Super 7 Ultimates Thread

Damien said:
I don't think that's at all likely. I'm not a contract expert, but so far as I am aware there has to be pretty drastic extenuating circumstances to be able to pull out of a contract like that. I mean, there's basically no point in signing legally enforceable contracts if one of the parties can go 'lol, nm nerd.'
Click to expand...
I agree with you with specific regard to Jada's contract. But musing on your last sentence, that is basically every (non-executive) employment contract in America. We employees sure as hell can't change the contract but employers reserve the right to change our job description, compensation, hours, reporting structure, and any other terms of employment without prior notice and without our consent. We very badly need to walk back the last 60 years of maligning unions because boy do we need labor organization.

Anyway, was moderately disappointed with Diamond's Invincible line, excited as heck for Jada' line, no interest in Super 7
 
bat said:
I agree with you with specific regard to Jada's contract. But musing on your last sentence, that is basically every (non-executive) employment contract in America. We employees sure as hell can't change the contract but employers reserve the right to change our job description, compensation, hours, reporting structure, and any other terms of employment without prior notice and without our consent. We very badly need to walk back the last 60 years of maligning unions because boy do we need labor organization.

Anyway, was moderately disappointed with Diamond's Invincible line, excited as heck for Jada' line, no interest in Super 7
Click to expand...
You don't even need to have union protections or more unions per se. You guys just need stronger laws in place, and especially need to get rid of "At Will" employment laws.

Here in Ontario (Canada in general as well) the labour laws are pretty protective of employees. The threshold for termination of an employee without compensation is extremely high. That is not to say you can't fire an employee for almost any reason (excluding protected status like race, gender, physical/mental disability, etc) it just means that you actually have to pay compensation (severance). Of course the exceptions are things like criminal activities, gross insubordination, etc. Also severance/compensation is default 2 weeks under law, but case law has made that the fools offer and anyone can get more than that in most cases, including people who only worked less than 2 weeks. It is just a matter of if it is worth fighting for more based on salary.

Also the law allows for employees to sue employers for changing job descriptions, hours, pay, etc. without consent. It is deemed "constructive dismissal" and entitles the employee to severance or, as I said, they can sue to get back their original job duties/hours/etc.

The funny thing is that under Ontario law being part of a union can be detrimental to employees if they run into problems at work. Unionized employees are basically exempt from the laws (not 100% obviously) surrounding employment resolution because it is written into law that the union is the primary point of contact for employees. As such a unionized employee can't go to the courts to resolve an issue but instead has to go through their union which leaves them at the mercy of the union. If the union doesn't take up their case with the employer the employee has little recourse because the courts generally have a high bar for what is considered negligence on the union's part in representing the employee.

Anyway, my original point is that more unionized representation is a good thing, better laws are probably a better way to go with a stronger/quicker result for the general working public.
 
Last edited:
bat said:
I agree with you with specific regard to Jada's contract. But musing on your last sentence, that is basically every (non-executive) employment contract in America. We employees sure as hell can't change the contract but employers reserve the right to change our job description, compensation, hours, reporting structure, and any other terms of employment without prior notice and without our consent. We very badly need to walk back the last 60 years of maligning unions because boy do we need labor organization.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure.
But in this instance, I don't think even Jada would be small enough to be the 'employee' in the situation. I'm sure their contract protects them from the licensor pulling the license without cause or notice. It would be impossible to sign otherwise. I suppose what I'm saying, and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, is that company-to-company contract law is pretty different from company-to-person contract law, because the United States fucking WORSHIPS corporations and has utter disdain for 'people.'


canprime said:
Here in Ontario (Canada in general as well) the labour laws are pretty protective of employees.
Click to expand...

For the record; this is not actually -as- true in Alberta. Alberta has different labour laws because Alberta is fully owned and controlled by oil interests. And oil companies hate employees having rights. So they petitioned the government for all kinds of exceptions, which trickled into non-oilfield work.
Essentially, if you are a 'construction' worker of any kind, you can be fired without notice or reason at any time. It's actually pretty fucked up. If I hire a new accountant and she's with me for a couple of months, I would have to go through all the hoops to fire her. But I've got field guys that have been here for over 5 years and I could pull them in my office today and literally be like "today was your last day, kindly fuck off - bye" with zero consequences. I don't have to show cause. I'm not required to have any documentation of offenses by the employee. Nothing. In fact, it could be detrimental to me as an employer if I give ANY reason, because a reason can be challenged by the employee through labour relations. But they literally cannot challenge 'no reason.' It's an automatic I Win button for any employer in construction-related fields. Very fucked up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bat
Damien said:
Oh for sure.
But in this instance, I don't think even Jada would be small enough to be the 'employee' in the situation. I'm sure their contract protects them from the licensor pulling the license without cause or notice. It would be impossible to sign otherwise. I suppose what I'm saying, and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, is that company-to-company contract law is pretty different from company-to-person contract law, because the United States fucking WORSHIPS corporations and has utter disdain for 'people.'




For the record; this is not actually -as- true in Alberta. Alberta has different labour laws because Alberta is fully owned and controlled by oil interests. And oil companies hate employees having rights. So they petitioned the government for all kinds of exceptions, which trickled into non-oilfield work.
Essentially, if you are a 'construction' worker of any kind, you can be fired without notice or reason at any time. It's actually pretty fucked up. If I hire a new accountant and she's with me for a couple of months, I would have to go through all the hoops to fire her. But I've got field guys that have been here for over 5 years and I could pull them in my office today and literally be like "today was your last day, kindly fuck off - bye" with zero consequences. I don't have to show cause. I'm not required to have any documentation of offenses by the employee. Nothing. In fact, it could be detrimental to me as an employer if I give ANY reason, because a reason can be challenged by the employee through labour relations. But they literally cannot challenge 'no reason.' It's an automatic I Win button for any employer in construction-related fields. Very fucked up.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is why I kind of generalized to Canada. It kind of goes Quebec/Ontario/BC as the top jurisdictions for employee protection, the Maritimes and territories and then the plains ending with Alberta......
 
Not sure if they're Ultimates or ReAction, or other crap they make, but Super7 has announced collaborations with Law & Order and Shrek.

HA_sLz_XUAARC6K



HBAKrNfXIAAd4eO
 
I feel like their ReAction figures are like Pop Figures, where the whole market is less from toy collectors and more from fans of the property. I mean, nobody here wants Parks & Rec figures, but I bet there's some fans of the show who got 'em.
 
I got ALL the Parks and Rec figures! If they went L&O SVU, I might be tempted. Shrek feels like it’ll be like their ReAction Where the Wild Things Are, Richard Scarry, and Sesame Street lines.
 
I'm assuming ReAction with both and my interest in either property could not possibly be lower. Okay, if they do an Ogre Claus I'd consider that, but that's because I'm a Christmas junkie.
 
Yeah, I also got the Parks and Rec figures. And their Wonka and Richard Scarry figures (and I wish they did some more Scarry). I like that sort of stuff that no one else is making.

And agreed, they are pop culture collectibles, not great figures in the modern sense. Honestly the ReAction line is in their wheelhouse of mementos a lot more than the Ultimates are if you ask me.

Law and Order has the advantage of an infinite cast across the shows, if it hits they can make a ton, if it doesn't they probably are not out much. I'll be curious how that goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top