Ed: Games Don't Have to Stop if no CBA

[SCMom]

Ed: Games Don't Have to Stop if no CBA
Friday, 11 March 2011 07:42
Written by Ed Bouchette
http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/i...stop-if-no-cba

Thursday’s sparring between the two sides does not bode well for a new labor agreement any time soon, or even them agreeing to another week of CBA extensions. So the CBA likely will expire today and then will come all the legal maneuvering. The union will decertify and then sue the NFL over anti-trust violations. The NFL owners will impose a lockout. Then what? No football in 2011.

There really could be no reason to stop the games. The courts could decide to lift the owners lockout and permit the players to return to work. Then the proceedings would move through the courts at a pace that might not solve matters for quite some time. The players struck after two games of the regular season in 1987. It wiped out one game, three games were played with “replacement” players and then everyone came back to work and worked and worked and played games right up until the new labor agreement – six years later!

It may not take six years to get this one done, but a similar 1987-like strike won’t happen. The owners learned their lesson 24 years ago, even if new owners have hopped on board since then and some former owners are no longer with us. The lockout was designed so, after reaching a negotiation impasses, the players could not walk out during or just before the season. And if the union decertifies, there can be no union strike.

Interesting times, but no matter what happens, there should be football played in 2011.

----------------------------

I hope he is correct! Not sure what I would do if there wasn't a season next year.

[steelax04]

Are they locking the players out or are they locking the union out? Why couldn't the players negotiate new contracts on their own since the union will be decertified?

[Curtain_of_Steel]

Honestly the whole union things is Bs. The unionize to gain strenght, than when things don't go their way they decertify the union so they can use the courts system?

Have their cake and eat it too is all they want. Now I'm not saying what the owners are doing is right or wrong, but the union thing is just wrong. I thinkt he benefit system is atrocious and unfair to the players. I think being cut after being injured on the field is wrong. Its the only sport where you have no guarrantteed contracts and the life span is short of the bulk of the players. But on the other side, the owners spend the bucks, and deserve an immediate return on their money, not just a value appreciation on the franchise.

Let Gov Chris Christy from NJ negotiate the deal. He will get it done.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by steelax04

Are they locking the players out or are they locking the union out? Why couldn't the players negotiate new contracts on their own since the union will be decertified?

This from the NFLPA site

Tim English, NFLPA staff counsel, said the motive behind decertification is explained in player meetings like this: “There are two rooms. One is the labor room, and one is the antitrust room. When you have a CBA, you’re in the labor room. After the CBA expires, your economic weapon against the owner is to go on strike, and their weapon is to lockout players. But it’s more advantageous for professional athletes to get into the antitrust room, and the way to do that is to decertify.”

When the union decertifies, it remains a professional association that assists its members in financing, litigation and other activities but does not participate in collective bargaining. “We do every single thing we can think of to emphasize the fact that we’re no longer a union, including the Board of Player Representatives saying we’re no longer a union,” said English. “We change our tax category to a trade association, and we stop doing all the things that a union does, like player grievances and pension board. You have to announce you’re no longer a union and then act like it.”

Berthelsen said one of the conditions of the 1993 CBA was that the NFLPA could return to non-union status at the end of the agreement, and the NFL would not be able to challenge the legitimacy of it. “So the agreement we negotiated,” he said, “puts us right back to where we were—an organization whose players could not be locked out, and an organization that has the ability to sue.”

Once the union is decertified, it can file lawsuits against the league. The NFL would be subject to lawsuits on any restrictions they would continue to enforce, such as limits on free agency, the draft and a salary cap.

http://www.nflplayers.com/articles/c...-be-an-option/

The key for the union is these issues will get back before Judge Doty if the NFLPA decertifies, which the owners dread

[steelax04]

Thank you for the read Dan. That helped clear things up.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by Curtain_of_Steel

Honestly the whole union things is Bs. The unionize to gain strenght, than when things don't go their way they decertify the union so they can use the courts system?

Have their cake and eat it too is all they want. Now I'm not saying what the owners are doing is right or wrong, but the union thing is just wrong. I thinkt he benefit system is atrocious and unfair to the players. I think being cut after being injured on the field is wrong. Its the only sport where you have no guarrantteed contracts and the life span is short of the bulk of the players. But on the other side, the owners spend the bucks, and deserve an immediate return on their money, not just a value appreciation on the franchise.

Let Gov Chris Christy from NJ negotiate the deal. He will get it done.

Drew Brees disagrees

“To our fans — I give you my word that we as players are doing everything we can to negotiate with the N.F.L. towards a fair deal,” Brees wrote. “The N.F.L. brought this fight to us — they want $1 billion back, we just want financial information to back up that request. They refuse to give that information to us. They think we should just trust them. Would you? We have a responsibility to our players — past, present, and future, to advance this league forward, not take three steps back.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/sp...l.html?_r=1&hp

Thanks for tipping your hand on your perspective on these sorts of issues by citing Chris Christie ( i guess he could bond with the nose tackles on dealing with weight issues) as someone who can get a deal. General Zod or Blofeld also could get a deal done but the question is what sort of deal.