Players Brief filed with the 8th Circuit

Hostile;3956500 said:
I am not anti-Labor. If you show me unfair labor practices like child labor, sweat shops, no benefits, no overtime, no breaks, no lunches, etc. I am going to be so pro-Labor your head will spin.

I do not however see Sports Unions as Labor Unions.

Jerry bought the team for a lot more than one and a half million dollars.

As for the lockout question, let me say this. No one, not one single, solitary one of you who are 100% blindly supporting the players would do any different than the NFL owners if you were among that select 32 fraternity. As soon as the NFLPA* decided to leave the negotiating table with an offer on the table unconsidered, and take this to the courts to sue for anti-trust violations the owners had no other choice.

Oh, I suppose they could have given in to extortion like some people want, but that is not good business. The answer to your question is simple. There would be no lockout if the NFLPA* didn't decertify and leave the tables.

Now, if I say to you, I can't believe you are so anti-American businessman are you going to tell me I am as wrong as you were here?
Please read the article in SI about Drew Breeze and his take on this situation. As for your response to my post, we obviously see things differently. I have never seen the word "extortion" used to describe the players actions, but you used it and that explains alot to me. No reason for us to discuss this further, but I will tell you that many of us on this board do not "blindly" back the players. We are equipped with facts and see the owners being greedy. They want huge give backs, without merit other than just because the last deal sucked for them. They ratified it 30-2. Last thing -- Not sure how being against greedy NFL owners is being anti American businessman. So maybe you are just anti - NFL players ?? I am certainly siding with the players given the current conditions. Would I side with the players if they terminated the CBA and demanded more money and went on strike? No I wouldnt. I hate greed.
 
Holloway805;3960372 said:
Please read the article in SI about Drew Breeze and his take on this situation. As for your response to my post, we obviously see things differently. I have never seen the word "extortion" used to describe the players actions, but you used it and that explains alot to me. No reason for us to discuss this further, but I will tell you that many of us on this board do not "blindly" back the players. We are equipped with facts and see the owners being greedy. They want huge give backs, without merit other than just because the last deal sucked for them. They ratified it 30-2. Last thing -- Not sure how being against greedy NFL owners is being anti American businessman. So maybe you are just anti - NFL players ?? I am certainly siding with the players given the current conditions. Would I side with the players if they terminated the CBA and demanded more money and went on strike? No I wouldnt. I hate greed.

Cutting directly to the chase here:

They want huge give backs, without merit other than just because the last deal sucked for them.

Case against Hos, dismissed...with no prejudice.:)
 
CCBoy;3960374 said:
Cutting directly to the chase here:

They want huge give backs, without merit other than just because the last deal sucked for them.

Case against Hos, dismissed...with no prejudice.:)

Just for reference, the AP Article provided on site by AdamJT13, deals on topic concisely:

NFL: Court must honor labor law in lockout ruling
(AP) – 10 hours ago

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The NFL hasn't wavered in this message to its locked-out players: Get out of the courts and come back to the bargaining table.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...HVDg2A?docId=784514cacad54099b8b0c7460ed34704

And note, just mention of a source wasn't the case here...
 
Holloway805;3960372 said:
Please read the article in SI about Drew Breeze and his take on this situation. As for your response to my post, we obviously see things differently. I have never seen the word "extortion" used to describe the players actions, but you used it and that explains alot to me. No reason for us to discuss this further, but I will tell you that many of us on this board do not "blindly" back the players. We are equipped with facts and see the owners being greedy. They want huge give backs, without merit other than just because the last deal sucked for them. They ratified it 30-2. Last thing -- Not sure how being against greedy NFL owners is being anti American businessman. So maybe you are just anti - NFL players ?? I am certainly siding with the players given the current conditions. Would I side with the players if they terminated the CBA and demanded more money and went on strike? No I wouldnt. I hate greed.
I've said it before, but if the owners only wanted give backs, without offering substantial benefits to the players in return, I might be more inclined to the players side. But the players position is stuck so tightly to cash only, that they are ignoring the other - important - offers that the owners have reportedly put out there. Lifetime inclusion in health care? Reduction in mandatory OTA's? 90% cash salary floor? and other items. The owners aren't asking for a blank check, they are asking for a quid pro quo type deal. One that ought to have been done, again IF the players leadership hadn't been looking through a show us the books type mentality. (Remember, the players have never gotten to see the books and we have had 20 yrs+ of labor peace, now its a deal breaker? And the owners and players negotiated the 1B dollar exemption that existed in the 2006 CBA without having to see the books)
 
SkinsFan28;3960386 said:
I've said it before, but if the owners only wanted give backs, without offering substantial benefits to the players in return, I might be more inclined to the players side. But the players position is stuck so tightly to cash only, that they are ignoring the other - important - offers that the owners have reportedly put out there. Lifetime inclusion in health care? Reduction in mandatory OTA's? 90% cash salary floor? and other items. The owners aren't asking for a blank check, they are asking for a quid pro quo type deal. One that ought to have been done, again IF the players leadership hadn't been looking through a show us the books type mentality. (Remember, the players have never gotten to see the books and we have had 20 yrs+ of labor peace, now its a deal breaker? And the owners and players negotiated the 1B dollar exemption that existed in the 2006 CBA without having to see the books)
"that the owners have reportedly put out there" --- I have a problem with the accuracy and content of some of these items you list. Is this info accurate?? I would agree that these issues (medical -- ota's -- salary floor --ETC) are part of the negotiating process, however I have been in contract negotiations as part of the IBEW and there can be a "hill to die on" issue for one side or the other. I do know one thing, and that is NONE of us knows all the details of this mess other than the owners locked out the players and the NFLPA decertified. That cannot be disputed . Give backs require financialy sound arguments and or proof to be taken seriously (NHL). Why wont the owners provide one ??? Not one of you has aswered that question. All I get is "They dont have to" "They shouldnt have to because they are the employers". Thats crap. The owners are GREEDY in this situation.
 
SkinsFan28;3960386 said:
I've said it before, but if the owners only wanted give backs, without offering substantial benefits to the players in return, I might be more inclined to the players side. But the players position is stuck so tightly to cash only, that they are ignoring the other - important - offers that the owners have reportedly put out there. Lifetime inclusion in health care? Reduction in mandatory OTA's? 90% cash salary floor? and other items. The owners aren't asking for a blank check, they are asking for a quid pro quo type deal. One that ought to have been done, again IF the players leadership hadn't been looking through a show us the books type mentality. (Remember, the players have never gotten to see the books and we have had 20 yrs+ of labor peace, now its a deal breaker? And the owners and players negotiated the 1B dollar exemption that existed in the 2006 CBA without having to see the books)

I will tell YOU, exactly where my sentiments lie on this:

I have toiled, carrying all the labor required elements of Governmental jobs for over 39 years now. I held a case hardened steel bar while someone pounded just above my hands with a twelve pound sledge, until he tired and I was then given that sledge to remove a stuck but broken torsion bar from a tank. I am missing a right hand thumb, have a platinum plate in my left hand, and required eight stitches in my upper lip. I have a plate where my front teeth should be. I understand the putting my body on the line aspect. That is real. I won't turn a deaf ear as to this issue, specificly.

My departed Father, rode out 186 depth charges upon the submarine, US Plunger, in WWII. He then joined the Union at Celanese leaving school and aspirations to become an Engineer by trade, as my older brother was born.
He was with that Union when they chose to Strike to win an 'early' Labor right to it's very existence in South Texas. During a physical confrontation by the Texas Rangers, attempting to break up the 'newly' sanctioned right to Strike guarantee, he punched a Texas Ranger in that melee and went into hiding for six weeks. Later, he was one of only about HALF of Union members that were brought back onto the job from that point.

While working in that chemical production environment, and just the start of OSHA focus just being formulated as to direction, he only had a quadruple heart operation; twelve inches of colon removed for cancer; and then contracted prostrate cancer as well.

Well, at this point, I had been in the service, myself, for a period of 23 years and been through both Viet Nam and Desert Storm. I had first become a card carrying Union member in Dallas, and it cost me $156 to get my first hour on a freight dock as a call-in casual. This was prior to my leaving Law School in Los Angeles, and enlisting in the Army as an enlisted, not Commissioned Officer.

I explain this because it explains transitions of a person that is a general rank and file member of a non-NFL Union member.

After my active duty time, I passed my waiver status and received a position as a regular following only a three and a half month period as a non-career statused employee. I then started paying my dues once again.

Here, the picture of a Union member overlaps between that of my Dad, and my own.

At the end of my Father's days, he went through a series of Code Blue tragedies, that usually occurred on a Sunday. I then had to be bedside through the following day in trying to pull him through those.

I was issued a Letter of Warning for missing those days, despite Congressionally legislated protections for just such situations. Postal management merely sat on those filings and ignored them, when Stewards attempted redress through the installed steps of mediation and negotiations.

Labor Representative would not even hear this generalized complaint, until all remedies had been extinguised. There were additional Steps following the initial filings, but that required refilings as to progressive steps, and in the face of a continual change in both Union elected officials and Stewards representing upon issue.

Prior to my Father's departure, my Mother went into a coma, and remained in that state for about two and a half months. I was frequently at my Mother's bed side. The attending physician, consulted my Father and my wife and myself, recommending that we take her off of life support measures. I sternly objected, and shortly afterwards, she recovered and has been with us for the past ten years.

Here again, I was issued a Letter of Warning for missing work using unscheduled leave selections. Again, a flagrant abuse of established labor law and rights.

Why do I bother to provide this personal insight on process and base level realities? First, allow me to state that during 39+ years as a Governmental Employee, I have not received a single successful accusation that resulted in a punitive mark upon my record at any point. But the struggles of a rank and file card carrier in the Union, is not the 'magic carpet ride' that the players are experiencing in comparison to the same guaranteed aspects that are being taken to the court today.

I don't begrudge their rights to take it to court and even fight for every last dollar that they conceivably be awared and benefit from fallout and residual fruits as well.

But excuse me, if I don't fully applaud the into a Union and out of a Union shenanigans that they are jumping through hoops for now. The direct comparison of need by base level Unions is being given a raw deal by the same sets of court and legislated protections for members.

For plain and simply, some of the proclaimed sufferings and deprivations, are mostly upon a sterile environment of interpretations, while wharehouses of personal possessions are still being accumulated with even a ground zero approach to benefits that project into the future.

Excuse me also, if I remain unimpressed with a former Trial Lawyer uses legal terminology and unlimited attempts to define previously stated words, into privilege and legitimation to extend the numbers of those wharehouses as well.
 
Holloway805;3960391 said:
"that the owners have reportedly put out there" --- I have a problem with the accuracy and content of some of these items you list. Is this info accurate?? I would agree that these issues (medical -- ota's -- salary floor --ETC) are part of the negotiating process, however I have been in contract negotiations as part of the IBEW and there can be a "hill to die on" issue for one side or the other. I do know one thing, and that is NONE of us knows all the details of this mess other than the owners locked out the players and the NFLPA decertified. That cannot be disputed . Give backs require financialy sound arguments and or proof to be taken seriously (NHL). Why wont the owners provide one ??? Not one of you has aswered that question. All I get is "They dont have to" "They shouldnt have to because they are the employers". Thats crap. The owners are GREEDY in this situation.
I believe I understand the basics of why the owners don't want to open all the books - some of the reasons are valid imo, some not. Basically I see the reasons as the following:
a) they are greedy -
this isn't a valid reason, but it's at the core of both sides of this issue

b) instead of trusting that the NFLPA will use the books as a valid starting point, they believe that the NFLPA will just use them to throw out more diversions and slight of hand truths.
imo, this is a very valid reason, and goes to the point that Hostile harps on about DSmith lying, or at the least using great hyperbole, to attack the owners stance and merits. If DSmith is going to call an offer the Worst Ever in the History of Sports, why should the owners trust that he won't take a 70,000 dollar expenditure and claim that the owners are trying to steal that from the players, or that a 600,000 dollar purchase isn't part of growing the game clause and thus doesn't count against the 1Billion exemption. The issue of trust is at the heart of this point, it doesn't exist and as long as one of the main actors on the either side continues to lie, it won't be built.

c) the books don't need to be shown to get a deal done.
imo, this is a valid reason. I've done the negotiating role play elsewhere, but when one side has an issue it won't move on, that gives the other side huge leverage for gains on their side. If the owners don't show the books, use that fact to get all the non-cash benefits you can think of. (my earlier list was just top of my head type thoughts not meant as complete in any way)

d) showing the books doesn't guarantee a deal gets done.
again, valid but not hugely persuasive. If showing them got past one obstacle without creating 10 more, than they ought to show them. I think showing the books would create more problems than it solves in a hostile negotiating environment like this one.

All that said, imo, the owners ought to have early on, given books from a few high, middle, and low representative teams to an independent auditor who had authority to draw up composite team profiles. And best way would be to set up a yearly randomized method, so all the teams knew that their books would be subject to possible yearly scrutiny, and the players would have a sense that at least no gross misstatements are occurring. They could still do it, or the players could negotiate this into the contract. But we are back to the refrain that this is best (and only) settled through hard negotiations, not blank stares across the table (my own belief not that I actually know what has transpired in those meetings)
 
SkinsFan28;3960399 said:
I understand why the owners don't want to open all the books - some of the reasons are valid imo, some not. Basically I see the reasons as the following:
a) they are greedy -
this isn't a valid reason, but it's at the core of both sides of this issue

b) instead of trusting that the NFLPA will use the books as a valid starting point, they believe that the NFLPA will just use them to throw out more diversions and slight of hand truths.
imo, this is a very valid reason, and goes to the point that Hostile harps on about DSmith lying, or at the least using great hyperbole, to attack the owners stance and merits. If DSmith is going to call an offer the Worst Ever in the History of Sports, why should the owners trust that he won't take a 70,000 dollar expenditure and claim that the owners are trying to steal that from the players, or that a 600,000 dollar purchase isn't part of growing the game clause and thus doesn't count against the 1Billion exemption. The issue of trust is at the heart of this point, it doesn't exist and as long as one of the main actors on the either side continues to lie, it won't be built.

c) the books don't need to be shown to get a deal done.
imo, this is a valid reason. I've done the negotiating role play elsewhere, but when one side has an issue it won't move on, that gives the other side huge leverage for gains on their side. If the owners don't show the books, use that fact to get all the non-cash benefits you can think of. (my earlier list was just top of my head type thoughts not meant as complete in any way)

d) showing the books doesn't guarantee a deal gets done.
again, valid but not hugely persuasive. If showing them got past one obstacle without creating 10 more, than they ought to show them. I think showing the books would create more problems than it solves in a hostile negotiating environment like this one.

All that said, imo, the owners ought to have early on, given books from a few high, middle, and low representative teams to an independent auditor who had authority to draw up composite team profiles. And best way would be to set up a yearly randomized method, so all the teams knew that their books would be subject to possible yearly scrutiny, and the players would have a sense that at least no gross misstatements are occurring. They could still do it, or the players could negotiate this into the contract. But we are back to the refrain that this is best (and only) settled through hard negotiations, not blank stares across the table (my own belief not that I actually know what has transpired in those meetings)

I'll believe in the angst that you elude to behind a player's and Union stance, about the time that I see actual news strips where the Players are holding solidarity issues in a picket line, holding signs, and shouting:

What do you want?

Respect!

When do you want it?

Now!
 
CCBoy;3960396 said:
I will tell YOU, exactly where my sentiments lie on this:

I have toiled, carrying all the labor required elements of Governmental jobs for over 39 years now. I held a case hardened steel bar while someone pounded just above my hands with a twelve pound sledge, until he tired and I was then given that sledge to remove a stuck but broken torsion bar from a tank. I am missing a right hand thumb, have a platinum plate in my left hand, and required eight stitches in my upper lip. I have a plate where my front teeth should be. I understand the putting my body on the line aspect. That is real. I won't turn a deaf ear as to this issue, specificly.

My departed Father, rode out 186 depth charges upon the submarine, US Plunger, in WWII. He then joined the Union at Celanese leaving school and aspirations to become an Engineer by trade, as my older brother was born.
He was with that Union when they chose to Strike to win an 'early' Labor right to it's very existence in South Texas. During a physical confrontation by the Texas Rangers, attempting to break up the 'newly' sanctioned right to Strike guarantee, he punched a Texas Ranger in that melee and went into hiding for six weeks. Later, he was one of only about HALF of Union members that were brought back onto the job from that point.

While working in that chemical production environment, and just the start of OSHA focus just being formulated as to direction, he only had a quadruple heart operation; twelve inches of colon removed for cancer; and then contracted prostrate cancer as well.

Well, at this point, I had been in the service, myself, for a period of 23 years and been through both Viet Nam and Desert Storm. I had first become a card carrying Union member in Dallas, and it cost me $156 to get my first hour on a freight dock as a call-in casual. This was prior to my leaving Law School in Los Angeles, and enlisting in the Army as an enlisted, not Commissioned Officer.

I explain this because it explains transitions of a person that is a general rank and file member of a non-NFL Union member.

After my active duty time, I passed my waiver status and received a position as a regular following only a three and a half month period as a non-career statused employee. I then started paying my dues once again.

Here, the picture of a Union member overlaps between that of my Dad, and my own.

At the end of my Father's days, he went through a series of Code Blue tragedies, that usually occurred on a Sunday. I then had to be bedside through the following day in trying to pull him through those.

I was issued a Letter of Warning for missing those days, despite Congressionally legislated protections for just such situations. Postal management merely sat on those filings and ignored them, when Stewards attempted redress through the installed steps of mediation and negotiations.

Labor Representative would not even hear this generalized complaint, until all remedies had been extinguised. There were additional Steps following the initial filings, but that required refilings as to progressive steps, and in the face of a continual change in both Union elected officials and Stewards representing upon issue.

Prior to my Father's departure, my Mother went into a coma, and remained in that state for about two and a half months. I was frequently at my Mother's bed side. The attending physician, consulted my Father and my wife and myself, recommending that we take her off of life support measures. I sternly objected, and shortly afterwards, she recovered and has been with us for the past ten years.

Here again, I was issued a Letter of Warning for missing work using unscheduled leave selections. Again, a flagrant abuse of established labor law and rights.

Why do I bother to provide this personal insight on process and base level realities? First, allow me to state that during 39+ years as a Governmental Employee, I have not received a single successful accusation that resulted in a punitive mark upon my record at any point. But the struggles of a rank and file card carrier in the Union, is not the 'magic carpet ride' that the players are experiencing in comparison to the same guaranteed aspects that are being taken to the court today.

I don't begrudge their rights to take it to court and even fight for every last dollar that they conceivably be awared and benefit from fallout and residual fruits as well.

But excuse me, if I don't fully applaud the into a Union and out of a Union shenanigans that they are jumping through hoops for now. The direct comparison of need by base level Unions is being given a raw deal by the same sets of court and legislated protections for members.

For plain and simply, some of the proclaimed sufferings and deprivations, are mostly upon a sterile environment of interpretations, while wharehouses of personal possessions are still being accumulated with even a ground zero approach to benefits that project into the future.

Excuse me also, if I remain unimpressed with a former Trial Lawyer uses legal terminology and unlimited attempts to define previously stated words, into privilege and legitimation to extend the numbers of those wharehouses as well.

And this is my ethical reasons for arriving at MY view of the process:

§ 102. Public policy in labor matters declared


Whereas under prevailing economic conditions, developed with the aid of governmental authority for owners of property to organize in the corporate and other forms of ownership association, the individual unorganized worker is commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment, wherefore, though he should be free to decline to associate with his fellows, it is necessary that he have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; therefore, the following definitions of and limitations upon the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States are enacted.

The cross comparison of a rank and file Union member and the flight of these players, when set side by side, is choking unless an arrogance of cosmopolitan character is one's stance.

Now, let's address remedies of respective 'Union' members...

Stay in court, and receive additional wharehouses of goods. Return to negotiations, with or without a court 'spanking.' Additional Wharehouses of goods.

Now, a real rank and file member of a Union...bankruptcy court proceedings.

Oh, definitely, Man's flight through life is powered by the strength of his knowledge. But here, when accompanied by ring tapping disattachment to conscience.

And this was the base of the last court ruling affecing cause of the players:

§ 108. Noncompliance with obligations involved in labor disputes or failure to settle by negotiation or arbitration as preventing injunctive relief. No restraining order or injunctive relief shall be granted to any complainant who has failed to comply with any obligation imposed by law which is involved in the labor dispute in question, or who has failed to make every reasonable effort to settle such dispute either by negotiation or with the aid of any available governmental machinery of mediation or voluntary arbitration.





And then as argued by the NFL to the current Judge:

The Norris-LaGuardia Act precludes the injunction entered here, but the defects in the District Court’s analysis run far deeper. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes not just the order below, but any effort by an antitrust court to decide the validity of the purported disclaimer rather than deferring to the specialized expertise of the Board. And given the proximity in both time and circumstances of plaintiffs’ lawsuit to the collective bargaining process, this is a case where antitrust liability is precluded altogether by the non-statutory labor exemption. This Court should reverse the District Court’s improper injunction, but should also make clear that the solution to this dis-pute over terms and conditions of employment lies with the labor laws and not in the antitrust courts.

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791867.0.pdf
 
Holloway805;3960372 said:
Please read the article in SI about Drew Breeze and his take on this situation.
I have. It did nothing to change my opinions.

As for your response to my post, we obviously see things differently. I have never seen the word "extortion" used to describe the players actions, but you used it and that explains alot to me.
I told someone else who complained about that word to give me another. It never got a response.

No reason for us to discuss this further, but I will tell you that many of us on this board do not "blindly" back the players.
I've been told I blindly back the owners and by you that I am anti-Union. I just figured the pendulum swings both ways.

We are equipped with facts and see the owners being greedy. They want huge give backs, without merit other than just because the last deal sucked for them. They ratified it 30-2.
I agree, most are equipped with these things, and also some built in bias. See your very next comment below for an example. I do not see being rich as a "sin."

Last thing -- Not sure how being against greedy NFL owners is being anti American businessman. So maybe you are just anti - NFL players ??
Why would you agree with demands to open books? What other American businessman would have that demanded of him by his employees?

Actually if you look at the total of my posts, you'll find that I am more for the players than people realize. I am not in favor of a deal that only benefits the top 10% of players, which is what I see the NFLPA* doing.

I am certainly siding with the players given the current conditions. Would I side with the players if they terminated the CBA and demanded more money and went on strike? No I wouldnt. I hate greed.
I am a rebel in ways, I don't see either side as really "greedy." We see greed because of the huge dollar amounts we won't see. I understand that. However, I also see this from a business standpoint. The profits and salaries are not out of line with the income. Which is why I never saw this deal as good for the players given their current demands. I agree with SkinsFan28 that the items the owners focused on in their deal including and especially the 90% cash floor as more beneficial to the players than their demands.

Simplifying this, they are being short sighted.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
474,598
Messages
14,547,260
Members
24,212
Latest member
JerryJonesSupporter
Back
Top