Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

NFL Files with NLRB


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
30 replies to this topic

#13 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Joined: 01-March 10
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 837
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:28 PM

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.

#14 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,178
  • Reputation: 2,382
HUDDLER

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:34 PM

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.

#15 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Joined: 01-March 10
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 837
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:39 PM

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.

#16 Wyank

Wyank

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 14-December 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,029
  • Reputation: 616
HUDDLER

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:41 PM

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.

#17 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Joined: 01-March 10
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 837
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:55 PM

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.

#18 mountainpantherfan

mountainpantherfan

    In Honor of Sam Mills

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,907
  • Reputation: 5
HUDDLER

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:11 PM

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

#19 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Joined: 01-March 10
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 837
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:17 PM

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.

#20 tondi

tondi

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 21-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,235
  • Reputation: 707
HUDDLER

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:41 PM

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.

#21 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,178
  • Reputation: 2,382
HUDDLER

Posted 14 February 2011 - 05:54 PM

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.


So you say things like this but still maintain you aren't on either side and just want the best product? Come on dude, it's clear what you think of the owners.

Don't you think that Smith would have engaged in litigation if he had as solid a case as you think and had the backing of the players? Do you really think he hasn't thought of these things yet? Considering the big decertification ordeal he had going, I don't think he's afraid of litigation to get the players what they want.

#22 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Joined: 01-March 10
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 837
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:10 PM

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.


Neither the players or owners control the cost of ticket prices. The market dictates the price of tickets. The players could play for $1, but if the market dictates fans will pay $39 for an upper level seat, then the seat will cost $39.

Supply and demand.

#23 riddel

riddel

    Banned

  • Joined: 01-March 10
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 837
  • Reputation: 0
Banned

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:15 PM

So you say things like this but still maintain you aren't on either side and just want the best product? Come on dude, it's clear what you think of the owners.

Don't you think that Smith would have engaged in litigation if he had as solid a case as you think and had the backing of the players? Do you really think he hasn't thought of these things yet? Considering the big decertification ordeal he had going, I don't think he's afraid of litigation to get the players what they want.



Here is what I think. The players are represented by an idiot and they are not nearly as organized or united as the owners. The owners know this and they are going to bully their way through as long as the players union will allow it. I truely believe the owners made a mistake involving the NLRB at this point, because this will draw attention to both sides actions and the owners have not bargained in good faith. Now that the NLRB is involved this process is doomed to take it's course and we will be lucky to see any football in 2011.

It's a mess. That's what I think.

#24 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,178
  • Reputation: 2,382
HUDDLER

Posted 14 February 2011 - 08:28 PM

It's a mess. That's what I think.


Now that I agree with.

I am not convinced the owners haven't bargained in good faith. We'll see.