way to go congress, it's about time those who played the game are cared for..........

ScottyRo · 06-28-2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by WhoDat205

Apples and oranges, ScottyRo.

First off, truckers have a long-standing, powerful union that has lobbied congress for decades on their behalf. Certainly you've heard of the Teamsters. Believe me, congress has held many hearings on the trucking industry. Recently, the ICC imposed new standards limiting the number of hours a trucker could drive in a day (a ruling that was met with much resistance from the truckers). The NFLPA didn't really come to power until 93.

I was using truckers as ONE example of employees who injure themselves for their company but really don't get much in return. In that context I am comparing apples to apples. Plus, I'm not sure how often Congress has held hearings strictly to listen to former truckers who don't think they're getting enough out of their disability plans. Maybe they have, but I doubt it.

Second, trucking companies are required to carry workers' compensation that will pay injured truckers for any disabilities they accuire in the course of their employment. Only recently have select insurers (Lloyds of London) started writing policies for injuries sustained by athletes.

I'm not going to go back and look at the history of worker's compensation laws to verify that what you say as true today was true back then. Again, don't attack the "trucker" example so hard. That was just an example of ONE group.

Third, truckers can drive until liability carriers will not insure them anymore (around age 75). NFL players have a 15 year shelf life if they're extreemly lucky. If a player retires at age 35 he has 40 years of life left on average.

Shelf life of the player is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how long after their injury they have to live unless the disability payments stopped. Maybe they do stop for former NFL players and that'd be a problem for me. But I still think they should file a lawsuit rather than getting congress to hold hearings so the congressmen can be on TV.

Fourth, you're comparing debilitating brain damage to back problems. I'd rather walk with a cane when I'm 70 than not remember how to talk when I'm 50.

I'm not comparing brain injuries to back problems. I'm talking about employees who become disabled by their jobs and used truckers as one example. Don't add to what I wrote. I learned a while back on forums not to use examples because people tend to assail the example instead of the point. I slipped up and used one.

But on that note, you've probably never tried both of these injuries so you're not really in a position to say for sure which you would choose if given the choice. You're only guessing.

Fifth, the disparity between what a trucker was paid in 1970 and today is roughly equivalent. The disparity between what a player is paid now and in 1970 is not even close.

Exactly, I get the feeling that the former players are concerned with not getting a piece of the big pie because they played so early in the NFL's history rather than concerned with being denied benefits. (I'm not saying there are no valid cases where a former player was wrongly denied benefits).

My point overall that is being overlooked is that I just don't see this as being Congress' business. It seems to be more about congressional public appearances with a presidential election year coming up than actual concern for the players and a complete waste of tax money (but what isn't, these days?).

06-28-2007, 04:42 PM	#10
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Originally Posted by WhoDat205 Apples and oranges, ScottyRo. First off, truckers have a long-standing, powerful union that has lobbied congress for decades on their behalf. Certainly you've heard of the Teamsters. Believe me, congress has held many hearings on the trucking industry. Recently, the ICC imposed new standards limiting the number of hours a trucker could drive in a day (a ruling that was met with much resistance from the truckers). The NFLPA didn't really come to power until 93. I was using truckers as ONE example of employees who injure themselves for their company but really don't get much in return. In that context I am comparing apples to apples. Plus, I'm not sure how often Congress has held hearings strictly to listen to former truckers who don't think they're getting enough out of their disability plans. Maybe they have, but I doubt it. Second, trucking companies are required to carry workers' compensation that will pay injured truckers for any disabilities they accuire in the course of their employment. Only recently have select insurers (Lloyds of London) started writing policies for injuries sustained by athletes. I'm not going to go back and look at the history of worker's compensation laws to verify that what you say as true today was true back then. Again, don't attack the "trucker" example so hard. That was just an example of ONE group. Third, truckers can drive until liability carriers will not insure them anymore (around age 75). NFL players have a 15 year shelf life if they're extreemly lucky. If a player retires at age 35 he has 40 years of life left on average. Shelf life of the player is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how long after their injury they have to live unless the disability payments stopped. Maybe they do stop for former NFL players and that'd be a problem for me. But I still think they should file a lawsuit rather than getting congress to hold hearings so the congressmen can be on TV. Fourth, you're comparing debilitating brain damage to back problems. I'd rather walk with a cane when I'm 70 than not remember how to talk when I'm 50. I'm not comparing brain injuries to back problems. I'm talking about employees who become disabled by their jobs and used truckers as one example. Don't add to what I wrote. I learned a while back on forums not to use examples because people tend to assail the example instead of the point. I slipped up and used one. But on that note, you've probably never tried both of these injuries so you're not really in a position to say for sure which you would choose if given the choice. You're only guessing. Fifth, the disparity between what a trucker was paid in 1970 and today is roughly equivalent. The disparity between what a player is paid now and in 1970 is not even close. Exactly, I get the feeling that the former players are concerned with not getting a piece of the big pie because they played so early in the NFL's history rather than concerned with being denied benefits. (I'm not saying there are no valid cases where a former player was wrongly denied benefits). My point overall that is being overlooked is that I just don't see this as being Congress' business. It seems to be more about congressional public appearances with a presidential election year coming up than actual concern for the players and a complete waste of tax money (but what isn't, these days?).