Originally Posted by townes
The owners insisted that the union recertify or they could opt out of the deal in 30 days, in agreeing they also agreed they could no longer call decertifcation a sham. So it is clear that it is the owners who needed a union to deal with and they are now reneging on the agreement they made when they insisted the player's reform their union.
That is totally wrong.
The NFLPA* could have gone away and allowed the players to move forward with their at will employment from the AntiTrust suit. They chose not to.
You are arguing they want exactly what they got then gave back.
The sham reference is not quite what you purport it to be. See below.
From PFT and Florio, who reviewed the case finding:
While trudging through the 52-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota by a group of players including three quarterbacks who have won five Super Bowls among them, I had to press pause at page 19 and share with PFT Planet language that, if accurate, prevents the NFL from arguing that the decertification of the union was a “sham.”
If the NFL were to prove that the decertification was a “sham,” the league would be able to lock the players out, since the antitrust laws would not apply.
Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league “insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days.” To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, “if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration,”
the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was “a sham or otherwise ineffective.”
In other words, if the players’ allegations are accurate, the NFL can’t use the “sham” silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players’ lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we’ll have football in 2011.[/QUOTE]
Read the bold part. The CBA had not expired. The union would have had to wait 6 months to decertify if they waited until the deal expired. You are accusing the owners of dishonesty. In fact, it would appear the NFLPA* manipulated these specifics.
The basis of this was that in order to agree to the settlement, the 2 sides had an issue.
The NFLPA had to recertify for there to be a CBA, and the owners knew that if there was no union in place, they would be agreeing to a settlement that would violate AntiTrust all over again.
The union saw that they did exactly what I have been saying and sued as a non unionized group, only to reorganize, so part of the agreement was that reorganizing was mutually agreed and they werent accountable to the obvious sham. Further, they agreed that after this deal was over, they weren't obligated to act as a union.
Your interpretation of this aspect is out in left field.