Alan Millstein: Brady's chances of en banc hearing dramatically improved with latest amicus filings

[QuantumMechanic]

That is a interesting take, and one that makes some sense. But if I read the OP correctly, Fienstien thinks the case has far reaching potential that go beyond the narrow confines of sports union/management relations. It is the reason why the AFL/CIO bothered to write its brief. They see the potential for management to use this precedent to further erode the arbitration process in their favor.

Oh, you're certainly right about that. Feinberg wants the panel decision wiped out because he thinks that it'll eventually be construed as to bleep over arbitration in general. He's worried (IMHO) the judges aren't thinking that way -- that they're thinking there isn't general applicability because of the uniqueness of the CBA -- but they're wrong about the consequences of their decision. Hence his filing the brief (with no doubt some phone calls from Olson to help ) which (IMHO) he hopes leads them to think "My god, what did we just do?!?"

 

[Deus Irae]

That is a interesting take, and one that makes some sense. But if I read the OP correctly, Fienstien thinks the case has far reaching potential that go beyond the narrow confines of sports union/management relations. It is the reason why the AFL/CIO bothered to write its brief. They see the potential for management to use this precedent to further erode the arbitration process in their favor.

Two hugely important issues at hand are:

1. Craziness of subjecting one's self (or fellow union members, etc...) to a process where facts and fairness are deemed completely unnecessary by the courts. If not dealt with appropriately, this could, and should, lead to the end of arbitration between even moderately equal parties. The powerless would still be forced into such ridiculously stacked arbitration processes, but unions, for example, would be crazy not to tell their CBA 'opponents' to go pound sand.
   
2. Future potential that any and all 'catch all' type clauses will be refused because they could be read to overrule more specific clauses

 

[rochrist]

Agreed. And hopefully not to derail the thread because I fully understand the travesty of justice the NFL* has imposed on Brady and the Pats, and the abject unfairness of it all.

That being said, I can't be the only Pats fan who would love to see what we really have in JG, especially if he can lead the Pats to a 3-1 or 4-0 start while playing well, and giving the haters something more to hate; the thought that the post-Brady Pats will continue to dominate the other teams, as the TFB-BB tandem has done since 2001.

I'm torn. I'd really like to see JG under fire in a real game with the #1 weapons at his disposal, but I'd also really REALLY love to see that smug pompous blowhard smacked in the face.

 

[VectorPrime]

I don't understand why people want to see Jimmy G at the expense of Brady. If it were up to me Jimmy G would literally never see the field outside of preseason.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don't understand why people want to see Jimmy G at the expense of Brady. If it were up to me Jimmy G would literally never see the field outside of preseason.

These people are waiting for their lithium to kick in...

 

[Danger Zone]

I really want to see Brady break some of Manning's sacred records, the ones you know he and the Brady haters just love to point to. Breaking them is doable, but a sure thing. 4 games now, not later, might make the difference in doing just that.

 

[Galeb]

In other words, it's more probable than not?

Uh, that quote isn't actually from me.

 

[Galeb]

May have cost him his job

Did Roger Goodell Have The Pats Fan Who Gave Him the Bird Fired?

If true, Roger deserves to have his head kicked in... again.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

That is a interesting take, and one that makes some sense. But if I read the OP correctly, Fienstien thinks the case has far reaching potential that go beyond the narrow confines of sports union/management relations. It is the reason why the AFL/CIO bothered to write its brief. They see the potential for management to use this precedent to further erode the arbitration process in their favor.

But Q's point is that the moronic NFLPA union is a unique case or an outlier.
Normal unions would not sign an agreement needing broad powers like the NFLPA did, so the point is moot because nobody else finds themselves in this corner case. It's too unusual to affect normal labor law.

 

[Deus Irae]

But Q's point is that the moronic NFLPA union is a unique case or an outlier.
Normal unions would not sign an agreement needing broad powers like the NFLPA did, so the point is moot because nobody else finds themselves in this corner case. It's too unusual to affect normal labor law.

The MLBPA, arguably the strongest union in all of the United States, did just that with regards to domestic violence. The stupidity of Americans never fails to impress.

 

[aluminum seats]

I don't believe their decision is going to be based upon who likes who, it's going to be based upon the strength of the legal arguments.

I'd love it if life worked that way. Usually doesn't.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The MLBPA, arguably the strongest union in all of the United States, did just that with regards to domestic violence. The stupidity of Americans never fails to impress.

But do they let the MLB Commissioner be the arbitrator? (I honestly don't know, as I give fewer than zero fu**s about baseball.)

 

[Ivan]

But Q's point is that the moronic NFLPA union is a unique case or an outlier.
Normal unions would not sign an agreement needing broad powers like the NFLPA did, so the point is moot because nobody else finds themselves in this corner case. It's too unusual to affect normal labor law.

But that doesn't change the fact that Goodell punished Brady for things he wasn't appealing. In other words he created new grounds for the sanctions that Brady never got to appeal. Had Goodell simply ruled that he was upholding the punishment being appealed then the league could claim that he doesn't have to be fair, but nowhere does the union give Goodell the authority to create new grounds for punishment that weren't part of the appeal. What Feinberg is arguing is that will completely undermine the arbitration process if allowed to stand.

 

[Ivan]

But do they let the MLB Commissioner be the arbitrator? (I honestly don't know, as I give fewer than zero fu**s about baseball.)

I don't know, what I do know is that the other leagues spend no time in court, and the NFL didn't when Tagliabue was the commissioner. All of the legal troubles the NFL goes through stem from Goodell's incompetence.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

But Q's point is that the moronic NFLPA union is a unique case or an outlier.
Normal unions would not sign an agreement needing broad powers like the NFLPA did, so the point is moot because nobody else finds themselves in this corner case. It's too unusual to affect normal labor law.

That's not quite my point.

My point is that (a) the Commissioner being able to pick the arbitrator (including being able to pick himself) is sui generis or close to it, (b) that stupid uniqueness may well have figured into why the panel ruled how they did, figuring that the effects of their decision would be limited to the NFL, (c) that judges in the whole court might be thinking that way, (d) that decisions can take on a life of their own as inventive attorneys get their hands on them, (e) that judges don't always realize what the ultimate consequences of a decision can be, and finally (f) that Feinberg was metaphorically shaking them by the lapels saying "you fools -- this is what's going to happen...to everyone!"

 

[Ivan]

Does anyone know what Wallach was being his opinion that CAII will tell the NFL to respond to the request for eh banc on?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Does anyone know what Wallach was being his opinion that CAII will tell the NFL to respond to the request for eh banc on?

He's basing it on his opinion that there's a good chance that CA2 is at least seriously considering en banc review. If that's true, CA2 would want to hear from the side that doesn't want en banc review.

So I guess it boils down to what the basis is for Wallach's opinion that CA2 is at least seriously considering en banc review

 

[Ivan]

He's basing it on his opinion that there's a good chance that CA2 is at least seriously considering en banc review. If that's true, CA2 would want to hear from the side that doesn't want en banc review.

So I guess it boils down to what the basis is for Wallach's opinion that CA2 is at least seriously considered en banc review

Thanks. I figured that was part of his thinking but didn't know if he had learned something that led to the prediction.

 

[Gumby]

That's not quite my point.

My point is that (a) the Commissioner being able to pick the arbitrator (including being able to pick himself) is sui generis or close to it, (b) that stupid uniqueness may well have figured into why the panel ruled how they did, figuring that the effects of their decision would be limited to the NFL, (c) that judges in the whole court might be thinking that way, (d) that decisions can take on a life of their own as inventive attorneys get their hands on them, (e) that judges don't always realize what the ultimate consequences of a decision can be, and finally (f) that Feinberg was metaphorically shaking them by the lapels saying "you fools -- this is what's going to happen...to everyone!"

Understand all you say about sui generis and therefore the case could be deemed to have to little other applicability to make worth their time, but . . .

either your supposition that (almost) NO other CBAs have one of the parties as arbitrator

or i am confused as to why Feinberg made such a big point about 'even if the arbitrator comes from one side, he still has an inherent responsibility (authority from the CBA) to give an impartial appeal hearing '. I dont remember his exact words and too lazy to go back to pg 1, but i know that was one of his points .

 

[Gronkowski123]

when we get news if the hearing will be granted?? couple more weeks?