PFT:De Smith seeks leverage in threat of no union

[cowboyjoe]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/27/de-smith-seeks-leverage-in-threat-of-no-union/

Posted by Mike Florio on May 27, 2011, 2:59 PM EDT

Getty Images
At a time when the NFLPA* faces the possibility of losing the effort to lift the lockout via the court system, the union-turned-trade-association needs real leverage, if the next step will be to negotiate a win-win, long-term labor deal. Although the most recently published comments from NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith on the subject hint at a stubborn commitment to leverage-through-litigation, the broader circumstances could be cause for a glimmer of hope.

In a new interview posted today by Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports but conducted “earlier this month,” Smith suggests that he’s committed to a future without a union.

“When I went into this,” Smith told Silver, “my attitude was that the only way you have power is collectively, and I believed in unions as vehicles for employees asserting their rights. But looking back on what Gene [Upshaw] experienced and understanding this particular situation, I’ve now come to appreciate the value of decertification in our particular circumstance. And I don’t see why we’d want to go back to being a union.”

Zoners big mouth is at it again, thinks he honestly can get leverage, what a joke

[Verdict]

Smith: If you don't give me what I want, I'm going to kill a hostage!!!!

[Hostile]

Isn't this scorched earth negotiating now? I mean seriously.

[cowboyjoe]

Isn't this scorched earth negotiating now? I mean seriously.

De Smith is something else isnt he Hos? :D

[Plumfool]

Smith: If you don't give me what I want, I'm going to kill a hostage!!!!

As an officer who has done hostage negotiations I find this use of this metaphor/simile to be in very poor taste.

[Outlaw Heroes]

This is nothing other than posturing and spin-control. He's responding to those parts of the owners' brief that point to certain public statements made by him and others, which support the argument that the disclaimer is simply a negotiating tactic, and the NFLPA plans to reform as a union as soon as the players get a deal they like. This is just an effort to effectively change the public record in order to undermine that argument. "Yeah, at first disclaimer was just a negotiating ploy, but I'm really beginning to see the long-term benefit in going without a union", is the impression he is quite consciously trying to make for the benefit of the court.

[CCBoy]

This is nothing other than posturing and spin-control. He's responding to those parts of the owners' brief that point to certain public statements made by him and others, which support the argument that the disclaimer is simply a negotiating tactic, and the NFLPA plans to reform as a union as soon as the players get a deal they like. This is just an effort to effectively change the public record in order to undermine that argument. "Yeah, at first disclaimer was just a negotiating ploy, but I'm really beginning to see the long-term benefit in going without a union", is the impression he is quite consciously trying to make for the benefit of the court.

I get the Trial Lawyer vantage as view, but his PR abilities are very poor in public view. Even if he is sticking to and watering elements of his plan of attack.

[Plumfool]

This is nothing other than posturing and spin-control. He's responding to those parts of the owners' brief that point to certain public statements made by him and others, which support the argument that the disclaimer is simply a negotiating tactic, and the NFLPA plans to reform as a union as soon as the players get a deal they like. This is just an effort to effectively change the public record in order to undermine that argument. "Yeah, at first disclaimer was just a negotiating ploy, but I'm really beginning to see the long-term benefit in going without a union", is the impression he is quite consciously trying to make for the benefit of the court.


What's brilliant about litagators is their chameleon like quality. Having had to work around them I've learned to never underestimate even the most bumbling fool of em. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't more bullets in smiths gun.

[Outlaw Heroes]

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't more bullets in smiths gun.

He seems to be finding a place for most of them...in his own foot.

[Plumfool]

He seems to be finding a place for most of them...in his own foot.

It's that attitude I'm talking about.

[dogberry]

Jones and Synder are the key to operating the NFL without a union.

If they agree, in some legal way, to not spend their excess earnings on players then the rest of the league could compete without fear of being outspent by the two wealthiest teams. Given the last ten years, Jones and Synder shouldn't be feared under any system.

Kraft seems committed to winning within a budget.

Allen hasn't put his billions in play.

Jones can buy gas wells, and Snyder can buy roller coasters.

[AdamJT13]

Hooray for empty threats!

[speedkilz88]

Jones and Synder are the key to operating the NFL without a union.

If they agree, in some legal way, to not spend their excess earnings on players then the rest of the league could compete without fear of being outspent by the two wealthiest teams. Given the last ten years, Jones and Synder shouldn't be feared under any system.

Kraft seems committed to winning within a budget.

Allen hasn't put his billions in play.

Jones can buy gas wells, and Snyder can buy roller coasters.That would be collusion. The nfl got in trouble for that in the 80s.

[jobberone]

More smoke.

[Frozen700]

excuse my ignorance, but i don't really understand this whole thing

first what is he talking about?

and is there anyway they can just fire his punk ugly arse? or they can't just do that?

[SkinsFan28]

excuse my ignorance, but i don't really understand this whole thing

first what is he talking about?

and is there anyway they can just fire his punk ugly arse? or they can't just do that?
The NFL has used DSmith's words against him, saying that the NFLPA was really just doing their steps to gain leverage in the negotiations, not really to end forever their union status. This is DSmith's attempt to alter his original words, saying well maybe originally we may have re-formed, but now, after the NFL has done what they have done, we aren't going to ever reform. If he means it seriously, then either the union will never come back, or the players, or some majority group of them, will have to fire him and bring someone in who will re-form the union.

[CCBoy]

Curious, with the leader of the 'former' Union stating that the now Association should remain non-union with his blessings, hasn't he completely compromised the very litigations he is spearheading on pricipal and protections of that very Union affiliation? Not to mention, the fact he was hired for the sole purpose of being the head of a dynamic and actually functional Union...and now he wishes to be 'top counsel.'

I'm sorry, that smells completely of vanity and self serving to this average 'Joe.'

[Frozen700]

The NFL has used DSmith's words against him, saying that the NFLPA was really just doing their steps to gain leverage in the negotiations, not really to end forever their union status. This is DSmith's attempt to alter his original words, saying well maybe originally we may have re-formed, but now, after the NFL has done what they have done, we aren't going to ever reform. If he means it seriously, then either the union will never come back, or the players, or some majority group of them, will have to fire him and bring someone in who will re-form the union.

thanks bro

[sonnyboy]

That would be collusion. The nfl got in trouble for that in the 80s.


Would it be?

I know they couldn't get together to establish this policy, but if every team ran their organization to actually turn a profit????

Could someone claim collusion?

[speedkilz88]

Would it be?

I know they couldn't get together to establish this policy, but if every team ran their organization to actually turn a profit????

Could someone claim collusion? Any agreements not to spend money on players would be collusion.

Jones and Synder are the key to operating the NFL without a union.

If they agree, in some legal way, to not spend their excess earnings on players

[dogberry]

Could Jones legally state at a cocktail party that he had examined his investment opportunities, and his conclusion was to invest much of the proceeds from the Cowboys in mineral leases in North Dakota?

Jones would still invest an above average amount in players, but he would not waste money as the Yankees do.