Who has collective bargaining rights?

[d-train]

NFL owners seem to believe they do.

“One party to a collective bargaining relationship cannot, through its own tactical and unilateral conduct, instantaneously oust federal labor law or extinguish another party’s labor law rights,” league owners said in a court filing.

What do you think? I don't believe owners have a right to force workers into collective bargaining.

[killbuckner]

Normally if the union decertifies then the management is allowed to offer individual workers whatever they want to and then as long as the workers aren't trying to pull some sort of "informal" strike then there would be no labor issue. THe problem of course is that the owners want to put anti-competitive rules in place to make sure that they are protected from their own bad decisions. Even with restrictive rules like a salary cap, draft, and luxury tax the owners still WANT to give players more money than they are allowed to.

But even with all that- the owners aren't content to try and come to an even deal in this situation. they want to BREAK the players. And to me this is always why decertification was the best option for the players. Why agree to a bad cba when they can just decertify and make the draft, salary cap, and luxury tax illegal? ANd if the owners want the players to agree to all those things they need to provide a big enough piece of the pie to the players to make it work.

[d-train]

Yeah, if the owners want collective bargaining they must make it an attractive option to players.

[ranger001]

You also can't force the owners to play the system the way the players will like them to.

The owners do have options. They could create a new league and ask for players willing to create and join a union. Former castoffs and wanna-be's will be very happy to join and play for $250K or whatever they give them. The players will capitulate.

The owners could also form a league similar to Major League Soccer where its a single organization and so theoretically immune to antitrust law.

This NFL thing has a long way to go.

[d-train]

You also can't force the owners to play the system the way the players will like them to.

The only thing the owners have to do is follow the law. The players would be happy with that. And, if the owners don't follow the law, the players have to take the owners to court.

[killbuckner]

he owners do have options. They could create a new league and ask for players willing to create and join a union. Former castoffs and wanna-be's will be very happy to join and play for $250K or whatever they give them. The players will capitulate.

The owners could also form a league similar to Major League Soccer where its a single organization and so theoretically immune to antitrust law.

If there are leagues started by the owners with scrub players because they are trying to squash salaries and leagues started by the star players where the rules are more of a free for all like the English Premier league, who on earth is going to watch the scrub players? in a battle of "starting a new league" the owners are completely and totally screwed. THat is, unless they offer the most money but if they wanted to offer the most money then we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

[ranger001]

The star players are not going to start a league. Where are they going to get the stadiums, the tv contracts, support staff, financing, etc from? As soon as the league starts making noise about starting another league with replacement players they will come crawling back.

[killbuckner]

There are lots of big arenas that aren't owned by NBA owners... Football stadiums may be tougher but there are plenty of available basketball arenas

And you are talking about a new league. One started by the owners wouldn't have a TV contract either. What network is going to pay real money for a league headlined by Brian Zoubek? Seriously... I literally wouldn't go for free to a league of guys like that. That has to be the most empty threat I've ever heard.

[d-train]

The players are not going to start a new league and neither will the owners. The owners are not going to abandon their multimillion-dollar franchises in favor of new franchises with little value. The owners couldn't do that even if for some nutty reason they wanted to. Many of their assets are accompanied by obligations that can't be dismissed. And, starting a new league doesn't change the laws. The same anti-trust laws that current league owners have to follow would bind new league owners.

[ranger001]

As regards anti-trust if the new league had a union it would be ok as that's the current situation, it would be a new CBA. Former players and wannbe's will happily form a new union.

And plenty of players will cross the line so it wont be hard to get interest and excitement going again.

As for the players starting their own league. Who is going to bankroll them? The players are not going to put up their own assets. And their salaries would be like 1/10 or less of what they currently make without tv money. They might as well take what the owners are offering if they wanted to start their own league.

[Agenda42]

The NFL is trying some unprecedented stuff and hoping that their legal team can make it stick. This particular argument strikes me as likely to fall flat on its face, but the NFL loses nothing in trying to make it stick and certainly they don't want any part of a no-union NFL labor market.

[d-train]

A decision in 2 weeks.

http://www.digtriad.com/news/national/a ... eral-Weeks