Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

 

[renesauz]

The emoticons were for steelcity...but if you are the exact other side of his coin, TJ, I'll save a little of the for you. Pick a side, sure...but there are no innocents here.

 

[renesauz]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Ah, see all the pro-player guys here would say that since it wasn't loaded, you didn't intend to use it.

 

[roarlions]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Not a lawyer, but I don't think any kind of decision has been rendered so far that indicates that anti-trust suits can't be filed in this situation. I think the only issue that has been addressed so far by the courts is whether the lock-out could be kept in place or not. The legality of the lock-out hasn't even been addressed, and could be ruled illegal in the future (if the cases get that far).As far as the anti-trust suits go, the players may prefer a CBA that meets their goals, but they will certainly proceed with the suits if such a CBA can't be achieved. There is nothing circumspect or shady about that at all. It is certainly no worse than the owners opting out of an already agreed to CBA, then locking out the players and risking the loss of a season in order to achieve a CBA that meets their goals (and fighting for their right to impose the lock-out in court). Both sides are using what they believe to be legal, justified methods to achieve their goals, but for some reason whatever methods the players use are deemed to be despicable. And so many people are calling steelcity delusional.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

 

[Mister CIA]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Letter 'C'. I'd like to spin again.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Not a lawyer, but I don't think any kind of decision has been rendered so far that indicates that anti-trust suits can't be filed in this situation. I think the only issue that has been addressed so far by the courts is whether the lock-out could be kept in place or not. The legality of the lock-out hasn't even been addressed, and could be ruled illegal in the future (if the cases get that far).As far as the anti-trust suits go, the players may prefer a CBA that meets their goals, but they will certainly proceed with the suits if such a CBA can't be achieved. There is nothing circumspect or shady about that at all. It is certainly no worse than the owners opting out of an already agreed to CBA, then locking out the players and risking the loss of a season in order to achieve a CBA that meets their goals (and fighting for their right to impose the lock-out in court). Both sides are using what they believe to be legal, justified methods to achieve their goals, but for some reason whatever methods the players use are deemed to be despicable. And so many people are calling steelcity delusional.

steelcity is delusional. rene is hyperbolic.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

besides you who is denouncing the players?They are using it as leverage, and they will use it again.

 

[renesauz]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Not a lawyer, but I don't think any kind of decision has been rendered so far that indicates that anti-trust suits can't be filed in this situation. I think the only issue that has been addressed so far by the courts is whether the lock-out could be kept in place or not. The legality of the lock-out hasn't even been addressed, and could be ruled illegal in the future (if the cases get that far).As far as the anti-trust suits go, the players may prefer a CBA that meets their goals, but they will certainly proceed with the suits if such a CBA can't be achieved. There is nothing circumspect or shady about that at all. It is certainly no worse than the owners opting out of an already agreed to CBA, then locking out the players and risking the loss of a season in order to achieve a CBA that meets their goals (and fighting for their right to impose the lock-out in court). Both sides are using what they believe to be legal, justified methods to achieve their goals, but for some reason whatever methods the players use are deemed to be despicable. And so many people are calling steelcity delusional.

The players certainly retain the right to change the NFLs structure via trust suits. The problem is that they can't be used for leverage. The trust suits are supposed to be legitimate, and they aren't, at least at this point in time.There was a legitimate, negotiated, and legal option in the last CBA to end it early. It is neither fair nor productive to hold this against the owners this way. For all intents and purposes, the old CBA ENDED, it wasn't terminated before its design end...it was terminated at one of its NEGOTIATED ending points.

If the players hadn't decertified, the owners may not have locked them out. IN that scenario, the players could have gone on strike.

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

The leverage of the players has been dramatically understated from day one. They don't need the courts help in the form of an injunction against a lockout which appears to be legal. (I realize the legality is not yet firmly established).

If the players couldn't figure out how to survive a little while without paychecks, when they had 2 years forewarning...that's on them, not the courts, the owners, or the system. Rookies are screwed, but they were just playing virtually for free in college, so its not a huge change for them.

 

[CalBear]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

 

[Wadsworth]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Closing up shop.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Closing up shop.

I don't think that's quite equal. Decertification (in theory) allows the players to still play and prevail themselves upon anti-trust laws.I think it is probably using scab players, but even then, not totally equal.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

Why do players strike? Because they want the time off?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Dissociating as a multi-employer bargaining unit and negotiating with players as individual teams.

 

[CalBear]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

Why do players strike? Because they want the time off?

The players strike because they think they will get more compensation in the long run by striking. Obviously the owners believe they will get more compensation in the long run by locking the players out, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

 

[Wadsworth]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Dissociating as a multi-employer bargaining unit and negotiating with players as individual teams.

That's sounds so much better than "Closing up shop". Thanks MT.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The problem is that using decertification and trust suits to gain leverage in CBA negotiations is also illegal.

Do you have a source for that statement?

Yes...the NLA as explained in the briefs.

The Norris-LaGuardia Act doesn't say anything about whether it's appropriate to file an antitrust suit to gain leverage in CBA negotiations. Can you identify the section of the briefs you're referring to?

It seems pretty common sense to me that "growing out of a labor dispute" applies to this case.

If the lockout grows out of a labor dispute (as that phrase is used in the Norris-LaGuardia Act), that means federal courts can't issue an injunction against it. It doesn't mean federal courts can't award damages based on it. It certainly doesn't mean the players can't sue for damages in order to gain leverage in CBA negotiations.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty.

You say that like the owners aren't doing the exact same thing.The players' first choice is to negotiate a CBA they like. If they can't do that, their second choice is to play without a CBA, in which case they're entitled (at least eventually) to be free of a salary cap and other restrictions that violate antitrust laws.The owners' first choice is to negotiate a CBA they like. If they can't do that, their second choice is to lock the players out.Both sides are asking the court to protect their second choices. Not just the players.

 

[roarlions]

Some perspective on the current status of negotiations:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8203a00b/article/the-time-is-now-for-nfl-players-to-get-a-deal-done?campaign=Ext_Email_NL0609

 

[roadkill1292]

Some perspective on the current status of negotiations:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8203a00b/article/the-time-is-now-for-nfl-players-to-get-a-deal-done?campaign=Ext_Email_NL0609

Even though I didn't see anything outrageously slanted in that piece, shouldn't we be inherently distrustful of any opinion piece posted on NFL.com?

 

[Ksquared]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Not a lawyer, but I don't think any kind of decision has been rendered so far that indicates that anti-trust suits can't be filed in this situation. I think the only issue that has been addressed so far by the courts is whether the lock-out could be kept in place or not. The legality of the lock-out hasn't even been addressed, and could be ruled illegal in the future (if the cases get that far).As far as the anti-trust suits go, the players may prefer a CBA that meets their goals, but they will certainly proceed with the suits if such a CBA can't be achieved. There is nothing circumspect or shady about that at all. It is certainly no worse than the owners opting out of an already agreed to CBA, then locking out the players and risking the loss of a season in order to achieve a CBA that meets their goals (and fighting for their right to impose the lock-out in court). Both sides are using what they believe to be legal, justified methods to achieve their goals, but for some reason whatever methods the players use are deemed to be despicable. And so many people are calling steelcity delusional.

Well he is delusional, but that is related to his obvious hatred for ownership. The equal to lockout is strike, the equal to decertification is closing up shop and shutting the business down. This is the level of move the players made. How many do you think would support the owners if they decided to close their business (permanently - at least until they got an agreement from the Union) unless the Union gave them what they wanted. This is the reason "decertification" was called the "nuclear option" before it was used. It is equivalent to all the NFL closing shop and looking to create a new league. I would not support that move in the least, when it is being used as a negotiation tactic.

 

[otis68]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Free labor market?At will workplace?Corporate america's wet dream?Ask yourself many other employers (other than the NBA and NHL) would be upset it if their workers dropped their unions.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Free labor market?At will workplace?Corporate america's wet dream?Ask yourself many other employers (other than the NBA and NHL) would be upset it if their workers dropped their unions.

apples to dingleberries.

 

[D.J.]

Some perspective on the current status of negotiations:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8203a00b/article/the-time-is-now-for-nfl-players-to-get-a-deal-done?campaign=Ext_Email_NL0609

Even though I didn't see anything outrageously slanted in that piece, shouldn't we be inherently distrustful of any opinion piece posted on NFL.com?

I understand where you're coming from here, but breer has been pretty non partisan through this whole thing. He seens to just report what he sees and didn't add much opinion.Btw, I get the sense that everyone is less optimistic today then they were yesterday. I've read several people saying "things are going ok with talks" or "at least they are talking" opposed to the feeling of excitement yesterday. Maybe its just because the sides aren't (as far as we know) meeting today, maybe they hit a snag?hopefully they aretaking a break because they got to a serious issue that thry need time to make an offer/counter offer on and the sides can move on quickly.

 

[roarlions]

This is what confuses me about the debate we are having. Why are people quick to denounce the players for using the legal system but are fine with the owners locking out the players? If the roles were reversed and the players were using their right as a labor force to strike and the owners were using the legal system to get what they want then I would have no problem with it. It is all utilizing different means to get to an end. Letting time pass and waiting for negotiations at this point is too detrimental to the players' end so they are using the courts to expedite the process. That may seem backwards because of how long courts take to rule but the alternative was much worse and weakened the players' position daily. Both sides are using what is at their disposal to get the best CBA done for their side. Now if this continues through the courts then eventually the judges may hold true to their promise that neither side will like the outcome because since it is an anti-trust lawsuit then most likely the "system" gets blown up. The owners are hoping to use Time to force financial pain on the players so they cave to what they want and the players' Leadership is using the court to quicken the process or at least keep the Season intact while a new CBA is negotiated.

Lockouts and strikes are the traditional, approved methods of resolving labor disputes. The NLA discourages the use of lawsuits and the courts to resolve them. According to one (relatively easy and plain) interpretation of the law, its illegal to use trust suits as leverage in a labor dispute.The players have been denounced because their use of the law is circumspect. The suits ask for things the players supposedly don't want. I have a hard time with that kind of dishonesty. (I realize the owners are not innocent in that arena...they're about to get a righteous smack-down on the TV deal). Using ANYTHING at ones disposal is neither right or fair. If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Not a lawyer, but I don't think any kind of decision has been rendered so far that indicates that anti-trust suits can't be filed in this situation. I think the only issue that has been addressed so far by the courts is whether the lock-out could be kept in place or not. The legality of the lock-out hasn't even been addressed, and could be ruled illegal in the future (if the cases get that far).As far as the anti-trust suits go, the players may prefer a CBA that meets their goals, but they will certainly proceed with the suits if such a CBA can't be achieved. There is nothing circumspect or shady about that at all. It is certainly no worse than the owners opting out of an already agreed to CBA, then locking out the players and risking the loss of a season in order to achieve a CBA that meets their goals (and fighting for their right to impose the lock-out in court). Both sides are using what they believe to be legal, justified methods to achieve their goals, but for some reason whatever methods the players use are deemed to be despicable. And so many people are calling steelcity delusional.

Well he is delusional, but that is related to his obvious hatred for ownership. The equal to lockout is strike, the equal to decertification is closing up shop and shutting the business down. This is the level of move the players made. How many do you think would support the owners if they decided to close their business (permanently - at least until they got an agreement from the Union) unless the Union gave them what they wanted. This is the reason "decertification" was called the "nuclear option" before it was used. It is equivalent to all the NFL closing shop and looking to create a new league. I would not support that move in the least, when it is being used as a negotiation tactic.

My belief (right or wrong) is that the NFLPA decertified because it believed that doing so would result in a lock-out being declared illegal, thereby preventing the owners from using missed paychecks as leverage against the players. Decertification also allowed the players to file anti-trust suits, as noted by Maurile.I don't believe that decertification = owners closing up shop. The league has played games without a union before but it is impossible to play games if the owners close up shop. I think the suggestion that decertification = playing games with scabs is more similar.

 

[renesauz]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

Why aren't the players accepting the latest offer?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

Why aren't the players accepting the latest offer?

because the players can get more

 

[dparker713]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Dissociating as a multi-employer bargaining unit and negotiating with players as individual teams.

Think you'd also need to include each team refusing to employ union labor.

 

[CalBear]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

Why aren't the players accepting the latest offer?

Your assertion is that a lost season will cost Jones "far more" than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries. If that were true, it would be 100% insane to lock out the players. Given that the owners locked out the players, they clearly believe they can make back whatever money they lose via the lockout (or else, why would they do it?)The players aren't accepting the latest offer because they believe they can force the season to happen.

 

[dparker713]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Free labor market?At will workplace?Corporate america's wet dream?Ask yourself many other employers (other than the NBA and NHL) would be upset it if their workers dropped their unions.

Ask yourself how many other employers are partners with their competitors.

 

[dparker713]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

Why aren't the players accepting the latest offer?

Your assertion is that a lost season will cost Jones "far more" than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries. If that were true, it would be 100% insane to lock out the players. Given that the owners locked out the players, they clearly believe they can make back whatever money they lose via the lockout (or else, why would they do it?)The players aren't accepting the latest offer because they believe they can force the season to happen.

Jones is only 1 of 32 votes.

 

[CalBear]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Free labor market?At will workplace?Corporate america's wet dream?Ask yourself many other employers (other than the NBA and NHL) would be upset it if their workers dropped their unions.

Ask yourself how many other employers are partners with their competitors.

Virtually every technology company is partners with virtually every other technology company.

 

[renesauz]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

Why aren't the players accepting the latest offer?

Your assertion is that a lost season will cost Jones "far more" than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries. If that were true, it would be 100% insane to lock out the players. Given that the owners locked out the players, they clearly believe they can make back whatever money they lose via the lockout (or else, why would they do it?)The players aren't accepting the latest offer because they believe they can force the season to happen.

My assertion is that proceeding with a season WITHOUT a CBA would set a very dangerous precedant. The NFL would be liable for all kinds of damages inherent to operating afoul of trust law. The players would, in those circumstances have ZERO pressure on them to do a deal, and instead would, over time, be ratcheting UP the pressure on the owners because of the ever increasing threat of damages under trust law. IE: Opening the league calender without a CBA is a no-win for the league...they'd be better off simply bending over and letting D. Smith write the new CBA himself. The players would not negotiate, because they wouldn't need to...the longer the NFL goes without a deal, the more they would stand to make in damages, all while collecting a paycheck in the meantime.THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CBA. They'd be absolutely crazy to open the season without one (assuming the courts don't force them to.) TO be honest, I don't really think that the owners had any option BUT a lockout once the union decertified.

 

[dparker713]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Free labor market?At will workplace?Corporate america's wet dream?Ask yourself many other employers (other than the NBA and NHL) would be upset it if their workers dropped their unions.

Ask yourself how many other employers are partners with their competitors.

Virtually every technology company is partners with virtually every other technology company.

That isn't even remotely close to true.

 

[D.J.]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO THE PRO-PLAYER GUYS IN HERE INSIST THAT THE OWNERS AREN'T ALSO HURTING? The average player will lose 3 or 4 million dollars in a lost season. Jerry Jones will lose over 100 MILLION!!!!! If the players don't like the deal, they don't have to sign it. The owners lose MUCH more, as individuals, then the players do. A lost season will cost Jones (and most owners) far more than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries in a CBA.

If this is the case, why are they locking out the players?

Why aren't the players accepting the latest offer?

Your assertion is that a lost season will cost Jones "far more" than whatever he could hope to make up in lowered player salaries. If that were true, it would be 100% insane to lock out the players. Given that the owners locked out the players, they clearly believe they can make back whatever money they lose via the lockout (or else, why would they do it?)The players aren't accepting the latest offer because they believe they can force the season to happen.

Either side could lose more in the loss of a season compared to agreeing to a "bad deal" and either side could benefit in the long term if the give up the season. We just dont know what would happen, neither do they. however, as I said before, both sides are posturing trying to put pressure on the other. Just because the owners say they will keep the lockout in effect indefinitely, they may have internally set a date that they will cave (doubtful), just because the players have said they will ride this out, they could have an internal deadline that they will cave (again, doubt it). The point is that at this point, neither.side has committed to "ruining" anything, currently everything they've done has been nothing more than posturing to get the best deal. Neither side is evil, neither side is anymore greedy than the other (at last but because of anything thry have done during this fight)

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Strike : Lockout is as Decertification : ______________

Free labor market?At will workplace?Corporate america's wet dream?Ask yourself many other employers (other than the NBA and NHL) would be upset it if their workers dropped their unions.

Ask yourself how many other employers are partners with their competitors.

Virtually every technology company is partners with virtually every other technology company.

That isn't even remotely close to true.

No. no. It is. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates work together all the time. They used to be best friends.

 

[Andrew Garda]

So last year, when I went to the Giants game against Detroit, had the Lions not been able to pay their players that week and there was no game, how exactly do you suppose the Giants would have provided me with a product? A Blue v. White scrimmage?

Have we really hit the point where we are reduced to hypothesizing impossibilities?

The Dodgers, in the nations second largest media market, barely made their payroll to end May and will in all likelihood miss their next payroll in the middle of June. This is hardly an impossiblity, afterall, when is a team more likely to go bankrupt, in the offseason or during the season when they need to send out game checks?

I'm pretty sure that proving that dog#### crappy ownership can manage to bankrupt a franchise despite all the advantages that being in a top flight pro sports league provides isn't really helping your argument here.

Pro football teams have gone bankrupt in the past and they will go bankrupt in the future. Any time a team folds it hurts the league and the other owners, therefore its in all the owners interest to not let that happen.

Name the last time - nay ANY time - a game was cancelled due to a bankruptcy in the modern era. A game being cancelled due to sudden financial hardship is not happening. If the Dodgers don't make payroll, the games will STILL go on.It's a near impossibility.

 

[anakin]

Some perspective on the current status of negotiations:http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8203a00b/article/the-time-is-now-for-nfl-players-to-get-a-deal-done?campaign=Ext_Email_NL0609

Even though I didn't see anything outrageously slanted in that piece, shouldn't we be inherently distrustful of any opinion piece posted on NFL.com?

 

[cobalt_27]

So last year, when I went to the Giants game against Detroit, had the Lions not been able to pay their players that week and there was no game, how exactly do you suppose the Giants would have provided me with a product? A Blue v. White scrimmage?

Have we really hit the point where we are reduced to hypothesizing impossibilities?

The Dodgers, in the nations second largest media market, barely made their payroll to end May and will in all likelihood miss their next payroll in the middle of June. This is hardly an impossiblity, afterall, when is a team more likely to go bankrupt, in the offseason or during the season when they need to send out game checks?

I'm pretty sure that proving that dog#### crappy ownership can manage to bankrupt a franchise despite all the advantages that being in a top flight pro sports league provides isn't really helping your argument here.

Pro football teams have gone bankrupt in the past and they will go bankrupt in the future. Any time a team folds it hurts the league and the other owners, therefore its in all the owners interest to not let that happen.

Name the last time - nay ANY time - a game was cancelled due to a bankruptcy in the modern era. A game being cancelled due to sudden financial hardship is not happening. If the Dodgers don't make payroll, the games will STILL go on.It's a near impossibility.

I imagine there might be other ways that a team going bankrupt could hurt the league/owners/fans beyond the cancellation of games. But, yeah, otherwise...I think we should all hope that teams fold right and left. ******* owners, I'm so angry with them.

 

[Andrew Garda]

So last year, when I went to the Giants game against Detroit, had the Lions not been able to pay their players that week and there was no game, how exactly do you suppose the Giants would have provided me with a product? A Blue v. White scrimmage?

Have we really hit the point where we are reduced to hypothesizing impossibilities?

The Dodgers, in the nations second largest media market, barely made their payroll to end May and will in all likelihood miss their next payroll in the middle of June. This is hardly an impossiblity, afterall, when is a team more likely to go bankrupt, in the offseason or during the season when they need to send out game checks?

I'm pretty sure that proving that dog#### crappy ownership can manage to bankrupt a franchise despite all the advantages that being in a top flight pro sports league provides isn't really helping your argument here.

Pro football teams have gone bankrupt in the past and they will go bankrupt in the future. Any time a team folds it hurts the league and the other owners, therefore its in all the owners interest to not let that happen.

Name the last time - nay ANY time - a game was cancelled due to a bankruptcy in the modern era. A game being cancelled due to sudden financial hardship is not happening. If the Dodgers don't make payroll, the games will STILL go on.It's a near impossibility.

I imagine there might be other ways that a team going bankrupt could hurt the league/owners/fans beyond the cancellation of games. But, yeah, otherwise...I think we should all hope that teams fold right and left. ******* owners, I'm so angry with them.

I'm not sure if that was aimed at me but if it was, that's NOT remotely what I was saying at all.Otherwise, carry on.

 

[steelcitysledgehammers]

If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Oh! Oh! I love analogies. Let me do one...Ok, the owners show up at the bargaining table and they're like "give us your money!" but the players, they're all like "no way!" so the owners pull out this big knife (lockout) and say "give us your money or will use this big knife on you!" and the players stand up and pull out a pistol (lawsuits) and shout back "no way, we'll use this pistol on you!" and then the owners say "you fools, you don't have any ammunition (anti-trust violations) for that pistol!" and start leering the way evil, greedy men do but the players, they get this steely grin and in their best Clint Eastwood voice say "yeah, but you do and sooner or later you're gonna give one to me". The owners then stumble backwards soaking in the realization that the players were right. Dazed by this revelation, they proceeded to stab the players with the big knife anyway. The players are now bleeding out but the owners can't trust one another not to provide the players with some ammunition, so they refuse to leave the table and get back to life as usual. They're going to stay at this table and watch the players bleed out and hope none of their partners are fool enough to give them the one bullet that could end their lives.How's that?Screw the owners,J

 

[dparker713]

Name the last time - nay ANY time - a game was cancelled due to a bankruptcy in the modern era. A game being cancelled due to sudden financial hardship is not happening. If the Dodgers don't make payroll, the games will STILL go on.It's a near impossibility.

And why would it go on? Because the players care about the integrity of the game? Or maybe it would be because McCourt's 29 partners in MLB would step in and pay his obligations? Its simply not in any owner's interest to allow another team to go bankrupt.ETA - And while I know that the commissioner of baseball can assume control of a team due to various legal documents each owner must sign and baseball's anti-trust exemption, I'm unaware of any such mechanism to allow a forced take-over in the NFL.

 

[cobalt_27]

If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Oh! Oh! I love analogies. Let me do one...Ok, the owners show up at the bargaining table and they're like "give us your money!" but the players, they're all like "no way!" so the owners pull out this big knife (lockout) and say "give us your money or will use this big knife on you!" and the players stand up and pull out a pistol (lawsuits) and shout back "no way, we'll use this pistol on you!" and then the owners say "you fools, you don't have any ammunition (anti-trust violations) for that pistol!" and start leering the way evil, greedy men do but the players, they get this steely grin and in their best Clint Eastwood voice say "yeah, but you do and sooner or later you're gonna give one to me". The owners then stumble backwards soaking in the realization that the players were right. Dazed by this revelation, they proceeded to stab the players with the big knife anyway. The players are now bleeding out but the owners can't trust one another not to provide the players with some ammunition, so they refuse to leave the table and get back to life as usual. They're going to stay at this table and watch the players bleed out and hope none of their partners are fool enough to give them the one bullet that could end their lives.How's that?Screw the owners,J

At first I thought you were only delusional. Now, I'm beginning to consider psychosis in the differential. May I recommend that you discuss with your treatment providers a trial of Haldol. It's imperfect, but it may settle things down a bit.

 

[southeastjerome]

One of my local papers is reporting that the lockout is almost over...

A deal to end the National Football League's lockout is almost complete, according to an NFL source.

According to the source, owners and players were close to an agreement today to end the lockout, which entered its 86th day today.

Some coaches and players have been contacted about returning to work probably early next week and possibly as soon as this weekend.

FWIW the guy is somewhat respected and is on the Pats beat.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

One of my local papers is reporting that the lockout is almost over...

A deal to end the National Football League's lockout is almost complete, according to an NFL source.

According to the source, owners and players were close to an agreement today to end the lockout, which entered its 86th day today.

Some coaches and players have been contacted about returning to work probably early next week and possibly as soon as this weekend.

FWIW the guy is somewhat respected and is on the Pats beat.

Goodell and De. Smith reportedly had dinner together last night. Kiss and make up?

 

[D.J.]

One of my local papers is reporting that the lockout is almost over...t

A deal to end the National Football League's lockout is almost complete, according to an NFL source.

According to the source, owners and players were close to an agreement today to end the lockout, which entered its 86th day today.

Some coaches and players have been contacted about returning to work probably early next week and possibly as soon as this weekend.

FWIW the guy is somewhat respected and is on the Pats beat.

The players and owners have both said this report is wrong. Some more tactfully than others...

 

[Hoosier16]

If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Oh! Oh! I love analogies. Let me do one...Ok, the owners show up at the bargaining table and they're like "give us your money!" but the players, they're all like "no way!" so the owners pull out this big knife (lockout) and say "give us your money or will use this big knife on you!" and the players stand up and pull out a pistol (lawsuits) and shout back "no way, we'll use this pistol on you!" and then the owners say "you fools, you don't have any ammunition (anti-trust violations) for that pistol!" and start leering the way evil, greedy men do but the players, they get this steely grin and in their best Clint Eastwood voice say "yeah, but you do and sooner or later you're gonna give one to me". The owners then stumble backwards soaking in the realization that the players were right. Dazed by this revelation, they proceeded to stab the players with the big knife anyway. The players are now bleeding out but the owners can't trust one another not to provide the players with some ammunition, so they refuse to leave the table and get back to life as usual. They're going to stay at this table and watch the players bleed out and hope none of their partners are fool enough to give them the one bullet that could end their lives.How's that?Screw the owners,J

That's actually very well done. But, it needs a little adjustment. The players didn't just threaten the use of the pistol. They stuck it to the head of every owner (decertification and the lawsuit). And the owners didn't actually use a real knife when stabbing the players - at least not yet. The lockout, to this point, hasn't really affected the players very much at all. It's really only prevented the owners from giving the players a bullet. Plus, the players know that the real knife is very tricky to use. If the owners put the knife down, even for a second, one of the owners will cough up that bullet. If they actually use it (lockout the season), they may end up stabbing the wrong group.

 

[D.J.]

http://m.nbcsports.com/s/3108/proFootballTalkDetails?itemUriVal=6f27ef3e689dad1a933da986385bda7c%2F24147154539251385131571213&view=hdl&itemTitle=Brees%20says%20“we%20have%20to%20end%20this%20lockout&%238221;

Does anyone else think that Brees is a little late to the party here? The "its the other guy's fault that we are at this point" rhetoric was chic a couple months ago and its what inflamed both sides to the point that they stopped talking. Now they seem to be building trust and making progress and a key player comes out and starts pointing fingers again? What's the point? Talk like this could kill these talks...

 

[Andrew Garda]

If I own a gun, can I pull it out and threaten the used car salesman in order to get a better deal? There are lines and limits. IMO, the players crosssed that line and limit.

Oh! Oh! I love analogies. Let me do one...Ok, the owners show up at the bargaining table and they're like "give us your money!" but the players, they're all like "no way!" so the owners pull out this big knife (lockout) and say "give us your money or will use this big knife on you!" and the players stand up and pull out a pistol (lawsuits) and shout back "no way, we'll use this pistol on you!" and then the owners say "you fools, you don't have any ammunition (anti-trust violations) for that pistol!" and start leering the way evil, greedy men do but the players, they get this steely grin and in their best Clint Eastwood voice say "yeah, but you do and sooner or later you're gonna give one to me". The owners then stumble backwards soaking in the realization that the players were right. Dazed by this revelation, they proceeded to stab the players with the big knife anyway. The players are now bleeding out but the owners can't trust one another not to provide the players with some ammunition, so they refuse to leave the table and get back to life as usual. They're going to stay at this table and watch the players bleed out and hope none of their partners are fool enough to give them the one bullet that could end their lives.How's that?Screw the owners,J

That's actually very well done. But, it needs a little adjustment. The players didn't just threaten the use of the pistol. They stuck it to the head of every owner (decertification and the lawsuit). And the owners didn't actually use a real knife when stabbing the players - at least not yet. The lockout, to this point, hasn't really affected the players very much at all. It's really only prevented the owners from giving the players a bullet. Plus, the players know that the real knife is very tricky to use. If the owners put the knife down, even for a second, one of the owners will cough up that bullet. If they actually use it (lockout the season), they may end up stabbing the wrong group.

In this analogy, the part of the accidentally stabbed and shot passerby will be played by the fans.