Flo's Side of Lawsuit Against W. Saylor and Rofkin

[ConnorsDad 596]

On 12/12/2019 at 12:03 PM, pamela said:

Because of the nature of our labor market? Hires and recruits rarely have the leverage to nullify or negotiate the terms of an employer’s NDA. Most people won’t challenge those types of agreements, even if the hiring org says it’s boilerplate or standard procedure, out of fear that their offer will be rescinded. It’s not like Willie had a union or a super unique set of skills or resources to bargain the terms.

That's not the company's fault. If he wanted to work for them either do what they ask or require or don't but nobody held a gun to his head. And he could always go out and work for himself. It just drives me insane that people want big business to be held accountable for everything, the letter of the law, any contract signed, etc. but if the employee wants to leave and he's forced to follow any nda's, rules, etc., he's being mistreated. Here's a perfect example. Everybody knows or at least they did when you go to a big 10 school and you sign a letter-of-intent, if you want to transfer, you have to sit out a year. Then somebody decides to transfer and all of a sudden they don't want to sit out of here. Why? They knew on the front end. You don't like the rules you either get them changed or you don't go there.  And then people act like it's the school's fault from wanting to enforce the rules in place.  The athlete would certainly make the school enforce their scholarship but nooooo, enforcing  the rule about sitting out a year is inhumane, just another case of the man holding me down or whatever! And it's not like I'm any multi-millionaire business owner either. I just think people know what they're getting into to start with so either don't do it, sign it, go there or whatever or if you do and you don't like what is there, you work to change it. But going there to a school or a business and then when you don't like what's going on now you decide that what you've known all along doesn't fit with what you want, you raise a stink. I have a big problem with that.

[ConnorsDad 596]

On 12/12/2019 at 12:13 PM, uncle bernard said:

Um, non-competes aren't optional typically. You sign or you don't get the job. I had to sign one to work at Jimmy John's in college.

And yes, we should be biased towards the little guy. Corporations aren't people. 

That's your opinion and I disagree. Corporations are made up of people. Those same people had rules to follow to get to where they are and employees should follow any rules, non-disclosure agreements, letters of intent and so on and so forth. By signing a letter of intent or a non-disclosure agreement and then later trying to back out with no penalty that you knew was there all along, you're basically saying "I was lying to you when I did it/signed it & I just wanted what you had and now that I don't like the way things are I shouldn't be held responsible for anything that my actions may have caused." That's bul**** and it's just another example of people not taking responsibility for their own actions.

[Plasmodium 2,220]

Thanksgiving must be awkward at the Floreanis.  Who sues your brother?

[unknown 33]

48 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Thanksgiving must be awkward at the Floreanis.  Who sues your brother?

jealousy

[wamba 52]

4 hours ago, ConnorsDad said:

That's not the company's fault. If he wanted to work for them either do what they ask or require or don't but nobody held a gun to his head. And he could always go out and work for himself. It just drives me insane that people want big business to be held accountable for everything, the letter of the law, any contract signed, etc. but if the employee wants to leave and he's forced to follow any nda's, rules, etc., he's being mistreated. Here's a perfect example. Everybody knows or at least they did when you go to a big 10 school and you sign a letter-of-intent, if you want to transfer, you have to sit out a year. Then somebody decides to transfer and all of a sudden they don't want to sit out of here. Why? They knew on the front end. You don't like the rules you either get them changed or you don't go there.  And then people act like it's the school's fault from wanting to enforce the rules in place.  The athlete would certainly make the school enforce their scholarship but nooooo, enforcing  the rule about sitting out a year is inhumane, just another case of the man holding me down or whatever! And it's not like I'm any multi-millionaire business owner either. I just think people know what they're getting into to start with so either don't do it, sign it, go there or whatever or if you do and you don't like what is there, you work to change it. But going there to a school or a business and then when you don't like what's going on now you decide that what you've known all along doesn't fit with what you want, you raise a stink. I have a big problem with that.

I suppose it’s a view on labor laws and what we as a society feel is the line between ensuring protections for workers and also granting necessary freedom to corporations.

You can argue that employees don’t need to sign no-compete clauses but there also needs to be a line what corporations can fairly demand of employees.

IMO we need a government that allows enough protection to employees so that people can make a living without being worried about signing away their livelihood.

Edit - I’d also like to add that I’m not on team Willie in this matter in general. He has clearly made a bunch of massive decisions from a clearly emotional standpoint and now he’s trying to cry foul to not looking at his options with a clear head while analyzing his legal options beforehand.

Edited December 14, 2019 by wamba

[madcat11 434]

This drama is exhilarating.

[Fishbane 170]

3 hours ago, wamba said:

I suppose it’s a view on labor laws and what we as a society feel is the line between ensuring protections for workers and also granting necessary freedom to corporations.

You can argue that employees don’t need to sign no-compete clauses but there also needs to be a line what corporations can fairly demand of employees.

IMO we need a government that allows enough protection to employees so that people can make a living without being worried about signing away their livelihood.

Edit - I’d also like to add that I’m not on team Willie in this matter in general. He has clearly made a bunch of massive decisions from a clearly emotional standpoint and now he’s trying to cry foul to not looking at his options with a clear head while analyzing his legal options beforehand.

I mean if we want a free market economy then the government should rule all non-competes unenforceable and that is an argument that doesn’t touch worker protection.  Non-competes by their very nature are anti free market and stifle competition.  The government has various laws to prevent companies/groups of companies from stiflingly competition and has taken action in the past on these laws.

Clearly any company can ask you to sign anything and even if you sign said document that doesn’t mean the government should allow it to be enforced.

[Fishbane 170]

8 hours ago, ConnorsDad said:

That's your opinion and I disagree. Corporations are made up of people. Those same people had rules to follow to get to where they are and employees should follow any rules, non-disclosure agreements, letters of intent and so on and so forth. By signing a letter of intent or a non-disclosure agreement and then later trying to back out with no penalty that you knew was there all along, you're basically saying "I was lying to you when I did it/signed it & I just wanted what you had and now that I don't like the way things are I shouldn't be held responsible for anything that my actions may have caused." That's bul**** and it's just another example of people not taking responsibility for their own actions.

If you are concerned with the rights of corporations what about the right of Rokfin to hire the employees they want to or the right of rokfin to work with any independent contractor they wish?  Non-competes are anti free market.   In a free market goods and services should be exchanged freely and corporations should be able to hire whomever they want.   To allow one corporation to tell another they cannot hire or do business with a certain person is anti competition and not good for the free market.   

Corporations don’t live up to obligations all the time and rarely do they get accused of lying.   A corporation doesn’t pay vendors, honor gift cards, or stops funding retirement plans when in a bankruptcy or restructuring and rarely do people throw around phrases like not living up to your word or lying.  Those decisions are “business.”   If a guy loses his job and is forced to meet his current obligations by finding work using his limited skill set he might decide the best course of action is to break a previously signed non-compete similar to how a corporation that has not meet their revenue/sales/growth goals might decide to declare bankruptcy and restructure previous agreements with vendors, consumers, employees, or retirees.   The failing corporation is rarely accused of the moral fouls of lying or not living up to its word because it’s just business.

[wamba 52]

1 hour ago, Fishbane said:

I mean if we want a free market economy then the government should rule all non-competes unenforceable and that is an argument that doesn’t touch worker protection.  Non-competes by their very nature are anti free market and stifle competition.  The government has various laws to prevent companies/groups of companies from stiflingly competition and has taken action in the past on these laws.

Clearly any company can ask you to sign anything and even if you sign said document that doesn’t mean the government should allow it to be enforced.

Good point and I agree. Well written follow-up post (just above this) as well.

[1032004 1,413]

6 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

Thanksgiving must be awkward at the Floreanis.  Who sues your brother?

I guess it’s not too surprising, didn’t he already force him out from the company he (co?)founded?

[ionel 2,436]

8 hours ago, Fishbane said:

I mean if we want a free market economy then the government should

there should be no speed limits, folks should be able to drive on whichever side of the road (or down the middle) they choose, there should be no rules laws or regulation, that'd be a free market economy, correct?  ;_;

[Crash 209]

20 minutes ago, ionel said:

there should be no speed limits, folks should be able to drive on whichever side of the road (or down the middle) they choose, there should be no rules laws or regulation, that'd be a free market economy, correct?  ;_;

No it wouldn't.  It would be as asinine as your post. 

[ugarte 515]

18 hours ago, ConnorsDad said:

That's your opinion and I disagree. Corporations are made up of people. Those same people had rules to follow to get to where they are and employees should follow any rules, non-disclosure agreements, letters of intent and so on and so forth. By signing a letter of intent or a non-disclosure agreement and then later trying to back out with no penalty that you knew was there all along, you're basically saying "I was lying to you when I did it/signed it & I just wanted what you had and now that I don't like the way things are I shouldn't be held responsible for anything that my actions may have caused." That's bul**** and it's just another example of people not taking responsibility for their own actions.

the idea that contracts are purely bilateral is a convenient fiction. this probably isn't the best case study for it, but the cult of the contract is ridiculous. corporations (and the wealthy) can break contracts much more freely than their counterparties because after the breach comes trench warfare. pretending that there's a magic wand dispensing justice and holding everyone to their agreements equally is a naive and ultimately destructive way of looking at the world because it strips you of empathy.

that said, this is not a life-or-death situation and first blush impression is that wilie f'd up and flo has him over a barrel. THAT said, i don't know that Flo *has* to take their pound of flesh.

[goheels1812 676]

38 minutes ago, ugarte said:

the idea that contracts are purely bilateral is a convenient fiction. this probably isn't the best case study for it, but the cult of the contract is ridiculous. corporations (and the wealthy) can break contracts much more freely than their counterparties because after the breach comes trench warfare. pretending that there's a magic wand dispensing justice and holding everyone to their agreements equally is a naive and ultimately destructive way of looking at the world because it strips you of empathy.

that said, this is not a life-or-death situation and first blush impression is that wilie f'd up and flo has him over a barrel. THAT said, i don't know that Flo *has* to take their pound of flesh.

This is the conclusion I’ve come to as well after reading up on it. Flo could take Willie behind the barn and bury him in legal fees if they want to. Now they just have to decide if they should and the risk of public perception. Whether or not that’s right or the ethical thing to do is another conversation entirely. Unfortunately we probably won’t know the outcome for a while. 
 

I would love to somehow know if anyone actually won’t renew with Flo because they liked Willie so much that they will subscribe to Rofkin instead. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by goheels1812

[Fishbane 170]

2 hours ago, goheels1812 said:

This is the conclusion I’ve come to as well after reading up on it. Flo could take Willie behind the barn and bury him in legal fees if they want to. Now they just have to decide if they should and the risk of public perception. Whether or not that’s right or the ethical thing to do is another conversation entirely. Unfortunately we probably won’t know the outcome for a while. 
 

I would love to somehow know if anyone actually won’t renew with Flo because they liked Willie so much that they will subscribe to Rofkin instead. 

I don't know if I am less likely to subscribe to Flo, but with Willie posting wrestling content on Rokfin I am more likely to subscribe to rokfin than I was previously.

[matts1w 152]

I am not missing Willie in the least on Flo, but if they ever let Nomad and whoever that was today at Ironman do play-by-play again I will for sure cancel.  Those two made me want to stab myself in the ears.  "How PA was that?" "Could that be more PA?"  Both guys know their stuff, but the unfunny, snarky, and ever-present attempts at humor were beyond painful.

[jon 158]

Yearlong lock-in makes any one bad moment annoying for subscribers but pretty-much unproblematic for Flo.

Let's hope lawsuits galore works well, somehow, to fix FloWrestling play-by-play lol.

Edited December 15, 2019 by jon

[82bordeaux 90]

5 hours ago, matts1w said:

I am not missing Willie in the least on Flo, but if they ever let Nomad and whoever that was today at Ironman do play-by-play again I will for sure cancel.  Those two made me want to stab myself in the ears.  "How PA was that?" "Could that be more PA?"  Both guys know their stuff, but the unfunny, snarky, and ever-present attempts at humor were beyond painful.

Snarky could be ignored. The shrill screaming could not. So I just muted and watched. I can do my own commentary.

[1032004 1,413]

8 hours ago, goheels1812 said:

This is the conclusion I’ve come to as well after reading up on it. Flo could take Willie behind the barn and bury him in legal fees if they want to. Now they just have to decide if they should and the risk of public perception. Whether or not that’s right or the ethical thing to do is another conversation entirely. Unfortunately we probably won’t know the outcome for a while. 
 

I would love to somehow know if anyone actually won’t renew with Flo because they liked Willie so much that they will subscribe to Rofkin instead. 

I doubt people won’t renew Flo because Willie left, but it seems he has influenced a few people to sign up for Rokfin.  But I have seen people say they weren’t going to renew Flo because they didn’t like that they were suing Willie (no clue if they’ll actually follow through on that though).

[fadzaev2 545]

1 hour ago, 82bordeaux said:

Snarky could be ignored. The shrill screaming could not. So I just muted and watched. I can do my own commentary.

Jeb Miller was the other guy I believe, along with Nomad.  

[Crash 209]

Still no response available on-line.  Also nothing listed stating that the hearing scheduled for Wednesday has been moved.

[pamela 1,334]

Bad timing for him with all the prep events and Sr Nationals going on this week, if he’s covering that. I guess he may not need to be present at the hearing, but what a distraction.

[Mphillips 1,658]

3 hours ago, fadzaev2 said:

Jeb Miller was the other guy I believe, along with Nomad.  

Nomad was fine when Zeb was out of the HVY match.  Zeb is a nightmare. I feel the same way about the podcast too.  Nomad and the other guys are better than Zeb.  Just my opinion.

[ugarte 515]

23 hours ago, matts1w said:

I am not missing Willie in the least on Flo, but if they ever let Nomad and whoever that was today at Ironman do play-by-play again I will for sure cancel.  Those two made me want to stab myself in the ears.  "How PA was that?" "Could that be more PA?"  Both guys know their stuff, but the unfunny, snarky, and ever-present attempts at humor were beyond painful.

i liked nomad, tbh, but the other guy was torture

[Crash 209]

The County Clerk has made an entry visible on-line that a response to this suit has been filed.

I am unable to get to the courthouse to retrieve the response in person.

Thus, I must use the on-line request process to get it.  This should take about a week.  I have initiated that process.

If there is anyone who is in Austin who can get to the County Clerk in person to retrieve this document, please post.

Note that this forum will likely not allow you to upload the document due to size limitations.  Thus, you will have to use Google Drive or a similar service to upload and post a link.

The hearing was scheduled for 12/18.  I cannot confirm or deny if that hearing has been postponed.  

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by Crash