Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Deus Irae, Apr 25, 2011.
which means this is not getting settled till july because it will be tied up in 8th district ct...
I should say july at the earliest.... yes the players won, which we all knew.. but the owners will fight this thing until the end.. so if people think fa can begin next week and trade picks for players not going to happen just yet...
What I dont get - and I'm not taking sides here, I feel both sides are culpable in this mess they're all in - is why the players union de-certifying isn't seen as a sham? They've done it before, and they'll reform as soon as this is all over with?
So the left leaning judge ruled in favor of the players and the right leaning appeals court will likely rule in favor of the owners. BTW, I would bet the appeals court will grant the stay for the owners.
The dispute and CBA disaster has not changed today.
There is still a LONG battle to be fought before Football in 2011 is a reality...right now todays ruling is not exactly a bright sign of change.
Judge rules for NFL players, lifts owners' lockout - ESPN Boston
This is still going to be dragged out through the court system over the next few months. It's far from over. I like the ruling, though. With that said, wake me up when this is all over.
Tactic and sham are not synonymous.
doesnt answer the question. One could restate is as
"why isn't this tactic by the players (de-certification) seen as a sham, given that it is an illegal tactic that is specifically disallowed?"
Is something different this time? Is it the left-leaning court? Am I interpreting the law incorrectly here? Am I missing something?
Im not calling it a sham, just saying 'why isn't it seen that way'?
The owners have repeatedly said there will be football and have forced their season ticket holders to pay for their seats, I guess that means the lockout is a sham because we all know they are going to play football.
The owners had the right to opt out of the CBA and exercised it.
The player's had the right to dissolve the union and challenge the restrictions on their rights as workers and they did so.
The owners are the ones who need a union and demanded the players recertify or they would opt out of the original CBA and now they are trying to claim the players cannot dissolve a union the owners demanded they form. So what the owners are actually saying is that the players had to form a union and have to remain in one. As far as i know that's illegal.
the strategy that the players had all along was to have this played out in the courts. They NEVER had an interest in any kind of negotiated settlement.
The problem as I see it, is now that its in the courts, this is no longer a negotiation, its a court battle run by LAWYERS. And Lawyers by nature are litigators. For litigators its ALL about winning. Its not about what is right or wrong, or justice, or getting an equitable settlement for both sides.
Doesn't matter what the next court rules, there is no one now for the owners to negotiate with. This will be a conflict that some judge will resolve and he won't care about the game, only the "legal issues, and how best to cover his ass on appeal. Both sides will now go nuclear in their strategies because the Lawyers now have control, and THEY will dictate what it will take to win and in those cases its no hold barred
I am now totally depressed. Nothing good will come of this. It Jeffrey Kessler gets his way the game will change. Ironically I would be willing to bet that the Pats will be one of the perennial haves in a league made up of haves and have nots, BUT the great competitive nature of the game as we know it will be gone
And what's REALLY ironic is that the biggest losers in this nuclear winter are the great majority of the players. What stupid, stupid dupes.
I really couldn't care less about who we draft.
So you believe that people who are in unions must be forced to remain in them?
I believe I'm not going to engage you in conversation on this, as you've obviously got an agenda to push. I wasn't taking sides (right now, I hate both of them).
It will be interesting to see the next two things:
Number 1: If the appelate court "stays" Judge Nelson's ruling until the owners appeal can be made. A "stay" just means that the order does not take effect until the appeal court rules (to either affirm or overturn the original Judge's ruling). The Judge in her ruling stated that she belived that the players were being harmed, and that is what she cited as a reason for not staying her ruling until appeal. All Judges operate on the ASSumption not to on up another Judge, so unless the appealate court thinks she is wrong, I don't see them staying her order.
Which leads us to Number 2:
What rules will the owners put in place? Will they do the most defensable thing (in court) and just re-instate the rules from 2011? (Screwing both Mankins (6th year FA) and the Jets (Final 4), or will they go ahead and re-instate a salary cap, rookie wage pool, and 18 game season. Usually in arbitration when the talks breadk down the owners will impose the "last, best offer" whihc included the rookie wage pool and 19 schedule.
We should know if the appealate court grants a stay within a 24 hours, after that, all bets are off, could you imagine Free Agency and the draft starting at the same time???
De-certification is not an illegal tactic, and it's certainly not specifically disallowed.
Decertification Election | National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation
What you are doing is beginning your argument having already made the ruling/assumption of 'sham', and then trying to ask the question as if you haven't already decided that.
Actually, it's about racking up billable hours.
Seriously, though, most cases do eventually get settled before they reach the courtroom. I expect the same will happen here . . . the question is how long it will take.
I agree with you on all counts here.
IIRC, the 18-game season was not slated to start this year in any case.
You're reading into my statement too much. Regardless, I found the answer:
Wonât the NFL claim that that the NFLPA dissolving is a âshamâ because they did it prior?
As noted, in Freeman McNeil v NFL, the NFLPA has dissolved before in 1989 only to resurface as a union in 1993. The NFL will claim that in dissolving for a second time, itâs a âshamâ â a legal move to avoid bargaining in good faith as a union.
But, thereâs some wiggle room for the NFLPA that was brokered as part of the current CBA.
(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and its Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any antitrust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of its status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps, or has not in fact occurred.
So, the NFL and the (ex)NFLPA had an agreement in place that a de-certification could not be considered a sham. That explains it, and answers my question. I'll let you guys get back to taking sides now.
I wasn't taking a side. You were assuming the answer in your question. In other words, you were taking a side while claiming that you weren't.
No agenda at all, just a simple question. You asked a question regarding the player's right to dissolve their union and i asked a pretty obvious question in return, if you can't answer it that's fine. One of the great ironies of this situation is that it is those who are the most ardently anti-union who are actually arguing that the players must remain in one.
Bottom line: the players don't need to form a union it is the owners who need the players to form a union so they can use the structures they want to run the game the way they want. Those structures compromise the freedoms of the players and that is why the law is on the player's side and the owners need to deal with them fairly to get them to give up those rights.
I would like to see the game remain essentially the same and hope they go back to the table and form a fair deal for all but i'm guessing it will simply continue on in the courts.
In practice, what does this mean for the short term. Do the players start working out @ The Razor tomorrow?
Probably the main reason is that in the ruling in the Reggie White case years ago, the NFL, in order to win arguments on other issues, conceded the union's right to decertify in future disputes. The league agreed to waive its right to argue that decertification is a "sham or otherwise ineffective" provided that âa majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration."
In other words, the league forfeited its right to argue that decertification is a sham the last time the union decertified. Whether or not it actually is a sham is sort of irrelevant here. The NFL lost an antitrust suit last time around and as such is a little like a prisoner on probation for an old crime: its rights are limited and it operates under a pretty arbitrary set of rules imposed upon it by the government. Under those rules, the league can't call decertification a sham. The tactic is specifically allowed under the old ruling. Nelson therefore didn't really have a choice.
Ah, thanks for the well thought out response! That's the same answer I came up with (see my post a few above). Unions generally aren't allowed to decertify as a tactic (unless that decertification is in good-faith and the union won't be recertified in the short-term) - but in this case the NFL and NFLPA agreed that that can't be the case. Question answered, I'm going to go back to worrying if there will be/won't be football this year
They will try, remember alot of these guys have off-season workout bonuses built into thier contracts.
This doesn't make sense. Either you believe the decertifcation is a "sham," or you believe the player's want no deal and an unfettered free market, it cannot be both.
I think you misunderstand what's happening here. The Brady suit is almost certainly not going to go through. It was designed as a tactic to scare the owners into abandoning their financial demands and make a new CBA deal. That is exactly what will happen after the owners lose the emergency stay ruling. Within weeks after league business resumes under the old CBA, the owners will come back to the table and offer the players a deal they can accept, and football will go back to business as usual with pretty much the exact same rules as before. This was the players' endgame all along.
The players are not really trying to end the draft and so on. If they really pressed the matter, they could probably win those cases, but they don't want to. All they wanted was to not have to take a pay cut during a period of escalating profits. Now that they have the leverage to get that, they will do so.
Just read a snyonpsis of the Judge's ruling and basically she says the the labor laws do not appy in this case, because their is no union and management, the union is disssovled and basically the owners can do what they want. The only problem for the owners is that they have an anti-trust lawsuit against them, so if they do nothing and don't sign any free agents, they are basically making the case that they are a monopoly, my bet is that they go back to last years rules and maybe stick the players with a few new twists.
The Final paragraph of her ruling....
âThe nationâs labor laws have always applied only where an action involves or grows out of a labor dispute. Such a labor relationship exists only where a union exists to bargain on behalf of its members. Where those employees effectively renounce the union as their collective bargaining agent â and accept the consequences of doing so â and elect to proceed in negotiating contracts individually, any disputes between the employees and their employers are no longer governed by federal labor law. Likewise, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which applies only to preclude some injunctions in the context of âlabor disputes,â also no longer applies here to preclude injunctive relief. The NFL urges this Court to expand the law beyond these traditional dictates and argues that the protections of labor law should apply for some indefinite period beyond the collapse and termination of the collective bargaining relationship. In the absence of either persuasive policy or authority, this Court takes a more conservative approach, and declines to do so.
âThis Court, having found that the Unionâs unequivocal disclaimer is valid and effective, concludes there is no need to defer any issue to the NLRB. Because that disclaimer is valid and effective, the Norris-LaGuardia Actâs prohibition against injunctive relief does not preclude granting the Playerâs motion for a preliminary
injunction against what the League characterizes as a âlockout.â
âBased on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
â1. The Brady Plaintiffsâ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 2] is
â2. The Eller Plaintiffsâ motion for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 58] is
â3. The âlockoutâ is enjoined.â
@legal note, all court proceedings are "public domain" so no copyright laws apply!
In the immortal words of braodcasting legend "Mean" Gene, we could have pandamonimum breaking out in the ring!!! The players have no union, they at "at will" employees governed by only thier signed employement contracts. The league could make up any rules they want. I say lets break out the XFL rules, no fair catches, mortal combat verus a coin flip to start the game, I'm lovin it!
BTW, as of this moment, Peyton Manning is a free agent!
The Appeals Court this will go to is decidedly more favorable to ownership but I'm really starting to wonder if the League's case is so weak it can't win in any Court. I think the owners need to realize their money grab failed and that they should sit down and come up with a fair CBA. I hate the idea of an 18 game season but I would go along with the players agreeing to it in return for a steady share of revenues without a ceiling. I can even see the players agreeing to a lesser % of net profits as long as that ceiling isn't imposed. The owners and players are partners in the league because the owners need the players consent to impose the restrictions they do to run the league the way they want, e.g...free agency, tags, a salary cap, and the draft.
I think the owners should realize they have pushed it as far as they should and go to the table because they are completely screwed if the players win in Appeals Court, at that point the owners would have no leverage at all in negotiations and would have to pray for The Supremes to bail them out.
Separate names with a comma.