PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

NFLPA to file grievance for Hernandez' bonus


Status
Not open for further replies.
Their code of ethics is to do their best for the players......not to pick and choose who no longer gets to benefit.

Should his lawyers quit?

Are you making the claim that no unions or associations can expel members for disciplinary actions?
 
It goes like this:

• At the time he signed his contract, he was a dues-paying member of the NFLPA.
• At the time he showed up for offseason workouts, he was a dues-paying member of the NFLPA.
• At the time the Patriots cut him, he was a dues-paying member of the NFLPA.

Ergo, the NFLPA has a legal, contractual obligation to represent him in his dispute over his workout bonus.

The union is perfectly free to kick him out now, but they can't rewrite history to retroactively dodge their obligations.

The quality and effort of the representation is critical.. just because they have to represent him, does not mean that they are "really" representing him with a vigorous legal effort...

I suspect that most of their legal team does not feel the passion to give their full effort... most of this effort will focus on the presentation of written arguments with the "framing of the issue" to take place in the form of arguments before an arbitrator...

My bet is that the Kraft Family will prevail..
 
Am I? Then maybe I am not conveying my point effectively enough. All I am saying is that the NFLPA should enorce a code of ethics as a requirment of membership. Is that really unreasonable?

I believe there may be some legal issues with this proposal.... not at all confident that you can do it.

The bane of many unions is that they spent a lot of money on legal fees for a few of their members... to the chagrin of the rest of the rank and file.
 
I believe there may be some legal issues with this proposal.... not at all confident that you can do it.

This is an excellent point. The NFLPA is a union, not just a professional association or some "club" you can kick people out of. IIRC all players are required to be part of it (MA is not a right to work state), and I presume the union has a corresponding mandate to include them.
 
Last edited:
This is an excellent point. The NFLPA is a union, not just a professional association or some "club" you can kick people out of. IIRC all players are required to be part of it (MA is not a right to work state), and I presume the union has a corresponding mandate to include them.

Actually a union can legally expel its members. I referenced the law a few pages back. Further Hernandez is not currently a player on any team.
 
The quality and effort of the representation is critical.. just because they have to represent him, does not mean that they are "really" representing him with a vigorous legal effort...

I suspect that most of their legal team does not feel the passion to give their full effort... most of this effort will focus on the presentation of written arguments with the "framing of the issue" to take place in the form of arguments before an arbitrator...

My bet is that the Kraft Family will prevail..

Frankly I find the notion that the NFLPA would rather give sub standard service than expel Hernandez appalling.

As for Kraft prevailing I really don't know but I would be shocked if he did. I'm pretty sure they will have to pay this bonus money and that coming to him next spring.
 
Are you making the claim that no unions or associations can expel members for disciplinary actions?

not at all.....but I believe it is quite possible that in the rules of labor organizations, that it is mandated to follow rules in order to expel someone......the question would be the NFLPA's rules on this matter.....how things are done in this instance still ties back to a much much bigger picture of labor organizations as well as anti-trust exemptions......there are lots of legal benefits the league (and the NFLPA) gain by doing things a certain way.....I am sure that as heinous as his transgressions APPEAR to be, it is a grain of sand in when compared to the overall picture of the league/player/government relationship......they will do what is best for the league and the players, and I honestly believe you don't know what that is
 
Frankly I find the notion that the NFLPA would rather give sub standard service than expel Hernandez appalling.

one has nothing to do with the other

the bottom line really comes down to their constitution:

https://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/images/oldImages/fck/NFLPA%20Constitution%20-%20March%202007.pdf

unless I missed something, as long as AH pays his dues, he's a member........case closed...you may not like it in this instance, but it is the right way to conduct a labor organization
 
This is an excellent point. The NFLPA is a union, not just a professional association or some "club" you can kick people out of. IIRC all players are required to be part of it (MA is not a right to work state), and I presume the union has a corresponding mandate to include them.

not so sure about the requirement although it would be very awk not to do so.......based on their constitution, the only things that seems to be a given is that an active member in good standing means that they paid their dues, and that's it
 
Frankly I find the notion that the NFLPA would rather give sub standard service than expel Hernandez appalling.

As for Kraft prevailing I really don't know but I would be shocked if he did. I'm pretty sure they will have to pay this bonus money and that coming to him next spring.

Expulsion can happen, but when his bonus was denied he was still a member.. do not believe you can take legal action retroactively...

Substandard is a matter of perspective, first of all he will not be present during this arbitration and often the passion of the aggrieved party can fuel the litigators...
 
one has nothing to do with the other

the bottom line really comes down to their constitution:

https://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/images/oldImages/fck/NFLPA%20Constitution%20-%20March%202007.pdf

unless I missed something, as long as AH pays his dues, he's a member........case closed...you may not like it in this instance, but it is the right way to conduct a labor organization


Thank you! This is exactly the type of response I was looking for. I briefly looked on the NFLPA site but didn't see this document. In light of this, I would concur that they have little choice but to file the grievance at this time.

However, I find it noteworthy that while they don't have the power to eject active NFL players, which includes anyone with an NFL Contract (e.g. Hernandez), they do have the power to kick out retired members for "conduct detrimental". This may be a clause the NFLPA may want to revisit and give themselves the ability to kick out active members so they aren't faced with situations like this in the future.

I still say they are getting a free pass for not doing more about the poor behavior of their membership, but can see why their hands are tied in this particular instance.
 
For some context:

We pay benefits under both the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. Both of these programs prohibit payments to most prisoners. Social Security benefits are suspended if an otherwise eligible person is confined in a jail, prison, or other penal institution for more than 30 continuous days due to conviction of a crime.

We cannot pay benefits to someone who, by court order, is confined in an institution at public expense in connection with a criminal case if the court finds that the person is: guilty, but insane; not guilty of such an offense by reason of insanity or similar factors (such as a mental disease); or incompetent to stand trial for such an alleged offense.

Also, we cannot pay benefits to someone who, immediately upon completion of a prison sentence for conviction of a criminal offense (an element of which is sexual activity), is confined by court order in an institution at public expense. The confinement must be based on a court finding that the individual is a sexually dangerous person or sexual predator (or a similar finding.) However, if a person is not confined in prison or other similar place, benefits may be paid to an eligible individual.

Social Security benefits while in prison
 
Anyone charged with murder...yes. Is there some sort of downside to that? Does that somehow give management more power?

Yes, there is. You either support people when charged with crimes or you don't.
 
Thank you! This is exactly the type of response I was looking for. I briefly looked on the NFLPA site but didn't see this document. In light of this, I would concur that they have little choice but to file the grievance at this time.

However, I find it noteworthy that while they don't have the power to eject active NFL players, which includes anyone with an NFL Contract (e.g. Hernandez), they do have the power to kick out retired members for "conduct detrimental". This may be a clause the NFLPA may want to revisit and give themselves the ability to kick out active members so they aren't faced with situations like this in the future.

I still say they are getting a free pass for not doing more about the poor behavior of their membership, but can see why their hands are tied in this particular instance.


I believe it has more to do with a labor organizations responsibility being to assure their members are treated as agreed (in this case the CBA)

I don't believe a labor organization was EVER meant to be a moral compass.......simply not their job.....in this case, that's what roger goodell is for

the union is doing things in a manner ALL forms of legal representation do things and have done things in this country.....take that away, and it will no longer be about right or wrong.....it will be about who can get a lawyer
 
I believe it has more to do with a labor organizations responsibility being to assure their members are treated as agreed (in this case the CBA)

I don't believe a labor organization was EVER meant to be a moral compass.......simply not their job.....in this case, that's what roger goodell is for

the union is doing things in a manner ALL forms of legal representation do things and have done things in this country.....take that away, and it will no longer be about right or wrong.....it will be about who can get a lawyer

I don't pretend to be a union or labor expert by any means which is why I asked the questions in the first place. But at its face I am not sure I buy the notion that unions should operate without standards of conduct or ethics. Once upon a time I am sure many thought the same of corporation and how they simply had a responsibility to their shareholders and nothing more. That perspective has changed now and I, at this point, don't see a reason why it shouldn't change for unions as well.

Some unions still are powerful forces in this country and the notion that they should function amorally just doesn't seem right. 50yl made a good point earlier in the thread when he pointed to the MLB union and its role in the baseball steroids scandals. Enforcing a moral/ethical/conduct code could actually be a benefit to these players in the long run.
 
BSR,

Not sure exactly how to get my point out but you keep looking for someone to come up with a in written reason why they are required to represent him and you have arguably refuted everyones attempts to do so. I would ask this if there was something in writing that allowed them to expell him are you sure that is what they would still want to do?

Obviously no one wants to be associated with murders but they also dont want to be associated with turning there backs on their clients either and it is entirely possible that they weighed the idea of cutting him loose and decided they would rather send the message to their clients that will stand behind them and fight for them even through extreme circumstance.

Either way wether completely obligated or not I do not think it is wrong of the NFLPA to act on his behalf.

I think they should be asking themselves the questions the Patriots and the NFL are asking themselves which is should there have been a better vetting out process to avoid having hired him in the first place. And maybe even set a policy for this type of thing in the future.
 
Is it possible to "settle" this issue?

In Massachusetts you're technically still "Innocent" until the appeals process is finished - * correct me if I'm wrong *. You can make the argument that he is NFI but otherwise being "bonus" paid and, as such, eventually eligible for a Pension (or maybe not). This could follow the same line of logic that he has a right to the bonuses.

It's in the best interest of Football, the Pats and AHern to settle (AHern gets money NOW for his family and Lawyers). Theoretically, one could assume, the Patriots and/or the NFL can hold up these payments (in Arbitration, State and Federal Courts) for years. Complicating matters, the victim(s) may have standing as well. It's in everyone's interest to settle this.

Can someone comment and/or correct this.

Edit: Prior to a Plea agreement this would also, possibly, be in AHern's interest.
 
Last edited:
I’m glad BSR is asking questions and is unhappy with the NFLPA. I understand that legally the NFLPA must represent Hernandez. However, the question I have for all those defending the NFLPA is at what point does morality take precedence over legal obligations? From reading this thread it appears many would answer never.

This opens a broader discussion of (protocol and CYA) versus (common sense and morality). I understand that Hernandez hasn’t been convicted but can’t they put this grievance on hold until Hernandez is found guilty or not guilty of murder? Perhaps this is not protocol but how long do we have to wait until we can put a “if you are accused of murder and arrested then you are temporarily banned from our union until your name is cleared” clause. Do you really need that clause in there before you would support the NFLPA not supporting Hernandez? Does anybody else besides BSR feel as though this system is broken?
 
The NFL players have every right to defend Aaron Hernandez.

And I have every right to view NFL players as supportive of a homicidal thug.
 
I’m glad BSR is asking questions and is unhappy with the NFLPA. I understand that legally the NFLPA must represent Hernandez. However, the question I have for all those defending the NFLPA is at what point does morality take precedence over legal obligations? From reading this thread it appears many would answer never.

If you've entered into a contract that imposes legal obligations and does not give you an "out" for morality, then the answer damned well better be "never".

If that's gonna bother you, then don't enter into such contracts. Entering into such contracts and then wanting "take-backsies" is itself immoral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Monday Patriots Notebook 4/15: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-14, Mock Draft 3.0, Gilmore, Law Rally For Bill 
Potential Patriot: Boston Globe’s Price Talks to Georgia WR McConkey
Friday Patriots Notebook 4/12: News and Notes
Not a First Round Pick? Hoge Doubles Down on Maye
Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/11: News and Notes
MORSE: Patriots Mock Draft #5 and Thoughts About Dugger Signing
Matthew Slater Set For New Role With Patriots
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/10: News and Notes
Patriots Draft Rumors: Teams Facing ‘Historic’ Price For Club to Trade Down
Back
Top