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?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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?
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.
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.
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.
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..
Are you making the claim that no unions or associations can expel members for disciplinary actions?
Frankly I find the notion that the NFLPA would rather give sub standard service than expel Hernandez appalling.
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.
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.
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
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.
Anyone charged with murder...yes. Is there some sort of downside to that? Does that somehow give management more power?
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’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.