Disturbing WWE image (under Linda's watch) of the day

The "wrestlers who died while Linda raked in millions" edition.

Linda McSham: Job creator

Hundreds of professional wrestlers have died prematurely over the past 30 years and I suspect my average reader doesn't have the time or patience to be subjected to a comprehensive list. To put it into perspective, the WWE (formerly the WWF) recently put on the 1,000 episode of their show Monday Night Raw this summer. Since the first episode ran in 1993, 28 wrestlers who appeared on the program have died under the age of 45. For a sport with such a small active roster of athletes/performers, this is a staggering number of deaths. By comparison, there have only been 21 active NFL players who have died in that same period of time. Those mortality figures sound similar until you realize that there are currently 1,696 active players in the NFL and there are only about 70 active wrestlers in the WWE. Using that 70 wrestler roster as a benchmark, the WWE has seen 3% of its roster die every year for the last 19 years. I defy you to find another non-military profession in the United States that loses 3% of its workers every year.

[...]

Unlike every other major sport, wrestlers don't have a union and that has meant that they have historically been treated with the dignity and consideration normally afforded to a used handi-wipe. The WWE classifies them as "independent contractors," which is odd considering they are full time employees and under contract to exclusively wrestle for the WWE. But, this is not merely a technicality when it comes to wrestlers' well-being because, as independent contractors, the federal government views them as being self-employed. As a result, these wrestlers are not provided with any benefits and they are required to pay what is known as the self-employment tax. Thanks to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, when you are an employee of a company you split social security and medicare taxes with your employer so that you each pay a 6.2% share of the Social Security tax and 1.45% of the medicare tax. But, thanks to being labeled as independent contractors, pro wrestlers have to pay the full 15.3% FICA percentage, which saves the WWE millions of dollars every year.

The biggest part of this whole scam revolves around benefits, or lack thereof. Up until last year, WWE wrestlers were not required to have health insurance. When Linda McMahon began revving up for her second run at congress in 2011, the WWE mandated that all of their employees get health insurance, but said that they had to pay for it themselves. What company in the history of ever can you think of that has required its employees to pay for their own health insurance? To add literal and figurative insult to injury, the violent nature of their profession means that insurance premiums for wrestlers are through the roof. The WWE touts that it pays for wrestling-related surgeries, but anything beyond that is seen as squarely being the responsibility of the wrestler.

According to the US Small Business Administration, an independent contractor is defined as someone who, among other things: operates under a business name, has his/her own employees, maintains a separate business checking account, advertises his/her business' services, has more than one client, has own tools and sets own hours and keeps business records. On the other hand, the US SBA defines an employee as someone who: performs duties dictated or controlled by others, is given training for work to be done, and works for only one employer. Which category do you think professional wrestler's should fall into?

Why does this matter do the people of Connecticut and, by extension, the entire nation? This matters because Linda McMahon will attempt to run government with the same lack of respect for human life that she did her wrestling organization. This is a woman who has already stated at a Tea Party forum that she wants to put a "sunset provision" on Social Security. What that means is anyone's guess as she was light on specifics, but by definition a sunset provision is a measure within a statute that mandates the it will cease to exist if further legislative action is not taken by a certain point. Essentially, it would be an execution date for Social Security unless certain GOP-friendly changes were made, which in McMahon's case involve means-testing benefits and raising the age of eligibility.

Go to CT State Page
origin Blog: 
origin Author: 
Comments Count: 
0
Showing 0 comments