Running NFL Preseason Thread

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

It could be done on a contingency basis. The NFL's pockets are deep. And Brady's wife could pay for the whole thing if she wanted.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Did Aikman cross the line? I don't get it.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

I think he means Danny White. White, Aikman, Gary Hogeboom -- all interchangeable.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

What about Hogenbloom?

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Not Jewish

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Paging "Beltin'" Delton Hall.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Decertification seems like a minor window dressing change but it has real ramifications for a workplace.

Example, here's an example, UPS v. FedEx.

UPS is a unionized workplace. They have standardized contracts, collectively bargained, with standardized wages, standardized work rules. They cannot make changes to wages or work conditions without bargaining with the elected union bargaining unit that has been certified.

FedEx is non-union (as I understand it.) Every single worker works on an individual contract with FedEx. Worker 1 can have different working conditions than Worker 2 even though they do the same job. They might have different rates of pay, different working hours, different clothes (subject to applicable state and federal laws). Its legal, because there is no union and no collectively bargained Master Labor Agreement.

By decertifying, the NFL players have legally said we do not have a union any longer, each player is now a separate bargaining unit. Each one of the 500+ players can negotiate whatever contracts and working conditions they want with the owners.

Had the owners not called a lockout, there would be no anti-trust suit. If the owners had just started signing players to contracts, then no litigation.

Decertification brings the players back to the Henry Ford times, no unions, depressed wages because that was the deal that the owners were making. Why haven't the workers jumped on this? Because they know that, unlike Henry Ford and the railroad barons, they cannot control themselves in the $$$ they spend against each other. They cannot help themselves because winning the prize, the Super Bowl, means that much and they're going to go after it. The only way they can help themselves is by working in concert, which is an Anti-Trust violation (and yes, under the Sherman Act that means treble damages), unless conditions are collectively bargained with a certified union.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

People who believe the treble damages clause is any threat to the NFL are deluding themselves.

Right now there are no damages to the named plaintiffs. The only people who might be able to claim damages soon are the F-list potential free agents who have to dig ditches for pay instead of attending mini-camp. Brady, et al., might have a claim later if this drags on and they can't get paid or get back pay. Right now, they have little to no damages.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Manning is under the franchise tag, which is an obvious antitrust violation causing him financial injury for which damages are an appropriate remedy.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

Doubtful at best. He still has to be paid in the range of the top players at his position. I don't foresee many courts going back and retroactively picking at the layers of the last CBA.

Playing for a year without a salary cap might be a problem for the league, though.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

The court HAS to go back and pick at the last CBA, unless the NFL issues new labor rules and salary structures during the lockout, because the CBA is what the players are suing to get thrown out. The court could uphold the CBA on the grounds the league's structure doesn't violate antitrust law, but it can't ignore it.

 

Re: Running NFL Offseason Thread

I believe the players are contending that the collective declaration of a lockout is the anti-trust violation, not the CBA.

After skimming the complaint filed in the District Court, the allegations do cover the franchise tags as Anti-Trust violations, which in a pure setting, would be on their face violations since they are collective agreements designed to limit the free market for the services of each individual player.