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
​

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Because, at no point in time was the person asking for the volunteer work actually ethically, or morally justified in doing so. Just because you will work for me for free, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that it is ethically justifiable for me to take your free work. Particularly when I hold power over you to force you to continue to give me that free work.

 

[Hussar]

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


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.



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.

So, by your logic, it is completely unethical for anyone to ask for back pay for any reason?

The hospital had no right to ask you to do that work for no pay in the first place. Just because you volunteer to be a slave does not make slavery ethical.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

From what is in the lawsuit and what has otherwise has been revealed. We don't actually know if any of this actually happened or was threatened.

 

[happyhermit]

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

Minors and children are always an entirely separate issue when it comes to ethics (and the law).

It is entirely possible to compare the degree of a wrongful act, it is useful and necessary when kept separate from the determination of whether the act was wrongful to begin with.

Rather than being limiting, eliminating extraneous details such as the magnitude of the act can be extremely useful in determining whether something is right or wrong. Since it doesn't change the essence of the act, putting it aside temporarily makes things much more clear, as with similar things that simply change the degree to which things are "wrong".

 

[happyhermit]

Double post.

 

[LordEntrails]

So, by your logic, it is completely unethical for anyone to ask for back pay for any reason?

The hospital had no right to ask you to do that work for no pay in the first place. Just because you volunteer to be a slave does not make slavery ethical.

Their is a difference between asking and suing. I've worked as a consultant and I've had times when I've gone back and asked the client for a retroactive scope and payment change because the work required changed. Sometimes they say yes, sometimes no. But if they don't agree, and even if they want to, sometimes they have business reasons they can't change the terms, I don't have an moral justification for suing them.

 

[LordEntrails]

Oh, and you can't volunteer to be a slave. It's in the definition.

 

[LordEntrails]

Because, at no point in time was the person asking for the volunteer work actually ethically, or morally justified in doing so. Just because you will work for me for free, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that it is ethically justifiable for me to take your free work. Particularly when I hold power over you to force you to continue to give me that free work.

The only power WotC held over the judges to work another con etc is that power which the judges gave to WotC. It was a voluntary power exchange. So what if you loose your judging credentials, if you don't agree to the terms, why would it matter?

 

[Hussar]

The only power WotC held over the judges to work another con etc is that power which the judges gave to WotC. It was a voluntary power exchange. So what if you loose your judging credentials, if you don't agree to the terms, why would it matter?

But, I thought you just argued that scope isn't important. It's now not an ethical issue because I apparently don't lose anything?

Not sure how well that flies.

And, no, that is not the only power WotC held over judges. They held the power of hotels and whatnot at the cons as well. And, the fact that maybe I want to be a Magic judge apparently doesn't matter either.

Also, apparenlty unimportant, is the potential fact that WotC lied to the volunteers. Defrauded them out of their work by offering a volunteer position while knowing that it should, in fact, be a job. I guess that doesn't matter though, since, the person defrauded agreed to it, so, too bad?

Yeah, I'm really, really glad this sort of libertarian thinking is kept as far away from the legal system as possible.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

I have an ethical obligation to know before I give my consent (even consent given through failing to oversee).

I never said it was the sole responsibility of one party. I've said from the beginning it both parties responsibility.

What information that is relevant to this discussion is not available to everyone? All local, state, and federal laws are available to every citizen. Even if cumbersome to access. More importantly, if I do not have access to the information that I need to make an informed decision, and I make that decision in ignorance, who's fault is that?

This victim blaming paragraph caught me short. And rather than walking away from such, this will be my last post on this thread until sometime tomorrow (at the earliest). It seems to be getting too emotional. And the paraphrasing of my views in the statement are so off from what I have posted as to be meaningless.

Companies do illegal things all the time for business reasons that are also immoral. They also do moral things that are illegal all the time. But that's not being presented. Nor do either situations matter. I have yet to see any reason to believe that WotC knew the judges program was illegal. To assume so is ... not worth discussing. To discuss the possible implications if WotC knew, might be interesting. But so would the discussion if the judges knew.

So every-time I am wronged it is moral for me to sue someone? I agree that it's legal. But that's not the discussion. So, if someone unintentionally harms me, I should harm them?