What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Do NFL Cheerleaders deserve minimum wage? (1 Viewer)

Ruffrodys05

IBL Representative
Class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Raiderettes

Can one cheerleader take on the National Football League? In January, 28-year-old Raiderette Lacy T. filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 40 cheerleaders accusing the Oakland Raiders of breaking minimum wage and labor laws. Now her complaint is turning into a broader labor dispute that questions the NFL’s business practices as well as the legality of forced arbitration.

The NFL is the most profitable sports league in the world, earning on average, $1.17 billion in 2013. Cheerleaders pull in profits too: The Dallas Cowboys’ cheerleading squad alone brings in about $1 million in merchandising and cheerleading camp revenue.

At the time of the suit, Lacy T. and her Raiderette squad were paid $1,250 for a 10-game season – less than the cost of a Super Bowl ticket. That’s less than $5 an hour when accounting for three unpaid practices a week, at least 10 required charity appearances, and photo sessions for the annual swimsuit calendar, the women say. The Cincinnati Ben-Gals, who have also joined the fray, are paid $90 a game, or $2.85 an hour.

The Raiderettes, professional dancers required to stay in shape year-round, can be fined for being late to practice, using the wrong pom poms, or wearing the wrong shade of nail polish. They must cover expenses such as travel to games and visits to an expensive hair salon chosen by the Raiders management – who even decide each woman’s hairstyle and color.

Because fines are subtracted from the cheerleaders’ earnings, the Raiders readily acknowledge that a cheerleader can end up with no pay at all by season’s end.

In contrast, Raiders Running back Darren McFadden earned about $9.6 million last season, with six missed games due to injuries, while Kicker Sebastian Janikowski pulled in about $4.9 million after missing a third of his field goal attempts, notes local columnist Tom Barnidge.

The cheerleaders allege other labor violations as well, such as having all of their pay withheld until the end of the season, and working over eight hours on game days with no rest or meal breaks.

In March, the U.S. Department of Labor decided the Raiders were exempt from offering federal minimum wage and overtime to its cheerleaders because they are considered a seasonal establishment. But the lawsuit is expected to continue in California, which has no such exemption for seasonal operators. California’s $8 per hour minimum wage is set to rise to $9 per hour in July, and to $10 in 2016.

However it’s decided, the case is likely to have a national impact: 26 of the NFL’s 32 teams have cheerleading squads and a win by the Raiderettes could encourage other claims. Beyond the NFL, the lawsuit is also raising broader questions about the practice of forced arbitration.

The NFL claims the Raiderettes have no right to sue, because they agreed in their employment contracts to refer all disputes to binding arbitration before none other than NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell — whose $44 million salary is paid by the NFL teams.

Their contracts state that Goodell would be allowed to ignore rules of evidence and state labor laws, limit information the Raiderettes could obtain from the team, and demand secrecy for both the process and the outcome. His decision would also be unappealable.

But the right of employers to require arbitration is not always recognized by courts if contracts favor one party too strongly. At least one study found that arbitrators rule in favor of the businesses that hire them 94 percent of the time.

“We believe we have a good shot at defeating it,” Raiderettes lawyer Leslie Levy told the Los Angeles Times.

Employers typically prefer private arbitration because it’s less costly and time-consuming than public litigation. But consumer and employee groups say there’s a big difference between voluntary arbitration that’s agreed to by both parties after a dispute occurs, and forced arbitration that requires consumers or employees to waive their rights to sue as a condition of purchase or employment.

The Raiderettes’ case is now sending ripples all the way to Washington, D.C., where there is renewed interest in the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013. The legislation would prohibit forced arbitration in employment, antitrust, civil rights, and consumer disputes. Over 100,000 fans have also signed a national petition to demand living wages for NFL cheerleaders. Whatever the courts decide, Lacy T. is definitely making her voice heard.
A secondary headline states, "Roger Goodell wants to pay the NFL’s cheerleaders less than minimum wage." I don't think this statement is necessarily true as he is only mentioned in the article as being the arbitrator for all disputes involving the Raiderettes cheering squad. Not sure if this practice is common among all 32 teams or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't believe there should be contracts where people waive their rights. It happens and so I'm unsure why anyone would agree to it.

This is a smidge better than college sports in giving them such a tiny salary but profiting greatly from them.

I imagine the problem the cheerleaders have is there is always another pretty girl that cheers that is ready, willing, and able to accept minimum wage and be on TV.

 
Bri, that's exactly what a contract is though, you are signing away something. Now as you state, if the pool of labor is overflowing, obviously that drives down the price. But then again I don't want the quality to suffer.

 
Class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Raiderettes

Can one cheerleader take on the National Football League? In January, 28-year-old Raiderette Lacy T. filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 40 cheerleaders accusing the Oakland Raiders of breaking minimum wage and labor laws. Now her complaint is turning into a broader labor dispute that questions the NFL’s business practices as well as the legality of forced arbitration.

The NFL is the most profitable sports league in the world, earning on average, $1.17 billion in 2013. Cheerleaders pull in profits too: The Dallas Cowboys’ cheerleading squad alone brings in about $1 million in merchandising and cheerleading camp revenue.

At the time of the suit, Lacy T. and her Raiderette squad were paid $1,250 for a 10-game season – less than the cost of a Super Bowl ticket. That’s less than $5 an hour when accounting for three unpaid practices a week, at least 10 required charity appearances, and photo sessions for the annual swimsuit calendar, the women say. The Cincinnati Ben-Gals, who have also joined the fray, are paid $90 a game, or $2.85 an hour.

The Raiderettes, professional dancers required to stay in shape year-round, can be fined for being late to practice, using the wrong pom poms, or wearing the wrong shade of nail polish. They must cover expenses such as travel to games and visits to an expensive hair salon chosen by the Raiders management – who even decide each woman’s hairstyle and color.

Because fines are subtracted from the cheerleaders’ earnings, the Raiders readily acknowledge that a cheerleader can end up with no pay at all by season’s end.

In contrast, Raiders Running back Darren McFadden earned about $9.6 million last season, with six missed games due to injuries, while Kicker Sebastian Janikowski pulled in about $4.9 million after missing a third of his field goal attempts, notes local columnist Tom Barnidge.

The cheerleaders allege other labor violations as well, such as having all of their pay withheld until the end of the season, and working over eight hours on game days with no rest or meal breaks.

In March, the U.S. Department of Labor decided the Raiders were exempt from offering federal minimum wage and overtime to its cheerleaders because they are considered a seasonal establishment. But the lawsuit is expected to continue in California, which has no such exemption for seasonal operators. California’s $8 per hour minimum wage is set to rise to $9 per hour in July, and to $10 in 2016.

However it’s decided, the case is likely to have a national impact: 26 of the NFL’s 32 teams have cheerleading squads and a win by the Raiderettes could encourage other claims. Beyond the NFL, the lawsuit is also raising broader questions about the practice of forced arbitration.

The NFL claims the Raiderettes have no right to sue, because they agreed in their employment contracts to refer all disputes to binding arbitration before none other than NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell — whose $44 million salary is paid by the NFL teams.

Their contracts state that Goodell would be allowed to ignore rules of evidence and state labor laws, limit information the Raiderettes could obtain from the team, and demand secrecy for both the process and the outcome. His decision would also be unappealable.

But the right of employers to require arbitration is not always recognized by courts if contracts favor one party too strongly. At least one study found that arbitrators rule in favor of the businesses that hire them 94 percent of the time.

“We believe we have a good shot at defeating it,” Raiderettes lawyer Leslie Levy told the Los Angeles Times.

Employers typically prefer private arbitration because it’s less costly and time-consuming than public litigation. But consumer and employee groups say there’s a big difference between voluntary arbitration that’s agreed to by both parties after a dispute occurs, and forced arbitration that requires consumers or employees to waive their rights to sue as a condition of purchase or employment.

The Raiderettes’ case is now sending ripples all the way to Washington, D.C., where there is renewed interest in the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2013. The legislation would prohibit forced arbitration in employment, antitrust, civil rights, and consumer disputes. Over 100,000 fans have also signed a national petition to demand living wages for NFL cheerleaders. Whatever the courts decide, Lacy T. is definitely making her voice heard.
A secondary headline states, "Roger Goodell wants to pay the NFL’s cheerleaders less than minimum wage." I don't think this statement is necessarily true as he is only mentioned in the article as being the arbitrator for all disputes involving the Raiderettes cheering squad. Not sure if this practice is common among all 32 teams or not.
Not all 32 teams have cheerleaders.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"The Raiderettes, professional dancers required to stay in shape year-round, can be fined for being late to practice, using the wrong pom poms, or wearing the wrong shade of nail polish. They must cover expenses such as travel to games and visits to an expensive hair salon chosen by the Raiders management – who even decide each woman’s hairstyle and color."

This is the kicker for me. As a guy who gets his hair cuts for free by a friend I didn't realize how expensive it for ladies until I threw in "..and you can get your hair done too." as part of my Valentines Day gift to my little lady. If these girls are paying for their own hair cuts at an expensive salon of the Raiders choice then they are probably losing money (along with travel and such) by being cheerleaders.

I'd say offer them all expenses paid and dental/benefits and forget the minimum wage. The girls would probably get more out of it and the NFL (Raiders) would have healthier and happy girls.

 
I know I'm in the minority, but I'd prefer to watch the game live without cheerleaders.

 
They will sue and they will win. Then we will have cheermen.
So what? Colleges have male cheerleaders, why couldn't the NFL? Wouldn't you like to see women being flipped high into the air by guys at a professional ball game? What makes the professional cheering squad that much different than the amateur squad? Their purpose is to induce the fans into more vocal support of their home team....no?

 
They will sue and they will win. Then we will have cheermen.
So what? Colleges have male cheerleaders, why couldn't the NFL? Wouldn't you like to see women being flipped high into the air by guys at a professional ball game? What makes the professional cheering squad that much different than the amateur squad? Their purpose is to induce the fans into more vocal support of their home team....no?
No.

Their purpose is to be eye candy.

 
Disgusting. No reason not to pay them all expenses and at least minimum wage. The NFL should be ashamed of itself.

 
They will sue and they will win. Then we will have cheermen.
So what? Colleges have male cheerleaders, why couldn't the NFL? Wouldn't you like to see women being flipped high into the air by guys at a professional ball game? What makes the professional cheering squad that much different than the amateur squad? Their purpose is to induce the fans into more vocal support of their home team....no?
No.

Their purpose is to be eye candy.
100% totally disagree. Yes, they are very nice eye candy, but that is not their purpose.

 
They will sue and they will win. Then we will have cheermen.
So what? Colleges have male cheerleaders, why couldn't the NFL? Wouldn't you like to see women being flipped high into the air by guys at a professional ball game? What makes the professional cheering squad that much different than the amateur squad? Their purpose is to induce the fans into more vocal support of their home team....no?
No.

Their purpose is to be eye candy.
100% totally disagree. Yes, they are very nice eye candy, but that is not their purpose.
Thank goodness they're there to keep me interested in the football game.

 
If you don't like the pay, then don't do it. Pretty simple. There are hundreds of other women lined up to do it at the current price.

The pay is not the priority of becoming a cheerleader. It is the prestige.

 
If you don't like the pay, then don't do it. Pretty simple. There are hundreds of other women lined up to do it at the current price.

The pay is not the priority of becoming a cheerleader. It is the prestige.
That's the issue. It's supply and demand. Being a cheerleader gives them a leg up (pun intended) on their career goals. It's a great thing to have on the resume in certain fields. Hell, if they get pushed too hard, they could make the position volunteer, and they would still plenty of talent to pick from. Problem solved.

Comparing the salaries to players' is ridiculous. No offense intended, but there literally thousands of people qualified for and interested in filling each of those positions at the expected salary. Not only that, but the entire cheerleading function could be dropped tomorrow for every team in the NFL with no significant impact on the teams or the season. It's not like people won't go the games if there are no cheerleaders, and the cheerleaders don't tend to be shown on the broadcasts anyway (with good reason).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth said:
Bri, that's exactly what a contract is though, you are signing away something. Now as you state, if the pool of labor is overflowing, obviously that drives down the price. But then again I don't want the quality to suffer.
This is true and a very scary statement in general. A little off topic but as automation increases the pool of labor will continue to overflow. Which means what? Everybody's pay is going to stagnate or drop.

They should pay them more just because it's the right thing to do. Just because you can get away with severely exploiting somebody doesn't mean you should.

 
Sabertooth said:
Bri, that's exactly what a contract is though, you are signing away something. Now as you state, if the pool of labor is overflowing, obviously that drives down the price. But then again I don't want the quality to suffer.
Well true, but I meant normal citizen rights to be heard by a judge. The way I see it, if a company is that afraid to go before a judge they are either doing something wrong or will eventually.

 
Let's see. I go apply for a job knowing it pays total crap.............and then I sue for making total crap money.

Did I miss anything??

They do make extra for the calendars and photo shoots, and most of them are using it as a way to possibly further their career in modeling or whatever.

Do I think they should make more money?? Yeah probably, but if they win a lawsuit on this then................well nevermind, we all know our legal system is full of idiots with no common sense anyway.

 
They are being severely exploited. Everybody that works for someone else is being exploited to a certain extent if the company is viable. Some exploitation is ok but severe exploitation should not be tolerated. Where we draw that line in the future seems extremely important for all of us.

 
They are being severely exploited. Everybody that works for someone else is being exploited to a certain extent if the company is viable. Some exploitation is ok but severe exploitation should not be tolerated. Where we draw that line in the future seems extremely important for all of us.
Isn't that kind of the point of becoming a chearleader for a pro team, to be exploited??

I mean, as we all have read, the job pays total crap. Not like they took the job to pay the bills. They took the job to hopefully further their careers................which is going to happen from exploitation.

I mean, they could always quit and go get a job doing ANYTHING and make as much or more.

Again, I do think they should make more............................but pretty clear the supply/demand of it does not agree.

It could pay NOTHING and there would be tons of hotties lined up to do it.

 
Do I think they should make more money?? Yeah probably, but if they win a lawsuit on this then................well nevermind, we all know our legal system is full of idiots with no common sense anyway.
I think most people with common sense would assume that the minimum wage reflects the minimum amount you can legally pay someone in wages. "We could find someone to do the job for less than that" isn't a legal argument.

 
Do I think they should make more money?? Yeah probably, but if they win a lawsuit on this then................well nevermind, we all know our legal system is full of idiots with no common sense anyway.
I think most people with common sense would assume that the minimum wage reflects the minimum amount you can legally pay someone in wages. "We could find someone to do the job for less than that" isn't a legal argument.
There's plenty of jobs out there where the emplyoyer pays less than minimum wage. Lot in the service industry. Even strippers at certain places have to PAY to be able to work there. Granted all these workes get tips. But these cheerleaders also get perks as well.

If they win a lawsuit that allows them to make minimum wage so be it, can't argue too much on that I guess.

But again, this isn't a job people go after to make ends meet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They deserve to make whatever supply and demand dictates they should get paid.
So when supply and demand dictates everybody should be paid in cheeseburgers you're ok with that?
Haha. Yes, because supply and demand would never dictate that of course. Workers would choose other opportunities and companies would stop offering cheeseburgers for pay. Or people would continue to work for cheeseburgers instead of money but then that is their choice. Likely cheeseburgers would replace money as our currency and in the long run we would be exactly where we are now. Only NFL players would get paid in millions of cheeseburgers. When people who want to be cheerleaders stop signing up for jobs that do not pay enough then teams will pay more. The issue is that there are plenty of women willing and able to even pay teams to be nfl cheerleaders. That's right they would be willing to pay for the opportunity to be a cheerleader. And the reason for that is because it is a job that gives them status in our society. What is happening now might change the pay and if it does you could argue that this IS natural market forces at work because the workers are revolting. Notice though how they are trying to sue rather than leaving to find another job with better pay than minimum wage. That's because if they left 10,000+ women would be fighting to take their spots.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah i agree that supply and demand dictate wages. That's why we are all pretty much screwed. As things become more automated and more efficient there will be less demand for workers which in turn will increase supply. This is and will suppress wages.

It's not exactly what's happening here but they are still getting boned. Just because it's the magical free market boning them doesn't make it right.

 
They deserve to make whatever supply and demand dictates they should get paid.
So when supply and demand dictates everybody should be paid in cheeseburgers you're ok with that?
Haha. Yes, because supply and demand would never dictate that of course. Workers would choose other opportunities and companies would stop offering cheeseburgers for pay. Or people would continue to work for cheeseburgers instead of money but then that is their choice. Likely cheeseburgers would replace money as our currency and in the long run we would be exactly where we are now. Only NFL players would get paid in millions of cheeseburgers.When people who want to be cheerleaders stop signing up for jobs that do not pay enough then teams will pay more. The issue is that there are plenty of women willing and able to even pay teams to be nfl cheerleaders. That's right they would be willing to pay for the opportunity to be a cheerleader. And the reason for that is because it is a job that gives them status in our society. What is happening now might change the pay and if it does you could argue that this IS natural market forces at work because the workers are revolting. Notice though how they are trying to sue rather than leaving to find another job with better pay than minimum wage. That's because if they left 10,000+ women would be fighting to take their spots.
:yes: the NFL could move to using volunteer Cheerleaders without a drop in quality.

Highly doubt these women are suffering like fast food workers might be if they don't make a living wage.

 
Sabertooth said:
Bri, that's exactly what a contract is though, you are signing away something. Now as you state, if the pool of labor is overflowing, obviously that drives down the price. But then again I don't want the quality to suffer.
This is true and a very scary statement in general. A little off topic but as automation increases the pool of labor will continue to overflow. Which means what? Everybody's pay is going to stagnate or drop.

They should pay them more just because it's the right thing to do. Just because you can get away with severely exploiting somebody doesn't mean you should.
that's certainly one opinion, but not usually how businesses work.

We have different definitions of what "Severely exploiting" means.

 
They deserve to make whatever supply and demand dictates they should get paid.
So when supply and demand dictates everybody should be paid in cheeseburgers you're ok with that?
Haha. Yes, because supply and demand would never dictate that of course. Workers would choose other opportunities and companies would stop offering cheeseburgers for pay. Or people would continue to work for cheeseburgers instead of money but then that is their choice. Likely cheeseburgers would replace money as our currency and in the long run we would be exactly where we are now. Only NFL players would get paid in millions of cheeseburgers.When people who want to be cheerleaders stop signing up for jobs that do not pay enough then teams will pay more. The issue is that there are plenty of women willing and able to even pay teams to be nfl cheerleaders. That's right they would be willing to pay for the opportunity to be a cheerleader. And the reason for that is because it is a job that gives them status in our society. What is happening now might change the pay and if it does you could argue that this IS natural market forces at work because the workers are revolting. Notice though how they are trying to sue rather than leaving to find another job with better pay than minimum wage. That's because if they left 10,000+ women would be fighting to take their spots.
:yes: the NFL could move to using volunteer Cheerleaders without a drop in quality.

Highly doubt these women are suffering like fast food workers might be if they don't make a living wage.
Really, given the little pay and the expense they occur in maintaining that Stepford Cheerleader look, they are already volunteers or even worse paying to NFL for whatever benefits they get.

 
They deserve to make whatever supply and demand dictates they should get paid.
So when supply and demand dictates everybody should be paid in cheeseburgers you're ok with that?
Haha. Yes, because supply and demand would never dictate that of course. Workers would choose other opportunities and companies would stop offering cheeseburgers for pay. Or people would continue to work for cheeseburgers instead of money but then that is their choice. Likely cheeseburgers would replace money as our currency and in the long run we would be exactly where we are now. Only NFL players would get paid in millions of cheeseburgers.When people who want to be cheerleaders stop signing up for jobs that do not pay enough then teams will pay more. The issue is that there are plenty of women willing and able to even pay teams to be nfl cheerleaders. That's right they would be willing to pay for the opportunity to be a cheerleader. And the reason for that is because it is a job that gives them status in our society. What is happening now might change the pay and if it does you could argue that this IS natural market forces at work because the workers are revolting. Notice though how they are trying to sue rather than leaving to find another job with better pay than minimum wage. That's because if they left 10,000+ women would be fighting to take their spots.
:yes: the NFL could move to using volunteer Cheerleaders without a drop in quality.

Highly doubt these women are suffering like fast food workers might be if they don't make a living wage.
Really, given the little pay and the expense they occur in maintaining that Stepford Cheerleader look, they are already volunteers or even worse paying to NFL for whatever benefits they get.
Those benefits are pretty significant. Publicity, free on field admission to games, access to players, fans, follow on contacts like calendars, etc. All lead to opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. If this were such a bad deal, these women wouldn't pursue the job / hobby.

 
They deserve to make whatever supply and demand dictates they should get paid.
So when supply and demand dictates everybody should be paid in cheeseburgers you're ok with that?
Haha. Yes, because supply and demand would never dictate that of course. Workers would choose other opportunities and companies would stop offering cheeseburgers for pay. Or people would continue to work for cheeseburgers instead of money but then that is their choice. Likely cheeseburgers would replace money as our currency and in the long run we would be exactly where we are now. Only NFL players would get paid in millions of cheeseburgers.When people who want to be cheerleaders stop signing up for jobs that do not pay enough then teams will pay more. The issue is that there are plenty of women willing and able to even pay teams to be nfl cheerleaders. That's right they would be willing to pay for the opportunity to be a cheerleader. And the reason for that is because it is a job that gives them status in our society. What is happening now might change the pay and if it does you could argue that this IS natural market forces at work because the workers are revolting. Notice though how they are trying to sue rather than leaving to find another job with better pay than minimum wage. That's because if they left 10,000+ women would be fighting to take their spots.
:yes: the NFL could move to using volunteer Cheerleaders without a drop in quality.

Highly doubt these women are suffering like fast food workers might be if they don't make a living wage.
Really, given the little pay and the expense they occur in maintaining that Stepford Cheerleader look, they are already volunteers or even worse paying to NFL for whatever benefits they get.
You know those cheerleader calendars teams make? The Ravens force the cheerleading squad to each buy 100 of them out of their own pocket.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's see. I go apply for a job knowing it pays total crap.............and then I sue for making total crap money.
This is it right here, well put.

I can see how the fame or popularity to their position would make them want more money once working though.

Once most of the unions died off in America, a lawsuit making it into the newspapers does seem like a common method to get more $.

 
Let's see. I go apply for a job knowing it pays total crap.............and then I sue for making total crap money.
This is it right here, well put.

I can see how the fame or popularity to their position would make them want more money once working though.

Once most of the unions died off in America, a lawsuit making it into the newspapers does seem like a common method to get more $.
I hope the team owners can afford a lawyer to defend themselves from those greedy cheerleaders. My sources say they might be able to. How about yours?

 
Does anyone have a problem with financial institution or law firm internships? Many are unpaid, most are dirt cheap compared to what the house in bringing in. Where's the outrage? The people in those positions take them because - wait for it... the positions advance their careers.

It the same deal here. Thousands of girls want the job because it is a silver ticket into other industries, or to be crass, into the arms of a John Elway (former Raiderette wife). At least 5 former Raiderettes have been in playboy for example. Lots of others have gone on to acting or modelling.

Now if some of them want to hang around after they have stamped their ticket, that's on them. Clearly there is some other reason to stay for them at that point.

Just because an organization is making money doesn't mean they should all of the sudden pay twice what the market demands to fill a given position. I don't even understand why people would really expect that, but they always seem to.

Again, as I and other have said, if these guys push too hard, if I were the Raiders I would TOTALLY just make it a volunteer position and be done with it. People would still sign up.

 
Do I think they should make more money?? Yeah probably, but if they win a lawsuit on this then................well nevermind, we all know our legal system is full of idiots with no common sense anyway.
I think most people with common sense would assume that the minimum wage reflects the minimum amount you can legally pay someone in wages. "We could find someone to do the job for less than that" isn't a legal argument.
There's plenty of jobs out there where the emplyoyer pays less than minimum wage. Lot in the service industry. Even strippers at certain places have to PAY to be able to work there. Granted all these workes get tips. But these cheerleaders also get perks as well.

If they win a lawsuit that allows them to make minimum wage so be it, can't argue too much on that I guess.

But again, this isn't a job people go after to make ends meet.
Why shouldn't it be a job people go after to make ends meet? If there's as much competition for the opportunities as you say, it actually should be a really well-paid job.

 
Sabertooth said:
Bri, that's exactly what a contract is though, you are signing away something. Now as you state, if the pool of labor is overflowing, obviously that drives down the price. But then again I don't want the quality to suffer.
This is true and a very scary statement in general. A little off topic but as automation increases the pool of labor will continue to overflow. Which means what? Everybody's pay is going to stagnate or drop.

They should pay them more just because it's the right thing to do. Just because you can get away with severely exploiting somebody doesn't mean you should.
that's certainly one opinion, but not usually how businesses work.
Right, which is why we have governments to do things like create work rules and minimum wages. The natural tendency of corporations is an exploitative one, and only the nuttiest 16-year-old who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time believes that the interest of the people is best served by letting corporations do whatever they want.

 
Do I think they should make more money?? Yeah probably, but if they win a lawsuit on this then................well nevermind, we all know our legal system is full of idiots with no common sense anyway.
I think most people with common sense would assume that the minimum wage reflects the minimum amount you can legally pay someone in wages. "We could find someone to do the job for less than that" isn't a legal argument.
There's plenty of jobs out there where the emplyoyer pays less than minimum wage. Lot in the service industry. Even strippers at certain places have to PAY to be able to work there. Granted all these workes get tips. But these cheerleaders also get perks as well.

If they win a lawsuit that allows them to make minimum wage so be it, can't argue too much on that I guess.

But again, this isn't a job people go after to make ends meet.
Why shouldn't it be a job people go after to make ends meet? If there's as much competition for the opportunities as you say, it actually should be a really well-paid job.[b/]
Is that how supply and demand work?

The supply of women willing and able to be NFL cheerleaders exceeds the number of positions and need for the top talent. Probably by a lot.

 
Let's see. I go apply for a job knowing it pays total crap.............and then I sue for making total crap money.
This is it right here, well put.

I can see how the fame or popularity to their position would make them want more money once working though.

Once most of the unions died off in America, a lawsuit making it into the newspapers does seem like a common method to get more $.
I hope the team owners can afford a lawyer to defend themselves from those greedy cheerleaders. My sources say they might be able to. How about yours?
I think that's why people in these positions (again, post union) have leaked this to the press. The public support is about all they have to combat fancy high priced lawyers.

 
Sabertooth said:
Bri, that's exactly what a contract is though, you are signing away something. Now as you state, if the pool of labor is overflowing, obviously that drives down the price. But then again I don't want the quality to suffer.
This is true and a very scary statement in general. A little off topic but as automation increases the pool of labor will continue to overflow. Which means what? Everybody's pay is going to stagnate or drop.

They should pay them more just because it's the right thing to do. Just because you can get away with severely exploiting somebody doesn't mean you should.
that's certainly one opinion, but not usually how businesses work.
Right, which is why we have governments to do things like create work rules and minimum wages. The natural tendency of corporations is an exploitative one, and only the nuttiest 16-year-old who just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time believes that the interest of the people is best served by letting corporations do whatever they want.
Sure. But then the comment should be "the government should make the teams pay cheerleaders more because it's in society's interest to do so"

Which is still questionable but that seems to be one of the opinions.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top