Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Update on the Bronco players holding out of OTAs.


Recommended Posts

The NFLPA should pay. They're a Union, and they instructed this player to train offsite, and he was injured following their recommendation. I'd argue covering his lost wages is similar to strike pay. 

It's easy to say he knew the rules, with hindsight, from behind our keyboards. The reality is, most of you have no idea the level to which your employer can screw you even with contractual protection. Some of you trying to pass off your indifference as pragmatism. 

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Honestly, yeah I do. Especially when that person is supported by a professional organization that is supposed to be supporting his best interests but in actuality gave him terrible advice and used him as a pawn in their pissing match. The NFLPA doesn't care that this happened to him. They suffer no I'll effects. Hell, truth be told they're probably secretly glad. This gives them a victim card to play in the PR battle.

A lot of people thought this was a dumb or at the very least useless move on the union's part.

It's pretty much backfired now, and the league is sticking it in their face.

Edited by Mr. Scot
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Honestly, yeah I do. Especially when that person is supported by a professional organization that is supposed to be supporting his best interests but in actuality gave him terrible advice and used him as a pawn in their pissing match. The NFLPA doesn't care that this happened to him. They suffer no I'll effects. Hell, truth be told they're probably secretly glad. This gives them a victim card to play in the PR battle.

The NFLPA can pay for his poo then. Not the NFL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Panther'sBigD said:

The NFLPA should pay. They're a Union, and they instructed this player to train offsite, and he was injured following their recommendation. I'd argue covering his lost wages is similar to strike pay. 

It's easy to say he knew the rules, with hindsight, from behind our keyboards. The reality is, most of you have no idea the level to which your employer can screw you even with contractual protection. Some of you trying to pass off your indifference as pragmatism

As someone whom has been screwed over by a "family owned company," that wanted to act more like a corporation, you don't need to tell me anything. I still have disdain for what a company did to me. 

Without going into details, companies have these rules and policies to protect themselves. It's smart business on their part. 

Sure, it's easy to side with the little guy. The guy who was always at work on time. Whom consistently went above and beyond. Whom made many sacrifices. 

Doesn't mean the company doesn't and shouldn't have the right to protect themselves from certain practices. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

As someone whom has been screwed over by a "family owned company," that wanted to act more like a corporation, you don't need to tell me anything. I still have disdain for what a company did to me. 

Without going into details, companies have these rules and policies to protect themselves. It's smart business on their part. 

Sure, it's easy to side with the little guy. The guy who was always at work on time. Whom consistently went above and beyond. Whom made many sacrifices. 

Doesn't mean the company doesn't and shouldn't have the right to protect themselves from certain practices. 

 

So they fuged you over, but goddamnit if you don't respect the hell out of them for protecting themselves? LMAO. 

It's not just easy to side with the little guy, it's good business in most cases. fuging over workers to save/keep a few bucks sacrificing long-term growth/profit for a short-term profit. It's a major reason we're in the economic mess we're currently in.

I still think this is something the NFLPA should cover James' 10MM, but this whole idea that corporations 'deserve to be able to protect themselves' is silly. What the NFL trying to 'protect' themselves from in this situation is their employees' collective bargaining power, which they should only need 'protection' from if they're not providing fair compensation for the services they're getting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

The NFLPA can pay for his poo then. Not the NFL. 

The NFL isn't gonna pay him anything. That's the Broncos.

Legally, I have no idea what if any options he has but if he can prove that the NFLPA advices him to work out on his own without warning him of the potential ramifications of that decision, I would hope that he would have some options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The NFL isn't gonna pay him anything. That's the Broncos.

Legally, I have no idea what if any options he has but if he can prove that the NFLPA advices him to work out on his own without warning him of the potential ramifications of that decision, I would hope that he would have some options.

The rule in question has been in place since the mid 90s, so probably not a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

You have compassion for people who don't follow clearly stated rules and policies??

 

You really pood a post about compassion for another human being? Get some fresh air my guy it is a beautiful day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Panther'sBigD said:

So they fuged you over, but goddamnit if you don't respect the hell out of them for protecting themselves? LMAO. 

It's not just easy to side with the little guy, it's good business in most cases. fuging over workers to save/keep a few bucks sacrificing long-term growth/profit for a short-term profit. It's a major reason we're in the economic mess we're currently in.

I still think this is something the NFLPA should cover James' 10MM, but this whole idea that corporations 'deserve to be able to protect themselves' is silly. What the NFL trying to 'protect' themselves from in this situation is their employees' collective bargaining power, which they should only need 'protection' from if they're not providing fair compensation for the services they're getting. 

It's why I avoid working for a corporation now. 

My preference is the companies that not only support their employees, but invest in them. 

  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frankw said:

You really pood a post about compassion for another human being? Get some fresh air my guy it is a beautiful day.

That was a beautiful non-answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frankw said:

You really pood a post about compassion for another human being? Get some fresh air my guy it is a beautiful day.

To be fair, I can't imagine many companies having 10 million dollars worth of "compassion".

Definitely not the NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr. Scot said:

To be fair, I can't imagine many companies having 10 million dollars worth of "compassion".

Definitely not the NFL.

I'm sure there is a middle ground to be had on the situation where the player is not left injured without any compensation at all can you agree? With that being said I don't expect much of anything from the nflpa in this situation as they have proven many times to be largely useless for lower tier players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, frankw said:

I'm sure there is a middle ground to be had on the situation where the player is not left injured without any compensation at all can you agree? With that being said I don't expect much of anything from the nflpa in this situation as they have proven many times to be largely useless for lower tier players.

Whether I agree with it or not doesn't really matter.

The NFL has had this rule in place for decades, and everyone has understood that. Other players who have been injured in the past have been subject to it as well.

I can't imagine it's going to change now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Whether I agree with it or not doesn't really matter.

The NFL has had this rule in place for decades, and everyone has understood that. Other players who have been injured in the past have been subject to it as well.

I can't imagine it's going to change now.

Who can say for sure. One inevitability in life you can count on is change. It is always around the corner. I don't understand the idolizing of billionaire owners for being in a position of power contrasted by the usually negative perception of entitlement for the average fringe nfl player who is lucky to see the kind of earnings stars bring in annually. Those are the players who make up a significant portion of the league itself in a sport that really boils down to men destroying their only true most valuable asset for your entertainment.

Edited by frankw
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...