• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

If court, no employment

Gunsrus

Active member
On Jake "the Snake" Robert's podcast, he said that he couldn't go back to WCW because after his lawsuit against Bill Watts, he was not allowed to return. According to Jake, if you took Ted Turner to court, you couldn't work for him.

Can someone please explain why a company owner can put this kind of restraining order on someone in the US?
 

tommu56

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
At Will Employment and hiring work the same way if the owner doesn't like you they don't have to hire you as long their is no discrimination involved.



In United States labor law, at-will employment is an employer's ability to dismiss an employee for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning,[1] as long as the reason is not illegal (e.g. firing because of the employee's gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability status). When an employee is acknowledged as being hired "at will", courts deny the employee any claim for loss resulting from the dismissal. The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave their job without reason or warning.[2] The practice is seen as unjust by those who view the employment relationship as characterized by inequality of bargaining power.[3]

At-will employment gradually became the default rule under the common law of the employment contract in most U.S. states during the late 19th century, and was endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court during the Lochner era, when members of the U.S. judiciary consciously sought to prevent government regulation of labor markets.[4] Over the 20th century, many states modified the rule by adding an increasing number of exceptions, or by changing the default expectations in the employment contract altogether. In workplaces with a trade union recognized for purposes of collective bargaining, and in many public sector jobs, the normal standard for dismissal is that the employer must have a "just cause". Otherwise, subject to statutory rights (particularly the discrimination prohibitions under the Civil Rights Act), most states adhere to the general principle that employer and employee may contract for the dismissal protection they choose.[5] At-will employment remains controversial, and remains a central topic of debate in the study of law and economics, especially with regard to the macroeconomic efficiency of allowing employers to summarily and arbitrarily terminate employees.

Definition[edit]​

At-will employment is generally described as follows: "any hiring is presumed to be 'at will'; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals 'for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all,' and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work."[6] In an October 2000 decision largely reaffirming employers' rights under the at-will doctrine, the Supreme Court of California explained:
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I was an employer, either as a manager for a company or for myself, for 55 years. I get this.

I do not get the connection to "Jake the Snake"
 

Gunsrus

Active member
I was an employer, either as a manager for a company or for myself, for 55 years. I get this.

I do not get the connection to "Jake the Snake"
The connection, as I understand it, is that he sued WCW to get the royalties owed to him, which had been withheld by Bill Watts, who had fired Roberts, because he was waiting for any excuse to terminate his contract, which Jake gave him by needing psychiatric treatment.

WCW was in the wrong because Bill Watts forced the Snake to get booted out. He'd already ripped up his previous, more lucrative contract and handed him a greatly reduced one, so Jake soon tired of Watts and wanted out.

Even though WCW fouled up, they invoked Turner's clause of not hiring anyone, even in the event of company malpractice, if they enacted a lawsuit.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
I have no problem with "Turner's policy." Especially in this case as the animosity lingered.

My question is, why would you want a continued relationship with someone whom had screwed you over.
 

Gunsrus

Active member
I have no problem with "Turner's policy." Especially in this case as the animosity lingered.

My question is, why would you want a continued relationship with someone whom had screwed you over.

I for one wouldn't. Turner made a big mistake by hiring Bill Watts. I don't think he did it out of malice, but the consequences were serious. WCW lost the Steiner Brothers, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash and Paul Heyman because they either couldn't stand Watts, or he fired them because he believed they were unsuitable for the company.

In light of that, no, I wouldn't want a continued relationship with Turner. As successful as a businessman as he was, he suffered a lapse in judgement that cost him some of his best wrestlers. He redeemed himself by reassigning Watts and taking away his power, but the damage was done.
 

FrancSevin

Proudly Deplorable
GOLD Site Supporter
Keep in mind we are talking about the WCW. This kind of over-the-top drama is part and parcel of the product they sell.
 

Gunsrus

Active member
Keep in mind we are talking about the WCW. This kind of over-the-top drama is part and parcel of the product they sell.
Indeed. I listen to all parties and consider all opinions. The element of overly dramatic overtones is something to be taken into account.

My mother says that if the two wides involved in a court case are not on good terms, then it wouldn't be possible for them to co-exist in the same company.

I agree with her, but good terms can mean one thing to one person and something else to another.
 
Top