|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 8, 2012 11:04:36 GMT -5
No, Pete. They signed "contracts" with the WWE. The same way an independent contractor signs a commitment to build houses during a certain season or time. They can't just pick up their equipment and go work for some other city or county until the existing contract is up. Actually, as long as the house is built and built according to the agreed-upon specifications, they can. With independent contractors the result and timeframe is the only thing that really matters. The hows and whys and to some degree even the whens are not--that's what makes them "independent." |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 8, 2012 11:10:06 GMT -5
No, Pete. They signed "contracts" with the WWE. The same way an independent contractor signs a commitment to build houses during a certain season or time. They can't just pick up their equipment and go work for some other city or county until the existing contract is up. It isn't just about the length of the contract, it's about the fact that the WWE controls what their wrestlers do and how they do it--I don't see how this is a disagreeable fact. That is inherently a sign that the wrestlers are employees, not contractors. If they were independent contracts, then those 3-year contracts or whatever length you want to choose would indicate that the wrestler would have to work these dates during the week, and that's it. They would in no way be prevented from doing whatever the hell else they want to do on their nights off from the WWE, including taking dates for other companies, making media appearances outside of WWE control, putting their likeness in a non-licensed video game, etc. As long as they show up for the dates negotiated. On top of that, wrestlers have to say what the writers script for them. They have to do certain spots that the guys booking finishes and match layouts give to them. They can't take time off whenever they feel like it. They have to work the "WWE Style," as guys in charge or formerly in charge like Taz have mentioned. If the company trains you on how they want the job done and the specific procedures to be used, then this is a good indication that you're an employee. If you're like the FCW/NXT guys--people with no definitive end date to the job, then you're an employee. And that's what the WWE Superstars are. In real life at least, not in WWE-speak. And Bob the Builder can't build 100 pink houses when the contract he signed with the city says to build 100 brown houses. Independent contractor, a natural person, business or corporation which provides goods or services to another entity under terms specified in a contract. Please absorb this. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 8, 2012 11:28:03 GMT -5
Right to Control test. There is no magic formula that definitively states when a person becomes an employee or independent contractor, but I don't see how a WWE wrestler passes the smell test on this.
"An employee is required to comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work. The employer's right to instruct, not the exercise of that right, is the key. Instruction may be oral or in written procedures or manuals." This applies to WWE wrestlers most definitely. "How to work" is one of the most-quoted talking points of anybody in charge of the actual performances--HHH, Finlay, etc.
"An employee is usually trained by one of the institution's experienced employees. Training indicates that the employer wants the services performed in a certain manner." Well, what in the heck is NXT? WWE sure as heck wants its guys doing things in a certain manner.
"An employee's services are usually integrated into business operations, generally showing that direction and control are being exercised. Integration of services into the business operation occurs when the success or continuation of a business depends to an appreciable degree on the performance of services that are difficult to separate from the business operation. An independent contractor's services can usually stand alone and are not integrated into business operations." Regardless of the WWE being an "entertainment" company, the wrestling matches are an inherent, elementary part of what the company does. It wouldn't exist without them--it's not "difficult" to separate from the business operation, it's impossible.
" An employee is hired to render services personally. If the employer is interested in who does the job as well as in getting the job done, it indicates that the employer is concerned about the methods used as well as the results of services performed. An independent contractor is hired to provide a service and often the employer does not care who performs that job." Ryback could have subcontracted his HIAC main event out to Christian. Or Cody Rhodes. Or Abyss. Or Hacksaw Jim Duggan.
"An employee has little control over the hiring, supervising, and payment of assistants. Such action by an employer generally shows control over people on the job with whom assistants work. An independent contractor will hire, supervise, and pay other workers under a contract in which he or she agrees to provide materials labor and is responsible for the attainment of a given result." This barely even applies to wrestling though I do assume CM Punk or whoever else has their own bus is paying for their own driver/maintenance.
"An employee normally has a continuing relationship with the person for whom services are performed. Services may be continuing even though they are performed at irregular intervals, on a part-time basis, seasonally, or over a short term. An independent contractor has a defined relationship that typically ends when the services are completed." Sort of a thornier issue because of the lengths of WWE contracts, but the requirements of dates fulfilled are so fluid that they really don't 'pass the independent contractor status. Some WCW guys were able to get caps on dates booked regardless of company plans changing, but generally if the WWE gets an unexpected opportunity to book an extra card or extra PPV or an extra media appearance, the wrestler is obligated to be there.
" An employee has set hours of work established by the employer, indicative of control. Such a condition bars the worker from allocating time to other work, which is a right of an independent contractor. An independent contractor tends to establish time use as a matter of right." Well, if you're booked on Monday Night Raw you can't exactly do the work at 1pm if you want.
"An employee usually devotes full time to the business of the employer. Full time does not necessarily mean an eight-hour day or five-day week. Its meaning varies depending on the intent of the parties. An independent contractor is free to work when, for whom, and for as many employers as desired." Shyeah.
" An employee typically does his or her work on the employer's premises which implies control, especially if the work could be performed elsewhere. Someone who works in the employer's place of business is at least physically within the employer's direction and supervision. However, performance of work off-site does not, of itself, mean that no right to control exists. An independent contractor usually does work that can be completed on or off the employer's premises." You can't really do your job as a wrestler outside of the arena.
"An employee often must perform services in a prescribed sequence, which shows a level of employer control. Here, too, the right to set the sequence, not the exercise of that right, is the key. An independent contractor normally is free to perform services in any manner that produces desired results." Gotta work your mic spot before the match, then do this move, this move, and that move for the finish, then work this angle after the match where you get attacked by this guy--if it's booked that way.
"An employee submits or provides regular written or oral reports that indicate employer control." I don't know if they do written evaluations for the wrestlers or not, but they sure as heck get oral feedback on what they did or didn't do right.
" An employee is usually paid for work by the hour, week, or month. The guarantee of a minimum salary or the granting of a drawing account at stated intervals with no requirement for repayment of the excess over earnings tends to indicate the existence of an employer-employee relationship. An independent contractor is customarily paid by the job in a lump sum or on a commission basis." This is the "downside guarantee" that's standard in all WWE contracts. Yes, you do sort of get paid by commission based on how much merch you sell or how much the shows you're on draw, but the minimum salary guarantee is there even if a guy sits out a full year with an injury.
"An employee is reimbursed or paid by the employer for business and traveling expenses, a factor that indicates control over the worker. An independent contractor is paid on a job basis and normally has to assume all expenses except those specified by contract." Free catering! In the WWE you get your plane travel reimbursed but you're on your own for ground transportation and hotel rooms. Still, this is kind of an all-or-nothing proposition.
"An employee usually is furnished by the employer with any tools and materials needed, which is indicative of employer control over the worker. In some jobs employees customarily use their own hand tools. An independent contractor supplies the tools and equipment." Kind of N/A here, wrestling isn't really built around using tools and I don't know what the standards are now. Up until the '90s or so wrestlers were required to get and provide their own ring gear, at least in most cases.
"An employee normally does not have a significant investment in the facilities used in the job. An independent contractor often has a significant investment in facilities used in performing services. Facilities generally include equipment or premises necessary for the work, but not such items as tools, instruments, and clothing that are provided by employees as a common practice in their trade." Finally something in the WWE's favor, to some degree.
"An employee usually does not realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the service provided. An independent contractor is in a position to realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of services provided." This is a little bit closer too--the more shows you work, the more you get paid--but that pesky "minimum guarantee" crops up here again.
"An employee tends to work exclusively for one employer. An independent contractor normally works for more than one employer at the same time." Yes, on rare occasions a WWE guy is allowed to take an indy date. No, that is not enough to say that they don't "exclusively" work for the E.
"In employee usually does not make services available to the general public. An independent contractor makes services available to the general public. "Making services available" may include hanging out a shingle, holding a business license, and having advertising and telephone directory listings." Tom can't just book CM Punk to appear at GalactiCon or sign him for LOW and one can't just post a booking fee for Kofi Kingston to wrestle for their backyard fed.
"An employee is subject to discharge, showing that control is exercised. Limitation of the right to discharge under a collective bargaining agreement does not detract from the existence of an employer-employee relationship. An independent contractor cannot be fired so long as results produced measure up to contract specifications." No one here knows what the WWE "contract specifications" are but I don't think any company that has turned "future endeavors" into a running gag is really in position to claim that they don't really have a right to discharge their guys.
"An employee has the right to end the employment relationship at any time without incurring liability. An independent contractor usually agrees to complete a specific job and is responsible for its satisfactory completion or is legally obligated to make good for failure to complete the job." This is sort of the case, only thanks to Brock Lesnar having to take the WWE to court. Taken to its extreme conclusion a guy could walk out on the company and all he'd forfeit was the house show/PPV money he wouldn't be earning anymore. Obviously, that isn't how it really works. An "independent contractor" would be earning ONLY that house show/PPV/merch money.
The "independent contractor" status plain and simply does not stand up to even basic scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 8, 2012 11:35:37 GMT -5
And yet kids still strive to become pro wrestlers, and the majority of every wrestler in the world busts their butts to make it to the WWE. What is your point, Pete?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 8, 2012 11:41:34 GMT -5
And yet kids still strive to become pro wrestlers, and the majority of every wrestler in the world busts their butts to make it to the WWE. What is your point, Pete? I don't know what the point of this is, either. Kids want to be pro wrestlers growing up (and I'm sure they're just CONSTANTLY weighing the pros and cons of the independent contractor status when they're doing that), so that means the WWE has carte blanche to treat their wrestlers however they want? Huh? |
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 8, 2012 12:09:04 GMT -5
And yet kids still strive to become pro wrestlers, and the majority of every wrestler in the world busts their butts to make it to the WWE. What is your point, Pete? I don't know what the point of this is, either. Kids want to be pro wrestlers growing up (and I'm sure they're just CONSTANTLY weighing the pros and cons of the independent contractor status when they're doing that), so that means the WWE has carte blanche to treat their wrestlers however they want? Huh? However they want lol I am listening. Please tell me how bad WWE wrestlers have it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 8, 2012 12:28:22 GMT -5
I just did. "WWE wrestlers should have access to benefits and insurance that the WWE is preventing them from getting through semantic bullshit" doesn't equate to "WWE wrestlers' lives are neverending living hells."
They could just stand to be better. A lot better than anything that would be accomplished by Linda McMahon: Senator or attempts at such.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 8, 2012 12:32:38 GMT -5
"Semantic bullshit" ? Again, please elaborate. I need facts man not just angry words.
Do you just want me to answer your original question for you?
|
|
|
|
Post by chewey on Nov 8, 2012 15:12:54 GMT -5
To be fair, Pete makes a lot of valid points, and to me I agree that other than the name of the contract and income tax designation, WWE on-air talent contracts look and smell like an employer-employee relationship has been created. However, this issue has not been decided by the courts. Raven, Kanyon, and Mike Sanders filed suit in 2008, but the complaint was so poorly drafted that I had no idea what they were claiming as damages or relief, and the judge dismissed the case on a procedural technicality so that no legal questions were ever resolved. (Probably because the judge didn't feel like ruling on it because whatever he ruled on would likely be appealed anyway).
If any active talent ever filed suit against WWE, I would think they stand a good chance of winning, but as Swarm mentions, most of these guys are working their dream jobs and would never take a chance at this upward battle when they would obviously be blacklisted by the industry thereafter, win or lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 8, 2012 16:15:24 GMT -5
Getting health insurance for yourself is not a burden. Millions of Americans do it so why can’t wrestlers? Wrestlers have gotten insurance for themselves forever. It's not a new idea. Anyone who has ever had a job knows you can get full medical coverage or tailor the coverage for your particular financial needs.
There is no reasonable excuse for any main roster WWE wrestler to not have his/her own insurance. If you are making over 80-100k per year, you can buy insurance. Which brings me back to my original point. The average WWE wrestlers makes more than enough money to buy their own insurance. The average WWE superstar earns more than enough money to pay for insurance, and plan a comfortable retirement. For every "hardship case" crying foul, I can show you 10 more people just like them persevering using the same resources. Any inability to take care of themselves after wrestling is on them, not the WWE.
Lastly, don't forget that wrestlers are 1099 employees, which means they get to write things like insurance off on their taxes. They're also able to legally "hide" money that a W2 employee normally pays taxes on. Before you go running to defend these guys, remember that. A 1099 employee can earn 300k per year, claim 35k and pay taxes only on that 35k. Happens all the time. There's benefits these guys have that not everyone does. Tax free money that can be used to buy insurance and plan for a great retirement!
|
|
