Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

Former TapouT employee sues for being forced to watch UFC

Print  
  Page 2 of 3     1     2     3  
Posted By Message

emfleek

FA-Q

emfleek Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:18,762
Career:2,284-1,206
Joined:Nov 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,253

Posted by grappler0000

I work in a field where you are required to obtain and maintain certain knowledge and certifications off of work hours. If not, you no longer hold a value to your employer and you move along so someone else that's more motivated can take your spot. I know what people are saying, but, there are plenty of other jobs out there that require people to do very similar things and nobody else is suing. If it's required for you job, yet isn't reimbursed, that's what is called a tax write off.



This.

Also, I find it hard to believe that she wasn't aware of this when she started the job. I'd be willing to bet that it was brought up in interview and/or orientation process.

_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

Post #16   1/21/11 8:32:40AM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710

Posted by emfleek


Posted by grappler0000

I work in a field where you are required to obtain and maintain certain knowledge and certifications off of work hours. If not, you no longer hold a value to your employer and you move along so someone else that's more motivated can take your spot. I know what people are saying, but, there are plenty of other jobs out there that require people to do very similar things and nobody else is suing. If it's required for you job, yet isn't reimbursed, that's what is called a tax write off.



This.

Also, I find it hard to believe that she wasn't aware of this when she started the job. I'd be willing to bet that it was brought up in interview and/or orientation process.



I'm sorry but I'm going to disagree with you both.

grappler, there is absolutely no parallel between what you do and what she does. Working in the technology industry you HAVE to stay ahead of the curve and get your certifications or you become outdated in the field. Just like a lawyer or a doctor has to read up on legal precedents and medical technology to stay ahead of the curve and remain "useful" in their field, so too do you. It's essential to your job function.

It is NOT essential to a model's job function to watch EVERY UFC. She can do her job effectively without having watched ANY UFC event. Her job is to look hot and wear their clothes.

Going further, I probably know more about UFC and MMA than a large percentage of TapouT employees (as would most of the regular posters on this site) and even *I* don't watch every UFC.

It's simply too expensive. Also, I highly doubt that TapouT mentioned that people have to spend $150 of their own money every month. That's $1,800 a year. I'd be willing to bet that they don't inform people that they have to spend almost $2,000 of their own money, a year, upon being hired. I'd say thanks, but no thanks.

As I said, it's not essential to her job function. My analogy of a Disney Store employee being forced to watch the premier of every Disney movie is more akin to this situation than a computer expert needing certifications. A CSR can effectively ring **** up at the register having NEVER seen a Disney movie in their life.

Post #17   1/21/11 1:27:45PM   

emfleek

FA-Q

emfleek Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:18,762
Career:2,284-1,206
Joined:Nov 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,253

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It's simply too expensive. Also, I highly doubt that TapouT mentioned that people have to spend $150 of their own money every month.



Where the hell are you watching these fights that it's costing $150 per month? It's a VERY rare occurence when there are 2 pay-per-view events per month and I don't think I ever remember there being 3 in one month.

_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

Post #18   1/21/11 2:21:10PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710

Posted by emfleek


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It's simply too expensive. Also, I highly doubt that TapouT mentioned that people have to spend $150 of their own money every month.



Where the hell are you watching these fights that it's costing $150 per month? It's a VERY rare occurence when there are 2 pay-per-view events per month and I don't think I ever remember there being 3 in one month.



They're 55.95 here. $112 is still a lot of money. It's still over $1,300 a year.

Post #19   1/21/11 2:23:29PM   

emfleek

FA-Q

emfleek Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:18,762
Career:2,284-1,206
Joined:Nov 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,253

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by emfleek


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It's simply too expensive. Also, I highly doubt that TapouT mentioned that people have to spend $150 of their own money every month.



Where the hell are you watching these fights that it's costing $150 per month? It's a VERY rare occurence when there are 2 pay-per-view events per month and I don't think I ever remember there being 3 in one month.



They're 55.95 here. $112 is still a lot of money. It's still over $1,300 a year.



They're $44.95 here ($49.95 for Hi-Def). I spend *maybe* $100 per year on pay-per-views and I still watch all of them. Sports bars are my friend.

And the $112 in one month is a rare occurrence. Most of the time there's only 1 pay-per-view per month which significantly reduces that yearly total by about 35-40%.

_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

Post #20   1/21/11 2:28:16PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710

Posted by emfleek


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by emfleek


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It's simply too expensive. Also, I highly doubt that TapouT mentioned that people have to spend $150 of their own money every month.



Where the hell are you watching these fights that it's costing $150 per month? It's a VERY rare occurence when there are 2 pay-per-view events per month and I don't think I ever remember there being 3 in one month.



They're 55.95 here. $112 is still a lot of money. It's still over $1,300 a year.



They're $44.95 here ($49.95 for Hi-Def). I spend *maybe* $100 per year on pay-per-views and I still watch all of them. Sports bars are my friend.

And the $112 in one month is a rare occurrence. Most of the time there's only 1 pay-per-view per month which significantly reduces that yearly total by about 35-40%.



Sports bar also charge to host them. In California, it's illegal to show them without charging. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to show them anywhere without charging.

Either way, regardless of what's spent, my point remains, it's not essential to her job function.

Post #21   1/21/11 2:31:00PM   

emfleek

FA-Q

emfleek Avatar
11
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:18,762
Career:2,284-1,206
Joined:Nov 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,253

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Sports bar also charge to host them. In California, it's illegal to show them without charging. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to show them anywhere without charging.

Either way, regardless of what's spent, my point remains, it's not essential to her job function.



It's absolutely not illegal to show them without charging. If that were the case, the UFC would be so far up Buffalo Wild Wings' ass that they'd shut down the entire franchise overnight.

As long as BWW's (and other bars) pay the price, it's absolutely legal.

And I was wrong about the 2 events per month thing...it's actually quite common now but wasn't so common back in '08. From what I saw after a quick run-through, there were only 2 months that had more than 1 pay-per-view.

_______________________________________
"I'm like the superhero coming in with the anti-bullsh*t." - Nick Diaz

Post #22   1/21/11 2:34:16PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710

Posted by emfleek


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Sports bar also charge to host them. In California, it's illegal to show them without charging. Actually, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to show them anywhere without charging.

Either way, regardless of what's spent, my point remains, it's not essential to her job function.



It's absolutely not illegal to show them without charging. If that were the case, the UFC would be so far up Buffalo Wild Wings' ass that they'd shut down the entire franchise overnight.

As long as BWW's (and other bars) pay the price, it's absolutely legal.

And I was wrong about the 2 events per month thing...it's actually quite common now but wasn't so common back in '08. From what I saw after a quick run-through, there were only 2 months that had more than 1 pay-per-view.



You're talking about BWW and franchises, I'm talking about small bars. The shithole I live in doesn't have a BWW yet :( We are barely getting a TGI Fridays.

They can't afford the licensing fees that BWW can afford.

Post #23   1/21/11 2:40:28PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
25
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,142
Career:2,746-1,521
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,487

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It is NOT essential to a model's job function to watch EVERY UFC. She can do her job effectively without having watched ANY UFC event. Her job is to look hot and wear their clothes.



Isn't it really up to the employer (and not you) to determine this? I mean, that's pretty closed minded to determine the job description for an entire industry based on general perceptions. I'm sure they not only look at them as models, but as representatives for the largest MMA clothing company in existence. To require any employee to be knowledgeable of the events that your company sponsors and as a result have millions of dollars at play, I don't think it's crazy. Again, if she's not prepared to do that, I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of companies looking for exactly what you described above. There are other options. Although it may not be the norm for the modeling industry, the point I was trying to make is I'm not ready to feel sorry for her...and I would probably not award her money as a result of this. And the only reason I say probably, instead of definitely, is because I have yet to see all of the evidence.

_______________________________________

Post #24   1/21/11 3:20:12PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

It is NOT essential to a model's job function to watch EVERY UFC. She can do her job effectively without having watched ANY UFC event. Her job is to look hot and wear their clothes.



Isn't it really up to the employer (and not you) to determine this? I mean, that's pretty closed minded to determine the job description for an entire industry based on general perceptions. I'm sure they not only look at them as models, but as representatives for the largest MMA clothing company in existence. To require any employee to be knowledgeable of the events that your company sponsors and as a result have millions of dollars at play, I don't think it's crazy. Again, if she's not prepared to do that, I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of companies looking for exactly what you described above. There are other options. Although it may not be the norm for the modeling industry, the point I was trying to make is I'm not ready to feel sorry for her...and I would probably not award her money as a result of this. And the only reason I say probably, instead of definitely, is because I have yet to see all of the evidence.



No, I don't think it's "up to the employer." Do you think Under Armour requires their models to watch every sporting event that their clothes are featured in? It's the same thing, is it not?

When you hire a "model" you're hiring someone to "model" your clothing line. How many times have you asked a model about the sport they're modeling for? I personally, nor would anyone I know, would have ever asked a TapouT model what she thought about Machida's clinch work in the Rua fight. It's just not something people generally ask models, dude.

If anything, people are going to be chomping at the bit to talk to Punkass or SkyScrape about the fights, not the model.

I cannot, in any way, see how requiring a model to order EVERY UFC makes sense. It's Draconian at best.

Are there thousands of people that will pay for every UFC event to have her job? Sure. Does that make it right? No. There's thousands of people that would happily do a lot of things. Doesn't mean it's right or that it should be done.

I'm not asking you to feel sorry for her. I don't really feel sorry for her either, but if that's something TapouT requires of their employees I think it's incredibly stupid and am glad I'm not working for them.

Post #25   1/21/11 3:37:21PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
25
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,142
Career:2,746-1,521
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,487

No, I don't think it's "up to the employer." Do you think Under Armour requires their models to watch every sporting event that their clothes are featured in? It's the same thing, is it not?


I'm sorry you feel it's not up to the employer to determine a job description, but ultimately that is indeed the case. I have no idea what sort of paperwork was signed between the two parties, but if that's what you want from an employee, they can either do it or move on to let a willing party fill the spot...perhaps to Under Armour where it is assumed to not be a requirement. There's BS that comes with every job...if you don't feel you're paid enough to deal with that BS, then another job/employer would probably be the best decision...not a law suit. Besides, every company is different...but, no I do not feel it is the same thing. TapouT is an MMA clothing company, while Under Armour covers just about every aspect of sports. But, even that isn't important, because not every company is gonna operate in the same way, nor should they. If TapouT wants their employees to be knowledgeable of MMA, more power to them. I've seen enough interviews with models/ring girls to at the very least see why they would want an educated model...which is probably what the actual requirement is.



_______________________________________

Post #26   1/21/11 4:13:41PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710

Posted by grappler0000


No, I don't think it's "up to the employer." Do you think Under Armour requires their models to watch every sporting event that their clothes are featured in? It's the same thing, is it not?


I'm sorry you feel it's not up to the employer to determine a job description, but ultimately that is indeed the case. I have no idea what sort of paperwork was signed between the two parties, but if that's what you want from an employee, they can either do it or move on to let a willing party fill the spot...perhaps to Under Armour where it is assumed to not be a requirement. There's BS that comes with every job...if you don't feel you're paid enough to deal with that BS, then another job/employer would probably be the best decision...not a law suit. Besides, every company is different...but, no I do not feel it is the same thing. TapouT is an MMA clothing company, while Under Armour covers just about every aspect of sports. But, even that isn't important, because not every company is gonna operate in the same way, nor should they. If TapouT wants their employees to be knowledgeable of MMA, more power to them. I've seen enough interviews with models/ring girls to at the very least see why they would want an educated model...which is probably what the actual requirement is.






It's not me that feels that it's not up to the employer, it's a federal court. An employer cannot require employees to do things on their own time and make them pay for it. It's illegal.

I'm sure that, were it in her employment contract, any attorney worth a damn would have told her that she has absolutely NO shot at winning this case. As it looks right now, it pretty much appears that it was NOT in her contract and this is something they demanded after the fact.

Abercrombie and Fitch was sued for something very similar to this. They used to force their employees to purchase THEIR clothes and wear them at work. As you can imagine, they lost.

Also, you're underselling the gravity of the situation. An individual does not need to watch EVERY UFC event and TapouT show to be "educated." You went to college just like I did, did you read every single page of every single book for every class? I sure as hell didn't and I still don't. I, and most other people, don't need to in order to be "educated" on the subject.

Not enough people are asking models technical questions about UFC and MMA bouts to require them to order and watch every single installment. It's just a general fact.

I could understand if this were a TapouT writer or something along those lines, but there's absolutely no need for a model to have seen every single event during her employment. I would love for anyone to find a logical justification for a model NEEDING to have ordered, paid for, and watched every single UFC event.

As I've already stated, even *I* don't order every single event. I consider myself educated. I cannot imagine the need for a model to be more knowledgeable about MMA than I am and I won't even pay for every single UFC.

Post #27   1/21/11 4:25:58PM   

Kpro

I STAB WATERBEDS!

Kpro Avatar
17
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:7,095
Career:2,439-1,253
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,859
Not that it matters, but since it's been brought up an unbearable amount of times in this thread, she was never a model for Tapout. If you read the article, she worked in sales, and before working for Tapout she was a "ometime model". <---spelling error left in for accuracy's sake

_______________________________________
If I was 50 years younger I'd kick your ass!

Post #28   1/21/11 4:39:06PM   

BlueSkiesBurn

USCFootball.com

BlueSkiesBurn Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,649
Career:534-389
Joined:Jun 2008
Chips:
710

Posted by Kpro

Not that it matters, but since it's been brought up an unbearable amount of times in this thread, she was never a model for Tapout. If you read the article, she worked in sales, and before working for Tapout she was a "ometime model". <---spelling error left in for accuracy's sake



I must have just missed that. I read the article to check and see if she was a model for them, but couldn't find anything.

The article definitely leads you to believe that she was a model for them. It's poorly written. What's the point of even mentioning that she's a "ometime model" if it has nothing to do with the story?

Either way, I don't think you need to watch every single UFC event in order to sell TapouT clothing. They basically sell themselves anyhow.

Post #29   1/21/11 4:45:30PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
25
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,142
Career:2,746-1,521
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,487
I don't think there's a point in replying. I made a very clear cut statement that wasn't agreeable on your end...each response takes off in a new direction. I stand by my original statement.

Sales rep or model, it doesn't really matter to me, since the employer dictates responsibility, not a title. The last and final thing I'll say is that it is not illegal under certain conditions to require an employee to do things on their own time. For example, if she was a salary employee, it would easily be within their right to request this.

_______________________________________

Post #30   1/21/11 4:53:10PM   
 
  Page 2 of 3     1     2     3