Taylor 36 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 This was my response to a poster in another thread dealing with this situation. It was written late Thursday night: In order for the agreement to be legit and hold up for the duration of the contract, the players have to be unionized. And, in every business transaction of these types, there is always a null date. So, stop whining about the owners forcing the players to unionize; it is a legality that is necessary for this agreement to take place. And, let's not forget that the players only decertified their union in order to try and block the lockout. Now, they have to re-certify in order to end the lockout, so what's the problem? The NFLPA is just as much responsible for these negotiations taking as long as they have. The players were supposed to vote on this yesterday (Wednesday). It has been known for over a week that the owners wanted to and were going to vote on this so long as it was ready for their meeting TODAY (Thursday). There was nothing surprising, under-handed, sneaky about this, and it is not their fault that the NFLPA and reps did not get this to the players yesterday. Sure, players have the right to know what they are signing, but how are they supposed to know? By the use of another right they have: the players had the right to vote for their union reps and leaders. They chose to put those people in the driver's seat. Those people have been negotiating WITH the 10 member owners committee, the commish, the appointed federal mediator, and lawyers from BOTH sides for more three weeks straight. So, with their own reps, leadership, and lawyers in the room to write up the document, and a federal mediator witnessing everything, you want to believe that the owners pulled a fast one, not that the majority of the players are either uninformed or strongly misinformed by the people they CHOSE to represent them? If you truly feel it is not the latter, you're either a fool or blind. Seriously, if what you say were true, that would mean that the lawyers the NFLPA hired are complete morons, and the mediator is brain dead. There is no way that a court-appointed federal mediator who has overseen this entire process would allow this document to be underhanded. The owners are all claiming that they had a "hand-shake deal" in place. If that is false, then the mediator would easily and legally call them out on it. But that's not what has happened. All that has happened is we've had a bunch of players who have not been in any of these negotiations tweeting that it is under-handed and the owners are liars. D. Smith, the scum-bag that he is, is claiming there was no agreement, yet he is the only one out of all that were physically present during these meetings who is saying this. It should make you stop and think, if you weren't so blind with hatred of the owners. It has been reported on all sporting networks and site what the CBA that the owners ratified has laid out for the next ten years. Almost the entire thing is what the player wanted to begin with. The ball is legitimately in the players court and they must deal with it. This is negotiating and contract agreement 101. This is how it works throughout the entire business world. The players are not getting shafted; they are shafting the fans and the owners if they don't ratify this deal. This is why I am against the players on this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockfan7224 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Well said Taylor!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjbrown Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 This was my response to a poster in another thread dealing with this situation. It was written late Thursday night:In order for the agreement to be legit and hold up for the duration of the contract, the players have to be unionized. And, in every business transaction of these types, there is always a null date. So, stop whining about the owners forcing the players to unionize; it is a legality that is necessary for this agreement to take place. And, let's not forget that the players only decertified their union in order to try and block the lockout. Now, they have to re-certify in order to end the lockout, so what's the problem? The NFLPA is just as much responsible for these negotiations taking as long as they have. The players were supposed to vote on this yesterday (Wednesday). It has been known for over a week that the owners wanted to and were going to vote on this so long as it was ready for their meeting TODAY (Thursday). There was nothing surprising, under-handed, sneaky about this, and it is not their fault that the NFLPA and reps did not get this to the players yesterday. Sure, players have the right to know what they are signing, but how are they supposed to know? By the use of another right they have: the players had the right to vote for their union reps and leaders. They chose to put those people in the driver's seat. Those people have been negotiating WITH the 10 member owners committee, the commish, the appointed federal mediator, and lawyers from BOTH sides for more three weeks straight. So, with their own reps, leadership, and lawyers in the room to write up the document, and a federal mediator witnessing everything, you want to believe that the owners pulled a fast one, not that the majority of the players are either uninformed or strongly misinformed by the people they CHOSE to represent them? If you truly feel it is not the latter, you're either a fool or blind. documents are not required or necessarily written up in the room and from what I understand not necessarily by the mediator. Seriously, if what you say were true, that would mean that the lawyers the NFLPA hired are complete morons, and the mediator is brain dead. There is no way that a court-appointed federal mediator who has overseen this entire process would allow this document to be underhanded. The owners are all claiming that they had a "hand-shake deal" in place. If that is false, then the mediator would easily and legally call them out on it. But that's not what has happened. All that has happened ithe only one out of all that were physically present during these meetings who is saying this. It should make you stop and think, if you weren't so blind with hatred of the owners. It has been reported on all sporting networks and site what the CBA that the owners ratified has laid out for the next ten years. Almost the entire thing is what the player wanted to begin with. The ball is legitimately in the players court and they must deal with it. This is negotiating and contract agreement 101. This is how it works throughout the entire business world. The players are not getting shafted; they are shafting the fans and the owners if they don't ratify this deal. This is why I am against the players on this! Title 5 ; 7116 of the US Code is in violation when the owners try to coerce a date or re-certification or link it to conditions of employment. They also did this publicly and in writing. The Justice Department can charge the owners. They are breaking the law. From what I heard the document the player reps received had different language than that negotiated and several issues had still not been finalized. Also they received the document well after the owners (not sure on this point, but what I heard from a rep). With the Union certified it has to legally act within certain bounds to be a legitimate negotiating agent for the players. So things are not ass simple as you describe. The leaders do not want to be sued while negotiating the deal. The Federal mediation involves an impartial mediator helping to facilitate the negotiations. The documents are not required or necessarily written up in the room and from what I understand not necessarily by the mediator. The players did not want any lockout to begin with - and they would have stayed with the old deal - so obviously this is wrong Go check out Title 5: 7116 Unfair Labor Practices - this is Union negotiations 101 Also to be re-certified there is a procedure and it takes time. The NLRB has to certify the vote & the union. This process has to begin after a certain point in this process to be legitimate, otherwise any vote will not be binding - the public is to privy to when this process began. Understand that the people in power control the flow of the majority of information the public receives. peace & health to you & yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailfrmDEN Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 The players are being payed millions for playing a childs game. They have not put up 100s of millions just to have a game. I want to see the players go work construction for thirty years making no where close to 1 million in there life time and not have their bodies messed up. They have had chances in there life that not even 2% of people have had. Its like a child excepting more from a ice cream vender just because the kid is standing there. Because most of the retards spend all there money on stupid things doesnt mean they get more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 From what I heard the document the player reps received had different language than that negotiated and several issues had still not been finalized. Also they received the document well after the owners (not sure on this point, but what I heard from a rep). You heard about the susposed changes from various players. It's interesting to note that now a couple of days later you are not hearing about these changes any more or that no details of what these changes were has leaked. Draw you own conclusions from that. Second several posters in this thread have noted that it's a practical impossibility for the players leadership to have got a copy of the document the owners voted on later than the owners given their lawyers were involved in drawing this document up. Sure they needed to check there were in fact no amendments buts that takes a few minutes with electronic version control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirClintonPortis Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 The players are being payed millions for playing a childs game. They have not put up 100s of millions just to have a game. I want to see the players go work construction for thirty years making no where close to 1 million in there life time and not have their bodies messed up. They have had chances in there life that not even 2% of people have had. Its like a child excepting more from a ice cream vender just because the kid is standing there. Because most of the retards spend all there money on stupid things doesnt mean they get more. The players who make millions are usually the superstars and HOFers people like to watch. Most of the players don't make that much. Pro football is also demanding on a player's intellect; there's a reason why coaches have meetings and film study every week. You want guys like Rak or Chris Samuels to not play football, be my guest. Not to mention the superstars like Manning put in obscene amounts of time to be as good as they are; they do far more than the bare minimum at their craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurgeh Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You heard about the susposed changes from various players. It's interesting to note that now a couple of days later you are not hearing about these changes any more or that no details of what these changes were has leaked. Draw you own conclusions from that.Second several posters in this thread have noted that it's a practical impossibility for the players leadership to have got a copy of the document the owners voted on later than the owners given their lawyers were involved in drawing this document up. Sure they needed to check there were in fact no amendments buts that takes a few minutes with electronic version control. I suspect not many would have your faith in electronic version control with a contract worth billions of dollars. I for one would rely on the old mark one eyeball no matter what the software said especially if I didn't really trust the other party (and it's clear neither side trusts the other). Besides which this will be the first time many players will have seen the agreement and sure their representatives will have kept them informed, but with so much money involved, your whole financial future, would you really blindly agree to something on the word of a lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I suspect not many would have your faith in electronic version control with a contract worth billions of dollars. I for one would rely on the old mark one eyeball no matter what the software said especially if I didn't really trust the other party (and it's clear neither side trusts the other). Besides which this will be the first time many players will have seen the agreement and sure their representatives will have kept them informed, but with so much money involved, your whole financial future, would you really blindly agree to something on the word of a lawyer? Electronic version control is much more effective on a document which will run to hundreds of pages than any set of eye balls. Trust me on this. Also do you actually think any of the players will read through the whole document? Thats why they hire lawyers and that's why lawyers have malpractice insurance. Also don't forget that it's a document their lawyers helped draft, so it will have been through hundreds of revisions which will all be marked electronically. Any changes to the last agreed version will stick out electronically like a sore thumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryGreenMonk Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Why are people against the players on this? In the immortal words of Chris Rock.. In this particular situation.... "I hate eeevvverrryybody" players/owners... you both suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Title 5 ; 7116 of the US Code is in violation when the owners try to coerce a date or re-certification or link it to conditions of employment. They also did this publicly and in writing. The Justice Department can charge the owners. They are breaking the law. However, this was not a condition of employment, but a condition in which to have this Collective Bargaining Agreement ratified and have the league year begin in a time manner which would not lose any further games; therefore, they did not break the law. There cannot be a CBA if there is no Collective Union to bargain with. Hence, without them recertifying, ther can be no CBA. The league also did not state that if they didn't agree to this by next Wednesday the deal would be off the table; they said that if no agreement was reached and signed by Wednesday that the league schedule would have to be further altered and games (money) would be lost for both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjbrown Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 You heard about the susposed changes from various players. It's interesting to note that now a couple of days later you are not hearing about these changes any more or that no details of what these changes were has leaked. Draw you own conclusions from that.Second several posters in this thread have noted that it's a practical impossibility for the players leadership to have got a copy of the document the owners voted on later than the owners given their lawyers were involved in drawing this document up. Sure they needed to check there were in fact no amendments buts that takes a few minutes with electronic version control. What you say makes sense, but I am not sure who was in charge of organizing and distributing the document, Likely it was delivered by registered main to the player reps so there could be some time variation or lag by a few days. This would be normal but in light of the deadline imposed was significant. However, I heard yesterday from a player rep that the language in the doc they received was different than agreed upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan4128 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 In the immortal words of Chris Rock..In this particular situation.... "I hate eeevvverrryybody" players/owners... you both suck. I actually got a kick out of this, GGM. Problem is, at this time, the players are owning the suckage moreso than the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjbrown Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 However, this was not a condition of employment, but a condition in which to have this Collective Bargaining Agreement ratified and have the league year begin in a time manner which would not lose any further games; therefore, they did not break the law. There cannot be a CBA if there is no Collective Union to bargain with. Hence, without them recertifying, ther can be no CBA. The league also did not state that if they didn't agree to this by next Wednesday the deal would be off the table; they said that if no agreement was reached and signed by Wednesday that the league schedule would have to be further altered and games (money) would be lost for both parties. 7116. Unfair labor practices (ULP) How Current is This? (a) For the purpose of this chapter, it shall be an unfair labor practice for an agency— (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter; (2) to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization by discrimination in connection with hiring, tenure, promotion, or other conditions of employment; If the Union were negotiating with the Owners then the deadline may not encourage or discourage union membership. By imposing the deadline the owners may defacto be doing so since no Union legally exists. The owners are saying if you want to work, you must for a Union and accept this deal. Note #2 by setting a deadline and penalties for ratification by a Union body, this is coercion or is encourage/discourage since they have to form a Union to ratify. Conditions of employment are very broad legally; but are definitely associated with the conditions contained in the CBA. This generally is the purpose of a CBA - to define and agree upon conditions of employment. It is a condition of employment because it affects the work status of the employee. Also - correction from earlier - It would be the NLRB not Justice Department that would charge the ULP (Union would have to file, NLRB rules on charges). Not sure if Justice would get involved, but maybe since there is a defacto antitrust exemption for NFL .And the NFL is essentially a monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulRebel Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 its millionaires fighting billionaires over dollars while we suffer. I think most people think both sides are idiots and just need to STFU and play some ball. Exactly! It gets a little hard to feel bad for someone making tons of money when you are unemployed or underemployed. Both sides have rightful grievances and I'll let them work that out between them, as there are much more pressing matters in life during these horrible times. With that said, it will be a nice diversion when the NFL comes back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hdf561 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Exactly! It gets a little hard to feel bad for someone making tons of money when you are unemployed or underemployed. Both sides have rightful grievances and I'll let them work that out between them, as there are much more pressing matters in life during these horrible times. With that said, it will be a nice diversion when the NFL comes back. Your right I do not feel bad for either side....the only ones I feel bad for at all is the retired players who did not make nearly the amount of money these guys do now, and are euffering from detrimental health effects due to a more physical game and the protective equipment of the time. They are the only ones who should be getting anything, but someone who wants to do less work, and get paid more they need to come make what I make and do my job for 24hours and then come talk to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349614-Owners-agree-to-players-new-deal..players-still-need-to-vote.&p=8396021&viewfull=1#post8396021 http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349614-Owners-agree-to-players-new-deal..players-still-need-to-vote.&p=8396032&viewfull=1#post8396032 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349614-Owners-agree-to-players-new-deal..players-still-need-to-vote.&p=8396021&viewfull=1#post8396021http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349614-Owners-agree-to-players-new-deal..players-still-need-to-vote.&p=8396032&viewfull=1#post8396032 Start/sticky new thread so that this discussion could continue but people would be informed of an imminent deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Wasn't going too,but changed my mind. http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349703-PFTNBC-Report-NFLPA*-expected-to-meet-Monday-recommend-ratification-of-deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Wasn't going too,but changed my mind. http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?349703-PFTNBC-Report-NFLPA*-expected-to-meet-Monday-recommend-ratification-of-deal I can be quite convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I can be quite convincing. :shutup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anar-k21 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 well i know no matter what people are gonna say im wrong probably..but heres what i think....maybe now it seems stupid to be on MTV cribs showing off all their (the players) Lambos and huge houses and then crying because they dont have a "retirement plan" ya got paid 40 million bucks!!!!!!!!! thats your retirement plan......if your not educated enough to plan your money more wisely thats your problem.. hell if i had 40 million bucks id retire!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Let me know when you get to the part that actually gives the players more money. Many of those points reflect a misunderstanding of how the league works. The owners walk away with more money, which was the point of the lockout. I concur. The owners didn't go through all this to hold on to more two a days and OTAs. They got what they wanted, which is more money, the rest is pretty much window dressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anar-k21 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 i agree with the players not signing the first offer the owners threw out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55yrSkinsFan Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 i agree with the players not signing the first offer the owners threw out there But it wasn't the first offer. It was the negotiated agreement. The first offer was made months ago and there have been offers and counter offers in the hundreds since then. you make it sound like the players' association wasn't even in the room. Their lawyers were part of the team drafting the final agreement. If the players didn't know what was in there, then they ought to fire all of their association leaders and get people who will represent them and keep them advised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I got a chuckle out of the wanting to opt out of a 10 year contract after 7 years. Why not just sign a 7 year deal?? What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.