NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy

CheramieIII · 07-12-2018, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by nola_swammi

Simple solution, stop beating and killing black Americans, then letting the offender not be prosecuted.

We really didn't go there did we? We need stats. Just to say what you feel doesn't make it true no matter how passionately you feel about it. All of the cases where a police officer beating or killing a cop are shown on the news. How many do you see on the news and of those I would say at least 50% are justified. Now how many blacks kill blacks and why don't we talk about that too. It's easy to make the police departments the fall guys but in reality it's not reality.

Foot note: I have children that are black and I understand the difference between white and black. I don't know the feeling but I understand it.

Rugby Saint II · 07-12-2018, 01:31 PM

They are paid athletes playing on the company dime. Conform during work hours......discussing politics is just a bad idea at work and almost always leads to problems. Especially when your audience is so diversified.

I guess it's time for the different religions to take a stand(or kneel) and get the attention on the player for the moment.

Rugby Saint II · 07-12-2018, 01:32 PM

They are paid athletes playing on the company dime. Conform during work hours......discussing politics is just a bad idea at work and almost always leads to problems. Especially when your audience is so diversified.

I guess it's time for the different religions to take a stand(or kneel) and get the attention on the player for the moment.

burningmetal · 07-12-2018, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by rezburna

Companies do the same. They have a grievance, and they’re attempting to show just cause for it. That’s the whole point of filing it. They DO have a right to do this just like you have a right to not like it. I find all the complaints about it to be disingenuous. People run around this country with Confederate flags...an entity that was directly opposed to the United States of America...so much so that they went to war over it. But that’s cool though...that’s no disrespect to America/Americans. This though? Call the National Guard!! The inmates are on the loose!

Companies do the same? Do they lock their employees out to get them to accept less? No, but unions stop all operations because they want MORE. I'm fine with filing a grievance if you have A REASON. A legitimate reason. Unions are all about "give me more, because I want more". There are higher paying jobs if you want more. Your company is going to make you an offer, and you accept that offer when start working for them. We can all complain that we "deserve" more, but the company, or business, is under no obligation to raise your pay. A lot of people are affected when employees strike, including a lot of people who don't want to go on strike but are forced by their union.

Your Confederate flag statement is completely false. The Confederate flag represented the Confederate states. Very few people owned slaves. 10% or less, in fact. If you knew your history, you'd know that the war was not started over slavery. That was a political ploy that Abraham Lincoln used later, when the British were ready to come to the aide of the Confederates. Lincoln used this smear tactic to dissuade the British from "getting their hands dirty", so to speak. Lincoln, himself, was on record as supporting the right to own slaves during his time as a Senator. Did you know that? Still think it was a war on slavery?

The fact is that the Confederate states wanted to secede from the Union, and Lincoln wanted to block their constitutional right to do so. He did not want to lose power over these states. THAT is what started the war, and THAT is what was worth fighting for. Not owning slaves. That was something that only a minority of people were the least bit concerned in protecting.

burningmetal · 07-12-2018, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by rezburna

There is ample evidence of disproportionate, aggressive, and unfair policing of Blacks. There are scholarly journals and research studies on the topic. If you go to Google and type in Google Scholar it’ll take you to a Google-driven search engine specifically used for research purposes. Peer review articles and journals galore. Empirical data and evidence in abundance. I use it to write my papers on racial healthcare disparities.

I would expect no less than for you to get your "evidence" from google searches. Google, who has been shown to sensor any kind of Conservative coverage, to persuade the public toward their liberal views, is apparently the gospel now.

If we're talking about anytime up until about 1970, I'd agree with you. what we have now is a fact that blacks ( I'm not indicting every single black person here) commit the majority of crime in this country despite being 13% of the overall population. Yet, instead of being outraged with such behavior, you automatically assume that this must mean that blacks are being targeted. Almost all of the high profile cases that make national news involve a black guy getting shot because he was resisting arrest or threatening a cop in some way, and the media coverage inexplicably rushes to the defense of the criminal. There are people who still defend OJ. Where was the disproportionate treatment of him?

I've long said that there ARE, of course, cases of prejudice. But it is nowhere NEAR to the extent that you would have us believe. If you want to talk about real empirical evidence, it is a fact that black people are being accepted into many colleges and universities based on the fact that they are a minority, and not because they are more qualified. This is not to say that no black people are qualified, before you try to take it that way. But a lot of qualified applicants are turned down in favor of the "inclusion" method. There is a collective fear that a lot of people have over not wanting to be labeled a racist. People lose their jobs over the mere CLAIM of having said or done something racist. Employers are so unwilling to go down that rabbit hole that they often just make knee jerk decisions, and fire people without a thorough investigation. And if you think I'm making that up, then you are out of touch with modern reality, my friend.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-12-2018, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

Companies do the same? Do they lock their employees out to get them to accept less? No,

Um, you were saying? From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_lockout

The 2011 National Football League Player lockout was a work stoppage imposed by the owners of the NFL's 32 teams that lasted from March 12, 2011, to July 25, 2011. When the owners and the NFL players, represented by the National Football League Players Association, could not come to a consensus on a new collective bargaining agreement, the owners locked out the players from team facilities and shut down league operations. The major issues disputed were the salary cap, players' safety and health benefits, revenue sharing and television contracts, transparency of financial information, rookie salaries, season length, and free agency guidelines. During the 18-week, 4-day period, there was no free agency and training camp, and players were restricted from seeing team doctors, entering or working out at team facilities, or communicating with coaches. The end of the lockout coincided with the formation of a new collective bargaining agreement prior to the start of the 2011 regular season.

SFIAH

burningmetal · 07-12-2018, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL

Um, you were saying? From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_lockout

SFIAH

This was a direct dispute between the players Union and the owners. If the Players Union had simply accepted the terms that they had already PREVIOUSLY agreed upon, they would not have been kept from working.

THEY (the NFLPA) made the decision to dispute their agreement. THEY forced the hand of the owners.

See the difference? As a company or business, when your employees just decide that they aren't going to show up, it completely screws you over. No one forced the players union into REFUSING to accept the previous terms. And that is why unions are such a bad idea. They are NEVER satisfied. They always want more, and when the union decides it isn't happy, everyone suffers.

Try again.

burningmetal · 07-12-2018, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

There is a mountain of evidence to suggest (indicate) that black people are over-represented in the criminal justice system.

Full stop. Rezburna is 110% on target.

I don't line up with the "Company/Union" comparison and I disagree with the statement that the Confederate Flag directly opposed the United States of America. The water under these bridges is deep and swift, and so these kinds of blanket statements do a disservice to the debate. That's just what I think. Opinions vary.

Sawmmi's "Simple Solution" is rhetoric. I happen to agree that these kinds of statements and the mentality of those who make them are a significant road block to a peaceful end because it insinuates a view wherein it is okay to beat and kill a black american with the protection of law enforcement. There are no more slave patrols. Full stop.

Black people, on average, do not get the same level of presumed innocence that Whites or even Hispanics receive. No doubt racism plays a role, but so too does the mindset and actions of the suspects/victims. Where these factors merge, in my opinion anyway, is where the real debate needs to happen. Both sides have to recognize some responsibility, and I am not convinced either side is willing.

Back to topic - the NFL is stupid and could very easily correct the problem but flatly refuses because it is trying to protect its bottom line. Welcome to America...

Over represented how? Because there are more blacks in jail, are you presuming that this is evidence of prejudice? The crime rates don't back up that black representation in prison is disproportionate to the number of crimes they are committing. Where are these mountains of evidence?

burningmetal · 07-12-2018, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL

Um, you were saying? From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_lockout

SFIAH

Allow me to elaborate further on this point. You might have also noticed that in my original comment that you replied to, I stated that you don't see companies locking out their employees to get them to take LESS.

Again there are already terms agreed upon. The union wants more. If every time a union came calling for more, the company just said "ok, here you go", they'd go bankrupt. So for you to try to use an example of a bunch of millionaires disputing with billionaires over the CBA is beyond silly, in my opinion. No one came up to the players and said "hey, I'm locking you out, because I don't like how much money you're making". The players had a choice to either keep working or dispute their employers. They chose to dispute, as is their right, I suppose. But they must also accept the right of the employer to tell them no.

SaintFanInATLHELL · 07-12-2018, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

This was a direct dispute between the players Union and the owners. If the Players Union had simply accepted the terms that they had already PREVIOUSLY agreed upon, they would not have been kept from working.

THEY (the NFLPA) made the decision to dispute their agreement. THEY forced the hand of the owners.

See the difference? As a company or business, when your employees just decide that they aren't going to show up, it completely screws you over. No one forced the players union into REFUSING to accept the previous terms. And that is why unions are such a bad idea. They are NEVER satisfied. They always want more, and when the union decides it isn't happy, everyone suffers.

Try again.

Sure. From the same:

In May 2008, the owners decided to opt out of the 1993 arrangement and play the 2010 season without a salary cap due to the 2010 season being the last year of the CBA.[3] That last labor agreement gave players 57 percent of the league’s $8 billion in revenue, after the owners took more than $1 billion for operating and development costs of the league.[4] A major reason the owners opted out of the CBA early was that they wanted a larger percentage of league revenue.

Look everyone is greedy. Everyone looks out for their own self interests. That doesn't make unions good or bad or companies good or bad. Each understands that if they don't stand up for their own self interests, that no one else is going to do it for them. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't one sided.

SFIAH

07-12-2018, 01:14 PM	#21
CheramieIII Fan Since 1967 Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nomad Posts: 7,460 Blog Entries: 3	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by nola_swammi Simple solution, stop beating and killing black Americans, then letting the offender not be prosecuted. We really didn't go there did we? We need stats. Just to say what you feel doesn't make it true no matter how passionately you feel about it. All of the cases where a police officer beating or killing a cop are shown on the news. How many do you see on the news and of those I would say at least 50% are justified. Now how many blacks kill blacks and why don't we talk about that too. It's easy to make the police departments the fall guys but in reality it's not reality. Foot note: I have children that are black and I understand the difference between white and black. I don't know the feeling but I understand it. Rugby Saint II and burningmetal like this.
	Golf and sex are about the only things you can enjoy without being good at them. Jimmy Demaret

07-12-2018, 01:31 PM	#22
Rugby Saint II Bounty Money $$$ Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 5800 Airline Dr. Metairie, LA. Posts: 23,733	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy They are paid athletes playing on the company dime. Conform during work hours......discussing politics is just a bad idea at work and almost always leads to problems. Especially when your audience is so diversified. I guess it's time for the different religions to take a stand(or kneel) and get the attention on the player for the moment. WhoDatLucky likes this.

07-12-2018, 01:32 PM	#23
Rugby Saint II Bounty Money $$$ Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 5800 Airline Dr. Metairie, LA. Posts: 23,733	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy They are paid athletes playing on the company dime. Conform during work hours......discussing politics is just a bad idea at work and almost always leads to problems. Especially when your audience is so diversified. I guess it's time for the different religions to take a stand(or kneel) and get the attention on the player for the moment.

07-12-2018, 05:23 PM	#24
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,905 Blog Entries: 3	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by rezburna Companies do the same. They have a grievance, and they’re attempting to show just cause for it. That’s the whole point of filing it. They DO have a right to do this just like you have a right to not like it. I find all the complaints about it to be disingenuous. People run around this country with Confederate flags...an entity that was directly opposed to the United States of America...so much so that they went to war over it. But that’s cool though...that’s no disrespect to America/Americans. This though? Call the National Guard!! The inmates are on the loose! Companies do the same? Do they lock their employees out to get them to accept less? No, but unions stop all operations because they want MORE. I'm fine with filing a grievance if you have A REASON. A legitimate reason. Unions are all about "give me more, because I want more". There are higher paying jobs if you want more. Your company is going to make you an offer, and you accept that offer when start working for them. We can all complain that we "deserve" more, but the company, or business, is under no obligation to raise your pay. A lot of people are affected when employees strike, including a lot of people who don't want to go on strike but are forced by their union. Your Confederate flag statement is completely false. The Confederate flag represented the Confederate states. Very few people owned slaves. 10% or less, in fact. If you knew your history, you'd know that the war was not started over slavery. That was a political ploy that Abraham Lincoln used later, when the British were ready to come to the aide of the Confederates. Lincoln used this smear tactic to dissuade the British from "getting their hands dirty", so to speak. Lincoln, himself, was on record as supporting the right to own slaves during his time as a Senator. Did you know that? Still think it was a war on slavery? The fact is that the Confederate states wanted to secede from the Union, and Lincoln wanted to block their constitutional right to do so. He did not want to lose power over these states. THAT is what started the war, and THAT is what was worth fighting for. Not owning slaves. That was something that only a minority of people were the least bit concerned in protecting.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

07-12-2018, 05:41 PM	#25
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,905 Blog Entries: 3	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by rezburna There is ample evidence of disproportionate, aggressive, and unfair policing of Blacks. There are scholarly journals and research studies on the topic. If you go to Google and type in Google Scholar it’ll take you to a Google-driven search engine specifically used for research purposes. Peer review articles and journals galore. Empirical data and evidence in abundance. I use it to write my papers on racial healthcare disparities. I would expect no less than for you to get your "evidence" from google searches. Google, who has been shown to sensor any kind of Conservative coverage, to persuade the public toward their liberal views, is apparently the gospel now. If we're talking about anytime up until about 1970, I'd agree with you. what we have now is a fact that blacks ( I'm not indicting every single black person here) commit the majority of crime in this country despite being 13% of the overall population. Yet, instead of being outraged with such behavior, you automatically assume that this must mean that blacks are being targeted. Almost all of the high profile cases that make national news involve a black guy getting shot because he was resisting arrest or threatening a cop in some way, and the media coverage inexplicably rushes to the defense of the criminal. There are people who still defend OJ. Where was the disproportionate treatment of him? I've long said that there ARE, of course, cases of prejudice. But it is nowhere NEAR to the extent that you would have us believe. If you want to talk about real empirical evidence, it is a fact that black people are being accepted into many colleges and universities based on the fact that they are a minority, and not because they are more qualified. This is not to say that no black people are qualified, before you try to take it that way. But a lot of qualified applicants are turned down in favor of the "inclusion" method. There is a collective fear that a lot of people have over not wanting to be labeled a racist. People lose their jobs over the mere CLAIM of having said or done something racist. Employers are so unwilling to go down that rabbit hole that they often just make knee jerk decisions, and fire people without a thorough investigation. And if you think I'm making that up, then you are out of touch with modern reality, my friend. jnormand and WhoDatLucky like this.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

07-12-2018, 05:41 PM	#26
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,647	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by burningmetal Companies do the same? Do they lock their employees out to get them to accept less? No, Um, you were saying? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_lockout The 2011 National Football League Player lockout was a work stoppage imposed by the owners of the NFL's 32 teams that lasted from March 12, 2011, to July 25, 2011. When the owners and the NFL players, represented by the National Football League Players Association, could not come to a consensus on a new collective bargaining agreement, the owners locked out the players from team facilities and shut down league operations. The major issues disputed were the salary cap, players' safety and health benefits, revenue sharing and television contracts, transparency of financial information, rookie salaries, season length, and free agency guidelines. During the 18-week, 4-day period, there was no free agency and training camp, and players were restricted from seeing team doctors, entering or working out at team facilities, or communicating with coaches. The end of the lockout coincided with the formation of a new collective bargaining agreement prior to the start of the 2011 regular season. SFIAH

07-12-2018, 05:48 PM	#27
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,905 Blog Entries: 3	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL Um, you were saying? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_lockout SFIAH This was a direct dispute between the players Union and the owners. If the Players Union had simply accepted the terms that they had already PREVIOUSLY agreed upon, they would not have been kept from working. THEY (the NFLPA) made the decision to dispute their agreement. THEY forced the hand of the owners. See the difference? As a company or business, when your employees just decide that they aren't going to show up, it completely screws you over. No one forced the players union into REFUSING to accept the previous terms. And that is why unions are such a bad idea. They are NEVER satisfied. They always want more, and when the union decides it isn't happy, everyone suffers. Try again.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

07-12-2018, 05:54 PM	#28
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,905 Blog Entries: 3	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by saintfan There is a mountain of evidence to suggest (indicate) that black people are over-represented in the criminal justice system. Full stop. Rezburna is 110% on target. I don't line up with the "Company/Union" comparison and I disagree with the statement that the Confederate Flag directly opposed the United States of America. The water under these bridges is deep and swift, and so these kinds of blanket statements do a disservice to the debate. That's just what I think. Opinions vary. Sawmmi's "Simple Solution" is rhetoric. I happen to agree that these kinds of statements and the mentality of those who make them are a significant road block to a peaceful end because it insinuates a view wherein it is okay to beat and kill a black american with the protection of law enforcement. There are no more slave patrols. Full stop. Black people, on average, do not get the same level of presumed innocence that Whites or even Hispanics receive. No doubt racism plays a role, but so too does the mindset and actions of the suspects/victims. Where these factors merge, in my opinion anyway, is where the real debate needs to happen. Both sides have to recognize some responsibility, and I am not convinced either side is willing. Back to topic - the NFL is stupid and could very easily correct the problem but flatly refuses because it is trying to protect its bottom line. Welcome to America... Over represented how? Because there are more blacks in jail, are you presuming that this is evidence of prejudice? The crime rates don't back up that black representation in prison is disproportionate to the number of crimes they are committing. Where are these mountains of evidence?

07-12-2018, 06:04 PM	#29
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,905 Blog Entries: 3	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL Um, you were saying? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_lockout SFIAH Allow me to elaborate further on this point. You might have also noticed that in my original comment that you replied to, I stated that you don't see companies locking out their employees to get them to take LESS. Again there are already terms agreed upon. The union wants more. If every time a union came calling for more, the company just said "ok, here you go", they'd go bankrupt. So for you to try to use an example of a bunch of millionaires disputing with billionaires over the CBA is beyond silly, in my opinion. No one came up to the players and said "hey, I'm locking you out, because I don't like how much money you're making". The players had a choice to either keep working or dispute their employers. They chose to dispute, as is their right, I suppose. But they must also accept the right of the employer to tell them no.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

07-12-2018, 07:06 PM	#30
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,647	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by burningmetal This was a direct dispute between the players Union and the owners. If the Players Union had simply accepted the terms that they had already PREVIOUSLY agreed upon, they would not have been kept from working. THEY (the NFLPA) made the decision to dispute their agreement. THEY forced the hand of the owners. See the difference? As a company or business, when your employees just decide that they aren't going to show up, it completely screws you over. No one forced the players union into REFUSING to accept the previous terms. And that is why unions are such a bad idea. They are NEVER satisfied. They always want more, and when the union decides it isn't happy, everyone suffers. Try again. Sure. From the same: In May 2008, the owners decided to opt out of the 1993 arrangement and play the 2010 season without a salary cap due to the 2010 season being the last year of the CBA.[3] That last labor agreement gave players 57 percent of the league’s $8 billion in revenue, after the owners took more than $1 billion for operating and development costs of the league.[4] A major reason the owners opted out of the CBA early was that they wanted a larger percentage of league revenue. Look everyone is greedy. Everyone looks out for their own self interests. That doesn't make unions good or bad or companies good or bad. Each understands that if they don't stand up for their own self interests, that no one else is going to do it for them. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't one sided. SFIAH

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/89419-nfl-players-association-files-grievance-challenging-national-anthem-policy.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
The Latest New Orleans Saints News \| SportSpyder	This thread	Refback	07-11-2018 04:51 PM	1
NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy	This thread	Refback	07-11-2018 06:54 AM	3