You told me: (1)If they decertify, there isn't supposed to be an NFLPA. (2) Therefore the NFLPA can't benefit from a suit. The players can, but not the union which isn't supposed to exist. If the union exists, the players can't file suit.
(1) There is still an NFLPA. If Brady and the rest sue the owners, they still belong to the NFLPA.
(2) Thats why the NFLPA certifies itself as a union again.
The NFLPA sued before and it benefited all NFL players.
What ccordinated fashion? Brady and the other players suing the owners are still members of the NFLPA.
Im not going to say that the owners would win their complaint vs the NFLPA, but history is not on the owners side here.
How can the decertifaction be a sham when the last time that happened an agreement called the CBA was formed? More or less, 17 years of labor peace.
Either you aren't understanding me or you don't understand any of this.
You are lol'ing, but you don't seem to get it.
Decertification means they are not a union. What you are talking about is like the guy on the office declaring bankruptcy by saying "bankruptcy".
YOU CAN'T BE DECERTIFIED AND HAVE A CBA. They can't sue AND negotiate collectively.
If you think they can get away with pretending not to be a union and continuing to exist as a decertified "professional organization" that's up to you, but I see no reason they should even take the chance. Unions are supposed to decertify when they don't represent the employees interests. They aren't supposed to continue to exist after decertification and reap the benefits of the individual players law suits. The NFLPA did NOT sue before. The players sued before. That's why the captions were Reggie White, et al v. the NFL and Freeman McNeil v. the NFL and not the NFLPA v. the NFL.
The NFLPA has sued on certain things, like the collusion and failure to fairly negotiate, but not for the big ticket items that require lack of capacity to bargain collectively.