California legislature passes AB5 gig-work bill, which could turn contractors into employees

[El-P]

Worker's rights, that cancer. What's fun with alt-right rhetoric is that not only the ideas are putrid, but the way they express them is often also repulsive and offensive. That thread has just turned into a really, really ugly thing quick.

[JerryvonKramer]

The workers you are so desperate to help would simply be unemployed. There’s no way to continue this thread without turning it into an economics lesson so I suggest letting each and every person who supports this idiotic bill to get their shots in, call me “alt right” or whatever and then lock it.

[Herodes]

What is to be expected from someone who boosts things like “why are conservative girls so attractive and liberal girls so ugly” as well as retweeting white supremacists, islamophobes and women-hating incels. Just what the world needs, another alt-right youtuber who likes mocked clowns like “Sargon” and tries too hard to be “edgy”.

[El-P]

Your use of the cancer analogy is repulsive. And no one needs economic lessons, thank you very much. Don't you have some podcast to do already ?

[sek69]

17 minutes ago, JerryvonKramer said:

The workers you are so desperate to help would simply be unemployed. There’s no way to continue this thread without turning it into an economics lesson so I suggest letting each and every person who supports this idiotic bill to get their shots in, call me “alt right” or whatever and then lock it.

Serious question: if  what you state comes to pass and people get unemployed because companies refuse to treat their workers like humans, isn't that a bad look for the corporations? Do you not see that kind of mindset from employers is the exact reason bills like this get created in the first place?

If free market capitalism was the Utopia its cheerleaders desperately want it to be, governments wouldn't have to step in to be all "hey please stop abusing your employees kthanx".

[JerryvonKramer]

1 hour ago, sek69 said:

Serious question: if  what you state comes to pass and people get unemployed because companies refuse to treat their workers like humans, isn't that a bad look for the corporations? Do you not see that kind of mindset from employers is the exact reason bills like this get created in the first place?

If free market capitalism was the Utopia its cheerleaders desperately want it to be, governments wouldn't have to step in to be all "hey please stop abusing your employees kthanx".

Since you asked, it's because not every job is a full-time career 9-5 sort of post. You can try to make McDonald's the sort of job that can support a family and kids with benefits and a pension all you want, but the fact remains that that will always be a job for 17-year old kids getting an early taste of work while taking advantage of flexible hours. In places where they've tried to force this sort of thing, those kids get replaced either by machines or older, more trusted members of staff. Youth unemployment rate in France is double the rate of that in the UK partly because minimum wage is flat in France while staggered by age in UK. You can look at places like Detroit and the employment bills brought in that city over history to see that these effects are not only predictable but also have been repeated many times over. This particular bill levies certain costs and obligations on the employer which they would then have to factor in to whether it is worth employing that person in the first place.

 

To make this easier to understand in pure wrestling terms, the booker is going to go with the old trusted member of the roster over the rookie when X, Y and Z pieces of red tape (representing sunk cost, risk, etc.) are attached to even employing the rookie in the first place. It consolidates advantage to those people with jobs at the expense of those who are not currently employed. This effect can be seen over and over. 

 

It doesn't actually say anything about the employer or the corporation since no one should be forced into taking risks they don't want to. The booker might take a punt on this or that unproven worker for $X but not for $X+1. As I said earlier in the thread, there'd by more Baron Sciclunas or Ted Jr's hogging long term spots on the card, and younger workers would have to spend longer working indies to get experience to prove they were not a massive risk.

 

As I said earlier in the thread also -- many workers would take higher pay and higher risk than lower pay plus benefits and more security if given the choice. You'd be denying those workers that choice, and in a lot of cases be denying them a job entirely. This is just reality and I make no apologies whatsoever in pointing it out. 

[sek69]

15 minutes ago, JerryvonKramer said:

It doesn't actually say anything about the employer or the corporation since no one should be forced into taking risks they don't want to[/]. The booker might take a punt on this or that unproven worker for $X but not for $X+1. As I said earlier in the thread, there'd by more Baron Sciclunas or Ted Jr's hogging long term spots on the card, and younger workers would have to spend longer working indies to get experience to prove they were not a massive risk.

WWE is already taking risks by throwing money at people to make sure they don't go to AEW. No one is forcing them to do that other than Vince being a controlling weirdo.  They put Dio Maddin on commentary because they can't think of anything for a 6'7 former All-Conference offensive lineman to do.   Asking a company that's worth billions and already employs hundreds of office staff to treat the folks beating up their bodies to earn them those billions the same as the guy shuffling papers in the office is not forcing them to take a risk. It's asking them to treat employees like employees.

 

19 minutes ago, JerryvonKramer said:

As I said earlier in the thread also -- many workers would take higher pay and higher risk than lower pay plus benefits and more security if given the choice. You'd be denying those workers that choice, and in a lot of cases be denying them a job entirely. This is just reality and I make no apologies whatsoever in pointing it out. 

Except that's not really the case. Maybe most people would opt for the higher pay for their first job, but once you have responsibilities and a family you would absolutely take benefits and security. Especially if you or a loved one has medical needs that require health coverage.  

 

[sek69]

also lol I don't know why it bolded the whole post when I just wanted to bold the first line.

[JerryvonKramer]

1 hour ago, sek69 said:

Except that's not really the case. Maybe most people would opt for the higher pay for their first job, but once you have responsibilities and a family you would absolutely take benefits and security. Especially if you or a loved one has medical needs that require health coverage.  

 

As I've said repeatedly, there'd be a significant increase in Baron Sciclunas for sure. But Goldberg 98 (say), or peak Hogan or more recently Brock Lesnar would likely prefer the former type of contract to maximise their payday.

 

The particular decisions of Vince are something I cannot speak to. He'll make his own risk calculations and his own power moves as he's always done.

[NintendoLogic]

43 minutes ago, JerryvonKramer said:

As I said earlier in the thread also -- many workers would take higher pay and higher risk than lower pay plus benefits and more security if given the choice. You'd be denying those workers that choice, and in a lot of cases be denying them a job entirely. This is just reality and I make no apologies whatsoever in pointing it out. 

It's only a real choice if the former option entails actual independence (meaning the wrestler is free to take outside bookings, turn down programs, walk out if they so choose, etc.). The current classification scheme serves no purpose except allowing WWE to evade payroll taxes.

[MoS]

I like how JvK has continued his tradition of saying stupid shit, and announcing he is leaving a thread, only to keep coming back to the thread, and then accusing everybody who tells him that the stupid shit he is saying is stupid of being "emotional" and arguing against "facts". I am just waiting for him to say this bill is objectively wrong because Ric Flair would not like it and it is not fair to Flair. I hope he does a 3-part podcast whining and moaning about it.

[El-P]

3 minutes ago, MoS said:

I hope he does a 3-part podcast on it.

[JerryvonKramer]

Say what you want about BIGLAV, it accurately predicted pretty much the entire top 20 and near enough in order, and inspired the system the boys went on to use in the follow-up project that was done. People still talk about that now. No one talks about MOS's list at all. Once again, just facts.

[MoS]

Awwww good for you!

[JerryvonKramer]

Oh and this isn't worth a podcast. People used to be able to debate things using arguments and evidence on this board. What happened to it?

[MoS]

 

6 minutes ago, JerryvonKramer said:

Oh and this isn't worth a podcast. People used to be able to debate things using arguments and evidence on this board. What happened to it?

We got people who would start whining and bitching as soon as their bullshit was called out, without an iota of self-awareness?

[El-P]

At least we can see he's be banned from Twitter !  Too "disruptive" I guess.

Well, we got Parv to promote his alt-right Youtube channel on the board at least. Now he can go back to do only that and let emotional and unsane people babble about pro-wrestling without being polluted with dumb shit straight out FOX or BFM TV.

[KawadaSmile]

Y'know sometimes I find things to be really cute over there in the Northern Hemisphere. Y'all talking about how more rights leads to bigger unemployment rates while we out here thinking "hummm maybe children working in the fields isn't such a bad idea".

We're like three steps ahead of you, y'all need to catch up!

[Scarlet-Left]

I don't really understand this conversation because it seems like no one's on the same page. The issue, surely, is that the WWE have always wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Is it not?

Whatever you think of gig work itself, being a WWE performer is far more like being an actor on a sit-com than being an Uber driver. No?

[JerryvonKramer]

1 hour ago, MoS said:

 

We got people who would start whining and bitching as soon as their bullshit was called out, without an iota of self-awareness?

You've not presented a single argument in this thread beyond calling the things I've pointed out -- pretty bog-standard economic theory I might add -- "bullshit". This is weak and far below the standards this board once upheld.

[NintendoLogic]

Still waiting for JvK to give a valid reason why someone who is contractually bound to work exclusively for a particular corporation shouldn't be considered an employee of that corporation. Until he does that, there's really no reason to continue this discussion. And no, "it might lead to Ted DiBiase's son being pushed more than I would like" is not a valid reason.

[MoS]

3 minutes ago, JerryvonKramer said:

You've not presented a single argument in this thread beyond calling the things I've pointed out -- pretty bog-standard economic theory I might add -- "bullshit". This is weak and far below the standards this board once upheld.

Your "arguments" have been countered plenty. I was just pointing out facts. No need to get emotional.

[KawadaSmile]

2 minutes ago, Scarlet-Left said:

I don't really understand this conversation because it seems like no one's on the same page. The issue, surely, is that the WWE have always wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Is it not?

Whatever you think of gig work itself, being a WWE performer is far more like being an actor on a sit-com than being an Uber driver. No?

I don't really think this'll affect WWE at all. If the legislature affects CA-based companies, they won't really act beyond "hey let's make sure this doesn't reach federal levels or NY", which it seems like what they are doing. They are going to be doing shows in Cali after all, it seems.

Plus IIRC Uber Drivers can also pursue other things, whilst WWE talent cannot.

[Herodes]

Yes let’s have an intelligent debate with someone who (checks Twitter for evidence)....

Why are Conservative Girls So Attractive and Liberal Girls So Ugly?

Retweets Infowars conspiracy theorists

As I've said repeatedly: leftists are the worst people in the world. The worst among you.

Retweets white supremacist Stefan Molyneux

Burger King in South Africa is dropping the word “ham” from “hamburger” to avoid offending Muslims.

Etc.

and that’s just the last day.

 

 

[JerryvonKramer]

Fill me in, does Vince now prevent talent from, let's say, doing commercials a la Macho Man doing SlimJim? Or is it only wrestling matches they are not allowed to take part in?