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
​

 

[MoonSong]

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).



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.

But why is it less harmful to just get out of harms way while allowing others to be harmed in the same exact way?

Now as for this boy, why would parent's expect their son to unknowingly get into what is basically child labor when it appears to be just a harmless after-school activity? Not so different from Disney club? On pre-internet times? (internet wasn't as widespread back then cyber cafes were barely starting to get popular)

 

[happyhermit]

...

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.

Gaahh! I have done everything I possibly can to make clear when discussing ethics and legality. Absolutely the law treats them differently, I never suggested otherwise.

The important thing is that whether or not an act is ethical is not determined by the degree, this works both ways.

IF stealing money from a poor orphan is wrong, making the amount more or less does not make it right.

IF stealing money from Hitler is right, then increasing or decreasing the amount does not make it wrong.

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.

EXACT determinations are IMPOSSIBLE there is no way to translate things like art, thought, ideas, effort, etc into absolute and comparable measures. The legal system does this through monetary value or time, but even it doesn't claim to make an exact determination, it is a fundamentally flawed comparison. Luckily, the comparison is irrelevant in terms of ethical ramifications in this case.

 

[Hussar]

Nothing whatsoever, and that seems like a very disingenuous question. I find it hard to believe that you could actually believe that I was considering the act of "realizing" they have been taken advantage of (whether or not that is true in any way) to be the unethical act.



The fact that you brought the size of the party in question into the question of ethics as a qualifier makes it pretty clear we aren't going to reach the same conclusions.

Still, Conning? Were the judges promised things that were never delivered, what kind of "con" are you suggesting?

Swimming upthread a bit.

The conning part is easy. Volunteers were told they they would be responsible for X. Volunteers show up and get Y and Z also dumped on them far beyond reasonable expectations. But, because the volunteers wish to continue to participate, they do Y and Z. The company gets unpaid labour above and beyond what the person volunteered for.

Additionally, there may be other issues. Volunteers may receive, for example, a hotel room for the con. If they walk, they now have to pay for their own hotel room. So, the company holds that over their heads - do the work or we cancel your airline ticket home is a pretty darn big incentive to keep your mouth shut especially when airfare might be hundreds or even more than a thousand dollars.

There's a million and one ways to abuse volunteers.

 

[Hussar]

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.

/snip.

Now, let's run with this example. Imagine the hospital now tells you you MUST come to the hospital every weekend, from 8 AM, to 5 PM, Saturday and Sunday. Failure to do so will revoke the certification of your dogs and yourself.

Is this a job or a volunteer position?

What if they add in this stipulation a few weeks after you started volunteering?

Say you agree to the stipulations and volunteer for two years. Someone comes along after two years and tells you that, "hey, this actually qualifies for a job under the law. You are owed two years pay for this work that you have done."

is it somehow immoral or unethical for you to then sue the hospital? They have, after all, been breaking the law for two years and taking advantage of you and your work for two years. That you didn't know that you were being taken advantage of doesn't really matter.

 

[LordEntrails]

But why is it less harmful to just get out of harms way while allowing others to be harmed in the same exact way?

Not sure your first "harmful" is the right word, but if I get what you are saying;
Well, how many judges are there? 10,000? 1000? And 5 are claiming harm. Even though they are claiming it on behalf of all of them. So, do I believe 1000 people who say they were not being harmed? Or do I believe the 5?

Oh sure, I know, the 1000 don't know better... They don't know they were harmed... Or maybe they are just as smart and aware as us and can make that determination on their own. Note, only one other self-identified judge has commented in this thread, and he did not seem to take sides.

But, I wasn't talking harm. I was talking ethics/morals. And, given my points before that these "jobs" were not engaged in for support, then I see "harm" as very hard to sustain. It didn't keep food off their table. It didn't keep them from paying their rent. Maybe it kept them from making money that they could have made doing something else, but it also stroked their egos, so they got something out of it that many jobs never give.

Then, even if you were to convince me that they were harmed. Then you have to convince me that WotC was more responsible for their harm than they were. And claiming they didn't know better and that WotC should have may be a legal defense (I doubt it, but I don't care either), it will never be a moral one for my ethos.

But, why is it more ethical to walk away than sue? Because by suing they are causing harm to many, and not just WotC. Is it ethical to harm others just because you have been harmed?

Now as for this boy, why would parent's expect their son to unknowingly get into what is basically child labor when it appears to be just a harmless after-school activity? Not so different from Disney club? On pre-internet times? (internet wasn't as widespread back then cyber cafes were barely starting to get popular)

It doesn't matter what the parents expect. It is their moral and legal obligation to know. No matter how unfair that is (and I'm a parent of two teenagers, so I know), it is still their obligation to know enough to make that decision. And if they don't know enough, and they allow it to happen, they are still responsible.

 

[tomBitonti]

Gaahh! I have done everything I possibly can to make clear when discussing ethics and legality. Absolutely the law treats them differently, I never suggested otherwise.

The important thing is that whether or not an act is ethical is not determined by the degree, this works both ways.

IF stealing money from a poor orphan is wrong, making the amount more or less does not make it right.

IF stealing money from Hitler is right, then increasing or decreasing the amount does not make it wrong.

EXACT determinations are IMPOSSIBLE there is no way to translate things like art, thought, ideas, effort, etc into absolute and comparable measures. The legal system does this through monetary value or time, but even it doesn't claim to make an exact determination, it is a fundamentally flawed comparison. Luckily, the comparison is irrelevant in terms of ethical ramifications in this case.

There is no possibility that wrongful acts can be compared as a matter of degree? Limiting analysis to a simple binary result is very very limiting. Is a kid stealing a candy bar not committing a lesser offense than a con artist who drains someone's savings?

Thx!
TomB

 

[Hussar]

On the Grandma and Milk example.

Would it make a difference if Grandma then asked the boy to get milk for her every Saturday and deliver it to her house by lunchtime, every week? I think it would.

Asking someone to do something once, well, that gets a lot of leeway. Is it a job? Well, maybe technically, but, meh, it's a bit of a wash.

But the judges aren't asked to do things just once. And, let's not forget, WotC is ASKING them (i.e. more or less telling them because if they don't they lose their Judging status) to go and do things repeatedly. And, above and beyond simply judging a tournament, they were also being asked to do far more labor than was initially talked about. Nothing in being a Magic Judge says that you have to set up and take down the venue does it? I wouldn't expect that it does.

Once you are expected to do something, and suffer some sort of actual consequence for not doing it, that's a LOT closer to a job. If the boy doesn't get the milk for grandma, nothing happens. Well, he might not get cookies, but, that's about it. A Magic Judge that doesn't do the extra labour, going to tournaments, etc, loses out on ranks, which means losing out on perks and not being able to participate in the activity.

Suddenly, that sounds a LOT like a job. And, if it is a job, then you should get paid for it. Yup, they signed on a volunteers, but, there are strict limits on what delineates a volunteer from an employee. As soon as you start having penalties for not volunteering, well, that's a lot less voluntary and a lot more employment.

IOW, WotC gained a considerable amount of free labour above and beyond what the volunteers agreed to. And, any complaints or refusal by volunteers would be punished by withholding things of value. That's not a volunteer position anymore.

That's a job.

 

[happyhermit]

The conning part is easy. Volunteers were told they they would be responsible for X. Volunteers show up and get Y and Z also dumped on them far beyond reasonable expectations. But, because the volunteers wish to continue to participate, they do Y and Z. The company gets unpaid labour above and beyond what the person volunteered for.
...

I certainly never said that it was not possible to con volunteers, or that doing so was right. In fact, I asked if that was actually happening, because that is a different argument and issue than what was posted.

is it somehow immoral or unethical for you to then sue the hospital? They have, after all, been breaking the law for two years and taking advantage of you and your work for two years. That you didn't know that you were being taken advantage of doesn't really matter.

Breaking the law has no bearing on whether it is immoral or unethical.

The existence (or non-existence) of the law does not change whether or not someone was "taken advantage of" (ethically or morally).

This is another example that gets farther away from the original issue, but I don't see how someone saying "If you don't follow these rules or you quit, you can't keep volunteering", makes demanding compensation for something given voluntarily in the past, ethical.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

It doesn't matter what the parents expect. It is their moral and legal obligation to know. No matter how unfair that is (and I'm a parent of two teenagers, so I know), it is still their obligation to know enough to make that decision. And if they don't know enough, and they allow it to happen, they are still responsible.

When? When do they have a legal and moral obligation to know? Before they agree to anything? One month after? What is the statute of limitations here? You are a parent. What if you make a mistake? You agree to something but you are wrong. It happens to all of us. We looked it up, thought we understood something but made a mistake.

Does that completely remove any responsibility on the other party? Not bloody likely.

Never minding that the idea of "ignorance of the law is no defence" only applies to criminal law. After all, you presuming that everyone has equal access to all information all the time. That's utter and completely ridiculous.

Talk about victim blaming. Holy crap. "Oh well, your honour, the complainant didn't know that what I was doing was entirely illegal, so, I guess that means I'm innocent!" Seriously?

Good grief, companies do this sort of thing all the time. Heck, there are mountains of cases where the company figured that it was cheaper to pay lawyers than to actually fix a known problem. And the worst part is, usually they're right.

The notion that suing WotC because you feel that they have wronged you is somehow unethical is just mind boggling. That's WHY we have civil courts. To determine whether or not wrongdoing was actually done. But you're arguing that the action of suing in the first place is unethical? Good grief.

 

[LordEntrails]

Now, let's run with this example. Imagine the hospital now tells you you MUST come to the hospital every weekend, from 8 AM, to 5 PM, Saturday and Sunday. Failure to do so will revoke the certification of your dogs and yourself.

The I tell them to pound sand and I walk away. If I don't then I am agreeing to new conditions. In a free society, supply and demand, or similar forces, will dictate if they are able to fill my vacancy

Is this a job or a volunteer position?

Don't know and don't care. This is a legal question. I try as little as possible to let the law determine my actions. I use my ethics to drive my decisions. That's one reason I don't care about discussing the legal ramifications of this case.

What if they add in this stipulation a few weeks after you started volunteering?

Say you agree to the stipulations and volunteer for two years. Someone comes along after two years and tells you that, "hey, this actually qualifies for a job under the law. You are owed two years pay for this work that you have done."

is it somehow immoral or unethical for you to then sue the hospital? They have, after all, been breaking the law for two years and taking advantage of you and your work for two years. That you didn't know that you were being taken advantage of doesn't really matter.

Absolutely is is unethical for me to sue the hospital at this point in time. Just like it is unethical for the judges to sue WotC. It may be legal, but it's not ethical.

It would be ethical for me to go to the government agency that governs the hospital and report the violation to them. It would be ethical for me to complain to the hospital board, to write the local newspaper, to post the facts online, to notify all of the other volunteers. But it's not ethical for me to break my word and demand money from them.