NFL strikes first, claims player association has not bargained in good faith

[JetsFanInDenver]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/02/14/2011-02-14_nfl_strikes_first_claims_nfl_players_association_hasnt_bargained_new_cba_in_good.html

The tense negotiations between the NFL and the players' union took another nasty turn Monday when the league filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union with the National Labor Relations Board.

The league, in its charge, claims that the NFL Players Association has not bargained in good faith because it plans to eventually decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit against the owners. The NFL is seeking an order from the NLRB forcing the union to engage in "good faith" negotiations.

The union believes it has and immediately dismissed the NFL's claim.

"The players didn't walkout and the players can't lockout," the NFLPA said in a statement. "Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised.

"This claim has absolutely no merit."

The Valentine's Day claim comes less than a week after face-to-face talks between the two sides imploded last Wednesday and the owners reportedly walked out of the contentious session. The sides were so far apart on so many issues, according to a source, that a second day of talks were cancelled and no more are currently scheduled before the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires on March 4.

The NFL, which confirmed its NFLRB filing, claims the union has only engaged in "surface bargaining" as part of a plan to "avoid reaching an agreement". The league's filing stated that the NFLPA's tactic "is a ploy and an unlawful subversion of the collective bargaining process."

"The NFLPA's statements and conduct over the course of the last 20 months plainly establish that it does not intend to engage in good faith collective bargaining with the NFL after the CBA expires," the filing read. "The union's strategy amounts to an unlawful anticipatory refusal to bargain."

The filing went on to state that the "sham" threat of decertification was the same "ploy" used by the NFLPA in 1989 "when its representatives falsely swore that its (decertification) was 'permanent'"

The NFLPA decertified in 1989 and then players, led by the late Reggie White, sued the league. The settlement in 1993 led to a new CBA with a form of free agency for the players. Almost immediately, the union re-formed.

The NFL claims the NFLPA's attempts to do so again "has produced 20 months of surface bargaining as the union has run out the clock."

This is just the latest development in what has become an increasingly contentious situation that sources on both sides seem to agree is almost certain to end in a lockout on March 4. Things even turned nasty last week during the one-day talks when Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, one of the NFL's negotiators, reportedly "mocked" and insulted Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning during the session. Manning and Saints quarterback Drew Brees reportedly were present as part of the union's negotiating team.

Meanwhile, the two sides continue to disagree on just about everything from how to split revenues between players and owners to the details of a "rookie wage scale" – one item that most thought the two sides agreed on. According to a source, the NFL proposed a version last week that the NFLPA viewed as a "veteran wage scale" and nowhere near the version proposed previously by the union.

The NFLPA even held a conference call with NFL agents Monday to brief them on the deteriorating situation. One of the ideas discussed, according to a source, was the possibility of agents having college players boycott the NFL scouting combine scheduled for next week in Indianapolis. Such a boycott is unlikely, according to one person familiar with the details of the call.

Meanwhile, not surprisingly, the union continues to proceed as if it expects its membership to be officially locked out by NFL owners on March 4, just after the current CBA expires. The NFLPA recently mailed every player a 50-page booklet titled "NFLPA Guide to the Lockout" that includes a detailed guide to how to prepare financially, what to do about health insurance, what the union is doing on their behalf, and even "messaging points" to use when doing interviews with the media.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/02/14/2011-02-14_nfl_strikes_first_claims_nfl_players_association_hasnt_bargained_new_cba_in_good.html#ixzz1DyOpR1bF

[Blackout]

Goodell wants the NFL to be the arena league on a longer field

[GangisGreen]

This is getting ugly

[BaumerJet]

Goodell wants the NFL to be the arena league on a longer field

Actually there's more to this - based on the actual filing: NFL COMPLAINT: In pdf form

The NFL is attempting to break the connection between the NFLPA and it's players.

This could change everything...

Excellent...

[jason423]

I read a real interesting article about this today. Apparently if they do decertify the union then the owners will not be able to lock the players out without threat of significant legal action. Also if they do not bring this lawsuit now they will lose their ability to challenge the decertification as a false way to improve the bargaining position of the players. The players would lose all their CBA negotiated benefits and the owners would likely be able to put whatever rules they want into place until a court hears the case and determines the legality of the NFLs decisions. They cant bring suit for at least 6 months (which would be into the regular season) and it could take years before the courts actually render a decision.

[dbatesman]

I'm kind of surprised the PA hasn't filed a ULP of its own. The owners were the ones who stormed out last week, and as far as I know anticipatory refusal to bargain ≤ actual refusal to bargain.

[Maxman]

This is going to get so much worse before it gets better.

[shawn306]

This is going to get so much worse before it gets better.

Alot worse especially if they keep dipsh!t Jerry Richardson involved.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ApBBuV76IE5ix1mo1EXn6R9DubYF?slug=ms-richardsonnfl021411&loc=interstitialskip

I have a Valentine’s Day message for Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, and I’m not quite sure how to deliver it while honoring the spirit of the holiday. Then again, as my colleague Jason Cole reported Sunday, Richardson could probably use some lessons on comportment and politesse, so I’m going to go ahead and spit it out bluntly.

Hey, Grumpy Grumplestein – why the long face? And is there any way we can get you to step away from the increasingly rancorous negotiating sessions between the owners and the NFL Players Association in the hope of getting a deal done sometime this calendar year?

Richardson, as Cole reported, copped a condescending attitude toward star quarterbacks Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes) in a Feb. 5 bargaining session in Dallas – the day before Super Bowl XLV. I’ve since spoken with two people who witnessed the interaction and gotten a more detailed report of what went down.

Among other things, Richardson became so angry at Sean Morey(notes) after the recently retired player cited a slew of statistics on player safety and average career length that the Panthers’ owner snapped, “You guys made so much [expletive] money – if you played three years in the NFL, you should own your own [expletive] team.”

At that point, as NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and several of Richardson’s fellow owners cringed, league representatives suggested that the two sides take a break.

“It was bad from the start,” said one player who attended the session. “[Richardson] opened the meeting by describing how he was almost annoyed how we would ask for that meeting on their busiest weekend of the year. And I’m thinking, ‘Your team finished 2-14. You shouldn’t be that busy. Why are you worrying about how busy you are during Super Bowl weekend?’ ”

If it seems like I’m being harsh toward Richardson, a former NFL player who parlayed his brief stint with the Baltimore Colts into buying a Hardee’s franchise and ultimately got rich via his Spartan Foods restaurant empire, let’s put this in perspective. I have consistently rated him near the top of my annual NFL owner rankings, and I admire his business sense, work ethic and aggressive attempts to increase revenue. I’m also thrilled that the 74-year-old Richardson got a new lease on life a little more than two years ago when, unexpectedly, he received a heart transplant that reversed a seemingly dire condition.

What I can’t understand is why a man who should be so happy to be among us would resist the compulsion to behave like Jimmy Stewart at the climax of “It’s A Wonderful Life” and instead act like the salty neighbor who screams at kids for allowing their football to bounce upon his lawn.

Or, to put it another way: If your heart were rapidly failing and you suddenly were granted a chance to return to health, would you a) go to work in your pajamas, hand hundred-dollar bills to strangers and dole out random hugs to supermarket clerks, or fire your sons and talk smack to two of the NFL’s most popular and accomplished players?

The current dispute between the owners and players is a complicated matter, and tempers sometimes flare in negotiating sessions. As I told you back in September, Richardson has been an impassioned advocate to his fellow owners about the need to secure a more favorable collective bargaining agreement than the one he helped railroad through in 2006, and I’m sure he feels passionately about his position.

But at this point Richardson’s role as the co-chair of the league’s negotiating committee has become an impediment to potential labor peace, which means one of two things: Either the owners have no intention of trying to strike a deal before the March 4 expiration of the current CBA and are hell-bent on a lockout (or, possibly, claiming an impasse in negotiations and imposing the terms of a “last, best offer” while daring the players to strike) or Richardson needs to go.

As one perennial Pro Bowl player told me Monday morning, “When the owners want to get serious, they just need to get him out of the room – because we’ll never get a deal done with him in there. It’s not professional, and it’s not good business.”

If nothing else, it would behoove the owners to encourage Richardson to take a leave of absence for the next several bargaining sessions, if and when they occur, because he’s not helping their cause. By antagonizing Manning, a superstar who has no formal union role and might be among those best served by remaining low-key during a potential work stoppage, Richardson may have done the NFLPA an incredible service. His behavior was more than a public-relations nightmare; it may have unleashed the wrath of one of the sports world’s most exacting and powerful leaders.

Let’s think about this for a minute: Manning and Brees are among the best in the world at what they do, and their success is built upon preparation, work ethic, drive and intensity. Richardson, for all his financial accomplishments in the food-services industry, is currently the worst at what he does – at least according to last season’s NFL standings.

Yet when Manning had the temerity to challenge the owners’ insistence upon taking another $1 billion annually off the top before splitting up revenues, Richardson treated the Colts’ quarterback like a dimwitted child. After Manning questioned the financial urgency of the owners’ request in the absence of documentation – a common union refrain – Richardson became agitated and dismissive while lecturing the player about the risks that their employers assume.

“He was condescending to Peyton,” said one player who was at the meeting. “He tried to talk about P&L [profit and loss] statements and all these other risks that the owners assume, as if Peyton didn’t know anything. Drew interrupted and said, ‘All we’re doing is just asking you to show us your books. We want to negotiate in good faith.’”

Said another player who was present: “We were so pissed. Peyton was breathing heavily, and some of us were about ready to jump across the table.”

Manning kept his cool, and Morey, the former Arizona Cardinals special teams standout who has been among the leading proponents of the need for the NFL’s increased attention to head trauma issues, began challenging Richardson by citing health and safety concerns as an example of the risks players assumed.

As Richardson gave his salty reply, witnesses said, other owners and Goodell became visibly uncomfortable, and someone suggested that the two sides take a break. Shortly thereafter, several owners (including the Patriots’ Robert Kraft, the Giants’ John Mara and the Chiefs’ Clark Hunt) apologized to the players who were present, assuring them that they respect the union’s position. Richardson, said one player, apologized to Manning for having lost his cool.

If Richardson’s short temper was the only issue at hand, this wouldn’t be a big deal. The problem is that his attitude is emblematic of something the players consider far more troubling – a disrespectful and hostile attempt to force an employer-friendly deal down their throats and to show them, beyond a reasonable doubt, who’s boss.

I’ll be examining the intricacies of the labor stare down in the weeks (and, I fear, months) to come, and for now I’ll spare you many of my thoughts pertaining to this financial fight between very well-off employees and extremely rich owners. I understand that most fans aren’t especially interested in taking sides – they just want the players and owners to reach an agreement and get back to the business of playing football, as quickly as possible.

However, those who cast this dispute as a skirmish between two factions that deserve an equal share of the blame are delusional. The players aren’t forcing this issue – they’ve publicly stated a willingness to continue to play under the terms of the soon-to-be expiring CBA, and I believe that they don’t want a work stoppage.

The owners, conversely, are behaving in a way that suggests they’re prepared to lock out the players unless a deal is reached in the next two-and-a-half weeks – and it’s tough to make the case that they’re working aggressively to come to an agreement before that deadline.

For one thing, rather than counter the union’s latest offer during a meeting last week, the owners reportedly canceled a session scheduled for the following day, apparently because they were so appalled by the proposal. On Monday, the NFL filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, arguing that the union has refused to bargain in good faith with the intention of decertifying and filing an antitrust lawsuit. This assertion seems dubious, at best, given the recent actions by each camp.

Throw in the presence on the NFL’s side of the table of outside labor lawyer Bob Batterman, regarded as the architect of the NHL lockout that caused that cancellation of the 2004-05 season, and the players have received a clear message about where things are headed.

The players, on one hand, are told that they are “partners” who need to help share the owners’ investment and development costs to help sustain and grow the business. Yet when they’ve asked for proof or further explanations, as Manning attempted to do in Dallas, they are met by condescension and irritability – chiefly from Richardson, the man who by all rights should be the most upbeat and cheery person in the room.

Look, it’s Valentine’s Day, and I’m willing to cut Richardson a break. Maybe it hasn’t dawned on him that there’s a distinction between dealing with proud, accomplished athletes and fast-food employees.

I also suspect that because Richardson was instrumental in helping convince his fellow owners that the ’06 CBA extension was necessary – a move that proved to be unpopular, given the unanimous vote in 2009 to opt out of the deal two years early – he’s trying to make it up to them by being a hard-liner and demonstrating his commitment to winning back as many union concessions as possible.

So I’ll try to cut him some slack – but I also think Richardson needs to step back, count his blessings and give up his spot at the table to one of his peers who is more adept at keeping his cool.

If that doesn’t happen, I have another suggestion: The union should fight fiery temper with fiery temper and insist that one of Richardson’s players is present for every remaining session.

Yo, Steve Smith – How would you like a seat at the bargaining table?

[T0mShane]

Didn't Richardson essentially invent the PSL?

[shawn306]

Didn't Richardson essentially invent the PSL?

I think the Rams were first when moved to the whatever Dome but Carolina implemented the PSL their second season when they moved into their new stadium.

Wikipedia though says the Panthers were first in 1993 though so you may be right.

[BaumerJet]

I read a real interesting article about this today. Apparently if they do decertify the union then the owners will not be able to lock the players out without threat of significant legal action. Also if they do not bring this lawsuit now they will lose their ability to challenge the decertification as a false way to improve the bargaining position of the players. The players would lose all their CBA negotiated benefits and the owners would likely be able to put whatever rules they want into place until a court hears the case and determines the legality of the NFLs decisions. They cant bring suit for at least 6 months (which would be into the regular season) and it could take years before the courts actually render a decision.

Exactly what I thought - in the process players would have no choice but to play - in order to get paid.

It also would eliminate the way the free agency market works.

Any new contracts would be based on whatever the owners were willing to give - without arbitration. The owners would not have to offer profit sharing or a retirement plan.

However, I think you got the issue over a lockout wrong. The owners could legally get away with a lockout, should the courts disband the NFLPA...

It's the players who couldn't strike - they would be brought to court & could loose their existing contract (owing money to the owners).

All because there would not be a CBA in effect with an existing union to go back to.

[#27TheDominator]

Exactly what I thought - in the process players would have no choice but to play - in order to get paid.

It also would eliminate the way the free agency market works.

Any new contracts would be based on whatever the owners were willing to give - without arbitration. The owners would not have to offer profit sharing or a retirement plan.

However, I think you got the issue over a lockout wrong. The owners could legally get away with a lockout, should the courts disband the NFLPA...

It's the players who couldn't strike - they would be brought to court & could loose their existing contract (owing money to the owners).

All because there would not be a CBA in effect with an existing union to go back to.

How could the owners get away with a lockout? They would have to pay the players their contracts or cut everybody. The NFLPA was talking about decertifying just to keep the owners from being able to lock them out. Contracts based on "whatever the owners are willing to pay" is exactly the situation ownership is trying to avoid. Few of these guys are going to care about healthcare or profit sharing when they are able to freely negotiate and you know the owners can't contrl themselves. I'm not so sure the owners can have a salary cap without a union because of antitrust laws. There are a whole bunch of antitrust violations that they skirt by having the CBA.

[Matt39]

Who the hell is Jerry Richardson?

Seriously....all I want is football, but anyone who is siding with the owners here is out of their mind.

This is all on the owners and Goodell.

[JohnnyHector]

How could the owners get away with a lockout? They would have to pay the players their contracts or cut everybody. The NFLPA was talking about decertifying just to keep the owners from being able to lock them out. Contracts based on "whatever the owners are willing to pay" is exactly the situation ownership is trying to avoid. Few of these guys are going to care about healthcare or profit sharing when they are able to freely negotiate and you know the owners can't contrl themselves. I'm not so sure the owners can have a salary cap without a union because of antitrust laws. There are a whole bunch of antitrust violations that they skirt by having the CBA.

I think the players have more leverage than it would seem if they move to decertify the union, because of this very fact. The owners can either keep rules in place that place artificial restrictions on player compensation and take their chances with the courts, or they can choose to have a free-for-all regarding player movement and compensation, which would be a disaster for them.

Since the Supreme Court set precedent in rejecting the NFL's "single entity" argument instead of it being a collection of 32 competitors in the American Needle case last year, that deals a major blow to them in any anti-trust proceedings.

[BaumerJet]

How could the owners get away with a lockout? They would have to pay the players their contracts or cut everybody. The NFLPA was talking about decertifying just to keep the owners from being able to lock them out. Contracts based on "whatever the owners are willing to pay" is exactly the situation ownership is trying to avoid. Few of these guys are going to care about healthcare or profit sharing when they are able to freely negotiate and you know the owners can't contrl themselves. I'm not so sure the owners can have a salary cap without a union because of antitrust laws. There are a whole bunch of antitrust violations that they skirt by having the CBA.

Dominator, it was the owners who requested the NFLPA be decertified, not the union.

Owners can have a salary cap when it effects tax issues - which would not violate antitrust laws because the NFL is a group of franchises who purchased in to belong to the same company.

Kinda like McDonalds - they keep the NFL's name & follow all tax issues to a group trust.

It is that trust that differs from the connection to the players - as a conglomerate of subsidiaries, each owner must obey that of corporate.

As such, the issue over a salary cap is not responsive to the player, but to the owners of the corp. That makes issues over a salary cap moot to that of the CBA.

As for controlling themselves, except for Snider & Jones, everyone else will listen to Goodell and do nothing to change the way their GM's do business.

[BaumerJet]

I think the players have more leverage than it would seem if they move to decertify the union, because of this very fact. The owners can either keep rules in place that place artificial restrictions on player compensation and take their chances with the courts, or they can choose to have a free-for-all regarding player movement and compensation, which would be a disaster for them.

Since the Supreme Court set precedent in rejecting the NFL's "single entity" argument instead of it being a collection of 32 competitors in the American Needle case last year, that deals a major blow to them in any anti-trust proceedings.

Thank You!

[BaumerJet]

Let me be the 1st to admit a mistake in review;

after reviewing an article, the true reason that the NFL is taking the NFLPA to court is in fact an attempt to stop the NFLPA from disbanding.

The NFL believes the NFLPA will pursue a legal strategy of Decertification to achieve its goals: effectively dissolving itself as a union, leaving the NFL no one to bargain with as the collective agent of the players.

With that, NFL players could file claims in antitrust court as individual plaintiffs, something they cannot do while represented by a union. The NFL argues that this is the end game the union has wanted all along and they have engaged in sporadic and half-hearted bargaining, only to be able to decertify in March upon a lockout.

In other words, the NFL doesn’t trust the union wants to make a deal prior to being locked out on March 4th.They feel the union is angling for the strategy employed by the NFLPA in the 1992-93 under the late Gene Upshaw, a strategy that led to many gains for NFL player including, for the first time, free agency. Before it gets to that point, the NFL wants to ensure the NLRB is on notice.

NFL Labor Pains; Part 10 - NATIONAL FOOTBALL POST

[#27TheDominator]

Let me be the 1st to admit a mistake in review;

after reviewing an article, the true reason that the NFL is taking the NFLPA to court is in fact an attempt to stop the NFLPA from disbanding.

NFL Labor Pains; Part 10 - NATIONAL FOOTBALL POST

Thanks for seeing that and acknowledging it. You saved me some typing. The NFL has lost a hell of a lot of court cases - USFL, Reggie White, American Needle (I assume from Hector's post that is the one about the merchandise that says they are 32 competitive entities) but still keeps rolling along and rolling in cash.

[JohnnyHector]

Thanks for seeing that and acknowledging it. You saved me some typing. The NFL has lost a hell of a lot of court cases - USFL, Reggie White, American Needle (I assume from Hector's post that is the one about the merchandise that says they are 32 competitive entities) but still keeps rolling along and rolling in cash.

Correctamundo. That decision was a boon to the NFLPA, as it layed the groundwork for decertification in knowing that the courts will likely rule against the league in antitrust proceedings should they unilaterally impose rules that limit salaries and player movement

[The Gun Of Bavaria]

I for one am excited at the idea of a lockout. F the NFL for a year. The break will do everyone wonders.

[#27TheDominator]

I for one am excited at the idea of a lockout. F the NFL for a year. The break will do everyone wonders.

You are going to go back to being all cheerful and smiley?