NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy

rezburna · 07-12-2018, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

There is nothing strictly American about a union, in general. Unions tend to hold people hostage for no other reason than the fact that they CAN, and it's how they get what they want. There is little integrity in any union. If you have a grievance, then show just cause. If you can't do that, then I don't owe you respect just because you believe it's your right to complain about any and everything.

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!

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.

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.

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

burningmetal · 07-12-2018, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL

Sure. From the same:

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

I agree that there is greed on both sides. This is the NFL, not some run of the mill business. But the fact of the matter is that players weren't being threatened to have money taken out of their contracts; this was a matter of league revenue. Now, we can have a separate discussion about who deserves what percentage of that revenue, and the moral implications of what the owners wanted, but it is THEIR league. Do the owners need all of that extra money? No, they really don't. But they are businessmen, and it is their business. The players make an incredible amount of money. Even those who aren't millionaires are still making hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing a game. They can't say they are unjustly treated. It's just greed.

And yes, the owners are greedy as well, but the difference, again, is that it is their business. I don't like the idea of unions trying to strong arm a business into doing what isn't in it's best interest. There are courts who can deal with instances of employer abuse. Be it physical or verbal abuse, or grossly underpaying one or more employees as compared to others who are performing at a similar or even lesser efficiency and making significantly more money. I'm all for taking your boss to task on those things though, at best, you might get a money settlement and then be out of a job, because what boss wants to keep someone who sues them?. Unions are overkill, and cause far too many problems, in my opinion. It's usually easier to just find some other job, unless it's physical abuse you want to report. That's worth taking to court.

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.

07-12-2018, 07:54 AM	#1
rezburna 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Kenner, LA Posts: 8,110	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by burningmetal There is nothing strictly American about a union, in general. Unions tend to hold people hostage for no other reason than the fact that they CAN, and it's how they get what they want. There is little integrity in any union. If you have a grievance, then show just cause. If you can't do that, then I don't owe you respect just because you believe it's your right to complain about any and everything. 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! Rugby Saint II likes this.
	"The first need of a free people is to define their own terms.” - Stokely Carmichael

07-12-2018, 05:23 PM	#2
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 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	#3
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,783	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	#4
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 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, 07:06 PM	#5
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,783	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

07-12-2018, 10:01 PM	#6
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: NFL Players Association files grievance challenging national anthem policy Originally Posted by SaintFanInATLHELL Sure. From the same: 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 I agree that there is greed on both sides. This is the NFL, not some run of the mill business. But the fact of the matter is that players weren't being threatened to have money taken out of their contracts; this was a matter of league revenue. Now, we can have a separate discussion about who deserves what percentage of that revenue, and the moral implications of what the owners wanted, but it is THEIR league. Do the owners need all of that extra money? No, they really don't. But they are businessmen, and it is their business. The players make an incredible amount of money. Even those who aren't millionaires are still making hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing a game. They can't say they are unjustly treated. It's just greed. And yes, the owners are greedy as well, but the difference, again, is that it is their business. I don't like the idea of unions trying to strong arm a business into doing what isn't in it's best interest. There are courts who can deal with instances of employer abuse. Be it physical or verbal abuse, or grossly underpaying one or more employees as compared to others who are performing at a similar or even lesser efficiency and making significantly more money. I'm all for taking your boss to task on those things though, at best, you might get a money settlement and then be out of a job, because what boss wants to keep someone who sues them?. Unions are overkill, and cause far too many problems, in my opinion. It's usually easier to just find some other job, unless it's physical abuse you want to report. That's worth taking to court.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

07-12-2018, 06:04 PM	#7
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 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.

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	4