|
Post by redoctober on Mar 10, 2017 19:26:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gunmageintraining on Mar 10, 2017 19:30:44 GMT
Aren't those Grymkin?
|
|
mayorwilkinsiii
Baby's First Wargame
There is more than one way to skin a cat. And I know thats factually true.
Posts: 3
|
Post by mayorwilkinsiii on Mar 10, 2017 19:34:30 GMT
I don't see how this relates to the press gang topic.
|
|
|
Post by Aeternyx on Mar 10, 2017 19:35:08 GMT
The GW thing is a photoshop.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Mar 10, 2017 19:37:29 GMT
I don't see how this relates to the press gang topic. The not-so-subtle implication is that PP is turning into GW. I reserve judgement about that, but I have less ground upon which to defend them than I once did and less inclination to do so at present. I'll see what the summer brings before I decide whether they are or not.
|
|
mayorwilkinsiii
Baby's First Wargame
There is more than one way to skin a cat. And I know thats factually true.
Posts: 3
|
Post by mayorwilkinsiii on Mar 10, 2017 19:42:17 GMT
Ah! Thanks.
By the way: The first cool grymkin pics I got to see.
|
|
steck
BattleBox Champ
Posts: 51
|
Post by steck on Mar 10, 2017 19:46:10 GMT
When I started playing warmachine it was at a friend's house. Our group of 4-6 would meet up, play some games, and hang out. Now we meet at a local store and do the same thing. I actually met a press ganger a couple months back and another one just last week. The losstick of the PG program might impact local tournaments a bit but I doubt it'll change much.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Mar 10, 2017 22:38:13 GMT
Honestly, the PG thing bothers me much less than, say, the forum thing, or the lack of regard for internal balance. It's unfortunate, especially in terms of the timing (seriously, they need to fire the person handling PR and communications) but there's a valid basis behind it.
If I was pp, I'd be concerned about the WOTC lawsuit as well - from my understanding of the law, there's a decent argument that PGers were/are de facto employees. That being said, coming on top of everything else, they really need to pull out something spectacular to keep people onboard (and no, Grymkin do not count)
|
|
|
Post by redfive on Mar 11, 2017 6:52:52 GMT
Actually, WotC is getting sued by some of their Judges who think they should be treated as and compensated as employees rather than as volunteers. The judges are winning. So now every company with similar volunteer programs have to make a choice - compensate the former volunteers and make them employees or end the programs. I am betting 90% of them will just close down their programs.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Mar 11, 2017 7:15:45 GMT
Actually, WotC is getting sued by some of their Judges who think they should be treated as and compensated as employees rather than as volunteers. The judges are winning. So now every company with similar volunteer programs have to make a choice - compensate the former volunteers and make them employees or end the programs. I am betting 90% of them will just close down their programs. I'm not sure how that differs from what I said. The question is whether judges (and PGers) are de facto employees of their respective companies, with reference to a number of factors, including: -the presence of compensation for labor -the extent to which their service is controlled/regulated by their company -the extent to which they are subject to dismissal by the company -the value produced for company among others. For-profit companies cannot have volunteers, so anyone serving in an employee-like capacity is an employee under the law. WOTC judges seem to have a strong argument that they were, in fact, employees. PGers would have a weaker argument (in my not-legal-advice-y opinion) but the argument remains, and PP is a smaller company, with less resources to deal with a class-action lawsuit, should it arise. I'm actually quite conflicted on this issue, because on a level, the courts are correct - as a for-profit company, WOTC (and other companies) ARE effectively exploiting their so-called volunteers to increase revenues, and as a rule I'm not okay with that - if a company can't afford to pay the people responsible for it's success a fair wage, it shouldn't exist, IMO. However, it gets fuzzy (moreso with PP than with WOTC) in that many PGers would likely have run the events without the support. It's effectively a case of finding the line between 'showing appreciation for people supporting our product' and 'exploiting hapless fans in order to increase revenues.' Which side of the line PGers would fall on...I'm honestly not sure.
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on Mar 11, 2017 9:32:12 GMT
I'm not that versed on American law, having done a British law degree, but you do have to be really careful of precedent.
We have an issue with Uber over here, it's a "self employed" taxi firm. You basically signed up and waited for a job. But the courts here ruled that in that situation, you are employed and deserve all the benefits that being employed by a company bring. Such as minimum wage and holiday entitlement.
Now, looking at PP and the PGs. Yes, they are volunteers who work on "commission" as in points for prizes. But when you look at what else active PGs might do, it's a lot more. Not only are they judges with product knowledge, they are also sales people. How many people have gone to a PG and asked "I play X, but I don't know what to buy next, can you recommend Y?" And then gone and bought it. That's what I do in my job and I get paid for it.
There would be a serious case for PGs getting paid something by PP if it went to court.
|
|
|
Post by iamlegion on Mar 11, 2017 20:41:52 GMT
Here's the thing guys. If this is a move to not pay PG's when the lawsuit is settled. It's the most braindead possible way to handle it. If PG's are "employee's" then firing them now, doesn't change that they would be owed for the 15 years of backpay. All this does is ensure there wil be some agry PG's who WILL sue to get that money.
|
|
|
Post by malnorma on Mar 11, 2017 22:40:37 GMT
That's why they claimed it was too expensive for them to support it. I'm sure they can supply evidence of their ongoing costs and profit records, to prove it had nothing to do with the WOTC lawsuit.
However, I am sure most PGs would not be shitty enough people to want to see PP sued into the ground over something so ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on Mar 11, 2017 23:23:08 GMT
That's why they claimed it was too expensive for them to support it. I'm sure they can supply evidence of their ongoing costs and profit records, to prove it had nothing to do with the WOTC lawsuit. However, I am sure most PGs would not be shitty enough people to want to see PP sued into the ground over something so ridiculous. Well all it takes are a few. Then the rules apply to all of them and then you're looking at a decade of backlog. The money involved would probably cripple PP.
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Mar 12, 2017 0:02:04 GMT
That's why they claimed it was too expensive for them to support it. I'm sure they can supply evidence of their ongoing costs and profit records, to prove it had nothing to do with the WOTC lawsuit. However, I am sure most PGs would not be shitty enough people to want to see PP sued into the ground over something so ridiculous. Well all it takes are a few. Then the rules apply to all of them and then you're looking at a decade of backlog. The money involved would probably cripple PP. There's probably also something to be said for PP making a 'good faith attempt' to comply with the law. My legal knowledge isn't from the US, but in my experience, there is often consideration as to whether the business in question believed in good faith (and under reasonable circumstances) that they were complying with the law. I don't know if this would qualify, but there's the potential that PP is seeking to demonstrate that any earlier non-compliance was entirely based on ignorance rather than deliberate noncompliance.
|
|