Caddies sue PGA Tour

[Simbo]

Although some caddies do earn good money, they do seem to get the rough end of the stick quite a lot, that carry on in Florida is outrageous.
With regards to the caddies suing the tour, I think they are quite right, although it's going to be a fine line case in the courtroom.
If my boss said to me, we are going to a convention to build a garage, there's going to be another 150 businesses there competing for the prize, and you have to wear a snap on outfit, along with every other employee for the other businesses. He wins the competition and gets the top prize, snap on get huge publicity and make 50 million, of the back of my hard work, if I don't wear the outfit I get the sack, if I do I get my usual 300 quid a week
I'd be pretty miffed at that aswell.

 

[Leereed]

Think it's well out of order that they are not allowed in the club house.Sure that is not a request of the sponsors.Just the toffee nosed knobs who run the game. If anyone can change it is the players, by demanding caddies have club house rights.If they don't threaten to withdraw from the comp.Would only take a few big names to set the trend.

 

[Duckster]

Think it's well out of order that they are not allowed in the club house.Sure that is not a request of the sponsors.Just the toffee nosed knobs who run the game. If anyone can change it is the players, by demanding caddies have club house rights.If they don't threaten to withdraw from the comp.Would only take a few big names to set the trend.

Those are the rules of that particular golf club, it's got nothing to do with the sponsors or the Tour itself. The players have known about that rule for years yet they still keep going back.

 

[Foxholer]

Those are the rules of that particular golf club, it's got nothing to do with the sponsors or the Tour itself. The players have known about that rule for years yet they still keep going back.

Not really an issue, provided they have a suitable area of their own (which that metal shed certainly wasn't!). However, the inference that they are a 'lower class of person' is demeaning at best! There are some pretty wealthy caddies and some of them are or have been Pros or Pro level golfers!

 

[Duckster]

Not really an issue, provided they have a suitable area of their own (which that metal shed certainly wasn't!). However, the inference that they are a 'lower class of person' is demeaning at best! There are some pretty wealthy caddies and some of them are or have been Pros or Pro level golfers!

I'm not saying it's not demeaning or anything, I was trying to point out that it's been that way for years (hasn't the same event been hit with bad weather several times now and the caddies end up in the same shed?) so it's nothing new, yet the players, who are ultimately the caddies employers, keep going back. So if they aren't bothered enough about it already to miss the event then they aren't going to do anything about it in the near future. There are a lot of golf clubs still in the US and UK that don't allow caddies in the clubhouse. Simply because they are a rich caddie or caddie to a Tour player won't make the clubs change their rules. I'm not saying it's right, but it's their rules.

I'll like to see how the court case carries on as I think the caddies will lose. They are suing the wrong people. The player is their employer, it is them who pay their wages and they do so by (hopefully) winning money provided to the Tournament by the companies who sponsor the bibs of the caddies.

If the caddies try to take some of that money then that will leave less for the players. If they try to get the bibs removed then the sponsor will probably lower their prize contribution as they aren't getting the same coverage which will mean less for the players. Either way, you'll soon hear the players kicking off when they realise they are getting less money.

The caddies are employees of the player. The player agrees for his employee to wear the bib with the tournaments main sponsor on it as part of his agreement when he enters the competition. The caddie might not like it but that's just tough, if he wants to complain he should get his employer to not enter competitions with such stipulations but they know that if they do that they will soon be looking for a new job.

Then there;s the question of where will it stop? Will all the manufacturers or players sponsors have to pay money to the host course or main sponsor as they are using that event to plug their own product by having players wear branded hats and use branded golf bags? Will (can?) the PGA tour simply ban all forms of advertising?

It's a big can of worms which is about to be opened.

 

[Revrec]

If ladies are self employed, on contract to a player for an event, and the Tour insist on the bibs, they might make the claim on a restriction of trade. If the contract between the caddy the player says they have to dress in accordance with Tour rules, not sure they have a leg to stand on. Can of worms indeed...

 

[Foxholer]

...
I'll like to see how the court case carries on as I think the caddies will lose. They are suing the wrong people. The player is their employer, it is them who pay their wages and they do so by (hopefully) winning money provided to the Tournament by the companies who sponsor the bibs of the caddies.
...
The caddies are employees of the player. The player agrees for his employee to wear the bib with the tournaments main sponsor on it as part of his agreement when he enters the competition. The caddie might not like it but that's just tough, if he wants to complain he should get his employer to not enter competitions with such stipulations but they know that if they do that they will soon be looking for a new job.

I don't believe those arguments are correct.

It's the Tour that insist on the bibs, so suing the Tour is the correct approach - irrespective of whether it's done by Caddy or Player. Remember too, that it's US where anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything, as that's the way to get a 'judgement' when there's a dispute that can't be resolved!

 

[Duckster]

I don't believe those arguments are correct.

It's the Tour that insist on the bibs, so suing the Tour is the correct approach - irrespective of whether it's done by Caddy or Player. Remember too, that it's US where anyone can sue anyone for virtually anything, as that's the way to get a 'judgement' when there's a dispute that can't be resolved!

So the Sponsor states to the tour that the caddies must wear the bibs as part of the sponsorship. The Tour then states to the player that the caddie must wear the bib with the sponsors logo. The player agrees that his employee will wear the bib with the logo on so that he can compete. So why is the caddie not suing the player? His boss. PGATourPlayer ltd. If the player doesn't agree that his employee should wear the bib, then he simply doesn't enter the competition. But the only say the caddie should have in it is if he wants to work for the player. If he does and a condition of that role is that he has to wear a logo'd bib at each event then that is part and parcel of the job that he is already being paid to do.

 

[Foxholer]

So the Sponsor states to the tour that the caddies must wear the bibs as part of the sponsorship. The Tour then states to the player that the caddie must wear the bib with the sponsors logo. The player agrees that his employee will wear the bib with the logo on so that he can compete. So why is the caddie not suing the player? His boss. PGATourPlayer ltd. If the player doesn't agree that his employee should wear the bib, then he simply doesn't enter the competition. But the only say the caddie should have in it is if he wants to work for the player. If he does and a condition of that role is that he has to wear a logo'd bib at each event then that is part and parcel of the job that he is already being paid to do.

Because the player does not insist he wears it! The Tour 'does'!

Equivalent is that the Player doesn't prevent Caddy from entering Clubhouse; it's the host Club! But that's not the issue (yet!).

Oh and it's not entirely about bibs! That's part of it, but is also the vehicle being used to justify the value of the suit!

This might help. http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/caddies-file-multi-million-dollar-lawsuit-against-pga-tour

 

[Duckster]

Because the player does not insist he wears it! The Tour does!

Equivalent is that the Player doesn't prevent Caddy from entering Clubhouse; it's the host Club! But that's not the issue (yet!).

The sponsor insists that the players caddie wears a bib. The Tour then tells this to the player. By default that means the the player insists the caddie wears the bib! However there is a choice which is made by the player. Not by the tour, but by the player. He can either a: Get his employee to wear the bib and play in the event, or b: Not play in the event. The main reason they are taking on the Tour and not the players is because the players will simply drop them. They may all claim to be mates and such, but when it comes down to simple money the player will always look after number 1. Whereas the Tour is a nice big organisation being fought by the little caddie. By your reasoning, they should be suing the sponsor as it is they who are insisting to the Tour they wear logo'd bibs. But again, if the caddies do that, then the sponsor will simply pull their money out of the event.

What about footballers? They have to wear shirt sponsorship that is designated by their employer and they don't get a cut apart from in wages (like caddies do).
Atheltics where they have to wear logo's numbers of the sponsor, they can't wear their own sponsorship and don't get a cut of that money.
My friend has an engineering firm and does a lot of work with Touring car teams. Which ever team he works for, his employees have to wear the logo's shirts of that team, but they aren't getting any of that sponsorship money.

It's a case they will lose.

 

[pogle]

Yes, but as the caddy's employer, is a sympathetic tweet really sufficient (I know Lee and Luke are at least breaking the otherwise universal player's silence but it does sound pathetic all round really).

Unfortunately I suspect most players, as employers of the caddies, are getting legal advice to stay schtum with legal action pending. Therefore the tour gets away with a lack of action as no real public or sponsor impact.

Rubbish really, the legal system is supposed to help or support justice and fairness but more often seems to get in the way!

Hahahahaha! I think you forgot the smiley there.

 

[Wilson]

Isn't this legal case just a manoeuvre to get the Caddy Union some recognition from the Tour, and in turn get the Caddies some better rights/conditions?

 

[Foxholer]

The sponsor insists that the players caddie wears a bib. The Tour then tells this to the player. By default that means the the player insists the caddie wears the bib! However there is a choice which is made by the player. Not by the tour, but by the player. He can either a: Get his employee to wear the bib and play in the event, or b: Not play in the event. The main reason they are taking on the Tour and not the players is because the players will simply drop them. They may all claim to be mates and such, but when it comes down to simple money the player will always look after number 1. Whereas the Tour is a nice big organisation being fought by the little caddie. By your reasoning, they should be suing the sponsor as it is they who are insisting to the Tour they wear logo'd bibs. But again, if the caddies do that, then the sponsor will simply pull their money out of the event.

What about footballers? They have to wear shirt sponsorship that is designated by their employer and they don't get a cut apart from in wages (like caddies do).
Atheltics where they have to wear logo's numbers of the sponsor, they can't wear their own sponsorship and don't get a cut of that money.
My friend has an engineering firm and does a lot of work with Touring car teams. Which ever team he works for, his employees have to wear the logo's shirts of that team, but they aren't getting any of that sponsorship money.

It's a case they will lose.

Have you considered offering your services to the Tour?

I'm not disputing what you say! Simply pointing out the details of the suit! If it were as simple as you state,then there would be no case to answer - which might be an early argument by the Tour anyway, as determining whether a trial is required is an early step in US cases.

 

[Duckster]

Have you considered offering your services to the Tour?

I'm not disputing what you say! Simply pointing out the details of the suit! If it were as simple as you state,then there would be no case to answer - which might be an early argument by the Tour anyway, as determining whether a trial is required is an early step in US cases.

Fair enough.

I get why the caddies are suing the tour and not the players or the sponsors (biting the hand that feeds you and all that). I just don't get why they are bringing the suit. It just appears to be a fools errand which won't actually get them anywhere. And if it does, then the flood gates for other sports/business's will open.

 

[Slab]

Lawsuit fails