Can you tell independent contractors how to dress?

wellsdj1 said:
And I'm sure you told them when you hired them they would have to wear your company shirt and they probably didn't have a problem with that. I think the problem is a lot of these fighters in the UFC had sponsors that paid them well before the reebok deal and one day they lost their sponsors without having a say. Now when the UFC fighters are signed I'm sure it's in their contract so they shouldn't have an issue as they knew going in.
Click to expand...

Solid point...maybe they should have been giving an out close as the Reebok deal came into effect. But I have a feeling they would have lost a decent number of guys if they did that.
 
is it true that UFC fighters get sent to the corn nut factory after a loss?
 
EGarrett said:
Actually, if the building is built, painted or landscaped poorly it can screw up the buildings image and even be disastrous. You failed claiming money wasn't being invested and you've failed trying to minimize the contractor's impact. You don't want to get into trying to compare your intelligence with me. You'll lose.
Click to expand...

Considering the multiple grammar errors in this post, I would not look to be so quick to look to compare my own intelligence to that of anyone else.
 
Of course you can dumbass. You think a siding contractor can just roll on to a construction worksite with sandals if the prime contractor has ppe policies. Typical shertard
 
usmctanker242 said:
The UFC is a business and if independent contractors want to work for them they will follow whatever rules are set forth by the UFC. Just like Taco Bell... I'm independent but if I want to work on their premises I will have to wear their uniform.
Click to expand...

Everyone working at Taco Bell consumer restaurants is correctly designated as an "employee".
Nobody there is "independent".
 
VulcanNervPinch said:
Everyone working at Taco Bell consumer restaurants is correctly designated as an "employee".
Nobody there is "independent".
Click to expand...

Inside the actual restaurants, sure.

What about the food distributors that deliver raw materials? Those are usually 3rd party contracting companies and they put "taco bell" on the trucks and the drivers have "taco bell" on their uniforms.

Or what about when they do significant Taco Bell promotional events? They're hiring companies that specialize in doing promo events. They aren't wearing their company logos during the events either.

Restaurants are just part of Taco Bell, there's Taco Bell the subsidiary corporation that has corporate offices and does corporate functions. And there's supporting contractors that allow the restaurants and the corporation to function.
 
Anyway "Employee" vs "Contractor" is really heating up as a legal and business issue right now in terms of what is a fair designation and what you can tell a "Contractor" to do.

Designating workers as "Contractors" instead of as "Employees" in order to duck certain labor laws and benefits is just the latest in businesses scummy attempts to game, loophole, and rig the system, along with:
  • Cutting hours down to PT, even when there's enough work for FT positions
  • Permanently having "temp" employees do work that never goes away and could be done by a regular FT worker
  • Destroying how unions collect necessary dues to operate
  • Gaming 'where they are based' (domestically or internationally) for various reasons - avoiding US taxes being the hottest new scam
 
Malthian said:
Restaurants are just part of Taco Bell, there's Taco Bell the subsidiary corporation that has corporate offices and does corporate functions. And there's supporting contractors that allow the restaurants and the corporation to function.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's why I specified the restaurants.

I'm sure they do have contractors performing some types of work for them somewhere.

I'm not so sure those contractors wear uniforms and/or that they truly ought to be considered contractors, though.

Like I added in my 2nd post, the distinction can be fuzzy, and employers often try to abuse the hell out of the status designation.
 
We can talk about this until the end of times but it's really up to the fighters.

1. Fighters won't unionize
2. The top tier fighters get paid well and don't care about the lower tier fighters and their pay
3. When a top tier fighter contract is up and have a chance to leave, and the UFC wants them, they re-up with the UFC . Example chad mendes, Gilbert Melendez . The UFC really didn't want Phil Davis or josh Thomson
4. Even if they leave you got rampage coming back to the UFC
 
As long as it's part of the contract they sign to work there, yes.
 
You can if you are only pretending they are independent contractors to give them less rights.
 
Seems pretty obvious the fighters aren't independent contractors. There is no business without them. If there is no business without the outside contractors, well those are employees then. I guess laws are complicated and shit. But I pretty much guarantee any small business would get blasted in the ass by the IRS for trying to pull something similar.
 
wellsdj1 said:
It's easy. When these independent contractors won't unionize and fight the UFC in court. The US government isn't going to come out on behalf of the UFC fighters and say, " hey Dana, fertitas we see what you are doing making your independent contractors wear uniforms, that's not legal" . If the fighters don't care enough to unionize and bring the UFC to court the US government sure won't care! It also doesn't help when top fighters like chad mendes sign new contracts with the UFC. I'm also guessing the new contracts have wearing the reebok uniform.
Click to expand...

None of that matters when it comes to producing an event/show

Ever see a trade show?
People are IC's hired for the day & they need to wear whatever they are asked (within reason)
You don't see the people that work conventions & hired for the day dressing like Nascar drivers or wearing their favorite bands tee shirt lol
 
UFC Truck said:
Considering the multiple grammar errors in this post, I would not look to be so quick to look to compare my own intelligence to that of anyone else.
Click to expand...
"I would not look to be so quick to look to"
 
I just want you to know... I hate all of you... because this has always been about compensation. It also has to do with free market vs zuffa control... but mostly it's about straight-up compensation. So all this talk about contractors and what not is pointless.

You want top-level athletes, pay better. You cut the pay down with the one chip fighters have to create their own wellbeing... get ready for D-Level contenders.
 
The situation in the US with Independent Contractors versus Employees is unusual. Basically because of the position of the Republicans nothing is going to be done to change anything in this regard any time soon. An employer is pretty much almost always free to call their employees ICs in order to save money and liability. The UFC is only exploiting this state of things.
 
Malthian said:
Inside the actual restaurants, sure.

What about the food distributors that deliver raw materials? Those are usually 3rd party contracting companies and they put "taco bell" on the trucks and the drivers have "taco bell" on their uniforms.
Click to expand...

The U.S. specifically has exemptions for truckers and those in the transportation industry. As said before there is a trend to expand the use of ICs mainly because the position of the GOP means action against this is highly unlikely.
 
The UFC is doing it if u hadn't noticed
 
admittedly i was one of the people defending the ufc/reebok before the details of this deal came out. my basic arguement was theres just no way two companies this large and successful could come together and fuck things up as bad as the fans were implying based on pure speculation

i was totally wrong

it really does blow my mind how stupid all of this is. the kits are so expensive that i dont get how they expect them to sell well. these are mma fans not golf fans. the gear looks nothing like the clothing a mma fan would wear

more importantly the deal fucked over the fighters royally. this is bad PR for the ufc and bad PR for reebok. litterally everyone is getting fucked by this deal. nobody is winning. its absolutely mind blowing how fucking stupid this is

its going to be interesting to see what happens moving forward. something has to change. behind closed doors both reebok and the ufc cant be happy. somehow they are going to have to change things up while trying to save face. the backpeddling and dancing around is going to be interesting. oh and firing stitch over this shit was a perfect example of everyone involved being a complete fuckwit. its been a complete cluster fuck all the way around
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,459,107
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top