Jason Taylor: Bad Fit?

[Ring 6]

The team cannot terminate for "any" reason. That is real life. They are no different in that respect than any other non-governmental company in America. There was a change made when the CBA was extended which has allowed teams broader latitude to fire players for getting arrested and the like, but since people here have been trying to play semantics with "voluntary", I find it interesting that they've been so careless with "any reason".

Technically 'any reason' is incorrect because it assume a reason is required.
Technically NFL teams can terminate players "WITHOUT REASON".

Many employment contracts in many fields include 'probationary periods' typically 90 days where employees can be terminated without reason. This insulates the companies from lawsuit filed by employees who were hired but should not have been, and has held up consistently in court. In the NFL it is a similar provision only rather than a probationary period, the termination without cause aspect is perpetual.

 

[Frezo]

Technically 'any reason' is incorrect because it assume a reason is required.
Technically NFL teams can terminate players "WITHOUT REASON".

Many employment contracts in many fields include 'probationary periods' typically 90 days where employees can be terminated without reason. This insulates the companies from lawsuit filed by employees who were hired but should not have been, and has held up consistently in court. In the NFL it is a similar provision only rather than a probationary period, the termination without cause aspect is perpetual.

In NH any employer can fire any employee without any reason or notice at any time.
Workers > FAQs

 

[Deus Irae]

In NH any employer can fire any employee without any reason or notice at any time.
Workers > FAQs

No, you're taking the FAQ and misunderstanding the reality, probably because the FAQ answer is misleading. There are states where you can be fired for ALMOST any reason at all, and you can be fired for seemingly no reason. These are the "at will" states. However, there is not a state in the country where you can be fired for a reason that's not allowed (the issue here is proving the reason was one that is proscribed). Here's a site that can lay it out for you, although I've only perused it and can't vouch for it's being completely accurate:

Wrongful Termination Laws

The NFLPA has been very weak in contesting some of the cuts in the past couple of seasons, basically doing nothing but complaining that the Ommissioner is judge, jury and executioner in disciplinary situations, so I expect that the new guy will get tough about it in the CBA negotiations. The current system is terrible and needs to be fixed.

 

[Deus Irae]

Nice. We have moved to the passive-aggressive Deus Irae knows he is wrong so will change the subject portion of our program.

NFL players can be cut for no reason. That is an incontrovertible fact. Jason Taylor was in fact cut because he did not want to participate in off-season workouts. If that is a violation of labor laws why is there no action against the Redskins?
The Patriots cut about 30 players last summer. Did they sue because there needed to be grounds for dismissal?

There is a collective bargaining agreement and a contract between the club and player that mandates the team can decide to terminate a player without needing a reason to do so. End of story, you are wrong. For once, when it is totally black and white with no possiblity for misinterpretation ARE YOU CAPABLE OF ADMITTING YOU ARE WRONG. I think you are not.

You keep making claims that aren't true.

 

[Frezo]

No, you're taking the FAQ and misunderstanding the reality, probably because the FAQ answer is misleading. There are states where you can be fired for ALMOST any reason at all, and you can be fired for seemingly no reason. These are the "at will" states. However, there is not a state in the country where you can be fired for a reason that's not allowed (the issue here is proving the reason was one that is proscribed). Here's a site that can lay it out for you, although I've only perused it and can't vouch for it's being completely accurate:

Wrongful Termination Laws

The NFLPA has been very weak in contesting some of the cuts in the past couple of seasons, basically doing nothing but complaining that the Ommissioner is judge, jury and executioner in disciplinary situations, so I expect that the new guy will get tough about it in the CBA negotiations. The current system is terrible and needs to be fixed.

I understand what you are pointing to. These are hard for an employee to prove.

 

[Deus Irae]

I understand what you are pointing to. These are hard for an employee to prove.

Yes, a lot of them are. Often, those suing need to prove a pattern so, if they are the first in the line, they are S.O.L..

 

[Frezo]

Yes, a lot of them are. Often, those suing need to prove a pattern so, if they are the first in the line, they are S.O.L..

OTOH, employees in at-will states, (local laws apply), can quit at any time without reason or notice, (fed regs notwithstanding), and if the employee can prove the employer is, for example, negligent in workplace safety, the employee will be able to collect full compensation benefits even though he quit. It may also be up to the employee to prove he tried to get the issue corrected. There is some imformative reading in the link you supplied.

 

[tailgater]

Your kidding right?
It is their JOB. Add up all of the time they put into their job in a year, and its part-time. They spend more time with their families than anyone with a 40 hour a week job does.

I doubt that. Even if they did, how much of their time at home is spent recovering from the job? Bet you most don't spend their day off playing with the kids, not until they spend a few hours loosening up (if they can). Never mind the guys whose families stay home instead of moving to the teams location. They might see their families one day a week tops.

Combine all the offseason workouts, rehab time, mini-camps together. Call it three months. That means they are with the team 6 days a week for 9 months (for teams that play into the playoffs).

Most working americans have weekends off, paid holidays, and vacation time. Thats around 4 months off. If you were told you have to give up most of your weekends between March & April, would you like it, especially if it wasn't covered by your contract?

Taylor was well within his rights to refuse to attend the voluntary workouts. he never said he'd skip the mandatory workouts. IMO the Skins just made yet another huge error.

 

[Kontradiction]

Don't need Taylor. This is next years starting OLB:

Vince Redd, OLB -- Liberty

Redd, who began his college career at Virginia before transferring to Liberty, turned in a workout for the ages. He measured 6-6, weighed in at 263 and then turned in forty times that ranged in the mid-4.5 area, with some stopwatches reading 4.48. He also posted a 39-inch vertical jump and 9-foot-10 broad jump.

( Quote from SportIllustrated.com )

Taylor, in this case, would be a sort of stopgap for this defense until BB decides that Redd is ready for the big time.

 

[spacecrime]

I doubt that. Even if they did, how much of their time at home is spent recovering from the job? Bet you most don't spend their day off playing with the kids, not until they spend a few hours loosening up (if they can). Never mind the guys whose families stay home instead of moving to the teams location. They might see their families one day a week tops.

One day a week tops from AUg through January. Players have all of February off. THat is more vacation than most of use wage slaves get. Players have June and July off.

Meantime, players wives rarely have to get a job to make the rent, unlike most of us. Even when we wage-earners are with our families, we have to share duties with working spouses.

No, NFL players can spend much more time with their families, even when the family chooses to live apart. And note, that is a choice they are making not forced by the NFL. I had to change jobs a few times myself. My family cjhose to move with me, DUH.

If your wife and kids choose to live in another state from where you work, that is an issue for you and your wife/kids. THe onus of that one is not on the employer.

 

[Ring 6]

You keep making claims that aren't true.

such as??????????????

 

[Deus Irae]

such as??????????????

Nice. We have moved to the passive-aggressive Deus Irae knows he is wrong so will change the subject portion of our program.

I wasn't wrong, or even close to being wrong. Seriously, what's been going on with you this offseason? You've been way off your game.

Technically 'any reason' is incorrect because it assume a reason is required.
Technically NFL teams can terminate players "WITHOUT REASON".

Now, my original post on this point (in this thread):

4.) The league really needs to rein in this "off-season workouts" crap. The whole point of the word voluntary has been subverted. I really hope that the next CBA takes a stand on this.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/225701-jason-taylor-bad-fit.html#post1327883

Now, your comment about "any reason" and my response:

But all of the workouts they do have are in the CBA, as is the fact that your contract can be terminated for ANY reason, or without reason...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/225701-jason-taylor-bad-fit.html#post1328426

It's not in the CBA as mandatory workouts. It's supposed to be voluntary. And your contract cannot be terminated for ANY reason.

Seriously, what the hell is so difficult about this? If the teams think these events should be mandatory, let them bargain for that in the next CBA.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/225701-jason-taylor-bad-fit.html#post1328435

You're wrong on the "reason" aspect of things, and it's not as if it's even questionable since federal labor law is pretty clear on certain things not being valid reasons for firing. Now, before this gets too heated and you start insisting that I'm still being passive aggressive when I'm actually trying to be polite to a moderator, I'll just tell you to have a nice day and consider this particular conversation between the two of us to be finished.

 

[mosslost]

I really truly will feel upset if they sign Taylor after letting Vrabel go.

The only true way I will be ok with it is if they pay him dirt.

 

[Ring 6]

I wasn't wrong, or even close to being wrong. Seriously, what's been going on with you this offseason? You've been way off your game.

>>>As I said even when it is iron-clad you will not admit you are wrong.
NFL players are cut and released from their contracts a reason is never needed. You are arguing that a team needs cause to cut a player, and nothing could be more wrong. I don't know how you can even keep up the charade that you are right. Please prove this to me by either documenting the process of determining the reasons for cutting players, or give me one single example where a charge has been made and sustained for unfair labor practices when an NFL team cut a player. Or show me in the CBA where it says teams cannot cut players without cause. Hell show me anything other you saying you are right because you say you are right.

Now, my original post on this point (in this thread):



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/225701-jason-taylor-bad-fit.html#post1327883

Now, your comment about "any reason" and my response:



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/225701-jason-taylor-bad-fit.html#post1328426



http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/225701-jason-taylor-bad-fit.html#post1328435

You're wrong on the "reason" aspect of things, and it's not as if it's even questionable since federal labor law is pretty clear on certain things not being valid reasons for firing. Now, before this gets too heated and you start insisting that I'm still being passive aggressive when I'm actually trying to be polite to a moderator, I'll just tell you to have a nice day and consider this particular conversation between the two of us to be finished.

Your posting comments made before i posted anything in the thread and calling them your response to me.
Please show me the Federal Labor Law that is 'pretty clear' that employees who have negotiated a CBA that includes contracts that allow the employer to terminate them without cause and without penalty are not allowed to be terminated without reason.
You are trying to argue that the Labor Laws that cover Suzy the Secretary apply to a collectively bargained agreement between NFL teams and players that sign contracts stating that the team can terminate the contract at any time without reason.
You are only correct in the absence of the CBA and the player contract.

Ironically, you are spouting that the CBA considers them mandatory and ignoring the fact that the same agreement that creates your argument also defeats it by providing for the condition that every contract can be terminated by the team without cause or reason.
Then you watch NFL teams cut, what 40-50 players each every year and try to argue that they cannot do that because of Labor laws. If labor laws disallowed that how do you sign a collective bargaining agreement that says teams will sign up to 80 players and then MUST terminate enough contracts to retain a maximum of 53? Does the CBA mandate that NFL teams must vioate the law 27 times each summer?
You are much smarter than pushing this lame argument. You know that there is no requirement that an NFL team cite a reason for cutting a player. You have seen it happen with Taylor and TO this month. How you can continue to argue simply because it is the only alternative to admitting you are wrong is beyond me. Especially when the FACT that you are wrong is equal to the FACT that it is Thursday today.

 

[spacecrime]

You know that there is no requirement that an NFL team cite a reason for cutting a player. You have seen it happen with Taylor and TO this month.

Actually The Redskins gave a reason. They cut Taylor because he refused to do something that was not required of him: attend voluntary workouts.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your posting comments made before i posted anything in the thread and calling them your response to me.

The first post was exactly as I stated: my first post on the issue in this thread. It was post #6. Your post that I showed just above was #36 (you also posted #37 directed at me), and the post I noted as my response was #38.


Again, have a nice day.

 

[diggemsmack]