NFL will proceed cautiously on Vick

[Stautner]

There you go again! Bringing the law into this! That is what I'm disagreeing with...

You seem to think that the NFL and the NFLPA in conjunction have to abide with punishment after the labor laws have been broken and that is not the case, lazy!

If Goodall woke up tonight and said that he needs to suspend Vick...he could! Is that simple enough for you, lazy?

In other words...learn the meaning between what the law says and what the Commish can do at his descretion...it's all their, lazy!



It's kind of on the same level of NFL contracts are not binding...wheras in a court of law they would. It's an agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA because the NFL is a privilege and if the Cimmish have to or want too dismiss a player because of bad conduct? He could do it today, and he probably won't have to worry about doing it...because of YOUR repucussions thing from labor laws and such..


That was the agreement....
Get it?

In the jobs we have, if they fire you because you have a tendency to :gassy1: all the time and they fire you? Now, that is a different story!

Yes he could suspend Vick - I never said that he couldn't. But if Vick's civil rights were violated then there could be repercussions.

It's ridiculous to suggest that an anti-trust exemption allows the NFL to violate all federal laws relating to employment.

Just so you know, civil rights does not just refer to race and gender issues.



And by the way, NFL contracts ARE binding - you again are wrong about that.

That's why players can't just go from one team to the next as long as a contract is in place.

I'm sure you will argue that teams release players while under contract, and the reason is that under the contract they are allowed to. That's why players push so hard to get a big signing bonus up front.

You may even argue - as I've heard some do - that if contracts were binding then players wouldn't be able to hold out while under contract. IF you care to argue that then you truly don't know the law or contracts. Employment contracts can't force a person to work, they can only say that if you are going to work it is going to be for a specific team under specific terms.

.

 

[Vintage]

Goodell reportedly is allowing Vick to play, so why argue over this?

 

[Stautner]

Goodell reportedly is allowing Vick to play, so why argue over this?

Ahhhh - vindicated .......


OK - sorry, you are right.

The fact is this is what I thought he would do, and what I thought he should do for the short term anyway. People didn't take to kindly to that.

But I do think that if the evidence gets overwhelming then Goodell will act swiftly. I think he already would like to, he just feels like he needs to have more facts and evidence in front of him first.

 

[fortdick]

I think that you're confusing Major League Baseball with the other pro sports. MLB does have an anti-trust exemption from Congress. It dates back to before WWII and probably before the NFL existed. The NFL does have to comply with all labor laws. But they can do things that other industries can't because their entire business has a CBA with a single union. For example, a draft is legal because it is part of the CBA with the NFLPA. The CBA's language does permit teams and the league to zap players for off the field behavior so therefore the NFL can do it, something that say IBM can't do.

If you'll recall, the USFL won it's antitrust suit with the NFL. However, the jury also decided that the USFL hadn't suffered any financial damages so the practical effect of the decision was moot.

Just ask Maurice Clarett if the NFL is exempt. Labor laws supercede most CBA's. Unions cannot bargain away a worker's rights. They can, however, negotiate within the framework of the law.

The NFL draft and salary caps are clear violations of right to work laws. The fact that Congress hs specifically granted the exemption to MLB implies that it would pertain to all professional sports in a similar situation. Court decisions have been based upon this premiss, like Clarett's.

The NFL functions outside the Sherman Act. The fact that they will not allow expansion franchises without a vote of the owners is a clear anittrust violation, but they are allowed to do so because they are exempt.

 

[fortdick]

Drafts and salary caps are traeated as necessary to the function of the league - being able to fire people without cause is not.

Just as the Bell companies couldn't fire people without cause before the breakup, neither can the NFL.

The anti-trust exemption is not an all encompassing exemption from labor laws.

The NFL is not Bell. You can fire anyone you want without cause in a free market. How could the NFL suspend Pacman without him ever being convicted?

And yes, the ntitrust exemption does pertain to labor laws. Right to work laws are violated with the NFL draft and salary caps. How would it go over if a kid graduates from college and his life's dream was to go to work for some gaming company. Instead, he is drafted by Microsoft and can't work anywhere else. In addition, he has to accept the wages offered by MSFT of he has to wait a year to try all over again. Meanwhile, a whole new group of programmers is graduating from college, so he is no longer on the leading edge of technology.

Think that is within labor laws?

 

[Stautner]

Just ask Maurice Clarett if the NFL is exempt. Labor laws supercede most CBA's. Unions cannot bargain away a worker's rights. They can, however, negotiate within the framework of the law.

The NFL draft and salary caps are clear violations of right to work laws. The fact that Congress hs specifically granted the exemption to MLB implies that it would pertain to all professional sports in a similar situation. Court decisions have been based upon this premiss, like Clarett's.

The NFL functions outside the Sherman Act. The fact that they will not allow expansion franchises without a vote of the owners is a clear anittrust violation, but they are allowed to do so because they are exempt.

While much of this is true, the thing that you aren't considering is that the power to work around labor laws is limited - it isn't all encompassing and does not exempt the NFL from ALL labor laws.

And you also seem to equate "anti-trust exemption" with freedom from all labor laws, and that isn't the same thing.

The draft is considered necessary to the function and survival of the league, and it therefore allowed.

Firing or taking action that severly impairs a person to make a living in his chosen profession without due process is not.

 

[Stautner]

The NFL is not Bell. You can fire anyone you want without cause in a free market. How could the NFL suspend Pacman without him ever being convicted?

And yes, the ntitrust exemption does pertain to labor laws. Right to work laws are violated with the NFL draft and salary caps. How would it go over if a kid graduates from college and his life's dream was to go to work for some gaming company. Instead, he is drafted by Microsoft and can't work anywhere else. In addition, he has to accept the wages offered by MSFT of he has to wait a year to try all over again. Meanwhile, a whole new group of programmers is graduating from college, so he is no longer on the leading edge of technology.

Think that is within labor laws?

This has been gone over MANY times, but Pacman does have a past conviction and has had 5-6 run-ins with the law in the past year ...... considering he has only been in the NFL one year that's an average of 5-6 per year. In addition, he has admitted wrongdoing in the past.

There is a preponderance of evidence against him that allows the NFL to feel comfortable saying he has and is continuing to do things that are detrimental to the league.

That may eventually become the case with Vick as well - probably will - I just don't think the time is yet there.