GunnerBill Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 But I'm sure your sanctimonious shtick gives you a great feeling of personal satisfaction, and isn't that what it's really all about? I'm glad it isn't just me who gets the "sanctimonious" accusation when disagreeing with you on social issues. Have you ever thought that people are just disagreeing because they think differently to you and that actually they don't care about appearing morally superior they just genuinely have a different opinion?
HardyBoy Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 What a pathetic response. I'd be fine with them getting paid. What I'm not fine with is signing up for something with full knowledge of what you're signing up for, then demanding a better deal after the fact. And not one of those girls signed up because they needed the money. But I'm sure your sanctimonious shtick gives you a great feeling of personal satisfaction, and isn't that what it's really all about? Ha "girls," priceless... No it's not all about personal satisfaction, it's about entering into fair mutually equal transactions. Obviously these women signed up for something where they felt the personal satisfaction they would get would compensate them for their time, and once they got in there they realized it wasn't even close and they were being taken advantage of.
mbossman2 Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) Some folks might have a different view of things if they read the complaint and saw what the Jills and their attorneys allege. Among the things that are alleged are that the Bills (and it's successors): Failed to pay Jills for all hours worked Failed to reimburse Jills for certain business expenses Failed to pay them in a timely manner Took unlawful deductions and kickbacks from the Jills' wages Unlawfully took gratuities paid to the Jills Failed to to adhere to the notice and and record keeping requirements of the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Regardless of what they "signed up for", none of the above alleged actions (especially the first five) would be acceptable by any employer. Of course the defendants have the right to present their evidence and testimony to refute these claims and I don't believe that we have seen the defendant's responses Edited January 11, 2016 by mbossman2
oddoublee Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 People working in factories before the Fair Labor Standards Act also knew what they were signing up for, doesn't mean it was OK what the employers were doing. You can label it a "volunteer" job all you want, but when there are various requirements around that "volunteering" it quickly expands beyond that. As far as your "spill a cup of hot coffee on your lap" example. I implore you to educate yourself before making such references. Take a look at the pictures from that case of that ladies upper legs and thighs. I'll make it easy for you, there is one in this link...caution, it's graphic. http://x4mr.blogspot.com/2012/07/hot-coffee.html It should also be noted that McDonald's had hundreds of complaints on the temperature of their coffee before this case and settled hundreds of cases regrading it before a trial was necessary and yet still didn't lower the temperature of their coffee until after this case. That is the very definition of negligence, not acting in a reasonable manner when they had knowledge of how to do so. I think you are missing the heart of his post. The McDonalds comment was the least of the point he was trying to make. The point is, people have choices. The 'Jills', were people who had full time jobs; and did this as a way of getting notoriety, or simply being part of the community. If they didn't like the working conditions, they didn't have to become a Jill. They could have focused on their Full Time Job instead.
Rob's House Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) I'm glad it isn't just me who gets the "sanctimonious" accusation when disagreeing with you on social issues. Have you ever thought that people are just disagreeing because they think differently to you and that actually they don't care about appearing morally superior they just genuinely have a different opinion? No. That did not occur to me. If you can show me some rational connection between my argument for not arbitrarily rewriting contracts based on the respective financial positions of the parties and blaming a rape victim for inviting the rape by wearing tight clothes I'll be happy to consider it. Otherwise I'll assume it's self-aggrandizing sanctimony. edit: Had I any doubts about my initial assessment, his follow-up post removed them. Edited January 11, 2016 by Rob's House
oddoublee Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Some folks might have a different view of things if they read the complaint and saw what the Jills and their attorneys allege. Among the things that are alleged are that the Bills (and it's successors): Failed to pay Jills for all hours worked Failed to reimburse Jills for certain business expenses Failed to pay them in a timely manner Took unlawful deductions and kickbacks from the Jills' wages Unlawfully took gratuities paid to the Jills Failed to to adhere to the notice and and record keeping requirements of the Wage Theft Prevention Act. Regardless of what they "signed up for", none of the above alleged actions (especially the first five) would be acceptable by any employer. This I will agree with - that is straight up theft.
Dorkington Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Hopefully the Pegulas can find a way to settle and make things right.
Nanker Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) I hope I never, ever see another "Jill" on the sidelines of a Bills game. I appreciate the time and effort the ladies put into their hobby, but it never rose to the level of being an employee of The Bills, IMHO. So, they're scorching the earth on this. A few of them will get a few bucks, and the Pegs will be forced to pay for the "sins of the past". Doesn't seem like they've advanced a greater cause of making "professional" cheerleading a genuine occupation. Edited January 11, 2016 by Nanker
John in Jax Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 I appreciate the time and effort the ladies put into their hobby, but it never rose to the level of being an employee of The Bills, IMHO. You've already been proven wrong on this point, as a court has decided that they were essentially working for the Bills, and that is why the lawsuit is being allowed to move forward.
Nanker Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 You've already been proven wrong on this point, as a court has decided that they were essentially working for the Bills, and that is why the lawsuit is being allowed to move forward. Tough ****. You do know what IMHO means, don't you?
eball Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Tough ****. You do know what IMHO means, don't you? Well, sure, but when a court has already heard the evidence and ruled on the issue you're sort of saying, "I know you think the world is round, but IMHO I still think it's flat."
Nanker Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) No, I'm siding with Yogi. Edit: Robinson was out! My other points hold... IMHO. Edited January 11, 2016 by Nanker
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Drury further denied the football team’s claim that the cheerleaders were independent contractors since all of the Jills were bound by a Code of Conduct I don't recall, did that Code of Conduct come from Buffalo Bills, LLC? I'd think that would kind-of matter to that determination.
Nanker Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 The mind reels with thoughts of Jills behaving without a Code of Conduct policy. Oh my!
Malazan Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Regardless of what happens with the lawsuit. I hope we don't ever have to see the Jills again.
Bob Lamb Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Mike Rodak @mikerodak 1m Per @WGRZ, five former Buffalo Jills cheerleaders have filed a civil lawsuit against the Bills, claiming they were underpaid. Anyone remember when the early Jills were required to be married ? Time for the League teams to drop the ladies. The PC police have arrived. Mascot abuse will be next.
Rob's House Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Well, sure, but when a court has already heard the evidence and ruled on the issue you're sort of saying, "I know you think the world is round, but IMHO I still think it's flat." Not exactly. You can argue the same point in front of two different judges and get 2 different results. Plus, if the court rules that the earth is flat it doesn't necessarily make it so; it just means that the law (or at least that particular court) is going to treat it as such.
GunnerBill Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Not exactly. You can argue the same point in front of two different judges and get 2 different results. Plus, if the court rules that the earth is flat it doesn't necessarily make it so; it just means that the law (or at least that particular court) is going to treat it as such. That is true but that ruling is binding in law until it is challenged and overturned. It is true to say that a court declaration doesn't "make something so" but it is the only relevant determination in this matter. Your view, my view or any other poster's view is irrelevant frankly.
Rob's House Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 That is true but that ruling is binding in law until it is challenged and overturned. It is true to say that a court declaration doesn't "make something so" but it is the only relevant determination in this matter. Your view, my view or any other poster's view is irrelevant frankly. That's true, but it doesn't make it right.
GunnerBill Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 That's true, but it doesn't make it right. Democracy is imperfect.... it is just better than the alternatives.
Recommended Posts