Kubica's replacement... (It's Heidfeld!)

Good luck to Heidfeld!

Heidfeld deserves his chance, hope he gets the drive.

I am interested to know what will happen if Heidfeld is in contention for the WDC when Kubica has fully recovered from his injury, assuming he fully recovers well before the end of the season. It would be completely foolish to drop Heidfeld in such a situation, but if Petrov underperforms, and Renault have a sniff of the WCC, it will be interesting to see how they play their cards.

Good drive of Quick Nick, I think he has the seat now..
Hopefully he will keep the same sharpness in future.. the car looks fast :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I doubt this would work in terms of employment law. There is no way such a thing could only be applied to F1 drivers.

---

Pardon my ignorance, but are these laws you are referring to based on something mandated buy the EU. In the USA It is common practice to have heavily incentive laden contracts, including how many games a player competes in, even if the player is unable to compete because of an injury that happens, or is exacerbated while playing the sport he is contracted to play. Although most of the incentive are for achieving levels of production, and success, it is not uncommon for a player, especially older ones in Base Ball and more specifically Pitchers that have had arm problems in the past, and also ones that have a history of being injury prone to have a relatively low base salary, at the same time if they excel, and are healthey enough to produce, and paricipate in an amount that is consistant with how often their particular position normally does are rewarded quite handsomely . I realize comparing F1 drivers to stick, and ball professionals is a awkward endeavor, but I would think that since both have contracts negotiated by agents they (at least in the US) can be quite creative, and it's not like the base pay is very low. It is just that the incentive clauses can be quite rewarding. At any rate here is a scenario I would think is legal under contractual agreements in F1, but please correct me if I am wrong. Let's say that RK has a base salary. In his contract he has a certain amount of incentive clause money for every race he finishes in the points. That is the first incentive theshold, next another for finishing no lower than p6. Another larger incentive is earned for each podium, more for race wins, and incentives that would be akin to winning an enormous lottery if he were to win the wdc. These types of clauses are quite common in the states (can't say about Racing contracts) and are usually extremely incentive laden in the contracts of athletes that are near the end of their career. If RK had an incentive laden contract than he would still get paid but he just wouldn't get the money that was contingent on where he finished the race. The base pay should be substantial, as a driver is really not responsible for how competitive the car is.
At any rate here is what "Ole' One Ear" has to say about it FWIW



http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/140220...ims-lauda.html

Quote:

---

It makes no sense for him to put his job and his life at risk like this. Was it unreasonable? Of course it was," Lauda, who was given the last rites following his serious Nurburgring accident in 1976, told SpeedTV, "He has to ensure that he can do his job, and his job is F1. Only he is to blame for what happened to him. Did he have to be doing this? No!"

---

Only if you are effectively an independent contractor, but F1 drivers are not. They are employed by the team just like any other employee, and so are subject to UK/EU employment law as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

Pardon my ignorance, but are these laws you are referring to based on something mandated buy the EU. In the USA It is common practice to have heavily incentive laden contracts, including how many games a player competes in, even if the player is unable to compete because of an injury that happens, or is exacerbated while playing the sport he is contracted to play.

---

I think the problem part that BDunnell was probably referring to would be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxystoat

...if you injure yourself doing another dangerous sport then you do not get paid or get a small percentage of your salary...

---

(my emphasis)

There wouldn't be a problem paying F1 drivers on a piecework or success-bonus basis (subject to minimum wage laws); in fact most do have large success bonuses as part of their remuneration. But saying that if you're absent, you might or might not get paid depending on the cause of that absence - that could be an unfair contractual term.

If, for example, I was unable to work due to a skiing injury, and my employer refused to pay contractual sick-pay on the basis that I could have chosen not take that risk, their chances of getting away with it would be slim.

Would the same principle apply to F1 drivers? After all, those employed in the UK are covered by the same laws as I am. Well... it's not necessarily that simple. In deciding whether contractual terms are unfair, UK courts will consider the process of negotiating the contract. For most of us there's little opportunity to negotiate the details of our employment contracts - if you want the job you sign the contract. Courts are quite willing to strike out unfair terms in that situation. But an F1 driver's contract, negotiated by the driver's agent, is a much more equal agreement. A term such as the one foxystoat suggested could stand in that situation, as a court might rule that both parties had agreed to it freely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

I think the problem part that BDunnell was probably referring to would be

(my emphasis)

There wouldn't be a problem paying F1 drivers on a piecework or success-bonus basis (subject to minimum wage laws); in fact most do have large success bonuses as part of their remuneration. But saying that if you're absent, you might or might not get paid depending on the cause of that absence - that could be an unfair contractual term.
If, for example, I was unable to work due to a skiing injury, and my employer refused to pay contractual sick-pay on the basis that I could .have chosen not take that risk, their chances of getting away with it would be slim.

Would the same principle apply to F1 drivers? After all, those employed in the UK are covered by the same laws as I am. Well... it's not necessarily that simple. In deciding whether contractual terms are unfair, UK courts will consider the process of negotiating the contract. For most of us there's little opportunity to negotiate the details of our employment contracts - if you want the job you sign the contract. Courts are quite willing to strike out unfair terms in that situation. But an F1 driver's contract, negotiated by the driver's agent, is a much more equal agreement. A term such as the one foxystoat suggested could stand in that situation, as a court might rule that both parties had agreed to it freely.

---

Andy thanks for your input and I like the simplicity of Mark's answer as well
Just for the record the part of your post that I believe misrepresents what I had suggested I have emboldened in the text of yours I quoted. My suggestion in no way says that RK would not be paid for missing a race as his contract would pay him handsomely for being a diver for the whole season. What I was suggesting was that he merely not receive the extra incentive clause money because whether he raced or not, he did not achieve any of the thesholds for incentive (extra) pay for that race. I just wanted to make that clear, and I'm not sure that you didn't understand it. It may be you were simply addressing Ben’s posture on a different, and much more harsh penalty for not participating.
Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz

Andy thanks for your input and I like the simplicity of Mark's answer as well
Just for the record the part of your post that I believe misrepresents what I had suggested I have emboldened in the text of yours I quoted. My suggestion in no way says that RK would not be paid for missing a race as his contract would pay him handsomely for being a diver for the whole season. What I was suggesting was that he merely not receive the extra incentive clause money because whether he raced or not, he did not achieve any of the thesholds for incentive (extra) pay for that race. I just wanted to make that clear, and I'm not sure that you didn't understand it. It may be you were simply addressing Ben’s posture on a different, and much more harsh penalty for not participating.

---

I guess one of the points I was trying to make was that when BDunnell mentioned employment law, I don't think he was talking about the general idea of performance-based pay - but the specific idea that was mentioned in the post he was replying to (foxystoat's post). That was what I was referring to in the bit of my reply that you highlighted. Apologies for any misunderstanding. I quoted too much of your post, it probably would have been clearer if I'd only quoted the first sentence. I was more trying to expand on what BDunnell had referred to, rather than the examples that you had given.

i don't see where they have named Nick yet - what is the hold up