Superstar athletes are no longer treated inhumanely. It’s still a brutal business, and college players are tremendously exploited. I don’t agree that unions serve their purpose, then are no longer necessary. The love of money is the root of all evil. That’s a fundamental principle. Remove the dam and the water will flood as it always did. Without checks and balances, businesses will immediately return to exploiting people as they always have done. In fact, they get around union and government intervention by outsourcing work to other countries that allow them to exploit and abuse workers at will.

The problem with unions occurs when their leadership becomes corrupt with power and they exploit their own members for personal gain. Or when the unions refuse to acknowledge business realities and work with management for the good of all. The answer isn’t getting rid of unions anymore than it would be getting rid of management (in a capitalist society). The answer is rational compromise.

I believe the now defunct CBA represented rational compromise, and don’t want to dissolve the NFL’s antitrust exemptions. But the union has to be certified and operating in order for those exemptions to be allowed. So these guys must find a compromise or everyone loses.

Thanks for the positive words. It is nice when we can disagree but still be civil

The league was built on abusing its players from inception into the 1980s. Players I enjoyed watching as a child died from league abuses while owners prospered treating them with less care than they would prize racehorses. Some of the situations were inhuman. The players fought against tremendous odds to find their dignity as athletes, and despite the mega salaries of the privileged few, the owners still manage to hoodwink the majority in many ways

What you say here is correct, and it coincides with how regular workers were treated prior to labor laws. However, it is a clear condemnation and what I have been saying in that unions, once required and served a purpose, are no longer necessary and only destroy the business they are involved in. No longer are players treated poorly and inhumanely. Now they only have themselves to blame for their own destruction. As well, what you do NOT want to happen will eventually happen as unionism, akin to liberalism, has no “end” until its host is dead. Just like parasitism.

Btw, I like your comments in general, just hate your pro-union stance.

“Liberal judges, sad, sad sad.”

Wow.

What a shock.

You caught me totally off guard.

Really.

You did.

That’s too bad … nice quick-witted comment

And your the idiot who is pro-player? Secondly, you act like a pu$$y, write like a pu$$y, think like a pu$$sy and last I checked you don’t HAVE A D!CK if you’re a pu$$y.

Your “Liberals” are in the midst of ruining this country and headed towards Socialism. Wait! Not a bad idea! The owners need to have a Socialistic League. $ 1000.00 per game for EVERYONE.
Idiot.

Sorry, Deb. I’m married.

Oh! We’ve been miscommunicating. Sorry! I thought you were talking about unions in a generic sense–which many have been doing (wish they’d stick to the subject).

Yes, I’m vehemently pro-NFLPA … although I do not support the endgame strategy Kessler and De Smith have mapped out. I don’t want No Rules Football, a change in free agency, or an end to the draft–and I don’t believe that’s what the rank and file players want either. In fact, I don’t believe most of them realized that was even on the table until recently. I never believed the owners would let things go as far as they have and am praying they will stop this and pull us back from the brink.

I’m pro NFLPA both because I understand the issues in this labor dispute but also because I know my NFL history. The league was built on abusing its players from inception into the 1980s. Players I enjoyed watching as a child died from league abuses while owners prospered treating them with less care than they would prize racehorses. Some of the situations were inhuman. The players fought against tremendous odds to find their dignity as athletes, and despite the mega salaries of the privileged few, the owners still manage to hoodwink the majority in many ways … as they’ve been trying to do throughout this process.

As for brain dead losers such as “childressrulz”, he is your stereotypical GM worker.

That was supposed to be “lifting the lockout,” not “listing the lockout.”

I believe that the antitrust suits are a tactic like the lockout and decertification. Whatever the attorneys want, I don’t believe the players ever intended to dismantle the draft or free agency as it now exists. I believe listing the lockout will force the owners to capitulate and sign a new CBA, returning us to business as usual. That’s what I’ve been counting on and praying for.

But it’s lovely that you can read my mind.

I’m self-employed from a family that goes back generations as small farmers and self-employed small business people and professionals. Other than my grandfather briefly serving as a police officer before I was born, no one on either side of my family has ever worked in a union shop.

But glad you know the axes I have to grind.

I didn’t say our country was founded on unionism; said it was founded on championing the rights of the common person–and it was. Nor am I union-obsessed as you seem to be. I believe in the right of workers to organize and engage in collective bargaining and recognize that most of the positive labor laws we have in this country came from the efforts of organized labor. That does not mean I blindly support every union action or proposal, or that I fail to recognize some of the problems unions have created in our economy.

And the “pop psychology” thing specifically referred to his bizarre ramblings about what he assumes I want in a man. You do get points for not going there … ROFL

The last thing I want is for these antitrust suits to move forward or for the NFL to change how it operates.

Yet you champion the side that will lead just that. The NFL will not be the NFL, just like the other leagues are mere shells of what they once were. Try again.

What you interpret as upholding “little men,” is championing the rights of the common person–a principle on which our nation was founded.

Unionism is not a principle our country was founded upon. These are not “common people” and their behavior, on and off the field, does not warrant championing. While the owners are greedy, they also take all the risks and the players are simply greedier. The asylum is not and should not be run by the inmates, literally and figuratively in the case of NFLers.

For you to be so vehemently pro-union indicates you have an axe to grind. That ain’t pop psychology dear.

You’re correct that I should have said “players” instead of “NFLPA”.

Now…what law did Judge Nelson create? I’ll answer for you- she didn’t.

The law is on the books that a group of owners can’t band together and lock out non-union employees.

Don’t shoot the messenger here: I don’t think you guys understand how crazy things could get. How would you like to see the Dallas Cowboys sign their own deal with a network, and put the games on at 2:30 PM EST to lure eyeballs away from the other games?

Does that sound crazy? Then let me point out that is EXACTLY what Notre Dame football and NBC have been doing for 20 years.

If I were running the owner’s side, I’d ask the NFLPA for an offer and I’d accept it.

@Deb
Your pro-union march can now begin around your kitchen table. Your disdain for NFL ownership allows me to believe that you don’t like the current way football is structured and played. As a devoted football fan, which you appear to be, I am puzzled by your alliance with the players. I think you don’t like men, especially males who have power and authority. You seem to be upholding the “little man” because it makes you feel more authoritative and powerful, yet you don’t realize these “little men” whom you support are, in reality, more powerful and wealthier than you. And, as a feather in your cap, they certainly are not as intelligent as you.
———————————————–

Another effort in pop psychology … sigh. You guys shouldn’t try so hard; I’m really straightforward about my thoughts and motives.

While I support the right of workers to organize, I don’t blindly champion every move made by every union, I won’t be marching. And I won’t be cheering until a new CBA is signed. The last thing I want is for these antitrust suits to move forward or for the NFL to change how it operates.

I don’t feel disdain for the owners as a group, though I do feel disdain for individual owners such as Little Danny Snyder, Jerry Jones, and that cheapskate Mike Brown. I’ve always loved the Rooneys and have a lot of respect for the way the Maras and Bob Kraft run their organizations. Having a realistic view of these businessmen, their goals, and their tactics shouldn’t be viewed as disdain.

What you interpret as upholding “little men,” is championing the rights of the common person–a principle on which our nation was founded. Not that it’s any of your business, but I love men and am attracted to intelligence, quick wit, and self-confidence. Power, status, and ego aren’t my personal ambitions and I don’t value them in others. And I would never be interested in a man I could henpeck. A woman can still be all woman despite having brains and sass just as a man can be all man without having to beat his chest and roar.

But thanks for your input

———————————————–

Another gem by Pete. Unions are a cancer for society, in this day and age. They serve no purpose but to destroy the business they are in. Auto, Telecom, NBA, MLB, and now our beloved NFL. Unionism is like Liberalism, it never knows where to stop. Foreign automakers destroyed the US makers due to better cars and lower prices. US Unions made sure the workers at GM just got fat. They didn’t care what kind of cars they made.

Where did you get the idea the owners were trying to LOWER the players pay? They may have wanted to change FUTURE financial compensation as it relates to how revenues are split, which is by no means is the same as saying they were trying to LOWER pay unless you want to argue that a rookie wage scale is lowering rookie’s pay, but how do lower someone’s pay who has never been paid and has no contract to be paid?

Liberal judges, sad, sad sad.

——————————–

Awwww, chap … you’re so cute when you’re predictable

This is a TERRIBLE THING FOR FANS of the NFL. No matter what Judge Nelson claims. She may have good intentions, but she just opened the door wide open for De Smith, Kessler and the rest of the union goons to destroy the NFL as we know and love it.

“We respect the court’s ruling. As of right now, the draft is called off, teams can negotiate with whoever they want, teams can pay as much or as little as they desire, and teams can employ as many or as few players as suits their purpose. There are no longer restricted or unrestricted free agents.”

The players said before all this they’d agree to same CBA, so if they didn’t agree to the same rules, then the owners would have their “sham” case.

It’s hysterical to listen to all the people fervently defending their owners and the league. It is like people just completely missed the fact that the owners opted out of the current agreement, causing this situation. Does everyone realize the owners locked out the players, and not vice versa?

The players were content under the last CBA. The reason Kessler, Quinn and the NFLPA legal team are threatening to go after the other areas so hard (draft, FA, etc) is not because they would not want those things in a new CBA; it is to create more leverage and force a new agreement.

The fact that the owners tried to negotiate a deal that fixed the amount of money the players get in total take is a major departure from the current system of shared profits and shared risk. It was an outrageous attempt by them to fix their costs so they could enjoy all of the top line growth that they anticipate over the next few years. I hope they lose big due to their greed.

For the record, I could care less what players make, but it is obvious to me who is at fault for causing this problem.

Heck, the players, before decertification were willing to play under those rules. The problem is is that the 8th circuit is pro-business… But there’s a catch, this is antitrust and that really clouds the water and changes things. What could be a pretty conservative jury could really flip.

True conservative jurists, when put in this predicament, don’t tend to want to make law and the laws are pretty cut and dry with reference to antitrust. Seems like way too big a gamble in the loss of fans if you go to a hold out, the uncertainty with sponsors, and the overall black eye.

The owners need to come to the table and try to negotiate. Either way at this point the books are being opened if they want to continue, so if that was a sticking point – better to settle now than latter.