Skip to content

Jets will begin furloughs in event of lockout

ShonnGreeneRunningFree

When the Jets dumped 30 employees only days after their playoff run ended, the team didn’t link the job losses to the looming lockout.

In the next wave of adverse employment actions, the Jets won’t even try to call it something other than what it is.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that the Jets will being placing employees on furlough, if a new labor deal with the NFLPA isn’t reached by March 4.

Jets executive V.P. of business operations Matt Higgins said that employees in business operations will be required to take a one-week, unpaid leave of absence every month until a new labor deal is negotiated.  Employees on the football side will be safe at least until after the draft, in late April.

That said, the Jets also plan to reimburse the employees for their lost income, if no games are lost due to a work stoppage.  Of course, with Higgins pointing out that the furloughed employees will be entitled to unemployment compensation, any employees who pocket their reimbursements without also reimbursing the unemployment agency could be in even hotter water with the unemployment office than a certain would-be employee of Vandelay Industries.

Permalink 31 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New York Jets, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
31 Responses to “Jets will begin furloughs in event of lockout”
  1. zackd2 says: Feb 21, 2011 9:54 AM

    Does this include Rex, Mr. T & Woody Johnson?

  2. Kave Krew says: Feb 21, 2011 9:59 AM

    And you want to be my latex saleman? I don’t think so.

    Let me get this straight – the Jets employees are given free time to wander, money on the back end, government unemployment, IRS implicatons……this ought to be good.

  3. FoozieGrooler says: Feb 21, 2011 10:02 AM

    “…employees in business operations will be required to take a one-week, unpaid leave of absence every month until a new labor deal is negotiated.”

    This is how you’re treated when you don’t belong to a union.

  4. clintonportisheadd says: Feb 21, 2011 10:02 AM

    Why?

    Unless they are planning to scrap the 11-12 season there is no reason to let them go. Besides, the owners have all that TV money so their is no problem with income streams…

  5. ny82jy says: Feb 21, 2011 10:09 AM

    Just get the dam deal done please.. So many people on every team will lose their jobs or get laid off. I really do believe that they will get a deal done and they won’t miss any games. Maybe that’s wishful thinking but at least the sides are talking which gives you hope .

  6. chubbsjr10 says: Feb 21, 2011 10:37 AM

    there is no money being made right now on the business side. MOst of the deals for the new stadium are for a few years. Sales in ticket dept are slow. It makes total sense for woody to do this to save some extra money on the side in case the lockout does indeed happen.

  7. zackd2 says: Feb 21, 2011 10:50 AM

    Glad the working men & women trying to send their kids to college get the short end of the stick.

  8. flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 11:06 AM

    Glad to see my anti union response to the poster above was deleted. Way to encourage free speech PFT!

  9. dlmcc1010 says: Feb 21, 2011 11:18 AM

    I have no problem with this. Woody Johnson couldbe a jerk and just lay everyone off except for the coaching staff. For the guy who said this is what happens when you are not part of a union…..umm the members of the NFLPA are not getting a single dime.

    Remember that the NFL is a bausiness. If money is not being brought in due to a labor dispute, then obviously people are going to get laid off. Getting paid 4 days instead of the 5 you were is much better than getting laid off altogether. Owners and CEO’s dont exist to pelase you. They exist to make moeny. Thats how capitalism works

  10. flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 11:22 AM

    “This is how you’re treated when you don’t belong to a union.”

    Unions? LMAO. PUHLEASE! An unpdaid week every month, while being able to collect, not lose insurance & actually be totally reimbursed if there is no stoppage….is a bad deal? All they have to do is reimburse the unemployment. Leave it to a liberal union lover to try to milk businesses dry.

    If a business goes on hard times, employees pay the price. That’s the way it works. I took a 20% cut for 1 year WITHOUT collecting. Babies cry for unions. Men understand, accept & appreciate the fact that we aren’t let go totally.

    Who needs a union when you have a fair employer? Crazy liberals, that’s who.

  11. jc1958cool says: Feb 21, 2011 11:29 AM

    that’s it layoff the little guy! those owners are the biggest turds on the planet!!!!

  12. flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 11:53 AM

    “that’s it layoff the little guy! those owners are the biggest turds on the planet!!!!”

    Where did it say they were laid off? Some of you think it’s an employers responsibility to keep people employed regardless of profitability. It’s about business, not loyalty.

    If your main goal is to keep people employed & not find ways to keep your business profitable & competitive, it’s pretty obvious you have never owned a business.

  13. kd75 says: Feb 21, 2011 12:06 PM

    Worst work furlough idea since Willy Horton?

  14. FoozieGrooler says: Feb 21, 2011 12:27 PM

    flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 11:22 AM

    “Who needs a union when you have a fair employer?”

    I think you just answered your own question.

  15. ihatemikebrown says: Feb 21, 2011 2:08 PM

    flapjack, you sound more like an idiot than a real man. How dare employees like to be treated fairly.

  16. flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 2:15 PM

    Foozie, you failed to realize it was a rhetorical question. The answer is crazy unsatisfied liberals who are hell bent on taking business & employers to the cleaners.

    You made the original comment insinuating the Jets employees were being treated unfairly and that this wouldn’t happen with a union.

    I fail to see the purpose of your latest comment.

    The fact is those employees are being treated fairly & much better than in most of the rest of workplaces in America. Fact is unions ARE the problem, not the solution.

    The NFL is a business. The goal of a business is to make money, not cater & bend over for unions. If people of this mindset got their way, people would stay employed in spite of declining revenues until the entire operation shuts down & everyone gets laid off. BRILLIANT! As long as the Union gets their say.

  17. petemurray4356 says: Feb 21, 2011 2:16 PM

    flapjack says “If your main goal is to keep people employed & not find ways to keep your business profitable & competitive, it’s pretty obvious you have never owned a business.”

    As a business owner myself I agree with you to a point. However, in down times if you want to retain good talent, you have to show loyalty even though it may eat into you bottom line. But good employees remember stuff like this, and you hope you you’ll be rewarded in the future.

  18. FoozieGrooler says: Feb 21, 2011 2:43 PM

    flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 2:15 PM

    “The fact is those employees are being treated fairly & much better than in most of the rest of workplaces in America. Fact is unions ARE the problem, not the solution.”

    Once again, you’re proving my point.

    You’ve as much admitted that this one instance of what you call “fairness” is an isolated case, and that in fact there are employees working elsewhere that are being treated much worse.

    Yeah, unions are a problem alright.
    They’re a problem for the rich, corporate minded, profit driven a-holes that want nothing more than to be swimming in more money than they can spend in 10 lifetimes, while you and your family live in squalor.

  19. flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 2:49 PM

    ihatemikebrown says: Feb 21, 2011 2:08 PM

    “flapjack, you sound more like an idiot than a real man. How dare employees like to be treated fairly.”

    So they get to keep their jobs, get to collect & are promised full reimbursement if there is a full season. You think this is unfair? Who is the idiot again?

    Liberalism. American business = the enemy.

  20. flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 3:10 PM

    Foozie, please tell us the benefits of the UAW & their impact. This should be fun!

    Squalor? I think not. And I’m proud to say a union has never had, nor ever will, have any impact on my successes.

    What I meant by “much worse’ is people who lose their jobs or companies that shut down completely. They don’t have a choice of taking a week off every month & at the same time collecting unemployment & potentially being reimbursed. I didn’t. I’m not in a union & proud of that fact.

    The only point being made here is not yours. It’s that you’re just another bitter liberal who doesn’t embrace capitalism. Whinning about the rich while all the while having all the tools at your disposal to be rich yourself. Instead of trying to achieve success, you whine about those who have and consider them the enemy.

    Being bitter is no way to go through life. Get over it.

  21. FoozieGrooler says: Feb 21, 2011 3:24 PM

    flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 3:10 PM

    “I’m not in a union & proud of that fact.”

    That’s perfectly fine, and that’s your choice to make.

    But why bash something you admitted you know nothing about? Unions have done a lot of good for a lot of working people in this country.

    American by birth.
    Union by choice.

  22. bwmd3412 says: Feb 21, 2011 3:46 PM

    Liberals think you are born with the rite to lifetime job security. Just like health care. In an effort to alleviate responsibility from one self & increase dependency to the government, unions exist. For no other purpose.

  23. flapjack1231 says: Feb 21, 2011 3:56 PM

    “But why bash something you admitted you know nothing about?”

    Who admitted what? What are you reading? Go ahead & copy n paste where you read that. Don’t put words in my mouth, I never said any such thing.

    “Unions have done a lot of good for a lot of working people in this country”

    And I asked you to explain what good the UAW has done as an example. I want you to shower me with your knowledge. Conveniently left that out of your response however.

    Instead of trying to dismiss what I typed & make up stories, you should try to articulate your points without coming off bitter & holier than thou.

  24. bwmd3412 says: Feb 21, 2011 4:44 PM

    UAW – over many years they negotiated sweetheart deals for their retirees who now make 95% of what they made working. More than present workers make. Leading GM into financial crisis, bankruptcy in 2009, which lead to a bailout/buyout by the Feds. Where then, the UAW was able to strike deals with themselves because they had the gov’t(their allies) only to negotiate with.

    All this while putting over 209,000 current Gm employees world wide in danger of losing their jobs because of a Gm collapse. In the early 1940’s, shortly after the UAW was formed, many local union houses & local head union officials in Michigan were run by Communists.

    You’re welcome!

  25. rcali says: Feb 21, 2011 10:21 PM

    NFL needs a bail out!!!

  26. philriverslovespenis says: Feb 21, 2011 10:37 PM

    FoozieGrooler says:
    Feb 21, 2011 10:02 AM
    “…employees in business operations will be required to take a one-week, unpaid leave of absence every month until a new labor deal is negotiated.”

    This is how you’re treated when you don’t belong to a union.
    ————————————————–
    And GM is a good case of how a great American corporation/product is treated when they give in to vermin infested unions.

  27. FoozieGrooler says: Feb 21, 2011 10:50 PM

    bwmd3412 says: Feb 21, 2011 4:44 PM

    “In the early 1940′s, shortly after the UAW was formed, many local union houses & local head union officials in Michigan were run by Communists.”

    I guess it was just a matter of time before the tin foil hats came out.

  28. freedomispopular says: Feb 22, 2011 12:03 AM

    Welcome to the new PoliticalFootballTalk.com!

  29. tiedyeguy says: Feb 22, 2011 11:23 AM

    Nice to know that Woodson is taking the opportunity to go out of his way to not just screw a few employees while making a political statement, but taking these actions in a cowardly fashion to put additional pressure on the players union.

    This man and his anti-union actions are what is wrong with America today. I can only sinceerely hope that this robber baron megalomaniac gets what he deserves.

    I’d rather have no season, than one in which the owners go out of their way to strip freedom from employees.

  30. mrhojorisin says: Feb 22, 2011 1:50 PM

    I’ve had a 25-year career in my field of choice and I’ve never belonged to a union. My career success is based solely on my ability to perform my job to and above expectations, not because a union agreement virtually guarantees my employment.

    It’s amazing how motivating it can be to do your job well when you don’t have that safety net!

    And, by the way, what the Jets are doing is tough, no doubt, for those affected, but fair. People need to grow up and realize nothing is guaranteed, but what the Jets are doing is about as close as you can get to one.

  31. georgeanderson2 says: Feb 23, 2011 10:43 AM

    It’s a good way to “trim the fat” for these organizations. Some of these business side people have been with organizations too long. In sports entertainment, if you keep hearing the same voice everything gets stagnant and those employees are too comfortable and not open to new ideas which ultimately are for the benefit of the fans, sponsors and people who spend money with the organizations. Time to send the old folks out to the pasture…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!