NFLPA to file grievance for Hernandez' bonus

[PatsWickedPissah]

You don't think Murder is over that line? I'm pretty sure it is. If that isn't then what is? If the Tsarnev brothers were part of the union would you be ok with them filing the grievance?

Its just a worker's union. They can expel members for not paying dues but they can't expel them for being charged with murder?

I say he's obviously guilty as hell but agree with the NFLPA that their dues paying member has been convicted of NOTHING as yet. De facto compliance by the union in stripping the accused of otherwise earned income heads toward perdition. I also agree with the Pats stance. That's why we adjudicate.

 

[BSR]

This. The NFLPA is not an adjudicator of culpability, its mandate cannot and should not include making calls about whether or not its members morally deserve something or are likely to be convicted based on the weight of the evidence they have seen. If you demand they do so in one case, no matter how clear cut you think it is, you are setting the precedent that going forward a player's specific case should be weighed by some arbitrary standard of "justice" and that the owners can put pressure on them to give in or waive all sorts of grievances because "it's pretty obvious hes a bad guy." Thats not the role of a union nor should it ever be, thats just a violation of its mandate and the beginning of further concessions.

Keep in mind that if those of us that are certain he's going to be convicted are correct then the only parties that are likely to receive this money are a child whose father is in prison for life or the family of odin lloyd.

The only precedent they are setting is to expel anyone charged with murder from participating in a union. Expelling someone from the union is not a violation of their mandate unless their mandate is to protect players against murder charges, which I am pretty sure it isn't. It has nothing to do with adjudicating culpability or morals.

 

[BSR]

Connection: the NFLPA protects a member's contractual rights.

Pondscum as he appears to be, Hernandez has yet to be convicted of anything. The union is not judge and jury. They can hardly say "Players, we have your backs! We fight for your rights in times of trouble! Unless, you know, you actually get in trouble, in which case we never met you."




You can't retroactively expel anybody. You're trying to change history. He was a union member at the time the Patriots cut him.

Right contractual not constitutional. Therefore you agree that they aren't similar then? And in that role of protecting their contractual rights they aren't there to help players through murder charges. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to expel their own members and don't know why they couldn't have done so as soon as he was charged with murder.

 

[BSR]

if it was a lawyer, what you propose would have the lawyer disbarred

they have to protect him.......contractually and/or legally

Why? A lawyer can fire his client. Under what law does it say that a union can't expel a member?

 

[BSR]

I say he's obviously guilty as hell but agree with the NFLPA that their dues paying member has been convicted of NOTHING as yet. De facto compliance by the union in stripping the accused of otherwise earned income heads toward perdition. I also agree with the Pats stance. That's why we adjudicate.

The NFLPA expelling him strip him of no income. They just stop representing him.

If I were a member of the NFLPA, I would be pretty pissed that my dues were going towards helping Hernandez.

As of yet, I haven't heard a real reason why the NFLPA can't expel Hernandez from the union and therefore stop representing him. I don't pretend to be a union expert by any means but the answers I've received so far just make no sense. I'll ask again, what are the consequences to the union if they decided to expel Hernandez the day after he was charged with murder?

And to play devil's advocate further for those saying the union HAS to represent their due paying member what happens if he is convicted of murder? Using the same argument wouldn't they have to continue to represent him? So what is this 'adjudication' you are waiting for?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Look up the meaning of accused vs. convicted.

HINT: They're NOT synonyms.

Another...

# accused >> convicted

 

[TyronePoole]

The only precedent they are setting is to expel anyone charged with murder from participating in a union. Expelling someone from the union is not a violation of their mandate unless their mandate is to protect players against murder charges, which I am pretty sure it isn't. It has nothing to do with adjudicating culpability or morals.

They aren't protecting anyone against any charges. You've arbitrarily drawn the line at murder charges and are deciding that that is what the precedent is limited to because it's a convenient distinction for you to make at this moment. The fact is they would be for the first time weighing the actual charges in how they carry out their mandate and that is not their role. The entire point of the union is to protect its members period. You can't take dues from someone and then later decide you are free of your exact obligation to them because of X random factor you've just made up on the spot. The NFLPA isn't some body that governs the players it IS the players. If it caved on this it should just dissolve instantly since it'd be completely worthless.

 

[TyronePoole]

The NFLPA expelling him strip him of no income. They just stop representing him.

If I were a member of the NFLPA, I would be pretty pissed that my dues were going towards helping Hernandez.

As of yet, I haven't heard a real reason why the NFLPA can't expel Hernandez from the union and therefore stop representing him. I don't pretend to be a union expert by any means but the answers I've received so far just make no sense. I'll ask again, what are the consequences to the union if they decided to expel Hernandez the day after he was charged with murder?

And to play devil's advocate further for those saying the union HAS to represent their due paying member what happens if he is convicted of murder? Using the same argument wouldn't they have to continue to represent him? So what is this 'adjudication' you are waiting for?

what is a union promising its future members if it decides to randomly abandon a member?

 

[patchick]

BSR, try thinking of it this way:

If Hernandez had made you a loan before he was arrested, could you just decide you didn't have to pay him back now because you've decided he's a bad person? Of course not. You had a legal, contractual obligation that had nothing to do with the charges against him. You're still bound by it.

That's the position the NFLPA is in. The guy was a dues-paying member, and they are contracted to represent him in a dispute over unpaid workout bonuses, as much as they'd wish otherwise.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Pondscum as he appears to be, Hernandez has yet to be convicted of anything. The union is not judge and jury. They can hardly say "Players, we have your backs! We fight for your rights in times of trouble! Unless, you know, you actually get in trouble, in which case we never met you."

Here's about the only way I think the NFLPA can do this without risking massive egg on their face or abandoning a player:

They reach an agreement with the Patriots in which any unpaid money owed to Hernandez is placed in an escrow account, to be released to Hernandez ONLY IF he is not convicted of any felonies. If he is convicted, then any such money immediately reverts to the Patriots.

 

[BSR]

Look up the meaning of accused vs. convicted.

HINT: They're NOT synonyms.

Another...

# accused >> convicted

Again, what if he is convicted? Then what?

 

[Dingleberry]

It really puts Aaron's douchbaggery into perspective.

He pissssed away a life in which he gets essentially a throw-away bonus for more money than most people make in a year.....for working out!

Crazy that people like him (and others) throw away their winning lottery tickets.

 

[BSR]

They aren't protecting anyone against any charges. You've arbitrarily drawn the line at murder charges and are deciding that that is what the precedent is limited to because it's a convenient distinction for you to make at this moment. The fact is they would be for the first time weighing the actual charges in how they carry out their mandate and that is not their role. The entire point of the union is to protect its members period. You can't take dues from someone and then later decide you are free of your exact obligation to them because of X random factor you've just made up on the spot. The NFLPA isn't some body that governs the players it IS the players. If it caved on this it should just dissolve instantly since it'd be completely worthless.

Its not a "convenient" distinction its a moral one. And why isn't it there role? Why should they be allowed to take an amoral stance when no other organization is allowed to? Code of ethics are common practices among all types of corporations, partnerships, organizations and associations. Why should the NFLPA get a free pass when others are not?

As for taking dues and then later deciding to expel them. Well of course they can just like any type of organization can for violating policies. The fact that the union is the players makes it even worse not better.

Your notion that it would instantly dissolve if it caved on this is based on nothing but hyperbole as far as I can tell.

 

[BSR]

BSR, try thinking of it this way:

If Hernandez had made you a loan before he was arrested, could you just decide you didn't have to pay him back now because you've decided he's a bad person? Of course not. You had a legal, contractual obligation that had nothing to do with the charges against him. You're still bound by it.

That's the position the NFLPA is in. The guy was a dues-paying member, and they are contracted to represent him in a dispute over unpaid workout bonuses, as much as they'd wish otherwise.

As far as I know the above is incorrect. According to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act you can be expelled from a union just like you can be expelled from any other association.

 

[BSR]

what is a union promising its future members if it decides to randomly abandon a member?

They'll represent you in your dealings with the NFL as long as you are a member and you won't be a member if you commit murder?

 

[mcmurtry86]

They'll represent you in your dealings with the NFL as long as you are a member and you won't be a member if you commit murder?

Hernandez is an accused murderer still, not a convicted one.

He earned those workout bonuses before his alleged crime was committed. He should be entitled to that money unless the NFLPA wants there to be a precedent set that allows teams to withhold money for suspicions and accusations.

Unless it is explicitly stated in the CBA or Hernandez's contract that merely being arrested - not convicted - is enough of a "conduct detrimental" to warrant forfeiting earned monies, the NFLPA should fight the Patriots on this.

This isn't about getting Hernandez his money. This is about preventing players in the future from losing guarantees for reasons which aren't explicitly laid out in the CBA or the individual contract.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Apparently accused vs convicted is too subtle a distinction for some

 

[BSR]

Hernandez is an accused murderer still, not a convicted one.

He earned those workout bonuses before his alleged crime was committed. He should be entitled to that money unless the NFLPA wants there to be a precedent set that allows teams to withhold money for suspicions and accusations.

Unless it is explicitly stated in the CBA or Hernandez's contract that merely being arrested - not convicted - is enough of a "conduct detrimental" to warrant forfeiting earned monies, the NFLPA should fight the Patriots on this.

This isn't about getting Hernandez his money. This is about preventing players in the future from losing guarantees for reasons which aren't explicitly laid out in the CBA or the individual contract.

NFL Personal Conduct Policy - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

While criminal activity is clearly outside the scope of permissible conduct, and persons who engage in criminal activity will be subject to discipline, the standard of conduct for persons employed in the NFL is considerably higher. It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime.

 

[BSR]

Apparently accused vs convicted is too subtle a distinction for some

Apparently some don't understand that the distinction is irrelevant in this context. None of the arguments stated have anything to do with weather the NFLPA represents Hernandez or not. Accused vs convicted is meaningless. There are plenty of convicted felons represented by the NFLPA.

 

[ausbacker]

If Hernandez is entitled to that money, despite whatever your personal feeling toward him, I don't have a problem with the NFLPA's actions. Now, if you were to ask me if I thought Hernandez deserved that money then we'd be having a different discussion.