Adderley's lawsuit with NFLPA settled

[Patler]

Sounds like the new leader of the NFLPA is re-uniting the organization with the retired players. The union has dropped its appeal and settled with the players in the lawsuit spearheaded by Adderley:

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090604/PKR01/90604133/1058

[Fritz]

I'm glad. I think that many of the old guys paved the way for what the current players have, and it would be nice to have a good working relationship.

[pbmax]

Its a very interesting decision by the Union as its an about face from their previous position, which leads people like Florio to speculate that Jeffrey Kessler, their counselor on this case, has lost influence in the NFLPA.

But even odder is that I have read several opinions that the original judgement for $7.1 million had several holes that would likely have allowed the Union to reduce the judgement in appeals. So the Union has paid a premium to resolve this now, in advance of the heart of CBA negotiations. Looks like they are gearing up for a fight.

[Patler]

Its a very interesting decision by the Union as its an about face from their previous position, which leads people like Florio to speculate that Jeffrey Kessler, their counselor on this case, has lost influence in the NFLPA.

But even odder is that I have read several opinions that the original judgement for $7.1 million had several holes that would likely have allowed the Union to reduce the judgement in appeals. So the Union has paid a premium to resolve this now, in advance of the heart of CBA negotiations. Looks like they are gearing up for a fight.

I agree. I think the Union was clearing their plate, so to speak. Their focus will have to be on the CBA negotiations, and the controversy with the retired players was both a distraction for the Union officials and a potential public relations nightmare with the fans. To be fighting the owners for more money on one hand, and with the retired players in an attempt not to share it on the other hand, had the potential to make fans pick sides against the greedy players.

[Fritz]

Ah, the way of the world, isn't it? Do the right thing because . . . you need to look good for the next knock-down, drag out fight you'll be in.

Can't they just have felt an overwhelming sense of gratitude for their elders? Can't they just have wanted Alex Karras to be able to afford that motorized scooter he needs?

Sigh.

[Patler]

Ah, the way of the world, isn't it? Do the right thing because . . . you need to look good for the next knock-down, drag out fight you'll be in.

Can't they just have felt an overwhelming sense of gratitude for their elders? Can't they just have wanted Alex Karras to be able to afford that motorized scooter he needs?

Sigh.

It was a very sudden about-face for the union.
The union refused to settle, then lost the trial.
They appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Their attorney announced he would take it to the Supreme Court if he had to.

So, in answer to your two questions, I would say, "No." and "No!" :lol: :lol:

[Fritz]

I often feel badly for the old players. They didn't get paid much at all - the vast majority had offseason jobs to make ends meet - and their bodies suffered cruelly as they aged.

What happened to Mike Webster, for example, was a shame.

[Scott Campbell]

It's hard to imagine the players union abandoning old players. I think the owners need to step up too.

[pbmax]

It's hard to imagine the players union abandoning old players. I think the owners need to step up too.
There is a moral and ethical case to be made for both parties to take care of the retired players. And what is lost in most of the coverage is that they do have a pension and medical coverage. But in many instances, the coverage and benefits do not cover the cost of living and in a number of cases, those costs are directly related to injuries sustained during football. And like everything else, as humans, some of the retired players have made poor choices of when to start their pension benefits and what investments to make.

However, there is no overriding legal obligation on behalf of either party to care for the retired players. In fact, the needs of the older players puts pressure on the Union to negotiate for both and that can come at the cost of maximizing the benefits for the current players.

I am no Union expert, but my guess is that unlike a GM worker, who contributes to the Union for 25-40 years, the NFL player, after contributing for 4-6 years, does not enjoy full standing in the union after retirement. The GM retirees may still pay dues and vote, I don't think retired NFLers do. So the fiduciary obligation of the Union is to the current members (ie. Active Players). I read the other day that the UAW, after the wave of plant closings will have hit, will essentially be a Union of retirees, rather than active workers.

And regardless of intentions, the interests of the retired players and the current players are at odds with one another short term. The owners wish to contain player costs, and their definition of player and costs include both current and former. In the long run, the older players, their memories and their marketing (think NFL Films) are tremendous resources, but one that the League has funded like a department rather than salaried employees.

[Scott Campbell]

I am no Union expert, but my guess is that unlike a GM worker, who contributes to the Union for 25-40 years, the NFL player, after contributing for 4-6 years, does not enjoy full standing in the union after retirement.



I don't think they could - the number of retired players would dwarf the number of active players.

I'm in agreement with everything you say. I too think there is a moral and ethical reasons for doing the right thing. I also think there are PR reasons for doing so. Fans seem genuinly disturbed by what is going on.

There are probably no legal grounds for recourse, but you can never count out a sneaky attorney. I might try to persuade OSHA to put regulatory pressure on the league.

[pbmax]

I am no Union expert, but my guess is that unlike a GM worker, who contributes to the Union for 25-40 years, the NFL player, after contributing for 4-6 years, does not enjoy full standing in the union after retirement.



I don't think they could - the number of retired players would dwarf the number of active players.

I'm in agreement with everything you say. I too think there is a moral and ethical reasons for doing the right thing. I also think there are PR reasons for doing so. Fans seem genuinly disturbed by what is going on.

There are probably no legal grounds for recourse, but you can never count out a sneaky attorney. I might try to persuade OSHA to put regulatory pressure on the league.
This also could simply be a matter of degrees and timing. The NFLPA long fought (often unsuccessfully) for better wages for current players. Compared to traditional Unions, they only recently got them. The focus might eventually shift to future benefits for when the current players retire.

So the UAW comparison might not fail if the reason for the discrepancy isn't voting at all, but simply a matter of where and for whom the money exists. So the current players could increase the role of retirees by increasing their own future benefits.

[Patler]

One of the facts that makes this situation somewhat unique is that the older players most in need are some of the very people who formed the union and got it going. They are the ones who gave it the strength it has today. I also understand that the pension benefits are multi-level, depending on when you played or retired. The old guys who were paid comparatively little when they played, but laid the groundwork for the union and the player salaries today, receive very little in retirement benefits. Today's players who play long enough to qualify, also should be paid well enough to have less need for retirement benefits, yet they will receive much more.

It is a problem that will rectify itself in the not too distant future by the deaths of the players in the early retirement tiers. It is also a problem that Kramer and others have said could be fixed with a relatively small contribution from each team or the players right now. I saw one suggestion that it would take dedicating much less than 1% of the salary cap to retired players each year to take care of it, and it would have to be done only for a few years to establish a sufficient fund.

[Badgerinmaine]

Regardless of why this got done, I think it is the right thing that it did.
I wonder, though, if part of why this got done is because Gene Upshaw is now gone. He'd built up so much animosity with old players--especially Joe DeLamielleure--over this issue that probably neither side was much inclined to budge. With Upshaw's sudden passing, the new folks in charge probably didn't feel so invested in the old policy, and the retired players were probably able to start off on the right foot with the new folks.