If lockout is lifted, can the Packers now trade...

[Smidgeon]

Patler, when the players didn't get the info they asked for, they decided to take it to court. Some people believe you should take the owners word for it, others don't. The players didn't. That's their choice and it's looking better every day.

As far as Judge Nelson setting a dangerous precedent, I'm not so sure setting the precedent that owners can financially bully their employees away from rightful anti-trust lawsuits is any better. When illegal practices are happening in the workplace, should the employer have the right to just fire them so they can't afford their lawsuit? That's a tough question. Do you only enforce laws for people who can afford to pursue them, or do you enforce laws for everyone? How do you ensure everyone can be protected by the laws, where do you draw the line?

A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest.

However, the players took it a step further by attempting to block the lockout. In effect, they're trying to take away a legal method for the owners to create leverage. I don't fault them for trying, but it's a one sided sword. That's why it's a dangerous precedent.

[get louder at lambeau]

As far as Judge Nelson setting a dangerous precedent, I'm not so sure setting the precedent that owners can financially bully their employees away from rightful anti-trust lawsuits is any better.

Please explain how the anti-trust lawsuit keeps getting the adjective "rightful" in your posts. They temporarily decertified the NFLPA as a legal ploy to exploit a loophole that would enable them to attack the NFL as if they were not a union. Is "rightful" the best word to describe that?

When illegal practices are happening in the workplace, should the employer have the right to just fire them so they can't afford their lawsuit? That's a tough question. Do you only enforce laws for people who can afford to pursue them, or do you enforce laws for everyone? How do you ensure everyone can be protected by the laws, where do you draw the line?

Huh? What illegal practices were happening in their workplace? Who got fired?

[RashanGary]

A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest.

However, the players took it a step further by attempting to block the lockout. In effect, they're trying to take away a legal method for the owners to create leverage. I don't fault them for trying, but it's a one sided sword. That's why it's a dangerous precedent.

But isn't it suspicious how they did it shortly after the anti-trust suit was filed? Should they be able to bully them off of their attempt to protect their rights? Can the court connect that dot? I think that's a question here and a very strong possible reason for the courts protecting the players rights here.

[RashanGary]

Please explain how the anti-trust lawsuit keeps getting the adjective "rightful" in your posts. They temporarily decertified the NFLPA as a legal ploy to exploit a loophole that would enable them to attack the NFL as if they were not a union. Is "rightful" the best word to describe that?



Huh? What illegal practices were happening in their workplace? Who got fired?

They're ceasing to pay them in a time when they're filing an antitrust lawsuit. Maybe the court sees that as bullying empoyees who are seeking the protection of the law. Maybe. I'm not in their head, just saying maybe.

[Lurker64]

But isn't it suspicious how they did it shortly after the anti-trust suit was filed? Should they be able to bully them off of their attempt to protect their rights? Can the court connect that dot? I think that's a question here and a very strong possible reason for the courts protecting the players rights here.

The NFL's choices after the union decertified were as follows:
1) Lock the players out.
2) Institute work rules and be sued under antitrust law.
3) Proceed with absolutely no rules for the 2011 season.

There were no other options open to the league. The lockout was the one that allowed the league to play defense against only one lawsuit, but wouldn't affect competitive balance like a rule-less league would. It was the rational decision. It wasn't a mean or cruel one, it was simply the rational response.

[RashanGary]

It's not about mean or cruel, it's about using their power as employer to protect the laws they will be breaking if they try to keep the league as it is. It's about making the anti-trust suit harder to follow through on.

We'll see how it goes. At this point it's wait and see how the appeal goes and then from there it's a wait game to see who flinches.

What a stupid ass situation. I think the players are more dug in than the owners. For the first time I think maybe this will go into the season. The owners are just cocky and are used to bullying any party into their wishes so they'll last a long time. Plus, they're livid that the players had the odasity to challenge their demands. The players side is hot shot lawyers who will never give in (and have a lot of pride on top of that.) It's going to get fuglier before it gets better.

[Lurker64]

It's not about mean or cruel, it's about using their power as employer to protect the laws they will be breaking if they try to keep the league as it is. It's about making the anti-trust suit harder to follow through on.

No, it's ultimately about keeping the court fight in one courtroom so they can keep the players all in one place. By locking the players out, even if the lockout is lifted and antitrust suits are filed, those suits will be rolled into Brady et. al. vs. NFL. So the NFL can maintain one team of lawyers, and they don't have to travel from place to place.

Don't think for a minute that the players wouldn't try to file 100 different suits (one for each RFA say) in 100 different courtrooms just to spread the NFL thin if they were able to do so. And the NFL's opening argument in each of those cases would be to claim that the decertification is a sham... it probably better to just hash that argument out in one court, rather than many.

[RashanGary]

What a friggin mess. I always said "9 billion dolllars says this thing gets fixed", but like you said in another thread, there is way too much ego on both sides for this thing to go smooth. I'm worried this thing gets bad. Do you have any feel for which way it might go?

1987-1991 last time. YIKES.

[Bretsky]

Why do you insist on framing this as a "good guys" "bad guys" controversy? Personally, I think the players never intended to settle, they ignored everything the owners did present on financial matters, intended always to initiate litigation and will do anything necessary to get where they think they want to be. However, that does not make them bad guys. It is just the tactics they have decided to pursue.I also think the owners wanted to settle without litigation, but only by providing a level of financial info that they were comfortable with, intended to play public opinion cards whenever possible, and to do anything necessary to get where they think they want to be. However, that does not make them good guys. It is just the tactics they have decided to pursue.

.

BINGOOOOOO

[ND72]

A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest.
.

Not according to Scott Walker

[ND72]

I really do compare the NFL to Wisconsin....the players came to the table with the owners and conceded to about 90% of everything the owners wanted, but it still wasn't good enough for the owners.

[Bretsky]

agree...what a bloody mess. Something tells me if Gene and Paul were still running both shows we'd already have an agreement.

Roger seeems a bit stubborn, and well, as I noted long long ago, the players elected this guy over other former well thought of players for a reason, and he's carrying that reason out well so far. My impression of him, besides not being likeable, is that he's five times as bullheaded at Rog. Just my impressions.

I like to leave it to you guys to fight about all the specifics

[Lurker64]

Not according to Scott Walker

Well, to be fair there have always been restrictions on whether or not public employees are allowed to strike, since certain public employees have always been considered essential. It's not really a good thing when the police and fire departments are refusing to work, after all. Public employees are, after all, protected by a great number of civil service laws that do not extend to private employees.

In private labor-management disputes, like this one Smidgeon's comment: "A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest." is entirely correct.

[Bretsky]

I really do compare the NFL to Wisconsin....the players came to the table with the owners and conceded to about 90% of everything the owners wanted, but it still wasn't good enough for the owners.

Don't see it that way at all but I certainly respect all views

[ND72]

Well, to be fair there have always been restrictions on whether or not public employees are allowed to strike, since certain public employees have always been considered essential. It's not really a good thing when the police and fire departments are refusing to work, after all. Public employees are, after all, protected by a great number of civil service laws that do not extend to private employees.

In private labor-management disputes, like this one Smidgeon's comment: "A lockout is a legal move. A strike is a legal move. Both sides have a tool to use to show labor unrest." is entirely correct.

Well there goes my laugh for the night...