Raven files a lawsuit against the WWE

[TheFranchise 0]

Bob, you've got me all wrong.

 

I'm not arguing against better working conditions, if it were up to me, then yes, I'd give them what they needed to safeguard their health.

I was only putting my point over that if a man willingly agrees to sign a contract for somebody, then they should adhere to the rules they agreed to.

 

Workers know the situation, it's been well documented for many years among workers. But, and i've got nothing else to add to my point now, so i'll stop now, they know what they're getting into.

 

If they're good enough to work for the biggest promotion in America, then they're good enough to find work elsewhere in the country.

[Noah Fentz 0]

I'm a bit split on this topic.

 

First, they do indeed know what they are getting into, but does that include those under contract during the change in policy throughout the last 10 years in wrestling?

 

Now, many workers make only $30,000 to $60,000 a year. Not everyone makes $7,000 a week like HBK.

 

So, yes, I agree with Bob that while in the 30K to 60K range, they should definitely be given benefits! After all, that Pizza Hut manager down the street makes 35K a year with full benefits!

 

 

[dubq 0]

For some reason I have a vibe that the other two guys in this are Road Dogg and Billy Gunn.

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

I thought that the low level guarentee wwe contract was $70,000 (less of course if on a developmental contract, which is basically $35,000/year) before house show/ppv/merchandise take.

[geniusMoment 0]

I'm a bit split on this topic.

 

First, they do indeed know what they are getting into, but does that include those under contract during the change in policy throughout the last 10 years in wrestling?

 

Now, many workers make only $30,000 to $60,000 a year. Not everyone makes $7,000 a week like HBK.

 

So, yes, I agree with Bob that while in the 30K to 60K range, they should definitely be given benefits! After all, that Pizza Hut manager down the street makes 35K a year with full benefits!

 

 

HBK's downside has to be way way way more then 7,000 a week. That's only 364,000 a year. I bet he has a 7 figure downside guarantee. Hell, sting makes more then that in TNA.

[Lazarus 0]

But don't you think a company like WWE should provide better for its employees?

 

No one puts a gun to their heads and says, "BE A WRESTLER OR I WILL BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT FO YOUR FUCKING HEAD!!!"

 

It is their choice to do what they do and not do something else. Being a wrestler is a privilege, not a right. If they don't like the contracts then they shouldn't have chosen the profession, just as a future doctor shouldn't choose to be a doctor if he's gonna piss and moan about working 100+ hours a week for peanuts as a resident.

[Joseph2112 0]

I also think it has to do with taxes. I think each wrestler has to pay his/her own SS/medicare taxes as well. They are treated like as if you were building a house and you brought in a contractor to put in the wiring. My limited understanding is that if they are truly "independent contractors", then they cant have excusivity built into the contract. Therefor it just would make the whole way of doing business illegal.

 

Of course, all of this is pretty grey in my head and I have no sourcing or claim no real knowledge.

[bob_barron 0]

But don't you think a company like WWE should provide better for its employees?

 

No one puts a gun to their heads and says, "BE A WRESTLER OR I WILL BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT FO YOUR FUCKING HEAD!!!"

 

It is their choice to do what they do and not do something else. Being a wrestler is a privilege, not a right. If they don't like the contracts then they shouldn't have chosen the profession, just as a future doctor shouldn't choose to be a doctor if he's gonna piss and moan about working 100+ hours a week for peanuts as a resident.

 

This does nothing to address my point or argument, especially since WWE contracts might as well be illegal anyway

 

[Noah Fentz 0]

I'm a bit split on this topic.

 

First, they do indeed know what they are getting into, but does that include those under contract during the change in policy throughout the last 10 years in wrestling?

 

Now, many workers make only $30,000 to $60,000 a year. Not everyone makes $7,000 a week like HBK.

 

So, yes, I agree with Bob that while in the 30K to 60K range, they should definitely be given benefits! After all, that Pizza Hut manager down the street makes 35K a year with full benefits!

 

 

HBK's downside has to be way way way more then 7,000 a week. That's only 364,000 a year. I bet he has a 7 figure downside guarantee. Hell, sting makes more then that in TNA.

 

$7,000 per week is 100% accurate. I got that figure from a very credible source. I'll try to find it, if it needs substantiating.

 

This does nothing to address my point or argument, especially since WWE contracts might as well be illegal anyway

 

There is nothing illegal about their contracts. Major corporations sign contracts of exclusivity all the time. Look at AT&T and the iPhone.

 

Contract are, in the most simplistic terms, binding agreements between two parties. Nothing more, nothing less. Either side may draft conditions. Once signed, they enter a binding agreement.

 

Network personalities are often independent that sign contracts of exclusivity and may only appear on that network or its affiliates.

 

[Lazarus 0]

But don't you think a company like WWE should provide better for its employees?

 

No one puts a gun to their heads and says, "BE A WRESTLER OR I WILL BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT FO YOUR FUCKING HEAD!!!"

 

It is their choice to do what they do and not do something else. Being a wrestler is a privilege, not a right. If they don't like the contracts then they shouldn't have chosen the profession, just as a future doctor shouldn't choose to be a doctor if he's gonna piss and moan about working 100+ hours a week for peanuts as a resident.

 

This does nothing to address my point or argument, especially since WWE contracts might as well be illegal anyway

 

You asked if they "should" in what I quoted, not about the legality of their stance. As far as I am concerned, no, they should not because the wrestlers are adults who can make their own decisions and can do something else if they don't like what is being offered. That doesn't mean that they are not legally required to act differently, as my beliefs were only answering what I consider them to be morally required to do.

 

As for whether it is legal or not, that'd depend on whether according to American law the wrestlers can be seen as independent contractors at all. Given the circumstances of their employment, in Canada I don't think it would pass the tests required to allow for that sort of classification but I have no idea what the requirements are in the United States. As for the exclusivity clause, there is nothing inherently wrong with it in that many companies will make their independent contracts sign clauses that limit their work for other companies in the same industry.

[bob_barron 0]

$7,000 per week is 100% accurate. I got that figure from a very credible source. I'll try to find it, if it needs substantiating.

 

I kind of doubt that to, no offence, Noah Fentz. He has to make more than $364K on his downside.

 

There is nothing illegal about their contracts. Major corporations sign contracts of exclusivity all the time. Look at AT&T and the iPhone.

 

They're basically classified as freelance workers who are legally bind to WWE. They have to provide their own insurance and pay all their road expenses, except for airfare. That's messed up. Bix at prowrestlingonly said that Shane Douglas' lawyer told him it was malpractise to sign the contract.

 

As far as I am concerned, no, they should not because the wrestlers are adults who can make their own decisions and can do something else if they don't like what is being offered. That doesn't mean that they are not legally required to act differently, as my beliefs were only answering what I consider them to be morally required to do.

 

I disagree. WWE makes absurd profits every quarter, they could easily afford health insurance for the roster, and help cover expenses. In fact, the non-wrestlers get these perks. It's fucked up that the road agents get things covered, but the actual wrestlers do not.

[Noah Fentz 0]

$7,000 per week is 100% accurate. I got that figure from a very credible source. I'll try to find it, if it needs substantiating.

 

I kind of doubt that to, no offence, Noah Fentz. He has to make more than $364K on his downside.

 

The story I got was that the WWE was reducing all salaries and making cuts in the roster to reflect lower revenue.

 

Some of the guys in the locker room were upset that HBK was still making "7K per week".

 

I just can't remember the source, but I know it was reliable. I'll find it, if it's that important to you. It's just time I'd rather spend on finishing my Four Horsemen pinball.

[evilhomer 0]

As far as I am concerned, no, they should not because the wrestlers are adults who can make their own decisions and can do something else if they don't like what is being offered. That doesn't mean that they are not legally required to act differently, as my beliefs were only answering what I consider them to be morally required to do.

 

I disagree. WWE makes absurd profits every quarter, they could easily afford health insurance for the roster, and help cover expenses. In fact, the non-wrestlers get these perks. It's fucked up that the road agents get things covered, but the actual wrestlers do not.

Sure WWE could afford it, easily. It is totally fucked up that the greedy pigs take so much and don't fairly share it, without a doubt. But that's the way it is, that's the way it's always been, it's not a hidden fact that is sprung upon the wrestlers after signing the contract. It's all there to be seen, if they don't like it, McDonald's is hiring. Things will never change so long as there's a mile long line up of wrestlers willing to be screwed by Vince and Co.

[BUTT 0]

Meltzer reported a while back that HBK signed a new contract paying him $1.5 million per year.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Meltzer reported a while back that HBK signed a new contract paying him $1.5 million per year.

HBK's guaranteed deal from the Attitude Era, which expired in 2001, was for a downside of $750,00 per year. For him to be on a downside of $364,000 per year now would mean his pay dropped 50% from that level. No matter the amount of time between that deal and his current one, HBK isn't taking that kind of pay cut, nor would Vince ask him to. There's also the fact that the idea of someone like HBK working for s $364,000 downside is absolutely laughable. Even given the nature of the 'source' of this claim.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

The source was likely Wayne Ferris.

[Maztinho 0]

My friend put something to words something similar to this.

 

"I heard a rumor about such and such. I heard this rumor from me."

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

The source was likely Wayne Ferris.

I was referring to the 'promoter' in our midst.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

My answer was a joke in reference to the same.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Hmm... for some reason I'm gonna say Lashley will be apart of this.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

WWE basically wants to have all the control of having full employees without giving their workers the benefits that a full employee gets.

[Joseph2112 0]

I'm a bit split on this topic.

There is nothing illegal about their contracts. Major corporations sign contracts of exclusivity all the time. Look at AT&T and the iPhone.

 

Contract are, in the most simplistic terms, binding agreements between two parties. Nothing more, nothing less. Either side may draft conditions. Once signed, they enter a binding agreement.

 

Network personalities are often independent that sign contracts of exclusivity and may only appear on that network or its affiliates.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with thte phone comparison. If anyone knows any other situation close to what wrestlers have, i would like to hear it.

 

I have been doing some research and I think the WWE may be screwed on this one. I found this at

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary....dent+contractor

 

I would say the WWE fails on most of these counts.

 

The 20 factors serve only as a guideline. Each factor's degree of importance varies depending on the occupation and the facts involved in a particular case.

 

Twenty-factor TestA worker who is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how he or she must work is usually an employee.

If an employer trains a worker—requires an experienced employee to work with the worker, educates the worker through correspondence, requires the worker to attend meetings, or uses other methods—this normally indicates that the worker is an employee.

If a worker's services are integrated into business operations, this tends to show that the worker is subject to direction and control and is thus an employee. This is the case particularly when a business's success or continuation depends to a large extent on the performance of certain services.

If a worker's services must be rendered personally, there is a presumption that the employer is interested in the methods by which the services are accomplished as well as in the result, making the worker an employee.

If an employer hires, supervises, and pays assistants for a worker, this indicates control over the worker on the job, making the worker an employee.

A continuing relationship between a worker and an employer, even at irregular intervals, tends to show an employer-employee relationship.

An employer who sets specific hours of work for a worker exhibits control over the worker, indicating that the worker is an employee.

If a worker is working substantially full-time for an employer, the worker is presumably not free to do work for other employers and is therefore an employee.

Work performed on an employer's premises suggests the employer's control over a worker, making the worker an employee. This is especially true when work could be done elsewhere. However, the mere fact that work is done off the employer's premises does not necessarily make the worker an independent contractor. 10. If a worker is required to perform services in an order or sequence set by an employer, the employer has control over the worker that demonstrates an employer-employee relationship.

A worker who is required to submit regular oral or written reports to an employer is likely an employee.

Payment by the hour, week, or month tends to indicate that a worker is an employee; payment made by the job or on a straight commission points to an independent contractor.

A worker is ordinarily an employee if an employer pays for the worker's business or travel expenses.

An employer who furnishes a worker with significant tools, materials, or other equipment tends to show that the worker is an employee.

A worker who significantly invests in facilities used to perform services and not typically maintained by employees (such as office space) is generally an independent contractor.

A worker who can realize a profit or loss resulting from his or her services is generally an independent contractor.

A worker who performs for more than one firm at a time is generally an independent contractor.

If a worker makes his or her services available to the general public on a regular and consistent basis, that worker is generally an independent contractor.

An employer's right to discharge a worker tends to show that the worker is an employee. An employee must obey an employer's instructions in order to stay employed; an independent contractor can be fired only if the work result fails to meet the agreed-upon specifications.

If a worker has the right to terminate his or her relationship with an employer at any time without incurring liability, such as breach of contract, that worker is likely an employee.

 

[JPopStarKami 0]

If a worker has the right to terminate his or her relationship with an employer at any time without incurring liability, such as breach of contract, that worker is likely an employee.

 

That's the only one I can see that might be an issue. Generally the wrestlers have to ask for their release and it's up to WWE whether they grant it or not.

 

Does Raven have an e-mail address? Someone should send him that list. Though if he went ahead and filed suit already, he likely did his research and already has knowledge akin to this on the other hand.

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

The wwe contract is probably structured in such a way they meet the criteria of an independent contractor. Raven will probably argue that despite that fact, in reality wrestlers are treated as employees.

 

For one I believe wrestler contracts are up for renewal every ninety days - this is probably solely for the purposes of keeping the image wrestlers are independent contractors. The road dress code and other "rules" are probably classified as "suggestions to independent contractors"...

 

 

[Noah Fentz 0]

I'm a bit split on this topic.

There is nothing illegal about their contracts. Major corporations sign contracts of exclusivity all the time. Look at AT&T and the iPhone.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with thte phone comparison. If anyone knows any other situation close to what wrestlers have, i would like to hear it.

 

It was an example of exclusivity, please pay closer attention.

 

I believe a particular federal office would have jumped on the WWE long before Raven, if there was a question as to whether the performers of the WWE were independent contractors or not. That, of course, would be the IRS. Since billions of dollars have been generated without the IRS questioning the validity of the "independent contractor" status of its workers, I don't think there's any argument here.

 

The IRS stands to generate more revenue from an employer-employee relationship than from that of an independent contractor relationship.

[Hawkius Maximus 0]

Under the limited knowledge I have of employee versus independent contractor, there is no way WWE fits that bill.

 

Indy wrestling, even ROH, yes, but not in WWE.

 

IC's are told the job, when to do it, and so on but are 100% up to their own decision as for how to do it, or when to look for work. It's their decision to work. If they don't wish to, they don't have to. and they have autonomy on HOW to handle the work. An indy wrestler can build their match anyway they want.

 

In WWE, not only are you told what the job is, you are told to extreme lengths how to do it. How to build your match. What spots. What to say in a promo down to every little detail. Very few people in WWE have *ANY* say over the work they do at all. And if you try to not work, one of the primary benefits of an IC? Yeah, that doesn't fly at all.

 

They are employees masquerading as Independent Contractors. There is nothing independent about their work at all. Your average indy worker is. WWE and most likely TNA aren't anywhere close to it.

[Noah Fentz 0]

Under the limited knowledge I have of employee versus independent contractor, there is no way WWE fits that bill.

 

Indy wrestling, even ROH, yes, but not in WWE.

 

IC's are told the job, when to do it, and so on but are 100% up to their own decision as for how to do it, or when to look for work. It's their decision to work. If they don't wish to, they don't have to. and they have autonomy on HOW to handle the work. An indy wrestler can build their match anyway they want.

 

In WWE, not only are you told what the job is, you are told to extreme lengths how to do it. How to build your match. What spots. What to say in a promo down to every little detail. Very few people in WWE have *ANY* say over the work they do at all. And if you try to not work, one of the primary benefits of an IC? Yeah, that doesn't fly at all.

 

Sorry, man, but that is totally untrue. In my indy, and every indy I worked with, the workers have 90% control over their match, but the spots and outcomes are the promoters' call. If I wanted a worker to gig, he'd gig. Granted, they could refuse, but they wouldn't be working the next show.

 

[dubq 0]

I can't believe* some of the "defenses" in WWE's favour that "justify" why they shouldn't have to provide health benefits, etc. to their so-called "independent contractors." Some of you people are really fucking touched in the head, you know that? I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot you'd be singing a different song.

 

*Well, I can believe it, given what folder I'm in. But still...

[Joseph2112 0]

I'm a bit split on this topic.

There is nothing illegal about their contracts. Major corporations sign contracts of exclusivity all the time. Look at AT&T and the iPhone.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with thte phone comparison. If anyone knows any other situation close to what wrestlers have, i would like to hear it.

 

It was an example of exclusivity, please pay closer attention.

 

I believe a particular federal office would have jumped on the WWE long before Raven, if there was a question as to whether the performers of the WWE were independent contractors or not. That, of course, would be the IRS. Since billions of dollars have been generated without the IRS questioning the validity of the "independent contractor" status of its workers, I don't think there's any argument here.

 

The IRS stands to generate more revenue from an employer-employee relationship than from that of an independent contractor relationship.

 

It was an example of exclusivity between a either a phone company and a manufacturer for cell rights or maybe you are refering to a contract between a person and a phone company, I don't know which.

But in either case they are around 100% different then the comparison here. I (and I think this thread) are speaking to the relationship between a company and a worker.

 

And I would say that since there are several more tax breaks(such as health care) when paid my an employer, the IRS gets at least as much when taxes are paid by independent contractors.

 

[Hawkius Maximus 0]

Under the limited knowledge I have of employee versus independent contractor, there is no way WWE fits that bill.

 

Indy wrestling, even ROH, yes, but not in WWE.

 

IC's are told the job, when to do it, and so on but are 100% up to their own decision as for how to do it, or when to look for work. It's their decision to work. If they don't wish to, they don't have to. and they have autonomy on HOW to handle the work. An indy wrestler can build their match anyway they want.

 

In WWE, not only are you told what the job is, you are told to extreme lengths how to do it. How to build your match. What spots. What to say in a promo down to every little detail. Very few people in WWE have *ANY* say over the work they do at all. And if you try to not work, one of the primary benefits of an IC? Yeah, that doesn't fly at all.

 

Sorry, man, but that is totally untrue. In my indy, and every indy I worked with, the workers have 90% control over their match, but the spots and outcomes are the promoters' call. If I wanted a worker to gig, he'd gig. Granted, they could refuse, but they wouldn't be working the next show.

 

...You honestly listed "outcomes" against my point? It's a worked event. Of course the promoter makes that decision. I mean...really? Some spots I'll give you but outcomes? You honestly thought I meant that the workers decide who wins? Really?

 

And anyway, your listed 90% control of lay out versus *NONE* in WWE. Your average midcarder in WWE has no say over how their match is laid out. That's what agents do, with instructions handed down by the writers. Every single aspect of their work is determined by WWE.

 

They are not Independent Contractors.