Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mav1234

NFL Files with NLRB

31 posts in this topic

Does anyone know why the NFLPA might not want to call it's proposal a proposal at the last meeting, and instead, an illustration? That is what caused the breakdown, at least according to one source.

The CBA proposal is the owners' responsibility to present. The players union will simply redline the proposal and negotiate the terms. The union will not be presenting a CBA to the owners, its the other way around.

From what I'm seeing the players have poor representation and the owners are trying to take advantage of that. If the players union had proper representation, then they would have filed the NLRB suit against the owners once they walked out of the negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also do not know for certain that the NFL has refused any compromise. They are not issuing their stances publicly, so the only way we will know if that is the case is if the "last, best offer" is identical to the first offer... because the NFLPA is certainly not going to come out and say, "Oh yeah, the owners had concessions but we didn't like 'em"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the NFLPA also say back in December that the internal deadline for a new CBA had passed and to prepare for a lockout?

The NFLPA has no control over a lockout. The NFL owners are the only ones that control that. The NFLPA can strike if they do not agree to the final terms of the new CBA, but there is no new CBA, so that's not an option yet either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the NFLPA may have poor representation, the fact they haven't turned towards litigation yet either means that Smith doesn't think he can win right now OR the players don't want it. Don't think for a second this guy is afraid to take that option. Just because you think he's taking the wrong approach does not mean he is poorly representing his clients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also do not know for certain that the NFL has refused any compromise. They are not issuing their stances publicly, so the only way we will know if that is the case is if the "last, best offer" is identical to the first offer... because the NFLPA is certainly not going to come out and say, "Oh yeah, the owners had concessions but we didn't like 'em"...

Not at all true. Each point in the CBA is a separate issue, meaning if the NFLPA and the owners agree on the rookie wage scale and the retirement benefits, but the owners try to force the 18 game season and the profit share down the players thoats making no concessions and telling them to take it or leave it, then the NFLPA can still file charges against the NFL for a lack of good faith bargaining. The NLRB considers the following when deciding if an unfair labor charge for surface bargaining has taken place (funny...I already posted this prior to the NLRB suit filed by the NFL today)

Prior bargaining history of the parties, parties' willingness to make concessions, character of exchanged proposals and demands, ANY dilatory tactics used during negotiations, conditions imposed by either party as necessary to reaching an agreement, unilateral changes made during the bargaining process in conditions subject to bargaining, communications by employer to individual employees, ANY unfair practices commiteed druing bargaining.

The owners have violated several of those considerations. The NLRB may be looking into the players union because of the owners suit, but this board is unbiased and implemented by the US Congress. They will not buy into the owners BS and they will uncover any boulwarism and surface bargaining tactics.

This is really going to get interesting...not like the NFL draft interesting, but interesting all the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFLPA has no control over a lockout. The NFL owners are the only ones that control that. The NFLPA can strike if they do not agree to the final terms of the new CBA, but there is no new CBA, so that's not an option yet either.

Not entirely correct. A new CBA doesn't need to be agreed upon for the players to strike. The owners can declare an impasse after March 3rd. Then impose the last offer on the table before the impasse on the players. Work under that impasse next season or the players can strike if they don't agree with the forced impasse on them. At least according to talking heads, that is possible. I'm no lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely correct. A new CBA doesn't need to be agreed upon for the players to strike. The owners can declare an impasse after March 3rd. Then impose the last offer on the table before the impasse on the players. Work under that impasse next season or the players can strike if they don't agree with the forced impasse on them. At least according to talking heads, that is possible. I'm no lawyer.

An impasse is a stalemate that occurs in negotiations between union and management over the terms and conditions of employment. Impasses are often resolved through mediation or arbitration. The owners are not going to agree to an impasse that allows workers to continue working under the conditions of the old CBA agreement. They have made this VERY clear. They will lockout or force the new CBA through and force a player strike. Nothing is accomplished by allowing the old CBA to stay in place while negotiations take place to avoid a lockout or strike. This is not a real option. This may work for a factory where production can't stop or else economic losses will bankrupt the company, so they work through impasses, this is the NFL and the pockets are deep. A stop work will take place if a new agreement is not agreed on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Riddel we get it. You are pro union and support the players. Got it.

I'm not pro union and I don't support the players....I'm pro NFL football and I support the fans interest to see the best product on the field....GOD knows we pay enough to see it....why should we have to watch a subpar product? I could careless what ends up happening as long as the two parties clear it up and get the product back on the field so I can enjoy my football.....

The owners are screwing this thing up and Richardson is the ring leader....that's my only point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the players made less maybe it wouldn't cost so much to go to a game or to watch games on cable/satellite TV. Higher player salaries will certainly result in both of those things being more expensive. If you don't like paying out the wazoo to watch football you should be on the side of the owners in this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites