|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jul 1, 2007 19:44:50 GMT -5
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 In a truly democratic trade union. where everyone has a equal amount of power how would one persons push or even a small minority "clique" automatically have the support of the union as a whole? In all actuality such a system would circumvent one group from gaining too much power. As far as voting on who would get a push, that's just silly. There would always be people whose job it is to organize the work, and unless an angle came up that totally pissed off more than half of the union workers (hey, now that I think about it do you think Eddie's death would have been a storyline if such a union existed?) then there wouldn't be "industrial action" or even a threat of one.
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Jul 1, 2007 20:36:08 GMT -5
I agree that union might not be the best thing right now cause of cliq reasons and such. But thing is If it's regulated by 3rd party and one of em goes and complains about what's going on, Vince is just gonna fire em like he did Roddy Piper.
|
|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jul 1, 2007 20:40:08 GMT -5
I agree that union might not be the best thing right now cause of cliq reasons and such. But thing is If it's regulated by 3rd party and one of em goes and complains about what's going on, Vince is just gonna fire em like he did Roddy Piper. I'm not getting how a democratic union is going to be dominated by a clique; when by definition the workers would have equal power to one another? Like I said earlier, if anything this would circumvent clique situations and power grabs, because power would be shared equally. On another point if it is a third party that oversees the industry and not the workers themselves; it would by definition be outside the influence and control of Mcmahon, so how can he fire them?
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Jul 1, 2007 20:47:52 GMT -5
Well my solution this. Vince says that his wrestlers are independent contractors and that's how he gets around treating them like normal employees. We all know that's a bunch of crap. They should force him to treat them like independent contractors are actually treated. Vince wants it both ways he wants them to be loyal to his company like employees but he don't wanna be responsible for them like independent contractors. I say they make him pick one or the other.
Thing with union is youll have wrestlers have all the power and thats like the inmates running the asylum. You do need someone up top controlling who does what or else you'll have bunch of guys who don't know what to do. That's why you have bookers. You can't have the wrestlers putting together shows which is what would happen if there were union.
|
|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jul 1, 2007 21:01:16 GMT -5
Well my solution this. Vince says that his wrestlers are independent contractors and that's how he gets around treating them like normal employees. We all know that's a bunch of crap. They should force him to treat them like independent contractors are actually treated. Vince wants it both ways he wants them to be loyal to his company like employees but he don't wanna be responsible for them like independent contractors. I say they make him pick one or the other. Thing with union is youll have wrestlers have all the power and thats like the inmates running the asylum. You do need someone up top controlling who does what or else you'll have bunch of guys who don't know what to do. That's why you have bookers. You can't have the wrestlers putting together shows which is what would happen if there were union. No thats NOT what will happen. Does the MLB, NFL, NBA etc unions make it wear the athletes coach themselves? Does the screen actors guild make it where the actors and writers direct themselves? No they do not. Like I said, there will always be people whose job it is to organize the work, and a booker and promoter would fit in that role. Only if an angle or push or whatever were detrimental or against the wishes of a voting majority of the workers than it wouldn't even be challenged.
|
|
|
Post by Hypnotix on Jul 1, 2007 21:15:36 GMT -5
Did we find exactly what Sherri Martel died of yet?
|
|
HoagieWithPastrami
Dennis Stamp
Enroll now in the Ben Roethlisberger motorcycle safety course!!!
Posts: 3,665
|
Post by HoagieWithPastrami on Jul 1, 2007 21:23:16 GMT -5
Unions are not good ideas. Once you put the 'power' in to the hands of the wrestlers then there could be all sorts of problems caused. What if the wrestlers went on strike over pay or performance would you still support unions? You can't limit a union, once it's formed and has majority support wrestlers could act/strike on trivial issues. What needs to happen is a third party organisation, outside of the WWE and any government, to come in and do proper drugs test more often than happens now. As most of the deaths seem to be linked to drug abuse (eg. recreational drugs) or suicide after they leave the company, the WWE can help by offering psychological help while the wrestlers are employed, by promoting to talent investment ideas and working in some paid non-performance time (like annual holidays in a normal job). I can't see why everyone wants to blame WWE for wrestlers young deaths when they are dying, on the whole, outside of the company and of drug related issues beside steroids. I STRONGLY disagree with your views on labor unions. Since the unions have lost their power in the American workplace, the middle-class has begun to basically be erased. No third parties, let the head of a wrestlers union work things out with someone from the WWE or whoever when issues arise. But like someone said, don't let the union have power over doing jobs and storylines and things like that. Just healthcare, raises, and pensions... stuff like that. Don't be silly here, it's not 100% the WWE's fault I agree. But the wrestler's choices seem to be: A. Do what it takes to stay huge and stay ready to wrestle over 200 times per year. or B. Don't work in the wrestling business. Guys in the wrestling profession are TOTALLY being taken advantage of because of their lack of power at the bargaining table. If all of the ballplayers can unionize, so should the wrestlers!
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Jul 1, 2007 21:27:13 GMT -5
Screen actors got nothing do with wrestling.
Sports are better example but the coaches aren't one of the high brass they are more like players than they are front office.
Backstage politics is major problem in wrestling and that's for any wrestlers having power at all. Like has been said any time active wrestlers given control over what happens in the ring is formula for disaster.
|
|
HoagieWithPastrami
Dennis Stamp
Enroll now in the Ben Roethlisberger motorcycle safety course!!!
Posts: 3,665
|
Post by HoagieWithPastrami on Jul 1, 2007 21:30:17 GMT -5
Well my solution this. Vince says that his wrestlers are independent contractors and that's how he gets around treating them like normal employees. We all know that's a bunch of crap. They should force him to treat them like independent contractors are actually treated. Vince wants it both ways he wants them to be loyal to his company like employees but he don't wanna be responsible for them like independent contractors. I say they make him pick one or the other. Thing with union is youll have wrestlers have all the power and thats like the inmates running the asylum. You do need someone up top controlling who does what or else you'll have bunch of guys who don't know what to do. That's why you have bookers. You can't have the wrestlers putting together shows which is what would happen if there were union. No thats NOT what will happen. Does the MLB, NFL, NBA etc unions make it wear the athletes coach themselves? Does the screen actors guild make it where the actors and writers direct themselves? No they do not. Like I said, there will always be people whose job it is to organize the work, and a booker and promoter would fit in that role. Only if an angle or push or whatever were detrimental or against the wishes of a voting majority of the workers than it wouldn't even be challenged. I'm with you 100% on this. The problem, as I previously mentioned, is that these guys are powerless when it comes to negotiating with the WWE, TNA or whoever. A union gives you bargaining power. Did the Teamsters (truckers union) run the trucking industry and tell the companies exactly how to do business? Did the steelworkers union get to tell the big steel companies how to make steel? Of course not! Their main concerns were that the workers couldn't be pushed around, taken advantage of, or used by their employers. A wrestlers union could serve the same purpose. Making sure the guys get paid fairly. Making sure that if you get hurt, you're taken care of, and not pressured into coming back way too soon and getting yourself hurt worse (which leads to drug dependency issues). Making sure that the guys are taken care of when they retire. There is NOBODY to do that for the wrestlers right now.
|
|
HoagieWithPastrami
Dennis Stamp
Enroll now in the Ben Roethlisberger motorcycle safety course!!!
Posts: 3,665
|
Post by HoagieWithPastrami on Jul 1, 2007 21:34:37 GMT -5
Screen actors got nothing do with wrestling. Sports are better example but the coaches aren't one of the high brass they are more like players than they are front office. Backstage politics is major problem in wrestling and that's for any wrestlers having power at all. Like has been said any time active wrestlers given control over what happens in the ring is formula for disaster. I disagree. A strong parallel could be drawn between the screen actors guild and a possible wrestlers union. Does the screen actors guild force studios into making less popular actors into leading men or women? NO. And don't tell me that there's no politics in Hollywood. The wrestling equivalent of an actor moving from small roles to a leading man/woman type role is a wrestler being pushed from a midcarder to a main eventer. If the screen actors guild doesn't force studios to make lesser-known actors into leading men, a wrestlers union would NOT force Vince to turn jobbers and mid-carders into main eventers. That is NOT what unions do. It would not give them control over in-ring product. It would give them control over pay, benefits, and pensions.
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Jul 1, 2007 21:42:50 GMT -5
If union would give control over only that I'd be for it, but why hasn't there been a union yet? I'd like to see it but problem is wrestlers can't come together. You can't force congress to tell wrestlers to form union. Wrestlers gotta do it themselves and so many of em hate each other and you'd have to have talent from other companies it might be impossible. That's why I say treat em like independent contractors or employees one or the other or none at all. Let wrestlers decide for themselves individually what they wanna do.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 1, 2007 22:10:05 GMT -5
If union would give control over only that I'd be for it, but why hasn't there been a union yet? I'd like to see it but problem is wrestlers can't come together. You can't force congress to tell wrestlers to form union. Wrestlers gotta do it themselves and so many of em hate each other and you'd have to have talent from other companies it might be impossible. That's why I say treat em like independent contractors or employees one or the other or none at all. Let wrestlers decide for themselves individually what they wanna do. As I said before, the last major attempt at forming a union was done by Jesse Ventura back in the 80's, but top guys like Hogan felt threatened by it, told Vince about it, and Vince took steps to effectively squash the idea through things like fear of firings and whatnot.
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Jul 1, 2007 22:13:32 GMT -5
I know that. That's why I say it won't work cause half wrestlers will hate it and half of em won't. Maybe down the line they can form it but only after regulations put on business by someone else.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 2, 2007 5:40:06 GMT -5
No thats NOT what will happen. Does the MLB, NFL, NBA etc unions make it wear the athletes coach themselves? Does the screen actors guild make it where the actors and writers direct themselves? No they do not. Like I said, there will always be people whose job it is to organize the work, and a booker and promoter would fit in that role. Only if an angle or push or whatever were detrimental or against the wishes of a voting majority of the workers than it wouldn't even be challenged. I'm with you 100% on this. The problem, as I previously mentioned, is that these guys are powerless when it comes to negotiating with the WWE, TNA or whoever. A union gives you bargaining power. Did the Teamsters (truckers union) run the trucking industry and tell the companies exactly how to do business? Did the steelworkers union get to tell the big steel companies how to make steel? Of course not! Their main concerns were that the workers couldn't be pushed around, taken advantage of, or used by their employers. A wrestlers union could serve the same purpose. Making sure the guys get paid fairly. Making sure that if you get hurt, you're taken care of, and not pressured into coming back way too soon and getting yourself hurt worse (which leads to drug dependency issues). Making sure that the guys are taken care of when they retire. There is NOBODY to do that for the wrestlers right now. Except that who judges who gets paid fairly? WWE wrestlers generally don't complain about pay, even when they leave you dont tend to see payments as one of the complaints they have. As far as getting hurt goes, seems to me that WWE sends you home, looks after you, heck Vince even paid for rehab for guys like Regal who were not even working for him at the time. And this stuff about taking care of you when you retire, sorry, but if you were not sensible enough to take of yourself through investing or saving, then surely that is your own fault? Do you really want to generate a culture of 'oh well, the union will take care of me, so i'll spend everything now?' Plus don't tell me organisations like the Steel union and, i cant believe you mentioned the teamsters as they are almost synonomous with it, but can you really say these organisations are not riddled with corruption? Someone has already pointed out Ventura's attempts at creating a union - do you think he was doing that to be benevolent or altruistic? No, he simply knew his star was well and truly fading and wanted to find another way to get some stroke and power. A Union in wrestling is not the best way forward. Simple common sense initiatives like the ones i have suggested which include: Financial advice while making money to help prepare you for a time when you may not be making it so often; Third party medical testing on a much more regular basis; Enforced psychological profiling and councilling; 4-6 weeks paid holiday annually where you can miss house shows but if a top level performer or champion you may be needed on tv but may not wrestle except say at a ppv. This is written into contracts thus presenting clear legal terms that do not require federal involvement unless broken or the need for unions. Obviously outside of WWE and even TNA who i would assume would follow suit, this is harder to police, but even then a union would still not be a good idea as small indie feds would never be able to survive industrial action over any matter, yet alone any over real issues. As i have said before, a union may start off with great goals and aims and pure intentions. Once they see they have power and can beat promoters on decisions it wouldnt be long before those ideals changed because wrestlers are (despite the apparent belief that they are somewhat 'heroic') human and utterly corruptable.
|
|
ACG2x
Unicron
Posts: 3,139
|
Post by ACG2x on Jul 2, 2007 7:45:10 GMT -5
Not to go on a political rant, but I normally loathe government intervention in private business. I've always been of the belief that the government, while necessary, needs to govern as little as possible. That which governs least, governs best.
That being said, I was happy when government intervened in MLB because it was painfully obvious baseball wasn't doing enough to police steroids within it's ranks. And it was only after the government held the hearings and threatened to possible take away it's governmental priviledges that the game changed it's ways.
The same is true for wrestling. It has become incredibly obvious that wrestling management (aka the McMahon family) is not going to alter the way they do business with guys being on the road 250+ days/year and having to take a laundry list of drugs in order to keep working because it's pay per appearance.
In fact, I don't even detect a willingness to discuss possible change from Vince's side. He seems very content with how things are going right now, which makes sense because business, while not booming, is good. Very good. Don't make a mistake and think WWE is struggling or losing money.
You see what Capitol Hill's involvement did with MLB. The steroid policy went from a first offense to be "counseling" with no suspension to a 50 game suspension. A third offense is now a lifetime ban.
Even if the government doesn't actually intervene and mandate WWE do something about it, it's still making the public more aware of the situation. And if anything it could do for wrestlers what it did for MLB players, scare management into making better policy.
For someone (me) who hates government intervention in any private business, I find it to be a necessary evil here.
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 2, 2007 7:49:39 GMT -5
Not to go on a political rant, but I normally loathe government intervention in private business. I've always been of the belief that the government, while necessary, needs to govern as little as possible. That which governs least, governs best. That being said, I was happy when government intervened in MLB because it was painfully obvious baseball wasn't doing enough to police steroids within it's ranks. And it was only after the government held the hearings and threatened to possible take away it's governmental priviledges that the game changed it's ways. The same is true for wrestling. It has become incredibly obvious that wrestling management (aka the McMahon family) is not going to alter the way they do business with guys being on the road 250+ days/year and having to take a laundry list of drugs in order to keep working because it's pay per appearance. In fact, I don't even detect a willingness to discuss possible change from Vince's side. He seems very content with how things are going right now, which makes sense because business, while not booming, is good. Very good. Don't make a mistake and think WWE is struggling or losing money. You see what Capitol Hill's involvement did with MLB. The steroid policy went from a first offense to be "counseling" with no suspension to a 50 game suspension. A third offense is now a lifetime ban. Even if the government doesn't actually intervene and mandate WWE do something about it, it's still making the public more aware of the situation. And if anything it could do for wrestlers what it did for MLB players, scare management into making better policy. For someone (me) who hates government intervention in any private business, I find it to be a necessary evil here. Well, I argued earlier that such a public hearing would put pressure on VKM and other promoters, and plus... Imagine Congressmen asking Chris Masters and Rany Orton about the ole syringe. That enough will make VKM do some changes (hopefully for the better) without Congress having to pass any bill or the President doing anything (which Bush wouldn't anyway, considering he and VKM are fellow Yankees.)
|
|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jul 2, 2007 9:27:46 GMT -5
I'm with you 100% on this. The problem, as I previously mentioned, is that these guys are powerless when it comes to negotiating with the WWE, TNA or whoever. A union gives you bargaining power. Did the Teamsters (truckers union) run the trucking industry and tell the companies exactly how to do business? Did the steelworkers union get to tell the big steel companies how to make steel? Of course not! Their main concerns were that the workers couldn't be pushed around, taken advantage of, or used by their employers. A wrestlers union could serve the same purpose. Making sure the guys get paid fairly. Making sure that if you get hurt, you're taken care of, and not pressured into coming back way too soon and getting yourself hurt worse (which leads to drug dependency issues). Making sure that the guys are taken care of when they retire. There is NOBODY to do that for the wrestlers right now. Except that who judges who gets paid fairly? WWE wrestlers generally don't complain about pay, even when they leave you dont tend to see payments as one of the complaints they have. As far as getting hurt goes, seems to me that WWE sends you home, looks after you, heck Vince even paid for rehab for guys like Regal who were not even working for him at the time. And this stuff about taking care of you when you retire, sorry, but if you were not sensible enough to take of yourself through investing or saving, then surely that is your own fault? Do you really want to generate a culture of 'oh well, the union will take care of me, so i'll spend everything now?' Plus don't tell me organisations like the Steel union and, i cant believe you mentioned the teamsters as they are almost synonomous with it, but can you really say these organisations are not riddled with corruption? Someone has already pointed out Ventura's attempts at creating a union - do you think he was doing that to be benevolent or altruistic? No, he simply knew his star was well and truly fading and wanted to find another way to get some stroke and power. A Union in wrestling is not the best way forward. Simple common sense initiatives like the ones i have suggested which include: Financial advice while making money to help prepare you for a time when you may not be making it so often; Third party medical testing on a much more regular basis; Enforced psychological profiling and councilling; 4-6 weeks paid holiday annually where you can miss house shows but if a top level performer or champion you may be needed on tv but may not wrestle except say at a ppv. This is written into contracts thus presenting clear legal terms that do not require federal involvement unless broken or the need for unions. Obviously outside of WWE and even TNA who i would assume would follow suit, this is harder to police, but even then a union would still not be a good idea as small indie feds would never be able to survive industrial action over any matter, yet alone any over real issues. As i have said before, a union may start off with great goals and aims and pure intentions. Once they see they have power and can beat promoters on decisions it wouldnt be long before those ideals changed because wrestlers are (despite the apparent belief that they are somewhat 'heroic') human and utterly corruptable. Even if you file wrestling under "sport" or "entertainment" almost all the workers in these areas, outside of pro wrestling, is organized in some way. And while top/down trade unions are corruptable, like any other structure based on heiarchy and coercive authority; a democratic union that balanced power between all it's members would actually circumvent power grabs and small groups acting in a special interest. The fact is, workers realize that in order to make a living the industry the work in needs to survive and even thrive, and they are not going to take action to kill the way they make their living. Anti union people always talk about possible union corruption, all the while ignoring the corruption that come from the owners, administrators and investment classes. If possible corruption were a reason to stop any organizing, you would agree with me that any power structure arranged where any small group can have coercive authority over a larger group is ripe for corruption and that power should be dissolved. We're never going to agree on this because you are 100% anti union, and while I do have issue with top/down authoritarian unions that breed corruption and special interests I believe the working classes should be organized democratically. I think we can both agree, however, something needs to be done; and we just cannot depend on the promoters and owners of these companies to do it themselves.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 2, 2007 9:49:27 GMT -5
Absolutely, things need to change, i just dont think a Union is the way forward. Some simple contractual changes as i outlined is, i believe, all that's needed.
However, in between stock holder meetings, network meetings and meetings with any kind of union - I could see Vince jacking it in and retiring himself alot earlier than i bet he ever planned to!
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 2, 2007 9:50:58 GMT -5
Absolutely, things need to change, i just dont think a Union is the way forward. Some simple contractual changes as i outlined is, i believe, all that's needed. However, in between stock holder meetings, network meetings and meetings with any kind of union - I could see Vince jacking it in and retiring himself alot earlier than i bet he ever planned to! I don't. If anything, I see him having the Hitler Complex. That is, if he is going down for the count in defeat....the WWE goes with him.
|
|
|
Post by tommyvercetti on Jul 2, 2007 9:54:04 GMT -5
Absolutely, things need to change, i just dont think a Union is the way forward. Some simple contractual changes as i outlined is, i believe, all that's needed. However, in between stock holder meetings, network meetings and meetings with any kind of union - I could see Vince jacking it in and retiring himself alot earlier than i bet he ever planned to! I don't. If anything, I see him having the Hitler Complex. That is, if he is going down for the count in defeat....the WWE goes with him. He could bring back the NWO to try and destroy it again.
|
|