<p>Writing an illegal contract that misclassifies employees as contractors doesn’t entitle an employer to evade the law. It just means they are not obeying the law.</p>
<p>In this case, does the team control the work done and the manner and means in which it is performed? Obviously, yes. The dancers are required to be at their work at specified times, and to act in a specified manner. They can’t decide to perform the day before the game, or wearing snowsuits. </p>
<p>Signing a contract that says you are a contractor and not an employee has no force. None at all.</p>
<p>Well. we’ll see. Because every single team compensates them the same way and have for decades. So, there go the cheerleaders I guess. C’est la vie.</p>
<p>This is ridiculous. These young women spend hours and hours in rehearsals and conditioning and all of them have years of dance training that they are likely maintaining in studios as well. A lot of them are in far better shape (and work harder to keep that way) than the players who are paid millions of dollars to hurl their bodies at opposing teams.</p>
<p>Also, it’s not like the NFL/NBA don’t have the money to pay them. They ARE a big draw for fans in the arenas and on TV. I understand that doing this represents a huge opportunity for many of them, but still. The other athletes are not giving away their time.</p>
Employees of non-profit organization are still paid. An organization can be non-profit and still pay their employees. On the other hand, those cheerleaders must be getting other compensations for it to be worth their while. When D2 was offered a job as a camp counselor for below minimum wage, she chose not to take the job. They try to dress it up as a great resume builder, but D2 didn’t buy it. </p>
<p>I was speaking tongue in cheek when I suggested that they were “volunteers.”</p>
<p>BTW, in all of my time as a volunteer, which is considerable, not ONCE has an organization paid for travel costs or equipment I used. </p>
<p>The “other interests” that I presume they wish to promote are, as someone mentioned above, probably acting or modeling or whatever. I confess that I haven’t seen them in action IRL, but I really don’t think that we are talking about Balanchine or Broadway here, in general. They are there to wear skimpy costumes and shake their assets, are they not? I think many of them want to showcase their looks, get a part in a movie or on a reality show, become a celebrity, or maybe become someone’s trophy wife. There are probably others who just continue to do it for the fun of it.</p>
<p>I actually think it is ridiculous how little they are paid, not to mention the condescending handbook, and it underscores how demeaning the “job” really is. Which is another reason why I think it must be a means to an end for most of them.</p>
<p>Regarding Paula Abdul, wasn’t she a Laker girl? </p>
<p>This is exploitation, and in every country I’ve ever worked in (2 so far, though never the US) it would be thoroughly illegal to act as the teams are, and the book would (quite rightly) be thrown at them in court. </p>
<p>They should be paid, at the very least, minimum wage, and have reasonable expenses (e.g. travel and hotel bills) covered. It’s not hard - the teams can afford it. </p>
<p>It seems to me that the argument that they are independent contractors is pretty weak. They sure seem like employees, with very specific hours and duties (including penalties for missing practice).</p>
<p>Of course, they could be replaced by people willing to do it for nothing, which would probably be legal.</p>
<p>Paula Abdul was a 'Laker Girl. I’ll guess the opportunities for pro sports cheerleaders based in Hollywood can be more lucrative than the same positions that are located in Seattle, Philadelphia or Charlotte. Even in New York I doubt if anyone pays much attention to the women whom are affiliated with the sports teams, except when there’s a scandal, like when Brett Favre “handled” the merchandise so to speak when he was the Jets QB.</p>
<p>Movie actors are not employees of studios, but they have specific hours and duties (including penalties for missing shooting days) while under contract.</p>
<p>The difference of course that movie actors get much higher fees.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I am wondering if team’s lawyers will use some kind obscure law that applies to the movie business and argue that it applies here too.</p>
<p>Non-union actors get paid peanuts and there are a gazillion wanna-bes who would do it for free, so yeah. Non-union theaters routinely pay actors a small performance stipend and obviously require rehearsals. The question seems to be is it considered “employment.” There are only 8 - 10 games per year. </p>
<p>I think it would be great if the whole T&A thing that is “professional cheerleading” vanished, actually. I’d rather see attention devoted to women playing sports. Of course, that’s usually a different type of attention…</p>