WotC Being Sued By Magic: the Gathering Judges

Wizards of the Coast, which, as you likely know, produces the enormous collectible card game Magic: The Gathering (as well as RPGs like D&D) is on the end of a class action lawsuit filed by a small group of M:tG judges (Adam Shaw, Peter Golightly, Justin Turner, and Joshua Stansfield). The suit alleges that WotC failed to pay minimum wage, provide meal or rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, maintain accurate payroll records, and more. M:tG judges are volunteers, but the filing appears to allege that the degree of supervision and control exercised by WotC was enough to create an employer-employee relationship instead. The M:tG judges are demanding a jury trial.

Click on the image for the full 23-page document
​

 

[Obryn]

But, again, I see a difference between monetary and non-monetary focused activities. If they had been engaged in monetary focused activities, then I would agree with you. But they weren't.

Because WotC runs these tournaments to drive MtG card sales, these are inherently profit-driven activities.

What happened to personal responsibility? Regardless of any potential laws that were broken, these judges should have stepped up and taken responsibility for themselves. To me, they are just as much in the wrong for engaging in (potentially) illegal work practices as WotC is for allowing such a system to be setup and run. Just because an individual does not have a lawyer on retainer or reviewing all activities they engage in does not mean that they are not responsible for their own actions.

I think a more charitable way to view this lawsuit is that they are stepping up and taking personal responsibility right now. This is them doing exactly what you're expecting them to do.

If illegal work practices were engaged in, it was engaged in by BOTH sides. If one side was deceitful, if one side was dis-honest, if one side knowingly or intentionally engaged in illegal activity. Then that would change my moral argument. But, if both sides engaged in good faith, then both sides are equally at fault.

No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a volunteer judge to know the basics of employment laws and NLRB decisions when they sign up for the gig. It is, however, the duty of a large corporation's legal department to stay on top of these matters.

 

[LordEntrails]

Wha? When taking a job for pay, the job being for "self-support" has nothing to do with anything. You work, you get paid. I work as a teacher both to support myself and because I enjoy and am passionate for teaching. If I took a part-time job at my local game store to earn some extra scratch, and because I love and am passionate for the gaming scene, should I not get paid for that?

But these judges did not take a "job". They signed up for a voluntary program.

I love kids, I love dogs. So if I go get my dogs certified to be emotional companions (which is highly regulated), and then go get myself and my dogs certified at the local children's hospital to bring my dogs in to help the kids. Why the heck would I ever expect to go back and sue the hospital for not paying me? I offered my services. I accepted the terms of the arrangement.

If and when I feel that the terms are unfair. My obligation is to stop participating! Not sue the hospital because now that I've learned that I might have legal recourse.

If I love Magic (which I do), and I love it so much I want to be involved in the game more than just as a player, I might just volunteer to become a tournament judge based solely on my passion for the game, not expected to get paid but appreciated the unique cards I get as a thank-you. But, after working as a tournament judge and realizing, "Hey! This is tougher than my day-job! I should totally be getting paid for this!" It is not hypocritical or unethical for me to challenge WotC's policies on volunteer judges. I still love the game, I still want to be involved as a judge, but I want WotC to treat me and, more importantly, my fellow judges fairly. If WotC disagrees, then taking the issue to court is a logical next step.

No it is is not. Absolutely not. Your next logical step is to complain. Then your next logical step is to stop participating. IMO, unless you have reason to believe that the other party was knowingly and intentionally engaging in illegal activity, according to my morals, you are done. Challenging the policies is not unethical, but that's not what they have done, at least not in a responsible way. Their is no moral justification for suing someone because YOU did not know that YOU might have been engaged in illegal work activities.

My involvement and perception of my volunteerism began as "non-monetary" and shifted to feeling my contributions should be "monetary".

Wha? This makes no sense to me. "Personal responsibility"? How is feeling that your passion for a hobby was taken advantage of by WotC, and they trying to change that situation, show a lack of personal responsibility? These tournament judges suing WotC are not doing anything hypocritical, unethical, or irresponsible. That's just crazy talk!

The only possible way you could view the situation as showing a lack of personal responsibility is that the judges volunteered KNOWING that they were volunteering for positions that should clearly be performed by paid employees with the express purpose of later suing WotC. Which, if you believe that, I've got a nice tinfoil hat you can wear.

Thanks for telling me how I could possible view a situation. Of course, you did that after implying I was crazy. Personal attacks don't strengthen your case. They weaken it.

It doesn't surprise me that personal responsibility makes no sense to you, if that's what you are saying. Again, I have never said that these judges should not have tried to change the situation. What I have said is that the way they are trying to change the situation is immoral, and that they are failing to acknowledge their own responsibilities to resolve this issue in a responsible & ethical way.

I stand by the opinion that this lawsuit by the judges is unethical.
- If you believe the judges claims, then they themselves were engaged in illegal activities. Failing to take personal responsibility for one's own actions is unethical.
- - The judges are just are responsible for knowing and following the law as any company is.
- These judges willingly engaged in activities that they did not believe was "work" or a "job". There is no reason to believe that WotC (or the tournament sponsors) believed that they were engaging people in such activities.
- - If these judges believed these activities were "work" or a "job" when they agreed to do them, then I hope you post a picture of you wearing a tin foil hat.
- - Ignorance of the law is no excuse, for either side. That is one reason I won't engage in the legality of this. But, legality does not equate to morality.
- When these judges decided they were engaged in illegal activities, their is as yet no evidence, they did not take the course of least harm. Instead they took the course of action that is most likely the most harmful to everyone but themselves, and the most likely to result in monetary reward for themselves. That smacks of selfishness, which according to the morals and ethics I was raised with, is bad.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think a more charitable way to view this lawsuit is that they are stepping up and taking personal responsibility right now. This is them doing exactly what you're expecting them to do.

It would be a more charitable way to view this. I'm not that charitable. I don't see this as taking personal responsibility. This is using the law for personal gain. This is failing to take an approach to conflict resolution that is less harmful. This is choosing to take the approach that has the potential for the most monetary gain for themselves. Not the most good for all.

No, I don't think it's reasonable to expect a volunteer judge to know the basics of employment laws and NLRB decisions when they sign up for the gig. It is, however, the duty of a large corporation's legal department to stay on top of these matters.

So, ignorance of the law is an excuse? Of course it is an individual's responsibility to know the basics of our legal system. And when they choose to engage in something that might be illegal, to take responsibility for their actions if at a later date they decide they were doing something illegal.

The duty of a public large corporation's legal department to stay on top of these things is in regards to risk and liability, not adherence to the law. It is to the financial responsibilities to share holders. Not that I agree with that on a moral/ethics basis. But that's what more than one corporate lawyer has made clear to me.

I'm going to let this thread go for awhile before replying again. Give others a chance to reply, and perhaps address this in a different manner.

 

[Dire Bare]

I stand by the opinion that this lawsuit by the judges is unethical.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I find your logic, unsound. And, while I'm not a lawyer, legal precedent seems to be behind the judges, and not WotC.

I don't think you are clinically insane for having a different opinion, but I do think that your choice to characterize the MtG judges as irresponsible and selfish is, lets say uncharitable rather than "crazy talk".

 

[Obryn]

It would be a more charitable way to view this. I'm not that charitable. I don't see this as taking personal responsibility. This is using the law for personal gain. This is failing to take an approach to conflict resolution that is less harmful. This is choosing to take the approach that has the potential for the most monetary gain for themselves. Not the most good for all.

I'll grant there are lots of ways to abuse the law. I can't see this as being one of them. "My employer has wronged me" is, in fact, one of the reasons we have a civil system of justice in the first place.

"Personal gain" is a really tricky standard. Of course there's personal gain in a civil suit; that's how the courts implement punishments and compensate victims. Expecting these judges to give up compensation for being mistreated is unfair to the plaintiffs. At the least, they deserve their back-pay, and at most some extra for WotC's malfeasance in not paying them in the first place.

So, ignorance of the law is an excuse? Of course it is an individual's responsibility to know the basics of our legal system. And when they choose to engage in something that might be illegal, to take responsibility for their actions if at a later date they decide they were doing something illegal.

The duty of a public large corporation's legal department to stay on top of these things is in regards to risk and liability, not adherence to the law. It is to the financial responsibilities to share holders. Not that I agree with that on a moral/ethics basis. But that's what more than one corporate lawyer has made clear to me.

I'm going to let this thread go for awhile before replying again. Give others a chance to reply, and perhaps address this in a different manner.

It's unreasonable to assert that everyone with a job should know the legal landscape that this case falls into. Private individuals don't have the necessary background or capacity to bone up on such a tricky legal minefield as employment law.

In fact, quite the contrary, I think it would be a reasonable assumption on their part that WotC/Hasbro has taken a look at it all and decide it's obviously on the up-and-up. This is an error, but it's an error that WotC/Hasbro has certainly tried to sell, given the various contracts and certifications required to be a judge.

As for the corporate lawyers, of course it's their responsibility to keep up on risk and liability. This was a big risk and potential liability. Their inaction and inattention to the laws surrounding volunteering may cost WotC some money, here. It's not the judges' fault that WotC/Hasbro's lawyers didn't do their homework, or gambled on getting away with it.

e: So, yes, ignorance of the law is important. It means it's totally reasonable for the judges - now that they have been made aware of the law - to file suit about it. It's also important because WotC/Hasbro has an actual duty as the employer in this case to know the relevant laws and behave accordingly.

 

[MoonSong]

No it is is not. Absolutely not. Your next logical step is to complain. Then your next logical step is to stop participating. IMO, unless you have reason to believe that the other party was knowingly and intentionally engaging in illegal activity, according to my morals, you are done. Challenging the policies is not unethical, but that's not what they have done, at least not in a responsible way. Their is no moral justification for suing someone because YOU did not know that YOU might have been engaged in illegal work activities.
- When these judges decided they were engaged in illegal activities, their is as yet no evidence, they did not take the course of least harm. Instead they took the course of action that is most likely the most harmful to everyone but themselves, and the most likely to result in monetary reward for themselves. That smacks of selfishness, which according to the morals and ethics I was raised with, is bad.

This is using the law for personal gain. This is failing to take an approach to conflict resolution that is less harmful. This is choosing to take the approach that has the potential for the most monetary gain for themselves. Not the most good for all.

How do you know they didn't complain first? And what good does it do if they just stopped? (assuming they didn't get not-fired but kicked-out-for-real in the process) That just allows more fans to get into this in their place, and this includes almost kids like the boy who introduced me to the game in high school, which runs afoul of children labor laws around the world-.

Suing helps the judges to make a profit, obvious. But that isn't going to be everything, if they win, WotC will have to rebuild their judges program to either make it an actual job or start hiring actual staff for all the job on conventions and tournaments and be more transparent on their certifications -so this is a win-. Second it creates a precedent to allow other people to fight for better conditions (NCAA and student-athletes?, unpaid interns doing employees work?)

 

[happyhermit]

So... not paying judges is more ethical than paying them?

Well, this seems to not actually relate to what I wrote, but anyways it's an easy question to answer.

It is no more ethical to pay for something than to receive something voluntarily given.

It is not ethically any different to accept someone's voluntarily given time than anything else than can be given voluntarily.

Volunteering for a commercial endeavour that you support is no different ethically than volunteering for a charitable one.

All these things are treated differently under various laws and regulations, but that means nothing in terms of right and wrong.


It is unethical to volunteer something and then later demand payment for it.

The deception is in calling an employee a volunteer, and preying on their enthusiasm to recruit free labor. (Oh, sorry, paid in printed cardboard which has no value outside a speculative, unregulated market.)

I'm not claiming any promises were broken. I think you'll see that I'm saying exactly the opposite. The key is that WotC made an intentional cost-saving decision not to pay their employees - and that those employees didn't realize that they were, in fact, employees until later. That's taking advantage of fans' goodwill, and I can't see that as ethical in the least.

First off, I want to avoid confounding multiple definitions of a term. If I ask someone to volunteer to do something, they are a volunteer. The fact that laws and regulations in certain jurisdictions create "special definitions" of a word certainly has legal ramifications but not ethical ones.

So, if media people accept gifts from fans they are taking advantage of them? The response is, "No, that's different because... laws." or "No, because sooo many people tried to give them stuff that they only accepted the ones that were useful for them."

 

[tomBitonti]

So here's a thing: One doesn't have perfect knowledge. A 14 year old who volunteers to be a Magic Judge might do so with very little knowledge of labor laws. Two years later, after learning a bit more, they may come to realize that they've been taken advantage of. Would such a person be unreasonable to demand that they be fairly compensated?

Another thing: One might cease to be a volunteer and still be able to bring a lawsuit. And, I would think, if offered a volunteer which did not conform to labor laws, also be able to bring a lawsuit. An organization failing to satisfy labor laws seems to be a good basis for this.

I think there is room to argue whether labor laws should be as they are. But taking a particular law as a given, the argument is whether the particulars of the law are satisfied.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Obryn]

Well, this seems to not actually relate to what I wrote, but anyways it's an easy question to answer.

It is no more ethical to pay for something than to receive something voluntarily given.

It is not ethically any different to accept someone's voluntarily given time than anything else than can be given voluntarily.

Volunteering for a commercial endeavour that you support is no different ethically than volunteering for a charitable one.

All these things are treated differently under various laws and regulations, but that means nothing in terms of right and wrong.

Sure, it's different. Both legally and ethically.

Think about miners being paid in company scrip that can only be spent in the company store. Can we agree that that arrangement was unethical? Why is it such a leap from that to an unpaid labor force for a commercial venture?

It is unethical to volunteer something and then later demand payment for it.

I can imagine some cases where this would be true. None of them involve a for-profit corporation abusing their fans' enthusiasm as a cost saving measure, though.

First off, I want to avoid confounding multiple definitions of a term. If I ask someone to volunteer to do something, they are a volunteer. The fact that laws and regulations in certain jurisdictions create "special definitions" of a word certainly has legal ramifications but not ethical ones.

You're coming at this backwards. This is about a corporation's ethical responsibilities to its workforce. We don't even get to where Judge Jimmy said he'd work 20 hour days for cardboard without crossing that bridge first.

 

[happyhermit]

Sure, it's different. Both legally and ethically.

Without bringing in other specific examples and "appeals to emotion", mind telling me how you think they're different then, ethically?

I can imagine some cases where this would be true. None of them involve a for-profit corporation abusing their fans' enthusiasm as a cost saving measure, though.

Mind explaining why you think that volunteering something to a corporation that you support, then later demanding payment, is fundamentally different from doing the same with an individual or a non-profit? From an ethical viewpoint.

You're coming at this backwards. This is about a corporation's ethical responsibilities to its workforce. We don't even get to where Judge Jimmy said he'd work 20 hour days for cardboard without crossing that bridge first.

And I would argue that if someone offers something voluntarily, that does not put responsibilities onto the receiver of that voluntary giving. The identity of the receiving party does not determine whether or not it is ethical.