything they can to bleed the talent dry and then dispose of them, taking advantage of all kinds of loopholes and shit.
What's really scummy are the legitimate business entities that look the other way and do business with WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jan 1, 2015 13:44:08 GMT -5
Of course, several guys in the WWE and in their wheelhouse ARE in in a union. Rock, Foley, Austin, Orton, Show, Miz, HHH, and a few others have, or should qualify for, SAG membership. In the past, some have tried to argue that all wrestlers who wind up on TV should qualify for it. That is an excellent point. Wrestlers absolutely should qualify for SAG membership.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jan 1, 2015 14:05:22 GMT -5
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!" I'm not so sure it is, guys like Zayn have honed their craft, have shown they can get over with a live audience and will stick with wrestling, they're not just using it to get them on TV like so many of the model divas they have signed. The bigger indy names tend to do well when they reach the main roster unless they set out to hobble them like Kawal and Colt Cabana, so are better investments than Dakota Darsow, Lift Sawyer and Underwear model #547. As for union fighting wellness firings, that's only likely to happen if they really do have a tiered drug testing policy where some guys get to skip pee tests or get the goalposts moved, which is something that needs to stop anyway. People always say 'Oh well, they'd make <jobber> the world champion' in these discussions as though it's a likely outcome of wrestlers having power, but it doesn't happen in other unionised sports or entertainment, you don't see the SAG pushing to force soap operas to retain actors and push them into a starring role so I haven't the foggiest why people think that would be a likely outcome for the WWE. Like with other TV shows, contracts will expire to free up slots on the roster as it's not like they sign every 'Johnny FCW' to a 10 year deal.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 1, 2015 14:18:15 GMT -5
"It'll just be corrupt anyway" is the lamest kind of reasoning. Not fixing a problem because the solution MIGHT have its own problems associated with it is such a weak argument, it's hard to take seriously for a second. If you like the current system, admit it; don't come up with lame stuff like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:24:14 GMT -5
The NBA and its network of owners is significantly more powerful than Vince and his extremely limited stable of allies. WWE will crack much more reliably because Vince and company hate taking risks, and the company threatening to collapse in on itself if demands aren't met is an awfully big risk. The NBA's leadership could wait out years worth of a strike, because they make their money off of other things. If Vince had to deal with a striking roster, he'd have nowhere to go; nothing to fall back on. I'm quite sure WWE would just call up folks from NXT to work the main shows and bring in former names to fill out the card. The regular wrestlers got more to lose than WWE. The brand sells itself. Only a handful of folks are above WWE and don't need the company. WWE doesn't have enough people on hand to fill a roster if the current main roster members went on strike, especially the big merchandise movers. Those people really can't be replaced. It's not even a matter of having a quality show. It's a matter of having a roster big enough to do 5 hours of TV every week (not counting Main Event, NXT and the other Network media).
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 14:30:40 GMT -5
I'm quite sure WWE would just call up folks from NXT to work the main shows and bring in former names to fill out the card. The regular wrestlers got more to lose than WWE. The brand sells itself. Only a handful of folks are above WWE and don't need the company. WWE doesn't have enough people on hand to fill a roster if the current main roster members went on strike, especially the big merchandise movers. Those people really can't be replaced. It's not even a matter of having a quality show. It's a matter of having a roster big enough to do 5 hours of TV every week (not counting Main Event, NXT and the other Network media). Henceforth why I said they would bring in former talents to work the shows. I'm quite sure there are enough folks out there would would welcome a return. Plus WWE could still sell merchandise of striking wrestlers. Unless it's an union provision otherwise, WWE can still sell it. Again, striking professional leagues still sold merch even as their strikes went into months.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 1, 2015 14:33:32 GMT -5
WWE can't decide if it wants to be a real corporation or old timey carney crap. I think a big part of this is Vince McMahon's mindset as he's the one who took the WWWF from an NYC area territory into a national business. And pretty much everyone in charge of the major companies along with Vince has their roots in the territory days, including WCW and TNA.
But a union also wouldn't be necessary if the WWE made some changes to how it conducted business. Instead of exploiting wrestlers as "independent contractors," make them real employees. I'd also cut down significantly on the amount of house shows if not stop them altogether. This not only improves the physical and mental health of your wrestlers, but cuts operating costs.
Of course these changes face the same obstacles as a wrestling union. You won't see anything major happen until a younger generation without roots in the territory system takes charge and/or major stars like John Cena take a risk on their personal status to help out their less fortunate coworkers.
Another idea would be to have some sort of offseason. Wrestlemania until just after May Sweeps would be perfect. And if WWE is so concerned with losing the "we're never reruns" gimmick even though it helps to contribute to stale booking and creatively exhausted writers, have a rotating offseason. X number of wrestlers get a couple of months off to spend with their families at home with a couple of weeks in NXT or even a cooperative indie fed as a "preseason" to get back in the groove of things. They'd be expected to stay in shape, but it's nowhere near as intense or involved as touring the overwhelming majority of the year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:38:22 GMT -5
WWE doesn't have enough people on hand to fill a roster if the current main roster members went on strike, especially the big merchandise movers. Those people really can't be replaced. It's not even a matter of having a quality show. It's a matter of having a roster big enough to do 5 hours of TV every week (not counting Main Event, NXT and the other Network media). Henceforth why I said they would bring in former talents to work the shows. I'm quite sure there are enough folks out there would would welcome a return. Plus WWE could still sell merchandise of striking wrestlers. Unless it's an union provision otherwise, WWE can still sell it. Again, striking professional leagues still sold merch even as their strikes went into months. When I say "merchandise movers" I refer to people like Cena and Ambrose, who are pretty big draws. Yeah, WWE would likely be allowed to continue selling their items and profiting from it, but when big stars who have fan support say that the company is wrong and that fans should support the strike, that's absolutely going to hurt WWE's bottom line. I guess the reason we disagree on this is because we anticipate different results to WWE's potential scab policy. I don't see many former wrestlers joining WWE very willingly. My guess is that they'd either be people on good terms who ask for outrageous sums to wrestle a full-time schedule, or they'd be disgruntled ex-employees who would be loath to undermine WWE's deconstruction. Most of the ex-WWE wrestlers who have any kind of drawing power are so old and/or broken down that doing a full TV schedule--to say nothing of house shows--would be out of their comfort zone and end up being very expensive for WWE to bankroll. There's not a lot of people out there who they could contact.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 14:45:31 GMT -5
Henceforth why I said they would bring in former talents to work the shows. I'm quite sure there are enough folks out there would would welcome a return. Plus WWE could still sell merchandise of striking wrestlers. Unless it's an union provision otherwise, WWE can still sell it. Again, striking professional leagues still sold merch even as their strikes went into months. When I say "merchandise movers" I refer to people like Cena and Ambrose, who are pretty big draws. Yeah, WWE would likely be allowed to continue selling their items and profiting from it, but when big stars who have fan support say that the company is wrong and that fans should support the strike, that's absolutely going to hurt WWE's bottom line. I guess the reason we disagree on this is because we anticipate different results to WWE's potential scab policy. I don't see many former wrestlers joining WWE very willingly. My guess is that they'd either be people on good terms who ask for outrageous sums to wrestle a full-time schedule, or they'd be disgruntled ex-employees who would be loath to undermine WWE's deconstruction. Most of the ex-WWE wrestlers who have any kind of drawing power are so old and/or broken down that doing a full TV schedule--to say nothing of house shows--would be out of their comfort zone and end up being very expensive for WWE to bankroll. There's not a lot of people out there who they could contact. You will be surprised on the number of folks who will sell out principles for a paycheck. And if you offer a 50% discount on a t shirt, fans will buy it regardless if they stand with the strikers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:53:04 GMT -5
When I say "merchandise movers" I refer to people like Cena and Ambrose, who are pretty big draws. Yeah, WWE would likely be allowed to continue selling their items and profiting from it, but when big stars who have fan support say that the company is wrong and that fans should support the strike, that's absolutely going to hurt WWE's bottom line. I guess the reason we disagree on this is because we anticipate different results to WWE's potential scab policy. I don't see many former wrestlers joining WWE very willingly. My guess is that they'd either be people on good terms who ask for outrageous sums to wrestle a full-time schedule, or they'd be disgruntled ex-employees who would be loath to undermine WWE's deconstruction. Most of the ex-WWE wrestlers who have any kind of drawing power are so old and/or broken down that doing a full TV schedule--to say nothing of house shows--would be out of their comfort zone and end up being very expensive for WWE to bankroll. There's not a lot of people out there who they could contact. You will be surprised on the number of folks who will sell out principles for a paycheck. And if you offer a 50% discount on a t shirt, fans will buy it regardless if they stand with the strikers. I expect a lot of people would be willing to sell out. Again, however, I don't think there's many people out there to sell out to begin with. Most ex-WWE people are old and broken-down, and those are practically the only ones (the NXT roster being a small exception) who'd be able to draw. They wouldn't be able to last long before injuries caught up with them, and if that happened, who then?
|
|