Do NFL Cheerleaders deserve minimum wage? (1 Viewer)

[Concept Coop]

They generally have better options from a strictly salary standpoint and opt against them.

Study please.

Study what? The plaintiff in the suit left a $12/hour cheering job to join the Raiderettes. Ask yourself why she did that. The only two possibilities that come to mind are that she was hoping for better exposure, or she thought it would be more fun. Either way, she had at least one better option from a strictly hourly wage standpoint. Without hiring an investigator in the career options for every other cheerleader out there, I can guess MOST if not all of them could make a better wage elsewhere.

I assumed you were basing your claims off of something concrete, and was asking for the source.

 

[Concept Coop]

If that were true in a vacuum, why wouldn't all the teams have them?

More have them than don't. Seems like an odd argument for you to make.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

They generally have better options from a strictly salary standpoint and opt against them.

Study please.

Study what? The plaintiff in the suit left a $12/hour cheering job to join the Raiderettes. Ask yourself why she did that. The only two possibilities that come to mind are that she was hoping for better exposure, or she thought it would be more fun. Either way, she had at least one better option from a strictly hourly wage standpoint. Without hiring an investigator in the career options for every other cheerleader out there, I can guess MOST if not all of them could make a better wage elsewhere.

I assumed you were basing your claims off of something concrete, and was asking for the source.

The source is an interview with the plaintiff. She admitted to leaving a better paying job to join the Raiderettes.

Beyond that, it is just common sense. I hope you don't expect some scientific research on the career possibilities of current and former NFL cheerleaders. But common sense tells me each of them is likely to be able to go to Hooters and make a tidy sum if nothing else. Couple hundred bucks a night seem outrageous to you? Just guessing here. Do you doubt the average NFL cheerleader could get hired at Hooters?

But besides Hooters and whatever other "seedy industry" they might be qualified for (not that they should be required to anything like that or that that would be the ONLY thing they would be qualified for, it's just an obvious option if they choose to go that route), many of them have college degrees, and most of them already have other jobs. No, I can't prove it with a study, it's just what I've read. Believe it or don't.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

If that were true in a vacuum, why wouldn't all the teams have them?

More have them than don't. Seems like an odd argument for you to make.

The fact that more have them than don't tells me most teams find them valuable to the bottom line. It doesn't tell me the squads by themselves generate millions of dollars in all cases. The fact that some teams don't carry them at all tells me the business case for them isn't an open and shut case, otherwise all or nearly all of the teams would have them. The "greedy ******* owners" everybody has an issue with couldn't possibly voluntarily leave easy-win millions on the table could they?

 

[FUBAR]

Kind of figured there wouldn't be a reasonable response to any of the questions I raised. You can try to boil it down to a simple hot button issue if you'd like to, but the fact is it's a situation that is MUCH more complex than it is being made out to be by you and the woman's legal team through the press. The compensation isn't all direct salary from the team, and even that is much higher than is being represented. "Fifty. Eight. Dollars" is about one 50th of what she earned just from the Raiders last year, so unless you know for a fact that she worked more than 50 full days (for 10 weeks of games), I'm not even sure what your concern is. Again, the $5/hour is a lawyer generated figure. Take it as gospel if you choose, but I prefer to do the math and see the gigantic gap between what you are claiming is an issue, and what she actually received. And NONE of that factors in appearance fee (which are a big deal) OR career exposure (which is a bigger deal). It also doesn't factor in the fact that lots and lots of talented people do free work for things they just enjoy doing or for career advancement or both. It happens in the financial sector, the legal sector, the entertainment industry, the news industry, even in the sports industry. Think none of the coaches or team management personnel took unpaid or underpaid positions before they made it? If so, think again.

The whole thing is simply not cut and dry enough to storm the castle with a mob and pitchforks. But it's tough to fight a mob I guess. Much easier to roll with it and shout along with them.

You apparently didn't bother to read what I said. I didn't say I support the legal case. I said I support the cheerleader's right to earn minimum wage. If they're earning more than that (once everything has been considered, including the laws about what counts as work and what counts as compensation), great.

I just have no respect at all for the idea that they don't deserve at least minimum wage, whatever mental gyrations people go through to come to that conclusion.

I read your response, I just think you were and are oversimplifying things. You seem totally hung up on this arbitrary dollar-per-hour thing, when in fact the law and common sense dictate that there are thousand different scenarios where other kinds of compensation are reasonable in addition to or in lieu of an hourly wage. Things like career exposure/networking opportunities, personal appearance fees, free season tickets, etc.

More than half of the country is exempt from the minimum wage for various reasons, most of which involve compensation other than hourly wage. But you cavalierly dismiss those things as "mental gyrations" and claim to have no respect for people who have a different opinion than you, just because some lawyer throws out some semi-arbitrary hourly figure designed specifically to incite the outrage we are now dealing with and which totally ignores all the other compensation the cheerleaders receive.

My personal opinion is that if you want to fight for someone's minimum wage, fight for wait staff, or farmworkers, or any one of a hundred exempted groups that don't CHOOSE to be in low paying positions for the perks/career boost and/or the "fun", but are in them because they need to pay the bills. The 24 year old, mostly college educated hotties hoping to be the next Teri Hatcher or Stacey Keibler will be OK. The 45 year old single mom working at the local restaurant is the one you need to look out for.

Hmmm so if a business lets their employees eat there at a discount they should be able to pay them less? I mean we are already well on are way to being paid in cheeseburgers no need to rush it.

lol Hey I just thought of something. Where I work they do let me use the restroom. I mean I am using water to flush the toilet and wash my hands. Not to mention soap. The business I work for should be able to deduct that from my pay. amiright?

And if a Mercedes salesman is pulling in 500k/year in commissions, his employer has to make sure he's paying him 8 bucks an hour right? We can do this all day. The fact is, the law already says things other than an hourly wage matter, and it should. Otherwise, you need to outlaw college sports (some would say this isn't a bad idea, but I digress), all unpaid internships etc. right now.

Oh, and if you can't see the difference between providing soap for full time employee and a thousand dollars worth of NFL season tickets to a part-time seasonal employee, I'm not sure I can help you.

Speaking of college, do college band members deserve minimum wage for playing at the games?

 

[CalBear]

You guys can make all the ridiculous cases you want, talk about soap and simple training and try to make my position out to be some extremist position, but that's not the reality. NFL cheerleaders are not fast-food workers. Their situations aren't remotely like the run of the mill factory worker. They are part-time seasonal specialists in a specialized field with specialized compensation. They generally have better options from a strictly salary standpoint and opt against them. The minimum wage was simply never designed to be applied to situations like those and they aren't applied to many other similar situations we have been over a thousand times now.

The minimum wage was designed to be a baseline for all workers in the country, regardless of field. There is a huge amount of case law which affects how the minimum wage applies to people working in lots of different modalities, including the ones that have been brought up in this thread. There doesn't appear to be case law, yet, on how it applies to NFL cheerleaders, but I can assure you that the result of the case will not be that the minimum wage doesn't apply to NFL cheerleaders.

 

[Concept Coop]

Speaking of college, do college band members deserve minimum wage for playing at the games?

I don't see value in comparing professional athletes to amateur athletes. The conversation is about the minimum wage, and whether it should apply.

 

[Concept Coop]

The fact that more have them than don't tells me most teams find them valuable to the bottom line. It doesn't tell me the squads by themselves generate millions of dollars in all cases. The fact that some teams don't carry them at all tells me the business case for them isn't an open and shut case, otherwise all or nearly all of the teams would have them. The "greedy ******* owners" everybody has an issue with couldn't possibly voluntarily leave easy-win millions on the table could they?

I am not making an argument that it is universally profitable. But it is for the organizations that use them. That's why they have them.

 

[nightmare]

In Business you do not get paid what you "deserve". You get paid for what you negotiate.

So many jobs have a set wage so you either take it or leave it-This is one of those jobs.

If a business owner has hundreds of people lined up to fill two dozen slots he is going to

pay as little as possible. If you don't like it don't sign the contract. I doubt that any of you

will petition the NFL teams with squads to pay them more or boycott the games.

Should the owners pay them more? NO-in the owners eyes it's bad business to overpay.

I doubt the amount of public relations flak the Raiders get from this will not be enough to

get them to give the cheerleaders more money.

Some businesses will overpay you knowing that you will be twice as productive, likely

not to call out, etc, etc. This is not one of those jobs either.

 

[Concept Coop]

In Business you do not get paid what you "deserve". You get paid for what you negotiate.

So many jobs have a set wage so you either take it or leave it-This is one of those jobs.

That's not the conversation. The conversation is--should it apply to the minimum wage requirements. Not whether or not mimumum wage is should exist.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

They generally have better options from a strictly salary standpoint and opt against them.

Study please.

Study what? The plaintiff in the suit left a $12/hour cheering job to join the Raiderettes. Ask yourself why she did that. The only two possibilities that come to mind are that she was hoping for better exposure, or she thought it would be more fun. Either way, she had at least one better option from a strictly hourly wage standpoint. Without hiring an investigator in the career options for every other cheerleader out there, I can guess MOST if not all of them could make a better wage elsewhere.

I assumed you were basing your claims off of something concrete, and was asking for the source.

The source is an interview with the plaintiff. She admitted to leaving a better paying job to join the Raiderettes.

Beyond that, it is just common sense. I hope you don't expect some scientific research on the career possibilities of current and former NFL cheerleaders. But common sense tells me each of them is likely to be able to go to Hooters and make a tidy sum if nothing else. Couple hundred bucks a night seem outrageous to you? Just guessing here. Do you doubt the average NFL cheerleader could get hired at Hooters?

But besides Hooters and whatever other "seedy industry" they might be qualified for (not that they should be required to anything like that or that that would be the ONLY thing they would be qualified for, it's just an obvious option if they choose to go that route), many of them have college degrees, and most of them already have other jobs. No, I can't prove it with a study, it's just what I've read. Believe it or don't.

Sweet. You have one data point.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

They generally have better options from a strictly salary standpoint and opt against them.

Study please.

Study what? The plaintiff in the suit left a $12/hour cheering job to join the Raiderettes. Ask yourself why she did that. The only two possibilities that come to mind are that she was hoping for better exposure, or she thought it would be more fun. Either way, she had at least one better option from a strictly hourly wage standpoint. Without hiring an investigator in the career options for every other cheerleader out there, I can guess MOST if not all of them could make a better wage elsewhere.

I assumed you were basing your claims off of something concrete, and was asking for the source.

The source is an interview with the plaintiff. She admitted to leaving a better paying job to join the Raiderettes.

Beyond that, it is just common sense. I hope you don't expect some scientific research on the career possibilities of current and former NFL cheerleaders. But common sense tells me each of them is likely to be able to go to Hooters and make a tidy sum if nothing else. Couple hundred bucks a night seem outrageous to you? Just guessing here. Do you doubt the average NFL cheerleader could get hired at Hooters?

But besides Hooters and whatever other "seedy industry" they might be qualified for (not that they should be required to anything like that or that that would be the ONLY thing they would be qualified for, it's just an obvious option if they choose to go that route), many of them have college degrees, and most of them already have other jobs. No, I can't prove it with a study, it's just what I've read. Believe it or don't.

Sweet. You have one data point.

How many do you have? I have the one that DIRECTLY applies to this suit. Can you show that these jobs are the best they can get wage wise? Good luck with that.

At some point you can't just cop out by demanding a study that will never exist and relying on that to suggest one side of a point is relevant or not. I've given my reasoning on why the NFL cheerleading gigs are not likely to be the best paying jobs the people in them can get. Have you given ANY reasoning on why you don't believe that to be the case? Did you disagree with any of my assumptions?

Let's take it one by one if that helps.

Do you believe the average NFL NFL cheerleader could get a job at Hooters or some similar establishment?

Do you believe those positions make more per hour (with tips of course, not base salary) than the NFL cheerleading paychecks?

Or more to the point, IF you assume that the NFL paycheck is in reality less than minimum wage, do you believe that Hooters server net income is less than minimum wage?

If you disagree with any of those assumptions, by all means let's hear it. Otherwise, I think it's safe to say we agree these chosen positions do not generate the highest net wage the employee can make.

If this all sounds ridiculous, I agree. You are are harping on a point I made that you imply you disagree with, but aren't really offering an alternate opinion or reasoning.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

You guys can make all the ridiculous cases you want, talk about soap and simple training and try to make my position out to be some extremist position, but that's not the reality. NFL cheerleaders are not fast-food workers. Their situations aren't remotely like the run of the mill factory worker. They are part-time seasonal specialists in a specialized field with specialized compensation. They generally have better options from a strictly salary standpoint and opt against them. The minimum wage was simply never designed to be applied to situations like those and they aren't applied to many other similar situations we have been over a thousand times now.

The minimum wage was designed to be a baseline for all workers in the country, regardless of field. There is a huge amount of case law which affects how the minimum wage applies to people working in lots of different modalities, including the ones that have been brought up in this thread. There doesn't appear to be case law, yet, on how it applies to NFL cheerleaders, but I can assure you that the result of the case will not be that the minimum wage doesn't apply to NFL cheerleaders.

Case law may well be coming, but the dept of labor has already reviewed this particular case and said that cheerleaders aren't subject to the federal minimum wage as seasonal employees. For what it's worth.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

The fact that more have them than don't tells me most teams find them valuable to the bottom line. It doesn't tell me the squads by themselves generate millions of dollars in all cases. The fact that some teams don't carry them at all tells me the business case for them isn't an open and shut case, otherwise all or nearly all of the teams would have them. The "greedy ******* owners" everybody has an issue with couldn't possibly voluntarily leave easy-win millions on the table could they?

I am not making an argument that it is universally profitable. But it is for the organizations that use them. That's why they have them.

Finally, a point upon which we can agree.

As they are right now, the existing squads are likely to be profitable.

 

[Ruffrodys05]

As they are right now, the existing squads are likely to be profitable.

I'm confused....are you now implying that paying them minimum wage would likely make the squads non-profitable for their respective teams?

 

[fatness]

Steven Spielberg was an unpaid intern.

Steve Jobs was an unpaid intern.

You guys can make all the ridiculous cases you want

So it's someone else's turn to do that now.

 

[mr roboto]

They generally have better options from a strictly salary standpoint and opt against them.

Study please.

Study what? The plaintiff in the suit left a $12/hour cheering job to join the Raiderettes. Ask yourself why she did that. The only two possibilities that come to mind are that she was hoping for better exposure, or she thought it would be more fun. Either way, she had at least one better option from a strictly hourly wage standpoint. Without hiring an investigator in the career options for every other cheerleader out there, I can guess MOST if not all of them could make a better wage elsewhere.

I assumed you were basing your claims off of something concrete, and was asking for the source.

The source is an interview with the plaintiff. She admitted to leaving a better paying job to join the Raiderettes.Beyond that, it is just common sense. I hope you don't expect some scientific research on the career possibilities of current and former NFL cheerleaders. But common sense tells me each of them is likely to be able to go to Hooters and make a tidy sum if nothing else. Couple hundred bucks a night seem outrageous to you? Just guessing here. Do you doubt the average NFL cheerleader could get hired at Hooters?

But besides Hooters and whatever other "seedy industry" they might be qualified for (not that they should be required to anything like that or that that would be the ONLY thing they would be qualified for, it's just an obvious option if they choose to go that route), many of them have college degrees, and most of them already have other jobs. No, I can't prove it with a study, it's just what I've read. Believe it or don't.

Sweet. You have one data point.

How many do you have?

 

[Concept Coop]

How many do you have?

The burden should fall on the one making the claim. Russell's teapot.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

As they are right now, the existing squads are likely to be profitable.

I'm confused....are you now implying that paying them minimum wage would likely make the squads non-profitable for their respective teams?

No, just saying that they are likely to be currently "profitable". At what point they become unprofitable or not worth the bother I have no idea. Maybe they could pay the cheerleaders 100k each and still be profitable. I'm sure lots of folks would hazard a guess though. The only thing I was implying really is that if the squads in general were exceptionally profitable by themselves with lots of room for error, I think every team would do it, so my assumption (and it is just that, nothing more) is that the margins aren't as big as some folks might imagine. It would be really hard to draw the lines between what cheerleading itself is directly bringing in vs what the team would bring in without cheerleading.

 

[KellysHeroes]

I was provided training at an old job that helped me get a more lucrative job later on. Holy Schneider probably thinks i should have worked there for free.

Are you a beautiful woman? If so, yes.

is your job a performing art?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

How many do you have?

The burden should fall on the one making the claim. Russell's teapot.

I made the claim and gave my reasons. I gave one concrete example and then gave my assumptions for extrapolating that example to the rest of the plausible scenarios, and asked if you disagreed with them. Apparently, you did not disagree with them, so I'd say the burden was met and we can safely move on.

 

[GregR]

I imagine the Cowboys cheerleaders would probably be the most popular and therefore profitable group, and there are numbers out there that can give us a picture of what they earn, plus a figure given for squads in general. A few quotes from a 2010 article:

While cheerleaders don’t bring in tons of money to an NFL franchise, it is reported that a squad does bring in an extra US$1 million per season...

One of the ways that the Cowboys have marketed their cheerleaders is through merchandise. In addition to an annual swimsuit calendar, the Cowboys also run a camp every summer for aspiring cheerleaders where participants pay US$189 for the three-day session. The team makes a reported US$500,000 per season through appearances, as they charge US$200 per hour, per cheerleader.

I do love how a million dollars isn't considered tons of money anymore.

Saw another article that said the Cowboys cheerleader calendar for 2013 was expected to sell 200,000 copies. At the price on Amazon that's $3.35 million in revenue for calendars, plus the half million for appearances.

Then there'd be the indirect revenue... creating good memories for kids who meet them at events and helps them grow up as fans of the team, drawing horny male football fans to events, being able to splash sexy images in football commercials and during games, having them as halftime and two-minute warning entertainment for 70k+ people, not to mention being able to have a big team presence at events without having to take up the time of your players.

I have a hard time embracing an argument that the small amount it would take to up them to minimum wage isn't justified given the amount they bring in.

 

[Concept Coop]

I made the claim and gave my reasons. I gave one concrete example and then gave my assumptions for extrapolating that example to the rest of the plausible scenarios, and asked if you disagreed with them. Apparently, you did not disagree with them, so I'd say the burden was met and we can safely move on.

I have moved on, as my statement wasn't directed towards you. You supplied your reasoning--certainly. Whether I feel it was enough to justify your claim is not directly related to my most recent comment towards Sir Robot.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Steven Spielberg was an unpaid intern.

Steve Jobs was an unpaid intern.

You guys can make all the ridiculous cases you want

So it's someone else's turn to do that now.

Those examples were meant to illustrate the fact that lots of folks are willing to put in work to further their careers regardless of the salary level. Some of them are successful, some aren't. It's AN avenue to success, but certainly not the only one.

By the "simple" standard that is being bandied about here, the positions that those guys had would have been outlawed - if not by the law itself (which did not apply to those scenarios, and currently does not apply to the cheerleading scenario), then by some higher moral authority. To me, that makes no sense. Those guys were getting something OUT of those internships, regardless of what they made (nothing) compared to what the movie made or how the technology performed. Were they bitter at the time or even afterwards? Can't be sure, but I doubt it. Just like Teri Hatcher is not likely to be bitter about the connections she made as a cheerleader. Now for the folks that DON'T get any long-term benefit out of the additional exposure, I'll be you will find a lot more folks who are irritated by the whole thing. Not everyone is going to be Spielberg or Hatcher. But that's like buying a lottery ticket and complaining when it's not a winner. YOU bought the ticket. YOU knew (or should have known) the odds. And the odds of an NFL cheerleading stint helping an aspiring model or acress' career seems pretty high. Before someone asks for a study on that, I'll admit that opinion is anecdotal. Google "famous former NFL cheerleaders" and you'll find a fair amount of big-time success compared to the number of former cheerleaders. And of course you'll never find the smaller, but still valuable career boosts that may have been gained. You can probably find all the former NFL cheerleader playboy models (there are a lot), but for every one of those, there are likely to be ten lower level modeling, acting, or sports reporting gig that may not have been possible without the NFL gig.

Regardless, it's a far cry from an argument designed to compare employer provided hand-soap to comped NFL season tickets and paid appearance opportunities.

 

[Concept Coop]

Those examples were meant to illustrate the fact that lots of folks are willing to put in work to further their careers regardless of the salary level. Some of them are successful, some aren't. It's AN avenue to success, but certainly not the only one.

Every job serves to better prepare us for future opportunities. This isn't an intership or college course. It's a job. I have yet to hear a solid reason why it shouldn't be subject to min wage laws.

 

[FUBAR]

I imagine the Cowboys cheerleaders would probably be the most popular and therefore profitable group, and there are numbers out there that can give us a picture of what they earn, plus a figure given for squads in general. A few quotes from a 2010 article:

While cheerleaders don’t bring in tons of money to an NFL franchise, it is reported that a squad does bring in an extra US$1 million per season...

One of the ways that the Cowboys have marketed their cheerleaders is through merchandise. In addition to an annual swimsuit calendar, the Cowboys also run a camp every summer for aspiring cheerleaders where participants pay US$189 for the three-day session. The team makes a reported US$500,000 per season through appearances, as they charge US$200 per hour, per cheerleader.

I do love how a million dollars isn't considered tons of money anymore.

Saw another article that said the Cowboys cheerleader calendar for 2013 was expected to sell 200,000 copies. At the price on Amazon that's $3.35 million in revenue for calendars, plus the half million for appearances.

Then there'd be the indirect revenue... creating good memories for kids who meet them at events and helps them grow up as fans of the team, drawing horny male football fans to events, being able to splash sexy images in football commercials and during games, having them as halftime and two-minute warning entertainment for 70k+ people, not to mention being able to have a big team presence at events without having to take up the time of your players.

I have a hard time embracing an argument that the small amount it would take to up them to minimum wage isn't justified given the amount they bring in.

Seems we're arguing different things.

1. Do cheerleaders make money for their franchise. Probably yes, although it's difficult to ascertain exactly how much. The Cowgirls are likely the high end. Six teams seems to believe the squad isn't worthwhile or would change their image and they don't want that change. But for the most part, we can probably agree or concede that they probably make money.

2. Do cheerleaders deserve to make minimum wage. Frankly, I'm undecided on this. If forced to choose, I'd probably create a volunteer squad for my NFL team and see how that does.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

One point I want to make before this thread dies is that I do not view them as strippers or anything derogatory, theres a level of achievement to be a cheerleader for an organization like an NFL team.

I don't view cheerleading OR stripping to be "derogatory". People act like one profession is totally upstanding and the other is totally immoral or whatever word you want to use.

They are both skilled professions in my book, and I don't judge either one. But I do find it odd that some folks find it degrading to cheerleaders when the two professions are compared or put in a similar grouping. It's not a coincidence that so many NFL cheerleaders find themselves gracing the pages of Playboy magazine. Similar, I would guess that some find their way into the ranks of the "unclean" adult dancing profession at some point, and more power to them if they enjoy it and it pays the bills.

Despite the fact that I'm now probably viewed as some wacky right-wing extremist, me comparing cheerleaders to strippers was not meant as a slight at all - to either of them. We all have our gifts, and my wish is that all of us get to choose what we do with them as liberally as possible.

 

[GregR]

I imagine the Cowboys cheerleaders would probably be the most popular and therefore profitable group, and there are numbers out there that can give us a picture of what they earn, plus a figure given for squads in general. A few quotes from a 2010 article:

While cheerleaders don’t bring in tons of money to an NFL franchise, it is reported that a squad does bring in an extra US$1 million per season...

One of the ways that the Cowboys have marketed their cheerleaders is through merchandise. In addition to an annual swimsuit calendar, the Cowboys also run a camp every summer for aspiring cheerleaders where participants pay US$189 for the three-day session. The team makes a reported US$500,000 per season through appearances, as they charge US$200 per hour, per cheerleader.

I do love how a million dollars isn't considered tons of money anymore.

Saw another article that said the Cowboys cheerleader calendar for 2013 was expected to sell 200,000 copies. At the price on Amazon that's $3.35 million in revenue for calendars, plus the half million for appearances.

Then there'd be the indirect revenue... creating good memories for kids who meet them at events and helps them grow up as fans of the team, drawing horny male football fans to events, being able to splash sexy images in football commercials and during games, having them as halftime and two-minute warning entertainment for 70k+ people, not to mention being able to have a big team presence at events without having to take up the time of your players.

I have a hard time embracing an argument that the small amount it would take to up them to minimum wage isn't justified given the amount they bring in.

Seems we're arguing different things.

1. Do cheerleaders make money for their franchise. Probably yes, although it's difficult to ascertain exactly how much. The Cowgirls are likely the high end. Six teams seems to believe the squad isn't worthwhile or would change their image and they don't want that change. But for the most part, we can probably agree or concede that they probably make money.

2. Do cheerleaders deserve to make minimum wage. Frankly, I'm undecided on this. If forced to choose, I'd probably create a volunteer squad for my NFL team and see how that does.

What set of criteria would you say needs to be met for any job to be deserving of minimum wage?

 

[Concept Coop]

It's actually really weird reading people defend a company's right to pay less than minimum wage. Kind of creepy.

 

[Concept Coop]

2. Do cheerleaders deserve to make minimum wage. Frankly, I'm undecided on this. If forced to choose, I'd probably create a volunteer squad for my NFL team and see how that does.

To get out of paying minimum wage?!

 

[Concept Coop]

But I do find it odd that some folks find it degrading to cheerleaders when the two professions are compared or put in a similar grouping. It's not a coincidence that so many NFL cheerleaders find themselves gracing the pages of Playboy magazine.

And how many is that, exactly? And how does it compare to other professions? You seem to know a lot about it. Again, sources would be great.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Those examples were meant to illustrate the fact that lots of folks are willing to put in work to further their careers regardless of the salary level. Some of them are successful, some aren't. It's AN avenue to success, but certainly not the only one.

Every job serves to better prepare us for future opportunities. This isn't an intership or college course. It's a job. I have yet to hear a solid reason why it shouldn't be subject to min wage laws.

Semantics. Is an internship not a "job"? Depends on your definition of job I guess.

As for a solid reason, I suppose the US Department of Labor's reason isn't solid? There are lots and lots of reasons those hourly wage requirements don't fit with all jobs, which is why they have a lot of exceptions built into the laws.

Aside from that, the question I have is whether the NFL cheerleading "job" is closer to a factory worker/fast-food job, a career boosting internship, a sales job with commissions, seasonal amusement work, a service industry job with tips, or an independent performing arts type contract. Only ONE of those categories of job is subject to the minimum federal wage, and cheerleading fits into last four or five much better than it does into the first one.

And of course, getting back to burden of proof, there is NO proof that the cheerleaders AREN'T making minimum wage anyway. That is just an assertion by a lawyer representing a dissatisfied employee. An assertion that was just dismissed as irrelevant by the Department of Labor.

 

[Concept Coop]

Aside from that, the question I have is whether the NFL cheerleading "job" is closer to a factory worker/fast-food job, a career boosting internship, a sales job with commissions, seasonal amusement work, a service industry job with tips, or an independent performing arts type contract. Only ONE of those categories of job is subject to the minimum federal wage, and cheerleading fits into last four or five much better than it does into the first one.

Seeing as how it's not an intership--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no sales commisions--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no tips--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how they are not independant performers working on contract--we can cross that out.

Seasonal amusement workers get mimimum wage--we can cross that out.

Anything else?

Next?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

But I do find it odd that some folks find it degrading to cheerleaders when the two professions are compared or put in a similar grouping. It's not a coincidence that so many NFL cheerleaders find themselves gracing the pages of Playboy magazine.

And how many is that, exactly? And how does it compare to other professions? You seem to know a lot about it. Again, sources would be great.

Do your own googling, I even gave you the terms for goodness sake. Per wikipedia, of about 20 "notable" former Raiderettes (just one team mind you, not all 32), five were featured in Playboy. Do you think 5 out of the total number of former Raiderettes in the last 30 years or so is higher or lower than the percentage of general population being featured in Playboy? Could be more than five, maybe some didn't make the list.

But enough with the blindly challenging my statements without providing some reasoning or proof on your end. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but do your own research - it's not rocket science.

 

[Concept Coop]

But enough with the blindly challenging my statements without providing some reasoning or proof on your end. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but do your own research - it's not rocket science.

How long would it take you to prove that there is not a teapot rotating around Saturn? In the meantime--do I get to claim there it is? You know--because it's not rocket science.

 

[Concept Coop]

But enough with the blindly challenging my statements without providing some reasoning or proof on your end. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but do your own research - it's not rocket science.

How long would it take you to prove that there is not a teapot rotating around Saturn? In the meantime--do I get to claim there it is? You know--because it's not rocket science.

And what about models? Are they in the same boat as strippers? Actresses? News anchors? Professional wrestlers? Tennis players?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Aside from that, the question I have is whether the NFL cheerleading "job" is closer to a factory worker/fast-food job, a career boosting internship, a sales job with commissions, seasonal amusement work, a service industry job with tips, or an independent performing arts type contract. Only ONE of those categories of job is subject to the minimum federal wage, and cheerleading fits into last four or five much better than it does into the first one.

Seeing as how it's not an intership--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no sales commisions--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no tips--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how they are not independant performers working on contract--we can cross that out.

Seasonal amusement workers get mimimum wage--we can cross that out.

Anything else?

Next?

Sure, you can cross off fast food worker, because they aren't that.

But seasonal workers is EXACTLY how the Dept of Labor defined them by the way. So your opinion there differs from the body who interprets the rules...

And an internship is MUCH closer to what the position actually yields than anything else on the list. It is not well defined, but again according to wiki some of the common defining characteristics are:

Positions usually temporary. Check. These are partial year gigs, subject to audition every year.

Exchange of service between the applicant and the organization. Check.

Used to create a network of contacts. Check.

Is it a perfect one to one? No. Is it closer than the typical job the minimum was created to protect? Yes.

 

[Concept Coop]

But seasonal workers is EXACTLY how the Dept of Labor defined them by the way. So your opinion there differs from the body who interprets the rules...

Where did I say they weren't seasonal or temporary? Being seasonal or temporary does not make a position exempt from min wage laws.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

But enough with the blindly challenging my statements without providing some reasoning or proof on your end. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but do your own research - it's not rocket science.

How long would it take you to prove that there is not a teapot rotating around Saturn? In the meantime--do I get to claim there it is? You know--because it's not rocket science.

Gotta love a pseudo-intellectual. You are not even using your own analogy correctly. I am not claiming something that is unfalsifiable. It is possible to prove what I am saying is wrong (if it is) you just haven't been able or willing to do it. You can demand a proof of every common sense position til you are blue in the face, but I humbly suggest you do your own work from now on.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

But seasonal workers is EXACTLY how the Dept of Labor defined them by the way. So your opinion there differs from the body who interprets the rules...

Where did I say they weren't seasonal or temporary? Being seasonal or temporary does not make a position exempt from min wage laws.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/us-labor-department-calls-nfl-cheerleaders-seasonal-amusement-says-they-dont-deserve-minimum

 

[Holy Schneikes]

But enough with the blindly challenging my statements without providing some reasoning or proof on your end. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but do your own research - it's not rocket science.

How long would it take you to prove that there is not a teapot rotating around Saturn? In the meantime--do I get to claim there it is? You know--because it's not rocket science.

And what about models? Are they in the same boat as strippers? Actresses? News anchors? Professional wrestlers? Tennis players?

We are ALL in the same boat brother. I don't judge any legal profession to be immoral. Telemarketers might push it a little.

 

[Milkman]

In Business you do not get paid what you "deserve". You get paid for what you negotiate.

So many jobs have a set wage so you either take it or leave it-This is one of those jobs.

If a business owner has hundreds of people lined up to fill two dozen slots he is going to

pay as little as possible. If you don't like it don't sign the contract. I doubt that any of you

will petition the NFL teams with squads to pay them more or boycott the games.

This is what needs to change about employment. There are industries that have increased profits for nearly four decades that haven't increased wages at all over that same time period. In fact wages have decreased if adjusted for inflation. You are in a sense suggesting slave labor should be an acceptable means of compensation if that's how the free market values a certain set of skills. I know that's a bit of a strawman at this point but if we were to run out the numbers, at their current trajectory, it would show that's where we're headed.

 

[coolnerd]

Aside from that, the question I have is whether the NFL cheerleading "job" is closer to a factory worker/fast-food job, a career boosting internship, a sales job with commissions, seasonal amusement work, a service industry job with tips, or an independent performing arts type contract. Only ONE of those categories of job is subject to the minimum federal wage, and cheerleading fits into last four or five much better than it does into the first one.

Seeing as how it's not an intership--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no sales commisions--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no tips--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how they are not independant performers working on contract--we can cross that out.

Seasonal amusement workers get mimimum wage--we can cross that out.

Anything else?

Next?

This is exactly what the contract the cheerleader sign say they are.

 

[renesauz]

Kind of figured there wouldn't be a reasonable response to any of the questions I raised. You can try to boil it down to a simple hot button issue if you'd like to, but the fact is it's a situation that is MUCH more complex than it is being made out to be by you and the woman's legal team through the press. The compensation isn't all direct salary from the team, and even that is much higher than is being represented. "Fifty. Eight. Dollars" is about one 50th of what she earned just from the Raiders last year, so unless you know for a fact that she worked more than 50 full days (for 10 weeks of games), I'm not even sure what your concern is. Again, the $5/hour is a lawyer generated figure. Take it as gospel if you choose, but I prefer to do the math and see the gigantic gap between what you are claiming is an issue, and what she actually received. And NONE of that factors in appearance fee (which are a big deal) OR career exposure (which is a bigger deal). It also doesn't factor in the fact that lots and lots of talented people do free work for things they just enjoy doing or for career advancement or both. It happens in the financial sector, the legal sector, the entertainment industry, the news industry, even in the sports industry. Think none of the coaches or team management personnel took unpaid or underpaid positions before they made it? If so, think again.

The whole thing is simply not cut and dry enough to storm the castle with a mob and pitchforks. But it's tough to fight a mob I guess. Much easier to roll with it and shout along with them.

You apparently didn't bother to read what I said. I didn't say I support the legal case. I said I support the cheerleader's right to earn minimum wage. If they're earning more than that (once everything has been considered, including the laws about what counts as work and what counts as compensation), great.

I just have no respect at all for the idea that they don't deserve at least minimum wage, whatever mental gyrations people go through to come to that conclusion.

Well said.

 

[Concept Coop]

Aside from that, the question I have is whether the NFL cheerleading "job" is closer to a factory worker/fast-food job, a career boosting internship, a sales job with commissions, seasonal amusement work, a service industry job with tips, or an independent performing arts type contract. Only ONE of those categories of job is subject to the minimum federal wage, and cheerleading fits into last four or five much better than it does into the first one.

Seeing as how it's not an intership--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no sales commisions--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no tips--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how they are not independant performers working on contract--we can cross that out.

Seasonal amusement workers get mimimum wage--we can cross that out.

Anything else?

Next?

This is exactly what the contract the cheerleader sign say they are.

Everyone who is legally employed signs a contract.

 

[renesauz]

Aside from that, the question I have is whether the NFL cheerleading "job" is closer to a factory worker/fast-food job, a career boosting internship, a sales job with commissions, seasonal amusement work, a service industry job with tips, or an independent performing arts type contract. Only ONE of those categories of job is subject to the minimum federal wage, and cheerleading fits into last four or five much better than it does into the first one.

Seeing as how it's not an intership--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no sales commisions--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how there are no tips--we can cross that out.

Seeing as how they are not independant performers working on contract--we can cross that out.

Seasonal amusement workers get mimimum wage--we can cross that out.

Anything else?

Next?

This is exactly what the contract the cheerleader sign say they are.

Hard to argue independant with so many very specific requirements. Independant contractors aren't told where to get their hair done, and have the right to work for another company at will. NFL cheeleaders go where they are told, when they are told, appear when and where they are told, and don't appear to have much say or control over any of it. Regardless of what their contract says- they are not independant contractors in any real sense of the word.

 

[Concept Coop]

Gotta love a pseudo-intellectual. You are not even using your own analogy correctly. I am not claiming something that is unfalsifiable. It is possible to prove what I am saying is wrong (if it is) you just haven't been able or willing to do it. You can demand a proof of every common sense position til you are blue in the face, but I humbly suggest you do your own work from now on.

The analogy is a statement on the burden of proof. You make the claims--you should be able to support them. If you can't support them though, I guess it's natural to be defensive about it.

 

[Concept Coop]

http://www.alternet.org/economy/us-labor-department-calls-nfl-cheerleaders-seasonal-amusement-says-they-dont-deserve-minimum

Seasonal or temporary <> seasonal amusement. I'm aware of the labor department's current stance, but that wasn't the point of the OP's question.

 

[fatness]

Steven Spielberg was an unpaid intern.

Steve Jobs was an unpaid intern.

You guys can make all the ridiculous cases you want

So it's someone else's turn to do that now.

Those examples were meant to illustrate the fact that lots of folks are willing to put in work to further their careers regardless of the salary level. Some of them are successful, some aren't. It's AN avenue to success, but certainly not the only one.

Those examples were ridiculous, and were followed by you calling other people's "cases" ridiculous.

It's like discussing a rookie free agent QB signed by a team, bringing up Dan Marino and Joe Montana, and telling people to stop saying ridiculous stuff. Sure, you can do it, but it adds nothing and usually makes the one doing it look a bit......... I'm searching for a word here......

 

[Christo]

It's clear this is just a political argument now.

We conservatives want them to receive what the market dictates.

The progressives/liberals/socialists want them to receive a participation trophy salary because that's what's "fair" and we don't want to hurt their feelings.

Pretty much sums it up.

I don't particularly side with either party, but in this case I think they should get paid what the market dictates, which is pretty much zero pay. Finding cheerleaders for NFL games to work for free would be about as easy as finding someone in a frat house to drink a beer for free.

Not to mention, this isn't a "job". They provide no service, or about the same as some guy on the street corner playing the sax for a few cents here and there. Get rid of them and nobody notices or cares.

I get all the arguments saying "the NFL makes a zillion dollars, they should be embarrassed, blah blah blah". I just don't agree with those arguments in this case.

If they want to, fine. But these cheerleaders should be careful what they wish for. I can see teams just getting rid of them all together, and then 95% of the cheerleaders are gonna be PISSED

What service does Peyton Manning perform?

How many people pay money to see him perform?

How many pay money to see Tara Battiato perform?

According to some people in this thread, cheerleaders are an important part of the game day experience. Can you point me to where the definition of "service" changes because of the amount of money some people are willing to pay?

I never said they don't provide a service. But the comparison you're making is just silly.

Perhaps you can explain why?

First, you won't find any teams that choose to not employ a QB.

Second, you're fishing with a red herring.