OT: Interesting article on Union and dirtbags

[Gopats!!!]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=bryant_howard&id=2986420

The way I read the article, the author says the union is making a huge mistake in not fighting the commish for doing something about the dirtbags in the NFL (vick and pacman are mentioned). He seems to think that if the union isn't publicly fighting the commish, regardless of if he's right, then they aren't doing thier job.

I have a problem with this attitude which says a union has to attack "the man" at all times regardless of the situation. It says in the article that the union and Goodell are working together. There discussions are not public. Why does the author (and others) feel that if the union isn't savaging management to the media that they aren't doing there job. Is it possible that there are many good people in the player's union and they have a conscience? What kind of person wants to fight against doing the right thing??? Maybe all unions are not morally bankrupt?

The author, Howard Bryant, seems to think allowing Goodell to handle these situations will result in doom for all the players. I think some people just hate a working relationship and feel there is not enough drama. It's not like the union hasn't gotten what it wants. It seems like come negotiation time it bends the owners over the table.

What thoughts do you all have on this?

 

[unoriginal]

Like you implied, journalists have a vested interested in the creation of drama. Goddell/Upshaw, like the Pats, don't give them much. So you can expect a decent amount of complaining and/or manufacturing of it in the media.

I've never felt the players union has a problem filing greivences on behalf of players. More worrisome are the rumors of corruption, and their tendency to look out for star players (like Vick) over the rank and file. Obviously they're going against type in this case.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=bryant_howard&id=2986420

The way I read the article, the author says the union is making a huge mistake in not fighting the commish for doing something about the dirtbags in the NFL (vick and pacman are mentioned). He seems to think that if the union isn't publicly fighting the commish, regardless of if he's right, then they aren't doing thier job.

I have a problem with this attitude which says a union has to attack "the man" at all times regardless of the situation. It says in the article that the union and Goodell are working together. There discussions are not public. Why does the author (and others) feel that if the union isn't savaging management to the media that they aren't doing there job. Is it possible that there are many good people in the player's union and they have a conscience? What kind of person wants to fight against doing the right thing??? Maybe all unions are not morally bankrupt?

The author, Howard Bryant, seems to think allowing Goodell to handle these situations will result in doom for all the players. I think some people just hate a working relationship and feel there is not enough drama. It's not like the union hasn't gotten what it wants. It seems like come negotiation time it bends the owners over the table.

What thoughts do you all have on this?

I think the issue is that the players "union" is not a union in the real sense of the idea of what a union is. The players get a big slice of the revenues, and have a vested interest in how well the league does. Vick threatens this. In normal union/company interactions, this is not the case, and a union will fight tooth and nail to preserve every advantage/employee/etc. .

 

[kriskanos]

hmmm..."unions and dirtbags"...kind of repetitive huh

 

[Fencer]

Very interesting and well-analyzed.

But I think he's ultimately wrong, because he lacks imagination about the strategies and tactics the union can use in the future to overcome what he sees as a worrisome precedent. E.g., they can go very shrill on some other case, gaining credibility from these earlier instances where they did NOT fight against obviously just punishment.

 

[DarrylS]

If you pay dues, Unions have the responsibility to represent their constituents, without regard for their offense. Have to put aside the hysteria and outrage over these charges, Vick is entitled to due process and union representation in these matters. Abdicating this basic mandate because of the court of public opinion undermines the basic responsibility of unions and may make them liable in another legal forum. Upshaw and crew, have no choice, they have to put up some type of fight, to make sure that Vick et al have their contractual guarantees adhered to. The fight may be less or more vigorous, but the Union has to do this whether we like it or not.