Calif. court throws out caddie lawsuit against PGA Tour

[MadGolfer76]

Sorry Jeff, people in the real world sue each other all the time over things like this. People with power and money can use the law unfairly. It's almost as if there should be so such thing as labor attorneys because we should just let the market figure it out. Well that doesn't always work because people like caddies are small fish in a big pond.

 

It comes down to the fact that while the caddies are making a certain amount of money for the Tour in bib ad revenue, they can only recoup that money if their player happens to make the cut, something they don't have a lot of control over. Only some get paid for the revenue they brought in. All the caddies want is 5%. Something they can count on and help alleviate a lot of stress in their lives. And I think they have earned that 5%.

 

 

Moses I agree with you on most points. I think if caddies are to be forced to advertised and not paid for it at least the tour should provide a non metallic structure deemed to be the " caddie lounge " so as to seek shelter during electrical storms. I provide this to my outside animals for gods sake! I do also blame the top tier players though. Several could get together and strong arm the tour quietly into better treatment and probably an inclusion into the health care and retirement plan the tour provides all players. They don't have to be treated equally. But I see no reason to treat them as less than either. I realize that sounds contradictory. But think about it hard. It's really two separate things. The tour gives and gives when it's a good PR move. Yet they refuse to give to those who are hard working toward the common goal . Why not treat people well who are working hard to further the " show " every week ? There will be changes as it will eventually get to be a publicly recognized shortcoming of the tour. My question is why does it have to go that far ? Why not just do the right thing to begin with ?

 

Affluenza?

[Hawkeye77]

Sorry Jeff, people in the real world sue each other all the time over things like this. People with power and money can use the law unfairly. It's almost as if there should be so such thing as labor attorneys because we should just let the market figure it out. Well that doesn't always work because people like caddies are small fish in a big pond.

 

It comes down to the fact that while the caddies are making a certain amount of money for the Tour in bib ad revenue, they can only recoup that money if their player happens to make the cut, something they don't have a lot of control over. Only some get paid for the revenue they brought in. All the caddies want is 5%. Something they can count on and help alleviate a lot of stress in their lives. And I think they have earned that 5%.

 

A claim with no merit getting dismissed is not an example of the law being used unfairly.

 

 

[bladehunter]

Sorry Jeff, people in the real world sue each other all the time over things like this. People with power and money can use the law unfairly. It's almost as if there should be so such thing as labor attorneys because we should just let the market figure it out. Well that doesn't always work because people like caddies are small fish in a big pond.

 

It comes down to the fact that while the caddies are making a certain amount of money for the Tour in bib ad revenue, they can only recoup that money if their player happens to make the cut, something they don't have a lot of control over. Only some get paid for the revenue they brought in. All the caddies want is 5%. Something they can count on and help alleviate a lot of stress in their lives. And I think they have earned that 5%.

 

 

Moses I agree with you on most points. I think if caddies are to be forced to advertised and not paid for it at least the tour should provide a non metallic structure deemed to be the " caddie lounge " so as to seek shelter during electrical storms. I provide this to my outside animals for gods sake! I do also blame the top tier players though. Several could get together and strong arm the tour quietly into better treatment and probably an inclusion into the health care and retirement plan the tour provides all players. They don't have to be treated equally. But I see no reason to treat them as less than either. I realize that sounds contradictory. But think about it hard. It's really two separate things. The tour gives and gives when it's a good PR move. Yet they refuse to give to those who are hard working toward the common goal . Why not treat people well who are working hard to further the " show " every week ? There will be changes as it will eventually get to be a publicly recognized shortcoming of the tour. My question is why does it have to go that far ? Why not just do the right thing to begin with ?

 

Affluenza?

 

 

Lol. Could be. I'm as pro capitalism as the next guy. But I draw the line at making guys stand in a lightning storm because " caddies don't belong in the clubhouse ". I guess it's the blue collar in me. The man is always holding us down! Lol.

[MadGolfer76]

Sorry Jeff, people in the real world sue each other all the time over things like this. People with power and money can use the law unfairly. It's almost as if there should be so such thing as labor attorneys because we should just let the market figure it out. Well that doesn't always work because people like caddies are small fish in a big pond.

 

It comes down to the fact that while the caddies are making a certain amount of money for the Tour in bib ad revenue, they can only recoup that money if their player happens to make the cut, something they don't have a lot of control over. Only some get paid for the revenue they brought in. All the caddies want is 5%. Something they can count on and help alleviate a lot of stress in their lives. And I think they have earned that 5%.

 

 

Moses I agree with you on most points. I think if caddies are to be forced to advertised and not paid for it at least the tour should provide a non metallic structure deemed to be the " caddie lounge " so as to seek shelter during electrical storms. I provide this to my outside animals for gods sake! I do also blame the top tier players though. Several could get together and strong arm the tour quietly into better treatment and probably an inclusion into the health care and retirement plan the tour provides all players. They don't have to be treated equally. But I see no reason to treat them as less than either. I realize that sounds contradictory. But think about it hard. It's really two separate things. The tour gives and gives when it's a good PR move. Yet they refuse to give to those who are hard working toward the common goal . Why not treat people well who are working hard to further the " show " every week ? There will be changes as it will eventually get to be a publicly recognized shortcoming of the tour. My question is why does it have to go that far ? Why not just do the right thing to begin with ?

 

Affluenza?

 

 

Lol. Could be. I'm as pro capitalism as the next guy. But I draw the line at making guys stand in a lightning storm because " caddies don't belong in the clubhouse ". I guess it's the blue collar in me. The man is always holding us down! Lol.

 

I'm just anti-stupid. Anything else is fair play.

[Tate]

Kip Henley says he makes less than $30gs after taxes.

[bladehunter]

Sorry Jeff, people in the real world sue each other all the time over things like this. People with power and money can use the law unfairly. It's almost as if there should be so such thing as labor attorneys because we should just let the market figure it out. Well that doesn't always work because people like caddies are small fish in a big pond.

 

It comes down to the fact that while the caddies are making a certain amount of money for the Tour in bib ad revenue, they can only recoup that money if their player happens to make the cut, something they don't have a lot of control over. Only some get paid for the revenue they brought in. All the caddies want is 5%. Something they can count on and help alleviate a lot of stress in their lives. And I think they have earned that 5%.

 

 

Moses I agree with you on most points. I think if caddies are to be forced to advertised and not paid for it at least the tour should provide a non metallic structure deemed to be the " caddie lounge " so as to seek shelter during electrical storms. I provide this to my outside animals for gods sake! I do also blame the top tier players though. Several could get together and strong arm the tour quietly into better treatment and probably an inclusion into the health care and retirement plan the tour provides all players. They don't have to be treated equally. But I see no reason to treat them as less than either. I realize that sounds contradictory. But think about it hard. It's really two separate things. The tour gives and gives when it's a good PR move. Yet they refuse to give to those who are hard working toward the common goal . Why not treat people well who are working hard to further the " show " every week ? There will be changes as it will eventually get to be a publicly recognized shortcoming of the tour. My question is why does it have to go that far ? Why not just do the right thing to begin with ?

 

Affluenza?

 

 

Lol. Could be. I'm as pro capitalism as the next guy. But I draw the line at making guys stand in a lightning storm because " caddies don't belong in the clubhouse ". I guess it's the blue collar in me. The man is always holding us down! Lol.

 

I'm just anti-stupid. Anything else is fair play.

 

 

 

agreed Mad.... Im ignorant to a lot of things and ill admit it ...But stupid I cannot stand... and in case someone doesn't know.. Stupid is a choice. and seems to me there is stupid on both sides of this argument... If Caddies truly are that under paid then I would give it up and stay home and find work... But that doesn't excuse the PGA or other tournament event directing entities from documented poor treatment... That being said I STILL blame the players most... If I were one of the players during the event with the lightning storm and metal cart barn the caddies took shelter in , I would have invited them in the clubhouse myself.... and god help the person who had the stupidity to say something to me about it... If those who have voices remain silent the problem will remain.. after all ...stupid is as stupid does....lol

[hell_is_chrome]

I would be curious as to the specific complaints. No access to players areas in the clubhouse and locker room. Anything else? Poor treatment I think would include more than this.

 

At the Honda Classic last year, they stuck the caddies in a three sided metal shed during a weather delay that included lightening. Lot of people very upset, and, apparently, it wasn't an unusual situation.

 

I would say making people stand inside a metallic shed during a thunder/lightning storm goes well beyond poor treatment.

[hell_is_chrome]

No surprise there and the case had no merit from the start. Sadly no surprise a judge strays from the law and throws in the "poor treatment" thing. Stick to the facts and the law, no reason to throw them a bone in the form of sympathy when you've dismissed the case and done your job as a judge.

 

Why are you worried about this judge straying from the law? The case was thrown out, all he did was offer an opinion, which is a pretty non-controversial one at that.

[Holy Moses]

Kip Henley says he makes less than $30gs after taxes.

 

His player was injured the last two years. He has lost multiple jobs because he talks too much and rubs players the wrong way. Glad he's with Overton now.

[Holy Moses]

I read an article in Golf Digest a few years ago that detailed the plight of a few caddies without insurance or something like that. Robert Garrigus is a stand-up guy who went out of his way to make sure his caddie was taken care of. He also raised money for caddies who had unexpected expenses. Just wish there were more like him.

[Hawkeye77]

No surprise there and the case had no merit from the start. Sadly no surprise a judge strays from the law and throws in the "poor treatment" thing. Stick to the facts and the law, no reason to throw them a bone in the form of sympathy when you've dismissed the case and done your job as a judge.

Why are you worried about this judge straying from the law? The case was thrown out, all he did was offer an opinion, which is a pretty non-controversial one at that.

 

I didn't suggest any worry, only disappointment. His opinion of matters not relevant to the case before him, and for which no facts are fleshed out given the procedural posture of the case, has nothing to do with anything. If the "treatment" of the players was actually litigated that would be a different matter, but it wasn't and the judge has no reason to make statements beyond the scope of what was before him. Judges do it all the time, at all levels, for all sorts of reasons. Wasn't necessary or appropriate in this case.

[Rangeballz]

Much ado about nothing, and if they are required to wear them, wear them inside out if they disagree. Stupid bibs are reversible. No one notices caddies anyway.

 

The bibs are worth a few million in advertising per tournament. I thought the caddies had a good case legally and morally. Too bad for them.

 

The caddies wouldn't be there without the pros. The pros say "wear the bib with Pepsi on it", it's their job. Plenty of good caddies waiting for the opportunity who would be glad to wear it.

 

Caddies can't go in the player's area? They're not players.

 

The Tour needs the caddies to wear the bibs or else they'd be losing $50 million a year. It's not a one-way street. Both of them need each other and they should share the wealth. In any other arena in life do you advertise for someone else an make absolutely nothing for it?

 

Caddie bib advertising alone is worth $50 million a year to the tour in advertising revenue? Source?

[bladehunter]

No surprise there and the case had no merit from the start. Sadly no surprise a judge strays from the law and throws in the "poor treatment" thing. Stick to the facts and the law, no reason to throw them a bone in the form of sympathy when you've dismissed the case and done your job as a judge.

Why are you worried about this judge straying from the law? The case was thrown out, all he did was offer an opinion, which is a pretty non-controversial one at that.

 

I didn't suggest any worry, only disappointment. His opinion of matters not relevant to the case before him, and for which no facts are fleshed out given the procedural posture of the case, has nothing to do with anything. If the "treatment" of the players was actually litigated that would be a different matter, but it wasn't and the judge has no reason to make statements beyond the scope of what was before him. Judges do it all the time, at all levels, for all sorts of reasons. Wasn't necessary or appropriate in this case.

 

 

Having been in court situations more than I ever want to I can tell you that having a judge who is able to discern the law and provide a ruling by technicality is very common and the easy road for any judge to take. But delivering hat same verdict yet still be able to offer words of advice as to the Common sense of the situation and wrongs occurring in it is a rarity these days. The only persons in that court room not wanting to hear his advice were the pga attorneys. Why ? Because they know it's him saying " your technically correct but morally wrong ". I for one would applaud his words. Why ? Because he is correct. I think trying to silence a judge into mindless black and white decisions is wrong. A judge in my eyes is to translate the meaning of the law for each situation. Which can only mean he must form an opinion on it. This judge did an excellent job as he rendered the technically correct verdict which was obviously against his own opinion of the plaintiffs treatment. Only a defense attorney would have a problem with the words the judge had. Feeling that it takes away from their " victory " somehow.

[QuickFeet]

I'd like to know the exact wording regarding a caddy and having to wear a bib.

[Hawkeye77]

No surprise there and the case had no merit from the start. Sadly no surprise a judge strays from the law and throws in the "poor treatment" thing. Stick to the facts and the law, no reason to throw them a bone in the form of sympathy when you've dismissed the case and done your job as a judge.

Why are you worried about this judge straying from the law? The case was thrown out, all he did was offer an opinion, which is a pretty non-controversial one at that.

 

I didn't suggest any worry, only disappointment. His opinion of matters not relevant to the case before him, and for which no facts are fleshed out given the procedural posture of the case, has nothing to do with anything. If the "treatment" of the players was actually litigated that would be a different matter, but it wasn't and the judge has no reason to make statements beyond the scope of what was before him. Judges do it all the time, at all levels, for all sorts of reasons. Wasn't necessary or appropriate in this case.

 

 

Having been in court situations more than I ever want to I can tell you that having a judge who is able to discern the law and provide a ruling by technicality is very common and the easy road for any judge to take. But delivering hat same verdict yet still be able to offer words of advice as to the Common sense of the situation and wrongs occurring in it is a rarity these days. The only persons in that court room not wanting to hear his advice were the pga attorneys. Why ? Because they know it's him saying " your technically correct but morally wrong ". I for one would applaud his words. Why ? Because he is correct. I think trying to silence a judge into mindless black and white decisions is wrong. A judge in my eyes is to translate the meaning of the law for each situation. Which can only mean he must form an opinion on it. This judge did an excellent job as he rendered the technically correct verdict which was obviously against his own opinion of the plaintiffs treatment. Only a defense attorney would have a problem with the words the judge had. Feeling that it takes away from their " victory " somehow.

 

Technicality? There is no basis for that leap in this case. Also, his comment about poor treatment is not a statement that the tour is "morally" wrong or necessarily means the judge was conflicted in any way. At this stage of the proceedings, he accepts as true/finds facts in the plaintiff's favor because he is required by law to do so. Treatment of the caddies was not at issue and there was no contested factual hearing on that issue, there would merely be the allegation of poor treatment, not necessarily supported by any evidence whatsoever - it simply wasn't relevant to the case.

 

The plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend the complaint, did so, and still was unable to come up with a pleading and allegations that created any legitimate cause of action under any theory available. The claim wasn't dismissed on a technicality, it was dismissed because it had no merit and had no potential for merit.

 

Not "only a defense attorney" would have a problem with the judge's using any particular words. Again, I merely said I was disappointed, and again, am well aware judges do it all the time, for all sorts of reasons (arguably good or bad depending on your ox). You can be opposed to judges' comments going beyond the case at hand in any particular case, for a variety of reasons as a matter of philosophy without being pigeon holed as "defense" or "plaintiff".

[Hawkeye77]

I'd like to know the exact wording regarding a caddy and having to wear a bib.

 

Apparently the contract was an exhibit, and the trial court apparently ruled it couldn't be sealed, so you should be able to access that through PACER.

[Holy Moses]

Much ado about nothing, and if they are required to wear them, wear them inside out if they disagree. Stupid bibs are reversible. No one notices caddies anyway.

 

The bibs are worth a few million in advertising per tournament. I thought the caddies had a good case legally and morally. Too bad for them.

 

The caddies wouldn't be there without the pros. The pros say "wear the bib with Pepsi on it", it's their job. Plenty of good caddies waiting for the opportunity who would be glad to wear it.

 

Caddies can't go in the player's area? They're not players.

 

The Tour needs the caddies to wear the bibs or else they'd be losing $50 million a year. It's not a one-way street. Both of them need each other and they should share the wealth. In any other arena in life do you advertise for someone else an make absolutely nothing for it?

 

Caddie bib advertising alone is worth $50 million a year to the tour in advertising revenue? Source?

 

http://golfweek.com/news/2015/feb/03/pga-tour-caddies-lawsuit-bib-money-complaint/

 

The caddies do get $2,000 from the Tour, but that seems a bit low.

[bladehunter]

No surprise there and the case had no merit from the start. Sadly no surprise a judge strays from the law and throws in the "poor treatment" thing. Stick to the facts and the law, no reason to throw them a bone in the form of sympathy when you've dismissed the case and done your job as a judge.

Why are you worried about this judge straying from the law? The case was thrown out, all he did was offer an opinion, which is a pretty non-controversial one at that.

 

I didn't suggest any worry, only disappointment. His opinion of matters not relevant to the case before him, and for which no facts are fleshed out given the procedural posture of the case, has nothing to do with anything. If the "treatment" of the players was actually litigated that would be a different matter, but it wasn't and the judge has no reason to make statements beyond the scope of what was before him. Judges do it all the time, at all levels, for all sorts of reasons. Wasn't necessary or appropriate in this case.

 

 

Having been in court situations more than I ever want to I can tell you that having a judge who is able to discern the law and provide a ruling by technicality is very common and the easy road for any judge to take. But delivering hat same verdict yet still be able to offer words of advice as to the Common sense of the situation and wrongs occurring in it is a rarity these days. The only persons in that court room not wanting to hear his advice were the pga attorneys. Why ? Because they know it's him saying " your technically correct but morally wrong ". I for one would applaud his words. Why ? Because he is correct. I think trying to silence a judge into mindless black and white decisions is wrong. A judge in my eyes is to translate the meaning of the law for each situation. Which can only mean he must form an opinion on it. This judge did an excellent job as he rendered the technically correct verdict which was obviously against his own opinion of the plaintiffs treatment. Only a defense attorney would have a problem with the words the judge had. Feeling that it takes away from their " victory " somehow.

 

Technicality? There is no basis for that leap in this case. Also, his comment about poor treatment is not a statement that the tour is "morally" wrong or necessarily means the judge was conflicted in any way. At this stage of the proceedings, he accepts as true/finds facts in the plaintiff's favor because he is required by law to do so. Treatment of the caddies was not at issue and there was no contested factual hearing on that issue, there would merely be the allegation of poor treatment, not necessarily supported by any evidence whatsoever - it simply wasn't relevant to the case.

 

The plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend the complaint, did so, and still was unable to come up with a pleading and allegations that created any legitimate cause of action under any theory available. The claim wasn't dismissed on a technicality, it was dismissed because it had no merit and had no potential for merit.

 

Not "only a defense attorney" would have a problem with the judge's using any particular words. Again, I merely said I was disappointed, and again, am well aware judges do it all the time, for all sorts of reasons (arguably good or bad depending on your ox). You can be opposed to judges' comments going beyond the case at hand in any particular case, for a variety of reasons as a matter of philosophy without being pigeon holed as "defense" or "plaintiff".

 

 

I get what your saying. And in my layman's terms meant mostly the same thing regarding the ruling. But I still don't think any harm comes from a judge injecting his or her opinion on the overall treatment of a group of workers. The only harm I see is to the ego of the tour and its defense team. And i doubt the lawyers cared at all . I see it as a warning that the tour should do better. At some point some of their questionable practices will be brought to court and deemed to have merit enough for a suit to proceed. Then what ? Will the tour act surprised ? They shouldn't. This judge warned them before hand. Let's not even think about of someone gets hurt during a storm and adequate shelter isn't provided to the caddies but is to the players. Someone will pay a great deal for that. Let's hope they shape up before that happens.

[Holy Moses]

Caddies don't get enough money for insurance, are put in a metal shack during a lightning storm, and then a real serious lawsuit begins if someone gets injured. Reason why Tour ended caddie runs in Phoenix. Tour doesn't want to be letting caddies sprint at 16 knowing they won't help them should they break a leg.

[widow-maker]

Sorry Jeff, people in the real world sue each other all the time over things like this. People with power and money can use the law unfairly. It's almost as if there should be so such thing as labor attorneys because we should just let the market figure it out. Well that doesn't always work because people like caddies are small fish in a big pond.

 

It comes down to the fact that while the caddies are making a certain amount of money for the Tour in bib ad revenue, they can only recoup that money if their player happens to make the cut, something they don't have a lot of control over. Only some get paid for the revenue they brought in. All the caddies want is 5%. Something they can count on and help alleviate a lot of stress in their lives. And I think they have earned that 5%.

If the players want the caddies to get 5%, then they'll get 5%. Again, the PGA tour is all about the players.

 

You have a certain amount of money that goes to administer all of the events. The rest belongs to the players to split up. Whatever extra money goes to caddies... it's going to come out of the player's cut, one way or another, because administration is pretty much a fixed cost. It's not up to the commissioner of the PGA tour to determine that 5% is going to come directly out of the players paychecks and go to the caddies. That's up to the Tour players themselves to decide how to cut up that money. The players are the tour and the tour are/is the players.

 

Currently, their decision is to pay the caddies out of their own pockets. They can change that dynamic anytime they want to. Heck, they could pay a set salary if they wanted, include benefits, and totally do away with the current percentage/weekly stipend type of arrangement that they currently have. Probably would save the best players a bundle. When/if you've got a good thing going... be careful what you wish for. If you're one of the caddies that don't have a good thing going... there's always other lines of work. If you're not being treated fairly... take a walk and find something else to do.

[Hawkeye77]

I get what your saying. And in my layman's terms meant mostly the same thing regarding the ruling. But I still don't think any harm comes from a judge injecting his or her opinion on the overall treatment of a group of workers. The only harm I see is to the ego of the tour and its defense team. And i doubt the lawyers cared at all . I see it as a warning that the tour should do better. At some point some of their questionable practices will be brought to court and deemed to have merit enough for a suit to proceed. Then what ? Will the tour act surprised ? They shouldn't. This judge warned them before hand. Let's not even think about of someone gets hurt during a storm and adequate shelter isn't provided to the caddies but is to the players. Someone will pay a great deal for that. Let's hope they shape up before that happens.

 

It really isn't a warning from the Court (Edit - that's not really fair on my part, the judge could have intended to send a message in his own way and thought he was, sorry). There is a little reference to the incident from 2015 and the thunderstorm at the beginning and at the very end of the opinion he says the overall complaint about poor treatment has merit. The complaint (the plaintiffs filed two amended complaints and still couldn't muster a sustainable cause of action) is replete with all sorts of factual information that portrays the Tour in a bad light (and I don't deny the Tour looks silly in some of those situations) and all sorts of history, but most of that goes way beyond what is actually relevant to the claims asserted, it is there for public consumption and to give the Court as much background as possible to help the cause, which is nothing unusual for those kinds of pleadings. Again remember the Court by law has to accept all of the statements as true and construe any ambiguities in the contract against the Tour. Dismissal on a motion to dismiss where the initial complaint is at issue (and a number of exhibits stipulated by both sides relating to pleadings or hearings on injunctive relief) is a resounding determination the case has no merit, and honestly anyone reading the opinion would conclude the plaintiff's attorneys really didn't think they had a real chance of success (unless they won the argument that the bib wasn't a uniform - see below - which the caddies' own allegations and acknowledgments of exhibits established).

 

All of the alleged causes of action were about the bibs and whether the Tour could force the caddies to wear them and whether the tournaments/Tour could control the content.

 

It is hard to characterize how definitely/comprehensively/overwhelmingly the facts and the law are on the side of the Tour. The Court found that the caddies' own factual arguments (about the bibs) were the most persuasive arguments in concluding the only reasonable interpretation of the contract was the Tour had the absolute right to make them wear them and control the content. The caddies' own arguments established that the bibs were uniforms and the contract expressly states that they shall wear uniforms as prescribed by the tournament host and PGA Tour.

 

No question the endless statements in the complaint and other documents painted the Tour in a really bad light, but those issues were never joined, the other side not told because they weren't really part of the case. Even if the judge didn't believe the Tour engaged in certain acts of poor treatment (whatever that means), he was compelled by law to say it existed (and he may very well believe it).

 

By the way, now having read the second amended complaint and the Court's ruling, I take back my disapproval of the Court's referencing poor treatment (that's what happens when you go by the media reports and don't read the documents). Given the voluminous references by the caddies about all sorts of issues (albeit irrelevant ones), I would have to say if the judge wanted to send a message he could have gone a lot further into it, so his lone comment at the very end was pretty restrained. Still, his reference early on quoting Van Pelt about the caddies being treated like dogs wasn't what you would call subtle.

 

Now, if some the PR intentions of the lawsuit have succeeded, hopefully the Tour will be a lot smarter and more responsible when safety issues arise, etc., and some of that may fall on the hosts as well. I certainly hope so and would guess it's been pretty proactive about addressing that - the Tour isn't stupid. From the business side I think most will be pessimistic about much changing.

[2putttom]

Aren't these caddies independent contractors?

[Hawkeye77]

Aren't these caddies independent contractors?

 

Yes. Player to caddie they are independent contractors. And they do execute an agreement with the Tour agreeing to follow certain rules, etc.

[ratspros]

Next thing you know equipment guys in the NFL, NHL, etc are going to be suing their leagues for having to wear Nike, Rebok, etc.

[Holy Moses]

Next thing you know equipment guys in the NFL, NHL, etc are going to be suing their leagues for having to wear Nike, Rebok, etc.

 

Nah. They get biweekly checks, health insurance, retirement, and a little more if you are the equipment guy for the Patriots.

[Par Fore]

Aren't these caddies independent contractors?

 

I think this is the bottom line, the tour does not employ the caddies. They are contractors, actually, contractors to contractors. IMO if they want revenue sharing they would need to be employees of the tour. If that were to happen the tour would then have control over who carries for whom, when they caddie, drug testing, blah, blah, and blah. For some becoming employees of the tour may work out better, but the caddies for the top players would take huge cuts in pay and time off.

[bscinstnct]

"Even if this contract language might appear susceptible to two different interpretations when considered in isolation, there is only one reasonable interpretation when the language is considered in the context of this case,” Chhabria wrote. “The bib has been the primary part of the ‘uniform’ that the Tour requires caddies to wear.”"

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/judge-dismisses-caddie-lawsuit-against-pga-tour/

 

Seems like an opening.

 

Time to hire

 

 

David Boies!

 

 

^tour cringes ; )

[ozarkshooter]

I don't understand why caddies don't organize better and negotiate with sponsors to put logos on their shirt sleeves and caps. Probably very few caddies have enough marketing power to do it on their own, so an organized group makes sense. It seems like a lot of the caddies wear Nature Valley ballcaps, so maybe this has already been done. But it seems they are missing out. Collectively, they could convince a sponsor to put their logo on their shirtsleeves - as the bibs don't cover it up - and the revenues could be split among all of the caddies to help with health insurance, retirement or simply supplement their income. I would imagine the caddies of the big dogs already have sponsorship deals and certainly make enough money and their retirement/insurance is taken care of. Those caddies could simply opt out, leaving more dollars to spread across the other participating caddies.

 

If caddies think the space on their bib is so valuable, then they are completely missing out on the value of their sleeves and caps.

 

Seems too simple to me.

 

Maybe it is easier to play the victim and try to get a slice of the contract the PGA Tour negotiated than to make the effort to negotiate their own. If they have in fact tried to negotiate a collective contract for their sleeves and caps, but failed, then doesn't that tell you the true value of the advertising on their bibs?

[Holy Moses]

I don't understand why caddies don't organize better and negotiate with sponsors to put logos on their shirt sleeves and caps. Probably very few caddies have enough marketing power to do it on their own, so an organized group makes sense. It seems like a lot of the caddies wear Nature Valley ballcaps, so maybe this has already been done. But it seems they are missing out. Collectively, they could convince a sponsor to put their logo on their shirtsleeves - as the bibs don't cover it up - and the revenues could be split among all of the caddies to help with health insurance, retirement or simply supplement their income. I would imagine the caddies of the big dogs already have sponsorship deals and certainly make enough money and their retirement/insurance is taken care of. Those caddies could simply opt out, leaving more dollars to spread across the other participating caddies.

 

If caddies think the space on their bib is so valuable, then they are completely missing out on the value of their sleeves and caps.

 

Seems too simple to me.

 

Maybe it is easier to play the victim and try to get a slice of the contract the PGA Tour negotiated than to make the effort to negotiate their own. If they have in fact tried to negotiate a collective contract for their sleeves and caps, but failed, then doesn't that tell you the true value of the advertising on their bibs?

 

I don't think they are allowed to. Why Steve Williams only advertised for Valvoline after the round was finished. The main tournament sponsor wants all the advertising on caddies outside of the hat which is only Nature Valley or the player's sponsor.

[Soloman1]

If the issue is caddies wanting to be paid more or have more paid benefits, that's an issue between the caddies and their player.

 

The Tour has bibs so the players can make more money with bigger purses, bigger retirement, etc. The players have chosen not to share that incremental wealth with their caddies.