Well this could end up changing wrestling as a whole

[Deleted]

From the observer

A bill that could change the very face of pro wrestling contracts, known as AB5, passed in the California state Assembly on 5/29. The bill provided specific rules as to the difference between an employee and an independent contractor and would affect WWE, UFC and AEW competitors most likely. It would also affect Uber and Amazon drivers, manicurists and exotic dancers. All people classified as employees would get labor protection, unemployment insurance, health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, workmen’s comp and others.

The bill classifies independent contractors as workers who are completely free of company control, doing work that isn’t a central part of the company’s business and has an independent business in that same industry. Wrestlers simply don’t meet those standards. This would mean that if talent from these companies perform on shows in California, they would then be considered employees. The bill still has to pass the state Senate and be signed into law. It also could lead to similar bills introduced in other states.

Of course like it states this has not been signed into law yet but if it does wrestling is about to look a whole lot different atleast from the business end of things.

[No Longer a Produceman]

Then we can kiss WWE shows in California goodbye. Not a big loss, admittedly.

[The 1Watcher Experience]

It’s about time.

[jason1980s]

May 31, 2019 16:34:22 GMT -5 No Longer a Produceman said:

Then we can kiss WWE shows in California goodbye. Not a big loss, admittedly.

I'm sure WWF will trot out an actor to play a California Assembly member and show their pettiness just like when the basketball team owner cancelled a Raw on them.

[Fade]

May 31, 2019 16:34:22 GMT -5 No Longer a Produceman said:

Then we can kiss WWE shows in California goodbye. Not a big loss, admittedly.

Californian here who’s never been to a WWE show. Can confirm. No big loss.

[Captain Stud Muffin (BLM)]

Well some people won't be running out of Cali

[Alice Syndrome]

PWG is about to get some VERY specific rewording in their release forms.

[ASYLUMHAUSEN]

May 31, 2019 17:04:42 GMT -5 jason1980s said:

May 31, 2019 16:34:22 GMT -5 No Longer a Produceman said:

Then we can kiss WWE shows in California goodbye. Not a big loss, admittedly.

I'm sure WWF will trot out an actor to play a California Assembly member and show their pettiness just like when the basketball team owner cancelled a Raw on them.

“YOU KNOW IT, PAL!”

[Mayonnaise]

So how will this affect the indie scene? WWE has enough to fight this or find a way around it, at least at the start, but the rest?

[KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!!]

It’s looking less and less likely that SummerSlam will ever return to the Staples Center.

[Pushed to the Moon]

Can someone explain the implications of this as far as wrestling goes? Assume for arguments sake that I'm a huge idiot. *cough*

[Mozenrath]

Jun 1, 2019 7:36:02 GMT -5 Pushed to the Moon said:

Can someone explain the implications of this as far as wrestling goes? Assume for arguments sake that I'm a huge idiot. *cough*

In a nutshell, WWE would need to either provide more benefits to their workers and dub them employees, or relinquish quite a bit of control over them, rendering them true independent contractors and not just employees who they exert enormous pressure over but refuse to dub employees so as to not have to treat them better.

[Pushed to the Moon]

Jun 1, 2019 7:40:33 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

Jun 1, 2019 7:36:02 GMT -5 Pushed to the Moon said:

Can someone explain the implications of this as far as wrestling goes? Assume for arguments sake that I'm a huge idiot. *cough*

In a nutshell, WWE would need to either provide more benefits to their workers and dub them employees, or relinquish quite a bit of control over them, rendering them true independent contractors and not just employees who they exert enormous pressure over but refuse to dub employees so as to not have to treat them better.

How does that work as far as it being a California law? That they can go there and do whatever they want without needing WWE's permission?

[Mozenrath]

Jun 1, 2019 7:46:27 GMT -5 Pushed to the Moon said:

Jun 1, 2019 7:40:33 GMT -5 Mozenrath said:

In a nutshell, WWE would need to either provide more benefits to their workers and dub them employees, or relinquish quite a bit of control over them, rendering them true independent contractors and not just employees who they exert enormous pressure over but refuse to dub employees so as to not have to treat them better.

How does that work as far as it being a California law? That they can go there and do whatever they want without needing WWE's permission?

I think the impact would be that, in order to perform in California, a promoter would need to be abiding by the law. So, a wrestler couldn't just perform for California companies without WWE's permission by virtue of going there, but WWE would not be able to put on shows in California until they were abiding by the laws if it gets passed. WWE would fight it, probably, but that seems to be what the impact would be, WWE being cut off from one of the biggest states to put on shows in, or them having to change how they treat their workers.

[Deleted]

I doubt that anything really changes honestly. The WWE has been skirting this issue for years and them being so big they’ll probably just make some “creative” donations and they’ll find a way around it.

As usual I could see it affecting smaller scale things as mentioned in the article(Uber drivers/strippers/smaller wrestling companies) and not where it actually needs to be enforced.

[Feyrhausen]

Probably just get some national law passed that overrides the state law. When some towns in Louisiana tried to pass higher minimum wage laws the state passed a law to take away that authority from them.

[HMARK Center]

Jun 1, 2019 7:55:37 GMT -5 @kingakeemog said:

I doubt that anything really changes honestly. The WWE has been skirting this issue for years and them being so big they’ll probably just make some “creative” donations and they’ll find a way around it.

As usual I could see it affecting smaller scale things as mentioned in the article(Uber drivers/strippers/smaller wrestling companies) and not where it actually needs to be enforced.

Honestly, Uber and Lyft drivers/strippers/etc. are the people this actually needs to be enforced for, given how commonly their labor is exploited.

As for the indies, where this'll be tough is that the law seems to be focusing on actual contractors, e.g. things like construction companies that get hired for a job by a larger corporate entity (hence the line "doing work that isn’t a central part of the company’s business and has an independent business in that same industry"). This likely means the bill wasn't made with something like independent wrestling in mind, but so long as the California indies can demonstrate that wrestlers aren't tied down to a single promotion in an employee-like arrangement and are actually free to take their labor elsewhere, I think they'll end up being alright. Might be a few bumps in the road until that gets smoothed over, can't say for certain.

What I will say for certain: should this go into effect then don't count on a national law overriding it, for a whole slew of reasons.

[Prince Petty]

For indie wrestlers, I imagine some form of temporary employment contracts could be written up, to avoid breaking the "work that is not central to the company's business" clause of this law. It shouldn't be too complicated, as long as they have proper lawyers drawing them up.

The WWE? Kind of screwed, unless they try to get people to sign such contracts for each California show they do. But I would hope the California stage legislature is wise to that sort of BS.

[corndog]

The indies wouldn't have much to worry about as most of those benefits don't apply to part time workers(but that is in Indiana, not California) and they usually aren't under contract.