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
​

 

[happyhermit]

Because, at no point in time was the person asking for the volunteer work actually ethically, or morally justified in doing so.

It is not unethical to ask someone to do something for you, no moral justification is necessary.

... Particularly when I hold power over you to force you to continue to give me that free work.

On this we can all agree, if someone has the "power over you to force you" to give something for free, that is unethical.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

Ok, THIS is the last post from me for awhile. This one is so unfounded I needed to reply before it got buried.

1) Maybe they held the power of the hotel. That and return airfare is purely speculative with no evidence to support it.
2) I did not argue scope like you are implying, happyhermit did. And my argument is in regards to the claim that the judges were harmed. My point is that any harm was superficial.
3) Now you are making more unfounded statements. Prove WotC lied. Prove they knew (not that you claim they should have known) that it should have been a job. Prove with statements from the court documents, from public statements from WotC. Prove it, don't assume it.
4) You say libertarian like it's a bad word. I don't have a clue what you are implying with this statement.

 

[Maxperson]

It is not unethical to ask someone to do something for you, no moral justification is necessary.

On this we can all agree, if someone has the "power over you to force you" to give something for free, that is unethical.

Correction. If someone uses the power they have over you to force you to give something for free, that is unethical. Simply having the power is not unethical.

 

[tomBitonti]

Let's run this diffently:

WotC asks for volunteers, and gets some.

The arrangement proceeds peaceably for several years.

Someone notices that the law wasn't being followed and the volunteers are entitled to compensation under a plain reading of the law.

Would it be ethical if WotC ignored their legal responsibility? With no lawsuits or demands, just a clear obligation under the law?

Thx!
TomB

 

[happyhermit]

Correction. If someone uses the power they have over you to force you to give something for free, that is unethical. Simply having the power is not unethical.

Thank you, that was an important mistake on my part.

Let's run this diffently:

WotC asks for volunteers, and gets some.

The arrangement proceeds peaceably for several years.

Someone notices that the law wasn't being followed and the volunteers are entitled to compensation under a plain reading of the law.

Would it be ethical if WotC ignored their legal responsibility? With no lawsuits or demands, just a clear obligation under the law?

Thx!
TomB

Ignoring a "legal responsibility" cannot, in and of itself make something unethical. The fact that people have had a "legal responsibility" to do things that supported slavery makes that pretty clear. So, an "obligation under the law" is of utmost importance legally, but not relevant ethically.

So I am not misunderstood, obviously am not going to ever argue that the two are mutually exclusive. Certainly breaking the law is often immoral and following it is often moral, it is just that the law doesn't make it so.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

I agree that viewing the suing MtG judges as unethical is a bit warped, and I hope their lawsuit is successful.

However, I wouldn't characterize WotC's role as lying to the judges, or somehow willfully taking advantage of them. Gaming cons, competitions, and tournaments have a long history of being volunteer run, because gaming is an industry that started at the grass-roots level and volunteerism is really the only way gaming tournaments could have been run in the old days. WotC and MtG has long outgrown that, IMO, and shouldn't be using volunteers anymore to run their tournaments . . . but for them to continue doing things as they always have is somewhat understandable, until it's made clear to them this isn't going to work in today's environment.

My assumption is that the judges suing WotC realized that the responsibilities they were given, and how they were treated by WotC, really put them in the category of unpaid employee rather than volunteer, and so most likely DID approach WotC first to try and change that situation. WotC has been using volunteers since day one, and why give that up to spend more money paying people fairly, especially when volunteers are likely somewhat plentiful? The judges likely saw that as putting profits over people (as do I), while WotC likely saw things differently. I doubt folks at WotC feel like they are taking advantage of the judges (at least, I hope not!). So, to court we go! Two opposing parties, both feeling in the right, happen all the time in court battles, of course.

Hopefully WotC will see the light, either through a settlement or forced by court order. This WILL change how cons and tournaments are run, but mostly on the highest levels. Cons and tournaments that need to continue relying on volunteers (because they are small-time) will need to be careful how much responsibility they put on their volunteers, and larger cons/tournaments will need to step up and actually hire some folks to shoulder the enormous amount of work required.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, THIS is the last post from me for awhile. This one is so unfounded I needed to reply before it got buried.

1) Maybe they held the power of the hotel. That and return airfare is purely speculative with no evidence to support it.
2) I did not argue scope like you are implying, happyhermit did. And my argument is in regards to the claim that the judges were harmed. My point is that any harm was superficial.
3) Now you are making more unfounded statements. Prove WotC lied. Prove they knew (not that you claim they should have known) that it should have been a job. Prove with statements from the court documents, from public statements from WotC. Prove it, don't assume it.
4) You say libertarian like it's a bad word. I don't have a clue what you are implying with this statement.

Heh. You repeatedly say things like "prove". Isn't that why we sue people? Isn't the whole point of suing someone to get at the truth of the matter using an impartial judge to determine if wrongdoing was done or not?

Wouldn't that make it thus ethical to sue someone who you believe has wronged you?

 

[Hussar]

I agree that viewing the suing MtG judges as unethical is a bit warped, and I hope their lawsuit is successful.

However, I wouldn't characterize WotC's role as lying to the judges, or somehow willfully taking advantage of them. Gaming cons, competitions, and tournaments have a long history of being volunteer run, because gaming is an industry that started at the grass-roots level and volunteerism is really the only way gaming tournaments could have been run in the old days. WotC and MtG has long outgrown that, IMO, and shouldn't be using volunteers anymore to run their tournaments . . . but for them to continue doing things as they always have is somewhat understandable, until it's made clear to them this isn't going to work in today's environment.

My assumption is that the judges suing WotC realized that the responsibilities they were given, and how they were treated by WotC, really put them in the category of unpaid employee rather than volunteer, and so most likely DID approach WotC first to try and change that situation. WotC has been using volunteers since day one, and why give that up to spend more money paying people fairly, especially when volunteers are likely somewhat plentiful? The judges likely saw that as putting profits over people (as do I), while WotC likely saw things differently. I doubt folks at WotC feel like they are taking advantage of the judges (at least, I hope not!). So, to court we go! Two opposing parties, both feeling in the right, happen all the time in court battles, of course.

Hopefully WotC will see the light, either through a settlement or forced by court order. This WILL change how cons and tournaments are run, but mostly on the highest levels. Cons and tournaments that need to continue relying on volunteers (because they are small-time) will need to be careful how much responsibility they put on their volunteers, and larger cons/tournaments will need to step up and actually hire some folks to shoulder the enormous amount of work required.

I actually completely agree with you @Dire Bear. Thus my use of the phrase "potential fact". I have no idea if it's true or not. I don't have any of the facts, so, I cannot make any sort of judgement. Again, this is why we take things like this to court. To determine the facts. Isn't that the point?

I've just been chasing my tail around this idea of suing as unethical. It's baffling to the point where I've now got a healthy suspicion that the others might just have been having a go and winding me up.

 

[MoonSong]

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?

But is it harm? what about justice? a lot of changes and improvements happened because someone sued. This kind of abuses might not sound like a lot to you, but in my country they lead to a war that lasted more than ten years and killed a lot of people. Suing is way more civilized and not harming. -it is not like they are patent trolls, they seem to have a genuine grievance-

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?



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.

But is it reasonable? should only omniscient international law experts be allowed to be parents? Everything done in my country (I'm not American nor live in there) interacts with the laws of some other more powerful country and who is going to expect a toy company to do something like that?

 

[Maxperson]

Heh. You repeatedly say things like "prove". Isn't that why we sue people? Isn't the whole point of suing someone to get at the truth of the matter using an impartial judge to determine if wrongdoing was done or not?

In this day and age it's generally about grubbing money however you can. Sometimes it's about truth. Much more often it's just someone using the system to try and get money when they really don't deserve it.