NFLPA to file grievance for Hernandez' bonus

signbabybrady said:

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?

Click to expand...

While I refuted many "answers" to my questions that were clearly wrong, I think in the end Illegal Contact gave me the answer I was looking for. According to the NFLPA contract they can't expel members for anything other than non-payment of dues.

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.

Click to expand...

The above is really all I am looking for. For too long has the NFLPA has sat idly by while their constituency goes through arrest after arrest. At some point I think they need to look at themselves and ask how they can do better.

rlcarr said:

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.

Click to expand...

Except that this particular "contract", namely the NFLPA constitution allows for the ability to amend itself. In other words while the NFLPA may not be able to take action retroactively with regards to Hernandez, they could take action now so as to address future possible incidents.

And lets also be clear that it isn't always "never". The Patriots did exactly that when they immediately cut Hernandez rather than wait for Goodell to suspend him, which would have given them better standing against Hernandez with regards to his bonus claims. Instead they choose to do what they felt was best despite the cost and legal consequences. Businesses and other organizations make those choices all the time.

He doesn't deserve one penny of that money.

BSR said:

While I refuted many "answers" to my questions that were clearly wrong, I think in the end Illegal Contact gave me the answer I was looking for. According to the NFLPA contract they can't expel members for anything other than non-payment of dues.



The above is really all I am looking for. For too long has the NFLPA has sat idly by while their constituency goes through arrest after arrest. At some point I think they need to look at themselves and ask how they can do better.

Click to expand...

I disagree........the league along with Goodell are there to judge. The union needs to not judge or it will inevitably open the door to someone else to come in who does not judge to support the players.....I don't think it should be the unions job to question the people who pay. did they toss rae carruth? I'd be willing to bet that OJ still benefits in some way.

in order to fully assess the strengths and weaknesses of the process, one will have to wait until the legal proceedings are over.

BSR said:

And lets also be clear that it isn't always "never". The Patriots did exactly that when they immediately cut Hernandez rather than wait for Goodell to suspend him, which would have given them better standing against Hernandez with regards to his bonus claims. Instead they choose to do what they felt was best despite the cost and legal consequences. Businesses and other organizations make those choices all the time.

Click to expand...

Inapplicable comparison. The Patriots had no legal obligation to keep Hernandez on the roster.

Rob0729 said:

This is a PR nightmare for the NFLPA. Gotta represent a murderer for money he really shouldn't get if there was any real justice in the world. It will be far worse when they file the grievance for his millions in signing bonus money. This one might go under the radar because it is a small amount in NFL salary terms.

Click to expand...

I don't know Rob, a Guy like Hernandez seem like if you give him a finger, he'll take a hold hand. I know the Pats will play hard ball all the way through which they should.

I think this is for show. I believe the Patriots will lose this in a court of law but for PR purposes, they've got to fight it so that they don't look like they think it's okay.

The NFLPA is also doing the right thing. I'm sure they're holding their nose when they do this.

I suspect Henandez will get his money and the NFL will offer a little cap relief (not much).

rlcarr said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well we fundamentally disagree on the issue then. Murder and rape should be two crimes that supersede previous legal obligations. I understand this is somewhat unrealistic however I believe our (America's) judicial system / society is waaaaay to lenient with these criminals. Murderers and rapist should not be given the same rights as other citizens.

ay-yo said:

Well we fundamentally disagree on the issue then. Murder and rape should be two crimes that supersede previous legal obligations. I understand this is somewhat unrealistic however I believe our (America's) judicial system / society is waaaaay to lenient with these criminals. Murderers and rapist should not be given the same rights as other citizens.

Click to expand...

They aren't. Once they're convicted, their rights are limited. If you believe that accusing someone of murder, etc. is grounds for taking those rights away, there are plenty of countries you'd be happier in. I'm glad there is a presumption of innocence.

ay-yo said:

Well we fundamentally disagree on the issue then. Murder and rape should be two crimes that supersede previous legal obligations. I understand this is somewhat unrealistic however I believe our (America's) judicial system / society is waaaaay to lenient with these criminals. Murderers and rapist should not be given the same rights as other citizens.

Click to expand...

Points well taken I like.

ay-yo said:

Well we fundamentally disagree on the issue then. Murder and rape should be two crimes that supersede previous legal obligations. I understand this is somewhat unrealistic however I believe our (America's) judicial system / society is waaaaay to lenient with these criminals. Murderers and rapist should not be given the same rights as other citizens.

Click to expand...

yes....and its the ownership and Goodell's job to uphold the image of the sport, and it's the union's job to make sure the players are fairly treated.

what people are suggesting here is that a perpetrator should no longer have the right to due process.....if the NFLPA can bail on him, who's next? his lawyers? even the poorest criminal in this country is entitled to legal representation. and if he's willing to pay, he can get better representation. Lawyers need to accept representing the most morally reprehensible people in our culture......they know it the moment they get involved in law.

to start cutting things up and saying 'well this guy won't get this anymore because he's bad' will inevitably create some kind of unwanted side effect........like a new union that is sponsored only by *ahem* agents

the fact is that hernandez still contributed to football and there's an obligation on the part of the union to support what he has produced on the field.

I'd be more worried about the fact that the prosecution seems to not have what they need to proceed with the trial and may not get that at all......it will be a freakshow if the prosecution can't come up with a guilty verdict

ay-yo said:

Well we fundamentally disagree on the issue then. Murder and rape should be two crimes that supersede previous legal obligations. I understand this is somewhat unrealistic however I believe our (America's) judicial system / society is waaaaay to lenient with these criminals. Murderers and rapist should not be given the same rights as other citizens.

Click to expand...

One of the things this also accomplishes (guilty found murder) is that it makes the contract impossible to be carried out and that the murderer has done this breach in a punitive way - contract void (in theory that is, Actors use this a lot -except it's "I'm too sick to comply"). Toss in the NFLPA and the CBA and the results of this becomes uncertain.

As for the above comment by ay-yo, "convicted" needs to be added. Convicted people, in general, already don't have the same rights as we do. Even those that have served their "time" still may not have the same rights (e.g. voting, some types of privacy, etc.).

FWIW, John Adams, the 2nd President of these United States, was also vilified for his decision to defend the British troops accused of murder during the "Boston Massacre". Adams understood, as Hernandez' lawyers do, that every citizen is entitled to a full and vigorous defense, otherwise the law has no meaning.

It is always in the best interests of the citizens, and of our liberties, that the prosecution be FORCED to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, lest an innocent man or woman be convicted and imprisoned or, worse, forfeit their life for an act they did not commit.

As to money owed Hernandez, if he was on the team, and had otherwise met all his contractual liabilities at the time the bonus was due, then the team is obligated to pay him. If the Patriots are exempted from this, then it calls into question the validity and enforceability of ALL other contracts. It's an issue of trust. Either a contract means what it says, or it doesn't, and if it's the latter, then why have any contracts at all?

ay-yo said:

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?

Click to expand...

Right, let's have how we personally "feel" over ride the rule of law, however imperfect it may be.
No thank you.
I'll take hundreds of years of albeit flawed western tradition of rule of law over capricious trendy "Based on my values, I think it should be this way, so you should too".

ay-yo said:

Well we fundamentally disagree on the issue then. Murder and rape should be two crimes that supersede previous legal obligations. I understand this is somewhat unrealistic however I believe our (America's) judicial system / society is waaaaay to lenient with these criminals. Murderers and rapist should not be given the same rights as other citizens.

Click to expand...

They aren't. Once they're convicted.
You and BSR miss this salient point.

PatsWickedPissah said:

They aren't. Once they're convicted.
You and BSR miss this salient point.

Click to expand...

Word.

Innocent, until proven guilty. The state has a VERY high bar to meet, because we, as citizens need to be absolutely certain that we've convicted the right person.

Once you deny the law's protection to another, you can no longer claim it as a shield for yourself.

Gwedd said:

Once you deny the law's protection to another, you can no longer claim it as a shield for yourself.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. Without the rule of law, what's the point?

A Man For All Seasons said:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

Click to expand...

Out-fracking-standing! Gotta watch that again.

PatsWickedPissah said:

They aren't. Once they're convicted.
You and BSR miss this salient point.

Click to expand...

I don't think you have even bothered to read a single point that I have written. Do you understand that the NFLPA can't kick him out of the union even if he is convicted? You keep on focusing on a point that doesn't even change the basis of the argument. Heck, I would even be fine if they could kick out convicted felons, but they can't...or rather won't.

rlcarr said:

Inapplicable comparison. The Patriots had no legal obligation to keep Hernandez on the roster.

Click to expand...

They had a legal obligation to pay him and then chose not to. Its an apt comparison.