Jump to content

Matthew Clines BB19 Houseguest


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JessicaRocks said:

 

If America has ONE vote (out of 7 or whatever the jury is), I don't see that as a problem - the HG's would have to be even dumber than they are to worry about what we think over the other 6 jury members.   No, the bottom line to me is that they cannot continue to let the spoiled HG's get away with trashing the rules and telling the production staff to "f**k off".  It's time the BB staff grew a pair and swatted the disrespectful players down for the d-bags that they are!  There simply MUST be consequences for bad behavior...they cannot continue to simply let the HG's get away with anything and everything!

It would be completely unfair to replace a jury vote of a hg with that of the public. First and foremost, you would be replacing an individual that only had a limited view of what was going on around him with the public who had full access to everything that was happening in the house. The view of the game and who was the most worthy to win would probably be completely different.  If there's going to be a vote by the public, the players need to know at the start of the game and it has to be a definite part of the rules.

 

As far as evicting people because they break the rules, I have no problem with that as long as it is clearly part of the rules at the start of the game. In the case of Matt and previous hg, the rule was one eviction vote. Matt simply took advantage of the rule. You can't change it midstream.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

 

You realize that they aren't criminals in jail, don't you? They can walk out the door whenever they want. They know that, CBS knows that, and CBS is far more interested in producing an entertaining show than running a "fair" prison.

 

I realize that they are paid employees that should be fired if they can't follow the work rules.  Oh, and they won't "walk out the door" because then they would not get paid - they know that and CBS knows that.  I see no reason why they can't produce an entertaining show in a milieu where insubordination isn't rewarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JessicaRocks said:

 

I realize that they are paid employees that should be fired if they can't follow the work rules.  Oh, and they won't "walk out the door" because then they would not get paid - they know that and CBS knows that.  I see no reason why they can't produce an entertaining show in a milieu where insubordination isn't rewarded.

 

If they walk out the door they still get paid. They have to get paid for the time they spent in the house. Imagine if you quit or got fired from your job shortly before payday. Your employer HAS to pay you for the time you worked. Same rules apply here, especially in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should be called losers and not HG. Most of them have tried out earlier seasons but I guess it's just our luck that they were chosen for this season and as a group. The "normal" people left the building way before jury started. I still enjoyed it because like Christmas, it only comes but once a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stevea11 said:

 

If they walk out the door they still get paid. They have to get paid for the time they spent in the house. Imagine if you quit or got fired from your job shortly before payday. Your employer HAS to pay you for the time you worked. Same rules apply here, especially in California.

 

If they walk out on their own accord, they WILL lose money...there are clauses in their contract that outline the penalties.  For example, it has been reported that CBS will not pay their air fare home if they self evict.  I understand that there are other penalties as well (eg: non-performance penalty - they sign a contract saying they will stay until their time is up according to the rules of the game...if they leave before they have met their obligation, of course they can be charged with non-performance penalties).  Besides legal penalties for which I've given examples, CBS can do pretty much whatever they want (even in a place like California) - they are a giant corporation with an army of lawyers.  I doubt any of the HG's have anything like CBS's resources.

 

Think about how few times HG's have self evicted (Megan was like what - the 2nd, 3rd maybe 4th one in BB history?).  There is a reason they don't self evict - it's costly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Canopus said:

 

You realize that they aren't criminals in jail, don't you? They can walk out the door whenever they want. They know that, CBS knows that, and CBS is far more interested in producing an entertaining show than running a "fair" prison.

 

Oh, and I also realize that these people are very privileged to even be on the show.  Think how many millions of people would love to be on the show and these guys are part of what - less than 500 total people who have been on BB?  They should be thanking their frickin' stars and obeying EVERY rule and do it with a smile on their face.  'Sorry but I have no sympathy for nor will I defend for 1 second these spoiled contestants that not only break the rules but laugh in ALL of our faces while doing it.  CBS needs to tighten up their contestant contracts - I have no idea why they haven't after 18 seasons.

 

Tightening up the rules would not discourage anyone from applying to be on BB (might even encourage a few who wouldn't have otherwise applied).  I also don't think it would make the show/game less interesting.  As it is, many people like myself will probably stop watching after this season unless they announce some major tightening of the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree they should obey the rules. But I don't think CBS is in a position to enforce it too much once the jury is reached. I suppose they could hold back an extra person for a replacement juror if needed. They'd need to pay him/her the full amount for sticking around, even if not needed. CBS probably figures it's easier and cheaper to just give a penalty vote. It doesn't really affect the game, so I don't see it's a big deal for the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JessicaRocks said:

 

If they walk out on their own accord, they WILL lose money...there are clauses in their contract that outline the penalties.  For example, it has been reported that CBS will not pay their air fare home if they self evict.  I understand that there are other penalties as well (eg: non-performance penalty - they sign a contract saying they will stay until their time is up according to the rules of the game...if they leave before they have met their obligation, of course they can be charged with non-performance penalties).  Besides legal penalties for which I've given examples, CBS can do pretty much whatever they want (even in a place like California) - they are a giant corporation with an army of lawyers.  I doubt any of the HG's have anything like CBS's resources.

 

Think about how few times HG's have self evicted (Megan was like what - the 2nd, 3rd maybe 4th one in BB history?).  There is a reason they don't self evict - it's costly.

 

I'd bet Megan was compensated for her time and airfare. CBS just doesn't want the bad publicity from a contestant that claims CBS put a person with PTSD in a dangerous work environment, and then not paid her. It might be B.S., but that's how Megan would spin it.

 

I'd also bet that if a player who self-evicted (for whatever reason) sued for compensation, they'd win. It just wouldn't be worth the legal cost to sue.

 

I'd also bet that CBS has paid every player who ever self-evicted. The contact is probably there just to scare them to stay. Big companies know that paying them a couple of thousand dollars is very cheap P.R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JessicaRocks said:

 

If they walk out on their own accord, they WILL lose money...there are clauses in their contract that outline the penalties.  For example, it has been reported that CBS will not pay their air fare home if they self evict.  I understand that there are other penalties as well (eg: non-performance penalty - they sign a contract saying they will stay until their time is up according to the rules of the game...if they leave before they have met their obligation, of course they can be charged with non-performance penalties).  Besides legal penalties for which I've given examples, CBS can do pretty much whatever they want (even in a place like California) - they are a giant corporation with an army of lawyers.  I doubt any of the HG's have anything like CBS's resources.

 

Think about how few times HG's have self evicted (Megan was like what - the 2nd, 3rd maybe 4th one in BB history?).  There is a reason they don't self evict - it's costly.

 

Regardless of any "penalties" they may be faced with CBS can not force them to forfeit any money they have "earned" while in the house. By the way, some of them can drive home in 10 minuets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

 

I'd bet Megan was compensated for her time and airfare. CBS just doesn't want the bad publicity from a contestant that claims CBS put a person with PTSD in a dangerous work environment, and then not paid her. It might be B.S., but that's how Megan would spin it.

 

I'd also bet that if a player who self-evicted (for whatever reason) sued for compensation, they'd win. It just wouldn't be worth the legal cost to sue.

 

I'd also bet that CBS has paid every player who ever self-evicted. The contact is probably there just to scare them to stay. Big companies know that paying them a couple of thousand dollars is very cheap P.R.

 

To be clear, I didn't say CBS doesn't pay self-evicted contestants - I said they penalize self-evictee's, ie: don't pay them everything they would be owed up until the time they left the game.

 

You have to understand, the very LAST thing that CBS/BB wants is for a contestant to self-evict, which is why they have strong penalties for it.  CBS would be poor business people indeed if they didn't have penalties for self-eviction in their contracts.

 

Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude or condescending when I say this, but I get the sense you don't have a lot of real world experience.  You sound incredibly naive about how the business world works.  And if anything, it would probably be favorable publicity for CBS if they DIDN'T pay someone who self evicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stevea11 said:

 

Regardless of any "penalties" they may be faced with CBS can not force them to forfeit any money they have "earned" while in the house. By the way, some of them can drive home in 10 minuets.

 

They absolutely CAN force them to forfeit money they have already "earned" if the contract says that they can - businesses have clauses in their contracts like that all the time (VERY standard stuff).

 

I worked in HR for a major company for over 16 years, and trust me, companies can pretty much do what they want (especially when the employee has agreed to it with their signature).  You can believe what you want, but those are the real world facts. Big companies have armies of lawyers and they know from experience how to word contracts in their favor (and so they can't be easily contested).  'Sorry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JessicaRocks said:

 

Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude or condescending when I say this, but I get the sense you don't have a lot of real world experience.  You sound incredibly naive about how the business world works.  And if anything, it would probably be favorable publicity for CBS if they DIDN'T pay someone who self evicted.

 

lol, okay. First of all, try looking up civil court rulings when it comes to employment law. It's pretty easy to convince a judge a contract is invalid, especially in cases where the employment conditions subjected employees to mental health issues. There's no way that someone like Megan wouldn't get full pay up until the time she left. I'm betting she got a lot more than that. On BB, it would be pretty easy to make a case for harassment, even if you couldn't go for mental illness. The real world isn't as black & white as you seem to believe.

 

Second, you think not paying your employees is good PR? Okay, I'm not even going to bother arguing that... good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Canopus said:

 

lol, okay. First of all, try looking up civil court rulings when it comes to employment law. It's pretty easy to convince a judge a contract is invalid, especially in cases where the employment conditions subjected employees to mental health issues. There's no way that someone like Megan wouldn't get full pay up until the time she left. I'm betting she got a lot more than that. On BB, it would be pretty easy to make a case for harassment, even if you couldn't go for mental illness. The real world isn't as black & white as you seem to believe.

 

Second, you think not paying your employees is good PR? Okay, I'm not even going to bother arguing that... good luck.

 

You're talking like ONLY the employer has responsibilities in an employee/employer relationship, but they both have responsibilities.  When CBS/BB selects contestants, they have a big stake in ALL players staying until the game forces them to leave, because if people leave early - it creates problems for CBS/BB: especially with program scheduling which means issues with sponsors.  CBS knows this going in and they impress that issue on the players before they sign.  To drive their point home, they include penalties in the contract that discourage them from leaving early.  This is not just something that CBS/BB does, it's what ANY and EVERY employer does - they PROTECT themselves.  Now if the contestant does not want to agree to that (and/or any other issues), they are free to refuse to sign the contract and walk away.  You have to keep in mind that CBS/BB holds ALL the cards here - there are literally MILLIONS of people who would love to be on BB (and would agree to just about anything).

 

These sorts of employee/employer issues come up multiple times every single day - the courts would be totally clogged up if they had to arbitrate even a small percentage of them.  This issue is no different than a million other ones...to give a simpler but more ordinary example: imagine you need someone to work for you for 6 weeks and it's really important that they work for you the entire 6 weeks (eg, for a fair that only lasts 6 weeks and it just wouldn't make any sense to train a replacement during that time) , so you tell the prospective employee: "I will hire you with the express condition that you work for the full 6 weeks - if you leave early for any reason, I will hold back 1 weeks pay."  You agree (by signing a contract), but then leave after 5 weeks.  The employer can legally pay you for just 4 weeks because you agreed to that as a condition of your employment.  Only 1 party is at fault in this case - the employee who agreed to work the entire 6 weeks, no matter what.  This is how contracts (yes, even employment contracts work).

 

[And BTW, another way to accomplish the same thing is to set up a bonus structure based on working the full time period - so that leaving early is a loss of bonus rather than a penalty of pay.  Either way is legal.]

 

And if it is publicly known that the employer held back a week's pay because the employee did not live up to his/her part of the agreement (namely - leaving before the end of 6 weeks), then the public will side with the employer, NOT the employee.  Why would they side with the employee when the employee was was the one that broke the agreement?

 

As to the specific case of Megan - this is the 20th season of Big Brother...how does she prove she didn't know what goes on during the show - I'm quite sure that the contract also spells out things for her to agree to like "by signing this contract, you agree that you understand the competitive and socially challenging aspects of the show" or something to that effect.

 

Of the 2 parties, CBS/BB has MUCH more to lose than the contestant if the contestant leaves early, so it is just good business sense for CBS/BB to protect themselves going in - and you can be sure that they do.  My guess is that the actual penalties are greater than what I've been talking about here.  

 

Here's one more thing to think about if you doubt how much power CBS can muster when they want to: have you ever thought it odd that there has NEVER been any kind of expose on what goes on in the background of BB, like specifically what kinds of things the production staff talks about in the Diary Room?  Trust me - you don't get to be a corporation as big as CBS without knowing how to control people when necessary.

 

I apologize to everyone for being so longwinded.  This is how the real world works and you can believe that or not.  I'm won't bore you guys with any more arguments on this point.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JessicaRocks said:

 

They absolutely CAN force them to forfeit money they have already "earned" if the contract says that they can - businesses have clauses in their contracts like that all the time (VERY standard stuff).

 

I worked in HR for a major company for over 16 years, and trust me, companies can pretty much do what they want (especially when the employee has agreed to it with their signature).  You can believe what you want, but those are the real world facts. Big companies have armies of lawyers and they know from experience how to word contracts in their favor (and so they can't be easily contested).  'Sorry...

First off, don't take this the wrong way, but, I think you may be obsessing way too much on these rules when it comes to a part of the game that really doesn't give the player an advantage over the other players. Although the have and have nots are subjective to uncomfortable sleeping arrangements and the players are on slop, I don't think it is really that big of a part of the game. Just not something to get all bent out of shape over as the posters here has indicated.

 

I was a union president and I have read lots and lots of case law. When it comes to pay, judges loathe employment contracts that are one sided and not fair to the employee. If an employee is promised $1000 per week, the company will end up paying him that $1000 dollars. The company can recoup the cost of equipment or product that the employee willfully damages, but, they will not get away with simply docking someones pay. The company can refuse to pay "bonuses" or other pay that is not yet earned. For example, if the bonus is to be paid for completing the show, the company will not have to pay if the employee doesn't complete the show. However, even those type stipulations may be overcome by the employee if they complete a substantial portion of the contract. Although I am just guessing, I am willing to bet that Chima, Willie Hantz and others who were expelled from the game got their full pay and an airline ticket home. Putting something into a contract doesn't automatically mean it will stand up to legal scrutiny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Canopus said:

 

We've already discussed that, and it's very unlikely that the producers would kick someone out of the game once they reach the point of jury. It would unbalance the final voting.  We've seen that the producers don't really care about breaking the rules, so what makes you think they'd go all the way from "a single penalty vote" to "kick you out of the game entirely".

 

The only way they're going to kick someone out is if they're causing a safety problem to others or themselves, or causing too many problems to producing the show. And once the game reaches the jury point, that threshold goes way up.

BB can always think of something and it would probably improve ratings. Lets say its at the point where HGs evicted go to jury. An HG flaunts the rules, kick them to the JH and have a comp for a member already in the JH to take booted HGs place. This or a hundred other ways can work just fine. In past seasons people have been taken out of the show due to their actions and things continued just fine. I'm just saying this CAN be done not that it will be. The producers will do as they please, I'd just like to see things done differently? More fairly? Something!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JessicaRocks said:

 

I realize that they are paid employees that should be fired if they can't follow the work rules.  Oh, and they won't "walk out the door" because then they would not get paid - they know that and CBS knows that.  I see no reason why they can't produce an entertaining show in a milieu where insubordination isn't rewarded.

ITA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jcrow said:

BB can always think of something and it would probably improve ratings. Lets say its at the point where HGs evicted go to jury. An HG flaunts the rules, kick them to the JH and have a comp for a member already in the JH to take booted HGs place. This or a hundred other ways can work just fine. In past seasons people have been taken out of the show due to their actions and things continued just fine. I'm just saying this CAN be done not that it will be. The producers will do as they please, I'd just like to see things done differently? More fairly? Something!

 

In Matt's case, he knew he was getting voted out, and he wanted to get voted out. Why would he care if some other jury member took his place and got back in the game? It's not affecting his circumstance at all. And, him eating food is not really affecting the game in any way, so I don't understand why some of you are so hung up on it. Who cares!

 

Also, I'm not happy about the "get back in the game" twists that CBS likes to throw into their reality shows. I think people should be far more upset about that unbalancing the game, than eating food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 5:49 PM, joystiick said:

First off, don't take this the wrong way, but, I think you may be obsessing way too much on these rules when it comes to a part of the game that really doesn't give the player an advantage over the other players. Although the have and have nots are subjective to uncomfortable sleeping arrangements and the players are on slop, I don't think it is really that big of a part of the game. Just not something to get all bent out of shape over as the posters here has indicated.

 

I was a union president and I have read lots and lots of case law. When it comes to pay, judges loathe employment contracts that are one sided and not fair to the employee. If an employee is promised $1000 per week, the company will end up paying him that $1000 dollars. The company can recoup the cost of equipment or product that the employee willfully damages, but, they will not get away with simply docking someones pay. The company can refuse to pay "bonuses" or other pay that is not yet earned. For example, if the bonus is to be paid for completing the show, the company will not have to pay if the employee doesn't complete the show. However, even those type stipulations may be overcome by the employee if they complete a substantial portion of the contract. Although I am just guessing, I am willing to bet that Chima, Willie Hantz and others who were expelled from the game got their full pay and an airline ticket home. Putting something into a contract doesn't automatically mean it will stand up to legal scrutiny. 

 

Stop it joystick!! You're making way too much sense here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ran across a website called "Reality Blurred" that includes a complete copy of the actual contract that Big Brother contestants sign (all 36 single-spaced pages).  It pretty much has the contestant sign away about every right he has, and among other things stipulates that if the contestant breaks the rules, he/she may forfeit up to ALL pay whether already earned or not.  It also stipulates a $5,000,000 fine for divulging secrets of the show (so I guess that is why we haven't seen any exposes).  It's chock full of all kinds of legalese and basically says that CBS can do whatever they want if the contestant wishes to be on the show.  It covers about any contingency you can think of, including Megan's case where it advises that participating on the show will cause contestants to be exposed to "extreme, atypical and unnatural circumstances" and being on the show may lead to "physical, psychological and emotional strains and stresses".  It goes into more detail than that, but I think you get the gist.

 

It says all kinds of things that pretty much covers CBS in every eventuality.  I realize anyone can sue anyone, but I'll bet CBS has some pretty good lawyers on their payroll.

 

The document can be found by googling "reality blurred big brother contract".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JessicaRocks said:

It says all kinds of things that pretty much covers CBS in every eventuality.  I realize anyone can sue anyone, but I'll bet CBS has some pretty good lawyers on their payroll.

 

And an ex-player that is screwed-over can get a pretty good contingency lawyer on their side, and set a precedent that throws out ridiculous contracts like that. CBS doesn't want that. They'll throw a few thousand dollars at a player to keep him happy. Good PR, good legal sense.

 

CBS pays some actors a million dollars per episode! What's a few thousand dollars?

 

The contact can say whatever it wants. Doesn't mean it's legal, and doesn't mean CBS will follow-through with it.

 

The $5M non-discloser penalty probably is serious, though CBS would probably never collect it from some of the deadbeats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an authority on the subject and should probably keep my comments to myself since I haven't read the contract. I have to agree with Canopus though. I just feel a good attorney could blow the $5M NDA out of the water. It probably isn't as simple but, unless there is a 'list of secrets' that the HG cannot disclose within the contract, what makes anything they disclose a 'secret'.  I've heard of the possibility of someone in breach of contract in this way, I just don't know any outcomes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hazelnutz said:

I'm not an authority on the subject and should probably keep my comments to myself since I haven't read the contract. I have to agree with Canopus though. I just feel a good attorney could blow the $5M NDA out of the water. It probably isn't as simple but, unless there is a 'list of secrets' that the HG cannot disclose within the contract, what makes anything they disclose a 'secret'.  I've heard of the possibility of someone in breach of contract in this way, I just don't know any outcomes.

 

 

 

Didn't Russel Hantz, or one of the Hantz scumbags, once disclose some stuff about Survivor? I think there was some threats of lawsuits. IIRC, the end result was CBS had him back on as a player in a later season. So, I guess the non-discloser is okay as long as you made CBS money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What all rules have been bent or broken?  I haven't read all the history here and don't watch many live feeds. But I've had the feeling that CBS has gotten lax on the rules this summer, as well. Christmas being allowed to come back and stay in the house. Josh standing on the line for the HOH putting contest that he ultimately "won". Matt and the food. Alex throwing out the slop. Josh and his bullying. Heck, even holding the door open on eviction night used to be a no-no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Canopus said:

 

Didn't Russel Hantz, or one of the Hantz scumbags, once disclose some stuff about Survivor? I think there was some threats of lawsuits. IIRC, the end result was CBS had him back on as a player in a later season. So, I guess the non-discloser is okay as long as you made CBS money.

Yes! Then the crazy nephew played and things got really weird. Russell did the survivor finale that season and tried defending the nephew anyways, that whole scenario was nutz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.







Lobby

Lobby

Please enter your display name

×
×
  • Create New...