NFLPA* basically lies in their recent filing...

[DaBruinz]

Being overpaid to install a lug nut because you unionized and getting bonusses when the company does well are entirely different things. Earning more money because you do a good job is different than earning more money because the union tries to break the back of the company.
We haven't even gotten into the collectively bargainned protections that keep poor workers in their jobs.

Regardless of the reason for the failures of the auto industry the sole reason that my tax money is going to them is that the government would not allow them to fail, because they didn't want the jobs lost. Our economy is supposed to be based upon the survival of the fittest, yet my tax dollars are going, ultimately to overpay disinterested workers working for companies that should have been allowed to fail, so that they can keep the jobs that contributed to why the companies should have failed in the first place.

Your "tax" money only went to 2 of the 3 companies and Chrysler has repaid all their money and GM has repaid most of the money they borrowed as well. What you should be asking is what Congress did with that money. But lets not get sidetracked into the politics of other situations..

 

[patriot lifer]

I think its a tricky situation.
Tom Brady, et al, renounced their union so they could sue.
It seems obvious that the best result they can hope to get is to win, they reach a settlement where they trade the damages for a more lucrative CBA, thereby reforning the union that they needed to abolish to sue that the very system they agreed to as a union is illegal because they are not one as of today.
However, you cannot tell Tom Brady his doesn't have legal rights as an nonunionized employee of the NFL because you think he will collectively bargain those rights away in the future.
Its a very tricky issue.

While it is obvious that the best result (for the players) is that they leverage a potential win for a player-rich CBA, this is still thinking in the realm of substance over form. The Union* is negotiating (via periodic mediation) with the NFL. But the players have decertified. The obvious presumption is that if the NFLPA* agrees to a CBA, then the players will agree as well. As of now the legal form is that there is no union. The NFL and everyone else is presuming that all the players will re-form the union to legitimize the new CBA. So in effect, we are all assuming the union will return, but as of now there is no legal union--just an organization that everyone recognizes as a de facto union as opposed to one in de jure (one of the only legal terms I know ). I think the NFLPA* has played this one well and that is why it's unquestioned in the judicial system.

That being said, the issues still seem murky and I'm no legal scholar.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Being overpaid to install a lug nut because you unionized and getting bonusses when the company does well are entirely different things. Earning more money because you do a good job is different than earning more money because the union tries to break the back of the company.
We haven't even gotten into the collectively bargainned protections that keep poor workers in their jobs.

Regardless of the reason for the failures of the auto industry the sole reason that my tax money is going to them is that the government would not allow them to fail, because they didn't want the jobs lost. Our economy is supposed to be based upon the survival of the fittest, yet my tax dollars are going, ultimately to overpay disinterested workers working for companies that should have been allowed to fail, so that they can keep the jobs that contributed to why the companies should have failed in the first place.

The hourly wages between union and non-union is still pretty close. You're arguing that a union guy is overpaid to do manual labour. I'd agree with that. I'd just also add that the non-union guy is also overpaid for the same task.

And if you think some guy on the line making $30/hour is overpaid, not sure how you can ignore Rick Wagoner making $9-$15M a year while driving that company into the ground.

As for tax money going towards the big 3, I totally agree and share your anger/frustration. Just remember $25B went towards the auto workers, while $700B went towards the financial sector, where there are no unions.

And AIG alone received $90B to $170B (hard to keep track of exact numbers, but you can take the low-end if you want), almost 4 times what the auto sector did, while at the same time paying $165M in bonuses to their employees. The Toyota guys on the line got $6-$8K bonuses when the company did well, but $165M for driving the company into the ground? Again, no unions at AIG.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think some perspective is needed. Unions in the auto industry play a part in their industry struggles, but so do lack of innovation, poor leadership, and bad business decisions. It was awful to see $25B tax payer money go towards the auto industry to clean up for their mistakes, but then 4 to 8 times that money goes towards non-unionized AIG, not to mention 28 times that number going towards the big banks who triggered the recession, and we're upset about the auto unions?

 

[Triumph]

The average career for an NFL player is just a few years. When a lockout threatens to take away a full year or even part of a year of a player's career, there is a clear prima facie argument for irreparable harm.

It could be argued that the lockout is actually extending NFL players careers.

Their careers are short because of the rigors and violence of the game. Some players liken an NFL game to being in a car crash every week. Nobody is getting hurt in the off season and the added rest could be beneficial.

Logan Mankins missed the majority of last season and he didnt look like he was suffering from any ill effects of his self imposed lockout.

 

[Ring 6]

The hourly wages between union and non-union is still pretty close. You're arguing that a union guy is overpaid to do manual labour. I'd agree with that. I'd just also add that the non-union guy is also overpaid for the same task.

And if you think some guy on the line making $30/hour is overpaid, not sure how you can ignore Rick Wagoner making $9-$15M a year while driving that company into the ground.

As for tax money going towards the big 3, I totally agree and share your anger/frustration. Just remember $25B went towards the auto workers, while $700B went towards the financial sector, where there are no unions.

And AIG alone received $90B to $170B (hard to keep track of exact numbers, but you can take the low-end if you want), almost 4 times what the auto sector did, while at the same time paying $165M in bonuses to their employees. The Toyota guys on the line got $6-$8K bonuses when the company did well, but $165M for driving the company into the ground? Again, no unions at AIG.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think some perspective is needed. Unions in the auto industry play a part in their industry struggles, but so do lack of innovation, poor leadership, and bad business decisions. It was awful to see $25B tax payer money go towards the auto industry to clean up for their mistakes, but then 4 to 8 times that money goes towards non-unionized AIG, not to mention 28 times that number going towards the big banks who triggered the recession, and we're upset about the auto unions?

Agreed this is getting off track, my point was just in reponse to unions having nothing to do with the recession, and I disagree.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

So, a group of men (owners) decide to start a business entertaining people with football games and now the workers get to call the business shots, backed up by the force of the government.

Well, for better or for worse, here in the U.S., it's not just an issue of labor laws but of anti-trust laws. You can't run a professional sports league with separate owners of teams and a draft without something like an NFLPA. [Note: Baseball is exempt by law; the UFL doesn't need one because IIRC the league itself owns all the teams.]

Somehow, our labor laws are way out of order. No wonder unemployment is so high in this country.

That doesn't lead to this conclusion.

 

[patfanken]

The argument is that the owners are using illegal means to control the work relationship.
Anti Trust laws were designed to keep one company from controlling an industry 9or comnpanies colluding) so that the workers had no choice and were subject to whatever the company wanted to force upon them because it was work there or starve.
If you worked in a coal mine, and the mine owner was your landlord, and you had credit at the company store and the mine owners had an agreement to not hire each others workers, you had no choice but to accept what they offer, not chance to complain about pay, hours or work conditions, etc. Those people needed the protection of the law. When Antirust was written workers were at some level akin to slaves.
The NFLPA* is using those laws to argue that the players are being held down by ownership. They are not arguing or suing for a better split in the CBA they are suing for the owners and the league structure itself to be declared illegal. It is blatabtly obvious to me that the only end game they have is a better CBA than has been offered, so if they were to win, they would enter settlement talks, giving up what they just won for more money. I find it kind of slimy.

Andy, I think you hit it right out of the ball park with the comment above, but your diatribe and obvious disdain for unions in general was a big swing and miss. Others have pointed out where you have gone awry already so I won't belabor the point.

However a point that WAS missed was the effect of companies funding massive retirement benefits has been under emphasized. It wasn't as much what the auto companies were paying the workers who built the cars that was killing them. It was paying all that money to those who USED to build the cars. That problem hasn't hit the foreign auto makers who now build cars in the USA....yet.

 

[lamafist]

While they can't sign contracts, they most certainly CAN workout. In fact, we read every day how many of them ARE working out. So, again, how are they being harmed? Because a select few of the contractors are unemployed?? I have news for them, there are some 30 million people in the US who are unemployed right now. Deal with it.

They mean that players looking to sign with teams can't work out with them as per the usual process of signing a free agent.

As for the players basically demanding that their Anti-trust lawsuit move forward before the Appeals court has ruled on the League Appeal over the lockout, I'm sorry, but no, it shouldn't. Their Anti-trust lawsuits are inextricably tied to the Lock-out. They are only valid if the Appeals Court rules in their favor. Otherwise, they are not valid because they were filed PRIOR to the end of the CBA which, in and of itself is a violation of the CBA.

This is how the legal system works. When someone brings a complaint about an ongoing action that they assert is illegal and damaging, the court decides how things are going to be left while the suit is argued and decided. If both sides are determined to have a reasonable chance of winning, they make their decision largely based on which side suffers more irreparable damage from things being temporarily left in the other sides favor.

Given that the expedited hearing is taking place on June 3rd, I have no problem with the judges granting the stay until then. Should the judges ultimately uphold Nelson's ruling, missing the last two weeks of May won't increase the Players' damages significantly. Meanwhile, should the judges overturn Nelson, having insisted on the league starting up free agency for two weeks prior to reinstating the lockout creates the possibility of a number of complications that don't really benefit either side.

So I think the judges ruled correctly on the stay, even while I disagreed with some of the reasoning laid out in their decision.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I think you hit it right out of the ball park with the comment above, but your diatribe and obvious disdain for unions in general was a big swing and miss. Others have pointed out where you have gone awry already so I won't belabor the point.

However a point that WAS missed was the effect of companies funding massive retirement benefits has been under emphasized. It wasn't as much what the auto companies were paying the workers who built the cars that was killing them. It was paying all that money to those who USED to build the cars. That problem hasn't hit the foreign auto makers who now build cars in the USA....yet.

I wasnt so much arguing the union issue (this isnt the proper place) as I was disagreeing with the statement that the union had nothing to do with economic issue.

 

[crowell33]

The average career for an NFL player is just a few years. When a lockout threatens to take away a full year or even part of a year of a player's career, there is a clear prima facie argument for irreparable harm.

If your argument is that the players are not being injured by being unemployed because 30 million other people are unemployed and they should just deal with it... well, I guess that could be a viable legal argument. I've never actually heard someone try it in court before, the "deal with it" defense, but it does have possibilities, now that I think about it.

Agreed. NFL Players are not teachers with tenure. They are human beings like the rest of us who can be employed or unemployed tomorrow at the choice of their superiors and/or business owners.

The players certainly would find the Canadian Football league or Arena Football league eager to employ them forthwith. To believe that the NFL owners somehow legally owe employment to this group of players seems unlikely at best.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I agree with almost this entire post. Just on that last bit regarding labour laws, it's worth noting that compared to the rest of the developed nations in the world, the US is actually quite pro business, and may be the worst country to work in as an employee.

And I'm not sure that I'd attribute unemployment to the labour laws. Italy, France, and the UK all have much better labour laws, yet all have lower unemployment than the US. This recession was triggered by the big banks, not the unionized auto workers or teachers taking the summer off or the minimum-wage guy at Walmart who just got health insurance for the first time.

I think if you inspect the socialized economies in Western Europe, you will discover that US unemployment is merely rising to the usual and routine levels found in those less economically mobile, some would say 'sclerotic' economies.

As to whether the the banks or business is responsible for the econimc Great Recession, I think it is clear to me, that the organized crooks with ties to government, like the connected grifters were responsible. The politician/businessmen who obtained their positions by political connections, looted Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, EF Hutton, the first dominoes to fail, and their Congressional protectors are responsible. Specifically by name Franklin Reines, Tim Johnson, Jamie Gorelik, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, not a one of which has even been prosecuted.

 

[Metaphors]

I think its a tricky situation.
Tom Brady, et al, renounced their union so they could sue.
It seems obvious that the best result they can hope to get is to win, they reach a settlement where they trade the damages for a more lucrative CBA, thereby reforning the union that they needed to abolish to sue that the very system they agreed to as a union is illegal because they are not one as of today.
However, you cannot tell Tom Brady his doesn't have legal rights as an nonunionized employee of the NFL because you think he will collectively bargain those rights away in the future.
Its a very tricky issue.

Right on the money. If the players had kept the union and continued to negotiate, they would have claimed the high road and likely got a non-perfect deal, but one they could feel good about.

Now they are faced with this ugly reality:

1) The players flushed their union at a time when people are fighting for even the most basic of collective bargaining rights.
2) The players were exceedingly happy with the last CBA. Now they are in court saying those very same rules are a violation of their rights.
3) When they were in negotiations, the players were only focused on the salary numbers. Even the rules they weren't thrilled with (tags) weren't really in dispute.

The players accepted (even embraced) the fact that the NFL operated in violation of anti-trust regulations. I'm not a union guy, but collective bargaining works in a lot of situations. I'm also not a big fan of most lawyers, but the justice system is essential to a civilized society. I find the players using their union membership like a light switch to be insulting. I find the players use of the legal system, not to obtain justice but as a means of extortion, to be offensive.

So the players effectively took a dump on unions everywhere, not because the union wasn't protecting their rights, but because they thought the union didn't allow them enough attack options to extort salary concessions. They could collectively bargain for more rights and to prevent adverse working conditions (18 game schedule), but they saw that they couldn't prevent a lowering of the salary percentage.

And that is what this is really all about. It isn't about the salary percentage itself. It is all about that number going down in any way. That is pride and there is a reason why it is a deadly sin. That is their leadership. For the rank and file, it is about fear. Fear of loss and fear of persecution. As someone once said...Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Welcome to the dark side.

 

[lamafist]

The argument is that the owners are using illegal means to control the work relationship.
Anti Trust laws were designed to keep one company from controlling an industry 9or comnpanies colluding) so that the workers had no choice and were subject to whatever the company wanted to force upon them because it was work there or starve.
If you worked in a coal mine, and the mine owner was your landlord, and you had credit at the company store and the mine owners had an agreement to not hire each others workers, you had no choice but to accept what they offer, not chance to complain about pay, hours or work conditions, etc. Those people needed the protection of the law. When Antirust was written workers were at some level akin to slaves.
The NFLPA* is using those laws to argue that the players are being held down by ownership. They are not arguing or suing for a better split in the CBA they are suing for the owners and the league structure itself to be declared illegal. It is blatabtly obvious to me that the only end game they have is a better CBA than has been offered, so if they were to win, they would enter settlement talks, giving up what they just won for more money. I find it kind of slimy.

Actually, when the original antitrust legislations like the Sherman Act were passed, they actually made most of the functions of labor organizations illegal along with the price-fixing and competition-restraining of the business trusts. It wasn't until the Clayton Act that unions were exempted from antitrust restrictions themselves.

That was only the start of a continuous process of legislation on the rights of workers, organized and otherwise, in this country that has seen major legislation enacted in every decade since. So I don't think it's accurate or fair to suggest that the NFL players are trying to use arcane laws left over, unchanged, from the turn of the century, designed to rescue coal workers from company towns, if that was at all your intention.

As for the sliminess... I don't see it that way. In a collective bargaining agreement, the union is entitled to concede certain individual rights on behalf of the workforce in return for various guarantees of protections and benefits from the employer. If the employer presumes to not have to recognize these individual rights outside of a collectively bargained agreement, the workers have nothing to bargain with. Thus, they have to bring suit to force the employer to recognize the rights as individual employees that they would then be willing to bargain with.

 

[Triumph]

Andy, I think you hit it right out of the ball park with the comment above, but your diatribe and obvious disdain for unions in general was a big swing and miss. Others have pointed out where you have gone awry already so I won't belabor the point.

However a point that WAS missed was the effect of companies funding massive retirement benefits has been under emphasized. It wasn't as much what the auto companies were paying the workers who built the cars that was killing them. It was paying all that money to those who USED to build the cars. That problem hasn't hit the foreign auto makers who now build cars in the USA....yet.

Therein lies the problem Ken.

Rising healthcare costs are one of the culprits and companies like GM have been around for ages with hoards of retirees where as Toyota is relatively new.

The labor cost to build a car is significant, but really not a back breaker in terms of cost.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Actually, when the original antitrust legislations like the Sherman Act were passed, they actually made most of the functions of labor organizations illegal along with the price-fixing and competition-restraining of the business trusts. It wasn't until the Clayton Act that unions were exempted from antitrust restrictions themselves.

That was only the start of a continuous process of legislation on the rights of workers, organized and otherwise, in this country that has seen major legislation enacted in every decade since. So I don't think it's accurate or fair to suggest that the NFL players are trying to use arcane laws left over, unchanged, from the turn of the century, designed to rescue coal workers from company towns, if that was at all your intention.

As for the sliminess... I don't see it that way. In a collective bargaining agreement, the union is entitled to concede certain individual rights on behalf of the workforce in return for various guarantees of protections and benefits from the employer. If the employer presumes to not have to recognize these individual rights outside of a collectively bargained agreement, the workers have nothing to bargain with. Thus, they have to bring suit to force the employer to recognize the rights as individual employees that they would then be willing to bargain with.

I still fail to see how the individual player is made "more free" by illegal actions by the Owner's leadership and the Players organization leadership, operating in collusion, in the form of a CBA. His individual rights have been abrogated by others.

 

[lamafist]

Agreed. NFL Players are not teachers with tenure. They are human beings like the rest of us who can be employed or unemployed tomorrow at the choice of their superiors and/or business owners.

The players certainly would find the Canadian Football league or Arena Football league eager to employ them forthwith. To believe that the NFL owners somehow legally owe employment to this group of players seems unlikely at best.

Except, the NFL players aren't unemployed. They are still employed and under contract with their respective teams.

I suppose the NFL could get around part of lockout/antitrust issue by having the teams simply terminate all of the players immediately. Then the players would, in fact, be unemployed... but if the NFL started back up again, they'd all have to be treated as free agents.

So it's not that the owners legally owe the players employment, it's that if they don't want to let them work, they would have to actually terminate their employment contracts, which of course, they have no intention or desire of doing.

(Also, having 32 supposedly competing businesses collectively decide to fire their entire talent pool would itself be a pretty big antitrust violation.)

 

[lamafist]

I still fail to see how the individual player is made "more free" by illegal actions by the Owner's leadership and the Players organization leadership, operating in collusion, in the form of a CBA. His individual rights have been abrogated by others.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the individual player is made "more free." They aren't. They are ceding some of their individual rights as workers to the union so that the union can trade these concessions en masse to secure real benefits and protections from the employers.

It's just the collective version of an employee ceding certain rights as part of the employment contract.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

The unionized auto worker is responsible for the demise of the auto industry and its inability to compete with imported cars
...
When utlimately part of the excessive wages paid to unionized auto workers is coming out of my paycheck because we wouldn't let an uncompetitive dinosaur fail because it would cost the overpaid union workers their jobs, it certainly has a lot to do with the recession we are in.

Agreed this is getting off track, my point was just in reponse to unions having nothing to do with the recession, and I disagree.

I wasnt so much arguing the union issue (this isnt the proper place) as I was disagreeing with the statement that the union had nothing to do with economic issue.

Just for clarity's sake, there are two separate issues here. If we're discussing unions and their impact on the auto industry's competitiveness, I agree with you, probably 100%.

But with regards to the union's impact on the recent recession, that is incorrect. They didn't cause it. It impacted them, absolutely, but it impacted all of us.

You could blame the housing market and sub-prime, or the commodities boom, or rising inflation which was shown in energy and food prices. Some even go so far as blaming the previous tech bubble not being properly dealt with. It was a combination of all those, and we can argue for years about the actual root causes.

But nowhere do you find the auto industry responsible in any way for the recession. Their issues started well before the recession, their issues were exacerbated by the recession, and they were bailed out during the recession, but they were not one of the reasons for triggering the recession.

I think if you inspect the socialized economies in Western Europe, you will discover that US unemployment is merely rising to the usual and routine levels found in those less economically mobile, some would say 'sclerotic' economies.

As to whether the the banks or business is responsible for the econimc Great Recession, I think it is clear to me, that the organized crooks with ties to government, like the connected grifters were responsible. The politician/businessmen who obtained their positions by political connections, looted Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, EF Hutton, the first dominoes to fail, and their Congressional protectors are responsible. Specifically by name Franklin Reines, Tim Johnson, Jamie Gorelik, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, not a one of which has even been prosecuted.

I agree 100%, but I think that's a whole different thread.