|
Post by Super Nimieboo on Jul 1, 2007 9:40:13 GMT -5
Introducing a union system in indie feds. would kill that system. There is no way that an indie promoter would be able to back down ever, to any demand from a union. Actually in states like Missouri that still regulate pro wrestling with pro boxing, wrestlers have to be licensed individually, even the time keeper needs a license, and the fed has to put up a purse and be licensed. A union would work well in those states. Indy promoters have a lot of power to book as they wish in the USA, a union would barely slow some of them down. The important thing would be that the workers would have legal protections and the promoters would have to treat them equally. Lots of workers wrestle for nothing as it is--they know what the business is like, and they are often part-time wrestlers. That's all you can do. In OK I know women have to have mandatory pregnancy screenings 7 days before stepping into the ring. Out of their own pockets. I don't think a Union would destroy the indys for the reasons nisi stated above, let's hear legions' opinion on why they would.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 1, 2007 9:41:05 GMT -5
Introducing a union system in indie feds. would kill that system. There is no way that an indie promoter would be able to back down ever, to any demand from a union. Actually in states like Missouri that still regulate pro wrestling with pro boxing, wrestlers have to be licensed individually, even the time keeper needs a license, and the fed has to put up a purse and be licensed. A union would work well in those states. Indy promoters have a lot of power to book as they wish in the USA, a union would barely slow some of them down. The important thing would be that the workers would have legal protections and the promoters would have to treat them equally. Lots of workers wrestle for nothing as it is--they know what the business is like, and they are often part-time wrestlers. What i'm saying here though is what if an indie booker and a union fell out, the wrestlers striked, refused to work a show, say they do this regularly, the fed. gets a reputation for it, crowds dont buy tickets in case the show is cancelled, booker has to refund anyone that does, before long the cash will run out or the booker has to step down giving a precident that would lead to threats of strikes etc. whenever the union disagrees with anything (yeah, it might start out to deal with pay and conditions but before long it would become about pushes, even more pay etc.) and that would kill off many small scale feds.
|
|
|
Post by Super Nimieboo on Jul 1, 2007 9:43:14 GMT -5
Legion, I think the main disagreement here concerns rights to work. Not "don't like it, don't do it," but that people have actual rights and legitimate expectations from their employers, and a safe and sane working schedule is about one of the most important. Chris Benoit was flying home to be with his son for FOUR HOURS between matches--that's not to defend what he did, but clearly a sign of how crazy the work schedule is. It is a crazy work schedule, but then he knew that when he started working. He knew that when he started a family. His wife certainly knew that when she married him having been in the business herself. I haven't said that wrestling should stay as it is, im simply saying that a union isnt the way forward, what is, in my humble opinion, is what i outlined a few posts back. Those ideas include psychological provisions, financial advice and paid time off annually. Companies don't even have to follow that if there's no one to enforce it.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 1, 2007 9:47:20 GMT -5
It is a crazy work schedule, but then he knew that when he started working. He knew that when he started a family. His wife certainly knew that when she married him having been in the business herself. I haven't said that wrestling should stay as it is, im simply saying that a union isnt the way forward, what is, in my humble opinion, is what i outlined a few posts back. Those ideas include psychological provisions, financial advice and paid time off annually. Companies don't even have to follow that if there's no one to enforce it. Yeah, but i was talking about the WWE there who would have to follow it because i did say it was third party regulated (at least as far as the medical issues). Indies are something very different and i have to say i dont really know enough about the indie system to offer much of a suggestion of what they could do, but then, in any job, you generally have to start off with the poor conditions and the harder work before you get to the higher levels.
|
|
|
Post by EmptyEYE DUNNOOOOOOOOO on Jul 1, 2007 11:28:13 GMT -5
Just a quick note on stuff said a few pages back.
"Because that's the way it's always been" is an AWFUL reason to leave ANYTHING in place, be it a hard work schedule, silly post-musical ritual, or anything else.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 1, 2007 16:02:30 GMT -5
For the record, the whole "they know what they're getting into" argument is NOT a very good one, considering that WWE has a work schedule like no other wrestling company in the entire world.
Nobody else has their employees travel internationally and work 200+ dates a year. It just doesn't exist outside of McMahon-Land.
As for "why not just walk out", that's never a very attractive option, considering it means throwing your livliehood away and having to go through the arduous process of finding a new occupation, considering how, if you walk out on a company like WWE, you could find yourself TOTALLY blackballed.
Really, read up on US history during the late 19th century; the dire need for organized labor of some sort (even if not full-on unions) is a constant when you're trying to use a fair capitalistic system that gives ample oppurtunities to both employer and employee.
History bears out that taking ALL personal responsibility off an employer is a sure-fire way to hurt just about every party involved...except the employer.
|
|
|
Post by Super Nimieboo on Jul 1, 2007 16:08:47 GMT -5
Just a quick note on stuff said a few pages back. "Because that's the way it's always been" is an AWFUL reason to leave ANYTHING in place, be it a hard work schedule, silly post-musical ritual, or anything else. For the record, the whole "they know what they're getting into" argument is NOT a very good one, considering that WWE has a work schedule like no other wrestling company in the entire world. Nobody else has their employees travel internationally and work 200+ dates a year. It just doesn't exist outside of McMahon-Land. As for "why not just walk out", that's never a very attractive option, considering it means throwing your livliehood away and having to go through the arduous process of finding a new occupation, considering how, if you walk out on a company like WWE, you could find yourself TOTALLY blackballed. Really, read up on US history during the late 19th century; the dire need for organized labor of some sort (even if not full-on unions) is a constant when you're trying to use a fair capitalistic system that gives ample oppurtunities to both employer and employee. History bears out that taking ALL personal responsibility off an employer is a sure-fire way to hurt just about every party involved...except the employer. *golf clap* You guys are smart. That's better than I could have ever said it.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 1, 2007 16:29:32 GMT -5
For the record, the whole "they know what they're getting into" argument is NOT a very good one, considering that WWE has a work schedule like no other wrestling company in the entire world. Nobody else has their employees travel internationally and work 200+ dates a year. It just doesn't exist outside of McMahon-Land. As for "why not just walk out", that's never a very attractive option, considering it means throwing your livliehood away and having to go through the arduous process of finding a new occupation, considering how, if you walk out on a company like WWE, you could find yourself TOTALLY blackballed. Really, read up on US history during the late 19th century; the dire need for organized labor of some sort (even if not full-on unions) is a constant when you're trying to use a fair capitalistic system that gives ample oppurtunities to both employer and employee. History bears out that taking ALL personal responsibility off an employer is a sure-fire way to hurt just about every party involved...except the employer. Yeah, sounds good, except that if you are getting a job with WWE you do know what you are getting in to because having a 200+ day work schedule is the way the WWE has opperated for a long time. Therefore, and im not saying its neccessarily right to work that way, but none the less they do know what they are getting into. As for walking out, the scenerio where i suggested that was one involving indies, or in this exact case a female japanese worker. It was he choice whether to work that night, if she had a doctors note saying do not work then she could have not done so and if she had faced reprecussions from her employer taken them to court (although i have no idea how the japanese system works, in american law im pretty certain you would have a damn good lawsuit there). As for asking us to look at 19th Century Unionism, that's all well and good, but compare that unionism to the sort that can be found today and you find that, depsite a positive beginning and wonderful ideals, what the Unions became where corrupt and power hungry. In an industy like professional wrestling, which is not a fair industry, a union could not work in the long term. There would be to much corruption attempts from either side (either from promoters looking to get roun something by pushing a union leader or a union leader demanding something and threatening industrial action if they didnt get it). The best solution, for perhaps the fourth time today, is a third party organisation to regulate wrestlers health (ie. to do the drug testing on a much more regualr basis), enforced psychological counciling to help wrestlers dealing with demons, 4-6 weeks off per year paid (unless you're upper level in which case you may be needed on tv appearence wise but can skip house shows) and firm financial advice to help wrestlers see they need to invest it while they are making it and not spend spend spend like there's no tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 1, 2007 19:07:48 GMT -5
But you're acting like all unions have gotten like that. Far from it. Some are corrupt, certainly, but I'd hardly say that the majority are trouble or anything. Hell, I'm about to join one (teachers), and God knows I'm giddy as all get out about my benefits, even if I do have to suffer through paying some union dues at the start.
Here's the problem with the "third party" idea: What privately owned company would possibly be willing to invest so much into professional wrestling, unless Vince foots the bill? Insurance companies already turn their noses up at pro wrestlers, so what company would take such a risk, considering the long history of phyiscal and emotional problems among wrestlers?
And, again, with the "they know what they're getting into" deal, my issue with that is that we even allow a labor system such as that to exist within the US. I'm not a full on socialist or anything, but given how dangerous and how faulty the WWE's system has proven in preserving the health of wrestlers, I would not have a problem with the government actively getting involved and saying "Not in OUR country".
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 1, 2007 19:14:55 GMT -5
But the teachers union is one of the worst, especially over here in the UK. I'm being forced to join one even though i dont want to. Yet if my union calls a strike, i get a day off, great. Or not, cos all the kids i teach that day lose out.
Even worse was when at uni, friends had to wait an extra amount of time to get results because the teachers decided to go on strike and wouldnt mark their exams. That isnt good. That just makes me hate them, not sympathise with them.
I'm not going to talk about politics, because im English and thus have no opinion on american politics, but is socialism really the answer here?
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Jul 1, 2007 19:18:07 GMT -5
"They know what they are getting into" is a terrible excuse.
Soldiers "know what they are getting into" when they join the army and go off to fight. Does that mean that their fighting conditions should be terrible? No, they should be as good as humanly possible.
Fact is, WWE needs to change. Vince doesn't need any more money, the WWE will make tons no matter what they do. If they cut back on the dates, they would make less money but would still be making a killing.
Vince does a lot of good but he also does a lot of bad. WWE has been exploiting it's workers for quite some time now.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 1, 2007 19:20:26 GMT -5
I would like to point out that i'm really not against WWE changing, just against the idea of unions.
I dont think anyone can really think that something doesnt need to change, but not the introduction of unions
|
|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jul 1, 2007 19:25:06 GMT -5
My politics encompass some of the anarcho syndicalist theory, so I've always been pro union, and that includes the wrestling industry.
I think the article was one of the better ones that I have read, and hopefully something will come out of it.
Of course, that has been said before...
|
|
|
Post by Drillbit Taylor on Jul 1, 2007 19:28:23 GMT -5
I would like to point out that i'm really not against WWE changing, just against the idea of unions. I dont think anyone can really think that something doesnt need to change, but not the introduction of unions Agree, Unions are not allways as good as they seem
|
|
Christianv2
Dennis Stamp
Wrestlecrapper since 2001
Posts: 4,279
|
Post by Christianv2 on Jul 1, 2007 19:32:58 GMT -5
Oy. Hopefully, this comes to nothing when the next big "distraction news" comes out. Anybody else rooting for Paris to do something to get this media focus off of wrestling?
|
|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jul 1, 2007 19:33:54 GMT -5
I would like to point out that i'm really not against WWE changing, just against the idea of unions. I dont think anyone can really think that something doesnt need to change, but not the introduction of unions Agree, Unions are not allways as good as they seem And those are the ones that are not democratic. That's why I believe in unions that A. give those in the industry being organized a democratic say in wether or not there will even be a union, and B. being directly controlled by it's membership. Top/down power structures in any context, be it government, business or a trade union are always going to serve the intrests of those making the decisions, but that's a symptom of heiarchy and coercive authority, nut unions in and of themselves.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 1, 2007 19:34:02 GMT -5
Oy. Hopefully, this comes to nothing when the next big "distraction news" comes out. Anybody else rooting for Paris to do something to get this media focus off of wrestling? Nah....how about Lohan? Lets see her be a brat on ANOTHER movie set.
|
|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jul 1, 2007 19:35:30 GMT -5
Agree, Unions are not allways as good as they seem And those are the ones that are not democratic. That's why I believe in unions that A. give those in the industry being organized a democratic say in wether or not there will even be a union, and B. being directly controlled by it's membership. Top/down power structures in any context, be it government, business or a trade union are always going to serve the intrests of those making the decisions, but that's a symptom of heiarchy and coercive authority, nut unions in and of themselves. Actually, my arguments have nothing to do with wrestling, so I'll STFU now.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Jul 1, 2007 19:38:17 GMT -5
Oy. Hopefully, this comes to nothing when the next big "distraction news" comes out. Anybody else rooting for Paris to do something to get this media focus off of wrestling? I wouldn't mind it.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 1, 2007 19:39:02 GMT -5
Agree, Unions are not allways as good as they seem And those are the ones that are not democratic. That's why I believe in unions that A. give those in the industry being organized a democratic say in wether or not there will even be a union, and B. being directly controlled by it's membership. Top/down power structures in any context, be it government, business or a trade union are always going to serve the intrests of those making the decisions, but that's a symptom of heiarchy and coercive authority, nut unions in and of themselves. But thats not going to work in wrestling. Would a promoter need to check with the union on who gets a push? Would that then needd to be voted on? All that would end with is a corrupt cliq system in wrestling..........pretty much like we have now, but with the added bonus that it can call for industrial action and vote in goodness knows who to 'run' the place
|
|