Please Mr Jay Monahan....can i go play over there....please!!!!

[MtlJeff]

I am sure this has nothing to do with the politics of anything, and everything to do with this country being involved with trying to set up a competing tour. Even the article mentions the competitive league before bringing up human rights issues--you know, that old chestnut.

 

As has been mentioned several sports leagues do business with other places doing some pretty objectionable things.

 

The tour pretending this is about human rights issues (if they do that) would IMO entitle them to the Ralph Lauren award for fake wokeness. haha

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by MtlJeff

[bscinstnct]

16 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

philsthemannn knows everything. 

 

 

[smashdn]

9 hours ago, PHILsThemannnn said:

If the SGL is more attractive the PGA Tour needs to up it's game!

 

Yes.  The PGA Tour needs to drill, baby drill on all these TPC sites and get that PGA oil flowing.  Then when The Tour controls ~1/3 of the oil in the world and has its own country that it can rule with autonomy they will be on the same level with the Saudis.

[stinger_gc]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

Yes.  The PGA Tour needs to drill, baby drill on all these TPC sites and get that PGA oil flowing.  Then when The Tour controls ~1/3 of the oil in the world and has its own country that it can rule with autonomy they will be on the same level with the Saudis.

[kasting333]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Why get into a war of money when you are already the big dog.  Let the players be the sell outs.  And then the public decide. Which is what’s happening.  Stick your neck out. It may get the axe from public opinion.  

Nice to see someone thinking critically 

[BIG STU]

15 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Why? I worked in marketing for years, it was super common that contracts stipulated would could not work from competing companies at the same time. If it was ever in question wether a new client we wanted to take on would be a conflict we needed permission from our primary client before we took on the new client. 

 

Being an independent contractor means you can do whatever you want.... until you sign a contract that states otherwise. PGA players agree to the PGA rules when they choose to join the tour. Don't like the rules? No problem you are an independent contractor you can work for someone else. 

Yep it works the same way in the trucking industry. If one leases to a specific company then they pull for that company. Now if the contract states so if they can not find freight in the area you can do what is called a trip lease for one trip. Now if you are truly an independant contractor you have your own USDOT authority and can pull for anyone. The last one can open up a whole can of worms as in insurance rates and paperwork reporting.

Like anything else it depends on the contract specs

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I bet if you had a lucrative long term consulting gig with Pepsi and you then said you were going to take a week off to go help Coke, I guarantee that wouldn't go over well with Pepsi.  Or here's another, the "can you hear me now" guy didn't go to Sprint until he was done with Verizon. 

 

I believe these guys need to make a choice and if you go to one then you're done with the other.  Frankly going to the Saudis, no matter how lucrative, is just disgusting to me. 

[kasting333]

2 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I bet if you had a lucrative long term consulting gig with Pepsi and you then said you were going to take a week off to go help Coke, I guarantee that wouldn't go over well with Pepsi.  Or here's another, the "can you hear me now" guy didn't go to Sprint until he was done with Verizon. 

 

I believe these guys need to make a choice and if you go to one then you're done with the other.  Frankly going to the Saudis, no matter how lucrative, is just disgusting to me. 

Your first paragraph describes how you view this situation from the tour’s perspective, but doesn’t elaborate on why mega corps or “non-profits” should have the power to dictate where a contractor should work. 
 

It sounds like because you view playing in Saudi as uniquely immoral then your good with the Tour having complete power to shut down anything outside of tour sanctioned events. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by kasting333

[oikos1]

The eight players who have requested a waiver clearly understand their contracts.  That's why, as the articles title says "Exclusive: Eight players ask PGA Tour permission to play controversial Saudi event".  While the PGA Tour may be bothered by these players forcing their hand to make a decision, the players are following a protocol that is already in place under their contracts:  "Asked to confirm waiver applications by the above named players, a PGA Tour spokesperson said, 'As a matter of practice, the PGA Tour does not comment on potential requests for conflicting event releases.” 

 

At this point, it appears the players have not violated their current contracts with the PGA Tour and are well within their rights to make such a request.

 

 

[bscinstnct]

Mr Jay Monahan 

There's something wrong with my line
When I ask for my Saudi cash
I get a click every time

 

 

 

 

[kasting333]

18 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Why? I worked in marketing for years, it was super common that contracts stipulated would could not work from competing companies at the same time. If it was ever in question wether a new client we wanted to take on would be a conflict we needed permission from our primary client before we took on the new client. 

 

Being an independent contractor means you can do whatever you want.... until you sign a contract that states otherwise. PGA players agree to the PGA rules when they choose to join the tour. Don't like the rules? No problem you are an independent contractor you can work for someone else. 

I guess the question becomes are these guys contractors from week to week or does the tour own them yearly and for their entire career? If it’s the latter then they should be considered full time employees. 

Contractor agreements are constantly abused by employers and violate worker’s rights. 

[kasting333]

The federal government is now weighing in on the appropriate use of non-competition agreements between employers and employees.  President Biden’s July 9, 2021 Executive Order asks the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to limit such agreements—signaling a potential expansion of federal regulation of agreements between employers and workers.  And a pending Senate bill would ban most non-competition agreements.  Given these developments, government contractors and other employers should assess whether their use of these agreements with employees is consistent with recent state developments and aligned with the broader trend toward limiting the enforceability of these agreements.

[bscinstnct]

2 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

I guess the question becomes are these guys contractors from week to week or does the tour own them yearly and for their entire career? If it’s the latter then they should be considered full time employees. 

Contractor agreements are constantly abused by employers and violate worker’s rights. 

 

I think the main thresholds for qualifying as a contractor vs an employee are that you don’t receive instructions and supervision to do your job, you don’t use company equipment to do your job, you don’t have a schedule like you come in everyday, and how you are paid/get benefits. 
 

The tour pros don’t get paid anything by the tour and they aren’t guaranteed anything. They receive no instruction, training, or equipment. They have great flexibility in when they work. 

[kasting333]

4 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I think the main thresholds for qualifying as a contractor vs an employee are that you don’t receive instructions and supervision to do your job, you don’t use company equipment to do your job, you don’t have a schedule like you come in everyday, and how you are paid/get benefits. 
 

The tour pros don’t get paid anything by the tour and they aren’t guaranteed anything. They receive no instruction, training, or equipment. They have great flexibility in when they work. 

Contract work is a task, a timeframe and compensation. 

 

The length of time is a very important aspect

[bscinstnct]

2 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

Contract work is a task, a timeframe and compensation. 

 

The length of time is a very important aspect

 

These are the IRS criteria. You are describing a version of contract work not necessarily the encompassing definition of it as the IRS applies it

Edited October 26, 2021 by bscinstnct

[kasting333]

7 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

These are the IRS criteria. You are describing a version of contract work not necessarily the encompassing definition of it as the IRS applies it

Go ahead and check out at any states independent contractor agreement and see what terms are outlined. 

[bscinstnct]

12 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

Go ahead and check out at any states independent contractor agreement and see what terms are outlined. 

 

Where would any state anything different than what I just said?

[bscinstnct]

35 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

Contract work is a task, a timeframe and compensation. 

 

The length of time is a very important aspect

 

I think I know what you mean. In many cases, a contractor does a job in a certain time frame.

 

If they are working “full time” on a job, once the job extends over a year or so, it’s questionable if they are just an employee.

 

But, the pga pros are far more in line with a contractor relationship than am “employee” relationship. Even if it’s a multi year association. 

[kasting333]

 

24 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Where would any state anything different than what I just said?

I’m not saying it wouldn’t include what the irs says in their definition to classify contract work, just that these standardized agreements normally outline the time, task and compensation. 
 

 

16 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I think I know what you mean. In many cases, a contractor does a job in a certain time frame.

 

If they are working “full time” on a job, once the job extends over a year or so, it’s questionable if they are just an employee.

 

But, the pga pros are far more in line with a contractor relationship than am “employee” relationship. Even if it’s a multi year association. 

Agree with you there.
 

Below is what the department of labor uses to classify employees vs contractors. I would think the tour is paying players week to week based on how they perform so they should be considered free to play wherever once the week is over.
I could also see the argument for the contract being a year long because of the FedEx compensation, but I wouldn’t think that would be or should be legal. Especially since players do play in other events not sanctioned by the tour. 

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by kasting333

[tacklingdummy]

20 hours ago, 2bGood said:

Why? I worked in marketing for years, it was super common that contracts stipulated would could not work from competing companies at the same time. If it was ever in question wether a new client we wanted to take on would be a conflict we needed permission from our primary client before we took on the new client. 

 

Being an independent contractor means you can do whatever you want.... until you sign a contract that states otherwise. PGA players agree to the PGA rules when they choose to join the tour. Don't like the rules? No problem you are an independent contractor you can work for someone else. 

 

The point is that it is not good to have a contract that requires independent contractors to play on one dedicated tour when they do not get paid salaries or are not paid for contract work. They have to perform to earn their money. Totally different system. They should not restrict independent contractors earning power. 

[jvincent]

Why are you guys comparing this to contractor employment law?

 

The whole "independent contractor" BS that the PGA tour uses is just that, BS.

 

The tour is the "licensing body" that defines the framework for their members to play. As members they are subject to the rules of PGA Tour. Whatever the tax status of the individual player is has no bearing and is certainly not subject to normal employment law.

 

I hope nobody here is in HR.

[BIG STU]

3 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

I think the main thresholds for qualifying as a contractor vs an employee are that you don’t receive instructions and supervision to do your job, you don’t use company equipment to do your job, you don’t have a schedule like you come in everyday, and how you are paid/get benefits. 
 

The tour pros don’t get paid anything by the tour and they aren’t guaranteed anything. They receive no instruction, training, or equipment. They have great flexibility in when they work. 

There was a whole can of worms over this about 15 years ago in the trucking industry. Most truck owners when they leased on to a company pulled company owned trailers. Then there was forced dispatch and if you turned down loads then you sat. What it boiled down to was the company you were leased to controlled everything one did just like if you drove a company truck. I do not know how that deal worked out because I owned and sold my last truck in 92

[2bGood]

6 hours ago, kasting333 said:

Your first paragraph describes how you view this situation from the tour’s perspective, but doesn’t elaborate on why mega corps or “non-profits” should have the power to dictate where a contractor should work. 
 

It sounds like because you view playing in Saudi as uniquely immoral then your good with the Tour having complete power to shut down anything outside of tour sanctioned events. 

 

You are not replying to me, but I will answer all the same. 😀

 

Suadi politics aside...

 

The PGA tour does not have the power to dictate where people should work. They only have the power to decide if those people can work with them.The PGA can't stop the players from playing where ever they like, they can only stop them from playing in PGA events. 

 

Why can't the PGA tour have rules about who they allow to work for them? It seems reasonable to me. One of those rules is if you work for a competitor without permission we may not allow you to work for us again. Again I have no issue with this. 

 

Players are free to make choices and the PGA tour is free to make choices - seems fair to me.

 

5 hours ago, kasting333 said:

I guess the question becomes are these guys contractors from week to week or does the tour own them yearly and for their entire career? If it’s the latter then they should be considered full time employees. 

Contractor agreements are constantly abused by employers and violate worker’s rights. 

 

If they are employees than for sure they have to  ask to work elsewhere. However I don't think they meet that standard at all.

 

 

5 hours ago, kasting333 said:

The federal government is now weighing in on the appropriate use of non-competition agreements between employers and employees.  President Biden’s July 9, 2021 Executive Order asks the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to limit such agreements—signaling a potential expansion of federal regulation of agreements between employers and workers.  And a pending Senate bill would ban most non-competition agreements.  Given these developments, government contractors and other employers should assess whether their use of these agreements with employees is consistent with recent state developments and aligned with the broader trend toward limiting the enforceability of these agreements.

 

This discussion is saying that they want to outlaw non-compete agreement for employees AFTER they leave employment. 

 

The PGA tour does not limit a player in what they do after they no longer play on one of the PGA tours. They only limit players that want to continue playing in events into the future.

 

No one is ever going to ban an employers right to choose who they re-hire. 

 

 

4 hours ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

The point is that it is not good to have a contract that requires independent contractors to play on one dedicated tour when they do not get paid salaries or are not paid for contract work. They have to perform to earn their money. Totally different system. They should not restrict independent contractors earning power. 

Why not? It seems reasonable to me as an employer that I can have a rule saying I won't hire you to work for me if you are working for my direct competitor. It does not limit your options to work elsewhere, it only limits your options to work with me - and you get to choose wether you want to work for me (and accept my rules) or not. 

 

You can of absolute freedom to do what you you like OR you can choose to work with me and follow my rules. 

 

If my rules suck compared what I offer- then I can't get staff/contractors to work for me and I change my rules or go out of business. If my rules are reasonable compared to what I offer than I likely have no issue with staff/contractors. In both option the people have choice to work with me, and I have rules.

Edited October 26, 2021 by 2bGood

[ChillyDipper]

I would love to know what happens to a lucrative PGA Tour pension should one of these stars ultimately "defect" to a competing league - PGL or SGL.

[2bGood]

36 minutes ago, ChillyDipper said:

I would love to know what happens to a lucrative PGA Tour pension should one of these stars ultimately "defect" to a competing league - PGL or SGL.

Depends if they are vested or not. I believe the rules for the PGA plans was average of 15 cuts made per year for 15 years to become fully vested. 

 

If they had not reached full or partial vestment and left unvested I assume they would lose the PGA contribution to their pension much like the majority of plans out there.

 

Pension are typically a recruitment and retention strategy and have rules about leaving 'early' as way to encourage you to stay. 

[bscinstnct]

5 hours ago, jvincent said:

Why are you guys comparing this to contractor employment law?

 

The whole "independent contractor" BS that the PGA tour uses is just that, BS.

 

The tour is the "licensing body" that defines the framework for their members to play. As members they are subject to the rules of PGA Tour. Whatever the tax status of the individual player is has no bearing and is certainly not subject to normal employment law.

 

I hope nobody here is in HR.

 

HR be like,

 

You used the wrong pronoun. “They” are them”

 

I be like,

Are “you” sure “we” can say “you”?

 

[iBanesto]

Banning a player from playing on the PGA Tour, would not prevent that player from playing in the majors?

 

Since the majors are organised by different golfing organisations.

[tacklingdummy]

3 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

You are not replying to me, but I will answer all the same. 😀

 

Suadi politics aside...

 

The PGA tour does not have the power to dictate where people should work. They only have the power to decide if those people can work with them.The PGA can't stop the players from playing where ever they like, they can only stop them from playing in PGA events. 

 

Why can't the PGA tour have rules about who they allow to work for them? It seems reasonable to me. One of those rules is if you work for a competitor without permission we may not allow you to work for us again. Again I have no issue with this. 

 

Players are free to make choices and the PGA tour is free to make choices - seems fair to me.

 

 

If they are employees than for sure they have to  ask to work elsewhere. However I don't think they meet that standard at all.

 

 

 

This discussion is saying that they want to outlaw non-compete agreement for employees AFTER they leave employment. 

 

The PGA tour does not limit a player in what they do after they no longer play on one of the PGA tours. They only limit players that want to continue playing in events into the future.

 

No one is ever going to ban an employers right to choose who they re-hire. 

 

 

Why not? It seems reasonable to me as an employer that I can have a rule saying I won't hire you to work for me if you are working for my direct competitor. It does not limit your options to work elsewhere, it only limits your options to work with me - and you get to choose wether you want to work for me (and accept my rules) or not. 

 

You can of absolute freedom to do what you you like OR you can choose to work with me and follow my rules. 

 

If my rules suck compared what I offer- then I can't get staff/contractors to work for me and I change my rules or go out of business. If my rules are reasonable compared to what I offer than I likely have no issue with staff/contractors. In both option the people have choice to work with me, and I have rules.

 

 

Again, the PGA is not paying the players salaries or contract pay. The players have to play well to win prize money. Different system than employers paying employees salaries or contract pay where intellectual property may be involved or time constraints. I am very pro-individual rights, individual earning power and less restrictions in business. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by tacklingdummy

[stinger_gc]

9 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

 

Again, the PGA is not paying the players salaries or contract pay. The players have to play well to get prize money. Different system than employers paying employees salaries or contract pay. I am very pro-individual rights, individual earning power and less restrictions in business. 

^^^This 100%

[2bGood]

53 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

 

Again, the PGA is not paying the players salaries or contract pay. The players have to play well to win prize money. Different system than employers paying employees salaries or contract pay where intellectual property may be involved or time constraints. I am very pro-individual rights, individual earning power and less restrictions in business. 

 

You keep talking like it is 'right' to be able to play on the PGA tour. It is not, the PGA tour gets to make rules for their tour. Players get to choose wether the want to play by those rules or not. If you don't like those rules - cool, play golf somewhere else. If enough players did choose to not be part of the PGA the players would be able to encourage change.

 

Just like a casino can refuse to let me enter and play, the PGA tour can have rules about who they let in. It is not a right for me to try to win money a casino just like it is not a right to try to win money at a golf tournament. Cool with me. 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by 2bGood