I was recently chosen as a floor judge for a local PPTQ. Under the event information portion of the application it stated that the floor judge would be compensated 1 box or store credit equivalent however, once the tournament was over and I go to receive the compensation I was told “We talked to the HJ and changed the compensation, you get 27 packs”. (Side note they were expecting 20 people for this event and got 19). I was wondering how you would approach this situation and if this happens often. Thank you in advance for your comments.

Originally posted by Brock Ullom:

We talked to the HJ and changed the compensation, you get 27 packs”. (Side note they were expecting 20 people for this event and got 19). I was wondering how you would approach this situation and if this happens often.

My gut reaction is that this is not acceptable. It unfortunately does happen.

Talk to the HJ about why this was changed, and there's a good chance it was pressure from the TO based on event turnout or misunderstanding. Even so, if you have it in writing what you were supposed to receive, varying from that breaks the informal contract and would expectedly negatively affect your relationship with that TO or HJ.

Player turnout is difficult to predict because it is multi-factorial. When planning compensation you can set a sliding scale based on what happens if turnout is lower than expected, but this should be set AHEAD of time. You agreed to X, and should be expected to receive X. Be firm, but understanding.

Some potential thoughts for you to discuss with the HJ, who can talk with the TO.
“Who is responsible for ensuring player turnout?”
“Who made the call to lower compensation?”
“Did the HJ also take a hit to their compensation?”

None of these have particularly “right” answers, but they'll change how you feel and operate with these people in a business relationship. Try not to take it personal, but these are legitimate concerns. My soap box is that the HJ is responsible for their staff and working with the TO. They should be firm and fair when dealing with these changes and should be advocating for you morally and monetarily.

I'd be surprised if you worked measurably different as a floor judge for 19 players than if you'd had 20 players. That's really unreasonable to dock your comp that much because attendance was short one player. Your compensation should be planned ahead of time to match your expected skills and work.

Even so, if you have it in writing what you were supposed to receive, varying from that breaks the informal contract and would expectedly negatively affect your relationship with that TO or HJ.

Whether it's truly informal, or whether it's a legally binding agreement, depends a lot on the laws of your jurisdiction (and this is not a place to give legal advice!), but consider how you'd feel if you got your paycheck and it wasn't what you were expecting. You talk to the manager, and she says “Oh, yeah, I talked to your supervisor. You now get 75% of what we agreed.”

I consider when I work to be a proper negotiated agreement, and it's my job to get done what I've agreed to. I would not have kind words for any TO who treated me otherwise.

This happened to me once in my early days of judging. I have never worked for that TO since then, and I do not regret the decision. As far as I am concerned, a TO's word should be his bond.

Of course, in the aim of gaining experience and establishing working relationships with TOs, there were plenty of instances in my early judging career when I agreed to judge for less than I might have liked, but this was all clearly spelled out ahead of time. Under no circumstances should you accept a last-minute adjustment like this.

Originally posted by Brock Ullom:

Under the event information portion of the application it stated

Originally posted by Brock Ullom:

I was told “We talked to the HJ and changed the compensation”

I would contact the HJ and ask about the TO<->HJ communication.
Had the HJ and TO been clear, in pre-event e-mails, about what the Floor Judge compensation would be? I've accidentally neglected this part for some events where I'm the only judge (at a store I've previously judged at).

What did the TO<->HJ conversation on-site about lowering compensation entail? It sounds as if the TO was trying to strongly imply that the HJ gave a clear ‘OK’ for it, but I don't think that is necessarily a safe assumption. It could have been, for example: TO: “Hey HJ, I'm lowering Brock's compensation. Just wanted to let you know” HJ: “Hey TO, that's a crappy thing to do. Thanks for letting me know… I guess.” OR it could be exactly what the TO was implying.


If I were in such a situation (thankfully I have not been), and the answer to the first question is that a clear agreement had been made, then I would approach the TO and remind them of that fact and proceed from there.