|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 14:58:42 GMT -5
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? See, you're thinking old Hulkamania, New Generation, and Attitude Era folks. I'm thinking people post 2005 to 2014 with some of the older talents mixed in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 15:01:11 GMT -5
I dunno, this thread does have a point..... Owen Hart literally died while a Union match was going on. I know I'm going to Hell, just move onto another post which isn't written by a monster.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,990
|
Post by Sparkybob on Jan 1, 2015 15:01:42 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 would be surprise how many jobbers on NXT with little future will jump at a chance to perform on Raw because sticking with a union won't help them much since their future in the WWE is limited anyways. Plus this is under the assumption that the mid card guys and above guys also strike when I'm not sure why guys like Kane or Show will want a union when it offers little benefit to them.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2015 15:05:24 GMT -5
Are there wrestling unions in the indies or or other countries? If not, why not? If it operated similar to the SAG or athletic unions (with min. contracts based on experience) it'd probably make it unfeasible for most indies to operate. Some companies like TNA, ROH, or Chikara may have structure in place, but I'd wager that reveniues for most companies are too tight to be able to achieve most things people demand here. Smaller indies likely have no way they could pay the contracts and still make enough to operate. I'd imagine that, if a union was in place, it'd be WWE-specific, not industry-wide.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2015 15:07:16 GMT -5
I'm okay with the "independent contractor" stuff if WWE actually let them be independent contractors. If WWE doesn't see value in a performer to use them on a regular basis, then those performers should be free to work indy shows on their off days when they are not scheduled for any WWE related duties so that they can work on their craft and prove themselves worthy of a push or more TV time in the future.
WWE should be using all of its workers. If the likes of Justin Gabriel were working more often, then it allows the big moneymakers like John Cena to actually rest. Instead of overworking Daniel Bryan by making him work two matches every other week and putting him at bigger risk of injury, fill that time with someone else that the fans could possibly invest in.
While a true offseason may not be feasible, I believe that there should be a period where WWE abandons house shows and focuses entirely on the TV product. I think that this period should be the week of Thanksgiving up to the week of New Years Day. The wrestlers can do RAW and SmackDown then go about their business for the rest of the week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 15:07:58 GMT -5
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? See, you're thinking old Hulkamania, New Generation, and Attitude Era folks. I'm thinking people post 2005 to 2014 with some of the older talents mixed in. No, I'm thinking all of the ones you mentioned, the most recent generation included. There's not that many talents not presently on payroll who'd be viable for working the current TV and house show circuit. Starting with a clean slate is unlike anything WWE has had to do before. I don't think they have the wherewithal to manage that kind of shift. They're barely competent enough to manage what they already have.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2015 15:11:24 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 would be surprise how many jobbers on NXT with little future will jump at a chance to perform on Raw because sticking with a union won't help them much since their future in the WWE is limited anyways. Plus this is under the assumption that the mid card guys and above guys also strike when I'm not sure why guys like Kane or Show will want a union when it offers little benefit to them. And if these guys aren't over and putting on subpar performances compared to the guys they were screwing over, WWE might reconsider and cave. Once management sees Marcus Louis and Buddy Murphy stinking up the ring, suddenly Zack Ryder and Justin Gabriel don't sound so bad.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 15:11:36 GMT -5
See, you're thinking old Hulkamania, New Generation, and Attitude Era folks. I'm thinking people post 2005 to 2014 with some of the older talents mixed in. No, I'm thinking all of the ones you mentioned, the most recent generation included. There's not that many talents not presently on payroll who'd be viable for working the current TV and house show circuit. Starting with a clean slate is unlike anything WWE has had to do before. I don't think they have the wherewithal to manage that kind of shift. They're barely competent enough to manage what they already have. They got a number of folks in NXT who haven't worked on tv and house shows yet. Raw and Smackdown use the same 20 wrestlers. Same for house shows. Not a huge task to fill.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 1, 2015 15:12:02 GMT -5
A union would force WWE to act like a real business, rather than the carny circus run by a madman it currently is.
|
|
|
Post by avenger on Jan 1, 2015 15:12:26 GMT -5
The thing with unions, is that they are accountable to their members. Don't like the way your union is being run? Next time the elections come round, vote against them. Would a wrestling union kill the WWE? Of course not. Would it change the way we see things on TV? Possibly, but not a great deal. Would it make things worse for us as viwers? Almost certainly not. But if Vince view ratings over his workers, he doesn't deserve workers. Would a good union stop TLC matches? Chances are it wouldn't. Unions help make the most dangerous jobs less dangerous. If a wrestler's union had existed in 1999. Owen Hart could have raised his concerns of the Blue Blazer entrance to his union rep, and wouldn't have been on his own complaining about the entrance. 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. WWE doesn't pay hotel expenses, and the only travel expenses they pay is flights. Another benefit of using "independent contractors". 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. But the guys in NXT would be in the same union, so would either be scab labour (and I wouldn't want to be a scab in that lockerroom) or join the strike. Anyone who had serious plans to work in the WWE and work in that lockerroom in the future would make themselves unavailable that night.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 15:13:34 GMT -5
You would be surprise how many jobbers on NXT with little future will jump at a chance to perform on Raw because sticking with a union won't help them much since their future in the WWE is limited anyways. Plus this is under the assumption that the mid card guys and above guys also strike when I'm not sure why guys like Kane or Show will want a union when it offers little benefit to them. And if these guys aren't over and putting on subpar performances compared to the guys they were screwing over, WWE might reconsider and cave. Once management sees Marcus Louis and Buddy Murphy stinking up the ring, suddenly Zack Ryder and Justin Gabriel don't sound so bad. I seriously doubt that. If WWE wasn't using Ryder and Gabriel before, they aren't going to change their minds because of some NXT folks not wowing them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 15:14:27 GMT -5
No, I'm thinking all of the ones you mentioned, the most recent generation included. There's not that many talents not presently on payroll who'd be viable for working the current TV and house show circuit. Starting with a clean slate is unlike anything WWE has had to do before. I don't think they have the wherewithal to manage that kind of shift. They're barely competent enough to manage what they already have. They got a number of folks in NXT who haven't worked on tv and house shows yet. Raw and Smackdown use the same 20 wrestlers. Same for house shows. Not a huge task to fill. It is if you don't have any legitimate main eventers.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 15:22:17 GMT -5
The thing with unions, is that they are accountable to their members. Don't like the way your union is being run? Next time the elections come round, vote against them. Would a wrestling union kill the WWE? Of course not. Would it change the way we see things on TV? Possibly, but not a great deal. Would it make things worse for us as viwers? Almost certainly not. But if Vince view ratings over his workers, he doesn't deserve workers. Would a good union stop TLC matches? Chances are it wouldn't. Unions help make the most dangerous jobs less dangerous. If a wrestler's union had existed in 1999. Owen Hart could have raised his concerns of the Blue Blazer entrance to his union rep, and wouldn't have been on his own complaining about the entrance. 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. WWE doesn't pay hotel expenses, and the only travel expenses they pay is flights. Another benefit of using "independent contractors". 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. But the guys in NXT would be in the same union, so would either be scab labour (and I wouldn't want to be a scab in that lockerroom) or join the strike. Anyone who had serious plans to work in the WWE and work in that lockerroom in the future would make themselves unavailable that night. If they regular roster is striking, they won't be allow in the locker room so that's moot. They don't have to show up for work but their career prospects in pro wrestling just got smaller because not only WWE would be gunshy about giving them a chance, a number of other wrestling companies would do the same. I'm sure a WWE union would make membership only for main roster folks because you open up Pandora's box if it is allowed to all former WWE and developmental folks.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 1, 2015 15:25:24 GMT -5
They got a number of folks in NXT who haven't worked on tv and house shows yet. Raw and Smackdown use the same 20 wrestlers. Same for house shows. Not a huge task to fill. It is if you don't have any legitimate main eventers. You have legit main eventers but WWE has got to the point the brand is the main draw. It's something they built towards since they lost a number of big names the past decade and haven't developed the heavy hitters liked they wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2015 15:29:27 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. On the flipside, Vince could much more easily replace his roster than NBA, because the indies are full of talent that are close to, if not as good, as a lot of guys currently on WWE's roster. The WWE system has pretty much made 98% of the roster indistinct. Pro sports leagues don't have that advantage. ANd that's the thing of it, with the amount of politicking that goes on in wrestling, I have no doubt that there would be people lined up out the door for the chance to wrestle with WWE if the roster went on strike, and with the bulk of WWE wrestlers not making that much money, I think they'd be more likely to cave. Even though wrestling is technically not a monopoly, WWE has a lot of the advantages of one.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,990
|
Post by Sparkybob on Jan 1, 2015 15:32:48 GMT -5
You would be surprise how many jobbers on NXT with little future will jump at a chance to perform on Raw because sticking with a union won't help them much since their future in the WWE is limited anyways. Plus this is under the assumption that the mid card guys and above guys also strike when I'm not sure why guys like Kane or Show will want a union when it offers little benefit to them. And if these guys aren't over and putting on subpar performances compared to the guys they were screwing over, WWE might reconsider and cave. Once management sees Marcus Louis and Buddy Murphy stinking up the ring, suddenly Zack Ryder and Justin Gabriel don't sound so bad. If the top 12 guys or so stick around, the rest of the roster can be NXT gobers and some independent talent looking for some quick cash and exposure. The WWE can easily go 4 months with 12 guy rotating feuds with each other and some lower level guys filling some slots and by then the struggle of not getting a paycheck will start to hit the least well off wrestlers.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 1, 2015 15:36:56 GMT -5
Are there wrestling unions in the indies or or other countries? If not, why not? If it operated similar to the SAG or athletic unions (with min. contracts based on experience) it'd probably make it unfeasible for most indies to operate. Some companies like TNA, ROH, or Chikara may have structure in place, but I'd wager that reveniues for most companies are too tight to be able to achieve most things people demand here. Smaller indies likely have no way they could pay the contracts and still make enough to operate. I'd imagine that, if a union was in place, it'd be WWE-specific, not industry-wide. At least with those indie workers, they're actually independent contractors. WWE's abuse of the status is something that shouldn't go on but there's never really been a major investigation into it. And no wrestler really wants to take the risk to fight against it in court. Damn shame, too.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2015 15:44:41 GMT -5
If it operated similar to the SAG or athletic unions (with min. contracts based on experience) it'd probably make it unfeasible for most indies to operate. Some companies like TNA, ROH, or Chikara may have structure in place, but I'd wager that reveniues for most companies are too tight to be able to achieve most things people demand here. Smaller indies likely have no way they could pay the contracts and still make enough to operate. I'd imagine that, if a union was in place, it'd be WWE-specific, not industry-wide. At least with those indie workers, they're actually independent contractors. WWE's abuse of the status is something that shouldn't go on but there's never really been a major investigation into it. And no wrestler really wants to take the risk to fight against it in court. Damn shame, too. I'd agree that, by the eye test, they definitely should qualify as employees, but I'm always skeptical of the notion that they're doing this without the IRS knowing about it. The IRS isn't likely to let a multi-million dollar corporation skip out on taxes like that, and it's not likely that they haven't had their finances looked at at some point. Not to mention that there have been enough lawsuits to get the IRS's attention. They aren't the only type of company that has those same restrictions on their contractors (trucking companies are notorious for it).
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 1, 2015 15:54:43 GMT -5
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. The WWE requires it or the Affordable Care Act requires it? Of course, I guess you could say the ACA allows you to pay a tax instead of being covered, whereas the WWE doesn't give that option. WWE requires it.It was added in late 2010 or early 2011
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 1, 2015 16:11:38 GMT -5
Does that cover the costs suffered when they rush you back into action before you've had a chance to recover?
|
|