|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Jan 1, 2015 16:13:12 GMT -5
Someone probably already mentioned this, but why aren't wrestlers in WWE/TNA/ROH covered by SAG? Kayfabe has been dead for almost a century at this point, and they're performers operating on television.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2015 16:17:26 GMT -5
Someone probably already mentioned this, but why aren't wrestlers in WWE/TNA/ROH covered by SAG? Kayfabe has been dead for almost a century at this point, and they're performers operating on television. I think because applying for SAG membership based on their performances on a wrestling show would be outright saying that wrestling is "fake" and no one wants to do that. However, the wrestlers who have done guest starring roles on other TV shows should go for SAG. Or a wrestler should attempt to branch into acting with small roles for the sake of attaining a SAG card before getting into WWE. Now, if there were a union specifically for live performance artists such as dancers, musicians, etc. maybe a pro wrestler could get into that.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Jan 1, 2015 16:20:04 GMT -5
Someone probably already mentioned this, but why aren't wrestlers in WWE/TNA/ROH covered by SAG? Kayfabe has been dead for almost a century at this point, and they're performers operating on television. I think because applying for SAG membership based on their performances on a wrestling show would be outright saying that wrestling is "fake" and no one wants to do that. They've kinda jumped that shark like 20 years ago
|
|
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
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 1, 2015 16:25:50 GMT -5
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). I have to disagree with your notion that the IRS would not let them get away with using legally questionable means to get out of paying taxes. I know that this is skirting the "no politics" rule to say this, but many corporations use questionable legal practices to get away with not paying a lot of taxes and the IRS is often not able to stop that. I won't explain that because there is plenty of evidence on the interwebs to back that up.
|
|
|
Post by Old Jack Burton on Jan 1, 2015 16:28:01 GMT -5
Good. I want it to collapse. Whatever may rise from the ashes will be the best wrestling we've seen in years.
|
|
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
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 1, 2015 16:29:47 GMT -5
I think because applying for SAG membership based on their performances on a wrestling show would be outright saying that wrestling is "fake" and no one wants to do that. They've kinda jumped that shark like 20 years ago Yeah, and it was Vince himself that did it. He wanted to get out having to pay fees to various sporting commissions that, up until that point, wrestling promotions had to pay in order to put on shows. In some states that actually was a benefit to the wrestlers because those fees were used to pay for medical treatment for injuries incurred in the ring at commission-approved events (Foley covered this in his first book).
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 1, 2015 16:33:11 GMT -5
Someone probably already mentioned this, but why aren't wrestlers in WWE/TNA/ROH covered by SAG? Kayfabe has been dead for almost a century at this point, and they're performers operating on television. The big reason they're not covered by SAG is that SAG doesn't WANT them. A lot of pro wrestlers and people have tried getting wrestlers who make TV covered by SAG, but SAG refuses to allow them in. This is a big reason a lot of pro wrestlers will take any movie or TV role they can get, no matter how small the movie or how crappy it is- solely because once they get cast in one, they can join SAG themselves (and with how good SAG's healthcare is, that's a huge benefit for a wrestler.) 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? There'll ALWAYS be some people who'll sell out- even outside of it. The big thing keeping a union from happening is that the wrestlers know- and Vince knows the wrestlers know- and the wrestlers know Vince knows the wrestlers know (etc.), that for every wrestler who's unhappy in WWE saying no, there's 1,000 guys and girls on the other side of the door who'll do anything chance to say yes. There'll always be scabs available for Vince- even if he has to go down to guys straight out of the shindies or the backyards to do it.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,057
|
Post by Mozenrath on Jan 1, 2015 16:37:17 GMT -5
Someone probably already mentioned this, but why aren't wrestlers in WWE/TNA/ROH covered by SAG? Kayfabe has been dead for almost a century at this point, and they're performers operating on television. The big reason they're not covered by SAG is that SAG doesn't WANT them. A lot of pro wrestlers and people have tried getting wrestlers who make TV covered by SAG, but SAG refuses to allow them in. This is a big reason a lot of pro wrestlers will take any movie or TV role they can get, no matter how small the movie or how crappy it is- solely because once they get cast in one, they can join SAG themselves (and with how good SAG's healthcare is, that's a huge benefit for a wrestler.) 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? There'll ALWAYS be some people who'll sell out- even outside of it. The big thing keeping a union from happening is that the wrestlers know- and Vince knows the wrestlers know- and the wrestlers know Vince knows the wrestlers know (etc.), that for every wrestler who's unhappy in WWE saying no, there's 1,000 guys and girls on the other side of the door who'll do anything chance to say yes. There'll always be scabs available for Vince- even if he has to go down to guys straight out of the shindies or the backyards to do it. Yep, Foley sought SAG coverage specifically.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 1, 2015 16:38:27 GMT -5
Why doesn't the Screen Actor's Guild want to cover wrestlers?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2015 16:51:05 GMT -5
Why doesn't the Screen Actor's Guild want to cover wrestlers? I'd imagine the biggest is because how low-brow wrestling is considered compared to other forms of acting. I'd guess that there may also be concern with how adding wrestlers might affect benefits. For example, wrestling is incredibly high-risk compared to acting, so wrestlers will certainly affect benefits such as health coverage. It's known that wrestlers have significantly higher premiums due to the nature of the business, and health care costs in a group are based on utilization. Adding a huge pool of wrestlers all at once could have a significant affect on rates for all members, because the presumption is that all those wrestlers will be heavy utilizers. There's just a drastic difference between movie/television production and wrestling that may make SAG wary about venturing in to as well.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2015 16:55:03 GMT -5
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). I have to disagree with your notion that the IRS would not let them get away with using legally questionable means to get out of paying taxes. I know that this is skirting the "no politics" rule to say this, but many corporations use questionable legal practices to get away with not paying a lot of taxes and the IRS is often not able to stop that. I won't explain that because there is plenty of evidence on the interwebs to back that up. That'd be fair. I was more skeptical of the notion that the only reason WWE does it is because no one has shot the IRS a text message telling them to look at WWE's employment practices, moreso in how they're able to keep doing that. I just doubt that it's an issue of never having been audited or investigated.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 1, 2015 17:01:10 GMT -5
Good. I want it to collapse. Whatever may rise from the ashes will be the best wrestling we've seen in years. To be real honest, you'd never see any sort of wrestling in the US at the same level ever again I feel. It's a niche fanbase as is, and WWE is as big as it is a)cuz they have the capital and b)decades of goodwill. If the day comes when they ever close up shop, American wrestling in the mainstream is effectively dead. Don't get me wrong, wrestling will always be around in some form or fashion, but the days of them having huge tv deals and selling out big arenas in this country would be DONE.
|
|
|
Post by TheSchattenjager on Jan 1, 2015 17:04:00 GMT -5
I'd like to give me views on unions and how they hurt the economy, and ultimately workers, and how no one is forced to sign a contract to work for a company, if they don't want to, but is discussing this against the forum's no politics policy?
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Jan 1, 2015 17:26:14 GMT -5
I'd like to give me views on unions and how they hurt the economy, and ultimately workers, and how no one is forced to sign a contract to work for a company, if they don't want to, but is discussing this against the forum's no politics policy? Yes. That's way too political.
|
|
Magnus the Magnificent
King Koopa
didn't want one.
I could write a book about what you don't know!
Posts: 12,456
Member is Online
|
Post by Magnus the Magnificent on Jan 1, 2015 17:44:07 GMT -5
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). Of course IRS knows about it.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,428
|
Post by FinalGwen on Jan 1, 2015 19:10:24 GMT -5
I'd like to give me views on unions and how they hurt the economy, and ultimately workers, and how no one is forced to sign a contract to work for a company, if they don't want to, but is discussing this against the forum's no politics policy? Since you've had that Anarcho-Capitalist flag avatar this long, I wouldn't have thought you'd noticed that policy.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Jan 1, 2015 19:45:22 GMT -5
I have to disagree with your notion that the IRS would not let them get away with using legally questionable means to get out of paying taxes. I know that this is skirting the "no politics" rule to say this, but many corporations use questionable legal practices to get away with not paying a lot of taxes and the IRS is often not able to stop that. I won't explain that because there is plenty of evidence on the interwebs to back that up. That'd be fair. I was more skeptical of the notion that the only reason WWE does it is because no one has shot the IRS a text message telling them to look at WWE's employment practices, moreso in how they're able to keep doing that. I just doubt that it's an issue of never having been audited or investigated. Agreed. This isn't some secret thing that the WWE has hidden all these years. It's not something that some wrestler can change if they sue the company. It's really as simple as entertainment industry employees almost universally getting that designation, it's the category they're in. There is some IRS process to accept that designation every single year. And also, I think people should generally take legal information from FAN message board posters with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 1, 2015 19:49:46 GMT -5
I'd like to give me views on unions and how they hurt the economy, and ultimately workers, and how no one is forced to sign a contract to work for a company, if they don't want to, but is discussing this against the forum's no politics policy? Since you've had that Anarcho-Capitalist flag avatar this long, I wouldn't have thought you'd noticed that policy. I am surprised something like that hasn't been noticed. I mean, that's a very clear political symbol.
|
|
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
Member is Online
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 1, 2015 19:51:47 GMT -5
Since you've had that Anarcho-Capitalist flag avatar this long, I wouldn't have thought you'd noticed that policy. I am surprised something like that hasn't been noticed. I mean, that's a very clear political symbol. Clear only if you are remotely familiar with it. I had no idea.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jan 1, 2015 19:55:14 GMT -5
Well, true. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't exactly mainstream. But it'd be no different than someone having a Hammmer and Sickle as an avatar, and not because they're a fan of old Soviet heels. Or the Republican Elephant or Democratic Donkey, though Anarcho-Capitalism is a movement and not a specific party.
|
|