PFT: Ten things to know right now about the labor situation

[MoLewisrocks]

Good overview by Florio. I don't always agree with his slants, but in this piece he has pointed out the folly on both sides as well as underscored the fact that if the players prevail it may be a case for all of us of be careful what you wished for. Because it could change the game into something most fans will abhorr, MLB...only worse. That is why I disagree with his conclusion that the players prevailing on April 6th would be good for the fans. Winning even that battle risks they win the war, which he agrees would be bad for everyone except the top 5% of talent and their agents. So losing that battle (for the injunction) risks they lose faith in De and Kessler and cave and come back to the table as a union willing to agree to pick up where they left off negotiating a new CBA as opposed to waiting for settlement talks where the lawyers will continue to hold sway.

Ten things to know, right now, about the labor situation | ProFootballTalk

 

[Rob0729]

I agree with his take that both sides are wrong in this, but I think he is still too harsh on the NFL Alumni. He still talks about the Alumni as a "Trojan Horse" trying to undermine the NFLPA, but that is just the NFLPA's assertion but may not be the truth. Just because the Alumni gets money from the league doesn't mean they don't have the best interest in getting the best deal for the players (or in their case the former players). George Martin was at one point the head of the NFLPA.

Personally, even if the NFL Alumni are as the NFLPA suspects a Trojan Horse, DeMaurice Smith is playing this wrong by being confrontational with and dismissive of George Martin. Smith would be better off doing a dog and pony show for Martin and making him feel like part of the process rather than treating him like the enemy. Smith will lose the PR battle on this one.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

great points mo, nothing in this mess is happening till april 6th... if the leauge wins they hold the cards and its going to probably push this thing all summer long... i do want this thing to end but not at the extent of hurting the sport

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

If the NFL morphs into anything whatsoever resembling the farce that is MLB which I abandoned ages ago with no regrets whatsoever, then the NFL is history for me. Plenty else to do in life.

That said such a development is a worst case and I hope and believe it will not come to that.

 

[Patjew]

I cannot believe that all of these selfish idiots let it come to this. How To **** Up A Sure Thing 101.

 

[Rob0729]

The thing is Florio claims to be unbiased when he clearly is on the player's side. Here is an article proving it:

League attacks source of potential player lockout revenue | ProFootballTalk

So the players are trying to have it both ways where they decertify the union to block the lockout, but still want to be a union when it comes to negotiating marketing deals to generate revenue. Florio spins it as the owners are just trying to block the players from lockout revenue rather than trying to expose the NFLPA for trying to have their cake and eat too by being a union when it benefits them, but officially not be a union to block the lockout.

 

[Gwedd]

If the NFL morphs into anything whatsoever resembling the farce that is MLB which I abandoned ages ago with no regrets whatsoever, then the NFL is history for me. Plenty else to do in life.

That said such a development is a worst case and I hope and believe it will not come to that.

Yup.... I have really enjoyed the minor league teams, and about the only time I watch MLB is when the Sox are playing the Yankees.

I do hope that sanity prevails because EVERYONE stands to lose in this situation, players, owners, fans and advertisers, not to mention the folks who work at the stadiums, and in ancillary jobs like vendors, etc.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The thing is Florio claims to be unbiased when he clearly is on the player's side. Here is an article proving it:

League attacks source of potential player lockout revenue | ProFootballTalk

So the players are trying to have it both ways where they decertify the union to block the lockout, but still want to be a union when it comes to negotiating marketing deals to generate revenue. Florio spins it as the owners are just trying to block the players from lockout revenue rather than trying to expose the NFLPA for trying to have their cake and eat too by being a union when it benefits them, but officially not be a union to block the lockout.

I agree that Florio wants to be on the players side. That is what makes his take so compelling. Even he admits that while the owners may be jackholes the player's may be such doofasses they let their new svengali screw up the pooch for all of us. Including 3/4ths of their peers...along with their predecessors and the fans. I think the NFLPA's problems stem from an institutional disposition to serve 2 masters, the rank and file but also the elite talent and their agents (so maybe you even call that 3 masters). Those agents, Condon in particular, have always had too much influence in the process as they also became superagents. He was Upshaw's agent including when Gene was the head of the NFLPA...

 

[townes]

The thing is Florio claims to be unbiased when he clearly is on the player's side. Here is an article proving it:

League attacks source of potential player lockout revenue | ProFootballTalk

So the players are trying to have it both ways where they decertify the union to block the lockout, but still want to be a union when it comes to negotiating marketing deals to generate revenue. Florio spins it as the owners are just trying to block the players from lockout revenue rather than trying to expose the NFLPA for trying to have their cake and eat too by being a union when it benefits them, but officially not be a union to block the lockout.

I guess the owners shouldn't have forced the player's hand.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I guess the owners shouldn't have forced the player's hand.

First off they didn't and looking back to the last CBA perhaps the players (or actually it was Gene with Kessler gnawing on his ear) shouldn't have forced the owners hand.

 

[Rob0729]

I guess the owners shouldn't have forced the player's hand.

You can make the same argument that the players shouldn't have forced the owners hand either. Besides, if the NFLPA wanted to act like a union, they shouldn't have decertified.

 

[townes]

You can make the same argument that the players shouldn't have forced the owners hand either. Besides, if the NFLPA wanted to act like a union, they shouldn't have decertified.

The players were willing to deal or continue with the one in place, the owners want more and want to lock the players out of their jobs, however I agree with you that the players should not be acting as if they still have a union, what they should be saying is that they can no longer deal with the NFL because they have no union and that all players are operating as independent contractors with personal service contracts, and that the NFL is in violation of anti-trust laws, which they clearly are. Much as it sucks i think the players now have to really challenge that status and all of the constructs (e.g...The Draft and salary cap) that go with it. This comes from someone who likes the current structure and loves the Draft, but i don't see how the players can continue to deal with a group of owners this greedy and this dishonest and see no other logical way to go than the one that goes with real decertification and a real challenge to anti-trust laws.

 

[lamafist]

I find the suggestion that Florio is on the players' side to be amusing, since there are many posts on PFT that I feel are misleadingly kind to the owners' positions. It's a lot like how every team in the NFL's fans think that Florio has it out for their team. He's accused of being in the tank for the Patriots in PFT's comments as often as he's accused of having an anti-Pats agenda on these boards.

Truly, it seems to me, that Florio's real predictable bias is for scandal, controversy and drama.

An instance of this in this post is his suggestion that anti-trust legislation could permanently damage NFL institutions such as the draft, salary cap, franchise tags, et al. Any and all of these things can and most will be restored through a new collective bargaining agreement.

 

[Rob0729]

The players were willing to deal or continue with the one in place, the owners want more and want to lock the players out of their jobs, however I agree with you that the players should not be acting as if they still have a union, what they should be saying is that they can no longer deal with the NFL because they have no union and that all players are operating as independent contractors with personal service contracts, and that the NFL is in violation of anti-trust laws, which they clearly are. Much as it sucks i think the players now have to really challenge that status and all of the constructs (e.g...The Draft and salary cap) that go with it. This comes from someone who likes the current structure and loves the Draft, but i don't see how the players can continue to deal with a group of owners this greedy and this dishonest and see no other logical way to go than the one that goes with real decertification and a real challenge to anti-trust laws.

The players are willing to maintain the last CBA which by many of their own admissions was very much in their favor. Why wouldn't they want to continue to play under the current system?

As for them willing to continue to deal, that is 100% wrong. If they were willing to continue to deal, they would have been willing to extend negotiations and counter the league's final offer rather than break off talks, decertify, and claim the owners' offer was the worst in sports history (which is a falicy).

As for the owners in violation of antitrust laws, that is yet to be determined.

As for the players having no other choice, but go the path they are going; it is complete and utter BS. The players could have easily accepted the owners' offer to extend mediation and they would still have the option to decertify at the end of the extended mediation period.

As for the players having to deal with owners who are "greedy and dishonest", boo freakin' hoo. I know I should feel sorry for choir boys like Ray Lewis, Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, etc. when they have to deal with sleezy no good owners. Seriously, many of the players are greedier and more dishonest than the owners could ever be. This isn't a black and white issue anyway, there is greed and dishonesty on both sides and both sides have legitimate points.

 

[Rob0729]

I find the suggestion that Florio is on the players' side to be amusing, since there are many posts on PFT that I feel are misleadingly kind to the owners' positions. It's a lot like how every team in the NFL's fans think that Florio has it out for their team. He's accused of being in the tank for the Patriots in PFT's comments as often as he's accused of having an anti-Pats agenda on these boards.

Truly, it seems to me, that Florio's real predictable bias is for scandal, controversy and drama.

An instance of this in this post is his suggestion that anti-trust legislation could permanently damage NFL institutions such as the draft, salary cap, franchise tags, et al. Any and all of these things can and most will be restored through a new collective bargaining agreement.

Ummmmm..... The collective bargaining agreement cannot superceed federal law. In fact, in Florio's scenario (which is possible to happen), there could not ever be another CBA.

So, Florio is being biased because he is properly stating the law. If the courts do go to the extreme that Florio suggests (at this point, not likely but possible), he is right and the league will not be able to conduct things like the draft. The reason why they can now is because of their anti-trust exception. If the players push the issue too far, the league will lose their antitrust exemption and will forever be forced to act like 32 separate entities. The players' lawsuit is aimed directly at the league's antirtrust exemptions.

Now who knows what the chances are of that happening. Probably not very likely, but it could very well happen though.

And yes, overall he has sided with the players on almost every issue.

 

[lamafist]

Ummmmm..... The collective bargaining agreement cannot superceed federal law. In fact, in Florio's scenario (which is possible to happen), there could not ever be another CBA.

So, Florio is being biased because he is properly stating the law. If the courts do go to the extreme that Florio suggests (at this point, not likely but possible), he is right and the league will not be able to conduct things like the draft. The reason why they can now is because of their anti-trust exception. If the players push the issue too far, the league will lose their antitrust exemption and will forever be forced to act like 32 separate entities. The players' lawsuit is aimed directly at the league's antirtrust exemptions.

Now who knows what the chances are of that happening. Probably not very likely, but it could very well happen though.

And yes, overall he has sided with the players on almost every issue.

Yeah, no, you're wrong about this.

The NFL's antitrust exemption isn't about labor, it's what allows the league to act as one entity w/r/t packing the teams' TV rights for sale to the networks, and what allows them to control the number of teams in the league and require approval for the sale of any NFL franchise.

The CBA is what establishes the NFL's ability to avoid labor law violations, because the union is empowered to voluntarily waive certain rights on behalf of the players during the collective bargaining.

 

[Fencer]

Call me slow, but I've just realized that a stoppage is bad for the media too. If it's short, I imagine the individuals in the media will get paid and their employers will suffer, but a long one could be a big problem for them too.

The same surely goes for a bunch of team employees.

If the league and the players dribble away a bunch of money, they won't be the only ones who lose out.

 

[lamafist]

The players are willing to maintain the last CBA which by many of their own admissions was very much in their favor. Why wouldn't they want to continue to play under the current system?

As for them willing to continue to deal, that is 100% wrong. If they were willing to continue to deal, they would have been willing to extend negotiations and counter the league's final offer rather than break off talks, decertify, and claim the owners' offer was the worst in sports history (which is a falicy).

As for the owners in violation of antitrust laws, that is yet to be determined.

As for the players having no other choice, but go the path they are going; it is complete and utter BS. The players could have easily accepted the owners' offer to extend mediation and they would still have the option to decertify at the end of the extended mediation period.

As for the players having to deal with owners who are "greedy and dishonest", boo freakin' hoo. I know I should feel sorry for choir boys like Ray Lewis, Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, etc. when they have to deal with sleezy no good owners. Seriously, many of the players are greedier and more dishonest than the owners could ever be. This isn't a black and white issue anyway, there is greed and dishonesty on both sides and both sides have legitimate points.

The players couldn't afford to keep extending the CBA indefinitely -- the longer they wait, the less chance there is that they'll be able to win an injunction against the lock-out before next season starts, considering the NFL's inevitable appeal of any unfavorable decision. The longer negotiations went on, the less leverage they had -- which is, of course, why the league was dragging its feet during the negotiations, until literally hours before the deadline to decertify.

What's more, their decertification doesn't prevent continuing negotiations. The NFL made a show about being ready to keep talks going, but is refusing to conduct them with the players' counsel in the law suit. So they're insisting on talking only with the NFLPA, but aren't willing to waive their right to argue that the NFLPA's participations in said negotiations proves that the decertification was a sham.

Another thing to remember is that the lockout is entirely voluntary on the owners' part. If the owners dropped the lockout, the players could drop the suit, and both parties could continue negotiations, with the league operating under the conditions of the last year of the previous CBA until a new one is reached.

 

[Rob0729]

Yeah, no, you're wrong about this.

The NFL's antitrust exemption isn't about labor, it's what allows the league to act as one entity w/r/t packing the teams' TV rights for sale to the networks, and what allows them to control the number of teams in the league and require approval for the sale of any NFL franchise.

The CBA is what establishes the NFL's ability to avoid labor law violations, because the union is empowered to voluntarily waive certain rights on behalf of the players during the collective bargaining.

You are wrong. The antitrust exemption includes things like collective bargaining agreements because that is 32 seperate companies coming together and writing the rules and setting how players will be signed by teams and what restrictions on salaries. That is all covered by their antitrust exemptions. Virtually everything that is covered under the CBA from the draft to the salary cap to drug testing to offseason workout restrictions would all be illegal without the anti-trust exemption. Collusion between companies is a violation of antitrust laws.

You really need to brush up on antitrust laws because 32 separate companies cannot enter into an agreement with a union as a collective without an antitrust exemption. I suggest you Google Toolson vs. the NY Yankees where George Earl Toolson sued all the way to the Supreme Court (and lost) because the Yankees refused to let him negotiate another contract because under MLB's CBA the Yankees reserved his rights. The Yankees won because the Court determined they had an antitrust exemption. Different sport, but same antitrust laws. So of course the CBA and labor are covered under antitrust laws.

Also, in 1987 Reggie White and others sued the NFL for antitrust violations because the CBA did not allow him to seek employment with other teams. So again, the CBA is there because of antitrust exemptions.

 

[Rob0729]

The players couldn't afford to keep extending the CBA indefinitely -- the longer they wait, the less chance there is that they'll be able to win an injunction against the lock-out before next season starts, considering the NFL's inevitable appeal of any unfavorable decision. The longer negotiations went on, the less leverage they had -- which is, of course, why the league was dragging its feet during the negotiations, until literally hours before the deadline to decertify.

What's more, their decertification doesn't prevent continuing negotiations. The NFL made a show about being ready to keep talks going, but is refusing to conduct them with the players' counsel in the law suit. So they're insisting on talking only with the NFLPA, but aren't willing to waive their right to argue that the NFLPA's participations in said negotiations proves that the decertification was a sham.

Another thing to remember is that the lockout is entirely voluntary on the owners' part. If the owners dropped the lockout, the players could drop the suit, and both parties could continue negotiations, with the league operating under the conditions of the last year of the previous CBA until a new one is reached.

Are you making this up? The lockout could be over next week or by June. The players could have easily extended the mediation a week or two if they chose to. They didn't because the owners refused to open their books and DeMaurice Smith said it was all or nothing - either the owners provide all their financial information or they are going to court. So let's not make it only the owners' fault.

Neither side is willing to negotiate right now. The players certainly don't at this point. They pretty much wanted to litigate since winning the ruling on the lockout insurance. Neither side wants to bend on how to negotiate and both side could bend. So it is both sides' fault that they are not at the bargaining table.

Yes, the lockout is voluntary, but so was decertification. The players didn't need to decertify either. Both sides are wrong on this.

I can see why the owners do not want to talk to more lawyers since they are the ones who made this thing a mess already (lawyers on both sides).