Do NFL Cheerleaders deserve minimum wage? (1 Viewer)

[Shawn]

Does this belong in the shark pool?

 

[Holy Schneikes]

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.

The analogy is a statement on the burden of proof for a claim that is not scientifically falsifiable. What I claimed was falsifiable, and Russell would have nothing to say about it at all. You just used it to make yourself sound smart, but it wasn't really applicable.

I am not really being defensive of my views or my ability to defend them. I was simply annoyed by the sophistry of demanding "studies" to prove things that don't need to be (and never will be) studied as a means to hide your own lack of reasoning.

As I said before, if you don't find my positions to be valid, I have no issue with that whatsoever. But come up with some reasons for your disagreement rather copping out asking for "studies" you know won't ever exist.

 

[nightmare]

The cheerleaders rewards are greater then the pain/hassle the job brings.

Otherwise the same girls wouldn't be coming back year after year. We do

not know what all the rewards are for them. If a girl needs this job for more

then supplemental income she's in the wrong job. The reward for the job is

not money.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

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.

I trust you are a college graduate. Didn't they make you take a philosophy/rhetoric course? Cmon dude. This is just terrible.

 

[Concept Coop]

But come up with some reasons for your disagreement rather copping out asking for "studies" you know won't ever exist.

We both know they won't ever exist--that you're exaggerating and creating to fit your needs. The questions were rhetorical. If you need a pseudo-intellectual to define that term--let me know. Via PM, please.

If you want me to say "that's bull####", rather than "prove it!"--I can

 

[Holy Schneikes]

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.

Huh? The stance is EXACTLY the current legal answer to the OP's question. This sounds like some serious backtracking to me. The category you "crossed out" as a possibility because "seasonal amusement workers get minimum wage" is the current legal answer to why the scenario does NOT fall under minimum wage requirements.

You keep mentioning the OP and the question, but the direct question wasn't even there when the thread started. If you do look at the question literally, the answer is "probably not" because minimum wage is not likely to be applied the way the lawyer calculated it EVEN IF the work fell under the standard minimum wage laws.

If the question is more generally "Do the cheerleaders deserve more than they are getting", there are a lot of ways to answer that question. The default answer for me is that they "deserve" what the market will bear in situations where they are opting for a smaller wage in favor of other benefits. Let the market dictate the value of those benefits. In this case, the market (comprised of the teams AND the potential employees) has dictated that those other benefits are pretty valuable. Does a movie star or professional athlete "deserve" 100 times more income than a kindergarten teacher, emt, or fireman? You will get very different answers to that question, but it's kind of the same question here.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

But come up with some reasons for your disagreement rather copping out asking for "studies" you know won't ever exist.

We both know they won't ever exist--that you're exaggerating and creating to fit your needs. The questions were rhetorical. If you need a pseudo-intellectual to define that term--let me know. Via PM, please.

If you want me to say "that's bull####", rather than "prove it!"--I can

I don't want you to say "bull####" OR "prove it". I want you to say specifically what you disagree with and provide reasoning for that disagreement. That's the point isn't it?

 

[Concept Coop]

Huh? The stance is EXACTLY the current legal answer to the OP's question. This sounds like some serious backtracking to me. The category you "crossed out" as a possibility because "seasonal amusement workers get minimum wage" is the current legal answer to why the scenario does NOT fall under minimum wage requirements.

If the conversation was about the current stance--there would be no conversation; it's a fact. Just as slavery wouldn't have been a conversation, at one point.

 

[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.

I trust you are a college graduate. Didn't they make you take a philosophy/rhetoric course? Cmon dude. This is just terrible.

I am and "they" didn't, but I did anyway. That answer your questions? I would have the same request I just made to Coop. If you have an issue with the argument, make it. "This is just terrible" isn't very enlightening.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Huh? The stance is EXACTLY the current legal answer to the OP's question. This sounds like some serious backtracking to me. The category you "crossed out" as a possibility because "seasonal amusement workers get minimum wage" is the current legal answer to why the scenario does NOT fall under minimum wage requirements.

If the conversation was about the current stance--there would be no conversation; it's a fact. Just as slavery wouldn't have been a conversation, at one point.

OK, let's make this simpler. Can you explain what you meant by:

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

 

[Concept Coop]

OK, let's make this simpler. Can you explain what you meant by:

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

Same thing you meant by : "Only ONE of those categories of job is subject to the minimum federal wage"

 

[Holy Schneikes]

OK, let's make this simpler. Can you explain what you meant by:

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

Same thing you meant by : "Only ONE of those categories of job is subject to the minimum federal wage"

Again with the diversion. It was a pretty simple question wasn't it? Are you unable or just unwilling to answer it?

 

[Concept Coop]

Again with the diversion. It was a pretty simple question wasn't it? Are you unable or just unwilling to answer it?

Tell me what part of the sentence you didn't understand, and I'll do my best.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Again with the diversion. It was a pretty simple question wasn't it? Are you unable or just unwilling to answer it?

Tell me what part of the sentence you didn't understand, and I'll do my best.

What I don't understand is that to my knowledge, the first part of the statement is entirely untrue, yet you seem to use it as a reason for eliminating that option from the list of "similar" work categories. And when asked about it, you seemed to evade rather than just say "I was mistaken on that". So did you or do you really believe it to be true, or is there some other ironic purpose for using it as a reason to "cross off" seasonal work as the closest fit for cheerleading work categories?

It is honestly possible I am missing something here. But it just seems like you made a mistaken assumption, and responded on that assumption. That's 100% totally fine, we all make mistakes all the time, but it also seems like you don't want to back away from it so I want to make sure I am NOT missing something about what you are actually saying there.

 

[thriftyrocker]

"seasonal amusement" exclusion doesn't apply in California where the suit originates (cue looney tunes theme)

 

[MoveToSkypager]

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.

I trust you are a college graduate. Didn't they make you take a philosophy/rhetoric course? Cmon dude. This is just terrible.

I am and "they" didn't, but I did anyway. That answer your questions? I would have the same request I just made to Coop. If you have an issue with the argument, make it. "This is just terrible" isn't very enlightening.

You using more words to be unenlightening isn't very special either. Let me ask you (and try to not use randomly all caps words to answer this): Do you think using a single woman's employment at 12/hr is enough to satisfy that original claim? Since you understand the rules of these things, please don't be intellectually dishonest. If this is just some rhetoric exercise for you, now is the time to say it.

 

[Concept Coop]

What I don't understand is that to my knowledge, the first part of the statement is entirely untrue, yet you seem to use it as a reason for eliminating that option from the list of "similar" work categories.

So your question was rhetorical? Didn't know those needed to be answered.

But yes--you're right; I mispoke and was wrong. There is a seasonal amusement clause which--if a business qualifies for it--can exclude it from the regulation.

 

[mr roboto]

Did you guys really argue about whether or not a statement which simply held out the possibility that another rational actor had equal or better choices for employment was falsifiable?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Did you guys really argue about whether or not a statement which simply held out the possibility that another rational actor had equal or better choices for employment was falsifiable?

I didn't argue anything

 

[Rockchild]

Did you guys really argue about whether or not a statement which simply held out the possibility that another rational actor had equal or better choices for employment was falsifiable?

Oh man, we need the NFL draft NOW!!!!!!!!!

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Did you guys really argue about whether or not a statement which simply held out the possibility that another rational actor had equal or better choices for employment was falsifiable?

Oh man, we need the NFL draft NOW!!!!!!!!!

 

[RUSF18]

When I saw this thread grow a lot yesterday, I figured it had something to do with the Bills' cheerleader suit which made Deadspin..

http://deadspin.com/suit-bills-cheerleaders-were-taught-how-to-wash-intim-1566239771

The legal problems, of course, arise from the payment situation—when there was payment, that is. Jills were not paid for working game days. Neither were they paid for the mandatory biweekly practice sessions that usually lasted eight hours in total, according to the suit. On average, the cheerleaders involved in the suit averaged only a few hundred dollars per season, the highest amount being $1,800, the lowest $150. Not surprisingly, the lady who made $150 didn't cheer the next year.

The only real money lay in appearances. But, again, most of the time those didn't pay. The cheerleaders were required to make 30-odd free appearances a season, and the powers that be had sole control over who was selected for one of the profitable paid gigs. Not that the Bills, Citadel, and Stejon went unpaid for providing cheerleaders. According to the complaint, Stejon made $10,000 per sponsorship—sponsored clients made up the bulk of the unpaid appearances—and last season the team had at least 11 such arrangements.

There were other events. The cheerleaders host an annual "Junior Jills" program in three cities, where young girls are taught the basics of cheering. The suit says 300-400 girls attend these camps and pay as much as $250 a pop to show up. The Jills did not receive payment.

The grossest event the Jills had to endure was the annual golf tournament:

A. The Jills Annual Golf Tournament–Select Jills were required to wear a bikini, and then go into a dunk tank, where they were dunked in water by the golf tournament participants. Jills cheerleaders are also "auctioned off" like prizes at this event, and had to ride around with the winning bidder in his golf cart for the duration of the tournament. While serving as a "bought person" they were subjected to additional demeaning treatment, including degrading sexual comments and inappropriate touching. Oftentimes, the Jills were forced to sit on participants' laps because there was not enough seats in the golf carts. The golf tournament also featured a "Flip for Tips" component, wherein participants paid gratuities to watch select Jills do backflips and acrobatics for the gratification of the crowd. (The Jills did not receive any of the tip money).
Not that "The Man Show" was any picnic, either. In that event, held at a casino, the cheerleaders were led around the floor in their bikinis to the delight of the guys in attendance. Like the Jills Annual Golf Tournament, "The Man Show" was an unpaid event.

If you want more on the schedule of penalties inflicted on the cheerleaders, the familiar calendar scheme, and the various other indignities, you should read the whole complaint.

 

[Faust]

Bills cheerleaders file lawsuit, claim team had rules for hygiene

 

[Pickle Rody]

These lawsuits are starting to garner national attention as ABC's GMA had a quick story about the Jills lawsuit this morning.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Bills cheerleaders file lawsuit, claim team had rules for hygiene

sounds like the girls are getting organized

 

[lod01]

Jiggle test.

 

[fatness]

When I saw this thread grow a lot yesterday, I figured it had something to do with the Bills' cheerleader suit which made Deadspin..

http://deadspin.com/suit-bills-cheerleaders-were-taught-how-to-wash-intim-1566239771

So the Bills cheerleaders were required to be at appearances on a voluntary basis, while other people profited off their appearances there. Am I reading that correctly?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Does this belong in the shark pool?

No, no it doesn't.

However, I will say this:



And this: I feel bad for Bills fans.

 

[KellysHeroes]

When I saw this thread grow a lot yesterday, I figured it had something to do with the Bills' cheerleader suit which made Deadspin..

http://deadspin.com/suit-bills-cheerleaders-were-taught-how-to-wash-intim-1566239771

So the Bills cheerleaders were required to be at appearances on a voluntary basis, while other people profited off their appearances there. Am I reading that correctly?

was wondering the samething, I've read that some make the most $$ at those events. That squad was being runned as if their in high school.

 

[KellysHeroes]

http://deadspin.com/rules-for-ben-gals-cheerleaders-no-panties-no-slou-1522379579

Bengals now!!!,

Fines http://deadspin.com/heres-every-finable-offense-for-raiders-cheerleaders-1507336361

 

[KellysHeroes]

if this keeps up the NFL is going to have to step in, especially after the bullying scandal

 

[FUBAR]

if this keeps up the NFL is going to have to step in, especially after the bullying scandal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQtWZC8F1yk

 

[The Duff Man]

1000s of people would line up to do any sideline job in the NFL, why not pay them less than minimum wage? Supply and demand right?

For that matter, the refs are horrible and lots of people would do that job for 1/100th of what the current guys get. They are just better organized than the cheerleaders.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'm sure a lot of the cheerleaders take these jobs so that a) they can get on someone's radar and make money doing something else shortly after, eg modeling, porn, escort......or b) to meet a player and hook up with him. Either way, this could be viewed more as an unpaid internship.

 

[GregR]

I'm sure a lot of the cheerleaders take these jobs so that a) they can get on someone's radar and make money doing something else shortly after, eg modeling, porn, escort......or b) to meet a player and hook up with him. Either way, this could be viewed more as an unpaid internship.

I agree their compensation is currently closer to that of an internship than not.

Which might be fine if they are doing intern-level work for the NFL with the value that you normally get from an intern. Getting coffee and lunch, cleaning the mud out from between the player's cleats, running errands to save time for more important staff members, etc.

But from the articles previously cited, we know most cheerleader squads bring in about a million dollars in actual revenue, and the Cowboys cheerleaders brought in nearly $4m in just appearances and their calendar sales. That's not even counting indirect value in advertising, public relations, etc.

I struggle to come up with other internships where so much money is generated solely by the performance of interns. A cheerleader may derive some benefits similar to the benefits that interns get. But the value they deliver blows away the value that comes from an intern. They should receive compensation for that difference.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'm sure a lot of the cheerleaders take these jobs so that a) they can get on someone's radar and make money doing something else shortly after, eg modeling, porn, escort......or b) to meet a player and hook up with him. Either way, this could be viewed more as an unpaid internship.

I agree their compensation is currently closer to that of an internship than not.

Which might be fine if they are doing intern-level work for the NFL with the value that you normally get from an intern. Getting coffee and lunch, cleaning the mud out from between the player's cleats, running errands to save time for more important staff members, etc.

But from the articles previously cited, we know most cheerleader squads bring in about a million dollars in actual revenue, and the Cowboys cheerleaders brought in nearly $4m in just appearances and their calendar sales. That's not even counting indirect value in advertising, public relations, etc.

I struggle to come up with other internships where so much money is generated solely by the performance of interns. A cheerleader may derive some benefits similar to the benefits that interns get. But the value they deliver blows away the value that comes from an intern. They should receive compensation for that difference.

They are being provided non cash compensation. In the form of exposure that leads to future earnings. Think of college athletes as an equivalent......sure, they are paid, but not at "market value." Whatever that means.

Ask yourself this: if these girls weren't cheerleaders, would anyone buy their calendars? Ask again: could you find enough similarly attractive girls whom you could put into Cowgirl uniforms, slap a little makeup on them, and sell a bunch of calendars? Of course

 

[GregR]

I'm sure a lot of the cheerleaders take these jobs so that a) they can get on someone's radar and make money doing something else shortly after, eg modeling, porn, escort......or b) to meet a player and hook up with him. Either way, this could be viewed more as an unpaid internship.

I agree their compensation is currently closer to that of an internship than not.

Which might be fine if they are doing intern-level work for the NFL with the value that you normally get from an intern. Getting coffee and lunch, cleaning the mud out from between the player's cleats, running errands to save time for more important staff members, etc.

But from the articles previously cited, we know most cheerleader squads bring in about a million dollars in actual revenue, and the Cowboys cheerleaders brought in nearly $4m in just appearances and their calendar sales. That's not even counting indirect value in advertising, public relations, etc.

I struggle to come up with other internships where so much money is generated solely by the performance of interns. A cheerleader may derive some benefits similar to the benefits that interns get. But the value they deliver blows away the value that comes from an intern. They should receive compensation for that difference.

They are being provided non cash compensation. In the form of exposure that leads to future earnings. Think of college athletes as an equivalent......sure, they are paid, but not at "market value." Whatever that means.

Ask yourself this: if these girls weren't cheerleaders, would anyone buy their calendars? Ask again: could you find enough similarly attractive girls whom you could put into Cowgirl uniforms, slap a little makeup on them, and sell a bunch of calendars? Of course

Cheerleaders are being offered non-cash compensation, the same as other interns in business, but produce a lot of tangible value while other interns don't.

College athletes are mostly an expense rather than a value. Yet their degree probably holds far, far more value than the extra benefits your average cheerleader will get out of cheerleading. I think the comparison just supports that NFL cheerleaders are underpaid for what they produce. Especially as college athletes are students, not employees.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'm sure a lot of the cheerleaders take these jobs so that a) they can get on someone's radar and make money doing something else shortly after, eg modeling, porn, escort......or b) to meet a player and hook up with him. Either way, this could be viewed more as an unpaid internship.

I agree their compensation is currently closer to that of an internship than not.

Which might be fine if they are doing intern-level work for the NFL with the value that you normally get from an intern. Getting coffee and lunch, cleaning the mud out from between the player's cleats, running errands to save time for more important staff members, etc.

But from the articles previously cited, we know most cheerleader squads bring in about a million dollars in actual revenue, and the Cowboys cheerleaders brought in nearly $4m in just appearances and their calendar sales. That's not even counting indirect value in advertising, public relations, etc.

I struggle to come up with other internships where so much money is generated solely by the performance of interns. A cheerleader may derive some benefits similar to the benefits that interns get. But the value they deliver blows away the value that comes from an intern. They should receive compensation for that difference.

They are being provided non cash compensation. In the form of exposure that leads to future earnings. Think of college athletes as an equivalent......sure, they are paid, but not at "market value." Whatever that means.

Ask yourself this: if these girls weren't cheerleaders, would anyone buy their calendars? Ask again: could you find enough similarly attractive girls whom you could put into Cowgirl uniforms, slap a little makeup on them, and sell a bunch of calendars? Of course

Cheerleaders are being offered non-cash compensation, the same as other interns in business, but produce a lot of tangible value while other interns don't.

College athletes are mostly an expense rather than a value. Yet their degree probably holds far, far more value than the extra benefits your average cheerleader will get out of cheerleading. I think the comparison just supports that NFL cheerleaders are underpaid for what they produce. Especially as college athletes are students, not employees.

Missed the point. That's cool though.

 

[fatness]

Raider cheerleader fines.

Forget to bring (including but not limited to) correct pom(s) or props to practice? $10.00 fine

Wear wrong designated workout wear and/or footwear for two-piece Wednesday rehearsals, special rehearsals and/or game day rehearsals? $10.00 fine

Not able to get bios in on time? $10.00 fine

Forget all or part of the official uniform, boots, and or poms for any event or game day? $10.00 fine (per item) and/or benched from game (-125.00)

Boots not clean and polished for game day? $10.00 fine

Failure to follow point #1 under Etiquette or Appearances (Game Day Ready)? $10.00 fine

FINES WILL CONTINUE TO DOUBLE IF INFRACTIONS CONTINUE. Example: a $10 fine will go up to $20 if you forget to wear the proper attire for a second time, etc.

The list—which wasn't included in the lawsuit, but which was provided by Lacy T.'s attorney—doesn't include the more insidious "benchings" that essentially amount to a $125 fine. When a Raiderette is benched by the director, per the lawsuit, she is not allowed to participate in the game-time sideline cheering and is not paid for the day. She is, however, still expected to dance during the pregame and halftime shows. (This is of a piece with the requirement that Raiderettes get a specific hairstyle from a specific hairstylist, without any reimbursement.)

Looking "too soft" also results in a benching, but there's probably no danger there, since they don't provide a lunch break in the nine-hour work day. The biggest whammy involves missing the last rehearsal before game day. For that offense, Raiderettes are benched for the game and given 1.5 absences (they get a fine after three absences).

Lest you think there is no accountability here, Raiderettes do have the ability to contest their fines at the end of the season when they are finally paid. To whom, you ask? Why, the Raiderettes' director, the same person who levied the fines, of course!

http://deadspin.com/heres-every-finable-offense-for-raiders-cheerleaders-1507336361

 

[SWC]

this is some sick stuff brohans and anyone defending it is in my mind pretty sick to you treat people with respect not like sex slaves or whatever and if you say yeah swc but that is just how it is then i say the world has hit the skids and we are all in a bad place take that to the bank brohans

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Everyone is entitled to a safe and respectful work environment. Certainly some of the stuff we've read about on these clips seems to indicate that isn't being provided. I have no issue with forcing teams to get those things resolved (through a law suit or other means).

That's not the same question as the compensation question however.

 

[daveR]

Interns desevre minimum wage, too.

 

[BaBastage]

They are being provided non cash compensation. In the form of exposure that leads to future earnings. Think of college athletes as an equivalent......sure, they are paid, but not at "market value." Whatever that means.

I understand your point, but it's a very slippery slope that any employer could use. Want a job working a fast food window? "It will lead you to a higher paying job."

The whole purpose behind minimum wage is to limit an employer's use of exploiting "supply and demand" (used elsewhere in this thread.)

Although I haven't seen an actual cheerleader's job description, the lack of business-input and managing business process probably puts them as "non exempt". (Hourly) and the laws are very explicit about wages and rest breaks.

 

[steveski]

Does this belong in the shark pool?

I didn't know so many people drafted cheerleaders in their fantasy leagues.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Everyone is entitled to a safe and respectful work environment.

This does not agree with the Law of Supply and Demand.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Does this belong in the shark pool?

I didn't know so many people drafted cheerleaders in their fantasy leagues.

Not positive, because I'm not searching the thread to be sure, but I don't think this is the first time this thread has been questioned as SP worthy.

Per FBG: The Shark Pool is reserved for sharing NFL talk and fantasy football strategy discussion.

If I was mistaken for posting in here, I won't object if it gets moved. I thought it belonged here though. It's NFL news. The lawsuits have been talked about nationally on NFL Network, ABC, ESPN and I'm sure some others. With 3 teams squads now having active lawsuits, the stories are making national headlines.

There are other threads in the SP that I think are more highly questionable with regards to their proper forum. But as I stated, I won't object if the mods feel it deserves to be moved elsewhere.

Rody

 

[ffgiant]

Does this belong in the shark pool?

I didn't know so many people drafted cheerleaders in their fantasy leagues.

I propose a flex spot in every fantasy starting lineup for cheerleading!

 

[steveski]

Does this belong in the shark pool?

I didn't know so many people drafted cheerleaders in their fantasy leagues.

I propose a flex spot in every fantasy starting lineup for cheerleading!

The day that happens is the day I finally draft a member of the Dallas Cowboys.

 

[CalBear]

Does this belong in the shark pool?

I didn't know so many people drafted cheerleaders in their fantasy leagues.

I propose a flex spot in every fantasy starting lineup for cheerleading!

It's hard to get data on scoring.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Everyone is entitled to a safe and respectful work environment.

This does not agree with the Law of Supply and Demand.

Lots of things don't. Respect isn't really a supply and demand issue at all. Regardless, I wouldn't claim a 100% free market would be a good thing anyway. Never have. Minimum wage itself is obviously counter to a strict supply and demand scenario and I am OK with it. But I also think (and so does the law) that there should be exceptions to that minimum wage based on lots of factors, mostly "non-salary compensation". That's what the tips exemption is based on, and what the commissioned sales pro exemption is based on, etc. It would be absolutely ridiculous for minimum wage to apply to a Mercedes salesman pulling in 100k/year on commissions for example. The best estimation is that more than half of the workforce is exempt from minimum wage requirements, and I would actually be fine with moving MORE people under that umbrella, not less. But cheerleaders simply wouldn't be the first folks I'd move to put on that list.

Aside from wage, lots of the issues I've read about are just dumb and easily fixed. Sanitary products? Really? Just a bad decision to even address stuff like that, but it's easy enough to just remove it. Jiggle test? Who called it that? How is it implemented? Lot's of questions there, and I don't doubt squad management could have handled it better. That said, maintaining an impressive and specific appearance isn't really a surprising job requirement for being a cheerleader is it? Should it be totally OK for a cheerleader to show up with pink hair for one game? Or does it make sense in performance situation like this to have rules about quality and consistency?

Many of the other fines seem ridiculous as well. But again, some of them seem to be based on real concerns. You get fined if you don't bring the right pom-poms? As ridiculous as it sounds, having a rule that dictates a cheerleader bring the correct equipment seems totally reasonable. Maybe there are better ways to handle that than fines, but the requirement seems legit.

Clearly there are issues, and sometimes it takes threats and/or law suits to get them resolved. Even if they want to unionize, I don't see an issue with that at all. But all of that must be viewed against the backdrop of group of people performing a completely non-essential service, some of whose peers are already performing the same function on a volunteer basis. The Buffalo Jills have stopped operations as a result of the suit. What has happened as a result of the stoppage? Nothing. What would happen if they never START operations again? Not much. How would a cheerleading strike impact the Bills? Not a lot.

Raise the issues, clean up the environment, and move on. Or just dump the whole concept altogether and move on.