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]

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

Handling all of this at once - it's the process of soliciting that's the initial ethical breach. It's not like Jimmy is just setting up a tourney in his backyard. WotC solicits for these volunteers, making a choice to use unpaid labor instead of paying them. This is why the company scrip example is relevant - that's a similar choice to pay in fake money.

And yes, of course the identities matter. Both legally and ethically. A for-profit corporation isn't a soup kitchen. Nor is it your buddy Steve, who's moving. There's no equivalence here. For-profit corporations have a different set of duties to society and to those helping them make that profit.

At the end of the day, though, I'm way more interested in the legal situation - which has a solid foundation for argument - than the ethical one, which diverges depending on the ethical systems we're coming from.

 

[happyhermit]

...
And yes, of course the identities matter. Both legally and ethically. A for-profit corporation isn't a soup kitchen. Nor is it your buddy Steve, who's moving. There's no equivalence here. For-profit corporations have a different set of duties to society and to those helping them make that profit.

All I can get out of this in terms of rationale is essentially; They are different because... they are different. I disagree. If the fundamental act remains unchanged, so does the ethics.

If I help my "buddy Steve" move his household effects, or his work papers, or his small business, the voluntary act is the same.

Doesn't matter if two other people offered and he picked me.
Doesn't matter if he asked me for help.
Doesn't matter if he could have hired professional movers.
Doesn't matter how big his company is.

I might grumble and complain, but if I do it, it is unethical to demand payment afterwards.

At the end of the day, though, I'm way more interested in the legal situation - which has a solid foundation for argument - than the ethical one, which diverges depending on the ethical systems we're coming from.

Which might be a more fruitful discussion than us debating what is right and wrong. Probably just as well if we agree to disagree at this point on who is in the wrong. Ethics are a very serious issue for me, and for a lot of people I am sure.

Legality is another thing entirely, there might be as much disagreement but it is on a less visceral/political/personal level.

 

[Obryn]

All I can get out of this in terms of rationale is essentially; They are different because... they are different. I disagree. If the fundamental act remains unchanged, so does the ethics.

If I help my "buddy Steve" move his household effects, or his work papers, or his small business, the voluntary act is the same.

Doesn't matter if two other people offered and he picked me.
Doesn't matter if he asked me for help.
Doesn't matter if he could have hired professional movers.
Doesn't matter how big his company is.

I might grumble and complain, but if I do it, it is unethical to demand payment afterwards.



Which might be a more fruitful discussion than us debating what is right and wrong. Probably just as well if we agree to disagree at this point on who is in the wrong. Ethics are a very serious issue for me, and for a lot of people I am sure.

Legality is another thing entirely, there might be as much disagreement but it is on a less visceral/political/personal level.

Let's drill down into the Buddy Steve example, actually, because I think it might illustrate where I'm going with that and why I think Steve and Hasbro have different duties.

Unbeknownst to you, there is a reality competition in town called Fastest Movers. Steve has enlisted you and his other friends to move him out of his house really fast. He's really moving, and really needs help, but he's also competing in this contest. In part because of your help, he wins $50,000. He keeps the money and doesn't share it with you or his other friends.

Is Steve behaving ethically?

 

[Maxperson]

Let's drill down into the Buddy Steve example, actually, because I think it might illustrate where I'm going with that and why I think Steve and Hasbro have different duties.

Unbeknownst to you, there is a reality competition in town called Fastest Movers. Steve has enlisted you and his other friends to move him out of his house really fast. He's really moving, and really needs help, but he's also competing in this contest. In part because of your help, he wins $50,000. He keeps the money and doesn't share it with you or his other friends.

Is Steve behaving ethically?

First, that's a horrible analogy. Anyone who didn't realize that WotC was making money off of their volunteer work was too dumb to pass the requirements to be a judge. They all knew, so your analogy is off from the very get go. Second, if Steve is having a garage sale and I volunteer to help him for no pay, he is not acting unethically not to pay me. That's a much better analogy since I am aware that he is making money off of my work.

Every volunteer knew WotC was making money off of their volunteer work and they were okay with it. That removes anything unethical from the part of WotC. Nobody at the company was sneaking anything by these guys.

 

[happyhermit]

Let's drill down into the Buddy Steve example, actually, because I think it might illustrate where I'm going with that and why I think Steve and Hasbro have different duties.

Unbeknownst to you, there is a reality competition in town called Fastest Movers. Steve has enlisted you and his other friends to move him out of his house really fast. He's really moving, and really needs help, but he's also competing in this contest. In part because of your help, he wins $50,000. He keeps the money and doesn't share it with you or his other friends.

Is Steve behaving ethically?

This is why I was avoiding extraneous examples, that example is designed to provoke an emotional response of fairness "appeal to emotion", based on the fact that Steve was deceiving them about the nature of the task being performed. Not the legality of the task, but the primary reason.

I really didn't want to get into examples, but to demonstrate some of the problems with this one I will try to be brief.

Grandma June is frazzled and tired, she asks the boys who lives next door if one of them could run down to the corner store and buy her a quart of milk. One of them does. Later on we find out that Grandma June won the blue ribbon and 50$ at the baking competition, and that was what she needed the milk for.

This example is nearly identical to the "buddy Steve" fundamentally, just framed different from an emotional perspective. Neither of them have much of anything to do with the reality of the OP.

 

[tomBitonti]

Grandma June is frazzled and tired, she asks the boys who lives next door if one of them could run down to the corner store and buy her a quart of milk. One of them does. Later on we find out that Grandma June won the blue ribbon and 50$ at the baking competition, and that was what she needed the milk for.

Maybe, GrandMa is in the practice of sharing some of her fine pastries with the neighbors. One doesn't demand favors, but if GrandMa was in the habit of asking for help and was not under duress -- say, she baked for her overworked children and grandchildren -- and GrandMa wasn't the sharing or thanking sort, then there would be a problem.

Also, the difference in amount -- $50 vs $50,000 -- is quite significant.

And, the relative contributions are important: GrandMa is doing the larger share of work, while the movers were doing most of that work.

Thx!
TomB

 

[LordEntrails]

And GandMa and Steve were assuming all risk if their venture did not make money. The volunteers were risking nothing, and in fact GrandMa gave them a bunch of cookies regardless if she won the competition or not.

But again, these analogies are near useless.

If you take the view that the size/profitability of one of the parties matters, then large profitable organizations can never ethically accept volunteers.

I'm not sure I want to live in a society were people can not volunteer for a profitable organization. I wouldn't be able to volunteer to; a church, the Boy Scouts, Greenpeace, a political party...
Sure, you can claim those are all non-profits, but they still make money from volunteer activities.

Ooh, how about Girl Scout Cookies?

But actually, don't go there, please. Would add nothing to this discussion. Let's stay on topic.
Why is it unethical for a person to volunteer for a money making entity/company?
Why does the person volunteering have less of a responsibility than the entity/company to behave in ethical behavior?

 

[happyhermit]

Maybe, GrandMa is in the practice of sharing some of her fine pastries with the neighbors. One doesn't demand favors, but if GrandMa was in the habit of asking for help and was not under duress -- say, she baked for her overworked children and grandchildren -- and GrandMa wasn't the sharing or thanking sort, then there would be a problem.

That might make Grandma June less nice, gracious or any number of things, but it doesn't change the ethics of an act. It doesn't make retroactively demanding money any less unethical.

Also, the difference in amount -- $50 vs $50,000 -- is quite significant.

On an emotional level, sure, that's why $50 000 was used in the first example, to bring forth that feeling of "unfairness". If stealing $1000 is wrong, then so is $100.

And, the relative contributions are important: GrandMa is doing the larger share of work, while the movers were doing most of that work.
...

First off, if the actions are voluntary, the quantity of work doesn't change the action.

Second, even if it did, who is to determine what that means?

If the boy also mixes the batter and does the heavy lifting (voluntarily) is that offset by the infrastructure (kitchen), or the time honed recipe, or the initiative to think about entering the contest to begin with. All of these things are purely subjective factors, and so it makes no sense to try to determine who is "doing" the larger share of the work, but there is no reason to anyways (from an ethical viewpoint).

 

[LordEntrails]

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-.

If they complained, they didn't do it well and publicly. But, maybe they did, doesn't matter in regards to the lawsuit. What good does walking away do? It solves the problem that they have. In the simplest and least harmful manner. If 10+% of the MtG judges actively join in the suit, and support it, then I will believe that maybe a suit was the right approach. Maybe.

As for the boy who introduced you. He shouldn't know the rules, he's not an adult. That's why his parents are responsible. They are the ones that should know, and are ethically and legally responsible for his actions (and what they allow him to get involved in).

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?)

Even if they don't win WotC will probably change the way things are run. And I'm not convinced that is going to help the community, the players, or the judges. Who says WotC is going to start hiring or paying people? Maybe they will just walk away from official tournaments. So it's not a win-win, because their are many options that just the ones you want to happen.

As for a precedent. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a lawyer and don't care to pretend to be one. Unpaid interns already have their precedence, and most unpaid internships have already changed. That's a good thing. NCAA student athletes are already addressing this issue, legally and otherwise. I doubt this lawsuit will impact those. And, I don't see this issue on the same ethical grounds as the ones you mention.

 

[tomBitonti]

That might make Grandma June less nice, gracious or any number of things, but it doesn't change the ethics of an act. It doesn't make retroactively demanding money any less unethical.



On an emotional level, sure, that's why $50 000 was used in the first example, to bring forth that feeling of "unfairness". If stealing $1000 is wrong, then so is $100.



First off, if the actions are voluntary, the quantity of work doesn't change the action.

Second, even if it did, who is to determine what that means?

If the boy also mixes the batter and does the heavy lifting (voluntarily) is that offset by the infrastructure (kitchen), or the time honed recipe, or the initiative to think about entering the contest to begin with. All of these things are purely subjective factors, and so it makes no sense to try to determine who is "doing" the larger share of the work, but there is no reason to anyways (from an ethical viewpoint).

We must look at both parties ethics. What do think about Grandma's ethics? (Or morals; we've been using them interchangeably, but they are not the same thing.)

A numerical difference can and does matter! A theft of $5 is categorically different than a theft of $10,000. Both are wrong, but the law treats them differently.

Figuring who does what work, and in what proportion, and figuring the relative value of different persons contributions to a task are important and meaningful. Exact determinations are hard, but the matter remains hugely important.

Thx!
TomB